Ann Coulter, a sometime spokeswoman for the Republican Party, had some surprising comments for people who might be considering voting for a Libertarian candidate.
This is the verbiage of the last paragraph of her column from September 17th:
Which brings me to my final assignment this week: If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.
This caught the attention of a few other columnists. A writer from Salon had this lead-in as the first sentence of his column:
Stumbling on perhaps the sole belief she shares in common with many readers of Salon, Ann Coulter writes in her latest column that people who vote for libertarian candidates are “idiots.”
A few other columnists had some fun with Ms. Coulter.
Austin Cassidy from Uncovered Politics
So here’s an idea, if you want to send Coulter your address so she can come and kill you, consider doing it via the Federal Elections Commission. Make a donation to Robert Sarvis for U.S. Senate in Virginia, and then Ann will be able to look you up via the campaign’s FEC reports.
Mr. Cassidy continues:
Or perhaps stick an Adrian Wyllie for Governor sign on her lawn.
Ronald Bailey of Reason writes:
In Virginia, I am voting for the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, Robert Sarvis, this November.
So O.K., Ms. Coulter, come give drowning me a try. My home address in Charlottesville is marked on the map. Google Map directions to my house from your digs in Palm Beach are below. See you soon.
And, he even includes a map!
And, finally, if you’re ready to read the article in question yourself:
You can read the column itself in its entirety here.
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/29/6840773/confessions-of-a-former-internet-troll
Confirmed: FBI and DHS spied on Occupy Wall Street
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFqrvdxyN54
DHS confirms it’s spying on ‘anti-government’ Americans
http://www.examiner.com/article/dhs-confirms-it-s-spying-on-anti-government-americans
How the NSA Spies on Americans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whwc6lVZzl4
This crap has been going on for years but they seem to have stepped it up recently.
Andy,
That’s troubling.
I’m not an expert in either surveillance or countermeasures, but I would suggest having your cell phones and computers gone over by someone who is.
“Thomas L. Knapp October 2, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Paulie,
Is this over the short term and limited to one locality, or long term and/or over a wide geographical area?”
This has been going on for a while, and in multiple states.
Paulie,
Is this over the short term and limited to one locality, or long term and/or over a wide geographical area?
If the former, I’d look in your circle of friends and acquaintances for someone who may or may not be a government agent but is keeping better track of you than you might have noticed and would, for some reason, be inclined to talk out of school.
If the latter, I’d put some serious security eyeballs on your electronic devices. Once again it might be government or non-government, but someone having remote access to, or some kind of spy/forward info program on, your computer or phone would be very explanatory.
But yes, I can see why that would raise government/COINTELPRO type flags in one’s mind. Could be private, but that stuff is presumably easier for government.
They seem to have information that they would have no logical way of having, such as what motels and room numbers we stay at, who Andy was talking to on the phone, and a lot of other things that get twisted around (along with calls for violence, false criminal accusations and revealing personal info without permission) on Vernon’s hate blog.
I suppose the place to start when inquiring as to why you believe you have “become the target of one o[r] more government internet trolls?” would be with “why do you believe that your alleged targeters have telephone surveillance capabilities?”
“Robert Capozzi October 2, 2014 at 6:17 am
Andy, your 6 points present a certain profile, one that is probably not too attractive to majorities.”
Certainly not to the ruling control freak “authorities,” or to their mindless sheep followers.
This is one of the reasons that I’ve become the target of one of more government internet trolls. We now know that whoever it is that has been doing the trolling here for the last few years, and who has recently taken their trolling beyond this forum, does have telephone surveillance capabilities.
“If the LP is going to get in the moral behavior advocacy business, maybe encourage:”
There is a difference between behaviors/choices in people’s personal lives, and behaviors in the world of politics. Sure, sometimes the two can become intertwined, but I’m focusing on what people do politically, as in things they do that support the political establishment, and how we can encourage people to do things that take power away from the political establishment.
pf, yes, although whether it’s WISE for politicians and political parties to get into either set is, ahem, dicey at best.
It’s not mutually exclusive, although neither set of advocacy positions requires a political party. It’s one tool in the toolbox though.
Andy, your 6 points present a certain profile, one that is probably not too attractive to majorities.
If the LP is going to get in the moral behavior advocacy business, maybe encourage:
1) Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty
2) Engage (carefully) with racists and haters in an attempt to unearth their deep-seated mental illness; failing that, run from them.
3) Encourage interracial and intragender relationship pairings if love is there
Andy,
I’m not disputing that there are many ways in which we can exert a political effect. That’s absolutely true.
I’m just saying that in my opinion, to the extent the GOP perceives us as a partisan threat, that perception is about us being “spoilers” who can have outsized impacts on narrow races.
American electoral politics is playing out within a fairly narrow range these days. There’s a constant struggle to change House and Senate majorities, and those majorities are really decided in a handful of races (in most House races the outcome is already gerrymandered; in the Senate the power of incumbency and the fact that only a third of seats are even up for election every two years narrows it down to a very few competitive contests).
Because the important races are reduced to a few, and because the reasons those races are important tend to be same reasons that make them competitive, the LP’s small usual percentages are more of a factor than they used to be. Not because we’re likely to win but because we’re likely to cover the margin of victory and because the Republicans believe (often falsely) that most our votes come out their hides rather than the Democrats’ hides. So they’ve begun fighting us harder at the ballot access level, at the debate inclusion level, etc.
Thomas Knapp said: “If the perceived problem is a growing L ideological threat, then the LAST thing they want to do is suppress the LP. They prefer to let us be an ineffectual annex for their dissidents, who with nowhere else to go might otherwise stay in the GOP and change it.”
There are other ways that the Libertarian Party can be effective without electing anyone to office. They include (in no particular order):
1) Spreading information about jury nullification of victimless crimes.
2) Spreading information about alternative currencies (crypto-currenices like Bitcoin, Litecoin, Darkcoin, etc…, as well as gold, silver, or anything else people can use as an alternative to Federal Reserve Notes).
3) Encouraging people to home school their children, or to find other alternatives to the government school system.
4) Encouraging people to stock up on guns and ammo. The more people who are armed, the more difficult it would be for the government to enact mass gun confiscation.
5) Encouraging young people to no register for the military draft, and to not join the military.
6) Encouraging people to not pay taxes, or at least to avoid paying them whenever possible.
Just spreading information that turns people against the government is a threat to the government. The less people who believe in the system the greater the odds are that the system can be toppled.
I don’t think it’s a first time. And I am not only talking about Republicans.
Republicans, thinking more than three months down the road?
OK, I suppose it’s possible. There is, after all, a first time for everything.
I think they have both immediate threats and long-term potential threats in mind when they attack us.
I guess I see more realistic potential for an LP breakthrough than RC and TLK do.
But again, bear in mind that for the Republicans and/or elements in the government/establshment to see that as a threat it doesn’t even have to be true. Maybe some of them are a little paranoid? It wouldn’t be the first time.
“it’s a mistake to assume that it can’t happen – or to assume that they assume it can’t happen”
I don’t assume it can’t happen. I assume that we have no control over whether or not it happens (and neither do they).
I also assume, given that they’ve been winning a healthy percentage of elections for 160 years now, that they keep their eyes on the ball. They’re worried about the game of inches that exists, not the Hail Mary breakthrough that might possibly conceivably happen.
They’re not worried that they’re going to wake up one day years from now and find that we elected a Libertarian congressional majority in spite of them. They’re worried that they’re going to wake up one day a month and a week from now and find out that they didn’t re-elect Rick Scott or elect Tom Tillis or Sonny Perdue because of us.
That probably played a role. But there have been many other developments more recently. I don’t think an acceleration of attacks on LP ballot access and attack columns agains the LP just now is a delayed reaction to 2000; after all it was not happening in 2002, 2004 or 2006.
The increase in attacks has come along with
* The rise of “libertarian Republicans” and the threat that they may walk out of the NSGOP and go LP, reagrdless of whether that threat is real or merely potential
* The rise in public demand for a generic new major party and polling for various libertarian ideas
* The rise in polling and news coverage for some LP campaigns
* Better LP ballot access retention
* Rise of LP voter registration vis a vis other parties
* Increasing use of social media
Those things have been happening in the 2010s decade much more so than in the 2000s decade, especially the early or mid 2000s. So I think the anti-LP attacks are more closely related to those more recent developments than to a delayed reaction to the unusually close 2000 election.
PF, yes, well I would love to see a moderate L win a race somewhere. When I was still in the LP, I advocated a blitz for one House race. I wondered whether GJ could win in home district, for ex.
Anything is possible. Given the Trail of Tears that the LP has been and the insistence of maintaining extremist and false constructs in the party’s foundation, my sense is the LP is destined to be an asterisk at best. I may be proven wrong, but if there are some wins, I surely hope it’s not an extremist L. A win by an extremist L could blow up in everyone’s face.
(Here again, I could be incorrect. I don’t have the sense that NewsletterGate stigmatized all Ls as haters, as I feared it might. Then again, RP was never going to win, so his candidacy was not taken seriously.)
Of course, some Ls WERE elected to the AK legislature, yet that didn’t represent a tipping point.
Still, relative miracles are possible. Look at Eric Cantor’s loss in the primary.
…Sittin’ on the dock on the bay….
I don’t think that’s true. They know that it’s a game of inches and that a small breakthrough can lead to a big one.
None of those candidates represented a long term threat at all levels. The parties they created were largely personal vehicles and faded quickly without them at the helm. The LP is a more persistent threat to them which has the potential to take off beyond what one candidate can achieve with one campaign.
Yes, it does seem that way based on historical performance, but nevertheless that potential exists. Between the growing popularity of the ideas, the growing public demand for a new major party, […other factors mentioned above…]…and our internal performance measures you dismiss too easily, a breakthrough is always possible. And if we ever do “go viral” things may snowball for them quickly. Or, it may be a slow death for them. In either case, I can see why it would be hard to imagine things suddenly taking off after decades of spinning our wheels, but the conditions are ripe for a chain reaction. Also, the potential has always existed, which is probably a reason for a lot of the COINTELPRO-type stuff, to make sure it doesn’t get actualized.
Just because we’ve been wandering in the wilderness for 40 years doesn’t mean we necessarily always will be. It may or may not happen, but it’s a mistake to assume that it can’t happen – or to assume that they assume it can’t happen, whether or not it actually can – just because it hasn’t happened yet.
I disagree. Winning elections is not impossible. Lucas Overby might pull it off for congress, although that is a long shot…it’s less implausibe than any other past example I can think of.
We came very close to winning a couple of legislative races in 2012. While that would not be a huge breakthrough – we have done it before – it’s been quite a few years, so renewing that in addition to all the other things I mentioned would be another way we could hasten the possibility of breaking through to the next level.
Those are just some examples.
And non-wins can also be wins. If LP candidates for congress, governor etc start getting higher percentages (even without winning) it makes it easier for future serious potential candidates and their supporters to imagine winning as a serious possibility and jump in the race where they would have stayed out otherwise or devote more resources to it. Their supporters, media, and not coincidentally their opponents may take them more seriously as a result. If it leads to more debate inclusions that helps promulgate the ideas and push the other candidates regardless of who wins. And so on.
Neither do I.
Yep.
Not sure if isolating or co-opting Rand Paul is the game plan. He is very ambitious, so the game plan will probably be to have him make ever more compromises ideologically so he is allowed closer and closer to power, as well as to use him as an attack dog against the LP. Perhaps at some point, maybe even 2016, he could be co-opted as the VP candidate for an establishment Republican. 2016 is almost certainly too early, but at some point it may involve having him as their actual presidential candidate, but he will have to sell out anything good that he still stands for to be allowed to make that happen: say for example a Jeb Bush-Ron Paul ticket, or even the other way around, but with Bush having more actual power than Paul (as was most likely the case in the Reagan-Bush and Bush-Cheney administrations). Perhaps he could be blackmailed, or already has been? Lots of tools in their toolbox…
Our internal metrics (“we’re at 1%! we’re at 1%!”) don’t constitute the threat to the GOP as they see it.
Look at it in terms of history:
– for 40 years, the GOP was in the wilderness, never having a majority in both houses of Congress.
– From World War II until 1992 — right before the GOP got a taste of congressional majorities and the leisure to try to protect those majorities — third party presidential threats were REAL threats, not the LP pop gun. Thurmond. Wallace. Perot.
The GOP didn’t take much notice of the LP until 2000 because it had neither reason nor need nor leisure to do so. The LP wasn’t a threat compared to the real threats (the Democrats and the third party/independents that weren’t miniscule).
When and where did the GOP notice reason/need to fight the LP? My guess is, New Mexico and Florida in 2000. Their assessment, which is not proven but is at least arguable) is that Harry Browne hurt George W. Bush more than he hurt Al Gore — that if Browne hadn’t been on the ballot in New Mexico, Florida wouldn’t have mattered and that if Browne hadn’t been on the ballot in Florida, Florida wouldn’t have been a hanging-chad contest.
They no longer have to worry about the Dixiecrats or the Perotistas, and they have the leisure to try to smack down the LP as what it is: A minor nuisance that can occasionally have outsize consequences.
I have a better chance of reaching the moon by going out to my back yard and jumping as hard as I can than the LP has, on the basis of its own efforts rather than due to some unforeseeable apocalyptic breakdown, of “taking off and start surpassing them as a major party before too long.” That shit is Kool Aid.
I disagree. There are any number of ways in which we are growing as both an actual threat and as a potential threat. A partial list follows.
Actual:
Growing LP voter registration, far outsripping any other party that is anywhere near as big in percentage terms
Largest group of LP contenders for top level offices in a midterm election
Likely to be most votes cast for ” ….”
Likely best post-election ballot retention for the LP ever this year
Better than usual poll numbers and media coverage for a number of LP races this year
Best LP presidential performance in raw numbers last time and close second in percentage terms, after a long slump
Potential:
Growing knowledge of, understanding and identification with both the term libertarian and with libertarian views among the general public (especially young people)
Historically high support for a generic new major party
Historically high dissatisfaction with both existing establishment parties and with both congress and the president
Growing preponderance of non-establishment media and many-to-many as opposed to hierarchical information dissemination systems
Long standing regimes toppled around the world, often with new information technologies playing a key role
Add to this that Republicans feel increasingly vulnerable as their coalition is aging and breaking apart at the seams and as the demographic and ideological trends are working against them.
Think of it as a bandwagon or avalanche. If we start achieving a few breakthroughs in percentage terms here and there, not even necessarily wins, things can start to take off exponentially. They are aware of that potential and may be taking active steps to prevent it. Strike the may be part – see Illinois, Ohio, etc. There is no denying that ballot access challenges as well as these kinds of attack columns are becoming more frequent.
Again, I don’t agree. I’m sure at least some of their strategists are at least as concerned that a larger LP could start taking off and start surpassing them as a major party before too long. They may be more comfortable safely confining dissent within their primaries, or they may see both as threats (most likely). Perhaps some of them are aware that alt parties have played a major role in policy changes and the adoption of ideas historically even when they did not become major parties (socialists, progressives, prohibitionists etc).
tk: Wow … I seem to be less paranoid than Robert Capozzi!
me: Good for you, if so! My paranoia might be a 0.5, so if yours is lower, you may be Lao Tzu reincarnated!
tk: There is no “growing L threat” in any electoral sense.
me: Don’t disagree, in the sense of the LP winning elections. Nolan & Co made sure of that at the founding! 😉
I was offering a hypothesis that I suspect what some R operatives may be thinking. I don’t recall the GOP making such deliberate, apparently calculated, concerted attempts to block the LP in the past.
Bigger picture, though, could be that L-ism is becoming BOTH an ideological threat AND an electoral nuisance. Control freaks can tolerate soap box lunatics, but when the lunatics start to gather support and become semi-effective, the control freak may spend some resources to sabotage the fringe. All the action is on the margin, so the swing states is the logical place to sterilize the nuisance.
Internally, they are isolating Amash, and likely will also do so with Rand P if necessary.
Wow … I seem to be less paranoid than Robert Capozzi!
There is no “growing L threat” in any electoral sense. There’s the same static electoral threat there always has been: They think of us as “spoilers” who are taking votes which, had they nowhere else to go, would be Republican votes. We have occasional outlier results, but even the outliers are in the 1% range in presidential elections. Not sure what the top outlier number in a three-way congressional race is, but nowhere near plurality.
If the perceived problem is a growing L ideological threat, then the LAST thing they want to do is suppress the LP. They prefer to let us be an ineffectual annex for their dissidents, who with nowhere else to go might otherwise stay in the GOP and change it.
To the extent that there’s a range of Republican conspiracies to suppress the LP, it’s almost certainly entirely along the lines of “in a close race, an LP candidate might make it less likely that the Republican will win; so we need to block them from the ballot and, failing that, propagandize about ‘spoilers’ to minimize the LP vote and, when we do lose, blame the LP.”
pf: I’d say the Republican conspiracies to keep the LP off the ballot in Illinois (apparently unsuccessfully) and Ohio (apparently successfully) this year involved illegal activity.
me: Yes, both could well be criminal conspiracies. I do see THOSE sorts of potential conspiracies different that JP’s Trutherism and Rothschild/international banker theories and other stuff one sees coming from Jones and Ventura.
Why do I see them as different? Scale, in a word. Ballot access shenanigans just doesn’t seem quite as dysfunctional to me as Cheney ordered 9/11. Or even ISIS is Mossad psychops. Death, military campaigns, and global economic manipulation seem quite a bit more consequential in the big picture.
You beat me to it. I was typing a response that elaborated on that while you posted that.
I’d say the Republican conspiracies to keep the LP off the ballot in Illinois (apparently unsuccessfully) and Ohio (apparently successfully) this year involved illegal activity. Trolls having access to our personal information and possibly information for which I know of no source except our phone and email conversations probably involves illegal activity, although if it’s a government operation I guess that may depend on who gets to define “illegal”. Is there any illegal collusion involved in promulgating anti-LP talking points? That’s less likely, but if there is any coordination in doing so with Republican Party bosses who are also using aforementioned illegal tactics towards partisan cleansing of the ballot and/or government COINTELPRO types who are working to wreck the LP and other alt parties both from inside and out, it would make it part of a somewhat larger conspiracy (although still not a global grand conspiracy or anything approaching it).
Yes, and it’s also a potential threat to everything from the military-industrial complex of world policers, to the domestic espionage state, the police-prison-industrial/war on drugs complex, to the government pension scam (including law enforcement and intelligence agency employees). That’s a lot of powerful vested interests with a lot to lose if the LP starts living up to its potential, and many of those folks have been known to play dirty when their interests are threatened. There are also many ties between them. There’s plenty of motive and opportunity there.
Oh, yes, L-ism is also a big-time threat to the neocons.
Largely concur with TK. Partisan behavior does not rise to the level of “conspiracy” unless it involves, at minimum, illegal behavior. My take on Coulter is that she’s a childish clown, one who is hard to take seriously. The “drown” statement is facetious, obviously, one that is unfunny.
Were I running the RNC, I’d probably have a low-level staffing doing oppo research on the growing L threat. I wouldn’t were I head of the DNC. The reason is that even though Ls can draw evenly from R- and D-leaners, the ideological and regional schisms in the GOP are starker and more threatening to that party’s existence. It is becoming old, white, Southern and male.
A party where the corporatists have the money and the crackers have the bodies is an unsustainable edifice. It’s no surprise, then, that they want to take down the Pauls and Amash on the inside. And they certainly don’t want to lose close elections where an L might sway the vote to a D, even if there’s data suggesting that L candidates pull more-or-less evenly from either side.
Their reasonable perception is that L-ism is a threat to both corporatism AND social conservatism. It’s not a threat to interest-group politics nearly as much.
Yep, I agree with all of that.
Well, normally when people refer to “conspiracy theories,” they’re talking about the “global grand” kind that you refer to.
Pretty much any intentional act of any reasonable scale involves a conspiracy of SOME kind. Two people robbing a liquor store together are a conspiracy.
I tend to see most large-scale phenomena as a product of, as you put it, “many small conspiracies as well as some non-conspiratorial participation,” where the non-conspiratorial participation does actually further the overt act but the non-conspiratorial actors are ignorant of some or all (and of the what or of the why) of what they are furthering.
The thing about any theory is that in order to be a real theory it has to be falsifiable. That is, it has to consist of claims that can be tested and, if untrue, disproved.
Most of the “global grand” conspiracy theory advocates avoid this requirement by making non-falsifiable claims, by dropping claims that are falsified and replacing them with new claims in a never-ending chain so that the overall theory is a moving target that can never be hit, or by treating particulars which have several possible mutually exclusive implications as “proof” of only one of those implications without bothering to either prove that implication directly or by disproving the other implications.
I have absolutely no doubt that there are various people involved in various real conspiracies intentionally aimed at ensuring that the Libertarian Party remains mired in the sub-plurality vote range by various means (making ballot access difficult, excluding LP candidates from debates, etc.).
I also have absolutely no doubt that some of those conspiracies emanate from the Republican Party officialdom and/or party bureaucracy.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that one or more of those various real conspiracies emanate from actual government agencies or bureaus a la COINTELPRO.
But I also strongly suspect that most of the anti-LP activity we see on e.g. social networks is of the “non-conspiratorial participation” variety. That is, the people doing it have actually bought into the talking points and are passing them on, rather than having been hired or recruited to do so with knowledge of why they are being hired or recruited.
What’s dysfunctional about it in this case? People plot things all the time. Just because some people go overboard and immediately think anything bad that happens is the work of a global grand conspiracy doesn’t mean that any consideration of conspiracy is automatically crazy. Dismissing perfectly plausible conspiracy conjectures just because they contain elements of conspiracy is just as crazy and dysfunctional as automatically assuming that everything is part of one grand conspiracy. In this case I would think it involves many small conspiracies as well as some non-conspiratorial participation of the type Knapp laid out.
jp: I’m a little surprised that my comment about having an organized camopaign to discredit Libertarians is being considered a “conspiracy theory” (as if that’s the worst thing ever).
me: As one who generally finds most conspiracy theories of little use, I’d suggest that among the many dysfunctions in L-o-sphere, conspiracy theories are down the list for me, iow, not the “worst thing(s) ever.
Via OAI
If you live in Alaska (Thom M. Walker), Arkansas (Nathan LaFrance), Colorado (Gaylon Kent), Georgia (Amanda Swafford), Hawaii (Michael Kokoski), Illinois (Sharon Hansen), Iowa (Doug Butzier), Kansas (Randall Batson), Kentucky (David Patterson), Louisiana (Brannon McMorris), Michigan (Robert James “Jim” Fulner), Minnesota (Heather Johnson), Montana (Roger Roots), New Jersey (Joe Baratellia), North Carolina (Sean Haugh), Oregon (Mike Montchalin), South Carolina (Victor Kocher), Tennessee (Joshua James), Texas (Rebecca Paddock), Virginia (Robert “Rob” Sarvis), West Virginia (John Buckley), or Wyoming (Joseph “Joe” Porambo) you can spite Ann Coulter by voting for a Libertarian for Senate. If not, you can attest spite her by donating to them.
I think I have a conspiracy theory aversion theory about that 🙂
I’m a little surprised that my comment about having an organized camopaign to discredit Libertarians is being considered a “conspiracy theory” (as if that’s the worst thing ever).
I’m the chairperson for the Libertarian Party of Pasadena/Glendale region in southern CA. The head of the tea party there used to be involved with the LP and considers us his friends. He’s come to our meeting a couple times to try to rally our support on this or that. The last time he came out, he gleefully told us the direction the tea party in CA was going, hoping we’d join them. The strategy was to file lawsuits against Democrats all across the state, thereby tying up their time and resources. If this would be one of their strategies, is it really a stretch that confusing people via Libertarian social media sites couldn’t also be one oth their stategies?
That’s one plausible explanation, on the surface.
However, I’ve been doing some research, and all kinds of entities from various government entities, foreign and domestic, to corporations and so on are employing a bunch of people to go online/social media and make a bunch of comments to propagate their viewpoints and disrupt/undermine their opposition. I’ve even been offered this kind of job, for example by the Barr campaign when Bob Barr was seeking the LP nomination. So, it seems unlikely that a bunch of Republicans that are obviously pulling out all stops to keep the LP off the ballot and convince everyone that we are “stealing” votes that “belong” to them would not also be using this tactic. One common tactic involved in this is for each operative to generate multitudes of fake screen names and phony social media accounts. In fact there is at least one known (former?) Republican dirty tricks operative that I know has done it: I have caught Roger Stone and/or someone in his employment (a couple of sources have told me Stone does it himself) playing these kinds of games on multiple IPR threads. I have long wanted to put the evidence together for presentation, but it would take more effort than I have been willing to invest in it so far. Does anyone here really find it hard to believe that Republicans who would use the tactics they have used this year in Illinois, Ohio, NY and so on would then shy away from trolling the LP online? Or that they would be doing it in some organized fashion, including paying some people to do it?
Furthermore, there’s all sorts of evidence that government intelligence agencies infiltrate, monitor and/or disrupt every opposition party and movement that exists, ranging from tiny little extremist sects that are much smaller than the LP to even include establishment organizations (major media outlets, and I would guess the major establishment parties as well). So, it also seems unlikely that the LP would be any kind of exception to this rule.
I’m not in any way disputing that the organic talking point dissemination mechanism you mention exists and works. But there’s also plenty of evidence that it gets helped along by operatives paid to do it full time, whether from home or from boiler rooms. On the LP national facebook we have caught all kinds of ham handed trolls who didn’t bother to hide their tracks very well and have their non-liberty Republican affiliations all over their FB while coming on the LP page and claiming to be long time libertarians who just happen to think this particular election is too important blah blah blah. Or pretend like they are trying to make up their minds or a number of other phony tactics. How many did we not catch? Sure, some of that is volunteer trolling, but I believe some of it is coordinated and financed. The Republicans, their big money backers and government agencies have plenty of money to do this with, they have done it to all kinds of other people, and they seem to see us as a threat. So why not?
TK, for me, the word “conspiracy” connotes and denotes a coordinated plan to do something harmful and/or illegal. For me, that generally would involve either (or both) the ends and means being motivated by bad will, often employing untruths or purposeful misrepresentation.
Well, yes, there are conspiracies.
And there are certainly conspiracies — groups of more than one person acting in concert toward a particular goal — to advantage e.g. the GOP’s candidates by disadvantaging e.g. the LP’s candidates.
But the high level of trolling against LP candidates on social networks and such is not a conspiracy. It’s the spontaneous adoption of the conspiracies’ talking points by the conspiracies’ dupes.
If a hundred or a thousand or a million people get on Facebook tomorrow and quote an LP talking point, nobody who isn’t crazy will assume that those hundred or thousand or million people are conspiring with Nick Sarwark to make it happen. If they assume anything at all, they’ll assume that Nick Sarwark, Carla Howell and Wes Benedict conspired to create and disseminate the talking point and that at some point that dissemination snowballed.
Fred writes (September 23, 2014 at 9:25 am), “Starchild – The most offensive of those comments is the one in which she referred to libertarians as her ‘friends’”
Why do you think I saved that one for last? 🙂
Coulter is helping boost fundraisng for various LP candidates, all without as far as I know charging a fundraising commission. Good job! LOL
“Matt Cholko September 25, 2014 at 8:41 pm
Lacking a good explanation should not lead one to assume conspiracy.”
Matt, I don’t know if you have been following the smears from “Vernon,” but it is clearly apparent that he/she – and or his/her handlers – have telephone surveillance capability.
There is some really weird stuff going on, and it is for real.
It should be pretty obvious that there is an orchestrated attack against the Libertarian Party and movement in this country.
I didn’t jump to conspiracy theory immediately but there has been enough evidence, ranging from trolls having specific information that there is no way they should have to evidence that has surfaced of similar activities elsewhere, that actually makes it very plausible. Conspiracies do exist (for example they are the stock in trade of prosecutors looking at street criminal operations and special investigators looking at government misconduct alike). Certainly there’s no shortage of laughable grand conspiracy theories and overblown paranoids out there, but just because someone’s paranoid does not mean that no one is out to get them and excessive aversion to conspiracy conjecture just to avoid the conspiracy taint is no more rational or reasonable than jumping on each and every conspiracy guess that comes down the pike. Skepticism cuts both ways.
Lacking a good explanation should not lead one to assume conspiracy.
This year, Libertarian Party ballot access has been attacked in the following states:
Ohio
Alabama
Illinois
Kentucky
New York
Am I missing any?
Oh yeah, there is also Top Two Primary, which is going to be on the ballot in Oregon this year. If this thing passes it will be bad for ballot access for all minor party and independent candidates in that state.
“Jill Pyeatt Post authorSeptember 25, 2014 at 1:55 pm
I must say that trolls seem to be attacking most of the LP Facebook pages I frequent, not in a small way, but in a strong, nasty, name-calling way. It simply must be some kind of organized effort for so much to be happening so quickly.”
Yes. I think that it is all connected with troll attacks on myself, Paul, and a few other Libertarians who have done a lot of ballot access work. I think that it is all a part of the surveillance state and is an effort to sabotage the libertarian movement in this country.
Yep. We can see it in their efforts to get us off the ballot using dirty tricks, their increasing stream of commentaries about how we are supposedly “stealing votes” that somehow “belong” to them despite all evidence to the contrary, their troll attacks like the ones you mention, the troll attacks on Libertarian petitioners on IPR and now elsewhere, and the list goes on.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/09/gallup-releases-its-annual-poll-on-whether-a-new-major-party-would-be-desirable/
http://www.ballot-access.org/2014/09/libertarian-party-likely-to-set-a-record-vote-for-all-minor-parties-in-u-s-history-for-offices-at-top-of-ballot-in-a-midterm-year/
I must say that trolls seem to be attacking most of the LP Facebook pages I frequent, not in a small way, but in a strong, nasty, name-calling way. It simply must be some kind of organized effort for so much to be happening so quickly. There have always been trolls and disgruntled and confused people, but over the last month or so it seeems to have gotten much, much worse. Some people certainly are frightened of us.
The “Libertarian Party USA” page has particularly been overrun.
Mark Hinkle posted in Our America Initiative Inner-circle
Mark Hinkle 12:10am Sep 25
As undoubtedly everyone has heard, butt-head Ann Coulter wants to drown us Libertarians who will be voting for Libertarians for U.S. Senate (sadly, due to Prop 14 (Top Two) I won’t have that choice here in California.
Whenever I hear attacks against us and/or our candidates, I’m reminded a great Gandhi quote “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win”.
For years, they ignored us and then laughed at us, but now they’re fighting us.
I don’t like the fact that the GOP is going after us to challenge our ballot access, but it is a sign that we’re making progress.
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
Coulter should shut up and eat a complete meal. Her physical and mental anorexia is disturbing.
From Gary Johnson/OAI:
Friends,
You may have seen this, but in case not, so-called “conservative” commentator and Fox News regular Ann Coulter wants to drown voters who might be inclined to support a Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate. Here’s what she wrote in a recent column:
“If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.”
Based on the web traffic and social media posts I have seen, Ms. Coulter is going to be busy over the next six weeks getting to all the addresses she has been sent. (Personally, having competed in more than a few triathlons, I’m not terribly concerned for my own safety.)
Ms. Coulter makes her living — and by all appearances, a pretty good living — by saying and writing outrageous things. We all know that. But this time, she is spouting one of the most common misperceptions I hear as I travel around the country: That a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote that would otherwise go to a Republican.
Ms. Coulter needs to spend a little less time berating liberty-minded folks, and a little more time understanding them. Increasing that understanding is what Our America is about — and you can help.
Just today, a Quinnipiac poll in the Florida governor’s race shows that the Libertarian candidate draws equally from the Republican and Democrat candidates.
And anyone who has spent time on a college campus with an auditorium full of young libertarians knows that, absent a libertarian choice, those votes aren’t likely to go to a big government Republican who wants to tell them who to marry, believes it’s OK for government to spy on citizens, and believes we need more foreign intervention — not less.
The other reality that Coulter and her business-as-usual friends haven’t accepted is that a majority of Americans today do not believe either the Republican or Democrat parties represent their views. Are all those folks supposed to put their principles aside and vote for someone with whom they don’t agree?? THAT is crazy, Ms. Coulter.
This little outburst by a “conservative” talking head lays out our challenge very clearly. The Our America Initiative exists to help Americans understand that the liberty movement reflects their own beliefs that government has grown too large and too intrusive, and that just letting status-quo Republicans and Democrats switch places every couple of years has done NOTHING to reduce our debt, rein in government — or increase freedom.
Instead of drowning liberty-minded voters, Ms. Coulter and others like her need to start LISTENING to them.
Rebecca Paddock
September 19 ·
An Open Letter to Ann Coulter
re: “If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.” – Ann Coulter
19 September 2014
Dear Ms. Coulter:
Thank you so much for assisting with the publicity for my campaign in Texas. I greatly appreciate it! I also appreciate your passion, drive, and commitment to standing up for what you believe in.
I love liberty, and would prefer that you are able to keep yours. Which could be a problem when you threaten to murder the 22 Federal Candidates who are, no doubt, planning on voting for themselves.
Hopefully, someone has spoken to you about this pursuit. I’m assuming that you’ve already started your list, with the candidates at the top. Followed, of course, by our families and anyone who has publicly declared. You’re going to be very very busy! As a result, your declared path is going to be a major investment of time and resources. Both of which could be better spent writing another book. Not to mention that the actual execution of your threat would result in multiple felonies and a significant amount of time in jail.
As stated earlier, I’m all for liberty – including yours. Toward that end, please see the enclosed Non-Aggression Principle. Perhaps a timely review now and then will prevent this type of occurrence in the future.
Thank you for all you do for liberty,
Rebecca Paddock
Attachment: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Swift’s “modest proposal” or any number of, say, rap or metal lyrics may have served your purpose better that Helter Skelter. For example”
I’m going down, down, baby, your street, in a Range Rover
Street sweeper baby, cocked, ready to let it go…
Well, I admit that my Beatles example was intentionally hyperbolic, but my point is that it sets a very dangerous precedent to start holding people criminally liable for how their words are taken by those who are clearly mentally deranged, as anyone would obviously have to be to see Coulter’s clearly facetious remark as some sort of call to action, let alone a command to kill.
I don’t think the Beatles said anything as prone to misinterpretation as “If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.” It seems a bit more of a stretch to expect Lennon and McCartney to think “When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again.” would be interpreted as a call to kill people, although Manson managed to do it. I don’t know what words Manson used to get his acolytes to carry out the actual murders, but I imagine they were much less abstract than the Beatles lyrics.
Again, I wouldn’t say Coulter would be as responsible as Manson if someone did commit a murder based on her “directions” above, but I would say her words would be more clearly negligent in allowing for that type of reading than those Beatles lyrics by far.
I would agree with you that the degree of control Coulter has over her followers falls short of say Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or Charles Manson (all of whom used other people to carry out murders), and I concede that even the vast majority of her fans would not take her literally here. But if by chance one of them does and actually acts on it I would say she is negligently liable. When writing for a mass audience it helps to consider that someone out there out of all those people may just be a wacko who will treat hyperbole literally and actually act on it.
I don’t think it is fair to hold people (even those as reprehensible as Coulter) liable for their words are interpreted by people who are clearly insane. For example, Manson claimed to have been inspired by the Beatles’ “White Album”, but it would be a major stretch to claim that the Beatles themselves should bear any liability whatsoever for the crimes of Manson’s group.
http://brianrwright.com/CoffeeCoasterBlog/?p=4260 Was an interesting post linked in the comments on Paul Jacobs’ piece. Someone may wish to also respond to the unfreeman towards the end of the comments (presently) if I forget to get to it.
Paul Jacob comments on Ann Coulter wanting to drown people who vote for Libertarian Party candidates for US Senate over Republican Party candidates for US Senate:
http://thisiscommonsense.com/2014/09/23/the-eristic-of-ann/
I would agree with you that the degree of control Coulter has over her followers falls short of say Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or Charles Manson (all of whom used other people to carry out murders), and I concede that even the vast majority of her fans would not take her literally here. But if by chance one of them does and actually acts on it I would say she is negligently liable. When writing for a mass audience it helps to consider that someone out there out of all those people may just be a wacko who will treat hyperbole literally and actually act on it.
Starchild
The most offensive of those comments is the one in which she referred to libertarians as her “friends”
Crackerjack boxes aren’t free these days either, you know 🙂
Wow, you can get degrees from a crackerjack box? I feel cheated now. I had to pay a whole five bucks for my Litt.D. from Universal Life Church.
If someone DOES murder someone else because of Coulters words, you better believe she will be liable in a civil suit brought against her. Federal, no, but civil court is an altogether different beast. Would love to see her face when the subpoena is issued at her doorstep.
If someone murders someone else after learning of Coulter’s statement, the murderer is still 100% criminally culpable. Coulter’s statement does not direct or compel another to do harm. Whether there would be civil liability for Coulter in such a case is another issue.
It has a higher market value 🙂
“Of course, I got my psychology degree from a crackerjack box. ”
Well that tops my doctorate in Greek Mythology or my master’s in Latin any day!
As far as prosecuting her, there could be grounds for saying that she negligently contributed to a homicide if one of her many fans turns out to be a crazy person who takes her seriously and actually murders someone they know for indicating they would be voting Libertarian. Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler also used proxies to murder, using only words, but I don’t think her words in this case rise to that level of “imminent” threat. Assuming no one actually gets murdered it should be treated like the hyperbole it is and met with ridicule, not prosecution.
NF: Just to be clear, I don’t believe she is actually a tranny, or that it would be a bad thing if she was. But there are clearly a lot of people who suspect that she might be, so she probably got teased about it a lot, which may be why she turned into such a royal bitch. Apparently some of the reasons for biologically born women to have a prominent adam’s apple include anorexia and severe chronic cocaine abuse, so she may have some issues like that going on. And that in turn probably reflects some really extreme low self-esteem issues. Arrogance could be a sign of overcompensation. Of course, I got my psychology degree from a crackerjack box.
What else would tranny mean? 😉
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=+ann+coulter+tranny&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Oh… that.
I think most of these comments are made in jest, William. I certainly don’t take her seriously, and I doubt if anyone who reads IPR does.
No one should be prosecuted for words used. Anyone willing to prosecute Ann Coulter for her statement here is not actually libertarian.
Joshua Katz writes (September 20, 2014 at 10:57 pm), “(Giving Ann Coulter the Connecticut LP’s nod to run for Congress as a Libertarian) wasn’t even seriously considered. There may have been one or two people who wanted to do it. None of them are still involved, whereas everyone who opposed it (and it still alive) is still involved with the party here.”
That’s reassuring, thanks Joshua.
Quick news quiz… Which of the following stupid, offensive, or and/or just downright unhinged things was NOT actually said by Ann Coulter?
A) “Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation’s moral decay.”
B) “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity”
C) “We just want Jews to be perfected”
D) “People like you caused us to lose the Vietnam War” (To a disabled vet)
E) “I’m all for public flogging”
F) “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee.”*
G) “I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much” (about 9/11 widows)
H) “We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals.”
I) “I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.”
J) “I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards, but you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot.”
K) “My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism”
Scroll down for answer…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, sorry, trick question — she said all of these things (*In the case of her comment about Justice Stevens, she clarified that it was a joke).
Sources:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0111.coulterwisdom.html
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyquotes/a/anncoulter.htm
Well, I can speak to this, since I live in CT. Ann Coulter came to the SCC seeking a Congressional nomination (House.) She was pro-war on drugs, among other things. Her approach was “I’m here to give you the gift of nominating me.” I don’t think she considered the possibility of being told no. The SCC, with maybe one or two dissenting votes, said no. There were some party members who thought it might be a good idea for publicity, but largely there was no support for the idea in CT.
Her argument was “I’m a libertarian because I’m a conservative.” Her most vile attacks on libertarianism (until now) were immediately after not getting that nomination. She attacked the LP as ‘utopian’ for not taking such a great candidate simply because she disagreed with us on one thing (not true, she disagreed on many things.)
Main point – it wasn’t even seriously considered. There may have been one or two people who wanted to do it. None of them are still involved, whereas everyone who opposed it (and it still alive) is still involved with the party here.
Andy writes (September 20, 2014 at 2:29 am), “Ann Coulter is pretty far from being a libertarian, but I remember back in the early 2000?s, there was talk of her running for office, I believe it was for US Senate, or maybe US House, as a Libertarian Party candidate in Connecticut (I’m pretty sure that’s where she lived at the time; I think that she has since moved to Florida). I think that it was a situation where she had expressed interest in running for office, but it was too late for her to get into the Republican Party. Fortunately, she did not end up getting the LP’s nomination, but I think there were a few people in the LP that wanted her to run as an LP candidate. I’m glad that the LP dodged this bullet.”
Me too Andy, me too!
Any LP members willing now to cop to having wanted Ann Coulter to represent our party as a candidate for public office?
Especially if you also wanted Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root for the LP’s presidential ticket in 2008, will you please resolve to pay more attention in the future to radicals in the party who warn against these kinds of opportunistic, less-than-fully-libertarian candidates?
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=+ann+coulter+tranny&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
“Oh, I think I got it…let me see if this is right….you are referring to tranny as in automobile transmission?”
What else would tranny mean? 😉
Dunno.
Oh, I think I got it…let me see if this is right….you are referring to tranny as in automobile transmission?
Not familiar with that use of 4 on the floor.
I wonder why my moniker was shortened to “New” above?
Whether you are actually intimidated is not the point. The issue is that one might make a Federal case that this is an effort at voter intimidation.
“Little of both?”
Would that be a zombie with 4 on the floor?
Little of both?
Maybe she is just overcompensating for all the people that called her a tranny, LOL
She has always looked more like a zombie to me.
Does anyone actually feel intimidated?
Those of you who live in states where a Libertarian Senate candidate is on the ballot and who feel intimidated may wish to pursue appropriate legal action, it being against the law to try to intimidate someone from voting in a particular direction.
LOL, I guess there’s some morons thinking he’s a libertarian also…
She is about as much a libertarian as Bill O’Reilly.
It was more than that. She also clearly said she was only interested in LP to get the Republican out for being against impeaching Clinton. She did not come around to LP views on foreign policy or social issues other than drugs before, during or after offering herself up as a prospective LP candidate.
Ann wouldn’t denounce the drug war, so the LP said no way. Ann mentioned that in one of her books.
Great idea!
Someone at the LNC meeting should buy a big card, and send it to her with everyone’s address.
Great idea. Deliver it in person with live video.
I, for one, would welcome Coulter to carry out her threat. Then she, and the Republican Party, would learn the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
And I must say, it has generated some great publicity for the LP. I would relish seeing her face upon receiving a thank you note from LP National.
http://harrybrowne.org/articles/Coulter.htm
I don’t like to be manipulated, and giving Ann more attention is just what she wanted. However, this ultimately further exposes the true Republican Party, so publicizing this ridiculous column is a win for me and the LP.
That’s why Austin Cassidy’s article is spot on. He is using it as a way to get people motivated to donate to LP candidates.
Coulter is brilliant. She always finds a way to manipulate people into talking about her. It works every time. She always dupes others into making her into a story.
Maybe she is just overcompensating for all the people that called her a tranny, LOL
Yes, Austin’s comments about funding Robert Sarvis and putting an Adrian Wyllie sign in her yard were my favorite suggestions.
Nicholas said precisely what’s going on. What Ms. Coulter is doing, among other things, is broadcasting to the world how MEAN the Republican Party can be.
She undoubtedly made fun of girls with thick glasses like me. That didn’t bother me when I was a kid, and it doesn’t bother me now.
I like Austin Cassidy’s suggestions (uncoveredpolitics link in the article)…
Also, it speaks volumes about her.
put this down to all publicity is good publicity, then send a thank you to Ann for mentioning us and ask her to keep it up.
I won’t mention her name, but this was my comment on Twitter:
Washed up performance artist threatens violence against #Libertarian voters in vain attempt for relevance. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-gop-senate-worried
I s’pose AC finds death threats somehow humorous.
From what I’ve seen of her work, she gives every indication of being in massive emotional pain, along with the other shock pundits. That, or its a cynical strategy to make money.
Or maybe it’s just me. When I vote (rarely), I vote L, so maybe I just fear AC will come to drown me!
Here’s another anti-third party/pro-GOP rant without physical threats from former NRA president-turned-Washington Times opinion editor David Keene : http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/15/keene-the-third-party-conundrum/
Ann Coulter is pretty far from being a libertarian, but I remember back in the early 2000’s, there was talk of her running for office, I believe it was for US Senate, or maybe US House, as a Libertarian Party candidate in Connecticut (I’m pretty sure that’s where she lived at the time; I think that she has since moved to Florida). I think that it was a situation where she had expressed interest in running for office, but it was too late for her to get into the Republican Party. Fortunately, she did not end up getting the LP’s nomination, but I think there were a few people in the LP that wanted her to run as an LP candidate. I’m glad that the LP dodged this bullet.
I had some fun of my own writing this article, while looking for an image to post. I put “charicature Ann Coulter” into Google’s search box, and had quite a howl over several of the cartoons. There was even a bonus charicature of Sarah Palin on the page!