Christine Smith interviewed

Libertarian Party presidential wannabe Christine Smith was interviewed by Paul Molloy on WTAN-AM1340. For those who have listened to Libertarian presidential candidates being interviewed as often as I have, there wasn’t much significantly new. Her speaking style seems to have improved over the last few months.

I’ll highlight the portions which might be controversial, debatable or otherwise of interest.

“I’m the leading candidate by all the ways we can measure it.”

I’ll note that winning one non-binding primary (but losing others) doesn’t mean all that much—especially when losing to someone who isn’t even on the ballot. Here is one measurable standard which indicates that Smith is currently in 4th place among convention delegates—if one doesn’t count NOTA, which is currently outpolling Smith, too.

“These are people who are seeking the LP nomination, but the majority are far from being libertarian.” [...]

“Almost everyone running, with just probably a couple of exceptions, are not libertarian. They are men doing it, I guess, for their egos.”

I’m not sure what definition of libertarian she’s using, but most of the candidates certainly have libertarian and/or Libertarian credentials. Among the list of 14 LP presidential candidates, there are certainly some whose libertarian / Libertarian credentials could be questioned. However, if there are only “a couple” of libertarians running, I wondering which of these people she’s accusing of being non-libertarian: Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Bob Jackson, Jim Burns, Barry Hess, Daniel Williams.

Smith had some good lines about getting out of Iraq and that entire military theater. She initially thought that the invasion of Afghanistan to go after Osama bin Laden was justified, but has re-thought this position.

“What if we knew Osama bin Laden were there [in Pakistan]? Would it justify our invasion of that nation and the killing of thousands more civilians? I’ve decided ‘no.’”

On the income tax…

“I believe that the income tax is an abomination. It is a deplorable exploitation of the American people. We can easily abolish the income tax—abolish the IRS —and replace it with nothing…”

About Ron Paul…

“...which has been really unfortunate to see how the media has treated him and how the GOP has treated him.”

Personally, I thought Paul received a fair amount of media attention considering the amount of votes he actually obtained. I’m not sure what she means about how the GOP treated him—in New Hampshire, the state GOP went as far as to challenge Fox News for not including Paul in a debate. If she’s referring to primary vote totals, perhaps one might consider that Paul was running in a political party not especially disposed to considering a libertarian message.

About Hillary Clinton…

“I would like to put out a challenge to Hillary Clinton. I would like to debate Hillary Clinton. I will destroy that woman.”

The last time I checked, it will take polling at 15% to get into the debates. If Smith thinks the media treated Ron Paul unfairly, how does she think they will treat her? I’ve not seen any campaign strategy of hers (or most of the other LP candidates) which might even get them close to that 15% threshold.

Smith was quick thinking, quick talking and well spoken throughout the interview. She displayed a fair amount of confidence—but I’m sure some listeners will suggest that her level of confidence borders on hype.

Listen to the entire interview here to judge for yourself.

77 Responses to “Christine Smith interviewed”

  1. Michael Cathcart Says:

    I’m no fan of Ms. Smith, but this article is quite biased against her. The only LP candidates that could get my vote are Bob Barr or Michael Badnarik. Otherwise its writing in Ron Paul for me.

  2. Stephen Gordon Says:

    I’m no fan of Ms. Smith, but this article is quite biased against her.

    As I have done with Root, Phillies, and Kubby, I point out the positives and negatives of the candidates. I’ve pointed out Root’s ability to obtain media coverage but been critical of him on the war. I’ve pointed out Phillies campaign organization and noted that he tends to alienate potential supporters. I’ve praised Kubby for being right on the issues and criticized him for focusing too much on one particular issue.

    In this case, I complimented Smith on her speaking style, but challenged some of the statements that she made—and one of those (saying that the other candidates aren’t libertarian) is somewhat inflammatory, in my opinion.

    I haven’t decided who I will support, but am looking at the pros and cons of each of the leading candidates in order to make up my mind. It’s not my job to play cheerleader for national LP candidates anymore—I gave that up when I left LPHQ.

    Additionally, I filed this under “opinion” and not “news.”

  3. Web Smith Says:

    Christine is obviously new at this and is typical of many people who know that things aren’t right but doesn’t realize how all of the things tie together. She is a lot like the members of the Revolutionary army who rushed full of glory but blindly onto Long Island to save a few comrades at the Battle of Brooklyn only to be promptly surrounded and almost destroyed by an overwhelming force. Fortunately they escaped, learned quickly, and went on to victory. Christine has the ability to do this, too.

    As far as the MSM special interest groups, did Ron not get the votes because they kept saying he wasn’t a serious candidate and excluding him or did he not get the votes because he wasn’t a serious candidate? Everyone knows that if people are told the same thing over and over again, pretty soon they believe it. You have to keep your eye on these special interest guys or they’ll be leading you around by the nose in no time.

  4. Stephen Gordon Says:

    I like the Revolutary War analogy, in general. It’s also worth remembering that a lot of poorly trained, equipped and led militia members suffered worse fates. Fortunately, Gen. Washington had the organizational and leadership skills to overcome this.

    With respect to Ron Paul, I seem to recall him on all but one national debate, but Jay Leno more than made up for that. Before Iowa and New Hampshire, suggesting that Paul wasn’t serious may well have hurt. The reality was that he rarely polled that well, though.

    No matter how you look at it, Paul did receive a respectable amount of media coverage. He had the money to offset earned media with paid media—which in turn generates more earned media. I never saw a coherent media strategy from the campaign—it seemed more like they were trying to preach a message than to win an election.

  5. Paulie Says:

    I agree with Thomas Sipos’ analysis:

    I’m not comfortable giving our top spot to a newcomer who’s still learning and evolving. (That would include Christine Smith.) I’d rather Root continue his education, and prove his sincerity by supporting the LP in other ways. He can always run in 2012.

    I hope Root and Smith do not get the nomination - at least the top spot, I’m a lot less opposed to them being VP - but do stay involved with the LP, get active with their state, county and national parties, and run as candidates for lower level office, and I think that by 2012 - IF they are still involved with the LP then - they might well make great presidential candidates.

    To both a lesser (because of his political experience) and a greater (because of the negative parts of his past record continuing to create a certain impression in people’s minds) extent, I would apply the same analysis to Bob Barr.

    Of the currently announced candidates, it’s no secret that I am supporting Steve Kubby - but he has a different set of problems as well. Specifically, he is still unable to self-finance much at all in the way of airplane tickets, delegate and fundraising letters and lists, motel rooms, and printing campaign literature and merchandise, or a professional website, among other basics.

    Unfortunately, this year that is the only way to finance a LP presidential campaign. The only candidates who have been able to do these things are the ones who have enough of their own money to pay for them.

    Steve also has to spend a lot of time working for a living, leaving not enough time for campaign activities, and leading him to be too tired at some of the campaign activities he is able to make at all.

    While some of the other candidates need to spend some time working on making more solid the foundations of their libertarian philosophy and party involvement, Steve also needs some time - but in his case, to build his personal finances back up to where he can afford to self-finance the starter basics of campaigning. In the meantime, just like the newcomers, I hope he runs for winnable local office to further build his credibility for next time (assuming of course there will even be a next time).

    Finally there is George Phillies. He is crtainly not new to being active in the party, he’s run for office before, and he can afford to get around the country, print campaign literature, and acquire and mail lists of libertarians. His charisma factor has improved tremendouslyl, at least on stage, although there is still a lot to overcome. However, George has ticked off way too many strong constituencies among likely convention goers and still has a few important weak points in his ideology, although not as many as Root or a few of the other candidates.

    If Mary Ruwart decides to run, she does not have any of these three sets of problems. She is articulate, fully libertarian ideologically, a long time active LP member, AND able to afford the basics of campaigning.

    As of this time, she appears to be as close to a perfect candidate as we’ll get - if she has another serious set of problems, I am not aware of what they are. In fact, from what I know about her now, she is better than all our past candidates as well.

    Steve has one thing going for him that, to my knowledge, Ruwart does not - a proven record of actually getting freedom legislation passed - but I don’t think it would be enough, based on what has happened so far, to overcome the structural problems I mentioned earlier. If Ruwart runs, at this time, unles something big happens, I have a very hard time seeing Kubby get the nomination.

    If Mary Ruwart does NOT run, I still hope that Steve solves his set of problems - but at this late date, I must admit to a certain level of pessimism on that account. Of course, I would be tremendously happy to be proven wrong, and see him light a belated fire.

    The one hope I still have as of this time is that, if Ruwart does not jump in, Kubby would end up as the second choice of most Phillies and Smith supporters, and thus beat Root - who appears to be in first place now - on a subsequent ballot. That’s a piss poor way to win a nomination - not by earning it, but by being the last man left standing.

    At that point, I would be happy that Steve won, but dejected that he won it in such a slipshod fashion. He would have a long way to go to get party members excited about him being the candidate, and we could end up with a 1984 scenario. Still preferable to a softcore libertarian being our standard bearer, which would be even worse - but nevertheless a very disppointing scenario in a year with a lot of potential.

    So, unless something changes, I hope Ruwart decides to run, or, failing that, that Kubby lights a fire at the last minute which has so far not even sparked after all this time.

  6. Jackson Says:

    New to LP… I am seriously thinking about switching, just recently found about about it and really like their stances on the issues, but I am very confused as to how the LP nominates their candidate for President. On the LP site they have this Liberty Decides thing. With the only ranking I noticed was money. In this article you mention non-binding primaries. Why have a primary if it is not binding?

    Side note: After reading the websites for all the candidates for president listed in Liberty Decides, I was wonder about Daniel Imperato. He is in 2nd place, but after reading his website, Is he for real? He sound like a fictional character.

  7. Paulie Says:

    The LP nominates by convention.

    http://www.lpconvention.org/

  8. Paulie Says:

    BTW why was Smith not at her own state convention?

  9. Paulie Says:

    Or California?

  10. Stephen Gordon Says:

    New to LP…

    Welcome!

    I am very confused as to how the LP nominates their candidate for President.

    In national convention, by delegate votes. No delegate is bound to anything.

    On the LP site they have this Liberty Decides thing. With the only ranking I noticed was money.

    It’s primarily a fundraising device to help the eventual LP nominee. A good deal of the money will go to a fund which can be used to help the candidate. The money could be spent on things ranging from ballot access to television commercials.

    I was wonder about Daniel Imperato. He is in 2nd place, but after reading his website, Is he for real? He sound like a fictional character.

    Many of us feel the same way.

  11. Fred C. Says:

    Hmm… could Imperato be a fictional character? Have we been punk’d?

  12. Stephen Gordon Says:

    LOL@Fred

  13. Jackson Says:

    Thanks for the answers. Are the delegates at the convention elected somehow?

  14. Paulie Says:

    And while I understand the point she made about not paying the $500 debate fee in Vegas out of principle, that’s no reason for her to have skipped the whole weekend which included the Nevada convention, LSLA, platform and bylaws committees and LNC meeting. That would have provided plenty of opportunity to meet delegates even if she was not in the debate.

    Additionally, before Steve got his debate fee covered, George Phillies offered the possibility of a separate debate from the one put on by the convention organizers. Christine Smith could have done that too.

    Or even given a solo speech as an alternative to the debate.

  15. Paulie Says:

    Thanks for the answers. Are the delegates at the convention elected somehow?

    By their state parties.

  16. Paulie Says:

    As a practical matter, if you show up and ask to be seated, most states will be happy to seat you. Some of them will ask that you be a dues paying and/or pledge-signing member, but you can become one on the spot. If your state doesn’t, some other state probably will.

    In 2000, I got Michigan to seat me, and did not take a visit to Michigan to make it happen. After the fact, several other states I asked got back to me with yes answers, but by then I was already a Michigan delegate.

    Of course in my case it doesn’t matter what state I am a delegate for since I am living full time on the road. I might be an Alabama or Arizona delegate this time, for example.

  17. Stephen Gordon Says:

    I don’t understand what principle was involved in not paying the fee. That was a marginally reduced rate, compared to what the rest of us paid. It enabled the candidate and a staffer to participate in all of the events with one check being written.

    Is it principled for others to have to support her dinner tab?

  18. Paulie Says:

    She was opposed to supporting the national party with her own money because she has beef with them. Same reason Phillies is not in Liberty Decides.

    Fine, whatever.

    I did not say I agreed with her principled position, just that I understand it.

    But in this case it sounds suspiciously like an excuse - especially since she was ALSO not at the California or Colorado conventions, with no excuse at all as far as I know.

  19. Paulie Says:

    BTW I still have not met Ms. Smith.

    Conventions I attended.

    2007 - AL, TN, GA, NC, FL, MA, NH, plus an LNC meeting in Pittsburgh.

    2008 so far - CA, NV, plus a Utah supper club with Wayne Root.

    Candidates I have met at these events (all but maybe Jackson more than once)

    Phillies, Imperato, Jingozian, Root, Kubby, Burns, Jackson

    Not even once so far

    Christine Smith

  20. Paulie Says:

    Is it principled for others to have to support her dinner tab?

    To her, apparently yes.

  21. BillTx Says:

    She can’t be any worse than Wayne Allyn Doof, the king of infomercials.

  22. Paulie Says:

    Russell Means is running for President of Lakota Nation

    http://www.infowars.com/?p=795

  23. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “I don’t understand what principle was involved in not paying the fee.”

    The principle that when you’re providing the event’s primary entertainment event, free of charge, it’s bullshit to charge you for the privilege of doing so.

  24. Marc Montoni Says:

    “The principle that when you’re providing the event’s primary entertainment event, free of charge, it’s bullshit to charge you for the privilege of doing so.”

    Dang. Well… ummm… Knapp has finally said something with which I can wholeheartedly agree.

    I think we’re shooting ourselves in the foot in making our events basically inaccessible to Libertarian presidential candidates. The prez nominees this year are starting with a couple of huge handicaps:

    1) The LNC refuses to allow any of the candidates—even filing FEC committees—to rent the LP mailing list so they can make their case to the members via direct mail; and

    2) A large chunk of the leadership of the LP from the LNC right on down to state & local LP leaders has either actively opposed or aggressively ignored the Libertarian candidates and instead concentrated on Ron Paul.

    That said, it’s a big disappointment that none of the candidates—Kubby & Smith, for example—have done even the basics of organizing their campaigns. Smith in particular—I thought the above-reviewed interview was pretty damn good (except I too thought her “I’m the leading candidate” business was way over the top). Smith seems to think she only needs to communicate via the web and email. With a not particularly good website to boot.

    Libertarians in general are way too stuck on the Internet. Howard Dean and Ron Paul have both conclusively shown that being “political king of the web” doesn’t mean squat on election day.

    Candidates who are serious about winning the nomination should do what Badnarik, Russo, and Nolan all did in 2004: show up at state & local meetings. Badnarik didn’t have any money either. He still managed to get to a whole bunch of events on a shoestring by driving.

  25. G.E. Says:

    George Phillies is for trade protectionism, anti-immigrant “they’re stealing our jobs” border protectionism, tax credits to fund socialist education (and thus, implicitly, the income tax and federal involvement in education), China bashing, the Fed, government recognition of marriage, and some other stuff I’m probably forgetting.

    Of the credible candidates, I think Christine is pretty accurate with “a couple.”

  26. Jose C. Says:

    “However, George has ticked off way too many strong constituencies among likely convention goers . . .”

    I agree. He has ticked off Ron Paul supporters because he did not endorse or support Ron Paul’s candidacy. If that is so and it is he also ticked off Hillary Clinton supporters (Phillies did not endorse her candidacy). Phillies has also ticked off Borak Obama supporters (he never endorsed his candadcy). Phillies has also ticked off John McCain supporters (he never endorsed his candidacy). Phiilies also ticked off all the other Republican and Democratic candidates he never endorsed or supported.

    And where does it say George Phillies, myself, or any other member of the Libertarian Party should or is under any obligation to endorse or support a candidate for President of another political party?

  27. David F. Nolan Says:

    Paulie’s analysis is very close to mine. In a year when perhaps more voters than ever before are looking for a real alternative, most of the money that would have gone to credible Libertarian aspirants went instead to Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is a good friend of liberty, but his futile campaign for the GOP nomination has left Libertarian hopefuls underfunded and overlooked.

    I think Kubby would be our best bet IF he had raised $50,000 to date, and was attending state LP conventions left and right. Wayne Root has a lot of potential, but needs to get a firmer grasp on libertarian principles and demonstrate his campaign skills by running for a lower office before heading up our national ticket. George Phillies is a decent man with prior campaign experience, but he has NO charisma whatsoever. If you could combine the best attributes of these three men, you’d have a damn fine candidate!

    Mary Ruwart is much beloved in Libertarian circles, but has little name recognition outside those circles. Unlike Root and Kubby, who each have a pre-existing support base, Mary is not a “celebrity” - even to the degree that Kubby and Root are (which isn’t very much). I like Mary, and will happily support her if she becomes the Libertarian nominee, but I seriously doubt she’d enable the LP to break out of the 300K to 500K vote range.

    I wish we could resurrect Harry Browne … or convince Ron Paul to change his mind and run again as a Libertarian. However, I see the likelihood of these two scenarios as being about equal.

  28. Stephen Gordon Says:

    The principle that when you’re providing the event’s primary entertainment event, free of charge, it’s bullshit to charge you for the privilege of doing so.

    That weekend cost me well over a grand. I certainly didn’t consider the presidential debate the main main reason for attending (LP-related stuff was) nor the best entertainment (we went with Angela Keaton and Bob Barr to see Penn and Teller and then had cigars and good whiskey with them afterwards).

    From an entertainment point of view, I prefer Penn Jillette to Daniel Imperato and his cast of clowns.

    I do appreciate that the Kubby folks remembered that I enjoy a good glass of whiskey, though. I’ll probably remember that in Denver, too.

  29. Paulie Says:

    ME: “However, George has ticked off way too many strong constituencies among likely convention goers . . .”

    Jose C:

    I agree. He has ticked off Ron Paul supporters because he did not endorse or support Ron Paul’s candidacy. If that is so and it is he also ticked off Hillary Clinton supporters (Phillies did not endorse her candidacy). Phillies has also ticked off Borak Obama supporters (he never endorsed his candadcy). Phillies has also ticked off John McCain supporters (he never endorsed his candidacy). Phiilies also ticked off all the other Republican and Democratic candidates he never endorsed or supported.

    Me again:

    No way, Jose. Hillary, Obama and McCain supporters are large constituencies within the Libertarian Party among likely convention goers? This, I did not know.

    It helps, when responing, to respond to what I actually write.


    And where does it say George Phillies, myself, or any other member of the Libertarian Party should or is under any obligation to endorse or support a candidate for President of another political party?

    Umm…where did I say George is under any such obligation?

    I am nost talking about obligations. I’m talking about ticking off the people that he is asking to nominate him.

    Of course, Ron Paul supporters are far from the only people George has ticked off.

    GE names a few of the constituencies

    George Phillies is for trade protectionism, anti-immigrant “they’re stealing our jobs” border protectionism, tax credits to fund socialist education (and thus, implicitly, the income tax and federal involvement in education), China bashing, the Fed, government recognition of marriage, and some other stuff I’m probably forgetting.

    And yes, there are several large constituencies that are important within the LP that GE did in fact forget.

    I won’t bore you by naming them all again (been there, done that) but I’ll just give you ONE example. Phillies says if you are an anthropogenic glogal warming skeptic, you are no better than a believer in the flat earth theory. Granted, George is far better qualified than most LP members who disagree with him on this issue to argue the subject, but guess what… there are lots of people in the LP who will be at the convention who fall in the category he just called flat eathers

    And there are a whole bunch more.

    I am not at this time commenting on which of these issues he is wrong and on which he is right. I only made an empirical observation.

    That observation was “However, George has ticked off way too many strong constituencies among likely convention goers . . .” and I stand by it. Hey, maybe some of those constituencies deserved to be ticked off. Let’s even say, only for the sake of argument, that they ALL deserved to be ticked off and that George is absolutely right about everything.

    It still would not help him in his quest to get the people who are voting on who should be the LP presidential nominee this year to pick him when he has ticked off so many of them.

    That’s not about whether he was/is right on any of those issues or whether the people he disagreed with were/are right. Not what I am addressing here.

    The fact is he is asking them for the nomination after he has (figuratively) pissed on them and the things they believe.

  30. Stephen Gordon Says:

    I think we’re shooting ourselves in the foot in making our events basically inaccessible to Libertarian presidential candidates.

    If a candidate can’t even afford the (generally speaking) the base charge for food and binders for an event, what would make one assume they have enough support to even get a hundred thousand votes?

  31. Mz. Sog O'Nist Says:

    Christine wasn’t providing the entertainment unless she planned to take off her shirt.

  32. Paulie Says:

    Mz O’Nist

    Ze fone….ze fone….

  33. Robert Milnes Says:

    Steve, “If a candidate can’t even afford…”. You are blaming the victim. In this case that would be candidates like Kubby, Smith & I, who are more dependent on campaign contributions than say Phillies or Root. & the problem can be traced back to…RON PAUL. & I still haven’t heard an explaination for Smith not being at Colorado & others.

  34. Paulie Says:

    In this case that would be candidates like Kubby, Smith & I,

    False. Kubby was in the debate, and was in fact the only candidate with a hospitality suite at that particular convention.

  35. Robert Milnes Says:

    Paulie, when you say “False.” you imply that everything said or represented is incorrect/false/unreliable etc. Wrong. I meant generally, Kubby’s campaign falls into the category I describe as more reliant on campaign contributions. I’m not going to let you, with one stroke of the keyboard, try to discredit me. Nice try. Actually not very nice at all. You remind me of catshit. & since you brought it up, what is your explaination for an impoverished campaign being the only one with a hospitality suite?

  36. Paulie Says:

    Paulie, when you say “False.” you imply that everything said or represented is incorrect/false/unreliable etc

    Nope, I am saying the specific thing you said was false.

    Specifically, you said that Steve could not afford the $500 to be in the debate, which in fact he did afford.

    I did not dispute that YOU don’t have the money. I have no idea about Smith (although that was not the excuse she used). I disputed you including Kubby in the same category.

    I’m not going to let you, with one stroke of the keyboard, try to discredit me.

    Oops, too late. You have long since discredited yourself. Everyone except you has noticed.

    I have no interest in discrediting you, since you do a fine job of it all by yourself. I was just disputing a specific claim you made about a specific candidate.

    You remind me of catshit.

    Backatcha, bubba.

    & since you brought it up, what is your explaination for an impoverished campaign being the only one with a hospitality suite?

    Not sure if I am authorized to tell you the specifics. It was a dedicated contribution from a supporter through an independent expenditure.

  37. G.E. Says:

    Milnes - The chances of anyone ever donating anything to you no matter who was running are equal to the chances of you being invited over to the home of the newscaster you stalked and sexually threatened. Problem is, in your sick and twisted mind, those are probably both possibilities.

    I’m pretty sure every single candidate in the running for the LP has been able to scrape together SOME contributions and supporters… Yourself excluded.

  38. disinter Says:

    Personally, I thought Paul received a fair amount of media attention considering the amount of votes he actually obtained.

    Huh? You are suggesting they knew what the vote totals were going to be, so the granted media coverage accordingly.

    Not to mention the media coverage he did get was all very biased against him… including the constant “are you going to run as a 3rd party candidate” red herring designed to marginalize him in the eyes of the voters. They repeated it so often that a lot of RP supporters fell for it, including Stephen Gordon.

  39. Paulie Says:

    http://lastfreevoice.com/2008/03/15/christine-smith-openly-insults-male-lp-opponents-during-radio-interview/

  40. Paulie Says:

    BTW that LFV article is by ENM - not by me.

  41. Dave Williams Says:

    She can’t be any worse than BillTx Doof, the king of TPW.

  42. Dave Williams Says:

    Correction…’Doofus’

  43. Robert Milnes Says:

    Paulie, wrong again. I said Kubby et al I would describe as more reliant on campaign contributions. Steve used the word “afford”. I suspect that Smith did not attend Colorado due to lack of campaign contributions which she might be reluctant to publicize. That is my reason for asking-to find this out. Your explaination of the hospitality suite was about what I suspected. In other words not paid for directly by the Kubby campaign through contributions. All this I blame libertarian support for Ron Paul-still in effect evidently. There are constant referrals to Paul’s continued campaign & possible LP/third party/independent run by diehards.

  44. Robert Milnes Says:

    G.E., must you keep referring incorrectly to my stalking/sexual threats etc.? Or are you anxious to offer another apology? I wouldn’t be so sure about the campaign contributions. Only self reliant types are geting past the $5000 LibertyDecides hurdle. & I don’t see a lot of travel & campaigning by the candidates. Let’s face it, between Ron Paul sucking up so much lib support-& it was lib-not gop-support & the so called lackluster field of candidates & suppression of interest by the msm domination by the big 3 & lib knowledge that none of the lp candidates have ANY chance of winning, there is not much interest/support.

  45. Robert Milnes Says:

    & compared to Ron Paul’s millions by fool libs $5000 is chump change.

  46. Robert Milnes Says:

    I just checked. Little movement on LibertyDecides. Kubby & Smith not over $5000 & little movement towards it.

  47. Dave Williams Says:

    I can’t open any thread on this site w/o being hit in the face by a RP money shot…

    1) Get over it folks, RP is not running on a third party ticket because he is a Republican!

    2) Ron Paul = a pissed off old man who wants to cut to deep to fast. There’s no way in hell this spoiled assed country is going to give up their subsidies and entitlements and watch the gov shrink to almost nothing overnight. To radical is a bad thing. It is going to take many small steps to get the job done. This was one of the reasons I didn’t jump on board w/him and I’m sure there are several million others who thought as I did at the time. After a few of his rants in the early debates he was dumped into the psycho bin (with the likes of Allen Keyes) by the MSM. I think Anderson Cooper cut him off about 30 times in one of those debates (which I thought was really fucked up, but I understand why).

    3) Come on in Sue, the waters fine. Hahaha and keep your head down, the last time I rifled a shot at RP it almost started a damn riot.

  48. Jerry S. Says:

    LOL-”THAT woman” 3 times ! She seems to have a strong dislike for Hitlery, even more so than her opposition in the LP race. She actually did a fine job. And was she really way off on some of these people just wanting to use the LP for the nomination, instead of using the nomination to help the LP, as it should be ? She seems to be sound on the issues and is smart to be “pure” on the immigration issue while seeking the nomination. That would cost her more votes, however in the general. Shouldn’t push open borders in the general, push “no welfare or social security to illegals”. I was “pure” years ago in my campaigns on that issue, I’ve changed now as I get older. With the current welfare state I am much more inline with Dr. Paul (minus the fence). Also feel NAU is a real and present danger. It truly is always a shame that the LP has such fine city council/county commissioner candidates that are self-compelled to seek to become the POTUS in their first or second political campaign. It would always be so much better to start down ticket and get elected and build the Party as you move up the ticket !

    As for digging up Browne, Mr. Nolan, it reminds me of one of the definitions of insanity, you know it, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result ! Mr. Browne didn’t fail enough the first time, so he was encouraged and allowed to do it again.?!? There is but one hope at major progress this year. Has anyone actually ask Ron since his House primary victory to accept the nomination ? You Mr, Nolan are a contributor, have you personally ask him ? He could continue as he wishes, to seek the RP nomination, hold his House seat (he has no dem opposition), and run under the LP label as U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). He and his inept staff have gutted the LP’s (and Constitutional Party also I might add) money base for ‘08, the absolute least the man should do is accept the nomination and compete for two extra months. The LP helped him when he was down and gave him the nomination over Russell Means in ‘88 when his last campaign was a most forgetable, humbling US Senate defeat to Gramm. He sure as HADES shouldn’t leave the LP twisting in the breeze now

    There is a strong desire among his followers to have him on the ballot Nov.4. Most of these kids keep talking Indy run. The vast majority of them know nothing about the LP priciples or platform. I would venture to say none of them have had to gather over a million ballot signatures for an Indy run before either ! Too many of them are “man” followers, while it is the message that got all of them in the beginning. The LP either needs to get Paul and let them follow, or go like they never have before after these people. There are probably 50 to 100,000 possible new LP members waiting to be gathered. I’ve never seen anything like it. There are some enthusiastic dedicated people in the campaign. And needless to say I’m sure mom and dad’s cards aren’t maxed out if Ron goes on to the FINALS Nov.4. I think another ten + million can be raised, with close to $30 million already spent, with a good start on infrastruture in place, independent ad PACs setup, mass grassroot nationwide activism and over a million professional signs made, it’s a NO BRAINER ! Change the rules if you have too and DRAFT him…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyACksgSWiE&NR=1

    I’m of the opinion that the Paul campaign was one of the worst handled I’ve witnessed and I can remember LBJ’s “I will not seek, nor accept” speech. so I’ve been watching a while. The LP needs Ron Paul minus his current top campaign staff. You give me $30 million to use against that WEAK Republican field and I would place Imperato or Finan in the top 2 or 3 in NH and I’d bet my farm and my life on it-LOL
    VIVA LA R(3VOl)uTION

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTGXpX-_GtA&NR=1
    Donna D’Errico’s Endorsement of Ron Paul for President

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cphTr8W9OnA&feature=related
    Hutton Gibson endorses Ron Paul for President in 2008

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NapSLjheTo4&NR=1
    Legendary Dragracer Big Daddy Don Garlits endorses Ron Paul

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOqXdbe7CVM&NR=1
    CIA Michael Scheuer Binladin Expert: Only Ron Paul Gets It

  49. Paulie Says:

    Bob, you were replying to a statement Steve made about affording binders and you said Kubby could not do it in this case. I corrected that particular non-fact. In no part of my message did I dispute or address one way or the other what you claimed in the rest of that message much less your non-existent credibility on other subjects.

    If Christine is broke, maybe that explains why she was not in San Diego. It does not explain why she was not at the Colorado convention. Are you trying to tell me she couldn’t afford probably $10 or less in gas (unless she lives in either Grand Junction or a remote small town, the vast majority of Colorado’s population lives within a very easy drive of each other) and could not find a ride from even one person coming from or passing through her area going to the convention? Seriously? Only you are that broke and friendless.

    Jeez, dude…if the cost of gas is an issue, and you have zero supporters, zero friends or family members to borrow gas money from, and zero acquaintances in the party that you can even bum a ride from, fuck, spange that shit up or hitch. It’s really not that hard to do. No need to be scared…you are probably about as likely to be raped or murdered when hitching as you are to be hit by lightning. If you have to tell people you ran out of gas at gas stations, that doesn’t mean you have to publicize it in a press release. Tell them you are going to a job interview. It’s true, after all. Don’t be embarassed. Having to do embarassing things is part of running for office.

    At least tell us something. Say it was a family crisis. Once in a lifestyle opportunity to see a killer John Denver impersonator from Norway. Something.

  50. Paulie Says:

    Also when you say “not much travel…” at least there is some travel. Even Dave Hollist made it to at least ONE convention (Vegas 2007).

    Kubby doesn’t have much money either, but even he made it to the OR convention which was in a remote mountain resort - we were afraid he would be snowed out on the way - in 2007, and also to Vegas and San Diego this year, which are both way more far from his small town on the Mendocino coast than anything in Colorado is from the Denver area. He made it to his own state’s conventions in both 2007 and 2008. Smith? You?

  51. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Ron Paul has raised millions—or is it tens of millions?—by now.

    Either way, it’s far more than Libertarian candidates have raised in past years, so no, Robert Milnes, Ron Paul is not sucking up money that would have gone to Libertarian candidates.

    Paul raised money on his own merits. He didn’t take our money, any more than Ralph Nadar took Al Gore’s votes.

    As for Christine Smith, I think she’s delusional. She hardly ever shows up anywhere, she loses most straw polls and primaries, yet she keeps putting out embarrassing press releases “thanking” her “many supporters,” and babbling about how she’s the leading LP candidate.

    Smith sounds like she has visions of supporters that aren’t there, except in her head.

    Robert Milnes, OTOH, realizes he has no actual support, but he imagines he has this vast potential support among this “progressive/left-libertarian alliance” voting bloc that would rise up like an ocean and sweep him into the White House—if only he could get his message out.

    Milnes ignores that even if all Libertarian and Green voters (his mythical progressive/libertarian alliance) were to support him, it’d still leave most voters firmly in the Demopublican camp.

  52. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Steve,
    ——-

    “The principle that when you’re providing the event’s primary entertainment event, free of charge, it’s bullshit to charge you for the privilege of doing so.

    That weekend cost me well over a grand. I certainly didn’t consider the presidential debate the main main reason for attending (LP-related stuff was) nor the best entertainment (we went with Angela Keaton and Bob Barr to see Penn and Teller and then had cigars and good whiskey with them afterwards).
    ——-

    I didn’t see Penn and Teller on the event schedule—were they added at the last minute? What I saw on the schedule were 9/11 conspiracy theorist Dylan Avery and Christian Identity peckerwood Bo Gritz.

    The LSLA is entitled to do what it wants with respect to charging people for participation in its events—it’s a private organization—but make no mistake about it, in this case the LSLA chose to benefit itself at the expense of better campaigns for the party.

  53. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, just check facts & figures for the election of 1912. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1912

  54. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Robert, it’s not 1912. Please let Ted Roosevelt rest in peace. This nation’s demographics have changed. The political issues have changed.

    The “progressives” of the 1912 are not the “progressives” of 2008. Just at the Democrats of 1826 are not the Democrats of 2008.

    If you wish to have a political career in this century, you’ll have to base your strategy on this century’s realities.

    I can show you stats on the prevalence of monarchies in A.D. 1500, but that doesn’t mean that a “Monarchist-Libertarian Alliance” would work in 2008.

  55. Skizoo Says:

    Paulie and Sipos made me laugh so hard my colostomy bag nearly exploded. Gordon, Penn and Teller? Cut the shit. You, the Congressman and the lesbo went to OGs.

  56. Andrew Taylor Says:

    “Christine wasn’t providing the entertainment unless she planned to take off her shirt.” ROTFLMAO! I’m surprised some of the scolds who griped about Barack Obama’s classmate, Wayne Allyn Root, being surrounded by Hooters girls didn’t take you to task for that insensitive, offensive, and utterly sexist comment. Where’s George Phillies? Doesn’t he know that you’re being politically incorrect? Surely he wouldn’t mind pissing off one more Libertarian by lecturing him about the need for decorum and sensitivity in such matters.

    However enjoyable it might be to see her topless—some of her photos make her look more attractive than others, unlike Drs. Karen Kwiatkowski and Mary Ruwart, who are total babes—Christine Smith is a New Age space cadet. At least when Steve Kubby is spacey, he can blame it on the fact that he’s been smoking weed. Ms. Smith has no such excuse.

    However, in fairness to John Denver’s biggest fan and spiritual biographer, apparently she has attended some Libertarian Party functions, as there are pictures of her doing so on her website…unless they’re photoshopped—which, considering that our party has a former television anchorwoman stalker actively seeking its nomination, not to mention the owner of a far-flung but apparently invisible international business empire—is not entirely out of the question, unfortunately.

  57. miche Says:

    I’ve not read the comments yet but since the post is about the LP’s top spot, think my experience this morning is worth mentioning.

    I’m on vacay and this morning was having breakfast at the Four Seasons Hotel in Carmelo, Uruguay. I happened to overhear a conversation between 3 Americans at a nearby table. There was some laughter at the D’s attempt to rewrite delegate rules, the pitiable situation of McCain’s top R spot and then music to my ears. Almost music, anyway.

    The three then went on to say that they really wished the LP was stronger and that they hope the LP nominates and elects a truly viable candidate. They thought it time for the LP to hit hard. The doc was nearly pinching me under the table saying, “Don’t say ANYTHING!”

    Of course, I said something. I apologized for eavesdropping (though they were loud enough- as we Americans are known to be- for the whole dining room to hear), and went on to say, “Dammit, the LP is trying!” They thanked me for my lowly level of service within the party and the doc smiled at the idea of these well-heeled people longing for a good 3rd party run.

    That, on top of the doc telling me before we left DFW that the LP’s had it right all along, giving me props for being called kooky by people who thought they knew better, and the beautiful South American sun and air has made this a trip of a lifetime.

  58. paulie Says:

    I can show you stats on the prevalence of monarchies in A.D. 1500, but that doesn’t mean that a “Monarchist-Libertarian Alliance” would work in 2008.

    Shhh! Don’t tell Hans Hoppe.

  59. Robert Milnes Says:

    Well, just got back from the LPNJ/LPPA/LPWV conference. Does that count as three?

  60. G.E. Says:

    Conventions held by the LPNJ (Ladies in Professional News Journalism) and affiliated organizations (Ladies of the Press / Professional Anchors and Leading Professional Women on Video) do NOT count.

  61. G.E. Says:

    Oh, and by the way… I apologize to myself for ever apologizing. That was a particularly weak moment for me, identifying with humanity where there is none.

  62. Andy Says:

    “David F. Nolan Says:

    March 14th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
    Paulie’s analysis is very close to mine. In a year when perhaps more voters than ever before are looking for a real alternative, most of the money that would have gone to credible Libertarian aspirants went instead to Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is a good friend of liberty, but his futile campaign for the GOP nomination has left Libertarian hopefuls underfunded and overlooked.”

    As if Libertarian Party campaigns for President are not futile (in the sense of actually winning)?

    Ron Paul’s campaign has been more effective at spreading the message and getting people active than any Libertarian Party campaign ever has.

    I’ve been doing a lot of stuff with Ron Paul Meet Up Groups over the last few months and I’m impressed with them. They are more active and effective than any LP groups with which I’ve been involved. The typical LP groups are a bunch of do nothing slugs whose main form of “activism” is sitting around and talking amonst themselves, which is one of the reasons that the LP hasn’t gotten very far.

  63. Andy Says:

    “The LP either needs to get Paul and let them follow, or go like they never have before after these people. There are probably 50 to 100,000 possible new LP members waiting to be gathered. I’ve never seen anything like it. There are some enthusiastic dedicated people in the campaign.”

    Oh heck yeah! The people at the Ron Paul Meet Ups are just fantastic. All of the ones that I’ve spoken to are open to the Libertarian Party as well.

  64. Lex Says:

    Personally, I thought Paul received a fair amount of media attention considering the amount of votes he actually obtained.

    Personally, I thought Paul received a fair number of votes considering the scant media attention he actually obtained.

    Media attention is doled out before votes are cast. Media attention used to be doled out based on two factors—opinion polls and fundraising. When Ron Paul challenged the favored candidates in fundraising, the media stuck with the opinion polls.

    Given that Ron Paul inspired one of the largest, most active, and most enthusiastic grassroots efforts in all of American politics, media attempts to portray him as a fringe candidate lacking any meaningful support are especially troubling.

    The opinion polls were held up throughout 2007 as the ultimate fair arbiter of media coverage, and even airtime in debates. The polls turned out to be a sham. Supposed front-runner Rudy Giuliani rarely escaped the low single digits in the actual voting. Supposed long shot Mike Huckabee (polling at 4% with Ron Paul for most of the year) turned out to be one of the three major contenders.

    Why were the polls so far off? We found out in New Hampshire that many voters only made up their minds in the last week before the primary. Yet not one single poll showed “undecided” as the leading response.

  65. Lex Says:

    The “progressives” of the 1912 are not the “progressives” of 2008. Just at the Democrats of 1826 are not the Democrats of 2008.

    If only the Republicans of 2008 were the Republicans of 1800.

  66. Paulie Says:

    Patience is a virtue, Lex.

    If only the Republicans of 2008 were the Republicans of 1800

    Give them, say, four more years (if even that long), and I would not rule out the GOOP (aka NSGOP) in fact openly coming out for the repeal of the 13th Amendment which outlawed slavery.

    That may seem far fetched to some, but how many people would have believed even ten years ago that they would now openly support torture, and, in some cases, openly support colonialism and imperialism and literal “Crusades” against the Muslim world?

    And, supposing for instance that Russell Means wins his campaign for President of the Lakotah Nation, can we in fact say with confidence that literal Indian wars between the US government and Native American tribes are really a thing of the oast?

    We may, in fact, soon see the Republican Party be much more like the Republicans of 1800.

  67. Paulie Says:

    oast

    /past

  68. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Hmmm, Lex and Paulie, there was no GOP in 1800. It was founded in 1854, per wiki.

    Paulie, consider a bit more care with your words. Near as I can tell, the Bush Administration doesn’t “openly support torture.” They’re claiming waterboarding ISN’T torture. And, no, I’ve not seen anyone calling for “literal ‘Crusades’,” certainly not in the Administration.

    From what I can tell, waterboarding is torture, and it’s unjustified, IMO. And I don’t believe the Iraq War was justified, either. I’m as much a critic of W as anyone, but I believe overstating one’s criticism diminishes one’s credibility.

  69. TheOneLaw Says:

    You folk certainly do argue a lot.
    Don’t you have anything you can agree on?

  70. G.E. Says:

    Paulie - The Republicans of 1800 were the Jeffersonian anti-Federalists. The Republicans of today are a lot more like the Republicans of 1860-2008. They never changed. But not at all like the old ones.

  71. Less Antman Says:

    Within the next 10 days, the question of Ruwart’s impact on the campaign will no longer be hypothetical. So we are going to have at least one option for a candidate who knows libertarianism through and through, is a solid communicator, already has a suitable campaign book, and has been supported by Ron Paul in some past endeavors.

  72. Less Antman Says:

    Note: we have other candidates who have SOME of these qualities, by the way. The operative word in the above is AND.

    For those who don’t know, in a separate matter unrelated to her running for the nomination, an older edition of her Healing Our World is available for free in electronic form at http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/, but the current edition is well worth the price for activists because of the data it provides for libertarians looking for real world examples to support their positions. Her Short Answers to the Tough Questions is also a good resource for candidates who need help in crafting good sound bites (Harry Browne’s LIBERTY A-Z: 872 LIBERTARIAN SOUNDBITES YOU CAN USE RIGHT NOW is also excellent).

  73. Paulie Says:

    Hmmm, Lex and Paulie, there was no GOP in 1800. It was founded in 1854, per wiki.

    I know this very well.

    Near as I can tell, the Bush Administration doesn’t “openly support torture.”

    Debatable, but I don’t feel llike debating it. When I said some Republicans,
    I said nothing of administration.

    What makes you think I was referring to the adminstration rather than, say, their presidential contenders for 2008 in the televised debates, or some other Republicans? The word some means some, not all.

    And, no, I’ve not seen anyone calling for “literal ‘Crusades’,” certainly not in the Administration.

    Does white house resident Bush/shrub count as a matter of his own adminstration? He has publicly called it a Crusade. On more than one occassion if I am not mistaken.

    Paulie - The Republicans of 1800 were the Jeffersonian anti-Federalists.

    I know this very well too. That’s why I said that the Republicans of 1800 supported slavery and Indian wars, and by 2012 or perhaps earlier, I would not be surprised if the party that calls itself Republican today will as well.

    Naturally, that may seem to be a far-fetched and unrealistic claim to many. So I brought up the examples that I did and asked whether, in say 1998, you would have believed me if I told you that they would openly stand for these things today.

    They’re claiming waterboarding ISN’T torture.

    Much as Hitler claimed that he invaded Poland in self-defense.

    The Republicans of today are a lot more like the Republicans of 1860-2008. They never changed.

    This, I know too.

    But not at all like the old ones.

    The old ones weren’t perfect either. Think slavery and Indian wars.
    Will today’s NSGOP continue to stand for all the bad things they do today a few years from now? Probably. But I won’t be too surprised if they also come out openly in favor of chattel slavery and Indian wars, too.

    Perhaps also Eugenics.

    One never knows what discarded evil doctrine and/or practice they might dig up out of the dustbin of history.

  74. Paulie Says:

    Mr. Antman,

    It was good meeting you in San Diego and I agree with your points above.

    I am a big fan of Dr. Ruwart’s books. She is also an articulate speaker.

    The “next ten days” part bothers me though. What’s taking so long? Multiple sources in my grapevine told me that it would be this weekend.
    Apparently, unless TPW is slow to report, it hasn’t yet happened.

    A few minor weak points: unlike both Kubby and Root, she has no claim - as far as I know - to the allegiance of any constituency outside the libertarian movement.

    What “hook” can we use to get her more media attention than LP presidential candidates received in the last few cycles?

    Also, it concerns me that she is still unlikely to beat Bob Barr for the nomination if he decides to seek it even after she does.

    I hope you still meet with Steve Kubby while you are up in Mendo.

    To be honest, I don’t know for sure why Kubby has declined in his skills as a communicator. He was certainly a solid communicator in 1998 and 2000, and even in 2007 was doing much better than now.

    I would be interested in talking to Dr. Ruwart and any staff she may have in antiipation of a prospective run. Do you have any contact information you can share? If there is a website, it has not to my knowledge yet been made public.

  75. Less Antman Says:

    Dear Pauli:

    > The “next ten days” part bothers me though. What’s taking so long?
    > Multiple sources in my grapevine told me that it would be this
    > weekend. Apparently, unless TPW is slow to report, it hasn’t yet
    > happened.

    I spoke directly with Mary, and she estimated it would be late this week (I said within 10 days to provide a limit she would beat). Obviously, the grapevine wasn’t as accurate as the information I received. Keep in mind that she probably contacted me early because I had promised to make the legal maximum contribution as soon as she committed to running, and not because I’m in any way more important than other people.

    The reason for the delay is that you only get one chance to make a first impression. She wants her web site to look good and to have the ability to take credit card contributions, and there are a few other matters that protocol requires before making a public declaration.

    > A few minor weak points: unlike both Kubby and Root, she has no
    > claim - as far as I know - to the allegiance of any constituency
    > outside the libertarian movement.

    Well, she is big in the FIJA movement, which goes well beyond the LP. I don’t think anyone has a big outside constituency, but I agree she isn’t ranked first among the candidates in that regard (I’d say she’s third by that measure).

    > What “hook” can we use to get her more media attention than LP
    > presidential candidates received in the last few cycles?

    In my view, the critical hook in 2008 is the Ron Paul Youth, who can create an activist base this year that will cause an explosion in LP support and influence in the upcoming years.

    In that light, I think a mistake is being made by people thinking Ron Paul’s support is primarily a Republican thing, and an even bigger mistake is to assume that the average Paul supporter agrees with his positions on abortion and immigration, and the biggest mistake is to think that those of his supporters who ARE Republicans are the most likely to defect to the LP. Ron Paul Nation polls revealed that only 35% of his activist supporters voted Republican in the previous election (and the election returns this year made clear that his support among Republicans was much smaller than his overall support). Exit polls in the elections suggested that secular, pro-choice, independent voters were most likely to choose him. And note how the campaign started to fade in December when his staff began to turn from the war and civil liberties to immigration and “national sovereignty.”

    Ruwart is strong here for a few reasons. One is that Paul has publicly supported some of her previous activities. Two is that her disagreements with Paul are all on issues where she is closer to the Ron Paul Youth than Ron Paul. Three is that she is not a novice to Internet communication, which is where the Ron Paul Revolution developed and where all those young people still are located. I believe she will consciously target the Ron Paul Meetup Groups, and a press release along the lines of “Ron Paul favorite declares for Libertarian nomination” with his letter nominating her to be FDA Commissioner and his strong praise for her HEALING OUR WORLD libertarian book will allow those hardworking LP members who have been participating in Ron Paul Meetup Groups to be able to use their new connections to gain support for her (I also think that, after the Republican Party nomination in September, Paul is more likely to publicly endorse her than any other candidate, but I don’t want to hang my hat on just that point). Again, one reason for her delay is to have a place for people to go and start connecting (including a forum for open discussion) once things are official.

    > Also, it concerns me that she is still unlikely to beat Bob Barr for
    > the nomination if he decides to seek it even after she does.

    Barr will have a certain support base, but I think that Ruwart’s campaign will gain the majority, especially since she is the perfect example of someone who can answer the tough questions in an appealing way. Restore ‘04 and the Ruwart campaign have important synergies, even if she is not the driving force behind it, and to the extent we work for Restore ‘04, we are helping to tip the balance in Denver toward a candidate who is proud of our ENTIRE philosophy. In any event, a campaign between Barr and Ruwart will definitely bring to a head the issue that threatens the future of the LP, and I think we will make a solid case for the inspirational value of a hard-core campaign, especially with a candidate who has put in many years of the long, hard study time needed to support it.

    > To be honest, I don’t know for sure why Kubby has declined in his
    > skills as a communicator. He was certainly a solid communicator in
    > 1998 and 2000, and even in 2007 was doing much better than now.

    I’d rather not speculate on the reasons, but the fact is that he should have been able to win the California straw poll, and did not, primarily because of his weak performance in the debate. There are few people in this movement I respect more than Steve Kubby, and had he been a more active and better communicator for the nomination, I think he could have earned the nomination easily and I would have been proud to have had him as our standard bearer. Had Ruwart not decided to run, I’ve never doubted whom I would have supported among the declared candidates.

    > I would be interested in talking to Dr. Ruwart and any staff she may
    > have in anticipation of a prospective run. Do you have any contact
    > information you can share? If there is a website, it has not to my
    > knowledge yet been made public.
    >

    Among her staff, the only one whose contact information I have right now is the campaign treasurer:

    Mary Ruwart for President
    Treasurer Geoff Neale
    12903 Grubstake Gulch St
    Bee Cave, TX 78738-6104
    Phone: 512-554-1523

    I’m sure he’d love a call (especially one that includes reading numbers from a Visa or MasterCard).

    Right now, I think Mary is swamped with the last minute preparations and EMILY work (the reason I got an early heads-up), and I’ve only been able to speak with her once. If you have any urgent matters that you think need to be addressed before her announcement, you can certainly email her directly, as her address is no secret. I don’t have any inside track or special access number, as I’m not a part of her campaign staff (although I guess my contribution makes me an FOM and might get me and my wife a night in the Lincoln bedroom if she wins in November).

  76. Robert Milnes Says:

    Less Antman, so you say Mary might win in November? Just out of curiousity, how is she going to do that? Pour sweet sugar glaze on the neocons? & I wouldn’t talk about winning around here. People will say you are crazy.

  77. Less Antman Says:

    > People will say you are crazy.

    Only if they have no sense of humor. ;)

Leave a Reply