In the following video, current Libertarian Vice Chair Mark Rutherford announces his candidacy for chair of the LP:
Rutherford’s campaign platform appears to have three parts: 1) get more Libertarian-minded people elected to office; 2) reorganize the party infrastructure from top to bottom to transform it into a modern political party; 3) do a better job of reaching out to voters.
As IPR previously reported, Rutherford joins Oregon LP chair Wes Wagner as the only announced candidates for the chair’s race. Other rumored or potential candidates include current LNC chair Mark Hinkle, LNC member Kevin Knedler, former Massachusetts LP chair George Phillies, and former LNC chair candidate Ernest Hancock. The LNC will choose its next chair at its May convention.
[Update] According to Chuck Moulton in comments, Mark Hinkle has announced for reelection. This makes three announced candidates: Hinkle, Rutherford, and Wagner.
[Update 2] In comments, Kevin Knedler confirms that “I will NOT be running for LNC chair at this time.”
@57-58 Never heard of that happening.
@57 Can you actually name a case when this occurred? Cases in which Hinkle had a conflict of interest or one of those other parliamentary issues do not count.
Or or you ‘just hearing’?
It is my understanding, that during LNC meetings, when the issues became too complicated, Hinkle would on many occasions hand the gavel over to Rutherford.
Yeah, it sounded overgeneralized to me.
Hancock himself does all those things with the Freedom’s Phoenix workshop, his radio show, his business(es), etc., among many other people.
@53 “Hardcore Radicals don’t know how to build an organization, meet deadlines, accept some responsibility to comply with laws, or work with a team. Hancock would be a disaster on the LNC.”
At first I thought there was a non-sequitur. Then I realized that “…don’t know how to build an organization, meet deadlines, accept some responsibility to comply with laws, or work with a team…” was a description of the current LNC, not of hardcore radicals, and that “Hancock would be a disaster on the LNC.” was a description of Ernie describing what was not under the clothes that the Emperor was not wearing.
@54 antiwar.com proves that the claim is wrong.
No exceptions to this rule?
Hardcore Radicals don’t know how to build an organization, meet deadlines, accept some responsibility to comply with laws, or work with a team. Hancock would be a disaster on the LNC.
Rutherford wins in the first round.
Ernest Hancock for chair! Woot-woot!
http://ernesthancock.org/
Worcester Coffee Party? New Bedford Heroin Party? So many parties, so little time…
You were not high enough. A few more caps, and the paperwork would file itself 🙂
RC @47 – I would rather not answer that question at this time.
@44,
I did briefly consider forming the The Candidate Is Too Damn High Party and running for president on the platform of a Citizens’ Psilocybin Dividend, but I was simply in no condition to file the paperwork.
dwp, OK, if the LP agrees to your demands to move HQ far away from the DC swamps, would you agree to move to dissolve the BTP?
bh, Freudian slip there at the end of the clip. Unconscious self-loathing ‘splains a lot.
@Holtz – I’m quite amused at your ability to avoid discussing the merits of my proposal that the LP HQ:
1) move OUT of the Watergate complex, AND
2) move the LP headquarters INTO a location with much cheaper rent, preferably NOT in/near D.C.
What if the candidate put forth by that big tent does not adequately support “more freedom”?
The prospective 2012 LP nominees are so bad that you want to put Tiffany Briscoe on the ballot next to whoever the LP nominates?
Really?
Tom, if you want to get this life-as-performance-art thing right, your next move should have been not to reject electoral politics, but to fork a splinter party from the BTP.
Tom, you wrote @38 “why should I vote for your version rather than for mine?” My reply was that the LP’s version of “Free” is not exactly my version. It’s just close enough.
Sure, self-described freedom lovers could hypothetically disagree so much about “freedom” as to find it impossible to work together in the same party. But if anarchists and minarchists and paleolibs and cosmolibs and geolibs and econlibs can work together in the LP, then the fault, dear freedom-lover, lies not in our freedom party, but in ourselves.
Since this started with me zinging Darryl about advising the LP even as he runs candidates against it, let’s ground this in reality. I’d like to know what the difference/X is for Darryl that justifies a lack of unity among those who favor “reducing the size, scope and power of government”.
It surely can’t be the reason stated at the BTP’s founding in 2006: the LP “takes no positions on several frontline issues facing the American electorate — specifically, foreign and military policy and internal security”. If there really was such a problem, it got fixed in 2008. But even in 2006, the LP platform said: “American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense — against attack from abroad — of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere. The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.”
@BH “I just say that people who want more freedom should set aside their differences and work within the biggest more-freedom tent ”
What if the candidate put forth by that big tent does not adequately support “more freedom”?
As far as running candidates against the LP – the BTP has run exactly ONE candidate against an LP candidate. That being 2008 Presidential nominee Charles Jay. Aside from the 2012 presidential slate (which may or may not actually obtain any ballot access); I believe there has only been one* other BTP nominee. In 2008, I was a write-in candidate for US Senate in Alabama – there was NOT an LP candidate. The BTP endorsed numerous LP candidates in 2008 & 2010.
* I’m not sure whether or not to count Tom Knapp’s 2008 congressional campaign s an LP candidate as also being a BTP nominee – though he was endorsed by the National Committee.
BTP-LA Chair Randall Todd Hayes in 2010 was the LP nominee for US Senate – as well as being endorsed by the affiliate BTP.
BH@39,
Where do you believe that you find a descriptor, by me, of your definition of “free?” I tried to avoid using any, other than hypothesizing that we might define it differently.
“I just say that people who want more freedom should set aside their differences”
The problem with that is that those differences may come down to:
1) You think that X implies more freedom, I think it implies less; and
2) I value the differences you’re asking me to set aside more highly than I value the prospective gains from working with you, and vice versa.
@ # 1.
You would be correct. I am NOT running for LNC Chair at this time. Being chair of the 4th largest affiliate is enough work. Thank you.
Heck, Tom, even I define “free” differently than you claim “I” do, because I’m a geolibertarian who is willing to work for more freedom within the still-too-allodial LP. So it’s not “my tent” that I’m advocating freedom-lovers should unite under. I’m just saying that everybody who wants to move America upward on the Nolan Chart would be smart to consolidate their efforts, for the nine reasons I gave in the article I linked to.
(And if you say that “upward on the Nolan Chart” is imprecise, feel free to define it as “reducing the size, scope and power of government” — the words you chiseled into the BTP platform.)
I’ve never said anybody “owes the LP their support”. I just say that people who want more freedom should set aside their differences and work within the biggest more-freedom tent until they decide it is immune to repair and needs to be destroyed and replaced.
BH@34,
That’s non-responsive.
If I define “free” differently than you do, why should I vote for your version rather than for mine?
And if I agree with you on “free,” why is it that it’s me who should fold up my tent and come into yours, rather than vice versa?
Nobody owes the LP their support. It has to earn that support, and the judge of whether or not it has is the person expected to provide it.
Chuck Moulton @ 2:
Regarding the building fund, the vote against purchasing the office at 1428 Duke Street in Alexandria did not throw “$250,000 down the drain” and did not cause “$250,000 in targeted donations to be returned to donors and soured future fundraising from those donors”. Donors to the building fund were given the option of getting their money back or transferring it to the LP’s general fund to be used for other purposes or leaving it in the restricted building fund for a future office purchase. When I recently checked, the restricted building fund still contained over $143 thousand dollars, which is about 95% of the money which was donated to it. That’s an extremely high retention rate. And while it’s hard to read the minds of donors, that high retention rate certainly does not provide evidence that they’ve been soured on future fundraising.
It’s true that there were a handful of individuals who had made some very large pledges towards the building fund, contingent on the consumation of the 1428 Duke Street purchase. When the purchase motion was defeated, they withdrew their pledges rather than leave them hanging for another year or three when the current lease will run out and another attempt can be made to purchase a building. However, that doesn’t mean they won’t make new pledges or contributions when the next opportunity arises. Knowing the individuals, I think there’s an excellent chance that they will.
So while you may be disappointed that a purchase wasn’t completed right now, it’s a far cry from the donor disaster you describe.
A senate of state chairs?
Speaking as a state chair, I say, no thank you. I have enough on my plate.
This is why I go to national conventions to vote on LNC members and officers. And a committee of as many as 51 members (remember D.C.) is not really a good idea, IMHO.
LSLA already exists. If it raises and spends less than the LNC, you could try working on changing that.
Tom, you can take the “freedom” part of “pro-freedom” @31 to be defined by the Libertarian Party Statement of Principles.
@32, my complaint is not the usual Republican one, which says we should vote Right instead of Free to avoid moving further Left. Rather, my complaint is that it’s a waste to have multiple ballot lines for Free. It’s not about losing, it’s about signal vs. noise.
There is no Cosa Nostra, but for 110% of your revenues and assets I can be persuaded to make a pitch to my mother’s cousin Igor B. (currently semi-retired down in Florida) that he should take over your operations. He’s a man who, as we say in the ex-soviet community, can get things done that other people can’t. I would add that he knows how to raise the roof, as it were. Or as some might put it “fuggedaboutit” or the Russian version of same, “poshol.”
That side of my family is in the Strong Siberian Mustard business, which is to some people as olive oil is to others.
@29 I occasionally hear this complaint from Republicans. Why are you stealing our votes and causing us to lose? And my answer is … If you don’t like losing, just stop running candidates.
With their Presidential slate over the past year, I might add ‘If you want to start winning, try running candidates who are recognized by the voters as being, for example, in their right minds.’
BH@29,
“My problem is when libertarians work to fracture the ballot presence and electoral results of what should be the unified pro-freedom vote.”
Feel free to explain why everyone “should” “unify” under your definition of “pro-freedom” rather than their own.
Mark Rutherford or whoever the next Chair is should work on updating the Party website. This should be a campaign issue. For example there is not much information about the LP Presidential nominating convention. What day is the nominee going to be selected? When is the Presidential debate going to take place? Who are the speakers?
And the convention is only three months away. This has to be changed.
By the way if anyone knows what day (Friday, Saturday, or Sunday) is the Presidential candidate going to be nominated?
Why would any Libertarian assign different weight to the party-administration advice of 1) someone who is committed wholeheartedly to the LP vs. 2) someone who chairs a party that runs candidates against the LP’s?
File that one under “questions that answer themselves”.
I have no problem with libertarians working to make other parties more libertarian. I don’t even have a problem with libertarians promoting “parties” (like the Pirate and Free Earth parties) that advocate for particular libertarian positions without really competing for ballot access or votes. My problem is when libertarians work to fracture the ballot presence and electoral results of what should be the unified pro-freedom vote.
@24 – allow me to repeat myself:
If you want to discuss the validity of my suggestion, I welcome such discussion. Otherwise, I could just as easily ask why anyone would take your opinion on any issue!
@26 Why, thank you!
Oh to be like other groups where the national chair is elected because he or she has the best hospitality suite!
18 jjm: No one is like, “I wish I had a party that was wishy-washy and didn’t stand on principles, so I would have a third party to vote for and would have three wishy-washy parties to choose from.”
me: Red flag on “No one.”
“Wishy washy” is a subjective thing, yes? To say that the LP is “wishy washy” may well be YOUR perception, but my guess is that’s among the last things most outsiders would say. I suspect the answer “bomb throwers,” “radical extremists,” “dogmatic idealogues,” and so forth would be more likely used by outsiders than “wishy washy.”
You obviously are fond of RP, more than I am. But you seem to have some notion that there’s a binary “principled/unprincipled” decision set out there on every single issue.
As for top-down, I have every reason to believe that RP’s got his inner circle and they make all the decisions. They, for ex., made the decision on how to handle NewsLetterGate 1.0 and 2.0 in an extremely top down fashion, as most of the LM was counseling RP to clean the mess up. Top down, RP chose not to.
I didn’t question your “right to express [your] opinion”. I questioned the wisdom of Libertarians listening to it.
When I start running candidates against Libertarian candidates, I invite Libertarians to take my LP strategy advice with two grains of salt rather than the usual one.
BH – you can take advice from whomever you want. The fact that I am currently the Chair of the National Committee of another party does not take away from the fact that I am also a life member of the LP.
As a member of the LP, I have every right to express my opinion about issues involving the party.
If you want to discuss the validity of my suggestion, I welcome such discussion. Otherwise, I could just as easily ask why anyone would take your opinion on any issue!
JJM @ 11,
“Also, if Root couldn’t win last time, it will be easy to stop Rutherford using the same method employed to stop Root.”
I suspect you’re wrong about that.
Agree with his ideas on how the party should be run or not, Rutherford is a much different type of candidate than Root.
Rutherford can run on a record of long-time involvement in the party — involvement which most members who pay attention to such things will, I think, regard as dedicated and constructive.
He can cite what he (and likely others) regard as successes with the Indiana LP and national efforts he’s honchoed.
Root’s 2010 schtick was that if elected he’d let Rutherford actually run things while Root made an ass out of himself and a laughingstock of the party on reality TV.
Thanks again Chuck Moulton for providing information upon which to base a decision on the next Chairman.
I support the removal of the LNC and replace it with a senate of state chairs.
But as with all of these convention votes, as long as a top down corporate system is in place with dysfunctional people at every turn, the chair means nothing.
And, I would also say that assuming that Ron Paul supporters would find a home in the LP with Hancock or Root is foolish. People support Paul because he inspires them to do it on their own.
I give nothing to the national for obvious reasons, but I give to state chapters that earn it. By that, I mean parties that work towards freedom.
The LNC is just a group of people pretending. Nothing more.
I’m looking for a candidate who will up date the issues section of the website. Maybe bring it into this century, clean out the cobwebs and the dust the place out. Certainly it needs to be promoted more.
Robert, Ron Paul is not running for LP Chair, I am certain if he was running for LP chair the party would see its coffers grow considerably.
But they wouldn’t be growing because he was a Republican, they would be growing because he actually stands for something, and people would believe that if he believed in the party it must be worth donating to.
The Party has a problem… if the party appears to be flaky or top down like the other two parties, then you might as well join the other two parties. It’s that simple, why work hard to be part of something that just wants to be like the other two?
No one is like, “I wish I had a party that was wishy-washy and didn’t stand on principles, so I would have a third party to vote for and would have three wishy-washy parties to choose from.”
@15 Why should the LP take advice about its HQ from the Chair of a party that runs candidates against the LP’s?
14 jjm, my purpose is not to “annoy,” but to understand. So, I apologize if you find my inquiries annoying.
That you don’t answer my question leads me to believe that, no, there are no prospects for LNC chair who’d reap the sort of fundraising results that Paul 12 has. That’s a credible view if so, since those numbers seem unattainable by a third party under most circumstances.
My guess is RP does pretty OK raising money because he’s a R running for prez. Whether he’s more principled than Rutherford, I can’t say, especially since I don’t know how to measure such a thing. Ideas most welcome.
I’d say that RP has cultivated a certain public personality of “principled man” in politics, and has built up the messenger of that message. That, in turn, is used to raise money.
A lot of people give to RP for a lot of different reasons. I suspect many like that RP challenges the status quo rather pointedly in the R debates. Sometimes it has a kind of pro wrestling feel to it, a kind of comic book sanctimony.
I do believe the assembled “get” where you stand on Root and Rutherford. I view them as brothers, just like you, actually!
As founder of The Rent is Too Damn High Caucus, I would like to see a candidate step up who will:
1) move OUT of the Watergate complex, AND
2) move the LP headquarters INTO a location with much cheaper rent, preferably NOT in/near D.C.
I would like to see the LP HQ in or near Kansas City, which happens to be centrally located near the center of the continental United States.
Robert, starting a conversation with you is always annoying, but if you don’t understand what I am saying…. that Ron Paul is about the message not the messenger that’s what gets Paul the money, and that the only way to get those people to donate or move in this direction, or even for this party to grow at all, is prove we have some sort of principles.
Because there really is no other reason to join. I am on the fence about Gary Johnson, but I am not on the fence about Root and Rutherford.
btw, I’ve been getting emails from Rand Paul from the C4L recently. I’m not a member. But I get the sense that RP is passing the baton to Rand as much as possible, so expecting Paulistas to flood the LP next year seems less and less likely….
8 jjm: (You know the people that raise 7 times more money in a day than we do in a year)
me: Are you saying that there exists in the LP a person who — if made Chair — would post these sorts of results? Not Rutherford in your view, but who then, so we can all support him or her…
Also, if Root couldn’t win last time, it will be easy to stop Rutherford using the same method employed to stop Root.
@6 You had the key point on Coleman right: He abandoned incumbency to run against an incumbent in a district so solid that there was no Democrat in the race.
@2 We may agree to disagree about the building, but your summary of Hinkle’s deeds looked respectable. I look ahead to seeing one of your voting lists.
Note that Alicia Mattson has again critiqued the triumphs of Mark Hinkle, this time with respect to Convention management.
Chuck Moulton, again you have gone above and beyond with your reporting, if only you worked at CNN.
Anyway, one thing you left out, was that Rutherford is part of a strange group in the LNC that is trying to use the “43 Laws of Power” strategy to win over the Libertarian Party, but not really advance Libertarian ideas.
After speaking to him in D.C. I really got the heebie geebies. Root, Rutherford and their gang, are really the problem with LP not the solution, they are definitely the type of people who will make all the wrong decisions in the next few years, critical decisions giving that Ron Paul will be retiring from politics and Ron’s people are going to be looking for a principled home.
(You know the people that raise 7 times more money in a day than we do in a year)
They will find that principled home in the LP only if Root, Rutherford etal can be limited in their roles in the party.
Taking over the LNC needs to be first and foremost on the agenda. The LP needs to be trusted to put out a principled libertarian message.
At this time we can not afford people like Root saying “I agree with Ron Paul on everything except obviously I have a much more moderate Foreign Policy”.
Then join the Republican Party Wayne, stop making us look like used car salesmen.
It seems to me the Chair of the LNC should be a professional cat herder! The only other sensible choice would be a Cosa Nostra Don.
You might be right about a reversal, Richard. I was going from memory and did not have a citation for that.
I’m impressed with Chuck Moulton’s detailed post. But I tend to think his Ed Coleman account has it backwards. Coleman had been elected as a Republican in 2007 as an at-large member, but in 2011 as a Libertarian he ran in one of the 25 districts.
I believe the chair field will end up being Hinkle, Rutherford, Wagner, and Hancock. But that’s just a guess.
cm, are you assuming the field is settled at Hinkle, Rutherford and Wagner?
Mark Hinkle announced at the Florida convention.
Mark Rutherford is a great guy who has done an enormous amount for liberty and has demonstrated leadership in many different organizations. I would have supported Rutherford over Hinkle in 2010 if he had run for chair then.
But Rutherford has pretty consistently voted wrong on the LNC. He votes against ballot access expenditures half the time. He voted against the building fund, throwing $250,000 down the drain. He voted to spend $50,000 on Ed Coleman’s race. He voted to thumb his nose at the judicial committee.
As part of the executive committee Rutherford voted against ballot access expenditures for petitioning in Oaklahoma (p. 14), New Hampshire (p. 2), New York (p. 3), Pennsylvania (p. 2), and Nebraska (p. 4); lobbying in Oklahoma (p. 2); and litigation in North Dakota (p. 2). (I consider ballot access, putting on the national convention, and maintaining the website / answering the phones to be the core duties of the national party.) This alone is reason not to vote for Rutherford as chair.
Rutherford voted against the building fund in 4 out of the 5 votes. This caused $250,000 in targeted donations to be returned to donors and soured future fundraising from those donors. A few minutes after the last vote Rutherford tweeted “I hope people will use their money to elect Libertarians to office and to elect LNC members in Las Vegas who will focus on the same.” This displays a fundamental misunderstanding of fundraising: the belief that donors can be centrally planned into redirecting donations from the donor’s pet project (a building) to the board member’s pet project (candidates). Most of the money targeted to the building was in fact not re-targeted to libertarian candidates; the donors instead spent it on things not related to the libertarian movement. The building project was far from perfectly executed and I agree with many of Alicia Mattson’s critiques. But I consider many of those problems sunk costs… the real question was how to best move forward. While Hinkle was looking to salvage the project, others worked to scrap it. Turning away $250,000 in donations was not in the best interests of the party and I would not want to elect a chair who does not understand basic fundraising concepts.
I like Ed Coleman. He’s a great guy and I was proud to have him as a Libertarian office holder. I’m glad Libertarians supported his campaign — I myself donated $50. But when the LNC allocated $50,000 (p. 15) to Ed Coleman’s campaign that was a significant portion of the budget (p. 29) (3% of $1.6 million). Coleman was not running as an incumbent in the same ward (he ran at-large instead), Indianapolis has a party lever (which makes winning as a Libertarian harder), and in general there was not a credible plan for winning. Helping candidates like Coleman is not part of the LNC’s core duties (ballot access, putting on the national convention, and maintaining the website / answering the phones). I think it would be great if the LP was financially in a position to go beyond those core duties and provide significant financial support for candidates. Even if there is a bundle of money that can be allocated to real politics in the form of funding Libertarian candidates, that candidate support should not all go to one candidate — especially not a candidate without a credible plan to win with that money. As an Indianapolis, Indiana resident, Rutherford was in a better position than the rest of the LNC to know that this was not a wise expenditure (e.g., familiarity with the party lever). This further leads me to the conclusion that Rutherford would not make an appropriate chair.
Rutherford voted in favor of a resolution (pp. 11-13) expressing displeasure with the judicial committee ruling which said in part “it is the sense of the Libertarian National Committee that the decision by four members of the Judicial Committee in its 4-3 declaration regarding the Libertarian Party of Oregon is not justified by the Libertarian Party Bylaws, and that the Judicial Committee has acted outside of its limited authority, which is clearly and explicitly defined in the Libertarian Party Bylaws.” He also voted against (p. 7) reinstating Wagner as the LP of Oregon chair on lp.org and the state chair’s email list consistent with the judicial committee ruling. Whether or not one agrees with the judicial committee’s ruling, our bylaws clearly do not give the LNC the authority to overrule the judicial committee or to fail to comply with its rulings. Respect for the bylaws and the rule of law is very important for a chair. In all fairness, Mark Hinkle also made the wrong call on this particular question, so this is not necessarily a reason to vote for Hinkle over Rutherford.
For those reasons I don’t support Mark Rutherford for chair. I will be supporting Mark Hinkle.
I believe the reason Hinkle has been found to be “ineffectual” as chair can be traced back to the 10 vote LNC majority led by Rutherford that has voted against many of Hinkle’s plans (most prominently including the building).
If Mark Rutherford wins in spite of my support for Hinkle, I’ll do my best to help him move the party forward. In that case I hope my reservations about him will prove to be unfounded.
My take: Rutherford’s announcement makes him the frontrunner here. Hinkle’s tenure has been ineffectual and filled with controversy, and I don’t believe he can defeat Rutherford in a head-to-head competition. Wagner I see as essentially a crank candidate. Hancock and Phillies have proved repeatedly that they are too polarizing to garner support from the majority of delegates. Knedler would make an interesting candidate, but I don’t think he’ll run against Rutherford.
I expect there will eventually be a serious radical challenger to Rutherford. I don’t expect it will be Wagner. Unless it’s Mary Ruwart, I think that candidate has no chance this cycle.