In a telephone conversation, Boston Tea Party Presidential candidate Charles Jay told me that individual(s) associated with the Barr campaign and/or known Barr supporters are working to remove the Objectivist and Boston Tea parties from state ballots by challenging their electors.
He also alludes to it on his blog,
The Boston Tea Party of Florida, on behalf of this campaign, turned in its presidential petition to the Florida Secretary of State on Friday. It contains the required 27 electors and a slew of alternates.
So we will be on the ballot, despite what I expect could be some mischief. I want to address that as clearly and succinctly as possible.
It has come to our attention that there might be a move afoot to challenge our list of electors, through a process which may, I said MAY, include the coercion, confusion, harassment, and/or intimidation of these electors through, among other things, communicating whatever misinformation they have to.
We have uncovered the name of one individual who was associated with a previous attempt to do this to another party in Florida, and possibly other states, and we are looking into it. In addition to that, the name of someone else, known to many of you, has surfaced in connection with that effort. We strongly suspect that there is going to be an organized “campaign,†if you will, to knock specific parties off the ballot in the Sunshine State.
Jay threatens retaliation:
The political party which initiated the action will also find their electors challenged, and then some, and I’m not even going to clue you into the kind of unpleasant surprises I’m going to come up with in conjunction with that.
Except maybe one. As I mentioned at the top, we have uncovered one prominent name in association with an effort to do this to another party. This person has also indicated a disdain for the Boston Tea Party in the past, and a desire for there to be limited choices on the Florida ballot this November If that happens to be the case – and there is enough reason to believe right now that it is – or in fact, if ANY effort is made to actually knock this party (the BTP) off the Florida ballot that involves this particular person, either directly or indirectly. that individual will become the subject of an investigative report, as comprehensive as myself and my “team†can possibly make it, that will be written and published and will make somebody’s head spin, I can guaran-f**king-tee you, We have a supporter here in Florida who is a private investigator, and who has suggested he would be happy to donate some of his services in this regard.
Jay continues:
Why would I do this? Well, it’s not because I want to hurt anybody out of hand. And it isn’t because I am worried about our electors or FOR our electors. No, it’s because if you’re going to speak out fervently for ballot access in public, and then turn around in private and act to obstruct ballot access in a sneaky, backroom fashion. going out of your way to KNOCK PARTIES OFF the ballot, you are not only a hypocrite, but you are engineering a manipulation of something that is precious to me, and to others reading this – the choices voters have among constitutionally-qualified, ballot-qualified candidates in an election.
Tom is exactly correct.
Richard,
You’re the expert on such matters, and I expect your prediction is accurate.
I also think that it will be a good thing if Barr wins his ballot access suit in West Virgina. I like seeing ballot access barriers knocked down, and I’m not particular about who does the knocking.
Ballot access litigation, lobbying, etc. are important activities. As a matter of fact, I think they’re more important than Barr’s political aspirations, or than any one particular election result for the Libertarian Party, any other third party, or any independent candidate.
However …
Presumably, many, maybe even most, of Bob Barr’s contributors who weighed in prior to the West Virginia deadline wrote checks on the supposition that they were contributing to a presidential campaign, not a ballot access litigation project.
The ballot drive they were supporting did not fail due to a stated intention to blow the deadline and litigate. Quite the opposite. In the days leading up to the deadline, the campaign put out increasingly manic pleas calling for money, volunteers, etc. to meet that deadline. The drive failed due to incompetent management, not to lack of desire to meet the deadline or to stated desire to litigate the deadline.
Regardless of any good results that may come from the litigation, Barr’s contributors are reasonable to ask why their money was poorly spent the first time around in West Virginia, and whether this particular litigation really improves the campaign’s prospects (as opposed to the future prospects of other candidates, other parties, etc.).
I will go out on a limb here and predict that Barr will win his ballot access fight in West Virginia.
I’ve heard rumors about possible challenges to the BTP’s Florida electors, but so far that’s it … rumors.
Thing is, I was hearing those rumors before the elector designations were actually turned in — and I doubt that anyone who was thinking of blocking the BTP could have anticipated that it would field not only a full slate of 27 electors, but 19 alternates to replace any electors who might be successfully challenged as well.
I won’t say that the BTP ticket in Florida is challenge-proof, but I think we’re well prepared f0r such a fight.
If the rumors are true, and if the Barr campaign is involved, it will end up hurting Barr far more than it will help him. After blowing ballot access in West Virginia, Maine and possibly New Hampshire, he’s presumably under at least some supporter/contributor pressure to stop fucking around and start running for president while there’s still time.
Been through this debate thing already. And the consensus seems to be Barr wasn’t very “pragmatic”, but blatantly hypocritical on this issue.
OK, thanks for the link about Barr’s Reason interview about debating other “third party” presidential candidates. I read it carefully and he doesn’t say he wouldn’t debate Nader. Nader is basically an independent candidate. Nevertheless, Barr seems to imply that he wouldn’t debate anyone but McCain and Obama, so that is disappointing.
Every time I think of a third party debate, I think of the earlier GOP debates (the ones with Alan Keyes). All the candidates lined up on a stage with dim lighting in a small auditorium.
I can understand not wanting to participate in any debate that doesn’t include at least one of the two major party candidates.
Any other “kid’s table” debate only serves to make a candidate look small and will get zero press coverage and only third party folks already on board will watch it.
And Barr, outside of mostly Zogby run polls, usually trails Nader in most polls.
Richard –
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/08/barr-wont-debate-other-third-party-candidates/
There are persistent rumors of a New Hampshire lawsuit, which I anticipate will be extensively litigated. My late grandfather, whatever his other failings as an attorney, always said that the highest moments of his life were the two occasions on which he argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Mindful of his advice, if we get there I will not be trying to appear without a real attorney.
I hadn’t heard that Barr had said he wouldn’t debate Nader. When did he say it, and whom did he say it to?
Barr’s also mentioned that he wouldn’t debate Nader, or any other third party candidate. Now, I don’t want to be immature, but a lot of us Gravel supporters said this sort of thing would happen before Barr was nominated.
-.- Not if they’re big bad Barr party members.
I really hope this isn’t true. The last thing that third party activists should ever do is try to deny each other’s right to appear on a ballot.