New York, NY, September 16, 2011. Carl Person, Candidate for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President, made the following statement about the issue of any Republicans or Democrats seeking to capture the Libertarian Party nomination for President:
Every four years the Libertarian Party is provided an opportunity to nominate for President a prominent politician from the Republican or Democratic Party who is unable to obtain the nomination of his/her own party. There are a few problems arising as a result.
In the past, when the Libertarian Party has taken that route, there has been no appreciable increase in Libertarian Party votes, so that the main (or whole) purpose in nominating such candidate failed. Here are the figures:
2008, Bob Barr, former Congressman, 523,686 votes, 0.4% of total votes cast
2004, Michael Badnarick, former radio talk show host, 397,265 votes, .32% of total votes cast
2000, Harry Browne, investment adviser and book author, 384,431 votes, 0.36% of total votes cast
1996, Harry Browne, investment adviser and book author, 485,759 votes, 0.50% of total votes cast
1992, Andre Marrou, LP member of Alaska House and LP VP candidate 1988, 290,087 votes, 0.28% of total votes cast
1988, Ron Paul, Libertarian, Republican Congressman, 431,750 votes, 0.47% of total votes cast
In contrast, when I ran for NYS Attorney General on the Libertarian Party line in November, 2010, I came in third and received 36,488 votes out of the 2,478,659 votes cast for NYS Attorney General (more than any prior Libertarian candidate for the same office), or 1.5% of the total votes cast, and 3 times as much in percentage as Bob Barr got (nationally) in 2008. I did this with absolutely no major media coverage of my candidacy, in contrast to Bob Barr who did get some major media attention. My cost per vote was 3 cents. In this same election, Mayor Michael Bloomberg on his reelection campaign spent $174.00/vote ($102 million for 5,850,000 votes). In other words, Bloomberg spent 5,739 times more per received vote than I did in the last election.
The number of votes for the Libertarian Party candidate during these elections ran from 523,686 down to 290,087, for a difference between the two extremes of only 230,000 votes. This should be compared to the prospects for obtaining a million or two votes by reason of the Libertarian Party’s solution for the job-creation issue. Clearly the issue should prevail over a named candidate. In total number of votes, Ron Paul placed only 3rd of 6, although 2nd of 6 as to percentage of votes cast.
Also, any Republican or Democrat who has risen to a high level of success in the Republican or Democratic Party is unable today to demonstrate that his/her activities as a Republican or Democrat was able to anticipate or deal with the nation’s current economic problems, and the Libertarian Party is going to be stuck with a candidate having backed a failed economic policy.
Worse than this, any such Republican or Democrat is today unaware of what needs to be done to get the economy going again. Tax credits to create jobs doesn’t work. Cutting taxes (although desirable) doesn’t solve the jobs problem. The present debating Republican candidates for President (setting aside Ron Paul, because he had no chance in the debate to explain his views) have shown that they have no clue on how to get small business to create jobs, even though everyone (including President Obama) knows that the only way to obtain a net increase in permanent jobs is through small business. President Obama demonstrated during his American Jobs Act speech on September 8th that he and his advisors do not have any plans for creation of new jobs by small business. The Libertarian Party should not be appointing an economic loser (Republican or Democrat) to head up the party.
The Libertarian Party’s strength, as I see it, is that it is able to reach out and obtain ideas from individuals outside of the Republican and Democratic Parties, and offer some of them in the presidential campaign as a replacement for the failed policies. We in the Libertarian Party should be seeking new solutions for the nation’s number one problem, the economy and jobs, and new candidates not associated with the failed policies.
We in the Libertarian Party have an economic program for the creation of millions of jobs, through what I have been advocating, which is the elimination of regulatory obstacles prohibiting small businesses from creating tens of millions of new, high-paying jobs, and we shouldn’t abandon this great opportunity to let voters see a third party alternative with a credible jobs policy. The Libertarian Party can create substantial gains for itself by pushing a workable solution when the Republicans and Democrats have none. The 3 regulatory obstacles to eliminate are: (i) laws prohibiting small business from raising capital through publicity and advertising (which is illegal under the Securities Act of 1933); (ii) payroll withholding, reporting and insurance
requirements as to the first three employees of any business (“The 1st 3 Are Free”), sort of like a headstart program, so that small businesses can get going in their business with up to 3 employees (treated as independent contractors) before having to start complying with the onerous payroll rules applicable to giant corporations; and (iii) elimination of state laws requiring licensing applications, reviews, delays and a year of uncertainty before small business is able to offer multi-skill vocational training programs needed to train people to work for small business (something which increasingly the colleges and community colleges are unable to do).
The Libertarian Party should not destroy its advantage and undermine its purpose by putting a recognized name on the ballot. It hasn’t worked before and would fail once again. The recognition for us already exists in the ISSUE – which is jobs, jobs, jobs. We are the party of jobs, and the others are not. We shouldn’t destroy this difference. With this difference (of being able to create jobs) we can attract many millions of voters. With a recognized name on the ballot we’ll get the usual 500,000 or so votes.
As to Ron Paul, if he sought the Libertarian Party nomination, the Libertarian Party would undoubtedly give it to him immediately, by acclaim, and perhaps without a formal convention, if this were possible to organize. To a great extent the Libertarian Party is the party of Ron Paul and he would probably be able to get the Libertarian Party nomination if he wanted it. Presently, from what I understand, Ron Paul does not want or seek the Libertarian Party nomination. Ron Paul, as everyone knows, is trying to obtain the Republican nomination. Other issues for the Libertarian Party arise, which I’m not addressing, if he should get the Republican nomination AND if he should not get the Republican nomination.
What I do address, however, is the issue of Gary Johnson, former Republican Governor of New Mexico, who is currently seeking the Republican nomination for President. Gary Johnson was never the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate, unlike Ron Paul, and the Libertarian Party has no significant Gary Johnson wing, unlike Ron Paul. At best, it seems to me, Gary Johnson is a carpetbagger and should not be taken seriously as a candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination.
As of September 11, 2011, there were 210 persons who had filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election
Commission as candidates for President, including 3 Libertarians: Roger V. Gary (Libertarian, filed 5/16/11), Carl E. Person (Libertarian, filed 6/6/11), Roger Lee Wrights (Libertarian, filed 6/7/11), and then there are Ron Paul (Republican, filed 3/12/11, amended 5/13/11), Gary Earl Johnson (Republican, filed 5/2/11).
The Committee to Recruit Gary Johnson, with an address in Houston, Texas (the same city as candidates Wrights and
Gary) mailed a letter on September 7, 2011 to each of the persons who attended the Libertarian Party convention in 2008 and 2010 (including me) asking whether they are interested in supporting him as the Libertarian Party nominee for President. For the reasons set forth above, everyone should say “No.” His Governorship of New Mexico included the suppression of small business through his alliance with higher education, the people who obtain the federal student loan money, which has caused the economy to decline in New Mexico as well as elsewhere in the United States because of failure to permit competition in the field of post-secondary vocational education. The New Mexico Higher Education Department regulates post-secondary vocational training programs and as a result of this regulation there isn’t a single program in New Mexico to train people to go to work for small business. Gary Johnson needs to take full credit for that, and can hardly be the candidate for creation of jobs by small business.
In summary, I believe it would be a mistake for the Libertarian Party and the country to nominate Gary Johnson as its candidate for President 2012. We need someone with new ideas for solving the nation’s serious economic problems.