The South Florida Sun-Sentinel today has a feature on this year’s Boston Tea Party presidential nominee, saying that “when he loses, Charles Jay loses big. … The number of votes Jay won in the three states in which he was on the ballot — Florida, Colorado and Tennessee — topped 2,300. In Florida, he took 791 votes, 35 in Broward.” The newspaper says the BTP is “an offshoot of the Libertarian Party, which advocates less government.” Jay “learned about the party only recently. ‘I was just surfing around one day on the Internet and happened to come upon their Web site,’ he said. ‘I said, “All right, this might be fun, let me put my hat in the ring to run for this nomination.”‘” Jay, who was the Personal Choice Party presidential candidate in 2004, says he is not likely ot run for president again.
Jay unlikely to run for president again
November 10th, 2008 · 43 Comments
Filed Under: Non-left/right parties
43 responses so far ↓
1 Robert Milnes // Nov 10, 2008 at 4:00 am
fellow good losers, if i had won the nomination i would have immediately asked tk to step down in favor of a woman for a fusion ticket and called on lp and green state parties to disaffiliate and transfer ballot access to btp and others. but noooooooooooooooooo. i’ve already declared an independent candidacy for 2012.
2 Jeremy Young // Nov 10, 2008 at 4:12 am
Robert, I think that’s a mistake.
3 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 10, 2008 at 4:59 am
When parsing the statements of prospective presidential candidates, it pays to give those statements very close scrutiny.
Here’s what Jay actually said:
“This kind of a race is not in my future,” he said. “I would not do it this way again.” [Emphases mine]
In 2004, Jay switched tracks at the last minute from seeking the LP’s vice-presidential nomination to accepting the presidential nomination of the Personal Choice Party.
In 2008, it was by no means obvious that the Boston Tea Party would nominate a presidential candidate until a few days before it happened.
I don’t take Jay’s statement to mean either that he will or that he won’t run again … but rather that if he does run again, it will be a campaign with a longer timeline, a more intensive fundraising effort, and with a party that can provide its nominee with more advantageous ballot access than the PCP circa 2004 or 2008 or the BTP circa 2008.
4 Nexus // Nov 10, 2008 at 9:08 am
Your persistent Milnes, I’ll give you that.
5 TheOriginalAndy // Nov 10, 2008 at 11:20 am
Charles Jay seems like a good guy. He should consider seeking the LP’s Presidential or Vice Presidential nomination for 2012, or perhaps he should consider running for a state or local office in Florida.
6 DWP2016 // Nov 10, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Robert,
You could have asked the LP, CP, GP and others to do many things; that doesn’t mean that they would have done it.
Tom,
I encourage you to run in 2012; which leads to my run in 2016.
We also have a few young members that aspire to seek the nomination in 2028 & 2032
7 HumbleTravis // Nov 10, 2008 at 3:13 pm
My cousin had a baby not too long ago, maybe I can start putting the word in for this youngster to run in the hotly contested 2044 race.
8 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 10, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Darryl,
Be careful what you encourage
I am not firmly decided on running, but I am leaning toward it enough that I’ve already started staffing my campaign organization. I plan to continue doing basic nuts and bolts work while I decide, and I plan to decide by next spring.
If I run, it will be because I believe there are things I need to say and do that I can say and do more effectively as a candidate than as a supporter of a candidate.
Best regards,
Tom
9 paulie cannoli // Nov 10, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I’ve already started staffing my campaign organization.
Who do you have? Have you formed an exploratory committee?
10 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 10, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Paulie,
I have a chief of staff and a treasurer, and I’m talking with a prospective finance chair. Beyond that, if I run I hope to find a good webmaster — and then do a better job of exploiting your own “open source campaign” suggestions than I was able manage with Kubby’s campaign.
I don’t really buy into the whole “exploratory committee” thing. Ten presidential election cycles prove that the electorate doesn’t particularly care one way or another about the LP, especially at the pre-nomination stage, so any “exploration” would be internal, and it’s already happening in the form of emails, etc., saying either “I’d support you” or “that’s a really stupid idea.” No committee needed.
Regards,
Tom
11 Hugh Jass // Nov 10, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Tom,
Are you considering running for the LP nomination as well, or just the BTP?
12 Trent Hill // Nov 10, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Tom should at least TRY for the LP nomination, with a fallback position to the BTP.
Im involved in a Draft Gary Johnson effort =)
13 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:41 am
Tom,
Of course, I don’t know who all else would be running yet (I haven’t heard anyone I’m excited about supporting make a commitment at this time, but maybe they will later), but feel free to ask for help with stuff if you need any.
14 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:42 am
First piece of unsolicited advice: Go for the Green nomination also.
15 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 1:03 am
Im willing to bet Kubby runs again,and wins this time.
16 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 1:13 am
That would be a good change of pace.
17 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 1:40 am
Hah. Im betting Kubby for the LP, prolly Jerome Corsi for the CP, and Matt Gonzalez for the GP.
And with that said, i’d bet Gonzalez gets the highest non-Nader vote totals the GP has ever seen. I bet Corsi, with his many millions, is able to at least somewhat-self finance and break Baldwin’s new record, and I bet Kubby finishes with around the Browne/Barr/Paul mark.
18 Mike Gillis // Nov 11, 2008 at 2:07 am
My 2012 prediction:
The LP nominates Ruwart/Kubby
19 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 2:11 am
I doubt Ruwart runs again. Two losses is alot for the ego to take.
Or was it two losses and a vice-presidential loss?
Besides…I’d go for Kubby over Ruwart.
20 G.E. // Nov 11, 2008 at 2:33 am
I’d rejoin the party in an instant (if they’d have me).
But my guess is that the 2012 ticket will make Barr/Root LOOK like Ruwart/Kubby.
21 Mike Gillis // Nov 11, 2008 at 2:37 am
I thought that you were never voting again. Ever.
22 G.E. // Nov 11, 2008 at 2:39 am
Are you kidding? I voted last week. I’m a pussy.
23 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 3:05 am
AHAHAHAHAH
Quote of the week,definetly.
What about Kubby/Another Radical or less offensive Reformer, GE?
24 G.E. // Nov 11, 2008 at 3:13 am
I won’t get too jazzed unless it’s Mary or someone from the Mises/LRC crowd.
25 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 3:21 am
Gotcha. Kubby/Ruwart?
I’d vote for Kubby. I like him alot.
Got an opinion on Gov. Johnson?
26 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:25 am
Wasn’t Jay an oppoortunist? Paraphrasing: “I was browsing the internet when I stumbled upon the BTP, they happened to be running a candidate for POTUS this year, so I decided to throw my hat into the ring” that sounds so bad on some many levels lol.
27 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:32 am
Got an opinion on Gov. Johnson?
I thought he said he was done with politics. Has he made any indication that he’s changed his mind?
28 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:34 am
I was browsing the internet when I stumbled upon the BTP, they happened to be running a candidate for POTUS this year, so I decided to throw my hat into the ring
Probably not exactly what he said, nut he ran last time on the same views, so I would not call that being an opportunist. Opportunity for what, anyway?
29 Libertarian Joseph // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:36 am
I don’t know. He wanted to get his name out there, maybe?
That was his story btw I thought it sounded way too convenient
30 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 7:46 am
Probably not exactly what he said, nut he ran last time on the same views,
#but he ran…
31 G.E. // Nov 11, 2008 at 8:51 am
Other than being a lot better than the average mainstream candidate; not really. Maybe I could get excited about his candidacy if he stood a decent chance of winning. Maybe he’s more libertarian than I know and I could get excited about his candidacy even if he didn’t have a chance of winning. One thing’s for sure, he’s got to be a lot better than that neocon tool Barry Goldwater, Jr. that you’re so in love with.
32 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 10:40 am
“I thought he said he was done with politics. Has he made any indication that he’s changed his mind?”
Perhaps. =)
33 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 10:43 am
“Other than being a lot better than the average mainstream candidate; not really. Maybe I could get excited about his candidacy if he stood a decent chance of winning. Maybe he’s more libertarian than I know and I could get excited about his candidacy even if he didn’t have a chance of winning. One thing’s for sure, he’s got to be a lot better than that neocon tool Barry Goldwater, Jr. that you’re so in love with.”
Gov. Johnson is probably more libertarian than you expect. Against the Federal Reserve, for legalized currency competition, against the War in Iraq, a serious opponent of the War on Drugs, etc. Quite Ron Paulian.
As for Goldwater Jr., his endorsement of McCain in the general hardly makes him a neocon. Just a different strategy. He’s opposed to the War in Iraq (and most others), War on Drugs, Federal Reserve,etc.
34 mattc // Nov 11, 2008 at 11:18 am
Gov. Johnson’s wikipedia says that he’s stated he’s open to running, and it gives a couple citations to back that up.
35 Steve LaBianca // Nov 11, 2008 at 11:53 am
Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 2:11 am
I doubt Ruwart runs again. Two losses is alot for the ego to take.
Though I was on Mary’s campaign staff, I have no “inside” information on this.
My inkling is this however . . . if Mary believes that she can wage a successful candidacy for the LP nomination, and she could be a positive influence in promoting libertarianism to the voters in America, she will run again.
Make no mistake about this . . . Mary Ruwart is as dedicated to promoting liberty as anyone I know. Like all of us, she does have an ego, but I believe that her committment to the pursuit of liberty would trump ego. Just my humble opinion.
36 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 11:57 am
“Gov. Johnson’s wikipedia says that he’s stated he’s open to running, and it gives a couple citations to back that up.”
I’ll say this: He is definetly open to running. My understanding is that he is not just “open to” running, he’s planning on it.
37 Steve LaBianca // Nov 11, 2008 at 11:59 am
Gary Johnson is a likable guy. He spoke at the 2002 LP convention in Indianapolis, and has generally shown himself to be libertarian in many ways.
My own thoughts, while listening to his speech was that he is somewhat apologetic to the state’s actions when he believed “intervention” was necessary. My opinion is that state intervention is never necessary, and I believe that a true minarchist would hold to this belief.
Thus, even though Johnson does have libertarian traits, I don’t think he qualifies as a minarchist. I would characterize him as a “constitutionalist”, and a supporter of all the interventions that that document allows.
38 Peter Orvetti // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I would happily support Johnson, Kubby, Paul, Root, or Ruwart in 2012.
39 Peter Orvetti // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:55 pm
There’s a slim chance I may run for vice president in 2012, if career and family permit.
40 G.E. // Nov 11, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Trent - Do you have any documentation of Johnson’s anti-Fed creds?
41 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 2:56 pm
GE,
So far, only his speech at the Rally for the Republic, where he mentions being against the Fed. I’ll have more information soon though.
42 Trent Hill // Nov 11, 2008 at 2:57 pm
It is my understanding that amongst his top advisors will be several economic advisors that were close to Ron Paul (GE, if you’re curious you can email me, i’ll give you names).
43 paulie cannoli // Nov 11, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I’m interested. You can email them to me as well.
Leave a Comment