“Republican Wall of Shame” ad updates

Two updates regarding The Republican Wall of Shame ad project:

First, from the LP blog:

So far donors have contributed or pledged the amounts below toward our proposed "Republican Wall of Shame" ad. If we reach $5,000 by 11:59 p.m. on March 4, we plan to proceed with the ad project.

Please note, the total below is in addition to the original $10,000 donation we received for this purpose.

(approximate total)
3/3 11:00 a.m. ET: $3,900
3/3 1:15 p.m. ET: $4,500

Click here to contribute toward the ad. (Type "wall of shame" in the comments section.)

Click here to see the March 2 announcement.

Second, from George Phillies in comments on a previous IPR post:

Does the LNC have a line item in its budget permitting the expenditure? Not the last time I looked.

and

There is disagreement within the LNC as to whether or not the budget covers the expense. The 9K for marketing does not cover 15k for an ad. Brand development had itemization behind it.

Meanwhile the Libertarian Party of Ohio has criticized the “Republican Wall of Shame” approach on their website, saying “If you want the bees to show up, put out the honey, not the vinegar!” – a point also made by some critics of the proposed ad in IPR comments.

Robert Capozzi, himself a critic of the ad proposal, points out:

I believe Peter Breggin once psychologically profiled the three major ideologies, saying that liberals are motivated by guilt, conservatives by shame, libertarians by anxiety. Seems about right to me, generally. So, it’s no surprise that CPACers would respond to shame!

Other critics have questioned whether the Washington Post is the best place to advertise, and Dr. Phillies has taken issue with the inclusion of Newt Gingrich on the Wall of Shame for the reason he was included. As a strong proponent of anthropogenic global warming theory, Dr. Phillies believes that including Mr. Gingrich on the wall for this reason makes the LP look like “global warming deniers,” in his words.

Other reactions have been more positive:

Jill Pyeatt:

This is a wonderful idea! I’ll work our budget to see what we can come up with, as far as a donation.

Matt Cholko:

I like the idea very much.

George Whitfield:

I donated to run the ad and I voted yes in the poll.

The current poll results, via http://www.lp.org/poll:

A donor gave $10,000 to help run the “Republican Wall of Shame” in the Washington Post. Which best matches your opinion?

Great idea! Run the Wall of Shame ad.
38% (184 votes)

Great idea! I will donate to help fund the ad.
5% (22 votes)

I’m a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
40% (191 votes)

I’m not a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
4% (17 votes)

Other
13% (64 votes)

Total votes: 478

As of this writing, the poll is active on the LP.org front page.

The “Wall of Shame” in action at CPAC:

Additional previous discussions on IPR:

Libertarian Party: Shall we spend $30k for “Republican Wall of Shame” ad?

Libertarian Party Monday Message: Video from CPAC 2011

Libertarians at CPAC present Republican Wall of Shame

69 thoughts on ““Republican Wall of Shame” ad updates

  1. Spinal Tap

    “If you want the bees to show up, put out the honey, not the vinegar!”

    Much the same way Wayne gently lures in the former Obama supporters, with the ever so enticing honey that is Wayne.

    Does the Ohio party ever criticize Wayne’s strategy of alienating half the American populace?

  2. John Jay Myers

    I didn’t like the look of the ad, but I didn’t think it was a bad idea. From what I understand they are going to do a complete cosmetic change to the ad, so I am happy about that.

    I am certain it would do more good than harm, that being the case, I am not sure if it is any of our business other than to donate or not. Considering someone else donated $10,000 to this cause.

    I can’t see thinking “oh no we don’t want to upset the Republicans”, we need to upset somebody… before we become irrelevant.

    The guy who donated $10,000 was a disgruntled Republican, maybe we should keep pointing out things to make more of them disgruntled.

  3. Interesting question

    why is there a poll for voters on the national site, if it is already decided to run the ad?
    So if the majority says “don’t run it” the ad will run anyway? Why vote then?
    Just asking. It seems odd.

  4. paulie Post author

    why is there a poll for voters on the national site, if it is already decided to run the ad?

    The polls help draw participation and attention.

    So if the majority says “don’t run it” the ad will run anyway? Why vote then?

    I don’t know if it will run or not. It seems there’s some kind of budget straightjacket being proposed.

    As for whether you vote, that’s up to you. I think the polls work more to bring in casual visitors to spend longer on the site than anything else.

    what does Ohio have to do with this?

    They commented on this, top, front and center on their state website, and it was brought to our attention in IPR comments. The comment they made captures one persistent line of criticism against the proposal.

  5. Fun K. Chicken

    Much the same way Wayne gently lures in the former Obama supporters, with the ever so enticing honey that is Wayne.

    Wayne should get a midget to follow him around everywhere, like Kid Rock used to.

    He could be nicknamed Little Wayne or Mini-Wayne. Anything but Lil Wayne.

  6. paulie Post author

    From HQ. Still deciding whether I should append it to this post, make it yet another post, or leave it here in the comments.


    Dear Friend of Liberty,

    I hope you’ll contribute $100 or $500 or whatever you can to help us reach the $15,000 minimum total for our plan to run an ad in the Washington Post.

    View the original message.

    As of yesterday, we’ve raised about $14,500 total (including the original $10,000 donation), but we’re having to follow up with some donors to clarify the intended use of their donations. Therefore, we need to raise about $1,500 more to be very confident that we’ve reached our minimum target.

    Additionally, since we’re now aiming for $15,000, we plan to run these ads in the online version of the Washington Post, instead of the print version.

    Please keep in mind that only funds donated specifically for this purpose will be spent on the ad.

    Also, we received some complaints about the quality of the graphics. I agree they could use improvement. We didn’t want to spend too much time upgrading the graphics unless we found enough financial support out there to make it happen.

    Donors have responded. So, if we get at least $500 over our $15,000 threshold, we’ll pay for more professional graphics.

    We’ve already identified a designer who can add improved animated Flash graphics to our ad.

    Please donate now, and type "wall of shame ad" in the comments section. Please remember to type "wall of shame ad" so we don’t have to take the time to follow up and make sure that’s what you wanted.

    Also please forward this note to your friends and ask them to donate.

    Sincerely,

    Wes Benedict
    Executive Director
    Libertarian National Committee

  7. Steven R Linnabary

    I for one don’t mind the ad. I think it is provocative and well suited for one our many OPH booths. It provides a good comparative to LP ideals.

    But I don’t think to spend money on a WaPo ad is a wise investment, at least for this piece. Not that advertising isn’t needed and long past due.

    From the LPOH website:
    The main point here is that we do not need a Wall of Shame with R’s or D’s on it to entice people to look at the LP in a positive light. It doesn’t help us grow the party to irritate and antagonize the very people we should be courting. There are millions of people who currently call themselves R’s and D’s who are really L’s at heart, but in their current state they are willing to defend the actions of folks in ‘their’ party! If you want the bees to show up, put out the honey, not the vinegar!

    Todd has a great point I think. And I would say that this applies to those that are continually disparaging Obama, but refuse to do the same with Obama’s lapdogs (the republicans).

    PEACE

  8. paulie Post author

    Latest:

    So far donors have contributed or pledged the amounts below toward our proposed "Republican Wall of Shame" ad. If we reach $5,000 by 11:59 p.m. on March 4, we plan to proceed with the ad project.

    Please note, the total below is in addition to the original $10,000 donation we received for this purpose.

    (approximate total)
    3/3 11:00 a.m. ET: $3,900
    3/3 1:15 p.m. ET: $4,500
    3/4 4:30 p.m. ET: $5,500

    Click here to contribute toward the ad. (Type "wall of shame" in the comments section.)

    Click here to see the March 2 announcement.

  9. Matt Cholko

    I liked this idea when we were shooting for a print ad. I don’t see how an online ad will get us any special attention, whereas a large print ad in one of the major papers may have. In other words, I don’t see CNN mentioning the LP’s online ad campaign featuring the Republican Wall of Shame.

    With that said, I certainly support advertising (as part of an overall marketing plan), but I would now have to give some thought as to whether this is an appropriate message. The first thing I’d like to know is; what is our goal with this ad?

  10. Matt Cholko

    Here I am, thinking out loud –

    If we have $15,000 to run this ad campaign, and we decide to do THIS ad, I think I would like to see it run for a good period of time (maybe spend $5k per month, and continue to solicit donations to keep it running longer, if it is deemed effective). While I’m not familiar with WaPo’s advertising system, I am aware that most online advertising programs can be made to work on ANY budget, so it seems to me that this should be doable.

    As time goes by, and various GOP clowns jump into and out of the 2012 presidential race, we could change the people on the wall of shame, keeping it relevant. Each move (assuming we’re only making one every few weeks) is press release worthy, and could be used bring new attention to, and solicit new donations for, the effort.

    For that matter, if the ad is working, we should be able to keep it running right up through primary season, even if we can only raise a few dollars (again, online ad campaigns can generally work on ANY budget).

    As I mentioned, I’m just thinking out loud here, and I invite others to join in the thinking..

  11. Jake Porter

    While I like the idea, my biggest complaint is that to be effective in advertising you really need to have repetition of the message and one ad will probably not accomplish that.

    For the national party to run an effective, but highly targeted nationwide advertising campaign of newspaper, TV, radio, and possibly Internet would probably cost somewhere around $150,000 or at least that would be my estimate. Of course, many individual states could be targeted for just a few thousand dollars, but that is really the job of the state party.

  12. paulie Post author

    While I like the idea, my biggest complaint is that to be effective in advertising you really need to have repetition of the message and one ad will probably not accomplish that.

    if I understand correctly, an online ad will pop up more than once; IE, a user may see it on more than one article.

    For the national party to run an effective, but highly targeted nationwide advertising campaign of newspaper, TV, radio, and possibly Internet would probably cost somewhere around $150,000 or at least that would be my estimate. Of course, many individual states could be targeted for just a few thousand dollars, but that is really the job of the state party.

    If it brings in members, there may be more support for a larger campaign as time goes on. This is just a “foot in the door” sort of thing based on one person being willing to donate 10k.

    It seems this person wants in WashPo, whether that is a good idea or not. So, they are trying to work with that. At least as I understand it.

  13. Andy

    “The first thing I’d like to know is; what is our goal with this ad?”

    I think that the goal with the add is pretty obvious. It is to show that when it comes to shrinking the size of government, Republicans are hypocrites and frauds. The Libertarian Party should be the real choice for those who want to shrink the size of government.

  14. Andy

    “It seems this person wants in WashPo, whether that is a good idea or not.”

    Putting the ad in the Washington Post is a great idea. The Washington Post serves the Washington DC metropolitian area which is the heart of the beast.

  15. paulie Post author

    I liked this idea when we were shooting for a print ad. I don’t see how an online ad will get us any special attention, whereas a large print ad in one of the major papers may have. In other words, I don’t see CNN mentioning the LP’s online ad campaign featuring the Republican Wall of Shame.

    Since a lot of national reporters live in the DC area, there’s a good chance many of them are reading WaPo online. For that matter, many that don’t live in the DC area may be doing so as well. Thus, those media opportunities still exist.

  16. paulie Post author

    @15 I guess the questions some had is whether it reaches the target audience most effectively, since it’s a heavily progressive area and it’s the more progressive paper of the major dailies in town. I would say there are nevertheless many disgruntled Republicans, as well as many journalists (whatever their personal views) among the readers. So, I agree that it’s a great idea.

  17. Bryan

    A one-and-done print ad, even in a major paper, won’t have much of an impact. There are fewer people everyday reading the hard copy papers, and unless there is an online “bonus” for running it in the paper, I don’t think this is the best use of funds.

    The only way a CNN or other major media picks up on it, is if it a “slow news day”. This is a fairly expensive gamble if that is the primary purpose.

    The online ad (depending on particulars) would appear several times on screen. More people will see it, and it would be truly national. For example, everyday I read articles from half a dozen different papers, but have stopped getting any of the local papers in a “hard copy” format.

  18. matt cholko

    Since there is 10k on the table, we should certainly do this and make the best of it. I just don’t feel as strongly about an online ad campaign unless its going to be one of those annoying 21st century pop up ads that covers the page until you close the window. A bunch of normal online display ads is fine, but I don’t see it as having any special attention getting power.

  19. Stop all war, stop all W.A.R. Strike the ROOT!

    W.A.R. Millionaire Republican Against Workers, Pro-Mubarak, Libertarian Party Millionaire Republican W.A.R. of Shame; Libertarian Party Millionaire Republican Wall of Shame; Evil Evil Evil W.A.R. — BarrBarr Black Sheep – Wall of Shame, L.P Shame. You are to blame. You are too lame. Barr/Root LP for Shame. For Shame.

  20. Tom Blanton

    Maybe the LP should consider running an ad calling for George W. Bush to be imprisoned for war crimes and calling for Obama to be imprisoned for obstructing justice. In fact, the ad might suggest that the two petty tyrants should share a cozy prison cell.

  21. Porn Again Christian

    TB The logo for that ad should be

    Stop Living in DE-Nile
    Put ’em on trial…

  22. George Phillies

    If you take the position that you can ignore the rules when you like the results, you should not complain when the other factions in your party ignore the rules because they like the results.

    If the National Committee had been presented with a sensible budget in, say, September, they would have had in place a large advertising appropriation they could have spent on it. Of course, that would require that they be presented with a sensible, budget as seems unlikely to be the case.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    gp, this sounds like you believe the budget on the table is not sensible. Who is IYO responsible for this non-sensible budget?

    Was not your running mate the Treasurer in September? He was having personal/health issues, as I recall. Perhaps no one is responsible, too, just an unfortunate unfolding of facts.

    Other explanations are certainly possible…we’d like to hear yours.

  24. paulie Post author

    No one has yet responded to my suggestion that the proposed expenditure could fall under “convention and events,” since there is no convention and “events” has more than one meaning.

  25. Robert Capozzi

    gp32, do I take it, then, that you blame Hinkle for this budget wrinkle?

  26. paulie Post author

    Great idea! Run the Wall of Shame ad.
    40% (222 votes)
    Great idea! I will donate to help fund the ad.
    4% (24 votes)
    I’m a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
    38% (211 votes)
    I’m not a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
    4% (21 votes)
    Other
    13% (71 votes)
    Total votes: 549

  27. Exhibit "A"

    Here is the letter our “greatest Libertarian thinker” sent to Wes Benedict about the proposed “Republican Wall of Shame
    ‘ ad. He makes it very clear where his loyalties are.

    Wes,
    The biggest news in America BY FAR…
    Is Democratic teachers unions turning Madison,
    Wisconsin into Cairo, Egypt…and Obama supporting
    them while they rape the taxpayers…and Jesse Jackson
    giving speeches to rile them up…and Wisconsin’s GOP
    Governor fighting on behalf of taxpayers and business
    owners like me…and showing incredible bravery while
    his LIFE is in danger…
    And Wisconsin Democratic State Senators going
    into HIDING to avoid a vote that might cost teachers
    unions 5 cents on the dollar…while our country is in
    fiscal ruin.
    And you don’t see any of that?
    You want expensive ad campaign…at this very
    moment all that is going on…attacking the
    GOP…while Democrats and their union goons
    threaten, intimidate and plunder the nation.
    Wow thats some timing Wes!
    This is not how to run a business.
    You have Democrats bankrupting the nation at a
    pace never seen in U.S. history…and supporting government
    employees and teachers unions that are destroying
    our children’s future…and putting White
    House into PARTNERSHIP with American Bar Association
    to sue every business in America…
    And Obama trying to double and triple every tax
    I pay…and take away my home deduction and charitable
    deductions…
    And you have Republican Governor in Wisconsin
    and Republican Gov in New Jersey standing up to
    the govt employee union goons…risking their
    LIVES…and political careers…
    And Republican Gov of Florida turning down
    billions in high speed rail money while Democratic
    Governors beg for it…
    And Republican Governor of Virginia, as well as
    GOP Governors across USA, fighting in court to have
    Obamacare declared unconstitutional…
    While Democrats ask for MORE- in the form of
    single payer healthcare run 100% by Big Brother.
    And you want to waste tens of thousands of dollars
    attacking REPUBLICANS???
    This is insanity.
    Wes, your priorities are all wrong.
    Your gut instincts are all wrong.
    You sound like Obama…who wants to punish the
    taxpayers and job-creators and reward the people who
    produce nothing.
    Here the LP has an obsession with attacking the
    GOP & Tea Parties…who have so much in common
    with us fiscally…who are not our best friends…but are
    certainly our “kissing cousins” who fight alongside us
    on fiscal issues…
    and your goal is to punish and denigrate want to
    punish those who support smaller government… because
    what they ask for is not “small enough”…or because
    they drive us towards the cliff at 90 MPH… and
    you blame them for driving too fast…
    But you give a free pass to those who are literally
    destroying America at 180 MPH?
    But worse…you miss the whole point of how to
    get attention of media and voters.
    Obama is in power…he is the one to attack.
    When Bush was in office…did the LP spend all
    day attacking Democrats? Of course not. Why would
    you? What a waste. You are wasting money and causing every conservative
    and Tea Partier in country that should like us
    at least for our fiscal views…
    To HATE us and resent us.
    This is truly insanity. You are off course.
    Wayne”

  28. Robert Capozzi

    exhibitA, was this a private correspondence? How did you get it, then?

    Assuming this is not a fabrication, I kind of agree with “Root.” If we want to attract disenfranchised, L-leaning Rs, this broadside is likely to backfire. Yes, some shame-ridden Rs might resonate with this message, but for the most part this is a wedge that is unlikely to peel off many Rs who might otherwise be L.

    Drawing a distinction is one thing. Attacking only the Rs seems tone deaf to me, too.

    What if the approach were more like:

    Embarrassed to be a Republican?
    Feeling guilty about being a Democrat?
    You just might be a Libertarian!

    Rather than IDing individuals, esp. R prospective prez candidates, might it not work better to identify failed policies that the Rs and Ds have spearheaded in recent years? (If it must be personal, Bush and Obama seem better targets for “shame.”)

    Or we might look at some of Brian Holtz’s work in this regard.

  29. George Phillies

    @34

    I am not sure what *you* mean by the *budget wrinkle*.

    However, he is the CEO.

    On the other hand our bylaws and corporate financial rules — LNC is a corporation with a board of directors — come from our members, antifraud principles, etc etc etc.

  30. George Phillies

    @34 If you meant @34, presentation of the budget is assigned to the executive committee, and chairing the executive committee is assigned to the chair.

  31. Robert Capozzi

    gp38, “wrinkle” means both “late” and that a special purpose project is being considered. “Wrinkles” would have been the better word.

    I’d be surprised if the budget were never late before, especially in this case considering a key player — the past Treasurer — was not engaged in the process. That seems abundantly forgivable. If you believe a special-purpose fund and project is fiduciary “fraud,” I can’t say I agree, at least on its face. Improper, perhaps. If you think it’s ideological fraud because you object to the global warming reference and the platform doesn’t specify a global warming denial stance, again, I don’t see it as “fraud” but I agree that it’s improper.

    This particular project seems ill conceived to me, and I do not support it. I just won’t get into the fiduciary technicalities, since I find them a ridiculous energy black hole. I do see no evidence that the project has such upside potential that would cause me to override a prohibition on special projects that might be read into the bylaws. Not only is the project tonally and politically ill conceived IMO, even if I thought the concept was a good one from a marketing standpoint, the dollars being considered are simply not substantial enough reel in disgruntled Rs, Ds or Is.

  32. Robert Capozzi

    make that:

    …not substantial enough to reel in a significant number of disgruntled Rs, Ds or Is.

  33. Michael H. Wilson

    re Exhibit “A” @ 36 if this letter is authentic the use of the word rape to describe the situation in the phrase “and Obama supporting
    them while they rape the taxpayers”
    shows a serious lack of sensitivity towards those who have suffered through sexual crimes of this nature.

    Writers who use the word rape need to understand the magnitude of sexual crimes and apparently the writer of this line does not.

  34. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 36 “and take away my home deduction”.

    The deduction of interest on home mortgages should be repealed and at the same time the rates should be lowered. This particular deduction does nothing but distort the housing market and there is plenty of evidence to support that.

  35. Steven Wilson

    Wayne is protecting his business empire. If the Lp keeps bashing the elephant, fox news will dump on Wayne…on air…to humiliate him.

    Payback in politics must be in public view.

    Every day the Lp keeps Root, they get closer to elephant. Root is a republican. The viewers here and the members on the LNC don’t see it.

  36. paulie Post author

    If we want to attract disenfranchised, L-leaning Rs, this broadside is likely to backfire. Yes, some shame-ridden Rs might resonate with this message, but for the most part this is a wedge that is unlikely to peel off many Rs who might otherwise be L.

    I don’t see it that way. It’s pointing out just how poorly the leadership of their party is delivering what they ostensibly want by voting for/working for/donating to them. Suppose you were trying to increase market share for your …say, coffee….and you had information that the leading brand had virtually no caffeine in it and was causing people to fall asleep on the job. Or say you were trying to market a fast food restaurant, and the leading chain had 30 minute average wait times for food. You’d want to point that out so as to take away some of their customers.

    Drawing a distinction is one thing. Attacking only the Rs seems tone deaf to me, too.

    What if the approach were more like:

    Embarrassed to be a Republican?
    Feeling guilty about being a Democrat?
    You just might be a Libertarian!

    Back up to how this came to be. The LP was at CPAC, which is one sided, yes, but apparently we can’t even get invited to similar progressive events. The Wall of Shame made a lot of sense at that event. It worked well. It pointed out to small government conservatives that the Republican Party is not delivering small government at all in a dramatic way. People responded. One person offered $10,000 to have that message broadcast elsewhere. He/she had a specific message that this person wanted to see in a specific place, and was willing to pay for it. Some other people chipped in smaller amounts. None of them said “come up with a balanced ad” or “place it wherever you want.” They had a specific message that they wanted to place in a specific medium.

    Could other people pay to have other messages put in other places? Yes, absolutely, I would love to see the Democrats get their noses rubbed in the fact that Obama is a warmonger, transgresses civil liberties and bails out Wall Street fat cats with taxpayer money. I would love it if someone contributed 10k to have that message put out on behalf of the LP. Maybe Wayne can pitch in 10k to have that done. I don’t have 10k so all I can do is wish.

    In the meantime, we do have money that was contributed to put out a specific message, which we should do. That money would not have made its way to the LP otherwise, so it can only help. Maybe it will strike the imagination of other readers and we will get more money to have that same message, or other messages, advertised in more places. Maybe not. It’s certainly worth a try.

    Rather than IDing individuals, esp. R prospective prez candidates, might it not work better to identify failed policies that the Rs and Ds have spearheaded in recent years? (If it must be personal, Bush and Obama seem better targets for “shame.”)

    Again – this is the message that inspired someone to write a 10k check. Not any other.

    I think this message works, and grabs people attention, more than the others you are talking about.

    But yes, i would love to see something similar done to the Democrats.

    What I find particularly insane is the idea that we can’t do any advertising, even when we have willing donors specifically for that advertising that would not support the other budget items. That seems like a suicidal approach to me. I’m amazed that such an argument can be made seriously in a political organization that needs to grow.

    Forget what the message is for a moment, and think about that. No advertising, really? What if 40 donors all came forward with 25k each? Just return the money? Say no thanks, we don’t want it?

  37. paulie Post author

    If you believe a special-purpose fund and project is fiduciary “fraud,” I can’t say I agree, at least on its face.

    If the budget can’t be adjusted to deal with things that come up, like donors who want to fund specific projects, whatever rules are creating such a roadblock should be changed ASAP. That is a monumentally stupid approach. I can’t think of any business that could survive if it were hamstrung from responding to quickly arising opportunities. Someone else would just jump in and leave them in the dust.

    If you think it’s ideological fraud because you object to the global warming reference and the platform doesn’t specify a global warming denial stance, again, I don’t see it as “fraud” but I agree that it’s improper.

    We’ve been over this. It’s not about whether Gingrich believes there is global warming caused by humans or not, it’s about him wanting to massively regulate the economy because he believes there is. Libertarians can disagree about the scientific issues, but not about having the government massively involved in the economy. That is what Gingrich is being shamed for, and rightly so.

    This particular project seems ill conceived to me, and I do not support it.

    It seems well conceived to me, but I didn’t donate to it either. I do support it with my words on here. What’s more important is not whether non-donors support it or not, but the fact that willing donors did support it with actual contributions. Not taking advantage of that is completely insane.

    I do see no evidence that the project has such upside potential that would cause me to override a prohibition on special projects that might be read into the bylaws.

    I’m sorry, I don’t follow. You want to return 15k+ in contributions because you, as a non-donor, don’t see the upside potential that other people do see, including one person who contributed 10k of their own money? And in the process, tacitly agree to a rule that stops the party from doing any advertising for anything with any message that anyone might contribute their own money to (that would not be available to the LP at all otherwise)? Wow….talk about collateral damage.

    Not only is the project tonally and politically ill conceived IMO, even if I thought the concept was a good one from a marketing standpoint, the dollars being considered are simply not substantial enough reel in disgruntled Rs, Ds or Is.

    I think it’s tonally and politically awesome, and as for the dollars – it’s commonplace for any campaign to start out small. Maybe other people will see the message, like it, and contribute substantially larger sums to have it shown in more places. Maybe not, In the meantime, returning the donations seems….”contra-indicated”….and that’s putting it more than mildly.

  38. paulie Post author

    …not substantial enough to reel in a significant number of disgruntled Rs, Ds or Is.

    Substantial by what measuring stick? Even assuming no further contributions to expand the project – not necessarily a correct assumption – it could still bring in, say, hundreds of LP members. I know you don’t consider that to be a substantial number, but given how small the LP is, it is.

    It could lead to free media and lots of other things. No way to tell how something can grow.

    But even if it doesn’t, what are we comparing it to? The alternative is not to allocate 15k to something else, it’s to return the 15k to the donors, thereby telling them that the LP is monumentally inept and encouraging all likely future donors, to this or other projects, to take their money elsewhere.

    If the LP is not willing to take on the competition…it’s worthless.

    Maybe next month or next year the LP could be seen with an “Obama supports billionaire bailouts, endless war and torture (etc)” sign, and donors would want to contribute a million dollars. Then they’ll see what happened here and say, but, we’ll just start a different organization to broadcast that message, because the LP can’t do it.

    Maybe someone with some money will like what the LP does about a drug policy issue, or some other single subject. Can’t fund an ad campaign about that either, it’s not in the budget.

    How substantial does it have to be before we say yes, and do we just expect substantial to just fall out of the sky at us with no smaller precedent? How often does that happen? 10k is substantial for the LP right now. If we don’t take 10k now, can we take 100k or 1 million later, and how likely is that to happen?

  39. paulie Post author

    re Exhibit “A” @ 36 if this letter is authentic the use of the word rape to describe the situation in the phrase “and Obama supporting
    them while they rape the taxpayers”shows a serious lack of sensitivity towards those who have suffered through sexual crimes of this nature.

    Writers who use the word rape need to understand the magnitude of sexual crimes and apparently the writer of this line does not.

    Robbed would be more technically accurate than raped, but it’s a common rhetorical flourish.

  40. Robert Capozzi

    p, I support political opportunism that advances the agenda of liberty. We disagree about the Wall of Shame generally, and anecdotal reports from CPACers are a datapoint, but not necessarily actionable, and CERTAINLY not an imperative.

    But, OK, someone offers $10K for the project, which no one disagrees is unlikely to be enough to be an effective campaign. As a general matter, I don’t think that a generous offer should necessarily be acted on. I might first attempt to steer the donor to more fruitful efforts. Of course, I’m biased, as I give the Wall of Shame a C-. Were it a A+, I might have a different take.

  41. paulie Post author

    Reposted from another thread:

    Wayne Root: voters want a candidate who believes in a few simple concepts:

    Smaller government
    Lower taxes
    More economic freedom
    Lower entitlements
    Fewer govt employees, who are paid lower compensation
    And they want a candidate who appears to be a patriot who loves America- not a hater or blamer.


    John Jay: If you put your list in front of most people and said ?what Party believes this??, the answer would be the Republican Party.

    So why be a Libertarian?


    Paulie: While I personally find our peace and civil liberties positions important (they are what drew me to the LP, and I believe there are millions of young people out there in the same general position and viewpoint that I had in the early 90s when I switched from Democrat to Libertarian….as evidenced by what I saw with the Ron Paul campaign in 2008 and my extensive OPH polling on college campuses in the late 1990s and early 2000s), I think there’s also a lot of room in the LP for people who are mad at the Republican Party for failing to deliver on those issues on Wayne’s list.

    I think the “Republican Wall of Shame” ad campaign makes that point to those people in a dramatic and understandable fashion.

    Therefore, I’m galled that apparently many of the very same people who want to target those disgruntled Republican voters who see their party failing to deliver on promises of smaller government object to that ad.

    See the discussion at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/03/republican-wall-of-shame-ad-updates/

    We can’t expect those people to come over to the LP if we don’t point out to them that the Republican Party is failing to deliver what they want from it.

    Likewise, I believe there are a lot of Democratic Party supporters who need to hear the message that Obama supports endless wars, torture, indefinite detentions without trial, domestic espionage, DEA raids of medical marijuana clinics that are legal under state laws, taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street billionaire fat cats with billions and even trillions of dollars taken from hard working “Main Street” taxpayers, and much more of what they would call the Bush Republican agenda.

    There are millions of people who support both major parties who need to hear the message that their parties are not delivering the things they want, if those things are smaller government, peace and civil liberties.

    Does the LP have what it takes to give those people that message?

    If we don’t point out to them that their current parties are failing them, who will?

  42. paulie Post author

    As a general matter, I don’t think that a generous offer should necessarily be acted on. I might first attempt to steer the donor to more fruitful efforts.

    First of all who determines what is fruitful? This person saw something the LP was doing and wanted more of it. How often does that happen to the tune of even 10k?

    Second, maybe the only reason this person wants to donate to the LP is to spread this specific message. Encouraging someone in that category to donate to a “more fruitful effort” would almost certainly cause the LP to lose this and all possibility of future donations from that person. Which, we don’t know, could be a lot?

    But hey, I guess we here are smarter and know about which messages connect with people than the people those messages connect with who are willing to pay for those messages to connect with more people.

    Finally, supposing that you did convince someone to contribute to what you think is a more fruitful effort. Well, under the interpretation of the rules that Dr. Phillies and Mr. Starr propose, you can’t do that either. You just have to tell them to keep their money because there’s no advertising item in the LNC budget. Does that make any sense to you?

  43. Robert Capozzi

    p, no, I’m OK with special-purpose projects as a general proposition, just not this one.

    It’s not a matter of “smarter” — it’s a matter of judgment. It’s simply my judgment that the donor really liked that (IMO, ill conceived) message, and wanted to transmit that message more widely. That’s cool, but there are costs to managing such a thing beyond the direct costs. Staff time, for one.

    So, because one donor liked that message, now we have staff being used for this projecdt when IMO they have more productive opportunities over this one. Opportunity costs are real costs in that sense.

    If was a winning message, I might have a different view. My tigerblood sez: nope, not winning. Thanks but no thanks, Mr./Ms. Donor…consider this project, or that, or that.

  44. paulie Post author

    OK, we have a difference of opinion. Not much to say except what I said already.

    I think it’s a great message (see my comments on previous threads:

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/libertarians-at-cpac-present-republican-wall-of-shame/

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/libertarian-party-monday-message-video-from-cpac-2011/

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/03/libertarian-party-shall-we-spend-30k-for-republican-wall-of-shame-ad/

    And this one. )

    But even more important than this particular message is the general idea that we would return 15k that has already been raised because it is allegedly not in the budget.

    That to me would send a terrible message not just to this, but all future possible donors.

    If the LNC does that, I think many people would justifiably come to the conclusion that it’s not worth supporting a party that would do that.

    As I said previously:

    There are millions of people who support both major parties who need to hear the message that their parties are not delivering the things they want, if those things are smaller government, peace and civil liberties.

    Does the LP have what it takes to give those people that message?

    If we don?t point out to them that their current parties are failing them, who will?

    That was not a rhetorical question, BTW. It’s a real question that a lot of real people will want the answer to if this money is returned.

    I suspect an answer will be found one way or the other, and the only real question is whether the LP will be that answer.

  45. paulie Post author

    Current poll numbers at LP.org:

    Great idea! Run the Wall of Shame ad.
    43% (289 votes)
    Great idea! I will donate to help fund the ad.
    4% (29 votes)
    I’m a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
    37% (246 votes)
    I’m not a Libertarian, and you should not run this ad. Return the donor’s $10,000.
    4% (30 votes)
    Other
    12% (79 votes)
    Total votes: 673

  46. George Phillies

    No, Paulie, ignoring the bylaws, because this time you like the results, is a bad idea, because next time we ignore the bylaws you may not like the results, and the bylaws will as a practical matter have been done away with.

    If you tear away all walls of legality, what is to protect you when the howling winds of Satan Merkatrig appears at your doorstep? — That’s what I recall of an old and correct motion picture on the English monarchical tyrants.

    The LNC should have dealt honestly with the potential donor noting thet they did not yet have an ad budget, and would need some board action to get one.

  47. paulie Post author

    I stand by my interpretation that ads are in fact promotional items, and also that they fit at least one dictionary definition of events.

    Aside from that, the LP needs some mechanism to accept and put to use unforeseen donations that go outside the budget.

    Not being a bylaws or budget expert, I’ll leave it to those who are better versed in those things to figure out the mechanics of how that should be done. But it needs to be done – otherwise the party quickly becomes too burdened with red tape to ever make itself relevant in the quickly changing world of politics.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    p53: Does the LP have what it takes to give those people that message?

    me: Potentially, yes. Is this the vehicle that will reach them, either in form or content? IMO, no. My starkest criticism is it’s poorly conceived and likely ineffectual.

    Advancing liberty IS a ripe idea. In all candor, atomistic NAP-solutism is not ripe. I believe my recurring theme is on point, since I am VERY interested in seeing the LP become an effective force to advance liberty, but that this effort is another example of Ls being our own worst enemy. Putting the LP in the global climate change denial camp marginalizes us from broad swathes of the thoughtful. Sending an anti-R message in the age of Obama seems tin-eared. Using Limbaugh-like demonization tactics is a game I’d suggest we cannot win.

    We can and should do better.

  49. paulie Post author

    Is this the vehicle that will reach them, either in form or content? IMO, no.

    IMO, yes. It struck a chord at CPAC (see the video above) and it struck a chord with a donor – mostly likely someone who was not interested in considering other L P projects. So, clearly it’s reaching some people and being effective, even if you are not one of those people.

    It seems most people on the LNC that don’t like it, don’t like not because it isn’t effective, but because it *is* effective. If it didn’t ruffle some Republican feathers, no one would be talking about it.

    , atomistic NAP-solutism is not ripe.

    There’s no NAP-solutism, atomistic or otherwise, in the ad. It simply and effectively points out to people who have been voting Republican to get smaller government that they have been choosing a vehicle with remarkably poor performance on that count, and that another vehicle exists which might better suit their goals.

    Putting the LP in the global climate change denial camp marginalizes us from broad swathes of the thoughtful.

    Nothing in the ad says we as a party have an opinion about climate change issues, other than the fact that we don’t believe that government should get massively involved in the economy to allegedly fix the problem. Libertarians can and do disagree in good conscience about whether there is a problem of anthropogenic global warming, and nothing in the ad says otherwise.

    Sending an anti-R message in the age of Obama seems tin-eared.

    Republicans have a majority in Congress, a majority of state houses and governorships, and the majority of votes and donations from people who think they are for smaller government. Addressing that is absolutely appropriate.

    Using Limbaugh-like demonization tactics is a game I’d suggest we cannot win.

    No demonization, we’re just pointing out what Republican members of Congress, Governors and Republican Presidents have done with the power that many people who believed they were voting for smaller government gave them.

  50. Robert Capozzi

    p58: There’s no NAP-solutism, atomistic or otherwise, in the ad. It simply and effectively points out to people who have been voting Republican to get smaller government that they have been choosing a vehicle with remarkably poor performance on that count, and that another vehicle exists which might better suit their goals.

    me: Didn’t say there is. You asked: “Does the LP have what it takes to give those people that message?” That’s a broader question, and I happen to believe atomistic NAP-solutism — which is a predominant strain in the LP thought, holds us back from giving “those people that message.” Taking swipes at hypocritical R candidates/leaders is easy. Developing and marketing a case for more liberty that resonates with a broad cross-section of the political landscape is not easy, especially with NAP-solutist standards. Going negative — they’re shameful! — seems to be the game, but the game IMO can only be won at a more aspirational level, not in the muck.

  51. Porn Again Christian

    Taking swipes at hypocritical R candidates/leaders is easy.

    Good idea. Let’s do it.

    We’ll get them and the Democrats are next!

  52. George Phillies

    “Nothing in the ad says we as a party have an opinion about climate change issues, other than the fact that we don’t believe that government should get massively involved in the economy to allegedly fix the problem. ”

    Hardly. You bright the topic up. Gingrich says not a word about governmental solutions in the quote. You could instead have brought up for Gingrich “Speaks so loudly about preserving traditional marriage…that he’s done it three times…so far.

  53. paulie Post author

    When a big government politician like Gingrich uses the word “we,” you better believe he means the government.

  54. paulie Post author

    He might have, but he used the royal we, and I don’t believe there’s even a remote chance he meant anything other than government.

    That’s always what establishment big government politicians mean when they say “we.” Every time.

    Every crisis is an opportunity as far as they are concerned, meaning an opportunity to expand the size, scope and power of government.

  55. Steven Wilson

    The LNC and their rules and bylaws make them look like fools. To follow rules instead of the passions of the people are how things end up gone.

    Just another reason to ignore the leadership that forgot to lead.

  56. Pingback: Republican Wall of Shame is up | Independent Political Report

  57. Pingback: Libertarian Party Monday Message: Republican Wall of Shame ad has been placed in Washington Post online | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

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