Dr. Tom Stevens Emerges As The Sole Republican Party Candidate For New York City Public Advocate

Tom Stevens, center, with the cast of Naked Boys Singing! 

The follow was published on “Dr.” Tom Stevens’ blog. I have not been made aware if it is satire or not. Tom Stevens is the founder and chairman of the Objectivist Party and also runs several other frivolous political organizations of his own. He recently claimed to be the executive director of a Libertarian Party of Pennsylania county affiliate. – KL

July 22, 2013

Ten minutes before the deadline for filing petitions to run for New York City Public Advocate, approximately 5,200 petition signatures were filed on behalf of Thomas Robert Stevens to be the Republican Party nominee for that office. 3,750 valid signatures needed to be filed by midnight, July 11, 2013.

Dr. Tom Stevens previously served as acting Republican State Committeeman for the 25th Assembly District, as Law Committee Chair of the Queens County Republican Party, as President of the New York Young Republican Club, as President of the Federation of New York State Young Republican Clubs, and as founder of Stonewall Republicans, Red Republicans, Liberty Republicans and the Susan B. Anthony Republicans. He also worked in support of the Presidential Campaigns of Ronald Reagan, Steve Forbes and most recently Dr. Ron Paul. He has taught college classes since 1982 and twice served as President of the Hofstra University School of Law Alumni Association.

Tom Stevens responded to the filing of petitions on his behalf by saying:

I was completely unaware that petitions were being circulated on my behalf. I was kept completely in the dark, did not seek this nomination, and never saw a petition with my name on it seeking the Republican nomination for New York City Public Advocate. When I was notified by the Board of Elections that petitions were filed on my behalf, I was honored. The only hint I had this might happen is that many months ago, I was asked by a candidate seeking the Republican Party’s nomination for Mayor whether I would accept the GOP nomination for New York City Public Advocate if the opportunity arose. I responded I would accept. 

My being on the ballot in November as the Republican Party’s candidate for New York City Public Advocate is not a done deal. Although no other GOP candidates filed for New York City Public Advocate, there is an objector to my petitions who may be filing line-by-line specific objections this week. I need 3,750 valid petition signatures and all of them must be Republicans with a valid current voter registration. Since I did not collect the signatures myself nor did I review the qualify of the work, I have no idea whether I will survive the challenge. If I do, I will run a vigorous and enthusiastic campaign.

Philosophically, I consider myself a libertarian and an Objectivist. I will advocate for smaller government, less bureaucratic red tape and lower taxes. I will seek the elimination of all bridge and tunnel tolls so free trade can take place throughout the metropolitan area. I will also advocate on behalf all who have a problem with the city bureaucracy and will be a true Ombudsman for all New York City residents.

Thomas Robert Stevens is an attorney who lives in Queens County. He graduated New York University with a B.A. in Political Science and graduated Hofstra University School of Law.

54 thoughts on “Dr. Tom Stevens Emerges As The Sole Republican Party Candidate For New York City Public Advocate

  1. Erik Viker

    He will do anything for attention. He’ll stand on his head. He’ll eat a bug. He’ll be a Republican.

  2. NewFederalist

    Does he actually have a job? How does he have income to do all the things he has allegedly done insofar as all the organizations he has founded and all that sort of thing. He seems like a Bob Milnes but without the poverty.

  3. Jake_Witmer

    Oooh! Smart! This would be a good way to further discredit the term “libertarian.”

    “Derp derp derp derp!” “No, you’ve got it wrong, I said derp derp derpity derp!” “Derp derp, we should buy a building” “No, Derp derp, we should hand out pamphlets!” “No, derp derp, we should run for governor (even though we don’t know how many votes, derp derp, the incumbent received, and are counting, derpity derp, on the media to reverse themselves 180 degrees and elect us).”

    The Libertarian Party is for morons. At this point, I feel sorry for the government plants who have to attend the LNC meetings. Is it really even worth wasting your time? There’s noone on the LNC who can tell the difference between a good idea and a bad one. You’re simply the tools of a few government plants, or worse, false, delusional friends of freedom.

    Just let the sociopaths have their fascism. It’s not like you have much to say about it anyway, given your lack of seriousness. If ever there should be a libertarian or two who decides to get serious about individual freedom, they will do what Libertarian Party petitioners do, in several states. They will engage the general public. They will then realize what needs to be done, if they are smart. If they are not smart, things will continue as they have been.

    Right now, there are no smart, involved libertarians. The proof of this is in the results they’ve obtained. When there finally are a few smart libertarians, the government plants on the LNC, and in most other organizations, will be ready, gavel in hand, to play “whack-a-mole.” That means that those smart libertarians will have to be concerned, not just with philosophy, but with strategy AND philosophy.

    If any such people eventually emerge, they are welcome to call me.

    Those who want more individual freedom should take some videotape of the people the LNC has hired to represent the LP in public. That will help clarify and crystallize the problem.

    Those who want gun rights should carry a gun, and get involved with teaching young people about rifles and marksmanship.

    Those who want individual freedom should teach others about jury rights.

    AVOID electoral politics, …unless you’re a whore who simply wants to get paid to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. Then, by all means, get paid a few bucks a signature. That’s a lot more than you’d make working at McDonald’s or K-Mart, assuming you regularly have the work. (In the LP this would mean that you’re unprincipled, hand out no literature, do nothing to build the grassroots base of the LP, and do nothing to hold the leadership to any kind of standard. If you do any of the prior, the person the LP delegates to do the hiring won’t call you back, because you’re then considered “difficult to work with.” If you’re totally unprincipled and just as willingly circulate petitions to block ballot access for pro-liberty causes as obtain it, then you’ll get a call from the LNC’s “ballot access pro.”)

    At this point, LP members are just Republicans who couldn’t hack it in the Republican Party’s more competitive environment, and Republicans are just Democrats who couldn’t hack it in the “Democratic” Party’s even more competitive environment. The LP has a nice platform, but it’s the same sociopathic socialists in the LP as well.

    Tom Stevens is an insane Orangutan. I hope he makes a lot of noise as an elected “insanitarian,” further discrediting the morons of the LP who allowed him within 100 miles of a leadership position in the LP. The LP is not ready for primetime, because the LP (like the other political parties in the USSA) is full of people who were “educated” by government schools. This means that they possess no consistent hierarchical philosophy of any kind.

    Without a philosophy that integrates strategic philosophy and political philosophy, and recognizes that it is starting without the power and position of the two major parties, the LP is completely harmless to the establishment.

    For those who wish to take my advice:
    http://www.fija.org

  4. Steven Wilson

    Here is an idea for the LNC to make money for campaigns.

    Pitch a new reality TV series called “nuts for Liberty” starring Milnes and Stevens somewhat like the odd couple but in real life.

    Who plays (with) Oscar is something the viewers will find out!!

    I’m sorry, I couldn’t help it. Lunch time fun time!!

  5. Joe Wendt

    It kinda says alot about the state of the GOP in NYC: no one else ran for the nominationand someone drafted Stevens for Public Adovocate. It’s a shame and pathetic.

  6. Han Shot First

    @10: no one drafted him. He’s an egotistical freak who can’t bring himself to admit he petitioned himself on the ballot.

    @7: Talks shit about LP; most recent blog post is about LP ballot drive

  7. Erik Viker

    @13, yeah, I noticed Jake Witmer says here the LP is for morons while simultaneously featuring his plea for support of the LP on his own blog. The conclusion is clear.

  8. johnO

    Why didn’t he resign from the R’s as he did LP? Why didn’t he run as Objectivist Party member?
    Why run at all?

  9. NewFederalist

    @6 & 16… he has a Juris Doctor. He’s a lawyer. Most lawyers don’t call themselves “Doctor” although I guess in the strict sense of the word it is acceptable. I guess pharmacists who get a PharmD will be calling themselves “Doctor” next!

  10. Dennis

    Yes, an attorney is technically a doctor, but almost none of them call themselves as such. Also, does he actually practice law?

  11. Han Shot First

    @19: I think he also had a PhD
    @20: no, otherwise he wouldn’t have time for all his shenanigans or teaching

  12. Andy

    “Erik Viker // Jul 22, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    @13, yeah, I noticed Jake Witmer says here the LP is for morons while simultaneously featuring his plea for support of the LP on his own blog. The conclusion is clear.”

    That post on his blog was posted months ago and his blog has not been updated since then. He posted that before his current reasons for anger started.

    Also, he does not really think that the Libertarian Party is for morons, but rather that there are certain individuals who have been placed in certain positions in the party who – through either incompetence or corruption – have prevented the party from being successful as it could be. His comments are just a sign of frustration after years of working within the organization.

  13. Nicholas Sarwark

    @22: If he has a PhD, it’s news to me. He’s the only JD I’ve ever met who called himself Doctor, and I know more than a few.

    Hell, I won’t even use Esquire.

  14. Han Shot First

    I thought I remember reading he had a PhD but his personal bio doesn’t mention it so I guess not. Wow, he really is an asshole. As 24 mentions, most lawyers don’t even use Esq. anymore.

  15. Starchild

    Jake Witmer @7 – I understand your frustration with the Libertarian Party’s leadership, but I don’t think it’s a matter of stupidity. It should be obvious looking at history that very intelligent people can still have very misguided priorities and make very bad decisions.

    Nor do I think any of my colleagues on the Libertarian National Committee are government plants. Throwing around such allegations seems really unproductive unless you have solid evidence to support them.

    As an LNC member, I am concerned with both strategy and philosophy. But simply having these concerns doesn’t tell me how to practically achieve the change that we need in order to make the Libertarian Party a more effective vehicle for advancing the cause of freedom.

    Broad, generalized rants don’t do much help me as a legislator help you, even if I largely agree with you. What I need are things like specific, actionable allegations, documentation of problems, concrete proposals for changes or solutions, and of course your willingness to invest the time and effort along with me to push for the reforms you’d like to see.

    Are you familiar with the Five Key Values of the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus?

    (I) BOTTOM-UP, NOT TOP-DOWN. We see a party that too often takes after the establishment parties and corporations rather than manifesting itself as a grassroots organization with revolutionary goals. We seek a decentralized Libertarian Party run by its members and activists rather than by a centralized clique of corporate-oriented professionals.

    (II) POLITICALLY BALANCED. We see a party which has become too conservative in both style and substance. We seek to restore a balanced approach to Libertarian Party policy-making and outreach that strives to appeal to the political left as much as to the political right and emphasizes personal liberty no less than economic liberty.

    (III) FUN, BOLD, AND FREE-SPIRITED. We see a party that has become too staid, timid, boring, and unimaginative. We seek a culture within the Libertarian Party that is bolder, more irreverent, more free-spirited, more creative, and more fun-loving.

    (IV) RADICAL AND PROUD. We see a party that has become too ashamed of its own ideals, a place where “idealist” is too often treated as a dirty word. We seek a party in which Libertarians proudly share a sense of solidarity as radical freedom fighters in a larger movement committed to the vision of worldwide individual liberty expressed in the Preamble and Statement of Principles of the Libertarian Party’s national platform.

    (V) YOUTH-FOC– USED. We see a party that is largely failing to connect with young people. We seek a Libertarian Party whose style, structure, culture, and materials speak first and foremost to the younger generations who hold the future in their hands.

    (From http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/grassrootslibertarians )

    What do you think of these values, with their attendant criticisms and recommended changes in direction? If you support them, what do you think the party should specifically do? What should I do as a member of the LNC, and how can you help me?

    Love & Liberty,
    ((( starchild )))
    At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
    (415) 625-FREE

  16. Andy

    Starchild said: “As an LNC member, I am concerned with both strategy and philosophy. But simply having these concerns doesn’t tell me how to practically achieve the change that we need in order to make the Libertarian Party a more effective vehicle for advancing the cause of freedom.”

    I gave a public comment at the last LNC meeting which if implemented, I believe would be of great benefit to the party and movement. That is, having more of LP ballot access drives done by actual Libertarians, acting in both a paid and volunteer capacity. The general points as to why are as follows:

    1) Libertarians act as better recruiters/ambassadors/field representatives for the party/movement than do non-libertarians.

    2) History has shown that Libertarian petitioners get higher average validity rates than non-libertarian petitioners.

    3) Reward Libertarian activists for being activists and eliminate the perverse set of incentives currently in place which reward work to non-libertarians who’d be just as happy to work as blockers against a petition to Recall Sheriff Joe Arpaio or to implement a Top Two Primary system in Arizona, or to pass a state income tax or pass a new control law in Washington, or to work on some other type of anti-liberty campaign somewhere in the country, and which also rewards people who go out and recruits more non-libertarians to work as petitioners under them so they can take overrides off of their pay, and never mind caring about validity rates or whether or not the people recruited misrepresent the petition while in the field, as in a “Who cares about quality? I’m just out to line my pockets with money and bilk the LP for as much as possible.” attitude.

    I’ve been saying for years that Libertarian Party ballot access drives should be more activist oriented, and that there should be a greater focus on quality, yet hardly anyone seems to care and nothing seems to change.

  17. Andy

    Starchild said: ” If you support them, what do you think the party should specifically do?”

    Here are some other things that ought to be done:

    1) There should be a much greater focus put into promoting jury nullification of victimless crimes. Libertarians could have a big effect with this issue regardless of whether or not any Libertarians get elected. This should be mentioned far more frequently than it is by the party. Jury nullification should be brought up every time a Libertarian is interviewed in the media, and it should be “shouted from the roof tops” so to speak. The Libertarian Party should be known as the jury nullification of victimless crimes party.

    2) There should be a greater effort put into electing Libertarians to seats in state legislatures, and also to the office of Sheriff (particularly in low population counties). The LP has elected people to seats in the state legislatures in Alaska, New Hampshire, and Vermont, but the last time this happened was 13 years ago. The LP came close to electing candidates to the state legislatures in South Carolina and in Colorado in the last election, and both of them very well could have been elected if a little bit of strategy and planning had been implemented. Some of these races for seats in state legislatures are winnable. Heck, the Green Party elected a candidate to a seat in the state legislature in Arkansas last year. What in the hell is wrong with the LP where we can’t win a seat in one freaking state legislature? Sheriff is another good office to focus on as there is a lot that a Libertarian Sheriff with some balls could do, and keep in mind that a Libertarian Sheriff can appoint Libertarian Deputies. There are plenty of low population counties out there that the LP could target for electing a Libertarian Sheriff.

    3) The Ron Paul r3VOLution woke up a lot of people and got them interested in libertarian ideas. I have talked to many people who were involved with the Ron Paul r3VOLution and the majority of them are in fact open to the Libertarian Party. The main reason that more of them have not gotten involved with the LP is because they don’t see the party doing much of anything. They also perceived that the party “sold out” when it nominated Bob Barr in 2008, but the Gary Johnson campaign was not as bad as the Barr campaign, so those wounds are healing. The Libertarian Party could greatly increase its size by actively recruiting the small “l” libertarians out there who supported Ron Paul in 2008 and in 2012. Libertarians should attend Campaign for Liberty meetings and bring sign up sheets for the LP with them, and they should invite the people at the meetings to come to LP meetings. The message needs to be conveyed to these people that they can keep doing what they are doing with Campaign for Liberty and support the LP at the same time, and the message also needs to be conveyed to these people that the LP is not an irrelevant organization, but this can only be done by SHOWING them by example that the LP is not an irrelevant organization (in other words, Libertarians have to get off of their asses and engage in real world politics instead of preaching to the choir or debating amongst themselves).

    These are just a few things. I could go on with more. Just enacting what I said in post #27 would be a big step in the right direction.

  18. Jill Pyeatt

    Andy, you’ve made some excellent points in 27 and 28. I especially think the LP should talk more about jury nullification. I don’t think the average adult in this country even knows about that option.

  19. Erik Viker

    This is all very informative and all. Now can we go back to mocking Tom Stevens?

  20. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // Jul 23, 2013 at 10:31 am

    Andy, you’ve made some excellent points in 27 and 28.”

    I brought up the points I made in post #27 during the public comments portion of the recently held LNC meeting in Las Vegas, NV. Several LNC members claimed that they agreed with me. Now let’s see if any of this stuff is actually implemented, or if it is back to business as usual (as in the same problems that have been going on for years continue).

    “I especially think the LP should talk more about jury nullification. I don’t think the average adult in this country even knows about that option.”

    I have informed numerous people about the right of jury nullification. The vast majority of people whom I have spoken to about it did not know about it before I told them. If jury nullification ever becomes common knowledge in the country it would really slow down the wheels of the state.

  21. Andy

    “pass a new control law in Washington”

    This should read “pass a new gun control law in Washington”. This is an actual ballot initiative petition that is paying on the streets in Washington right now. The person who was hired to be in charge of getting this issue on the ballot is the same person who Steve Kubby was convinced had to be hired to get Regulate Marijuana Like Wine on the ballot in California, that is if they had raised enough money to make it happen, which they did not, so that petition never paid for signatures and never went anywhere. This same individual has been hired to get a lot of crappy, anti-liberty issues on the ballot over the years, such as one to start a state income tax in Washington (one of the few states that does not have an income tax). If Regulate Marijuana Like Wine had actually happened, it could have put several hundred thousand dollars into this person’s pocket, but hey, let’s make non-libertarian political mercenaries who are already rich, even richer.

  22. Mark Axinn

    Tom does not have a PhD.

    He has a JD from Hofstra, earned around the same time I got one from Fordham (early 80’s).

    Most lawyers do still use Esq. in addressing letters, but that’s about it. The only other attorneys I know who call themselves “Dr.” are also MD’s or PhD’s. For example, when I first met Roger Pilon of CATO, I properly referred to him as Doctor as he has a doctorate in philosophy and a law degree.

    I kinda though we’ve been over this lots of times before…..

  23. Mark Axinn

    Joe @ 10.

    I did not know there was a Republican Party in NYC.

    I know we’ve had some Mayors elected claiming to be Republicans, but they were really just egoists using that name as a platform so they could get into office. Once in office, they governed on tax, borrow and spend philosophy, with stop, frisk and nanny-state thrown in.

    Manhattan went 85% for Obama. Very few actually admit to being Republican here.

    BTW, a Republican in NYC would be a card-carrying commie in a place like Arizona or Utah!

  24. Andy

    Mark Axinn said: “Once in office, they governed on tax, borrow and spend philosophy, with stop, frisk and nanny-state thrown in.”

    So in other words, they governed like a typical Republican.

  25. Dr. Tom Stevens

    I have refused to give permission to Independent Political Report to re-print any of the articles posted on Liberty Lion and I certainly have not given IPR permission to reprint my photographs.

    I have asked Krzysztof Lesiak and Paulie Frankel to address these copyright violations and they have refused to take down this article and the photo attached.

    I understand that articles published at Liberty Lion are of extreme interest to IPR’s readership but I still refuse to permit my intellectual property to be posted here. In the one instance when I gave such permission, the article was not posted.

  26. Steve M

    If a copyright holder has specifically asked that their property not be reproduced then it is an act of theft to ignore that request and then publish.

    I will leave it up to the lawyers to argue the civil and criminal ramifications. But we Libertarians should not miss-use the property of others.

    This is a case where the IPR staff should have written a story and provided links and not just copy the works of another.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steve M @ 45,

    Agreed. Libertarians should not misuse the property of others.

    That doesn’t really apply here, though, since “intellectual property” is a statist superstition.

  28. libertariangirl

    exactly? intellectual property is bullshit. Steve , Dr Stevens do you guys pay smeone everytime you quote a foundig father or loan a book etc etc….no? theres your answer

  29. Steve M

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

  30. Steve M

    you are but one type of libertarian…. others disagree with you on this subject. Your opinion is your opinion as mine is mine… But the law exists break it at your own risk.

  31. Warren Redlich

    There will be an article forthcoming on IPR explaining our position on the silly copyright claims asserted by Stevens.

    In short though, political statements by a candidate or party official are subject to the fair use doctrine. Since our use is to inform the public of such candidate/official’s statements, it clearly falls within fair use.

  32. The Rev. Professor Councilman Former Blackboard Monitor Erik Viker

    I sometimes read that “Liberty Lion” vanity blog for the lolz,

Leave a Reply

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