Thomas Knapp has agreed to run for vice president on the Boston Tea Party ticket. The party will hold its online convention June 14th and, as of yet, Knapp’s only potential opponent for the nomination, Tom Andrew Barnett, has seconded his nomination.
Charles Jay is the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, although at least two other candidates — Tom Stevens and Robert Milnes — are seeking the BTP nomination.
Knapp says he will still run for Congress as a Libertarian.
The Boston Tea Party expects to be on the ballot in Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, and possibly other states.
From Tom Knapp’s blog:
[The Boston Tea Party is] my baby. I created it, and it just seems wrong not to tag along for whatever ride it may take me on. Vanity? OK, fine — I’m relentlessly clawing my way to the top of the “exceedingly minor historical footnote” pile. I hear there’s a free set of steak knives or something waiting up there.
26 responses so far ↓
1 Mike Theodore // Jun 4, 2008 at 6:52 pm
sweet, I could support a totally whacked out ticket to demonstrate freedom on a base scale. BUMPER STICKERS!
2 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 6:57 pm
This ticket could be the backup plan to keep Barr in line with libertarian principles. They will not be able to get on the ballot in many states, but they should be able to register as official write ins in many, allowing high-profile libertarians to voice their disapproval of any Barr missteps by publicly endorsing the BTP ticket.
3 Thomas L. Knapp // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:05 pm
“Seek” is a stronger term than I’d personally use. I was nominated, I was seconded … and my attitude is “hey, why not?” If they want me, they’ve got me. If they don’t want me, I’ve got a bottle of bourbon calling for my attention.
Specifically, I’ve now done all the campaigning I intend to do for the BTP’s VP nomination. My only opponent so far, Todd Andrew Barnett, has indicated an interest in debate, and I’m up for that I guess, but if I debate my premise will not be “why you should nominate me rather than Todd,” but simply “what are the issues and how do we differ on them?”
4 John P Slevin // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:13 pm
G.E.
As Phillies pointed out, the enemy is not behind our own lines.
Why should activists spend time diminishing the LP when folks like McCain and Obama are on the ballot?
And diminishing the LP is all I see happening if activists who could spend their time supporting it instead were spending their time trying to deny ballot access and support from reaching the LP.
5 G.E. // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:19 pm
JPS – If something like this can make Barr a better, more libertarian candidate, then how is it bad? Your blind trust of Barr is unearned.
6 Jared // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Realistically, how many states could they be at least eligible for write-ins?
7 John P Slevin // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:26 pm
G.E.,
Since you tell me Mary Ruwart led you to discover the LP, I can assure you I was distrusting Barr long before you.
To paraphrase Saroyan: if it is a politician, be distrustful. If it ever was a Republican, or Democrat, be very distrustful.
Jared’s question is the operative one here. Why spin wheels? We ain’t got enough wheels to have any off the road.
8 Thomas L. Knapp // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:40 pm
John,
I can’t speak for anyone else, but MY time and efforts are MINE to dispose of as I choose. They only “belong” to the LP to the extent that I choose to invest them in the LP.
That aside, if nominated, I will not spend one second of my time or one dollar of my money, or anyone else’s, “trying to deny ballot access and support from reaching the LP.” So far as I know, the LP is already on the ballot in every state where the BTP might conceivably also be on the ballot except for Tennessee. Ballot Access News says that the LP is “in court” there, presumably versus the high petition requirement for a party rather than independent ballot line (if the BTP is on there, it will almost certainly be as independent, and it will have no effect on the litigation).
As far as votes are concerned, I have no intention of attempting to court voters who are disposed toward the LP’s ticket — and I expect to bring more voters TO the LP ticket in Missouri than I’d bring to the BTP ticket elsewhere.
Quit whining. It’s unseemly.
9 Jared // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:43 pm
My question wasn’t in jest. I really want to know what is realistic.
10 Ross Levin // Jun 4, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Knapp – please, please don’t actually campaign. Just focus on your Congressional race. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time and money and effort. It would be better if the BTP ticket was just a symbolic ticket, IMHO.
11 Thomas L. Knapp // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Ross,
My intent is to give my congressional race every minute and every dollar I have and can profitably give it, and to continue supporting the LP’s presidential ticket.
I’ve outlined my reasons for being willing to accept the BTP’s VP nomination. Note well that competing with the LP is NOT among those reasons. If I thought that was what it would entail, I’d have just said no.
Regards,
Tom
12 John P Slevin // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Tom Knapp wrote: “I can’t speak for anyone else, but MY time and efforts are MINE to dispose of as I choose. ”
I’ve never suggested otherwise.
13 Six plank suggestions for the Boston Tea Party « Last Free Voice // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:14 pm
[...] for the Boston Tea Party The Boston Tea Party seems to have found its ticket — Charles Jay and Tom Knapp — and it is working on a platform. I recently joined the BTP and offered six suggestions on [...]
14 John P Slevin // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Jared, I know your question wasn’t in jest.
It would be a large undertaking to qualify a write-in presidential ticket in many let alone all states.
That said, I think the BFP still could qualify to be on the ballot, not as write-in, in Colorado and Louisiana by paying something like a $500.00 filing fee.
Here are the write-in requirements for California (individual states make their own election laws):
Be a natural-born citizen of the United States,
B. Be at least 35 years of age, and
C. Be a resident of the United States at least 14 years.
U.S. Const., art. II §(5)
Voters in the November General Election are technically voting for the 55
presidential elector candidates, not directly for the candidates for President and
Vice-President. Therefore, in order to be a write-in candidate, a person must have
55 write-in presidential elector candidates file papers pledging themselves to the
presidential candidate.
2. The 55 write-in elector candidates for presidential elector who have pledged
themselves to vote for a candidate for President and a candidate for Vice-
President must file declarations of write-in candidacy, which must be received by
the Secretary of State on or before October 21, 2008 (E-14).
§§ 8650, 8651, 8652, 8653
15 Fred Church Ortiz // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Odds of me voting for the BTP ticket are nil, but odds of me volunteering as a CA write-in elector to get their votes counted are fair. As long as the progressive alliance doesn’t catch fire in it.
16 Robert Milnes // Jun 4, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Fred Church Ortiz, right. Heaven forbid that an independent might get on the ballot in enough states with BTP & Indian support & maybe get green ballots, maybe not. But enough to mathematically win. & enough people realized that independent might have some good ideas & bring in green & libertarian coattails & get in the debates & win & win the election. Unprecedented; closest being Teddy Roosevelt’s independent run in 1912. Heaven forbid. Catch fire indeed.
17 SEXYJC // Jun 4, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Please donate and urge others to donate. This is not a Primary , this is not a test. We need some serious money to get on crucial ballots and the window is closing as many deadlines are fast approaching in the next week or so. Please Please Please email, blogg, and ask for donations, state your case. http://www.bobbarr2008.com
18 Trent Hill // Jun 4, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Either Charles Jay or Tom Stevens would be good choices for the BTP. Charles Jay has been active in Utah for years,and the Personal Choice Party regularly recieves sizeable “income tax checkoffs” in Utah.
Tom Stevens, on the otherhand, has alot of friends in the Libertarian movement.
19 Fred Church Ortiz // Jun 4, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Robert: The BTP and Indians combined can’t get you on enough state ballots to win.
The GP delegates are pledged, and you’re not part of that process – we’ve been through this.
20 Jason_Gatties // Jun 4, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Does the Personal Choice Party still have Utah Ballot Access? If so, am I to assume it would be Jay/Knapp in Utah as well?
21 Jason_Gatties // Jun 4, 2008 at 10:07 pm
FYI..I’m a member of the BTP, although interacting with their website is very tough at times.
22 Jason_Gatties // Jun 4, 2008 at 10:51 pm
And GE, we have got to get this going. Using the forum is cumbersome. But I did email you and Todd.
23 Austin Cassidy // Jun 4, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Honestly, I think the Personal Choice Party works better as a name than the Boston Tea Party. Perhaps they should just merge the entities and try to take the PCP national?
This is an interesting development, though.
Being very conservative here, picking the lowest hanging fruit for ballot access…
Florida is good for 3,000 votes.
Louisiana will bring at least 1,200.
Jay got 1,000 in Utah last time.
Tennessee could be good for maybe 1,500.
At least 500 more from New Jersey.
Add some write-ins, and a few more ballot lines.
This ticket could get 10,000 to 15,000 votes nationally. Maybe a bit more, depending on ballot access and how hard they campaign.
24 Robert Milnes // Jun 5, 2008 at 9:28 am
Fred Church Ortiz, what I see is another political mistake in the making. Austin’s estimates look about right. So what amounts to an alternative ballot access line possibility to the LP is being wasted. Just like the LP ballot access was wasted on Barr. The fault is the obstinate purist notion that purity is more important than victory. e.g. case in point. Susan Hogarth recently declined my overtures for vp on an inclusive progressive alliance independent run. Much like Nader’s run only potentially far more inclusive. Her reasons, 2: Too busy and she objects to fusion candidacies. Case in point: Ruwart refuses to even talk with me. Then refuses to try for vp with Barr due to the obvious conflict of political philosophies. What about balancing the ticket? What about inclusiveness? Comparable to Obama/Clinton. Split the party. Now they will not win, in my opinion. Reagan democrats & many women & hispanics & elderly will vote McCain NOT BOB BARR who they probably do not know even exists. So, further split the teeny tiny third party pie INSTEAD of helping me to arrange an INCLUSIVE third party ticket to trump0 ALL the others esp the LP & GP & Nader but throw in the BTP & ALL the multitude of socialist parties. ALL will lose rather than one inclusive that very well could win, or rather more correctly, might have won. Tom Knapp continues to make political mistakes, much like his candidate Kubby. Go ahead & make your losing political statement.
25 Robert Milnes // Jun 5, 2008 at 9:31 am
I hope the Indians intervene & help me & bail us out. The irony won’t be lost on me.
26 Peter Orvetti // Jun 5, 2008 at 8:08 pm
If neither Barr nor the BTP qualifies for D.C. ballot access, I’d probably write in Jay. If the LP makes the ballot, I’d probably vote LP just to boost the overall popular vote count.
Leave a Comment