Dear Friend of Liberty,
I think you’ll enjoy this video of the LP in action at CPAC (pronounced "see-pack"), the Conservative Political Action Conference.
LP Headquarters staff and volunteers hosted a booth last Thursday through Saturday here in Washington, D.C., featuring the World’s Smallest Political Quiz and the "Republican Wall of Shame."
Our new video specialist, Nigel Lyons, interviewed everyone from Libertarians to Republicans, as well as representatives from various nonpartisan groups like Students for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty. He even captured original video footage of Jimmy McMillan (from the Rent Is Too Damn High Party) Eskimo-kissing Sarah Palin.
Republican Congressman Ron Paul, the 1988 Libertarian nominee for president, won the presidential straw poll at CPAC. Republican "Wall of Shamer" Mitt Romney placed second, and former Republican New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson placed a distant third.
Gary Johnson has fairly libertarian principles. As governor, Johnson vetoed 750 bills, which was more than all 49 other governors combined at the time. He’s an outspoken opponent of the war on drugs and supports legalizing marijuana.
Governor Johnson gave a "shout-out" to the Libertarian Party in the video, probably seeking support.
Meanwhile, FoxNews.com published a rather hostile opinion piece: "Disrespectful Libertarians Hijack CPAC Poll — And Its Mission."
Just for the record, our official Libertarian Party representatives were reasonably polite and professional (aside from the "Republican Wall of Shame"). And I’m not going to criticize the tactics and effectiveness of the many spirited Ron Paul libertarians.
The Fox News op-ed angrily states, "Libertarians and Conservatives are as different as Libertarians and Liberals."
I couldn’t agree more.
Have a great week.
Sincerely,
Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee
P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.
IPR note: Previous CPAC 2011 coverage
Huffington Post on CPAC Straw Poll: Ron Paul wins Again! Gary Johnson tied for third place
Third Party CPAC Roundup 2/10/11
Libertarians at CPAC present Republican Wall of Shame
All kinds of awesome….
Jimmy & Sarah at the end of the video should be careful they don’t get sniffulus!
Nice camera work @ 3: 15 LOL
Fantastic!
Ron Paul/Gary Johnson=counterrevolutionary -can’t win ticket.
Ron Paul can’t win.-The Donald.
Ron Paul will run-for another $35 million from libertarian suckers.
Capitalism=freedom=wrong.
I do like the Gary Johnson sucks t-shirt.
Milnes, you are such a ray of sunshine. No wonder your campaign is such a huge success.
Fantastic!
Beyond fantastic! 🙂
The Fox News article (or blog post, I think is more accurate) that is linked to towards the end of the post, is hilarious.
The video is pretty damn good too.
Woops. I didn’t mean to put my e-mail address out there like that. If anyone who has the ability to do so reads this, please remove my previous comment.
Better?
Perfect. Thanks Paulie!
Great video and effort. I like the music, the smooth flow, interesting content and Wes kept looking up! I sent a link to the Daily Paul. I am glad the Libertarian Party was there.
Nicely done. I’m happy that there’s a large, growing Libertarian movement inside the GOP and that Paul won the straw poll again. We did good enough to get Fox to write a nasty article about us. That’s definitely a sign of progress.
The sad reality though, is that Hinkle’s face should be on an LP wall of shame for allowing a kid toucher back into the party here in CA last year, just because he was a personal friend of Mark’s.
We’d be a lot better off had Myers won chair.
Sebastian,
I definitely want to see Myers get one of the At Large LNC spots (2 vacancies to be filled). He might make an excellent chair in some future term, after he has had some experience on the LNC, if he chooses to run for chair at that point.
I’m also glad we have a chair who has served on the LNC in the past, though.
Mark Hinkle as chair of JudCom determined that the case you speak of was not handled procedurally properly. That is not necessarily an opinion on who should or should not be allowed to participate in the party, and at what level. It’s an opinion that people accused of any kind of wrongdoing should have a certain process with safeguards for proper procedure before they can be removed, that such a process in fact exists under party bylaws, and that it was not followed.
That is not a reason that Hinkle should be ashamed.
That is like saying the ACLU should be ashamed because they defended the rights of fascists and communists to speak.
Or saying that someone should be ashamed if they say accused terrorists should get a fair trial.
re # 14. I was once in the middle of a following the process debate. One that ripped the local apart.
This is an issue that needs to be brought up at the national level and someone, some time needs to write a series of article, and/or brochures on how to do some of the basics, i.e. rules of order are meant to allow everyone an opportunity to participate, etc, etc.
@Paulie,
I don’t think that you’re wrong. I think that you have been spoon fed the lie that Hinkle tried to pawn off on the rest of the party. I know for fact that two members of the JC here in CA refused to vote against Barnes (the convicted, multiple offense child molester) because he was their “friend”. Those men would be Ted Brown and Terry Floyd. Hinkle followed suit, and when I mentioned it on his facebook page, he pretended not to know what I was talking about. Personally, I don’t get their mentality. If I discovered that one of my friends was a kid toucher, we simply would not be friends anymore.
This is still an issue that he should be made defend, and answer for. Mark knew what he was doing, and in the process, cost the party an obscene amount of credibility.
That Paulie is willing to walk away is testament to why he should stay. It’s an attitude I admire, and makes him ideal for the role he’s filling. He is able to listen to others viewpoints and he actually understands them. He presents his perspective, sometimes forcefully, but is adult enough to recognize that he is not the be all and end all of all wisdom.
More than once has he kept me on point, and for that I am grateful.
His editorial judgment seems strong to me, aggregating interesting bits from around the LM. He even created these open threads, a brilliant move to vent frustrations. (I feel a song coming up!)
(Last comment in wrong place…my bad.)
Nice video. A few observations:
– Not sure if he was having a bad day, but Gary Johnson was nearly as shifty-eyed as Bob Dole. It seems he needs to work on that, as the inability to fix eyes is often indicative of a person either deeply insecure or not trustworthy. I like Johnson, generally support what he stands for, would like to see him get the R nomination, or to become a L, so please don’t take this as an attack, just an observation. We all can be shifty-eyed at times, but re-watch this video and see if you see what I mean.
– In other threads, I’ve indicated I am not pleased with the use of the word “shame” on the Republican Wall of Shame. I would lose the “Global Warming” point to mock Gingrich. First, his belief in global warming theory is not his most unL position. Second, I don’t think global warming IS unL. The platform doesn’t take that position. Many, perhaps most, Ls do not subscribe to man-made global climate change theory, but many Ls do. Are THEY “shameful” for holding that position?
– Making the “Wall of Shame” personal is attention getting, but at a deeper level I’m not sure it works. What if it had been something like: REPUBLICANS: WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR US LATELY? There could have been a litany of ISSUES where the Rs have been anti-liberty or hypocritical. I understand that the smear/counter-smear/counter-smear thing is how politics is done these days, as we’ve seen the Limbaugh-ization of politics. We can’t take our eyes off the roadside car wreck. L can try to play this childish game, or we can transcend it. If we REALLY want to differentiate, maybe the LP can become the civil party. (Yes, I know that 19th century politics were nastier than even now. And this proves what exactly?)
– Give me more Jimmy McMillan! Jimmy with the Palin impersonator was, as he said, “hot.”
Capozzi, maybe you & Tom should have your own thread for your seemingly neverending debates.
rm19, if it’s a “debate,” my attitude is the other side always “wins,” since I don’t debate. I share and discuss. When Tom and I discuss things, it’s almost always in that spirit.
If IPR wants our discussions to be off thread, I’m OK with that. I don’t own IPR.
Many, perhaps most, Ls do not subscribe to man-made global climate change theory, but many Ls do. Are THEY “shameful” for holding that position?
No, not shameful, just gullible. 🙂
l21, hmm, are you serious? People like Phillies, Knapp, Sherer and Bailey are, IYO, “gullible”? Or do I hear a knee jerking?
I have no position on the matter, but I certainly don’t find these folks to be “gullible” at all. They seem like deep thinkers to me.
RC, it was actually intended as gentle needling (hence the smiley face). However, I have always found it to be a bit strange that many libertarians, who normally question virtually every type of authority, seem to make an exception when it comes to “scientific” issues, where they blindly accept every “expert” pronouncement, with no skepticism whatsoever.
For example, it is generally accepted by most libertarians that you should take anything you learned in a public school with a grain of salt, since schools that get their funding from the government are quite likely to end up teaching what the government wants taught. In fact, this is one of the major libertarian arguments for abolishing public schools.
However, this same reasoning would seem to apply to scientific research that is conducted at government-run facilities or in any other way funded or subsidized by the government. Just as government-funded schools are likely to teach what the government wants taught, is it not also likely that government-funded scientists are likely to reach the conclusions that are preferred by the government, especially in a case like global warming, where such conclusions can (and are) routinely used to justify massive government action?
Yeah, I noticed that too.
RC
My response was:
My previous response to Dr. Phillies on that point:
I know I still owe you a more detailed discussion of alternatives to monopoly government “solutions” to that problem. Sorry I haven’t gotten to that yet, but I’m still planning to.
I think you are jumping to possibly unwarranted conclusions if you think the point about Gingrich was making any kind of statement about whether humans are causing climate destabilization or not.
All the discussions of individual Republicans quickly got down to issues.
You can discuss issues all day long, but what good does that do if no one is listening?
Yes!
And if you were being removed from an organization you worked hard in, for any reason, regardless of how valid or invalid, would you want a fair hearing where you have a chance to confront the evidence against you, have time to prepare a response, and be allowed to deliver one?
If that was done in this case, and the result of such a process ignored due to friendship, you are correct about Mr. Hinkle.
If the proper procedures were not followed, then you are wrong, regardless of whether you are correct that the person in question should have been removed or not.
In any case, I stand by the other portion of my previous response: I’m glad we got someone to chair the LNC who has previously been on the LNC in other capacities, chaired a state party, etc.
I’m also a big fan of Mr. Myers, hope to see him on the LNC as of the next meeting, and if he decides to run for chair in the future after getting some experience on the LNC, I may well support him.
@ 26 For anyone who might wonder what that is in reference to, see
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/jim-duensing-running-for-libertarian-nomination-for-president-of-usa/
Comments 260, and 265 through 281.
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap8.html
That’s a good introduction to libertarian environmental perspectives. There’s a lot more, too. Still feeling kinda sluggish but I do intend to do some writing about this.
l23: However, I have always found it to be a bit strange that many libertarians, who normally question virtually every type of authority, seem to make an exception when it comes to “scientific” issues, where they blindly accept every “expert” pronouncement, with no skepticism whatsoever. For example, it is generally accepted by most libertarians that you should take anything you learned in a public school with a grain of salt…
me: Me? I take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. When people who are L like Phillies and Carl Milsted (ok, formerly) who’ve got PhD’s in physics and are quite the skeptics take the view that man-made global climate change theory is correct, that does get my attention, I admit. I don’t see those guys as obedient at all, and questioning authority is practically my religion!
So when you speak of blind obedience to authority, your observation rings hollow for me, since I don’t know any Ls who fit your category.
Interestingly, I see more “blind obedience” on ideological matters, e.g., the Rothbard/Block/Rockwell plumb line. Except for the narrowest of exceptions, those who follow them seem to me in an almost robotic state, reciting to me the plumb line when I challenge it, as if it were immutably cast in stone. Just my perception, of course.
Milnes is Milnes but he probably has a point or two. Ron Paul can’t win, and the political business of Ron Paul is good for business. It was good for the newsletter business after his first Congressional career and low key LP run. And wow, that whole Ron Paul political business really exploded in 2008. 2011-2012 is looking like a great time to do some fundraising.
Keep in mind, I’m not saying this is a Bad thing, especially if most of the money supports pro-liberty activism.
# 22 Robert Capozzi // Feb 15, 2011:
Phillies, Knapp,
[Lake: the LP as the one and only American Peace Party ?????????????? Lordie, lordie!]
Mr. Cappozi @ 18 wrote, “First, his belief in global warming theory is not his most unL position.”
Whether global warming is real or not has nothing to do with libertarian philosophy, or libertarian politics. How it is solved, if that is needed, may. And a couple of points on that issue have been posted here previously.
I think the whole wall of shame thing was quite appropriate for a gathering of people who are likely to have been “let down” by the GOP recently. That includes Newt’s “title”.
http://floridawhig.com/issue/clintons-state-department a recent update to the website of the Florida Whig Party
http://floridawhig.com/issue/cpac-heritage CPAC and Heritage.
@1 Sebastian Knowlton stated:
“I think that you have been spoon fed the lie that Hinkle tried to pawn off on the rest of the party. I know for fact that two members of the JC here in CA refused to vote against Barnes (the convicted, multiple offense child molester) because he was their “friend”. Those men would be Ted Brown and Terry Floyd. Hinkle followed suit, and when I mentioned it on his facebook page, he pretended not to know what I was talking about.”
I’m afraid that Sebastian is factually-challenged. Ted Brown and Terry Floyd were not even on the LPC Judicial Committee. The five JC members were Mark Hinkle, Less Antman, Allen Hacker, Rick Nichol, and myself. Two individuals had their memberships suspended by the LPC Executive Committee, and in both instances the JC reached a unanimous decision to restore their memberships. Our conclusions certainly had nothing do with any friendships, but were based strictly on the merits of the cases as they were presented to us.
We now return this discussion to the regularly-scheduled topic…
Mr. Wiener,
Thank you for the additional information.
@43 Awesome! Finally!