Pawlowski Will Debate Major Candidates

It was a subject of much debate on this site.

Now, it appears that Libertarian candidate Jeffrey Pawlowski and another third party candidate will be allowed into the NJ gubernatorial debates. And the major party candidates will, in fact, participate as well.

From WNBC...

For the first time, two independent candidates running for governor have qualified to participate in televised debates, and the two major party candidates have agreed to join in the matchups set for next month.

The independents, Jeffrey Pawlowski of Sayreville and Hector Castillo of Paterson, each have raised and spent more than $300,000 to qualify for the state-sanctioned, prime-time debates, said the Election Law Enforcement Commission.

Pawlowski is the Libertarian Party candidate, while Castillo is running as the “Education Not Corruption” candidate.

Under state election law, Pawlowski and Castillo’s campaigns are entitled to taxpayer money, provided they agree to spending limits. They also become eligible to participate in the debates next month. Exact dates remain to be set.

Castillo is seeking 2-to-1 matching funds, but Pawlowski is not, said Fred Herrmann, executive director of the election commission. Pawlowski raised the money through a $150,000 personal loan and the balance from the Libertarian Party.

Castillo ran unsuccessfully for Paterson mayor three years ago. Pawlowski is a former Sayreville councilman and owns a landscape supply business.

“I’m ready to roll,” Pawlowski, a former Democrat, said Wednesday. “When we first started, one of our goals was to get into the debates, because this way we could bring up issues that are normally not raised by the Democrat or Republican candidates.”

Those issues, Pawlowski said, include creating Internet access to monitor state spending—a move that would allow citizens to audit state government—and reducing the size of government.

Castillo, a doctor, could not immediately be reached for comment. Messages left at office listings under his name were not immediately returned.

The major party candidates, Democrat Jon Corzine and Republican Doug Forrester, are forgoing public funding, instead relying on their personal fortunes to finance their campaigns.

While that has exempted Corzine and Forrester from the ELEC-backed debates, they have agreed to take part in them. The two men have also committed to two other debates, the first set for Tuesday at New Jersey Network’s studios.

Earlier this summer, state election officials designated NJN and the League of Women Voters to be debate sponsors.

NJN officials said they are considering a second debate that will include all four candidates. The League of Women Voters was conferring with its co-sponsors after being notified that the two independent candidates had qualified for debates.

51 Responses to “Pawlowski Will Debate Major Candidates”

  1. Big Sexy Says:

    Wow! Way to go. I guess this proves the nay-sayers wrong. He got the in the debates.

  2. George Whitfield Says:

    Congratulations to Jeff Pawlowski, Louis Stefannelli, his campaign Treasurer and all the Libertarians who contributed to his campaign so far. Their persistence and dedication has been rewarded. In Google there are numerous references from New Jersey and New York news sources about this achievement.

  3. Joey Dauben Says:

    I’m sorry, but if compromising on one position as a Libertarian, if it meant that was the only way to get in all of the debates, on TV, in the polls, etc., I would definitely take the matching funds.

    I know I’m probably in the extreme minority within our party on that one, but logic would tell me at least that hey, accept the $100,000 your taxpayers will give to you to campaign on, but once you’re in a great position to actually becoming elected, you can reimburse them with spending cuts and tax rebate checks (a la Colorado).

    Since the issue of matching funds is itself an issue, maybe the LP should hammer out that one, too. If presented with a chance to get on TV, in debates, in the polls, etc., I would happily accept the matching funds check.

    What does TPW think about that?

  4. Amani S. Says:

    I don’t see the problem with the matching funds.
    Take ‘em and then right the state a check.
    You could make a real big deal of it.
    I find it interesting that he needed to take out a personal loan.
    Not very incouraging.

  5. NJLib Says:

    Austin and estatic others!

    You need to do some research and perhaps review all NJ media. Consider this:

    A league of their own: 2 qualify for debates Corzine, Forrester likely to skip

    By LAUREN O. KIDD
    Gannett State Bureau

    TRENTON

    Garden State voters can hear a pair of gubernatorial candidates voice their views on issues facing New Jersey in two state-sponsored debates, the Election Law Enforcement Commission ruled Tuesday.

    But no, these will not be the big-named guys you are thinking about.

    Independent Hector Castillo and Libertarian Jeffrey Pawlowski have qualified to participate in two state-sanctioned gubernatorial debates.

    Until Tuesday, the official debates were to be bypassed, in a year when Democrat Sen. Jon Corzine and Republican Doug Forrester are digging into their own pockets to finance their campaigns.

    “We’ve got this unusual circumstance,” said Jerry Fitzgerald English, the chairwoman of ELEC, which regulates campaign financing. “Get ready. This is New Jersey. We do the unusual everyday.”

    Corzine and Forrester both failed to indicate they wanted to participate in the ELEC debates by the Sept. 1 deadline, ELEC officials said. But they will spar in separate debates, including two on TV being organized by the usual debate sponsors.

    The first of those debates, sponsored by NJN, Gannett New Jersey newspapers, the Philadelphia Inquirer and a number of chambers of commerce, will occur next Tuesday. The other, chiefly sponsored by the New Jersey League of Women Voters, is set for Oct. 18.

    Dates are not yet set for the two debates ELEC commissioners decided Tuesday should take place this election season when they approved Castillo and Pawlowski as “viable candidates” Tuesday, a decision based primarily on their ability to raise $300,000.

    In all, there are eight minor-party or independent candidates running for governor.

    “Odd as it seems, we can potentially have a situation where you have major leagues and minor leagues in two different debate systems,” said James Wyse, counsel to the election law commission.

    NJN is now considering hosting three gubernatorial debates, said JoAnne Ruscio, the network’s director of marketing. NJN first wants to see documentation from ELEC before deciding on the number of debates the station will host in its Trenton studio.

    That debate lineup, starting with the already scheduled Corzine-Forrester matchup, could also include a debate including Castillo, Corzine, Forrester and Pawlowski and another with all eight independent candidates, Ruscio said.

    The New Jersey League of Women Voters did not return a call seeking its debate plan.

    “We think that should be up to the debate sponsors,” said Allyn Brooks-LaSure, a Corzine campaign spokesman, on whether ELEC-qualified third-party candidates should be permitted in two debates already scheduled between Corzine and Forrester.

    Sherry Sylvester, Forrester’s spokeswoman, said, “voters need to hear the candidates,” but agreed invitations to the unofficial debates should be left up to sponsors.

    “We think there is so much at stake in this election and debates are critical,” Sylvester said.

    The approvals of Castillo or Pawlowski as “viable candidates” didn’t come easily.

    Castillo—a physician who lives in Paterson and Oakland, Bergen County—originally reported raising $318,450, but his campaign was left with $298,450 after ELEC found several compliance issues, including missing signatures and invoices, in his application for state matching funds.

    Candidates who meet a $300,000 threshold by Sept. 1 can get $2 in taxpayer funding for every $1 raised, though the first $96,000 isn’t matched. That left Castillo $1,550 short. In an interview later, Castillo said he raised money from “local merchants in Passaic County that are fed up with all the Democrats and Republicans.”

    Despite warnings that approving a candidate who had raised less than the threshold could lead to a slippery slope of letting in candidates with even less money raised, by a 3-1 vote ELEC decided Castillo demonstrated he had “significant public support.”

    While ELEC will still determine how much state money to give Castillo’s campaign, he’d be eligible for a little over $400,000. And eligible future donations he gets can also be matched by the state.

    Pawlowski, a Libertarian, lent his campaign $275,000—which was repaid the next day—in order to meet the $300,000 mark. His campaign based the strategy on a ELEC ruling earlier this year that allowed Forrester to use his own money to reach the threshold in the Republican primary. His application was approved 4-0, after the commission discussed it in a private meeting.

    Pawlowski, whose campaign was left with just over $30,000 after it repaid the loan, did not seek matching funds.

    “We didn’t come here for a handout. We came here to get our voice out,” said Pawlowski, who lives in Sayreville, Middlesex County.

    The “only way for a small candidate to get involved is to participate in the debate,” Pawlowski said.
    Published: September 14. 2005 6:00AM

    Logged

    NJLib
    Newbie

    Karma: +3/-4
    Posts: 13

    Re: NJ Fundraising Games Begin
    « Reply #1 on: September 14, 2005, 09:38:07 AM »
    ———————————————————————————————————————— Some key points from this atricle:

    *The Pawolowski campaign in fact raised only $25,000 from the public the rest to qualify for the “debates ” was obtained via a loan from the candidate to his campaign and paid back the next day. Was this done just to “qualify” no matter how?

    *NJ ELEC must be insane to see this as a demonstration of signifigant publidc support.

    *The atricle clearly states, as contended ny many on this forum months ago, taht the duopoly candidates are still not legally obligated under law to debate any third party candidates or those who “qualified” under NJ ELEC provisions.

    *The fact remains that the Pawlowski web and ads placed in the LPNews sought to raise funds under the false pretense that contributions would help Jeff get into face to face debates with the duopoly party candidates. This was in past untue and it remains so now.

    Games such as dressing in drag and publicity stunts will not win elections….adressing the issues will. The NJLP candidates web is devoid of a major address on the issues of concern to NJ voters.

    Review the facts and draw your own conclusions.

    Logged

    NJLib
    Newbie

    Karma: +3/-4
    Posts: 13

    Re: NJ Fundraising Games Begin
    « Reply #2 on: September 14, 2005, 09:41:38 AM »
    ————————————————————————————————————————
    PS….

    If any NJ ELEC debate occurs neither duoploy candidate is obligated to attend. The big “debate” will problally be between the two third party candidates.

    Lets hope the “Libertarian” candidate wears a suit and tie rather than drag!

    Logged

    Pages: [1]

  6. Mike N. Says:

    Joey,

    I agree. Badnarik should have done the same thing.

    Recommendation: Re-do your website. And get rid of that sexy picture.

  7. NJLib Says:

    Everyone is missing the point here. While the loan repayable in one day abides by the letter of the law…what about its spirit????? The loan means that the campaign raised only $25,000 in funds….not $300,000.

    Also as the article reprinted from yesterday states if the duopoly candidates will debate the third party candidates is still not CLEAR. Yet the funds that were raised was done so to get “Jeff into the debates.” What debates? No one has responded to that.

  8. Joey Dauben Says:

    Castillo with the Education Corruption What The Hell Party will be eligible for HOW MUCH?

    $400,000?

    That is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

    Principle or no principle, some other candidate will be happy to spend that $400,000.

    Let ME run for governor. I’ll utilize that $400,000 to help my campaign and other down-ballot LP candidates.

    This is a joke if you ask me. If Castillo gets more of the percentage than Jeff, I’m going to throw a fit.

    FRNs are fake anyway! It’s not like it’s real money to begin with!

    Mike: I totally revamped the site last night. Working on new photos soon.

  9. R. Paul Says:

    Well, this is so typical.

    Apparently, the Pawlowski campaign raised less than 10% of the funds necessary to legitmately qualify for the debates. He “lent” his own campaign $275,000 for one day for the sole purpose of taking advantage of an earlier ELEC ruling. He never intended to actually spend the lent money on his campaign. The campaign “paid him back” the next day.

    So in reality, Pawlowski didn’t need to raise $300,000 from others at all in order to get into the debates. All he had to do was to make a bookkeeping entry, write a couple of checks and and couple of deposits.

    As I understand it, the $300,000 threshold is a definite numerical expression of the policy behind allowing a candidate to participate in the debates and to qualify for public matching funds. The policy behind the fund-raising requirement is to provide concrete evidence that a candidate enjoys “substantial public support”.

    If anything, Pawlowski’s raising of less than 10% of the minimum is a showing that he didn’t have “substantial public support”. And the candidate is supposed to borrow the money for purposes of funding her campaign. The plain fact is that Pawlowski, as shown by his actions, never intended to use the money the money to fund his campaign.

    If the actual reports from the major party campaigns are accurate, the major party candidates will avoid the ELEC sponsored debates, and allow Costillo to debate Pawlowski. That way ELEC will satisfy its statutory and rule requirement to conduct a public debate for those who qualified and who opted to take public funds and/or have declared their interest in participating in the debates. Since the major party candidates opted out of public funding, they will not participate in those debates.

    See how easy it is to make a mockery of the government?

    NJN is likely to run a separate debate for all the Indies and then a debate for Corzine and Forrester. The League of Women Voters are likely to disqualify at least Pawlowski for failing to raise even 10% of the minimum required to participate in the public debates.

    Highly unlikely that the major party candidates might risk participating in the rerun of the Bronx Zoo. No one knows what the loose canon Indies would say or claim in a debate, and no professional campaign advisor would advise them to join the managerie.

  10. Amani S. Says:

    I agree the spirit of the law was broken, but not sure how much.
    I read another article that it was $150,000.
    Not sure I trust the reporting if they can not get there numbers straight.
    http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj—governorsrace-de0914sep14,0,3225200.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey

    Also in another article it states that the Corzine camp has just decide(or is just stating) that it will not be in any more debates that it has already agreed upon. The Forrester camp has not made a decision. So I fail to see the fraud.
    http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050915/NEWS03/509150464/1007

    It seems that none of the organisers of debates(NJN and LWV) was aware of others trying to get into debates and are not sure what they are going to do.

  11. Patrick Henry Says:

    Well guy I am not so sure that I trust the NJLP in this matter either!

    The NJLP has lacked a current and topical platform since over eight years ago when Murray Sabrin ran. Viable political parties have platforms and they take positions on the issues of concern to voters.

    Speaking of issues: Where can one find a discussion of the issues on the NJLPs candidates web? They are not there…and they wont be either!

    Elections are won by addressingf the issues and reaching voters not by childish gimmicks and pranks such as dressing in drag or selling certificates of political influence. Then again I think that the real party owners of the NJLP never wish to win any election and for thirty years they have nit even come close. Well done! The record remains unchanged. The only way for the NJLP to obtain major political party status is to run a full slate for the state Assembly or Senate. The party owners of trhre NJLP resisited that effort when former NJLP Chair Vic Kaplan and then Phillips tried to continue the effort of Kaplan. Look where he got.

    The NJLP candidate placed info on his web and ads in LPNews asking that contributions be made to get hin into what apparently he was refering to the NJ ELEC debates? What NJ ELEC debates was he talking about as neither duopoly candidate intended to participate in the firt placer not could they be obligated to do so under NJ law????? Someone was stretching a point or two! Then again the NJLP knows as P.T. Barnum said: “they is a sucker born every minute!” The Garden Sate seems to have its fill of them!

    The fact remains that press reports published, not rumors, indicate that the NJLP candidate raised $25,000 in public contributions andf then he loaned his campaign $275,000 in one day and repaid it in the next. Does this sound right to anyone with half a brain???? Yes, the letter of law was complied with but niot its sopirit as the $300,000 contribution marl is supposedly to demonstrate signifigant public support. Where is that support in $25,000 in public contributions and then the empoymentof yet another gimmick?

    I had thought that the Libertarian Party billed itself as THE PARTY OF PRINCIPLE????? Where are the “principles”in conduct, gimmicks and childiush games such as these??????????

  12. Patrick Henry Says:

    Sorry for the spelling errors in the last post…too early!

    The FACT remains that even though NJ ELEC has determined that the NJLP candidate has reached the $300,000 fund limit that both duopoly candidate are NOT under any legal obligation to debate him. The atrivler posted clearly states thhis and qiotes both duopoly candidates are stating that it is up to the debate sponsors to determine who to invite. NOTE: thay are not under obligation of NJ law to do so.

    Posters on this forum reported this months ago…...no reply was made from the NJLP or its candidate.

    The NJLP and its candidate are once again seeking to fool you. The ganes they accuse the duopoly at playing they seem capable of employing. Perhaps Jeff should obtain his own certificate of political influence and get a mens rooms stallnamed after him??????????? Then again he may also want a ladies room stall also

    Those who regard the politics of freedom as a game, gimmick, drag parade or other prank belong in the playground….not the political arena.

  13. Patrick Henry Says:

    BREAKING NEWS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    WHO WAS RIGHT???????????????

    From : R. Jay Edgar
    Reply-To : [email protected]
    Sent : Friday, September 16, 2005 10:09 AM
    To : [email protected], [email protected], LPSMC@yahoogroups.com, [email protected], [email protected]
    CC : [email protected]
    Subject : Pawlowski Campaign Call To Action

    | | | Inbox

    I wanted to fill everyone in on what’s going on with the Pawlowski campaign. It has certainly been a hectic week full of ups and downs. Action is needed by you now.

    On Tuesday we had a successful meeting with the NJ Election Law Enforcement Commission. In a 4-0 vote the commission agreed that the Pawlowski campaign had qualified for the public debates. The also approved the qualification of Hector Castillo of the “Education Not Corruption” campaign. We immediately notified the organizer of next week’s debate.

    Our elation was short lived however. On Wednesday I talked to Ed Rodgers, producer of NJN. He is claiming that Tuesday’s debate is not a NJ ELEC debate and that we would not be invited. I inquired as to whether the debate would be paid for completely by private donors or would be receiving public funds and was told “no comment.” Mr. Rodgers has informed me that they are going to put together a separate debate of just the minor party candidates.

    This smells to me like political apartheid and will not be accepted by the campaign. We are currently in the process of gathering data from NJ ELEC (meeting minutes, campaign sponsor applications, etc) and are talking to lawyers about filing an injunction to stop the debate.

    While we are doing this we could use your help now. Pick up the phone and call NJN and complain about them not including all of the candidates. Their audience comments line is 609-777-0031. A human does answer that line and when I complained to her she said that she would forward my concerns. Ed Rodger’s phone number is 609-777-5195, although talking to him is probably useless. I good number to call is probably William Jobes, New Director. Jobes is the gentlemen who signed the application with NJ ELEC to host the debates. His day number is 609-777-5192, his night number is 215-860-2996.

    If we are not successful in stopping this phony debate, I would like to see us and the other excluded candidates put on a lively protest at the debates on Tuesday evening. We need to gather a crowd. I envision us carrying signs with slogans like “End Political Apartheid”, “Open the Debates”, and “Disenfranchised Voter.” Carrying signs and marching will not be enough. We need to be loud and vocal. Perhaps singing pro-freedom marching songs - loud enough to be heard within the debate hall.

    Jay Edgar
    Chair, Pawlowski for Governor

    *********************************************************

    Yep perhaps the protesters can show up in drag, openly use drugs and fire assualt rifles in the air?????????????????????????

    **********************************************************

  14. Patrick Henry Says:

    Well others who posted on this issue were disbelived and called “naysayers.” Who is right now? Those with any degree of political savy in NJ knew this ages ago! We told you so.

    The NJLP is according to law a minor party. The only way the NJLP can become a major party is to run full slates for either the state Assembly or Senate and secure a percentage of vote. In over 30 years the NJLP has refused to take the steps to become a major party. While former NJLP Chairs Vic Kaplan and Phillips tried to make the NJLP a major party. Kaplan quit in disgust and Phillips was removed.

    The present NJLP is a waste of time. It knows what to do to become a major party in NJ yet it refuses to do so. It has not yet taken ther steps to challange duopoly rule in 30 years! When such efforts are undertaken they are thwarted by the never changing party owners.

    Baseball has mjor and minor league players. The distintion is valid. So too in politics.

    The NJLP would well to give its candidate a current and topical ppaltform to stand upon. The candidate would do well to address some issues on his web and even in his minor party debates.

    All I can say is that we “naysayers” told you so!

    It was a well known fact in NJ that nieither duopoly candidate intended to engage in NJ ELEC debates. Those who raised funds (altough apparently only $25,000) on the premiuse of Jeff getting into NJ ELEC debates sort of exaggerated a bit.

    Maybe an NJLP protest can be held and all present can wear drag, use drugs and fire assualt rifles in the air! Yet another gimmick and NJLP circus.

  15. George Washington Says:

    Just got off the phone with ELEC. According to ELEC, the two major party candidates won’t be participating in the ELEC debates. If the ELEC debates would take place, it would be between Castillo and Pawlowski, unless one or both decide to opt out (in which case no debates would take place at all).

  16. R. Paul Says:

    I just got off the phone with ELEC. They indicate they have been advised by both major party camps that neither major party candidate has any intention of being involved in the public ELEC debates.

    My own view: ELEC deemed both Costillo and Pawlowski to be “qualified” because ELEC knew on that date that neither of the major candidates would be involved in the ELEC debates. No harm no foul to let them in, particularly because of the lawless exception ELEC made for Forrester by allowing him to loan his campaign money sufficient to allow him to qualify for the primary debates in June.

    What is likely to happen is that Pawlowski and that other “candidate” Costillo (who got in because he actually did raise the money, even if he failed to dot the regulatory i’s and cross the regulatory t’s) will get to “debate” each other. An audience of five (5) or fewer potheads, milita goons, and their ilk are likely to watch. On the same day and at the same time, Forrester and Corzine will be debating each other on another newtwork in a privately-sponsored debate. Actual, sober people will probably watch.

    The question has been raised respecting allegations of fraud in the fund-raising tactics of the Pawlowski campaign. The answer is rather simple if you look at the campaign’s solicitation and ads. The ads never tell you that the campign knew that neither Corzine nor Forrester had to be involved in the debates by law. In fact, the clear inference if not the letter of the ads suggested that ELEC would somehow require the major parties to debate Pawlowski IF he could raise the requisite funds. An act of clear and material omission that may have affected a person’s decision whether or not to contribute to the campaign. The other fraud-like behavior was somewhat tongue-in-cheek in that it actually might have led people to believe they could actually bid though EBay on chances to receive government appointments if Pawlowski was elected. Admittedly, it would probably take an NJLP member to believe that . . . no one else would, I’m sure.

    I like a good joke as much as the next guy. I have even smiled at a few bad ones. This whole Pawlowski campaign is at best a bad joke and at worst a complete, if not illegal, farce.

  17. Patrick Henry Says:

    “George Washington wrote:

    September 16th, 2005 at 1:43 pm

    Just got off the phone with ELEC. According to ELEC, the two major party candidates won’t be participating in the ELEC debates. If the ELEC debates would take place, it would be between Castillo and Pawlowski, unless one or both decide to opt out (in which case no debates would take place at all).”

    That is the point some of us have been trying to make for months on this forum. It was common knowledge in real NJ political circles that neither duopoly candidate would not make any NJ ELEC filing. On September 1 neither duopoly party filed. Thus neither duopoly candidate need abide by NJ ELEC provisions for debates, no matter who qualifies and how they do so.

    Let me say it again: Some of us tried to warn you and alert you to the bending of the truth.

  18. R. Paul Says:

    It bears repeating that the ads and solicitations sent out on behalf of the Pawlowski campaign indicated that contributions would help put Pawlowski in a public, televised debate with Republicans and Democrats.

    The Pawlowski campaign knew at the time it published its ads that neither of the two major party candidates were going to seek matching funds and that therefore they had no legal requirement to participate in the very debates for which they ostensibly solicited the campaign contributions.

    At the very least, the ads and solicitations should have included some kind of caveat to the effect that while contributions would legally qualify Pawlowski to participate in any debates so held, there was a distinct possibility that either (a) no debates would be held as a result of neither major party opting in, or (b) that Pawlowski might just get stuck debating any other minor or third party candidate who happened to qualify as well.

    A fair reading of any of the Pawlowski ads, his website or his mailer ads would lead a reasonable person to conclude that if Pawlowski qualified, he would be debating the major party candidates.

    That fair reading would be the result of a patent or at least latent misrepresentation by intentional or careless omission.

    That’s fraudulent.

  19. J. Galt Says:

    You just can’t make some people happy. Seems to me that any legitimate New Jersey libertarian would be thrilled to have a voice in the debates, press coverage, and so on.

  20. George Whitfield Says:

    Well, the folks who think it was a fraud to ask for contributions to get into the debates almost certainly did not contribute. I did contribute and I am glad I did. This is the highest profile election in 2005 in which a Libertarian candidate is participating. If Jeff gets into the debates thats great. If he doesn’t then he needs the contributions even more. I helped Richard Rider in San Diego and the LP legislative candidates in Virginia. I think most Libertarians want to help our candidates. A few appear to want to criticize any Libertarian who tries to run for any office and spend quite a lot of time criticizing rather than helping in a positive way.

  21. R. Paul Says:

    It appears that some people simply think that any and all criticism of the NJLP or its candidates, no matter how true, valid or constructive, cannot be brooked, no matter what. Newsflash: all activism is NOT good. Some is counterproductive and some is actually evil.

    The NJLP no longer screens its candidates, and many of them simply have no business standing for an office that literally controls 28 billion dollars of public money. The major parties avoid these incompetent baloney-benders like the plagues they are.

    Murray Sabrin was involved in the public debates in 1997 and the major parties were blind-sided by him. Murray did a creditable job, and unlike Pawlowski, had a real campaign and addressed some real issues. But the majors can’t be bothered with this nonsense so they vowed never to let that happen again.

    Many of us who know the ins and outs of Trenton politics knew from the get-go that no matter what Pawlowski did or didn’t do, he wouldn’t be involved in any debates with any major party candidates this year (or any other year). The problem is that Pawlowski’s campaign knew that as well, yet they still represented that they would. We told you all what Pawlowski knew all along, but simply didn’t admit it.

    No one wants to be associated with a group of people who have such little regard for their own supporters. So little in fact that they would stoop to misrepresenting the facts to get them to donate to a campaign when telling the truth would have been easy and harmless.

    A real shame. And a real waste.

  22. George Whitfield Says:

    I contributed. I am not ashamed. I do not think it is a waste. I support Libertarians who are brave, persistent, egotistic, altruistic, ornery, ill-advised, obstinate, or fool enough, or whatever you want to call their personal characteristic. who will make the effort to run. If they are willing to run and the party nominates them I will give them my support. If I don’t think they are the right person then I should jump in and compete for the nomination.

  23. R. Paul Says:

    No one is suggesting that you shoud be ashamed. Assuming you did what you thought was right under the circumstances. You are not the issue here, nor are any of the other poor dupes who contributed to this alleged campaign.

    The Pawlowski Campaign of the NJLP (Not Just Lousy People/Politicians) is the group that shoud be ashamed.

    The NJLP nominated and backed this guy. They puffed themselves up and made a mockery of the rules and regulations governing campaign finance. They acted as though they deserved to be in the debates despite the fact that they didn’t demonstrate the substantial public support necessary to gain access to the public debates. They didn’t raise the money. Pure fact, not the bloviating fantasy offered by these people. Why support and congratulate them?

    It would have been more honest to simply say that they got in on a technical pass, rather than on their actual achievement in raising money. They should have been honest with their contributors. They should have nominated an individual who hasn’t been properly vetted, and who thinks nothing of appearing in drag and making a mockery of the process on EBay by offering to sell ficticious acess to government postions . . . a clear violation of the law (even if not enforced).

    Try and learn something from all of this. People who congratulate themselves for accomplishing something they actually did not accomplish are severely self-delusional. People who make a mockery of a serious matter are inmature. People who attempt to gain a value by purposely misrepresenting (either by omission or commission) the underlying facts to the very people that have pledged to help them are lower than the lowest.

  24. R. Paul Says:

    Mr. Whitfield:

    I know that I am not qualified to run for governor, but I also know that this Pawlowski guy is far less qualified than I am in that respect. So I wouldn’t offer myself as a candidate, but rather would seek to locate another who would be a representative candidate.

    Murray Sabrin would have made a good candidate. He would have actually raised the money. He would have had instant credibility with the media as his predictions from the 1997 campaign all came true. He would have run a serious campign on the issues. In short, he would have been everything that Pawlowski is not and could never be. And what makes it even better, Murray is a libertarian and Pawlowski is just a right-wing populist.

    I don’t know if it’s true, but I heard that Murray offered himself as a candidate again this year, but was scorned and dissuaded from seeking the nomination by the ignoramuses that mismanage the NJLP’s affairs. That figures.

    I would have supported Sabrin with money and effort.

  25. J. Galt Says:

    R. Paul - I don’t see the Pawlowski campaign congratulating themselves - not at all. They haven’t devoted nearly the effort to discussing their achievement that you have spent in time and trouble denigrating it. They’ve merely continued to work hard - something else you do not have in common with them.

    I think it’s very sad that you pose as a libertarian in this forum, and that you assume the name of a real one in order to spout your nastiness. I suppose that, whoever you are, you feel threatened enough by the libertarians to devote a great deal of time to trying to tear them down.

    A libertarian candidate is going to debate major party candidates. Someone as brilliant and subtle minded as yourself sees this as a bad thing.

    To the rest of us poor ignorant “dupes”, it’s a good thing. And many of the people viewing the debates won’t know all the terrible things you claim against the Pawlowski campaign and the libertarian party - however hard you try to defame them, you’re a tiny frog lost in a small pond, and your voice isn’t heard by most and is disregarded by many who do read you as a scorned woman-type wannabe with what can only be a personal axe to grind.

    Since most of the people watching the debates won’t be the political insiders from Trenton, as you tout yourself to be, they won’t know that a libertarian achievement is a bad thing. They’ll listen to what the guy has to say, and if they don’t like it, so be it.

    One thing that Jeff Pawlowski’s campaign has accomplished, and that you have NOT accomplished, is to validate the party in the eyes of the great (voting) unwashed, by putting a libertarian in the debates.

    You didn’t contribute. You didn’t help. In fact, you actively tried to prevent it happening, and you failed at preventing it. I’m sure you’re used to failure by now, but hopefully you’ll give us all a break at some point and just give up.

    Maybe you should find a new forum, or create one, called “Third Party Destruction”, or “Third Party Constant Sniping Criticism”.

  26. R. Paul Says:

    I know that you cannot defend the unconscionable actions of the Pawlowski campaign so you are trying to make this about me.

    This is not about me. At all. This is about the fraudulent ads and presentations made by the Pawlowski campaign in the course of raising money; making large of the fact when it was admitted to the debates (claiming a fund raising success which was, IN FACT, a failure; not running a real LP campaign on real libertarian ideas, etc., etc. No one from the Pawlowski camp has seen fit to address these problems. They merely state that “we are the good guys and you are the bad critics”. Wonderful. Useful. Why didn’t I think of that?

    I have nothing to do with this. Pawlowski and his campaign screwed all by themselves.

    This site is about third parties. All about third parties. The good and the bad. Not just the good.

    You criticize me for not supporting the fraud. Sorry, I don’t do fraud. I just report the facts . . . the same facts that the newspapers reported. Only I told you that it would happen before it did.

    Stopping referring to me. I am not a third party. This is a site about third parties and their candidates.

    Stick to the issues. I always do.

  27. George Whitfield Says:

    R. Paul: I am not a poor dupe.

  28. R. Paul Says:

    George Whitfield:

    You are not the issue here, either. You may not be a dupe in this matter. Maybe you knew what they were doing all along and decided to donate your money, anyway. That’s your business.

    But whether you were particularly duped by the ads is not the issue here. The issue is whether the ads and materials issued by the campaign materially deceptive in nature. Clearly, they were.

    At least two critical things are plain and true and the Pawlowski campaign has not seen fit do deny or explain: (1) the Pawlowski campaign’s ads were consciously deceptive in nature as the campaign knew that neither of the major party candidates would be involved in the public debates, but led donors to believe that anyway; and (2) the Pawlowski campaign has issued no policy statement of any kind that is distinguishable from any other right-wing populist type, and has issued no libertarian policy statements.

  29. R. Paul Says:

    Pawlowski supporters apparently believe that the end justifies the means. The end being that Pawlowski would be involved in public debates with major-party candidates, the menas being fraud, deception and the flaunting of the rules.

    Any libertarian would love to see a true, serious libertarian in a real campaign (not just any old NJLP nominee) in a real, televised debate with major party candidiates for the highest elective office in the state. But not at any cost, and not just any person nominated by a group of political nudniks.

    I would have loved to see Murray Sabrin debating Forrester and Corzine. Every single bad result that Murray predicted would come to pass in 1997 has come to pass during both the ensuing Republican and Democrat adminstrations. Murray would have slayed those two guys, if they would have agreed to debate him. But they probably wouldn’t have, just like they won’t bother being seen in the same room with the Drag Queen Pawlowski. They would have even less to gain from debating Sabrin than debating Pawlowski.

    There are many differences, though. Sabrin would have actually qualified by raising the legal minimum, not by trickery. Sabrin would have had a real campaign, run by real people with real political savvy and experience, and Sabrin would have actually made real libertarian issues come alive for the public, even if he never debated the Reublicrats directly on TV.

    But the NJLP Nudniks-in-Charge didn’t want him to run. They wouldn’t have been able to control and spend the money that came into any Sabrin campaign. They would have been excluded from the process and would have been denied any active part in it. So they simply passively dissuaded him from seeking the nomination, even though a Sabrin nomination would have done wonders for the party and the rest of the LP Assembly ticket.

  30. Chris Says:

    I find it interesting that R. Paul has been annointed the arbiter of what is and is not a “Libertarian” policy.

    I also find it interesting that according to R. Paul, the Pawlowski campaign knew exactly what the major party candidates where going to do and intentionally withheld that information.

    R. Paul assumes everyone is an idiot other than himself.

    I think Pawlowski is a nut-bag and I would never vote for him. But spending this much time hemming, hawing, and slinging unsubstantiated accusations around (criminal accusations) speaks more about R. Paul than Pawlowski.

  31. R. Paul Says:

    Chris:

    Why assume that the accusations are unsubstantiated? Why not assume the contrary? Don’t you think that the Pawlowski campaign would have responded in defense if they could? Why would anyone make such accusations if they didn’t already know they were true or had good reason to know that?

    Google around a bit and you will see posts made by the campaign indicating its foreknowledge of the legal issues in ELEC. They clearly knew for sure. Check with ELEC. They know, too. Better yet, ask the campaign. They might even respond to you. But it’s more likely they’ll ask you for a donation first.

    Moreover, the law and regulations are public knowledge and everyone who runs for office gets a copy of the rules and regs going in. The rules state that candidates who do not accept public matching funds don’t have to participate in the debates. While ignorance of the law is ususally typical of the NJLP leadership, it is, genberally, as they say, no excuse in any event.

    You will find libertarian policy in the NJLP Platform. Nobody here is making this stuff up. I had no hand in writing that document, but I can read, analyze and compare with the best of them. You might try reading it. It is not updated and topical anymore, as the NJLP leadership has not seen fit to pay any attention to it and it has fallen into disuse. But to the best of my knowledge, it still represents the official statement of NJLP policy.

    I don’t know Pawlowski at all, so I don’t know if he’s a nutbag if I take your suggested meaning. But he certainly isn’t running a libertarian campaign (at least not from all I’ve seen), and he certainly hasn’t demonstrated any kind of competence needed to be seeking the highest elective office in the state. And the frivolous conduct of his campaign more than suggests a certain degree of insincerity of purpose.

    There are wider issues involved in this matter, as some of the posts here suggest that have to do with the NJLP leadership, not just the campaign.

    BTW: This is a third-party website discussing matters of and concerning third parties and their candidates. I am neither a third-party nor a candidate. Thus, I am not a relevant issue.

    Try to stick to the issues, of which I am not one. If you have facts and evidence tending to show that the Pawlowski campaign is wholly ignorant of the rules, rulings and regulations of ELEC governing access and participation in the public ELEC debates, you should post that evidence, by all means.

    But I don’t think you can make that claim with a straight face. The Pawlowski campaign staff is clearly intimately familiar with all those rules and regs as evidenced by their demonstrated considerable understanding of how to bend the ELEC rules to wholly frustrate the purpose of the rules and regs. After all, if you have been reading these threads, you’ll know that they were granted legal access to the debates on a pled technicality of those very rules, not on their actual achievement in raising the funds contemplated by the rules.

    FYI: I assume everyone is more competent than I am until they prove otherwise. Not that others’ superior competence is necessarily the case, but it is a prudent and workable assumption for me and has served me well.

  32. Brian Phillips Says:

    Chris,

    What makes you think Pawlowski is a nut bag? I’ve met the man and certainly didn’t get that impression.

    I completely agree with the rest of your post. R. Paul certainly seems to be rooting for the status quo. He even admits he never met Pawlowski, yet is jumping to all sorts of wild conclusions.

    All campaign literature I saw said “donate to get Jeff in the debates” This is precisely what NJ law states and is what is going to happen. No one ever claimed that Forester/Corzine would be forced into the debates. Only that the state would have public debates and this was the ticket to get in.

    Whether or not Jeff gets to debate Forester and/or Corzine is still to be seen, it certainly will be a battle. But that is not Jeff’s fault.

  33. R. Paul Says:

    Mr. Phillips likely hasn’t seen the materials sent out by the Pawlowski campaign. The campaign literature indicates that the donations will gain Pawlowski access to debate the Republican and Democrat candidates. Not true.

    Phillips is correct when he said what the campaign literature did not say. but a complete reading of the text is misleading to the extent that it falis to indicate what the campaign knew about the plans and intentions of the major party candidates.

    My estimate of Mr. Pawlowski is based upon what I know about political campaigns and Pawlowski’s public statements and positions on the issues, and how those statements would be received by the public in the context of a serious campign for the Ofiice of Governor. Not about him personally. I never met the man. Hardly wild conclusions. I have seen enough LP campaigns to know what they’re about. They’re supposed to advance the idea of political liberty.

    But I have read the ads. They are misleading by omission. Not by commission. particularly the ads that the campign ran in the national libertarain publication, the LP news. The national LP audience was led to believe that Pawlowski would get to debate the Democrats and Republicans in televised public debates if he could raise the threshold amount. Not a true statement on its face. False and misleading.

  34. R. Paul Says:

    BTW:

    Mr. Phillips indicates that Pawlowski may yet still debate the major party candidates. While that COULD happen, the ads do not say that. In any event, I have telephoned ELEC as recently as yesterday afternoon and they still indicate that Forrester and Corzine will not be involved in the publicly sponsored, ELEC debates.

    There are other, non ELEC debates that Pawlowski might be invited to participate in and that may involve the major party candidates. But those debates are invitational and not based upon any fund-raising at all. The sponsors simply invite candidates to participate, and no showing of monetary threshold or any fundraisng at all is required.

    Thus, the ads, to the extent that they insist or suggest there was some necessary nexus betwwen the donations and Pawlowski’s debting the major party candidates, are false and misleading.

  35. Brian J. Phillips Says:

    Ahhhh thanks Mr. Paul….now I get it.

    Wow Jeff and the NJLP had really pulled the wool over my eyes. Being a good party member and team player …boy am I glad that you took the time and made the effort to detail and reveal all this.

    Those truly concerned about moving public policy towards liberty in NJ owe you a debt of gratitude. Thanks for all your efforts and for showing me the dishonesty and fraud that is occuring.

    Thanks again.

    I hope more will wake up as I did. Then again I trusted the party owners onece before and got screwed…...I should have know better.

  36. R. Paul Says:

    Mr. Phillips:

    Now if I can just get the rest of the donors and everyone else to actually look at the Pawlowski ads in light of what has been written on this website.

    Two other points bear repeating: the Pawlowski campaign’s sale of political certificates reppresents the absolute worst political tactic I ever saw.

    First of all, such a scheme is illegal pure and simple. You simply cannot sell any kind of representation at all that even suggests a quid pro quo: a donation for a job or access to a job or the administration. Strictly verboten. If either of the major party candidates had done that (of course, they wouldn’t), the other party would have filed a formal complaint with ELEC for overt violation of the fundraising laws and rules and regulations.

    Second of all, you may not infer that I favor the status quo simply because I criticize the approach and tactics of the non-status quo group. I wholeheartedly support the libertarian idea. I support the idea of a adversarial and professional libertarian party in New Jersey. But this is clearly not what Pawlowski and the NJLP is currently offering. Thus, the criticism.

    The Pawlowski campaign sounds like the Republicans and Democrats. Both major parties and their candidates favor pay to play legislation and reform. Both favor legalizing medical marijuana. Both have indicated in the past that they might support eliminating tolls in favor of some other form of road revenue. Both indicate they favor no increase in the current budget. So what?

    The LP (on paper, at least) is committed to radically smaller, limited government. Nothing in the Pawlowski campaign materials or literature indicates that Pawlowski understands that and actually supports that notion.

    Again, this website is not about me, Mr. Phillips and what I believe. I say again: it is about third parties and their candidates. But for the record, what I favor is a real professional libertarian party that fosters and foments real political liberty. In other words, why would I support Pawlowski? He apparently represents the same ideas as the staus quo. I don’t see anything to the contrary.

    I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em.

  37. Douglas E. Says:

    Does any seriously believe that “R. Paul” and “Brian J. Phillips” are two different people? Because it seems pretty clear to me that it’s one guy talking to himself.

  38. R. Paul Says:

    Neat idea. I wish I would have thought of that. How can you do that?

    I guess it wouldn’t matter because most of the time I feel like I’m either talking to myself anyway or to a wall.

  39. R. Paul Says:

    I repeat: this website is not about me, my identity, the color of my socks, or even my political afiliation.

    This website is supposed to discuss third parties and their candidates. How many times do make to make this clear? From all indications, it does appear that I am indeed talking to myself because no one seems to get that point, nor any of the others I have made.

    I have alleged that Pawlowski’s ads are misleading. If they are not, I’m wrong. If they are, I’m right. I have alleged that Pawlowski’s campaign is silly and lacks libertarian content. If it is not silly and does not lack libertarian content, I am wrong.

    If anyone cares to address those issues, I’ll respond to any such attempt to fairly address the facts.

    If anyone responds to this by alleging that my mother wears combat boots, I won’t respond to that allegation. And not because my mother does or does not wear combat boots. It’s because discussion of my mother, who is neither a third party or a third party candidate, is wholly irrelevant to the purposes of this website.

  40. T. Jefferson Says:

    Going after the messenger, while ignoring the message, helps no one. In the Start Ledger article, (http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1127106055149360.xml&coll=1), there is a following quote: “Pawlowski is a little kinder to Corzine and Forrester, calling them “good people.” But he said the Democrat is too inclined to support big government, while the Republican rails against waste, fraud and corruption yet offers few specifics. “If he knows where it is, why doesn’t he tell the attorney general?” he said.”

    Pawlowski could himself be offering specifics, as to what are the proper functions of government, and providing the approximate dollar amount on the budget. It is simply not enough to point out what is wrong with the major party candidates. For any candidate to be taken seriously, he or she should have a message, first. That goes for Forrester, as well. In 2002, it was “I am not Toricelli”. When the Dems replaced Toricelli with Lautenberg, Forrester’s campaign went down the flames.

  41. R. Paul Says:

    Thomas Jefferson is right, but there’s much more.

    The Star Ledger reported that Mr. Pawlowski supports legalization of marijuana. As I mentioned before in previous post, that’s not something a governor can do. Given the current state of the law, especially since the Raisch case, no governor can make that a reality without running afoul of current federal law.

    Does comment about marijuana legalization mean that Pawlowski doesn’t support the libertarian position on drugs in general? Does it mean that Pawlowski supports government regulation banning the ingestion of currently-illegal drugs other than marijuana? What does he mean?

    A libertarian candidate for governor should be out front on issues like eminent domain. Arguably the hottest issue right now and one that the Libertarian Party has a strong and now relatively popular position. Not a peep about it from Pawlowski. Why? Because there is no “anti-eminent domain” group to hit up for a campaign contribution? Why?

    The LP rightfully complains that it gets no press coverage. But when it does, Pawlowski fails to take advantage of it by making a libertarian statement to the press. Instead, he says that Corzine and Forrester are good people. Really? What does he know of them? The issue of the goodness or badness of the major party candidates is both controvertible and irrelevant to the campaign drom a libertarian perspective.

    In one breath, Pawlowski criticizes Corzine for supporting ‘big government” without saying why that is wrong and what should be done about it. The LP Platform speaks volumes to that issue. Why doesn’t he use it? And then he accuses Forrester about being short on specifics, yet his whole statement about taxes is that he promises not to increase them, not how to to deal with the existing tax burden. No specifics at all.

    Whatever this campaign is, it is not about the Libertarian Party and its official position the party itself takes on the issues. That much is certain. So what is it about? Fooling people with false ads aimed at separating dupes from their money? How will that money be spent? So far as I can see, it’s not being spent on delivering a concise, consistent libertarian message.

  42. Patrick Henry Says:

    Working within the NJLP as I tried to do and as former NJLP Chair Vic Kaplan attempted to do, I often felt as if I was talking to myself or to a brick wall.

    The fact remains is that the NJLP knows NJ law and how to become a major political party. This would require a full slate for either the Assembly or State Senate…not just a “candidate” for governor. Then when a candidate for governor is running there are exaggerations made regarding debate participation in an attempt to raise funds, the lack of a current NJLP platform (they have not had one in eight years), no real issues addressed on candidates web, the bending of the spirit of the law by the use of personal loans, the circus charade of dressing in drag not to mention the attempted selling of certificates of political influence!

    Seems to me that some can be just as corrupt and sneaky as the duopoly parties. Then given my experience I never doubted that.

    In over thirty years the NJLP has not made one step towards becoming a major political party in NJ. Jeffs current campaign is just another chapter of the same crap.

    I am interested in REAL politics, not the circus or childish pranks.

    Those of us who tried to warn you of this matter months ago were right and told the truth. We are doing so now and always will. The interest of many posters on this forum is in moving public policy in NJ towards liberty. That is not a game. If I wanted to play games I would go to park!

    The issue here is not who is posting but the conduct and position of the candidates. That it what this forum is supposed to be about and the silence from the NJLP and its party owners has been deafening. True LIBERTARIANS in NJ need to wake-up and reclaim the principle and name of their party which has been stolen from them!

  43. R. Paul Says:

    Today, the US Senate Judiciary Committee conducted hearings on proposed federal legislation to address the many concerns expressed by land owners and others with an interest in the proper understanding and enforcement of the Constitution with respect to the Kelo decision and the use of eminent domain.

    Many people from diverse groups testified beore the Commitee, including members of the legal profession, local political figures and actual landowners who had been negatively impacted by eminent domain. It would not be an exaggeration to state that the gneral electorate is wholly up in arms over this issue.

    Not a peep from the NJLP’s candidate at the top of the ticket on this issue. Does he think it right that states and municipalities can take property from individuals against their will, when they don’t wish to sell it? The LP Platform speaks to this issue with a vengeance. It provides a clear statement of opposition to such a complete violoation of people’s rights.

    What of the Takings Clause in the NJ Constitution? How would he respond to that? That Forrester is a nice guy? What has that got to do with libertarianism, the NJLP, the governorship of the State of New Jersey or the price of eggs in Baghdad?

  44. Brian Phillips Says:

    He does state on his website:

    Private Property Rights

    Many NJ towns including Somerville, Newark, Bloomfield, Piscataway, Orange, Franklin, South Amboy, Long Branch, Highland Park, Rahway, Edison, West Millford are currently considering using eminent domain to allow for redevelopment on private property. The New Jersey League of Municipalities, a state authorized consortium of NJ municipalities has publicly applauded the recent New London decision allowing for seizure of homes for redevelopment by a private developer.

    I will work to restore private property rights. I will stand against eminent domain seizures and uncompensated regulatory takings of private property. Government has no business confiscating your property for developers of shopping malls and condominiums.——
    Its good to see that Jeff is taking this issue on and I hope he gets into the debates so he can make this an issue for the campaign.

  45. R. Paul Says:

    Excellent. When did that appear?

    Now. What exactly does he mean by private property rights and what are the basies of such rights? Government cannot restore private property rights, it can only recognize them.

    A governor can work to excise the eminent domain clause in the New Jersey Constitution and sign an Executive Order stopping all confiscations of private property and seek legislation repealing the current statutory scheme outlining local procedures for the taking of private property by government.

    Now comes the problem. Does he understand that regulatory takings are still takings? Takings are a wrongful deprivation of private property by the government without the owner’s consent. Compensation is no answer if the owner does not want to trade access to his property for government money.

  46. R. Paul Says:

    The materials included on the website, to the extent that you have correctly cited them, do not represent the LP position on that issue, nor is it consistent with the libertarian philosophy.

    Takings are constitutional, to be sure, as is public education and as are taxes. None of these government activities, however, is consistent with libertarianism or the LP Platform.

    If read that position statement out of context and was to characterize it, I would say that the writer was most likely a conservative constitutionalist that recognizes the “public use” limitation on takings, but does not oppose takings on principle.

    The position taken on eminent domain by Pawlowski is that of a conservative populist, not a libertarian. Pawlowski, to the extent that the citation represents his position, should be happy in the Constitution Party or the Reform Party.

    I wish him well when he finds his true home.

  47. Brian J. Phillips Says:

    WHO IS THE REAL BRIAN PHILLIPS????? Not some posters on this forum.

    Ahh the NJLP and its cronies are good at playing childish games and pranks. Just look at their current campaign! The real Brian J. Phillips is uncertain as to who to vote for in November and has taken no part in anyones campaign. Nor do I intend to do so.

    The NJLP saw fit to illegally remove me as Chair. For months I have lived in peace and quiet. My life has been better and more joyful without any involvement with the NJLP wackos. I am not interested in playing political party but in belonging to a real one. I gave up playing games and childish pranks decades ago. Let me keep it that way. Leave me in peace and out of your stupid games and pranks.

    I intend to ask the forum owner to ban any postings from anyone using my name that do not orginate from my email address.

    However, I am honored that I am viewed by some as a bogeyman and am I gald they fear someone or something. Secondly, I am honored that someone who see fit as to take my name and use it. Seems I am now in the same category as Ron Paul, Tom Jefferson and Patrick Henry!

  48. R. Paul Says:

    Again, another piece in today’s Star Ledger indicates that the third parties will appear alongside the major party candidates in a televised debate to be scheduled for October 18. The report relates that Forrester and Corzine have agreed to participate, but this will have nothing to do with fund raising or ELEC. The article spelled the NJLP candidate’s name incorrectly. An oversight, to be sure.

    Strangely, the Forrester and Corzine campaigns still deny the substance of this report. Their spokespeople say this newspaper report is in error, and that neither candidate will participate in any debate with the third party candidates. We can’t seem to get this right.

    ELEC indicates that its debate for those who qualified under the rules will be held on October 20, 2005, and will not include either Forrester or Corzine. Currently, Costillo is scheduled to debate Pawlowski on that date.

    The Star Ledger further reported on the Pawlowski campaign’s effort to use the courts to gain access to last night’s debate. The application for a preliminary injunction was denied, presumably because the campaign could not satisfy the standard of “irreparable harm” needed to be granted that unusual relief.

    Nice try, though. Shows spunk and a serious determination. Now if the campaign could actually take real libertarian positions on the real issues, admit that its ads were at least misleading, and stop making a mockery of the ELEC rules and regulations, the campaign might actually help the libertarian cause.

    But I doubt it.

  49. Brian J. Phillips Says:

    By the way computer fraud and identity theft are Federal offenses. I advise whoever is falsely and knowingly making posts under my name which I did not author to cease doing the same without further delay.

  50. Austin Cassidy Says:

    I’m ending comments on this topic.

  51. web hosting Says:

    web hosting

    web hosting