Dr. James Lark joins five other past Libertarian National Committee members in endorsing Mark Hinkle for LNC chair

Email from Mark Hinkle. Links added:


Paulie,

Thanks for continuing to mention my candidacy for LP Chair.

I’ve just added Jim Lark to my list of past LP Chairs who are endorsing me.

That makes 6 now.

I wonder if any LP Chair candidate has every had 6 past LP Chairs as endorsers?

Thanks again……………Mark Hinkle,
Candidate for LP Chair
Candidate for 15th State Senate district in California


Mark Hinkle’s list of endorsements:

Past LP Chairs who’ve endorsed Mark Hinkle:

Alicia Clark, LNC Chair
David Bergland, LNC Chair & former Presidential candidate
Steve Dasbach, LNC Chair and former LNC National Director
Jim Lark, LNC Chair and current LNC member
Geoff Neale, LNC Chair

Dave Walter, LNC Chair

“I have known Mark Hinkle for more than 30 years and have always admired his constant dedication to Libertarian activism. I served with Mark on the LNC and recall him as always looking to reconcile opposing views, seeking compromises that were in the best interest of advancing the Party’s goals, and behaving professionally towards those with whom he disagreed. Given the unprecedented opportunities presented the LP, the Party needs a uniter, and Mark fills the bill.”

Past and Present LNC members who’ve endorsed Mark Hinkle:

Julie Fox, current LNC member & former LPI Treasurer 2001-04

“Since working with Mark Hinkle on the LNC since 2008, I have developed a great deal of respect for him. He has always taken objective, reasonable stances on LNC issues that do not run along the lines of any faction within the party. He serves as an individual and treats others that way. Mark feels as strongly as I do about having a unified party membership in order to build the LP. He has 35 years of experience within the LP, serving, among other positions, as the past LP California state chair and and as an LNC representative for seven years.

Ed Clark, 1980 presidential candidate & LNC member, CA

Dan Karlan, LNC Regional Representative, 4 time NJLP Chair, Current LP Bylaws Chair, NJ

Chuck Moulton, LNC Vice Chair, VA

Sharon Ayres, LNC Vice Chair, WA

Vicki Kirkland, former LNC member, FL

“I am endorsing Mark Hinkle for National Chair. I have known Mark for over 20 years having served on the National Committee with him. Mark is knowledgeable and experienced at the State and County level in all aspects of Party organization and he has great people skills.

Dale Hemming, SD

Jack Dean, CA

Ted Brown, CA

Other LP Activists who’ve endorsed Mark Hinkle

Jo Jorgensen, former Vice Presidential candidate 1996, SC

“As California LP Chair in the late 1990’s, Mark Hinkle tripled the membership of his state party. He and his team brought in several thousand new members. We need that kind of experience, leadership, and growth for the national party. That’s why I’m endorsing Mark Hinkle for National Chair.” – Dr. Jo Jorgensen

Rodney Austin, CA
Elizabeth C. Brierly, CA Former Editor California Freedom, Past President, & Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association

“What impresses me about Mark Hinkle are his unflappability, vision, good humor, management savvy, authentic passion for our cause–and willingness to take on positions of leadership and accountability.

For my past 15 years in the LP, I’ve watched as government & politicians have trashed our economy–culminating in immense dissatisfaction for Americans and the ripest time for the libertarian movement and the LP.

Meanwhile, I’ve watched as Mark Hinkle has continued to develop his skills, and to accumulate the experiences and grow the relationships vital to leading the LP to capitalize on that very dissatisfaction. He is now uniquely positioned to guide the LP in embracing today’s hordes of disenchanted “small L” libertarians who are ready to come home.

It’s time for Mark Hinkle’s long and outstanding record of LP leadership to converge with the national scene.”

Cathi Brown, Past Publicity Chair, Santa Clara County LP, CA
Marla Kojima (Bottemiller), WA
Paulie Cannoli, LP Road Warrior at large
Mark Dierolf, former Hartnell College Board Chairman, CA
John Inks, Libertarian elected to the Mountain View City Council, CA
Steve Kubby, former LP candidate for Governor, CA
Bruce Lagasse, NV
Nancy Neale, national LP convention organizer, TX
Saul Rackauskas, Secretary, Pima County LP, AZ
Mike Renzulli, AZ
Juan Ros, former LPC Executive Director, CA
Al Segalla, President: Calaveras County Taxpayers Association & Gold County Libertarians, CA
Christopher Schmidt, CA
John Wayne Smith, LP candidate for Governor, FL
Richard Winger, Editor: Ballot Access News, CA

Less Antman, long time activist and winner of the Karl Bray award for Activism, CA.

“Today’s LP needs a chair with the temperament and proven ability to work with everyone on the LNC and in the party. During his 38 years in the LP, that has described Mark Hinkle to a T.”

Carla Howell, President Center for Small Government, MA

“I endorse Mark Hinkle for Chair of the National Libertarian Party. He approaches party business with professionalism and practicality while being committed to advancing a small government, libertarian agenda. His long tenure as an activist is indicative of his commitment to the party’s goals.”

Kate O’Brien, elected Libertarian, Simi Valley, CA

Pat Wright, former LPC Chair who doubled membership from 2,000 to 4,000 in just over a year, CA.

“I worked with Mark a lot while I was chairman of the Libertarian Party of California. The goal was simple, double the party’s paid membership in one year. Mark has the right combination of attributes to create a goal and achieve it; common sense, determination, risk taking, etc. If you want to see the Libertarian Party grow I sincerely endorse Mark Hinkle for national chair.”


According to wikipedia, James (Jim) W. Lark III, Ph. D. served as the United States Libertarian Party National Chairman from 2000 to 2002. Lark is a professor of systems engineering at the University of Virginia where he spends much of his time coordinating LP activity on college campuses. He is currently the Region 5-South representative to the LNC.


IPR as a site/blog takes no position in the chairs race or other LNC races.

100 thoughts on “Dr. James Lark joins five other past Libertarian National Committee members in endorsing Mark Hinkle for LNC chair

  1. Robert D

    Impressive list of endorsements.

    I don’t know him well enough to endorse him, but he’s got my attention.

  2. Brian Holtz

    Wow, this list has grown quite a bit since I last checked it. Note especially the endorsements from some prominent Libertarians from the home states of the other Chair candidates: NV, AZ, MA, and TX.

  3. He had 30 years to do this

    If Mark Hinkle is soo great, how come he is not all over the News, radio and other shows like someone else. He is very limited as far as exposure and what he can really do for the party.
    Wayne however, in a shorter time has gotten more exposure in mentioning that he is a libertarian in turn getting the libertarian attention in a quick short time. Gee go figure.

  4. Brian Holtz

    Not everyone is running for chief spokesman.

    Assuming one’s brain can handle the logical paradox involved, one should strongly consider voting for the Chair candidate that offers the most praise for the other Chair candidates.

  5. Robert Capozzi

    Given his unorthodox approach, watch for Hancock to endorse Hinkle but at the same time encouraging delegates not to vote. 😉

  6. Michael Seebeck

    Whoop-dee-friggin-doo.

    endorsements=namedropping.

    Doesn’t mean squat about ability.

    And yes, before Holtz chimes in, I had them at Long Beach too. It’s part of the game and how it’s played, even if I dont have to like it.

    Anyone gonna publish the Platform Report here any time soon?

  7. paulie Post author

    Doesn’t mean squat about ability.

    It means other people have endorsed you based on what they know about your abilities.

  8. Carolyn Marbry

    This is one reason why, should either of them get elected chair, I would have no problem working with Myers or Hinkle, even though I’m slated with Phillies. All three are decent, honorable men and they’re quick to talk up the strong points of their opponents.

  9. Don Wills

    Brian writes “Not everyone is running for chief spokesman.”

    Bzzt. Wrong. LNC chairman IS the chief spokesman for the party, and it’s probably the single most important function of the chairman. It’s one of several ingredients that has been missing from improving the image of the party in the minds of the electorate.

  10. paulie Post author

    DW,

    Bzzzt, wrong yourself.

    Candidates are the chief spokespeople of the party. The chair is the chief administrator. Different skills for different positions.

  11. Michael Seebeck

    It means other people have endorsed you based on what they know about your abilities.

    Not necessarily. It can also mean payola, blackmail, and a bunch of other things. It varies. I doubt it means any of those things here, though.

  12. paulie Post author

    Yeah, I don’t think it was payola or blackmail. LOL.

    I think all or almost all of the endorsements are based on an honest assessment of who would make the best chair.

  13. paulie Post author

    Email from Phillies. It may be an article later, depending on what IPR writers group thinks…


    From: George Phillies
    Date: Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:27 PM
    Subject: As you are circulating endorsements.
    To: paul

    This is from Ken Kaplan, former LPNJ chair. I think the most important sentence in it is the honest admission…he doesn’t know all the candidates, so he isn’t making a final recommendation.

    You could try asking that question of the National Chairs who recommended Hinkle: Do you actually know the other candidates?

    And here’s Ken…..

    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: What I said about you in a letter to NJ LP Activists
    Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:01:03 EDT
    From: KennyKap
    To: phillies

    George,
    I already sent this to you through a facebook address, but if you didn’t get it, here it is again.

    This is the letter I sent to NJLP activists on 5/15. If you feel it would be helpful, you may further disseminate it. For identification
    purposes, I am a former state chair of the NJLP and was the party’s candidate for Governor in 2009.

    An open letter to National Convention Delegates:

    Dear Delegates,
    George Phillies called me tonight about supporting him for Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. I told him I wasn’t going to the convention but I did consider him very qualified to hold that office. I explained to him that I could not endorse him, because that would
    require a comprehensive comparison of all the candidates, which I haven’t done. However, I do wish to share with you my personal
    experience with George. He is definitely someone who has paid his dues within the party, and by that I don’t mean he has just been a
    Libertarian for a long time. He has rolled up his sleeves on numerous occasions as Chair of LPMass, as a candidate, and as an organizer of
    entities outside the LP when he thought that was necessary to keep the LP on the right track.

    He understands committees and delegation of responsibilities, but has personally called me every time he has sought national elective or party office. He is principled but not abrasive. We need a Chair who can get the factions of our party working together rather than throwing stones at each other.

    My most rewarding personal experience with George was when I was the NJ Chair of the Badnarik campaign for President in 2004. Badnarik’s national campaign was not up to speed, and George stepped in to be a bridge to volunteers throughout the country. What information and direction I received all came through George, for which I was very
    grateful. He has always discussed his desire for the national party to help the state parties and candidates, and I think he possesses the vision and organizational talent to achieve those goals.

    To conclude, I can’t say who is the best candidate, because I don’t know enough about the others, but I do find George Phillies to be highly qualified in absolute terms, and urge that our delegates give him full consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Kaplan

  14. paulie Post author

    Knapp,

    You better get on the Hinkle gravy train while the getting is good. C’mon, there’s still time. We can’t afford to shell out 30 pieces of silver to any Johnny Come Latelies, but we can maybe do 30 nickels or something. What do you say?

    No, seriously, I highly doubt that anyone was paid or bribed or blackmailed. LOLOL.

  15. LP Watcher

    what are the “odds” in Vegas or Atlantic City on who will win the LNC Chair job? I would like to bet on that one. Probably illegal to do so.

  16. Nicholas Sarwark

    It is obvious that Mark Hinkle has made a lot of friends during the decades he’s been involved with the Libertarian Party. Some of those who have endorsed him are still active in the Party, others have moved on.

    Equally obvious is that he’s made few to no enemies. Other than some complaints about how the recent California expulsion situation was handled, I can’t recall anyone expressing any personal animosity toward Mr. Hinkle.

    If your most important qualification for a Chair is that he get along with the rest of the LNC, it appears that Mark Hinkle is the obvious choice. He has been able to get along with the LNC while he’s been sitting on that body for many years.

    I am not satisfied with the results that the Party has achieved under the current LNC, or the immediate past LNC, or the LNC before that. It’s been quite a few years since there was a strong sense of optimism about the Libertarian Party’s future.

    I, and I’m sure most delegates to the St. Louis convention, will remain a happy warrior for liberty and the Libertarian Party always. But that task is a lot easier when there is reason for optimism.

    I have not made a firm commitment to who I will vote for for Chair yet. But I have made a firm commitment that I will not vote for a Chair who is likely to deliver the same or similar results that we’ve been seeing for the last 10 years.

  17. Don Wills

    I hear … another … Bzzt. paulie writes “Candidates are the chief spokespeople of the party. The chair is the chief administrator. Different skills for different positions.”

    paulie – no, the executive director (e.g. Wes B.) is the chief administrator. Whether you like it or not, the LNC chair will make dozens of appearances on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, radio, web sites and talk to dozens of newspaper reporters. He IS the chief spokesman for the LP. Period.

    Yes, LP candidates talk with local media, but the only folks who the national media wants to talk with are those who represent the national interests of the party.

  18. paulie Post author

    no, the executive director (e.g. Wes B.) is the chief administrator.

    No, he serves at the discretion of the chair.

    Whether you like it or not, the LNC chair will make dozens of appearances

    Not necessarily. That can easily be delegated.

  19. Don Wills

    paulie writes that the executive director of the LP serves at the discretion of the chairman. I believe this is not true. Can anyone enlighten the discussion.

    IMO, any LNC chairman who tells a CNN producer to please talk with someone else when asked to be on TV should be immediately removed from office.

  20. paulie Post author

    I believe this is not true. Can anyone enlighten the discussion.

    Check the bylaws. It’s true.

    IMO, any LNC chairman who tells a CNN producer to please talk with someone else when asked to be on TV should be immediately removed from office.

    Your opinion and $5.00 will get me a good start on my morning coffee.

    But, while he may be no Wayne Allyn Root, I do think Mark Hinkle is as capable of handling interviews as Bill Redpath, Mike Dixon, Jim Lark, etc.

  21. Michael Seebeck

    Nick @20:

    See also Donor Confidentiality Committee and James Oaksun’s voting charts (here on IPR somewhere).

  22. Michael Seebeck

    Don, paulie is right. The LP ED serves at the Chair’s discretion. Article 7, Section 4.

    But the real issue isn’t Hinkle’s photogenic qualities, but rather Root’s gavel abilities and by extension, conspicuous by his silence, the adminsitrative and gavel prowess and vision of Rutherford.

  23. Don Wills

    paulie writes “Check the bylaws. It’s true.”

    I did check them before I made my last post. The relevant section of the bylaws was not definitive, so I was asking readers for information about actual practice. Here’s the relevant sentences from the bylaws –

    ***
    The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business and affairs, including hiring and discharging of National Committee volunteers and paid personnel, subject to express National Committee policies and directives issued in the exercise of the National Committee’s plenary control and management of Party affairs, properties and funds.
    ***

    For my money, there are only three candidates capable of representing the LP well on TV – Hancock, Root and Myers. As I’ve noted here before, my vote is for Myers. He won’t splinter the party and he will represent it well in the media. Those are my two most important criteria in deciding on who I will vote for.

    paulie, who will you be voting for?

  24. paulie Post author

    paulie, who will you be voting for?

    My endorsement for Hinkle is in the body of the article we are commenting on. My second choice is Myers.

  25. Brian Holtz

    the same or similar results that we’ve been seeing for the last 10 years

    Nick, what metrics do you use to measure results?

    I think the most important metrics are voter registrations, votes, media exposure, and tipped elections. In the next tier of importance I would put electoral and legislative victories. Only in the third tier would I factor in the LP membership and budget figures that so many LP insiders obsess about. They of course should be correlates of success on the other metrics, but I don’t think they are the primary levers by which we pursue those successes.

  26. LP Pragmatist

    Money and talent follow success or the appearance of same. Could that be why the LP has not had much money for the past 39 years.
    Sooner or later, someone in one of the more active LP affiliates is going to breakthru and get elected to not only state office, but a national office. States like WY, ID, CO, TX, IL, WI, IN, OH, NH

  27. paulie Post author

    Here’s a good idea. Email from Debbie Tharp.
    We’ll be doing this for Prop 14 (some people already are) , it was done to a limited extent late in the campaign for Joe Kennedy, and we’d like to see all the LNC candidates help make it a permanent, expanded and regular feature of party activity


    My idea at National, and I am getting from people’s reactions that this may be a pipe dream, is that when something like this comes up, for instance the Kennedy campaign, prop 14 here, Michigan’s lack of ballot access, etc., we can have nationwide efforts at calling people, instead of just statewide. You see, when a crisis or opportunity for the party pops up, it is not all of the time, so libs in any one state will be very active for short stints, and then become inactive again because there is no volunteer effort that needs their participation. If we, on the other hand, help each state as a national whole when a problem or opportunity comes up, volunteers will stay more active and excited, and we will have more success with all of our efforts nationwide because we have more volunteers as a whole. I don’t see why it should only be Californians who fight prop 14, or Michiganians who are forced to fight for ballot access without outside volunteer help. Any victory for one state is victory for liberty as a whole.
    What do you think?

    Thanks for your help,

    deb

  28. paulie Post author

    More email from Deb T.


    yeah, it’s liberty manager. i did the training and it is a great system. the calling is over tonight, but they are going to keep doing training sessions every other night or so. I sent this email to George Phillies, maybe this will help:

    Prop 14 in California in incumbent protection and access prevention. Loss of ballot access in California is a loss for the nation as a whole. Prop 14 (the top two initiative) allows voters to vote for any party they want in the primary elections, and it is being sold as a way to open up the primaries, but any time a similar bill has been passed in any other state, it has resulted in incumbents being re elected 95% of the time. Voters can come out in droves during the primary to bring an incumbent’s weakest opponent to the finals and drive out the viable third party alternative altogether. Please help us defeat this un-democratic initiative and retain our right to a real choice in the fall elections. We only have until June 8th to stop this nightmare!

    You can help by contacting Beau Cain at office@ca.lp.org . This is a very organized effort. We have a call center and professional scripts. We have to call 60,000 voters by June 8th so every phone call helps!

    Thank you so much!

  29. paulie Post author

    from the last time the system was tried,

    George Phillies // Jan 19, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    The Joe Kennedy phone bank showed up at the last minute. Hat tip to Debbie Spillman for making it the success that it was. The phone bank was a coast to coast effort for which we here in Massachusetts are profoundly grateful. Hopefully some day we will be able to return the favor manyfold.

  30. Nicholas Sarwark

    Nick, what metrics do you use to measure results?

    Members, votes, candidates, registered voters, money, legislation pushed through or defeated (e.g. Know Your Customer, ballot access laws).

  31. Jerry Springer's Freak Show

    Don Wills: “the LNC chair will make dozens of appearances on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, radio, web sites and talk to dozens of newspaper reporters. He IS the chief spokesman for the LP. Period.

    An excellent reason to not vote for Root.

    Root gets face time on media because he makes for “good TV” — in the same sense that Jerry Springer guests make for “good TV.” Circus freaks are colorful and attract the morbidly curious.

    But while crowds will gawk at The Incredible Man With X-Ray Eyes or The Amazing Motor-Mouth, they won’t be swayed politically by the experience.

  32. David F. Nolan

    Eleven days out from the election for LNC Chair, it looks to me like the choice is boiling down to Hinkle and Myers. Root was perceived by many as the front-runner in January, but repeated gaffes and his blatant self-promotion have cost him support.

    Hancock is a hero to many, but makes many others nervous. Phillies deserves credit for his attention to detail and tenacity, but alienates too many people with intolerant stands on a broad spectrum of issues; where Root wants to pitch to the right only, Phillies openly scorns and insults conservatives.

    Hinkle and Myers, in contrast, seem to get along with the great majority of Libertarians. They are consistent and principled, and seem willing to work with almost everyone in the LP. Root and/or Hancock may lead on the first ballot in St. Louis, but Hinkle and Myers will pick up a lot of their supporters on subsequent ballots.

    Personally, I’d be comfortable with either of them as Chair.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Eleven days out from the election for LNC Chair, it looks to me like the choice is boiling down to Hinkle and Myers.”

    Don’t fool yourself into thinking that most delegates will arrive in St. Louis already well-briefed on the pros and cons of the various candidates.

    The ground game at the convention will do more to determine the outcome than all of the pre-game show stuff.

    That’s not to say that the material already presented by the candidates and their supporters or opponents won’t play, but it won’t play very MUCH unless it’s actively disseminated at the convention itself.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    I can’t be in St. Louis, but it appears to me that:

    – Hancock is a non-starter as Chair. Odds are high the LP would fracture if he wins.

    – Root is the high risk/high reward candidate. His newness to the LP coupled with his media ambitions has a lot of upside but a lot of downside.

    – Phillies, despite New Path’s ambitions, has almost as much downside as Root or Hancock with none of Root’s upside. He seems to lack a sense of proportion, and is prone to attack rather than to question those he disagrees with.

    – Hinkle is the Establishment candidate, with almost no risk and little upside. He has demonstrated a steady hand but almost no inspiration.

    – Myers also seems steady, but his newness to national-level LP leadership represents some risk. His constitutionalist tendencies and TX base could position him best to appeal to the Paulistas, a significant upside.

    Just opinions and impressions.

  35. Unless it is Root

    Anyone else who is chair will get the same appearance as anyone else got in the last 39 years, not much of anything.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Hancock is a non-starter as Chair. Odds are high the LP would fracture if he wins.”

    I’m not sure exactly how true that is, or even exactly what you mean by “fractured” … but to the extent that the statement is true of Hancock, it’s probably at least equally true of Root.

  37. Nicholas Sarwark

    Can we stop with all of the “the Party is doomed if we elect as Chair” scare tactics?

    None of the current candidates will destroy the Libertarian Party. They have different ideas and plans and each would try to lead the Party in a different direction, but none of them are going to destroy it.

  38. paulie Post author

    Tom @ 41

    Very good point. A good debate performance, floor team/booth, or even on one conversations will make the difference.

  39. paulie Post author

    Hinkle is the Establishment candidate, with almost no risk and little upside. He has demonstrated a steady hand but almost no inspiration.

    I don’t believe this is true, but I agree that the perception exists. He will need to overcome it to have a chance IMO.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    Nick,

    You write:

    “Can we stop with all of the ‘the Party is doomed if we elect as Chair’scare tactics?”

    I just reviewed the 45 comments before yours, and found not a single “party is doomed if” claim.

    In order to spare you embarrassment, I’ll make one so that it looks like you were prescient:

    “Resolved, that a vote for Wayne Allyn Root is a vote to finally exhaust what little credibility the LP retained following the 2008 presidential nomination fiasco, and a vote for de facto dissolution of the LP as a national political entity.”

    My normal fee for playing straight man is just a beer, but making you look prescient deserves a bonus. I’ll have a double tall bourbon and cola (Old Crow and RC if available), please.

  41. Will Fox News Pick the Next LP Chair?

    Unless It Is Root: “Anyone else [other than Root] who is chair will get the same appearance as anyone else got in the last 39 years, not much of anything.”

    Well, sure. But did you ask why that is so? Why does Root get so much (primarily right-wing) media attention?

    Because neocon media wants the pro-war Root to be the face of the LP.

    So yeah, if you’re so desperate for right-wing praise on right-wing media that you’ll let Fox News choose the next LP Chair, then sure, go ahead and vote for Fox News’s candidate, Root.

  42. Brian Holtz

    Nick is correct. Many people have been saying the LP will rupture or be rendered worthless if Hancock or Root get elected. Myers comes close to saying this is why he got into the race. Meanwhile, the New Path claims that only they can save the LP from grave existential risk.

    All of this is overblown. Not even Hancock could destroy the LP as Chair, even if he (to use his words) “targeted it as an enemy of freedom”. The LP is far stronger than any one of these five gentlemen. I’ll say it again: if any of them could destroy it, it wouldn’t be worth defending.

  43. George Phillies

    James Oaksun said there is an existential risk. The existential risk is not his opponent for Treasurer, Carolyn Marbry’s opponent for Vice Chair, or even one of the nice guys running against me for Chair. We survived the events of the early 1980s; the current LNC election does not appear to me to be more threatening.

    The existential risk is shown in those graphs, the ones showing income down three-quarters (in real dollars) and membership down well more than half in the past decade.

    New Path is offering a program to turn things around and build a Libertarian future. You can read it at http://NewPathForTheLP.org
    Ask our opponents to show you their plans, and then make your own decision.

    George Phillies
    and if you have questions, please email phillies@4liberty.net or call 508 754 1859 (I am on EST)

  44. paulie Post author

    George,

    Do you have a list of endorsements put together? Wayne will be sending us one soon.

    John Jay and Ernie too, if you guys are reading.

  45. Since a lot of Media

    Media like to sell what they want Liberalism. As some of you people already know, to get the limelight that Root as and the rest of everyone else doesn’t have, if the media wanted to still keep Libertarians in the Dark they would have continued to do so. Especially Root. But they didn’t, Root promotes Libertarians but being one himself it get the name out there and he keeps getting more and more exposure on the show which will open doors for other people to know about Libertarians just by the name itself. Some of you ungrateful people who don’t appreciate this don’t have a clue that the other people are not going to be able to do this, and we need to break the barrier of getting out there to make a change, Wayne Root is doing that. They are not.

  46. Chuck Moulton

    George Phillies wrote (@55):

    The existential risk is shown in those graphs, the ones showing income down three-quarters (in real dollars) and membership down well more than half in the past decade.

    Income and membership down from a height that resulted from the prospecting of Project Archimedes, which you vocally opposed.

    Are you prepared to say that you were wrong then and the book you wrote about it is wrong?

    Or will you continue with the insane logical disconnect of benchmarking your new plan with the old plan you opposed — continue criticizing the recent LP for not producing the numbers of Project Archimedes, which you loudly clamored for stopping.

  47. LP watcher

    Chuck, what is Project Archimedes– short answer. If Phillies didn’t want it and LNC did it anyway, wouldn’t Phillies be correct?
    Confusing. Your post makes it sound like Phillies was correct.

  48. Chuck Moulton

    Project Archimedes was prospecting for new members through rental of lists like magazines and mailings to those lists. As a result of that prospecting, LP membership climbed reaching its apex a decade ago. Phillies opposed it. After Project Archimedes stopped, membership declined over the next 10 years due to attrition.

    Somehow now Phillies is pointing to those numbers claiming with him at the helm we would get numbers like that. This directly contradicts his vocal campaign from 10 years ago to stop the prospecting.

    http://www.cmlc.org/fundingframes07.htm

  49. Michael H. Wilson

    Chuck I am getting too old to remember but were state voter registration lists used at any time during that effort?

    Thanks,
    MW

  50. Chuck Moulton

    Michael H. Wilson wrote:

    Chuck I am getting too old to remember but were state voter registration lists used at any time during that effort?

    Project Archimedes was before my time. For specifics there are better sources of information than me.

    All of my knowledge on the matter comes from reading Phillies’ book on the Browne campaign and talking with a few former LNC members.

    That background doesn’t make me an expert, but it does give me enough information to see the hypocrisy in Phillies’ recent statements.

  51. Brian Holtz

    As far as I know, Chuck is correct on the facts.

    It’s somewhat bizarre for James Oaksun to to publish graphs praising the growth of the 1990s without any attempt to explain/understand why it happened — except to say “it was all done with a fairly pure and undiluted Libertarian message and (it should go without saying) Party platform.” And it gets extra strange when this comes from a slate led by somebody who at the time doggedly attacked both the tactics and LP leadership responsible for that growth.

    However, since very few delegates are well-versed in the facts of what happened in the 1990s, there will not be any effective rebuttal in St. Louis to the New Path talking points about their graphs.

  52. paulie Post author

    @64 I would not be surprised if one or more of the other campaigns took it upon themselves to circulate materials rebutting the New Path’s talking points. Since the New Path materials have been available for a while, and reposted here, the other campaigns should be aware of them. If they don’t do their homework (opposition research and rebuttal), that’s on them, though.

  53. Chuck Moulton

    Brian,

    To be clear: I am criticizing Phillies himself for the logical disconnect; I’m not criticizing the rest of the “New Path” team.

    Oaksun, Powers, and Marbry to my knowledge have not criticized the policies facilitating membership growth in the 1990’s like Phillies has. Thus they don’t fall prey to that logical disconnect. However, to the extent that they pin themselves to Phillies they may have to either embrace or distance themselves from his views.

  54. George Phillies

    Moulton has his facts somewhat backwards.

    “Project Archimedes” was the Brainchild of David Bergland and friends during Bergland’s campaign for National Chair. I am not sure to what extent a half-dozen people I could name had pride of authorship. To quote from my book Funding Liberty

    http://cmlc.org/fundingframes09.htm

    *”Project Archimedes was the campaign promise of National Chair David Bergland. As laid out by former National Director Perry Willis, Project Archimedes was supposed to increase Party membership from nearly 28,000 in mid- 1998 to 100,000 or more by the 2000 National Convention. Bergland had promised that if elected he would launch the Project. He was elected. The Project was launched. [Addendum: That is, the LNC appropriated money. They did not, however, use the phrase ‘Project Archimedes’ in that motion.]”*

    What actually happened? Project Archimedes was launched after Bergland was elected. Membership growth did not accelerate. It slowed down.

    Returning to my book: *”To reach its goals, Project Archimedes needed to attract 6000 new members in its first two months, and 6000 or more members every two months thereafter. Project Archimedes failed. Not only did membership not grow 6000 in two months, but membership has never grown by 6000 from the 27,938 it had reached on June 27, 1998. Indeed, after four years of Project Archimedes [GP: written in 2002] Party membership is smaller than it was in Summer 1998.*

    *”When Bergland became National Chair, party membership was already increasing-up 5000 in the first half of 1998. Project Archimedes was launched. Membership growth immediately slowed. In the second half of 1998, about 600,000 Archimedes letters were mailed (source: December 1998 LNC Minutes) and membership grew by fewer than 2200. In 1999, another 1.7 million or so letters were mailed (We know the number because Willis was paid in total for about 2.3 million letters, of which 600,000 were mailed in 1998). In the first half of 1999, membership grew by another 2300, from 30,065 to 32,377. Tripling the number of letters mailed had almost no effect on the net number of new recruits, raising the question of whether the program was at all effective in recruiting new members. Membership growth then crashed to a halt, and has never reached 33,500. The situation grew worse in the New Year. From November 30, 1999 to December 31, 2000, National Party membership fell by more than 650. For the first time in recent memory, the National Party failed to expand its ranks during a Presidential election year. Party membership went into a steep decline, falling to 24,498 in areas with affiliated parties by the end of July, 2002. *

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    Nick,

    You write:

    “I shouldn’t have used quotes, but I was responding to the Hancock will fracture the party comment.”

    Damn right you shouldn’t have used quotes. It cost you a drink, and drinks are pretty expensive at the Renaissance Grand and Suites!

  56. Thomas L. Knapp

    George,

    Some questions:

    1) In what way was the “Project Archimedes” that wasn’t called that post-1998 different from the “Project Archimedes” that wasn’t called that from 1994-98?

    2) In what way does a New Path proposal for increasing memberships/revenues substantively differ from the unified 1994-2000 “Operation Archimedes?”

  57. Shane

    Chuck, I find the contradiction humorous along with the contradiction of real performance for his state party compared to what this New Path will accomplish.

    What can I say, I have a twisted sense of humor.

    I’ll give credit to Phillies for his New Path slogan. The LP does need that.

    That leads me to Mark. He’s a the “Old Path” candidate with the most friends and is a consensus builder although he’s an anarchist.

    He’s similar to Lark and even Rutherford in that regard.

    Mark, Lark and Rutherford understand we’re all on the same train, headed in the same direction — but not necessarily the same stop.

    His biggest fault aside from being an embedded part of LP Leadership for the past few decades is that he thinks too small. Touting small membership pickups is appreciated for a volunteer at a county fair, but it doesn’t earn you bragging rights as a national leader.

    With that said, Mark’s been honest and fair in my dealings with him, but he’s probably best at the county or state level.

    Mark Hinkle is the candidate you should choose if you want everyone to get along without real regard to party growth or electoral performance.

    George Phillies is the candidate you should choose if you want him to still be your friend, or you would like to see him fail after he spent so much energy castigating others for the same. Sorry George, I don’t see what you’ll bring to the table.

    John Jay Meyers is a guy I don’t know much about aside from hearing that he was recruited by David Nolan in an Burger King or something like that.

    As for Ernie Hancock, my only dealing with him was when he called me up to scream and cuss at me for failing to give the 9/11 conspiracy “documentary”, Loose Change, any promotion.

    Despite that, Ernie will not destroy the party, he will probably grow the party, but it will no longer engage in electoral politics and might as well be a 501(c)3 without fund raising restrictions.

    As for Wayne, whether you love him or hate him, you have to give the guy credit. Libertarians have given him every reason to run away in frustration and anger. For the last three years without a break he’s been beat up and beat down by anarchists and left-leaning libertarians who despise his conservative roots. But he’s still here and still fighting. I give him credit for tenacity.

    Now, personally, I’m pulling for Christine Smith to enter the race in the hopes that we’ll have another great C-SPAN moment full of anger and wackiness.

    You’ve gotta love LP convention season.

  58. David F. Nolan

    “John Jay Meyers is a guy I don’t know much about aside from hearing that he was recruited by David Nolan in an Burger King or something like that.”

    Not quite accurate. JJM was already planning to run when I had lunch with him in Austin. He asked me if it was too late to jump in; I said that it wasn’t, but soon would be. He declared his candidacy a few hours later, so he could participate in the debate/forum that evening.

  59. Shane

    So David, you didn’t encourage him to run to be Root’s stalking horse?

    Was I at least right about the burger joint?

  60. John Jay Myers

    It was a Burger King… mmmm onion rings.

    “stalking horse”?
    I didn’t have to be encouraged to not be thrilled about Wayne Allyn Root or Ernie Hancock.

    But, that is all beside the point our numbers in Texas, in particular North Texas tell a different story, a story that national should try to emulate.

    If we did that, we would grow the party to millions of members and have a grass roots infrastructure in place that would make this party much more relevant.

    If you don’t know much about someone you could google them.
    http://www.johnjaymyers.com/lnc.htm
    or
    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/libertarian-national-committee-chair-candidate-john-jay-myers-john-jay-myers-101/

    David Nolan is encouraging to me because he shares my concern for the party.

  61. Shane

    Fair enough. I guess the person who was sitting at the table next to you heard things a bit wrong.

    John, I think most folks share your concerns for the party — they just have different solutions and work their angle in different ways.

  62. Robert Capozzi

    tk 45, to clarify, the LP already sorta DID fracture, with the formation of the BTP. In some ways, on its face the BTP could be home for lessarchists of many stripes, but near as I can tell it’s mostly home for abolitionist Ls. Root winning could cause more abolitionists to leave for the BTP or to quit the electoral altogether.

    Hancock is likely to alienate all but the most abolitionist-minded Ls, particularly with his anti-politics politics. Why be a political party at all with a leader who, for ex., encourages people not to vote?

  63. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    The BTP is more ideologically than politically significant. I don’t think it represents much of a “fracture” institutionally, because:

    1) Many BTP members remain LP members.

    2) Many BTP members were either never LP members, or left the LP before the BTP came into existence.

    3) I don’t have an LP membership graph handy, but I think that if someone puts one up, nobody will be able to point to any sudden large LP membership loss explicable only with reference to the BTP.

    The fact that the BTP is home mostly for abolitionists is interesting, but not as an indicator of LP fracture.

    What it militates toward is the conclusion that while abolitionists are honestly willing to accept incremental means, alleged lessarchists tend to run like hell when asked to commit to actual lessarchism instead of a shell game of shifting state priorities around.

  64. George Phillies

    @69

    Tom

    #1) You might better ask Bergland that, since he was the one who thought it was new and different. So far as I can tell, the obvious large differences were in the number of letters sent (many more), the per-copy-mailed being paid to the consultant who wrote the letters, and changes in targeting. The targeting turned out to be almost-all-right-wing.

    #2) Project Archimedes was to be blind mailings to cold lists we rented. We don’t think that will work. There have been recent trials of this approach that did very poorly. The approach that has worked recently is to use electronic outreach to generate warm inquiries, and follow up the warm inquiries and electronically and by paper mail. Mary Ruwart gave details at a recent LNC meeting.

  65. Shane

    @79 “There have been recent trials of this approach that did very poorly.”

    George, that’s not true. I explained that in another thread. The last prospect was to registered libertarians in 2006.

    As far as “cold lists” I don’t think you understand the marketing here. You rent lists that are aligned with your organization in some manner — Reason subscribers, IJ donors, etc. You mail to them.

    If you pulled names and addresses out of a phone book, that would be cold. Untold millions are raised through postal prospecting and it’s not done in a “cold” manner. It’s tried and true with a scientific approach.

    I’d be more than happy to explain it to you or any LP state chair.

  66. Robert Capozzi

    tk 78, that’s why I said BTP “sorta” represents a fracture. If Hancock — God bless him — becomes chair, I would not be surprised to see state LPs disaffiliate and reconstitute as a national political party, since my read of Hancock’s view is that the LP should mostly be a protest organization.

    I’d say this is less likely with Root. Yes, he would likely alienate abolitionists, but Ls tend to be an alienated bunch as it is. Root’s more likely to take the LP to the next level numbers-wise, although I suspect the people he’d more likely attract would be disaffected conservatives and tea party-types. Whether that’s indicated is another kettle of fish.

  67. paulie Post author

    http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2010/05/an_endorsement_for_chair_of_th.html
    An endorsement for Chair of the Libertarian Party

    Over the last few years, I’ve watched the longstanding internal disputes that have plagued our party prohibit us from moving forward. It’s in our nature to point fingers, lay blame while we continue to function more like a social club than a political party.

    I don’t want a social club, an advocacy organization or a party built out of a cult of personality. I want someone to chair our party who is willing to step up for the right reasons and will take on Democrats and Republicans.

    We need leaders that are willing and, more importantly, able to work the different view points that make up our party. These leaders need to act professionally, promote the interests of the Libertarian Party and its membership and ensure that the office has the resources it needs to let the electorate know we are actively seeking there votes.

    At our convention in St. Louis, I will proudly be casting my vote for Mark Hinkle, who I believe is the only candidate running for chair with the ability to unite our party.

    Yours in Liberty,

    Jason Pye
    Legislative Director
    Libertarian Party of Georgia
    jason.pye@lpgeorgia.com

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I haven’t seen any evidence that suggests Root will “take the LP to the next level numbers-wise.”

    The only difference between his activities of the last three years and his proposed activities as national chair is that he’ll have a new title.

    What is it about that title that will magically turn him into a “member magnet” when he hasn’t been one as our VP candidate or as the self-described front-runner for our 2012 presidential nomination?

    The only effect on membership I see from a Root chairmanship is this one:

    Right now, we can tell prospective members EITHER:

    – Root represents us; or

    – Root doesn’t represent us.

    Those who like the idea that he represents us may join.

    Those who wouldn’t like him representing us may join on the premise that he’s a sideshow, not the party’s mainstream.

    Make him chair, and you just told one of those two groups not to bother.

  69. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I haven’t suggested that he IS a member magnet, only that he’s “more likely” to take the LP to the next level.

    Presumably, as Chair, one can marshall forces that a former VP nominee cannot. A more integrated approach to marketing requires a pitch AND follow through.

    To be clear, I see Root as the second riskiest choice, too. I just happen to see more upside with him as Chair.

    I’ve got my qualms about Root’s winning…if he keeps using the term states’ rights and playing footsie with Birthers, he might be “successful” in, say, doubling the LP membership base, but that could mean an influx of crypto-Confederates and Birther conspiratorialists. That would be most unfortunate.

    Or he might just get TV time with no follow-through marketing efforts, thereby alienating the abolitionists and continuing the slow bleed. He might not appeal to what I consider to be our biggest prospect market, L-leaning independents and suburban, generally coastal, Rs who are not social conservatives.

  70. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    OK, you’re making sense.

    I think some of it comes down also to what we mean by “fracture.”

    My suspicion is that if Hancock wins, the fracture will be immediately visible — a walkout of some prominent members/activists similar in character to the Craniac 1983 departure. Ditto if Phillies wins, and some overlap of the walkers, too.

    If Root wins, there might be a similar walkout by radicals, but probably not as large and probably not composed of members who are as prominent in the party’s putative leadership.

    I think that where a Root victory will really hurt the national party is less immediately visible than a walkout, but it would still arguably constitute a fracture.

    Not only do I think we won’t see any great influx of new members, but I think we’ll see significant dropoff in sustaining dues renewals and beyond-dues contributions.

    Right now, Root is free to go out and stick his foot in his own mouth on Fox News, and LP supporters can tell their acquaintances “yeah, we made the mistake of nominating him for VP in 2008, but he doesn’t speak for us any more.”

    As chair, Root won’t just be sticking his foot in his mouth, he’ll be sticking it in the party’s mouth, too.

    Every time he trots out “states’ rights” or “Obama just got into Harvard because he was black and I wonder if he was even really at Columbia,” or pulls one of his occasional 180 degree turns on foreign policy, he’ll be speaking for the party.

    Some donors aren’t going to write checks to subsidize that.

    Some activists aren’t going to promote an organization puts its seal of approval on it.

    What percentage of members will decide not to renew? I don’t know. But I think it will be significant.

    What percentage of donors will end or scale down their contributions? I don’t know. But I think it will be significant.

    As for activists, I can only speak for myself, but it will be a cold day in hell before I hand out another brochure or copy of LP News with Root’s name/mug on it.

  71. Brian Holtz

    The only difference between his activities of the last three years and his proposed activities as national chair is that he’ll have a new title.

    No he’s made specific proposals about how he would use video technology with the web site and contact list. (Root would be well-advised to preview a draft of the first video/email he would issue as Chair, to give us a better idea of what he’s talking about. Of course, he’d be viciously criticized as “arrogant” and presumptuous by his usual personal furies, but that will happen no matter what he does.)

    Being Chair is more than just a title:

    “The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Party with full authority to direct its business and affairs, including hiring and discharging of National Committee volunteers and paid personnel, subject to express National Committee policies and directives issued in the exercise of the National Committee’s plenary control and management of Party affairs, properties and funds.”

  72. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    I agree that chair is more than just a title.

    What I said that the title is the only difference between Root’s current activities and his proposed future activities.

    I’m agreeable to your contention that I’m wrong on that, but what you seem to be saying is that that an additional difference is that he’ll gain more “inreach” (as opposed to “outreach”) ability for the same approach.

    As far as the bylaws list of the chair’s duties is concerned, the absolute best we can hope for is that he really would shuffle those duties onto Mark Rutherford’s back — but that’s the same as saying that the best we can hope for is that if we hand a drunk guy the car keys, he’ll in turn hand them to his sober friend. Why not just give them to the sober friend in the first place?

  73. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I’m not sure Hancock would cause a walk-out. (BTW, I was a jr. member of the Crane Machine and in NY in 83, and I don’t recall there being an actual “walk out.” Some Machiners remained in the LP, inc. me.)

    My guess (truly just a guess) is that when LP News and LP press releases start promoting the issues that seem near and dear to Hancock’s heart, some of the states that are led by non-abolitionists will have to consider whether they want to be a part of a Guy Fawkes-ish movement. Of course, that requires coordination among often far-flung volunteers, so a Hancock-chaired LP might limp along as the messaging gets angrier and more hyperbolic.

    Ernie and Wayne both seem likely highly dynamic dudes, but — I think unlike you — I just don’t see large numbers of Mad Max wannabes flooding into the LP based on Hancock’s Apocalyptic visions. But, then, I’ve been wrong before, and will be wrong again sometime soon 😉 Nihilists tend to be socialist in a syndicalist sort of way or simply anti-political and are often emotionally imbalanced, which I don’t see as the basis for a broad-based, sustainable movement.

  74. Shane

    Tom, you’re overestimating National’s influence over members or donors. Most folks don’t give because of personalities or the faction in charge — they give because they’re angry with Washington and want to do something about it. That “something” is whipping out their checkbooks.

    There’s nothing wrong with that as most folks are too busy working and paying taxes to do much more.

    No matter who wins, members will renew as long as they are asked to renew.

    Between all candidates, there’s three directions:

    – Crazy Train
    – Status Quo
    – Risk or Reward

    None of those will doom the party they’ll just take up our time differently. One would be as fun as a theme park mixed with Jack, another will be like watching paint dry, and the third will have us biting our nails or pulling out our hair.

    In another two years: wash, rinse, repeat.

  75. David F. Nolan

    There seems to a a consensus emerging here on IPR. While Root, Hancock and Phillies all have their strengths and weaknesses, it’s clear that each of them is a “polarizing” candidate – loved by some, loathed by others.

    Hinkle and Myers, in contrast, are more likely to unify the party; while they may not inspire the fervent support of the other three choices, they are acceptable to almost everyone. Of the two, Hinkle offers more experience, while Myers offers more “pizazz.”

    If I had to guess, I’d guess that most of Root’s supporters will support Hinkle if Root falters on the first or second ballot, while most of Hancock’s and Phillies’ supporters will line up behind Myers.

    The final outcome is anyone’s guess.

  76. Robert Capozzi

    sc: None of those will doom the party they’ll just take up our time differently.

    me: Yes, “doom” is overstatement. But to think that the LP can withstand any and all shocks to the institution is wishful thinking. Nothing is forever, after all….

  77. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I think you are suffering from two fundamental mis-understandings here — one concerning Hancock, and one concerning me.

    The first misunderstanding is that if Hancock is elected chair, “LP News and LP press releases [will] start promoting the issues that seem near and dear to Hancock’s heart.”

    You’re conflating Hancock’s ideas on empowering LP activism per se with the particular issues his own personal activism seems to sometimes focus on.

    The simplest way to put this is that I think Hancock would like to use national as a way of getting a DVD copier into each state affiliate’s office, not a thousand copies of his favorite DVD, into each state affiliate’s office.

    The second is that I “see large numbers of Mad Max wannabes flooding into the LP based on Hancock’s Apocalyptic visions.”

    I do think that a Hancock chairmanship would increase membership, but that’s in spite of, not because of, his “Apocalyptic visions.”

    First, I think that a Hancock chairmanship would make it very clear to the state and local organizations that they, not national, must be the centers of party activism, and that that itself would energize some of those organizations.

    Secondly, I think that to the extent that a Hancock chairmanship involved LPHQ “doing things,” it would be things like telling the states “here’s how we set up our workshop to make signs, DVDs, etc., in Arizona — we’ll help you raise the seed money to set up your own, so that you can be more effective in your outreach.”

    Thirdly, not only do I not think that Hancock would use LPHQ as a distribution outlet for his “Apocalyptic Visions,” I think that he’d make LPHQ in general and LP News in particular more donor-friendly by giving the APRC the teeth to keep platform-non-compliant material going out in the LP’s name.

    Would a Hancock chairmanship create a dramatic surge in membership? I don’t know, but I think that it would increase membership, as well as creating a healthier balance between the national umbrella and the organizations which cluster under that umbrella.

  78. Brian Holtz

    do I not think that Hancock would use LPHQ as a distribution outlet for his “Apocalyptic Visions,”

    Hancock said at the LPKS convention last month that “if we’re not out there telling the Truth on things like 9/11″ then the LP is “not relevant”.

    A couple weeks later on his radio show, Hancock paraphrased Root: paraphrasing Root: “‘If he’s elected chairman, he’ll talk about 9/11.’ I’m sure as heck not going to avoid it.”

    Listen for yourself:

  79. Robert Capozzi

    tk: First, I think that a Hancock chairmanship would make it very clear to the state and local organizations that they, not national, must be the centers of party activism, and that that itself would energize some of those organizations.

    me: We’re in a heap-a-trouble if the center of LP activism is in the state and local organizations. Some states don’t even have a functioning LP. A lot of people don’t want to be “activists,” that sign up to be a member in an organization to do the political work they support. This is basic division-of-labor stuff. Some make the argument that the LP must be “bottom up,” and they don’t want the national LP to “tell them what to do.”

    I find that line of reasoning WAY beside the point. Of course state and local LP should be encouraged to be active to the extent they WANT to be active and that their budgets will allow.

    In a nation with distributed national elections and national news, having a strong national office and LNC seems required IF we want to be a national party that changes the nation’s laws. To do that, we need strong people and resources to do the job that’s necessary to advance our aims nationally.

    Don’t we?

  80. paulie Post author

    Agreed with Capozzi. The relative lack of support from national in the past decade, compared with what we saw in the 90s, did not lead to an explosion of state and local activity, it led to an implosion.

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Fair cop — I’m not sure how well Hancock’s proposals would work. But I do think I’ve accurately described how and for what purposes he would utilize the chairmanship.

    I’m less concerned about his “Apocalyptic visions” than you are.

    I am a little concerned — concerned enough even that I’m entertaining Myers or NOTA as possible second choices in lieu of Hancock.

    On the other hand, I’m not laboring under the illusion that his goal is an Alex Jones video library in every American home.

  82. LP Pragmatist

    Hancock as chair? Guaranteed many states will run for cover and want nothing to do with the 9-11 truth stuff. Some state affilates are actually running organizations, fielding candidates, and fundraising. The last thing they need is some conspiracy theorists messing it up for them and giving ammunition to the mainstream media, that further minimizes the LP. Outside of shutting down, just tell Hancock to stay out of their state.

  83. Tie dyed, birkenstock wearing, Patchoulie smelling hippie

    The last thing they need is some conspiracy theorists messing it up for them and giving ammunition to the mainstream media, that further minimizes the LP.

    ROTFLMAO!!

    And taking part in “birther trials” isn’t giving ammunition to the mainstream media?

    Granted, WAR didn’t take part, mainly because of the instant ridicule he had received from dedicated LP activists. But he clearly BELIEVES this rubbish. So much so that to this day he refuses to repudiate his previous statements that Obama never attended Columbia.

    If THAT is your idea of “LP Pragmatism”, I’ll find a different candidate to be the face of the LP for the next two years.

    Sorry Kevin. Sometimes you just make it too easy. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *