Our Interview with Jeff Pawlowski

This year’s highest profile Libertarian candidate is Jeff Pawlowski, who is currently running to become the next governor of New Jersey. Pawlowski was kind enough to let Third Party Watch ask him a few questions about how his campaign is going.

In my interaction with the Pawlowski campaign I’ve come to believe that there is still a very good chance we’ll see a 3-way debate this Fall and perhaps a stronger than expected showing for the LP. If you’re looking for a race to make a donation in, this might be one to consider. See the campaign wesbite for more details.

TPW: Why are you running for Governor as a Libertarian, instead of as a Democrat or Republican?

Pawlowski: There is no difference between a Rebublican and a Democrat anymore. It has just become one ruling class. Libertarians are the only party that are principled and consistent in their philosophy.

TPW: You’ve had some previous political experience, can you please tell us a little about that?

Pawlowski: I ran for and won a Borough Council race as a Democrat. Then I was told by the party bosses how I would vote. I had to compromise my values to be a Democrat. I finally drew a line in the sand and left the party. As a Libertarian, I no longer need to make choices to satisfy
the political bosses.

TPW: In New Jersey, if a candidate raises $300,000 by September 1st, then that candidate gets an automatic spot in the debates. How close are you to that goal at this point in time? How confident are you that you will be able to reach the magic number?

Pawlowski: That isn’t exactly how it works. If you raise $300,000, you qualify for matching funds. If you accept matching funds, you get an automatic spot in the debates. But back to your question, that’s a tough one to answer. I believe we are 99% there. This doesn’t mean that we’ve raised $297,000. What it means is that the fundraiser mailing is almost in the hands of the contributors. We did a test mailing, and if all things are equal, we will barely exceed the threshold. We still need people to donate other than from the mailing.

TPW: Is it currently possible to donate to your campaign online, perhaps with a credit card?

Pawlowski: The donation form is on the website, and includes a place to write in your credit card info. Online processing is only a few days away (maybe by the time you read this). We started the process to have a merchant account months ago, but NJ ELEC kept telling us we weren’t in compliance. We finally prevailed.

TPW: There was some talk of a split within the New Jersey LP a few months ago, have those issues been resolved?

Pawlowski: There was never an issue to begin with. There is a handful of members that exist to cause trouble. The NJLP has never been stronger or more united. We had a record turn-out at our summer picnic. The National LP Chair Michael Dixon attended, and observed us first-hand. The NJLP was never about to “split”.

TPW: What is your overall position on matching funds?

Pawlowski: I hate them! I don’t see why the taxpayer should subsidize the political process, and it is only welfare for candidates. This was instituted by the Rs and the Ds to “level the playing field.” Instead, it only gives the same Rs and Ds more money to spend.

On the other hand, for once the law is on our side. The debate sponsors don’t feel that the third party candidates are “credible” and don’t include us in the debates. The New Jersey statutes that regulate matching funds, however, DEMAND that matching fund recipients MUST appear in the debates.

For us, the only way into the debates is to qualify for matching funds. Once in office, I will work to remove all campaign finance laws entirely, and truly level the playing field for all candidates.

TPW: And finally, short of a complete victory what other goals do you have for this campaign as far as education and outreach are concerned?

Pawlowski: We decided the same day I was nominated that the campaign would be a complete success if we just get into the debates. This doesn’t mean that the campaign is over if we fall short of our $300,000 goal. It means that we’ll focus on building the party, and gathering support for next year’s races, whether they be NJ Assembly, US Senate, or Mayor of my own town. Either way, I’m committed to the Libertarian Party, and I won’t go away.

89 Responses to “Our Interview with Jeff Pawlowski”

  1. Chris Bennett Says:


    I tried e-mailing him for months now and gave up. I helped the Sabrin campaign in 97, which he was the first third party candidate to achieve matching funds and participate in the debates between McGreevey and Whitman. I was going to offer him a few suggestions about improving on what Sabrin accomplished. Oh well!

  2. Jack Says:

    What types of numbers does this guy hope to poll in November? It’s interesting to see libertarians is states like New Jersey, where gun violence, the drug trade, and failing schools makes it tough for people to vote libertarian.

    - Jersey Perspective

  3. R. Paul Says:

    Mr. Pawlowski’s website takes no real “libertarian” positions on any of the important issues of the day here in New Jersey. Why would anyone donate to his campaign without his campaign providing a complete and thoughtful platform based upon libertarian ideas? I won’t and I’m a libertarian. Seems that he and his campaign believes it sufficient to merely state that Pawlowski is not a Republican or Democrat. Neither are any of the many Marxist-oriented parties, the Conservative Party, nor the Green Party. So what?

    There will be no split in the NJLP; however, I hear a new state party will be formed by the end of 2005. Unlike the existing NJLP, the new organization will be a real libertarian party, one actually based upon traditional libertarian principles, and which will actually seek to become a legal political party. Unlike the NJLP, the new party will seek to recruit and run qualified libertarians for political office.

  4. M. Rothbard Says:

    I do not know R. Paul, but that is what I hear, as well. A political party that accepts anyone as a member, runs anyone for office, and excludes anyone who believes in the principles upon which it was founded (calling such people “intolerant”) cannot possibly be a home to Libertarians who are interested in becoming a serious political force. Naturally, the neocons, progressives, etc are being tolerated, and are advanced as candidates for office, and to chief party officer positions (spokespeople for the party), as well. Can anyone blame the voters, if they get confused with all these “liberventionists”, etc, who support the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, nationalized healthcare, etc? Can such a party stand for anything and achieve anything of value, if it stands for everything, or “tolerance” as some call it ?! Add to it, the persistent focus on guns and drugs, and you have a recipe for Libertarians wanting to form a true/serious Libertarian political party.

  5. Don King Says:

    I have heard that as both duopoly candidates are rich, have vast campaign war chests and probally will not be taking public election funds, therefore they are not obligated to hold any debate in accord with NJ ELEC rules. Then one needs to ask why the NJLP has been raising funds to get Jeff into the debates? What debates? If both duopoly parties decline public funds then Jeff will never get into any debate. Who has been lying and why??? Someone needs to tell the truth…..the whole truth. The ads run by Jeff and the NJLP sound false and misleading! What else can one expect from the NJLP?

    Well the NJLP has not updated its platform in over eight years and Jeff’s web lacks any meaningful content as to true Libertarian solutions to NJs problems. Just because Jeff is not an official Democrat or Republican does not merit him anyones votes. It’s the issues and things people care about that matter! Hell, the so-called NJLP and Jeff is in favor of allowig the state the right to control and regulate who may or may not use marijunna for medical reasons! The state has no right to control or regulate this matter and true Libertarians should oppose, not support, such efforts. True Libertarians know that regualtion is not the solution to any problem….freedom is.

    The NJLP and the hacks who have controlled it for decades (the same old faces from Monmouth county rotate chairs every year) will never allow a real Libertarian to run for any office or to hold any position within the NJLP. Seems the NJLP promotes term limits for goverment but excludes themself for the same provisions. The debacle they had recently with their former Chair, Vice Chair and one Steering Committee member shows this! If the NJLP could not be trusted to collect and turn over in a timely manner the dues entrusted to them f to their own national party how can they or Jeff be trusted to run the state?

    Bring the new party on then we can really challange the duopoly!

  6. NewFederalist Says:

    Wow! Sounds like LOTS of trouble in New Jersey!

  7. R. Paul Says:

    Why would you characterize that as trouble?

    Most organizations need to be overhauled from time to time (internally revitalized). If the internal organization itself resists the needed change, the whole organization gets replaced.

    The NJLP is well past due for such an internal change, but its organization has resisted, opening the doors for its own replacement.

    Libertarians who seek political activity have to have somewhere to go, and the NJLP no longer affords that opportunity.

  8. Fred C. Says:

    How is it that the formation of a new party to compete with the existing one doesn’t indicate a split?

  9. R. Paul Says:

    Technically, it’s not a “split”. In common parlance, a split would create factions in the same party, both factions claiming legitmacy and declaiming the other.

    Perhaps it’s just semantics, but I would characterize it as the beginning of a new political entity . . . which will not be called the NJLP, but something else.

    As I understand it, the interviewer asked about a split within the NJLP. Actually, there was one for a while, with both factions claiming leadership legitmacy. To the extent that Mr. Pawlowski denied that it happened, he’s either overtly lying, mistaken or purposely mischaracterizing the facts.

    Rather than continue the split of claim of authority, one faction simply resigned, leaving the organ to the other clamied authority. After resignation, others who were not involved in the original split, but who knew of it, decided to form a new, real libertarian party.

  10. R. Paul Says:

    I hasten to add: from what I’ve heard, the new libertarian party will not “compete” with the NJLP, except in the sense that the new party will seek to gain popular support . . . but not at the expense of the NJLP, which is basically a closed, insular group without any real outreach or program, anyway.

    The new party will not seek to attract the same people to its ranks as the NJLP does.

  11. R.D. Says:

    That’s a good point about the duopoly not taking matching funds. Corzine and Forrester have enough money to self-finance themselves to not need it.

  12. R. Paul Says:

    More to the point: they’ve already indicated they’re not goint to take the money.

    Clearly, the major parties want nothing to do with a third-party of any kind sharing the dais with them, particularly an ideological third-party. Especially an incompetent like Pawlowski, who could really make a true farce out of any televised debate.

    In 1997, Sabrin was almost responsible for Whitman’s loss to McGreevey. Forrester is a Whitman-type Republican, and Corzine a McGreevey-type Democrat. Should Pawlowski succeed in raising the threshold amount, both candidates would surely refuse any matching funds so they could legally avoid that debate. Neither candidate is willing to take any chances.

    The major party candidates would schedule and pay for their own debates, excluding Pawlowski, of course.

    Pawlowski and his campaign must know this for sure. Which certainly raises the question of why his campaign is soliciting campaign donations for the alleged purpose of gaining a seat on the dais.

  13. Douglas E. Says:

    The website doesn’t have a credit card form yet, if they only have 12 days left to raise this money then they are seriously screwed if they don’t get it setup NOW.

    Also, I suspect all 3 of the last posts were made by the same guy.

  14. R. Paul Says:

    Your suspicions are unfounded respecting identities.

    You don’t know how close they are to their contribution goal at this point, so you can’t know if they are “screwed” or not.

    Maybe they got lucky and the entire LP membership suddenly got real stupid. Never can tell about these things.

    But no matter what, the major party candidates aren’t going to stand for no Pawlowski standing up there with them.

  15. George Whitfield Says:

    I have contributed to Jeff Pawlowski’s campaign and will do so again. I choose this action as preferable to criticising people who are running as Libertarians and putting them down.

  16. R. Paul Says:

    I take it you mean that Pawlowski is running on the Libertarian Party ticket and that he deserves your support on that basis. Libertarianism is a political ideology, not merely a convenient label for a neat political club.

    Pawlowski isn’t running a libertarian campaign based upon a libertarian approach to issues of concern to NJ voters. His web site basically justs asks for money, and is textually (virtually) nude respecting the issues. Even the major party candidates have offered tax reform plans allegedly designed to provide relief, while Pawlowski hasn’t given us a clue as to how he might go about it, or even if he favors some kind of tax reduction plan. A Libertarian Party candidate for Governor with no comprehensive plan or comment on taxes. Real good.

    The LP now regularly nominates candidates who are not libertarians (small “l”). They did it in 2001 when they nominated Mark Edgerton. Like Pawlowski, he was a LINO (libertarian in name only). They don’t screen their candidates at all. Mostly they are nominated at the State Convention without any extensive comment, question, campaign or debate. For all the members know, their candidate could be a raging Nazi.

    No way to run a real political party . . . at all. It’s a shame and a farce.

  17. Centrist Chris Says:

    I have updated the American Reform Party page in the encyclopedia.

  18. R.D. Says:

    I can definitely vouch that I’m a different person from R. Paul. ;-)

  19. Mike N. Says:

    “I can definitely vouch that I’m a different person from R. Paul.”

    If only everyone else knew they were individuals….

  20. Don King Says:

    Both duopoly party candidates support a new law to regulate the use of marijunna for medical reasons! Also every GOP candidate for governor in the last primary supported the same! This is hardly a Libertarian issue…..yet this is all the NJLPers can talk about. Talk about the issues…they can not for they and Jeff have nothing to say. Nada. Just look at Jeffs web. Nada on the issues.

    The lack of issue content on Jeffs web and the fact that the NJLP has not thought it important enough to update their “party platform” in over eight years shows that they have no real intent challanging duopoly party politics in NJ. Jeffs web is a wasteland when it comes to the real issues NJ residents are concerned about. NJ residents are not concerned about drugs, guns, prositution and gambling! The NJLP needs to wake up and perhaps a REAL third party is NJ is necessary and needed.

    If both duopoly party candidates intend to refuse public election funds and thus not bound to include any other candidate who raises $300,000 in any debate….then someone has been lying to NJ citizens in an attempt to raise funds to “get Jeff into the debates.” The fact that both candidates intend to refuse public funds has been no secret! Sounds like Jeff and the NJLP has been engaging in false advertizing and once again fraud. Then again thats how the NJLP and the unchanging mindless Monmouth mob that control it have been conducting business for decades!

  21. Don King Says:

    Now wait for it….......I reprint below the ENTIRE Issues section from Jeffs campaign web. Don’t blink cause you may miss it. Here it is:

    “Smaller Government
    I will sponsor, advance, and vote for bills and legislation to shrink the size, power, spending, taxes, debt, and liability of today’s Big Government. I will introduce, support, and vote only for government budgets that are smaller than this year’s budget.

    See the Small Government Pledge.
    Open Government
    I will sponsor, advance, and vote for bills that ensure that if a taxpayer dollar is spent, there will be a record of it on a website. I will also require that every public meeting agenda and minutes will be available as well.

    Legalize Marijuana
    The greatest harm associated with marijuana is prison. To this end, I will focus on removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, with a particular emphasis on making marijuana medically available to seriously ill people who have the approval of their doctors.”

    Wow….I am really impressed!

  22. R. Paul Says:

    What I find particularly disturbing is the Pawlowski campaigns’s apparent disregard of the U. S. Supreme Court in Raisch. Basically in that case, the federal statutory/regulatory scheme prohibiting of use of medical marijana has been found not unconstitutional.

    The NJLP already suffers from the public perception that is nothing than a rag-tag group of frustrated libertines with little knowlege of or appreciation for th political structure and its functions.

    Pawlowski’s ongoing campaign illustrates the ignorance of that campaign while it panders to the pro-marijuana lobby. Post-Raisch, the Governor of any state attempting to make medical marijuana available to anyone would run afoul of supreme and governing federal law.

    Newsflash to Pawlowski’s campaign: Governors do not “vote for bills” or “government budgets”, legislators do. Governors either sign legislation into law or veto it, including budgets. They can also suggest or propose legislation, including budgets. Governors may (and should, where appropriate) execute and sign Executive Orders, which have the force of law. No mention of that anywhere.

    There is absolutley nothing on the Pawlowski website that identifies him as a libertarian, as distinguished from a socially sympathetic Republican who “feels the pain” of some sick people.

    The question must at least be asked: what is this guy and his campaign up to in attempting to raise money for a campaign for office he clearly doesn’t even understand? And for an alleged purpose that can never come to pass?

  23. George Phillies Says:

    In 1997, Sabrin saved Whitman from defeat by McGreevey and the ultraright candidate who drew 1% of the vote. Exit polling taken at the time of the election, and reported in the newspapers, showed that Sabrin drew 60-40 from McGreevey over Whitman voters. Sabrin’s campaign did affect the election outcome.

  24. Don King Says:

    Here is a summary:

    Jeff + NJLP = FRAUD

    Someone needs to look into this. Bad enough the people of NJ get screwed by the duopoly parties!

  25. R. Paul Says:

    The exit polls rely upon responses to formulated questions that are less than scientific at best, to say the least, even assuming truthful responses and that voters understood the questions . . . none of which are foregone conclusions.

    If you read Whitman’s book “It’s My Party, Too”, Whitman actually alleges that Sabrin’s NJLP campaign for Governor was involved in a discrete political plot with conservatives within the GOP to unseat her and to ultimately undo the RINO influence in the NJGOP.

    New Jersey has more independent/unafilliateds than either registered D’s or R’s. Both major political parties are well aware of this, and design their campaigns with goal of attracting the lion’s share of the indy vote.

    The majors cannot allow themselves to be blind-sided again by a Sabrin-like candidate (even and incompetent one like Pawlowski) who might attract some of the vote their campaigns are designed to attract.

    These guys are playing for all the marbles in a race seeking arguably the most powerful governorship in the US, which controls diectly or indirectly the expenditure of some 28 billion dollars a year.

    Somebody should tell Pawlowski . . .

  26. Lex Says:

    “It’s interesting to see libertarians is states like New Jersey, where gun violence, the drug trade, and failing schools makes it tough for people to vote libertarian.”———————-
    Why do you think schools are failing? Isn’t the obvious answer that letting the government run any industry is a prescription for disaster?

    Why is there gun violence and a violent drug trade? Isn’t the obvious answer because Republicans and Democrats have brought back Prohibition, a policy that clearly doesn’t work and always escalates violence? Do you see violent gun battles over the aspirin trade, or over the beer trade? Why do you suppose that is?

    You’ve identified two big reasons why voters in New Jersey (and elsewhere) SHOULD vote Libertarian!

  27. R. Paul Says:

    I quite agree with Lex.

    Whenever you can find a libertarian running as a Libertarian or even a libertarian running as a Republican (R.Paul® Texas), you should vote for them without hesitation.

    Lex is right. New Jersey could really use a real libertarian running for office in a true Libertarian Party in a New Jersey election.

    Maybe when the new libertarian party is organized here in New Jersey, people will actually have that chance and opportunity again.

    Pawlowski is unfortunately a populist running under the Libertarian Party label. So voters have no opportunity to vote for a libertarian this year.

  28. M.Rothbard Says:

    The Pawlowski campaign can offer the contributors the following: a.) have the Pawlowski campaign spend the money on specific activities and b.) return the money to contributors. That would be the ethical way of resolving the “fundraising for the nondebates.”

  29. J. Galt Says:

    I find these responses to the Pawlowski interview extremely interesting. As an activist in New Jersey, it’s indeed strange that I’ve heard not a whisper about a new libertarian party forming in the next few months. The only folks who were that disappointed with the party (and used such tired and inflammatory labels as “neo-cons”, “populists” and “fraud) were either brand new members with extremely busy political party-jumping pasts, or would-be party heavies who never quite managed to follow through on anything - tasks, coalition building, election to party office, etc.

    It’s also interesting that these “different” commentators all assume that the Ds and Rs won’t participate in a debate, if the debate includes a 3rd party candidate. Hell, THAT would be a victory in and of itself! Not much could make them look worse than that. Makes me glad I contributed to Pawlowski and gives me a good reason to donate again.

    When people claim they have libertarian principles, then argue viciously against a libertarian candidate who doesn’t please them in every aspect, you have to start wondering about motives.

  30. George Whitfield Says:

    Good analysis J. Galt. I was wondering about these detractors of Pawlowski. Are they running as a Libertarian candidate for office? If they are I would support them. Perhaps they will identify their current campaigns so we can consider them for support.

  31. Jay Says:

    R. Paul - The Raisch decision only affects federal persecution of medical marijuana users. The state is still able to make its own laws. Would you also say that we should no longer be fighting eminent domain?

    Others - The Sabrin campaign gained lots of traction because of successful fundraising. Sabrin DID NOT run an ideal libertarian campaign. He refused to discuss social issues, refused to use the word libertarian in his campaign, and refused to do any campaigning with other libertarian candidates. Pawlowski is running a libertarian campaign. It seems as though no one here has either met him or even attended any state events? I hope that each of you finds the time to come to an event and to actually meet Jeff.

    J. Galt, you’ve got it exactly right. This discussion reminds me our our past lunatic chair who would sling baseless accusations in a public forum and then not even show up at meetings that were set up to discuss the issues.

    As to credit card donations, they are very complicated to set up properly. The state requires us to have actual signatures on file. On-line donations will still require mailing in a form with a signature on it, making donating on-line just as inconvenient as sending in a donation.

  32. Don King Says:

    Once again the ENTIRE issues section from Jeffs campaign web is printed below. Warning: DO NOT blink…you may miss it:

    “Smaller Government
    I will sponsor, advance, and vote for bills and legislation to shrink the size, power, spending, taxes, debt, and liability of today’s Big Government. I will introduce, support, and vote only for government budgets that are smaller than this year’s budget.

    See the Small Government Pledge.
    Open Government
    I will sponsor, advance, and vote for bills that ensure that if a taxpayer dollar is spent, there will be a record of it on a website. I will also require that every public meeting agenda and minutes will be available as well.

    Legalize Marijuana
    The greatest harm associated with marijuana is prison. To this end, I will focus on removing criminal penalties for marijuana use, with a particular emphasis on making marijuana medically available to seriously ill people who have the approval of their doctors.”

    That’s all folks!

  33. Jay Says:


    Thanks for all of your great contributions to the party and Jeff’s campaign! (just kidding, I’m not aware of any).

    The page you cite was put together for the brochure that was used in a mailing to LP members (and other freedom organizations). There is more on his website than that. Of course we have lots of work to do. We have been busy the past few months fundraising for the campaign. More will come - I promise. Have you ever met Jeff or heard him speak? Have you been to any recent events?

    I find it strange that this early in the campaign you are doing nothing but throwing stones at the campaign. Are you supporting one of the big government candidates?


  34. Don King Says:

    Ok so what is on Jeffs web orher than the extensive isuues section I have quoted above? Could you be refering to the blog? Ahhh now thats real informative….one entry has the candidate telling us what he was thinkning while driving over a bridge!

    It is now the end of August and you have already been raising money for the campaign and have placed ads in LP News asking for funds. When do you intend to address some REAL issues? Seems you can not have your candidate run on the NJLP platform as the same has NOT been updated for OVER eight years. Then again some always fail to understand that by addressing the ISSUES of concern to voters it what will win elections. The last thing the frauds running the NJLP want is to win any election. This is play political party and play politics. I am just too big to play anymore!

    Just because someone calling themself a “libertarian” is running does not mean that they are deserving of true Libertarian support.

  35. Jay Says:

    I’m the vice chair of the state party. What about me is a fraud? When I ran there were not lots of other people who wanted the job - including you! (I did run against a very good person though and would not have been upset if he had won). Seems to me that those who sit on the sidelines and do nothing have no business criticizing those who are doing real work. Quit your bitching and get involved!

    Want the platform updated? Then submit your ideas for change to me and I’ll see that it gets presented to the board and the membership.

    Want to see Jeff’s issue page expanded? Then put together some ideas and send them to me.

    Show up at a meeting and volunteer to take on a project.

    Do something!

    Sounds to me like your head is too big to play anymore. And why not post using your real name?

    Jay Edgar
    [email protected]

  36. R. Paul Says:

    What are you Pawloski people saying?

    The Pawloski website says that he will focus on making medical marijauna available to seriously ill people. Assuming Pawloski was elected, and given the decision in Raisch, such an effort would result in our governor being arrested by the feds and prosecuted for violation of federal law.

    You could repeal every single NJ state law governing the production, sale and consumption of drugs. Nothing would change except that NJ would be the focus of a vast increase in the federal government’s presence in NJ. You’s end up with more people in jail, not less.

    The LP Platform used to call (but no longer calls) for an end to the practice known as eminent domain because it violated property rights irrespective of whether the government took the property for “public use” or not. This position is consistent with the LP’s political philosophy. The current and useless LP Platform no longer calls for that . . . it merely says that the LP ” . . . ‘deplores’ the use of eminent domain”. Big deal . . . deploring the use of a statist doctrine is not a substitute for a articulated political stand against it.

    I “deplore” the use of drugs; I “deplore” prostitution; I “deplore” gambling; I can’t even stomach the idea of homosexual sodomy: however, I recognize the legitimate political right of individuals to engage in such peaceful, adult, voluntary activities . . . this is what makes me a political libertarian. A real libertarian cannot support the NJLP Platform in its current form.

    The current LP leadership and the cadre mismanaging its affairs have forgotten what a libertarian party should be supporting and what it should be opposing. It is no wonder whatsoever that Pawlowski’s website lacks any libertarian content or focus.

    And this is why a real libertarian party in New Jersey will replace the NJLP.

  37. Jay Says:

    R. Paul,

    I’m in agreement with you. And I welcome additional libertarian voices, no matter what party they come from. An additional libertarian party would be another welcome voice. I highly doubt they will “replace” the NJLP. The NJLP has been around for over thirty years and will continue to be around. To “replace” the NJLP would require NJLP activists to leave the party and join this other party. The NJLP has many committed activists (alas there are not enough of us!). The NJLP is not going to go away.

    What missing from the libertarian movement is committed activists. To win elections we need activists. Of course money always helps, but without activists we have nothing.

    Sidewalk criticism is of no use. We need YOU to get involved. So go and start up this “other” libertarian party. It would be great if we could be in the gubernatorial debates with two republicrats and two libertarians.

    Attacking libertarian activists without ever showing up at any meetings does no good at all. The current NJLP leadership (which is mostly brand new leadership to the party) is doing the best they can. Attacking them over its platform won’t solve anyting unless you are willing to make real suggestions. Come to a meeting and state your opinions, present ideas, do something!


  38. M.Rothbard Says:


    What R.Paul is trying to say, as I understand it, is that the new libertarian party won’t “replace” the NJLP. Rather, it would provide a home to libertarians who want to promote and advance libertarianism, which the NJLP does not. It would not attempt to attract the NJLP activists who do not understand the libertarian philosophy (confusing it with a libertine or a “reform” philosophy.) For example, “open government” has nothing to do with the libertarian philosophy. However, it is something that one can expect to hear from a Reform Party candidate. Nor can “I am not a Republican or Democrat” be considered a message, at all. The NJLP can continue to exist for years to come, while advancing positions that are neither salient nor libertarian. The new political party, on the hand, would provide a home to libertarians who are interested in becoming a serious political force, not lawsuits or a movement to New Hampshire (why exist as a political party, at all?!).

  39. Jay Says:

    M. Rothbard,

    The NJLP does understand and advance libertarianism. I’ve never considered the NJLP practices or platform to be at all “libertine”. Perhaps you misunderstand libertarianism. A libertine desires a society free form moral and religious restraint. You are confusing a desire to not force morality on others with not having morals at all.

    I agree that open government is not a strictly libertarian issue, but it is an issue I do not have a problem with. Are you refering to the activities of the Libertarian party open government task force ( http://suburban.gmnews.com/news/2005/0721/Front_Page/006.html ). This has gotten the NJLP lots of great press.

    What lawsuits are you talking about? The lawsuits that I’m familiar with has been the lawsuit by a consortium of 3rd parties to get recognized party status. We won that lawsuit and can now register as members of the Libertarian Party. The same consortium now has a follow up lawsuit that will give us equal ballot placement and allow for out of district petitioners. While each of these items may seem like minor things they are roadblocks that the R’s and D’s have erected to keep us at a lower level than them. While I’m hopeful that the lawsuits will change things, I also have some reservation with the lawsuits. I question whether our money and resources could be spent on better things. In the grand scheme of things they are not costing us much (and have been paid for with some private donations).

    Why does everyone post using names other than their own?


  40. M. Rothbard Says:


    Promotion of such issues as drugs and prostitution render the libertarians the “libertine” label, for a very good reason. These issues are not salient, and voters really believe that NJLPers have nothing serious to say (libertarianism is not about sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll). Hence the stereotype of a libertarian as a “gun nut” and a “pot head.” I hope that those who put these issues at the forefront are happy. Libertarians are not being taken seriously, and… lose. Many Thanks! And since Libertarians lose, others find them an attractive crowd. “If Libertarians are not successful, why not promote the Flee the State Project” by the Libertarian officers (this is not limited to New Jersey). Why not give up on activism, and move to New Hampshire?! That is eactly what the NJLP promotes, and it wants the voters to take it seriously… Why not spend the money on lawsuits against municipalities for not posting budgets on their websites, or better yet, why not spend the money on a lawsuit against a school board for publishing inaccurate information? As the NJLP is busy conducting lawsuits, demanding an “open” government, municipal gvts become more oppressive. If the NJLP wants to be a law firm, let it reconstitute itself as a law firm. However, to participate in a mission creep that is unprecedented in any party politics, is to render it “eccentric” and thus banal to any serious political observer.

  41. Jay Says:

    Paul Rothbard,

    I completely disagree. Big government continues to spend billions on keeping drugs on the streets. Drugs are more easily available to any high school student today than alcohol. We waste money keeping drugs profitable for the criminals. Drug education is a mess with little difference taught between the truly harmful drugs and marijuana. Our nations continue to be filled with drug users while we let violent criminals wander the streets. You don’t sound libertarian at all to me. (you would have gotten along well with Mark Edgerton!)

    You forget that the NJLP isn’t some monolithic entity. Its comprised of individuals. The projects and efforts you criticize are not taking away from the core work being done by the party. The free state project has nothing to do with the NJLP. We have only given them a voice by allowing them to speak at our convention, rent a table, and advertise in out newsletter. Other projects are being run by core hard working champions (e.g. 3rd Point of View television show, Open Government Task Force, etc). The leadership of the party (including me) does not need to divert any resources into these efforts. The lawsuit is not even being run by the NJLP. The NJLP is busy doing what our key purpose should be, running candidates for office. We will also proudly sell the concept of liberty to anyone who wants to listen. So why don’t you talk about something you know something about?

    We are busy fighting for liberty in New Jersey. We are running candidates for office. We are (successfully) growing the party. What are you doing?

  42. M.Rothbard Says:


    Your focus on the drug issue is my point, exactly. As far as the Flee the State Project is concerned, some 2 years ago the entire NJLP leadership voted to endorse the Flee the State Project, which implies that the NJLP intends to move to New Hampshire, as an organization. Why take it seriously, then?! As far as running candidates for office goes, even the Green Party managed to run more candidates in 2005 for State Assembly than the NJLP. 7 candidates for State Assembly… Come on… No update of the platform since 1997… Any serious voter would look at it as as a serious lack of being up-to-speed on modern politics, and really wonder why even take such a party seriously. This is 2005, not 1997… It is election time, and a party… lacks a platform. As far as Pawlowski’s campaign goes, look at his website. It lacks a link, called “issues”. How a voter is supposed to figure out what Pawlowski stands for?! You’re requesting help, but if the NJLP can’t even get rid of porn from it’s own website, then perhaps “help” is no something that the NJLP needs.

  43. M.Rothbard Says:


    As a further comment on the drug issue, all GOP candidates came out in favor of legalizing medicinal marijuana. What is Pawlowski going to do?! If he decides to prevent the enforcement of federal laws, he would be impeached. This is precisely why, this is a non-issue. Even in federal races, the libertarian position is simply to let the states decide what the drug policy should be. In the end, voters have heard the libertarian talk of drugs so many times, that that is one of the only things, that voters know about libertarians. And then, the gutless wonder of why do the voters not take the Libertarians, seriously. But again, it is a non-issue in this gubernatorial election, since Mr.Pawlowski cannot prevent the enforcement of federal laws.

  44. R. Paul Says:

    Of course, M. Rothbard is right.

    There would be no need for a new political party in New Jersey based upon libertarian philosophy if the instant one was not some ossified monolith not based upon libertarian ideology.

    On the other hand, I understand this Jay guy’s frustration with a lack of “activists”. But he must understand that his party will never attract real libertarian activists if it lacks a libertarian platform and a program that requires its candidates and local organizations to advance that platform in its campaigns and public statements. Unfortunately, the NJLP doesn’t attempt to reach out to real libertarians. It simply accepts whatever “throw-away, politically-homeless” people that happen to stumble upon it and mindlessly sign a pledge they don’t understand or take seriously. Real, dedicated LIBERTARIAN activists will stay away from such a group.

    The NJLP attracts politically-frustrated people like Pawloski and Edgerton. These people neither understand nor embrace the libertarian ideal in their campaigns. To the extent their campaigns connect with anyone, they connect WITH THE WRONG PEOPLE They connect with other frustrated populists. Over time, what you end up with is what the NJLP has become: a party full of politically-homeless, frustrated, populist-type wierdos who don’t fit into the major parties, but cannot fathom or accept the tenets of libertarianism. It is fraud to present such people as LIBERTARIAN candidates for office, yet the NJLP routinely does so. The NJLP’s candidates routinely take money from donors under false pretenses.

    M. Rothbard is also correct that the Flee The State Movement is wholly inconsistent with the legitimate, long-term goals of a New Jersey Libertarian Party. It is plainly fraudulent to ask potential NJ activists to commit their time and treasure to a political party with long-term interests in affecting NJ politics while at the same time committing themselves and recruiting other people to commit to move out of the state to another locus.

    This is not to say that the Flee the State Movement is not worthwhile. it may very well be. But it must be considered by the NJLP as a competitor for libertarian recruitment, not an ally. That the NJLP leadership and presumably its rank and file as well cannot see the blatantly obvious conflict of interest between a state party’s long term goals and an organ seeking to recruit people to commit to moving out of NJ is proof positive that such an organ is never going to go anywhere as a serious political party.

    No one is arguing that the so-called “Drug War” is an unmitigated disaster and an anathema to libertarians. So what? In a political campaign for the highest elective office in the state, the campaign must recognize the issues of concern to voters, not the ones that it believes are sexy or cute out of the context of the campaign. The medical marijuana issue is dead for all intents and purposes unless the federal government acts. A person running for governor must show that he realizes this in order to be taken seriously as a candidate for that office.

    Pawlowski, aside from taking a position on the issue which is wholly inconsistent with political libertarianism, has also left this issue on his website even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Raisch. This communicates something to voters and potential serious libertarian activists, to wit: that Pawlowski is unaware of the actual limitations of the office he seeks in general and the realtionship established in the federal system of governance.

    Again, this Jay guy just doesn’t get it. He puts the cart before the horse. If he wishes to attract real cadre of libertarain activists to his party and not just a few politically homeless-hopeless mischigosses, he must field QUALIFIED LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE WITH A REAL LIBERTARIAN PLATFORM. He cannot simply demand that libertarians attach themselves to a group of unsophisticalted rube/boobs masquerading as a libertarian party.

  45. R. Paul Says:

    I hasten to add: this Jay guy acts as though the NJLP’s vacillating and infinitley malleable nature is a virtue.

    It isn’t. A properly-ordered libertarian party should be intolerant and monolithic: that is to say, it should tolerate only dedicated, screened, consistent libertarian activists in its ranks. And under no circumstances whatsoever should it permit its limited resources to be expended on law suits to “open government”, whether those resources are personnel, money, or reporting in its newsletter. Open government has nothing to do with libertarianism.

    Mission creep will kill any organization with limited resources. The existing NJLP permits and encourages its members to be involved in all manner of non-party political activity like “open government”, Flee The State, Marijuana Projects, and so forth. In so doing, it fails to direct itself toward its only truly legitimate political goal as a real political party, that of directly impacting public policy in New Jersey through the electoral process.

    There is nothing necessarily wrong with promoting open government; it’s only that open government is not a legitimate goal of the LP. Thus, while some of its members may wish to engage in this endeavor, that endeavor is not something that the NJLP should sponsor, or report upon. it should report only upon issues dealing with the application of the libertarian ideology to public policy (a platform) and locating, training and running qulaified, consistent and educated libertarians for public office.

    A new libertarian party is necessary because the old one is neither libertarian nor a real political party anymore. And it just keeps attracting and electing the same type of people to its leadership positions and keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over. It refuses to be self-reflective and self-critical; in fact, it views all criticism as an attack on the libertarianism itself or on the idea of a libertarian party. it is insular and unresponsive to internal change.

    Very bad.

  46. Don King Says:

    A REAL political party would have a platform for its candidates to stand upon. The last time the NJLP took the time to update its platform was eight years ago and that is when Murray Sabrin ran.

    As a voter the political party should come to me on the issues and ask for my vote. Instead an official of the Jeff for NJ Gov “campaign” tells me that in time they will address the “isssues” and I should get involved to help them do so. Something is wrong here? It is nearly September and Jeff and the NJLP have not addressed the “issues”? What kind of a political party is the NJLP that it does NOT have a current and topical platform for its candidates to stand on????

    Here is a REAL web that at least addresses the ISSUES. While I disagree with most, if not all of the candidates positions, at least he does address the ISSUES. Here is the web http://www.michaelforgovernor.com/

    Compare this with the lack of content on Jeffs web. Nada. Jeff and the NJLP have NOTHING to say on the REAL issues of concern to voters in this election.

    Jeff and the NJLP are a farce and fraud. Those who were mislead into giving to this fraud should demand a refund.

    Hell, even the NJLP outdated platform sucks on the issue of emminient domain. The outdated platform just “deplores” the power but it DOES NOT say that government lacks the right to have this power nor does it support legislation to repael the right of government to use this power.

    Politics sucks in this nation and I am tired of being screwed by the Republicrats and by lying and false “libertarians.” People join political parties to WIn elections. The NJLP has been trying to do so for over 30 years and has not even come close. I winder what they are doing wrong? Then again the unchanging Monmouth County NJLP all in the family leadership and do no wrong….ever! Being screwed by a so-called “libertarian” does not make the experience pleasant!

    Bring on a REAL Libertarian Party in NJ and nationwide!

  47. Jay Says:

    Paul Rothbard,

    “But it must be considered by the NJLP as a competitor for libertarian recruitment, not an ally”

    Ahh! So libertarian factions must battle other libertarian factions?

    You are quite misguided. You spend your time and resources attacking libertarians without giving any real constructive criticsim. You call me and my friends frauds without any evidence. So what that several members of the board are from Monmouth County? The top leadership of the NJLP has never been on the board before. We just took office last month yet you blame them for things that have happened years ago (things that I don’t even quite understand your logic on).

    You criticize us for not being libertarian enough, yet you want us to drop social issues like the drug war?

    Why not get involved and do more than whine and throw out baseless accusations and name calling. We could use someone to help update the platform. Get involved and stop complaining.

    I do agree that Jeff needs more issues on his page. This does not make him a fraud. You are jumping to outrageous conclusions.

    And I repeat, whats with the fake names?

  48. Don King Says:

    Jay wrote: “I do agree that Jeff needs more issues on his page. This does not make him a fraud. You are jumping to outrageous conclusions.”

    So when are we going to see Jeff address some issues? October? November?

    Why does the NJLP not have a platform, adopted by the members, that its candidates can run and stand upon? The last time the NJLP had such a platform was eight years ago when Sabrin ran. REAL political parties have a platform upon which its candidates stand! REAL candidates address issues.

    Also as a Jeff for Gov official you have NOT addressed the FACT stated here by many that both Corozine and Forrester will REFUSE public funding. Therefore, they are NOT subject to NJ ELEC provisions for a debtate. Even if Jeff gets to the $300,000 mark there WILL NOT be any ELEC debates. The entire thrust of the fundraising to date, and currently on Jeffs web, is to get him into the debates. What debates are you talking about?

    The NJLP can see the logic of term limits for public office but it can not apply this principle to its own internal government. The same old facers from the Monmouth mob have been running the NJLP since the late 70s. Now many of he new faces on the NJLP Steering Commitee as family members or girlfriends of current members….. a real all in the family!

    In 3 decades what election has the NJLP won or even come close? Nada. Sweet nothing! The NJLP has not grown….its membership continues to decline!

    Political parties try to WIN elections not lose them.

    Then again maybe it is the mission of some to see that the NJLP goes nowhere. Think about it!

  49. Don King Says:

    Does this sound right to you! This is from an email Jay sent this morning asking for funds for Jeff. Of course, once again, the false reason to give is to get him into the “debates.” Anyway here is what Jay wrote:

    “I want to extend an opportunity to Libertarians to earn money to
    raise donations for Pawlowski For Governor. For donations processed
    before August 31, the campaign will pay 90% of the qualified donation
    to the person that raised the funds. I will announce on Sept 2 if the
    program will continue.”

    Let me get this right…...90% goes not to Jeff but to the person who got the donnation???? This smells. Then again must tings and some folks in NJLP just do!

  50. R. Paul Says:

    This Jay guy is the poster boy for the problem. Dropping the context and making conclusions based upon the out-of-context statement.

    Look. The NJLP has party officials that are members of the Flee The State Movement. The people who have joined the Flee The State Movement have a vested interest in recruiting like-minded people for the Movement. If successful, these party officials and the people they recruit will move out of New Jersey.

    Conversely, the NJLP has a vested interest in locating libertarian activists who are willing to stay in New Jersey and develop an ongoing P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L PARTY. This includes finding good libertarian candidates who they can train to run for office, NOT TO LEAVE THE STATE.

    What do the LP leaders tell new NJLP members? Get ready to leave the State? Is this Jay guy being purposely obtuse or is he just plain stupid? Suppose this fool/fraud Pawlowski was a member of the Flee The State Movement. Suppose further that he got elected governor of New Jersey. Suppose the Flee The State Movement got its quota, requiring everyone to move as agreed. What would Mr. Pawlowski have to do? He’s have to give up the office, of course. And what of all the people he defrauded, representing himself as a legitimate candidate for the ofiice of governor of the State of New Jersey? The Flee The State Movement and the NJLP’s interests are wholly in conflict; thus, officials of the NJLP should not be members of the Flee The State Movement, nor should any of its candidates.

    The NJLP has been around for more than 30 years. It still isn’t organized in all 21 counties. It still hasn’t elected anyone to the State Legislature or even come remotely close to that. It doesn’t screen its candidates, so it has no idea what its candidates really stand for. It doesn’t have an updated platform for the candidates to run on, so the doofuses it nominates can pretty much say what they want in the context of a campaign including “your mother wears combat boots”. But it continues to represent itself as a “Libertarian” political party.

    It is no such thing. It is a fraud. This Jay guy just doesn’t get it and apparently never will. A new libertarian party will be a breath of real live libertarian air.

    I hope to be invited to join and be involved.

  51. R. Paul Says:

    You should not contribute to this Pawlowski campaign.

    I just received a fund raiser in the mail from them. Again, they represent that the money will be counted to require that Pawlowski be admitted to debate the major party candidates.

    Nothing in the mailer/fundraiser suggests what everyone who is anyone already knows: that the major parties will not accept matching funds and will not debate the wingding Pawlowski. This failure to disclose is clearly misleading, and is fraudulent in the extreme.

    What will the campaign spend the money on? Issuing irrelevant statements about medical marijuana? About Pawlowski’s great platform including his plan to reduce property taxes? About his understanding of eminent domain? A plan to “take down the toll booths on the Parkway” and other irrelevant nonsense?

    What? What specifically will he spend the money on?

  52. Don King Says:

    R. Paul wrote: “What specifically will he spend the money on?”

    Well… we know it will not be spent on ISSUE oriented material for sure!

    The reason why people are NOT using thier real names on this forum is because they do not wish to be personally attacked and have attention diverted from the many questions posed here. They are not the issue….Mr. Pawolowski and his campaign are the issue.

    By the way the biggest question of all on the “debate” farce has never been answered! As stated before both Corozine and Forrester will NOT be taking matching public funds and therefore are not obligated to follow NJ ELEC debate rules. There will be NO debate with Jeff. Corozine and Forrester never intended there to be one in the first place. Yet still we see on Jeffs web and in recent mailings to contribute to get him into the debates…....What debate and why the lie?

  53. R. Paul Says:

    Everyone inside the Trenton Beltway is discussing the proposed series of debates between Forrester and Corzine that will NOT include a mandatory debate or debates IF any of the third party candidates were to secure a spot on the dais.

    The compaigns have already decided to hold a series of “private” debates in various places that will not include the official ELEC debates if Pawlowski or some other dingbat riff-raff candidate should happen to raise the threshold amount of money to qualify and accepts matching funds.

    It is abundantly plain at this point that the major party candidates would rather forgo the matching funds than debate with a know-nothing like Pawlowski. It would be a real zoo to include a dim-bulb like Pawlowski, who would do nothing but further discredit the libertarian movement by his participation. To this end, both parties have agreed that if one candidate does not take the money, the other won’t as well. It wouldn’t be a stretch to evaluate this development as clear BENEFIT to the libertarian cause. No statement by an LP candidate is better than the wrong statement. And Pawlowski has no ability to deliver the right statement.

    This has already been decided, and the Pawlowski campaign knows this. Even though the Pawlowski campaign knew this, they STILL sent out a campaign fund raiser indicating that donations would “get Jeff into the debates”.

    This is fraud, since they already know there will be no official ELEC debates. A complete and intentional misrepresentation by omission for the purposes of soliciting funds. Otherwise known as F-R-A-U-D.

  54. Don King Says:

    Here is an EXAMPLE of how well organized the NJLP is and how they treat those who think or hope that they are joining a REAL political party…...........


  55. R. Paul Says:

    I read of their treatment of poor Morgan. Typical, really.

    Here’s what’s really tragic. The NJLP leadreship is apparently too stupid to understand the connection between poor treatment of potential activists like Morgan and their growing and unending list of former and angry actual activists. Yet this Jay guy keeps urging people to become active in their group. More suckers and saps is what they need. “Come give us your time and treasure and we shall waste you” is their true message.

    On the other hand, they may be doing this on purpose. Who knows?

  56. Don King Says:

    Yeah….. I agree Mr. Paul. The NJLP after three decades of so-called life still remains unorganized in most of NJs counties. Membership has declined at an alarming rate. More have left the NJLP than have ever joined. The NJLP has NOT had a platform in over 8 years! Yet Jay encourages people to be active and to attend boring meetings. he has the balls to brag that he is VicChair of this farce…something I would be ashamed of. The unchanging Monmouth all in the family leadership is responsible for this and perhaps as Mr. Paul suggests intends it to be so. Sometimes I wonder if the Monmouth family mob in control of the NJLP is perhaps serving other masters, yet to be revealed.

    NEWSFLASH: All politics is local. Real political parties need functioning and thriving county organizations. There is more to the state of NJ than Monmouth county….this is a fact the NJLP seems unaware of.

    Will someone please form a REAL Libertarian Party in NJ….......please!

  57. R. Paul Says:

    Kind of reminds me of an old Honeymooner’s show where Ralph attempts to assert his authority by telling Alice that “he is the King and she is nothing”. To which Alice replies, “well, Ralph, then you are king of nothing”.

    This Jay guy is Vice Chair of nothing. He asked what his fraud consisted of? There’s his answer. He pretends and represents himself to to the Vice Chair of an actual libertarian party, when in actuality, he is Vice Chair of nothing. A mere shell organization with no substance that fields unscreened, uninformed or misinformed and untested bogus candidates for the purpose of raising donations to some unknown and unrevealed end.

    Maybe they’ll spend the fraudulently-obtained donated funds on drugs, gambling and prostitutes. Might as well as waste it on Pawlowski’s unlibertarian non-message.

  58. Don King Says:

    If I gave to this “campaign” believing the false info that was provided to me regarding “debates” and then discovering the lack of any NJLP platform in over eight years, the lacl of issues its candidates has and the farce that the NJLP is, I woulld ask for a REFUND.

    It is time that the people STOP being fooled by these charlatans!

    Why dont we take up a collection to pay Jeff NOT to appear in any debates????

  59. R. Paul Says:

    Given what Pawlowski has represented as “libertarian” on his website, and not wanting him to misrepresent that garbage to the public under the rubric of “libertarianianism”, I think every real libertarian should pay him not to say anything further in any forum of any kind, no matter where or when held/situated, in a public debate or not.

    Clearly, that would be a far better use of donated funds for real libertarians. Hush money. Yes. I would donate to that cause. I would prefer our bribery to their fraud any day.

    On the other hand, why not just start a real libertarian party with real libertarian candidates and a real platform dealing with real issues based upon clearly stated and applied libertarian principles?

  60. J. Galt Says:

    Jay, this chain of responses has denigrated into a stroking party for R Paul (how despicable a name lift, by the by) and Don King (if the shoe fits…), with an occasional two cents from Rothbard. Note that no one else cares enough about their diarreah of the keyboard enough to respond - and probably not enough to read.

    I think it’s quite clear who these people are - the typical “you should” types. It’s so easy to correct others instead of actually doing something themselves.

    Your intelligence and courtesy are wasted on them. Someone like you, who can welcome their nonnie-nonnie-boo-boo threats of a “real” libertarian party, is a credit to the NJLP. If these “real” libertarians had any class, they’d be ashamed by the comparison between your activism and their inertia and laziness; your grace and their baseless mud slinging.

    Let ‘em chatter. When they care enough to work hard enough to recruit a candidate and get them on the ballot, maybe someone will care about their opinions.

  61. M.Rothbard Says:


    A new libertarian party intends to recruit real libertarian candidates for office, and become a serious major party and a political player in New Jersey. As to criticism, it would have been a lot easy to help the NJLP, if not for the unfortunate opposition to real help from within the ranks of the NJLP leaders. If the help is not wanted and is rejected, then the only option is to create a new political party. The NJLP leadership did everything they could to make it happen.

  62. Don King Says:

    Well Phillips was only Chair of the NJLP for less than two months. Perhaps neocon Ken is refering to his fellow Monmouth mob inbred members:

    From: Ken Chazotte
    To: [email protected]
    Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
    Subject: Libertarians to oranize Essex County
    Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 8:27 AM
    Hello Morgan,

    My name is Ken Chazotte and I am Chair of the New Jersey Libertarian Party.

    First, let me apologize. We have had some very poor leadership in our party over the past year and a half and, having been elected last month, I am still struggling to correct the destructive effects to our party.

    I would like to meet with you next week to organizing Essex county. Please name a time and place that is convenient for you any evening between 8/29 and 9/1.

    I’ve copied [email protected] in the hopes that he will contact one of us and possibly join in our efforts.

    I look forward to your reply.

    Ken Chazotte
    New Jersey Libertarian Party
    (732) 713-4366

  63. Don King Says:


    Has anyone noticed that no one from the NJLP or Jeffs campaign has RESPONDED to many questions raised on the “debate” and the false advertizing of the NJLP and its candidate! ANSWER…...NOW!

    Note: Not everyone in NJ is a retard and you can not fool us all. Your 30 year recoed of no accomplishments speaks volumes.

    I do not want to play political party but to be in a REAL one. Let me know when a REAL LP is formed in the Garden State.

  64. holcomb Says:

    You want REAL LP party? Go back to Ukraine!

    Yushchenko has abolishes police! He would very much like you assistances!

    NJLP will takes up collections for ONE WAY transports to UKRAINE!

    Nutty disbarred lawyer and orthodox bible thumper to goes with YOU!

  65. J. Galt Says:

    Don King - it could just be that Jeff’s campaign is doing things that are more important than answering you. You may not be able to relate to actual activism, but it amounts to more than snide postings on obscure web sites.

    Why are you waiting for someone to let you know when your dream political party is created? Go ahead and do it. Do something. Anything. Show us all how it should be done.

    Or are you only capable of anonymous attacks on people who care enough to donate their time, money and skills to the cause of liberty? Are you actually capable of constructive effort, and making a contribution to anything? You and those like you keep up with your mutual masturbation here on this web site and others like it. You’re keeping each other entertained, but have ceased to be of interest to everyone else, including me.

    I’m off to work for liberty. How about you?

  66. R. Paul Says:

    When you can’t argue the ideology, argue the facts. When you can’t argue the facts, make personal attacks.

    This is the modus operandi of the NJLP and its hitmen since time out of mind. They loose the personal attackers upon people critical of them because they have no facts and no substance with which to answer the criticisms. Newsflash to those actually paying attention: the factual criticisms of the Pawlowski campaign and the NJLP leveled hereinabove are factually valid. Make no mistake about it.

    If the criticisms leveled against the NJLP and its candidates are false, then the supporters of this Chazotte (a disbarred lawyer or did I miss something? what difference to political libertarianism, if any, would that make? or is that just another personal attack?) guy and this Pawlowski guy should answer the criticisms leveled with facts. Personal attacks are no substitute for responding to factual criticism.

    It’s not that Mr. Galt and his compatriots are “not interested” in debating the critics in here. The reason Galt will not respond to the factual criticisms leveled in here is that he can’t. He has no answers to the criticisms fairly leveled. The criticisms are valid.

    I can understand the frustration of the few remaining legitimate activists of the NJLP. I’m sure at least some of them are sincerely interested in forwarding a cause they believe has something at least remotely to do with someone’s personal liberty. I can “feel your pain”.

    The critics are interested in advancing real political liberty through libertarian political action in a real libertarian political party. The critics are merely pointing out that the NJLP has never actually been involved in that, and that it has an internal structure that would actually work against it, or at least passively allows real, goal-directed political activity to be discouraged.

    Recently, the NJLP has even supported and endorsed a project whose goal is to locate and move all libertarian activists in New Jersey to New Hampshire. Why would any sane person wanting to establish a real, permanent, political presence for the LP in New Jersey, and seeing that the NJLP has endorsed this idea, join and become active in the NJLP? Why? Many of the NJLP leadership are actually shills for this group. Unbelievable.

    And the NJLP’s biggest problem IS that it is populated by people like Mr. Galt. These people refuse to recognize that there are people who know what has to be done and have even tried to do it, but have been rejected by the Monmouth Cadre that runs the Party. A poisoned organization can not recognize its redeemers when they arrive, so they often crucify them as heretics.

    The critics tried to work toward making the NJLP a real political party. But the power structure simply wouldn’t let them make the reforms necessary. They wouldn’t even give them a chance. The harder the critics tried, the more the NJLP party leadership resisted.

    Resourceful and intelligent people who know better, when faced with this dilemma, will simply do what John Galt would do. They’d shrug. And in this case, they’d start a new political organ dedicated to becoming a real, permanent, professional political force to advance political libertarianism in New Jersey. It seems that is exactly what the critics intend to do. I hope to be invited to join and become part of the libertarian political revivial in New Jersey.

    The new libertarian party will simply provide real intelligent and dedicated libertarian political activists with a legitmate political organ within which they can operate efficiently and effectively without the inherent, institutionalized, bureaucratic and personal inhibitors that characterize the NJLP. it will be organized in all 21 counties. It will produce a platform. It will run qualified, screened, professional candidates for political office. And it will seek to become a legal political party by the end of the decade. In short, it will do in five years what the NJLP has failed to do in thirty.

    In this new party, there will be no marijuana mavens, no militia gansters, no nattering neocons, no Flee The Staters, no lawyer-wannabees, no hippie-dippie type “personal” libertines, etc., etc. etc. In other words, the NJLP leadership can be secure in the knowledge that none of its membership and certainly none of its leadership will be recruited to join the new party.

  67. R. Paul Says:

    NJN news is running a series of news segments on its regular, daily programming highlighting the debate about “eminent domain” since the Supreme Court decision was handed down in Kelo.

    Both of the major party candidates for Governor have taken positions on this issue, if only to indicate that they are interested in “establishing a blue-ribbon panel to study the matter”.

    Recognition of property rights and the right to self-ownership is the raison d’etre of the libertarian ideology, yet Pawlowski says nothing about this issue at all on his website. When I clicked on his website on the “issues” section, a pop-up basically asked me why I cared what the issues were if I didn’t contribute to his campaign.

    As a libertarian campaign, this campaign is a fraud, pure and simple. Eminent domain is anathema to the libertarian idea, yet the NJLP candidate for the highest elective office in the state has no statement whatsoever (last time I looked, anyway) on what has to be characterized as THE hottest issue in the state of New Jersey. Instead, the website features a section indicating that the candidate will try to secure access to medical marijuana for sick people in New Jersey, a position that is (a) wholly inconsistent with the libertarian ideology; and (b) would subject the governor to federal criminal prosecution.

    No serious, libertarian political activist in their right mind could join in such a group. The NJLP is an embarassment, not a political party. The facts are what they are, and no amount of personal attacks can change those facts.

    The NJLP personal-attack hitmen commenting on this website have asked the NJLP critics what should be done. If they had been paying attention to the positive recommendations contained in the criticisms (instead of being hitmen) they would have noticed that (a) the critics recommended that the NJLP offer a real platform and screen its candidates so it doesn’t end up with non-libertarians like Pawlowskis and Edgertons running for Governor on its line; (b) recruit and develop operating county committees; (c) focus upon NJ political activity and issues; (d) develop a program to make the NJLP a legal political party by the end of the decade; and, (e) don’t allow the NJLP leadership to be involved in or endorse the Flee The State Project.

    Oh. That’s right. I forgot. The previous NJLP Chairman ran on this exact platform and tried to accomplish this. From what I hear and read, he was unceremoniously and illegally removed from that office by the Monmouth Cadre.

  68. Don King Says:

    How freedom loving and libertarian:

    holcomb Says:

    August 25th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
    You want REAL LP party? Go back to Ukraine!

    “Yushchenko has abolishes police! He would very much like you assistances!

    NJLP will takes up collections for ONE WAY transports to UKRAINE!”

    Nutty disbarred lawyer and orthodox bible thumper to goes with YOU!”


    Ahhhh… so thats what Jeffs campaign funds will be spent on!

    This shows the nutcases currently in the NJLP! Learn the true meaning of FREEDOM.

    BTW….the questions posed here STILL remain without reply. Apparently the NJLP and its candidate regard the questions of NJ voters unworthy of a reply.

    F - R -U - A - D

  69. M.Rothbard Says:

    It is clear that no one in the NJLP leadership is interested in answering questions about Pawlowski and the debates. Instead, the NJLP has announced the plan to spend their limited resources on air travel. The NJLP has nothing to fear from a new libertarian party. In fact, the NJLP can greatly improve the quality of their organization through competition. It is how the marketplace works. It is surprising, therefore, that the NJLP is so critical to the prospect of a new organization. The lack of the “issues” link on Pawlowski’s website demonstates yet another need for a new libertarian party. One would think, that the NJLP would welcome some constructive criticism.

  70. Don King Says:

    Sorry its F R A U D….........

    It is unheard of to offer any critique of the unchanging and timeless Monmouth mob inbreed NJLP leadership. The same old faces rotate chairs every few years but they have become in effect the party owners. Thier record sucks with declining membership, no county organizations, no platform and no hope of winning any election. If you want to play political party then join the NJLP.

    Once again I ask why no one from the NJLP or Jeffs campaign will answer the questions posed here on the “debate” issue? The silence is deafening and it alone speaks volumes. As predicted in an ealier post rather than discuss the issue the NJLPers will now issue personal attacks. Hell, on their own NJLP forums they banned Phillips from defending himself and they even attacked him for his private and personal religious belief. This guy was attacked and had no means of defending himself…......so libertarian of them. These guys are frauds! Bring on the REAL thing.

    Once again…......ANSWER THE QUESTION

  71. M. Rothbard Says:

    Don King,

    Good question! All I can say is that the NJLP organization is in the business of collecting money from the NJLP members, promising them that the State will adopt some libertarian tenets. Some could argue that there is a greater rate of return from Social Security, while others could argue that there is a zero rate of return from NJLP. The focus on the Flee the State Project, the lawsuits, etc, spread the NJLP resources thin, without advancing anything that’s libertarian in New Jersey. But to go back to your question, I believe that I have answered it with my second sentence.

  72. holcomb Says:

    YES! Start new LP PARTY in UKRAINE! Yushchenko need you!

    He need peoples with big mouth and EMPTY HEAD!

    I give to TRANSPORTS YOU and Nutty Disbarred Lawyer and Othordox Bible thumper to UKRAINE! ONE WAY! By boats not PLANE! PLANE too good! YOU goes by BOAT with the MELONS!

    YOU and Nutty Disbarred Lawyer and Orthodox bible thumper to acuse MELONS of FRUAD in boats! Sorry I means FRAUD. I not now ENGLISH I from UKRAINE!

    Yushchenko needs YOU you goes NOW!

  73. M.Rothbard Says:

    Dear holcomb,

    I am glad that you are learning English. Maybe a few more years in America, and you will learn the English grammar.

    Welcome to America!

  74. J. Galt Says:

    These postings make it clear that the NJLP hasn’t lost any valuable members to the “new libertarian party”.

    Hell hath no fury like frustrated power mongers scorned, heh heh.

  75. M.Rothbard Says:

    J. Galt,

    The Monmouth Militia Marijuana Club has been in power for decades. If it is so valuable, where are the accompshiments?

  76. M.Rothbard Says:

    J. Galt,

    The fact that this question was never answered, shows that the MMM has not accomplished anything “valuable”, for surely the NJLP defenders would have listed something. On the other hand, what any political party should be doing, was explained in clear terms. It all starts with a …. platform. Heh… Heh…

  77. Don King Says:

    Well what has the NJLP accomplished in 30 years: declining membership, less county organizations (they need none other than Monmouth County : the New Zion) and not one member elected…not one. As pointed out before the last time the NJLP had a current platform was eight years ago when Sabrin ran for Gov. Is this just mere co-incidence.

    I also hear from the grapevine the current NJLP SC member Hull is suing former NJLP Chair Phillips over the duesgate scandal. From reading the NJ Libertarian it seems that the statement made by NJLP Treasurer Stefanelli sort of should end this. The dues witholding occured. The Hull lawsuit also names others to be named later who may have voiced criticism of the NJLP party owners. All this from a so-called “libertarian” than banned Phillips from defending himself in NJLP forums which Hull ran. I hear Phillips is eager for his day in court.

    To Mr. Hull : Those in politics or any party leadership position must allow themself to be scruntinized…..its called democracy. Then again I am not sure if the party owners are eveb “libertarians.”

    I wonder who elese Hull will be suing…..and all this during Jeffs campaign.

  78. Patrick Henry Says:

    Wow….sounds like the NJLP is being led by morons!

    Why bring this all up again. I am an NJLP member and I do read the NJ Libertarian. It was clear that wrongly national dues witholding occured. Hey, the NJLP Treasurer said so in print.

    The NJLP party owners lynched Phillips and got rid of him and his tean elected with him. Now they want to sue him just prior to Jeffs all important election campaign?????
    Seems to me Phillips would welcome getting before an impartial judge and jury. I wish him well.

  79. Patrick Henry Says:

    The Libertarian candidate for Governor in NJ:


    Some will do anything for a buck!

  80. R.Paul Says:

    To Patrick Henry:

    I say, give me liberty or give me the NJLP (the functional equivalent of death!)

  81. Third Party Watch » Blog Archive » Pawlowski Will Debate Major Candidates Says:

    [...] It was a subject of much debate on this site. [...]

  82. George Whitfield Says:

    Well Jay is now to be included in the debates and I am glad I contributed to his campaign.

  83. Jon Says:

    i am doing a project on him and he was very interesting but in a bad way. Very crazy…and drug use should not my legalized…i emailed him 2 months ago and he still hasn’t emailed me back.

  84. Jon Says:

    i hate him! he should not be running for governor

  85. Cheap & Direct Says:

    I am not quite sure I understand but from what I can see you’re on the right track.

  86. Bob Says:

    While I can’t say I agree 100% I pretty much like how you say it.

  87. cancer life insurance policy Says:

    Hello! I came across your site from a yahoo search. I must say the content here is sweet. If I may post my opinion I also agree with the above views. Good job :-)

  88. dunton Says:

    Very Very nice information here… Thanks

  89. ycmqmb Says:

    offerta voli [url=http://4210-offerta-voli.subit06.org/]offerta voli[/url] frigorifero korting [url=http://2876-frigorifero-korting.subit04.info/]frigorifero korting[/url]

Leave a Reply