I have no problem with how this article was referenced or handled by Paulie.

Lance Brown, why was former executive directrix Shane Cory forced to resign? I believe it was because he encouraged staff of the LP to show bias against one of the candidates prior to the nominating convention. Why was Cory paid $17,870.97 after leaving his job? Do you even care?

You have no problem with Bob Barr because everything he says is perfect. But, many people do. Many members of the LP aren’t leaving the LP, and are not supporting Bob Barr. Are they also cowards, deserters, and traitors, in your view? You’ve said despicable, disgusting, hateful things about me and the members of the Boston Tea Party.

I think you are a disgusting worm. What have you ever done for freedom that I should care?

*rolls eyes*

The situation is hardly comparable.

To reform the GOP or DP in 1971 would have been an impossible task. Both parties were massive, had thousands of anti-liberty elected officials, and had a message which was anti-liberty at the core.

To reform the LP of 2008 seems easy by comparison. The core message of the LP, even if it has become less pure over the years, is still a lot closer to pure libertarian than the GOP/DP of 1971. The party is smaller and less entrenched in politics than the GOP/DP. It doesn’t have thousands of elected officials who are — at their core — the anti-theses of liberty. The LP — unlike the GOP/DP of 1971 — has a significant proportion of the party that adheres to pure libertarianism.

If pure libertarianism is to have a home anywhere, it’ll be the LP.

On the other hand, turd potty watch copies other people’s work without citing the author, doesn’t fix it when the problem is pointed out to them,
censors links to IPR in the comments, falsely attributes articles to people who did not write them (separate problem from the plagiarism), and otherwise continues to be a continuing textbook example of disgraceful perfidy in action.

WTF?

An internet-based political party is naturally going to get more coverage on the Internet than in print media.

Saying otherwise shows a complete lack of common sense on your part.

We cover news that’s sent to us, almost without fail. If some other central-planning Nazi would like to “correctly” proportion coverage, they can start their own sites.

“At this time, I am reconsidering my previously stated intention…”

“I don’t have to choose between the Boston Tea Party’s presidential slate and the Libertarian Party’s presidential slate. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not on the ballot in Missouri. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not going to be on the ballot in Missouri. ”

Tom, you already have chosen between the two slates. You’ve disavowed one, and you’re on the other one. You are actively promoting another party’s presidential slate (from the LP perspective). I realize that you haven’t necessarily yet bumped into an official, rules-based conflict between your two conflicting sides, but you yourself acknowledge that it’s just a matter of time. The conflict is already there, whether it manifests in something that makes you resign a position or not.

Pretending to be an LP loyalist while also being the guy who started the anti-LP sour grapes party is not something you are going to be able to maintain very well, I suspect. I find most of what you have to say on the subject very hard to swallow.

NOTA finished quite well in the presidential nomination vote this year. I would bet that if the LP nominated a more acceptable candidate, NOTA would have won the BTP nomination, and the BTP’s National Committee might be debating the nomination of the LP’s presidential nominee.

Nice catch, but look a little more carefully. You write:

“It seems like you were saying that if the BTP and LP nominated opposing presidential slates, you would no longer ‘be free to serve and support my state LP’.”

Only if you leave out an entire, very specific, clause. What I wrote was:

“I am free to support and serve my state LP until such time as … the LP and the Boston Tea Party nominate opposing presidential slates which I’d have to decide between. [emphasis mine]

I don’t have to choose between the Boston Tea Party’s presidential slate and the Libertarian Party’s presidential slate. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not on the ballot in Missouri. The Boston Tea Party’s 2008 presidential slate is not going to be on the ballot in Missouri.

When the Boston Tea Party forms an affiliate in Missouri, I will of course join it (I may even help organize it). When and if the Missouri BTP affiliate enters into competition with the Missouri LP (by, for example, seeking ballot access for its own slate of candidates), I will resign any offices of trust I hold in the Missouri LP. At this time, I am reconsidering my previously stated intention to seek such an office of trust next month with precisely that potential conflict in mind.

If TPW did the same for the articles it copies, I don’t think we would have much of a problem. Even if all they did was credit us, with or without a link, that would be a major improvement.

- copied in whole from another blog
- did not link back

but did not

- fail to mention the author’s name

what you did has ZERO resemblance whatsoever to what you reamed TPW for doing.

Is that what you want to hear?

You got 2/3. That’s pretty close. In any case, what distinguishes you is you made it right.

So relax.

I’m on your side, generally speaking, so no reason to get your dander up.

In my experience, BTP members remain some of the most “keep my toys here and play hard” activists in the LP — myself included.

But isn’t it proper to judge a party by its presidential candidate? Good for the goose…, right? Charles Jay hasn’t been doing much keeping his toys here and playing hard. He ditched the LP in 2004 for the sweet meat that is the Personal Choice Party’s one-state presidential nomination, and the 946 votes that came with it.

I haven’t kept track of the hours, but offhand I suspect I’ve put in close to a 40-hour work week in meatspace LP activism in the last month, incidentally including distributing hundreds of LP brochures and fliers that feature the party’s presidential ticket.

Bob Barr is putting way more hours in than that for the LP. I’m just sayin’.

BTW, Tom, what do you make of this statement of yours from your original pout-off in 2006?:

“Since I am not a national officer, I have no obligation to belong to only one national political party; and since the Boston Tea Party has, as yet, no state affiliate in my state, I am free to support and serve my state LP until such time as that changes and/or until the LP and the Boston Tea Party nominate opposing presidential slates which I’d have to decide between. “

It seems like you were saying that if the BTP and LP nominated opposing presidential slates, you would no longer “be free to serve and support my state LP”. It’s not totally clear why you felt that was the case, but it seems like the time has come to revisit this statement, no? Because “in the heat of the moment” party-inventing 2006 Tom seems to be implying that on-the-opposing-party’s-presidential-slate Tom of 2008 might have a conflict of interest on his hands.

Which means that future LP candidates will get mostly the beneficial baggage (pro-liberty, anti-status quo two party system, pro-privacy/4th amendment, anti-war) and little of the Barr-specific negative baggage. Meaning, voters aren’t going to come away thinking, “Libertarians are people who support the Patriot Act, and supported a vote for the Iraq War. Libertarians are drug warriors.” I can’t think of a single interview or legitimate news piece so far that has left that impression.

One of the major faults I see among the Barr-spooked “Chicken Little” crowd is that they refuse to notice or least acknowledge that while Bob Barr is saying and doing things that can be considered setbacks for the LP/liberty movement, his candidacy is doing a lot of good for the LP and liberty movement in other ways. I check the “Bob Barr” news alert regularly, and I’ve watched most of his mainstream TV news appearances, and there is a lot of good going on there among the notable cringe-worthy moments. And there are a lot more good moments than cringe-worthy ones, on the whole. And, perhaps most importantly, the media is taking the LP candidate (and therefore the LP) more seriously than they have in a long time. That is a benefit that will accrue to subsequent Libertarians down the line (not to mention to worthy candidates in this cycle).

I could go on. Barr’s “state’s rights” drug war stance is uncool, but his “the federal drug war has failed, and I should know because I was a major proponent of it” stance is GREAT for liberty and for the LP. His stance that he used to think medical marijuana was bunk and now he doesn’t think that is also great. If he achieved his stated goal on the drug war, it would be the biggest step in the right direction since the drug war began. If, as is more likely, he persuades other formerly-fervent drug war supporters to rethink their views, that would be a huge victory for the LP – something that the LP prez candidate has not been able to accomplish for who knows how long.

I could go on. Have you heard how Barr talks about the Bush administration? He is (surprisingly, to me) scathing. For all that folks say Barr is a GOP stooge of some sort, he has pounded McCain harder than Obama at almost every turn, and has pounded Bush twice as hard as either of them. He even said he’d prefer Bill Clinton over Bush.

BTW, voters aren’t all that dumb. They understand the difference between a nominee and a party, and that there are often differences between the two. And almost every interview I’ve seen with Barr has highlighted the places where he strays or has strayed from libertarianism. Which means that future LP candidates will get mostly the beneficial baggage (pro-liberty, anti-status quo two party system, pro-privacy/4th amendment, anti-war) and little of the Barr-specific baggage.

In my experience, BTP members remain some of the most “keep my toys here and play hard” activists in the LP — myself included. I haven’t kept track of the hours, but offhand I suspect I’ve put in close to a 40-hour work week in meatspace LP activism in the last month, incidentally including distributing hundreds of LP brochures and fliers that feature the party’s presidential ticket.

Then again, like you, I’m probably prone to see what I want to see.

I guess so, because you apparently don’t see how you are damaging your own party, and setting back the freedom movement, by further splintering us when we need to be getting more united. When presented with a problem (the perceived rot or takeover of the LP), you chose the path of sour grapes and division. And now you have to spin the narrative of the LP’s downfall, even while still a part of it, because it’s the whole reason for the BTP. Which is why you’re starting to sound a bit schizophrenic when you try and explain how you’re not anti-LP, etc.

You are anti-LP, whether you realize it or not. And accusing the Barr campaign of doing long-term or short-term damage to the LP and freedom movement amounts to the pot calling the kettle black.

You could have taken a much more positive approach, is all I’m saying. If you can’t see that, I can’t make you see it.

Huh? Quoting someone accurately without saying exactly where they said it, while making it very easy for anyone who knows how to use a search engine to verify the source, is perfectly fine.

Not in any way analogous to copying material from a competing blog without any credit to the source.