I disagree.

To me, adding a bunch of signatures of candidates whose prospects are effectively non-existent, and whose candidacies are therefore utterly unaffected by the choice of keynote speaker, makes it neither more meaningful nor more effective.

Austin,

You make an interesting argument … but I suspect that if Bob Milnes, Mike Jingozian, Christine Smith, Daniel Imperato et al were to issue a similar statement, or even a verbatim “us to,” they would get coverage of their own. It’s not like Kubby, Phillies and Ruwart have a monopoly on making campaign announcements or anything, and several reasonably even-handed publication venues now exist to cover such things — thanks, in part, to you.

Tom – I absolutely understand, and I think the point is well made. I was just offering another suggestion.

“There seems to be some sort of mutually agreed concensus that these six are the top tier and consequently the others don’t matter.”

Is there some sort of mutually agreed consensus that a “top tier” exists? Sure.

Is there some sort of mutually agreed consensus concerning whom that “top tier” includes? No. That number seems to range from three to six candidates, depending on whom you ask.

The list of candidates to whom the letter was sent for signature was left up to me — not because those involved in the letter didn’t or don’t care or think you “matter,” but because most of them were in transit, checking in by phone, etc. and not really in a position where they had brain share to dedicate to anything on this letter other than whether or not THEY wished to sign it.

The list of candidates to whom the letter was offered for signature does NOT reflect my idea of whom the “top tier” includes. Rather, it reflects my estimate of which of the candidates have a reasonable chance of either collecting enough delegate tokens to participate in the official candidate debate, or polling at least 10% on the first nomination ballot, or both. That group is half again as large as my personal “top tier” list.

Do the other candidates “matter?”

On the one hand, let me be the first to thank and congratulate all of them for throwing their hats in the ring and making their arguments.

On the other hand, at this point they aren’t especially relevant. They had months or years to make their cases. For whatever reasons, they weren’t able to do so in ways that are now likely to manifest themselves in the form of significant delegate support … and now the convention is upon us and the focus/attention span is narrowing.

I think Barr is one of the better nominees, and I certainly think he’s the one with the highest vote-getting potential, but it would really suck if the LP turned into the GOP-lite.

For once, a question I can answer (I helped draft the letter and was involved in the process).

Rule of thumb: If you’re going to make a complaint, be ready with a suggested remedy.

Application of rule of thumb:

We knew Nolan was going to be in Denver.

We knew Nolan would consent to speak if invited.

We knew Nolan would be willing to pledge not to use the keynote as a bully pulpit for or against a candidate.

We knew that Nolan hadn’t endorsed a candidate — and that while he’s said some harsh things about some of them, he’s said at least SOMETHING positive about all or nearly all of them.

Time being of the essence, and Nolan being acceptable to those candidates who committed to sign the letter, problem solved. If any of the above things had not been true, we’d have continued the search.

If the chair replies with something like “I see your point and Viguerie is out, but the keynote will be [some prominent personage figure who meets the same criteria] instead of David Nolan,” I don’t think that any of the signatory candidates will complain. The problem they had will have been remedied. The fact that they offered a specific remedy doesn’t mean that’s the only remedy they’re willing to accept.

The letter was also submitted to Wayne Allyn Root, Senator Gravel and Congressmen Barr (the last via Steve Gordon as the only personal address I had for him at the time has previously been an office-screened address with some turnaround time).

Root declined via his staff to sign the letter, but not with any state objection. I got the feeling that he was in the middle of some heavy campaign stuff, didn’t have time to make a proper investigation and satisfy himself of the complaint’s validity, and didn’t want to sign without doing so. No problem.

Neither Senator Gravel nor Congressman Barr responded at all. Given their hectic schedules, I don’t think it would proper to read anything into that non-response.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Shit, someone like Brian Doherty would have been great.

So does Michael Cloud and his crew from MA.