Emailed by John Jay Myers to [email protected]. Myers is running for Congress (L-TX 32) and Libertarian National Committee chair.
http://www.johnjaymyers.com/
28 Comments
Comments are closed.
July 2, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
Emailed by John Jay Myers to [email protected]. Myers is running for Congress (L-TX 32) and Libertarian National Committee chair.
http://www.johnjaymyers.com/
Comments are closed.
Robert milnes, why do you support George so much? I don’t think he has endorsed PLAS.
Root is the ONLY one on TV, Root is the only one on a lot of Radio program. Root is the only one more people are knowing the name. Root is the only one who has been getting the most exposure for the Libertarian party. After reading his book, he got most of it right. It is only the right thing to do in the bigger sceme of things to have Root on the National Libertarian Chair. If he did this much already, he will do a lot more when he is chair. The others nowhere.
Knapp @20 – “Or, to put it a different way, every time the LP rejects Phillies, the LP’s situation worsens.”
This sentence would be equally valid if the name “Hancock” were substituted for “Phillies.”
“Maybe it’s time for a collective extraction of cranium from rectum.”
Agreed, but there’s presently no consensus as to who among the Chair candidates is best suited to that task.
@22 – Phillies has repeatedly refused to run for any seat on the LNC other than Chair. This is one reason why many people are skeptical of his commitment to solving the party’s problems. Personally, I’d like to see both Phillies and Myers run at-large. Each could make worthwhile contributions to the LNC. (And I think Carolyn Marbry would be a great Vice Chair. I’m behind her 100%)
Don,
You’re correct — correlation is not necessarily evidence of causation.
“to put it a different way, every time the LP rejects Phillies, the LP’s situation worsens ………”
oh, come on, reverse logic is not always logical!
I agree with Mr. Nolan’s analysis of the state of the race. One thing I’d add is that I find it unlikely that Root won’t make the final two, and as such I find it unlikely that Hinkle can win. If Root drops out with Hinkle still in the race, then Hinkle will win outright on the following ballot; but I don’t expect that to happen.
So I think the nomination is between Hancock and Myers. Hancock will make the case that he’s the best alternative to Root because he’s dynamic and well-connected and a great speaker; and Myers will make the case that he’s the best alternative to Root because he’s also dynamic and can unite the party and isn’t as undisciplined as Hancock. I think either man can win depending on who shows up in St. Louis.
Finally, I think that if Phillies fails to win the Chairmanship, as I think he will, he should seriously consider dropping down to an At-Large Representative seat. Myers claims to agree with everything Phillies stands for, and many members of the Phillies slate will likely win even if Phillies doesn’t (Oaksun is probably the most likely). I think the Phillies Slate can still govern the LP even without Phillies at the helm, and I think Phillies should seriously consider being part of that governance. Mary Ruwart has shown how that can be done from an at-large seat,and Phillies could do it too.
Tom @20, LOL! Agreed. Give George a Get-Go. He will hit the party running with a lot of experience & thought & already known-save a lot of time on research. Go George. Put the rightists in their place, I say.
“Who is that most likely to be? Not Phillies; he’s never gotten more than about 15% of the vote for anything”
My recollection is that he hit about 25% in his first run for chair (in 2000).
His vote totals went down from there — and so did the LP’s membership and contributions.
Or, to put it a different way, every time the LP rejects Phillies, the LP’s situation worsens.
Maybe it’s time for a collective extraction of cranium from rectum.
FWIW, when I said “fresh face”, I didn’t mean literally a fresh face (e.g. Bob Barr, the worst mistake the LP has ever made, and that’s saying something!). I meant someone who didn’t remind me of all the failed policies and lackluster media appearance that is endemic to the LP. Phillies and Hinkle both remind me of the national LP today – almost comatose except for going through the motions of 50 state ballot access.
WRT who is my second choice after Myers – it vacillates between Ernie and Wayne. Both have a really decent shot at killing the LP, but both have their good points too. From what I can tell, Ernie’s motivation is primarily to make sure that Wayne doesn’t win. That attitude is very destructive. Plus Ernie doesn’t really believe in electoral politics. Wayne on the other hand truly is Republican-lite. Maybe NOTA will be my second choice, although I wish the party would get rid of that option. Its existence caused a horrible outcome in the Nevada Senate contest a few weeks back.
Jeremy Young makes a good observation @15, above. While Wayne Root certainly has a strong and outspoken following, comprising maybe 35-40% of LP activists, the remaining 60-65% are vehemently opposed to having him as LNC Chair or the 2012 Presidential nominee. They will unite behind anyone else to block Root.
Who is that most likely to be? Not Phillies; he’s never gotten more than about 15% of the vote for anything, in all the times he’s run for Chair or the presidential nomination.
That leaves Hancock, Hinkle and Myers. Of these three, Hancock is the most dynamic – sort of a radical mirror image of Root. He’s campaigning hard this time, and might be considered the front-runner. But, like Root, he scares or annoys a lot of people. He’s vulnerable.
Hinkle is a longtime, experienced libertarian activist. He’s low-key, and gets along well with all factions in the party — a little TOO well, in some people’s opinion. A lot of Root’s supporters will switch to Hinkle if their man stumbles.
Myers is new on the scene. Like Root and Hancock, he’s dynamic. Unlike those two, however, he does not have many strong detractors. His perceived weakness is lack of experience at the national level. If he can outlast Phillies and Hinkle in the early balloting, he could win by being acceptable to a majority of the delegates.
Of course, there’s seven weeks left ’til the election. Either Root or Hancock could self-destruct. There may be attempts to “pack” empty seats in delegations from states with vacancies. Almost anything can happen!
Mr. Phillies, would you lend candidate support to candidates you have strong differences with? For example, your article on libertarian centrism (http://www.nolanchart.com/article6423.html) puts a pretty thorough litmus test on what you consider as truly libertarian.
I always recall being on Dailykos and shocked by some comments you have made with how forthrightly you have come out against Ron Paul. Can we expect this same type of rhetoric from the supposedly level-headed LNC chair? (Note, this is no endorsement or non-endorsement of past chairs)
I should add the caveat that I’m not in the LP. But sometimes I feel like I am!
Paulie, nope, I think he was referring to the final three paragraphs of your comment in #9. I thought his comment was clear, but I expect he will be along to clarify it again.
For the record, I agree with him: you don’t promote the third mate (Hinkle) to captain when the ship is going down, especially since that third mate hasn’t been a particularly vocal opponent of the captain’s policies.
However, I think this is important to note — we have here three very different people who support three different LNC Chair candidates: you back Hinkle, I back Phillies, Don Wills backs Myers (who is my second choice). However, I’m pretty sure all three of us would vote for Hancock if he were the last man standing against Root. Root really is the last choice of everyone in the LP who doesn’t vote for him on the first ballot. That’s why I’m pretty sure he’s not going to win the Chairmanship.
Jeremy, referring back to comments 5 and 7, it appears he meant both — at least earlier on in the thread, and he never backed off from earlier claims.
I’m pretty sure Mr. Wills was referring to Hinkle when he made the “third officer” comment, not to Phillies.
The primary task of the National Chair is to be the Party CEO. The best spokespeople for our party are our candidates, the candidates I propose to support.
I’ve never been on the LNC. The LNC has routinely followed policies opposite to those that I and my friends support, as a result of which in the past decade we have lost three-fifths of our membership and three-quarters of our income in real dollar terms. Proposing that I am a junior LNC officer, when for the last decade I have opposed its misbegotten policies, is absurd.
With respect to 50-state ballot access, I view that as a desirable goal, but not the only goal. Spending so much money on ballot access that you have no money to do anything else, which is roughly what happened in 2008 when the National Party spent almost no money on advertising, is not a good idea. Furthermore, it is a fixed cost; it costs about the same whether the LNC has a 1 million dollar budget or a ten million dollar budget. If we had the budget of, say, the Green Party, which is less than half ours, I would say that 50 state ballot access is obviously less important than having strong affiliates in as many states as possible.
However, ballot access sufficiently weak that our candidate could not mathematically win would be a disaster worth much effort to avoid. If we had the budget we did in 2000 (over 4 million in current-day dollars) then I would say that petitioning *and* lobbying against restrictive ballot access laws would make sense.
Phillies is not “third officer” per your analogy. He is no more among the leadership at National than Ernie is, or for that matter Myers. And, if the third officer is more competent than the captain, you may very well indeed want to promote him if the ship is going down. Changing course may sound good, but can easily make things worse rather than better.
I disagree. Staff and/or candidates can take that role on if the chair is not suited for it.
Different criteria from what you first proposed, but I think you can make a better case for your position on those grounds than what you originally said.
Phillies is much better on the stump than he was a few years ago, but he’s still George. But, I have confidence that he can delegate competently. Perhaps the LNC would hire a press secretary on staff? Maybe other staff and/or LNC would step in to do interviews? Opportunities to fix any problem in this area abound.
Root and Hancock strike some people as too bombastic and brash. Others respond well to their enthusiasm.
I think Hinkle can handle interviews competently, despite his lack of debating prowess if I am to judge by his performance in Austin. And like Phillies, I know he knows how to delegate. As far as I can remember, he was competent as chair of California, back when it had 6,000+ dues paying members.
paulie – The ship is going down. You don’t promote the third officer to captain when things are bad. You bring in new management, a fresh perspective and most importantly, you change course.
Actually, no, I do not think Ernie would be good for the LP. He is an anarchist and would drive away many constitutional libertarians. I believe that both he and Wayne would be extraordinarily divisive to the party. If either is elected, it’s 50/50 whether the party grows or dies a real death (like the Reform Party), not just slow death like is happening now.
Let’s face facts. The most important function of the chair of the LP is to be the spokesman for the party, which mostly consists of being a talking head on cable news shows and talking to NYTimes and WashPost reporters. Wayne, Ernie and John Jay would each be great at that function. George and Mark would not.
I don’t know what you mean by “very well.” I have met Ernie a number of times, seen him speak in person, and read many of his articles and emails.
I’m sure you are right that he would change the face of the LP. Whether that would be for better or worse is another question.
I’m also sure that Root and Phillies would change the face of the LP, and likewise I think Myers and Hinkle would likely do so as well, although perhaps in more subtle ways.
Again, I’m not sure what distinction you are drawing. Both Hancock and Phillies have been around for a while and have run in the past. I could be mistaken, but I think they have both run for chair more than once. Neither, to my knowledge, has been on the LNC before.
So, as best I can tell, the real difference is that you like Ernie more than George. Fair enough, but it does not meet the criteria in your first comment for who does and who does not belong in the race and why.
That’s not a failed idea, it’s an awesome idea and the LP should get back to it ASAP.
I think it is a real travesty that people in any state should be denied the opportunity to have Libertarian choices on the ballot.
In the early 90s, a project to work for 50 state access energized the LP and paved the way for strong party growth for the next decade or so. In the 2000s, the party shamefully put 50 state ballot access aside and declined.
Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy for the Democrats is widely credited for bringing them first Congress and then the White House.
The LP should learn from success and failures, both its own in the past and those of other parties.
50 state ballot access is an idea whose time has come again (and should have never left).
If Hancock and/or Myers oppose 50 state access, I am less likely to vote for them. Root supports it, although I oppose him for other reasons.
Hmmm, I would have thought Hancock considers it key.
Not at all. Hinkle remains my first choice. I’m less optimistic about his chances after I saw the debate in Austin, though.
However, he does fit the criteria you laid out — he is currently on the LNC, and I don’t think this is the first time he has been on the LNC either. So, it’s fair to say that he is not a fresh face if your criterion is past LNC service.
On the other hand, I count his past LNC service as a plus, not a minus.
Let me quote from my actual statement, which is somewhat the opposite of what Wills claims:
“We start with short-term quick fixes to channel money to real politics and restore member confidence. We launch a vigorous volunteer mobilization plan. We’ll change how we raise and spend money, so we spend much more on politics and outreach rather than back office operations. We’ll use data-driven membership recruitment directed at young women and men who already support our message. As Chair of LNC Meetings, I’ll restore the primacy of serious substance over pointless pandering to Roberts’ Rules.
And from proposals I’ve circulated elsewhere, on what the LNC should do soon:
Candidate Support. It will be difficult to do a lot early, but the election is six months away so we simply cannot wait. Web Templates, disk, downloadables are high priority.
Start Internet Advertising, even if the budget is tiny, to test response rate to various messages. Target states where election results are significant to ballot access.
Generate and pursue warm contacts. Note the example of Soapblox GoldAmericaGroup.com. Start contacting people who join.
Volunteer mobilization: You don’t need permission. Here are great things that were done. Here are things you can do. Contact incoming volunteers; offer them tasks. Actually contact our members.
paulie –
You must not know Ernie Hancock well. He would radically change the face of the LP overnight.
George is a nice guy, but he has been hanging around the edges of the LP for quite some time. His LNC for chair web site shows that he holds onto such failed ideas as 50 state ballot access, to “create libertarian affinity groups and think tanks”, and education. I feel like puking every time I here the phrase “education is the key to success of the LP”.
Is it fair to say that by not questioning my comment about Hinkle, you don’t disagree?
Don,
Hancock has run before, including last time, and I think more than once, as has Phillies. As far as I know neither has been on the LNC. Why would Hancock be a “fresh face” and Phillies “the LP of the past” in your view?
Jeez – It’s Hinkle and Phillies that should get out. Myers, Hancock and Root are three new faces, each with a different political philosophy, different motivations to be chair and different plans for how to revive the LP. Hinkle and Phillies represent the LP of the past, and would perpetuate the failure of the past 39 years.
Kind of funny to see someone on a website that’s a news hub for third parties saying that there are too many candidates in a race.
John Jay Myers brings a fresh perspective to the LNC Chair’s race. I’m not supporting anyone in that contest yet, but I think Myers adds to the mix.
Myers is already running for Congress. You may wish to read articles before responding to them in the future.
And, there is nothing wrong with five – or more! – candidates. It’s a good thing, if anything. The more the merrier!
We have really too many people runing for LP Chair. Some of the people like this person should try for Congress/Senate. The LP people really need to spread out more.
5 people runing for one position is not productive.