Emailed by George Phillies to “undisclosed recipients”
Is there a campaign here?
For full data http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2008/12/22/104039/26
For the campaign, Barr 2008 raised a total of $1,361,178 and disbursed a total of $1,324,518. For October 16 to November 24 the Barr campaign raised $143,416. They spent $181,160. Unfortunately, in the same period, they also racked up a few debts, totaling $234,327, which were as of the filing still owed. That’s right. For every dollar raised in the last weeks of the campaign, Barr spent more than two and a half dollars.
Barr 2008 paid people. For the period October 16 to November 24, Jim Bovard was to get $57,000 for authoring fees, of which the campaign still needs to pay him $47,000. Shane Cory was to get more than $20,000; he has yet to get any of that amount. Russ Verney was to get $15,000, all of which is owed. Steve Gordon was only owed $5860, but he received the money. Remember, these are payments and debts appearing over a five-week period. Some of these people were also paid in earlier months.
You can be sure that Barr 2008 continued to travel in style, including another more than $16,000 to companies that provide limousine services.
Advertising? Oh, that’s so twentieth-century.
83 responses so far ↓
1 VirtualGalt // Dec 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
What is the purpose of the “Libertarian Presidential Campaign”?
1. Increase “brand” awareness
2. Candidate Vanity
3. Candidate/Party Delusion
4. Get a critical mass in a couple swing states (within the MoE) and then endorse the “lesser of 2 evils” before the election
5. Other
My assessment as a relative newbie: if the objective is (1) or (4), the Barr campaign and its predecessors have all failed. If it’s (2) and/or (3) the efforts may be succeeding.
You can’t run a 50 state campaign on a million bucks. You can’t. Foolish to try.
RP raised a boatload of money, what can we learn from that? Then… ask ourselves what we want to accomplish. A lot of people feel the party prostituted itself by picking Barr and diluting the message, producing no different result than previous “true believer” campaigns.
2 LibertarianGirl // Dec 22, 2008 at 3:43 pm
a couple questions…
exactly what is James Bovard authoring?
Is it normal for a campaign with limited funds to pay 2 of its staff 20,000 and 15,000 for just over a months work?
I know those men worked hard but that seems excessive.
Perhaps it was for more than a months work .
3 paulie cannoli // Dec 22, 2008 at 3:53 pm
exactly what is James Bovard authoring?
Barr’s book(s).
Is it normal for a campaign with limited funds to pay 2 of its staff 20,000 and 15,000 for just over a months work?
No.
Perhaps it was for more than a months work .
From previous reports, it appears Shane got 18k/month.
4 LibertarianGirl // Dec 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Is it ethical for a campaign to use funds raised to pay for ghost writing books?
5 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Well, a campaign is private..
6 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 22, 2008 at 4:02 pm
sounds kind of dumb though. you want to spend $$$ on votes not on writing books. but whatever.
7 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 22, 2008 at 4:05 pm
must be hard running as an establishment candidate in a third party
8 Vindex // Dec 22, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The only reason RP raised as much money as he did was because he was in the national debates. Had Paul never been allowed to step foot on the stage, he’d still be a no-name congressman from Texas.
It’s the access to the national stage, not the candidate, that gets the money.
9 paulie cannoli // Dec 22, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I would agree that it was a major factor, but hardly the ONLY reason.
Examples of those who were able to get on the national stage and did not raise nearly as much as Ron Paul from just this last election – there are many other examples from past elections:
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Alan Keyes
Duncan Hunter
Tom Tancredo
…that’s not even a complete list for 2008 alone.
10 George Phillies // Dec 22, 2008 at 4:51 pm
LibertarianGirl asks: “Is it ethical for a campaign to use funds raised to pay for ghost writing books?”
I am not sure on the ethics issue, but if someone had proposed to me that I should use my campaign funds to pay, say, you, to ghostwrite a book, to be published under my name, I would have explained that you were proposing an illegal personal expenditure of campaign funds, and that there were according to the FEC multiple statements on this.
11 johncjackson // Dec 22, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Bob Barr wrote books? Did they have anything to do with the LP campaign? Were they actually published and available where books are sold?
I think Bob Barr makes WAR look like a major best-selling author by comparison.
12 Steven Druckenmiller // Dec 22, 2008 at 5:42 pm
OK, everyone, break out your hairshirts, grab your whips and please turn to page 87 in your hymnal: “What a terrible Libertarian Bob Barr is” and commence to flagellating yourselves.
13 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 22, 2008 at 5:55 pm
hmm I’ve been asking myself: why would have Bob Barr joined the LP if he’s still a drug warrior? Why not the CP? There are may drug warriors in the CP.
14 rdupuy // Dec 22, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“A lot of people feel the party prostituted itself by picking Barr and diluting the message”
If by a lot of people, you mean almost noone, then yes.
You cannot have it both ways, suggesting he both didn’t reach anyone, and he did reach everyone with a negative message.
Barr’s foes want to cast his campaign in a certain light, but don’t fall into the trap that these people have anything intellectual to add.
That message is not designed to help, but to harm. Not targetted to the masses, but to LP activists.
Bob Barr was relatively unknown. That is a fact. These people who don’t know him, don’t know about how he spent his campaign money, they don’t know whether he once was less libertarian, and now more….they are completely unaware of any controversy of any kind.
Sad but true.
Now I’m a little tired of the ridiculous and self contradictory logic.
If you cannot win, you quit? If Bob Barr didn’t win, the opposite of Bob Barr will win?
Lets get it straight for 2012: the candidate won’t win.
The reason we run the candidate, is to eventually win, yes. But in order to build the party into a winning position, it will go through growth years first. There will be a period of time when the party is not yet ready to win.
The alternative to continuing, is quitting. Quitting gets us no closer to the goal, whatsoever.
Quitting is moronic. Running in the face of overwhelming odds – unfortunate, I’d rather have it easy, but its still a far more intelligent choice than being a quitter.
15 rdupuy // Dec 22, 2008 at 7:18 pm
p.s. I’m glad that Bob Barr grew the party. I wish it had been more, but the party will never grow if it nominates someone out of its lunatic base.
In fact, the party needs to cast out the lunatic fringe, it cannot grow with them.
That’s not to say I wouldn’t prefer someone with a record of Libertarian accomplishment, over someone’s whose public life was largely non-Libertarian.
But people going into conventions and talking about Wiccans or Anarchy or whatever, the party must move beyond that.
Someone like George Phillies, who doesn’t, as near as I can tell even show much understanding of political parties, in as much as he doesn’t even respect the process of nominating and supporting the chosen nominess, would be an absolute disaster for the party. Not that I’m too worried about Phillies himself, since whomever the anti-Barr faction chooses, they will likely choose someone who is more personable. Even they will understand a tiny bit about politics and want to choose someone electable, if nothing else, in order to win the nomination at the convention.
But with that said, LP members do not need to redebate year after year whether or not the LP should exist, or whether it should run a candidate for President.
Its just too obvious. The reason we are here at IPR, many of us, is because of the campaign, being run…having news to report on, having SEC reports to investiage, having Barr to bash….
none of this happens if you don’t run a candidate.
The very suggestion that LP’ers were niave about running a presidential candidate – laughable. Anyone in the LP for any length of time knows the goal is to break 1% – not to win.
Onwards, upwards….build a base of 50,000 contributing members, to run a campaign that can spend $15 million dollars…thats a start. Another nearer term goal, would then be to have a contributing base of 100,000 people, to break into double digits… these are things that will occur, before the ‘win’ comes.
16 Michael Seebeck // Dec 22, 2008 at 7:19 pm
LJ @13, a simple answer, one I’ve believed to be the truth for a long while:
simple revenge.
It was the LP who got him booted from Congress through the brilliant ad campaign the late Ron Crickenberger devised back in 2002. It would make a lot of sense for him to plan revenge and then execute the way he did. Had he succeeded in getting 2/3 of the LNC in the process who knows what could have happened.
And everything he has done since then fits the bill as well.
17 JimDavidson // Dec 22, 2008 at 7:26 pm
@8 This nonsense is really very ignorant. Ron Paul raised tens of millions of dollars because he’s been successfully raising millions of dollars for his Congressional campaigns since he became nationally prominent among libertarians. Anyone who has been around Ron or gone to one of his birthday parties or seen him at an Eris Society conference, or one of the many gold economy conferences (e.g., the New Orleans show that Jim Blanchard started) knows many of the people in whose company Ron circulates.
People like Lew Rockwell and Doug Casey have put up substantial funds over the years to promote Ron’s persistent presence in Congress as a voice for Austrian economics. These include campaign contributions, I suppose, as well as speaker fees, promoting Ron’s books on LewRockwell.com and vonMises.org and so forth.
Long before Ron reached national prominence in the 2007-08 primary process, he was highly regarded by principled libertarians – whether that is entirely rational or not. Before the first debate, thousands of people I knew had changed their MySpace (and, later, Facebook) profile photos to Ron’s face, or one of his campaign posters.
It is simply ludicrous and uninformed and ignorant and idiotic to say that he wouldn’t have gotten any money if he hadn’t been in the televised debates. He got MORE money after Fox noise shut him out of one debate than any of the other candidates who were included did in the following month. Again, it is simply nonsense to suppose that the enthusiasm for Ron Paul depended on some sort of mystical national television allure. Hogwash.
Most of Ron’s support was from people who knew his positions contacting others who they knew his views would be well received amongst. Ron received enormous support as one of the few candidates against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the only one of the Republicans to speak out against those wars. He spoke out against torture, against the unconstitutional detentions at Guantanamo and the unconstitutional wiretaps of FISA, as well as the hateful provisions of the Military Commissions Act and the USAPATRIOT act. He also came out against the drug war. In each of these positions he attracted extensive grass roots support from individuals.
I should point out that in addition to getting on television some times, and in some debates, Ron had an excellent grass roots network to get his message out by blogs, forums, online newsletters, money bomb e-mail notices, Meetup Groups, and social networking pages. I still get e-mails from about six of the twenty or so Ron Paul lists I signed up on. There were something on the close order of 120,000 members of the sundry Ron Paul Meetup groups around the country, toward the end of the campaign, I think.
And I think there were something on the order of 180,000 or so individual donors to his campaign. So, roughly similar numbers. Which is why I don’t think the national television nonsense works. Also, consider that his average donor gave something like $125 or so.
But, let’s say that the Libertarian Party candidate would have done better raising money for himself and his cowboy hat wearing non-libertarians who infested the LP convention to snag the nomination for him. If nationally televised debates did the trick, as you suppose, then why didn’t the various national news programs do, say, 10% of the trick for Barr that was done for Ron Paul in the primaries, without the debates?
Because 10% of $30 million (as I recall, someone else can get the exact figure) would be $3 million. So, why didn’t Barr raise $3 million? He got on a bunch of national news shows. So that wasn’t the issue. He alienated essentially all of the major interest groups that traditionally support libertarian candidates. And he brought about nothing of his own to the campaign. And his running mate failed to bring ten million rabid online gamblers to the party, or the campaign.
Obama raised something on the order of $593 million according to one site I’ve looked at today. So, with all the national television shows that interviewed Barr or mentioned him, why didn’t he get 1% of that amount, or $5.9 million? Because he was a lousy campaigner, he had a lousy organisation, he did a lousy job representing the party, and he pissed off everyone who is sometimes inclined to donate money to a libertarian.
In other words, the television argument is dead.
18 VirtualGalt // Dec 22, 2008 at 7:39 pm
According to the FEC, Obama raised $742mm.. RP raised $34.5mm, roughly 2/3 of which was in contributions of $200 or less.
Barr was hardly a consensus choice of the Denver delegates. Neither was Root.
19 Catholic Trotskyist // Dec 23, 2008 at 1:05 am
Steven Druckenmiller, good job. You’re getting to understand Catholic Trotskyism.
20 paulie cannoli // Dec 23, 2008 at 1:09 am
Counterpoint to rdupuy, above:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/TheTimeSink/?p=126
So how come we’re not free yet?
21 JimDavidson // Dec 23, 2008 at 4:55 am
@18 Thanks for the figures. I appreciate the research. I think these numbers make the case against Bob Barr even more clear.
Why couldn’t Barr raise a tenth what Ron Paul raised? Quite simple. He’s not a tenth the man. He’s not a sixteenth the libertarian that Ron is, either (and I admit that Ron and I disagree on several vital issues).
Why couldn’t Barr raise a hundredth part of the money that Obama raised? Because he’s not one hundredth the politician that Obama is.
@16 I think the revenge theory is workable. Don’t automatically attribute to malice what may be explained by incompetence, but don’t discount the fact that malicious people exist.
I think there are probably three things at play here. First, Barr saw an effective organisation on the state level in Georgia, which had ousted him from his long-held Congressional seat over issues that Barr thought were well settled among his constituents. This fact got his attention in ways that attacking anyone’s paycheck would do.
Second, Barr imagined from the existence of a sound and effective state group in Georgia (which did a good job of making a difference in the Senate campaign in November, though not quite good enough to oust that scum Chambliss), the existence of a national organisation that was at least potentially as effective. He therefore resolved to take over that national entity.
Third, he’s really not very clever. He surrounds himself with sycophants. He has no talent for choosing clever subordinates. So, his incompetence was revealed. The Peter principle applies – he rose rapidly to the level of his own incompetence, demonstrated it thoroughly to everyone. Now he’s a has-been.
22 JimDavidson // Dec 23, 2008 at 5:15 am
@15 Religious bigotry wears a sad face. How many more thousands of years of massacring people who disagree with your way of worship are needed to satisfy your bloodthirsty desire for the destruction of others? What makes you think God seeks this sort of persecution of religious minorities? Your statement against Wiccans is disgusting.
George Phillies understood the process of nomination much better than you evidently do. George was properly nominated and deliberately placed on the ballot in New Hampshire by the people empowered to do so in that state. Your desire to throw this imaginary idea of party loyalty at him is even less impressive coming from a religious bigot like you than it was coming from wacky neo-conservative Republicans like Carling and Redpath.
Party loyalty is a good thing for parties like the Nazi party. Keep the people in the party in line, and if they step out of line, or if they’ve finished serving their purpose, exterminate them. Party loyalty is, like jingoistic patriotism, a lousy way for a free people to choose leaders.
LP members do indeed need to consider whether the national party organisation as it is currently constituted serves their interests. The national party appears, presently, to be opposed to the state affiliates that won’t toe the party line. That the state affiliates represent the activists, and in many cases the more radical element, within the party, while the national party represents corruption and abuse of power, is not a new thing.
The first step toward having a better libertarian party is for every libertarian to ask what would, for him or her, make a better party. The obvious conclusion for many of us, after years of watching the LP flounder, has been to organise an entirely separate party.
Because of our limited time in developing rapidly this year, I wanted to accomplish several goals. One of the later goals to develop was to endorse an LP candidate for president. George was an admirable choice to illustrate the willingness of the Boston Tea Party to not only endorse and support candidates at county and state levels, but also at the national level. Plus working with George is fun.
George may not be your kind of guy, but he is very polite, extremely dedicated, intelligent, and hard working. I don’t agree with all of his ideas, no more than I agree with all of Ron Paul’s ideas. But I have a great deal of respect for George as a man, as a scholar, and as a sincere advocate for liberty.
You write very engagingly about creating a base of 50,000 supporters. In their peak year, the LP had something on the order of 35,000 supporters – and it did not break 0.7% in that year. Nor did it raise $10.5 million. Rather, the figures were 0.4% of the popular vote and about a million dollars, as I recall. You could look these up.
Nor do you offer any thoughts on a mechanism for attracting 50,000 members to the LP. So, please allow me. There have been, over the history of the LP, something on the order of 100,000 people who have joined the party for one reason or another. Evidently, only about 17,000 of these people are currently members. That leaves an enormous number of previous customers who could be attracted to the party.
Why are previous buyers the best customers for any business? Because, assuming that the goods or services were provided in good faith and with quality results, the odds of a previous customer buying again are about 50/50 whereas the odds of any random new person buying are about half a percent. The odds go way up with anyone who is a repeat customer one time. Someone who has bought twice is about 85% likely to buy again. Someone who has bought three or more times is over 90% likely to buy again.
This means that the number one resource for the LP is its former customers. To turn the LP around and get the very large base of people you think would make all the difference, and who, if properly motivated, might very well do just that, all one would have to do is create an LP national structure with the openness and transparency that disaffected LP members seek, with principled and libertarian candidates, and without the corruption and abuse of power that have plagued the LP for the past decade and more.
With such miracles and a small effort to spread the word, many disaffected members would come back to the party. The results might well be spectacular.
However, because I don’t trust the people involved now, and I don’t have a high regard for the processes they seem likely to adopt, I plan to build the Boston Tea Party up, instead. Some people need to keep an eye on these corrupt power abusers and prepare for scenarios in which they don’t relinquish their power.
Indeed, it might be easier, faster, and simply better to work with a new national party structure. The resistance to change within the LP appears to be very great.
23 George Phillies // Dec 23, 2008 at 9:41 am
An Editorial from Liberty for America
as seen on The Daily Liberty http://www.TheDailyLiberty.Com
Substantially endorsing Jim Davidson’s closing lines at @22
Toward an Effective
Libertarian Political Movement
If you read the rest of this issue, you will see where we are now. There are lots of fine activists and good State parties. For example, note North Carolina, where Professor Munger crossed the magical percentage needed to improve ballot access for Libertarians across the state. A half-dozen state parties to no avail urged the LNC to spend its time on doing real politics rather than the internal feud with Angela Keaton.
The LNC did pass a budget for next year, a budget somewhat thin on doing real politics, including budgeting nothing for Affiliate Support, Ballot Access, Brand Development, Campus Outreach, or Lobbying, and only $5,000 for Candidate Support.
To read the rest of the article, see The Daily Liberty or go to LibertyForAmerica.Com
24 paulie cannoli // Dec 23, 2008 at 9:56 am
I think there are probably three things at play here. First, Barr saw an effective organisation on the state level in Georgia, which had ousted him from his long-held Congressional seat over issues that Barr thought were well settled among his constituents. This fact got his attention in ways that attacking anyone’s paycheck would do.
The LP did not oust Barr from office. Redistricting by his internal party enemies which put him in a district dominated by Linder’s constituents was the biggest reason he lost his seat by far. I’ve also read that an incident where he discharged a firearm carelessly at a fundraiser played a role. The LP did work against him, and took the credit, But it was a minor factor.
The LP does in fact have better ballot access, more money and more members than the CP, which is probably the real answer as to why Barr would want to join the LP rather than the CP. He also claims some affinity for Randianism.
As well, the CP proved itself more resistant to recent convert/Republican celebrity candidates by rejecting Alan Keyes. Perhaps Barr saw the LP as being more susceptible. Comparing Barr’s ballot access and fundraising with Chuck Baldwin’s, it’s clear that Barr made the right move strategically in joining the LP rather than the CP. And it was not because he is an ex-congressman; Badnarik had better ballot access and comparable fundraising.
Third, he’s really not very clever. He surrounds himself with sycophants. He has no talent for choosing clever subordinates. So, his incompetence was revealed. The Peter principle applies – he rose rapidly to the level of his own incompetence, demonstrated it thoroughly to everyone.
If he’s not so clever, then why were all the anti-Barr forces in the LP unable to stop him? Several of his staff were quite competent: Bovard is a great writer, and was probably underutilized by the campaign. Steve Gordon did a good job with the e-campaign, and would have done better as campaign manager.
Russel Verney was never a good campaign manager, and Barr showed bad judgment in stick with him to the bitter end. Shane Cory, from the reports I heard involving West Virginia and the Ron Paul news conference, was probably not the best choice for deputy campaign manager. But the only staffing decision that Barr should be held accountable for is Verney; on a well run campaign, the candidate picks the campaign manager, and the campaign manager picks all the subordinate staff and decides who does what when and who is let go. The only thing the candidate should be responsible for in that department is deciding when the campaign manager should be replaced. Anything beyond that is misallocation of candidate time/energy.
Now he’s a has-been.
No more than he was pre-LP, and probably less so. He just got a decent chunk of face time on national TV and a big addition to his fundraising list. He can parlay this in any number of ways, such as
-Running for Congress in 2010
-Running for president again in 2012, a la Harry Browne
-Talk radio show and/or syndicated column
25 paulie cannoli // Dec 23, 2008 at 10:01 am
I should also add
1) Barr could be aiming to repeat Ron Paul’s path – use the LP presidential run to help him get back in Congress as a Republican, and then use that along with his LP run to position himself in future Republican presidential primaries
2) The issue of his wife’s abortion would have dogged him in the CP, and he probably just did not want to go there.
26 paulie cannoli // Dec 23, 2008 at 10:22 am
An Editorial from Liberty for America
as seen on The Daily Liberty http://www.TheDailyLiberty.Com
Substantially endorsing Jim Davidson’s closing lines at @22
Toward an Effective
Libertarian Political Movement
I was unable to find that essay at the Daily Liberty. However, I did find it at
http://libertyforamerica.com/200812.pdf
27 G.E. // Dec 23, 2008 at 10:35 am
I did my best.
28 paulie cannoli // Dec 23, 2008 at 10:55 am
GE: I know John Lowell, although only online.
John Lowell is not a friend of mine.
You, sir, are no John Lowell.
29 George Phillies // Dec 23, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Paulie,
Thanks for catching the problem at The Daily Liberty. I have reposted the article and it now appears to be there.
George
30 JimDavidson // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:10 pm
@24 “If he’s not so clever, then why were all the anti-Barr forces in the LP unable to stop him?”
The anti-Barr people came to Denver divided among several good candidates, such as Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, perhaps one or two others. For all that they were divided, it was a close thing in the final ballot. The pro-Barr people waltzed in without significant libertarian credentials, wearing cowboy hats, and voted for their @sshole. Root throwing his support to Barr probably sealed it. So, that’s why the anti-Barr forces were unable to prevent him from gaining the nomination in Denver, in brief.
But the anti-Barr forces did pull significant support from his campaign, refused to contribute funds to it, did support other candidates (Phillies, Jay), and kept jumping into the Boston Tea Party when Barr’s people kept screwing up.
31 paulie cannoli // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:25 pm
The anti-Barr people came to Denver divided among several good candidates, such as Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, perhaps one or two others.
Only one of those was left on the final ballot.
For all that they were divided, it was a close thing in the final ballot.
If we were more clever than the Barr folks, it wouldn’t have been close at all. After all, Keyes did not come close to actually getting the CP nomination. We couldn’t even hang on to the VP spot.
The pro-Barr people waltzed in without significant libertarian credentials,
I knew some of the black hat folks did have quite a bit of libertarian credentials. Others were new, but that is not always necessarily bad; I encouraged my candidate to bring in lots of new people. Towards the end, he tried, but without much success – way too little, way too late.
wearing cowboy hats,
Brilliant move, that. I suggested to several campaigns, our caucus leaders, and a few other folks getting a whole bunch of white cowboy hats and making it an “OK Corral” thing.
Unfortunately, everyone was way too busy and/or broke, as was I, and no one implemented the idea. Perhaps a presidential campaign would like to come in with white cowboy hats next time, if the party is still chugging along and we are still having US presidential elections then, as a signal to the delegates who remember ’08.
This advice is worth every penny you paid for it, of course.
32 G.E. // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:38 pm
No, Jim. George Phillies, Mike Gravel, and the duplicitous Jingozian are the reasons Barr got the nomination. They all remained neutral at the end. Phillies (arch-centralist protectionist and atomic-bomb enthusiast) said he viewed Barr and Ruwart as equally “unlibertarian.”
33 paulie cannoli // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm
If I remember correctly, Jingozian endorsed Gravel, Gravel endorsed Root, Root endorsed Barr in exchange for the VP slot, and Phillies endorsed no one.
Kubby was the only candidate to endorse Ruwart after being eliminated, unless I am forgetting someone.
34 paulie cannoli // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Of course, these endorsements did not necessarily swing all, or even many, of their supporters. For instance, I could be wrong, but I don’t think a lot of Gravel delegates ended up with Barr, although if you go with the logic Gravel –> Root –> Barr they would.
35 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Gravel didn’t endorse anyone. He didn’t even make a concession speech
36 JimDavidson // Dec 23, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Count the undecided votes, then, GE. I don’t think the delegates for Phillies had much trouble making up their minds. I would be surprised if more than a few went for Barr.
Paulie, my argument that Barr isn’t very clever is based on how he ran his presidential campaign. He wasted a lot of money, raised an unimpressive sum, had lots of sycophants encouraging him, made a lot of bone head moves like snubgate, failed to gain ballot access in states where his campaign was responsible, etc. Phillies actually has a pretty good list of bone head moves by Barr, including selections from his spending.
Jake Witmer makes an interesting argument that the LP had no immune system. So, when it caught an infection of neo-conservatives, it had no way to resist.
GE, I think you missed some perfidy. The national headquarters staff and the chair of the LP were working for Barr’s nomination from way before he announced.
37 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I wonder if the delegates for Phillies really knew what George Phillies believed in. When did he actually talk about the issues on his campaign? All I heard was…
“we have a great organization”
“I started building this campaign in the 1950s”
“I believe we can unite as a party”
“maybe we cant win this year, but we can build a foundation”
“I need to spend all $200 of campaign money on self-improvement seminars”
hmm yeah
38 G.E. // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Prepare to be surprised when you read any round-by-round analysis, then. If I recall correctly, about a third of them did. Why would you be surprised? Why would you expect delegates to jump from the most statist candidate to the least statist?
39 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:16 pm
@38
because most Phllie backers had no idea what Phillies stood for. He left his supporters in the dark, but he gained their support, I guess, by being the only guy willing to speak at every little meeting in MASS/NH
40 JimDavidson // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:22 pm
The gay thing, GE.
Why, do you have a round by round, delegate by delegate analysis to send me to?
41 JimDavidson // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Libertarian Joseph, did you attend the convention in Denver?
42 G.E. // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm
See here, Jim:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/05/denver-final-postmortem/
When Phillies was eliminated , he had 31 delegates. The first round without him, Barr and Ruwart each picked up 32 and Root picked up 3. (The four extra votes were people who didn’t vote in the last round).
Saying only a third of Phillies supporters went to Barr was a gross underestimation on my part. It was even worse than I remembered it.
Now this isn’t a “delegate by delegate” sample, but if you want to believe that there was some weird switching around of delegates that didn’t result in at least around half of Phillies voters going to Barr, then be my guest. It isn’t plausible, though.
43 JimDavidson // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Okay, so you are saying that Phillies had 31 delegates, was eliminated, and in the next round Ruwart received 32 more votes. And you have some way of showing me that 31 of those were not Phillies delegates?
44 JimDavidson // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:37 pm
No, you’re saying that together Barr and Ruwart picked up 32. You wrote that they each picked up 32 but they each picked up 16 according to your link. Sheesh.
45 JimDavidson // Dec 23, 2008 at 3:38 pm
So, yes, for all we know 12 Phillies votes plus 4 newcomers went for Barr, 16 Phillies votes went for Ruwart, and 3 Phillies votes went for Root.
Prove otherwise, please.
46 George Phillies // Dec 23, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I am quite sure that I did not refer to Gravel, Root, Ruwart, or Barr as “unlibertarian”. I am perfectly capable fo being critical ofpeople, but ‘unlibertarian’ is not a phrasing that I would have used.
In other earth-shattering news, the blind squirrel has found the nut, rather, G.E. Smith said something that is sort of close to correct:
I did not view Ruwart as an improvement over Barr. My actual opinion of the two of them is captured on camera by one of the news networks, as I walked back from giving my concession speech: “train wreck”.
As far as ‘who gave Barr the nomination’ is concerned, I think credit can go to two sets of people, namely the Barr supporters who worked for his nomination, and his radical opponents, who lined up way way too late behind a radical (Mary Ruwart) who in her own ways was just as bad as Barr, just as incapable of uniting the party, and then failed to support her, as witness her FEC reports.
47 G.E. // Dec 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Yeah, whoops.
That’s the “best case” scenario. I thought that virtually all Phillies delegates would go to Ruwart.
48 George Phillies // Dec 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Libertarian Joseph proposes that I started building my campaign in the 1950s. At least I had already been born in the 1950s, unlike — as a reasonable estimate — some of Libertarian Joseph’s grandparents.
49 VTV // Dec 23, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“@15 Religious bigotry wears a sad face. How many more thousands of years of massacring people who disagree with your way of worship are needed to satisfy your bloodthirsty desire for the destruction of others? What makes you think God seeks this sort of persecution of religious minorities? Your statement against Wiccans is disgusting.”
Yep.
This is why when I went after Baldwin in public forums and they told me I must support Barr and that is why, I laughed at them, and pointed out that by Barr’s voting record, I would of assumed that he was in the CP the same way that Ron Paul is in the LP while in Congress.
50 paulie cannoli // Dec 23, 2008 at 6:33 pm
radical opponents, who lined up way way too late behind a radical (Mary Ruwart) who in her own ways was just as bad as Barr, just as incapable of uniting the party, and then failed to support her, as witness her FEC reports.
Something I have been wondering about. Some of the very same people that persuaded Ruwart to get in the race were some of the same ones to come out most strongly against her, and even tried to deny her a seat as a delegate. Did they set her up to be knocked down, and keep Kubby from coalescing support? Yet, I’m not sure that makes sense either – I know they could have smeared Kubby as well, as happened to a more limited extent in the 2000 VP race. So why did they ask Mary to join the race and then jump on her?
She definitely did get in too late, and was not able to build momentum fast enough.
I don’t know if Kubby could have beat Barr on the final ballot if Ruwart had not been in the race.
51 TheOriginalAndy // Dec 23, 2008 at 8:34 pm
“But the anti-Barr forces did pull significant support from his campaign, refused to contribute funds to it, did support other candidates (Phillies, Jay),”
A lot of anti-Barr Libertarians also voted for Ron Paul as a write in vote, except for Montana and Louisiana where he was actually on the ballot.
52 VirtualGalt // Dec 23, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Well, as I have said before, you can’t beat somebody with nobody.
As one of a relatively small number of delegates to a convention whose outcome was in doubt, I would have assumed there would have been some nominal effort by at least one campaign to see who I supported (if anyone) and win my support.
The only communications I received were:
a) a Barr brochure
b) a Phillies brochure
c) a letter from someone I don’t know saying Mary Ruwart favored child pornography or some such nonsense
Although I had a brief but pleasant chat with Mr Barr in Denver, I did not vote for him. Not because anyone else asked for my vote, as no one else did.
53 LibertarianGirl // Dec 24, 2008 at 12:11 am
LJ says:-I wonder if the delegates for Phillies really knew what George Phillies believed in. When did he actually talk about the issues on his campaign?
you really are an ignorant man
heres some facts George had issues papers , at least 12 different issues everything on 1 sheet fliers .
Since he worked harder then anyone at building state and county coordinators for his campaign he in fact had an a large network , most of which were also on there State or local LP boards .
Being the person that mailed out his literature for a time , I can assure you every state affiliate coordinator for his campaign got a stack of these position papers , which I’m sure they shared with others.
In fact he had the most extensive set of positions on the widest variety of issues of ANY candidate.
54 George Phillies // Dec 24, 2008 at 12:13 am
Paulie,
Why do you think they were trying to stop Kubby, as opposed to any of a list of other candidates? Milnes comes immediately to mind, of course.
George
55 LibertarianGirl // Dec 24, 2008 at 12:21 am
Phillies says:_radical opponents, who lined up way way too late behind a radical (Mary Ruwart) who in her own ways was just as bad as Barr, just as incapable of uniting the party, and then failed to support her, as witness her FEC reports.
I like Mary ALOT, but I have to agree that she could not have united the party .Thers the side who dislike her as much as some dislike Barr.
In retrospect I think Phillies and Kubby could have drawn support from both sides .
The award for the classiest act and most graceful loss goes to Kubby.
56 G.E. // Dec 24, 2008 at 1:13 am
I did not mean to imply that those were your exact words, which makes my use of quotes a particularly poor choice.
57 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 1:29 am
LG, ignorant? I’m more libertarian than you, lil girl.
58 LibertarianGirl // Dec 24, 2008 at 2:19 am
whatever , but you we’re still wrong about Philllies not addressing the issues.
59 paulie cannoli // Dec 24, 2008 at 6:45 am
you really are an ignorant man
heres some facts George had issues papers , at least 12 different issues everything on 1 sheet fliers .
Yes, we all know this, which is why I don’t want to dignify trolling by answering it.
Since he worked harder then anyone at building state and county coordinators for his campaign he in fact had an a large network , most of which were also on there State or local LP boards .
Thank you for your hard work, George. Even though there are some issues we disagree on, you put your time and money where your mouth is, which is more than many people do.
Being the person that mailed out his literature for a time , I can assure you every state affiliate coordinator for his campaign got a stack of these position papers , which I’m sure they shared with others.
Thank you for your hard work, LG.
Why do you think they were trying to stop Kubby, as opposed to any of a list of other candidates?
Most overlap with Ruwart in terms of supporters. For instance, I was trying to divide Root’s vote, and was able to convince…I don’t know, Bruce Cohen? Aaron Starr? Tony Robbins? Ron Popeil? Matthew Lesko? …to run; or, if I was trying to divide your vote, and was able to get, say, Brian Miller or Rob Power to run against you – not saying that they would, of course.
Look how the VP race ended up shaping up. That could have been the presidential race, if it was not for the late entries – except that the outcome might have been different, since a few people walked out and gave up on the party the moment Barr got the nomination, and Root’s marging over Kubby was tiny. Also, some Barr supporters would have never been there had Barr not been running (I think he did the best in that department of any of the candidates, although nowhere to the point of packing the convention as some have accused him of). A few Barr loyalists being there, and Barr’s endorsement of Root, may have more than created that margin.
Milnes comes immediately to mind, of course.
I don’t think that the LP will be ready for Mr. Milnes until he finds his female running mate, Mr. Imperato builds his transatlantic cable, or possibly both.
60 paulie cannoli // Dec 24, 2008 at 6:49 am
LG: please pay LJ no mind, he is a hateful little troll. You are much appreciated. One love.
61 paulie cannoli // Dec 24, 2008 at 7:06 am
In retrospect I think Phillies and Kubby could have drawn support from both sides .
I think a lot of Ron Paul supporters would never have accepted Phillies as a candidate…among some others.
The award for the classiest act and most graceful loss goes to Kubby.
…but Phillies gave a good speech, rather than saying what he really thought from the stage (train wreck).
Kubby won a lot of people over, albeit too late. If his new business venture succeeds, and/or if he pursues lower level office with some success, such as winning a seat on the County Board of Supervisors and/or running a strong race for Governor, he could definitely be a much stronger contender next time if he wants to run again.
Phillies is much improved as a speaker thanks to the 2008 race for the nomination, which will also help him if he runs for Congress or lower level office again, and is in my view a good candidate for the LNC if he runs for that – although I don’t think he will succeed at starting from the top there. Getting on board with a slate of candidates might work.
62 JimDavidson // Dec 24, 2008 at 7:10 am
@57 Joseph, dude, you didn’t attend the convention in Denver. Everything you say about the delegates there exudes a stench of ignorance. You can be ignorant and a very libertarian person, and if you doubt this point you should really attend a Libertarian Party event, especially at say the national committee level.
Paulie is correct, your behavior is trollish and poor. You should back off, apologise to LG for being rude, and do your best not to annoy the women in the movement. Otherwise, the target market for sexual harassment and good pot brownie recipes becomes much more boring.
@59 Imperato wants a transatlantic cable? Aren’t there quite a few of those already built since 1857 or so?
A transatlantic tunnel, like the one under the Channel, but longer and probably suspended above the depths, would be something new to build. It was discussed years ago in an Analog magazine article, roughly 1972 vintage. You could look it up.
Or, here, I’ll do so.
http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/nonfiction/transatlantic.htm
63 paulie cannoli // Dec 24, 2008 at 7:50 am
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Daniel-Imperato
”
Daniel Imperato was born in Boston, Massachusetts on March 9, 1958, the daughter of Sonny Imperato and the late Mary C. Imperato, immigrants from Italy, and grew up on the West End of Boston, and were originally. He began his business career in 1977 transforming the manufacturing facilities in Israel through adapting them to the global marketplace along with bringing financing to the factories for global expansion. He also operated a trading company in Singapore and owned a manufacturing company in Belgium. In his last business venture, Imperato was in the process of organizing a global sub-sea fiber-optic telecommunications cable network linking 70 countries together. In 2004, Daniel Imperato was named a Chairman of the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) Advisory Business Council.”
64 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 8:08 am
Phillies believes in:
kicking illegals out
protectionism
“doing something” about GW
hardly a libertarian!
65 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 8:12 am
did you know that Phillies thinks we should keep the Federal Reserve going? ohhh yes
66 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 8:15 am
sheesh. Bob Barr’s platform looked radical compared to Phillies. But that’s ok. I really don’t care, just tired of people that don’t take the time to research their candidate[s]. ohh he attended your meetings, big deal. He’s a dork
67 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 8:20 am
That’s how it is with MSM candidates. The masses never research their candidate. That’s how the MSM is able to pick and choose the victors. People don’t see a candidate allday and immediately go online to do some research. No, they say, “he looks so presidential,” “he has the experience,” blah blah lol. What a bunch of bullshit. Experience, my ass. Last time I checkd, you don’t really need experience, just be at a certain age and fulfill ballot requirements.
68 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 8:21 am
People get emotionally attached to candidates and perceive attacks upon their candidate as attacks against them. Now, that’s IGNORANCE
69 VirtualGalt // Dec 24, 2008 at 11:00 am
I assume the delegate list was made available to the candidates before the convention… at a price perhaps? Or maybe not even?
Perhaps I am confessing my ignorance of the process or “how things get done at LP conventions”… but given the relatively small number of delegates “needed to win” it would have been a nice touch to receive a phone call from a candidate — or a supporter of a candidate even — saying “looking forward to meeting you in Denver/we’re having an informational meeting/why don’t you come meet candidate ___”
At least that’s what I would have done.
Instead I was left to fend for myself. Not that I’m not a big boy, I can fend for myself. It just seemed to me that not only was there no apparent “stop Barr” movement, there didn’t seem to be much of a movement in favor of anybody except Mr Barr.
Of course I leave open the possibility that I, as a new delegate, was not tuned in to the “way things happen”.
70 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 11:03 am
I think LP candidates should just sit home and tell every myspace user in their district zip codes to vote for them.
71 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 11:04 am
Most are stuid, just say that you want to make their lives better. They will be surprised to see a politician contact them like that.
72 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 11:05 am
stupid** hehe. just an idea.
73 VirtualGalt // Dec 24, 2008 at 11:10 am
Even that would have been more than what I got. As I have said before, you can’t beat somebody with nobody.
74 Libertarian Joseph // Dec 24, 2008 at 11:16 am
hmm. You mean ideas? Oh. It’s a great thing to do if you want to save money, that’s for sure. Let’s say, for example, you’re running for something in a 07003 zip code, just go to myspace.com and lookup all of the 07003 people. Thousands of potential voters at your finger tips!
75 paulie cannoli // Dec 24, 2008 at 11:42 am
I assume the delegate list was made available to the candidates before the convention… at a price perhaps? Or maybe not even?
The delegate list was available. There were no phone numbers or email addresses on it.
76 paulie cannoli // Dec 24, 2008 at 11:58 am
Perhaps I am confessing my ignorance of the process or “how things get done at LP conventionsâ€â€¦ but given the relatively small number of delegates “needed to win†it would have been a nice touch to receive a phone call from a candidate — or a supporter of a candidate even — saying “looking forward to meeting you in Denver/we’re having an informational meeting/why don’t you come meet candidate ___â€
Root made calls. I was at Carol McMahon’s house when she got one. I think Phillies tried to do the same, but I think he had some youngsters look up phone numbers, and I have been given to understand that there were a lot of mistakes on their list.
I was busy traveling around the country getting signatures, and only had internet access some of the time. I didn’t look up delegate phone numbers for Kubby, and neither did anyone else. We didn’t have a lot of campaign help. Certainly, many things could have been done, but no one was available to do them.
The candidates who could afford to had hospitality suites and/or information booths, so you could learn about them.
We couldn’t afford either one, but we did have a campaign supporter donate some money to make a bunch of buttons and choroplast Kubby signs, and I put some up (the hotel would take them down when they would see them, though) and gave some out as I was able.
The candidates were milling around; if you had questions for any of them, you could have approached them. If you expected them all to approach you – there were hundreds of people there, and they may have simply not got to you. I know they were trying. There were several informal debates – three or four I knew of – and they had question and answer periods.
It just seemed to me that not only was there no apparent “stop Barr†movement, there didn’t seem to be much of a movement in favor of anybody except Mr Barr.
I agree that the other candidates were not as well organized, and neither were the anti-Barr folks – but they were around. I know at least one delegate who showed up specifically to stop Barr and made up and gave out anti-Barr buttons.
77 VirtualGalt // Dec 24, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Well I did indeed stop in at the Phillies table, the radicals table… there was no one at the Ruwart table several times as I passed by. (Though I did buy her book. Interesting reading.) Root turned me off from the start. The Barr table was of course well populated and my visit there included a chat with His Nibs himself.
In 2012 I will be more visible, more assertive, will arrive earlier and leave later. Much to the consternation of all I am sure.
78 paulie cannoli // Dec 24, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Well I did indeed stop in at the Phillies table, the radicals table… there was no one at the Ruwart table several times as I passed by.
True, most campaigns just did not have the wo/manpower to staff their booths full time.
In 2012 I will be more visible, more assertive, will arrive earlier and leave later. Much to the consternation of all I am sure.
I look forward to it.
79 G.E. // Dec 24, 2008 at 1:19 pm
You must be talking about Sunday, right? The Ruwart booth was always staffed on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. I know because I was the one almost always staffing it.
80 paulie cannoli // Dec 24, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Yep, saw you at the booth a whole bunch of times.
81 George Phillies // Dec 24, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I did considerable telephoning of delegates, though some names appeared quite late. For delegates, I did my own phone number searching, or had one senior staff member do it.
The most important lesson I observed is that almost no one is at home, and when they are, they want to wait until the convention to decide who they support.
82 Jdfamularo // Dec 26, 2008 at 1:15 pm
If you are concerned about getting high vote totals, just forget about it. The high total that Ed Ckark got in 1980 was gotten by a different LP than exists today. It was an LP that still contained all the Cato, Reason and various other “libertarian” people. Because of the personal rivalries and the minarchist, anarchist, opportunist trichotomy, it probably will never exits again. Regardless of whether the curent LP runs a purist or pragmatist candidate it will only get its approximately 5/10ths percent of the vote.
Nothing that an LP presidential candidate can do will change public policy towards less government. Assuming that is the intention of the LP then the LP must come up with a different strategy. However, the current composition of the LP will not let it settle on a single strategy. I thing the current count is 20 concurrent strategies.
83 Uncle Gabby // Feb 23, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Certain strategies are optimax within electoral politics. Most libertarians are unfamiliar with them, because the nuts-and-bolts of political organizing is anathema to them. They are self-professed individualists and hate group activity that allows all voices to moderate the most intelligent voices. Yet politics requires this, or there are not enough hands to complete the physical work.
Libertarians require a campaign team that has a very deep understanding of populist grassroots politics. That certainly wasn’t the Barr Campaign. LP campaigns are easy to infiltrate. Even so, I am amazed that Verney was allowed to infiltrate the campaign, since he is not a libertarian, and probably can’t spell it without Coontrol-C and Control-V. …I also never saw Shane Cory without getting the impression he was completely cunted or hopped up on some kind of stimulant.
Possibly he’s on prescriptions, my guess would be something for “ADD”. I have no idea whether or not he’s helped or made worse by whatever he’s on. I don’t see how his decision-making could have been made while sober. I almost feel sorry for him, since he was simply a douche who was promoted beyond his level of competence.
I say almost, because some of my good friends had to deal with him while he was occupying the role of speed bump at the National LP office.
Onward and upward! Hiyo silver, …Away!
Leave a Comment