A quick report from Kimberly Wilder, contributor at Independent Political Report:

I attended the Libertarian Party of New York State Convention as a press person and a third party activist (enrolled “blank/independent). These are some quick observations, which I will expand later in the post and/or comments section. Hope other people will give their thoughts and impressions of the day in the comments.

My favorite strategy of the day: Many years ago, when police asked Julian Heicklen to move away from a sidewalk where he was protesting, Heicklen said, “I have a permit to be here.” And, he showed the police a copy of the 1st Amendment.

Some interesting folks I ran into: Chris Edes of Free & Equal, Chris Garvey, Audrey Capozzi, Bruce Martin, Richard Cooper, and Warren Redlich.

Interesting sentiments: There was much applause and shout-outs for the presidential candidacy (either Libertarian or Republican) of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Chris Garvey noted that if Ron Paul was the Republican candidate, here in New York the Libertarians could use fusion to cross-endorse him. Another person from the audience suggested a Ron Paul as President, Gary Johnson as Vice President ticket.

Scheduled Speakers: Mark Axinn, LPNY Chair; CJ Maloney, author; Warren Redlich, Libertarian Party 2010 Governor candidate; Gigi Bowman of Free & Equal; Danny Panzella (with comments on unjust TSA searches and his 4th Amendment t-shirt); Peter Nicols; Bill Redpath of the national Libertarian Party; Dan Halloran, a Republican elected official in NYC, who ran on several lines including Libertarian; Julian Heicklen, a Freedom Fighter (who spoke about the concern that so many Americans are in prison); George Marlin, a Conservative activist and columnist for LI Business News; and Masood Manoochehi of Students for Liberty.

In comments on my last update about the process to fill two At Large Rep vacancies on the Libertarian National Committee caused by the death of David Nolan (RIP) and the resignation of former Treasurer James Oaksun, whom former At Large Rep Bil Redpath was appointed to replace, LNC regional rep Daniel Wiener wrote:

There is no official list of applicants for the two LNC vacancies, nor is there any official procedure. There are only people who have expressed an interest. The LNC could still decide to fill the vacancies by email ballot, but my best guess is that nothing will happen until the April 16th LNC meeting in Washington, D.C. If anyone else is interested in being selected for a vacancy, I would recommend that he or she contact one or more LNC members to communicate that interest. Contact information may be found at http://www.lp.org/leadership.

(Emphasis added).

If anyone else would like to send us an opinion essay about the LNC vacancies, who should fill them, why, how the process should be changed, etc., we might well publish it. (If you are signed up to write for IPR, please don’t post it as an article yourself if you write it).

If other LNC members or people knowledgeable about the facts in this matter would like to give me additional perspectives, correct information that they believe or know to be inaccurate, etc; don’t hesitate to call me at 415-690-5352. You can also write to contact.ipr@gmail.com CC iprtwo at googlegroups.com

So far, we have learned of the following people who have been recommended to the LNC, of which LNC members are aware:

John Jay Myers
Rebecca Sink-Burris
Judge Jim Gray

All three of the above were among the four top vote getters for At Large who missed the cutoff at the last national convention. The other was Pat Dixon, who is currently State Chair of Texas. Reportedly, Mr. Dixon is no longer interested in being considered because his state committee would prefer that he concentrate on state, not national, matters.

The convention vote was:
Dixon 168
Sink-Burris 167
Myers 159
Gray 153

Rebecca Sink-Burris was then elected as a Region Rep, but then resigned because she missed two meetings in a row.

Additionally, Regional Alternate Randy Eshelman has also applied directly to the LNC.

Out of these four people who are known to have applied to the LNC, Mr. Myers and Judge Gray received numerous positive comments from IPR readers, while Mr. Eshelman had several current and former LNC members (Starr, Wiener, and Knedler) come to his defense when I reported that another LNC member who prefers not to be named made a negative comment about him.

The following additional people expressed an interest in being considered for the At Large vacancies in the comments on this previous IPR post and this one. I don’t know whether LNC members are aware of their interest, or interested in considering them:

Ed Vallejo (ran for At Large at the last convention; not among the top vote getters).
Bruce Majors

Of these, Ed Vallejo got a couple of positive comments from IPR readers.

The following were put forth as choices by other people, but I don’t know if they themselves are interested:

Carl Vassar and Sam Goldstein (currently regional alternates)
Kevin Takenaga (Currently California chair)
Starchild

Of these, Starchild received numerous positive comments from IPR readers.

The following statements from my last update (based on a conversation with an LNC member who does not wish to be named, an additional conversation with another LNC member (Doug Craig), and various IPR comments on previous posts) have remained so far unchallenged. This does not mean that they are necessarily correct, and if anyone believes any of this is not correct, please let us know what parts and why:

1. Redpath’s motion did not have support. According to George Phillies, that motion was: “We move to appoint Rebecca Sink-Burris and John Jay Myers as At-Large Representatives to the Libertarian National Committee for the remainder of the 2010-2012 term.” This does not mean that they won’t necessarily be the people chosen, just that the committee is not ready to decide now without considering other people first.

2. It will probably be a secret ballot with 8-10 or possibly more names (each LNC member will vote for two names, as I understand it) and the top two most frequently chosen will win.

3. Presuming that the vote will be at the DC meeting in April, as seems likely but is not completely guaranteed, those who wish to apply for the vacancies will increase their chances of being selected if they attend the meeting in person.

4. No one is guaranteed to get either At Large spot, but John Jay Myers may very well get one of them.

Previous posts in reverse chronological order:

LNC source says At Large vacancies will not be filled before next regular meeting

IPR readers make recommendation on filling LNC vacancies

Libertarian National Committee is discussing filling At Large vacancies before next face to face meeting

Libertarians write letters in support of John Jay Myers for LNC vacancy

Numerous additional comments about this issue made on:

Liberty for America February 2011 issue is out

and

Discord Abounds On Libertarian National Committee

I will not name my source unless he/she wants to step forward, but this is from a member of the LNC. -Paulie

1) Redpath’s motion did not have support. According to George Phillies, that motion was: “We move to appoint Rebecca Sink-Burris and John Jay Myers as At-Large Representatives to the Libertarian National Committee for the remainder of the 2010-2012 term.” This does not mean that they won’t necessarily be the people chosen, just that the committee is not ready to decide now without considering other people first.

2) The At Large vacancies will NOT be filled by mail ballot, they will be filled at the next regular meeting.

3) It will probably be a secret ballot with 8-10 or possibly more names (each LNC member will vote for two names, as I understand it) and the top two most frequently chosen will win.

4) My prior info on this was outdated. Pat Dixon does NOT want to be on the LNC, his state committee wants him to focus on Texas, not on National. This would still be the case even if the LNC was willing to approve both himself and John Jay Myers.

5) Judge Gray is probably interested, but my source was not 100% sure. The information I got was that the Judge will stand a better chance if he goes to the next LNC meeting in person (same for others applying).

6) Myers has some support but no one is guaranteed to win as it stands.

7) There is no official list of candidates, nor any official application process, at this point it is informal and may well stay that way.

8 ) Given the names we have actually heard so far, and presuming the info about Dixon is correct, the person I was talking to and myself provisionally agreed that Myers and Gray sound like the best choices at this time. This is not an official IPR stance; IPR takes no position in the matter.

That is all I can remember from the conversation at this time.

If anyone else would like to send us an opinion essay about the LNC vacancies, who should fill them, why, how the process should be changed, etc., we might well publish it. (If you are signed up to write for IPR, please don’t post it as an article yourself if you write it).

If other LNC members or people knowledgeable about the facts in this matter would like to give me additional perspectives, correct information that they believe or know to be inaccurate, etc; don’t hesitate to call me at 415-690-5352. You can also write to contact.ipr@gmail.com CC iprtwo at googlegroups.com.

I had heard several people mention the idea of leaving David Nolan’s at-large seat vacant. It seemed like a good idea to me, but when I read the bylaws I found that the LNC is required to fill the vacancy.

LP Bylaws, article 8, section 7:

The National Committee shall appoint new officers and members-at-large if vacancies occur, such officers and members-at-large to complete the term of the office vacated.

In my opinion the bylaws would have read “may” instead of “shall” if it were not mandatory.

I believe the LNC would be well-advised to fill the vacancy with someone ideologically close to David Nolan. Of course no one can adequately fill his shoes, but an ideological opponent would be a huge disaster with regard to inside politics.

If I were on the LNC, I would vote for John Jay Myers to fill the vacancy. Myers finished 8th in the at-large vote behind Pat Dixon and Rebecca Sink-Burris. Rebecca is already on the committee as a regional rep (though I gather she has missed 2 meetings in a row). I have great respect for Pat Dixon of course, but the records indicate he was not David Nolan’s choice. David Nolan gave nomination speeches for himself, Mary Ruwart, and John Jay Myers. Both he and Mary Ruwart made the committee; John Jay Myers did not. I believe filling David Nolan’s vacant seat with John Jay Myers would be the least contentious route to take for the membership.

pp. 50-51 (nominations), p. 54 (vote totals)
http://www.lp.org/files/2010%20National%20Convention.pdf

Moulton goes on to recommend that Pat Dixon should fill the At large vacancy left by Bill Redpath when he took over as treasurer, assuming that Redpath wants to stay on as treasurer.

Debra Dedmon:

I think John Jay would be a good choice to fill Nolans seat.

I wish we could stay in missing man formation but bylaws are bylaws.

Paulie:

Please feel free to let LNC members know I second Chuck’s sentiments.

(this is a personal opinion, not speaking for IPR).

Dallas County LP Secretary Jordan Wagnon via email:

Do you remember what is was like when you first discovered that something was wrong with our political system, that neither of the two incumbent parties stood for what they said, that both expanded the use of government force at all levels, that it was time for something truly different? And then do you remember how amazing it felt to finally find someone that actually represented your views?

For me, that person was John Jay Myers. In early 2009 I had taken an interest in local politics through my graduate courses covering local economic development. I was horrified to discover that the general idea behind “economic development” is that enriching the well connected at City Hall somehow enriches everyone. Supporting special tax districts, government subsidies, tax breaks for some businesses but not others, and giving handouts to developers through mega boondoggle projects were defining characteristics of politics in Big D. And to top it off, the city had just decided it would build a $500 million government hotel. I discovered all of this right around the time local elections were coming up.

I was studying the candidates for Dallas City Council and I could not believe it when I finally found someone who did not think government enterprises should compete against private employers. Nor did he think that government should pick winners and losers in the economy. Nor did he think that removing guns from the people was the solution to crime. Nor did he think that affordable housing programs actually made housing affordable for anyone. Every other candidate, in every other district in the city, all supported the increase of government coercion to boost the economy or cure some problem they thought they could solve. No other candidate even tried to suggest that coercion itself was the problem, except for John Jay Myers.

I spent the next eight weeks volunteering for his campaign and walking the district. Since then I have volunteered for Libertarian Party outreach events, served on the Dallas County executive committee, attended the county and state conventions, and of course voted for Libertarian Party candidates. I am not the most active Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but I would not be involved at all if it were not for John Jay Myers. He has shown me that the Libertarian Party is in fact different from the others because it refuses to support coercion, anywhere, for the sake political expediency. He has also shown me that a diverse group of individuals can maintain a consistent, distinctly Libertarian message of non-aggression even while differing from each other in both ideology and methodology.

I am writing today to recognize Mr. Myers because we have all benefited from his leadership and dedication here locally, and I believe his enthusiasm, principle, and hard work merit a broader influence. I would like to propose that Libertarians in Dallas and in Texas support the nomination and election of John Jay Myers for one of the vacant at-large seats on the LNC. He has already served on the Dallas County and Texas State executive committees, and he has twice sacrificed time from his business and family to spread the Libertarian message locally by running for elected office. He earned the respect of Libertarians from across the nation in St. Louis last year. Texas State Chair Pat Dixon has endorsed John Jay for one of the LNC seats, and David Nolan himself spoke in favor of Mr. Myers for the at-large seat at the national convention.

But it’s not just his Libertarian resume that warrants his election to the national committee. There is an even more important quality of John Jay Myers that is absolutely essential for our party to grow. He understands that Libertarians each have a unique perspective and something unique to contribute to the cause. Freedom by its very nature allows different viewpoints to be expressed and acted upon based on one’s conscience and initiative. And that is why he espouses a bottom up approach rather than a top down approach. He has been in the trenches and knows that the voluntary efforts of people in local communities grow the party. He does not see the Libertarian Party as dictating one best approach or trying to decide once and for all the Minarchist/Anarchist debate. He knows that we just need to move in a non-aggressive, less government, more freedom direction and that the willful actions of each Libertarian will move us in that direction.

In this way, John Jay’s approach is a Libertarian approach. He refuses to compromise the message of freedom by fixating on one method or one target group, or by mimicking other parties. He represents the balance between holding true to the principles of non-aggression, distinguishing ourselves clearly from either of the incumbent parties, and supporting all of the grassroots and electoral activities of local affiliates. And now, I propose that he represent these principles for all of us on the LNC.

Jordan Wagnon
Secretary of the Dallas County LP

It appears that the 2004-5 minutes in the public archive included conference call minutes, but between 2006 and the May 2010 convention only minutes of the entire LNC meeting in person were made available in the public archive.

The most recent Exec Comm minutes currently posted are from Aug 15.

The Exec Comm is a subcommittee of the LNC: Officers Mark Hinkle, Mark Rutherford, Alicia Mattson and James Oaksun, At Large Reps Mary Ruwart and Bill Redpath, and Regional Rep James Lark.

On August 23, Bill Redpath, Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. House, Virginia’s 10th district, debated his Democratic Party opponent, Jeff Barnett. See this story. The third candidate in the race, incumbent Republican Frank Wolf, did not participate. Thanks to Melinda Moore for the link. Redpath is somewhat well known nationally because he was the chair of the Libertarian National Committee 2006-2010.

The Roanoke Civil Liberties Examiner interviews Libertarian congressional candidates William Redpath here and here, and Stuart Bain here and here.

The election for the five open at-large seats on the LNC were held early this morning. Nominated candidates were: Dr. Tom Stevens, Wayne Root, Kevin Knedler, John Jay Myers, Lee Wrights, Rebecca Sink-Burris, Judge Jim Gray, Sam Sloan, Bill Redpath, Dr. Mary Ruwart, Pat Dixon, Ed Vallejo, Thomas Hill, and David Nolan.

The new at-large members are Mary Ruwart of Texas, Wayne-Allyn Root of Nevada, Bill Redpath of Virginia, David Nolan of Arizona, and Kevin Knedler of Ohio. Root received the most votes for at-large.

The election for the Judicial Committee was then held, with Bill Hall, Nick Sarwark, Bob Sullentrup, Robert Latham, Lee Wrights, Judge Jim Gray all being elected to that body.

The convention then adjourned and the LNC meeting, with new members, occurred immediately afterward.

David Nolan suggested Las Vegas on July 11th as the date and location for the next meeting of the LNC. This coincides with FreedomFest, a large gathering of libertarians in Las Vegas.

Stewart Flood, Southeast Regional Representative, suggested the LNC authorize the expenditure of $15,000 to run radio ads against Proposition 14 in California. This motion passed.

The founder of the Boston Tea Party, Thomas Knapp, said on twitter that it was a “real dick move” and “As BTP founder, I repudiate that action.”

Reprinted from the May 2010 issue of LP News at LP.org

I don’t know how he did it. Mickey Spillane supposedly squirreled himself away for a short period of time, and BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM—he would write a book. He wrote “I, the Jury” in only nineteen days, according to his Wikipedia page.

Ayn Rand was a big fan of Mickey Spillane’s. But, my writing speed is more like hers (slow, in case you didn’t know).

So, it is with mixed feelings that I tap out this last column during my terms as Chairman of the Libertarian Party. It’s time for someone else to enjoy the benefits and bear the burdens (e.g., writing this column) of this position.

I will not be going away, however. As of the time I write this, it is my intention to seek an At-Large position on the next term of the Libertarian National Committee and continue to work for ballot access for the LP. Whether or not that occurs, I will continue to be active with the LP.

As we move forward, I anticipate that the Libertarian Party will remain the third largest political party in the United States and grow stronger in that role. I have long thought that the argument of whether we are an educational organization or a political party is a false choice. We educate by running candidates for public office and through other direct political activism, something no other organization in the entire libertarian movement in this nation does.

One thing that I would like to see is for the pursuit of electoral reform to be an always living, breathing part of the Libertarian Party. Where Libertarian parties are getting elected to higher level offices in various nations around the world, there is a system of proportional representation elections for legislatures.

The Free Democratic Party (“FDP”) in Germany won zero seats in single member district elections for the national legislature in September 2009 (sound familiar?), but because half of Germany’s national legislature is filled from a party list vote (voters simply choose their favorite party) from which the FDP earned about 15% of the vote, the FDP now has 93 of 622 seats.

In Costa Rica, proportional representation has allowed Movimiento Libertario (“ML”) to grow from 1, to 6, to 6, to 9 seats (with 14.5% of the vote in February 2010) out of 57 in its national legislature in the four elections since its founding in May 1994. It will be Costa Rica’s third largest party in its national legislative assembly for the next four years, and I would not be surprised to see it move into second place in next election in February 2014.

ML’s stature in Costa Rica allowed Otto Guevara (the LP’s 2002 Convention Keynote Speaker) to finish third in the February 2010 Presidential election, with nearly 21 percent of the vote.

Is Costa Rica a hotbed of libertarianism that the United States is not? No. If we had a similar election system in the United States, I think the LP would be doing as well as, or perhaps even better than, ML.

Please note that I am not warranting that proportional representation itself will bring about a libertarian society. But, it will make political minorities, such as Libertarians (at least for now), electable and will bring much more people, money and media to our cause. And, because entrenched R&D (and I don’t mean “Research & Development”) legislators will not make a change in the electoral system by themselves, this is a reason (among others) to support the adoption of Initiative & Referendum (“I&R”) procedures in states that don’t currently have I&R.

I have often said that a politician does not have to have an original thought in order to be successful. He or she only has to choose wisely among the ideas that are already floating around out there.

That said (and I’m using the term “politician” extremely loosely with respect to myself), I will close by quoting the late Harry Browne.

Someone said to him in 2000 when he was the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate for the second time, “Well, Harry, if you don’t get elected, it will all have been a waste of time, won’t it?”

Harry replied, “Quite the contrary. It will have been a good use of my time, because through the Libertarian Party, I have met the greatest people in the world.”

That’s the truth. I can’t top that. I don’t know who could.

Bill Redpath, with the Libertarian Party points out that in Colorado and Louisiana, a third party can get on the ballot with just 1,000 valid signatures.

“You have less choice in Oklahoma than many other states,” Redpath said.

Under Key’s bill, the signature requirement would be decreased and candidates would fewer signatures to get on the ballot. Reformers want a third party candidate to be able to get on the ballot with 5,000 valid signatures.

Redpath pointed out that the Libertarian Party in Oklahoma does well, but supporters still can’t get a candidate on the presidential ballot.

“I don’t think its an issue at the top of people’s minds,” he said. “But I think it (signature requirement for third party candidates) would shock the general public. It’s an arcane area of politics.”

Congratulations to OBAR, Rep. Charles Key, Bill Redpath, and the Libertarian Party for getting this press and for leading the charge for better ballot access laws in Oklahoma.

h/t to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News for the tip

Known candidates: Wayne Root
Mark Hinkle (1, 2)

George Phillies (1, 2)
Ernest Hancock: I’ve not found an article, but I saw an email response from him on a yahoo group (can’t remember exactly where or when) that “of course” he would run for LNC chair in 2010. Phillies and Hancock have both run for national chair before.

Vice Chair: Mike Jingozian, incumbent; I have seen no announcement as to whether or not he will seek the position again. Carolyn Marbry is the only announced candidate I know of.

Treasurer: Aaron Starr, incumbent; I have seen no announcement as to whether or not he will seek the position again. Roger Gary is the only announced candidate I know of.

Secretary: Bob Sullentrup, incumbent; I have seen no announcement as to whether or not he will seek the position again. Rob Power is the only announced candidate I know of.

The current committee is here. I have seen no announcements as to which At Large members, region reps and alternates will and which will not seek reelection, nor announcements of any candidates for any of those positions.

For any additions or corrections to this list, please post in the comments.

by William Redpath

(originally published in the December 2009 issue of LP News)

I can’t know what each of you thought when you read the headline above, but probably the most charitable thought was “Poor Bill Redpath. He almost made it to the end of his second term as Chair before he cracked up.”

Please be assured that I don’t really mean it. But, until I get a law passed making it illegal to skip past the Chairman’s column when reading LP News, kindly forgive my grabbing your attention by stooping to headlines that would make the editors of the late Weekly World News proud.

But, there is a point to it.

We’ve all heard it many times. “I can’t (sign your petition/vote for you/all of the above), because you’ll take votes from Republicans and then The Really Bad People will win.”

In 2008, when I was the Libertarian candidate for US Senate in Virginia, we had to circulate separate petitions for the Libertarian presidential ticket and me. Many people gladly signed my petition (getting my charm tank topped off beforehand helped, I guess), but when it came to signing for the LP presidential ticket, “Nooooooooo! Barr will screw things up for John McCain!”

Let’s see how that philosophy has worked out for those people.

I just read the recently published Recarving Rushmore, written by Ivan Eland of the small-l libertarian Independent Institute, in which he ranks forty presidents (too early in Obama’s presidency/Cleveland served twice/Garfield and William Henry Harrison both served less than a year) on a “PP&L (Peace, Prosperity & Liberty) scale.”

What appeared to chafe Dr. Eland was the tendency of historians to judge presidents as “great,” or not so, based on the times in which they served, not the actual decisions made by them when they were President. Dr. Eland’s goal is to judge presidents on the extent to which their actual policy decisions contributed to Peace, Prosperity & Liberty for the United States.

As a libertarian, Dr. Eland does not play favorites. Thomas Jefferson is rated a woeful 26th by Eland, who calls TJ “A Hypocrite on Limited Government.” I have not asked Dr. Eland if he thinks we should save our rotten tomaters for whomever next sings that “Thomas Jefferson” song at an LP convention (non-old-timers may not remember this).

Surprisingly, in Dr. Eland’s judgment, the best president in American history was John Tyler (vetoed the revival of the national bank/ended the worst Indian war in US history/responded with restraint to Dorr’s Rebellion in Rhode Island/ditto with a border dispute between Maine and New Brunswick/opposed big government in fact and not just rhetoric), while the second best was Grover Cleveland, a fat guy who liked slim government. The worst president (#40) in his view was Woodrow Wilson (got the US into World War I/post-war policies set the table for World War II/plenty more, but ain’t that enough?).

But, what really struck me, as I reviewed Dr. Eland’s presidential rankings, was how low recent Republican presidents were on his PP&L scale. I know some people will dispute this, but Eland ranks Ronald Reagan as #34 (landing him in Eland’s “Bad President” category), and he has sensible reasons. Eland claims that the Iran/Contra scandal was worse than Watergate, Reagan did not reduce big government, started “surreptitiously” raising taxes soon after his 1981 tax cuts were enacted, and helped keep Social Security limping along in 1983 (with tax increases, of course) when he could have worked to privatize it. Dr. Eland also thinks Reagan’s role in ending the Cold War was overblown, and that the Soviet Union failed largely on its own. Other low recent Republican president rankings (W. at #36, H. W. at #33 and Nixon at #30) are no surprise.

What is somewhat surprising is that Dr. Eland ranks Jimmy Carter as “The Best Modern President” at #8 (restrained foreign policy/evenhanded Middle East policy/deregulated industries/appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed, who then slayed inflation). Eland even ranked Bill Clinton as the 11th best president on his PP&L scale, so he thinks that over the last forty years, Democratic presidents have actually been more libertarian than Republican presidents.

According to Dr. Eland, to find a Republican president who ranks higher in his PP&L rankings than Jimmy Carter, one must go all the way back to Warren Harding. And, to write that pains me; the Marion Harding Presidents (what else would their nickname be?) were rivals with my Findlay Trojans in the Buckeye Conference when I was in high school.

What I took away from Dr. Eland’s enlightening book was that the frequently heard advice to libertarians and supporters of small government to not “waste their vote,” and to hold their nose and vote Republican, makes about as much sense as the headline at the beginning of this column. The people who have done that over the last several decades need to look around and observe what that admonition has wrought.

Dear Friend of Liberty,

The Libertarian Party was founded 38 years ago on December 11, 1971. One of the founders, David Nolan, remains active within the party and is slated to speak at our 2010 National Convention in St. Louis over Memorial Day weekend. (Details for the convention, including prices and registration options, will be released in January.)

Our party has had its ups and downs. Many other political parties have formed and then faded away quickly. But because of you, the Libertarian Party remains the largest and most influential third party in America.

Because of you, the Libertarian Party, our candidates, and our activists are out there fighting for a future of freedom.

Because of you, our 143 elected Libertarians can implement policies supporting free markets and civil liberties.

Every candidate we recruit and every message we send starts with your contribution.

I hope you’ll join me in sending an extra $38 birthday present to the Libertarian Party today. If you’d like to make a $3,800 donation, or sign up for a $38 monthly pledge, you’ll really help put us in a strong position for 2010.

Thank you very much.

Bill Redpath
National Chairman
Libertarian National Committee

P.S. If you have not yet become a member of the Libertarian Party and wish to do so, please click here and join the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. If you need to renew, please click here. If you would like to make a contribution separate from membership, please click here.

Libertarian National Committee Chair, Bill Redpath, announced on Sunday at the Libertarian National Committee meeting in Nashville, Tennessee that he would not seek a third term as Chair of the Libertarian National Committee. Redpath did appear to be open to the possibility of running for another position on the LNC.

Dear Friend of Liberty,

During the 2008 primary, many Republican presidential candidates claimed to be like former President Ronald Reagan. This was apparently intended to mean that they supported small government. I recently listened again to this speech promoting free enterprise, which Ronald Reagan gave in 1977 (before he was elected president).

I found Reagan’s scripted speech to be inspiring, but I could hear him falling away from these principles when he answered impromptu questions about farming and other issues.

William Redpath, Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, recently taped an interview for ReasonTV. It’s posted here.

When asked when he became a Libertarian, Redpath responded that he had been a Democrat in high school, a Republican in college, and then in the early eighties, “I decided Ronald Reagan was not serious about cutting the size of government.”

I agree. I think President Reagan’s record shows he was a typical big-government conservative Republican.

For example, during Reagan’s eight years in office, the federal government spent a total of about 22% of GDP. (That’s the biggest-spending eight years since World War II.) Spending grew from $678 billion to $1.14 trillion. So much for cutting government.

Reagan also escalated the War on Drugs, heightened trade barriers, and increased farm subsidies. And of course, he sent the federal debt through the roof.

In the book Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, Ivan Eland ranked Reagan near the bottom, at 34th out of 40.

Barack Obama, like Ronald Reagan, gave some inspiring speeches during his campaign for president. He talked about ending foreign wars and bringing our troops home. He even claimed to support a “net spending cut”! However, Obama is turning out to be just another big-government war-supporting Democrat.

Maybe one of Obama’s worst hypocrisies (so far) is his support of George W. Bush’s “state secrets” doctrine, which he hopes will protect his administration from civil liberties lawsuits.

Republicans and Democrats sometimes make good promises, but they never deliver. By supporting Libertarians, you send a clear message that you want more freedom and less government, and you’re not buying the hypocrisy of the Rs and Ds.

I hope you’ll get involved helping to prepare your local and state Libertarian Party affiliates for the 2010 election season. We’re doing our best to get organized and build things up here at the national headquarters so we can better serve you in upcoming elections. I hope you’ll show your support by contributing to the Libertarian Party today.

Also, we’ve got a new poll on our home page.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

The District of Columbia requires more signatures, as a percentage of the number of voters, for minor party and independent presidential candidates, than any other jurisdiction in the U.S., except for Oklahoma, North Carolina and Wyoming. In 2008 only one presidential petition succeeded in the District. The bill as introduced does not change the number of signatures, but it authorizes the Board to add filing fees in addition to the existing signatures.

You can read the article here. Source: Ballot Access News.

The State Senate passed an equivalent bill today, and the legislative director of the Governor’s office assured Libertarian Party of West Virginia chair Matt Harris that the Governor will sign it into law.

Thanks to Matt Harris for the news.

-paulie