Gary Johnson has now participated in one debate with other candidates seeking the Libertarian nomination, and has made plans to appear in others. Johnson has received the endorsement of several state and county LP organizations, which has not been a common practice in the LP in the past. Johnson has been included in several polls of hypothetical general election matchups. He has issued several press releases/op-eds, many of them on civil liberties issues such as ending the USAPATRIOT act, supporting gay marriage rights and legalizing marijuana. He has criticized leading Democratic and Republican contenders on these issues, and in a number of interviews on MSNBC, CNN, Fox, and other media outlets has suggested he could draw as many or more votes away from the Democrats as from the Republicans. Johnson spoke at a recent conference of the ACLU. He has also been holding a series of video/chat townhalls through his website with LP leaders; the next one will be tomorrow. Johnson has had several op-eds, interviews and articles in outlets such as Huffington Post, Washington Times, the Daily Caller, Reason Magazine, and so on, and has been doing local radio interviews around the country. Johnson also responded to the State of the Union, as did Lee Wrights and RJ Harris. Johnson has the most detailed spending plan of these candidates, calling for a 43% cut, and continues to make his case for the national sales tax plan known by its proponents as the FairTax, which has drawn criticism from Lee Wrights among others.

RJ Harris has been keeping his blog updated, has attended several state conventions and debates, has made plans for others, and has some newspaper articles. He has helped with Oklahoma ballot access. Along with Carl Person, Harris has reorganized his campaign under new management and both of these candidates as well as Bill Still have updated the design of their websites. Harris was involved in a car accident while on his way to a Constitution class at the Oklahoma Capitol taught by 2004 Libertarian presidential nominee Michael Badnarik which he helped arrange. Badnarik is now trying to teach such classes at state capitols around the country. Harris was not seriously injured, but had some car damage.

Lee Wrights has also continued, and plans to continue participating in state conventions and debates and writing regular articles/op-eds. He has also issued his first TV spot, which can also be used by other candidates, and was included in an Al Jazeera article along with several candidates of other parties.

Johnson, Harris and Wrights, out of the candidates who have participated in debates and remain listed at LP.org, have been issuing the most regular updates (although Still has been updating his website frequently, but I don’t know of any active distribution of his updates beyond that). They are also the three candidates who have been acknowledged in recent LP press releases and/or LP.org blog posts.

Carl Person, Bill Still and Roger Gary are the other three candidates who have been traveling to conventions, participating in debates and meet the new LP.org listing criteria:

Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
Campaign website is current with contact information
Obtained the approval of at least five members of the 18-member Libertarian National Committee.

Of the remaining candidates that are no longer listed at LP.org, Sam Sloan (temporary website here) meets all the criteria except obtaining approval from five LNC members, which was added most recently. He has enough money to travel around to state conventions, and is trying to get into the debates but has been excluded.

Other candidates:

Jim Burns sends out fairly regular email updates to his list.

Robert Milnes continues to update his site/blog frequently. In recent weeks his main focus has been on exposing discrepancies in the resume claims of Tiffany Briscoe, who beat him for the Boston Tea Party nomination. He is trying to get the FBI to investigate that election, which he thinks was rigged, so far without any luck.

Politics1.com lists the following additional candidates, all or almost all of whom were previously also listed at LP.org but have since been removed:

Ralph
Beach (South Carolina)

Scott Keller (Florida)
– Computer programmer.

James Ogle
(California) – Parliamentary system advocate.

Dave Redick (Wisconsin)
– Retired businessman, engineer, Army veteran & frequent
candidate.

Leroy Saunders (Georgia)
– Limousine company owner.

Mosheh Thezion (California)
– Electronics technician & ’10 US Sen. candidate.

Dean Tucker (Texas)

Joy Waymire (California)
– Tea Party activist, ranch manager and tax preparer.

I don’t know what if anything any of them are doing by way of campaigning.

There are some additional candidates who are or were filed with the FEC as Libertarians that have not even made it into the politics1 listing, such as Ronald Keith Hebert and Shawn James Hogan. I don’t have any information about any of these candidates beyond their FEC filings.

At this time, the rumored entries of Jesse Ventura or (less likely) Ron Paul into the LP race remain rumors only.

One additional rumor has an unnamed wealthy individual supposedly interested in running for VP and spending a significant amount of money on the race, particularly or perhaps only if Gary Johnson is the nominee. 2008 VP candidate Wayne Root is also rumored to be a likely VP contender. Another possible VP candidate may be 2000 and 2008 VP runner up and 2008 presidential nomination candidate Steve Kubby. As in 2008, some of the presidential candidates may also switch to the VP race after being eliminated.

Additional information about the activities of any of these candidates, and any that I may have missed, welcome in the comments.

By: Wayne Allyn Root

“Occupy Wall Street” is becoming the big news story. But the irony is that nobody understands what is truly going on. The media, both political parties, the experts, even the protesters themselves — they’ve all got it wrong.

Nancy Pelosi thinks these protests are like the tea party protests. She couldn’t be more wrong. The tea parties are filled with people who have jobs and pay taxes. They want government to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and be fiscally responsible. They are against all bailouts.

The Occupy Wall Street protests are filled with leftist malcontents and rabble rousers. Since the government is bailing out banks and big corporations, they say it’s only fair they be bailed out too. They want more money to be stolen from those that earn it, to be redistributed to themselves.

They are screaming for their own personal bailout. Big difference, wouldn’t you say?

Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse “The Body” Ventura compares the Occupy Wall Street crowd with the so-called Arab Spring. He thinks great things came from the protests sweeping the Arab world, and therefore great things will come from the protests here.

Unfortunately, the Arab Spring is becoming a disaster for fair-minded, moderate, and decent citizens of these Arab countries — and for humanity. The Arab Spring’s mass protests are leading to radical Islamic and terrorist groups taking control of the region. These groups are dedicated to the destruction of Israel, enslaving women, religious intolerance, murder of Christians, and hatred of America.

Then there’s Herman Cain and other conservative Republican presidential candidates. They see only the leftist influence of the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd. They see jobless bums who want to live on the dole. They see Obama, George Soros, unions, and communist organizers egging on the protestors. This is all true.

But what conservatives are missing is that the protesters have a few good points. The U.S. political system is corrupt. Big corporations, lobbyists, and lawyers are taking advantage of the taxpayers. The bailout of banks and Wall Street was a massive mistake. Billions handed out by government to Obama contributors under the guise of “green energy” is a looting of the taxpayers.

I’ve spent my life defending capitalism. But the system we have now isn’t capitalism. It’s “Crony Capitalism.” The banks, Wall Street, and big corporations have joined forces with politicians of both sides to fleece the American taxpayer. The billion-dollar public companies in America aren’t conservative or liberal. They are just out for themselves. And the rest of us be damned.

These big companies took capitalist risks, lost big, and then went to the government with hat in hand like welfare queens. The same banks that took billions in bailouts from the American taxpayers, then refused to lend to those same taxpayers. Many (but not all) bank and Wall Street CEOs joined with politicians in criminal conspiracies to loot our country and defraud taxpayers.

Conservatives need to face the truth. Just because we dislike the messengers, doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth to the message.

Unfortunately, while part of the protesters’ message is right, their solution is all wrong. By demanding more government regulations, they are playing into the hands of the big corporations, banks, and politicians they despise. These big companies and banks want more rules and regulations. That is to their advantage. They can afford to comply.

The more onerous the regulations, the worse it is for their smaller competitors who can’t afford armies of lawyers, lobbyists and accountants. Big business and government have in fact formed an unholy alliance to destroy the competition — just like a criminal gang, or a mafia family. Their goal is to control a monopoly and force all of us to work for them, and buy from them.

Ironically, these leftist protesters are doing the bidding of big government, big unions, and big corporations.

But as much as I hate to admit this, part of the protesters’ message is striking deep in the gut of middle-class Americans. It’s resonating with small business owners like me. We all feel it — our country is slipping away; special interests are looting the taxpayers; big corporations are gaming the system; the little guy is getting hit from all sides. Small business creates all the jobs, yet big business is making all the rules and stealing all the money.

The protesters are mostly jobless bongo-playing fools — for the moment. But, they are merely the canary in the coal mine for the serious unrest on the streets of America soon to come. Soon I fear the mobs will include rioting taxpayers, respected small business owners, grandmothers from Ohio, and veterans from Iowa. Add to the mix millions of formerly gainfully employed, middle-class Americans, now jobless for months, or years on end.

The D.C. politicians had better be afraid — very afraid. If the tea party, which also hates the Fed, and despises the bailouts, and wants to stop the looting of America by special interests, joins forces with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, all bets are off.

If that happens, both Nancy Pelosi and Herman Cain will be surprised at the depth of anger and despair. None of the fat cats or government bureaucrats in D.C. feel it, or understand it. They haven’t skipped a beat. Their checks are still big and getting bigger. Their pensions are gold-plated. Their healthcare is paid for life.

Their friends in the big corporations, banks, and Wall Street are still drowning in caviar and bathing in Perrier, because our government looted average taxpayers to bail out the CEOs and bankers.

But Main Street has gotten none of this stimulus or bailout money. The peasants with the pitchforks are starving. Soon I predict the storm clouds will grow darker, as middle-class Americans on Main Street scream to the political class, “Can you hear us now?” By then it may be too late.

Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He now serves as Chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site: www.ROOTforAmerica.com.

Minneapolis — Hundreds of people gathered in downtown Minneapolis Friday for the opening of the OccupyMN demonstration, patterned after weeks of protest in New York’s financial district.

….

The protest featured an appearance by Independence Party and former Gov. Jesse Ventura, who spoke as people started to gather. He compared the gatherings in New York, Minneapolis and around the country to recent revolutions around the world.

“I hope that this country can step forward and follow the leads that have happened in the Middle East to many of the Arab countries where people’s movements rose up and you see the results of them,” Ventura said.

He said he hopes the Occupy movement brings change to the U.S.

“It hasn’t yet, but if it continues and grows it will. Absolutely. And I hope that it does,” Ventura said.

He’s one of the most prominent former elected officials to speak to an Occupy rally. Former U.S. Sen. Dean Barkley attended the gathering hailed the efforts of the protesters, as did current state Rep. Jim Davnie, DFL-Minneapolis.

………

At about 2pm, demonstrators walked away from the Hennepin county government center and headed for the Federal Reserve Bank offices on Hennepin Avenue.

IPR notes (per wikipedia):

Dean Malcolm Barkley (born August 31, 1950) is a politician who briefly served as a member of the United States Senate from Minnesota following the death of Paul Wellstone. A founder and chair of the Minnesota Reform Party (the predecessor of the Independence Party of Minnesota), he chaired Jesse Ventura’s successful 1998 gubernatorial campaign; Ventura subsequently appointed him director of the state’s Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. Barkley ran as the Independence Party’s candidate for the Senate in 2008, coming third to Al Franken and Norm Coleman.

….

(Jesse) Ventura ran for Governor of Minnesota in 1998 as the nominee for the Reform Party of Minnesota (he later joined the Independence Party of Minnesota when the Reform Party broke from its association with the Reform Party of the United States of America). His campaign consisted of a combination of aggressive grassroots events and original television spots, designed by quirky adman Bill Hillsman, using the phrase “Don’t vote for politics as usual.” He spent considerably less than his opponents (about $300,000) and was a pioneer in his using the Internet as a medium of reaching out to voters in a political campaign.

He won the election in November 1998, narrowly (and unexpectedly) defeating the major-party candidates, St. Paul mayor Norm Coleman (Republican) and Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. “Skip” Humphrey III (Democratic-Farmer-Labor).

“I would be his best choice because I would be a great insurance policy,” joked Ventura, noting that nothing would happen to Ron Paul because it would mean he would be in power and would cause the establishment even greater problems than the Congressman.Full story @ http://www.infowars.com/former-governor-calls-for-paul-ventura-ticket/

Time for an alternative to business as usual?
by Michael Cavlan

The swing to the far right initiated and pushed by the extreme Republicans and quickly followed by the Democrats is the political reality we face today. For anyone willing to be honest it is the chase for corporate dollars to fund campaigns that drives this rightward trend. This fact is well known by the Minnesota and American electorate.

If this is the case, then depending on a political system that is awash in corporate cash is not an effective way to change this reality. This can be shown no more clearly than in the election campaign and now administration of President Obama, the very best advertising Madison Ave has ever done for the corporate powers that purchased the political status quo of today.

Minnesota has a long and proud history of third party participation and success in our government. Governor Jesse Ventura may have been a one off, lone governor who was hobbled by both Democrats and Republicans sabotaging his governorship, but that was not always the case. Floyd B. Olson was the governor of Minnesota and a member of the Farmer-Labor Party. With him was a majority of the Minnesota House and many in the Senate. They promoted the ideals of a cooperative commonwealth and the rights of the trade union movement. To this day Minnesota enjoys a better standard of living and services than most Americans because of their work.

But what of the national level? It could be said that there have been no “successes” on the national level, right? Well, actually, that is also not the case. In fact, one of our most famous presidents was the result of principled third party politics.

In the mid-1800s the United States had two parties, much like today. They were the Democrats and the Whigs. Then, due to pressure from the abolitionists, there emerged a new political party. That party was of course the Republican Party. It must be noted that the Republican Party today is a far, far cry from its noble origins.

However, the successes and influences of third party politics go much deeper than even the apparent cosmetic victories of winning elections. It can easily be argued that we owe much of our freedoms and rights to the pressures applied by people willing to take principled stands in the third party arena. From women’s right to vote, people of color earning their right to vote, Social Security, ending the Vietnam War. All of these victories and more were earned, in part by a determined and principled section of the population willing to challenge and threaten the status quo.

Therein lies the true purpose, strategy and vision of so-called third party politics. To give voice to the voiceless and to those shut out of the political process. The election of Governor Jesse Ventura showed how this happened and how it can happen again. It is true that the Republican Party establishment is willing to engage in voter suppression of African Americans and poor people. But, by the same token, the Democratic Party establishment has also been willing to engage in voter suppression of those to the left of their own far right policies.

But to both these parties, be aware. We are here and we are organizing. We may not have the money or the clout that you do. We may not have access to your golden microphone and propaganda outlets, but we are organizing and building, nonetheless. Expect us.

________________________________________

Michael Cavlan was the Minnesota Green Party endorsed candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006. He recently announced his candidacy to run for the U.S. Senate in the 2012 race, under the Minnesota Open Progressive banner.

A great interview with Jessie Ventura covering a host of issues, namely corruption within the halls of government.

The only way to do it is what I advocate for now. I don’t support the third party movement anymore. I support the abolishment of all these political parties.

The world is set up today so that you don’t vote for the person, you vote for the party. And it’s the parties that control the government. We were warned by John Adams that that would be the downfall of America.

I would turn the political parties into what they are, political action committees. The first thing I would do is change all election laws to where only names go on the ballot. No political parties are set on a ballot, that way the electorate has to educate themselves.

…also on all ballots should be the option at the bottom “none of the above,” which is a vote of no confidence for the government. Imagine if you won the election but lost to “none of the above.” It might make you rethink your position.

Those are two simple things we could accomplish right now that could help bring integrity back to the United States of America.

Jesse Ventura: End Political Party Identification

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: June 8th, 2011
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com.

Readers at IPR will note that Trump explored a run for President on the Reform Party line in 2000. In addition, he considered running for office in 1988, 2004, 2006, and 2008.

Even Roger Stone, the infamous New York political consultant who advised Kristin Davis’ gubernatorial run in 2010, may have been surprised by the quick time frame  of the decision. He told POLITICO in a recent interview that, “Any discussion of his running for president is not nearly that far along.”

Former Independent Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura was enthusiastic, recounting his first impression of Trump as “this guy [who] knows how to do business.” Trump and Ventura appear to have a positive relationship dating back to Wrestlemania during the 1990s.

1988 Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, who endured criticism from the host of the once-popular television show “The Apprentice” at CPAC this year, was more dismissive. “I don’t know how many elections he’s won so far himself,” Paul told one pundit during a CNN interview.

It appears that Trump has thus far won zero elections.

To a packed out crowd of over 500 Montanans who had assembled in minus zero weather to hear me speak, I made the statement, “Not all Christians are our friends, and not all non-Christians are our enemies.” Indeed, being able to identify our friends is more than half the battle.

When I spoke of identifying friends or enemies, I was talking about one’s overall positive or negative contribution to the principles of liberty. I will say it again, not all Christians are our friends, and not all non-Christians are our enemies. This is difficult for many Christians to wrap their brains around, I know.

I will go one step further: in America today, claiming a new birth Christian experience means absolutely nothing when it comes to defending liberty principles. After traveling more than 60,000 miles over the past two years to virtually every crack and corner of this vast country, my studied observation is that the ratio of Christians to non-Christians who are true freedom fighters is probably no better than 50%. I will further say that often times Christians are actually greater enemies to freedom than are non-Christians. I never thought I would hear myself say that, but, today, I really believe it.

I am so thankful I was brought to Christ at a young age by sincere, genuine Christian parents, because if I was looking at the attitudes and actions of many professing Christians today, I would be totally repulsed by both Christians and churches. In many ways, I am anyway! And I totally understand why many unbelievers never want to darken the door of a church. I especially understand it on behalf of those freedom-minded unbelievers who properly recognize the Church as a willing accomplice of the emerging Orwellian society that the elites in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere are quickly creating.

Can one imagine virtually any prominent Christian spokesman from the so-called “Religious Right” in America today saying, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom–go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” Yet, in the mid-1700s, there was no more outspoken Christian than the author of those words: Samuel Adams.

Imagine any modern-day Christian leader saying, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Who said that? Our first President, George Washington, who at his first inauguration put the Bible to his lips, kissed it and said, “So help me God.”

Yet, many, if not most, of today’s Christian leaders and pastors view government, not as a “dangerous servant” and “fearful master,” but as much a master as God Himself, and themselves as its humble servant. In fact, when many Christians are forced to choose between submission to government and submission to God, they will choose government every time. Believe me, I’ve tasted this bitter pill up close and personal!

Or, imagine a prominent Christian leader speaking these words today: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” Of course, the famous Virginian, Patrick Henry, spoke those words. And anyone who has studied the life of Henry knows there was not a finer Christian gentleman who ever graced American soil than he. And remember, these words were not spoken against a foreign government, but against the government to which he was subject.

In fact, if one wants to incur the ire and derision of the average Christian pastor today, just start quoting anything from America’s Founding Fathers.

All over America, FEMA representatives are instructing willing pastors to assist the federal government by encouraging their congregants to surrender their firearms, should the President declare a “national emergency.” All over America, pastors and churches are eagerly accepting tax-generated “faith based initiative” monies. All over America, pastors (and church boards) are scared silly to do anything that might jeopardize their church’s IRS tax-exempt status. All over America, pastors are misusing and abusing Romans 13 to justify turning free men and women into government slaves.

I am reminded of the trenchant words of Martin Luther, who said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved. And to be steady on all the battlefields besides is merely flight and disgrace, if he flinches at that point.”

Luther was right! When it comes to defending the great (not little) principles of freedom and liberty against which Satan and his minions are currently attacking, it seems that most Christians and pastors and filled with “flight” and “disgrace.”

For example, why is it left to people such as Jesse Ventura to fight these Nazi-like, sexually invasive, humiliating harassments by TSA agents at America’s airports? Where is Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Joel Osteen, or Rick Warren?

See Ventura’s story at:

http://www.infowars.com/ventura-strikes-back-with-lawsuit-against-tsa/

Furthermore, where were America’s pastors and Christians when George W. Bush was creating this gargantuan surveillance society that is now snooping and spying on virtually everything we do, say, earn, or purchase? Where were they when George H.W. Bush’s attack dogs killed Vicki Weaver and her son, Sammy, outside Ruby Ridge, Idaho? Where were they when Bill Clinton’s and Janet Reno’s Stormtroopers were murdering over 80 American citizens (most of whom were old men, women, and children) outside Waco, Texas? They “flinched!” And they continue to “flinch!”

It is going to be very interesting to watch how this freedom fight evolves. I suspect that when push comes to shove and the lines of demarcation are finally drawn, it will shock us who winds up on what side. I stand by my statement: not all Christians are our friends, and not all non-Christians are our enemies.

MINNEAPOLIS, Jan. 25 (UPI) — Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura is suing the Transportation Security Administration for allegedly violating his privacy rights during an airport patdown…

The suit names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, the Transportation Security Administration and TSA Administrator John Pistole, the newspaper said.

The complaint alleges Ventura was subjected to “warrantless, non-suspicion-based offensive touching, gripping and rubbing of the genital and other sensitive areas of his body,” when a TSA agent patted him down in November 2010 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The lawsuit asserts the patdown met “the definition for an unlawful sexual assault” KSTP reported.

“He sees the erosion of civil liberties here and he’s willing to stand up not only for himself, but for others,” Ventura’s attorney, David Olsen told the TV station…

Though he wouldn’t rule out another presidential campaign himself, Nader, 76, said he hoped a new face would take up the progressive cause.

“I’m not foreclosing the possibility … There are just other things to do,” he said in an interview. “And it’s time for someone else to continue. I’ve done it so many times. When I go around the country, I’m telling people they need to find somebody.”

Nader has run, in some form with some party, in the last five presidential elections: write-in bid as a Democrat in ’92, Green in ’96 and ’00, Independent in ’04 and ’08. The strongest performance of these was 2000, when he pulled 2.72% of the vote. Since then, a combination of progressive fury from potential vote-splitting with Democrats and the problem of  actual vote-splitting with the Green Party has limited his impact upon presidential campaigns.

Does the potential replacement for Nader exist? Most rumblings on the blogosphere would say no. If you are looking for an extremely viable candidate of the left, it doesn’t look like a Senator Feingold or Senator Sanders is willing to take the plunge. Former Senator Mike Gravel has publicly stated he may run, but his showing in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary was anemic.
Then there is the Green Party. An article at Green Party Watch has a nice summary of potential candidates for 2012, but the list isn’t very pretty. There are potential candidates like Van Jones and Cindy Sheehan who could be recruited to run on star power, but they are reminiscent of Henry Wallace’s 1948 Progressive Party run – well-known, but with significant negative baggage that could impede their viability.

Then there are former candidates. Winona LaDuke still has a bit of name recognition left, but I have seen little political will from her for a run in 2012 (she did endorse a Green for Minnesota State Auditor in 2010). Matt Gonzalez remains active in politics, but he was unable to translate name recognition in San Francisco into a strong showing on the Nader ticket in 2008 in that area and seems disenchanted with the Green Party. Then there is former Representative Cynthia McKinney, whose 2008 run floundered to 6th with 0.12% of the vote.

Finally, there is the potential for a strong Independent bid. Such a campaign would not necessarily be a progressive phenomenon, but on certain issues it could probably challenge President Obama from that angle. However, only two names stick out in this regard.

First is Jesse Ventura. He publicly declared in 2008 at Ron Paul’s Rally For the Republic that he was interested in such a bid. However, he has not returned to active campaigning in years, declining to run for Senate in 2008 despite strong poll numbers. He also may have a hard time consolidating some on the left; Ventura varies between a more progressive and libertarian line in interviews. In addition, he may want to focus on his TV show Conspiracy Theory, which has been relatively successful despite a few bumps.

The second possibility is Michael Bloomberg. The Independent mayor of New York City has been tossed around as a name to run for President since 2008. His ability to self-fund is infamous, only overshadowed by that of gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. He has high name recognition for one not affiliated with the two major parties. He would likely have the support of Jesse Ventura (although Ventura oddly encouraged Bloomberg to also support his ambitions). He is at 11% in the latest polls, but he sports high negatives. Ralph Nader recently wr0te 21 reasons why Bloomberg should run while claiming it is not necessarily an endorsement. Still, that may not translate to liberal support for the man with strong ties to Wall Street.

Nader himself has a few options. It doesn’t seem like he plans to drop completely out of the limelight anytime soon, but he could return to his roots in public advocacy. He could also keep politicking in the third party world. In 2010 there was significant encouragement for him to run against Chris Dodd in Connecticut, which it seems he entertained. There has also been a bit of buzz about a 2012 run against Joe Lieberman f0r Senate. If Lieberman does run as an Independent again, Nader could leverage his national profile to turn the contest into an interesting 4-way battle.
All things considered, the left does not yet have its new Nader. But politics can be unpredictable; it only takes one story for the next big thing, or Nader, to emerge.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ABOUT THE NATURAL LAW PARTY APPEARED IN THE MONMOUTH
UNIVERSITY “OUTLOOK” ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2010.

——————————————————————–
WHEN POLITICS COMES NATURALLY
By Dennis “DJ” Mikolay

Whenever the public becomes discontent with government policy, the masses
start to recognize the ineffectiveness of the two-party duopoly. Thus, the
talk of forming a third party alternative inevitably begins. The truth of
the matter is, there is really no need to form a new party, as there are
already numerous appealing alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans,
several of which advance substantive platforms and noble ideals.

The problem, however, is that no-matter how strong a candidate’s ideas
are, it is an uphill battle for third parties; media exposure is scarce
and electoral victory nearly impossible. In the rare event that some
coverage is granted, it is often cynical or belittling. Indeed, running
for office as a minor party candidate is no easy task, and while the
majority of Americans might potentially agree with a third party’s
platform, they will likely never hear it.

Just ask Mary Jo Christian, the daughter of a former Irvington mayor, who
spent the better part of the 1990s as an activist with the now defunct
Natural Law Party. Christian’s initial foray into politics began in 1990,
when she formed the Monmouth County Citizens for Clean Air and Water and
with a mere $35,000 war-chest, successfully prevented the political elite
from constructing a garbage incinerator in Tinton Falls.

Inspired by this victory, her political apex occurred in 1996, when she
heard physicist Dr. John Hagelin, the Natural Law Party’s public
figurehead, speak at an Asbury Park hotel. She joined the organization and
by 1998 was their congressional candidate in New Jersey’s twelfth
congressional district.
In keeping with the notion that third parties often address pertinent
issues ignored by the major parties, Christian’s campaign championed
environmental awareness and airport security, both of which would become
hot button issues years later.

Not all politicians, however, shared Christian’s concern for the
environment and safer skies; during her public debate with opponent Rush
Holt, the Democratic contender immediately dismissed her concerns that an
airplane could easily be hijacked from Newark airport and taken to
Manhattan.

“I argued against closing a nearby air-force base because I knew there
would be trouble at Newark Airport,” said Christian. “I had seen a man go
through security with a bag full of knives and scalpels. Holt cut me off
midsentence and said that could never happen in America. He dismissed my
hijacking worries!”

Holt’s lack of concern for anti-terroristic measures didn’t inhibit his
rise in the Democratic Party ranks, and he has since established himself
as one of their key figures on the national scene.

While Christian’s ideas were considerably out of league with the two major
parties, she found inspiration in the fact that Minnesota Governor Jesse
Ventura, elected on the Reform Party ticket, was willing to address issues
major party candidates avoided.

“Jesse Ventura is awesome,” said Christian. “When I first started talking
to him about genetic engineering, he admitted he didn’t know anything
about it. But he went out and read up on the issue; he has really immersed
himself in getting all the knowledge he can!”

Christian’s activism continued into the 2000s . She formed the Council of
Alternative Political Parties, and later worked on musician Pat DiNizio’s
campaign for senate with the Reform Party. By that point the Natural Law
Party and the Reform Party had begun to work together on a number of
endeavors. An unsuccessful attempt to merge the two parties took a heavy
toll on both organizations, and the Natural Law Party was dissolved in
2002.

Today Mary Jo Christian, a television producer, is busy at work on a new
Native American themed reality show. Christian believes Americans can
learn a great deal from the Native Americans whom she describes as
“wonderful, loving, caring people.”

While her days as a candidate for public office are far behind her, Mary
Jo Christian still feels the need to warn voters against the potential
dangers she sees presented by the far-right elements of the “Tea Party”
movement, which she claims “ troll uneducated voters for their own twisted
agenda.”

On today’s CNN.com, here, Jeff Vanke’s campaign and his balanced budget are featured in a story on independent candidates in 2010.

–
Jeff Vanke for Congress, Independent, 6th District of Virginia
1007 1st Street SW, Suite D, Roanoke, VA 24016
(540) 915-3786
www.JeffVanke.com

Excerpt from that story:

(L)et’s break out of the two-party mold and take a look at some of the independent candidates across the country who are surging or struggling as Election Day approaches.

More Americans now identify themselves as independent than Democrat or Republican — and independent candidacies are on the rise. “Ninety-two percent of the voters this election will find a minor party or independent candidate on their ballot, either for statewide office or for U.S. House,” said Richard Winger of the Ballot Access News. “That’s higher than in a normal midterm year.”

The United States had four independent governors in the 1990s — Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, Wally Hickel of Alaska, and Angus King of Maine — but none in the last decade.

We’ve had three independents in the Senate since 2000 — Vermont’s Jim Jeffords and Bernie Sanders as well as Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman. And independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City is mentioned as a possible candidate for president in 2012, following in Ross Perot’s self-funded footsteps.

This year, we have high-profile candidates running for governor’s mansions and for the U.S. Senate as independents.

The story treats “independent” as interchangeable with alternative political parties.

“I urge people — if they truly want change, it’s in their power — shock the world again. Vote Tom Horner in as governor,” the first and only IP governor said in an interview with the St. Paul Pioneer Press..

“That will have a much bigger effect than electing a Democrat or Republican. If you elect a Democrat or Republican, you’re just going along with the status quo, business as usual,” Ventura said.

Former Republican Governors Al Quie and Arne Carlson have also endorsed Horner. In addition, the candidate has swept most of the newspaper endorsements in the state, including the Star-Tribune.

With incumbent Tim Pawlenty choosing to endorse Republican Tom Emmer, the only Governor who has not endorsed a candidate is Wendell Anderson, the last DFL member to hold the office.

But the candidate is running out of time. The campaign previously announced that they would need to be at about 20% of the vote around this point in October. Polls show the Horner campaign underperforming that goal. Still, Jesse Ventura did not surge in the polls until the final weeks of the campaign. Minnesota campaigns traditionally show significant fluctuation as election day approaches.

There have been 16 Presidential elections since World War II: in only one instance, 1992, was there a third-party candidate (H. Ross Perot) who looked at any point in the election like he was a serious threat to win the Presidency.

So, an analyst might say, the chances are 1-in-16 of a “serious” third-party bid, and presumably lower still of the candidate actually winning: those are pretty long odds, eh?

Actually, I don’t think that history is nearly as useful a guide as it seems.

It’s quite easy to make a case that the terrain could be favorable for a third-party candidate in 2012. Among other things:

1. Voters have extremely low opinions of both major parties — much lower than in the period from 1992-1994, when electoral constituencies were being re-shuffled and when Mr. Perot lost his bid.
2. By some measures, an increasing number of voters prefer to identify as belonging to neither major party.
3. The Republicans might field a particularly polarizing presidential nominee. Sarah Palin, in particular, were she to be nominated, might have trouble achieving 50 percent of the vote, even if Barack Obama were still fairly unpopular.
4. The employment picture is likely to improve only modestly by 2012, according to most economists, which could contribute toward continued dissatisfaction with Washington.
5. Whichever party wins control of the Senate and the House in November, its majorities are liable to be narrow, which is likely to lead to gridlock and the inability to make good on its campaign promises.
6. Moreover, there may be leadership fights in one or both parties, which are rarely good things from the standpoint of the public image of the parties.
7. If Republicans win control of the Congress, a third-party candidate could point out that the country had cycled through all four permutations of Congressional and Presidential leadership within the previous four political cycles: a Republican president with a Republican Congress (2005-06), a Republican president with a Democratic Congress (2007-08), a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress (2009-10), and a Democratic president with a Republican Congress (2011-12).
8. There is one major issue — the national debt — that neither party has much credibility on. A candidate who presented a “serious” plan to balance the budget could possibly gain traction that way.
9. There is another issue, Afghanistan, which could become more important to voters by 2012, but for which both the Democratic and Republican nominees are likely to take similar (pro-war) positions on.
10. There are two further issues, energy and immigration, where voters are unhappy with the status quo, but which appear to be in political stalemate.
11. The Citizens’ United decision makes it easier for a third-party candidate to raise large sums of money from corporations.
12. The Internet makes it easier for a candidate to go “viral” without having to rely on a traditional infrastructure.
13. It is not impossible to imagine a centrist or center-right independent candidate picking up some Tea Party support. Although many Tea Party voters are very conservative, there are others for whom dislike of the establishment could outweigh ideology.
14. There are also some blocks of dissatisfied liberal and Democratic voters. For instance, a candidate who took a more affirmative stance in support of gay rights could gain some support among gay and lesbian voters.
15. Finally — although I’m not sure this would be an advantage to a third-party candidate looking to cultivate an “outsider” image — there are several prominent politicians in both major parties who would probably benefit from running as independents in 2012, such as Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine, Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. These Senators could serve as spokespersons for an independent party and perhaps draw additional support to its presidential nominee in a few states.

Some of these factors — particularly #1, #3, #8 and #11 — are more important than others. And none of them will matter if, by early 2012, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has recovered to 55 percent or so. Whatever you think of Mr. Obama as a President, he is evidently capable of running a fairly strong campaign, and that would probably be enough to deter a credible independent candidate from running.

But what if the unemployment rate were still 9 percent in February 2012, and Barack Obama’s approval rating were 39 percent, and Ms. Palin had just won the South Carolina primary and looked like the probable Republican nominee? You think you’re not going to see a number of rich-and-famous people exploring a third-party bid? Under such a scenario, the “right” independent candidate might even be the favorite to take the Presidency.

Michael Bloomberg is the most obvious potential Independent candidate to fill this role. Any of the Senators Silver mentions could similarly meet his parameters, although Lieberman’s national profile and current status as an Independent would likely make any presidential run on his part more likely to be successful.

Nevertheless, Silver and Friedman ignore another major possibility going into 2012. This is the appeal of a radical centrist. While Silver is preoccupied with the potential for a staunch conservative to win the Republican nomination, the distinct possibility also exists for a moderate like Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney to escape a crowded primary field.  Unless we have a shock campaign from somebody like Clint Eastwood, only two candidates with a national profile fit this bill. The first is Ron Paul, who PPP pegged at 13% in a potential Independent bid against Mitt Romney and Obama. Second would be former Reform Party candidate and Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, who has shown interest in such a run.

Either way, Silver is correct in one major theme of his article. The politics of an Independent candidacy for President will largely be predicated upon what happens in the next year to President Obama and in the Republican Party primary season.

Path 1: The Jesse Ventura model. In 1998, Jesse Ventura won a race for Governor with 37% of the vote. Republican Norm Coleman took 34% and Skip Humphrey took 28%. This type of race features three competitive candidates, who all have a decent shot at winning the election.

Path 2: The Joe Lieberman model. In 2006, Joe Lieberman (running for re-election as an Independent) won his race with ~50% of the vote, to 40% for Democrat Ned Lamont and 10% for Republican Alan Schlesinger. This race has the Independent acting as a major party candidate and one of the major party candidates essentially losing relevance in the race.

Tom Tancredo is too ideologically conservative and historically associated with the Republican Party to follow Path 1 to victory. However, there is the potential for the former Congressman to translate Lieberman’s example into a successful campaign.

A new Rasmussen poll came out today showing some positive results for Tancredo.

Most analysts see Hickenlooper as the easy winner as long as Maes and Tancredo split the GOP vote. Maes currently carries just 46% of the voters in his own party, while Tancredo, a former GOP congressman, picks up 36% Republican support.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Colorado Democrats support Hickenlooper. Among voters not affiliated with either party, 41% favor Hickenlooper to Tancredo’s 32% and Maes’ 17%.

The race remains Solid Democrat in the Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 Gubernatorial Scorecard.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Hickenlooper supporters say they are already certain how they will vote in November, compared to just 53% of Maes voters and 48% of those who favor Tancredo.

Two weeks ago, Hickenlooper, currently the mayor of Denver, held a 36% lead to Maes’ 24% and Tancredo’s 14%. Twenty percent (20%) were undecided at that time, but that number has dropped dramatically to the apparent advantage of Hickenlooper and Tancredo, the candidate of the American Constitution Party.

Here at IPR several articles have pointed to the weakness of Republican Dan Maes’ campaign. To sum up the story in the links: Tom Tancredo is outraising Maes 4:1, is outpolling the Republican, and is starting to consolidate Republican endorsements.

Of course, all of this must come with several caveats. Tancredo has some controversial statements to his own name that could damage his credibility. Unlike Lieberman, the former Colorado Congressman does not have the benefit of incumbency. And Tancredo still has a 20 point gap to cover with Democrat John Hickenlooper, the strong frontrunner in the race.

But 2010 is the year of the Tea Party. With insurgent candidates winning races from Alaska to Delaware (we’ll find out this race tonight), Tancredo’s outsider candidacy may just be what the anti-incumbent electorate is looking for. And in a year where some see Republican gains everywhere, Tancredo may be able to focus his efforts on consolidating the conservative and Independent vote in order to move into contention with Hickenlooper.

Writes Glenn Jacobs:

I received a solicitation for a donation to Joe Arpaio’s campaign today. The letter chronicled Arpaio’s battles with illegal immigrants, Mexican drug cartels, and “open-border” leftists. I find it alarming that a local politician is utilizing illegal immigration as a national fund-raising platform (especially a fascist thug like Arpaio). Meanwhile, we have the mosque controversy in New York, and a mosque under construction vandalized and burned in middle Tennessee.

Lew, it seems as if all that is needed is the right spark and the collectivist inclinations of so many Americans will explode into the police state that we all fear. The politicians and media have worked very hard to create the scapegoats with which to divert the public’s attention away from the failed policies of the State.

I wasn’t around in the ’60s and don’t remember the ’70s so I don’t have much with which to compare the current environment except history books, but things are starting to get really ugly, aren’t they?

And at Reason Hit & Run, Matt Welch quotes an interview with Jacobs from the Baltimore Sun:

I know you’re an active member of the Libertarian party
and you author a political blog, The Adventures of Citizen
X. Have you ever thought about one day following in the
footsteps of Jesse Ventura and running for public
office?

Oh yeah, sure. But I think maybe with me it might be more
educational stuff — talking with young people and that sort of
thing as opposed to pursuing political office.

Do you think there will ever be a Libertarian or
independent president or will it always be someone from one of the
two major parties?

[Pauses] I don’t know. Certainly I think the way things
are going with the economy, and this is not a rip on any particular
party because they’re both at fault, but with the centralization of
the economy, central planning, that doesn’t work. We saw that
everywhere it’s been tried. As things unfold I think people will be
looking for answers, and I think the Libertarians, certainly the
people that understand real economics – Austrian economics – they
have those answers. So we’ll see what happens. I think we do live
in very interesting times.

Previous article on Jacobs at IPR

For his part, Joe Arpaio has been making some alternative party related news recently as well by sending out a letter on behalf of Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo.

On August 31, the MPR News-Humphrey Institute released a poll for the Minnesota gubernatorial race. It shows: Republican Tom Emmer 34%; Democratic-Farmer-Labor Mark Dayton 34%, Independence Party Tom Horner 13%, undecided or other 19%. See this story.

Horner, the Independence Party nominee, is already higher in this poll than Jesse Ventura was in similar polls at this point in the 1998 election cycle. Ventura was at 10% in polls in mid-September 1998, but he won with 37%. At that time the name of the Independence Party of Minnesota was the Reform Party.

Minnesota has a very active group working for Instant-Runoff Voting.

On August 14th, 2010, delegates of the Reform Party of New Jersey gathered in Piscataway for the party’s first convention in over a decade.

The Reform Party of the United States was America’s most successful third party during the 1990s. The populist appeal of candidates like H. Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, and Donald Trump helped to establish the party as a viable centrist alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.

Perot nabbed twelve percent of the vote during the 1992 presidential election, and another eight percent during his 1996 bid. In 1998, Jesse Ventura was elected the governor of Minnesota.

The party’s success came to a halt at the beginning of the millennium when it was successfully neutralized by lawsuits and in-fighting; the New Jersey chapter, which once ran candidates like Pat DiNizio for Senate, became inactive following the 2000 election.

Now a group of dedicated activists has revived the party.

During the convention, the party elected the following officers:

Jake Zychick, a blogger and student at Farleigh Dickinson University (who was New Jersey’s delegate at the 2008 Reform Party of the United States convention in Dallas, Texas) was elected the party’s chairman.

Dennis “DJ” Mikolay, Atlantic Highlands Herald columnist and Monmouth University student, was elected Vice-Chairman and Treasurer.

LaMont Rouse of Warren County was elected the party secretary.

The party will also run its first candidate in over a decade. The delegates unanimously voted to nominate activist Mark Quick as their congressional candidate for New Jersey’s fifth congressional district.

Quick has been a vocal critic of Republican Congressman Scott Garrett, whom he says has failed “to address issues that affect working families.” Quick claims that American’s complaints regarding illegal immigration, health-care costs, and the war in Afghanistan “all fell on Congressman Garrett’s deaf ears.”

Quick will appear on the ballot in November as an independent, and the Reform Party officers say they look forward to November.

Ken Cannon and Andrew Gray endorse third-party candidate participation in Kansas gubernatorial debates.

It is more than philosophical. It is personal.

Gray is the Libertarian Party’s nominee for governor, while Cannon carries the banner of the Reform Party on the November ballot.

The first significant opportunity for these third-party leaders to exchange political barbs with Republican nominee U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback and Democratic nominee state Sen. Tom Holland would be the Kansas State Fair, but Cannon and Gray know their odds of taking the stage in Hutchinson are minuscule…

WIBW radio personality Kelly Lenz said candidates automatically earned face time in the Hutchinson spotlight by raising $50,000 in campaign contributions, excluding candidate loans; staffing a campaign office with a statewide reach; and snaring at least 7 percent support in a poll. These rules are flexible, he said. Hypothetically, a candidate who polled well but hadn’t raised much money or hadn’t operated with a room full of aides would be welcomed, he said.

The above story is a common situation for minor party and independent candidates throughout America: being prevented from debating. We have to recognize that there are typically two different scenarios which result in the exclusion of minor party candidates. I will take the reader through each.

Calculating Republicrats:

I do not use “Republicrat”, a common rhetorical combination of Republican and Democrat, in a derogatory manner. Instead, I use it because this phenomenom is not exclusive to either major political party.

America has a “First Past the Post” voting system for most political races. A byproduct of this is the concept of  vote splitting, “an electoral effect in which the distribution of votes among multiple similar candidates reduces the chance of winning for any of the similar candidates, and increases the chance of winning for a dissimilar candidate” (as per Wikipedia).

Of course, politicians of any party must deal with this effect. The most effective way to prevent a split base is to not have any ideologically similar opposition candidates at all. Barring this, the next best thing is to silence said opposition. That is where the political calculating begins.

If a Republican fears a Constitution Party candidate may split conservative votes, then the best way to make sure the Constitution Party candidate doesn’t earn conservative support is to prevent him partaking in any public events. The same situation applies for a Democrat fearing a Green splitting liberal support.

In this situation, a major party candidate fearing vote splitting simply refuses to debate as long as the ideologically similar opposition candidate partakes in the event. The goal is to force those holding a debate or forum to bar the opposition candidate from the event. Thus, we saw Charlie Dent attempt this strategy in Pennsylvania against Jake Towne (and ultimately fail).

This strategy is risky, as Towne’s situation indicates. For starters, it may cause some negative press for the major party candidate who uses such a blatantly anti-democratic tactic. Second, it may just prevent the major party candidate’s voice being heard if the event goes on anyway, as it did in Virginia’s 5th district between Democrat Tom Perriello and Independent Green Jeff Clark.

Impossible Benchmark:
This is an example of the Kansas gubernatorial debate described earlier. Your average voter is not the only one with the perception that voting for a minor party candidate is “spoiling” a major party candidate’s chances; instead, this idea often permeates organizers of debates who are more tuned in to the political world.

Organizers of such events often seek to permit only “viable” candidates to participate. In order to do this, an arbitrary benchmark may be created that is just out of reach for a minor party or indy candidate.

For example, in the Arkansas Senate race organizers of a recent debate refused to include Independent candidate Trevor Drown and Green John Gray. the organizers declared (when pressed) that candidates without 5% support don’t normally participate in presidential contests. The threshold itself may not be as much of a problem as the ad hoc nature by which it was created, for how can a candidate plan to meet an unknown threshold by a certain time (as happened at this event)? In addition, little polling of the race has been conducted, although one poll by newcomer Zata3 had Drown at 3% and Gray at 2%. Drown, it must be noted, also polled 6% in an internal poll for the Democrat, so it appears the biases of the event’s organizers may have gotten the better of them.

Nevertheless, excessive thresholds for participation may prevent a potentially viable candidate’s message from reaching a large audience through simple logistics. Jesse Ventura, former Governor of Minnesota, is a great example of this. Originally slated to receive 10% of the vote, the wrestler eventually won with 37%. Ventura attributed his victory to the ability to debate.

Yet Ventura would not won admission to the restrictive presidential debates. Minor parties from time to time find candidates with impressive resumes for their presidential nomination. However, the electorate at large often does not hear their message because of a simple rule of the Commission on Presidential Debates: participants must reach a threshold of 15% in several polls to participate. Not even Ross Perot, who in 1992 received 19% of the vote in his presidential run, reached this threshold in ’96. In this manner Republicans and Democrats are already provided an edge within the presidential race, as they will always have a primetime televised soap box for their campaign. Those candidates who spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars on ballot access rather than campaigning  never get this subsidized opportunity to preach to the public.

This model from the CPD then spreads to down-ballot races. We already described this in the Arkansas Senate race. However, the Idaho gubernatorial race has the same issue for Independent candidate and former state legislator Jana Kemp. Potentially viable candidates like Kemp never get the chance to “pull a Ventura” if they are barred from the debate in the first place.

The Big Problem:
The above two scenarios sometimes combine to create a toxic situation. The CPD is a great example: the organzation which controls the impossible benchmarks for presidential debate access was also founded by two former Democratic and Republican Party chairmen. Similarly, other members of the CPD have significant histories in the two major parties. This skews the organization’s objectivity towards candidates, even as it decides the rules for the debates.  There is no bright line to say where one scenario ends and another begins, creating difficulty in combating debate exclusion for minor party/indy candidates.

The Solution:
If you are a minor party or indy candidate supporter, is there any way to prevent this problem of exclusion from debates?

The short answer is yes. If a candidate has the financial resources and boots-on-the-ground campaign to get popular support, then they can make a grassroots firestorm to combat exclusive thresholds and scheming Republicrats alike through the press. Not even Perot had the ability to do this in 1996, but it can work in smaller races.

So the longer answer is maybe. One potential way to cut a major source of this problem is to attack the Commission on Presidential Debates’ restrictive 15% threshold for participation, thereby limiting its use as a model in down-ballot races. However, voters have shown little concerted will to oppose this policy, so this is not a likely source of reform.

Another method would be to change the electoral system, preventing the need for Republicrat scheming. Although this has occasionally happened in individual cities and towns across America, major changes to the voting system are hard to lobby through legislatures.

Until any of the three strategies described above can be effectively utilized by activists, don’t expect the eternal debate on debates to end.

The interview starts at about seven minutes into the first video and continues into the second.