LRC blogger Nick Bradley reports that Bob Barr is polling at 10% in New Hampshire. Apparently, no one told the pollsters, the pollees, or Bradley that Barr likely won’t even be on the ballot in the Granite State, in which the LP will be represented by George Phillies — a fact that was covered by Lew Rockwell himself nearly three weeks ago. [NOTE: Richard Winger of Ballot Access News says that a petition to put Barr on the ballot already has 2,000 of the 3,000 necessary signatures, with an August deadline. Eric Dondero is heading the petition drive.]
Bradley goes on to suggest that it’s “liberal Ron Paul supporters” who are not backing Barr; apparently unaware of Chuck Baldwin’s appeal to conservative Ron Paul supporters, and Barr’s problems with doctrinaire and partisan Libertarians who are anything but “liberal” in the conventional sense.
UPDATE: Ballot Access News reported on June 19-21 that Barr had a “good chance” of getting on the ballot. Michael Badnarik, it’s important to note, failed to achieve a spot on the ballot in New Hampshire in 2004.
Wait, so you’re saying you voted for Barr and you weren’t on the payroll?
Stephen Gordon is a pretty cool guy, and I bet he’s “really please” (I”m being sarcastic) with the Jesse Helms press release.
Again… the fact that I voted for Barr, and/or happen to think that Steve Gordon is a pretty cool guy, doesn’t make me Richard Viguerie. I don’t have the inside scoop on the advertising department, can’t take responsibility for anyone copying G.E.’s scoops, and don’t jump to the defense of any article on a knee-jerk basis.
Hell, I haven’t even purged anyone from the LP in over two weeks now.
Steve, since you are so tight with TPW, mind finding out when they are going to run the ad I paid for yesterday? I mean, GE got my ad up right away and I bought a graphic ad here. That’s like…more complicated. I only bought a text ad there.
My emails to them have failed thus far.
Thanks buddy….
Oh, and to answer your question… my low level of activity on TPW lately is not a diss against those guys. Number one, I’ve been too busy with my Summer schedule to do much consistent reading on ANY site. More importantly, I’m not all that active there because I agree with those folks too much.
I personally enjoy myself the most around people with whom I disagree, yet can carry on an intelligent conversation. The problem with TPW is that it’s either: (A) people I agree with, or (B) complete and utter wastes of oxygen such as “disinter”. I find myself either nodding my head in agreement, or shaking my head at how someone can be so incoherently bitter and brain-dead. Neither of the two is all that fun or challenging.
You tread dangerously close to the borderline of being shrill, and often take yourself way too seriously. Nevertheless, you can string together a coherent sentence once in awhile, and occasionally even force me to think. This amuses me.
Now THAT was funny.
Perkins – You’re the one who looks like a moron for pointing out that I admitted that being wrong made me look like a moron — DUH, I admitted it. It didn’t need to be pointed out by you.
Point is: Why would I intentionally set myself up to look stupid? Answer: I wouldn’t.
Take a look at this thread: What harm was done. I originally said Barr “likely wouldn’t be on the ballot” and later amended it to “may not be.”
WOW. BIG F’ing DEAL.
Could you do a better job?
And why don’t you read TPW any more? Back when IPR was getting started, you said IPR would fail and that TPW would persevere. What made you change your mind?
Oh, and I honestly thought that anyone who did vote for Barr was probably on the TPW payroll. It seems to go the other way around! 🙂
I also like the way Mr. Perkins deflects the story from Sean Haugh’s rampaging abuse of power to the 2-3 errors IPR has made in its history of 550+ articles.
What you’re really saying is that we admit when we’re wrong. The alternative site still says Austin Cassidy is their editor and frequently credits articles to him that he didn’t write.
Where is your criticism for them? Do you save it since they don’t admit their errors?
Steve – What you are describing there, in greatly exagerated fashion, has happened on two, maybe three, stories, out of more than 550 posted at IPR. In this case, I was wrong about a fact — nothing was malicious. What would be the point of being malicious and wrong, making me look like a moron? There would be no point.
Oh, and it’s been more than a week and I’m not back at TPW. So IPR is 547/550, and Steve Perkins is 0/1.
Hell, the comments ARE what makes it fair! Typical story:
Steve – Although I will agree with and accept your comment that IPR is “not the friendliest site in the world toward the current LP status quo” — in fact, I think that’s a compliment, because we shouldn’t be “friendly” — you can ask Richard Winger if the news articles were fair or not. The comments, of course, are another story!
You’ve been away for a while, haven’t you, Steve?
Busted. I have a weird schedule such that Summer is my busiest time of the year rather than vacation season. I probably won’t be back in the swing of regularly following things until next month. (I had to bend over backwards to make it to Denver)
Anyway, I won’t comment on the Sean Haugh specifics since I’ve only done a cursory reading of the posts on IPR (not the friendliest site in the world toward the current LP status quo). However, a political director having a beef with someone is not a “purge” from the Party. I’ve never received a paycheck from the LP either, yet my name (like Paulie’s) is listed as a member in good standing regardless. Moreover, the Shane Cory deal illustrates that these appointed positions don’t last forever.
If Sean Haugh were working for a for-profit company, he would have been FIRED.
The LPHQ operates like a socialist bureaucracy, complete with theft and graft and an internal nepotistic spoils system.
What else could be expected from a party chaired by a man who thinks the Supreme Court “establishes” our rights?
Sean’s action relating to Paul was rescinded, and I think Andy is also now free to work for the LP if he wants to. I’m not 100% sure. Even Gary could conceivably come back. The National Committee of the LP is looking into it, since the Judicial Committee said it had no jurisdiction.
You’ve been away for a while, haven’t you, Steve?
Do a search for Sean Haugh.
… by whom?
Steve – I generally accept your characterization, but Paulie has been told he’ll never work for the LP again. That isn’t just giving someone “preference.”
The truth of the matter, from my perspective, is that anyone not on board for Barr is being pushed out of the LP.
Oh please. There’s a huge difference between “not being first in line to get gigs”, as opposed to “being pushed out of the Party”. Supposing Ruwart would have won the nomination and needed signatures in Georgia, and supposing that people willing to collect signatures for pay in Georgia included myself and a Ruwart ally, I’m pretty sure that the latter would get the first phone call. I wouldn’t have hard feelings, and I wouldn’t consider myself “pushed out of the LP”.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing in the text above should be construed in a court of law or arbitration proceeding as sticking up for Eric Dondero.
I do want to point out, if it isn’t clear from my words elsewhere, that I was generally “wrong” or at least “misinformed” when I first posted this, and to the extent that I implied that Mr. Bradley was definitively “wrong,” I apologize.
Without a doubt, Dondero is a major league douche. But if he wants to collect signatures, so be it.
Sunshine: Dondero is the one (of 2) collecting NH Barr petitions, at Haugh’s request (and pay).
Dondero is pissing off FSPers left and right…
http://aworldnervelink.livejournal.com/197117.html
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7703834898
Hmm. The plot thickens.
New Hampshire petitions don’t show a candidate for Vice-President.
LPNH should petition to have Barr-Paul on the ballot. That would get rid of Dondero. And probably piss off both Haugh and Phillies also, so it’s a win-win.
I think Paullie is rehired, if he wants to be, and that may be true for Andy also. And the LP national committee is looking into whether Gary was treated unfairly. I don’t agree with Sean on this matter, and he knows it. But the causes of the whole mess had nothing to do with the political attitudes of any of the circulators.
Jeff – I do not disagree, but my point is that for which Paulie is being blackballed, if it were a blackballable offense, would make Dondero’s name unspeakable by comparison.
The truth of the matter, from my perspective, is that anyone not on board for Barr is being pushed out of the LP. It is political. Just as Paulie was denied press creds (initially) at the convention, now he’s being denied work. Over what? If it’s message-board behavior, then how can one justify Dondero’s employment?
If Dondero is the best petitioner, then I say BY ALL MEANS hire him — this is NOT an anti-Dondero screed. But you can’t blackball Paulie for message-board conduct and then happily hire Dondero. There’s something else going on.
I’m sure they are. While I know Paulie well, I am not familiar with Gary or Andy, so I cannot say anything about them — my point is just that Dondero’s involvement is a positive thing for the LP…his politics can be pretty insane at times, but his petitioning is the best in the country.
Richard, Sue Newell isn’t short 3000 petitions, only less than 1000 in one of the districts (given the past collection, and only that much because some of our early petitions didn’t have her on them… It’s entirely possible for Sue to be on the ballot and Barr NOT be on the ballot. I’ll believe the Dondero claim of ‘2000 collected in 5 days’ when those are validated by the town clerks and turned in to the SOS.
Phillies WILL be on the ballot at this point, and all of this talk about lawsuits to replace him with Barr are pointless, because of the lack of standing by anyone who seems to mentioning their (potential) suit. Barr can’t push Phillies off the ballot, no matter how many times Haugh proclaims it.
Jeff – I agree that Eric Dondero should be hired if he does a good job, his politics are irrelevant.
But Paulie, Andy, and Gary do a good job, by all accounts too. I do not know 100% of the facts, but I do know the reasons for which these three were fired had NOTHING to do with their performance, and what’s more, whatever Paulie is “guilty” of (a message board comment) Dondero is 10 zillion times more guilty of.
Speaking of Paulie — he’s in Chicago at the Green convention. Get a hold of him and you should be able to get credentialed through IPR. Unlike the LP, which would not grant IPR press creds, the Green Party was happy to have objective journalists not bought and paid for by the leading campaign.
My parenthetical is incomplete…I mean to say (Paulie, by all accounts, is a great petitioner, so I won’t lump him in with anyone else)
In terms of business, it’s not a bad decision (Paulie, from all accounts, is a great petitioner) Whatever you think of Dondero’s politics is irrelevant. Dondero is probably the best petitioner in the country.
Ballot access is about business, not public policy. Seems that despite the way HQ handled the Fincher situation, they are doing a better job than they did in 2004. I think at this point we can say it isn’t unreasonable to be on at least 49 state ballots.
Who the heck accused Richard Winger of bias? No one.
What is this… kick Richard Winger in the ass day? First the clown who is supposedly running the campaign for Robert Owens for Attorney General in Ohio gets on his case for saying Owens is a CPer running as an independent (isn’t Owens the chair of the Ohio CP?) and now G.E. gets his back up. Chill out! Richard has done more to further alternative party activity without bias than anyone I have ever known.
I didn’t say IPR is biased. I said there was a risk that IPR would look biased. I like IPR very much and am glad it exists. IPR is very useful to me and to many other people, including mainstream journalists (as witness that recent article in The Hill about minor party and independent congressional candidates, which quoted Austin Cassidy).
inDglass – It’s no secret that I don’t like Bob Barr, particularly after he issued a press release in favor of fascism and in praise of a racist senator. However, the headline — to the extent that it was incorrect — was based on incomplete information, not bias. Why would I want to look an idiot for posting a story with a potentially misleading headline? What was my motive? That no one would call me on it? I’ve jumped the gun a few times, but to suggest that I would do so maliciously is absurd.
I’m glad to know that Eric Dondero can find work in the LP, but Andy, Gary Fincher, and Paulie Cannoli cannot.
So if one does not share your opinion of the level of likelihood of something that may or may not happen, they are biased? If they agree with you, then they are objective? Is B.A.N. biased or objective for saying it’s a “good chance?”
Truth is the title was based not on bias, but incorrect/incomplete information. I don’t appreciate the allegation of bias coming from you, Mr. Winger.
Glad to see Dondero is on the case. Barr is his type of libertarian.
Because the New Hampshire petition with Bob Barr for president, and Susan Newell for Governor, already has 2,000 signatures, and because a very experienced, very good petitioner (Eric Dondero) working on it, it seems to me almost certain that the petition will succeed. Even New Hampshire Libertarians who don’t like Bob Barr want this petition to succeed, because otherwise the NHLP won’t have a gubernatorial candidate on the ballot. And the deadline isn’t until August 6. IndependentPoliticalReport ought to change the title of this blog post, or else risk looking like a site that is biased instead of objective.
Didn’t say Barr would not be on the ballot. I said he “likely” wouldn’t be on the ballot. B.A.N. says he has a “good chance” of being on the ballot.
And on another point, the NH LP gathered the signatures for Phillies before the convention, and you cannot get signatures for a “placeholder” like in other states — nothing against Barr himself; he’ll get on the ballot.
IPR,
Your statement that Barr will not be on the ballot is incorrect.
When I mentioned “liberal Ron Paul supporters”, I am referring to the large number of liberals who supported Dr. Paul during the NH primary. In addition, Barr’s biggest problem is with the left-libertarian wing of the party and those who supported Ruwart and Kubby.
Yes, Baldwin does appeal to conservative Ron Paul supporters, and that may make up part of the “someone else” block, but I was suggesting the idea that much of the “someone else” block is made up of a lot of Ron Paul supporters — and they may be supporting Dr. Paul.
*or the LPNH
I’m fairly confident I could get on the ballot in New Hampshire, no disrespect meant to the Badnarik campaign of the LPNH.
I’ll go out on a limb and say you’ll see Barr & Phillies both on the ballot in November. Hopefully the BTP can get crackin’ and offer the New Hampshire voters a REAL libertarian choice in November.
Probably? I see no “probably.” I see “good chance” which is far shy of probably.
GE… both Barr and Phillies will probably be on the ballot. BAN article here.
Don’t the states justify every election-related move with the argument of avoiding “voter confusion?” Clearly, having the wrong candidate on the ballot in New Hampshire is likely to confuse at least 10% of the voters.
This is further proof that “fair” decisions are only made if they benefit a major party candidate or an incumbent. America is like Animal Farm. All people are created equal, but some are more equal than others.