By George Phillies, candidate for Libertarian National Committee chair
(Slightly revised from a post at http://LibertyForAll.net)
Since the year 2000, we’ve lost more than half our membership. Party income has fallen by nearly 3/4 in real dollars.
We cannot survive if we continue along this path.
How many state affiliates do we actually have? Certainly not 51. If you don’t believe me, go to the LP.org website, go through the web pages of our state parties, and ask yourself when each was last updated.
If we continue along this course, in a very few years our national party will cease to exist. Lady Liberty’s torch will lie extinguished. We will be united in history with the Whigs and the Federalists.
Surely no Libertarian can wish this fate. Is there no better alternative? Is there no way we can set the good ship Liberty on a new course toward freedom?
Yes, there is.
And that, my fellow Libertarians, is why I’m running for National Chair of our party.
The ancient Romans had a high office, the Pontifex Maximus, the high priest. I’m not running for that. If you want a philosopher king to split hairs about Libertarian philosophy, I’m probably not your man. I’m not running for the Maximus Bombasticus either. If you want revivalist speeches with smoke, mirrors and huge promises, I’m probably not your man, either.
I have only one huge promise. I promise you there are no silver bullets, no magic tricks that will march us to first-party status. Our only path to greatness is the sweat and tears, the hours and dollars of all of us: volunteers, activists, donors, and supporters.
The National Chair is our CEO. I’m running for National Chair because I want to do the hard work of leading and administering our party, so that you, our Libertarian activists, can get on with the important political business of the day, namely converting the United States to a Libertarian-majority nation.
I’m not running by myself. In America, one man political parties like the John Anderson party and the George Wallace party are bright shooting stars that speed across the landscape in the twinkle of an eye, only to vanish forever. Their political symbol is properly the mule, a creature with no hope of progeny.
I’m running as part of the New Path, the New Path to Libertarian Revival. My good friends and I, the Libertarians of the New Path, are running for our National Committee. We’re running for National Committee to send our party once again on the march to political greatness.
Who are the New Path candidates?
George Phillies — Chair
Carolyn Marbry — Vice Chair
James Oaksun, MBA — Treasurer
Rob Power — Secretary
At-Large: Joe Kennedy
Regional Representatives and alternates include
Rachel Hawkridge
Jim Remmert
Jake Porter
Scott Williamson
Charles Wilhoit
(Please remember also our good friends, including Mary Ruwart, Lee Wrights, and Vicki Kirkland.)
So what are we offering as a new course for our party?
Above all, start doing real politics. Focus our energies outward at attacking our opponents.
#1) Fix our finances. Cut fixed costs. Redirect our income to real politics. Show our donors that their money has been spent wisely and well. Revive our flagging donor interest. Recruit and retain donors.
#2) Support our volunteers, activists, and candidates. The LNC can’t do their work for them, but it can make it a lot easier. Support? Downloadable trifolds with blank panels ready to be modified for local needs. Downloadable web page templates, so candidates get off the ground faster. Candidate and group support material like the Libertarian Candidate Support Disk.
#3) Public outreach and advertising. Web ads via Facebook and Adwords. New web pages with solid archives. Libertarian Party sound bites so lost small-L libertarians find us. More libertarian affinity groups like Outright Libertarians. More small-L libertarian think tanks like AntiWar.Com. A monthly newsletter.
#4) An active, vibrant affiliate in every state, D.C. Puerto Rico, Guam, and everywhere else the American flag flies.
#5) Candidate recruitment and support. When the Democrats need extra help to recruit a good potential Federal candidate, Obama makes a phone call. We don’t have a President, but as National Chair I’ll do my part to help. By the way, I promise you I will *never ever* urge a state party not to run a real libertarian candidate so that a Republican or Democrat might win.
#6) A National Committee that focuses on substance, not parliamentary hair-splitting. That’s a National Committee with working groups, a few LNC members and a lot of volunteers, to do all the work our Party needs and the LNC staff has no time to do. Perpetual pandering to parliamentary panjandrums must stop: Parliamentarianism is poisoning our national party.
That’s not everything we need, not by a long shot, but it’s a nice start.
This NatCon, you have a choice. I’m offering you hard work. I’m offering you a plan. I’m offering you a team to carry out that plan.
The choice is yours.
tk 127, yes, well, if an L is of the abolitionist anarchist school, I don’t know how they get around the endorsement of silo abandonment, at least in theory. Silo staff are paid in stolen dollars. They control inherently offensive weapons.
Dunno, but if THAT’S the theory, then I’d go back to the chalkboard, as I personally did. Seems like some premises need checking…big time.
But it really is all good.
@117
“In order for this party to succeed you have to have some sort of infrastucture you have to appeal to a broad range of freedom lovers, not simply anarchist, and you have to not speak in riddles.
People are looking for a third party they can believe in. Not another movement…. we have tea parties, reason, lew rockwell, advocates, mises freeing peoples minds, (not really sure how free minds get with the Tea Parties (but you get the point)) we need to focus on our role… to be a solid political party.”
Well, I disagree with your half your premise; or should I say your premise is half the picture. Because I understand and agree with what you are saying except that it is only a part of the picture.
Activism is the very underpinning of political action. Activism is an expression of your base. All starched shirts and no art makes for a dead party.
For instance, we do not “have” as you said:
tea parties
lew rockwell
advocates
mises
reason
nor do with have CATO, JBS, ACLU, NRA, Objectivists etc…
Those organizations do go out and free minds, but they are not a part of the party even informally. The LP is faltering as a coalition organization. Part of the reason is that our approach has become too focused along with our appeal.
On one side is purity police who will reject you if you are not their particular pure. On the other is the perception police if you are not their particular pure. Neither side is very populist and in between is all the libertarians and nascent libertarian voters who have already out rejected both the republican or the democrats by identifying as DTS or independent.
Politics in all its forms is about people. You must have masses to win. To have masses and to also have a core philosophy is not incongruous. The loss of core, and the disrespect of their base (read activists) is why the Democrats and Republicans are hemorrhaging. The disrespect of the base is why we are not picking them up despite our core philosophy.
Both Hancock and Philies represent spreading out the focus a little bit. Which I think we need for a little bit. I would much prefer to see Root running for office than trying to administrate. I think he does better with the camera and people.
We are not big enough to need a charismatic chair. We need someone that will make the organization attractive to a wider range of politicos. One that is better at keeping people moving in positive directions and away from the stupid divisive stuff. That means spreading the focus a little.
I like what Phillies writes, I am not as familiar with his successes (Graphs please). Hancock seems to be a man of action and gets out and fires people up. So that is where I am at the moment wanting more info on what they have accomplished in terms of bringing people into their activism; masses of people.
John Jay Myers: “The Libertarian Party is the only party of the top three, that is even close to an anti-war party.”
It’s laughably silly and dishonest to lump the LP in with the GOP and Dems as “the top three” parties.
Realistically, there the “top two” political parties in America are the GOP and Dems.
Then there’s the “top three” third parties: the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties, which have all claimed to being “America third largest party.” All of them are mostly antiwar, with smaller pro-war minorities.
spin doctors
spin doctors
spin doctors
The whole story may or may not be correct. Since this is very old news and a lot of things even today gets disorted.
Mr. Lake, I am not going to come on here and just start throwing punches at everyone. If you have seen my videos or listened to the things I have said even on this blog, it’s not hard to tell that I don’t mind speaking my mind.
I am here to stand up against Root. But not just Root, Ernie as well…..but Ernie I actually like, just not for chair. Phillies is no threat to me…. and I think he is a reasonable guy, and you seem to be misreading his statement, or I am misreading yours.
The Libertarian Party is the only party of the top three, that is even close to an anti-war party. That is one of the main reasons I am so involved. I also hope to convince those few lost souls who are pro-war “Libertarians” to wake up while I am here. To me Pro-war Libertarian is like saying Anti-sex Hooker.
But do I really need to come in here and throw everyone under the bus? I hope that just speaking my mind and telling it like I see it might sway some people back into the right frame of mind. Or maybe (if we are lucky) cause them to leave.
I have much greater ammo against Wayne than his 100T statement. He often exagerates and is more often wrong.
Sorry if my comments on Wayne etal were not deep enough. I will go after their kids next time. (no I wont.)
Bob,
“For those who [exist entirely or almost entirely in my fevered imagination], the only ‘legitimate’ TABOR ceiling is zero.”
There, fixed that for you.
John Jay Myers // Mar 12, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Thanks Straight ….. if you can be more specific, I would be more answer more clearly.
Bruce Cohen [and Edward Tessiler and Richard Rider] a long history of lack of general ethics! And your reaction ???????? You gonna look the other way on Root’s $100T national debt misstatement ????? You gonna get ‘selective memory’ on Phillies’ dumb ass comment on Libs being THE ONLY anti war party when pretty much all Non Neocons were/ are peace orientated.
Like Natural Law Party hitting the brick wall [RIP: 2004] and the Deform Party/ Reform Party and their multi year death spiral [beginning with 2000] you do the supposedly good guys no favors by ignoring dumb stupid illogical inappropriate actions.
Hello, hello, hello. You guys [Libs] got through the stupid ‘No Free Lunch’ stretch decades ago. Now you need to stand up against Root ($100T) and Phillies (solo peace platform)!
Steven, I said @119 TABOR limits the growth of tax revenue to inflation plus population growth. Mike said @122 TABOR only allows government to grow at the rate of population plus inflation.
You want less condescension, then check your facts before opening the discussion by accusing Libertarians of advocating “growth of government a little slower than republicans would like”.
Gee thanks Mike, for bringing FACTS into the debate.
😉
I stand corrected. And I’m glad my assumptions were wrong.
Funny thing is, about 15 years ago some fellow was on our local NPR call in show, proposing a TABOR style initiative for Ohio. I called in and made all the same arguments I made above. He answered with the same condescension that Brian used, mostly just responding that it was better than what we have now.
I’ve used the same arguments many times since, and have never been corrected.
I’m happy to stand corrected.
PEACE
OK, time to educate some people on TABOR, since there are some inaccuracies and misconceptions going around and Doug Bruce, a friend of mine and TABOR author, isn’t here. Plus, I lived it out there in CO.
Reference Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado constitution.
First, TABOR does not allow for tax increases, except by vote of the people.
Second, TABOR only allows government to grow at the rate of population plus inflation–both up and down. The Gann Amendment in CA was similar, IIRC.
Third, excess revenues collected by tax districts were refunded to taxpayers. These took the forms of income tax rebates and property tax credits, depending on the circumstance.
Fourth, there was an option to “de-Bruce”, meaning that voters could elect to allow a government to keep the excess revenues for a limited period, not more than four years.
Now, what has that all that meant for CO since its inception in 1992?
– It has meant that CO goverment grew 69% to 2003, after which it has been scaled back.
– It has meant that $7B in tax dollars (that’s billion, folks!) was returned to taxpayers in the same period 1992-2003, creating a huge economic boom.
– It has meant in 2003, the ratchet effect was felt for the first time in its history, and CO had to cut $989M off the budget. (CA had to cut $11B and failed that year.)
– It led to voters making a mistake and passing Ref C in 2005, which stopped TABOR from being in effect through 2009, which led to the problems CO is having now.
While TABOR did allow government to grow, it did not increase taxes without the people having a say. I recall voting only once to retain extra revenue, and that was so Colorado Springs could keep some extra sales tax revenue to fix an intersection that badly needed it from flooding out all the time–specific one-off purpose. That $7B in returned funds was the chief reason the state had an economic boom in that decade as well, and weathered toe dot-com bust relatively intact.
Now, keep in mind a couple of things. TABOR by itself wasn’t the whole answer there. There were a couple of other elements. The Gallagher Amendment kept the ratio of business to personal property taxes set per district at 55:45, which kept personal property taxes low. The Byrd-Aveschourg Amendment required a balanced budget with no gimmicks. The CO income tax was also low, a flat 5%, which around 2000 dropped first to 4.75% and then to the current 4.63%
Working against TABOR was first Amendment 23, which was a mandated spending increase on public schools every year no matter what the economy did, ala Prop 98 in CA, and then Ref C, which also removed the government growth cap. That, and the perpetual whining by the elected officials that they couldn’t spend enough of OUR money because of TABOR, always inversely proportional to the positive state of the economy back then–the worse the economy, the more they whined–but that indicated just how well it was working.
BTW, under TABOR 95% of the roads were redone, including finishing Glenwood Canyon (most recently in the news from rockslides) after 35 years, and the funding for education (all local) was doing fine as well.
Was TABOR good? Absolutely. Was it perfect? No, it could have used a rainy-day fund, for example. But it was a key element in the great economy CO had from 1992-2003.
So, no, I wouldn’t be denigrating it. It limited government, returned tax dollars to their owners, and gave voters a voice on tax issues.
Had CA had it, or had CA never diluted the Gann Amendment, we’d be in a lot better shape out here.
Thanks Straight, though I am not sure what specifically you would like to know.
I can direct you to about 30 videos I have made over the years at http://www.youtube.com/clearsky24
I don’t know that they would answer your concerns.
So if you can be more specific, I would be more answer more clearly. (I didn’t realize you were addressing me in your original post).
For those who hold the position that the silos should be abandoned tomorrow, the only “legitimate” TABOR ceiling is zero. Likely outcomes of said abandonment cannot be cited as a mitigating circumstance.
Mr. Linnabary, I said “nominal revenue collected by a given tax rate increases with inflation”.
That’s simply a fact.
nominal adj. Of, relating to, or being the amount or face value of a sum of money or a stock certificate, for example, and not the purchasing power or market value
It remains inane to suggest that advocating a ceiling on tax revenue’s share of the GDP (i.e. limiting it to inflation plus population growth) is the same as “support[ing] having such tax increases codified”. And it’s just as inane to claim that support for such a ceiling implies “glee” for any kind of tax increase.
well it won’t be me!
How ever, I did notice that you never got around to ethics and logic ……….
As sad, sad, sad as I am over the lack of possibility of the Libs making a big difference in the reform of the fascist, imperial global American Empire, they are suffering less than any other major or semi major partisan group!
So much tension fellas. Brian you are a funny guy. (I mean that as a complement).
When I look at how things are going in Texas, I see the promise of the Libertarian Party, when I visit with folks from other states, I start to understand why some are so worried about our future.
We have 5 times more people running as Libertarians than most states have show up to their state convention.
@ Graphs “I am leaning toward Hancock myself. Where he is right now, I see activism; I see people; I see organization; I see donors…”
You do? You see organization of the Libertarian Party with Ernie? You see donors to the Libertarian Party with Ernie?
Ernie doesn’t even believe the Libertarian Party should exist.
He doesn’t want to run or organize the party, when Ernie goes out and shakes people up, which he does well…. someone has to be there to help those people help us, and get them and others elected.
I am quite sure you see activism with Ernie, and we need it, and that’s what he should be doing.
In order for this party to succeed you have to have some sort of infrastucture you have to appeal to a broad range of freedom lovers, not simply anarchist, and you have to not speak in riddles.
People are looking for a third party they can believe in. Not another movement…. we have tea parties, reason, lew rockwell, advocates, mises freeing peoples minds, (not really sure how free minds get with the Tea Parties (but you get the point)) we need to focus on our role… to be a solid political party.
Some people are not ready to have their mind freed as far as Ernie wants to take it.
We need a plan not only for growth of the party, but also for our candidates that will move us in the right direction. We can’t say “we WILL eliminate income tax the day we are elected”.
It is however our ultimate goal, at this point we need to convey to people how we plan on getting from here to there.
A key component to this is not only describing a more Libertarian Society, but showing how we get there.
The first step is too stop spending money.
I know, I know, I am a genius. I have just solved all the infighting….. oh wait, someone calls me an idiot in 3…2…1….
It’s silly to say that to advocate a TABOR ceiling on tax revenue is to make one “responsible” for the fact that the nominal revenue collected by a given tax rate increases with inflation.
No, what’s silly is to refer to a possible 1,000% or more tax increase as nominal.
But apparently, it’s ok when Libertarians officially support having such tax increases codified?
This is the kind of tax increase that would make Obama, his republican lap dogs and other nanny staters jump with glee. And apparently Brian Holtz, too.
PEACE
srl: But, the LP does continue to grow in members, activists and media attention when we espouse personal liberty without apology.
me: Hmm, you’ll have to help me with what you mean by “apology.” Membership numbers are small, and always have been small. A swing of 1,000 looks like a lot when the base can’t fill Madison Square Garden.
Media coverage has been highest when our presidential candidate has been the most professional and mainstream.
Purges are contra-indicated, of course. Other than the recent CA dustup, I don’t know of actual purge attempts. I was generally on the other side in the two most recent actions involving LNC members, so I’d suggest it’s a mistake to associate ideological perspective with intra-party squabbling.
Sigh.
It’s silly to say that to advocate a TABOR ceiling on tax revenue is to make one “responsible” for the fact that the nominal revenue collected by a given tax rate increases with inflation.
If you don’t know about Prop 13, then let’s read from the Wikipedia entry on “tax revolt”:
A second wave of tax revolts began in the late 1970s and were particularly popular in the West. In 1978, voters in California passed Proposition 13, sponsored by Howard Jarvis and passed overwhelmingly by voters in 1978, which drastically limited property tax levels in the state. In subsequent years, the state initiative process, initially championed by Populists and progressives, has been increasingly used for such purposes by conservative and libertarian political forces. In the United States, notable examples include a series of initiatives in Oregon (see Oregon tax revolt) and Washington (see Tim Eyman), the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) in Colorado, and Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts.
Prop 13, TABOR, and similar limits on tax increases are all bitterly opposed by nanny staters seeking to grow government.
And, apparently, by Steven Linnabary.
It’s silly to say that to advocate a TABOR ceiling on tax increases is to advocate tax increases.
You are correct…so long as the above listed government agencies listed above each agree that the “official” inflation rate is only 1 or 2% per year. But when Zimbabwean or Argentine style inflation (as seems increasingly likely) becomes a reality, do YOU want to be responsible for 1,000% or more tax increases?
I suppose you think that Prop 13 here in California was bad, too?
You got me, Brian. I have to admit that I don’t know the specifics of a state initiative (from a state on the other side of the country) from 35 years ago.
PEACE
@109: No, the “oppose all taxation” language was dropped from the LP Platform in 2008. Personally, I oppose all taxes on income (wages, interest, dividends, profits, gifts, and inheritance), production (including value added), transactions (e.g. the sale, import, or export of goods and services), and wealth (e.g. real estate improvements, capital, or other produced assets). However, I think the Platform should leave room for libertarians (like Ron Paul and Bob Barr) who would accept sales/excise taxes if the income tax were abolished.
It’s silly to say that to advocate a TABOR ceiling on tax increases is to advocate tax increases. I suppose you think that Prop 13 here in California was bad, too?
@107
http://NewPathForTheLP.org
Thanks for making my point for me, Brian. The LP Platform DOES call for “repeal of the income tax”, as well as all other taxes.
That is why the LP should NOT be espousing TABOR style tax increases in an official capacity. Like I said, am individual candidate might want to support such a thing, but the LP should NEVER do it.
And you are correct that TABOR imposes a ceiling on the increase in taxes, a ceiling that is as flexible as the “inflation rate”. Of course, it could be any inflation rate…the rate used by the CBO, the rate used by OMB, the rate used by the GAO, the rate used by the Dept of Labor, or even the rate as calculated by some community college economics professor.
PEACE
espouses growing the government just a little slower than the republicans.
Try reading the LP Platform:
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types.
Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government.
Education is best provided by the free market.
The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
Now show me where in the Republican platform it says anything remotely as radical as that.
Oh, and a Colorado-style TABOR is a ceiling on the size of government, not a floor.
I do not understand how an analysis of the past becomes any part of an executive’s job interview. But the Phillies’ Slate is not just harping on the past. They use past data to illustrate why there is an urgent need for action.
But, if we accept the Chicken Little argument, does the slate have the horse power, and horse sense to pull off the job they illustrate is needed.
I can’t personally say. But I have heard nothing from the slate about their qualifications. I am leaning toward Hancock myself. Where he is right now, I see activism; I see people; I see organization; I see donors…
Not living on the east coast (NH and Mass right?) I do not really know anyone on this slate. Since I do not know their track records, I would love to hear about their successes in the following areas:
Raising money.
Increasing membership.
Long term, large group, leadership experience.
I would love to see graphs if possible.
I agree with Steven and my forthcoming analysis of membership trends will provide additional confirming evidence.
Still, Bob does have a point. We are not seeing the success we should be, and as I wrote earlier, our messaging has been poor. We need Vast improvement, top to bottom, in all channels. The issue is, *What* message, and delivered *To Whom*.
To that end, I eagerly look forward to reading the essay, “How Purges, Witch Hunts, and Meditations on Robert’s Rules Serve to Advance the Cause of Liberty,” bylined by any member of the LNC’s current governing coalition.
please define “worked,” then. Last I checked, the State has nothing but grown these past 35 years, in both absolute and relative terms.
Sheesh Bob…by THAT metric, maybe we should all go home and save our money and time!!
But, the LP does continue to grow in members, activists and media attention when we espouse personal liberty without apology.
The LP LOSES members and activists when it espouses growing the government just a little slower than the republicans.
The LP REALLY loses when the LP purges activists or even when the LP disparages and belittles these same activists.
And the LP loses even more when it’s official pronouncements guarantee continued government growth, such as the official LP support of the “TABOR” (Taxpayer Bill Of Rights) movement of a few years ago which GUARANTEES growth of government, albeit a little slower than republicans would like.
Such pronouncements MIGHT be ok for an individual candidate…afterall, I am willing to sometimes vote the lesser of evils, but such “republican lite” proclamations from the LP only cause member and activist disillusionment and they never bring new support from new members and activists.
PEACE
srl: And each new crop of officers refuses to listen to what HAS worked in the past, which is usually our unwavering radical concepts of personal liberty.
me: please define “worked,” then. Last I checked, the State has nothing but grown these past 35 years, in both absolute and relative terms.
You wouldn’t have a clue // Mar 11, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Mr. Lake mark my words you don’t and never will have a clue……….You wouldn’t have a clue // Mar 11, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Mr. Lake mark my words you don’t and never will have a clue.
You wouldn’t have a clue // Mar 11, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Mr. Lake mark my words you don’t and never will have a clue.
********** Clue Number Two: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html
Looking at the convention info on the national site I do not see a time where it is officially to adjourn?
Does anyone know if there is an official adjourn date and time?
Thanks,
MW; p.s it helps with planning
Dear Mister Cohen,
my FIRST [of many available] clues:
whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html
Mr. Lake mark my words you don’t and never will have a clue.
Re Tom at @ 92. I understand that part of the issue. However may I suggest that in states where people register by party we should do as much in house as possible and send to those registered as Libertarians. I haven’t seen the numbers for some time but last time I looked I understand that there were about 300,000 registered Libertarian voters nationwide. That group might be our best pool of potential recruits and volunteers could stay busy for a few years.
Maybe we can only get the names of half of them we should be making use of the fact that they have at least taken a step in out direction. 😉
Sorry I didn’t make that clear the first time around.
@91 GO CRAWL IN A HOLE // Mar 11, 2010
“You [Don Lake] belong over in the Anti-semit (spelling) political site’ [Semites are ALL THE FOLKS OF THE LEVENT!] Go find a nice hole somewhere and bury yourself. [And please tell me/ us that we just made up the dead or dying on the non combatant USS Liberty. We expect the silence from cowards like you to be deafening ………..]
An apology to all AMERICAN veterans every where might just be appropriate, even from cowards like Bruce Cohen ……….
You belong over in the Anti-semit political site. Go find a nice hole somewhere and bury yourself.
Now told that we must not even talk about issues, as somehow it isn’t “mainstream” to have positions in opposition to republicans or democrats.
LP pragmatist says:
THe Ohio LP will be just fine no matter what you guys do with national. We have fought the Ohio government twice and won, have set records in Ohio, made history in Ohio, and now have nearly 60 candidates. AND, we did it by going “mainstream” to quadruple attendance at our meetings and events.
So the Ohio LP would take offense to knuckleheads that whine about the demise of the party. We are heading in another direction and it is NOT backwards. ‘
Well, I might be one of those “knuckleheads” Mr Pragmatist is talking about.
Those of us that you refer to as “knuckleheads” have been around for years, without knuckling under to the latest fool notion or fad.
Every four or five years we get a new crop of officers, each so smug in their notion that we are losing merely because we aren’t “mainstream” enough to grow. And each new crop of officers sets out to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, complete with castigating all the longtime membership as too “radical” and sometimes purging members they feel aren’t marching to their drummer.
And each new crop of officers refuses to listen to what HAS worked in the past, which is usually our unwavering radical concepts of personal liberty. Now told that we must not even talk about issues, as somehow it isn’t “mainstream” to have positions in opposition to republicans or democrats.
Yes, we DO have four times as many people at our meetings as we had four years ago when we did not have ballot access. We are back to where we were in 2000 or 1982, years when we did have ballot access.
I’ve noticed over the years that in each of the era’s where the new officers have marginalized the so called radicals, it is the radicals that end up picking up the pieces after they have moved on. But it is only the radical message that keeps members. Members that came during the Gaylor, Babka, Butler years (if there were any) are long gone.
So rather than misrepresenting the republican lite (that was tried and failed) as “radical”, how about embracing what DOES work?
PEACE
I said basically the same thing to someone after the LSLA debate.
Chuck @86 – I did not ask to be a speaker, and have informed Adm. Colley that I have no problem with being removed from the schedule if it’s done as part of applying a uniform standard.
The only kind of money the LP can/should get is that of non-rent-seekers, and there are very few of them on the Left-Right equator of the Nolan chart.
The LP is not going to move public policy by the strength of our fundraising or dues growth. The way for the LP to move public policy is by showing and growing America’s electoral demand for more personal and economic freedom. The key to that is to differentiate the Libertarian brand as neither Left nor Right, neither liberal nor conservative.
So when Root targets our “common ground” with the Right, he has to balance the potential benefits against the very real risk of brand dilution/confusion. It’s not enough to say we don’t like Obama and socialism. There’s already a major party that claims to oppose those things.
Michael,
You write:
“It is not necessary to use an outside mailing house to run [a direct mail] program.”
Actually, in many cases it is.
The LP doesn’t recruit by direct mail using its own lists, except to a limited degree (mailing lapsed members, re-mailing people who once requested information but didn’t join at that time, etc.).
The LP recruits by direct mail using lists rented from operations which we think will have customers who are open to our message. In the past that has included lists like “subscribers to libertarian publications,” “members of gun rights organizations,” etc.
The thing about renting such lists is that their owners are reasonably jealous of the information.
When we rent a list, they don’t just print it off and send it to us. They generally insist that a third party — a mailing house they trust — handle the list, so that we can’t just run it through a photocopier or copy an electronic file and then make multiple uses of it without paying them multiple rental fees.
In point of fact, the LP implements similar safeguards/insistences on its own list, and in at least one case took a prominent LP member to court on allegations that he had rented the LP list, copied it and used it multiple times.
While I find those specific allegations dubious and convenient (I demonstrated how an interested party — and there was one — at LPHQ could frame the accused, who was a previous LP national director and later a candidate for national chair), it’s reasonable to assume that e.g. Tea Party Express isn’t just going to take a check and hand us their mailing list. They’re going to want a fee for each mailing, and they’re probably going to insist a mailing house be used so that Wes Benedict can’t just get happy with the Xerox machine and only buy from them once.
Jeremy Young // Mar 11, 2010:
“in Root’s defense that the man is being perfectly honest with the LP voters. No one who votes for him as Chair is going to have any question as to how he’s going to govern the party. That’s an honorable move on his part, and I give him a lot of credit for it ……….. ”
[well the same could be said for Tojo, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin! NBD!]
I will say in Root’s defense that the man is being perfectly honest with the LP voters. No one who votes for him as Chair is going to have any question as to how he’s going to govern the party. That’s an honorable move on his part, and I give him a lot of credit for it.
Again, my point is, that Wayne wants to find receptive audiences to our message.
Not to find a certain audience to bias LP policy one way or another.
Brian, thanks much for the information.
Just to say for the record, I will not be seeking, nor would I accept, a sole keynote speaking spot on the official convention program at St Louis, unless the incumbent is afforded equal time. 🙂
I do reserve the right to hold a non-official event of my choosing. Should I do so, people could attend or not, at their option.
I agree with Chuck in that AL candidates should be similarly barred, as the full convention votes on them too.
I do associate myself with John Jay’s comment. I was there and I heard it too.
Now, that said: I agree with Bruce. We need *much, much better* sales and marketing. Top to bottom, a comprehensive shakeup. As I mentioned before, I am preparing my thoughts on this and will release them in due course.
The question is: *What* are we marketing, and *To Whom*. Wayne is certainly entitled to his opinion as to what the message should be, and who should be hearing it. Others are equally entitled to disagree.
Whether the chair should also be the chief marketing officer, is also open for debate.
@54: Root “has never said a word about marketing to just one particular ideological group or another.”
I believe you missed the LSLA debate. At that location, Mr. Root said exactly the opposite, at some considerable length, namely that we should reach out only to the Right.
With respect to @69, those of you puzzled by the remarks are referred to my book Funding Liberty, available at 3mpub dot com/phillies . The book includes the letter to me from LNC then-Treasurer Mark Tuniewicz explaining that direct membership recruitment as executed in the period in question lost a great deal of money. Of course, almost all the mailings went to the right, far right, and very far right — we know this because the spreadsheet showing the mailings by destination was circulated by LNC Political Director Ron Krickenberger before his sad and untimely demise — which may have been a problem.
On another hand, as the relative success of the Obama and other campaigns showed, there’s lots of money to the left, more than to the right. Mind you, given what Republican fundraisers know of their donors — leaked on many places –that’s not a big surprise.
In my opinion the convention organizers should not be booking LNC officer candidates like Wayne Root as convention speakers because it gives them an unfair advantage.
However, I would say the same for LNC At-Large candidates like David Nolan and Mary Ruwart.
Don’t forget the Austin quote from Wayne:
“The right is where the money is”
aha, I never realized that was all that matters.
Well it looks like I will be strive to be a war mongering, lover of the nanny state so that I can be a “Millionaire Republican”.
After all… “the right is where the money is”
Cohen @54: Root “has never said a word about marketing to just one partikaler ideological group or another.”
Bruce, in my CalFreedom article I’d already transcribed the crucial statement from Root in Long Beach: “65% of all Republicans like the TEA Party movement. You know what percentage of Democrats like it? 19%. There’s our common ground. There is none on the Left. The common ground is on the Right.”
The video is hosted on YouTube, and plays fine.
we could dispense with our rules, and turn every debate into a shouting match ……..
also known as ‘Reform Party/ Deform Party procedures’ ……….
A point or two about direct mail that may or not be informational. Y’all decide!
Direct mail needs to be one of the tools we use for outreach be it for fund raising or growing the membership.
It is not necessary to use an outside mailing house to run the program. We have enough skilled writers who could put together a two or three page letter that we should not have to contract out that work. Secondly we might consider copying in house and using volunteers to fold and stuff envelopes and prepare the mailing. Then have someone take it to the post office. Start with a goal of doing 500 to a 1000 pieces a week and building from there.
We might also consider getting the states to develop their own outreach program using Direct Mail. If a state has voter registration by party then there is no reason for that state not to be doing a regular out reach to those people who are registered as Libertarians. In fact the LNC should be pushing the states to develop this program with some assistance from the LPHQ. This should be a workshop at all the Leadership conferences. The states cannot expect the national office to do everything for us.
Having done all the steps in this process and having seen it succeed I know that it works. It just takes some willingness on our part.
Brian@70
The video at your website won’t hook up. My ‘waiting’ clock just spins round and round, like a record, baby.
However, I am guessing you are trying to find a semantical reason to disagree with me as usual.
Let me take this opportunity to clarify my statement earlier in this discussion.
My point was that Wayne isn’t trying to solicit people to join us based on their issue positions.
Yes, he might target a demographic.
Such as 18-25 likely to vote.
But not an opinion, such as ‘single issue’ ‘pro-choice’ voters.
Thanks for the video link that doesn’t work, I did want to see it.
Can you post it on YouTube, where they have the bandwidth and technology to play it?
Thanks!
Indeed, points of information are sometimes raised for the body to learn something, rather than the questioner. An example of this happened at a crucial moment in the platform debate in Denver: http://libertarianintelligence.com/2008/06/birth-of-platform.html
Mr. Oaksun selectively quotes from a Wikipedia discussion of generic debating clubs, but doesn’t quote this part: “A point of information is also a request for information from the current speaker, in Robert’s Rules of Order.”
But we don’t need Wikipedia to tell us what the LP’s rules are. I don’t have my copy of Robert’s handy, but on http://www.robertsrules.org we read:
Point of Information: Generally applies to information desired from the speaker: “I should like to ask the (speaker) a question.”
Purpose: request for information. You say: “point of information”.
If Mr. Oaksun is elected Treasurer and tries to use point-of-information to arbitrarily interrupt speakers for the purpose of offering (even brief) counter-argument, I hope he’s elected with a Chair who knows the LP’s rules well enough to clamp down on such rule violations.
Or, we could dispense with our rules, and turn every debate into a shouting match. 🙂
George, I love you man, but…
But you keep setting up catch-22s for people.
You want the Convention to change Wayne’s speaking slot… But when/if they do, you call them names for doing it.
Let’s leave the Convention to the folks who have (insanely) volunteered to manage it.
And let’s talk about how you would (or would not) be better at marketing, branding and communicating than Wayne.
Tell us what you stand FOR, not who you are against.
Tell us what’s right with YOU, not what you imagine might be wrong with someone else.
Thanks in advance, George.
In other news related to this campaign, it appears that Wayne Root is being separated from his convention speaker slot immediately before the Chair election. In an email sent to the LNC, Convention Organizer Michael Colley writes:
*From:* [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Michael Colley
*Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:06 AM
*To:* Bill Redpath; [email protected]
*Subject:* [Lnc-discuss] Convention speakers ….
It has become apparent to me that there is some *gross misinformation* adrift regarding the slate of speakers at our Convention.
For the record, please note (and please tell your colleagues and friends!):
– *Although some tentative slates may have been circulated, the
_real slate_ of speakers is still evolving; it should come together soon*
* – No person running for an LNC office will be placed on the
Convention speaker slate _prior to_ nomination and election for that
office – to do otherwise would be manifestly unfair, of course*
* – Those who have suggestions about who might be a good speaker to
be considered for the slate, please tell me*
You are welcome to forward this email to whomever you think might be
interested.
Michael C Colley
Chair, Convention Oversight Committee
On the bright side, one infers that Root will no longer be receiving his bonus speaking opportunity. On the other side, people who have purchased convention tickets already may want to realize that the buried note that the speaker list may change is not just a fig leaf, and you may be getting a list of speakers not the same as those for whom you had thought you had paid.
Would the chairperson concur that a point of information is often used to convey information by asking if the chairperson concurs with information presented as a question in a point of information?
Oh brother.
“Points of Information (or POIs) are a feature of competitive debate, allowing an opposing team member to offer a brief point during the current speech.”
Though as I have written before, I am sure anyone happy with parliamentary arcana is probably totally delighted with the current regime.
@68 The US LP has never gotten high office because it has never set goals to do so until some recent soft guidelines, I believe. It has set goals to run people to help ballot access. It has participated (http://www.lppinellas.org) in a project to apply best standards to a local area of 1 MM to see if they could be done for use nationally, and I daresay is causing an uproar among the crypto GOP anti-Libertarians leading Florida who want affiliates to stagnate.
I believe the USLP through the Congressional Caucus has set a goal to raise funds for running candidates who’ve proven themselves for state legislator. Which means each state has to set those goals. Some states are swamped by other things, like ballot access in the first place.
The first 12 years of the LP was getting legal and developing basic skills. The next dedicated to piloting things and removing legal blocks like laws that would have blocked the internet. The last third in focus on really getting people in public office.
Much of what seems easy today is because of the LP. I remember in the early ’80’s we spent years in my state just getting a normalized registration procedure so we could run candidates and organize voters. Now its very easy to start 3rd parties.
OK?
A brief point of information (see, I know some RONR too)
A “point of information” is a question.
Certainly, direct mail is *a* way to grow the membership rolls. Whether it is the *best* way to do so, is a subject I will have much, Much more to say about in the near future.
Soon, I hope. You keep saying we should replicate the success of 1993-2000, but you haven’t said how you think that success happened in the first place.
A brief point of information (see, I know some RONR too):
Membership levels peaked in the Sep99-Feb01 timeframe, bouncing +200/-200 month to month. By my records (which I believe are accurate) the absolute peak was May00.
The success or failure of a direct mail campaign, is very sensitive to certain variables:
– the cost of the list;
– the response rate;
– the initial contribution;
– the future years’ contributions; and
– the lapse rates.
Certainly, direct mail is *a* way to grow the membership rolls. Whether it is the *best* way to do so, is a subject I will have much, Much more to say about in the near future.
Like anything, direct mail is an investment on which you can calculate a net present value (or internal rate of return as you prefer). My responsibility is to highlight and support all activities that make good financial and strategic sense, and explain to non-financial people why that is the case (even if those activities are initially cash flow negative).
Marc I agree with you, we need to cut off aid to everyone. I scream it from the roof tops, this stems from a conversation that Wayne and I had at my house where he told me “we have to be in the middle east to protect Israel” which is why when I talk to Wayne I focus on that.
John sounds great until this. Why does *anyone* have to single out any one recipient of US aid at all? Libertarians who single out Israel usually have a litany of excuses why they have special loathing for that nation. “Because they get US$3bn, far more than any other nation, yadda yadda …” I find those excuses hollow.
None of us need to single out ANY nation as deserving of having its aid cut. All foreign aid for all purposes, should be abolished — period.
“Warmongers…” said:
I call BS. Have you ever actually looked at US aid tables? And are you a student of any history at all? What do you call all of the entangling alliances, such as NATO, that the US is involved in? The Falklands war — which has come up in the news again recently. What do you call all of the US military support to the Brits during that dust-up? That was “aid”, and Britain is a developed country.
Yeah, so Israel gets $3bn as a bribe to refrain from attacking Egypt. Big deal. The Palestinians, Lebanon, and Syria all get chunks of US aid as well. Egypt gets about $2bn (and the idea that its military program doesn’t benefit from that aid is simply laughable). The PA gets another $250 million or so. Jordan gets $700bn, Pakistan gets $800bn, and so on. Most of the aid countries other than Israel gets are cash grants to specific programs. Which means the government actually gets the cash — which winds up in corrupt politicians’ pockets. In contrast, most of the aid to Israel stays in the US — the US government gives them “credits” and the Israelies go shopping at US military suppliers for equipment instead.
No, it was supposed to be to bribe foreign governments to do the bidding of the US government.
… because of their own idiotic political choices…
Hmmm… Actually, as bribes go, maybe this one is a good one for the Egyptians to accept, since it’s kept the country from getting its butt kicked for a while… Remember that Egypt was a full partner in *starting* several hot wars with Israel… 1973, 1967, 1948, etc…
False. Maybe you should examine some of the figures from the front. American contracts do get a portion of that money, but they don’t get all of it — and even if they did, how would that be any different from the military aid the Israelis get for purchasing US military hardware? Most of those contractors also hire local workers. By various estimates, about $100 billion a year is being dumped from American taxpayers’ wallets into Iraqi and Afghan hands every year — perhaps more.
Do the math. One year of “building” one country has cost the US taxpayer more than a lifetime of credits and loans to Israel.
I could say that about *any* US aid recipient.
All US aid should be abolished, period — without regard to which countries “deserve” aid, or “get an unfair share of it now”.
Another question that must be asked in concert with the foreign aid question, is should people be allowed to pay trillions of dollars for oil stolen from the original developers/owners by tin-pot 8th-century tyrants?
Tyrants who turn around and use that money to support radical schools that are training a generation of young people to commit racial, sexual, and religious atrocities?
To me, allowing those tyrants to sell oil they stole from others is “aid” also.
Like I said, all US aid should be abolished, period — without regard to which countries “deserve” aid, or “get an unfair share of it now”. I’d like to see the sale of stolen merchandise included in that calculation, with policy to match.
Cohen writes about Root: “He’s never said a word about marketing to just one partikaler ideological group or another.”
Not true. http://www.calfreedom.net/2010/02/video-wayne-root-speaks-at-lpca.html
Bruce, if you think your childish insults of Nolan are helpful to Root’s Chair race, then that’s an interesting commentary on your political judgment.
Marc’s link suggests that the LP membership numbers graphed above were padded during “the Seehusen years” by including non-member subscribers to LP News. What years were these, and what was the estimated scale of this padding?
Phillies has a habit of cherry-picking data and connecting things that dn’t really have any connections in order to drag the reader to his always very misleading conclusion. So far he shows no sign of being able to “man up” and admit his role in the “drag effect” the smear campaign he and a small bunch of other blowhards (Moore, Bradford, Hornblower, etc ad nauseam) had on membership growth projects. The fever swamp of criticism of Project Archimedes eventually convinced enough LNC members to halt all Project Archimedes mailings in August 1999. The peak monthly membership report was actually November 1999 (not mid-1999 as implied by Phillies, but late 1999) — just a few months AFTER the LNC killed the Archimedes project. Which is exactly what one would expect — the late mail returns from a large mailing keep membership going for a couple of months after the post date.
About this he is just plain wrong.
But first, for readers who don’t know — Project Archimedes was a direct-mail outreach program that ran for almost two years between late 1997 and mid-1999.
LPHQ consistently studied the returns from Archimedes mailings and with the average contribution from first-year members at around $72, the majority of Archimedes members paid for themselves within the first year. There were some mailings that didn’t generate sufficient returns — and the staff didn’t mail to them any more.
The main theme of the Archimedes mailings was this: most people really didn’t know the LP existed, much less knew anything about it. The theory was to ask everyone to take a look — and there are 300 or so million people in this country who can be asked.
It really is just that simple.
Little over a year after Project Archimedes was killed, to the joy of Phillies and cohort, and in direct response to 9/11, the ACLU launched a truly aggressive “Archimedes” type direct mail recruitment campaign. It cost them millions, but then they ended up recruiting a quarter-million or two new donors over the space of three or four years.
The LP was on the right track. There may have been some errors in focus, or in execution, but the path had been laid bare.
Some of the critics of Project Archimedes complained bitterly about the “right bias” of the selected lists (investment newsletter lists, gun owner lists, etc). However, the staff often made it clear that they would test mail Archimedes letters to any list a member suggested as long as they could figure out a “hook” and could get permission from the list owner. As I recall, I suggested a couple of lists myself in 1998, and one was mailed after successful negotiations with the list owner.
This has been explained in the past“.
Membership levels have little to do with who is in the White House and a lot to do with the ratio of good decisions/practices vs bad.
This party who seem to blame Wayne for its problems again I state. THIS PARTY NEVER WON ELECTION IN HIGH OFFICE. NEVER. It didn’t take the majority in Congress, Senate or even President. However, The Whigs party was thrown out very quickly by the dumocrap way back when. But the LP party, the LP party been stuck in a rut for how many years now. If the LP party was doing right it would be somewhere by now. Time for someone who is going to take it someone, I am sorry that some of you people are afraid to take it like MEN and let someone who CAN take the REIN by the HORN and bring this party where it should be. WE GOT BIGGER FISH TO FRY than to worry about EGOS innerfighting, are you people forgetting where this country headed?
This should be our message:
End the wars, bring our troops home now.
End the corpratism in government, by getting government out of business and banking.
If someone asks me “Do you want to legalize Marijuana” I used to say “Actually I don’t want to, I want people to have the freedom to make their own decisions, and understand that their actions have consequences.”
But now I say “Seriously? We are spending a Trillion dollars a year maintaining a world empire that causes us to be hated by the rest of the world, all the while corporations have attached a giant funnel from Congress into their bank accounts, and you are worried about someone smoking a joint?”
What is “doing it” in Afghanistan? Did Afghanistan attack us? There are 20 million people in Afghanistan and 300 of them are Al Queda, so you would flatten Afghanistan?
We probably have 300 members of Al Queda in America, should we flatten America?
It reminds me of the other day, Chinese troops that patrol my neighborhood were patting my wife down, and I ran outside to ask them why, and they told me to stay back 200 yards or they would shoot me. OH WAIT, that didn’t happen, because if that was happening I would be on my roof as a member of the insurgency.
One rocket launched into a civilians house will create 1000’s of people who want to blow us up, not because they hate us because we are free, but because they hate us for blowing up their friends, being in their countries, installing puppet dictators and stealing their resources.
The Anti-war/anti-corporate welfare message is going to be what turns people on to this party.
Prior to really putting it out there, we have to make sure we have an infrastructure in place at the grass roots level, that can accomodate all new comers.
People can’t join and say “hmm how do I hold a precinct convention? I guess I will call William Redpath”.
We need to organize and have county chairs across the entire nation in place, and give them the tools and education they need to succeed!
Bruce Cohen: “Will you join me in calling for America to stop sending Foreign Aid to all Middle Eastern Countries?
Everyone has always been against sending aid to all middle eastern foreign countries.
But (1) only Israel has the powerful lobby that prevents ending foreign aid, and (2) the PA et al get a pittance compared to what Israel gets, and (3) Israel is the only developed nation that receives economic aid.
Economic aid was supposed to be only for poor, under-developed countries. But rich Israel horned in and took the lion’s share of economic aid, and military aid.
Egypt (an under-developed nation) gets as much economic aid as Israel, for Israel’s benefit, as a bribe not to fight with Israel. Despite Egypt’s population being ten times that of Israel. Israel also gets military aid, which is not matched by Egypt.
The “aid” that goes to Iraq really goes to American no-bid contractors.
Yes, Bruce, everyone wants to end aid to Egypt and the PA and everyone else — but the smears only start when Israel’s aid is questions. Israel is the sacred cow of foreign aid.
Bruce: “let’s not forget who our enemies are.”
Israel has never been a friend to the US. Just an ungrateful, rich, welfare client, with a strong sense of entitlement.
Bruce: “And about arguing about the war? … Wayne will be on your side of the debate, not mine. I am for winning in Iraq. You and [Root] are for withdrawing.”
Why is it that all the warmongers love “antiwar” Root? Bruce Cohen, Eric Dondero, Brian Holtz, Aaron Starr.
Is it because they know Root will never push antiwar?
No Libertarian will win the presidency. The only influence that an LP candidate, or Chair, can have is the issues they discuss in public.
An “antiwar” Root who never mentions the war is no better than a a “pro-war” spokesperson who never mentions the war.
I am for winning in Iraq.
WTF does THAT mean??
Obviously, it isn’t when the President announces “mission accomplished”, and it isn’t after we have installed our own puppet regime (complete with Sharia Law installed into their constitution).
No, the wars are way too much like the “war on poverty” or the “war on drugs”…with constantly changing goals and increasingly entrenched special interests.
PEACE
sc, thanks for sharing your opinion. Hancock has many strong qualities, and, like us all, is doing his best.
However, SC, I have heard that Hancock is somehow associated with or otherwise follows Alex Jones, noted conspiracy theorist. I’ve only watched a few of Jones’s videos, but if that type of approach resembles Hancock’s, I don’t believe it’d be healthy for the LP to have Hancock as Chair.
Do note that I don’t know for certain that Hancock takes a Jones approach, I’ve only heard that there’s evidence in the public domain of some sort of association.
Red flag, to be investigated.
“attention, on the non combatant USS Liberty, take cover, the Israeli armed air craft are coming back again, and remember if they kill or wound you or your ship mates, the Jews are our friends and other folks, NOT SHOOTING AT US are not!”
” winning in the Middle East IS with drawing “
I’m a Zionist.
Proudly so.
And I’m against Foreign Aid in principle.
Including to Israel.
Will you join me in calling for America to stop sending Foreign Aid to all Middle Eastern Countries?
Especially our enemies.
Yeah, I’m against giving it to Israel.
But, I’m even more against sending it to Egypt and the PA.
Geez, let’s not forget who our enemies are.
And about arguing about the war?
I’ll argue it with you any time.
I love it.
But I don’t think it’s good for the LP.
I guess you need a Politics 101 class, buddy.
Learn the meaning of ‘winning issue and ‘losing issue’. I don’t think you have attended LI classes yet, apparently.
I’m happy to have that fight.
Bring it on.
But you know, Wayne will be on your side of the debate, not mine.
I am for winning in Iraq.
You and he are for withdrawing.
I am for kicking butt in Afghanistan, too.
And then leaving.
I’m for more power to be applied in the short term, to get a faster and more decisive victory.
Then getting out of there.
I like Ernie a lot. Your post is beautifully written, and makes some good points.
BUT we are the Libertarian Party, not the Libertarian movement. Ernie does not believe that we need to exist.
This isn’t some sort of made up dribble… ask him.
He doesn’t believe people should vote. He doesn’t believe in any government at all.
Again, just ask him. So my question is simple, if you don’t believe we should exist why do you want to lead?
I know he wants to free minds, which is fantastic, but we have a lot bigger fish to fry, we have to organize this group into a legitimate party from the grass roots up, that will try to get people elected.
Ernies message appeals to the radicalist of this party, it even appeals to me, as something to listen to. BUT it will make sure that this party dies. We will not get anyone to join our cause, I would no longer be able to do what I do, if the guy at the top of our party can’t even say “Join our party, I believe in our platform” he can’t.
To emphasize this let me show you a video taped Saturday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ0hUaeFSGo
If someone asks such a simple question and that was the answer, why would you join the party?
Think about the overall growth of the party.
I like Ernie but he is wrong for the National Chair, but definitely great at what he does.
He needs to continue to free minds, and we need to try get those free minds elected.
The Libertarian Party is an organization dedicated to a cause, not a business dedicated to making money. It is not a corporation, and our chair is not a CEO.
We need someone with a hands-on, rally-the-troops, damn-the-torpedoes, activist approach as chair, not another direct-mail-oriented administrator. George’s ideas aren’t bad in a technocratic sense, but we need more than a technocratic fix right now. We need someone who understands that the ideas and the message come first, and the nuts and bolts follow, not the other way around. We need someone who appreciates the Non-Aggression Principle and understands it is the heart and soul of the Libertarian Party, as George Phillies sadly does not.
Coming off the disaster of having nominated ex-GOP Congressman Bob Barr as the party’s presidential nominee, we need a choice who will send a clear signal that we are still radical, and still our own party, not just Republican lite.
The only candidate to fit this bill, in my view, is Ernest Hancock. Ernie is an activist’s activist, someone who can get the party’s base motivated and energized. He has natural leadership qualities and abundant energy, as well as being media savvy and uncompromising in his defense of libertarianism.
While I urge everyone to vote for Ernie, yes I am also with David Nolan in the Anyone-But-W.A.R. camp. Wayne Allyn Root comes across to me as a Republican-oriented opportunist, and frankly I don’t trust him to promote libertarianism except when it meshes with promoting himself. (Sorry Bruce, but your incessant cheerleading for him, anonymously or otherwise — isn’t helping change my mind!)
Right now George Phillies is still my second choice, so long as he doesn’t alienate me too much with what he says between now and the convention (in particular attacks on Ernie or other statements that come off as anti-radical).
What have we learned tonight? Not much. But that in itself is very revealing.
John Jay Myers: “[Root’s] skills have resulted in less members and less donations. By contrast had we had someone who was anti-war, who was really speaking on our issues, we would have had attracted a major amount of disenfranchised Ron Paul supporters.”
Very true. Ron Paul showed that the key to attracting youth and building the LP is antiwar.
Bruce Cohen: “I don’t think America cares much about the war as long as we aren’t ‘losing’,”
That would be convenient for the warmongers. It’s easier to argue “Don’t discuss the war because it’s a losing issue” than “Don’t discuss the war because it offends us warmongers.”
However, it’s not true. Ron Paul proved there’s a huge antiwar base out there, if only someone will tap into it.
John Jay Myers: “Wayne told me I had to stop attacking Israel if I ever plan on getting on TV. He went on to say “you can not get on TV if you talk bad about Israel”
Again, it’s a convenient argument for Zionists. It’s easier to say, “Don’t criticize Israel because it’s a vote loser,” than “Don’t criticize Israel because I want America to keep supporting Israel.”
However, while Fox News would ban and slam any critics of Israel, Libertarians should criticize all statism, even Israeli statism which costs Americans so much in money and international prestige.
@46
I realize Wayne is not an Anarchist, I was referring to Ernie, who he himself will tell you, is an anarchist.
(I think you misread my statement)
Vicki Kirkland has consistently voted with Aaron Starr and M Carling on the LNC’s Bylaws Committee.
Not exactly a reformer’s track record.
It’s funny you mention that, at the Missouri Convention, I told Wayne that I thought Israel was pro-war, and Wayne told me I had to stop attacking Israel if I ever plan on getting on TV.
He went on to say “you can not get on TV if you talk bad about Israel”
So… I guess I never believed that before, but I am starting to. (just kidding, but he did creep me out a bit). You have to admit if you take that sentence at face value, it really does open up a can of worms that I would like Wayne to eleaborate on. For instance, why does he believe that you can not get on TV if you talk bad about Israel? What does he know that I don’t?
So are you pro-war? I don’t know how anyone can talk about being fiscally conservative and accept a trillion dollar a year foreign policy.
There is nothing conservative about war.
Looks like I ruffled your feathers, sorry about that, but it seems like you joined this debate to ruffle some feathers.
I am not blaming Wayne for the fall as much as saying with his “millions” of media appearances etc, have shown no increase. So why would there be an increase just because he was chair, if he has ideas I would love to hear them, I am working on a few right now, regardless of if I am chair.
If he can raise money…. why is he not doing it?
See, John has a good suggestion.
I like it.
But blaming Wayne for the fall in Membership numbers is laughable.
How is what the LNC is doing up to him, anyway?
Any time they want his help or want him to show up for something, he does.
I do believe he’s a Life Member.
I bet he pledges.
I know he gets us on Fox News a lot.
I don’t think that’s BAD for the LP.
I haven’t heard him talk about any war for a while, frankly.
I don’t think America cares much about the war as long as we aren’t ‘losing’, and they want to talk about the economy, not global warming, either.
So George can talk about Global Warming.
You and Hancock can talk about the war.
And Wayne will talk about growing the LP by sending out more direct mail in a better and more targeted way.
To people who agree with you on the war.
Or not.
He’s never said a word about marketing to just one partikaler ideological group or another.
Do you and the Nolan really believe some secret cabal is sitting in a back room over Republican lists, rubbing their hands together with glee, cackling…. “Look, me pretty!” “Nhahahahaha!”
“We will get Republicans to join and Democrats to leave!”
“Nyahahahaha!”
“We can control the world by starting more wars!!!”
“Us and Israel, we can bomb them all and rule!”
Yeah, we really sit around and think that stuff up.
No… REALLY.
If I had to give Wayne one bit advice, that IMO would make him a better choice than he is.
It would tell him to go threw all his speeches, and do a word replace for “Obama” and switch it to “our government” if we are going to grow, we have to get everyone to realize that it is “us against them” meaning all people against the two party monopoly.
If you tell a group a people everyday how bad Obama is, half of them will think you are a partisan hack, and half will thank you for getting Republicans more votes. But none will think, “ah yes this one guy is destroying the country, I should vote Libertarian”.
If he were to talk about issues and about “our government” people may start waking up to the fact that there is NO difference between the two parties.
That has to be our message.
90% of the population thinks our government is a bunch of crooks, how are we not capitalizing on this?
THe Ohio LP will be just fine no matter what you guys do with national. We have fought the Ohio government twice and won, have set records in Ohio, made history in Ohio, and now have nearly 60 candidates. AND, we did it by going “mainstream” to quadruple attendance at our meetings and events.
So the Ohio LP would take offense to knuckleheads that whine about the demise of the party. We are heading in another direction and it is NOT backwards. ‘
George Phillies can speak for maybe 49 other states, but NOT Ohio. We don’t want the devisive talk in the Buckeye state.
To Bruce ClowneyFish….Who’s that clown on the Simpsons??..Oh Yeah..It’s Krusty The Clown!..haha hahaha hahaha
Wayne has been a “Libertarian” for a while now, he was a VP nominee, he has had every chance in the world to use his skills to further our cause.
His skills have resulted in less members and less donations. By contrast had we had someone who was anti-war, who was really speaking on our issues, we would have had attracted a major amount of disenfranchised Ron Paul supporters.
We definitely need someone to start taking to the media, and letting them know our values, but they should speak to our principles.
That’s what we are selling this is not a late night infomercial. If we grow this party from the grass roots up instead of everyone waiting for National to bail them out, we will grow exponentially, but the person at the top needs to stand for our values and show that we are well above the partisan rhetoric that Wayne spews daily.
Yeah, you don’t even know who I am ‘Jason’. Whatever, good try, who are you really?
Well, I WAS considering donating to Bruce Cohen’s congressional campaign. No way that’s happening now.
Hope he treats potential voters better than he just treated our Party’s founder (who was simply stating an opinion).
Think Cohen just taught us a lesson in “Losing 101”
In point of fact, Mister Nolan, it is you I first *heard* the phrase “Politics 101″from.
I remember in one ‘class’ you discussed what to put on signs. “Name, Office, Party” you said.
And then you said, “Politics 101” in a firm manner, as if that settled it.
And it does.
You were right.
No space for slogans or email addresses on street signs.
And you can’t work with Wayne because… Becuase whaaaa, huh… ??? why? huh?
I mean, that’s like saying you won’t allow a Jewish football Coach to work at a Catholic School.
In the Athletic Department.
Pretending you don’t like Wayne on policy is pretty transparent, Davey old boy.
Hang in there, I’ll go back to my crack pipe in a second… But for now:
Wayne is not campaigning about policy or on policy and I don’t get the feeling if he wins he will wave his magic Libertarian wand over your head and change your mind with his mental powers.
Wayne is saying he wants to grow the LP in certain ways with certain means.
That’s the real issue.
Not you calling him names, i.e. a Republican.
I’m sure there were a dozen times since he ‘converted’ to being a Libertarian that he could have come out ahead by switching back to the GOP. But he didn’t.
So shut up already about the Republican thing.
Grow up and compare the styles of marketing and branding each person will bring the the table.
‘Cause that’s where it’s really at, Jack.
Wayne is not an anarchist.
Thank you Jeremy, if I honestly believed that Phillies would get elected I wouldn’t be running.
When I realized that it would be between Wayne or Ernie, I had to get involved.
I was not on the ballot, and no one had ever heard of me, and I got 3rd in the straw poll in Austin. Which cemented the idea that I have to run to stop them from winning.
I like Phillies, I also love working at a county and state level, but this party is too important to me to allow Wayne or Ernie to win.
If they do, everything I am working for is ruined. One because he seems like a Republican, who will say Obama so many times in one sentence it will make Republicans double sure they have to stick together, and not vote 3rd party, and one because he is an anarchist.
Which is not an insult to the guy, but why would someone join or support a party to NOT vote for a candidate?
John Jay Myers is an impressive speaker. In some ways he sounds more like a Chair than any of the other candidates. He may very well be the dark horse candidate in this race.
I still prefer Phillies, just commenting on Myers’ abilities.
Nolan this is not exactly correct. Wayne happens to see a bigger picture here that you overlook.
OK, Bruce, put down the crack pipe. You’re hallucinating again. No such “Politics 101 classes” as you describe ever took place, and I never gave any such “command.” As for why I can’t work with Wayne, it’s because he’s still a Republican at heart; instead of running for U.S. Senate, as the LP NV wanted him to, he got them to not run anyone so he can go out and campaign for the the GOP candidate. Not exactly what I look for in a LIBERTARIAN national officer!
Nolan for the amount of exposure that Wayne had gotten for the LP party, I would have think that you would have jumped at the chance at working with Wayne, guess you have an ego problem.
“David F. Nolan // Mar 10, 2010 at 5:52 pm
I am running for an at-large seat on the LNC as an independent candidate. I should be able to work with any of the declared Chair candidates except Wayne Root”
Oh THAT’S mature, David.
Lead us by example, will you?
Pray tell us WHY you can’t work with Wayne?
Seriously, Nolan…
Seriously, I have never heard Wayne say anything bad about you.
Whatever happened to the 11th Commandment? I remember you giving Politics 101 classes and me hearing you command that #11 of the scripture in front of your captivated minions.
Oh let me sit at your feet, Davey.
Let me sing songs about your prowess and wisdom. Oh, my Prophet! Please tell us again how to think.
I think there are too many egos getting in the way for what is right for this party to succeed further than what it has in the past. I am just sorry some of you don’t want to admit or see that. It should be who cares about egos in this right now little club that has gone no way.
ethics
ethics
ethics
ethics
We had a debate this weekend in Missouri. Mr. Nolan I would like to talk to you some more if given the chance.
Here are links to the videos of me from the Missouri debate (sorry for the bias) but Wayne and Ernie get enough attention, unfortunately both of their types of attention will lead to negative membership.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFHw4YW4Rog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0bNljz-0og&feature=related
Here is something I started working on Monday, the point of it, is a quick manual to get county chairs up and running with little or no help, which is the key to quick solid growth.
http://www.libhandbook.wordpress.com
We have to stop thinking top down, and start thinking support.
Thanks!
@25 – So far, no endorsement. I have a preference and will announce it at an appropriate time.
By the way, Darcy: awhile back you responded to a critical post I made about Brian Moore’s 2008 showing by informing me that I’d got the facts wrong and criticizing me for not taking better care of my factual accuracy since I claim to be a historian. (I have made that claim in several venues; though I’m currently a doctoral student in history, I have an MA in the field, and previously worked at a job where my official title was “Research Historian.”) I didn’t see the comment when you made it, and only learned of it afterwards when it inexplicably showed up on the front page of Brian Moore’s website, being trumpeted as some sort of epic smackdown of me. (I don’t know why Brian Moore cares what I think of him; for the record, I like Brian Moore a lot and considered writing him in on my Presidential ballot last November.)
I didn’t want to respond on an old thread that you probably weren’t reading any more, but since I’ve got you, I’d like to apologize for my errors in that comment. You’re quite right that Moore’s showing was better than most of the recent SP showings, despite his having less ballot access than the other recent SP candidates. Moore worked tirelessly in that race, despite periodic bouts of ill health, and deserves a lot of credit for what he achieved. While I disagree that my being a historian means I have to fact-check all my statements before posting them on a blog — isn’t the point of blogging that you’re offering snap analysis rather than flawless accuracy? — I respect that you do so, and appreciate all your hard work over the years on third-party issues. I regularly recommend your books to colleagues as the definitive works on American third parties, though I’m sad to say I haven’t yet had time to read them.
Oh, [Bruce] Wayne Root, the guy whom claims that the USA national debt is some $100T ……
David, so you’ve decided not to endorse any candidates for Chair? Just a negative endorsement of Root?
Darcy, thanks for the correction, and kudos to you for working with Anderson on that effort. Anderson is one of my favorite third-party candidates of all time, because after giving up on his own runs he’s worked tirelessly to help third parties of all ideological stripes through ballot access and awareness campaigns.
I am running for an at-large seat on the LNC as an independent candidate. I should be able to work with any of the declared Chair candidates except Wayne Root.
Jeremy (#11),
I’m not positive, but George Phillies may have been referring to the National Unity Party launched by John Anderson in 1983. The party, which was essentially stillborn, was largely viewed as a vehicle from which the former Illinois congressman would mount another bid for the White House in 1984 — a wretched year for third-party candidates, as it turned out.
Before its demise, Anderson’s new party elected national officers, including a national committee, and opened a headquarters in Washington, D.C. The party also raised money and sought ballot access in at least ten states, including heavily-populated California, where William Christopher, a Santa Monica architect, and Richard Sprague, an occupational therapist from Oakland, were among those leading the ambitious effort to register more than 80,000 voters into the National Unity Party by early January 1984. I believe that Phil Sawyer of Sacramento, a longtime independent and third-party activist, was also involved in that effort.
In any case, Anderson had specifically chosen California as his first target because it was what he considered “the toughest” ballot access hurdle. When the California effort failed, coupled with a similar setback in Ohio, the whole thing began to fall apart.
Anderson, who had devoted full-time to the effort, personally asked me in October 1983 if I would be willing to serve as the party’s coordinator in Pennsylvania. We couldn’t start petitioning there until March 1984, shortly before the entire national effort collapsed.
Anderson, whose party actually appeared on the ballot in Kentucky that year, was pretty serious about the entire effort. He knew he wouldn’t win the presidency, but wanted to establish a serious party with serious candidates. Before giving up the ghost, he predicted that his National Unity Party would more than double his showing against Reagan and Carter four years earlier, while polling at least fourteen percent of the vote in the 1984 presidential election — the strongest showing by an outsider since “Fighting Bob” La Follette in 1924. While not giving up entirely on the idea of building his new party, Anderson later endorsed Democrat Walter Mondale.
thank goodness the federal government was not able to silence the solitary anti war voice of the LP. Oh wait, there was a Greek Chorus of peace protest —– by pretty much EVERY ONE but die hard Neocons!
I believe the issue is that the Mails into DC were delayed because there had been anthrax spores inserted into a series of letters. These were real spores, not someone with some powdered sugar. As I recall, there were a number of deaths. I had understood that the mail eventually did get through, though it took a while, so that the Federal government did not actually keep they money permanently.
I didn’t make the graphs @14. The older one was probably made by Marc, or maybe Joe Dehn, I forget. The later one is from George’s team, I believe.
Can you provide more details about the government seizing LP cash? Did we lose significant money in this? Was the government making it harder for people to mail cash generally?
@14 Thanks, nice graphs.
As I read Dr. Phillies his point is the project was oversold., not that it wasn’t working.
Also, at least in Florida, the project was tied to internal efforts: we followed up with leads, media stories, meetings, etc that helped. I think most large states were doing something similar.
For most small states, this was the first time they really had any kind of regular effort, so they also experienced new growth.
The project was stopped to assess and create more realistic goals and because of errors where they were sending conservative sounding letters to liberal groups, etc. In addition, we were asked in Florida to do a letter and call effort which I led. We got good results calling names out the phone book that paid for themselves in donations. Armed with new data and letters, Dasbach had already spent a lot of money on the new letter which I understand did very well…but the cash coming back was seized by the government from the scare. Because of the money spent, USLP went into a crisis financially.
@15
As it happens, New Path for Libertarian Revival is a team. You can see us at newpathforthelp PERIOD org .
Mr. Nolan at last report is running for At-Large, and there are enough At-Large members that we are not competing.
I agree that moving the data base into the second decade of this century would be good, if it were done properly, in a way that does not interfere with operations until it launches.
And who are the crew?
George Phillies – Chair
Carolyn Marbry – Vice Chair
James Oaksun – Treasurer
Rob Power – Secretary
Joe Kennedy – At-Large
Jim Remmert – Regional Representative
Rachel Hawkridge – Regional Representative
Jake Porter – Regional Representative
Scott Williamson – Regional Representative
Charles Wilhoit – Regional Alternate
Please remember also several good friends of ours, including
Lee Wrights — At Large
Mary Ruwart — At Large
Vicki Kirkland — Alternate
among others
As important as being ‘clear on everything that is going on’, we are clear on things that we need to do.
Mr. Oaksun is proposing that the LP set a goal of a million members in six years. In 1996, Harry Browne set a goal of 180,000 new members in three years. Here’s what Mr. Phillies wrote about that:
Could the Party possibly recruit 200,000 members by the end of 1999?
No matter what method the National Party used, Browne’s recruitment objective appeared unattainable. On one hand, to reach Browne’s objective, the National Party needed to recruit 5,000 members per month for three years, and replace every member who did not renew his membership. The non-renewal rate for new members is supposedly around 50% after the first year of membership, with additional percentages in further years. The Party actually needed to recruit more than eight thousand members per month, every month, for three years. Historically, the Libertarian Party had recruited more like a fifth or a tenth of this number of members, per month, in good months. Browne was demanding a staggering ten-fold increase in recruitment rates.
To make matters worse, the recruitment scheme under consideration was direct mail advertising. The recruitment yield on direct mail advertising was typically less than one per cent of letters mailed. Recruitment on the needed scale would require mailing perhaps thirty million letters. While a person who was a gun owner, a foe of the war on drugs, and an opponent of corporate welfare rape of the National Forests might usefully be sent several very different recruiting letters, returns eventually diminish. A direct mail campaign aiming for 200,000 party members needed to target ten or twenty million different people. It is by no means clear that in 1997 the United States had ten million people who were both open to the Libertarian message and not already firmly committed to one of the other political parties.
@9 Libs have been elected and appointed to high office, and the LP knows the lessons. The problem is that the LNC , as far as many members think, has from 2006 been going against its mission:
” To BUILD an organization capable of regularly electing and appointing people in public office…”
That is, they feel it’s deliberately trying to keep Libertarians from public office, or at least focusing on putting in pseudo-Libertarian conservatives.
@13 In 2000 the LNC deliberately shut down the outreach for a review of problems. Lark, MG and others made recommendations and Dasbach got things in shape and was ready to resume in late 2001. But the re-start was delayed in 2002 because the US Government seized most of its cash in transit because of the Anthrax scare. After that there were a series of excuses many people thought were increasingly transparent: the d-base, we can’t get a new political director, we have new staff, we have a new platform in 2004 to better fundraise but can’t get it up because of computer problems, no more Dasbach, they changed the platform in 2006 so we can’t fundraise , we’re getting rid of UMP, now the states can’t pay people to help the effort as we planned, we have new staff without a clue, staff left us, the d-base is really a mess now, we’re appointing a committee, etc.
I handled the d-base and membership operations in Florida in that period and spent many hours listening to all this. There were additional issues of state d-base being sabotaged, etc. Also, for months the member complaints link was down for months on and off and , amazingly, membership really crashed.
People are leaving the LP for whatever reason: they’re fed up with problems, it’s been taken over by the GOP, national is spending time purging, etc. If Mr. Nolan or Mr. Phillies want to save the day, they will need a very determined crew clear on everythiong that’s been going on. Do they?
I too am surprised to hear George and his slate now celebrating the late-90’s party growth under leadership that George wrote an entire book to criticize. Here’s a sample criticism of that leadership team’s growth efforts:
“As of the start of 2000, Project Archimedes was a double failure. Failure one: National Party membership never reached even 50,000, let alone 100,000 or 200,000. Membership climbed from 27,000 in 1998 to 33,000 members in mid-1999. Membership growth then stopped. Failure two: Project Archimedes was not self-financing. […]”
If the Phillies slate aims to recreate the membership growth of 1993-2000, I’d like to hear from them an explanation of how they now think it was accomplished the first time.
To a first order of approximation, it looks like LP membership tends to rise during Democrat regimes and fall during Republican — especially if you count the Bush regime as effectively ending with the rise of the Pelosi regime in the 2006 mid-term elections. I’m curious if old-timers can shed light on membership drivers for the only era where this hypothesis gets the sign wrong: 1989-1993.
How ironic that Phillies is now lamenting the LP’s shrinkage. He and a merry band of malcontents spent *years* tearing down everything the 1996-2002 leadership had done to bring the party up to 33,000 annual donors and raise fundraising closer to “might actually be able to start competing” levels.
Their departure — welcomed with glee by Phillies & cohort — coincided with the beginning of the “long march down”. But now he wants to reverse the trend he helped start?
Raaaaaiiiiiigggghhhhhtttt.
I read platitudes here. Why not look at more specific solutions to a specific problem? Will any of the candidates for Nat Chair get behind this idea? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bid4liberty/
Let the market work, it is smarter than all the candidates put together. I am NOT a candidate for the LNC. Been there, done that.
The not being able to post is a bug — I can post sometimes and not others. This needs to be fixed very fast, though — it’s already been up too long.
Correction for Phillies: there was no “John Anderson party.” Anderson ran as an Independent.
What is the problem with not being able to post. Some of the people I know have not been able to post on you site while some people can. Have some people been blocked from your site or what? What’s the deal here?
If this was true we would have had people elected in the high office already. Obviously you people still haven’t learned. You keep doing the same thing over and over and get nowhere.
If that was the case we would have won major elections. Too keep doing what doesn’t work is stupid.
The history has shown the radicals have not drawn any support that is why we have not won in big elections, obviously you guys want to keep trying what doesn’t and never will work.
I disagree. It that was the case we would have had this already.
“No media attention is better than bad media attention. ”
I don’t think Root brings bad media attention. He just doesn’t bring the type of attention you like.
Root’s media attention is far better than no media attention.
I support the Phillies LNC candidates.
It is far better to have radicals running the LP & candidates which will draw supporters FROM the conservatives & paleos & dixiecrats than have conservatives running the LP & candidates which draws LP support to the conservatives & GOP.
How many of you people did the exposure that Wayne Root did. NONE< NAADAA, NOOOTHINGGG, Wayne Root doesn't need to do this with a dying party as you put it. How ungrateful you people are. NONE OF YOU PEOPLE have gotten the exposure that Wayne did.
You people are soo ungrateful, How many of you people did what Wayne did in spreading the LP name. You people don’t even come close. Nothing was done as it hasn’t been done in how many years. Wayne doesn’t have to be with a losing party. You people should be sooo ever grateful. You don’t know what you are talking about. What are you afraid of, that Wayne will be able to do something that no one else has like you people.
you people who are NEGATIVE towards Wayne Root. How many of you people got the attention Wayne got. NONE, NADA, NOOOOTHTTTINGG. Why would Wayne Root go through the trouble for a sooo called losing party, he doesn’t have to. He has done what this party didn’t do. You people are sooo ungrateful. If you think this party is losing.
How quick you people are negative against Root. I will tell you this. Wayne Root is the ONLY ONE who got as far as he did carrying the libertarian name. This SAME LP PARTY that NEVER WON ANY high elections. How many of you people got the exposure that Wayne Root got. NADA NONE OF YOU GOT NOTHIIIINNNNNNGGG. Why would Root go through the trouble for a losing party. He doesn’t have to. You people are soo ungrateful.
Root has performed his media magic about 10 zillion times since his “book” was released over six months ago. One might think that after all this talking it up for the LP, there would be a dramatic rise in LP membership – or at least a modest uptick.
All of the level-headed pragmatists overflowing with common sense once assured all of the grubby radical libertarians on the fringes of respectability that Neal Boortz would bring huge numbers to the LP. Didn’t happen.
Now they say Root is gonna be the savior of the LP. He’s apparently not even bringing in his crypto-fascist fans in radio land so far.
When will the magic begin? When he becomes chair of the party? When he becomes the presidential nominee in 2016? When he is elected president?
Root Brings Bad Media Attention // Mar 9, 2010 at 10:14 pm ………. there is always Michael Jackson’s doctor!
we need someone who is already gaining the media attention. … Wayne Root
Nominating Charles Manson would also gain media attention. But I don’t think that any and all media attention is good.
No media attention is better than bad media attention. Root is oily. The LP would be better off left in obscurity until a decent spokesperson comes along.
Phillies: “Since the year 2000, we’ve lost more than half our membership. Party income has fallen by nearly 3/4 in real dollars. We cannot survive if we continue along this path.”
just as long a Doctor Phillies keeps reminding us that the libertarians were the ONLY PEACE PARTY in the 21st Century …………
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/19/libertarian-party-national-committe-will-sue-to-remove-phillies-from-nh-ballot/
#4. -Guantanamo?
Sorry we need someone who is already gaining the media attention. The person who is going to direct this party and do what needed to be done a long time ago. Wayne Root is the one who is going to do what it takes. Anything less will not succeed.