Phil Davison
By William Saturn
Published July 11, 2o13 on Saturn’s Repository
Longtime councilman Phil Davison of Minerva, Ohio has expressed interest in the 2016 presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party. Davison, best known for his inspirational 2010 speech, briefly ran for the Boston Tea Party’s 2012 presidential nomination.
“Would love to run,” says Davison via Facebook, “Think about it every day. Am approached every day about it.”
A self-described “radical,” Davison expressed his libertarian views during a 2011 appearance on Comedy Central’s Tosh.0. He is pro-choice on abortion, holds relaxed views on marijuana, and is an advocate for free speech.
Should Davison decide to run, he will enter a growing field of candidates for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination that includes perennial candidate Kip Lee, progressive activist Robert Milnes, and writer Darryl Perry.
Is he involved in the Ohio party and what has he done at that level?
Thank you for posting this Krzysztof.
I felt this was the best way to introduce my wordpress.com blog, Saturn’s Repository.
Saturn’s Repository – Free Space for Free Speech – chronicles interesting stories in politics, society, and history. All news articles fall under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 3.0 license, meaning they can be freely used on here or anywhere else.
@1
He is not yet a member of the Libertarian Party, but if he decides to run it is the best fit for his views.
He is currently a member of the Republican Party. See the Tosh.0 video to understand why he joined. It was not based on ideology.
Hope he runs. While I disagree with him on a bunch of issues, I think his unique inspirational style of speaking would add a lot to the presidential race. I think he should run for local office again in 2014 and make a similar speech to the one he made in 2010, so he becomes more well-known again; then announce for President. William I will check out your site.
Thank you CT. I hope you enjoy the site.
He should run for governor first and then if he wins, run for President in 2020.
Jim Burns is also running for the Presidential nomination
When a candidate comes around like this, we must ask:
Is he functional or is he a hobo?
Phil Davidson?
We know he has political experience as a city councilman. For me that puts him above Lee Wrights, Michael Badnarik, and others without any experience. He certainly is charismatic as well. But does he have accomplishment? More information is needed.
From what I see, I agree he should run for governor.
What is the phrase “relaxed views on marijuana” mean? And how radical is that?
In the Tosh.0 video he doesn’t explicitly state he wants to legalize all drugs, but that can be inferred from his statements about drugs and personal choice. I did not want to put words in his mouth though and that’s why I phrased it as I did.
Who?
Jumping from City Council to Oval Office?
Fantasyland on a par with Root, Stevens, Milnes, and Burke…
He’d be a good congressional candidate. Has he done anything functional with his council position?
Maybe he should consider reaching out to the Ohio LP and getting involved at a local or state level first? Just saying . . . Let’s get real here.
Kevin Knedler
State Chair Executive Committee
Ohio LP
Running yet another Republican seems unlike to be an idea with positive outcomes.
@11 given our current voter base, this seems irrelevant. Perpetually running Republicans or thereabouts destroys our position with more than half our potential voters.
I quote from http://www.amazon.com/Libertarian-Renaissance-Essays-Liberty-ebook/dp/B00E1SVGAK
But now, for Libertarian Persona #2, who we will call “Sarah”.
First some basic demographics:
White female
Under 35
College educated
Urban (or close suburb suburban)
Middle income
Not religious at all
Political affiliation? Definitely nowhere near the Republican Party! Possibly a weak-identifying Democrat, more likely unaffiliated or even a nonvoter at present. She’s been there for a long time: Twelve years ago, Massachusetts Libertarians looked at their voter registration. In Central Massachusetts, where Democrats are social conservatives, 60% of registered Libertarians were women.
Issue positions:
Social Issues: Way Left. Maximum personal autonomy and freedom, and no government interference at all. Very pro marriage equality, pro choice on abortion, for stem cell research, for drug legalization.
Foreign Policy: Very bright line antiwar/anti-intervention position, across the board.
Economic Policy: Best described as “institutional suspicion and hostility”. Extremely anti-authoritarian. Acts locally. Distrusts bigness, whether manifested as Big Government, Big Business, or any similar institution. Very environmentally conscious.
Ultra-individualistic. Sympathetic to the Ron Paul campaign on matters like “End the Fed” but not at all sympathetic on Ron Paul’s social issues.
Now, what are Sarah’s principal information sources? Do you suspect she is watching Bill O’Reilly, reading Newsmax, or listening to Rush or Savage?
Definitely not!
She’s either on the Internet, texting, or involved in direct activity with her friends and associates. She’s reading Antiwar.com or perhaps Freedom’s Phoenix.
I’m more interested in the prospect of Andrew Napolitano running.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while now. Because of that, Part II of my treatise will not be released until August.
Because of his many years of political experience, grasp of governing issues and charisma, I’ve determined Phil Davison is a functional candidate. I watched his videos, listened to his interviews. He understands the issues. But I believe he best fulfills what I will discuss in Part IV of my treatise. He has what it takes to lead a movement.
Therefore, of the individuals who have specifically expressed interest, Davison is the first functional candidate.
A city councilman is not a functional Presidential candidate.
I wouldn’t make such generalizations. You really have to examine candidates on a case-by-case basis. How different is a city councilman from a Senator? Both deal in legislation and encountering governing issues.
I’ve been exchanging email messages with William Saturn and he explained it to me in a way I hadn’t considered. Barack Obama was known because of a speech and won the presidency based only on legislative experience. Phil Davison is known because of a speech and has more years of legislative experience than Obama. Though he has the Obama victory package, he differs from Obama in that he actually understands issues and can spread the message of libertarianism at a high level.
Mr. Saturn also showed me a video of Davison making reference to John Lennon and free speech. I always considered the Functional Fillmore Frugal Movement as a continuation of the ideals of John Lennon from the late 70s and early 80s. I saw this video as a kind of sign that this man might lead the movement. Maybe I’m wrong but something seems right.
Obama is a dysfunctional foreign Communist usurper stooge and not a good person for anyone pro-freedom or pro-America to emulate.
If Davison is really all that functional he should get himself elected U.S. Senator.
This is the video CLC mentions @18