The Weekly Standard Carries Lengthy Article on Libertarian Party National Convention

The Weekly Standard has this fairly long description of the Libertarian Party, its national convention last month, the Gary Johnson presidential campaign, and the libertarian movement. The Weekly Standard general editorial stance is normally not very sympathetic to libertarian ideas, so given that, the article is reasonably fair. The author, Mark Hemingway, attended the national convention.

48 comments

  1. Demo Rep · · Reply

    Will G.J. cause one more extremist to be elected Prez ???

    — via DIVIDE AND CONQUER — been working for thousands of years.

  2. Gary Johnson himself represents a perpetuation of the two-party system and business as usual.

  3. Michael · · Reply

    It should be mentioned that it’s the cover story for this edition of “Weekly Standard”. I believe that’s the first time the LP made the cover for any magazine

  4. …at the pleasure and approval of Ballot Access News.

  5. Prime Minister Roseanne Barr [Green Tea] is so pleased that anyone in California can vote for her on the California ballot on Tuesday under the top two open primary system!

  6. I am hoping big time now for a big defeat of the control freak anti-top two activists (you know who you are!).

  7. Top two is better than top one (IRV).

  8. Go Barr [Green Tea] for President 2012!

    Start the peaceful revolution in California Tuesday!

  9. Let’s see if Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party is polling near the “12%” levels of support in California next Tuesday like they say he is in New Mexico!

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/06/gary-johnson-polling-12-in-new-mexico/

  10. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    @4-9, please stop spamming. No one cares about some website you people made that tries to have the U.S. mirror the British Parliament.

  11. Michigan Voter · · Reply

    @10, Thank you for saying what I am thinking. I am so sick of tbis nutty parliamentary guy who keeps spamming this web site. Those are the types that make people discount third parties as being filled with crazies.

  12. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/2012-elections/june-primary/faqs-primary-2012.htm

    […]

    How are presidential primary elections conducted in California?

    Qualified political parties in California may hold presidential primaries in one of two ways:

    1) Closed presidential primary – only voters indicating a preference for a party may vote for that party’s presidential nominee.
    2) Modified-closed presidential primary – the party also allows voters who did not state a party preference to vote for that party’s presidential nominee.

    If a qualified political party chooses to hold a modified-closed presidential primary, the party must notify the California Secretary of State no later than the 135th day before Election Day.

    The Democratic and American Independent parties notified the Secretary of State that they will allow voters who did not state a political party preference to vote the presidential ballot of their parties in the upcoming June 5, 2012, Presidential Primary Election. Their notifications can be found in CC/ROV Memorandum #12039.

    […]

  13. raymond · · Reply

    Well I am running for WV House of Delegates as a third party candidate. I am not some nut case and I ask all to check out the issues I stand on and vote for me on Nov. 6th. I also ask for donations to help fight the two party system. http://davisforwvhouse.webs.com

  14. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    I think it is funny how that parliament dude posted again @12 but didn’t even respond to what I said about him @10.

  15. George Whitfield · · Reply

    I thought it was a good article, especially since I wanted to attend but couldn’t. I like his last few paragraphs. I was wondering how he would end the article and was happy it was positive.

  16. Over the years, many posts and comments of mine have been deleted from this site and many others. So it’s no wonder that someone thinks that the USA Parliament’s voting system is like the British Parliament.

    To set you strait, the British Parliament uses plurality single winner districts and is a Monarchy by divine right.

    The American Parliament is a 1000-member national district, and it’s a constitutional monarchy. In other words, the Queen is elected by the ruling coalition, and the Queen and five princess are accountable. We regularly elect new princesses.

    Thanks for the interest, and thanks for your advocacy of free speech and the free flow of information.

    Even though the information is not always correct, I still support you right to post your complaints about my free speech access here.

    Conversation is often incorrectly labeled as spam. If a series of posts is such a huge inconvenience to you, then you must have a very shallow mind and it will probably stay that way too.

  17. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    Go Barr/Ogle: “Thanks for the interest, and thanks for your advocacy of free speech and the free flow of information.”

    Me: No one’s interested, so I am not sure who you are thanking.

  18. …and BTW, I attended the Libertarian National Convention as a delegate and presidential candidate. I won the Missouri primary, the only state that allowed Libertarian presidential candidates on the ballot, in the only state election which preceded the Libertarian Party convention in Las Vegas.

    My name received 52.7% of the votes in that Missouri state primary.

    Yet the Libertarian could not even find room in their newsletter, and deleted the links to my campaign as they tried to destroy my campaign from the top down before the Libertarian convention.

    The only women Libertarian presidential candidate of 18 Libertarian Party candidates who filed the paper-work with the FEC Miss Joy Waymire attended the Libertarian state and national convention with me, and she was treated much the same way.

    We have been censored from independentpoliticalreport.com, and that same site, which is like a mouthpeice (along with BAN) for the Libertarian Party, actually noted that we did not attend the state conventions which we did in fact do.

    Mostly, there was censorship and false information about our campaigns.

    If you have time to see a video of me at the LP state convention, promoting unity and my innovations such as ranked choice consensus voting, please visit my campaign page here;
    http://usparliament.org/google2012.php

    Me speaking at the state convention here;

    I am for all parties and independents working together under a peaceful voting system called the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, Hagenbach-Bischoff method.

  19. Ad Hoc · · Reply

    censored from independentpoliticalreport.com

    Ballot Access News would be wise to follow suit. You are a pest, a nuisance, and a professionally diagnosed mentally ill individual.

  20. Ad Hoc · · Reply

    By the way no one is censoring Miss Joy, so stop lying.

    And your 52.7% was against “undecided” in a primary which decided nothing. Whopdedoo.

  21. Special Announcement from the National Libertarian Party:

    The national Libertarian Party already knows everything.

    No new ideas are needed and should you be in conflict with this you may as well go home and be quiet, because not only are you in conflict, but your rights to be in conflict have been removed and your IP addresses blocked. Not just you, but all your friends too.

    BTW, the voters of Missouri don’t need to read about you either, much less do you need to have your name on the ballot in Missouri.

    All voters will only be permitted to hear spoon-fed aggrandizements which have been approved in advance.

    All those candidates who forgot to actually access the ballot in Missouri will be accommodated with rule changes as needed anyway, because we need only image, money and “quality” candidates.

    Thank you. Now go away.

    Signed,
    The National Libertarian Party

  22. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    @21, That sounds more like the Democratic and Republican Parties. That doesn’t sound like something the Libertarians would say….SO STOP SPAMMING!

  23. Paulie · · Reply

    James

    No one blocked any IPs, lol …or your friends.

    The link to your commercial site did get banned as spam. That’s legit. The rest of your messages get deleted manually because you try to dominate the site with an idea most people either don’t care about or find to be annoying and ridiculous. Once I mark them as spam the akismet spam filter tends to recognize future messages from you as spam also.

    I gave you a separate thread, that was not good enough for you, so here you are.

    Compare this thread with http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/06/the-weekly-standard-unconventional-the-libertarian-party-does-las-vegas/ I think we are doing better without you.

    No one said you can’t be on the Missouri ballot. It was a meaningless, inconsequential election which is why the other candidates skipped it. Congratulations for your squeaker of a win against none of the above.

    It’s true that the LP does not need to promote non-libertarian ideas. There are enough other parties doing that as it is. New libertarian ideas are a different matter.

    Thank you. Now go away.

    Signed,
    Rank and file life member and grassroots activist
    The National Libertarian Party
    and Libertarian Party of Alabama

  24. What are you guys doing posting here about saying my access to the Missouri was irrelevant?

    This IS _Ballot Access News_, right?

    I though ballot access and majority rule (50% plus one vote) would be a hot topic on this site?

  25. I am not a big fan of plurality elections, but my name did win 52.7%. Not 50%. *Fifty-two point seven percent*.

    The winner in the ONLY state primary before the LP convention.

    The only candidate that bothered to access the ONLY state primary before the LP national convention.

    You’d think the LP would be interested?

    Insofar as the fact that the LP doesn’t support pure proportional representation and the liberty to self-categorize…well those are the reasons I ran.

    Google derived from my logo joogle in 1997. Why? Because I’ve got the “juice”.

  26. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    @21 said:
    “Signed,
    The National Libertarian Party”

    That is forgery. Pretending you are someone or something else with the intent of damaging its reputation is forgery.

  27. @26 I don’t have to worry about people thinking I’m trying to forge, nearly as much as you appear to be a stick in the mud.

  28. @23

    I’ve been barred from Independentpoliticalreport.com, bostontea.us, the South Carolina and California Libertarian Facebook pages in the recent past while promoting freedom of speech, the team psychology of multi-winner districts and pure proportional representation (PR), Sainte-Lague, Hagenbach-Bischoff method.

    And I ran for POTUS in 2012 and accessed the Missouri ballot in the ONLY state primary that permitted Ls to do so before their national convention, was “de-linked” from their national web page lp.org for participatin, and here on BAN the reasoning is; “It was a meaningless, inconsequential election which is why the other candidates skipped it.”

    REALLY? Am I the only one who thinks liberty includes free speech and ballot access to achieve that speech, and I was the only candidate who met that goal before their convention?

    I did not know the Libertarian Party had so many contrarians and that I was in such a small minority on my position for free speech liberties and ballot access.

    In a way I understand them. Eagles may fly, but weasels don’t get sucked into jet engines.

  29. o rly? · · Reply

    James,

    your access to the Missouri ballot was not what was irrelevant. It was that –election as a whole– that was irrelevant. That’s why none of the other candidates bothered to participate in it. It allocated no delegates and no one else wanted to spend a thousand bucks to get several hundred completely inconsequential votes.

  30. o rly? · · Reply

    “Compare this thread with http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/06/the-weekly-standard-unconventional-the-libertarian-party-does-las-vegas/ I think we are doing better without you.”

    Dam skippy!

  31. @29 Plurality elections render pretty much all third party and independent campaigns irreverent.

    So I agree if/when you might say I’m against the grain. I have a different way of doing things, I like pure proportional representation. Someone has to be picky.

    I was able to reach a lot of people about not just the Libertarian Party, the non-initiation of force and smaller government, but also about ranked choice voting which helps get third parties and independents their fair share of representation based on votes cast.

    A lot of people including all of the other candidates presidential candidates think that accessing free speech and accessing the ballot is not important, and I happily disagree.

    Just look at the long range effects of plurality elections and single winner districts.

    Look at all the people who won’t communicate across party lines, and all they need to do is pick up a telephone or email. Communication is part of the equation, and many people think they’re some sort of mouthpiece who everyone much march as they say.

    Not me, I love to meet new people, communicate and find ways to agree with all people.

    I have a different way of seeing things, and it’s definitely pretty much diametrically opposed to the national Libertarian Party’s status quo and most of their supposed activists since they expect people to follow their plan as they try to sell a three-party system. I’m sorry, but a lot of people don’t buy that, and the LP needs to be exposed for being such arrogant dictators.

    Here’s some PR I obtained by accessing the ballot in case you didn’t get a chance to see it;
    http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2012/02/02/libertarian-primary-choice-describes-self-outsider-own-party/

    I’m for all parties and independents, opposite gender #1, pure proportional representation, equal treatment for all people, including candidates, and I am in direct opposition to everything the national LP stands for in most of these regards.

  32. o rly? · · Reply

    Um…

    James…

    I don’t care.

    Go play somewhere else, like in traffic for example.

  33. And ANOTHER thing.

    The LP has pretty much blown it for 2012, insofar as having a tool for working with all voters.

    I’ve been working on this USA Parliament operation for 17 years, and I’m experienced enough to know that there is no chance that the LP will gain traction with 33.33% plus two of the voters in the US in order to have a viable shot for president.

    Unfortunately, any chance in 2012 to work in unity with all voters (all parties and independents) has been not only wasted, but virtually squashed.

  34. The Johnson/Gray [Libertarian/Libertarian] ticket represents exclusion, not inclusion.

  35. Should have written;

    “Unfortunately, any chance in 2012 for the Libertarian Party to work in unity with all voters, all parties and independents has been intentionally squashed.”

  36. I didn’t have to tell people this, they saw it on TV.

    One of the five members member of the USA Parliament’s ruling coalition MP Zachary Scott Gordon who is a screen writer, asked that his party affiliation in the parliament be switched from American Libertarian Party to Free Parliamentary Party.

    He said something like that a friend of his watched the Libertarian Party convention on TV and had determined that the Libertarian Party appeared to be exclusionary towards people with alternative opinions within the party.

    On his own initiative, he specifically requested to have his party/categorization switched, as a result of the TV coverage of the LP national convention in Las Vegas.

    Honorable Prime Minister Miss Joy Waymire [Decline to State] has also dropped all known affiliations with the Libertarian Party.

    Maybe you don’t care o rly? But it appears that the arrogance, dictatorial, or some other trait, is a big turn off to at least a few people.

  37. o rly? · · Reply

    @34 the Libertarian ticket is supposed to exclude non-libertarians. If you don’t like it, go get your Parliamentary Party on the government ballot or keep playing with yourself and your small circle of friends. Hopefully, somewhere where the rest of us don’t have to see or hear you.

  38. o rly? · · Reply

    @36 Good riddance to bad rubbish. Now if only you would disappear from this blog’s comment section we could all drink a toast and celebrate.

  39. @37 My small circle of friends doesn’t exclude anyone.

    Sorry to hear that your does, and that you’ve erected roadblocks against giving people to self-categorize as they wish.

    That’s exactly why I do what I do, and that’s to help give people more liberty to work with diverse people in a political environment without imaginary penalties which create hard feelings between people.

    I like consensus, and finding places where I can agree with all types of politically affiliated people, and I believe that we can grant people these liberties for the good of the all.

  40. It’s sounds like you’d rather just dump these ideas of inclusion in the trash. Won’t you reconsider?

  41. o rly? · · Reply

    @39 The consensus seems to be that you are an annoying nutjob and should leave.

    Libertarians have chosen to self-categorize as they wish, yet you seem to have a problem with that.

    Go do your thing, we’ll do ours.

  42. o rly? · · Reply

    @40 No.

  43. @41 I don’t have a problem with anyone self categorizing under any party/category/independent they wish.

    I’m FOR more liberty.

    It’s the LP that has that problem, and they exclude everyone who isn’t a L, and even undemocratically exclude their own. I was in favor of working with all voters and non voters.

    People have their own reasons why they self-categorize and I respect that, and I can work with anyone of any category no problemo.

    I have no problem with any Libertarian self-categorizing as they wish. I’m a registered Libertarian, and I self-categorize as “Free Parliamentary”. The Frees are only interested in counting votes under STV and protecting everyone’s liberty to self-categorize.

  44. @41 Consensus = 100% agreement.

  45. Regular Commenter · · Reply

    @44: Yes.
    That would be the consensus of everyone but you: 100% agreement that you are an annoying nutjob and should leave.

  46. Hee haw. If someone is annoyed by my comments, then either they’re opposed to the liberty to self-categorize without penalty, they’re opposed to all people being treated equally, or else their skin is of such micro-thinness they must be isolated by an anonymous name since they can’t tolerate simple conversations.

  47. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    Wow. 47 comments and not one about The Weekly Standard article.

  48. Nick Kruse · · Reply

    Maybe if we ignore the parliament dude, he will get bored and go away.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: