Libertarians to GOP Establishment – Back Off!!!
by Mark W. RutherfordThe Republican, anti-Trump establishment is concocting a strategy to hijack the Libertarian Party by taking over its ballot access.
The Republican establishment wants to fraudulently become members of the party, attend our state conventions to become delegates, and take over the national Libertarian Party convention.
Not on my watch.
Mark Rutherford is a candidate for Libertarian National Committee Chair in 2016.
>All they have to do in Illinois to steal the LP’s Presidential line is turn in their petitions before the real LP candidates do.
Sam Sloan tried that in New York in 2010 and 2014. Fortunately he does not know how to count. Even though the statute requires 15,000 valid signatures, Sam submitted only a few hundred, mostly in the same handwriting, then he claimed that he had the 15,000 valid sigs.
New York BOE did not fall for it.
Lester Fulcrum My Space died some time ago in the dark ages. Try MeWe these days.
Starchild, Absolutely AGREED!
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Either the GOP comes over en masse and forces the LP to nominate a washed-up Republican who couldn’t get the GOP nomination, or we nominate our *own* washed-up Republican who couldn’t get the GOP nomination.
At this rate, I might as well re-register as a Republican because it’s at least truth in labeling.
“Lester Fulcrum
March 11, 2016 at 22:11
I’ll see you at the next event you will be at. When do you plan on going?”
I have never been to any Constitution Party events. I have been to numerous Libertarian Party events over the years. I do not know when and where the next one I attend will be for sure, but I am planning to attend the LP National Convention in May in Orlando, FL.
Lester, I’m almost sure you’re Nathan Norman, a troll who can’t seem to help himself from being rude. If you act like him, we’ll treat you like him, different IP notwithstanding.
If you see someone you don’t recognize….
Perhaps to tell the infiltrators apart from the real LP members, you can think up a word which the delegates have to say in order to be accepted like “Shibboleth” back in the Bible. Or ask a question like: “Who was the LP Presidential candidate in 1972?” That might work.
Andy is actually closer to the mark as to how to cripple state-wide LP organizations.
All they have to do in Illinois to steal the LP’s Presidential line is turn in their petitions before the real LP candidates do.
“Lester Fulcrum
March 11, 2016 at 18:28
It’s very real. Check out my MySpace.”
Newsflash: Hardly anyone uses MySpace anymore.
“I have posted my real birth certificate to prove I am a natural born citizen unlike Ted Cruz and B. Hussein Obama. I am leading a movement of young people who want a constitutional president.”
I will start to consider believing it when you start showing up in person at Constitution Party meetings (but of course even then you could be an undercover government agent who was sent in to sabotage their nominating process).
“Lester Fulcrum
March 11, 2016 at 13:51
No I’m Lester ‘Fucking’ Fulcrum. Constitution Party presidential candidate.”
Referring to yourself with that kind of language seems out of character for a Constitution Party candidate, so this raises questions to me as to whether or not you are whom you claim to be.
I’m thinking we may have another troll here, probably one that has posted before under a different name or names.
No, I heard that they are getting some stiff competition from Billy Graham and a few of his cronies.
Well, good luck with that. My back-channel polling indicates that the corpses of Chiang Kai-Shek and Anita Bryant are the most likely Constitution Party slate. At least that’s how I’d bet if the prediction markets offered the option.
I vigorously support Nick Sarwark for National Chair.
OK, so I’m guessing “Lester Fulcrum” is Stormin’ Nathan Norman?
I support Mr. Sarwark as well.
As do I.
Yes, he is. And I wholeheartedly endorse him for re-election.
Does anyone know if Nick Sarwark is running again for Chair?
Yes, Rutherford lost. He then refused to step down, after he had already been legally eliminated by NOTA.
That kind of intense desire for power is not good.
He ran with Root. Then as vice-chair, he systematically disassembled an affilate support committee that it took me four years to get the votes to pass. That was my motion, and it was a solid committee that required regional representatives to work together to support affiliates and not just sit on the LNC pontificating and RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
Rutherford was wrong on the LNC as vice-chair and he would destroy the party as chair. If he wins, I expect him to take political revenge on those of us who have dared to publicly oppose him.
The above is all in the National Convention Minutes at LP.org, and can be presented as a timeline. Yes, this is work.
Readers will, however, recall, that the person who gave an endorsing speech for Root at one point was Johnson.
Excuse me. Tom is right, that came subsequent to his run for vice-chair.
“The last time [Mark Rutherford] sought party office was as part of a slate with Root for chair and Rutherford for vice chair”
That’s incorrect. He ran for chair in 2012 and was defeated by None of the Above.
Yes, the possibility of an attempted takeover by some group outside the Libertarian Party is always something to be aware of and vigilant against.
However, as multiple folks have pointed out in this thread, it would be very difficult without a lot of advance prep work, not the kind of thing that could easily be put in motion on the spur of the moment when a primary season is going contrary to the interests of the group in question. Mark Rutherford provides no substantiation for his reported concerns, and the signs don’t seem to be there.
The source of these concerns is also more than a bit ironic, given that Rutherford himself is among those who’ve been trying to take the Libertarian Party in a more conservative direction. (And from where I sit, internal subversion of what the LP stands for has long been a far greater threat than external subversion.) As a candidate for chair, could railing against Republican phantoms be a strategy to inoculate himself against charges of being too conservative?
Let’s not forget, Rutherford was a close ally of Wayne Allyn Root, perhaps the most unabashedly Republican-oriented person prominent in the party, who has now gone back to the GOP from whence he came. The last time he sought party office was as part of a slate with Root for chair and Rutherford for vice chair, and he worked with Root on the Libertarian National Campaign Committee.
When the LNCC website was being co-opted as a vehicle to promote Root and his anti-Obama, conservative-sounding messaging, where was Rutherford then to stand up and say, “Not on my watch!”?
If the Republican establishment effort to take over our party is as competent as their effort to nominate Rubio, at the end of such a farce we will end up controlling the Republican Party, rather than the other way around.
RA,
Actually, there are things that Mr. Rutherford could do by way of fighting the attempted takeover he posits.
One thing, obviously, is making a lot of noise about it so as to put the state parties on their guard.
Another thing he could do is attempt to rally the initial delegate set at the national convention to vote against seating later-arriving “contaminated” delegations.
And still a third thing he could do, if the GOP did manage to seize control of the national convention, is put forward the LNCC, which he chairs, as an alternate nominating body for the states to use as a mutual nominating mechanism if the states rejected the outcome of a GOP-stolen convention.
But I remain unconvinced that there’s actually any move — or at least any significant or likely successful move — by GOP elements to seize control of the convention. Whether he really believes that there is such a move, or just finds it a convenient demagoguery tool, is of course a relevant question. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, I’m going to assume that he does actually believe what he’s saying.
Not only is Rutherford using fearmongering in claiming the GOP wants to take over state LP parties without offering any evidence, he’s also being misleading by claiming he could do anything about it. It’s irrelevant when Rutherford says “Not on my watch” since all state delegates will have been selected and the national convention will be nearly concluded at the point where he would be elected Chair.
The big money GOP guys would be much better off running as Independents. Yeah, they need ballot access but they have the resources (cash, lawyers) that should make that a minor inconvenience compared to the poorly funded LP. The biggest thing working against them is time. I don’t think anything happens with this at all.
He’d never get my vote. He’s so far into the bat-shit crazy zone that they don’t even make a name for it.
Yes, he’s popular. But he is a right-wing religious zealot.
I would not be surprised if the establishment put Glenn Beck up to running, that he would stand a good chance of getting the LP nomination for President.
That said…anyone but Rutherford!!! 🙂
Even a year would be acceptable. But some specific deadline that could be verified. It would level the playing field, prevent candidates from hijacking the convention, and reduce the chance of a takeover.
I wonder if a national ByLaw restricting delegates to a national convention to having had to be a member of the national party prior to the start of the PREVIOUS convention might be a good idea.
Yes, it would mean that new members can’t be a national delegate right away. But it would be a blanket safety net to protect any affiliate from being hijacked. It would also validate the concept, as others have stated above, that being a delegate to the national convention and selecting the nominee is an honor and not just something you can walk in and do your first day as a member.
We have received a number of inquiries, but I’ve said that our delegates have already been selected — which they have. I think there was a clear interest in taking us over, but they forgot that state election law says they had to show up for reorganization — which all parties do the same way.
So no takeover of South Carolina this year!
I thought it was worthwhile to point out that it was noticeable even when our own people wanted to add to our delegation. They were nice people.
It appeared to some people in my party that we also had an issue with attempted infiltration by anti-Mexican Tea Party types and John Birch Society types, though that was a while ago and did not go much of anywhere.
Campaign tactic aside, I still say that this is something we always need to be wary of. I agree with Tom and others who say that it is unlikely they could do this short term, but if Trump were to clinch it by taking Ohio and Florida next week it is possible that they may try.
This is one reason why we convene in November to elect officers and reconvene for nomination of candidates in the spring. You have to have been a named delegate to the November convention to be allowed to vote in May, so any “takeover” has to be done a half-year in advance.
It is still possible, but it requires quite a bit of coordination — just the type of thing Stone could have been snooping around for in 2012 to figure out for his buddy Trump. Trump thinks long term, so this is a possibility. Trump doesn’t need to take us over, but he might have if he had been eliminated early in the Republican primaries.
Either Mr Rutherford is seriously paranoid, or he thinks this will make the Libertarian Party sound important, and make him sound “principled.” Did anyone notice that the same website that published Mr Rutherford’s “warning” had a number of pro-Trump articles as well? And one questioning whether Marco Rubio (“Little Marco” to The Donald) is gay.
I am more worried about libertarians who post on pro-Trump websites than I am about anti-Trump Republicans.
We can hope some Republicans come over to The Libertarian Party if Donald Trump is nominated, and we can hope that more of them vote for the Libertarian candidate in preference to Donald Trump. It is not likely that Establishment Republicans will put up one of their own for a third party race that can only result in defeat for the candidate and likely problems for his future political career.
Do Republicans (and others) join the Libertarian Party without being fully aware of the Libertarian philosophy or its application to current policy issues? Yes. So try to educate them. Even better, try to educate the public at large about what Libertarianism means – I sell books about it and give away lots of free propaganda. But putting up a “not welcome” sign at Libertarian meetings – the preferred stance of a certain New England party leader – is not the way to build a political movement.
“The LP is probably already infiltrated with plants, and has been since its inception, but they are not likely Republican Party operatives, but rather undercover FBI or CIA or agents from some other government entity.”
Matt Monroe, an LNC member from Texas, obtained some FBI reports on the LP, under the Freedom of Information Act, in the late 1980s. Heavily redacted to remove names, but it was obvious that someone on the LNC (or in attendance at all LNC meetings) was spying. Lots of speculation as to who it was, but never got anything conclusive.
You may wish to take a look at the situation in Oregon since the mid 1990s. Unfortunately it just hasn’t worked out to well.
Andy, are the “government plants” also going to engineer making the LP a vehicle for the NeverTrump Republican ticket?
There’s a whole lot of room for trouble here in CA because we have so many delegate spots open. We’ve already been threatened with a takeover of Los Angeles County, and I’m afraid it could happen. We need to strengthen our state and county parties.
The LP is probably already infiltrated with plants, and has been since its inception, but they are not likely Republican Party operatives, but rather undercover FBI or CIA or agents from some other government entity.
Not inarticulate but certainly NOT and inspiring public speaker nor particularly witty. He does not come off as sardonic so I guess that’s something.
nf, I did say “somewhat articulate.”
Subjective, of course. Do you rate GJ as actually INarticulate?
Sr. Capozzi- I don’t see him as articulate.
I was at the Virginia convention last weekend. We have a not-insignificant number of delegate slots to the National Convention. I saw no indication of even the slightest, tiniest, little itty bitty attempt to take over the party. We filled 36 of our 38 allowed seats almost entirely with people that I know to have been active in the party for a while.
Certainly, that does not prove that there is no takeover attempt. As Tom mentioned, it could be a long-term thing, where these people came around years ago to ingratiate themselves to the party. But, I’d bet heavily against it, at least here in Virginia.
tk: Yes, “they” could take over individual state LPs. But that would be a long-term project with likely spotty and limited success, not a way of getting an “alternative Republican candidate” on the LP’s presidential line on short notice.
me: Just wondering…could some state LPs be bought in the short term. They weren’t in AK when Murkowski wanted the L line, but I just wonder. I would not want to see that happen, to be clear.
nf: That is one of the reasons I am far less excited about a second run. I don’t see anyone running I can really get excited about.
me: Wow. You think so little of GJ that even if he could become the anti-Trump, and presumably get not only millions of votes, but much more coverage and possibly get in the debates, you don’t want him to get the nominee because he’s too malleable. Is that right?
Don’t get me wrong…so far GJ2.0 is less interesting to me than GJ1.0, given his newfound Sharia-phobia and inability to jettison the FAIR tax. Still, he’s a lessarchist, he’s got a resume, and he’s somewhat articulate.
It would make a lot more sense for anti-Trump Republicans to support Gary Johnson in November especially if the campaign has ballot access everywhere than to attempt a “hostile takeover”. Johnson as a former Republican could be “worked with” post nomination to make him sound more GOP-Lite than he already does. That is one of the reasons I am far less excited about a second run. I don’t see anyone running I can really get excited about. The candidates with the good ideas come with their own set show stoppers. Oh well, maybe next time.
@Andy
Red flags went off for a few of us when 4 new faces suddenly appeared at MCLP meetings and two of them showed an immediate interest in getting elected to board positions. They were successful in gaining assistant positions with the MCLP & AZLP due to vacancies and no contention. While not bad on a personal level they soon revealed themselves to be GOP Lite when it came to philosophy. After a rather contentious meeting in which the chairmen challenged them regarding their opposition to NAP, all of them quit showing up without a word (even the two with board positions). It’s possible their intentions were good and they just realized the LP wasn’t for them after that meeting but I found the entire situation a bit suspect and I wasn’t alone. A part of me thinks they realized the MCLP couldn’t be molded or taken over. Four new faces show up and vanish at the same time. Doesn’t sit well with me.
Oddly enough, since that time the GOP has waged war on the LP in Arizona. The state legislature, under direct order from DC, has made life difficult. The voter registration form has been altered to include only check boxes for Democrat, Republican and Other. Recently a bill was passed to dramatically increase the signature requirements for candidates (the latter sponsored by a woman that came to a MCLP meeting hoping to gain and endorsement and denied…funny how that works).
I doubt there is anything so nefarious as a plotted “takeover”.
Too many GOPers have dreams of defeating Trump before he gets nominated, or trying to co-opt Trump.
It’s widely viewed that Gary Johnson is the frontrunner for the nomination again. Much of the third party talk that doesn’t involve a fantasy of building an organization out of thin air, involves supporting him.
Rutherford isn’t winning my support with this bit of paranoia. The prospect of people coming to the L.P. should be seen as an opportunity, not a threat. I’d rather help new members assimilate than build a wall around the LP. (I’ll cop to the excessive hyperbole here, the parallel to the immigration issue was hard to resist)
“I have seen directly two efforts to fill the Massachusetts delegation with Johnson supporters who were not connected to the party. One of them was a very nice person who was not registered Libertarian and did not know that there was a national or state association of Libertarians with dues.
When the more impressive arrived, I explained we have a voted policy, namely that choosing the next Presidential candidate is an honor and great responsibility, and the people the State Committee will agree to add to the state delegation are people with an extended record of support or activism for our state association.”
That sounds less like an attempted GOP takeover, and more like somebody simply inquiring as to what your state party’s rules are so they can be respected. Nothing nefarious about that, and a far cry from hyperventilating over the supposed threat of the convention being stuffed with secret Mitt Romney supporters.
Republicans control both houses of the legislature and have the Governor in all the states with really bad presidential ballot access, which are Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas (those are the five states in which Ralph Nader didn’t get on in 2008). It would be far easier for Republicans to rush through bills easing ballot access than it would be to take over the LP. I realize in Texas the legislature doesn’t have normal sessions in even years, but the Governor could call a special session.
There have been all sorts of “GOP attempting takeover” scares over the years, and while I believe, like Tom, this is mostly bogus fear mongering, I do want to say that regardless, we have a specific set of core values and beliefs associated with Libertarianism. Among these is the NAP.
Currently we have people interested in changing what it means to be a Libertarian. If that happens, we won’t need to worry about a GOP takeover, we will have become a less funded version, and who would want to take over that?
Something to think about…
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
There has been plenty of discussion of this possibility in the establishment media. The idea is not just something that Rutherford made up.
I have seen directly two efforts to fill the Massachusetts delegation with Johnson supporters who were not connected to the party. One of them was a very nice person who was not registered Libertarian and did not know that there was a national or state association of Libertarians with dues.
When the more impressive arrived, I explained we have a voted policy, namely that choosing the next Presidential candidate is an honor and great responsibility, and the people the State Committee will agree to add to the state delegation are people with an extended record of support or activism for our state association.
“kayfabe”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe
Bpb,
Yes, “they” could take over individual state LPs. But that would be a long-term project with likely spotty and limited success, not a way of getting an “alternative Republican candidate” on the LP’s presidential line on short notice.
Keep in mind that many states have already had their 2016 conventions, elected their state leadership for this term, and even largely selected their national convention delegates. And those states which haven’t done so are presumably forewarned and would do what they could to prevent takeovers of their leadership, delegation list, etc. between now and May.
Vigilance is always a good thing. Painic isn’t.
If “they” really want to mess with state L.P.s, they don’t have to take them over. They just have to send one crazy nutjob our way and watch as we tear ourselves apart debating if we can do anything about it or not. Worked depressingly well in Wisconsin. see also: Florida.
I agree with Tom. This is ridiculous fear-mongering with no substantiation and zero evidence.
The idea that we have to worry about Karl Rove stuffing the LNC to nominate Mitt Romney is literally laughable. Not that it isn’t maybe theoretically possible if they’d started a couple of years ago, but they didn’t, and aren’t doing it now. Furthermore, stirring up this sort of baseless paranoia is irresponsible. It’s telling state L.P.s to be suspicious and hostile to new members showing up to join the party, when we’re seeing a spike in interest precisely because the GOP’s insanity is driving people away.
Rutherford has lost any chance he had to get my vote in Orlando with this.
Rather than doing a full fledged takeover at the National level, could they take individual state LPs? If so, they likely would not care about the national disaffiliation implications.
Also, I wonder if some of the establishment Rs might support a GJ like McKin non did. Or, for that matter, NOTA. I do not see them supporting the rest of the field.
OK, you’re right — “fair and square” may be taking it a little too far. But the rumored buses did turn out to be just rumors, and so far as I could tell there wasn’t any kind of successful attempt to pack delegations.
There were the usual false promises and bullshit and so forth, but Barr won the nomination by — slowly and painfully over the course of six ballots — convincing a real majority of real delegates to vote for him.
Thomas Knapp said: “In 2008, there were rumors that Bob Barr had busloads of supporters ready to pull up on the morning of the nomination vote, be accepted into subverted state delegations, and hand him the nomination. Those buses never showed up. He won the nomination fair and square.”
It depends on how you define fair and square. If that includes bullshitting people (Who can forget the, “Bob Barr is going to raise $35-$40 million” line that was being parroted at that convention), jumping in the race late to avoid a long vetting process, only participating in the debate where the questions where known in advance (there were two other debates at that National Convention where the questions where not known in advance that Barr skipped), and the backroom deal between himself and Wayne Root where after Root was eliminated he told his supporters to vote for Barr.
Also, there were some people who were there for Barr in 2008 who I have not seen since then, and I have been to every national convention since then. I realize that there are people who only go to one national convention, or who only go to conventions once in a while, but it seems like some of those Barr supporters who were there in 2008 disappeared from the party.
Bondurant said: “I’m quite convinced there was an attempt by the GOP to infiltrate the Maricopa County LP a few years back but they were fended off.”
Any details about this? When exactly did this incident happen?
This is always something we need to keep an eye out for.
On the other hand, so far all I have seen by way of evidence are claims of a recent increase in “sustaining membership” enrollments at lp.org. And it takes a damn sight more than that to game the national convention.
In order to know whether or not something along these lines is happening, we need to hear from people in the states. Are large numbers of new members showing up and asking to be selected as delegates to the national convention? THAT would be REAL evidence that something untoward is afoot.
The LP’s presidential ticket is nominated by the actual delegates in the actual room at the actual national convention.
In 2008, there were rumors that Bob Barr had busloads of supporters ready to pull up on the morning of the nomination vote, be accepted into subverted state delegations, and hand him the nomination. Those buses never showed up. He won the nomination fair and square.
A real operation to steal the LP’s presidential nomination would not be especially expensive (it would certainly not strain the budgets of some of the major GOP organizations or campaigns) … but to be effective and not overly visible it would likely have to be launched a year or two in advance so that the infiltrators had time to work their way into positions of influence in the state parties and stack their states’ national convention delegations.
And frankly, if worse came to worse and a bunch of Romneybots showed up, and it turned out that several major state parties had been infiltrated and set up to accept them as delegates, and if the delegates already there didn’t reject the credentials committee report recommendation that they be seated, and if there were enough of them to steal the nomination …
… well, I suspect that many, maybe even most, state LPs would revolt, claim the convention had been fixed/subverted, hold emergency executive committee meetings, and arrange a conference call of state chairs to mutually nominate an actual Libertarian candidate and put that candidate on their state ballots. And unless the takeover artists had also managed to put ringers on the LNC, I doubt the LNC would attempt to litigate the matter, or to disaffiliate those states.
It’s my opinion that even if some idiots are out there plotting such a thing, they are doomed to failure.
Does he mean an Anti-Trump candidate strong enough to call him a Pussy?
That kind of “take-over?” Or does he mean someone even more “anti-Trump” than that, and if so, what is s/he going to call Trump?
Possible, but more likely just fearmongering. This claim is totally unsubstantiated by Rutherford.
Not sure about other states, but it’s impossible in Minnesota. The state LP has an anti-takeover clause in its bylaws which prevents this. “7.2. Unless renewing their membership, no one joining the party less than 45 days before the convention may be a delegate until the next convention.”
It’s been obvious to me for months that Republicans have a strategy of invading our Facebook pages, and slowly get us to accept their conservative, war-ish idiocy. They act all shocked when you point out they’re on a Libertarian page, and we don’t agree with their nonsense. A favorite topic is assuming we all hate “illegal aliens” (a despicable term used to describe human beings) as much as they do and, of course, that we hate Obama, also.
It’s easy to spot them. They have no mutual friends, they call themselves “patriots”, and their FB pages go on and on about the horrors Muslims will be inflicting on us. It’s certainly okay for newbies to join our pages, but trolling them with hate doesn’t work for me.
Campaign ploy? Certainly.
But is this takeover attempt real? Very likely. I don’t support him for chair, but I agree with his concern, as we all should.
What’s the hypothetical GOP game plan? Nominate Romney on the conention floor in Orlando? Sounds like a lofty goal but if Bob Barr had the capability to game the convention, I would think a GOP candidate bankrolled by big money could do some damage.
Could be nothing more than a ploy from Rutherford to make it sound as if current leadership is asleep at the wheel. Doesn’t hurt to be cautios, though.
I’m quite convinced there was an attempt by the GOP to infiltrate the Maricopa County LP a few years back but they were fended off.
This concept is not new. The HIGOP did it in Hawai[i and took the LP away from George Peabody years ago.
They have also tried it in California with Lusseheide in 2008 and King in 2007 amd Mitchell in 1971.
Mark Seidenberg, Chairman, American Independent Party of Califronia.