17 responses so far ↓

• 1 Hugh Jass // Aug 21, 2008 at 10:59 pm

  Good to see that our party is getting on more states. Is Jay going to be on the Utah ballot again?

• 2 Ross Levin // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:02 am

  They said they would try to get on a couple more states, but didn’t say which.

• 3 Robert Milnes // Aug 22, 2008 at 5:50 am

  Hugh Jass, just think, if I had been voted BTP nominee & TK deferred to Mary Ruwart or KK for vp & Btp had gotten on another 3 baker’s dozen ballots, we could have won!

• 4 Thomas L. Knapp // Aug 22, 2008 at 6:36 am

  Bob,

  1) It would have been impossible for me to have “deferred” to Dr. Ruwart or Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski for VP, since neither of them sought, or even expressed a willingness to accept, the Boston Tea Party’s VP slot (or, for that matter, any VP slot with you on the ticket).

  2) The BTP nominated its presidential slate on June 17th. To date, I’ve seen no evidence that you dispose of resources which would have allowed it to achieve ballot access for its slate in one state, let alone 39 states, between said nomination and the various state deadlines.

  3) Assuming that you had been nominated for president by the BTP, and that Dr. Ruwart or Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski had had a change of heart and agreed to serve as VP, and that the money and support to put you and your running mate on the ballot in 39 states, I rather suspect that in November you would have polled less than 1/10th of one percent of the popular vote nationwide. Math may or may not be your strongest subject, but please take my word for this: 1/2 of one percent of the popular vote will not win a presidential election.

• 5 JimDavidson // Aug 22, 2008 at 6:54 am

  Hugh, I’ve asked Charles about Utah several times. I’ve also tried to contact the Personal Choice party through their web site contact. I really don’t know what to expect there, but my guess is we’ll have to organise for ourselves in Utah.

  We’ve a team in Louisiana, I know.

  Robert, the polling data on our site reveal that, even without help from Rice Beckons, the members of the Boston Tea Party were happier with “None of the Above” than you.

  If one were to allow the extremely unlikely hypothetical that you were to be nominated in place of Charles Jay, we then have Tom Knapp deferring to someone else. I can’t really estimate Tom’s willingness to do so, but he does seem to like to honor the party members in their choices.

  Then we have the extreme unlikeliness of Mary Ruwart accepting a nomination from the Boston Tea Party. Keep in mind we had offered to endorse her if she won the LP nomination, and we also invited her to run during our nominating convention. Keep in mind that she would seem to prefer ruling in Hades (or at least serving on the LNC) than serving in heaven.

  I know Karen Kwiatkowski, and I have no reason to suppose she would have wanted the Boston Tea Party’s nomination for VP, either.

  Then we have the next extreme unlikelihood, getting on “3 baker’s dozen” more ballots than we have. 3 * 13 = 39

  Robert, if you could have written a check on 19 June for $100K for ballot work, I find it doubtful we could have made that many ballots. I would have enjoyed trying, though.

  “We” in the example you give, could not have won. We could have lost in 39 states instead of 5.

• 6 Nexus // Aug 22, 2008 at 9:02 am

  “Robert, the polling data on our site reveal that, even without help from Rice Beckons, the members of the Boston Tea Party were happier with “None of the Above” than you.”

  OUCH!!

• 7 Hugh Jass // Aug 22, 2008 at 12:23 pm

  So, the Louisiana slate is Jay/Davidson?

• 8 Hugh Jass // Aug 22, 2008 at 1:04 pm

  Robert,

  If you’re really so desperate to prove to everyone that you have the magic formula to win this election, here is something you can do:
  1. Pay $500 to the Louisiana Secretary of State
  2. Find someone willing to be your running mate, or at least someone who isn’t going to refuse.
  3. Find nine people in Louisiana who are willing to be your electors.

  If you cannot do those things, I think it woulod be time to reanalyze your strategy, since I doubt anyone who can’t find 10 supporters and $500 is going to be president. If by some odd circumstance, you do make the ballot in Louisiana, please take the >0.1% result that you will inevitably get as evidence that your strategy is seriously flawed. If by some miracle you manage to win Louisiana’s electoral votes, I promise that I will pay for all of your psychiatric treatment.

• 9 Robert Milnes // Aug 22, 2008 at 1:24 pm

  Hum. I thought Jay had Utah locked.

• 10 Robert Milnes // Aug 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm

  Hugh Jass, It should be you guys so desperate to try something that just might work rather than losing hugely again & again. To the likes of those awful dems & reps. What with the state of the economy & the earth & all the wars & stuff. Not to mention being slaves to liquid death (oil). And so on.

• 11 Robert Milnes // Aug 22, 2008 at 1:40 pm

  Jim Davidson, I do not “Know” KK. I’ve exchanged a few emails. I believe if she & I showed up at the LNC meeting Sept 6 in Washington we might could salvage the situation. So run that by her. & don’t underestimate BTP. It could get a lot more ballot access. Libs seem to have a knack for that But I think it is too late this cycle. It is tempting to support BTP. It is tempting to go for Milsted’s upper left party also. But that would only further split the vote. No, the best alternative is to work within the LP to salvage the situation. & I’ve put a LOT of thought into this.

• 12 svf // Aug 22, 2008 at 1:52 pm

  Milnes is a pain in the ass, but I have to admit he’s on to something here…

  Let’s see… so we’ve got the BTP, CP, and LP (including two different candidates in NH) — not to mention the “write in Ron Paul” movement that refuses to die — going after the same already far-from-enormous “libertarian-leaning” voting bloc…

  “Divided We Fall!”… such brilliant political strategy!

• 13 Mike Gillis // Aug 22, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  svf,

  But Ron Paul is the only candidate that could have united those different groups, not Milnes.

  That’s what he continually fails to grasp. That a great strategy is useless without a great candidate to implement it.

• 14 Hugh Jass // Aug 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  Robert,

  You failed to address the point. The state of Colorado presented you a golden opportunity to prove to the world that you hold the key to electoral success, where the only requirement is 10 supporters and $500, and you missed that opportunity. However, the state of Louisiana is presenting you a second chance, where the ballot access laws are the same. Surely someone who claims he can get 40% of the vote can find 10 supporters and $500? If not, then that should be the writing on the wall that your strategy is deeply flawed.

• 15 Thomas L. Knapp // Aug 23, 2008 at 3:55 am

  svf,

  You write:

  “Let’s see… so we’ve got the BTP, CP, and LP (including two different candidates in NH) — not to mention the ‘write in Ron Paul’ movement that refuses to die — going after the same already far-from-enormous ‘libertarian-leaning’ voting bloc…”

  I don’t think that’s very accurate.

  The LP should be going after the “libertarian-leaning voting bloc,” but this year it chose to nominate a presidential slate that’s targeting the “Republicana who hate John McCain voting bloc,” the “Dixiecrat states’ rights bloc” and the “true conservative bloc” instead.

  The CP, as is usually the case, is seeking support from the “irrational enough to believe that government can be smaller than it is now while simultaneously large enough to impose our religious beliefs on everyone else, if only we can rewrite history to make that happen bloc.”

  The BTP really doesn’t have its shit together well enough to be targeting blocs yet, except to the extent that we’re attracting some support from the “Libertarian Party activists who prefer libertarian, rather than anti-McCain Republican Dixiecrat states’ rights, presidential slates bloc.”

• 16 JimDavidson // Aug 25, 2008 at 2:32 pm

  Hugh, we were working on Walter Block for VP, but I think Charles may have dropped several balls in that process. If it gets back on track, IPR will get a press release pronto.

  With regard to any “Davidson” candidacy, my personal principles are not sufficiently flexible to allow me to run for any public office. I do not have any plans to ever run for office in any political party, either. I simply do not believe that voting is a good way of taking choices. I am utterly opposed to initiatory force, and I see no way to hold public office in the USA at any level without initiating force.

  With regard to Utah, if there is a Personal Choice Party, they aren’t talking to me.

  Robert, I don’t work for you. I don’t especially like you. I vehemently disagree with many of your positions. I am not going to “run that by” Karen, nor anyone else.

  Your notion that the LNC would bring further wrath from LP members by repudiating the results of the Denver convention back in May and installing you and Karen as the presidential ticket is weird. The unreality of it is confirmed merely by looking at the ballot access deadlines and substitution rules in each state. The remote possibility that you would be on ballots this year is gone. Start planning for 2012.

  I think Milsted is a twit, but that’s based on personal experience and is not an official policy statement.

  Tom, I object to the idea that the Boston Tea Party doesn’t have its act together. At this point, our act, such as it is, is to build party membership and state affiliates, so there is something to the party of substance rather than a thin veneer of substance spread over the surface area of the country. You are a heck of a guy, but you wouldn’t look good spread that thin.

  The endorsing of other parties’ candidates is a clever bit of business, but not really much of an act. The proliferation of social networking sites (please help me add the Xanga stuff this month) suggests a possibility that our party could have its marketing “go viral.” Not to be confused with virile marketing, of which we’ve seen more than we need.

  I think we’re doing remarkably well given that as of the 1st of May the party was 30 people, four fake state affiliates, and a web site. We’re arguably over 300 people if we count the Facebook members, we have 11 real state affiliates, and the web site is way better than it was then.

  Your analysis (urinalysis?) of the Constitution Party (every time I see the initials CP I’m thinking Child Porn and “To Catch a Predator”) seems spot on. There is a disturbing affliction, which might be characterised as an infection, of religious extremists who are also constitutionalists. It would be nice if the Constitution Party wanted to restore the government to be within the limits of the exact text of the constitution. But, although many of them are very nice, they seem to be insistent on also restoring Christianity to the government – which conflicts in many ways with the constitutionality goal.

  I find myself perplexed by the Constitution Party. But, people who believe that a document guarantees their freedom are a bit daft.

• 17 Thomas L. Knapp // Aug 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm

  Jim,

  You write:

  “Tom, I object to the idea that the Boston Tea Party doesn’t have its act together.”

  We’re talking about two different kinds of acts.

  I agree that on the short-term calendar, we’ve already accomplished some really amazing things, and that we can and should be proud of them. I agree with your assessment of what the BTP’s goals this year should be, and that we can proudly claim to have our act together on those goals.

  There’s a longer term act, however — becoming a viable 50-state party that effectively offers Americans a libertarian alternative to the status quo. We don’t have that act together yet, nor do I think it would be reasonable to expect us to have it together this quickly. Saying that we don’t isn’t intended as an attack on the party, but as an assessment of the party’s situation.

Leave a Comment