Arlington, VA – The Libertarian Party Radical Caucus (LPRC), known as the “libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party”, announced today its endorsement of 19 candidates running for office on the Libertarian Party ticket during the 2016 election cycle.
The endorsed candidates are seeking positions at the local, state, and federal level. All were vetted by a subcommittee within the LPRC based on an analysis of their platform, positions, and anticipated policies. This process was designed to ascertain if their campaigns reflect core libertarian values as articulated in the LPRC’s own Platform and Mission.
The LPRC was formed in 2006 by a core group of dedicated activists whose mission was to ensure the Libertarian Party remains true to its ideological foundation. At the core of the LPRC’s ideals is the Statement of Principles, authored by LP Founding Member and first Presidential Candidate, Dr. John Hospers, during the 1972 Libertarian National Convention.
Earlier this year, the LPRC formally adopted its own bylaws and platform before taking an active role at the 2016 Libertarian National Convention in Orlando. One of their many undertakings in the time since the Convention was to solicit, vet, and endorse Libertarian Party candidates, who are as follows:
• Erin Adams, State House, District 33, Oklahoma
• Phillip Anderson, US Senate, Wisconsin
• Tom Bagwell, US House, District 12, Michigan
• Jeffrey Blunt, US House, District 20, Texas
• Chris Cole, State Senate, District 41, North Carolina
• Paotie Dawson, State House, District 18, Colorado
• Jocelyn Fry, State House, District 35, Iowa
• R. Jim Fulner, County Commissioner, District 19, Michigan
• Jeff Hetrick, US House, District 11, New Jersey
• John Jascob, Regent, University of Michigan
• Richard Longstreth, US House, District 2, Colorado
• Sean O’Toole, State Treasurer, Missouri
• Tyler Palmer, State House, District 93, Michigan
• Clark Patterson, US House, District 17, Texas
• Pete Rorhman, Bergen County Freeholder, New Jersey
• Steve Scheetz, US House, District 8, Pennsylvania
• Mike Seebeck, State House, District 21, Colorado
• Nick Serianni, State Senate, District 6, Iowa
• Mark West, US House, District 1, Arkansas
Endorsed candidates who are current members of the LPRC were also entitled to an even disbursement of the funds in the LPRC’s Treasury earmarked for campaigns. The LPRC’s treasury is a combination of membership dues and donations. In accordance with their bylaws, 75% of the funds acquired by the LPRC are to be used specifically to assist candidates for office. During the 2016 Election Cycle, the LPRC was able to disburse $2208.71 amongst the designated candidates.
For more information visit the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus website or contact Kim Ruff, Secretary, at [email protected]
View the official Press Release here.
Kevin,
You don’t have to convince me about digital conventions.
The party I founded, the Boston Tea Party, was the first to hold an entire national convention online.
And then it became the first to hold such a convention that resulted in a nominated and (in some places) balloted presidential ticket.
There were some rough edges, of course, but the business got done so there’s proof of concept. And the technology has improved by leaps and bounds since that first online convention in 2006.
Portland is a lot cheaper for those in Portland, Seattle, and northern California. Perhaps more expensive for most (though I would be surprised if minor airlines were more expensive). But you miss my point.
I propose that business conventions be digital. Everybody with a camera and microphone and mouse could participate. You could purchase an entire computer system, deluxe, for the cost of one physical convention. This would encourage a much wider participation, and end the dominance of kooks vs. sell-outs duopoly.
A similar revolution is occurring in the field of education. Many ivy league universities offer free classes online (a slight charge is added if you want live access to a teacher and/or accreditation). Traditional universities are a medieval vestige, where people had to go to a monastery or similar, and read from handwritten books. Not only are “printing” costs much cheaper now, but live conversations can take place easily from great distances.
“Portland is on the I-5 corridor, with major airport. Just a 2 or 3 hour drive from Seattle.
But my point is, going to a physical national convention is always going to be expensive.
The most motivated and flamboyant are disproportionately represented.”
Yes, going to a convention is expensive. It’s going to be expensive under any circumstances. But Portland has a one-terminal airport and is not a hub for any major airline. I’ve attended six national conventions. Attending the one in Portland would have easily cost as much as attending any 2-3 of the others. Which sucks, because I really, really, REALLY want to visit the place.
Portland is on the I-5 corridor, with major airport. Just a 2 or 3 hour drive from Seattle.
But my point is, going to a physical national convention is always going to be expensive.
The most motivated and flamboyant are disproportionately represented.
The Rothbardians dominated the LP for many years, esp. after 1980.
Dana R. and David N. co-chaired the Libertarian Caucus of YAF.
Of the two, Dana was the grown-up, he is a long-term congressman representing Orange County area,
and has achieved far more for liberty in the real world.
Another problem, is that since Rothbard is more clever and scholarly than most,
he has a mystique about him that fools most people. Even those who oppose him,
suppose he has a point, and would merely tone him down. They do not recognize he is a fraud,
and his philosophy has as much to do with libertarianism as does vegetarianism.
As Thomas pointed out to me (in an earlier life), “intervention” simply means,
to take sides in a dispute. To side with the victim against the aggressor, is not aggression.
Because by definition, for any dispute, there can be only one first use of force.
People have a right to delegate retaliatory/defensive use of force to others,
such as government; otherwise, every person would be a self-defense island,
unable to ally with others.
Concerning “states”, as i pointed out to SEK3 (who in 1969 recruited me into
the Libertarian Caucus), do not exist in the strict sense. As Tibor Machan pointed out,
“states” are a special type of government, that try to maintain a quasi-monopoly on
the use of organized force in a specific territorial area. As I point out in my treatise,
“non-interventionism” (such as in the Westphalian sense), is a medieval departure
from classical libertarianism. One that supposed the ruler owns all the territory
within his dominion, and to unseat him would thus violate his property rights.
Do you mean by “non-interventionist”, one who would never-ever intervene?
Or do you consider the term “interventionist” more like “sexist”, one who carries a practice to extremes?
“The 2006 deletions were a stroke of genius, by the peasants bearing torches and pitchforks, storming the castle that is dominated by elites who have the time and money to go to physical conventions and have inflicted their distortions on the LP.”
Actually, the opposite is true. The 2006 convention was held in a city (Portland, Oregon) that was remote from almost all members and prohibitively expensive to travel to. That was an opportunity for the relatively well-heeled — compared to average party members — cargo cult faction to swamp an under-attended convention. At conventions which normal people can afford to travel to, things aren’t nearly as easy for them. For example, we managed to hold off Bob Barr for six ballots in Denver and Gary Johnson for two ballots in Orlando even though massively outspent.
Yes, I would say you have an arguable point on whether or not the platform is the same one adopted in 2006. I consider it recognizably so, but that’s just my subjective viewpoint.
I’m glad if anything I’ve ever said has been helpful to you. No, I’m not an interventionist. I don’t believe states should intervene because I don’t believe states should exist. And as to the ones which DO exist, I try to remain mindful of, and universally apply in the form of distrust, Nietzsche’s dictum: “Everything the state says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”
Thomas is right again! The possessive form should be “its”, like “ours”, “theirs”, etc.
Once again, i learn from the Knappster. His brilliant explanation of “intervention” has revolutionized my thinking. Thomas—should I give you credit for your contributions to my treatise? Would you be honored?
Two of my fellow libertarian hawks hate my guts, because I don’t want WWIII with Russia. Only against Jihadists. I cited your criticisms in my successful lobbying of the Libertarian Defense Caucus, to prevent their endorsement of the RINO/LINO Gary Johnson; and was roundly criticized for my citing of an apostate. I explained you are really a libertarian hawk at heart.
I cannot agree that the current LP platform is 10 years old, the changes he calls “tweaks” are still changes. Whole sentences have been cut. The difference between a “tweak” and a “change” might be insignificant, but still do not warrant Caryn’s snide reply.
The 2006 deletions were a stroke of genius, by the peasants bearing torches and pitchforks, storming the castle that is dominated by elites who have the time and money to go to physical conventions and have inflicted their distortions on the LP.
Which is why I favor digital business conventions. The advantages?
1. I couldn’t be accused of Donald-like harassment or groping.
2. I could participate from Tbilisi
3. money would be saved
4. normal grassroots libertarians could participate
“However, the current LP platform is not ten years old. Because it has changed from platforms during that ten year period.”
And I’ve changed in the last three years, but that doesn’t mean I’m only three years old.
The last major set of changes to the LP’s platform was 10 years ago in Portland when Republican saboteurs and their dupes managed to get the convention delegates to delete 3/4 of it in in one fell swoop.
Since then it’s been almost entirely minor tweaks. Except for the addition of an anti-death-penalty plank this year, I can’t think of any large changes.
“Most importantly, ‘it’s’ is grammatically correct, as ‘LPRC’ is singular.”
It doesn’t matter whether LPRC is singular or plural. The possessive form of it never has an apostrophe.
Caryn said:
“The current LP Platform is ten years old. The LPRC Platform is based on the 2002 Platform which was evolved over 20 years. Ahem. I can do math.”
However, the current LP platform is not ten years old. Because it has changed from platforms during that ten year period.
Caryn’s remark “Ahem. I can do math” is disrespectful in tone.
I’m glad the Knappster has joined our debate/discussion, even though (elsewhere) he has called me loony (or similar term, and no, I don’t have a citation). Loons are birds, native to Minnesota, who have a distinctive call, but are not in any way crazy.
Readers should know, Thomas has a dark past, which he has blotted from his memory–a membership in a discussion group of libertarian hawks, co-founded by the notorious Tim Starr, and myself, the loon in chief. I got most of my revolutionary ideas from his contributions to that group.
Let us begin by looking at his words of wisdom:
“(Me) The LPRC will only discuss what ‘radical libertarian’ means with those who already agree with it’s [sic] platform and are members.”
(Knappster) Not even close to true. Their platform and key points are openly available at a public-facing web site (http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org), and they run public information booths and open-to-the-public meetings and activities at LP events where they are more than happy to talk with anyone and everyone about that platform.”
Most importantly, “it’s” is grammatically correct, as “LPRC” is singular.
His suggestion (that I go to their website) sounds like Hillary (in the second debate). Does their website have a discussion/debate feature?
I don’t go to LP events any more, as I currently live in Tbilisi. Seriously, I never left the LP, the LP left me; although through the miracle of internet communications, I keep my hand in libertarian matters. This is part of a trend, where education and refinement of ideas can occur without physical presence.
Further, physical presence has dangers, particularly for a man accused of “harassment”. I don’t care to be pilloried like the Donald.
Caryn says she doesn’t want to discuss with me, while she discusses with me.
She says the reasons are obvious, but does not state them.
Of course I don’t have a citation for her earlier statement, in this forum,
that only those who already agree with the radical caucus can join,
and she debates (or discusses suggestions for improvement)
only with those who are already members. I too ration my time,
and don’t care to spend a couple hours reading all the previous threads.
Although she did re-phrase a part of her earlier statement, to wit,
“If any like-minded people wish to join, awesome!”
In other words, if someone is really a “radical” libertarian,
the self-identified “radical” caucus gets to define what that term means.
Thus, their platform is self-perpetuating, by exclusion of all those who
dislike portions of it.
She then claims she endorses Johnson because he is the nominee.
Yet prior to his nomination, I don’t recall her going after Johnson
nearly to the extent she went after Austin P. My guess is,
this relates to foreign policy, which I think relates to why she
doesn’t want to discuss issues with me.
Her criticism of Austin was in large part, about his disrespect and
abusive language toward opponents. I agree(d) she has some points there,
and i also agree that Austin should not have repudiated the
non-initiation-of-force principle. More than phony politeness,
i expect truth. I give respect according to merit, and more,
do not use abusive language; certainly I don’t accuse people of
harassment (that term implies psychological motivations).
If their language is improper I criticize the language. Truth is the
highest form of respect, and proper language is also important.
I never stoop to calling people “stupid” (or similar language that Austin allegedly used).
Thank you Bruce! That comment is a breath of fresh air!
Caryn, thank you.
To readers – note the shift also from “discuss” (I discuss the LPRC all the time, including our Platform) to “debate.” Not interested in debating personally. Plenty of other people are. I am not *the LPRC* – we actually have a Board as large as the LNC right now, and I am a minor member (appointed and not even elected).
http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/leadership
Go harass one of them (not literally, please don’t). We proclaim our beliefs and mission. If any like-minded people wish to join, awesome! Any not, godspeed to you.
I find this very interesting… how people feel the need to come into a thread discussing supporting candidates and be hostile. But no…. it is the radicals who are the divisive ones. Not. Even. Close.
I don’t know what kind of mindset motivates such people, but I don’t share it.
==I tried to discuss the LPRC with Caryn, and she rebuffed my attempt by saying it could be discussed only internally. ==
Citation needed.
==So you are interested in debating your platform now, but not then? Please re-post and let the discussion begin!==
Being not interested in speaking with you – for reasons that should now be obvious – doesn’t mean not with anyone. I ration my time.
==While we’re at it, Caryn, please explain to me (as I am an ignorant peasant) why you so eloquently excoriated Austin for his repudiation of the NIFP (non-initiation-of-force principle), but do not similarly criticize Johnson for his much greater departures from the same principle.===
Citation needed. I have. But once the nomination is done, I get behind our candidate as the best of all outcomes for our Party. I didn’t always have that mindset, but I came to it well before the nomination as being the best for the party and publicly resolved that if Mr. Petersen was our candidate, I would have supported him too. Now since then, he and I have made our peace and come to a better understanding. He affirmed the Statement of Principles, and I am satisfied. We still disagree on some items, and next nomination season I will be just as hard on all the candidates, and will get behind the nominee. When I can’t do that,I would likely leave the Party. It is a team sport.
==Concerning Caryn’s claim the current LP platform has not been changed for 10 years, I fact-checked that and found changes in the very first plank 1.0==
Good thing I never said that. And for anyone who wonders why I don’t engage you in conversation, re-read that last false statement.
I was at convention. I voted for changes in the Platform.
And this will be the last comment i will make in this time suck.
“Concerning Caryn’s claim the current LP platform has not been changed for 10 years, a claim she never made and that I invented out of whole cloth, I fact-checked that and found changes in the very first plank 1.0, so if she had said what I am pretending she said, she would not be correct.”
Fixed, no charge.
I tried to discuss the LPRC with Caryn, and she rebuffed my attempt by saying it could be discussed only internally. So you are interested in debating your platform now, but not then? Please re-post and let the discussion begin!
While we’re at it, Caryn, please explain to me (as I am an ignorant peasant) why you so eloquently excoriated Austin for his repudiation of the NIFP (non-initiation-of-force principle), but do not similarly criticize Johnson for his much greater departures from the same principle.
Concerning Caryn’s claim the current LP platform has not been changed for 10 years, I fact-checked that and found changes in the very first plank 1.0
Kevin,
You write:
“The LPRC will only discuss what ‘radical libertarian’ means with those who already agree with it’s [sic] platform and are members.”
Not even close to true. Their platform and key points are openly available at a public-facing web site (http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org), and they run public information booths and open-to-the-public meetings and activities at LP events where they are more than happy to talk with anyone and everyone about that platform.
“An LPRC endorsement is comparable with an endorsement of, say, the Mayberry knitting society. In terms of credibility, public interest/recognition, seriousness, and electoral impact.”
The purpose of an LPRC endorsement isn’t so much for public interest/recognition purposes or for direct electoral impact as for the purpose of telling LP members, activists and donors “here are the candidates who deserve your time, effort and financial support.”
Their aim, and therefore their impact, is internal to the party — and frankly they were the decisive influence on a number of bylaws and platform votes at the 2016 Libertarian National Convention by publicly endorsing/opposing various things, saying why, and having workers on the floor with thumbs up/down signs to let delegates know where the caucus stood on the issues (a lot of people who are not MEMBERS of the caucus, including me, respect the caucus’s recommendations because we know they are thought out and tested against openly stated principles).
If not for the Radical Caucus, I suspect that the Libertarian Party would not have, after 45 years, FINALLY adopted an anti-death-penalty platform plank, only beating the Democrats to that punch by a few weeks. In fact, I consider that the single most important thing that happened at the convention.
And…
==In most cases, it’s rambling nearly incoherent platform is more or less true.===
I will let that just marinate. It has layers. Like an onion.
== Similar could be said of the LP platform. But the LP platform has attracted a wider range of talent, and been revised many times over the years (in response to criticism), so is better qualitatively.==
The current LP Platform is ten years old. The LPRC Platform is based on the 2002 Platform which was evolved over 20 years. Ahem. I can do math. (not to mention that much of the current platform is in the LPRC platform)
much lulz, many funny
Tom, ruh roh. I have discussed the Platform with you. Apparently I am not allowed to do that since you are not a Caucus member. I may have to kill you now.
Andy wrote:
I think so. A high school friend of mine ran for state representative in Pennsylvania as a Green back in 2002 (I think). She also sought the Democrat line by write-in vote and filed a declaration of write-in candidacy with 20 common misspellings, all of which counted. She ended up getting over the 300 write-in votes to win the Democrat line, as no Democrat had filed. In the precinct I worked all day I managed to get her 100 write-in votes.
The LPRC self-describes itself as radical libertarian. However, anybody can describe themselves in any way they see fit. That doesn’t necessarily make it so 100%, any more than a 20-member church can claim to speak for true Christianity. The map is not the territory.
The LPRC will only discuss what “radical libertarian” means with those who already agree with it’s platform and are members. The similarity in form, if not substance, with totalitarian ideologies is striking.
In most cases, it’s rambling nearly incoherent platform is more or less true. Similar could be said of the LP platform. But the LP platform has attracted a wider range of talent, and been revised many times over the years (in response to criticism), so is better qualitatively.
An LPRC endorsement is comparable with an endorsement of, say, the Mayberry knitting society. In terms of credibility, public interest/recognition, seriousness, and electoral impact.
Does Pennsylvania have write candidate declarations?
I know there have been problems in PA with write in votes not be tallied.
Chuck Moulton wrote:
Nevermind. I live in the 7th district.
Steve Scheetz wrote:
Did you file a write-in declaration?
I think I live in your district. I’ll write you in if there is a write-in declaration filed (raising the chances my vote will be countrd); otherwise, I’ll be voting lesser evil.
Tony,
Not exactly.
The LPRC doesn’t mistake its goal as “getting people elected.”
Its actual goal is to change policy. Getting people elected is the means, not the end.
And it’s not an EFFECTIVE means unless it comes about through convincing people that libertarian ideas and policy proposals are right.
Plurality or majority AGREEMENT comes about BEFORE plurality or majority ELECTION WINS … at least if we want there to be lots of wins and for them to be more than a flash in the pan that disappears after one cycle.
Sure, we can get a 2-3% sugar high now and then by pretending that we’re not about what we’re about. We’ve been doing that for 45 years. And if we keep doing that for another 45 years, then 45 years from now we’ll still be doing it.
Marc Montoni said: ” . . . . . What we don’t want anything to do with are candidates who are afraid to speak of:
– Abolishing ALL of Prohibition
– Abolishing taxes
– Private police, fire, and ambulance services
– Privatizing roads
– The rights of children . . . . . ”
So, in other words, you don’t want any of your endorsed candidates to actually get elected?
Steve, it is good to hear that you are already planning a run for 2018. You could have made the ballot this time, as could other Libertarians for district offices who did not qualify for the ballot, IF the drive had been run better (I place most of the blame for the on the national party). I had suggested providing every petition circulator in the state with a list of who all of the district office candidates were, and where they were running, early in the process, but nobody ever did it. I had also suggested getting the petition on the streets at the beginning of the legal petition circulating time period, and this did not happen either, as several weeks were wasted early in the allotted time period for petition circulation.
I have other thoughts on what could have been done, and what could be done next time, but we can save this for a future discussion.
Andy, We actually HAVE started a PAC, Being Treasurer, I took care of that paperwork just this past week. Technically all candidates are still in the race, in my case, I am focusing on the future given the difficulty we have had in district 8 gathering signatures.
Thomas, agreed. Please feel free to discuss the matter with Darryl.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
“Thomas, Darryl actually stated, to us, that he believes himself to have resigned.”
If that’s the case, then what’s the relevance of Caryn Ann bring up the LPRC bylaw allowing it to be “presumed” that someone has resigned? Am I to blame for understanding it as such a “presumption” claim of resignation, rather than as an actual resignation?
If Darryl regards himself as having resigned, that’s good enough for me. If he’s said to have resigned because other people “presumed,” then no — like ol’ Abe said, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
Caryn Ann, I like what you all are doing with the Radical Caucus, but I would suggest that in the future, before you send out any press releases like this, that you all make sure that all of the candidates endorsed by the caucus are still in the race.
You all ought to consider doing Radical Caucus fundraising, as well as delegate recruiting for conventions. I think that a big problem at the last few Libertarian National Conventions is that there have not been enough hardcore Libertarians in attendance. You may want to consider starting a PAC or Super PAC as well. If the Radical Caucus endorses a candidate, like say Darryl W. Perry, there ought to be funds available to assist that candidate.
Thomas, Darryl actually stated, to us, that he believes himself to have resigned. The Radical Caucus is working within the party, and since the party has selected a presidential candidate, we have not actually worked against the selected candidate, regardless of our having endorsed Darryl ahead of the convention. Darryl believes that he is doing what he must, and that is fine, but while he is at cross purposes with the Caucus, he cannot be a member. After this election cycle, Darryl will be free to re-join, and the Caucus will be free to accept him as a member.
Andy, I did not make the ballot which is why my campaign asked to not be given a donation check, and instead, divide my campaign’s share among the other endorsed candidates. Yes, people may write me in this cycle, but my campaign has re-geared looking at 2018. I have recruited a State Rep candidate within my district this AM, and I am courting donors already. You were here, and you know what it takes to collect signatures in this district. It is going to take a large number of down ballot candidates and a large number of volunteers, and a large amount of working capital heading into the 2018 season.
Regardless, we need to continue pushing the momentum that Libertarians have, and regardless of what people think of the J/W campaign, it is like I said in a previous article on IPR, we have this amazing cast of characters, and we all have a part to play in making Libertarianism part of our culture. This is a long game, and I am convinced now, more than ever, that we absolutely cannot stop because we ARE winning hearts and we ARE freeing minds!
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
cah: Not interested in uselessness.
Me: have you re-thought the NAP? 😉
“Our bylaws provide for presumption of resignation.”
Precisely. They allow you to expel someone by “presuming” resignation.
In order for me to continue warring against radicals who don’t want to torch the party, I would first have to start doing so. I haven’t. Not even if you “presume” I have.
No Tom he was not. Our bylaws provide for presumption of resignation. He resigned. You can continue to war against radicals who don’t wish to torch the party through toothless gestures and protests. And that is equally useless.
Not interested in uselessness.
“Darryl was not expelled. Darry[l] was considered to have resigned”
You left out that it’s not a war, it’s a kinetic military action. And that it depends on what the definition of “is” is.
He is “considered to have resigned” because those who expelled him consider it his own damn fault that he got expelled. And maybe it is. But he got expelled.
Darryl was not expelled. Darry was considered to have resigned, and will be welcome back once he is no longer actively running against the duly nominated candidate. I consider Darryl a close friend and respect that he thinks he is doing what is right. I just disagree.
Actually Mr Perry resigned of his own free will.
Incidentally, the Radical Caucus will be doing the same thing next year (vetting and endorsing LP candidates).
The Radicals’ process for endorsing candidates is rather different than the LP’s. In most state & local parties, if someone shows up and says they’re a Libertarian, they get endorsed.
We actually vet candidates. We expect them to understand and to adhere to a radical Libertarian agenda, and to be able to speak for it on their website, in their literature, and in candidate forums. We also expect them to clearly identify themselves as Libertarian Party candidates.
What we don’t want anything to do with are candidates who are afraid to speak of:
– Abolishing ALL of Prohibition
– Abolishing taxes
– Private police, fire, and ambulance services
– Privatizing roads
– The rights of children
… and any other third rails that the Weak Bladder Caucus says we should never, ever talk about.
We don’t expect them to bring them up all the time every time, but where normal LP candidates would chicken out when it came to answering that “who would build the roads” bromide, we expect a Radical endorsee to be able to give an actual (if short) LIBERTARIAN answer.
If you’re tired of Libertarian candidates in your neck of the woods who can’t seem to bring themselves to actually say anything bold, edgy, or new, or who try to peddle non-libertarian ideas like a national retail sales tax as “libertarian” solutions, then join us with a donation to the Caucus and help us find the better candidates.
95% or Libertarian Party candidates since our founding in 1971 have been “reformer” Libertarians — candidates who propose “reducing” taxes by 5 or 10% or whatever, and who want to”reform” police with “citizen review boards” and other such rather ineffective ideas. Most of those 95% were people who said that now that they were involved, the LP was “no longer a debating club” and now we’re going to actually win office by talking about issues that voters actually care about.” And then they got the same 2% that every other LP candidate has ever gotten.
The Radical Caucus is interested instead in the candidates who have a straight spine and who can speak a real Libertarian message without fearing what leftist soccer moms and rent-seeking union dads will think of them.
We want to find that remnant of American society who are already thinking that the statist quo is dumb and who are already **basically** libertarian, but who still don’t know that there is a political party organized around those ideas they have percolating in the backs of their minds (they don’t know thanks to libertarians who are afraid to speak to those ideas).
Mr. Lesiak,
Mr. Perry was expelled from the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus for giving radical libertarians a candidate they could vote for. The LPRC is a party caucus, and interprets that to mean that for certain purposes they have to pretend that the party is doing its job even when it chooses not to.
Is there a specific reason why Darryl W. Perry wasn’t endorsed? Did he not apply for the endorsement? Is it because he’s a member (last time I checked a while ago) of the Caucus?
Mark, I’ve been acquainted with you for many years and have a lot of respect for the work you’ve done in your home state.
That said, I don’t think the adoption of terms and tactics to mean things they really don’t is particularly persuasive, and may in fact be persuasive in the opposite direction.
“I also wonder if Mr. Rutherford finds Chair Sarwark offensive”
Well, he ran against Sarwark for chair this year, and attempted to radically (pun intended) differentiate himself from Sarwark. I don’t recall that he was so ungentlemanly as to call Sarwark personally offensive, but this particular comment of his does fall in line with his position on “purity” as articulated in the past.
I also wonder if Mr. Rutherford finds Chair Sarwark offensive:
http://hammeroftruth.com/user/nsarwark/
“I come from the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party. I’ve been a Libertarian since I was 10 or 11 years old and my father would take me to meetings of the Maricopa County Libertarian Party. I vote for Ernie Hancock when he runs for Chair because I’ve known him longer than anyone else in the party. I’ve never been anything other than a big-L Libertarian.”
Sarwark also said the same language in his nomination speech for Lee Wrights.
I see one person decided rather than to worry about candidates or funding decided to “take offense” at a slogan that is 50% tongue in cheek. I find that odd. But as I said to Mr. Rutherford on FB, don’t take everything so seriously. It is first and fore mostly meant humorously. But even more importantly, it is meant to be taken as a an indication that we are all Libertarians. But if you take only Libertarians, out of THAT group, we hold most consistently to Libertarian principles. If someone wants to be insulted by that, I can’t help that. Unless one is gong to pretend, using the Nolan quiz as an example, that if you have two people, one of which doesn’t support the draft and one of which does, that although both of them score in the Libertarian quadrant, all other things being equal that the draft opposer is not more consistently Libertarian.
Being offended is immature. IMHO. There are some real world things to be offended at. Like the possibility of a draft. Or racism. Or bombing brown people. A humorous slogan is not one of them, particularly when it is very much an in-group joke.
But of course, ignore the fact that several thousand dollars were given to Libertarian candidate.s Be offended. Yeah. That’s productive.
Signed,
The Colorado State Coordinator for the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party, or alternatively you may call Her Radically Radical Radicalness.
According to Politics1.com, Steve is not on the ballot or listed as a write in. Sigh.
We would love to broadcast candidate videos if y’all have em. Please post them to facebook.com/groups/libertarianswin and good luck, you are all winners!
I applaud the LPRC for their work in this cycle. I hope to see the caucus grow, so that radical candidates can get even more support in the future.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=268601866859573&id=100011292845671
He didn’t apply to the Endorsements Committee.
James Weeks II, candidate for sheriff of Livingston County, Michigan, seems to have been inadvertently omitted from the list.
That I don’t know. I would have to ask our endorsements committee.
Did Steve Scheetz qualify for the ballot, or is he running a write campaign, or did somebody not get the memo that he is not in the race anymore?
I would have to check to confirm, but I thought he did not make the ballot. It would be great if he is still in the race, I just thought he did not qualify for the ballot.