36 responses so far ↓

• 1 HumbleTravis // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:59 am

  Have y’all read Geoffry Pike’s new article on the Libertarian Party? It basically says what many on this site have been saying for months, somewhat similar to David Nolan’s “Crash & Burn”.

  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pike9.html

• 2 paulie cannoli // Nov 7, 2008 at 3:00 am

  Yes. I was thinking of asking Pike and Rockwell for permission to reprint.

• 3 Robert Milnes // Nov 7, 2008 at 3:55 am

  Pike has the third part wrong. That is the reformers. But I believe the Barr dixiecrat conservatives associated themselves with reformers in order to camoflage their actions. Barr belongs in the first classification. Listen to someone who says he can win if he sets forth a good argument & strategy. ME!

• 4 HumbleTravis // Nov 7, 2008 at 4:00 am

  I think of the three groups Pike lists, Barr would probably fit into the second group (disaffected Republicans) more than the first (LP radicals)!

• 5 Peter Orvetti // Nov 7, 2008 at 6:58 am

  Now 496,783 for LP. It would be nice to scrounge up 3,217 more…

• 6 paulie cannoli // Nov 7, 2008 at 7:52 am

  Maybe when the write-ins come in for DC and Maine.

• 7 Peter Orvetti // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:03 am

  There were 981 total write-in votes for president in D.C. I’m guessing no more than 100-200 were for Barr.

• 8 rdupuy // Nov 7, 2008 at 11:07 am

  Geoffry Pike’s analysis is basically unqualified remarks that he doesn’t support in any way.

  He would have you believe disaffected Republicans are pro-war, but that isn’t my experience.

  He wants you to say Barr hasn’t repudiated his record in Congress, but he’s done exactly that. Barr is a very elequent speaker on the part of Libertarianism.

  He would have you believe Mary Ruwart was close to winning, but I don’t even have to correct that. We know how the nomination process works. The anti-Barr forces did rally behind Ruwart on the last ballot, but hardly a pro-Ruwart movement existed.

  Ruwart ran for the presidential nomination in 1984 and was not selected.

  What happens at these things, is how we got the disasterous Badnarik campaign in 2004…the two front runners Nolan and Russo were in a dead heat, the contentious campaign, plus a good debate performance by Badnarik, unexpected put this dark horse in 2nd place after the first round of balloting…but all 3 were in 12 votes of each other. When Nolan was eliminated , his supporters, in an act of defiance, through their support behind Badnarik…the anyone but Russo thinking.

  That article is basically garbage. The author is not writing from any type of analytical or reasoned basis. Its another of the many articles about someones ‘feelings’.

  I know, the emo revolution is here, but, as for me, he would need to support his suppositions with a few facts, before I would endorse it, or even encourage other people to read it.

• 9 rdupuy // Nov 7, 2008 at 11:22 am

  p.s. I do agree the nominee should admit he has no chance of winning (unless he does have a chance, of course).

  Educate, build the base…that is the goal. I could criticize Barr, but ony for what he did wrong, not what he did correct. Barr should have desired the nomination, thats a good thing.

  He should have gone on tv all the time, as he did, thats a good thing. He got in new members, thats good.

  He recognized Ron Paul had become a destructive force in LP politics, and thats absolutely true. Ron Paul’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin, just goes to show where Ron Paul’s head is at, and how effective Ron Paul is for party building.

  The CP’s unexpected gift…well what did it do for them?

  I believe in competition. I believe in a battle of ideas. At the same time, there is a level of competition that should be ‘intra-party’ and a point at which people should join a different party.

  For example, if someone supports growing the size of government, there are other parties where they can join with like minded people.

  I think most ‘pure Libertarians’ and ‘reform Libertarians’…they are basically the same. They are firmly anti-war. They are for legalization of drugs. They want to reduce the size of government. They believe in the right to bear arms.

  We should definately be in the party together…however, with one important exception.

  If you believe so little in political parties, that you would engage in destructive behavior…there is no need for you.

  Anyone who doesn’t support the nominee, doesn’t understand the social contract you make, when you participate in the nomination process. Its not OPTIONAL to support the nominee.

  We need to toss out anyone, who doesn’t understand that.

• 10 Thomas M. Sipos // Nov 7, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  We need to toss out anyone, who doesn’t understand that.

  And if such people turn out to be a majority?

  The LP is a herd of cats.

  And you’re just another cat, with no say over who gets tossed out.

• 11 paulie cannoli // Nov 7, 2008 at 1:28 pm

  Current total is 497,206 for Barr

• 12 Mike Gillis // Nov 7, 2008 at 1:35 pm

  Anyone who doesn’t support the nominee, doesn’t understand the social contract you make, when you participate in the nomination process. Its not OPTIONAL to support the nominee.

  I would never join ANY party that took that sort of offensive stance.

  My first loyalties are always to my principles. And the only loyalty I will to a party or organization is based entirely on it’s loyalty to those same principles.

  It’s that same “you have to support the nominee, no matter what” mentality that drove me away from the major parties.

• 13 paulie cannoli // Nov 7, 2008 at 1:39 pm

  I’m with Gillis.

  BTW, Mike, I owe you five bucks. Where do I send it to?

• 14 Trent Hill // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  Im quite sure that Barr will cross over 500k.

• 15 G.E. // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  Geez. Bob Barr still has guys on the payroll even after the campaign? rdupuy — it’s time to get back on the corner sucking dick. The election is over, you need to move on to other whoring opportunities.

• 16 HumbleTravis // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:22 pm

  “Anyone who doesn’t support the nominee, doesn’t understand the social contract you make, when you participate in the nomination process. Its not OPTIONAL to support the nominee.”

  Huh? This sounds more like democratic centralism than libertarianism.

• 17 Mike Gillis // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  You don’t have to pay me, Paulie. Just send five bucks to Seattle Children’s Hospital. They do good work.

  http://waystohelp.seattlechildrens.org/donations/

• 18 paulie cannoli // Nov 7, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  Thanks.

• 19 George Dance // Nov 7, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  Interesting stuff from Pike; it looks like the unofficial Ruwart 2012 campaign has already begun. And, going by Pike’s (and Seagraves’s) comments, the tactics will be the same as in this one: to go after everyone who supported the man who beat Ruwart for the nomination this time as a “paid shill” (Seagraves) “trying to wreck the LP” (Pike), at least when they’re not “on the corner sucking dick” (Seagraves).

  While I don’t agree with all of Pike’s speculations, should such a campaign actually capture the nomination, I do have to agree with his idea that it will “get people excited.” I’m getting excited just thinking about it.

• 20 paulie cannoli // Nov 7, 2008 at 3:43 pm

  I could easily support Ruwart in 2012 if she decides to run. If she does, I hope this time she does not wait nearly so long to decide.

  I didn’t see the Ruwart campaign being negative this year. What freelance supporters say on their own is a different issue.

• 21 George Dance // Nov 7, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  I didn’t see the Ruwart campaign being negative this year. What freelance supporters say on their own is a different issue.

  On your first point, I only saw Ruwart herself go negative once, and that was in response to negativity, at the height of “kiddieporngate”. Of course what she said at the time was that all the negative comments she had received, whether from “freelance supporters” or not, were part of one giant Barr-directed conspiracy to smear her. So she would disagree that “what freelance supporters say on their own” is a different issue.

  Neither would Mr. Seagraves, given what he tells us he infers of rdupuy: that since the latter is a “supporter” of Barr, he cant possibly be “freelance” but must be a “paid shill.”

  I think it’s only fair to judge Mr. Seagraves by his own standards: if rdupuy is a “shill,” so is Mr. Seagraves.

• 22 paulie cannoli // Nov 7, 2008 at 5:25 pm

  I think there was in fact a concerted effort to attack Dr. Ruwart. I don’t have enough information to judge whether the Barr campaign was involved, but they certainly benefited from it.

  I don’t believe it’s even remotely plausible that every single person who bought into the attack against Mary and ran with it was part of that concerted effort. It is far more likely that the majority of people who attack Ruwart over the child porn “issue” are doing so with no pay and no centrally issued marching orders. If she has said otherwise, I would attribute it to being said in the heat of the moment; she has never struck me as paranoid.

  As to the pay to post comments issue, yes, I do know that at least some Barr supporters discussed it (that is as specific as I will get). I don’t have any evidence that the program ever materialized.

  In the end, I was never actually concretely offered pay. I don’t know whether this is because the kind of money that was hoped for to implement this sort of thing never came in, and thus the program was never implemented – or because I was judged to be an enemy of the campaign, and simply not hired for that reason.

• 23 AnthonyD // Nov 7, 2008 at 6:53 pm

  Here’s an novel idea: instead of moderates and purists throwing stones at each other and suggesting the other side should be banished from the party, lets have a spirited debate in the run-up to the 2012 convention, have the delegates vote, and support the winning LP ticket!

• 24 LaineRBT // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:19 pm

  Can Nader still hope to get about his 1996 total of 685K?

• 25 Catholic Trotskyist // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  It would be hilarious if Barr got 499999 votes. It could happen. What would be the reaction?

• 26 Peter Orvetti // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:41 pm

  Nader’s at 675, 350 right now, so he has a shot at 685K+ when absentees, etc., are added in. Barr is at 498,034.

• 27 LaineRBT // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:44 pm

  Yea I guess you are right, Nader got nearly 10,000 votes in Texas a write in so I wonder if those have been counted yet.

• 28 LaineRBT // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:45 pm

  Ment to say that Nader got 10K in Texas in 2004.

• 29 paulie cannoli // Nov 7, 2008 at 8:51 pm

  Yes, Barr will almost certainly get above 500k, Nader can still hit 700k.

• 30 Thomas L. Knapp // Nov 7, 2008 at 9:21 pm

  George,

  I rather doubt that Ruwart will run in 2012. The impression I got was that she only ran this year to save the party from Root (and, after he declared, from Barr).

  She damn near did it too — and to the extent that the LP retains any value at all as a vehicle for libertarian politics at the national level (which, I admit, isn’t much), that value is a monument to her campaign and to the campaigns of one or two others.

  Hopefully by 2012 the LP will have fully internalized the lesson that when it trades its principles to Dixiecrats and con artists for more votes, said Dixiecrats and con artists can’t be counted on to deliver on their end of the bargain.

• 31 JimDavidson // Nov 7, 2008 at 11:47 pm

  Even if Mary Ruwart were to run in 2012, I’m all in for Angela Keaton and Michelle Shinghal (in either order). The country needs a president smart enough to appoint Ron Paul as Secretary of the Treasury.

  Based on the millions of votes yet to be counted (absentee, write-in, provisional) it seems to me very likely that in this year of very high voter turnout, Ralph Nader might get as high as 750,000. Barr is certainly going to crack 500,000 by a substantial number. Charles Jay should be able to get 5,000.

  In percentage terms, I think Nader and Barr are coming in pretty close to where Nader and Browne were.

  It is clearly not important to support the nominee if one would have to sacrifice or even compromise principles to do so. Mike Gillis is exactly right on this point.

• 32 José C // Nov 8, 2008 at 12:25 am

  Anyone who doesn’t support the nominee, doesn’t understand the social contract you make, when you participate in the nomination process. Its not OPTIONAL to support the nominee.

  Those in the Libertarian Party owe a moral obligation to the other members of the Party and the nominee to support the nominee for President of the Party. This is especially true for officers of the Party and officers of the state parties. The system is meaningless if this is not so.

  There were some in the Party who after the convention did everything in their power to destroy Bob Barr’s campaign for President. This is one of the factors that resulted in Barr’s failure to get 1,000,000+ votes. Their actions were wrong and they should be ashamed.

  Libertarian – Republican talk show host Larry Alder debated another talk show host. Larry Alder said the option in this election was to vote for John McCain because Barack Obama was worse. The other talk show host argued a vote for John McCain and the Republican Party was wasted because the Republican Party has so strayed from its roots. A vote for a Republican is wasted because they will never get the message we want less government. Larry Alder could only see Democrats are worse so vote for Republicans.

  George Philies who I have supported in the past (I voted for him for Chair and President) acted inappropriately by not giving his 100% support for Bob Barr. George was on the ballot in two states and that was wrong. He should have supported National’s lawsuit to permit Bob Barr to replace his name on the ballot. In a constitutional republic the voters deserve to hear different points of views. The way the system (ballot access) has been rigged by the Democratic and Republican politicians is anti-liberty, is in violation of the ideals of our republic, and is wrong.

  George should have urged his supporters in those states he was on the ballot to vote for nominee, Bob Barr. If questioned by others such as the media George should have said the system is rigged by Democratic and Republican politicians, Bob Barr should be on the ballot instead of me, and he deserves the voters support.

  George, and the other candidates who sought the nomination had the chance to convince the delegates they should be the nominee for President of the Libertarian Party. They were unable to do so. The delegates for whatever the reason voted for Bob Barr. Unless the process was fraudulently conducted they had a moral obligation to support Bob Barr.

  In 1980 Presidential candidate Ed Clark was not supported by everyone in the movement. There were ads in Reason magazine by the anarchist wing urging readers not to support, vote for, or contribute money to Ed Clark. This was wrong.

  For this to be right would mean if ever a candidate who is an anarchist (Mary Ruwart?) receives the nomination those in the Party who are not anarchists would be in no obligation to support the nominee. They would be justified in having another Libertarian on the ballot. They would be justified in urging others to right in the name of another candidate. They would be justified in urging others to vote for a candidate of another political Party. They would be justified as Larry Alder did in urging others to vote for Republicans because the Democrats are worse.

• 33 Spence // Nov 8, 2008 at 1:27 am

  And if such people turn out to be a majority?

  The LP is a herd of cats.

  And you’re just another cat, with no say over who gets tossed out.

  While what you said at the end was pretty bullshit, rdupuy, I would advise you to disregard Sipos. The man may be witty in some regards, but when it comes to practical AKA common sense, he’s as knowledgeable as a goldfish.

  What interests me most is how much you guys all come so close to grasping the point only to fail. If HumbleTravis’ statement is to be agreed upon, then Pike’s article is as much garbage as Nolan’s Crash N’ Burn.

  Both of them fail to realize that they are simply part of a faction in a club that pretends to be all powerful, only for the reason that they rationalize away any dismal failure as a success for liberty. This is why the Libertarian Party is a crippled movement and MUST, MUST, MUST be destroyed, utterly. No more LNC, no more state affiliates- NOTHING.

  The LP with its frequent infighting, is more delusional than other third parties, not only refusing to take lessons from its failures, but constant blaming of each other. The culprits are not “purist” libertarians or “moderate” libertarian reformers or anyone of the sort. It’s the damn “educationists” who insist upon failure after failure.

  But the damage is done now. So is it any worth kicking them out? No, let them wallow in their own filth. Fuck the LP.

• 34 HumbleTravis // Nov 8, 2008 at 2:35 am

  I do not understand people who get indignant for others not supporting the nominee of any party. Something like 9% of Republicans voted for Obama. I’m sure that bothers their peers but guess what that’s how the whole “free will” thing works. If Ruwart had won the nomination and Barr supporters were unhappy with that then they would have been free to vote for somebody else or nobody at all. The Democrats did not let Dennis Kucinich participate in the primaries here in Texas because he wouldn’t sign onto a “loyalty oath” to support whoever the nominee was. That is the policy of bullies, not mature adults.

  Besides, the idea that the Libertarian Party can afford to kick anybody out is hilarious!

• 35 Mike Gillis // Nov 8, 2008 at 4:41 am

  UPDATE:

  Current totals:

  Obama-Biden: 65,340,608
  McCain-Palin: 57,358,053
  Nader-Gonzalez: 677,560
  Barr-Root: 499,004
  Baldwin-Castle: 180,382
  McKinney-Clemente: 146,296

• 36 paulie cannoli // Nov 9, 2008 at 12:10 am

  Latest

  Nader
  678,992

  Barr
  499,866

  Baldwin
  180,692

  McKinney
  146,527

Leave a Comment