From: George Phillies
Date: Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 9:02 AM
Subject: FYI, Branding, LNC Finances, Other
BCC because there is a long list of you:
I remind you of a directive from Geoff Neale to the LNC Staff: “Staff will prepare and present to the LNC no later than two weeks before the next LNC on our current branding.” It’s in the discuss list someplace.
Did the LNC get the material yet, it now being only one week before the next LNC meeting? Or did staff once again ignore the LNC and its CEO?
On a different note, the latest financials allow disentangling the building fund and general fundraising. For the first five months of the year, the National Party brought in $501,676, of which $123,773 was for the “building” and only $378,136 was ‘general fundraising’. Furthermore, general fundraising income fell from $95,000 in January to barely over $65,000 in April and May. $65,000 a month is an annual rate of $780,000 a year, which is less than the $795,297.07 that the LNC raised in the year 1993. In today’s dollars, the 1993 year’s income was $1,282,079, 64% higher than the current general fundraising rate.
Finally, to confirm that the public record is correct, I did recently buy the standard URLs corresponding to Phillies2016 and Phillies2020.
tk, sure, that sounds like common courtesy as opposed to my understanding of “transparency,” though….
RC @ 66,
“Are you suggesting a massive annotation of LP finances so that the unschooled can be hand-fed and walked through the implications of each and every line item in a financial statement?”
No, he’s suggesting that when it’s obvious that there’s been either a book-keeping mistake or a rules infraction with respect to the organization’s money, those responsible for keeping the books should politely answer when asked which it is, instead of going ballistic on members for asking.
65 sm, yer asking the wrong guy. Try Neale, Hagan or Benedict.
Personally, I am completely uninterested in the forensics of the situation, though I’m profoundly interested in the interpersonal dysfunction it wrought. Maintaining civility and a like-minded purpose trumps legalistic technicalities for me…all day long.
64 ns: George Phillies does not show any signs of doing that.
ME: I see your point, Counselor. Still, I believe in miracles! And I have far too much respect for GP to believe that he doesn’t himself see that he had other options and that, at least, his narcing could easily be viewed by others as uncool.
63 S: No. We (or at least I, and I suspect we) want enough transparency that the LP members you label as “gadflies” will be able to generally look and see for themselves what is going on without having to rely on asking staffers for answers.
me: Yes, that’d be great. Unfortunately, I’m sure you’d agree that different people have different knowledge bases. The incident I described was by a highly intelligent person of some stature in the LP, but who clearly lacked the ability to read financial statements.
Are you suggesting a massive annotation of LP finances so that the unschooled can be hand-fed and walked through the implications of each and every line item in a financial statement? If so, nice sentiment, but highly labor intensive, I’d guess.
s: By the way, you probably shouldn’t cite me here as a fan of your postings (@54) just because I happen to agree with something you say from time to time. I regrettably cannot say that I feel your typical comments here are constructive. Disappointingly disproportionate obsession with trashing Murray Rothbard and efforts to uphold libertarianism.
me: Thank you. My apologies. I should have used the word “even,” as in “got some agreement EVEN from folks like Starchild.” Hope that clarifies! I do get that you are not a fan of my TAAAList approach, but I trust that you are libertarian enough to recognize that my views are just as valid as yours.
As for “upholding” L-ism, it’s what I do consistently, since I consider myself a L politically. And I am sorry if you feel I “trash” MNR, for in my mind I do not. I do believe his POLITICAL THEORIES were weak, confused and counter-productive, but I liked him personally. I offer my perspective as a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery especially to those still stuck in that Matrix. To paraphrase Morpheus: “That there’s something wrong with the Randian/Rothbardianism. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there…like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.”
It’s my best swing at sharing the Red Pill. 😉
RC, I am happy that when there is a discrepancy that the facts and evidence be presented rather then just smear campaigns such as the one you are waging. I am not talking about reading the profit and loss statement or the cash flow statement. I just want to see if there is or there isn’t a 10K$ wire transfer. Not that hard to read or understand.
So, about that one bank statement?
@38: You’re not going to get off this hobby horse unless or until George Phillies agrees with you that his contact of the FEC was inappropriate.
George Phillies does not show any signs of doing that.
Ergo, you’re never going to get off this hobby horse.
It’s about time for this topic to get a dedicated thread.
Robert Capozzi @62 asks, “Instead of doing party work, staff can field gadfly questions from members all day long. Is that what you want?”
No. We (or at least I, and I suspect we) want enough transparency that the LP members you label as “gadflies” will be able to generally look and see for themselves what is going on without having to rely on asking staffers for answers.
By the way, you probably shouldn’t cite me here as a fan of your postings (@54) just because I happen to agree with something you say from time to time. I regrettably cannot say that I feel your typical comments here are constructive. Disappointingly disproportionate obsession with trashing Murray Rothbard and efforts to uphold libertarianism.
60 tk, sure.
61 sm, yes, the charge of the party apparatus has gone “ballistic” has been made since 1980, if not earlier.
Why stop at letting members see old bank statements? Why not open the online banking account right now for all members to see? Hey, maybe if staff wants to take a vacation day, the request could be sent to all members, and it can be voted on.
Absurd? Perhaps. But complete transparency might look just like that.
I recall a prominent L who was reviewing a statement the LNC put out a few years back. This L was literally flipping out because he didn’t like what HE THOUGHT the statement said. It was clear to me that he was misreading the financials, that in that case the negative number was a good thing.
But this L was making threats, making claims of gross incompetence, etc. He created a tremendous amount of static in the party SIMPLY BECA– USE HE WAS IGNORANT. Once he finally “got” what the financials meant, after weeks of online campaigning against the LNC leadership, he whimpered off. He never even acknowledged that his wild and false accusations were off base.
This particular L is an engineer, so his intellect was very strong with numbers, not unlike Brother Phillies. So, perhaps, because their quantitative skills are strong, they may convince themselves that they can figure out any math problem, and then assert their (false) findings with the L community, ascribing with their “findings” nefarious intent on the leadership.
That said, while “transparency” is a good thing, so is appropriateness, and so is efficiency and minimal bureaucracy. Striking the optimal balance of these values is helpful, and it is subjective. Instead of doing party work, staff can field gadfly questions from members all day long. Is that what you want?
Flipping out over a line item in an interim report seems inappropriate to me, as does narcing on one’s own party. Apparently others disagree.
So, Steve, do you advocate access to the LNC’s online account for all members? 😉
RC I think that the LNC must be transparent in its financial dealings. When the LNC isn’t is when we the members find out much to late to save the village because the party apparatus has gone ballistic. If the LNC doesn’t trust the members then the members shouldn’t trust the LNC!
So about those bank statements?
RC @ 59,
“A complaint filed with the FEC opened the party up to all sorts of exposure and scrutiny.”
Which is why the LNC should have answered a pertinent and politely asked question instead of getting abusive about it.
58 sm, inadvertently, perhaps, you are supporting my take on L’Affaire Narco. A complaint filed with the FEC opened the party up to all sorts of exposure and scrutiny. It could have gone all Vietnam, “We had to destroy the village in order to save it,” type of thing. It was a reckless thing to do, with much risk and no obvious reward, other than satisfying a perennial gadfly’s curiosity about a small apparent accounting classification error.
Few to none would disagree with your desire for transparency. OTOH, an organization could be paralyzed by fielding and responding to every gadfly’s request for information, especially a small organization with little to no accounting resource.
If the gadfly is also a perennial candidate, and then wonders why he doesn’t win, this would indicate a blind spot in the gadfly’s radar screen, especially in the “self awareness” area. Tearing colleagues down over minutiae and petty bookkeeping matters has the cumulative effect of alienating prospective supporters.
Of course, anyone with eyes to see can see that Brother Phillies is a man of many talents, skills and energy. A change of heart and a more convivial approach – as well as an admission the narcing on his own party was at minimum hasty and ill advised – could turn the situation around.
Or he can keep digging in his heels into the muddy mess he’s made.
The pattern indicates the latter, but then miracles DO happen!
The FEC’s ruling on this issue was “under the enforcement priority system, matters that are low rated are forwarded to the Commission with a recommendation for dismissal”.
http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqsdocsMUR/10044263989.pdf
Why go to the FEC? because the FEC has subpena powers they could have ordered the LNC bank to turn over the bank statements for that time period. Those bank statements would show if the LNC had violated the law or not. As I understand it, Those were the bank statements that Rachel Hawkridge was asking for.
A continuing problem that I have with the LNC is their lack of transparency. If they can not demonstrate transparency to the members and how they deal with our business then why would anyone expect them to run a transparent government for the benefit of the people?
How about publishing the July 2008 bank statement?
48 gp: (“narc”, seen mostly in motion pictures and television shows as a derogatory and unfair reference to the culture of a particular minority group)
me: I have nothing but compassion for you, GP. You may find that hard to believe right now, as I periodically throw water on you in an attempt to wake you from some sort of horrific, sleepwalking nightmare, where your judgment is so impaired that you bring sick, weak shit like the above, to be swatted away.
Check your urban dictionary, dawg. “Narc’s” been used by the palefaces and the brothers for decades, dude. Ain’t nothing racist about it.
@12
The best way to warrant (or keep) a Wikipedia article is to go forth and be notable. There are plenty of other information sources other than Wikipedia. It is a very useful took but it is hardly the only tool.
http://www.cafepress.com/+support_george_phillies_cap,146158085
mhw, I also sorry you feel this way. You could just skip over my comments…just a thought.
Might be, though, deep down you see that my fundamental critique of Randian/Rothbardian rings at least directionally valid. If the underlying thought system is fundamentally flawed, cascade failure ensues.
Rather than rebuilding the foundation, the frightened repair to sideshow dramas, where the stakes are nil but the cheap thrills are bountiful.
Why question whether there actually is a “cult of the omnipotent state” when parsing the latest he said/she said melodrama provides sufficient distraction from an otherwise mundane existence?
SR, sorry ya feel that way. I call it as I see it. It’s funny, though, you say that, since my constructive praise/critiques of the GJ campaign got some agreement from folks like Starchild.
It’s prolly true that I lay it on thick for GP and L’affaire Narco. It’s entirely possible that I am completely off base, and that GP’s act was guided by the Hand of God. He may be Lao Tsu, Jesus, and Buddha reincarnated in one body, come back to set us all aright.
Still, my truth is that I see my take on this borderline sociopathy is that I am the counselor talking a despondent soul off the ledge. It’s no surprise to me that my tough love approach here meets with massive resistance. Denying eating the cookies requires a tremendous amount of delusion.
But, then again, maybe not. I’d rather be happy than right. I wonder if GP can say the same….
Yes which is why I don’t visit this blog much anymore.
Yeah, I have noticed that.
Has anyone else noticed that Robert Capozzi never really contributes much to IPR besides arguing with people? He seems to be contrary on purpose, just for the sake of arguing.
The following analogy works:
Investor notices 1% of a companies finances are not properly accounted for. Investor and a member of the board asks questions and are ignored and feel threatened over it. Investor goes to SEC who privatly investigate and find no wrong doing. The company then decides to send a letter to all investors making the entire thing public and sinking their own stock.
The better analogy for GP’s behavior is the gadfly investor. Gadfly doesn’t understand the SEC filings. Gadfly calls the company for an explanation (as he’s done so many times before) and the company’s investor relations people don’t explain the complex financial matter to the gadfly’s satisfaction, so the gadfly goes to the SEC. The SEC launches a formal investigation, which proceeds to tank the stock. A classic lose/lose situation.
Even if no improprieties are found in the financials, the damage is done.
Gadflyism is in the messiah complex direction and almost never turns out well.
IMO.
To be precise, the Barr campaign when asked asserted that the money had been an electronic wire transfer, and identified the person in the LNC and staff. I then raised the question with the LNC, which was grossly abusive to Rachel Hawkridge. That exhausts the legitimate sub rosa inquiries.
FEC regulations mandate exact language that must be used in calling matters to their attention.
The use of racist gangster language (“narc”, seen mostly in motion pictures and television shows as a derogatory and unfair reference to the culture of a particular minority group) by my critic is, well, something we have to live with unless the powers that be assign it to a special-topic thread.
@45,
“Responses were initiated by the FEC complaint.”
The Barr campaign responded to Dr. Phillies without an FEC inquiry (“complaint” is an FEC term, not an actual and accurate description).
The LNC responded abusively to direct inquiry from Dr. Phillies, hence the FEC inquiry.
Were “all other remedies” exhausted? No.
Phillies could have spent a year publicly slamming the LNC for its abusive response to his inquiry, and making hay with the possibility of foul play with the money. And it would have been hard to make a case that said slamming, and the effects thereof, were undeserved.
Instead, he chose the least damaging and most responsible remedy and went to the next agency in line which might be able to procure an answer to his fairly simple question.
His reward for doing the minimum possible damage to an institution which practically begged him to do the maximum possible damage? Most people have forgotten the incident if they ever thought about it in the first place. One person (Capozzi) is still trying unsuccessfully to turn the incident into something damaging to Phillies.
Shane @45
Having experienced the extremely corrupt culture of the LNC personally… I am inclined to believe Phillies’ interpretation of the events and Knapp’s interpretation of what probably happened.
@42. Again, completely wrong facts. Responses were initiated by the FEC complaint.
@17. That is flat out false. All other remedies were not exhausted. All parties involved had not even been contacted. Par for the course for GP.
He would rather speculate and indict than ask a few questions.
If GP had truly attempted to “get to the bottom” and was stonewalled, then MAYBE there is justification but that was not even close to the case.
TK @42
This is a far more accurate description of what happened and why.
Just to briefly summarize the situation being discussed, for those who aren’t familiar with it:
At some point subsequent to the 2008 presidential election, George Phillies noticed a discrepancy between the financial reports of the Barr campaign and of the LNC.
The nature of that discrepancy was that the Barr campaign reported having received a 5-figure transfer of funds from the LNC, while the LNC reported no such disbursement.
There are two possible explanations for such a discrepancy:
1) One of the two organizations reported a transaction that hadn’t happened; or
2) One of the two organizations didn’t report a transaction that had happened.
And of course in either case, the discrepancy could be accidental (a bookkeeping mistake) or it could be intentional (an attempt to hide a five-figure transaction that had never been approved in an LNC vote, for example).
Phillies politely asked both organizations for an explanation.
He received a polite, but not dispositive, reply from the Barr campaign.
The LNC’s reaction, on the other hand, was to go into executive session and subject the LNC member who had conveyed Dr. Phillies’ question to them to extended verbal abuse.
So, Dr. Phillies asked the body to which BOTH organizations had submitted the reports in which the discrepancy was to be found to answer the question as to which, if either report, was correct.
Dr. Phillies owes no one an apology. He did not “over-react,” nor did he “narc.” He went through the proper channels to get information which should have been readily available and provided immediately to anyone who wanted it.
When one of the organizations responsible for maintaining those channels responded abusively, he went to the NEXT organization in line for providing/explaining such information.
As it turned out, the discrepancy does appear to have been a simple mistake of some sort. It shouldn’t have been controversial at all. The LNC, not Dr. Phillies, made it controversial.
“Instead, he doubles down, claiming he had no other choice. Sorry, but that’s just laughable.”
Not really. I was one of the few people at that Executive Session in St. Louis so perhaps I have better insight into what was actually happening from 2008-2010. It was not a fun time to be on the LNC.
Accounting errors can be a sign of fraud although it doesn’t appear to be the case here and George went through the LNC and the LNC Representative that asked the questions was instead attacked by the LNC in Executive Session. George could have wrote headlines, but instead he had the matter investigated in private. In the end, it wasn’t George that made the matter public and it wouldn’t have ever made it to the FEC if some people on the LNC would have believed in better transparency.
As for filling against his own party, if there was no crime and it was just a simple error, there was never any case for the FEC to make and they didn’t make one. Also, remember the LNC doesn’t exactly bring in a lot of money. $10,000 is actually a very significant amount of money and internal theft could easily bankrupt the party.
For background information into the FEC story: https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/05/rachel-hawkridge-responds-to-chris-barbers-letter-about-george-phillies/
If I remember and understand correctly a “complaint” is what the FEC calls asking a question. I believe it is the wording on the form you have to start your statement with.
In my previous job, if an employee thought there was any chance that I may have taken $10,000 from a store I was managing (which makes a lot more money than the national party raises in a year) they would have been under contract to report it. I don’t see much of a difference here.
35 tk: But if George Phillies asks the FEC a question, after asking it to the LNC first and getting evasion and abuse in response, somehow it’s Watergate, Hiroshima and the Teapot Dome scandal all rolled into one.
me: Deflect much? GP filed a complaint, it wasn’t just a “question.” And, yes, of course, FEC-Gate is a very small indiscretion in the grand scheme of things. But, still, it was against his own team WITH the government!
And, worse, GP seems completely unwilling to admit to even poor judgment on his part. The coverup IS worse than the “crime.”
If he can’t admit that, then how is anyone to take his motives seriously? Every time GP attacks (often), onlookers can’t help but wonder about his intentions.
jp, re: “glass houses comment,” happy to explain. It was NOT intended to say that GP has committed financial indiscretions of the sort he accuses others of.
The point is GP attacks others, hammers and tongs, often with little to no information, reflexively, viciously, assuming the worst. Others see that he does so. It’s a matter of public record that his judgment is SO poor that he filed with the FEC against his own party.
Having a temper is not a crime. Losing it and exposing your party to FEC investigations is not a crime, either, although it’s exceedingly poor judgment.
The amazing thing, and the thing that continues to shock me to this day, is that GP is unrepentant about his narcing. He won’t even say, Gee, maybe I overreacted. Instead, he doubles down, claiming he had no other choice. Sorry, but that’s just laughable.
Mom and Dad have come home. Young George not only has his hand in the cookie jar, but crumbs are all over his face and shirt.
And, yet, he denies eating the cookies!
This only makes a bad situation worse for GP.
Pity.
@32 yep dirty politics sometimes but not always by people who don’t have the integrity to stand up and put their names behind their words. Even when people put their names behind the filth its still unacceptable… Until we the people put that kind of politics down as unacceptable we will just keep electing trash politicians… For those of you who called me a troll….. this is what I have been talking about…..
Cut it out and shout it down….. If you have a policy or management problem with a county, state or national level then lets debate those issues…. Whenever anyone tries to use mud and innuendo and insults…. push it right back at them as unacceptable.
If you want good clean leadership then you cant accept dirty politics!
My point has always been simple. Yet it appears to be beyond everyone else.
You are not going to get a lean function LNC because there is no fear of punishment. Voting someone off a board cannot be a serious painful experience. Especially when they are allowed back in.
Repeat offenders and whining are just lame. The building fund is just one example. But giving people a detailed listing of expenses is going to do what?
The LNC as a board will always make the LP look bad. Shut it down. That is the solution. Disclosures and reports and glass houses. Boring.
The people donating now don’t seem to care that much about lean function are being efficient.
You have the same people doing the same things just in a different year. Our congress and the LNC are the same animal.
Cheers.
JP @ 32,
” I would guess that a letter to the FEC six or 10 years ago would be far less damaging.”
Especially given that the LNC itself narcs to the FEC on its donors and vendors regularly, each and every month, and has for decades, with detailed reports.
But if George Phillies asks the FEC a question, after asking it to the LNC first and getting evasion and abuse in response, somehow it’s Watergate, Hiroshima and the Teapot Dome scandal all rolled into one.
GP @29
If there was one section that was the most important to send to donors and members, it is definitely “Where Your Money Went”.
I think Liberty for America and its predecessor Let Freedom Ring! have been extremely successful in weeding the garden. If readers go through back issues, they will be able to identify people and factions who are far different in their influence than was once the case. Of course, as those of us with gardens have noticed, every so often there are new weeds to be weeded.
“If GP runs in 16 and 20, I would anticipate leaflets and whisper campaigns that would doom his prospects from jump.”
I doubt it. The leaflets and whisper campaign’s didn’t do much to stop Bob Barr in 2008 even though just months before he had a Republican PAC, and Ron Paul’s newsletters didn’t destroy his good ratings in the LP. I would guess that a letter to the FEC six or 10 years ago would be far less damaging.
@19 When I managed retail stores, I would always tell my employees that if they seen me do something they did not think was right they were to ask me about it and if they still had questions they were to call the internal theft tip lines and report the activity to my district manager. Of course, I never stole money or merchandise and because of that I never got angry when questioned by an employee or loss prevention about any decisions I made.
As for George, I will say that during the 27 months I worked for him, he was always transparent with finances and donors so I don’t understand your glass houses comment.
“You’ve been braying about “crooked” behavior for, what, 15 years now? And it’s gotten you what, exactly?”
I think Dr. Phillies has actually had a lot more success than given credit for. In 2008, Phillies was actually doing very well until the last minute when Ruwart and Barr entered the race. We had by far the strongest campaign organization and several people commented on this. We forced the other campaigns to do better.
From that campaign, I went on to serve a term as an Alternate on the LNC where I was a strong opponent of kicking Lee Wrights off the national committee, some of our staff went on to the judicial committee, which has decided some very important decisions in the past few years and others went on to join state organizations, and I would also give George much of the credit for the 2010 LNC Treasurer race.
@26 We polled our readers. “Where Your Money Went” is our most popular series of articles.
@27,
I would hope that it would have made the LNC a little more careful in how the word their fund raising and then how the spend those funds.
At a bare minimum I am sure it has made some donors more reluctant and more willing to question when they are asked for donations from the LNC.
GP, consider reading up on both the “messiah” and “persecution” complexes, you may find it helpful.
Or, for lighter fare, rewatch the old Andy Griffith Show, the episode where Gomer Pyle is shouting “Citizen’s arrest, citizen’s arrest.” Do you laugh with him or at him? Consider why so. The intent would seem to be “at” him, since he is being pathetic in his inappropriateness.
You’ve been braying about “crooked” behavior for, what, 15 years now? And it’s gotten you what, exactly?
For all of the talk about economic and market intelligence, why is it that the party at the national level seems to suffer the same ailments as our Federal congress?
I don’t know why Phillies always sends out the financials assuming that the reader even cares. A moron could operate a more efficient office than our LP. It is true for all humans.
You don’t budget other peoples money, you spend it.
Stop arguing about the ledger and just get rid of the national. Can’t waste what you don’t have. Simple.
All better.
@11 We saw that in 2012, and the fund expenditures issues were not very promising.
“I can’t see a case where…” We are not concerned with your lack of concern for evidence sworn under penalty of perjury that our party’s money walked out the door.
So are you also not concerned about crooked fundraising? For example I have here received today with the latest LP news a letter raising money for the David F Nolan Memorial 2% of a Building, promising “Fifteen years from today, I see us owning the building outright”, a promise which might even be true, if you ignore the 98% of the building we are not likely to be owning.
Or did your mommy put you up to this? Wasn’t it she who walked with one of the states that had committed to being in our LNC region? Or is that a different Capozzi?
tk, I prefer “cutting edge”! 😉 Or “most radical”!
I assume “Shane” is “Shane Cory,” so he seems to recall GP’s narc. I suspect the national leadership is aware of GP’s reckless, self-sabotaging act. If GP runs in 16 and 20, I would anticipate leaflets and whisper campaigns that would doom his prospects from jump.
GP can play gadfly for the duration, but like the lawyer who refers to himself as “Dr.” and runs against his own party as an Objectivist, his influence and consequence will likely be negligible.
‘Tis a pity, IMO, since on most issues, GP is the voice of reason. I’d be unsurprised if his kindergarden report card had a D for “Plays well with others.”
RC @ 19,
“the FEC narc brand CERTAINLY sticks for me”
Perhaps so. But you’re the only person I’ve ever run into for whom it DOES stick — and in a marginal party, you’re pretty close to the most marginal figure I’m aware of.
Frank Gonzalez did a short stint as a Libertarian petitioner several years ago. I met him while petitioning in Evanston, IL for the Libertarian Party of Illinois back in 2004. I’m not aware of him working as a petitioner for several years. That’s probably a good move on his part considering the way that the Libertarian Party and other organizations tend to treat petition circulators.
A, thanks, I’d not heard of FG previously. It appears he ran in 02 in IL as a L, 04 in FL as a L, then 06 in FL as a D.
Pretty articulate, I’d say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PkhHNbUmQw
17 tk, well, the FEC narc brand CERTAINLY sticks for me, and it appears to’ve stuck with Shane as well. I’ve seen some LNC chatter about GP’s latest grievance, and he certainly seems to have, shall I say, diminished credibility there, too. Of course, it’s a tiny little universe of those paying attention to GP and his frequent outbursts. Some may find this sorta stuff illuminating and healthy, but I can’t say who, other than perhaps you.
In GP’s mind, perhaps he’d exhausted his options for remedies. Aside from his closest allies, this assertion certainly doesn’t hold water for me.
If one is to cast stones, it seems wise to not live in a glass house. And yet he lives here: 😉
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.architecturaldigest.com/architecture/2012-09/architect-philip-johnson-glass-house-modernism-article/_jcr_content/par/cn_contentwell/par-main/cn_pagination_container/cn_image.size.philip-johnson-glass-house-h670-search.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.architecturaldigest.com/architecture/2012-09/architect-philip-johnson-glass-house-modernism-article&h=447&w=670&sz=129&tbnid=zzX4hBzImJyy5M:&tbnh=89&tbnw=133&zoom=1&usg=__TsdM8hXkCSbSJc67E2Jt6fbv6-g=&docid=pKlJyQ6VXze9wM&sa=X&ei=9DvgUcn8EfHI4APEooA4&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAA&dur=4168
“George Phillies // Jul 12, 2013 at 6:24 am
Run as a Democrat? You try it”
A libertarian named Frank Gonzalez ran for US House in Florida as a Democrat a few years ago. I think it was in 2006. He got around 42-46% of the vote in the general election.
RC @ 13,
“In my fevered imagination, the brand is ‘FEC narc’ until a cleansing confession is forthcoming.”
There, fixed that for ya.
No “cleansing confession” is necessary, since Dr. Phillies has been forthright from the beginning about the fact that, after exhausting the reasonable internal remedies without result (other than vicious harassment, under cover of fraudulent executive session, of the LNC member who assisted him in exhausting those remedies), he was the one who reluctantly asked the agency which had received an erroneous or false report to investigate whether the report was false or merely erroneous.
Geez guys!
Stassen was R. You miss the point, sorry to be oblique.
Stassen was the “perennial losing candidate,” which appears to be the path you are on.
Spitzer and Wallace were contrite about their MAJOR missteps, and Wallace, at least, salvaged his reputation as “racist guv.”
Remain in denial ala Stassen, or ‘fess up and maybe be a mensch. While the stakes are low, the psychic dividends will pay off, big time.
Run as a Democrat? You try it.
Think that Gary Johnson (or whoever) would get into Democratic Party debates if they ran as a Democrat? Silly. Most of the 2008 Democratic candidates who were real Democrats … I met several of them … did not get in to any Democratic Party debates.
gp: Finally, to confirm that the public record is correct, I did recently buy the standard URLs corresponding to Phillies2016 and Phillies2020.
s(c?)2: I can’t see a case in which filing an FEC complaint or asking donors to withhold contributions and cancel pledges is justified.
me: IOW, you can run, and run, and run, but you cannot hide. A fairly major (in context) lapse in judgment likely made in anger is understandable, and forgivable, but ex post rationalization (in perpetuity?) is not. The brand is “FEC narc” until a cleansing confession is forthcoming.
Harold Stassen or Eliot Spitzer (possibly George
Wallace)?
Considering the importance of Wikipedia, this is a major roadblock for the Phillies campaign. That needs to be fixed before he begins attempting to appear in any Democratic Party debates.
Well, well – Phillies2016 and Phillies2020. They say once it gets into your blood it NEVER goes away.
I know this will be heresy to a few of you, but I strongly believe it would be the abosolute best plan for Dr. Phillies. Enter the NH Primary in either the D or R race. Build your name I.D. nationally and then if you wish continue competing for the LP nomination.
We all know the Ds and Rs need a libertarian voice in their races. Like him or not Ron Paul added a refreshing alternative voice to all the KLEPTOCRACY Lackey candidates.
You know you could add an interesting twist to the NH Dem primary. With you located so near to NH you could actually campaign a great deal between now and Feb.’16 inside the state building a grassroot support organization.
Hopefully most of the Ron Paul support within NH won’t just lockstep behind Rand Paul if he runs, because Rand Paul IS NOT a libertarian! Phillies2016 could draw much of this support your way if you just try it.
Get enough ground support then get into the Dem debates and your message could be heard by millions not just dozens within the LP.
Aw, just something to think about…….
Thank, you, Shane.
George, sorry, it’s Google Trends (they merged Insights into that tool). Just go to google.com/trends/explore to get to the Insights tool.
Michael, same here. It’s a buzzword unless you get to very high levels and have big budgets to spend analyzing performance with firm metrics or evaluate national sales numbers, which is really market strength.
George, Google Insights is a handy little tool to judge organic interest through search traffic. It’s a fairly good comparison tool and spikes from earned media and marketing don’t have much of an effect over a longer time span.
If you run all political parties you’ll see each rise and fall with the election seasons. I stick to strick and similar keywords “Republican Party, Green Party” etc. to keep the comparison consistent.
Hope that helps!
I have spent a lot of time in retail but have yet to figure out what the word branding means. Other than being the meaningless buzz word of the day I don’t think anyone else does either. I know that people slap a few labels on the word but get them to iron out the details. That is another project entirely.
@2
Shane,
Not a complaint but a serious question: How are you measuring organic interest? That sounds like a very interesting thing to determine, and I am curious how you are doing it. Mindful that it sounds difficult, any answer may of interest to lots of readers here.
George
I am urging you to support Libertarian candidates, your local Libertarian party, and your state Libertarian party. If you want to advance our party, in my opinion those are in general your best investments (some particular candidates or local or state parties may be less good investments).. We have some fine, e.g. legislative candidates in Virginia and New Jersey this year, because they have elections in odd-numbered years. Massachusetts has a special election for Congress coming up.
If you read the prior message, you can see how your National Party money was spent in May. You can decide for yourself if that is the sort of investment you want. Different people think different things are important.
Mr. Phillies, just to clarify, you are recommending that I withdraw my fanancial support from the national party, and redirect it to other recipients. Those recipients being state party, county party, and any variety of candidates. Is this correct?
For those of you curious where your money went, here is a more detailed financial report. Please do keep giving money to real candidates and your state and local parties.
LNC In Action
And How They Spent Your Money
The June 2013 LNC membership report shows that the national party has 14,158 dues-paying members, slightly fewer than in November 2012, but well up from the 12,870 members in June 2012. There are another 1070 donors who are not members.
Party finances might possibly raise a few concerns. For the first five months of the year, the National Party brought in $501,676, of which $123,773 was for the “building” and only $378,136 was ‘general fundraising’. Furthermore, general fundraising income fell from $95,000 in January to barely over $65,000 in April and May. $65,000 a month is an annual rate of less than $780,000 a year, which is less than the $795,297.07 that the LNC raised in the year 1993. In today’s dollars, the 1993 income was $1,282,079, 64% higher than the current general fundraising rate.
How was your LNC money spent? There is a staff. Their costs came to $28,093, including their paychecks, Federal and state withholding, social security, medicare, health and dental insurance, 401k payments, unemployment tax, administrative fee for administering the tax, and, of course, the fees charged by the payroll administration company. The staff had to travel—$808.
There were also payments to non-staff people, including $1500 for FEC filing and amendments, $3000 for legal services, $4205 for Tele-fundraising Consulting, $5903 for legal costs associated with suing the FEC, $3374 for building project fundraising, $1550 for Annual Auditing and the Audit review, and last but hardly least Milton Lukins finally received his $682.88 for the petitioning work he did in West Virginia last year.
A list of IT services includes
Email Service Hosting Expense – $574 – SoftLayer Technologies, Inc.
Website Hosting Service – $687.94 – Rackspace US Inc.
LP Phone Services – $ 41.82 – PhoneFusion, Inc.
Address and Phone Verification – $ 51.46 – Lexis-Nexis t/a Accurint
Email Marketing Services – $ 1494.76 – IContact, Inc.
Cable and Internet – $ 93.72 – Comcast
There is an office, which came to $11,243. Office supplies came to $732.
Printing and postage to multiple vendors came to $19791.
Processing payments cost money, namely $3774 to various vendors for credit cards, etc.
Oh, yes, the party spent money on advertising itself: $320 to Facebook for an advertising widgit.
I’d say that’s a silly request by the LNC and would ask for clarification. The LP doesn’t have the funds to run a real “branding” campaign and even if they did, I wouldn’t recommend it. Brands are built on buzz and maintained through advertising or marketing.
If the LNC was asking for the status of the LP brand, the metrics should have been defined. As far as organic interest (positive or negative), the LP has been consistently fourth for the past five years — generating half the interest of the Green Party.
For the past year, the LP has been neck and neck with the the CP.
Regardless, the above is irrelevant. Full focus of the national office needs to be placed on growing the party. Those metrics are easy enough to measure.
LPHQ has been doing a good job on Facebook, but those efforts need to pay off by converting that activity into opt-in names in the database.
George, you’ve been hyper critical of all things LNC as long as I can remember — sometimes justified. I’d support your run just to give you a chance to succeed or fail. After that, I hope you’ll shift your focus from predictable-critic to a more productive form of support.
I can’t see a case in which filing an FEC complaint or asking donors to withhold contributions and cancel pledges is justified. But the past is the past and if those days are behind you and if positive party building is in your future, good for you.
Run, Run in 2016!!!!