From the Libertarian Party website:
In response to news of Republicans Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney exploring the possibility of a run for the presidency in 2016, Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark said on Press TV, “Like people say about Hollywood,…when it comes to the Republicans and the Democrats in U.S. politics, it’s…nothing but sequels and reboots.”
“In the 2016 election … the only candidate who has any new ideas about actually increasing people’s freedoms and cutting government spending is going to be the Libertarian Party candidate, whoever that nominee ends up being.”
Listen to the full statement here.
Thanks!
We have a couple of people on the team there officially…but apparently not doing much from what I was told. So more people would be good, especially if they will be active. If I can find a way to get the existing ones to do more, I don’t know, but I’ll try.
I gave a few leads a while back; I’m guessing they didn’t pan out? I have also asked around – just because I’m not willing to do something doesn’t mean I won’t try to help recruit for it. I will continue to ask around.
I’m sure Will is capable of it. Whether he is willing to actually do it is another question. That’s why we are trying to recruit additional team members in CT. Suggestions for leads on who we should ask are welcome, of course.
The sense I say it is your call is that you could be a part of OAI but you have chosen not to be. In some states many of the people in state LP leadership are also in state OAI leadership. Other states not so much. It’s your call how much you want to cooperate.
But if you choose not to, and whoeverelse steps up to lead OAI in that state doesn’t get it done, yes that’s on them, but it also has consequences for you, i.e. the opportunity cost of whatever OAI could have brought into play as I described above.
You can still do whatever you can do as LP. I’ll try to do what I can done as both, and as Let Bama Vote, and as Independent Alabama, and whatever other structures I can use to bolster my efforts to any degree, make them bigger, or even just make them look bigger (sometimes appearances are important – a coalition of groups may impress legislators in ways that one group by itself doesn’t, even if a lot of it is the same people wearing multiple hats).
I would say it’s actually not my call. It’s the call of our “state director.” If all it takes is getting a paragraph approved, Will is certainly capable of that – and he’s actually a part of OAI, unlike, say, me.
It is true that you’ve explained why your organization doesn’t trust its appointed leaders. I don’t think you’ve explained how that approach is compatible with calling yourself a grassroots movement, though.
And we have discussed why.
Thousands of people can easily exist on a rarely used email list without any of them proactively stepping forward to lead a state organization, much less being very active in that leadership if and when they do step forward. That doesn’t mean some of them would not show up for a lobby day if they were asked.
Unfortunately, that means that OAI is far less likely to get involved. The structure is what it is, and if you choose not to use it, I guess the only real disadvantage for you is in opportunity cost – you’ll never know to what extent it may have been able to help you. I’m going to try the other route, and see if it helps me in Alabama. I’ll tell you already that it’s helping motivate me to do some lobbying this year, and we’ll see what else it can do.
Since I’m now co-deputy director for the Eastern region, which includes CT, as well as the Southern, I can tell you that is unlikely. We need a more active state leadership team to make that machinery start moving.
The email blast would probably be for a general purpose lobby day, not for a specific committee hearing. Once you have people that actually show up you can get their contact info and try to turn them out for specific committee hearings, etc.
That’s fine. I’ve told you the advantages – mutual advantages – of having an additional structure in place. If you choose not to use it, that’s your call. I can’t do anything about it and I have a lot of other states to try to work with. Hopefully some of them will be more interested in working with us. And hopefully we’ll get a more active leadership team in your state as well, although it’s far less likely to happen in time for this legislative session.
You wish there were ways to speed things up? There are obvious ways. They’re not used because despite calling itself “grassroots” the organization doesn’t trust its own people.
How is it that OAI manages to have, I’m told, thousands of people in CT, but no active team? Surely out of those thousands a few leaders could be recruited.
As for OAI’s participation – go for it. The bills exist. I’m not going to get a paragraph “approved” because I’ve already told you what I think of OAI’s bureaucratic structure. The existing OAI people are free to support the bills as proposed, or not, and turn out those thousands of people. They’re free to include them in their lobbying day or not, subject to the various levels of approval needed. They’re free to write email blasts about them, and see if they get approved. Note that public hearings in CT are usually scheduled 1 or 2 days in advance, so I’m uncertain that an email blast to turn people out would actually work by the time it gets through your process, but OAI people are free to try. When I speak to legislators, though, I speak in two capacities – myself, and LPCT Chair. OAI can do as it chooses. I certainly wouldn’t mind if they want to support these bills (or the various bills introduced by the same rep to eliminate various taxes.)
I don’t think there’s much chance they read the comments, but that may well be one reason he never sent me an article.
No, he just lost even more money.
Radio ads were apparently the relatively better deal.
No, Ron is still owed that money plus more from the LP campaign. It’s not likely to ever be paid. Most of the money went to things like getting around the country, producing campaign materials, paying a small staff (not at the rates some people think, which were high-end estimates for the purpose of FEC reports). If you compare it with the last couple of LP presidential campaigns it was a relatively equal amount of money, with more bang for the buck, even though very little went to TV ads (Ron told me there was a very small TV ad buy at the end; I don’t remember all the details). Plus a relatively larger radio ad buy.
The job is not to promote the LP per se, but in states like Alabama where the two organizations work together, both organizations benefit as a result.
True. We’re casting a wide net and accepting whoever steps forward as state directors. So no, they don’t get a list that they did not create and could possibly abuse. But if they come up with something good it gets sent to the list. There’s hundreds of thousands of people on the list, so extrapolate that for any given state and it’s likely to be thousands, tens of thousand, or at the very least hundreds of people.
I agree that’s unfortunate. I wish there were ways to speed things up at times.
Unfortunately, we don’t have a very active state team in your state. If we got more active people involved they would be proactive about getting your bills cosponsored as an OAI project and then we could turn out more people for lobbying.
Put a different way, what exactly would you lose? If few or no additional people showed up you would still have whoever the LP could turn out on its own, plus some additional promotion for your lobbying thru various social media, plus the email blasts to supporters and traditional media, plus giving the legislators and media the impression that more than one organization is working on the legislation, etc. All it would take is a few minutes of time and an additional title, getting a paragraph approved and put on the state OAI page, and submitting a proposed press release. Most of which could recycle language you are already using for LP purposes with very slight changes.
Paulie – I suppose Ron needs to hope that his clients don’t read IPR then.
I don’t have a problem believing that Ron lost money on the 2012 campaign, but it’s likely to be a misleading fact. My concern is for the LP and its members and donors, and donors to the 2012 LP campaign. From what I see, Gary came into the LP seeking the nomination while owing Ron money from the GOP campaign. Money for the LP campaign was then used to repay Ron – not fully, obviously, if he still lost money, but LP supporters did not want to pay off debts from a primary run in another party. Donors, pretty clearly, wanted tv ads, since the campaign told them “donate and we’ll run tv ads.” Instead, they were paying off debts from a previous campaign in another party.
OAI’s job isn’t to promote the LP, which is fine – it’s another organization. That doesn’t mean I’m going to participate or support it.
Now OAI is running “lobbying days.” Fine, that’s a good idea. The issue is that I have no idea how effective it will be – and my guess is state directors don’t either because, as I’ve pointed out before, state directors aren’t given the ability to DIRECTLY contact supporters and donors in their state. State directors don’t have access to mailing lists and don’t really know how many people are on there.
During the campaign, I was a state director (or whatever the terminology is/was.) My emails to supporters had to be sent to HQ, read by Ron Nielson, approved or disapproved, then mailed out by staff. This is a system born out of distrust of state directors (I’ve been told this by staff at OAI.) It also meant that timely releases had a tendency to be late. I had releases rejected for entirely unclear reasons. So much for the grand sounding “state director” title. I have no idea how much money came from donors in my state also. I was trying to take the job seriously, but treated as a functionary.
Right now, I’m told there are thousands of contacts in my state. How do I evaluate this claim? I can’t even ask my state director if it’s true. Do I want to coordinate with OAI on lobbying? How do I know? I do know that the LP managed to get two bills introduced yesterday. If OAI wants to turn out people for the public hearings (if scheduled) I certainly wouldn’t object.
My opinion is that OAI wants to build a “grassroots movement” but, first, it’s a contradiction in terms for a national organization to build such a thing. Second, they have way too much bureaucracy and secrecy to achieve this goal.
That was in reply to Mike Kane, not Andy, in case it wasn’t obvious from context.
Thanks for seeing the glass as half empty. I kept a very close eye on the 2012 campaign and past LP campaigns, and the ideas presented, on balance, were and are radical libertarian ideas to the vast majority of people who heard them…and will be again, even if they don’t get any better a second time out. Which is if Gary even runs and gets nominated again, which may or may not happen.
Paul said: ” the CP is taking zero responsibility because our deal was with Virgil and not technically with their national committee, even though we put their ticket on the ballot, even though the deal was brokered by their national ballot access coordinator (which was the only reason I trusted Virgil enough to carry his petition), even though their VP candidate and former national chair/current national exec comm member was on the petition also, and even though Virgil is still on their national exec comm today and the money remains unpaid. GJ12 on the other hand paid money the LP owed, and sent us back to the LP with an unplanned delay to take care of the rest (the job was over in early September 2012).”
Which means that them saying, “the deal was with Virgil so we don’t have to pay,” is nothing more than a bullshit excuse. We originally kicked off the petition drive for them in Alabama in June of 2012. We never had any communication at all with Virgil Goode, or even with anyone representing Virgil Goode, until sometime in August of 2012. The deal was struck with somebody who works for the Constitution Party National Committee. They only passed the buck to Virgil Goode AFTER the deal was already in place because they claimed that their national committee was broke. Also, Virgil Goode was an still is on the Constitution Party National Committee.
So getting back to “Sequels and Reboots”, I hope Gary Johnson will actually study up on free market economic theory so he doesn’t try to discredit ABCT to an economic scholar of the subject.
I hope he’ll take a radical stance on bringing home the troops, and distancing America from all the problems in the Middle East and abroad.
I hope he’ll get past talking about how he likes smoking pot, and starts talking about pardoning all non-violent drug offenders DAY ONE if elected.
I hope he’ll stop talking about the Fair Tax, and advocate for voluntary taxes.
I hope he’ll stop talking about he could have administered healthcare better if he had just gotten block grants for medicare, and start talking about eliminating government involvement in healthcare altogether.
I hope he’ll stop saying “Be Libertarian with me just this once” and say “Join the Libertarian Party today!’
I hope he’ll advocate for cutting government by 90% day one.
If these changes aren’t made, then it may just be a reboot.
He just says he estimated expenses way on the high side.
I’d have to have some idea of what you are talking about, and I don’t.
Then there’s a lot you don’t know about. I’ve named some of it on this thread and past threads.
Many millions of people watch the debates, and even more would if more candidates were in them.
I’d like to abolish the IRS and while I have zero use for the “fair” tax, I understand why “replace it with nothing” sounds crazy to many people. I also appreciate that the complexity of the tax code is a big problem over and above the rate of extraction. And that Gary just says the “fair” tax is a good starting point for a conversation about what to do instead (I don’t think it is), not that he’s married to the particular plan, it’s tax rate, the “prebate,” or any other particular aspects. Getting rid of the IRS is a worthy goal in itself.
Also, our state projects talk about getting rid of state income taxes, not replacing them.
So either Ron Nielson misreported information (fraud, granted to an organization that shouldn’t exist) on the FEC reports, or he really took $300 an hour.
I remember hearing something about paying him $300 an hour so he could pay out of pocket for media buys. Was that not true at the time?
Either way, it’s all just a tad too shady for my tastes, and I haven’t seen OAI do anything productive to help the LP aside from “This initiative is endorsed by Gary Johnson and OAI” in regards to the marriage equality petition for a ballot initiative in FL a few years ago.
They want to abolish the IRS and replace it with the Fair Tax – deal breaker.
Most people don’t even watch the debates anyways
That’s from Charlie Frohman’s email signature, I didn’t write it, but it’s all true.
P.S. Honorary Chairman Gary Johnson has had recently many appearances in the media; he has been joined on the Advisory Board by Whole Foods founder John Mackey and Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr.; and 100 high-profile, national experts have joined our Advisory Councils and now are posting at LiveFreeBlog.
P.P.S. Support our national projects to end warrantless NSA spying, abolish the IRS, repeal marijuana prohibition, and require debates to include all viable candidates. More of our 50 state affiliates are ramping up their own projects – find your state and help us restore liberty!
It was when the new tax status was approved. We’ll raise whatever we can, which as you point out probably won’t be much but it’s better than zero. The alternative would have been to not even attempt to use it to raise anything until almost a year from now. Talk about stupid things to nit pick over … on an unrelated thread, to boot.
We have two different organizations for tax purposes, which do different things. The prior one still exists, and can still cooperate with the LP in all the ways we already have been. The new one only adds something and does not take anything away. We are working with the LP on the presidential debate commission lawsuit, on many state projects, on many visits by the Governor and the Judge which raise money and bring out new people for both OAI and LP and so on. None of that will change.
Please provide proof of your slanders. Do you have the bank deposits, or account information? All you have are FEC reports, and I’ve already told you his reply to that misdirection. If you have any other evidence instead of the usual assumptions and mischaracterizations please provide it.
I’d say they did pretty well with what little money they had. The receipts were no more than the last couple of presidential election cycles, and the results – whether vote totals, or media coverage or social media reach or campaign materials produced or new people involved with state and local LPs – has been a lot better.
Not all of Gary’s ideas are radical enough for my taste, but many things he said were still radical ideas to many people who hadn’t heard them before, and some of those discovered even more radical ideas later as a result. As for Gary, his ideas continue to evolve.
You mean offsetting a small portion of his losses for doing very valuable and worthwhile work.
You mean the debt that is owed to Ron? Gary and Ron are both pretty much moving on. Legally it remains on the books, but the chances of the money coming it to pay it off are negligible, so no serious collection efforts are being made.
If you have any evidence that the account I am giving you is inaccurate in any way please show what it is.
Sending an email out a month after when 80-90% of money is raised for tax deductable non-profit groups demonstrates an AWFUL lack of understanding of fundraising. Maybe it was timing, but I doubt it.
Now that they are ‘tax-exempt’, they definitely won’t be promoting the Libertarian Party at all. Cause they can’t. That’s the SFL cop out. “We can’t lose our special tax privileges from the state we apparently trying to reduce”.
It’s funny how everything you say is “Well Ron told me this or that”. Of course he’s telling you that meanwhile laughing on his way to the bank to the tune of $300 an hour for a poorly mismanaged campaign that failed miserably in promoting radical Libertarian ideals. And now, he’s milking poor uninformed donors for more money.
I wonder if Gary ever paid off his Republican campaign debts yet.
Nope. Just correcting the bullshit you and others continue to spread.
Tax-deductible contributions are tax deductible year round, regardless of giving seasons, and charitable organizations fundraise year round. Please come up with a more rational basis to attack OAI than trying to raise money, which every organization does and which BTW my understanding is that so far the amount coming in doesn’t actually even come close to covering expenses, so far from making people rich as you imagine without evidence, it’s actually costing Ron a lot of money to keep it afloat. And yes, the handout materials, and the small staff getting paid peanuts to do things like train activists, identify issues, blast out our involvement in legislative lobbying through multiple social media and traditional media outlets, etc, etc, etc, does cost some money…no one is lining their pockets, and Ron is actually losing a lot of money on it, from what he told me.
As for an email going out Jan 6. The new tax deductible status finally got approved. Maybe you know a way to make government agencies approve tax status for organizations faster?
Except no one is making $300 an hour. That’s what Ron put on the paperwork because that’s what he charges his other clients and he didn’t want them to pay him less because he is charging Johnson less, and because the FEC was supposed to make up the difference and then double crossed him after a staffing change at the agency. Ron actually lost a lot of money which he is unlikely to ever see, as in he is the contractor that is owed and the money isn’t there. He continues to spend more on OAI than it brings in, at least from what he told me. He said he wants to see the details on what contractors allegedly went unpaid, which he disputes.
Actually, I did have some money that was originally owed by the LP shuffled off on to GJ2012, which they paid some of, and finally the last portion was shuffled back to the LP and paid in I believe November or December of 2012 – whenever we had the budget meeting in Virginia that year, so two or three months later. I survived, although it was a pain. I don’t really see it as Ron’s fault, because GJ12 was never who we contracted with in the first place. Contrast that with the CP, which we were doing at the same time in Alabama – the CP is taking zero responsibility because our deal was with Virgil and not technically with their national committee, even though we put their ticket on the ballot, even though the deal was brokered by their national ballot access coordinator (which was the only reason I trusted Virgil enough to carry his petition), even though their VP candidate and former national chair/current national exec comm member was on the petition also, and even though Virgil is still on their national exec comm today and the money remains unpaid. GJ12 on the other hand paid money the LP owed, and sent us back to the LP with an unplanned delay to take care of the rest (the job was over in early September 2012).
I’m basically giving it to you, to the best of my ability. I wish he would put out something official.
You have exactly zero evidence of that as far as I have seen. All I see is a bunch of people who keep assuming the worst without any reason whatsoever for it. And why is this even a topic on this thread at all? How does it relate to what Nick said, which is completely true regardless of whether Gary runs again or not?
If I apparently play the unwitting Stan to other folks playing Ollie so be it. So long as all are amused and receive a little information I have no objection.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Laurel_and_Hardy
Mike Kane, if you or somebody you know has a complaint over an unpaid bill by Gary Johnson or his campaign why don’t you write it up in story form and submit it to IPR for publication?
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/constitution-party-launches-over-the-top-drive-for-ballot-access-funds/#comment-1070565
No Paulie, what you say is bullshit.
The recent OAI activity is sending emails titled “Tax deductible contributions for liberty” (which was sent January 6th, well after the giving season was over, which is when most people give to charitable organizations), and soliciting money for “Lobby Days”, where OAI gets paid to organize volunteers and buy materials.
Don’t you think it’s pretty tacky to take $300 an hour as a consultant when you haven’t paid your contractors for months? How would you feel if Ron Nielson didn’t pay you for months for a petition drive?
I’d love to hear Ron Nielson’s version of events, but they’ll probobly be bullshit as well.
In a word, bullshit. No one’s pockets are getting lined. I wish I could get Ron Nielson to go on the record with what he says the real story is.
Recent OAI activities? The lawsuit legal team has been announced. We finally have all the parties on board so it should be moving ahead soon. We have state lobbying projects in many states, and OAI is helping activists in a variety of ways with those.
Building the party? In Alabama, what party we have is almost 100% thanks to Johnson. We were dying before that and pretty close to dead. And Johnson’s run helped in many other states that I have seen. Unlike past crossovers he has stayed with the party, and endorsed a number of LP candidates in 2014. Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel are among past crossovers who did not stay active with the LP for very long after their presidential campaigns. If Johnson runs again, he’ll probably get more media and more votes than other people who are likely to get the nomination, and that will help to build the party.
Gary Johnson, if nominated, would be a sub-par nominee. Of all of the names I’ve heard thrown out there for the nomination; Perry, Feldman, Moulton, and many others,, Johnson ranks low on my list.
It’s not about any person it’s about the cause, the movement, building the party, etc. Johnson and his recent OAI activities have proven that it’s more about him and lining the pockets of his friends rather than what the real purpose is.
See, he’s a flip flopper. I told you he was just like Mitt Romney. And what’s up with having a campaign office in Utah? Is it all part of a nefarious Mormon conspiracy? 🙂
Oh, I thought he was being completely serious. More seriously….Yeah, I think that was pretty obvious.
Exactly.
You were the least of it.
Is he going to stone them? Light their fire? Boil them in hash oil?
Bingo!
I think Matt Cholko was actually spoofing some of the nit-picking or even absurd criticisms of Gary Johnson that have appeared in IPR comments sections.
Most of the public has little or no idea what the LP is all about so getting the word out will be new.
Oh believe me I get that Gary Johnson is a far better candidate than Romm Comedy or whatever his name is, I was just pointing out the irony in the statement. Sorry I was nitpicking.
Matt Cholko if you have a better source for Gary Johnson’s past and present positions on the death penalty than the following URL it would be a laudadory action to post it. http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Gary_Johnson_Crime.htm
Dipp Chutney would continue policies that have been tried, and failed. He’s a “sequel” of past Presidents policy-wise. Even Gary Johnson, although he’s run before, wouldn’t have this characteristic, because he’d (presumably – you never know exactly what will happen) be different in office from past Presidents.
Gary Johnson supports the death penalty for marijuana users!
The nitpicking is silly, and since you all are just repeating yourselves, I will too. Johnson and/or the LP and/or libertarian ideas aren’t new to those of us who are regulars here, and to a small slice of the general public, but to most people, they all are. Whether Johnson will run or not and whether he will get the nomination or not remains to be seen. Whoever the nominee is, it will be a fresh new approach for the majority of people who get to hear it.
I’m not going to address the tired old distortions of Gary Johnson’s positions that I have addressed hundreds of times on other threads, because they are way beside the point here. How tone-deaf and ridiculously literal are people going to be? You all are smarter than that. SMH big time.
If the LP nominates Gary Johnson it would be with a retread of a Presidential campaign. He wouldn’t be offering any new ideas, he probably won’t even chose a better VP candidate. Johnson is for “humanitarian” military intervention, so there wouldn’t be an end to military adventurism. He’s for the Fair Tax, which isn’t a radical or new idea (also isn’t really Libertarian, since it’s just replacing an oppressive progressive tax with a oppressive regressive tax), so he fails on that criteria. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney maybe a reboot for right-wing statism, but Gary Johnson will be a rehash of half-assed Libertarianism.
“Isn’t there a New Party somewhere? Although if it still exists it must not be that new anymore…”
The New Party has been defunct for many years. In 2008 a candidate got on the Illinois ballot as the New Party’s presidential candidate, but the party’s national office had been closed down for almost 10 years by that point. The Working Families Party is the NP’s successor.
“I take it he means a sequel/reboot of a Presidency, not just a campaign.”
No, the article specifically mentions Dipp Chutney, or whatever his name is. I actually like Gov. Johnson & hope he does run again, but this is the wrong message considering that likely possibility, unless Chairman Sarwark has inside information that the Governor is not going to run again.
Jed is right. You can’t run on this plank with a retread of a Presidential campaign. We can use the candidate, but not with this campaign approach.
Isn’t there a New Party somewhere? Although if it still exists it must not be that new anymore…
Largely agree with NS. Although it’s the case that L ideas aren’t really “new.” Avoiding alliances, for ex., goes back to G Washington. Drugs used to be legal. Spending used to be much lower. The NSA is a relatively new agency.
L ideas are often dismissed as throwback notions.
What would be “new” is an L approach in the context of the times.
It’s funny…the term “new ideas” was championed by Gary Hart, and the term still seems to resonate. So does “new beginning,” which Ed Clark and Ronald Reagan both used.
Most people still haven’t heard the ideas of libertarianism or know who Gary Johnson even is (or much if anything about him even if they recognize the name). So it’s new to them. Whether we’ll reach a larger chunk of them this time or not – I guess we’ll see. But we’ll certainly reach some new people, even if it’s not a larger number. And I am pretty optimistic that the circumstances could come together for it to be a larger number this time.
I take it he means a sequel/reboot of a Presidency, not just a campaign.
If the LP runs Gary Johnson again, won’t that be a sequel/reboot?
Libertarianism isn’t exactly a new idea. Its tenets extend at least as far back as 18th century classical liberalism.
And the LP has been offering this choice to American voters for over 40 years.