Sean Haugh: Wrights the Only Presidential Choice for the Party of Principle

Sean Haugh writes at

“For 2012, the top two contenders for our nomination are Lee Wrights and former Republican, Gary Johnson. Based on his campaign rhetoric, I’m concerned that if Gary Johnson is our nominee, he will say things as our standard bearer that will cause confusion about the LP brand. That happened in 2008; we don’t need for it to happen two presidential election cycles in a row.”

Haugh contrasts the views of Johnson and Wrights on several key issues and concludes only Wrights holds principled libertarian positions. Johnson wants to replace the income tax; Wrights wants to abolish it. Johnson thinks America should engage in “humanitarian” wars; Wrights wants to end all wars. Johnson wants to keep Gitmo open; Wrights would close it.

His conclusion: “If we don’t put principle at the top of our ticket, what kind of members will we recruit? Those who believe that a tax can be ‘fair’ and can ‘reboot the American economy.’ We’ll recruit people who want to send our troops overseas to engage in ‘humanitarian’ wars. Do we want to send a clear message about what it means to be a libertarian? Or do we want to muddy the waters for another presidential election cycle? Our presidential ticket is our public face, the one seen and heard by the most voters. What do we want the public to see?”

Read the article here.

46 thoughts on “Sean Haugh: Wrights the Only Presidential Choice for the Party of Principle

  1. John Jay Myers

    I am deeply saddened by the fact that I received this email from GJ’s campaign yesterday, that shows that he is really on the wrong track with foreign policy.

    “War: Obama and Romney either have or have voiced support of engaging in unconstitutional wars. Johnson is not for war except in cases of true defense of the U.S.A. and potentially where innocent civilians are being killed by their oppressive governments or “warlords”.”

    So Johnson is against unconstitutional wars EXCEPT?

    But obviously there are many more important reasons to not engage in “humanitarian wars” the term itself is an oxymoron.

    “humanitarian war” is simply the lefts way of saying, “Hey, the other guys already used WMD’s…. and we need to give a reason to take over other countries”

    Now a days I can’t think of a country where that doesn’t meet Gary’s criteria, we would need to invade Israel, Syria, Canada, The United States…. and the list goes on.

    And as he knows, we simply can’t afford it, at a time when our status as the reserve currency is coming into question, we keep spending trillions on crazy exploits that for some reason seem to only benefit corporations outside of this country. What’s funny is a few of the countries we have attacked recently (Iraq and Libya) had both mentioned that they were going to stop trading their oil for dollars and instead use a different currency. Oddly enough, we attacked them both, and ironically enough attacking each of them caused us to print and borrow even more money, thus weakening the power of our own dollar, probably making more people believe that they might want to stop trading in dollars.

    Another reason that we shouldn’t “invade to assist” countries that have a completely different culture than us, and don’t speak our language, in order to try to “help them”, because there are countries all around them that might consider it, countries right next door to them, who the people of the other country might trust, not sure if you got the memo but these people in these other countries do not trust us. It is not hard to imagine why.

    So the big question is why is it us? Why are we the keeper of everyone?

    Yet another reason is because most of the unrest in these countries is more like a civil war, and in any civil war there can be even more than 2 sides. Which side are we on and why? 20 years earlier was the other side in control, and were they being horribly un-humanitarian to the other side? That is the case in many instances, so when you go into a place where 50% of the people do not like what you are trying to do, it’s not a great way to stem terrorism, it is a great way to increase it greatly however.

    As I mentioned before most of our interference in other countries can be directly traced back to resources, they have, the corporations that our government works for want them. Why do you think Switzerland, France, Brazil etc are not going around the world looking for dragons to slay? Because I am pretty sure they understand all of this.

    Gary this is either the policy of a neo-conservative looking for a way to keep up our interventions, or someone who just doesn’t understand the problems our foreign policy (even when we are trying to help) creates.

    It’s almost as if Gary is trying to pick and choose things from the Democratic side to be for, and things from the Republican side to be for, when he needs to choose his stances from the Libertarian side. The R’s and the D’s are the same.

    I can give you a list a mile long of times our interventions have backfired…. big time.

    I had hoped that some of Lee’s talking points would sink in.

    What Gary doesn’t seem to get, is that yes he will be our nominee, but by trying to be all things to all people he is shooting himself in the foot.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m very disappointed in Mr. Johnson’s foreign policy as well.

    Lee Wrights continues to be my # 1 choice for the Libertarians’ nominee.

  3. paulie

    I would recommend adding the article author’s name to the headline to make it clear this is not an IPR editorial.

    That comment is not based on how I feel about the original article author or how he feels about me, which really does not need to be commented on any more than it has been in the past, nor about how I plan to vote at the convention if I am there (still undecided). It’s just a general IPR policy thing that I try to recommend to all sides equally.

  4. the other Seebeck

    WAKE UP LP! Yeah, I’m shouting. Gary Johnson is only a baby Libertarian. He’s barely begun to learn. He’s not ready to be a candidate. For crying out loud, he’s still advocating for a “fair” tax. By contrast, Lee Wrights has served many long terms internally. He is a veteran in understanding and expounding the philosophy. He will speak the truth, without apology. We need the truth.

    We can’t afford otherwise. We’re in grave danger of losing the word “libertarian” itself and having it be re-absorbed into the GOP.

    People have wondered why Mike and I left the Party. We feel that the LP has lost its way. There is a way back. Elect Lee Wrights. Make us proud to say the word “Libertarian” again.

  5. NewFederalist

    I wonder if Richard Winger or Darcy Richardson have any data on how many Democrats or Republicans ran as Socialist Party candidates early in the 20th century? It might be interesting to compare (or contrast) how an enduring alternative party achieved a modicum of success by growing its own nominees as opposed to running cast offs from the major parties.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    BH # 6: Sadly. the Seebecks moved to Colorado in July, 2011. I miss them dearly.


    Virtually everyone who agrees nearly 100% with the LP platform is already within the LP.
    How to we then grow? Did each and everyone of us not join the LP until we were pretty much in total agreement? No, most found their way in with many still unformed ideas and became “purer” libertarians once in the Party.
    Johnson has the best chance of recruiting large numbers of new members to the LP. It is up to us to further educate them. Or we can remain small and obsess that each new member who approaches is not yet worthy of joining.

  8. John Jay Myers

    “Virtually everyone who agrees nearly 100% with the LP platform is already within the LP.”

    This is simply not true. Not even close to true, if everyone who agreed with our platform let’s say 95% of the way was in the LP we would be getting a least 20% of the Vote and 200 times more money.

    The fact is that people have left the LP because it they feel it no longer stands for anything, and with the integration of people like Wayne Allyn Root, it’s almost embarassing to be a part of.

    So they quit to pursue liberty through other channels ie Ron Paul, or Anarchism etc.

    If this party doesn’t stand for something then you might as well work within the Republican or Democratic parties to get someone elected.

    There is no point in creating yet another wishy-washy party. I am not saying to be radical, I am saying to be principled. At least understand the Libertarian point of view.

  9. John Jay Myers

    Let me explained Principled vs. Radical, the radical view of social security etc might be “end it, end it now!” the principled view is that it is wrong, and doesn’t work. So then knowing the principle you come up with a way to end it as soon as possible without throwing Grandma to the wolves.

    The radical view of foreign policy might be end all wars everywhere now, which is actually pretty easy to do, but the principle is that they are wrong and humanitarian wars are wrong, and so we should try to end them all as soon as humanly possible.

    Some people don’t seem to get the principle or the radical.

  10. Andy

    “Sean Haugh writes at”

    LOL!!! The fired and disgraced former Political Director Sean Haugh has got ZERO credibility. Anything he says should be disregarded.

  11. paulie

    WS @12

    See my previous comment @3

    The title is Haugh’s title for his editorial, which they are posting at many different fora, not just IPR.

    For IPR purposes all it needs is Sean Haugh: ‘same [title]’ to make it clear it is Haugh’s editorial, not IPR’s.

    Same deal with Root’s editorials, Nader’s editorials, or any other editorials from anyone anywhere that we reprint.

    Just put the editorial author’s name first in the title and then put the rest in quotes. Voila!

  12. Less Antman

    @JJM 1

    I was really hoping Johnson could be persuaded on foreign policy, but if he issued that email AFTER the Daily Caller embarrassment, then the die is clearly cast. Oddly, he doesn’t even hold to the criteria he has listed, since he presumably still supports a strategic military alliance with Israel.

    The future of the LP depends on attracting enthusiastic young activists, and that will only happen if we have a strict non-interventionist candidate. The key moment will be after the Republican convention when their establishment kicks the Ron Paul supporters in the teeth once again, he makes it official that he is not going to run on any 3rd party ticket, and they have to decide whether it is worthwhile to network for the LP nominee or whether they should go elsewhere.

    No matter how little mainstream coverage the LP gets, those supporters will know all about our candidate, especially his position on the big issue that sparked the RP Revolution in the first place in May 2007. Lee Wrights is the candidate who will let these people know they have a home with the LP. He has made non-intervention the core of his campaign and has the focus on principle that may not work with older voters but is the key to attracting young activists.

    And what matters is how many activists we have in this party for the long haul. In the wake of the 2008 Barr/Root debacle, this is probably our last chance: we need a principled non-interventionist. It’s why I’m supporting Lee Wrights.

  13. Steven Berson

    For myself the biggest weakness of GJ is in fact that often he doesn’t make himself much more clear as to his exact decision making process regarding foreign policy. I was one of the ones very surprised to learn back when he was still running in the GOP race that he was ok with sending a contingent of US troops to hunt down LRA/Kony and in asking GJ in person directly why I learned it was due to a checklist of things he would have in place for doing something like this:
    * assistance requested/invited by nations in the region
    * action authorised and mandated by Congress first
    * action would end atrocities being committed on innocent civilians
    * limited mission with a specific and easily reachable goal
    * would send in only those who specifically volunteered for the mission
    Now – I happen to agree with those who note that these types of actions often are for hidden agendas (i.e. in the case of the LRA – reinforcing the power of a corrupt government in Uganda and securing greater access and control over newly discovered oil reserves in the region for US/EU based corporations) – and often represent very slippery slopes with lots of costs and unintended consequences often occurring. However I also do think that if a Holocaust type of event is truly happening and if US soldiers themselves actually wish to volunteer to do a specific action that could stop this that going in could be preferable to having a mass slaughter happen. It’s just that balancing the bridge between these two issues is difficult and these days the actual motives are usually way more nefarious than they are ever helpful. Anyway – at this point I lean more to non-interventionist purists (such as Lee Wrights) in terms of foreign policy considering how hawkish and undermining our actions have been in the past 50 years – but I also understand how GJ is trying to make the case for the one type of actions he would be comfortable engaging in would be not standing by and watching a preventable genocide happen. I greatly hope that LP members address their concerns directly to GJ regarding his foreign policy and get him to pin it down more to the non-interventionist side. If he is indeed to be the nominee perhaps the case could be made to him to stick to part 2 of the 3rd paragraph of the Rothbard Pledge – ” If I hold a position that contradicts the Platform, I will, in response to questions, always present the Party’s official position before my own position.”

  14. JT

    JJM: “So Johnson is against unconstitutional wars EXCEPT?”

    That’s a very uncharitable reading of the sentences you provided, JJM.

    The first says that Obama & Romney support unconstitutional wars. But the second doesn’t say that GJ supports unconstitutional wars with exceptions–he doesn’t support going to war for any reason without the authorization of Congress, which is what makes a war constitutional.

    However, he does believe there should be a constitutional war in 2 cases: defense against foreign attack on citizens in the U.S. (I agree), & perhaps in the case of other governments killing citizens in other countries (I disagree).

  15. Gene Berkman

    NF @ 5 – actually the most successful Socialist Party campaign for President was in 1924, when they backed Republican Sen. Robert LaFollette, running as an Independent Progressive. LaFollette was backed by the Socialist Party, the Farmer-Labor Party, the Non-Partisan League etc and he received almost 5 million votes, 16.7% of the total, and carried Wisconsin.

    Of their own candidates, only Eugene Debs in 1912 and 1920 and Norman Thomas in 1932 received as much as 900,000 votes.

    The Socialist Party also backed the re-election of Fiorello LaGuardia as Mayor of New York City in 1937, running on the Republican & American Labor Party tickets.

    Other New York Republicans who received Socialist Party nominations included Hamilton Fish Jr and Lewis K Rockefeller.

    On the other hand, a number of Socialist Party activists were elected to Congress as Democrats in the early part of the 20th Century, several after having served in lower office as Socialists.

    Only two Socialist Party members were ever elected to Congress without major party support – Victor Berger from Wisconsin and Meyer London from New York. Both actively supported LaFollette in 1924.

    In any case, the “enduring success” of the Socialist Party was dwarfed by the electoral victories of the Wisconsin Progressives and the Farmer-Labor Party in Wisconsin, both formed by dissidents who left the Republican Party.


    “LOL!!! The fired and disgraced former Political Director Sean Haugh has got ZERO credibility. Anything he says should be disregarded.”


    you can’t just write that and not explain what you mean. Why is he ‘disgraced’? Why does he have zero credibility? How about some context to why you make these claims.

  17. Gary Johnson Needs You !

    Who is Gov. Gary Johnson?

    *Gov. Johnson is a highly successful two-term Governor of New Mexico.

    *Gov. Johnson has the most executive experience of any candidate in the race.

    *Gov. Johnson is the most fiscally conservative Governor in the country.

    *Gov. Johnson vetoed more bills than his contemporary 49 Governors combined.

    *During his time, Gov. Johnson was one of only 4 Governors to leave their state with a balanced budget.

    *Gov. Johnson cut taxes 14 times.

    *Gov. Johnson has the best record on jobs growth of any official presidential candidate, according to a National Review report.

    *According to a Public Policy Poll, Gov. Johnson is the only presidential candidate who is still popular in his home state, which also happens to be 2-1 Democrat.

    *Gov. Johnson has the record and the serious policy proposals needed to bring common sense back to Washington and put our country back on the right track.

    *> Facts are FACTS on Jobs friends –

    With your continued support and donations, we can take back America together. –

    Gary Johnson is “The BEST Job Creator of Them All.” – National Review Online: visit

    John Stossel – Who Creates Jobs? –

    Gary Johnson on jobs:

    * “The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor,”

    * “We are proud of this distinction. We had a 11.6 percent job growth that occurred during our two terms in office. But the headlines that accompanied that report – referring to governors, including me, as ‘job creators’ – were just wrong.”

    * “we kept government in check, the budget balanced, and the path to growth clear of unnecessary regulatory obstacles.”

    * “My priority was to get government out of the way, keep it out of the way, and allow hard-working New Mexicans, entrepreneurs and businesses to fulfill their potential,”

    “Summarizing: Gary doesn’t accept the fallacy that job creation is something that the government can do.” -Rui Nobre Pinheiro

  18. John Jay Myers

    JT at 18, I don’t know, I see your point sort of, but who would we be declaring war on? Wouldn’t this instead lend itself to the idea of Marks and Reprisal? But even then, is Joseph Kony even a threat to us, at all, ever?

    Look if going after Joseph Kony is something that appeals to you send a check to his opposition. But leave me out of it.

    So I suppose they could get congress to declare war against a man, and then you might have your constitutional war, it still seems like a rather strange move by us.

  19. Alan Pyeatt

    John Jay Myers @ 1: “So the big question is why is it us? Why are we the keeper of everyone?”

    You’re probably aware that in 2000, the now-defunct Project for the New American Century published a document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” It specifically called for America to perform a “constabulary” function throughout the world. So much for the lessons of Vietnam. The job Ronald Reagan began of curing America of its non-interventionist “Vietnam syndrome” is now complete.

    Why? I’m no mind reader, but I do notice that the recent aid package to Egypt provides them with $1.3 BILLION in weapons: “The funds are not given in cash; all the money goes to U.S. firms with contracts to supply U.S. military and defense equipment, weapons, training and services to Egypt” (

    So, this foreign aid package is essentially a big corporate welfare scheme which will shovel $1.3 BILLION into the accounts receivable of defense contractors this year alone. For Egypt.

    While it’s not the only motive imaginable, the astronomical sums of money involved would seem to provide a strong incentive for some people to advocate that the U.S. act as the “world’s policeman.”

  20. Alan Pyeatt

    Speaking of Reagan, let us not forget that he got 200 American marines killed in a “humanitarian” mission in Lebanon.

  21. Alan Pyeatt

    the other Seebeck @ 4: “We’re in grave danger of losing the word ‘libertarian’ itself and having it be re-absorbed into the GOP.”

    I’m less concerned about libertarianism being re-absorbed into the GOP than having it redefined, the way the words “liberal” and “conservative” were redefined in the early 20th Century, and the way the word “Federalist” was redefined during the ratification debate. And of course, we have at least one LP “leader” who has explicitly stated that he wants to redefine our movement.

    The problem for us, of course, is that if this happens, there will be NO organized movement (except possibly the anarchists) to oppose government intervention on the basis of principle. Which might well achieve the goals of some people.

  22. Alan Pyeatt

    BTW Lydia, we will miss you and Mike at the convention. Hopefully, we won’t miss your votes!

  23. Alan Pyeatt

    Steven Berson @ 17: Thanks for pointing out the Rothbard Pledge. A couple of years ago, after Wayne Root’s “Seven” magazine interview, I introduced a motion to the California LP that would have required LP officials to make a good faith attempt to make it clear to the press and public when their opinions varied from the LP Statement of Principles. It would have applied when somebody gave a public speech, was interviewed, etc.

    It really didn’t seem that onerous to me, and I always try to implement it anyway (for example, when somebody asks me about 9/11 at an LP meeting). Unfortunately, the motion failed. Oh, well, at least we can still set an example, even if others choose not to follow it.

  24. Michael H. Wilson

    JJM maybe it would help if the U.S. stopped selling small arms all around the world. After all the U.S. government is the world’s biggest arms dealer last time I looked.

  25. Seebeck

    Appreciate the sentiments from Jill and Alan. We miss you guys too!

    Yes, Holtz, we moved back to Colorado last August. That’s old news, but at the 2011 LPCA convention I explained the personal situation in my outgoing SVC report. It’s available from Beau if you want to read it. At that point returning back to the land of relative sanity was not even projected. But things happen for a reason, and we came home. While I miss my close California friends, I don’t miss the pollution, congestion, economic stress, and political insanity of Southern California.

    As for Lost Wages, if I were to go, and I’m not, (certain people can pop their champagne corks now), I’d be voting for Wes Wagner for Chair, Lee Wrights for President, and if they are running again, Dr. Ruwart, Norm Olsen, and David Craig for LNC A-L (yes, Craig and Olsen are regioinals, but I’d vote for them for A-L anyway). Why? Well, FWIW:

    Hinkle has been a failure as Chair, as predicted, and Rutherford I see as little better. The LNC needs to be rid of the Mark Brothers cabal in favor of better leadership. Wagner, OTOH, is leading the good fight in LPOR to get things straight in spite of the LNC meddling. He is a leader, plain and simple.

    Wrights and Ruwart are pretty straightforward: we have a friendship and history, and they are party veterans who are on the best side of things IMO.

    (Johnson, while having a respectable record as a governor, still strikes me as not plumbline enough to be the face of the LP, and still leaves a carpetbagger taste in my mouth, just like Barr did in 2008.)

    Norm Olsen and I go back a few years to our time in the LPCO board (along with Tony Ryan). He tells it like it is, is no-nonsense, and I have great respect for him.

    Craig I didn’t know much about prior to the super-region formation two years ago, but from what I’ve seen he has kept an open mind and unbiased approach to things. He has grown into the spot and I believe he deserves another term if he wants it.

    AFAIC, the rest of the LNC needs to pound sand.

    That’s my view, take it or leave it.

  26. 1.3 Billion for Egypt

    I do notice that the recent aid package to Egypt provides them with $1.3 BILLION in weapons: “The funds are not given in cash; all the money goes to U.S. firms with contracts to supply U.S. military and defense equipment, weapons, training and services to Egypt”

    Last year, I heard on Antiwar Radio that US military aid to Israel goes to big ticket items, like fighter jets, that can be used against their Arab neighbors.

    Whereas the military aid to Arab dictators is restricted to small arms (guns, tanks, etc.) that is no threat to Israel, but is only useful to suppress their own (often anti-Israel) populations.

    Root likes to say that the US funds both Israel and the Arabs, but their military aid is comparable neither in quality nor purpose.

  27. George Phillies

    Military aid to Islamites…the Egyptians fly the same F-16 combat aircraft that their Israeli non-opponents do.

    However, the entire point of the exercise was that it was far cheaper to bribe these people not to fight each other than to face the costs of a shooting war, given internal politics of the American political parties supporting the exercise.

  28. Steve

    @30 and 31, ah, now we’re in my neck of the woods. The 6 months I spent patrolling the Israel-Egypt border is what sealed the deal for my developing non-interventionism.

    The US sells Israel and Egypt the same basic hardware, such as F-16s as George mentions. The quantitative difference comes from the fact that the Israelis are smart enough to upgrade the avionics package to make the F-16I while the Egyptians aren’t. Egypt also manufactures M1 tanks under license, which the Israelis do not have. Israel tried to make their own fighter planes in the 80s and were prevented from doing so by the US. How they get away with it in tanks, I don’t know. Boeing must have better lobbyists than General Dynamics.

  29. Austin Battenberg

    Ever since the Daily Caller interview I now lean more toward Lee Wrights, as I am a strict non-interventionist.

    I think I figured out why Gary Johnson takes the position he does. Perhaps he even disagrees with it himself, but by keeping the door slightly open for military engagements (with a declaration of course), he makes it so no one can label him an isolationist.

    I mean, has anyone ever heard ANYONE call Gary Johnson an isolationist? They call Ron Paul and his foreign policy that all the time. So perhaps its only for strategic reasons that he is taking the position he is taking.

    All in all, since I am voting in the Republican primary here in California for Ron Paul, I will not be at the convention in May for the LP, but regardless of who the nominee is, I will support and vote for either one of them if Ron Paul is not on the ballot in November.

  30. Steven Berson

    I’m personally a bit suspicious of the Daily Caller “interview” because it only contained a few quotes that could have beentaken out of context and are given without being able to hear the tone heavily interspersed by the author’s commentary which seems to imply a definite bias against GJ. I’d very much like to hear audio, watch video or at the minimum see a transcript of the interview before I jump at the conclusions the author did from it.

  31. Mike Kane

    @34 Steve Berson,

    Read my letter to the delegates. I wrote the entire thing before the DC interview came out. I quoted numerous reliable sources.

  32. Thane Eichenauer

    “…that will cause confusion about the LP brand.”

    For someone to be confused about the LP brand they first have to hear that the brand exists. If an article like this one from the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram is any example the Average Joe will hear a clear libertarian message from the Johnson campaign.

    I think that Lee Wrights is a great candidate. Whether the MSM will deign to cover (or hear from) his campaign (if nominated) is a question for LP convention goers to ponder deeply.

  33. Andy

    “Austin Battenberg // Apr 18, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Ever since the Daily Caller interview I now lean more toward Lee Wrights, as I am a strict non-interventionist.

    I think I figured out why Gary Johnson”

    I’m not happy with Gary Johnson and I don’t plan to vote for him, but Lee Wrights is a crappy candidate as well. I wouldn’t recommend that anyone vote for either of them. I’d be willing to bet that there’d be a good chance to get a candidate that is better than either of them by just having a drawing at the LP National Convention among all of the delegates. Put everyone’s name in a bucket and shake it up and then pull out a name at random. There’s a high probability that whichever name is drawn at random will be a better candidate than either Johnson or Wrights.

  34. Andy

    Look, I want a good hardcore Libertarian Party candidate as much as many other hardcore Libertarians, but Lee Wrights is NOT the right candidate (pun not intended). I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with Lee Wrights and I found him to be an irrational, backstabbing, two-faced, liar, and a complete asshole of a human being. The guy is scum as a far as I’m concerned. I’ve met lots of Libertarians over the years, and Wrights is one of the worst people I’ve ever met in the party. He’s also a loser who mooches off of people. His ex-wife worked as a nurse while he sat at home. His resume is highly padded. I would not describe him as a people person. He admitted to me that he doesn’t like to gather petition signatures because he doesn’t like talking to the public. He’s not a good political strategist. He’s not a good public speaker. He’s got a bad personality. He lies about people behind their back. He’s known for throwing irrational temper tantrums. I saw him get red faced and storm out of the room like a lunatic at an LNC meeting. He’s not a good fundraiser. His campaign hasn’t raised hardly any money. If it wasn’t for him being Mary Ruwart’s boy toy he wouldn’t even have the funds to make it to any conventions. He couldn’t even keep his membership dues up to date while he was on the LNC. He also engaged in cronyism to protect his buddy, the irrational nutcase Sean Haugh. Haugh and Wrights are two peas in a pod. Both are prime examples of losertarians.

    Hey, I’m not happy with Johnson either, but this doesn’t mean that voting for Lee Wrights is the solution.

    If it is down to Wrights or Johnson I think the best thing to do is to vote for NOTA (None of the Above), or to find another candidate at the convention. The room will be full of Libertarians. I’m sure there will be plenty of people there who could be better candidates than either Wrights or Johnson.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp


    Keep the rants that don’t even rise to the level of unsubstantiated allegations coming, dude. Every one of them probably means another delegate or two for Wrights.

  36. Austin Battenberg

    Don’t get me wrong. I like Johnson, I just think he should run for NM Senate or House as an L. Get into Congress as the first Libertarian, and help get more elected.

  37. Alan Pyeatt

    Here’s a data point: I posted a picture on Facebook of Barack Obama and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the teenager that Obama killed when he had Anwar al-Awlaki assassinated. I’ve known this man for 30 years, and have been an outspoken LP member (on the radical side) that entire time. Here is his response to my post:

    “Okay, I thought at first this was more far-right hoo hah and bluster with the normal amount of race baiting tossed in for flavor. Then I checked out the reports in the Washington Post, Mew York Times, Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker, Huffington Post and L.A. Times. THIS HAS SOLIDIFIED MY DECISION TO VOTE FOR — NO ONE. There is not one bit of difference between ANY political parties WHATSOEVER. Those who would work for the assumption of power will ultimately be corrupted by it. A pox on all their houses. My father, granfather, great-grandfather and so one fought and bled for freedom since the first decade of the 1800’s. Apparently, for naught. I AM WORKING TO RETURN TO THE COUNTRY OF MY ANCESTORS, WHERE INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS, A VOTE, CARE FOR THEIR FELLOWS, RESPECT THEIR NEIGHBORS AND INTERFERE IN THE AFFAIRS OF NONE WHO WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THEM- YEP, I’M MOVIN TO SWITZERLAND. Whomever wins, we’ve all lost.”

    We have done such a poor job distinguishing our party from the statists, that an intelligent man in Ron Paul’s home state can’t even tell the difference.

    That, my friends, is a big FAIL. Obviously I replied as best I could, but when people can’t even tell the difference between US and the statists… That’s a bad sign.

  38. Robert Capozzi

    41 ab: I just think [GJ] should run for NM Senate or House as an L.

    me: I felt that way last year as well. Now that he’s all in for prez, it might be interesting for him to do well (by L standards) in 2012, then run as an L for the House or Senate in 2014 and then prez again in ’16.

    I don’t know much about NM politics, but who knows — perhaps he could somehow break through the duopoly in his home state. Regardless, this would make him “battle hardened” in his Jimmy Stewart kind of style.

  39. Nicholas Sarwark

    @1: I wouldn’t include France in your list of examples of countries that stay neutral in conflicts. Post-colonial France is still pretty damned colonial.

  40. Steve M

    Sean, Show me the money? Lee Wright has no funding behind him. Sure a lot of empty words (like yours)… but no money. Like for example yours…. How much have you donated towards Lee’s campaign? The one filing with the FEC shows ZERO!

  41. paulie

    How much money does Johnson have? He may be in the red, depending on how you count it. Compare that with Badnarik 2004 before and after the nomination, and Barr 2008 before and after. Given those precedents, I see no reason to predict significantly different fundraising (or vote) results regardless of whether Wrights or Johnson is the nominee.

Leave a Reply

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