Mark Hinkle, the California rep to the Libertarian National Committee, is running for LNC Chair at the LP National Convention in five weeks. His campaign site includes endorsements from 1980 LP presidential nominee Ed Clark, 1984 LP presidential nominee David Bergland (both from California), and 1998 LPCA gubernatorial nominee Steve Kubby. Bergland’s endorsement is joined by that of three other past LNC Chairs: Alicia Clark (Ed’s wife), Steve Dasbach, and Geoff Neale.
A nationally-known cannabis activist, Kubby also finished 6th in the presidential balloting at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention. Here is Steve Kubby’s endorsement of Hinkle:
Five Reasons Mark Hinkle Should NOT be National Chair
by Steve Kubby
1. No matter how he may try to deny it, Hinkle would force the LP to become successful. The shocking truth is that Hinkle was one of the best California State Chairs ever. Under his leadership, membership swelled, people held parties and had fun, and everybody felt a part of what was going on. Just imagine what havoc this kind of success would create for the national LP.
2. Hinkle would distract us with an influx of new members who aren’t recovering Republicans or middle-age-overfed-white guys.
3. Hinkle would draw upon a wide spectrum of groups to build a consensus within the party, thereby denying the LP the drama and intrigue of the current LP administration.
4. Hinkle is terminally honest and is plagued by his commitment to Libertarianism. If he is allowed to serve as National Chair, we could end up with political baggage like “Principles,” and find ourselves mired in pro-freedom, free-market controversies.
5. Hinkle gets along with everyone — which is exactly why he is so dangerous. If Hinkle is allowed to serve as chair, he wouldn’t stop until all the different factions and wings of the LP are working together. Worst of all, he would probably end up attracting Ron Paul people, further burdening the LP with new members and bigger budgets.
In conclusion, Mark Hinkle represents the single greatest threat of success for the LP. To allow him to serve could be a disaster for the Republican and Democratic parties, especially at a time when so many young people are looking for a new and better political alternative.
Nope, I never said Steve was taking Nyquil, or anything else. I mentioned he had the flu in San Diego and Vegas, and that he was just learning to use the teleprompter around the same time as we were releasing videos via TPW, state conventions,etc., so that all added up to a mistaken impression some people had from those events and videos.
Memory serves that, after two years of my whiney complaints, you changed your tune from ‘you are abolutely wrong and have no idea what you are talking about’ (or words to that effect ……..) to ‘oh, you merely misunderstood’.
As I remember, you mentioned, almost two years after Denver and multi responses of ‘dazed’ behavior, that Steve Kubby had medical problems and was ‘swilling’ (my words) Nyguil (sp) or some thing like that.
Any 2010 comments on his ‘just lit’ looks on his official photo graph?! Again, my comments: Kubby has been uncommunicative since 2006 and his ‘bleary eyed’ official protrait has always been inappropriate for a pot advocate!
I’ll do it.
Try the video embeds one more time, I think I fixed the problem.
Brian,
I think that your latest is worth an IPR story. I agree that perhaps you shouldn’t be the one to post it and write the accompanying description.
On the other hand, I can’t (for some reason video embeds don’t work when I do them), and I’d rather you did it than nobody did it.
I’ve said nothing about cough medicine.
Is the latest one worth a story on IPR? Trent wants us to post more stories, but I shouldn’t post about my own
propagandainreach efforts.Just as a side note, I hope everyone is watching Brian Holtz’s series of videos on Hancock. They are masterful political propaganda, and I mean that as a compliment.
Yes, I’d prefer that Root never mentioned that meme again.
If I had to compare Hancock and Root on the “bizarre claims” thing, it wouldn’t be Root’s football commentary I’d introduce as evidence.
I think I’d go with the Reason interview in which he strongly implied that Obama only got into Harvard because he’s black, and less strongly implied that there might be some conspiracy behind Obama’s college record (e.g. nobody Root knew at Columbia knew Obama — was he really even there?).
As negative as that is or may be
the K-man is reported to be dazed
all week long at Denver.
Now paulie plays the ‘cough medicine’
card, and if that is true it still does
not explain one of the two worst
campaign photo graphs ever.
The other being George Phillies
and the ‘I just let a birp in the
elevator’ mug shot.
Kubby while he made some good statement is still the same pothead who concerned about his medical pot that he had shared with other people. He is a hypocrite. Would you share your prozac with other people. So much for medical pot.
@56
Do I ever talk about my science fiction novels, mindful that I have no pretension of being a great SF writer? No.
Do I offer to email .RTFs of my novels, at my reproduction cost, to LAMA donors as a tzotzke? Yes.
Minutegirls is even mildly libertarian, the land military forces having been privatized in a non-corporate route.
That somebody makes one point doesn’t mean I can’t make what I see as a related but more important point.
Namely, that Hancock thinks that one of the best possible uses of his outreach time/effort is to hand out DVDs saying that Lincoln and JFK were assassinated by international banking interests.
I trust NatCon delegates to compare the risks of Hancock’s outreach approach to the risk of Root doing one more stray press release on college football (a topic Obama has addressed on national TV).
As for Phillies’ weakness for occasionally demonizing people he disagrees with, he’s not even in Hancock’s league on that score.
Aaron @ 55,
Fixed.
How many state LP conventions can you name where Root has attended and “given out football analysis and opinions”?
None off hand.
However, when Wayne sent this article for IPR,
http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?d=07&m=01&y=10
“THE B.C.S. is Just Plain B.S!
Thursday, January 7, 2010, 11:19 PM
NOW IT’S TIME TO PLAY FOR A REAL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
Alabama Unmasked. ‘Bama Hangs On Versus Freshman QB Barely Out of High School?
The Fix Was In. Where were Boise State and TCU?
By 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee Wayne Allyn Root”
Trent wrote back, saying that it was outside the scope of what IPR covers.
I was on the fence on that myself, as I was considering publishing it *because Wayne wrote it,* although even then I would not have made a regular practice of publishing Wayne’s football commentaries.
The reason I bring this up is that in the course of the argument Wayne said that the issue of college football championships is all about politics, and thus belongs at IPR.
If you are sufficiently motivated, you can check the archives at IPR google group and see the exchange yourself.
http://groups.google.com/group/independent-political-report?hl=en
If so, is is too much of a stretch to think he might believe something like it should be posted at LP.org?
I’m not saying that he would or would not. I’m not even saying whether I agree with him that the article is about politics or not. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
But, I also know of no proof that Ernie would post the Obama Deception at LP.org or give it some kind of official LP endorsement, either.
And, again, you side-stepped the original point, that what Dr. Phillies, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Root, you, or anyone else thinks about 9/11, the JFK assassination, the sinking of the Lusitania, etc., is not the question — the question originally raised by the anonymous poster and expounded later by Mr. Nolan is the one of degrees of tolerance for different sides of issues on which Libertarians disagree.
The italics was supposed to turn off after the second paragraph in 54. Oh, well.
Jeremy @ 10
He’s also known to be afraid of crossing Aaron Starr on the LNC. Does the LP really want another chair who is afraid of Aaron Starr?
Hinkle is good-hearted, capable, and experienced, but also weak, uninspiring, and temperamentally conservative. In my view, he’s the worst choice for Chair except for Root.
I’m actually amused by this.
Mark Hinkle is a dear friend of mine and close ally. Our relationship extends back over 20 years. He has stayed the night at my home and I at his.
I convinced him to run for Chair in California back in 1997 (his arm still hurts from the twisting) and I organized a sufficient number of delegates to replace the incumbent. Hinkle served for two consecutive two-year terms. I served with him on the board. I immediately followed him as state chair for three consecutive two-year terms.
For the most part, Hinkle sees the LP the same as I do. We are extremely compatible.
It’s odd to suggest that he is afraid of me or that anyone else is afraid of me. Have you seen a picture of me? I’m your typical, mild-mannered accountant (though some might say better looking than your typical accountant. 🙂 )
I’m glad to say that Hinkle simply happens to agree with me much of the time, as many people do, especially when it comes to the need for the party to emphasize professional management.
If Wayne Root were not running, Mark Hinkle would be my first choice.
I know of plenty of people who will be voting for Root first and Hinkle second. And I also know quite a few people who will be voting for Hinkle first and Root second.
Either choice, the party will continue to move forward in a direction I approve of and I’m pretty convinced that one of these two will win the chairmanship.
🙂
How many state LP conventions can you name where Root has attended and “given out football analysis and opinions”?
How many state LP conventions can you name where Hancock has attended and not given out DVDs claiming that Lincoln and JFK were assassinated by international banking interests?
Brian, the issue is not about whether Phillies, or Hancock, is correct about 9/11.
Any more than which of them, if any, is correct about Ron Paul, climate change, the federal reserve, the gold standard, immigration, trade, states rights, marriage equality vs. marriage privatization, the US ‘civil war, Abe Lincoln, abortion rights, or any of a host of other issues.
The question was to what extent Dr. Phillies (or any other chair candidate) is tolerant of disagreements among libertarians on those issues on which such disagreements are common.
Does Ernie Hancock give out Obama Deceptions? Yes.
Does Wayne Root give out football analysis and opinions? Yes.
Will either use the chairmanship of the LP to promote same? Facts not yet in evidence.
Brian @46 – see Paulie @48
Hancock brags about how his workshop has produced and distributed (actually tens of) thousands of Obama Deception DVDs. He gave copies to delegates at the LPCA convention, and probably at every other convention he’s attended as well. If he’s planning to have the LP under his tenure remain silent on the New World Order’s 9/11 conspiracy, he sure has an interesting way of foreshadowing it.
David F. Nolan // Apr 26, 2010: “George Phillies is tolerant of everyone except Christians.”
and ignorant of the entire ‘Greek Chorus’ of OTHER 21st Century American anti war organizations, including just ’bout every partisan group out side of the belt way GOP neo cons!
Somewhat besides the point.
What Mr. Hancock thinks about 9/11 isn’t the question, unless he plans on presenting his personal views as the views of the LP.
The same, on the other side of the coin, is true of Dr. Phillies.
Dr. Phillies is welcome to believe the 9/11 Commission report is the gospel truth if he wants to. Mr. Hancock is equally free to believe that Cheney personally ordered the attacks, if that is what he believes.
I would personally prefer that neither of those views were the official policy of the LPHQ.
Likewise, if Mr. Hancock were to make frequent statements that those who believe the US government’s official published conspiracy theory of the events of 9/11 are “nuts” or “fools,” I would say he is intolerant of that position.
That is, in fact, the functional equivalent of the position that Dr. Phillies has taken towards the many libertarians who are closer to Mr. Hancock’s position on the events of 9/11 than they are to Dr. Phillies’ position.
I don’t believe pointing out such intolerance is the same thing as agreeing with any particular position on 9/11. I would hope that an ecumenical libertarian would agree.
Brain on Hold, I was hoping someone would feed into your question on 24.
David, to clarify: would you say that Hancock’s embracing of 9/11 conspiracy theories is an asset in the Chair’s race, rather than a liability?
In the Obama Deception video that Hancock hands out by the thousands, it says that both Lincoln and JFK were assassinated by international banking interests. Raise your hand if you want LP press releases to touch these ideas with a ten-foot-pole.
Interesting. I guess that demolishes Dondero’s idea that Tobin is a leftist infiltrator.
Not with Haugh as ED. he hates my guts. And I’m not an employee for anyone, always an independent contractor, which is besides the point however.
Couldn’t you be an employee of F & E?
He seemed to strongly defend Wiccans though.
paulie @35. ok. I’m not pressing about it further.
intolerant toward Ron Paul supporters, global warming skeptics, and people who question the “official” version of what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.
Pro-lifers, “goldbugs”, many others….
The Nolan, @37, yes, agreed. He is on top of those issues hence intolerant of those that are not. I wonder if he just understands the physics of the WTC collapse & #7 building a few hours later or goes farther rejecting other TRoofer theories like Bush Knew etc.
The Milnes.
Are you in contact with her? Could you run the lib/vp/Independent/fusion ticket thing by her? might be good for a few laughs for you at my expense. Although I’m not sure if she would be a better asset as vp or hired as a consultant.
@16 – “George Phillies is tolerant of everyone except Christians.”
Wrong. He’s also intolerant toward Ron Paul supporters, global warming skeptics, and people who question the “official” version of what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In his own way, he’s just as biased as Wayne Root.
this keyboard keeps skipping the a. &I’m too lazy to proofread everything!
on what are you basing the conclusion that 2nd choice supports Root 1st?
Other comments left by that same person at IPR. That’s as much information as I will give out about that.
Libertarian.
She worked for Nader’s campaign as a ballot access contractor/coordinator, has told me she is a libertarian who is registered independent, and is a Libertarian candidate.
Her father is an Illinois tax cut activist who would have been a Libertarian candidate for Governor in 1998, except that he was kept off the ballot through Republican dirty tricks. I was there for the signature defense phase as a volunteer, although not for the signature collection. I first petitioned for the Illinois LP in 2000, and again in 2004 and 2008.
Tobin aparently worked on the LP Illinois ballot access drive in 2002 (I wasn’t there that time), and on the successful Illinois Greens drive in 2006, before going national.
This time, from what I’ve been able to gather, F&E has the Illinois contract. Which means I’m not invited.
pulie @29, on what are you basing the conclusion that 2nd choice supports Root 1st?
paulie, there seems to be some confusion or controversy as to whether Tobin is a leftist or a libertarian. do you have any insights or opinion on this?
BTW, the LR I refer to above is Dondero’s blog. Nothing to do with Lew.
“Note – Greens have infiltrated the Libertarian Party in the past.”?
Infiltrated ????????
Connect with!
Ally with!
Join with!
Cooperate with!
Without getting more specific, “2nd choice” appears to be an LP member whose first choice is, apparently, Wayne Root.
I cannot find the Lew Rockwell/Dondero/Milnes/Tobin article. Can you type the link?
I couldn’t before, but now I can. For your reading pleasure, http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2010/04/german-greens-men-need-no-longer-be.html
quoting in part:
Note – Greens have infiltrated the Libertarian Party in the past. New Jersey Green activist Robert Milnes, a frequent commenter at Independent Political Report, has been pushing for a Green-Libertarian alliance for years. He even briefly declared for the Libertarian Presidential nomination in 2008. At present, in California, prominent Ralph Nader former campaign staffer Christina Tobin is seeking the Libertarian nomination for Sec. of State.
2nd choice sounds like Catholic Trotskyist who sounds like…
Bob,
You write:
—-
“Judge not” and “Do unto others” don’t sound like prescriptions for codifying doctrinal preferences into law. The opposite, actually.
—-
True — but keep in mind that you’re quoting Jesus. Modern evangelical “Christian” sects are actually disciples of Paul, not of Jesus.
paulie, paulie, I now conjure thy name thus. Come hence. I have a task befitting your wares.
I cannot find the Lew Rockwell/Dondero/Milnes/Tobin article. Can you type the link?
Who is “explicitly anarchist” among the New Path slate? Rachel Hawkridge?
hmm, well, one might if the reportage is correct, Jesus himself would be with Washington and Jefferson and perhaps Phillies. “Judge not” and “Do unto others” don’t sound like prescriptions for codifying doctrinal preferences into law. The opposite, actually.
Presumably by “anti-Christian bigot,” the pseudonymous commenter means “opponent of treating the doctrinal preferences of various evangelical Christian sects as the supreme law of the land.”
Or, to put it a different way, Phillies is more like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson than he is like Fred Phelps or James Dobson.
@18 Note that the ranter does not put his name to the charge.
Having said that, New Path has people with a range of libertarian inclinations from explicitly anarchist to well to the right. However, if asked whether we are radical or pragmatist, my answer is “no”. The New Path plan is not about ideology, it is about supporting politics.
Having said that, we stand in favor of reaching out to right as well as left, and supporting traditional socially progressive positions of the party, such as ending the war on drugs, keeping Uncle Sam and your city police out of your bedroom, and anti-interventionism, as well as financial stands –less government spending and regulation.
@18 I have no idea where the charge is coming from.
Trent,
You write:
“To the Knappster–why Hancock?”
To answer that, I also have to answer “why Phillies?”
Phillies is my first choice because
a) he’s running on a detailed, realistic proposal for reorganization of the national party (the “local organization” model); and
b) he’s running with a slate pledged to support and implement that proposal.
Hancock is my second choice because he is also running on a realistic proposal for reorganization of the national party (the “get it out of the way so that the activists can get shit done” model).
The difference in rank order of the two is for the following reasons:
1) Since Phillies is running with a supportive slate and Hancock is not, Phillies is more likely than Hancock to actually be able to implement his proposal if he wins.
2) The Phillies “local organization” model would tend to enable/advance some of the key features of the Hancock “get LPUS out of the activists’ way” model.
2nd choice, that’s quite a charge. I’ve never seen examples of what you suggest. Can you provide evidence to back your claim that Phillies is an anti-Christian bigot? Regardless of ones metaphysical or spiritual views, it seems contra-indicated for the LP to have a Chair who is hostile to other people’s non-political beliefs, particularly when we live in a nation where most consider themselves Christian.
To be clear, it strikes me that an LP Chair need not be of any particular faith (or non-faith), but hostility toward those of faith is no way to position the USLP.
To be fair, Phillies should be given the opportunity to address this concern.
“Incidentally, I was pleasantly surprised to see Trent favorable towards George.”
As LP Chair and as an administrative leader. Personally, I think Phillies is wrong on quite a few issues, but I suspect he can keep that out of the way of his administrating well. He has shown he can raise money and be transparent, that’s a start.
I actually think Hinkle is the best choice. But Phillies next. I think Root and Hancock are both…awful….choices.
To the Knappster–why Hancock?
Although Mark Hinkle will not get my vote on the ballot, Mark Hinkle is 2nd choice for LNC Chair.
He is not an Anti-Christian bigot likes George Phillies. I have read more than a couple articles by George Phillies and his disdain for Christianity is apparent. George Phillies is tolerant of everyone except Christians. I know there are not many of us, but there are a few Christian Libertarians in the party. You can be guaranteed George Phillies will not have my vote in St. Louis
Bob,
I don’t think it says anything about “like minds,” because our minds are not at all alike, nor do my reasons for my choices correspond with the reasons you imply for those choices.
Incidentally, I was pleasantly surprised to see Trent favorable towards George.
Tom, WOW! I took a chance asking this question online without knowing the answer. I was hoping that you would follow the logic of being one of few who found Paul to not be a libertarian-you, me & George-Then I endorse/support George. Who would you endorse/support? Good chance you would fall in with other radicals-notibly your guy Kubby. Endorsing Hinkle.Note that we did not discuss this. What is that saying about like minds?
Bob,
You write:
“Who does Tom K. endorse?”
I’m not endorsing, but I’ve made no secret of my personal voting intentions.
On the first ballot, I’ll be voting for Phillies.
On subsequent ballots, I will vote for Phillies or Hancock so long as one of them remains on the ballot.
If both Phillies and Hancock are eliminated, I will vote NOTA on subsequent ballots.
Jeremy
“I’m not interested in his record as California LP chair.”
I am.
And regarding your description of him as an establishment pick:
I do not believe Hinkle is an establishment pick. He has his differences with Mr. Starr and others.
He does pick his fights rather than try to obstruct everything or run out the clock, and tries to find ways to work with everyone on the LNC.
I don’t view those as bad things. You might, if you consider some on the LNC to be “the enemy” rather than dedicated, hard working libertarian volunteers with whom we disagree on many points of tactics, strategy and some of the finer points of libertarian ideology.
“I’m more interested in his abject failure as an LNC member over the past two years to heal the divisions on the LNC, which he claims is his reason for running,”
One regional rep can only do so much. He believes he can do so better as chair. I’m willing to give that a try.
“He’s also known to be afraid of crossing Aaron Starr on the LNC. Does the LP really want another chair who is afraid of Aaron Starr?”
I don’t think he is afraid of Aaron Starr. Rather, he has found ways to work with Mr. Starr where they agree, and may be saving up his ability to swing the commitee when he considers the issues to be most important and the votes to be winnable. And, perhaps he would have greater influence as chair and/or the ability to act unilaterally on some matters.
Much of that will depend not just on who is chair, but on who the other officers, at large reps and regional reps are on the next LNC.
You go to work with the committee you have. And, no, I’m not defending the better known quote that is derived from.
With all respect to Hinkle, I’m not interested in his record as California LP chair. I’m more interested in his abject failure as an LNC member over the past two years to heal the divisions on the LNC, which he claims is his reason for running, and to oppose the nefarious actions of the ruling clique. He’s also known to be afraid of crossing Aaron Starr on the LNC. Does the LP really want another chair who is afraid of Aaron Starr?
Hinkle is good-hearted, capable, and experienced, but also weak, uninspiring, and temperamentally conservative. In my view, he’s the worst choice for Chair except for Root.
“establishment” is an attempt to cast him in a negative light–a look at his record shows solid results, I think.
So, now we know who the “establishment” pick is.
It looks like a race between the Root people, the radicals (who have a deeply flawed candidate in Hancock — they should have coalesced around Phillies, or a better candidate should have stepped up to the plate), and the establishment pick of Hinkle. Overall, not good choices IMO.
Hinkle should go after the endorsements of Bill Redpath, who seems to be a decent chair. If nothing else, Redpath has put his money where his mouth is.
I agree with Paulie.
I like Root. I’d like to see him continue to run for public office as a Libertarian and spread the libertarian message in the media. But I don’t think LP Chair is the right role for him and I don’t think he’s the best candidate in this race.
Mark Hinkle is an experienced LP leader and LNC member, has a good approach to the current problems facing the LP, and gets along well with everyone.
If Rutherford were running for Chair I’d have a hard decision. But with the 5 currently announced candidates, endorsing Hinkle was a no brainer.
That doesn’t mean I think Hinkle is perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion Hinkle is a better aggregate package than his opponents though.
Phillies recognized Paul as not libertarian. As did RM & Tom K. Kubby did not. Paulie did not. RM endorses Phillies. Who does Tom K. endorse? Follow the radicals.
It is too easy & obvious to not like Root. He’s OBVIOUSLY a rightist trying to push/pull the LP to the right. Somebody who “gets along with everyone” is not good enough. We need somebody who recognizes rightists & puts them in their place-membership only-and keeps them in their place-no party positions or candidacies. Ron Paul is not a libertarian. His movement-C4L is reactionary/counterrevolutionary. Kubby endorsed Paul & embraced Barr. Mistakes. Don’t let Kubby keep making mistakes at the expense of the radical movement.
Is Canadian, Californian Steve Kubby going to consult on official campaign photo graph ??????
It’s not a matter of not “liking” Wayne, I actually do like him and wish he was running for local office.
I think Hinkle is a better choice for chair at this time.
Root continues to get better and better. The addition of Mark Rutherford to his team makes it more acceptable to me.
I also have things I like and dislike about the Hancock and Phillies candidacies.
I don’t really know enough about Myers to dislike anything about him.
Wow! I guess some of the “old time” Libertarians just don’t like Root. I am not even a Libertarian anymore but I think this is big.