Alexander Snitker: It’s a matter of Perspective, Mr. Stone

Aleaxander Snitker was the 2010 Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. Senate in Florida. He was elected the vice-chair of the Libertarian Party of Florida (LPF) at the May 24-26th, 2013 state convention in Naples. 

Published May 27, 2013

As I was heading home from one of the most well attended and productive Libertarian Party of Florida state conventions in many years, I was feeling positive about the direction the party is headed. We were able to make it through mundane tasks that are required in order for the Libertarian Party to comply with state law and did the basic housekeeping of our governing documents in an orderly fashion (I would argue with less in fighting than the Republicans and Democrats). The 2 day business meeting was conducted in a professional manner.

Leading up to the convention, there had been some infighting within the Libertarian Party of Florida. Our party seemed divided in recent weeks. Going into the weekend I had been unsure of what to expect and what direction our party was headed too. There were those focused on education and debate and others who (like myself) saw a unique opportunity to grow the party. The divide seemed insurmountable. I was quickly relieved as we got to work and we came together for the better of the party.

We elected a new chairperson, vice chair, at –large and regional representatives, changing the makeup of our executive committee. The newly elected chairperson is a relative newcomer to the Libertarian Party but has been a longtime activist, proving that this party is willing to be inclusive of those who are new. A strong woman with a vision to grow the party will be a positive change for the party.

I easily won the election for vice chairman of the party. This was largely due to my track record and focus on having an active affiliate in every county in Florida by January 2014. The delegation of the Libertarian Party of Florida agreed that our party needs to focus on building our “bottom-up” organization and one that can grow while remaining true to our grassroots.

We were able to elect an entire executive committee that shares this goal and despite our differences are willing to work together to achieve it. We all understand that our common enemies are the elected officials from both the Republican and Democrat parties. It was a great convention, it was great to see old friends and even better to see everyone leave inspired and ready to get to work.

This weekend made me proud to be a Libertarian.

The latest statement from Roger Stone about the convention is puzzling. For one he was not inside our business meeting. Although he was registered as a delegate, Roger came and spoke at a lunch session and left shortly after. He never participated or even observed the proceedings for that matter. In fact, I did not know he had even been there except for the fact that a few people mentioned him speaking at lunch and announcing he would not be running for governor.

I am wondering if he had been there if he would be telling Libertarians to be more inclusive or the perils of bickering over party rules? Had he stepped foot into the meeting for even a short time he would have seen how those issues did not exist. The bickering never happened. The incoming executive committee is diverse and inclusive with a proven history of working with all groups to accomplish our goals. It is sad that he couldn’t witness the greatness of the weekend and shared in our hope and vision.

Now don’t get me wrong, the Libertarian Party has been known to have exclusionary behavior from time to time, but the vote this year by the delegation proved that as a whole we are inviting to others. There is also a mistrust in the LP which stems from the many times that ex Republicans come over to the LP, stay for an election cycle and then leave the party. Some could say that these former Republicans simply came over here to use the party and then dump it when our usefulness is gone. There are some who have come over into our party with the intention of leaving at the right time to help the party that they were once a part of. Wayne Allyn Root and Bob Barr are perfect examples of this type of behavior. It’s not hard to understand why some Libertarians are hesitant when people who are nicknamed “the dirtiest player in the game” want to join the “party of principle.”

When I first heard that Roger Stone left the GOP and joined the Libertarians I was excited. It was great to see him supporting Gary Johnson. I reached out to Roger to welcome him into the party (I wanted to make sure that the image that some claim we have about inclusiveness can be destroyed).

It’s just that Roger’s analysis of the LPF is way off and this weekend proved it. We are growing and more people than ever are open to the message. The Libertarian delegation put the people in place to build the structure needed to win elections. If our plans work out we could see Libertarians in many local offices in 2014. We have identified dozens of candidates and have a marketing campaign ready to go to get as many Libertarians as we can to run for office.

The money for campaigning and running a party is an issue that the new executive committee is ready to address. It will be a hard fought battle to compete with the other parties in that aspect but we have the volunteers and dedication to overcome. There is legal precedent for our gubernatorial candidate to be included in the debates which will make our message hit mainstream. The people widely agree with our principles and we have a way to reach them.

The time where candidates talking about stereotypical libertarian issue while the voters are worried about the economy and the horrible jobs market is over. The people of Florida are looking for free market Libertarian solutions and not with the “hookers and blow” mantra the Republican and Democrats have successfully laid on us over the years. After this convention, I can say our party is poised to shed that stereotype and prove that we are the answer they are looking for.

Our inclusion of people must not turn us from our principles and the newest “celebrity” to turn to our party will have to understand that part of our party. We do not accept “politics as usual.” We hold ourselves to a highly principled standard and are not impressed with a person’s status. We are not the same as the Republicans and Democrats and in some ways that is an obstacle to overcome but that is also what make us great. It is a refreshing change to bring to the people.

 I do hope that Roger finds the error in his ways and takes another look at the great things the Libertarian Party of Florida is doing but this does not change our course. We will continue to build solid local affiliates and the structure needed to compete with the two major parties. It would be great to see Roger and every Libertarian throughout the state help in that effort but nothing will stop the work we will do. I hope to see Roger on the campaign trail with his full endorsement of our current candidate for governor and former chairman, Adrian Wyllie. However, we won’t be waiting around for him. We want more regular people who are fed up with this over expansive government and less career politicians and political insiders. This is how you will keep the LPF a bottom up organization.

Today I look back on the weekend invigorated for the work ahead and proud of our party. We are growing and principled and the people are ready to join us. The Roger Stone’s of the party will come and go but nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. Our country has a history of always turning towards freedom and the Libertarian Party of Florida is ready to take the lead in that fight.

For more information on the Libertarian Party of Florida CLICK HERE

Article source:

26 thoughts on “Alexander Snitker: It’s a matter of Perspective, Mr. Stone

  1. George Whitfield

    Very well written Alex. I look forward to supporting our Libertarian Party candidates in Florida.

  2. Pingback: Roger Stone Comments on Libertarian Party of Florida Convention | Independent Political Report: Third Party News

  3. Austin Cassidy

    What is the purpose of this? This editorial was unnecessary, petty and totally off-base. It’s plain silly.

    Roger Stone did not say he was leaving the LP. And for that we should be glad, because he’s probably the most prominent registered Libertarian in the state of Florida right now.

    He wasn’t particularly critical of the LPF, either. He said he came to the decision he wouldn’t be the best candidate for governor and he called on the rank and file within the party to step forward and run for offices at all levels.

    How in the world is this controversial?

  4. Joe Wendt

    I’m not a fan of Roger Stone, but Alex Snitker is out of line. What gives him the right to criticize anyone. Snitker is two faced and petty, and has no right to criticize anyone. Stone gave his reasons why he didn’t enter the Governor’s race and his feelings on how the party was run. Stone has a right to his opinion, and shouldn’t be criticized for it.

  5. LPF Fails Again

    One article about Roger Stone not running for governor> All of Alex Snitker’s press for his 2010 US Senate campaign

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    JW @ 4,

    “Stone has a right to his opinion, and shouldn’t be criticized for it.”

    There’s a difference between having a right to an opinion and having a right to have one’s opinion held immune from criticism.

    The difference is that the former is a right and the latter is not.

    If the latter were a right, there could only be one opinion, held by all, since any other opinion would constitute a criticism of that one opinion.

  7. George Phillies

    @7 I am advised that the new chair is Dana Cummings, who joined the party somewhat under a year ago. However, I was not there, and am reporting on what I am told.

  8. Joe Wendt

    @ 6, I’m not criticizing someone’s right to criticize. I’m criticizing Snitker for criticizing Stone. Snitker is two faced; he’ll say good things to your face, but bash you behind your back. He claims he’s for inclusion, until you disagree with his narrative; then he stabs you in the back. Snitker criticizing Stone is essentially the pot calling the kettle black. He’s almost as bad as Tom Stevens.

    @ 7, Dana Cummings is Chair.

  9. Alan Pyeatt

    I don’t know Alex Snitker, so I can’t comment on his motivation for this article. But I will say this: While some of the comments by Roger Stone were appropriate for a libertarian audience, they were NOT appropriate for the Miami Herald blog.

    I can understand why Mr. Stone would want to get his name in the press again, and of course that’s a good thing for our LP candidates (or potential candidates) to do. But there were several negative implications made about the LP that should not be presented to a general audience, regardless of whether they are accurate. Instead, it would have been much more appropriate to issue a press release without those negative implications.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    AP @ 10,

    “there were several negative implications made about the LP that should not be presented to a general audience, regardless of whether they are accurate”

    Leninist much?

  11. paulie

    Snitker is two faced; he’ll say good things to your face, but bash you behind your back. He claims he’s for inclusion, until you disagree with his narrative; then he stabs you in the back.

    Something Stone would never stoop to doing, right? LOL

    Snitker criticizing Stone is essentially the pot calling the kettle black. He’s almost as bad as Tom Stevens.

    Stevens and Stone are allies.

  12. Joe Wendt

    @ 12, In leadership style, egomania, and intolerance of different points of view, you can barely tell Stevens from Snitker.

    Again, I am not a fan of Stone. I know what he’s done and his connections to some of the scum of the earth. That doesn’t mean he should be criticized by another scumbag, lol.

  13. paulie

    In leadership style, egomania, and intolerance of different points of view, you can barely tell Stevens from


  14. Alan Pyeatt

    TLK @ 11: You know better than that.

    I am not suicidal, and our party shouldn’t be, either. We need to present the best image possible to the public, and submitting that speech to the Miami herald blog airs dirty laundry that (even if true), should be done among ourselves.

    I don’t know what put the burr up your ass about me, but that “Leninist” comment was just plain stupid.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    Alan @ 15,

    The principle you are expounding is called “democratic centralism” — criticism and argument inside the party, unified happy face outside the party.

    It’s Leninist.

    That’s a fact.

  16. Alan Pyeatt

    Correction, Thomas: the principle I’m expounding is called “public relations.” It attempts to attract people to the LP rather than repel them.

    THAT’s a fact.

  17. paulie

    It can be called either one. Leninism does not always refer to ideology. Of course, calling it Leninist rather than any number of other terms for the same thing can imply a value judgement in itself.

  18. Eric Sundwall

    Stone can’t even find a GOP sugar daddy to milk his Rasputin whispers . . . what possible value could he bring to any third party? It’s not in his political DNA.

    The Johnson campaign got bit by him after he stymied the best effort by the LPNY in it’s entire history. He ran a sham candidate despite us and did worse. He maligned Warren Redlich in what Fred Dicker of the NY Post called the nastiest trick he’s ever seen.

    Stone is a lame old man with no political future. Get over it. Seriously.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie @ 20,

    “It can be called either one.”

    Well, sort of.

    There’s certainly a public relations element, and it’s true to say that Stone’s comments weren’t exactly great PR.

    The Leninist part is not so much about whether it’s good public relations or bad public relations, but whether or not Stone (or any other LP member, candidate, official, etc.) owes a duty to the party to only makestatements about the party, to external media, that constitute good public relations.

    The notion that such a duty is owed is Leninist democratic centralism, and it’s long been endemic to the LP, presumably stemming from Rothbard’s early, and explicitly Leninist, strategic line.

  20. Robert Capozzi

    tk, yes, although Rothbard himself didn’t practice democratic centralism.

  21. paulie

    The notion that such a duty is owed is Leninist democratic centralism, and it’s long been endemic to the LP

    Really? Because I often get the impression that the LP does the exact opposite, putting its internal bickering (which outsiders don’t understand or care about) front and center, broadcast to general audiences.

    Am I the only one getting that impression?

  22. Thomas L. Knapp


    Yes, the LP puts its internal bickering front and center, broadcast to general audiences, just like every other political party.

    The Leninist/democratic centralist aspect is the perpetual bellyaching about how bad it is to do that.

  23. paulie

    I really have not seen other parties do it nearly as much. I will grant that some tiny parties like the BTP did this even more than the LP. However, when I was a Democrat, the internal feuding was never really made explicit for new people that we were trying to get to be active. It was only when they got enmeshed in the apparatus that factions made an attempt to recruit them. And even if it hadn’t been that way, at least most people already had an idea of what they thought the Democrats were about. I have seen Libertarians start out explaining what the LP and libertarianism is to people who had never heard of either by mentioning intra-party disputes. Much to the puzzlement and disgust of the new folks hearing about any of it for the first time.

Leave a Reply

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