Or Maybe Not…

So it appears that the Libertarian candidate for NJ Governor, Jeff Pawlowski, and independent candidate Hector Castillo will not be appearing in debates with the major party candidates after all. There have been a number of conflicting news reports on this subject, but this piece gives a pretty good idea of where things currently stand.

From the Asbury Park Press...

TRENTON — The two independent and third-party candidates for governor who won the right to enter state-sanctioned debates may not get a chance to face the man who currently leads the race in every major poll.

U.S. Sen. Jon S. Corzine, the Democratic candidate, will not participate in any debates other than the three televised events he already agreed to, a campaign spokeswoman said Wednesday, even though two more debates may be added to the campaign schedule.

“We’ve accepted all of the invitations that we’re going to accept,” said Corzine spokeswoman Ivette Mendez, noting that Corzine and Republican candidate Doug Forrester have agreed to three televised debates and seven other joint appearances.

The first of those debates is at 8 p.m. Tuesday and will be aired on NJN television. It is cosponsored by Gannett New Jersey newspapers. The other televised debates are Oct. 18 on ABC stations in New York and Philadelphia and Nov. 5 on channel 4 in New York.

Corzine’s decision means the third-party candidates can face the apparent front-runner only if they can get invited to one of the previously scheduled events. NJN, the host of the first debate, is not inviting them.

Forrester campaign manager Sherry Sylvester called Corzine’s decision disappointing but said the matter is still in negotiations.

Earlier Wednesday, before Corzine’s announcement, Sylvester said Forrester would participate in debates that are added to the schedule.

The two new debates come as a result of a ruling Tuesday by the Election Law Enforcement Commission that Hector Castillo, and independent candidate, and Libertarian Jeffrey Pawlowski had raised enough money to qualify for the public forums.

Those two little-known candidates, however, are the only people required to attend the state-sanctioned debates; both major-party candidates are millionaires who have bypassed public financing. Corzine and Forrester can attend the state-sanctioned debates but don’t have to, ELEC executive director Frederick M. Herrmann said.

“We have some unique situations that the commission has never dealt with before,” Herrmann said. “The commission’s preference would be for an inclusive over an exclusive approach.”

ELEC awarded the debates to two groups who during the summer applied to host the events. By applying, those organizations have agreed to host the debates and get them on television, even if the major-party candidates do not attend, Herrmann said.

Debate organizers at NJN and ABC’s Philadelphia affiliate, WPVI, and the League of Women Voters said Wednesday that they had not yet decided how to handle the new debates, which would be decidedly lacking in star power without Corzine or Forrester.

Herrmann said the organizations could not simply add the independent candidates to the already-scheduled debates.

42 Responses to “Or Maybe Not…”

  1. Mike N. Says:

    They afraid of something?

  2. R. Paul Says:

    Yes, they are afraid of something. And righfully so.

    They are afraid that their public images as serious contenders for the Office of Governor of the State of New Jersey, arguably the most powerful governorship in the U.S., controlling 28 billion dollars in public money would be diminished and tarnished by association with the circus riff-raff of Pawlowski and Costillo.

    Neither Forrester nor Corzine have anything whatsoever to GAIN politically from being involved in a circus debate with two individuals who haven’t the slightest chance of becoming governor, nor any idea whatsoever of the kind of public policy needed to move NJ in the right direction.

    They do have a great deal to lose, however. So why should they be bothered? Their jobs are to get elected, not to provide do-dos with targets for their idiot brickbats.

  3. es Says:

    I think Forrester and Corzine are just afraid of having their hollow agendas exposed for what they are. They’re afraid of people having an alternative to the same old issues and the same old worn-out solutions proposed by the same old two parties that have done nothing for America in the last 30 years. Although one of the big two will undoubtedly win, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so that people don’t start to think about possible alternatives.

  4. R. Paul Says:

    By whom and how? And what exactly is the status quo?

    Nothing Pawlowski has said or even suggested on his website or in his campaign materails would suggest Pawlowski has either the interest or ability to expose anything other than his own silly attitude and preposterous posture.

    Pawlowski hasn’t presented any ideas that are different from what the major party candidates have presented. Statism is statism, even if mouthed by a candidate of an alleged Libertarian Party.

    Moreover, Pawlowski hasn’t demonstrated that he has either the understanding or the ability to stand up and make a presentation that would have the effect you suggest.

    So why would they fear Pawlowski? The answer is, they don’t. But they also have nothing to gain by debating him. And real politicians (including libertarians) will (or should) do only what would tend to get them elected, more than less. Every suggested or contemplated action of any campaign is or should be treated to this kind of rigorous analysis.

    It really serves no rational defensible purpose for either Corzine or Forrester to recognize either Pawlowski or Costillo (except maybe that recognizing Costillo might net them a few more “hispanic” votes.) neither of those candidates have any broad-based, regular constituency that either of them could sway in a debate. Neither Corzine nor Forrester can say anything that will affect whatever negligible support either Pawlowski or Costillo enjoys. They simply have nothing to gain by engaging these two.

    And no campaign, particularly one for the Office of Governor of New Jersey can afford to engage in frivolous or ungainful public conversation of the kind that would surely come up in any public debate with either Costillo or Pawlowski.

  5. George Whitfield Says:

    R. Paul: You are a good writer and you seem to enjoy expressing your views and believe that the LP could compete better. You should run as a Libertarian for an elected office. What do you think?

  6. John L. Says:

    R. Paul/P. Henry would be better running as a republicrat. He sounds like that is who they really work for.

  7. R. Paul Says:

    Mr. Whitfield:

    Good writers/thinkers become novelists, journalists and in the case of folks with an itch for political dialogue, penners of political tracts. A good candidate for the electoral process is a composite of many other diverse personal traits, interests and capacities. Most good pols I know and regularly work with can barely write an intelligible sentence, let alone a coherent paragraph. Others write for them, including their speeches.

    The long and short of it, or “why Pawlowski?” Why, indeed.

    The law requires the “republicrats” to run primary campaigns and then primary elections for elective office like the Office of Governor. The purpose of these campaigns and elections is to allow the rank and file of the party faithful to take stock of those attempting to stand for office, estimate the moral fiber of those candidates, evaluate the candidates’ public policy suggestions and platforms, the candidate’s skill and determination, and estimate each candidate’s comparative electability. (Of course, if there is no challenge from within the same party or no one from the party steps forward to seek the seat in question, there is no official primary conducted.) The presumption behind the primary process is that given time and exposure and a certain degree of healthy adversarialness, a suitable candidate will emerge from this process. Because only the best and most determined can stand up to such scrutiny over time, only the best and most determined of the lot tend to come forward to test the waters. Those that don’t measure up either drop out or are defeated at the primary election.

    Third parties, like the NJLP, do not engage in such a process and do not have to as a matter of law governing minor political organizations. Typically, such organizations either nominate their candidates at a State Convention attended by 25 to 50 of the same people year in and year out without discussion or debate, or select their nominees in executive committee. (In practice, there is virtually no difference) If there is any discussion or debate over the relative merits of the candidate, it is so limited that no one outside of those who may be behind a particular candidate can really know anything material about that person.

    Anyone familiar with the rigors of the primary process would have to characterize the NJLP’s method of choosing candidates as wholly ineffective, careless, even dangerous. Personally, I subscribe to the last characterization: dangerous.

    Only a few of a select group of members typically actually get to know the candidate beyond the few words that any potential nominee may get to mutter in a five-minute speech at the State Convention. The process affords neither the time nor the structure within which the members can actually evaluate prospective nominees. Thus, the eventual nominee tends to be someone who is selected by the same small, insular group of people with a certain, highly dubious agenda. Truly excellent candidates, or comparatively independent and better qualified candidates often do not bother to seek the nomination, given the cramped and stacked selection (not election) process (or lack thereof).

    This system does not serve, demand or even contemplate excellence of potential nominees. It gives you Pawlowski, selected by the usual gang of suspects. Time after time, year after year, election cycle after election cycle. The NJLP does nothing to alter this process despite the clear evidence that it produces wholly unacceptable results. The existing process apparently suits the existing candidate selectors, but it doesn’t suit political reality nor the long-term interests of the party. And it never will, of course.

    The NJLP shows no sign whatsoever that it even recognizes or understands this fundamental, but wholly correctable flaw in the least. And it routinely exorcises from its ranks (and recently, its own leadership) those who do recognize the problem and seek to correct it.

    So you get candidates who see nothing wrong in dressing for public photos in drag; selling chances to obtain political jobs on the Internet; publishing nothing of substance on the issues; playing fast and loose with the election rules and regulations; and, misrepresenting himself and his campaign to his own potential supporters.

  8. Patrick Henry Says:

    Well said Mr. Paul.

    The NJLP knows how be become a major political party in NJ…..it must run slates for the Assembly or State Senate and secure a specified percentage of the vote. In thirty years it has not done so. Until it does so it will remain a fringe and minor political party in NJ.

    When former NJLP Chair Vic Kaplan tried to secure a full slate for the Assembly in this election he met with resitence from the party ownwers. Why? He got fed up with the b/s and resigned in utter disgust. Phillips the next NJLP upset the apple cart and the never-changing NJLP leadership by defeating the annointed crown prince and heir apparent ….they get rid of him with haste.

    The NJLP knows what to do and how to become a major political party under NJ law. In thirty years it has refused to do so. Running a drag queen for governor, having no current campaign platform, playing childish pranks such as selling certifcates of political favor and refusing to address the issues of cocnern to NJ voters only serves to enforce in the minds of NJ citizens that these “libertarians” are crazed and unworthy of support. Such childish conduct, foolishness, games, pranks and the failure to build a REAL alernative political party beniefits only the “republicarats” cited by an earlier posted.

    The NJLP had ample opportunity and time to change its leadership and direction but the nver-changing and eternal party owners refused to allow this to occur. Many Libertarians see the logic of term limits for public officials yet they fail to apply the same to their own internal government.

    Makes me winder who the real “republicrats” are? Who is serving whom? I think you know my answer.

  9. Patrick Henry Says:

    From : Jay Boucher
    Reply-To : [email protected]
    Sent : Friday, September 16, 2005 6:11 PM
    To : [email protected]
    Subject : Re: Fwd: Comment: “4-way New Jersey gubernatorial debate”

    Robert,

    The problem is I’ve spent the entire day talking to one attorney
    or another, and they don’t get it. I’ve had two tell me that
    the decision that Richard Winger cites upholds that public television
    has editorial discretion when it comes to content. Sheesh.

    Edward Barocas is the legal director for the ACLU. He wrote:
    “It is not as good a case as I thought.” after one call to
    ELEC. Obviously, he doesn’t understand Winger’s review. ELEC
    is not the defendent.

    I still need help. Any attorney, or anyone making a referral,
    should contact me ASAP. Such attorney need not know election
    law.

    732.904.0007

    Jay Boucher

    On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:43:35PM -0700, Robert Jacobs wrote:
    > This is from Richard Winger.
    >

    > If it helps get us in the Major Party debates, use it.
    > Note: forwarded message attached.
    >

    >
    > Robert Jacobs
    > http://www.njlp.org
    > http://www.lp.org
    > Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
    > From: “[email protected]
    > Subject: Comment: “4-way New Jersey gubernatorial debate”
    > To: Robert Jacobs
    >

    > This story isn’t over yet. Under the US Supreme Court
    > opinion Arkansas Educational TV Commission v Ralph
    > Forbes, in 1998, public TV can sponsor a debate and
    > invite only the Dem and Rep, but public TV must also
    > invite any minor party or indp. candidate who has
    > shown that he has a real campaign. Ralph Forbes (an
    > independent candidate for US House from Arkansas)
    > didn’t really have a campaign, but the US Supreme
    > Court said if he had, he could not have been excluded.
    > I expect the New Jersey Libertarian to take advantage
    > of this precedent and sue the public TV station that
    > is sponsoring the exclusionary debate. Or maybe they
    > won’t need to sue, if they just point out that they
    > could sue.
    >

    COMMENT:

    ARKANSAS EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION COMMISSION v. FORBES

    http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-779.html

    A solid 6-3 overturning the District Court of Appeals. The dissent has some merit.. But even if you applied dissents legal analysis to the facts of this case, you might come up with the conclusion that NJN could exclude Pawlowski on the basis that he failed to show “substantial public support”, but you’d have to include Costillo because he actually did demonstrate “substantial public support” in raising over $300,000 (not of his own money via a personal loan). What the dissent is clearly interested in is stopping publicly-owned television stations from being arbitrary in deciding who to admit or not. It points to the fact that Forbes had earlier demonstrated substantial public support for the office he sought. Even under the dissents’ rationale, however, Pawlowski loses.

    Findlaw Legal Internet Guide http://www.findlaw.com/ Findlaw Newsletter Subscription Center http://newsletters.findlaw.com/ Findlaw Legal News - updated day and night http://news.findlaw.com/ US Supreme Court Case 1893+selected earler cases http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

  10. Patrick Henry Says:

    Here is a comment by Latigona (the Ind. gub. candidate) about Pawlowski:

    http://www.michaelforgovernor.com/

    “We have a Libertarian, who, in a good attempt to thwart campaign finance laws, lent himself over $250,000 only to pay himself back in order to qualify to participate in a statewide funded debate. Pretty smart on his part actually. But wrong none the less. He found a loophole, and did not do it the way it was meant to be. One must collect and spend $300,000 in CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS in order to qualify. He only collected about $35,000 from what I know. Heck, I and every candidate could have done that, but is that truly what you want us to do?”

    Cant fool everyone it seems!

  11. Amani S. Says:

    Corzine and Forrester, both multimillionaires, opted out of the program and are funding their own campaigns but have agreed to participate in one of the ELEC debates on Oct. 18.

    http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1127106055149360.xml&coll=1

    So does this mean we are back on for one debate.

  12. Patrick Henry Says:

    This story changes daily if not hourly. There is a rumor every day and more and more conflicting stories and statements from the campaigns.

  13. George Washington Says:

    The article is from last week. According to ELEC, while Pawlowski and Castillo have qualified for the ELEC debates, neither Corzine nor Forrester intend to take part in them.

  14. Amani S. Says:

    The one I quoted is from today.
    I really, really hate bad reporting.
    First, was the loan 100,000 or 250,000?
    Now this?

  15. Patrick Henry Says:

    Well the articles that I have read indicate that the personal loan, which was repaid in one day, was in the region of $250,000.

  16. Patrick Henry Says:

    From : Robert P. Hull
    Reply-To : [email protected]
    Sent : Monday, September 19, 2005 11:58 AM
    To : [email protected]
    Subject : leaks

    Dear Activists,

    Please be advised there is an enemy operative in our midst who is posting
    contents of this list in a public forum.

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2005/09/16/or-maybe-not/#comments

    Any strategy discussion will be compromised until such time as De-con has
    been applied to the rodent.

    Bob

  17. Amani S. Says:

    In the region of 250,000?
    So we don’t know how much it was for and which if any of the debates are ELEC sponsored?

  18. Patrick Henry Says:

    The major duopoly candidates ARE NOT required to legally engage in any NJ ELEC debates.

  19. Amani S. Says:

    Yes, I know that, but Corzine said he was only participating the ones he agreed to and was not adding more. Now the SL is reporting the will be one on the 18th. As of last week the one on the 18th was sponsored by ABC and was not a ELEC debate.
    Is that the debate they are talking about?

  20. R. Paul Says:

    Mr. Amani:

    You can answer your own question by telephoning ELEC. ELEC will gladly answer any of your questions respecting the debates. After all, in their words, ” . . . that’s what they’re there for”.

    I telephoned ELEC yesterday morning after I read the Star Ledger report. ELEC indicated that neither of the major party candidates will take part in the ELEC debates, and that newspaper reports to the contrary were in error.

    It is very difficult to get any kind of straight and reliable information from Trenton unless you are a member of the Trenton Establishment. But ELEC has been sporadically reliable in the past, and I have no reason to doubt their report.

  21. Amani S. Says:

    Well.(looks under her skirt to find nothing that would qualify her as a Mr.)
    My point was bad reporting.
    To answer the question I would have to call ABC.
    But if you have done that already, please share and save me the 2.2 cents a minute.

  22. R. Paul Says:

    Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. or Master Amana S.:

    You are right. I stand corrected. A complete answer to your query would have to include a report of reliable information repecting ABC’s involvement ot non-involvement, at the least. I was simply telling you what I had reason to believe it was not.

  23. B. VerPlanck Says:

    Dear Third:

    It is very civilized to have a reporter viewing the other side of the matter.

    It would seem that the two parties cannot stand for a different position against their socialist agenda. You know we all lose for it.

    In Liberty, BV

  24. Patrick Henry Says:

    Sadly it also seems that the so-called NJ Libertarian Party stands also for nada. Its own candidate had only “nice things” to say about the duopoly candidatesd and in the same interview he had little to say (that is no surprise) regarding the state budget. In fact all he said is that we need to spend the current funds more wisely!

    The socialist agenda has many promoters…..may small “l” liberatians.

    Sadly the so-called NJLP seems just as capable of using underhand tactics, gimmicks and games as does the duopoly candidates.

    True liberty, is not a joke. Nor is the REAL political process.

  25. Enough Already! Says:

    Seriously, if “Patrick Henry” had spent as much time working for the party when he was the chairman as he does bad mouthing it on this site… Pawlowski would be at 10% in the polls!

    Yes, I can recognize the quirks and phrases from your writing, Mr. Phillips. You have about 4 different names you’re posting under on this site and it’s enough already. Please. You were removed from office for a reason!!

  26. Patrick Henry Says:

    I have no idea who you are EA and why dont you practice what you preach and sign your own name??? Yeah…set the standard for all to follow and then post.

    Some you so-called “libertartians ” remind me of the Communist whjith your demand for lotalty to “party”, not substance, principle or policy! And where is your defense of freedom and opposition????

    I did meet Phillips at the last NJLP convention and I voted for him. Like many before him he got railroaded by the NJLP party owners. The NJLP says it believes in term limits but it seems unable to apply that same wisdom to its nver changing Monmouth mob leadership.

    However, this topic and this forum is about third parties and their candidates…not personal sqabbles. Discuss that if you are able to do so rather than trying to divert attention to away from the topic of the day!

  27. Enough Already! Says:

    I should hope you met and voted for Brian Phillips, seeing as how you ARE Brian Phillips.

    Is someone getting nervous now that their cover is blown? I can see right through you, Brian.

  28. Patrick Henry Says:

    Well EA set the standard and sign your own name! You wont. When you sign your name perhaps we all will follow your high example of utmost honesty. As I have siad before I only know Phillips from meeting him at the last NJLP convention. I could have been a possible Assembly candidate fro the NJLP. Phillips called and recruited me for the same and then he was ousted for daring to question the Monmouth mob unchanging party owners.

    Phillips is not the issue here. He is not an NJLP candidate. In fact I am not sure if he paid his NJLP dues. If I were him I would not. Discuss the topic issue. Stop trying to divert attention away from the issue, questions and concerns that have been raised herein. That is an old tactic that will not work.

    And if you see writing similarities between Ron Paul and myself you are a moron. The styles are CLEARLY different if you look.

    Whoever the hell you are EA this is NOT an NJLP forum so you cant censor or ban anyone. Get used to it….thats true democracy and free speech in action…something a REAL Libertarian should support. Your antics here just are showing a public forum your true colors.

  29. R. Paul Says:

    Oh good, they’re no longer picking on me. Now they’re picking on this Phillips guy.

    Is there anyone out there who can add anything to the topic under discussion? Does anyone have any new or different information?

    I, for one, would like to know something of what Pawlowski is going to say to Costillo, the guy Pawlowski’s going to end up debating in the ELEC debates. Pawlowski’s campaign hasn’t really said anything remotely libertarian, and for all I know, Costillo could be more libertarian than Pawlowski. That would be tragic, but unforunately not beyond imagination.

    I did this one piece of information from the ELEC staff: Costillo had no interest in the debates at all and was apparently surprised when ELEC told him that he had to “sing for his dinner” as it were by participating in the debates. He was only interested in the public money in the form of matching funds.

    This could be pretty funny. Pawlowski gets stuck debating someone who has no interest in delivering a public message, but just want s to take advantage of the ridiculous matching funds aspect of the campaign finance laws. The moderator asks, “what do you think of the campaign finance laws, Mr. Costillo?” Costillo answers, “I think the idea of making me debate on TV in public is wrong, so I’m not going to answer any of your questions”. Same question to Mr. Pawlowski. Pawlowski answers, “You should have forced Mr. Corzine and Mr. Forrester to debate me, and since you didn’t, I have nothing else to say . . . and by the way, I’m not giving the $30,000 dollars back to the donors, either”.

    Mercifully short and to the point.

  30. John L. Says:

    When I telephoned ELEC they told me that they don’t know if the R’s or D’s will participate in the ELEC debates. They said that it is up to the sponsors to invite them. So it is likely that Corzine and/or Forester would participate in the official ELEC debates and have to face Jeff Pawlowski.

    Jeff and his campaign are doing an excellent job. I hope that they blow up the entire political machine in New Jersey.

    R. Paul (aka Patrick Henry, aka Brian J. Phillips) is just a disgruntled hack who is grasping at straws. He got involved in the NJLP for less than a year and did nothing but cause trouble. This was after he did the same thing with the NJ Conservative party. Now he trolls the net looking to start controversy. Soon he’ll move on to another party until they can’t stand him anymore.

  31. Enough Already! Says:

    You guys are really funny.

    Particularly you, Ron “William Schetlick” Paul.

  32. John L. Says:

    EA,

    Maybe, but I doubt it. But my bet would be that they are all Brian J. Phillips.

    Bill Schetlick at least makes sense and I don’t think he would waste his time attacking others like Brian.

  33. R. Paul Says:

    Mr. John L.:

    ELEC apparently is telling everybody different things. Yesterday, they told me over the phone that Corzine and Forrester would not participate in the public, ELEC debates.

    As far as I know, it is true that the sponsors can invite anyone and that the sponsors may have invited Corzine and Forrester, but they have declined as far as I know. They must, however, invite both Pawlowski and Costillo.

    Again as far as we know, Pawlowski will participate in a debate with Costillo (Costillo because he has to and Palowski because he wants to) and that Corzine and Forrester, although invited, have declined to participate.

    The question remains: will Pawlowski still debate only Costillo? If yes, what shall he say on behalf of the Libertarian Party? Will he take positions consistent with the NJLP Platform, such as it is?

    P.S. Again, this is not about R. Paul or anyone else other than the candidate or his campaign.

  34. R. Paul Says:

    Oh I neglected to add: ELEC indicated that the sponsors had invited both Forrester and Corzine, but both indicated they had no intention of participating in any additional debates other than what they had already agreed to, neither of which were the ELEC debates. Both major party campaigns confirm this.

    It is true that Forrester and Corzine could change their minds as their campaigns have indicated. But as of right now, they are still out. Right now, you have Costillo v. Pawlowski.

    If the nature of the race changes radically and either party decides it needs to participate in one or both of those debates, then it is conceivable that Pawlowski might end up in a debate on the same dais as the majors. And it might snow in August in Tahiti, too.

  35. R. Paul Says:

    For Amani:

    NJN news announced that the ELEC debate will be held on October 20, 2005. The other “private debates” are scheduled prior to that date, one on the October 18, 2005. The major party candidates will not participate in the October 20, 2005 debates according to the news reports.

    I also heard that the Pawlowski campaign made a valiant, last ditch effort via legal action to be included in tonight’s NJN debate, but was denied in an application for a preliminary injunction (a very difficult and unusual remedy, but one that was arguably merited in this case).

  36. 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! No issue…nada.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. How I vote, if I vote in this election, is my business.

    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, gimmicks and pranks. That to me is not real politics or what a real political party should be engaged in.

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

    I am not a member of the NJLP nor do I hold any office in the NJLP nor am I a candidate for public office. I am not the subject this thread….though some seek to make ME the issue. I wish to be left in peace and NJLP-less. The real topic of this thread and forum is the NJLP and its campaign or lack thereof. Rather than engaging in personal attacks upon me the NJLP should be campaigning…...trying to address issues of concern to NJ voters and seeking to move public policy towards freedom. In my view dressing in drag or selling certificates of political influence will not attain that goal. Rather than typing personal attacks upon me in this frrum maybe the NJLPers can try to post some issues on their candidates web. It is rather nude in that area.

    However, I am honored that I am viewed by some as a bogeyman and am I glad they fear someone or something. Secondly, I am honored that someone who sees 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!

    However, this is clearly computer fraud and identity theft. Should the false postings continue I will file a formal complaint with Federal authorities.

    Stop playing childish games and gimmicks. Leave me alone and in peace and NJLP-less.

  37. John L. Says:

    If Brian J. Phillips can pretend to be R. Paul or Patrick Henry why can’t someone else pretend to be Brian Phillips?

    You continue illogical attacks and continue with the name calling yet you want to be left in peace?

    “illegaly remove”? The real Brian J. Phillips was removed with a unanimous vote at a very well attended meeting. Give it up already.

    I tend to think that the ebay auctions were an excellent idea. The certificates of political influence were clearly presented as a parody of the political situation in NJ. Anyone who thinks otherwise either has absolutely no sense of humor or is really digging for a reason to attack someone.

    The drag picture is from a halloween party.

    “a formal complaint with Federal authorities”
    Should Ron Paul and the descendents of Patrick Henry file a complaint against you?

  38. Brian J. Phillips Says:

    Once again: I am not the topic of this forum. That topic is third parties, candidates and their campaigns (or lack thereof). LEAVE ME ALONE in peace and NJLP-less. You are like crazed Communists that think nothing else than blind party loyalty.

    You have a campaign and a candidate. Work on that and forget about my vote but try to address some issues.

    Rather than attack ME perhaps you need to answer some of concerns and questions raised on this forum.

    My advice to you on the issue of computer fraud and identity theft is to consult a lawyer. As I am being sued by an NJLP member I have done that! See what answer they give you.

    I care not to comment on your joke of a campaign and candidate becuse I dont give a crap about either. Do you get the message? Leave me alone. Take up the other issues you raise with the others who have posted here.

  39. R. Paul Says:

    Yeah, that’s the problem.

    Everyone takes pictures at Halloween parties, but candidates for the highest elective office in the state don’t put them on their websites. Just bad judgment.

    A parody is good so long as it doesn’t violate the law, rules and regulations, and that it is incapable of being seen by any rational person as a serious statement.

    Putting such an auction on EBay, while clearly making the parody funnier to those who have a subtle sense of humor and who might be libertarians, also works to make it look SERIOUS to others less sophisticated or who take the so-called “good government” approach. To them, such a barb, even if a jest is highly offensive.

    So while libertarians may find that parody funny, many others may not. And that is why, at least from a general campaign strategy perspective, that idea should have been eschewed, just as the soft porn on that other candidate’s website should have been avoided.

    I realize that third parties tend to be ill-advised or unadvised in respect of their campaign tactics and presentation. And because they get little attention from the media, the temptation is to use some sensationalism. yeah, that might get you some publicity, but the treatment you receive will be silly and will tend to make your campaign look frivolous and unprofessional.

    Third parties should try to be as professional as they can be at all times, given their limited personpower and finances. Which is not to say they shouldn’t be creative, just that they should curb some of their more extreme ideas, and should resist the temptation to make a part of their campigns everything they think is funny or a parody.

    The general lesson is: if you don’t act professionally and take yourself seriously, no one else ever will.

  40. Brian Phillipz Says:

    Oh come on are you insane?

    Who in their right mind would think the ebay auctions are a serious attempt to sell government positions?

    I haven’t seen it receive any negative press at all. It has gotten Jeff lots of postive press.

  41. Patrick Henry Says:

    Yeah who in their right mind would think Jeff a serious candidate!

  42. Austin Cassidy Says:

    I am ending comments on this topic.