Been ripping out the podcasts of late, ahead of the trip out west.
This Podcast Could Be Your Life #19: Part 2 of my interview with Andrew Lee, and a radio clip from June 1991. Andrew & I talk about ideologically driven radio vs market-driven, and podcasting & new media.
This Podcast Could Be Your Life #20: Pre-LP Convention spiels, endorsement of Mark Rutherford for LNC Chair, explaining my role as Floor Whip for Rutherford, audio clip of Gary Johnson speaking at 2002 Convention in Indianapolis
Click here to find the entire archive.
Showing posts with label Libertarian National Convention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarian National Convention. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
All Hail The Marxist Libertarians!
The Libertarian party always seems to be taking one step forward, then either one step back, or perhaps sideways. The latest insider battle leaves me shaking my head.
There is a minimum charge of $94 to attend the business meeting of the Libertarian Party's National Convention.
Maybe Karl Marx has simply won. TANSTAAFL is an acronym for the phrase attributed to Robert Heinlein, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". This was adapted very early in the Libertarian Party's life as a slogan. The radicals have been arguing that the LP has been moving away from principle and core beliefs in order to accommodate those weak on core philosophy. Ok, radicals- Are you lining up for your free lunch? Who really is moving away from principle? If you can't live it in something as minor as a $94 floor fee, why can you be trusted to lead a political party by principles, or bigger yet, be elected to office and abide by those principles?
These things cost money to put on, so who should pay for it other than the people who attend? I mean, should the LNC be redistributing wealth? From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to their need?
The crazy thing is, the ones screaming about this measly sum are the so-called radical Libertarians. These are the folks who demand litmus test purity... and they don't measure up themselves.
Yes sir- should be an interesting time in Vegas!
There is a minimum charge of $94 to attend the business meeting of the Libertarian Party's National Convention.
Maybe Karl Marx has simply won. TANSTAAFL is an acronym for the phrase attributed to Robert Heinlein, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". This was adapted very early in the Libertarian Party's life as a slogan. The radicals have been arguing that the LP has been moving away from principle and core beliefs in order to accommodate those weak on core philosophy. Ok, radicals- Are you lining up for your free lunch? Who really is moving away from principle? If you can't live it in something as minor as a $94 floor fee, why can you be trusted to lead a political party by principles, or bigger yet, be elected to office and abide by those principles?
These things cost money to put on, so who should pay for it other than the people who attend? I mean, should the LNC be redistributing wealth? From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to their need?
The crazy thing is, the ones screaming about this measly sum are the so-called radical Libertarians. These are the folks who demand litmus test purity... and they don't measure up themselves.
Yes sir- should be an interesting time in Vegas!
Monday, April 23, 2012
Working For Rutherford
I am excited to announce that I have joined the Mark Rutherford For Chair team, and will be volunteering for him at the Libertarian National Convention in Las Vegas some two weeks from now.
My role will be that of Floor Whip. The job entails being assigned several states, and then working to drive votes from those states' delegations to Mark.
One thing I really like about the Libertarian National Conventions is that things are very rarely decided before the voting starts. These are real conventions- not the coronations that the Rs & Ds host. Gary Johnson is the frontrunner for the presidential nomination, but I've been at conventions where the frontrunner was surprised very late in the day (e.g.: when Michael Badnarik overcame Gary Nolan in 2004). The Chair elections are always contentious. This one will be no different, as Mark needs to unseat current Chair Mark Hinkle, so I will have to work to earn votes for him.
Contentious conventions are electric. That 2004 event was everything we read about in history books, minus the smoky back room. In that election, Nolan was the frontrunner, but Aaron Russo was thought to be a very strong second. Badnarik gave the performance of a lifetime in the debate, and when the first ballot votes were revealed, all three were within 12 votes of each other. The place exploded with a flurry of activity, as conventioneers ran to their state or regional caucuses, and whips for the candidates worked each group for votes in the suddenly new landscape.
Check out the CSPAN video of the 2004 convention: At the 4:01:00 (that's the 4-hour mark) the cameras found the Region 3 caucus, and delegates took to a chair to speak in favor of either of the three candidates. I took my turn at the 4:05:20 mark to stand on a chair before our caucus to speak on behalf of Nolan. Afterwards, Rutherford thanked the caucus and urged them to vote their conscience.
I am hoping that when the 2012 Convention votes its conscience for Chair, it selects Mark Rutherford.
My role will be that of Floor Whip. The job entails being assigned several states, and then working to drive votes from those states' delegations to Mark.
One thing I really like about the Libertarian National Conventions is that things are very rarely decided before the voting starts. These are real conventions- not the coronations that the Rs & Ds host. Gary Johnson is the frontrunner for the presidential nomination, but I've been at conventions where the frontrunner was surprised very late in the day (e.g.: when Michael Badnarik overcame Gary Nolan in 2004). The Chair elections are always contentious. This one will be no different, as Mark needs to unseat current Chair Mark Hinkle, so I will have to work to earn votes for him.
Contentious conventions are electric. That 2004 event was everything we read about in history books, minus the smoky back room. In that election, Nolan was the frontrunner, but Aaron Russo was thought to be a very strong second. Badnarik gave the performance of a lifetime in the debate, and when the first ballot votes were revealed, all three were within 12 votes of each other. The place exploded with a flurry of activity, as conventioneers ran to their state or regional caucuses, and whips for the candidates worked each group for votes in the suddenly new landscape.
Check out the CSPAN video of the 2004 convention: At the 4:01:00 (that's the 4-hour mark) the cameras found the Region 3 caucus, and delegates took to a chair to speak in favor of either of the three candidates. I took my turn at the 4:05:20 mark to stand on a chair before our caucus to speak on behalf of Nolan. Afterwards, Rutherford thanked the caucus and urged them to vote their conscience.
I am hoping that when the 2012 Convention votes its conscience for Chair, it selects Mark Rutherford.
Saturday, April 07, 2012
Strike At The Root
I was floored with comments made by Wayne Root, a member of the Libertarian National Committee. From Reason Hit & Run:
I'm no fan of witch hunts. Root was once a Republican. I was once a Democrat. A great many people come to the Libertarian Party from either of the two old parties, and that itself is not a problem. It's a great thing! What is a problem is when a party leader doesn't understand his fiduciary duty to his organization. In the last year especially, Root's commentaries have struck me as being increasingly too pro-GOP. I can get being anti-Obama, since Obama is in the White House and sets policy tone. But the response for a Libertarian Party leader should always, always, ALWAYS be to offer libertarian policy solutions, and Libertarian candidates, as the alternative.
Mitt Romney? I mean- please. It could be forgiven if it were Ron Paul he was touting.
I'm very concerned for the Chair vote in the Las Vegas convention. I strongly support Mark Rutherford, but things I'm hearing from Libertarians across the US suggest that the association with Root is going to kill his chances to be Chair. This would be most unfortunate. Under Mark's guidance, the Indiana LP has developed marvelously, and I think the same could happen nationally if we were elected Chair. See my recent comments in support of Rutherford for Chair.
I am a delegate to the national convention. I will be voting against Root for any LNC leadership.
In the meantime, I call for Wayne Root to resign from the LNC immediately. He just doesn't understand his position on the LNC.
Wayne Root, who ran as Bob Barr's VP candidiate with the Libertarian Party in 2008, currently a member of the Libertarian National Committee that runs the Party, exhibits a lack of dedication to the LP by saying this on a Bill Cunningham podcast, right in the first couple of minutes:
I think the important thing now is to make sure Obama is not elected,and that means in my mind, I would love for a libertarian like Gary Johnson the two term governor of New Mexico would actually get elected President, but I think we all know that’s not going to happen so therefore it’s got to be Romney there is no choice.
I can accept wide ranges of policy thought within the libertarian camp. I cannot tolerate a Libertarian Party leader who recommends voting for a candidate who is not a Libertarian Party candidate.
I'm no fan of witch hunts. Root was once a Republican. I was once a Democrat. A great many people come to the Libertarian Party from either of the two old parties, and that itself is not a problem. It's a great thing! What is a problem is when a party leader doesn't understand his fiduciary duty to his organization. In the last year especially, Root's commentaries have struck me as being increasingly too pro-GOP. I can get being anti-Obama, since Obama is in the White House and sets policy tone. But the response for a Libertarian Party leader should always, always, ALWAYS be to offer libertarian policy solutions, and Libertarian candidates, as the alternative.
Mitt Romney? I mean- please. It could be forgiven if it were Ron Paul he was touting.
I'm very concerned for the Chair vote in the Las Vegas convention. I strongly support Mark Rutherford, but things I'm hearing from Libertarians across the US suggest that the association with Root is going to kill his chances to be Chair. This would be most unfortunate. Under Mark's guidance, the Indiana LP has developed marvelously, and I think the same could happen nationally if we were elected Chair. See my recent comments in support of Rutherford for Chair.
I am a delegate to the national convention. I will be voting against Root for any LNC leadership.
In the meantime, I call for Wayne Root to resign from the LNC immediately. He just doesn't understand his position on the LNC.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Mark Rutherford For LNC Chair!
I am very excited about Mark Rutherford's announcement that he is seeking the Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. Mark is currently the Vice Chair of the LNC, and was Chair of the Libertarian Party of Indiana for seven years. Link to Rutherford's LNC Chair website.
I lived in Ohio until 2002, and wasn't terribly involved with the Libertarian Party there. They lacked ballot access, so they had very few candidates, and the leadership there was not very focused on getting the ballot access, ensuring that they were more of a supper club than a real political party.
The contrast in Indiana was significant. With Rutherford as Chair, the LPIN ran candidates at every level, across the state in 2002. It employed an Executive Director (Brad Klopfenstein) who carried out a range of tasks, from recruiting and assisting candidates to lobbying at the Statehouse. Indianapolis hosted the LP's national convention, landed here by Rutherford, Klopfenstein, and the leadership of the LPIN's Central Committee. I was very impressed, and when I moved here, I got very involved very quickly, assisting Andy Horning's campaign for US House the week I arrived. Rebecca Sink-Burris ran for Secretary of State in 2002, securing continued ballot access. I did the same in 2006.
So, I am very excited. I have no doubt that Rutherford can do on a national level for the Libertarian Party what he did here on the state level. That means, I would expect direction towards vastly improved professionalism and standards, and more effective branding of the party.
I am looking forward to this year's national convention in Las Vegas, where I will be proud to cast a vote for Mark Rutherford for LNC Chair.
I lived in Ohio until 2002, and wasn't terribly involved with the Libertarian Party there. They lacked ballot access, so they had very few candidates, and the leadership there was not very focused on getting the ballot access, ensuring that they were more of a supper club than a real political party.
The contrast in Indiana was significant. With Rutherford as Chair, the LPIN ran candidates at every level, across the state in 2002. It employed an Executive Director (Brad Klopfenstein) who carried out a range of tasks, from recruiting and assisting candidates to lobbying at the Statehouse. Indianapolis hosted the LP's national convention, landed here by Rutherford, Klopfenstein, and the leadership of the LPIN's Central Committee. I was very impressed, and when I moved here, I got very involved very quickly, assisting Andy Horning's campaign for US House the week I arrived. Rebecca Sink-Burris ran for Secretary of State in 2002, securing continued ballot access. I did the same in 2006.
So, I am very excited. I have no doubt that Rutherford can do on a national level for the Libertarian Party what he did here on the state level. That means, I would expect direction towards vastly improved professionalism and standards, and more effective branding of the party.
I am looking forward to this year's national convention in Las Vegas, where I will be proud to cast a vote for Mark Rutherford for LNC Chair.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Round 5 Results
Now we come into the home stretch: It's Barr vs Ruwart.
Bob Barr 223 (+21)
Mary Ruwart 229 (+27)
Wayne Root 165 (+16)
Indiana's delegation went thusly:
Barr 6
Ruwart 6
Root 9
Root is eliminated, and with the ability to throw so many votes one way or the other, he took the opportunity, asking to be part of a Barr-Root ticket.
The comments were a bit odd. He said he would like to learn at the side of Bob Barr for four years as his Vice President, and then it's all his in 2012. Hmm... If Barr is elected President, wouldn't he want to run for re-election? The comment struck me as a bit cocky. It will be interesting to see if the Root endorsement pushes Barr to the nomination, or pushes the votes to Ruwart.
In the first round, 38 votes for Root came from California. If either camp has the smarts, they RAN to California's delegation to make the case... if they weren't standing there before the tally was finalized. Indiana primarily went for Root, so the persuading should be happening there, too.
Last vote coming up. It will result in a Libertarian nominee for President!
Round 3 Results
Moving right along, Mary Ruwart did benefit significantly from Steve Kubby's exit endorsement. It's a dead heat again- a tie!
Bob Barr 186 (-2)
Mary Ruwart 186 (+24)
Wayne Root 146 (+8)
Mike Gravel 78 (+5)
George Phillies 31 (-5)
Phillies is eliminated, and I did not hear him throw his support behind anyone, so where those 31 votes land is anyone's guess.
That's getting to be true of Gravel's and even Root's totals. Funny things can happen on convention floors. A candidate can decide he's tired and wants out, throwing support to someone at a key moment, becoming the kingmaker. 78 or 146 votes are huge at this point. This is where the lobbying really intensifies, and again I kinda wish I was there to feel the buzz of horse trading for liberty.
Round 2
Here's the vote after the second ballot:
Bob Barr 188 (+35)
Mary Ruwart 162 (+10)
Wayne Root 138 (+15)
Mike Gravel 73 (+2)
George Phillies 36 (-13)
Steve Kubby 32 (-9)
Kubby was eliminated, and Barr gained significant separation between himself and Mary Ruwart, taking a number nearly equal to the votes put up for grabs by the elimination after the first ballot. This becomes a nervous time for Mike Gravel, and the pit in the stomach forms for Phillies.
Kubby threw his support behind Mary Ruwart after this ballot, so we'll see if she reclaims some ground.
First Ballot In
Another convention, another close first-round finish:
Bob Barr 153 votes
Mary Ruwart 152
Wayne Root 123
Mike Gravel 71
George Phillies 49
Steve Kubby 41
Mike Jingozian 23
Christine Smith 6
Daniel Imperato 1
None of the Above 2
Comically, there were write-in votes cast for Penn Gillette (3) and Ron Paul (6), plus one other whose name I didn't catch.
Only Jingozian and Smith are eliminated from this ballot, and a new vote is taken. Due to the closeness and the lack of surprises here, I would expect the numbers to look very similar, as only 39 delegate votes are up for grabs. That said, some who voted for Kubby or Phillies may decide the writing is on the wall, and put their votes up for grabs. This where it gets to be very exciting to be on the floor. In 2002, I was filmed by C-SPAN standing on a chair and stumping before our regional caucus for Gary Nolan, right after the first vote.
At this point, anyone can switch at any time. Sometimes delegates vote with their state or regional delegation the first time, and then go their own way for subsequent balloting.
I was struck that Georgia really turned up for Bob Barr, delivering 33 votes for him, with just two else cast (for Ruwart). California showed up for Wayne Allyn Root, with 38 votes. It will be interesting to see if those numbers change. Alaska did not support its' own Mike Gravel, casting its' four votes elsewhere.
I watched Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project represent DC and announce the casting of its' three votes for Bob Barr, the erstwhile drug warrior, and wondered if Kampia had to choke down some cognitive dissonance on the vote. Apparently not, though. Kampia was one of the three.
Indiana's 22 delegates voted thusly:
Root 6
Gravel 5
Barr 4
Phillies 3
Jingozian 2
Root 2
Hopefully this vote will pare it down to two. I do not see a clear victory coming on the second ballot.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Libertarian Party Convention Underway
I'm not in Denver today, but I am keeping a close eye on the Libertarian convention, as a nominee for President will emerge. Here are my main interests in a nominee:
1. Carry no baggage. I was cheering Ron Paul until his ties to racist garbage were revealed. At that point, Paul became something worse than a poor ambassador for liberty. He tarnished the very idea, because people associated Paul as liberty itself. We can't have that in the Libertarian nominee.
2. Be a real communicator. Michael Badnarik won the 2004 nomination on the strength of one performance at the Libertarian convention in Atlanta, sweeping many delegates off their feet. We soon learned that one speech does not a communicator make, as Badnarik was not covered by the media, and worse, he opted to sit at "the kiddie table" of debates- the forums for the excluded minor party candidates. Our nominee cannot be one who self-marginalizes by accepting exclusion. Our nominee must make America take notice. Most of our candidates are not capable of that, frankly.
3. Focus on real campaigning issues. I love the Constitution, but the American public neither knows about it nor cares. Our nominee has to get over this, and get to topics of substance that the public does care about. In my opinion, a winning trio is Iraq, our financial crisis/jobs, and health care. I don't want a nominee who is talking to me. You already have me. I hope our delegates have this wisdom, for once.
Overall, Bob Barr is my #1 choice, because he can fulfill #2 & 3 better than any of our candidates. However, he does have baggage, both ideological and in act, and running as the most conservative, "I'm more Republican than the Republicans" candidate in a year where the Republican brand is the greatest possible albatross is a very bad idea. Barr needs to change his tactics.
Mike Gravel is the other big name, and I have to say that I was impressed with his fire and his clarity when speaking at the Indiana Libertarian convention recently. Unfortunately, Gravel does have some baggage, in the sad image of being a doddering old man. I'm sure that's why he came out to Indy with such spunk. I don't see Libertarians nominating him, though, as the Democratic Party is such a pariah within the LP because of Dems' positions on all things economic, and Gravel will be met with great suspicion accordingly. Gravel is my #2 choice, though.
Mary Ruwart is a favorite of many Libertarians, because of her ability to communicate ideas, but her baggage is so overwhelming that she would make Ron Paul's racist connections look very welcome by comparison. I think most people who read regularly know that I would support almost any Libertarian candidate come November. Not this one. The media will never give her a chance to talk about anything but her stupid, foolish comments about child pornography. She can't pull a Ron Paul on them and say she didn't know they were written. They're in her book, "Short Answers to Tough Questions".
Apart from that, I find that the remaining candidates are all very similar. Sure, they differ on this issue or that, but what they have in common is this: They aren't raising big money. They don't sweep you off your feet. They haven't gotten any noteworthy positive media attention, no matter how long they've been at it. They are run-of-the-mill candidates for the Libertarian nomination. If any of them win, we are guaranteed continued obscurity in a year when the nation needs liberty more than ever.
I'm not in Denver today, but I am keeping a close eye on the Libertarian convention, as a nominee for President will emerge. Here are my main interests in a nominee:
1. Carry no baggage. I was cheering Ron Paul until his ties to racist garbage were revealed. At that point, Paul became something worse than a poor ambassador for liberty. He tarnished the very idea, because people associated Paul as liberty itself. We can't have that in the Libertarian nominee.
2. Be a real communicator. Michael Badnarik won the 2004 nomination on the strength of one performance at the Libertarian convention in Atlanta, sweeping many delegates off their feet. We soon learned that one speech does not a communicator make, as Badnarik was not covered by the media, and worse, he opted to sit at "the kiddie table" of debates- the forums for the excluded minor party candidates. Our nominee cannot be one who self-marginalizes by accepting exclusion. Our nominee must make America take notice. Most of our candidates are not capable of that, frankly.
3. Focus on real campaigning issues. I love the Constitution, but the American public neither knows about it nor cares. Our nominee has to get over this, and get to topics of substance that the public does care about. In my opinion, a winning trio is Iraq, our financial crisis/jobs, and health care. I don't want a nominee who is talking to me. You already have me. I hope our delegates have this wisdom, for once.
Overall, Bob Barr is my #1 choice, because he can fulfill #2 & 3 better than any of our candidates. However, he does have baggage, both ideological and in act, and running as the most conservative, "I'm more Republican than the Republicans" candidate in a year where the Republican brand is the greatest possible albatross is a very bad idea. Barr needs to change his tactics.
Mike Gravel is the other big name, and I have to say that I was impressed with his fire and his clarity when speaking at the Indiana Libertarian convention recently. Unfortunately, Gravel does have some baggage, in the sad image of being a doddering old man. I'm sure that's why he came out to Indy with such spunk. I don't see Libertarians nominating him, though, as the Democratic Party is such a pariah within the LP because of Dems' positions on all things economic, and Gravel will be met with great suspicion accordingly. Gravel is my #2 choice, though.
Mary Ruwart is a favorite of many Libertarians, because of her ability to communicate ideas, but her baggage is so overwhelming that she would make Ron Paul's racist connections look very welcome by comparison. I think most people who read regularly know that I would support almost any Libertarian candidate come November. Not this one. The media will never give her a chance to talk about anything but her stupid, foolish comments about child pornography. She can't pull a Ron Paul on them and say she didn't know they were written. They're in her book, "Short Answers to Tough Questions".
Apart from that, I find that the remaining candidates are all very similar. Sure, they differ on this issue or that, but what they have in common is this: They aren't raising big money. They don't sweep you off your feet. They haven't gotten any noteworthy positive media attention, no matter how long they've been at it. They are run-of-the-mill candidates for the Libertarian nomination. If any of them win, we are guaranteed continued obscurity in a year when the nation needs liberty more than ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)