Press release sent to [email protected]:
In an historic and bold move, a new bipartisan coalition has been
formed in Alaska for election 2010, at least in the battle for four
seats in the Alaska Legislature, including that of Speaker of the House.
The Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) and the Alaska Libertarian Party
(ALP) have both agreed to endorse and support each others candidates for the Alaska Legislature this year.
There are three Alaska Libertarian Party candidates, Robert Clift in
HD21 in Anchorage, Harley Brown in HD25 in Spenard/Jewell Lake and
Scott Kohlhaas in HD20 in Mountainview, Russian Jack and Northeast
Anchorage. There is one Alaskan Independence Party candidate,
Ray Southwell, RN of Nikiski, who is challenging Alaska Speaker of the
House, Milke Chenault in House District 34. Southwell said, “Isn’t
it time that like minded people from all political persuasions band
together in defense of our liberties by electing those who will hold our
government accountable?”
Lynette Clark, AIP Chairman said, “Holding government accountable has gone beyond partisan politics. The individual citizen is responsible for their government now, and the government they will pass onto their children. Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of this country. I believe those candidates which the Alaskan Independence Party is endorsing are in no way a vote for ‘the lesser of two evils’, but the right candidates for this election and this country.”
While the Libertarians had this to say, “The Alaska Libertarian Party
proudly accepts the endorsement of the Alaskan Independence Party
for its candidates for State Representative. Robert Clift was “pleased to have the endorsement”. “They may be on to something”, he said.
Harley Brown considers the endorsement “an honor and a privilege”.
“It’s very gratifying to see the two other officially recognized parties working together”, he said. Scott Kohlhaas was “elated”. “We have been working for the same goals for so long, it makes perfect sense to work in a bipartisan manner”, Kohlhaas said.
The Executive committee of the Alaska Libertarian Party voted to
endorse Mr. Ray G. Southwell of the Alaskan Independence Party for
State Representative in District 34. “We enthusistically endorse
Ray G. Southwell for State Representative in District 34,” said Scott Kohlhaas, chairman of the Alaska Libertarian Party. “We hope and pray he can make a breakthrough for freedom on the Kenai Peninsula!”, he said.
Northern Exposure,
What makes you think libertarian petitioners are the only ones Kohlhaas has ripped off?
He runs left wing initiatives as a petition manager in Alaska and has a bad habit of not paying people for their work so as he can buy more dope and run up his credit cards.
National Socialist State of Georgia Pedophiles and International Socialist State of Georgia Zoophiles Party proudly endorses any local ‘zebdonks’ [Zebras and Donkeys but not Zebras and Mules!].
Opeach Obama, he’s our kind of guy!
Seems like someone has a vendetta against Mr. Kohlhaas. A former LP petitioner perhaps? Just a guess.
National Socialist Pedophiles and Zoophiles Party proudly endorses Scott Kohlhaas. He’s our kind of guy!
The idea that Palin’s a libertarian because she’s said she doesn’t mind marijuana being legal is the same idea that Tom Tancredo is a libertarian (he also favors legalizing marijuana). The “she’s a libertarian!” crowd seem to completely dismiss her views concerning warmongering, immigration, reproductive rights, prostitution, pornography, freedom of religion, prison reform, etc.
The Alaskan Independence Party should unendorse dope addict Scott Kohlhaas who has ripped off many petitioners. He is a person of low character who should be in jail.
Even the first part is highly dubious.
We also endorse Mr. Scott Kohlhaas as well.
Gay Aryan Satantist Stoners Party of Alaska
The Alaskan Independence Party should think twice about endorsing Scott Kohlhaas. He is a shady operator with a long record of ripping off petitioners and helping put left wing measures and candidates on the ballot. He is an embarrassment and the Alaska Libertarians were quite stupid to allow him to be their state chair and candidate once again.
The by-law prohibiting endorsement by LP affiliates of candidates belonging to other parties was passed in the early 1970s at the behest of Murray Rothbard and Ed Crane, both of whom have long since abandoned the Libertarian Party to support other party’s candidates.
So perhaps it is time to repeal it. It cannot really be enforced, it just gives people another thing to gripe about.
Northern Exposure:
That’s actually untrue in the LP’s case. It’s quite possible (and quite common) to be a member of the LPUSA while not being a member of a state or local affiliate. It’s also possible to be a member of a state affiliate but not be a member of the LPUSA, though that’s more uncommon since many states require LPUSA membership to boost their standing at national conventions.
Of course, the LP National Committee can’t tell the LP-AK to not hold meetings anymore or legally “disband” them – we have freedom of association, after all. However, the LP National Committee can choose to revoke recognition of that affiliate and organize a new LP-AK using members that willingly honor the LPUSA bylaws.
The LP’s goal is, ultimately, to be a major political party that wins at least as many elections as the other two political parties while adhering to a pro-liberty platform. It’s goal is not to become a pro-liberty PAC that endorses various candidates – there are more than enough of those already of all shapes, stripes, and sizes. Requiring state affiliates to adhere and work toward those goals by running LP-branded candidates does not infringe on individual liberty because individuals are still free to organize into pro-liberty PACs and endorse non-LP candidates if they so choose – they just don’t get to call their group the “Libertarian Party”.
Having said that, does this mean the LP National Committee should functionally nuke the LP-AK out of the org chart? I don’t think so – it’s one third-party candidate that they’re endorsing, and they got that same third party to endorse three candidates in return. If they were endorsing a Republican or a Democrat, that’d be a little different. At worst, I’d encourage them to run an LP candidate in that race next time and view other third parties as friendly competition instead of friendly collaborators.
Then again, I’m a nice guy.
“No affiliate party shall endorse any candidate who is a member of another party for public office in any partisan election. No affiliate party shall take any action inconsistent with the Statement of Principles or these Bylaws.”
Oh, oh… somebody stepped in the doodoo. Purge them! Purge them all! 🙂
The LP National Committee can’t disband anything. National political parties are only an association of their constituent state parties. The LP punishment could be a refusal to seat Alaska LP delegates at LP functions. That would truly be a shame and would show the true colors of the LPUSA. I thought the LP was for free thinkers and liberty? How is such a bylaw provision consistent with either? Very, very interesting…
Here’s the National LP bylaws:
http://www.lp.org/files/bylaws-2010.pdf
And the chapter and verse that the LPA might be in trouble with (Article 6, Paragraph 4):
Though I’m sure more than a few parliamentarians have found loopholes around this provision (e.g. “Well, they don’t have members, exactly…”), I think they’re going to have a heck of a time defending themselves if somebody wants to make a stink of it. That said, I’d also be a little surprised if 3/4 of the National Committee were willing to vote to disband the LPA over this, so it might not matter either way.
@5 I had gone over this with Dan Karlan of the bylaws committee a while back, and there can also be some confusion of what constitutes a member of another political party.
This is really a crummy bylaw provision, and I had hoped that with all of the time spent on bylaws at the last national LP convention that this would be one that was addressed, but it wasn’t.
Maybe the LP bylaws committee would be more focused if it wasn’t a standing committee and served as an ad hoc committee, addressing specific problems.
@6 Palin may have been at one time but she has since sold out.
This is not the first time this has happened. This happened routinely with the Libertarian Party in the 1980s. In fact, the three founders of the Alaska Independence Party came from the LPA. The LP lost ballot status for a few years because of a plane raffle controversy. So, they moved over into the AIP.
Funny thing is the Palins were involved with AIP around this time.
But you never hear about any of this, cause it doesn’t fit the template on Sarah Palin. Libertarian partisans are loathe to admit, she’s a real Libertarian, with Libertarian credentials. So, the AIP/LP story from the 1980s gets lost.
It seems we have generated some discussion among the LP. I am greatful that the leadership of the Alaska LP were able to endorse our AIP candidate. It would be a shame if your national LP rules would be against this encouraging Alaska experience. The AIP has elected a Governor and Lt. Governor, while the ALP has elected legislators. We should be working closely together when and where possible. As to the Green Party. In Alaska, they have lost ballot status and members here and have no candidates on the ballot this year. That being said, the AIP is willing to work with others on issues of mutual concern. That is why we have provided our ballot line to the Constitution Party for President and V. President in the past. – J.R. Myers, AIP Vice Chairman South
Mik@3,
They sure are.
http://www.elections.alaska.gov/pi_rp.php
I never realized the LP’s not allowed to cross-endorse. Maybe the AKLP didn’t realize that either?
They should also cross-endorse with the Green Party. Alaska has some great Green Party candidates. If they are cross-endorsed by the other two parties, it will help to strengthen the Green Party Conservative movement and get great Green Party conservatives and other brave Green Party activists into office nationwide.
@2 Not quite correct. No LP affiliate can endorse a candidate who is a member of another political party for partisan office. Is the Alaskan Independence Party considered a political party in Alaska?
I was under the impression the no LP affiliate can endorse a nominee of another party for any partisan office. Is this not correct?
sanity, sanity, sanity ——– yes!