Thanks to Chuck Moulton in comments on a previous post of videos of the other candidates for LNC chair. Also related: George Phillies: ‘The Howard Dean Model’.
25 Comments
Comments are closed.
August 3, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
Thanks to Chuck Moulton in comments on a previous post of videos of the other candidates for LNC chair. Also related: George Phillies: ‘The Howard Dean Model’.
Comments are closed.
Numbers in the page 1 article.
However, several of these numbers are in my new article at Liberty for All, which you may reprint here.
I’m at work. The numbers aren’t. I told people who are actually interested in finding them where they could find them.
gp 19, if you REALLY want to be LNC Chair, you might consider answering questions more directly, and lose the penchant for casting tangential aspersions.
It was you, wasn’t it, who threw a fit when the LNC suggested that Ron Paul leave the GOP to run again as an L, yes? Ron Paul is a life member, yes?
Your accusations against an unnamed LNC “honcho” ring hollow. While few to no Ls had any problem with the Joe Kennedy and were generally supportive, the question of the appropriateness of LNC support for JK was CERTAINLY a legitimate one, since he was running as an independent, not an L, and that special election offered little in the way of actual party building. One could easily imagine a George Phillies-type living in say Idaho complaining if the LNC HAD given financial support to the JK campaign….
I’ve seen several comments on IPR praising you and your commitment, but suggesting your diviseness makes you less attractive as LNC Chair. Have you seen them? Have you not considered that feedback?
I don’t discount your time last year as generous. It certainly is. Maxing out to Kennedy’s campaign is equally so. Although I didn’t max out by any means, I gave as well and wish I could have done more.
So are you saying that your 50% donation increase from ’08 to ’09 is also organic and not contributed by you? You only referred to ’09 above. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great if you did give to get to that 50% but it should probably be disclosed if you’re trumpeting the growth.
You also didn’t answer my main question, George. How many members is 75%? It’s a fairly easy question to answer I would hope.
George, to be fair, while that was true early on, as Joe’s race gained national prominence, LPHQ started promoting his campaign via LP.org and the email blast.
My most generous donation last year was time 1-2 10-hour days a week to various activities.
My generous cash donation was to Joe Kennedy’s campaign–that’s the national party member Joe Kennedy whose relationship with the National Party was described by one LNC honcho as not having any. I maxed out to Joe, an investment without the inordinate overhead the LNC would need.
Our FEC (Federal) and OCPF (state financial filings) are on line. Our State Committee minutes are on line.
LPMass.org and soon LPMA.US for the minutes.
Thanks, Paulie. The article makes my questions more relevant. Also, since he extended membership after UMP, how many folks are actually dues paying members? As importantly, what’s the volunteer base like that he built up?
Another post from Phillies
http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=3881
Waiting on permission to repost here
George, you mentioned that your state party’s membership increased by 75%. Sounds great in a press release, but what are the numbers? Are we talking 50 new members, 150 or 500? It also helps in determining the health of a program if the increase in membership is due to reacquisition of lapsed members or new members.
Same question for the 50% and 20% income breakdown and does that include any generous donations on your part?
If you’re doing to run with the “I’m the successful administrator/organizer” then you should be happy and willing to give a transparent look at your past work as state chair.
I’ll be posting that in a bit, gotta post some non-LP stuff first.
And for the Q&A Session with Joe Kennedy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1F4fJe3c8U
Phillies: LP as the only anti war party ????????
While Phillies and Hancock share some similarities – opposition to the current LNC majority, perennial candidacy – they have significant differences.
Phillies is a party loyalist, at times going so far as to strongly denounce LP members who support(ed) Ron Paul. Hancock considers the party as secondary to the promotion of the ideology, and was/is right in the epicenter of grassroots Ron Paul support.
Phillies is a centrist/moderate libertarian ideologically; Hancock is a shock and awe radical.
While the Mass LP is not among the biggest state affiliates, Phillies does have a track record as a party administrator on some level. I have a hard time even imagining Ernie Hancock in that role.
Good questions.
If the contest was limited to the current declared candidates, I would agree that Wayne is in the lead. This would be especially true if his lunch time speaking slot comes before the chair vote (I haven’t seen this definitively yet) and if the floor fee remains in place.
David, the quote and link is at http://libertarianintelligence.com/2009/12/questions-for-george-phillies.html. In the same IPR comment, George also called for the expulsion from the LNC of every LNC member who supported the LNC’s invitation that Ron Paul seek the LP nomination. The IPR comment came from an IP address that has been the source for scores of comments claiming to be by George Phillies.
@6 What was that legal path?
George: Did you, or did you not, call RP a “homophobic bigot”? If you did, that’s hardly appealing to the C4L crowd. If not, I stand corrected.
That’s not true, Dave.
If you had been paying attention during the 2008 Presidential nominating campaign, you would have noticed my advocating vigorous outreach to Ron Paul’s supporters and donors, a considerable fraction of whom our on our side, and actually doing it on a moderate scale. This effort required finding an entirely legal path to names and addresses of vast numbers of these people, which my campaign did.
For that advocacy, I was dissed by at least one prominent LNC member, who probably did not realize that her email would forwarded to me, but that is the way the world works.
@4 – “I don’t know specifically what the LP can do to harness/emulate the RP/C4L/TEA movement, but I’d like to have a Chair who does.”
Then Ernie Hancock is your man; he has LOTS of connections with the RP/C4L people. That may be either good or bad (Phillies would say “bad”) but he’s definitely our best bet for building bridges to that segment of activists.
I like nearly all of George’s ideas about how the LP can be more effective. What those ideas have in common is that they can be executed on even with a dues stream that is now back at the levels it was in the early 1990s.
I don’t agree that the LP is facing an existential threat, so much as an unprecedented opportunity. The Ron Paul campaign, the Campaign For Liberty, and the TEA Party movement have shown just how much thirst for freedom there is in America. The LP should be all about showing and growing the American electorate’s desire for more personal and economic freedom. We won’t do this through the size of the LNC’s budget. The way to do it is by making it easier for freedom-lovers to be effective LP activists and candidates.
I’d like our Chair candidates to offer some specifics about building synergies with the RP/C4L/TEA movement. In the opinion of many Libertarians, the biggest mistake of the Barr campaign was that it seemed to chase Ron Paul’s endorsement into the hands of the Constitution Party. Alone among the Chair candidates, George seems to have the contrarian view that the CP endorsement just revealed Ron Paul’s true colors as (what George has called him) a “homophobic bigot”.
I don’t know specifically what the LP can do to harness/emulate the RP/C4L/TEA movement, but I’d like to have a Chair who does.
@1 “It seems as if the candidates form a sort of square. If you want status quo and salesmanship, Root’s your guy; status quo and experience, Hinkle’s your guy; change and experience, Phillies is your guy; change and salesmanship, Hancock’s your guy.”
That’s one way to look at it. Here’s another, using dynamic vs. low-key as one dimension and conservative vs. radical as another.
Root = Dynamic Conservative
Hancock = Dynamic Radical
Hinkle = Low-Key Radical
Phillies = Low-Key Centrist
It should be an interesting contest.
LP as the only anti war party ???????????
Ya get an AA degree and it is full of ‘survey courses’ and General Education.
Ya get a BS degree ………
Ya get a master, where you learn more and more about less and less!
PhDs like No Nothing Phillies [I have been on the horn and at the key board with him for half a decade] know every thing about nothing!
Some thoughts:
– Nice jab at Root there in the beginning. Seems like Phillies views Root as his main competition. I don’t agree with that, so I’m wondering whether he knows something I don’t.
– Phillies’ answer to the issue of his divisiveness seems to be that he’s going to stack the LNC with people he can work with. It’s a good plan, but I’d like to hear from him what he’s going to do when some of those people inevitably lose to people he doesn’t like. What’s he going to do, for instance, if Aaron Starr ends up getting reelected? Can he work with him? Will he try?
– Phillies’ platform seems a lot like Hancock’s, except that Phillies has more experience running a state party. Are they really that different, though? Also, does Phillies’ experience running a small state party measure up to Hinkle’s running LPCA?
– It seems as if the candidates form a sort of square. If you want status quo and salesmanship, Root’s your guy; status quo and experience, Hinkle’s your guy; change and experience, Phillies is your guy; change and salesmanship, Hancock’s your guy.