Wrights wins straw poll
All three candidates participating in the candidate debate at the South Carolina Libertarian Party State Convention agreed that building the Libertarian Party would be a primary goal of their presidential campaign if they won the nomination.
In the two-hour event, Lee Wrights, Roger Gary and Carl Person outlined how they would use their campaigns to deliver the Libertarian message to all 50 states, recruit new members to the party, and help state and local candidates.
Lee Wrights won the straw poll taken after the debate. There was a three-way tie in the vote cast by the state’s national convention delegates attending the debate.
The debate was actually an interesting and enlightening discussion by the candidates of the variety of ways and the different approaches they would take to building the Libertarian Party.
The debate was videoed by Shane Killian, Wrights 2012 campaign videographer.
UPDATE: Full video of the debate is now up at Wrights2012.com.
Knapp: “Politics is a team sport. Why wouldn’t you want to be on the same team as the players you’re rooting for?”
Politics is about idealogy. If a person is on a different “team” (as in a political party) than I’m in but they support my idealogy then I’ll support them.
re 83. That is interesting. It didn’t bounce and others received it. Gives one cause to pause. Be that as it may, the issue is taken care of.
The LP has a new piece up on the issues page of the website under foreign policy. Check it out y’all.
@71,
Nothing from you on November 8th, and nothing in the “junk” folder trapped as spam from you on the 8th.
Could you please send it again?
RC@81,
Whatever floats your boat. Have you considered getting a “Nihilist Taoists for Paul or Johnson” meetup going?
79 tk, I would very most likely vote for GJ or RP if they got the R nomination, as that would most likely advance liberty. I would do so even if the LP nominated one of the current L candidates.
I’d say that would be the right thing to do, even if some might view this as not being a “team” player.
MHW @ 76: [email protected] or [email protected]
JT @78,
“And he wants that one or two candidate(s) to seek party A’s nomination instead?”
Fair cop — I momentarily lost my grip on that nuance.
CM@75,
Thanks for the extended explanation. As noted above, I somehow dropped the context that you’re looking at Johnson for the LP nomination, not the GOP nomination.
Knapp: “I’m asking why someone who wants to be part of a political party would want to be part of political party A when he prefers the candidates of political party B so much that he’d rather political party A didn’t run a candidate.”
Because, in this particular case (probably one of a tiny percentage), he considers one or two political party B candidate(s) good ideologically and far better in other ways compared to the announced candidates for political party A’s nomination? And he wants that one or two candidate(s) to seek party A’s nomination instead?
Out of curiosity, what is it about Wrights, Gary, or Harris that makes them inferior to NOTA in your view? I can guess with Harris, but I’m completely baffled with Wrights and Gary.
Anyone have Jill’s email address?
Tom Knapp wrote (@50):
Tom Knapp wrote (@73):
I support the best libertarian for our nomination — the libertarian who combines the best positions on the issues, speaking ability, and credentials. I don’t care if that person was registered Libertarian or Democrat or Republican a month ago. I also support libertarian candidates whether they run as Libertarians or Republicans or Democrats — though I prefer that they run as Libertarians. I am a monthly pledger to both the Libertarian Party and the Republican Liberty Caucus.
The fact that my top pick happens to be a Republican now and that all of the currently declared Libertarian candidates are worse than NOTA now is merely a coincidence. I would prefer many past Libertarian candidates to NOTA. For example, I would prefer George Phillies, Mary Ruwart, Mike Jingozian, Steve Kubby, Barry Hess, Michael Badnarik, and Gary Nolan to NOTA. If any of them would enter the race, that would be wonderful.
Perhaps when I see more from the current crop of presidential contenders I may come to prefer one or more of them to NOTA. So far I’m not impressed.
Tk, I do believe that CM took his NOTA lean prior to the GJ speculation getting semi-serious. I note that a candidate calling for legalizing bestiality since then as well. It appears to’ve cemented his NOTA stance all the more. There are many lessarchist paths.
JT,
I’m asking why someone who wants to be part of a political party would want to be part of political party A when he prefers the candidates of political party B so much that he’d rather political party A didn’t run a candidate.
Knapp: “Politics is a team sport. Why wouldn’t you want to be on the same team as the players you’re rooting for?”
Not sure I understand. Or are you asking why someone would want to be involved with the LP if that person could ever think a Republican or Democratic candidate is better than the announced Libertarian candidates for the LP nomination for President?
Mr. Flood @ 64 the date was November 8th and it was sent to your lp.org email address.
If you read state law, I believe you will find a section (at least a section that was there a decade ago when I was on a jury) that prohibits a jury from discussing the law or referencing any material related to the law. I believe it also applied to a defendant mentioning the law, since the jury (if there is one) would hear you.
While there may be a law that says such, it is obviously flawed! Juries have the right to judge not only the facts of the case, but the law itself!
@67 TK for 2nd string?
RC: “Paul/Johnson has an outside chance of obtaining Perot-type numbers.”
Me: A great idea. RC, go ahead and call them up or email them ASAP for the big game, the sooner the better.
We can start practicing now, in 2011.
also @65
“if the team can pickup LeShawn Jackson for the backup long snapper, it’d be super-foolish not to do so.”
That’s a reasonable position.
Chuck’s position that if the LP can’t pick up LeShawn Jackson, it should just forfeit, on the other hand, isn’t.
RC@65,
“Some TV, half a million votes is the likely outcome of GJ as L nominee.”
Um, no. The likely outcome of GJ as L nominee is zero votes, because he’s not even seeking the L nomination.
63 tk: Politics is a team sport.
me: Yes, but if the team can pickup LeShawn Jackson for the backup long snapper, it’d be super-foolish not to do so.
I’d say it’s a team sport with a purpose. Now, I spose that GJ is not an especially good choice if the purpose is to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state. Any semi-articulate idealogue could do that, traversing the country to coffee socials in the homes of Ls, holding high the pure message of NAP-ism. Whether that’s worth the effort…dunno.
If the purpose is to enhance liberty, OTOH, GJ seems like an excellent option.
I note that I’d see GJ likely being in the Barr category. He has less baggage than Barr, and seems less likely to infuriate the angrytarian element.
Some TV, half a million votes is the likely outcome of GJ as L nominee.
Paul/Johnson has an outside chance of obtaining Perot-type numbers.
Mr Wilson @56,
Could you tell me approximately when you sent it, or possibly forward me another copy? I know that we have communicated a few times in the past, but unless this is a really old message I can’t see anything recent from you.
If it is something that I have the ability to influence, then I will certainly try to help.
“You don’t think there are any other good reasons to be involved in the LP in that case?”
Politics is a team sport. Why wouldn’t you want to be on the same team as the players you’re rooting for?
First to @52 then @56
The export is the golf balls that end up in the ocean.
You were close.
As far as a transcript is concerned, I would recommend that you contact the County Clerk of Court.
If you read state law, I believe you will find a section (at least a section that was there a decade ago when I was on a jury) that prohibits a jury from discussing the law or referencing any material related to the law. I believe it also applied to a defendant mentioning the law, since the jury (if there is one) would hear you.
Knapp: “If your preferences start with a Republican and go to NOTA before you even reach the Libertarians, why be involved in the Libertarian Party in the first place?”
You don’t think there are any other good reasons to be involved in the LP in that case? I wouldn’t disavow the party just because I think any of the other candidates for the nomination is too weak to vote for this time around, and I’d rather have a libertarian-leaning Governor as the 2012 candidate or none of the above.
RC@57,
“if the declared Ls were not qualified and worse options than NOTA, it’d be easy for a L to prefer a R at the top of the ticket if the R were a proponent of liberty AND qualified.”
All I’m saying is that if you prefer an R to an L at the top of the ticket, you should become an R.
“GJ is a R because that was a vehicle that better advanced his agenda than the LP.”
Exactly.
If you decide that a mini-van is a better vehicle for you than a Harley, go with the mini-van — and take off the fucking Harley t-shirt.
We are so microscopic. I hope that Gary Johnson joins our team of microbes, then we’d be like a real big organism.
I agree that if Harris does indeed attack Gary Johnson, that it would be a huge mistake. It would also be a mistake for him to believe that he’s anywhere near the importance & proven track record of Johnson. We already have enough narcissistic personalities in the LP.
50 tk, for me, if the declared Ls were not qualified and worse options than NOTA, it’d be easy for a L to prefer a R at the top of the ticket if the R were a proponent of liberty AND qualified. GJ is a R because that was a vehicle that better advanced his agenda than the LP.
Just because a L is a member does not make him/her qualified to run for prez. (By “qualified” I don’t simply mean meeting the constitutional requirements. I’m referring to skills and resume.)
Mr. Flood since you have time to spend on IPR this morning do you think you might have time to answer the email I sent to you and other members of the LNC asking about up dating the issues section of the national web site? It is seriously out of date and that does not help our candidates or the general membership.
@50 Maybe he’s never heard of “All of the Above”?
@52
Golf isn’t an export… however, there are tons of strip clubs and “spas” – so I’ll guess STD’s!
btw, I only lived/worked in the Myrtle area for 1 year… I want to file a complaint against a judge who threatened me with contempt of court for mentioning case law during a jury trial for a seatbelt violation, however I can’t seem to obtain a transcript of my case. I’ve requested one on at least 2 occasions and asked a paralegal friend to request one, still haven’t gotten it. Any suggestions?
Hit pieces against Gary Johnson?
This has to be asked: what makes Mr Harris’ campaign believe that he is even in the same league as Mr Johnson? If true, then he really doesn’t get it. If Mr Johnson or Dr Paul (or both!) were to seek our nomination then Mr Harris probably won’t get enough support to even enter the debate!
(and again, since all of this thread is discussion of rumors, it is possible that none of the rumors we are commenting about are true)
@49…
As a former resident of Surfside Beach, you should have known the answer!
That said, I’m sure that you know the answer to question 24:
What is the major export of the Grand Strand?
@50 Stop asking intelligent questions. You will create confusion. (8^))
Chuck @ 47,
If your preferences start with a Republican and go to NOTA before you even reach the Libertarians, why be involved in the Libertarian Party in the first place?
@43 – not finding anything on google connecting “spring break” with Charleston, cannons and Citadel Cadets.
I can only guess you’re referring to a battle at Fort Sumter or Fort Moultrie.
PS
As a former resident of Surfside Beach, SC – can I get a waiver on answering this question?
46 gp, what’s the basis of the attack?
I hope those rumors are true! I would definitely support Johnson over the whole field.
At this point my preferences are:
Gary Johnson > NOTA > everybody else declared
If R.J. Harris is attacking Gary Johnson, then that is yet another reason not to support Harris.
Meanwhile, my highly reliable sources indicate that a consulting group associated with Harris’s campaign has started circulating attack material against Gary Johnson, based on a fear that Johnson is considering re-activating his current Libertarian Party Membership.
When Romney and Newt are calling for an END to Due Process and receiving a monstrous applause at the Wofford debate by South Carolinians no less, it would have been nice to have had Wrights or Gary or someone present to DEFEND liberty. It seems Ron Paul was allowed 89 seconds to talk at the CBS 90 minute “debate”. So much for DUE PROCESS even in a POTUS Debate!
Everyone needs to understand it IS a rigged game. The major media in this nation is OWNED by big Pharma and the Military Industrial Complex and ANYONE who opposes the foreign policy of the “KLEPTOCRACY” will be minimized, demonized or KOOKIFIED. Payed ads, grassroots activism and positive local media combined is the way to BYPASS the rigged system.
Carpe Diem…
Chuck @34…
If he took responsibility then that’s ok. But he did try to claim a poll as the reason that Mr Harris did not appear.
Steven @42…
Bingo!!! Ambition. He is building something for the long term, but it isn’t the Libertarian Party.
LP Guy @35…
I never said that I didn’t believe he was in a parade. But parades do not win conventions and delegates do not like being told by a candidate that he is the front-runner.
I did not hear either Mr Wrights, Mr Gary, or Mr Pearson claiming at any point on Saturday that they were the front-runner. They understand that front-runners only win if they take 51% on the first ballot or if the number three candidate is close in ideology and will endorse them when he/she is eliminated.
But the game is changing…and soon!
Darryl @37
You missed the second question. The answer is obvious, and it happened in Charleston.
Think cannons and Citadel Cadets.
I believe Harris will take a different path than past LP nominees. The idea of working hard only at the door of the convention to find a secret double scoop of intrigue is a real fact.
LP convention goers condition Presidential nominees to wait into the last to do something like a campaign move. LP conventions are like pep rallies. Make a pitch and you get the …
Harris is a tea party activist. He did some spots in don’t tread on me and is actively working on gaining ballot access for his home state. He is active in Native american issues.
His won’t be conventional nor expensive, but I would score him to be more effective than others. He is working from the ground up. I believe Harris is building something for the long term.
But he is a party jumper and his ambition is hard to disguise.
@39 Not appearing debates appearing on video is bad for Harris. Video debate coverage is far easier than in 2008, notwithstanding the issues we had with our June debate, with Sony cameras that used the one format that Camtasia does not handle directly.
By the financial standards of 2008, 2004, 2000, or 1996, Harris’s campaign does not need to be taken seriously.
LP Guy @ 35,
“If you don’t know that RJ is the front runner from everything that has surfaced … then you shouldn’t be in politics”
I think it’s reasonable to describe Harris as the front runner at the moment. He’s running a good ground game so far.
However, LP presidential politics are volatile, quick-moving and often decided at the last minute. Additional thoughts here.
“he obviously would represent and compete at a Presidential Level”
That’s not obvious to anyone who’s taken even a cursory look at past LP candidacies or at the current all-around political situation. No one in the current field, IMO, would likely perform beyond the 400k vote range unless there’s some sudden and apocalyptic change in American politics.
LG @ 26: Don’t you have friends in the CA LP? I’m not on the executive
committee anymore, but I suspect they might be able to find a spot for you. I’ll also make inquiries for you.
@Stewart,
1) What color is the South Carolina State Flag?
The SC Flag has a white palmetto tree on a blue background.
2) What is the origin of ‘Spring Break’?
According to SpringBreak.com
3) What two rivers meet in Charleston Harbor to form the Atlantic Ocean?
The Ashley & Cooper rivers converge in Charleston.
Still does have a following but they are not libertarians as such. They are hard core greenbackers from what I know of them. He has a few in Tennessee. But Still is well connected in monetary theory and finance reform.
Still is going to suffer if he doesn’t communicate his own thoughts on other issues. If he doesn’t care about them, then he should not be a candidate, rather, he should be a fellow at Cato or an adviser for another candidate for monetary policy.
When Still begins talking about money and banking models, it becomes a lecture series, and I would score that as his only A game. He doesn’t appear to have any other game of expertise.
From what I see.. If you don’t know that RJ is the front runner from everything that has surfaced… then you shouldn’t be in politics… From RJ Harris’ website he obviously was in a parade.. If the field stays the same it will be RJ Harris’ to take because he obviously would represent and compete at a Presidential Level beyond the nomination… So we will see come Las Vegas ;=)
Stewart Flood wrote (@16):
That may have been my poor word choice. He conveyed there was a miscommunication and he took personal responsibility for it, saying he will be sure to double check all future conventions before getting in his car. I never got the impression he was blaming anyone in South Carolina.
Stewart @16, what problems do you see with having a split delegation? It seems to me that the wonderful elimination-round style of voting would encourage the formation of split delegations. You simply support whichever one you like the best, and if they’re eliminated you switch to the other one.
In Still’s defense, I think it’s the passive-voice construction that’s confusing the issue. “I was misinformed” doesn’t necessarily mean “Stewart Flood misinformed me;” in fact, I took it to mean “I made a mistake and got the date wrong.” If there’s one thing Still’s been, it’s straightforward, so I’d take it in that way.
Also, the poll he’s talking about used to be here, and Still swamped it just by putting a blurb on his website; he ended up with over a thousand votes in the poll. That shows that he has a strong base of support, but those supporters won’t necessarily be LNC delegates. And for him to suggest that an online poll makes Harris scared to debate him is fatuous.
LG @29,
If you can answer the citizen test, you may qualify to join our delegation.
The first question, of course, is “What color is the South Carolina State Flag?”
They get easier after that, with questions like “What is the origin of ‘Spring Break’?” and “What two rivers meet in Charleston Harbor to form the Atlantic Ocean?”
Real easy stuff.
George @27
Yes, I believe that this was a good outing for both Mr Wrights and Mr Gary. I do not believe that it “hurt” Mr Pearson, but our delegates don’t know anything about him. His recent controversy made me quite a bit uneasy, but since I already had disagreements with some of his stated positions it is not necessarily a factor to me other than to point out what the media would do to him if selected.
please do … Id like my eggs in a row before I get there
@26 Not from my state, not after the 2002 Carpetbaggers for XXX — Yes, they had little badges that said that, and the actual candidate name was there instead of XXX.
I will make inquiries.
@19 It was way bigger than the smallest event I attended in 2007-2008. Sorry it wasn’t bigger.
However, from the candidate standpoint, you are trying to get delegates, and to get delegates you are trying to get donors and volunteers, so it sounds likely from your estimate that for Wrights and Gary this will be a nearly perfect convention.
I look forward to seeing the event. It sounds as though you did an excellent job.
George , can I get on in your state as a delegate?? chances are I will not be able to get on here in Nevada. I have 3 others to find spots for as well
Tom,
I understand. It is possible that someone else told them that there would be hundreds of people there, but it wasn’t me.
As to the website…very sore point. But at the convention our new state chair said that it is one of his priorities.
Brian,
Thanks for the comment. The candidates did have slight differences on a few of the questions, so I would qualify this as a debate…but we all know that the debate among Libertarians over many issues gets you identical positions.
I felt that the way to give the audience (both present and online) would be to get them to talk about their methods, rather than their beliefs.
Stewart,
Just to be clear here, I’m not trying to level any accusations, or even insinuations, at SCLP or for that matter at Harris.
My sources (whom I don’t care to burn, but I heard essentially the same version from two) basically said that Harris thought the event was going to be bigger and more publicized than it was, and decided the travel money just wasn’t the best investment of campaign funds when he found out different.
If that’s the case, it may very well have been an invitation to another event that pushed him off a fence on the “not attend” side.
While no longer an LP member, I certainly applaud LP activists for being active, and for putting on events like the one you had this weekend.
I do hope you’ll update your web site, though. I actually considered a last-minute road trip (people I want to see down there, and on the way down there, so it would have been a nice excuse for one), but couldn’t find any details about the convention in the most obvious place.
#14
Just to clarify, that would be Thomas Hill, not me, checking the schedule.
As I said in our website post, this wasn’t really a debate, but a fascinating discussion of the different ways each of the candidates there would build the Libertarian Party from the ground up. We commend Mr. Flood for channeling the event in the direction he did, focusing on ballot access, and building the LP, which are goals of this campaign.
While I understand the choice not to ask Person about his position on bestiality at this debate (due to the recency of the issue), I do hope that the next debate/forum Mr. Person is in results in him being asked.
He’s made a gutsy move to lead with his chin and he should be rewarded for it…good and hard.
And to Dr Phillies…
It was interesting. I have moderated candidate debates on radio before, so the fact that I was behind the camera made it very easy to just go into on-air mode and draw the candidates out.
It was fun.
And regardless of the size of our convention, the reason for candidates attending certainly included the debate.
Mr Harris and Mr Still were told that our intent was to have the debate recorded, so they have only themselves to blame for their failure to be in what everyone will hopefully find to be a rather good debate.
The comments about the size of the convention require a response:
I told Mr Harris’ campaign that there were usually between 35-40 delegates to the convention. I stated that there were also usually several people attending who were not delegates, so the number could be slightly higher. We do usually have 30-40 delegates, so that was not an unusual number to express to candidates.
I never said anything about how it was being advertised. We place a notice in the paper (as required), notify delegates (as required) and hold our convention. Email was sent to non-delegates by a number of county chairs announcing that there would be a debate, but they did that independently of the state party.
When the candidate’s representative called me on the day that Mr Harris withdrew, she asked me how many delegates we have to the national convention. I told her that it would be either 13 or 14, depending on the membership numbers at the end of the month. While the response was “that’s larger than our state”, it was clear from the hesitation in her voice that the person I was talking to did not believe that 13 or 14 delegates are worth bothering about. This makes me believe that the comment in #17 regarding the size of our convention may be partially accurate.
I was told that Mr Harris had been asked to be in a parade (later modified by his representative at our convention to a personal invitation by their Governor to make a speech from the steps of their state capitol.
But…since the conversation started with the statement that he had been invited to another event, I believe it is more likely that the size of our delegation was not the reason for cancellation, but certainly did not lead them to decide to attend it instead of the parade.
The fact that about half of our delegates either decided to go to the other side of the state to watch Dr Paul in a debate or failed to attend for other reasons is unimportant. Three candidates appeared, and I understand that they have been visiting the smaller states as well as the larger ones.
I think that it is more important to focus on the candidates who are interacting with the states, large or small, than with candidates who ride in parades.
@16 Welcome to the august company of Libertarian Presidential debate moderators.
Good choice: focusing the debate on a primary function of the campaign, namely party building.
I urge all Libertarians who like a candidate to break out the check book and write a check, and break out the time clock and give the candidate some time.
Unlike 2008, we do not have any deep pockets candidates running. If you do not support your candidate, or some candidate, the candidate will not be doing much for the party.
That makes three versions of the “why RJ Harris wasn’t there” story I’ve heard — two of them in this thread (he had a parade to attend, he’s afraid of Bill Still), one elsewhere (that version basically said that South Carolina had said it would be a large, advertised event and it turned out to be a small, unadvertised event that just wasn’t a good investment of limited campaign funds to travel to).
I doubt that Harris is afraid of Still.
The parade story makes a little sense, if he’s planning to move on from presidential campaigning to a local campaign in the future.
The third version makes the most sense — when I tried to find information about the SCLP convention, all I could find via Google was an SCLP web site that apparently hadn’t been updated since early in the 2010 election cycle.
Mr Still was not misinformed about our convention. If he made that statement then he was lying. I personally called him and gave him the date and time of the convention. I personally called and talked to all of the candidates.
When I talked to Mr Still on Friday afternoon, (after he had already started his drive home), he admitted to me that he had confused the dates. He then went on to state that (again what appears to be a lie) Mr Harris was not attending because he (Still) had beaten him in some poll in Mississippi and that Harris was afraid to debate him.
I no longer consider Mr Still to be a serious candidate. He is certainly not a front-runner.
Yes, we have a split delegation at this time. I do not believe that will be the case when South Carolina votes in Vegas. If I were placing odds on it, I would say that Mr Harris will retain his one delegate (who is on his staff), with the other delegates supporting either Mr Gary or Mr Wrights. We will not have empty seats in our delegation.
@13, @14,
Yes. a single-issue campaign is a tough row to hoe.
It’s even tougher if you disagree on that issue with most members of the party whose nomination you’re seeking.
And if you’re a single-issue candidate who only wants to talk about the issue you disagree with the party on, but don’t want to talk about that issue very much because you disagree with the party on it … well, I’m pretty sure you’re wasting your time.
I think Still made the right decision once he got to South Carolina, but it’s still a seriously inept rookie mistake caused by Still’s complete lack of campaign mechanism. By way of comparison, Wrights wouldn’t make a mistake like that because Brian Irving would be double-checking the schedule. Harris wouldn’t make a mistake like that because the consulting firm he’s hired would be double-checking the schedule.
The rest of your comment paints a very disappointing picture of Still. It seems he is a single-issue candidate trying to run only on that single issue. I’m going to go ahead and say that a single-issue campaign for a third-party presidential ticket is a non-starter. Since the whole point of the run is to spread the message of the party, it defeats the purpose if the candidate is only interested in discussing one issue that may or may not be in line with the party’s platform.
So it seems that the field as currently constructed has two candidates running solid, active campaigns (Harris and Wrights); one candidate running a solid, if quieter, campaign (Gary); two candidates with active campaigns but serious flaws (Still and Person); and a bevy of minor candidates whose campaigns are in various states of disarray.
Bill Still attended the LPNOVA (Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia) convention on Saturday afternoon. He told us he was misinformed about the date of the South Carolina convention but didn’t stay down there because he was already scheduled to appear at the New Jersey convention on Sunday. The LPNOVA convention was very near where he lives and on the way to New Jersey.
When we questioned Still about the issues he refused to discuss any issue except for monetary policy because he said those issues weren’t important to him. For example, he mentioned that government should be funded through tariffs and excise taxes. I naturally asked him if he planned on raising tariffs. His response was that he wasn’t going to reveal his position on tariffs until he was nominated at the national convention. This reminded me of Nancy Pelosi’s quip that Congress had to pass the healthcare bill if they wanted to find out what’s in it.
Not only did Still refuse to discuss any other issue besides monetary policy, but he also refused to discuss monetary policy in much detail. He is a greenbacker, meaning he wants to completely monetize the current debt and future deficits by having the treasury issue fiat money to cover all government spending beyond tax revenues (he kept referring to federal reserve issued money as “debt backed money”, and said he wants “debt free money” instead). I consider this to be a terrible (and un-libertarian) monetary policy, so I tried discussing the specifics with him. We went back and forth for 5 minutes, then he insisted we postpone that conversation until another time (perhaps by email) and gave me his card. He said he wanted to talk to each person there about his campaign. That seemed very reasonable, but a bit silly when he didn’t address any issue anyone asked him about (and many people tried). At least he was willing to discuss his background / biography.
I wasn’t impressed.
So far my vote is still for NOTA.
Still showed up a day early and then left? Geez. This is what happens when you try to run for President with no campaign staff and no one to check your schedule.
I said in late October that I found Still’s unpreparedness charming. It’s now less so. I’d say he has another month, at most, to get his organization in order and start running a real campaign. Otherwise he risks being dismissed by the LNC delegates.
3way tie? Were there 3 people there? 1-1-1?
Oh…and I handed ballots to the three candidates, so assuming that they each voted for themselves, the results from the audience would have been:
Wrights 4
Gary 3
Pearson 2
Statistically, this is a tie, especially since the votes cast by delegates going to the national convention was a tie!
Since I moderated the debate and conducted the poll, I believe it is appropriate for me to comment.
We originally expected the convention business to end around 3:30pm, so we scheduled the debate for 6-8pm. The convention business ended earlier than expected, and there was a competing debate scheduled that evening by some party who’s name starts with the letter “R”, so our audience was not as large as I would have expected it to be.
We moved up the debate to 5:30 once all the candidates had arrived, and there were about a dozen people watching, exclusive of campaign staff accompanying candidates.
The results of the straw poll were:
Wrights 5
Gary 4
Pearson 3
NOTA 1 (Harris was written in below where NOTA was checked)
We named five of our 13 (or 14?) delegates at the convention . Four of them were in attendance and their votes (different color ballot) were one for each of the three candidates present and the vote for NOTA (Harris).
Mr Still arrived a day early, and left. Mr Harris originally confirmed, but his campaign called me a week ago to tell me that he had been invited to be in a Veteran’s Day parade and would not be attending our convention.
No other candidates were invited. We only invited the candidates who have filed campaign committees. Even the two South Carolinians who contacted me to say that they are running were excluded, since neither one has a formal campaign.
I want to first thank the three candidates who attended. They gave us an opportunity to hear details of the campaign strategies, as well as question them on specific issues.
We had originally intended to record the event ourselves, however Mr Wrights campaign staff came prepared to record it, which gave us a much better result than I would have gotten otherwise.
I have previewed some of the video from the copy of the raw footage that I was given after the event It looks great, and will certainly be even better once it has been edited. I encourage everyone to view it once Mr Wrights’ campaign has posted it.
My intention in the line of questioning I chose was to use this as an opportunity to get the candidates to discuss their campaigns, rather than just issues. The questions were intended to lead them into a discussion of ways they would use their campaign to build the party — and it worked.
Personally, I consider the two front runners to be among those who attended our convention. Mr Harris did not appear to have any support other than the single delegate at our convention who is also serving as his state coordinator.
No one at our convention other than the candidates and their representatives had ever even heard of Mr Still, so he’s clearly a non-started…especially after showing up a day early and then leaving because he had something else scheduled for Saturday. That’s about -50 points in my book.
I was aware of the recent controversy regarding Mr Pearson that has been covered in other articles on IPR, but no one else at our convention was. It is unlikely that he would have received any votes at all if the audience had been aware of his comments.
So while Mr Wrights did win the straw poll among audience members who will not be attending the national convention, it is important to note that it was by a single vote. and that Mr Wrights, Mr Gary, Mr Harris and Mr Pearson each received support from one delegate to the the national convention.
@2 Only because of your equally magnificent opening.
In fairness, Still might advance, but at this point he appears to focused on the money issue. However, I can point at other candidates who started with that problem and overcame it.
Pray tell, what was the straw poll vote?
George, you could hold a presidential debate literally in Milnes’ backyard and he’d complain about something.
Ha! Well played, sir.
@2 Robert Milnes has difficulty traveling this far.
I was referring to Bill Still, but I wouldn’t describe him as a front-runner yet. I would say at this point he has the potential to be a frontrunner.
@ 2
Besides Mr. Harris, who is the other front runner?
Not to be a spoilsport, but of course Lee Wrights won the straw poll; his two main rivals weren’t at the debate.
I appreciate Lee Wrights good comments about ballot access.
A tiny correction…he said there were 217 candidates on the California October 2003 recall gubernatorial election, but actually it was 135.