STATEMENT BY ARTHUR W. KETCHEN
I want to announce my full and unequivocal support for the candidacy of George Phillies for President of The United States and Christopher Bennett for Vice President of The United States. For this is the only real Libertarian ticket for those offices on the ballot anywhere.
For Bob Barr, the choice of the Libertarian National Convention, is in point of fact anything but a Libertarian. Barr is a state’s rights advocate, where any real Libertarian is an individual rights advocate
who recognizes that “states rights” come a very far distant second, conditional upon how absolutely individual rights are upheld in any given state. Barr favors one religion over others,ignoring the
fundamental truth that if you lay your life on the line for this nation in the United States armed forces you have a right to observe the religion of your choice in those armed forces. An American is an
American, regardless of religious creed! And furthermore, if we are to acheive the ideal of limited government,we must end the nefarious cult of religious “leaders” giving blessing to the state, and the state favoring any one religion. In his inability to recognize the above truths and in his equivocation on questions that should have a clear answer Bob Barr still talks like the Republicrats. Indeed the cause of truth would be better served if Bob Barr ran as the candidate of the Know Nothing Party than the Libertarian Party.In choosing Barr, or even considering him the Libertarian National Convention majority betrayed the Party Of Principle which I and other members of the first National Convention in Denver founded in 1972. And the 2008 Libertarian National Convention also attempted to deny the American people a choice at the polls.
But in New Hampshire there is a choice. In November citizens can vote for George Phillies for President and Chris Bennett for Vice President. For the Phillies/Bennett ticket stands for clear consistent choice. George Phillies and Chris Bennett know full well that you cannot have economic freedom without civil liberty, that social freedom and a free market are inseparable. That a house divided against itself cannot stand!
If you are a Libertarian and planned on voting Libertarian in any event in November I urge you to vote Phillies/Bennett. Your vote will count for it will send a message to LP National and the state organizations that you want Libertarians running as Libertarians, not the hand me down failures from the Republicrats with their tired theocratic/socialist myths and lies.
If you are not yet a Libertarian this current economic mess should make you one. And if you perceive rightly that voting for the Republican and Democratic candidates is indeed a vote thrown away, then I urge you to vote Phillies/Bennett for that is a vote for the future if America is to have one! We have no where to go but up!
Arthur W. Ketchen
New Hampshire Delegate to the 1972 Libertarian National Convention
First State Chairman of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
“Had Ruwart been the nominee, I don’t think Ron Paul would have endorsed her, but I don’t think he would have endorsed Chuck Baldwin then either. ”
Ron Paul endorsed Mary Ruwart to be the head of the FDA and he also endorsed her book, so I think that it is possible that he would have endorsed her for President.
I think that a big party of the reason that Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin was to protest Bob Barr.
At the very least, if Ruwart had been the nominee then Ron would not have endorsed anybody as to stay in good with Libertarian Party members and Constitution Party members.
I wish that Michael Badnarik had run this year. He would have been the best candidate in the Libertarian Party to carry on the Ron Paul R3VOLution, and would have been the most likely candidate to get endorsed by Ron Paul.
rdupuy,
Well, we can certainly agree on Baldwin. I think immigration freedom is an important issue too, and I was not initially enthusiastic about Ron Paul’s run for some of those reasons. He won me over when he stood up to Giuliani and started attracting the very youth/alternative/left-libertarian demographic that I have been so frustrated in the LP’s lack of ability to attract, particularly when he is more conservative than we are.
Bob Barr has failed to present the bold stances that speak to this crowd, (I think they loved the fact that Ron Paul stood up to Giuliani and the military industrial complex, spoke about unconventional issues, and has a record as an iconoclast in Congress).
I think Mary Ruwart would have done a better job at that, as would Kubby.
Barr has not been good on immigration freedom either. He also has somewhat of a mixed record, and continues to present a mixed message on some privacy issues, such as the drug war (still for it at the local level, still for US intervention in Colombia, still for parts of the “patriot act” and DOMA).
His stands on foreign policy (e.g. no timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, no ruling out war with Iran, supporting the surge in Afghanistan, not promising to bring all the troops home from around the world) has been weak. So has his stance on economics, supporting the “fair tax,” and there are many more issues.
Barr and Baldwin each have some positive points, as does McKinney. I like Charles Jay best of all, but I won’t vote for him unless he is on the ballot in whatever state I end up voting in (if any), and chances are I will not be voting in one of those three states.
I’m neither reflexively pro or anti Barr. He has said some things I like, and some I don’t. I may still vote for him.
Any party, including the LP, has to earn my support. If I took the “my party right or wrong” line I would still be a Democrat. In fact, rejoining the Democratic Party to start a new Jeffersonian/classical liberal caucus is one of the projects I am looking to undertake after November (we are in the planning stages now).
Cannoli, no disrespect intended, but this type of ‘what if’ is useless and better saved for after the elections.
Every 4 years, we go to the convention to fight for our favorite candidate, and every 4 years, we leave the conventions still supporting our favorite candidate.
But a political party is supposed to be were like minded people apply their combined efforts to achieve a goal.
We should really behind the nominee, and quite frankly Bob Barr was the nominee, by a fair process, selected by our own leadership.
At this time, the best thing for the LP is to rally behind his effort, because he is going on TV, he is the front man, he is getting the word out, and doing a great job of it too. It’s ashame the CP loving Ron Paul has confused the electorate, but now we see his true colors.
Ron Paul just endorsed the former moral majority staffer and baptist preacher who believe in high tarrifs, tight government controls over trade, protectionism and a host of other issues..
The goal is to attract disenfranchised voters. Conservatives are the easiest to pull in right now. Democrats have their messiah this election.
Nader is polling better than Barr.
Barr has gotten more media than past LP candidates
When making head to head comparisons, keep in mind that there are a lot more news/talk shows and websites than there used to be.
Also, the message he presents is too moderate and conservative. The extra attention does not parlay into spreading libertarian ideals if they are not presented when those opportunities arise.
Had Ruwart been the nominee, I don’t think Ron Paul would have endorsed her, but I don’t think he would have endorsed Chuck Baldwin then either.
I think a lot of Libertarians would have been much more enthusiastic right now, and the campaign would be doing just as well or better, and making big inroads among Ron Paul activists.
I think Kubby would have done even better.
Alas, it was not to be. Maybe next time.
It would be nice if we can get some people in this party who actually understand how Washington works.
Yeah, like not negotiating away your position before you have a seat at the table. Far be it from libertarians to read Sun Tzu.
I doubt anyone outside of third party circles have a clue about Barr’s so called snub either.
False. I get a whole bunch of google alerts on it constantly, and many are from mainstream publications.
darren,
Facts are stubborn things,no?
Is advocating libertarianism really more dangerous than paying for your wife’s abortion while cheating on her with some skank that you later marry?
Always a class act, G.E.
The Boston Tea Party has endorsed George Phillies and Chris Bennett in New Hampshire, where our candidate, Charles Jay, is not on the ballot. We are happy to work with anyone in any state who wants to register Charles as a write-in candidate, and we are in fact doing so in quite a few places (including DC). We endorsed George and Chris because we think they are more libertarian than the Barr and Root duo. We also did so to illustrate that our party is capable of endorsing a Libertarian Party candidate for president if we are convinced that candidate is a libertarian.
We have already endorsed over a dozen candidates who are on the ballot as LP candidates in various states. I expect more in the next few days to be added. Had a real libertarian, such as Steve Kubby or Mary Ruwart, won the nomination, we might even have avoided having a nominating convention this year. But, instead, we gained a huge windfall in members, activists, candidates, and activity from the nomination of Barr – whose nomination has driven many people away from the LP.
Liberty is a goal. I personally pursue freedom by living free. I don’t see it as the end point in a series of gradual steps. Rather, it is more like a phase change. But, everyone is different, so there are going to be those who choose to follow Barr, however, misguided and stupid that choice may seem.
I have elsewhere posted my thoroughgoing criticisms of Barr. So I won’t belabor the points. Arthur Ketchen has done a good job in explaining his reasons for endorsing George Phillies.
You can’t go from big government to individual rights?
Huh?
Individual rights are not just something at the end of transitional steps.
Ruwart would have simply explained the libertarian principles behind her statement, clarified that she did not — unlike Bob Barr — support government distribution of child porn; point out that the federal government has no jurisdiction in these matters under the Constitution; pointed out the well-known but rarely uttered problems with “age of consent,” etc. I wish it would have come out so that she could have had a platform to discuss libertarian philosophy.
Is advocating libertarianism really more dangerous than paying for your wife’s abortion while cheating on her with some skank that you later marry?
“Imagine the permanent tsumani of bad attention that the LP would have received if Ruwart had been nominated and her kiddie porn/consensual sex views got out.”
It wouldn’t have gotten out, because the press wouldn’t have paid as much attention to her. I don’t think she would have posed a perceived threat to any major party candidate.
But I’d rather have a media blackout on a candidate I can feel good about, that getting a lot of attention for a candidate that I’m embarrassed by.
“Any deal that Wayne Allyn Root made with this man to go after the nomination in 2012 was like jumping from the Titanic into the freezing waters below.”
Very good analogy.
Anthony, this is why Steve Kubby would have been the best libertarian nominee. Or even Mike Gravel, although I would have been forced to chastise him then because he would be stealing votes from Obama.
Mike Gillis will probably not like to hear this, but I actually agree with him for once.
Does the New Hampshire state chairman not know about the Boston Tea Party? I know they’re not on the ballot in New Hampshire, but the chairman said that Phillies is the most libertarian candidate anywhere. Clearly Jay is more libertarian than Phillies.
Mike Gillis,
You think the attention Barr has received from the mainstream media has been “bad attention?”
Imagine the permanent tsumani of bad attention that the LP would have received if Ruwart had been nominated and her kiddie porn/consensual sex views got out. The party would have gone from the irrelevance of the last 35 years to outright hostitilty from the public, banished to NAMBLA meetings and sex clubs in Laos.
Comedic, the notion that that’s what George Phillies would bring.
On the issues, I’ll take Barr.
Agreed Mike Gillis. Now that he has our ballot access, he is pretty much free to do whatever he wants, and that is what he is doing. He doesn’t care about Libertarians.
Any deal that Wayne Allyn Root made with this man to go after the nomination in 2012 was like jumping from the Titanic into the freezing waters below.
Mike,
The goal is to attract disenfranchised voters. Conservatives are the easiest to pull in right now. Democrats have their messiah this election.
It makes no sense for Barr to keep preaching to people who are already Libertarian. We did that for 30 years and it got us nowhere.
Take a look at Barr’s numerous television appearances and you’ll see he is definitely preaching a Libertarian message.
I’m no libertarian, but the press I’ve seen Barr get shows a campaigned aimed far more at winning over disgruntled conservatives, not getting a libertarian message out.
Root’s dickishness over affirmative action and his GPA to Snubgate or the way that the Barr campaign has worked its ass off alienate its base publically at every turn.
For better or worse, None of this stuff has received anything resembling “national press attention”.
Barr has gotten more media than past LP candidates, which ain’t saying much, but in general the coverage has been neutral-to-positive if you can get over the emotionalism and look at it objectively.
Mike,
Lets be honest. Outside of Libertarian circles nobody has a clue who Root is. I doubt anyone outside of third party circles have a clue about Barr’s so called snub either.
Barr has brought plenty of positive attention you just have a bias so you can’t see that. He is on tv against this morning preaching the Libertarian message. Dozens of times now he has been on national television spreading the message of Libertarianism to normal Americans.
” Barr has brought more media attention to this party than any other time in its history.
You think Ruwart would have accomplished that?”
Yeah, but alot of it has been bad attention. Whether Root’s dickishness over affirmative action and his GPA to Snubgate or the way that the Barr campaign has worked its ass off alienate its base publically at every turn.
Getting as much attention is worth something if it brings attention in a positive way to issues that you really care about.
I mean, a third party candidate could easily get national press overnight by robbing a convention store or a bank, but it doesn’t do their campaign or party any good.
You think Ruwart would have accomplished that?
If Ruwart had won the nomination we’d all be (contentedly?) bitching about how she’s never covered by the media, not included in any polls, hasn’t raised more than $200K, isn’t on more than 46 state ballots, and wasn’t endorsed by Ron Paul.
Meanwhile, Phillies would also be on the ballot in NH and his supporters would be issuing unproductive dissenting statements like these.
Jason,
It has never been about votes. Votes are really irrelevant unless you are going to win. Its about media attention. Barr has brought more media attention to this party than any other time in its history.
You think Ruwart would have accomplished that?
I don’t care if people aren’t behind him. I’m just sick of people saying he isn’t “libertarian” enough. These people know nothing of politics. You have to compromise somewhere to succeed in politics. Its just how they work.
Excuse us for not wanting to sell out our values and get behind a crummy candidate…just for a few extra votes this November.
Arthur = just another moron who doesn’t understand politics.
We currently have a huge federal government. You can’t go from that to complete individual rights with one candidate. You have to reduce it slowly and start from there. Reducing it to the states would be a huge step forward for a future President to keep going.
It would be nice if we can get some people in this party who actually understand how Washington works. They’ll keep living in their utopia’s though talking about how people aren’t enough something.
Ummm…that the First State Chairman of New Hampshire and someone involved with the birth of the libertarian party is backing George Phillies.
Wasn’t that very clear?
What the hell is the point of this?