Original article by Kevin Mooney can be found here with audio link to the interview.
The Libertarian Party’s leading candidate for President believes the party will be making great strides in 2016 to establish itself as a viable third party choice for voters.
Steve Kerbel of Colorado Springs was in Scottsbluff Thursday to talk to residents about his candidacy and the Libertarian party, which he emphasizes less government and an a real option to the Republicans and Democrats.
Kerbel says one of the things he would recommend to cut government is elimination of the Department of Education, which would save the country $200 billion. Kerbel says $1.5 trillion of the $3.9 trillion government spends can be cut ” without a great deal of difficulty” and he espouses a tax system that eliminates income and corporate taxes.
Kerbel says polls have him right now as the Libertarian’s leading candidate, but he notes 2012 nominee Gary Johnson has not yet decided whether he will run again in 2016.
IPR Note: The headline was chosen by the source. The polls referred to are informal Internet polls.
Malcolm X once said “If you have no critics you’ll likely have no success.” That is certainly true in the Libertarian Party.
Stewart Flood writes: “Feldman’s ego just convinced me that if he’s our candidate on the ballot next November I might as well not vote. This is pathetic.”
Stewart, projecting much?
Talk about ego. Flood calls intelligent and dedicated candidates “lunatic and dufus” He does not recognize the value of the Libertarian ideals and positions of my opponent Steve Kerbel and says he would rather vote NOTA.
Flood makes no effort to critically read and analyze the candidates’ actual positions, plans, and their ramifications.
Flood’s bluster and laziness just convinced me that if I needed his support to be a successful candidate then I might as well not run. That is pathetic.
Feldman’s ego just convinced me that if he’s our candidate on the ballot next November I might as well not vote. This is pathetic.
I’m starting to stop reading Reid’s posts as soon as he tells us how smart he is.
Truly smart people don’t have to keep telling other people how smart they are. It becomes rather obvious on its own.
Mr. Petersen (three ‘e’s) definitely posted a picture of a signed Form 2 on Instagram. I’ll wait for confirmation from the FEC as to filing.
“I am not a minarchist or an anarchist. I call myself an intersectional Libertarian populist. I recommend to you very highly to read about intersectionalism, especially as it has affected the feminist movement. I think it may be the key to a Libertarian win in 2016. My guess is that you will decide it is some form of collectivism. And as Nick Sarwark might say, “you may be right.””
My translation program does not have a definition for this yet. I will have to look into it.
meanwhile Austin Peterson has apparently filed an FEC form 2.
“Her Facebook page has 4,409 likes. His has 334,998 likes”
There will be give-or-take 650 delegates on the floor. When Ruwart reaches the places she is reaching, she is likely reaching real delegates. That’s not the same as attracting a llke at some obscure date. The 334,000 likes, well, not so clear.
Ruwart lost to Barr because she jumped in at the last minute, after the LSLA event. would she do better with a long-term campaign and good campaign organization? She only needed a moderate number of additional votes. The folks who were pushing for Barr are apt to be less visible.
@George Phillies
“”Andy, To disagree, the core issue for alternative candidates should not be whether someone is within reason a bit more or less Libertarian, but whether they are showing signs of having a campaign organization.””
That’s not something I disagree with, but you’re in the minority of those pining for a not-Johnson in doing so less on ideological grounds and more on organizational & campaign-effectiveness grounds.
“”We can rule out Perry and Feldman, who refuse to raise significant amounts of normal money. The gentleman whose website is “Authoritarian Libertarianism” is right out. Mister Ventura is not a credible candidate, and specified that he is not a Libertarian.””
Ventura might not be a credible candidate to must of us, but I wouldn’t rule him out if Ventura vs. the current field with no Johnson running. I’m dismissive of Ventura’s chances mainly because his chance of defeating Johnson (assuming he tries) is not much better than the others– but I’d still say he would have a non-negligible chance of winning at a convention where he’s the only ‘big name.’
“”A good candidate would be doing mailings to state parties and potential delegates.””
I don’t know about snail-mail postal mailings (they have a funny way of not paying for themselves), but Gary’s reaching plenty of potential delegates with his regular statements that go out via OAI. We typically post them here, and they also go on other websites and on social media.
I’ll also note you’ve reverted to hypothetical “good candidate” and not any actual candidate.
“”A good candidate would be highly visible on Facebook and etc., the way Mary Ruwart is at the moment. “”
Her Facebook page has 4,409 likes. His has 334,998 likes, not even counting all the other pages (OAI, FD, unofficial supporter pages. etc.) His “Why I would run for President” post almost has more shares just on that the total number of followers on Ruwart’s page. This is a rather silly metric to point to if the idea is to make Johnson look worse by comparison. Ruwart might be more visible and have further reach than the currently-declared, as low a bar as that is, but she’s still not even in the same ballpark as Johnson.
“”Indeed, a fair case could be made that Ruwart has positioned herself so that if Johnson vanishes she may make a drive for the nomination.””
Probably. Another reason to be glad Johnson isn’t vanishing, the best efforts of some Libertarians notwithstanding.
However, and I hate to point this out but it’s relevant: Ruwart didn’t beat Bob Barr, I’d be very hesitant to assume she would beat Jesse Ventura if it came down to the two of them as the main contenders. Luckily, it’s all moot speculation.
“”A good candidate would be setting up a substantial campaign organization.””
Just because you choose not to be a part of it, doesn’t mean such a thing does not exist. I think it’s also an odd criticism to toss at Johnson when he’s the only nominee who’s even halfway attempted to build a larger organization. You might find OAI unimpressive for whatever reason, but at least it exists, and is out there organizing volunteers and spreading Gary’s messaging right now. It is also doing work that will benefit the LP and its 2016 nominee regardless of who that it is.
“”A good candidate would already be showing “TV” ads that would mostly run via the internet and audio ads that might actually air.””
It’d be nice to see those things, I think you vastly overstate the necessity of having them *right now*. And of course, there’s no shortage of Gary on YouTube for those who want Gary on YouTube.
While we’re making up a wishlist, a good candidate would be a mega-billionaire who could spend a few hundred million on the campaign, a good candidate would have already been elected to Congress or statewide office running as a Libertarian, a good candidate would already be leading in all the polls. You can push the goalposts as far as you want, it really doesn’t say anything useful about who the Libertarian Party should actually nominate back here in the real world.
Marc Allan Feldman said: “The good news is that I have about the same influence on the Internet as Gary Johnson.
The bad news is that I have about the same influence on the Internet as Gary Johnson.
Interestingly, Jesse Ventura is also about the same. None of us is what one could call a household name.”
Oh come on, Gary Johnson and Jesse Ventura are far more well known than you are. I’d rank them in terms of name recognition as follows:
1) Jesse Ventura
2) Gary Johnson
and coming in at a very, very, very, very, very distant third….
3) Marc Allan Feldman
Good afternoon IPR “political-junkie echo chamber.”
Just a reminder that we are not nominating someone to be President of the Libertarian Party, but President of the United States.
I recently looked at some data on Internet influence. There is good news and bad news.
The good news is that I have about the same influence on the Internet as Gary Johnson.
The bad news is that I have about the same influence on the Internet as Gary Johnson.
Interestingly, Jesse Ventura is also about the same. None of us is what one could call a household name.
I am not running on the basis of name recognition.
I am not running on the basis of political experience.
I am certainly not running on the basis of fundraising ability – just the opposite.
I am running to give the opportunity to the American people to vote for someone who will represent them, not the wealthy and powerful special interests.
Maybe unfortunately for some, I am also not running to represent the special interests of marijuana entrepreneurs, gun dealers, same-sex marriage advocates, or hardcore/purist/anarchist libertarians.
This has been called the year of the unlikely candidate. In some recent polls, my former colleague from Johns Hopkins, Dr. Ben Carson, is rising in the GOP field.
I may be an extremely unlikely candidate, but unlikely things happen, more often these days than before.
A major reason that Gary Johnson wanted our nomination in 2012 is because he wanted to be empowered by our ballot access.
The only reason that Jesse Ventura wants our nomination is because he wants to be empowered by our ballot access.
My campaign strategy is based on the proposal that maybe, just maybe, a significant portion of the 100 million non-voters in this country might support our nominee, if they feel that they would be empowered by our ballot access.
Although I fundamentally accept and honor the non-aggression principle as a moral and ethical imperative, the way I apply it and my views on many political issues differs with many or most or LIbertarians.
1. Like many Americans, I am an ardent financial and moral supporter of the State of Israel, with my checkbook and my credit card. However I believe that the correct amount of U.S. Government foreign aid to all countries is zero, and Israel is a fine place to start, because it does not help Israel militarily or economically, and is basically a subsidy to the US military industry.
2. Like most Americans, I believe that prejudicial discrimination with the effect of depriving people of time, money, health, satisfaction, or job opportunities is just as much an aggression as a slap in the face. The only reason I oppose all government involvement is that any new law would likely cause more harm than good. I fundamentally support freedom of association, but every freedom is limited to the point when it is used to infringe on the rights of others.
3. Money. There was a time when it cost a lot of money if you wanted to have a quality email account. Now you need some money, enough for access to a computer and internet connection, but that is about it. If I can get on the ballot with a $5 maximum, in a race against billion dollar candidates, I think I will get far more than 1% just on that basis alone. My opinion.
4. Abortion. My religion teaches that a pregnant woman is one person, not two, and that is what I believe. For a woman to have a healthy and important part of her body removed without a compelling reason is repugnant, morally wrong, and none of the government’s business.
5. Guns. The second amendment is not about target practice, hunting, or self defence. It is about the supremacy of the right of the individual over the power of the State. I believe everyone has the right to a gun, just like everyone has a right to a lawyer. It doesn’t mean I like them or want to keep one in my house.
6. My economic plan: I don’t plan to directly abolish anything. My plan is pretty simple. First, balance the budget and keep it balanced. Second, change charitable contributions to 100% dollar for dollar tax credits. You can see where this goes as people decide to support more and more non-profit organizations and send less money to the IRS – with a balanced budget.
I am not a minarchist or an anarchist. I call myself an intersectional Libertarian populist. I recommend to you very highly to read about intersectionalism, especially as it has affected the feminist movement. I think it may be the key to a Libertarian win in 2016. My guess is that you will decide it is some form of collectivism. And as Nick Sarwark might say, “you may be right.”
Andy, To disagree, the core issue for alternative candidates should not be whether someone is within reason a bit more or less Libertarian, but whether they are showing signs of having a campaign organization. We can rule out Perry and Feldman, who refuse to raise significant amounts of normal money. The gentleman whose website is “Authoritarian Libertarianism” is right out. Mister Ventura is not a credible candidate, and specified that he is not a Libertarian.
A good candidate would be doing mailings to state parties and potential delegates. A good candidate would be highly visible on Facebook and etc., the way Mary Ruwart is at the moment. Indeed, a fair case could be made that Ruwart has positioned herself so that if Johnson vanishes she may make a drive for the nomination. A good candidate would be setting up a substantial campaign organization. A good candidate would already be showing “TV” ads that would mostly run via the internet and audio ads that might actually air.
Johnson is doing none of these things. The idea that you can launch a strong volunteer organization after getting the nomination is fairly silly. Indeed, by normal standards last time Johnson had very little in the way of a volunteer organization and had little idea of what to do with it.
“It is a very weak field of candidates right now.”
I don’t think anybody can really deny that, But some keep asserting “somebody else” would run if Johnson didn’t, keep getting asked who, and keep ignoring the question because there isn’t a credible answer. There was a time when I though that too, but try to get into the specifics of actual names and the theory falls apart pretty quickly.
None of the (very few) people who could maybe do better better are interested. None of the names that might plausibly jump in, have a very plausible case for why they would do better. The only thing that would change if he announced tomorrow he’s not running, is suddenly Jesse Venura’s half-baked ramblings would seem a lot more plausible and viable. Whether we rejected Ventura or not (I certainly hope we would), and whether he formally declares or not, from now until Memorial Day (remember, half a year away) that’s where the media attention will go. Because like it or not, the Former Governor of Minnesota musing about maybe running for President (and even “gets rejected by minor party”) is newsworthy in a way the currently declared field simply isn’t and has little hope of ever being. The one thing that won’t happen, is anybody “more” libertarian (I don’t see it that way, but granting the premise) than Gary somehow getting any of the fundraising or support or coverage that they’re currently not.
Not that I necessarily see all that as a bad thing. If Johnson is generating more buzz and excitement as a likely candidate (and with Fair Debates) than the rest of the declared field combined (and he is), and if he has comfortable supermajority support among the party at large (I think he does), that’s not his fault or something to blame him for. I’d rather have a candidate who people are urging to run before he announces because they’re ready to support him, who can generate coverage and momentum just by teasing the possibility, than a candidate who can’t get anybody excited or get any notable coverage after several months of actively campaigning. If there was any time for a not-Johnson to come in and make their case, they’ve already missed the opportunity.
There’s also the fact, as has been discussed here before, it isn’t obvious announcing now would lead to a more successful campaign or be better, long-term, for the LP. The announcement isn’t just about sooner is better, it’s also about maximizing the return to the campaign for something you only get to do once, and announcing earlier comes at a significant cost if you plan to do anything more than (maybe) file your Form 2. The longer he waits (for now), the more major-party candidates will have dropped out and thus not have their supporters alienated by Gary running “against” their guy. As crazy as he is and wrong about many other things, Ventura is actually right with the logic of his “wait until all the ‘pikers’ are cleared out” statement. We get nothing trying to run against 20 Republicans and Democrats now when we’re ultimately only going to be running against 2 of them when it counts and when people are paying attention. (It’s easy to forget inside the political-junkie echo chamber, but most people aren’t going to start paying any attention until the party nominees are all decided., and for a lot of them not until the final month before the election.)
I don’t know if that’s part of the rationale or not. Maybe it’s also the partly-related concerns paulie speculated on earlier.. Maybe it’s Gary not wanting to waste time and resources he think can be better spent for the time being. Or maybe he’s just an evil bastard who secretly hates the LP, as some would have it. Point is, there are factors weighing in either direction. It’s not as simplistic as the “If he really cared he’d already be running!” spiel.
While I may see a certain degree of greater volatility this election… I dunno that this one is any worse in general than the chicken littleism of past elections. The world is *always* going to come to an end if we don’t defeat X even if we don’t like Y so much. I am older than some here, and younger than others, but I remember it being this way almost every election, though admittedly I had dropped out of electoral politics for a time, my sole contribution to the process being joyfully stuffing my ballot into the trash bin on my way in from the mailbox. I only stopped that recently after discovering the LP. Which is why I laugh when people give me the “wasted vote” argument—I tell them that I wasn’t voting at all before, so I am immune to that guilt trip. If the LP guy wasn’t getting my vote, no one was.
“George Phillies
October 26, 2015 at 8:52 pm
@2:16 PM I don’t see why you think that Johnson 2016 will generate more excitement than Barr 2012 or Badnarik 2008 would have, except possibly in the hearts of the outsiders to whom he owes money.”
Gary Johnson received over 1.2 million votes, which is the most raw votes a Libertarian Party candidate for President has ever received, and he came in 2nd for Libertarian Party candidates for President in terms of percent of the vote (1st by this criteria is still Ed Clark).
My point here was not so much to compare Gary Johnson to past LP candidates for President, but rather to compare him to the current field of candidates for the LP’s Presidential nomination. It is a very weak field of candidates right now. The weakest that I’ve seen since I’ve been in the party (since 1996).
The field of candidates for the LP nomination is so weak right now that anyone who is even semi-known, or who is running a more active campaign than anyone who is currently in the race for the nomination, would create more excitement than what we’ve got now.
“There are other precedents for third party multiple runs.”
And there are plenty of precedents for third party candidates doing better on their second run.
Nader 1996: 685,297 votes, 0.71%
Nader 2000: 2,883,105 votes, 2.74%
Debs 1900: 87,945 votes, 0.63%
Debs 1904: 402,810 votes, 2.98%
Phillips 1992: 43,369 votes, 0.04%
Phillips 1996: 184,656 votes, 0.19%
“Elections of past decades were far calmer.”
By what standard do you make that assertion? Strikes me that there are a lot of obvious counter-examples.
Well, no. Elections of past decades were far calmer. We are duplicating the run up to the War of the Slaveholders’ Rebellion, in which southerners were convinced that Lincoln was coming for their slaves and plotting two, three many servile revolts, which terrified southerners. Northerners were convinced that the slave power was out to destroy the bill of rights. Most of these fears were wildly exaggerated, with tragic consequences.
George,
==This time around, Republicans will probably be motivated by the erroneous belief that Clinton is Satan incarnate, and Democrats will be motivated by the erroneous belief that whichever Republican is a lunatic and the second coming of Hitler.==
Take out the specific name and doesn’t this describe every presidential election?
There are other precedents for third party multiple runs.
It does not occur to me that Hillary Clinton is as bad as some of the Republicans. Admittedly, that is a bar that is buried in a very deep hole.
Hillary Clinton is one of the most horrible people in politics today. We KNOW what she’s capable of. That doesn’t mean that any other candidates are much better, but we haven’t had the misfortune to learn about them yet.
That’s pure guesswork. There are so many factors and only one semi-comparable precedent, which is meaningless.
A reasonable estimate, though it depends on what else happens, is that a second coming of Johnson will do appreciably less well than the first, say 1/2 or 2/3 of a per cent.
Based on limited precedent, a reasonable estimate is that Johnson 2016, if it happens may raise more more than Johnson 2012 (Harry Browne did, after all) but will get appreciably fewer votes. In 2012 some voters in the west were disenthused with running a Massachusetts liberal as a Republican, and voted for Johnson. This time around, Republicans will probably be motivated by the erroneous belief that Clinton is Satan incarnate, and Democrats will be motivated by the erroneous belief that whichever Republican is a lunatic and the second coming of Hitler. There will be a lot of motivated voters, but they will only be voting for the Libertarian if the Libertarian has a rather clearer and more emphatic message and more enthusiastic support, which I do not expect.
@2:16 PM I don’t see why you think that Johnson 2016 will generate more excitement than Barr 2012 or Badnarik 2008 would have, except possibly in the hearts of the outsiders to whom he owes money.
Joshua K. said: “By contrast, being arrested for trespassing at the debates has been tried before and hasn’t accomplished much if anything.”
These debates will not happen until a year from now. This case will hopefully be decided by then. So there is no debate to get arrested at for this until a year from now.
I support the law suit, but I still think that going to the debate and getting arrested ought to be done (unless of course the law suit is won) to prove a point and to gain publicity.
Andy wrote: The Presidential Debates use tax payer funds, and the debate is for a public office. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a 501(c)(3), which means that they are a tax exempt non-profit. Part of being able to have this status is being non-partisan, yet in reality, the Debate Commission is bipartisan, in that they support Democrats and Republicans and are against everyone else. This clearly violates the terms of their 501 (c)(3) status.
The Libertarian National Committee, along with Gary Johnson, the Green Party, and Jill Stein, already have a lawsuit filed against the Commission on Presidential Debates, in which they are claiming that the Commission is engaged in an illegal monopoly and demanding, among other things, that the Commission be dissolved. The lawsuit is at a fairly early stage and I don’t know whether it will have any success, but I don’t think that this argument has been tried before.
By contrast, being arrested for trespassing at the debates has been tried before and hasn’t accomplished much if anything.
It was mentioned by several people above that there are people waiting in the wings who would run bigger and better campaigns than what we have seen so far but are holding off because they expect Johnson to run. No names were mentioned, but it was strongly implied that such people exist, and that the only reason they are not running is because they don’t want to run and lose to Johnson.
I do not know of any other candidate who could generate any excitement who has even expressed an interest in running.
Why only direct this at Gary Johnson? Shouldn’t it apply equally to the other people who are not getting in the race because they expect him to do so, whoever they may be?
I wonder if Gary Johnson understands that if fundraising does not pick up right now, he might fail to get be on the ballot in Oklahoma, and maybe in a few other places, assuming of course that he decides to run but puts off announcing that he’s running for a few more months.
That’s fair.
But, we can likewise say that those other folks who could be stepping up, but are holding off because they expect Johnson to get in the race and dominate, are being equally selfish, can we not? Yes, it is highly likely that they will lose the nomination to Johnson in the likely event that he does run. It’s likewise very likely that he will lose the general election (even more likely, in fact). If he is being chided for not giving up a year or more of his life, shouldn’t they be chided (if only we knew who they are) for not giving up six months to travel around, talk to party members, media, and the general public wherever possible, put forward their vision for the party and the country, and make whoever the nominee ends up being the best they can possibly be as a result of the competition and exchange of ideas – or go on to represent the party if one of them happens to win?
==That doesn’t mean he does not care about the party. His travel and endorsements over the past four years are evidence that he does care to some degree. ==
Actually to a large degree. I don’t know if my prior comments were clear, but that is a huge factor that I failed to account for before in my frustration. Multiple people have corrected me on that, and they are right, and thus my prior blanket statement was unjust. But rather than a blanket statement, I do think there is merit in critique from the points brought up by Chuck and Andy — I do think that is harming us in a substantial way. But he also does have a life, and is not Lib-Bot that can be expected to be completely selfless either. But we also as people more interested in the Party can be critical.
As far as the other posts, we just see things differently, some of which can be chalked up to my relative newness (and thus brashness) as well, I am sure.
It’s not in the best interest of the party. That doesn’t mean he does not care about the party. His travel and endorsements over the past four years are evidence that he does care to some degree. What I have heard him say is that once you announce your whole life changes. Caring to some degree and giving up your whole life for a year or more are two different things. It’s also possible that he simply hasn’t seen the arguments for why not announcing now is bad for the party or thought of them himself. I wouldn’t just assume that he has. But even if he has, it’s not necessarily that he doesn’t give them some weight or think they are valid, it’s that he has other considerations on the other side of the ledger, involving his business and personal life, that we are not in a position to judge here.
It’s also possible that we are the ones who are failing to take some considerations into account. Here’s one that just occurred to me: the thinking could be (I don’t know that it is or isn’t – I haven’t asked or overheard anything) that if Johnson announces now, receives piddly amounts of donations and piddly amounts of media coverage, it would actually hurt his case to bigger donors later on. They will look at how long he has been running and how much he raised and forgo their would be donations or donate less than they might have. Again, I don’t know if that’s actually the thinking, or if it has truth to it or not, but it’s just an example of what someone in that position might consider.
I still owe you a response for your last message from two days ago, but I’d have to think what I can say besides what I already said above. And don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate that you value my opinion.
Andy and Chuck,
This argument is the one that seems the best support for arguing that what Johnson is doing is not in the best interest of the party.
George,
Isn’t that assuming a 2016 campaign would suffer the same issues?
Chuck Moulton said: “His failure to enter the race early hurts the LP’s fundraising — especially for important things that need a lot of lead time like ballot access”
I agree with Chuck Moulton here. One of the reasons that Libertarian Party fundraising is down right now (outside of years of internal dysfunction and mismanagement) is because there are no candidates running that are generating any excitement.
The party needs money right now. One of the things that the party needs money for right now is ballot access. The Libertarian Party petition drive in Oklahoma is in danger of failing. There is an above average chance that it will fail if more money does not materialize. The deadline for the petition drive in Oklahoma is March 1st.
Anyone reading this who’d like to help make sure that the Libertarian Party qualifies for the ballot in Oklahoma can make a donation here:
http://oklahomalp.org/donate-2/
If Gary Johnson continues to put off announcing that he is running again, and if nobody else materializes as a candidate for the LP Presidential nomination who can generate some excitement, then this could lead to the Libertarian Party failing to get on the ballot in Oklahoma (again), and it cold lead to a chain reaction that causes the party to fail to get on the ballot in other places.
The last time the Libertarian Party had ballot status in Oklahoma was back in 2000. The last time the Libertarian Party had ballot status in all 50 states plus DC was 2000, but due to a split in the LP of Arizona, there was a different candidate for President on the ballot in Arizona in 2000 than the one nominated at the Libertarian National Convention that year, so the last time the Libertarian Party had ballot access in all 50 states plus DC, and had the same Presidential ticket on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC was in 1996. That will have been 20 years ago by the time next year comes around.
Do Libertarians really want to go another election cycle without having ballot access in all 50 states plus DC?
Johnson 2012 had an ineffective volunteer effort, which should have been a core of the campaign. State volunteer directors maintain to me that they could only communicate with volunteers through the national HQ, which took prolonged times to approve and retransmit messages. This is no way to run a campaign, and the lack of growth in our party at later dates is a consequence. There is no point to wasting party money to put on the ballot a campaign like this.
Ok…addressing the use of the words “needs to” when referring to Governor Johnson making a decision.
As was pointed out earlier, it is unlikely that any potentially serious candidates will get in the race if they thing Governor Johnson is going to announce for our nomination. This has left us with the current batch of lunatic and dufus candidates that seem to think we’ll pick one of them.
This makes the LP look worthless to the press, who have no reason to bother to cover any of them unless they want a good laugh. It sends a bad message that our enemies are fortunately not taking advantage of — yet.
If Governor Johnson announces then the odds are that he will be selected. That seems to be something that both his supporters and detractors agree on right now. I don’t like the term coronation, and I hope it doesn’t become one if he does run. He needs to earn and deserve the nomination. That means addressing questions about some of the consulting staff that he used last time. It also means addressing questions about campaign debt, and how he’s going to pay it off without dipping into contributions made to run a 2016 campaign.
If he is not intending to run, other more serious candidates might announce. There are a number of potential candidates who would do a good job of representing the libertarian message. But why run against Johnson, currently assumed by many to be a “lock” if he announces? I think that one of the best services that Lee Wrights ever did for the LP was to hang in to the end and give us a good debate. None of these candidates can stand up on CSPAN. They’d cut to another program five minutes into the debate.
So when I say “needs to”, I am certainly talking about the need to have the party not represented by someone wearing a tin foil hat in an attempt to keep mind control rays out of his or her head.
The suit is filed, so announcing now would actually give him a chance to hit the talk show circuit as the “front runner” for our nomination and talk about the injustice of the debates. Or he could just talk about ideas to fix what past and present administrations have done to destroy this country.
So yes, he “needs to” announce that he’s running or that he’s taking his name out of contention. Waiting is only going to hurt his candidacy if he decides to run or hurt the party if he doesn’t.
The delegates at the convention would have to be stark raving mad to pick any of the current choices. Serious candidates that might announce need to be given the time needed to “ramp up” a campaign so that we have a real choice next spring.
And I put an “edit to add” on that original comment.
I spoke out of turn in my prior comment re: Johnson and retract it.
Paulie,
==However, unlike some past nominees he has done things like endorse a lot of downticket nominees, spoke at state party conventions and events over the years between the campaigns, etc.==
That is true, and I neglected that unfairly.
Paulie,
==I appreciate it, but I don’t think I need any special respect when we disagree. It happens. No big deal.==
I will always say that. Please take it as the sign of respect it truly is intended as.
==I’m not holding one policy hostage to another or saying we can’t oppose campaign finance edicts until some other policy changes and should support, or even worsen, the current system in the meantime. I’m just saying this is not the issue that I think we should fall on our swords over. ===
But you are saying we shouldn’t focus on opposition to that if the opportunity presents itself. If we can centrally plan things and have multiple viable options open (our Candidate isn’t going to win), then of course one can pick and choose… all things being equal, of course I would want to do things in a certain order or pick certain issues to highlight. But things rarely work out that way.
==I’m not even saying don’t do it – if it’s that important to you, you have my moral support, and maybe even a token donation to your legal defense fund.===
I am not planning on doing anything to land in jail. I am a coward. But I support and admire those willing to do so.
=== I’m just saying that as a delegate choosing our presidential candidate that’s not the strategy I am looking for.===
Fair enough. We aren’t going to win, so I want something that will actually accomplish something and support Libertarian principles at the same time.
==Another issue which Darryl may commit civil disobedience over is minimum wage edicts. He said in the MA debate that he would look for campaign staff who would be willing to work for less than minimum wage. Now, I don’t know if anyone would care to after him if he finds people who want to do that. But suppose they do. Yes, I believe minimum wage edicts are harmful.. but would that be an issue to center the campaign around and commit civil disobedience over? Not if I have a say in it. That’s different from saying “we can’t get rid of minimum wage laws until we get rid of (whatever other government policy)” and that we must support such edicts in the meantime, or seek to raise that minimum.==
By pushing civil disobedience on that front (which is way to push towards repeal) I submit that is what you are doing… we must focus on THIS (other thing) first even though we have someone willing to put their butt on the line for this other thing.
===I didn’t say we must all agree with my subjective valuations. I am just telling you that a campaign that emphasizes getting rid of minimum wage edicts and campaign finance edicts above all other issues seems to have the wrong priorities for me and is therefore less likely to get my delegate vote as a result.==
I don’t think that is above all other issues…. Perry is pretty consistently outspoken on nearly every radical issue. He is just willing to take a big personal risk for those. Probably more.
==I’m not even saying that I won’t vote for Darryl – in some respects he is the best candidate there is – it is just that it will be a factor in my decision, and not a positive one, no matter how much I admire his bravery if he chooses to go that route. I just don’t think it’s the best route for the party, from my own personal perspective.==
Fair enough… obviously your opinions are yours. I think not doing more risky outrageous things like that is why we don’t get anywhere, and I don’t think that is the best route for the party. We have revolutionary (peaceful) ideas and don’t do many revolutionary things.
==To take another example CA had a candidate for governor whose chief issue was the rights of cigarette smokers. Actually I think that was his only issue.===
I do frame Perry’s civil disobedience in the context of his very consistent libertarianism. Only having as an issue smoker’s rights isn’t very balanced. Now if that was the only one he was willing to go to to the stocks for… well that can be a great springboard.
=== They had another one who was all about legalizing the ownership of ferrets as his chief issue for Lt Gov. I am not saying they were wrong at all, but my subjective evaluation is that the state of CA has bigger issues and if I had been a delegate at those conventions I would have been less likely to vote for nominating those candidates due to their choice of top campaign issues.==
Waiting for the bigger issue is IMHO analogous to self-imposed gradualist obstacles and analogous to the arguments against no particular orderism.
Not me. I must be getting too statist.
Yes, it’s a strike against him. It gets bigger the longer he waits. But it’s not likely to be fatal, or even close, on the present trajectory.
I don’t think it’s meaningless to him, but he does have other concerns which may trump it at times. However, unlike some past nominees he has done things like endorse a lot of downticket nominees, spoke at state party conventions and events over the years between the campaigns, etc.
It depends on who else runs, and how well. With the current crop of candidates, it’s hard to imagine a different result, but you never know who else might step up or whether, say, Kerbel could ramp up his campaign in ways that are hard to imagine being possible at the moment. I don’t think it’s likely but you never know.
I appreciate it, but I don’t think I need any special respect when we disagree. It happens. No big deal.
I’m not holding one policy hostage to another or saying we can’t oppose campaign finance edicts until some other policy changes and should support, or even worsen, the current system in the meantime. I’m just saying this is not the issue that I think we should fall on our swords over. I’m not even saying don’t do it – if it’s that important to you, you have my moral support, and maybe even a token donation to your legal defense fund. I’m just saying that as a delegate choosing our presidential candidate that’s not the strategy I am looking for.
Another issue which Darryl may commit civil disobedience over is minimum wage edicts. He said in the MA debate that he would look for campaign staff who would be willing to work for less than minimum wage. Now, I don’t know if anyone would care to go after him if he finds people who want to do that. But suppose they do. Yes, I believe minimum wage edicts are harmful.. but would that be an issue to center the campaign around and commit civil disobedience over? Not if I have a say in it. That’s different from saying “we can’t get rid of minimum wage laws until we get rid of (whatever other government policy)” and that we must support such edicts in the meantime, or seek to raise that minimum.
I didn’t say we must all agree with my subjective valuations. I am just telling you that a campaign that emphasizes getting rid of minimum wage edicts and campaign finance edicts above all other issues seems to have the wrong priorities for me and is therefore less likely to get my delegate vote as a result.
I’m not even saying that I won’t vote for Darryl – in some respects he is the best candidate there is – it is just that it will be a factor in my decision, and not a positive one, no matter how much I admire his bravery if he chooses to go that route. I just don’t think it’s the best route for the party, from my own personal perspective.
To take another example CA had a candidate for governor whose chief issue was the rights of cigarette smokers. Actually I think that was his only issue. They had another one who was all about legalizing the ownership of ferrets as his chief issue for Lt Gov. I am not saying they were wrong at all, but my subjective evaluation is that the state of CA has bigger issues and if I had been a delegate at those conventions I would have been less likely to vote for nominating those candidates due to their choice of top campaign issues.
Gary doesn’t care about the LP. He uses us like his b*tch.
EDIT TO ADD: This was said hastily and several people have corrected me on this. I was speaking out of frustration and retract this unwise comment and apologize to Johnson.
Chuck,
==I meant “needs” for the good of the party.
Your response here is emblematic of the larger problem: Gary Johnson is in it for himself, not for the Libertarian Party or the libertarian movement.
His failure to enter the race early hurts the LP’s fundraising — especially for important things that need a lot of lead time like ballot access. If he actually ends up not running, then it will be an even bigger disaster for the LP because there won’t be enough time to attract more high profile candidates who would be decent yet think they have no chance against Johnson.
I hope those delegates who actually care about the Libertarian Party in the long term will hold this against Johnson and not support him if he announces at the last minute.
==
YES! But the delegates will crown him with many crowns.
Chuck,
==Wow. I just assumed it was a weird browser bug unique to me.==
They are targeting anarchist, I tell ya!
==Do you have that bug on any other websites? What iOS version do you use?==
I am using 9.1 right now…. I probably need to update. I don’t participate on any other websites that are blogs… I do on vbulletin forums and it doesn’t happen there. I have some issues on FB with editing posts at times.
paulie wrote:
I meant “needs” for the good of the party.
Your response here is emblematic of the larger problem: Gary Johnson is in it for himself, not for the Libertarian Party or the libertarian movement.
His failure to enter the race early hurts the LP’s fundraising — especially for important things that need a lot of lead time like ballot access. If he actually ends up not running, then it will be an even bigger disaster for the LP because there won’t be enough time to attract more high profile candidates who would be decent yet think they have no chance against Johnson.
I hope those delegates who actually care about the Libertarian Party in the long term will hold this against Johnson and not support him if he announces at the last minute.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
Wow. I just assumed it was a weird browser bug unique to me.
Do you have that bug on any other websites? What iOS version do you use?
Chuck,
==Sorry I posted that on the wrong thread before.
I’ve been having a weird error the past month whereby if I copy & paste anything into the leave a reply textbox on IPR (or delete any text), I can no longer type anything else — typing doesn’t show up anywhere — on Safari on my iPhone. Therefore I must reply to every comment here by typing up my comment in the notepad app and copy & pasting the whole thing.==
Chuck that happens to me on my phone too. Another reason (in addition to the discussion we were having on the IPR editors list) I don’t like to use my phone, though I am often in the position of having to.
==There’s that word needs again. Give him a good reason why he has to, that actually involves his needs and not yours, mine, the party’s in some general sense… he is probably OK with doing the campaign dog and pony show for X number of months (no, I don’t know what X is). A year is apparently greater than X. For example, if you give him a candidate or several actually announcing for the nomination that he would feel he could have a tough time beating for the nomination, that could be a reason. Give him a reason to believe that any of the currently announced candidates would be likely to beat him if he doesn’t announce really soon. Or get new ones in the race who would. Maybe there are other things that could get him to change his priorities, but they obviously haven’t been presented to him so far.===
All of this is obviously true.
Now it isn’t in the Party’s interest, but I don’t think Johnson is overly concerned about the Party’s interest, and overall I don’t think the delegates to the Party will be interested in sending that message by not summarily crowning him no matter how long he waits. That’s just reality. I don’t like it, but it is what it is.
==Is it working?==
Yes:) I have to install google mail on my phone now though. It appears to be an Apple Mail problem.
==Not so much with civil disobedience over campaign finance edicts. For most people it would be “oh, the Kochs and other shadowy types want to be unaccountable for their campaign donations,” and I don’t see how that opens a door to discuss other issues. A lot of people don’t realize we are a grassroots effort and that the Kochs went Republican in 1983 and haven’t looked back, and we don’t have any billionaires giving us large amounts of shadowy money hidden in superpacs. The few that have given us very modest amounts it has been blown up and distorted way beyond recognition. I’ve seen tortured BS claiming the Free State Project is a Koch operation too, just because Jason Sorens, who came up with the idea, later went on to get a job at a Koch-funded think tank.==
It is up to us to clear that up, and having publicity over it would be one route. People already think this.
==This is what I was trying to say earlier. That’s not to say at all that getting rid of campaign finance edicts should not be in our platform – I think it absolutely should – but that’s for people who have the time and interest to read platforms. Making it the central issue of a campaign just doesn’t strike me as a wise idea. There are many other things I would commit civil disobedience over first or recommend committing civil disobedience over if you want to go that route.===
With all due respect Paulie, as it is highly unusual for us to disagree, but … well I disagree, and this sounds to be like the same arguments against no particular orderism. You take the publicity to bring out our issues when they present themselves. Saying one Libertarian’s stand– a perfectly legitimate Libertarian stand we both agree– isn’t an issue worth highlighting, that others are more important is not much different than committing oneself to only one gradualistic path that tackles the “most important” views first, assigning a necessarily universal utilitarian value that we must all accept strategically. I don’t. I think the government control over managing elections is a big issue of control, worth bringing to the forefront. And one cannot predict what opportunity it would give to give voice to the other issues that are considered more important. That is just an impossible crystal ball attempt, so I suggest not attempting it. Fight at all fronts. Strike wherever possible. Don’t say one Libertarian’s cause that they are willing to incur great personal cost for isn’t one we want to highlight. If it is a Libertarian position, it is worth it.
Is it working?
Agreed with everything Paulie said. And also, the second he becomes an announced candidate, the rules change. If he’s wooing donors and laying groundwork, let him continue that work now. Barring something crazy, the Dems will have their nominee pretty much settled by March and the GOP will be well on their way by early April.
There are currently 20 people running semi-serious, active Presidential campaigns — 4 Democrats and 16 Republicans. He’s probably better off letting 15 of those campaigns burn out before he jumps into the fray with yet another option for voters. Heck, do it the day after Rand Paul suspends his campaign.
This is what I was trying to say earlier. That’s not to say at all that getting rid of campaign finance edicts should not be in our platform – I think it absolutely should – but that’s for people who have the time and interest to read platforms. Making it the central issue of a campaign just doesn’t strike me as a wise idea. There are many other things I would commit civil disobedience over first or recommend committing civil disobedience over if you want to go that route.
Sorry to hear that. Have you told the Redlichs? Other people might be having that problem too, and we don’t know.
There’s that word needs again. Give him a good reason why he has to, that actually involves his needs and not yours, mine, the party’s in some general sense… he is probably OK with doing the campaign dog and pony show for X number of months (no, I don’t know what X is). A year is apparently greater than X. For example, if you give him a candidate or several actually announcing for the nomination that he would feel he could have a tough time beating for the nomination, that could be a reason. Give him a reason to believe that any of the currently announced candidates would be likely to beat him if he doesn’t announce really soon. Or get new ones in the race who would. Maybe there are other things that could get him to change his priorities, but they obviously haven’t been presented to him so far.
There are serious issues for Libertarian candidates to deal with – interventionist foreign policy, taxes & regulation, the War on Drugs – all these are more important than challenging stupid campaign finance laws. And each of these issues has people concerned – including victims and people who care about victims.
When a candidate tries to make a big deal about campaign finance rules, or ballot access, most people dismiss it as not of concern to them, and it makes it look like the candidate is only concerned with their own personal ambition.
Not so much with civil disobedience over campaign finance edicts. For most people it would be “oh, the Kochs and other shadowy types want to be unaccountable for their campaign donations,” and I don’t see how that opens a door to discuss other issues. A lot of people don’t realize we are a grassroots effort and that the Kochs went Republican in 1983 and haven’t looked back, and we don’t have any billionaires giving us large amounts of shadowy money hidden in superpacs. The few that have given us very modest amounts it has been blown up and distorted way beyond recognition. I’ve seen tortured BS claiming the Free State Project is a Koch operation too, just because Jason Sorens, who came up with the idea, later went on to get a job at a Koch-funded think tank.
I do not believe that the trespassing charge would be legitimate. The courts have already ruled that it is illegal for the police to use trespassing charges to prevent free speech or to interfere with the election process.
The Presidential Debates use tax payer funds, and the debate is for a public office. The Commission on Presidential Debates is a 501(c)(3), which means that they are a tax exempt non-profit. Part of being able to have this status is being non-partisan, yet in reality, the Debate Commission is bipartisan, in that they support Democrats and Republicans and are against everyone else. This clearly violates the terms of their 501 (c)(3) status.
Sorry I posted that on the wrong thread before.
I’ve been having a weird error the past month whereby if I copy & paste anything into the leave a reply textbox on IPR (or delete any text), I can no longer type anything else — typing doesn’t show up anywhere — on Safari on my iPhone. Therefore I must reply to every comment here by typing up my comment in the notepad app and copy & pasting the whole thing.
It’s really annoying; however, the alternative would probably be “upgrading” my iOS version — through my long life experience I have never encountered an instance when an “upgrade” failed to remove a useful feature and make my life worse, so I never “upgrade”… especially things like iOS which make it impossible to roll back bad “upgrades” to get back lost features.
I’m stuck with this bad browser behavior and trying to make the best of it.
George Phillies wrote:
Stewart Flood wrote:
He needs to shit or get off the pot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shit_or_get_off_the_pot
The police would be doing nothing more than arresting you for trespassing. Going after the police officers is pointless— it’s not like Officer Bob can just decide “Sure, you can participate, I’ll go get your extra podium.” There is literally nothing they could do to satisfy the demand of an excluded candidate who shows up, even if they wanted to. Which makes suing them for it pointless and frivolous.
It’s up to the debate organizers, and if you want to change it you have to go after them, which is exactly what we’re doing.
And I wasn’t talking about the filing fee, I was talking about Rule 11 sanctions.
The filing fee is only $400, and there are ways of possibly getting the fee waved.
The law suit against the police would not be frivolous since the Libertarian candidate is being illegally kept out of the debate. The law suit would also be good publicity.
That is because Badnarik and Stein did a horrible job marketing it. Badnarik did not even have video of being arrested.
If this was marketed properly it could be huge.
“I think that a lot of the public would be sympathetic if the Libertarian Party candidate for President got arrested at the Presidential debates, and with the right marketing, I think that it could generate a lot of publicity. Lots of protestors should be brought in with the candidate.”
Didn’t do squat for Badnarik in 2004, nor Jill Stein in 2012. This isn’t a new idea.
And even if you did manage to get any coverage for it, most people will just dismiss it as some whacko who tried to crash the debate. By the time the debate is actually happening, you’re way too late to successfully make an issue of it.
“The candidate should file a Section 1983 law suit against the police who arrest them for trying to enter the debate.”
Only if the like paying fees for filing frivolous claims.
I think that a lot of the public would be sympathetic if the Libertarian Party candidate for President got arrested at the Presidential debates, and with the right marketing, I think that it could generate a lot of publicity. Lots of protestors should be brought in with the candidate.
The candidate should show up at the debates wearing a body camera that transmits footage to the cloud. It should be live streamed online. The alternative media and the foreign media should be contacted in advance (the foreign media should be told about how hypocritical the USA is for telling other countries what to do when we do not even have fair elections in this country). The candidate should walk up to wherever the debates are being held and say something like, “Hi, I hear that there is a Presidential Debate here tonight. That’s great. I’m a candidate for President and I am here to participate in the debate.” When the police tell the candidate that he has to leave the candidate should just ignore the police and keep walking in where the debate is being held. When the police grab the candidate the candidate should say something like, “What happened to free speech and fair elections in this country? What about your oath to defend the Constitution? Don’t you stand for America? Why are you trying to prevent the American people from having a real choice in this election? Why are the other candidates so afraid to debate me?”
The candidate should file a Section 1983 law suit against the police who arrest them for trying to enter the debate.
Video of this should be put on YouTube and posted all over the internet.
The candidate should go on a media tour after being arrested at the debate and it should become a talking point in the campaign, and footage from the arrest should be used in campaign commercials (even if the commercials do not air on TV, they could still be seen online).
Thanks, Caryn, for answering Andy’s questions about why I don’t think Feldman is a front-runner to be our candidate. I knew someone would ask me to elaborate, but I went to bed before getting around to it.
I blocked Feldman on FB early on for a personal reason so I haven’t had a lot of personal interaction. My observations, however, are similar to what Caryn says. He doesn’t directly answer some questions, perhaps in an attempt to be humorous, but it’s somewhat off-putting when it makes the other person feel as if Marc thinks he’s more clever than they are. I don’t have any examples ,but Caryn explained it well. He also takes some positions that aren’t articulated well enough to be considered Libertarian (which may mean they’re not).
I’m sure he is sincere, brilliant, and all that, but I don’t think he’s ready to be our candidate.
crap didn’t hit “notify” to test using different email
Here is hoping my email issues are straightened out….
==If you’re lucky. If you’re not, it actually takes away from the ability to discuss other issues.==
One can’t know, so one can’t try to micromanage this in advance. If it is one of our issues, and one we are not ashamed of (we should not have any we are ashamed of), then it is worth getting out there. If we can’t leverage it to expand the discussion, that is our fault. I find this line of argumentation to be the same as saying “well such and such shouldn’t be in our platform even though it is a key libertarian issue because the press has used our platform against us and will just pick up on that.”
==I’m not opposed to discussing it. I am opposed to making it the center piece and by default the defining issue of a presidential campaign.===
It is the principle that is at the centerpiece, and I guess we just disagree. A peaceful resistance to a bogus piece of state coercion in private affairs is to me a perfect defining issue since we aren’t going to win. This is a lot of bang for the buck.
===For the most part, he got LP members and other libertarian who oppose the “fair” tax to talk about.===
I have heard much more positive libertarian talk about it then negative, and the non-libertarian “liberty-leaning” talk on it was positive leading some people to think it was a libertarian position.
== His recent opinion piece explaining why he would run again doesn’t even mention it.===
I am encouraged by that.
=== I kept a close eye on all campaign communications and interviews in the 2012 cycle and it wasn’t even close to being the central issue of the campaign as some people here who don’t like Johnson make it out to be.==
We can agree to disagree here. It is what people remember, including non-libertarians. That and pot.
I hate the incumbent-protecting censorship laws as much as the next libertarian. You’ll get no argument from me they’re stupid, and unconstitutional, and the ostensible motive for them (reducing corruption) is a complete and utter lie.
However, if you want to do civil disobedience, there are plenty of places in the movement where you can do civil disobedience (which Free-Stater Darryl is probably more familiar with than most).
With the possible exception of deliberately getting arrested at the debates (and I don’t’ think that’s either effective or advisable), the job of “presidential nominee” is not the correct platform to engage in civ-dis. Particularly not on an issue where the public won’t be impressed or convinced by your protest, which is supposed to be the point of both civ-dis *and* running for President. If Perry ends up going to jail over it (I hope not, and I agree unlikely because he probably won’t reach $5k), it won’t change anybody’s mind. The only people who will sympathize will be those who already know the problems with campaign finance laws, but most people will hear nothing more than “Libertarian goes to jail to defend anonymous big money in politics and his refusal to fill out paperwork.”
If you’re lucky. If you’re not, it actually takes away from the ability to discuss other issues.
I’m not opposed to discussing it. I am opposed to making it the center piece and by default the defining issue of a presidential campaign.
For the most part, he got LP members and other libertarian who oppose the “fair” tax to talk about. His recent opinion piece explaining why he would run again doesn’t even mention it. I kept a close eye on all campaign communications and interviews in the 2012 cycle and it wasn’t even close to being the central issue of the campaign as some people here who don’t like Johnson make it out to be.
==I applaud his bravery.==
Me too. He is braver than me and braver than most of us. And I say that to our shame. We are great at shooting our mouths off.
==Is it a good idea for the LP nomination?==
unequivocally yes.
==Supposing he gets “busted” before the general election, it would in effect make campaign finance laws the only issue that people would take about in regards to the LP ticket, and mostly in a negative way. Personally, while I find those laws abhorrent, I don’t find them to be the top priorities among all issues an LP candidate could be bringing attention to.===
Any abhorrent state coercion is a priority because it opens the door to talk about why and what others ones are problematic. We don’t get to be so choosy either about what is being talked about. We will be lucky if we are talked about at all, and at least this is a position we actually hold. And any position we actually hold is ripe for discussion. Otherwise we shouldn’t hold it.
Yeah, Johnson got people talking about our issues…. the Fair Tax. I would much rather be talking about the FEC and a principled libertarian position.
I applaud his bravery.
Is it a good idea for the LP nomination?
Supposing he gets “busted” before the general election, it would in effect make campaign finance laws the only issue that people would take about in regards to the LP ticket, and mostly in a negative way. Personally, while I find those laws abhorrent, I don’t find them to be the top priorities among all issues an LP candidate could be bringing attention to.
Would he get busted before the election? I don’t know. It’s quite likely that he would not – after all, most violations of such government edicts never get caught, and when they do, the prosecutions often take a very long time. On the other hand, maybe this would be the exception, given that it’s a political campaign against the establishment. And maybe the bail money would not be available or would not be paid out of principle.
The point is most likely moot, since I don’t see it as likely that Darryl can actually get the nomination, and quite possible that he will not even reach the 5k reporting trigger much less get caught for breaking the regulation.
If Perry ( and to whatever extent contributors over 5K) want to violate the FEC law I am totally supportive. It is crap state control and I support all non violent resistance to the state. We for the most are foolishly embarrassed by the people who wish to take actual real personal costs and risks to deminstrare on behalf of everyone like-minded- I do not consent.
These people do not embarrass me.
Probably, yes. So define “needs” as “or else,” or else he probably won’t announce anytime soon.
If he wants it he will be crowned.
While I would very much like for it to be soon and think it would be good for the party, I don’t think he “needs” to, in the sense that he will have a hard time getting the nomination if he doesn’t. He simply has other priorities in his life and is not willing to set them aside to put all his time into running for president for a full year. I don’t have to like it, but he can probably still get the nomination if he declares next year, and not necessarily all that early next year, and from what I heard lately there will not be an announcement in 2015. I hope it is not too late into 2016 but I would not be surprised.
If I had time I would. I used to do transcription work. When not on my phone, I am an incredibly fast typist.
(mechanical keyboards FTW)
Good idea, but I don’t type nearly fast enough for that.
==Care to elaborate?==
I would care to elaborate. I am involved in quite a few FB libertarian groups and have observed these things. Some of items are items I have had personal interactions with Feldman on and others are not– but observations of others. Obviously there is personal opinion here as well. Disclaimer on the front end: I have had some personal conversation with Feldman and gotten away from politics a bit, and I firmly believe he is a genuinely nice guy and doesn’t intended to give some of the bad personal impressions in some instances. FB can be a terrible medium to communicate nuances.
So, I agree with Jill’s assessment. Feldman has a small cadre of FB support, but the reaction, in general has been negative (again, FB– so take that for what it is worth— but in contrast Kerbel’s support is steadily growing on FB– Kerbel has a better way of speaking that is not alienating people). Full disclosure: At this point I support Kerbel and Perry and my biases lean that way.
The problems people are having with Feldman are personal style and political.
On the personal style end:
It is a matter of communication. Feldman is obviously brilliant. He is a successful and highly educated doctor. Perhaps that skill and learning gives him a blind spot on talking to the average person, but he gives the impression of talking down to people.
He appears to never want to be pinned down on anything but tends to be slippery in answering questions, often giving contradictory answers in a bid to seem clever but tries to make his questioners look like fools when they try to get him to resolve the issue. It appears to be baiting, and a lot of people don’t like it.
He has a passive aggressive streak in calling people out and then trying to deny that he did. There was an incident with an opening post on FB naming a few specific people by name and claiming that they don’t understand what libertarianism is (the people called out do understand it quite well, though their understanding differs from Feldman’s in some area— all people involved were libertarians), and then when one of them protested about being named in the post, Feldman acted like he was being unreasonable in thinking the post was really about him. It was just a game, and people don’t like that. He has done the same with others (recently criticizing Johnson and past candidate Ruwart and then the next day putting up a plea for libertarian candidates to be “above that.” It seemed to people like damage control because of the blowback he got for those two prior comments.)
That is all obviously subjective and people felt differently about it, but public perception is an important part of campaigning.
On the political end:
It is incredibly difficult sometimes to find out his exact position, so here are the ones that have had issues.
Freedom of Association: Feldman has a watered down view of this and considers refusal to associate (in business at least) to be a violation of the NAP. At times he seems to indicate this is just when there is rent-seeking behaviour on the part of businesses that limit the competitive field so that there aren’t alternative options, but has made it clear that he doesn’t limit it to that. He has specifically said that the recent obstinate bakers violated the NAP but that he doesn’t agree on the damages suffered. The implications for a creation of positive rights and association are extreme. He denies a right not to associate.
Self-Ownership: He came right out and said “I do not believe in self-ownership.” But that could be one of Feldman’s tactics of saying something he knows will be taken a certain way and getting indignant when people take it precisely that way. I didn’t follow that discussion any further. His positions seem to indicate self-ownership as he holds to getting the state completely out of any marriage and full drug legalization.
Freedom of Speech: Using certain “dehumanizing” language, such as calling even a mass murderer (the context was the Boston bomber) a pig or scum or a snake can be a form of “robbery” and thus you are violating the NAP. He has further stated that it is aggression if you don’t maintain another person’s subjective internal value of self-worth. The implications for freedom are horrifying. The problem isn’t that he believes that a person should do such thing to be a morally virtuous person. I agree with that. The problem is that he says it is a violation of the NAP if you don’t. That means that the other person has every right to prohibit you from doing that, and if there is a state, protecting citizens against aggressions is legitimately one of its functions.
identity Politics: Feldman often appeals to the collectives and uses loaded rad-progressive terminology such as “intersectional.” Some people have no issue with that, but others do. The progressives today who use such language are usually really big on suppressive and controlling views, so using that language invokes that in some people.
Government Force: Feldman has stated (yes this was in the context of large numbers of people, and the people in the conversation didn’t pursue it much further) that if people refused to voluntarily help other people, he would use the force of government to compel them.
Israel/Palestine: I don’t follow this as it isn’t a particular interest of mine, so I am going by the chatter I hear. Some people say that he has a discriminatory view of the Palestinians. I have no opinion but am just answering the question on what issues people say are problematic with Feldman.
These are the ones I observed in groups.
Now I understand that people from different perspectives on the libertarian spectrum will be fine with some of them. To me, they are not consistent libertarian positions.
I hesitated to list this out. I have come to know Feldman and do not wish to personally come down on him. But he is running for our highest nomination, and these are the things being said and observed. I mean no personal critique and wish only the best for him personally and look forward to seeing him at various conventions.
Perhaps someone would like to suffer through generating a transcript of the debate I moderated. I am describing what I thought I heard the candidates say. I was also at the Connecticut debate where Perry spoke.
“Andy Craig
October 24, 2015 at 3:02 am
‘but at least his is not putting a $5 cap on campaign contributions, which I think is an even more unrealistic plan.’
By not filing with the FEC, he’s putting a $5,000 total cap on what he can raise or spend (that being the threshold beyond which filing and reporting is mandatory).
Unless his intention is to actually ‘break’ the campaign finance laws and get prosecuted for it, and encourage his donors to do the same. Which I hope is not the case.”
I am under the impression that Darryl Perry believes that the campaign finance laws are unconstitutional, and that he does not plan to follow them. So I assume that he does plan to violate what the government claims the law is here. This of course assumes that he is able to raise more than $5,000, which may be a moot point because he may not even raise that much. It will be interesting to see what happens if he does though.
If I am misinterpreting his views on this, perhaps he can chime in and correct me (if he is here).
“but at least his is not putting a $5 cap on campaign contributions, which I think is an even more unrealistic plan.”
By not filing with the FEC, he’s putting a $5,000 total cap on what he can raise or spend (that being the threshold beyond which filing and reporting is mandatory).
Unless his intention is to actually *break* the campaign finance laws and get prosecuted for it, and encourage his donors to do the same. Which I hope is not the case.
“Jill Pyeatt
October 23, 2015 at 11:11 pm
I wouldn’t consider Feldman to being a frontrunner at all. He’s really turned quite a few people off on FB by some of his beliefs.”
Care to elaborate?
“Matt Cholko
October 23, 2015 at 10:56 pm
I didn’t realize that Perry was only accepting crypto currencies and metals. I also didn’t realize that he’ll have no campaign organization. If that’s accurate, I’d put it in the same category as Feldman’s $5 stuff – totally ridiculous.”
Perry could theoretically raise a lot of money in cryptocurrencies and precious metals. I do not see any evidence of him actually doing this right now, but at least his is not putting a $5 cap on campaign contributions, which I think is an even more unrealistic plan.
I think that Perry does want to eventually put together a campaign organization (at least from what I heard him say in that debate in Massachusetts which I watched online), but he wants them to work for free or for really low pay rates, which is probably not realistic for a campaign for President.
I wouldn’t consider Feldman to being a frontrunner at all. He’s really turned quite a few people off on FB by some of his beliefs.
I didn’t realize that Perry was only accepting crypto currencies and metals. I also didn’t realize that he’ll have no campaign organization. If that’s accurate, I’d put it in the same category as Feldman’s $5 stuff – totally ridiculous.
”
Stewart Flood
October 23, 2015 at 9:16 pm
‘If Johnson went away, we might get some better candidates.’
A very good point. Johnson either needs to announce that he’s running or confirm that he’s decided to not run.”
I think that one of the reasons that the LP is having problems raising money right now is because there are no candidates running that are creating any excitement. Maybe some excitement would be generated if Gary Johnson would officially announce that he is running for the 2016 LP nomination for President.
The LP party status ballot access drive in Oklahoma is at risk of failing right now. The deadline not until March 1st, so there is still time to make it, but it is probably going to take more money to make it happen.
If Gary Johnson waits around until sometime next year to announce that he’s running (assuming that he’s going to run again), it may be too late by that time to save the ballot access drive in Oklahoma.
“George Phillies
October 23, 2015 at 9:05 pm
Feldman will not take donations larger than $5, which in my opinion is totally unviable.”
I agree. Feldman seems like a decent well meaning guy, but I think that his plan is unrealistic. The fact of the matter is that you can’t get your message out without money. His message will not go very far with a $5 limit on campaign contributions. Even in the highly unlikely scenario that he got 1 million people to donate $5, that would only be $5 which is nothing for a campaign for President.
If I were running, I’d want to raise as much money as possible. I would not compromise any of my principles, but I’d want as many people to give me as much money as they could for my campaign.
“Perry will only take cryptocurrencies or metallic currency, proposes to abolish the Federal government, and will have no campaign organization.”
Perry seems like a good guy and a good Libertarian, but having no campaign organization is not a good thing. A campaign needs an organization. I don’t think that a campaign should waste money, but building an organization and hiring people to work on one’s campaign is not necessarily wasting money.
Only accepting donations in cryptocurrencies and precious metals is probably going to limit how much money he will be able to raise. I can see where he is coming from with that, and I agree with him in spirit, but I think that it is going to handicap his fundraising, and reality is that money is the lifeblood of politics.
“If Johnson went away, we might get some better candidates.”
I’m not the biggest Johnson fan around, but considering how weak the other candidates are, he’s looking more attractive as a candidate right now.
I hope that some better candidates emerge for the nomination.
===proposes to abolish the Federal government===
Sold.
Leaves the Field Open for someone who has an arrangement with the Vatican.
Could Be worse, You could pick Barr again…
“If Johnson went away, we might get some better candidates.”
A very good point. Johnson either needs to announce that he’s running or confirm that he’s decided to not run. It is late October and he’s long overdue for making a decision. This isn’t 2008, where candidates got into the race after seeing Jim Burns win the debate at the LSLA.
And I’m not saying this to try to get some of his “inner circle” supporters to respond. I’m not really interested in more rumors. The only response to the question of whether or not he is running needs to be directly from Governor Johnson.
And it needs to be very soon.
“If Johnson went away, we might get some better candidates.” – George Phillies
Can you give us some examples?
Feldman will not take donations larger than $5, which in my opinion is totally unviable. Perry will only take cryptocurrencies or metallic currency, proposes to abolish the Federal government, and will have no campaign organization.
If Johnson went away, we might get some better candidates.
For that matter, Can anyone know where he is, and get him a plane ticket to Florida, Say Late May…
Austin,
Isn’t that Daniel Imperiato?
Good for him, getting some media coverage.
As for saying he’s the leading candidate….it’s a political campaign, he’s supposed to use whatever he can to make himself look good.
I do think it’s true, subjectively, that Kerbel has probably overtaken Feldman as the “frontrunner” among the currently-declared field. I just don’t think that means all that much, and it certainly isn’t proven by an unscientific online poll.
I only caught part of the debate, but if people are voting for the person who made the least number of mistakes, then perhaps he’s in the lead at the moment.
Leading? If you look at Josh Evans’ report, that did appear to be the consensus of people at the Massachusetts State Convention.
Congratulations and best wishes on your impending ascendence.
I thought NOTA was still leading. I can’t see any reason to vote for Kerbel over NOTA.
Fixed. If it happens again just change the width tag. You had it at about 700. I cut it in half.
Based on a nonscientific internet poll, I’m actually the leading candidate to replace Pope Francis when the time comes. Should be a pretty sweet gig for me.
Ack, that is a giant picture… can anyone help me with fixing that?
“The Libertarian Party’s leading candidate for President”
Damn, word gets around fast!