Ruth Bennett to run for LNC chair

From a release distributed by Ruth Bennett:

Several of you have talked to me about running for Governor of Washington State this year. A couple of you actually volunteered to help! I have been thinking about it since I ran in 2004 when I got about 63,000 votes and the difference between the winner D and the loser R was just 133 votes! I will have to admit that that was fun.

But after much thought and discussion with my family, I have decided that I can better serve the Libertarian Party by running for National Chair. I thank you who have supported me in this decision.

The Libertarian Party, in my opinion, has been in decline since 9/11. We can no longer use that as an excuse for low membership and internal troubles, however. I have heard many reasons for the troubles we have been having, but the real reason is that there is just no substitute for the real work of politics- organizing, getting out the vote, running for office, lobbying and being nice to people who may support us now, or in the future..

These are the real world, real work of politics that I have been doing for most of my 30 years in the Libertarian Party.

I am running for National Chair because I know that the way we attract more good, principled people is by being good, principled people ourselves. I want the entire Libertarian Party, from the National Committee and Office through each state and local affiliate to be transparent in operation and welcoming to everybody.

I guess that what I really want is to change the basic culture of the Libertarian Party from the nasty, infighting lack of civility that I see too often to a more respectful, rational, civil Libertarian Party. I think I can offer the integrity and influence to do just that.

I am currently serving in my third one year term as President of the Board of Trustees People’s Memorial Association.

During that time, we have gone from one organization to three, the others are a 501 ( c) 3 educational organization and the newest, the world’s largest funeral co-operative. Our budget has expanded from about $180,000/year to nearly one million dollars a year for the 3 organizations. Staff has gone from 4 part-time to 4 full time and 6 part time employees. Our revenues are up and within 8 months of operating, our funeral service co-op is profitable. We have 100,000 members in Western and Central Washington.

I know that I can bring these leadership skills to the Libertarian Party.

My web site should be up in a couple of days. If you think that now is the time for the Party to once again move forward with integrity, then please consider endorsing me. I would also like your financial support. Being National Chair is a costly proposition. There are LNC meetings to attend and visits to the National Office, let alone the costs of campaigning for the office.

I am planning on establishing a National Chair’s Discretionary Fund. David Nolan has already pledged $50/month for my term. I hope you will also consider a one-time or continuing contribution. How the money is disbursed will be available to anyone on the web site. You may send a check directly to me, or try my web site by Sunday.

If you are attending our National Convention in Denver May 23-26, I do hope you will vote for me. Convention details can be found here (and there are some GREAT airfares right now to Denver!)

I know that there are thousands of people that used to call themselves Libertarians. I want to reach out to them. I know that there are thousands more who felt belittled or ridiculed by Libertarians and I want to make our Party a safe place for them to come back to. I want to reach out to the Ron Paul supporters to show them a viable alternative to the Republican Party. I want to reach out to people of color and to to ethnic communities and to the Gay and Lesbian community and to all the other people who feel marginalized and alienated and disrespected by the huge corporate political parties to show them that they are welcome in our Party.

I thank all of you for your work for Liberty. We really don’t appreciate each other enough and that is something else I want to change. If we can’t be civil to each other, even when we disagree, why should anyone listen to any of our ideas?

Please join me on this journey of hope for a more peaceful, prosperous and joy filled world.

Ruth Bennett
Candidate for Chair, Libertarian National Committee

71 Responses to “Ruth Bennett to run for LNC chair”

  1. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Ruth’s website is:

    http://ruthforchair.com/

  2. Eric Garris Says:

    I worked with Ruth in the early 1980s. We didn’t always end up on the same side, but she was one of the most hard-working and fair-minded party leaders I had the pleasure to be associated with.

    I think she would make a very strong chair who all factions could support.

  3. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I think she would make a very strong chair who all factions could support.

    Factions? What factions?

    heh.

  4. Mike Theodore Says:

    I’m endorsing her. Right here, right now. Of course, nobody cares what little old Mike thinks, but you can put it in an endorsement section of the site and feel good. For the first time, recently I’ve been considering leaving the party. The current leadership is doing nothing to reach out to all voters, but settle to these particular factions.
    “I want to reach out to people of color and to to ethnic communities and to the Gay and Lesbian community and to all the other people who feel marginalized and alienated and disrespected by the huge corporate political parties to show them that they are welcome in our Party.”

    I was nodding my head up until I saw that. After I saw that, for the first time in a while, I was grinning like crazy at an LP candidate. I would be proud to serve in the Libertarian Party under Ruth Bennett.

  5. G.E. Says:

    Mike - Collectivism makes you smile?

  6. Susan Hogarth Says:

    G.E.,

    Collectivism? If Ruth had said she wanted to “reach out to the Wall Street community”, or “reach out to the role-playing gaming community,” would you think of that as collectivism?

    I’m at a loss here as to what your gripe actually is.

  7. Richard Schwarz Says:

    Wasn’t Ruth Bennett in charge of the borderline fraudulent Project 51 in 96? Now she wants to bring that same crooked expertise to National Chair? I don’t think so.

  8. Mike Theodore Says:

    Where the hell is this collectivism, G.E.? Can the party even make a sad attempt to reach out to the American people without you slamming a sledgehammer on it until you’ve beaten it down to a political image of your own ideology? Jeepers, no wonder we’re stuck in the 400,000 club. Any member of the party isn’t allowed to attempt to reach out to voters anymore, apparently.
    MY GOD!

  9. The Democratic Republican Says:

    This press release sounds good. What are her views on the party platform, strategic goals, etc.?

  10. Brian Miller Says:

    Wasn’t Ruth Bennett in charge of the borderline fraudulent Project 51 in 96? Now she wants to bring that same crooked expertise to National Chair?

    I think this post is indicative of the sort of Republican Party attack politics that Ruth is encouraging all of us to rise above.

  11. johncjackson Says:

    I assume GE is overcompensating for his time as a socialist Green Party candidate back in 2004. I was a briefly a young socialist, and when I came to libertarianism I went through a period of time where I thought I was the purest individualist libertarian in the world also. But that was 10 years ago. He will probably get over it as well- assuming he is interested in the political aspect of a political party.

  12. The Democratic Republican Says:

    Brian Miller: I don’t have any idea what that guy is talking about, but isn’t someone’s professional record relevant to being elected to an office?

  13. Brian Miller Says:

    isn’t someone’s professional record relevant

    Unquestionably. Of course, such unsubstantiated dark mutterings of aren’t a discussion of an individual’s professional record. Rather, it’s a strong example of talking point attack politics. Such talking points seek to transform a smear into a “fact” through repetition.

    It’s a common GOP tactic, especially on talk radio, and I hope LP members reject it.

  14. The Democratic Republican Says:

    I love the kumbaya attitude, but how exactly is someone supposed to approach a negative subject in a way that will pass muster with you?

  15. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I love the kumbaya attitude, but how exactly is someone supposed to approach a negative subject in a way that will pass muster with you?

    One way would be to say “Was Ruth Bennett in charge of Project 51 in 96?” and upon receiving an affirmative answer (and I have no idea what Project 51 is), then go on to lay out how and why it was ‘borderline fraudulent’ (after explaining what it was).

    I think Brian’s objection was that the poster was dropping a stinkbomb. If I said “Wasn’t DR the guy who beat his mother last year?” THAT would be the image that stuck in many folks’ heads, even if you said “Hey! My mother died three years ago!!”

  16. Brian Miller Says:

    Simple—by providing substantiation.

    One can easily smear by association.

    For instance, I could say “wasn’t Democratic Republican involved in the alleged Socialist Workers’ Party effort to bomb the Pentagon in 1996?” and one could argue it’s a “discussion of your past.”

    Of course, I haven’t substantiated your involvement with the SWP and haven’t substantiated that you or they attempted to bomb the Pentagon—yet I’ve introduced both memes as “facts” to be “discussed.”

    Pretty clever, huh?

  17. The Democratic Republican Says:

    How do you guys know so much about me?

    Just kidding. Good points. Just making sure we’re on the same page.

  18. disinter Says:

    But after much thought and discussion with my family, I have decided that I can better serve the Libertarian Party by running for National Chair.

    Either way, the LP loses. This nutty cunt has major issues with a little thing called “rationality”. She is bat-shit insane. You REALLY do not want this loon as the chair of the LP.

  19. Richard Schwarz Says:

    Give me some time. I just learned of Ruth Bennett’s candidacy for National Chair this morning. Tucked away in some boxes and on some old hard drives on old computers I have everything I need to substantiate and defend my claim—starting with all of the official FEC documents. I will bring all this info out AGAIN for everyone to see.

    It started with Michael Cloud’s Project 51 in 92 which was designed to place the LP on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC for the 1992 election. Cloud made bogus claims and failed to do anything near what he promised. For the 1996 campaign the Project changed to Project 51 in 96, and the reigns were turned over to Ruth Bennett. Project 51 in 96 was so bad, so poorly run, and as FEC documents show did nothing for the LP, but made some nice cash for Bennett and Cloud. This WILL be an issue. With this hideous record, there’s simply no way Bennett deserves to become National Chair.

  20. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I am not prepared to judge Ms. Bennett by an allegedly failed project from 12 years ago. I will however judge a chair on his or her record of un-libertarian positions. Mr. Redpath, though a very decent person, holds one VERY un-libertarian belief at least). During his 2001 run for Governor of Virginia, Mr. Redpath indicated support for firearm registration by government. Granted this doesn’t have anything to do with executive abilities, but to the extent that the LNC Chair is a/the spokesman for the LP, this is a very bad representation for liberty.

    However, regardless of what Ms. Bennetts accomplishments and failures have been, I think that it is totally uncalled for to use the “c” word. Disinter, please abstain from such derogatory language. If you have relevant information about anyone, especially someone seeking office within the LP hierarchy, please share it. Name calling for the sake of effect doesn’t reflect well on you.

  21. Roscoe Says:

    The “Aloha Caucus” rides again.
    Mr. Schwarz was a prominent critic of Mr. Cloud and Ms. Bennett a dozen years ago. As I recall, he thoroughly investigated and documented his assertions and needs to get them out there again if he thinks they are relevant to Ms. Bennett’s executive abilities. Going further back, Ms. Bennett was involved in ownership of the LP’s Seattle Convention in 1987 (?) Were there any executive ability issues raised with it?

  22. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Richard Schwarz Says:
    May 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    It started with Michael Cloud’s Project 51 in 92 which was designed to place the LP on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC for the 1992 election. Cloud made bogus claims and failed to do anything near what he promised. For the 1996 campaign the Project changed to Project 51 in 96, and the reigns were turned over to Ruth Bennett. Project 51 in 96 was so bad, so poorly run, and as FEC documents show did nothing for the LP, but made some nice cash for Bennett and Cloud.

    It seems to me, the presidential ticket in 1992 AND 1996 both were on 50 states + D.C ballots. What was so bad about that? It cost money? Well, maybe we should have done it like the New Alliance Party did in 1988 to get on 50 ballots. The leaders of their party were psychologists, and assigned their psychotherapy clients to “petition” as therapy. That wasn’t misleading though was it!

  23. paulie Says:

    Ruth Bennett sounds like a pretty good candidate to me, although admittedly on first impression.

    Ernie Hancock is a great activist, but he is not a committee type, and wants to dismantle the national office.

    Bill Redpath is a champion of ballot access, but he has been a very weak chair, to the extent that he is hardly really chair at all. It seems to me that he would push ballot access better in any position EXCEPT chair.

    If Aaron Starr wants to be chair, he should actually run for the position, instead of being de facto chair while serving as treasurer.

    Bill Redpath could be a good treasurer if he weren’t running for chair.

  24. Brian Miller Says:

    I think that it is totally uncalled for to use the “c” word.

    That is par for the course for Mike Nelson (i.e. “disinter”).

    Such behavior on his part is one of the reasons why the Texas membership of Outright Libertarians did not seek to renominate him to represent them for a second term. He’s held a grudge against the entire elected Executive Committee of OL (including Ms. Bennett) ever since.

    It seems to me, the presidential ticket in 1992 AND 1996 both were on 50 states + D.C ballots. What was so bad about that? It cost money?

    Apparently so. Ruth has a record of achievement that she can stand on, including the roles she’s taken to maintain the viability of the LP at a state and federal level. While she (obviously) has her critics, it’s interesting to note that none of them have had even remotely close to the positive impact on the LP that Ruth has had.

  25. Rob Power Says:

    Regarding Mike Nelson (disinter) using the “c” word…

    Seriously. Mood stabilizers. In little baggies. Given out on the convention floor in Denver. We need to figure out a way to make it happen.

    There’s as much drama in the LP as there is between Obama and Clinton, and none of our divas will be the next President. The way some, like Mike, behave, you’d think what we do at convention in Denver will actually change the country by January 2009. Sure, we can be serious players by January 2029 if we play our cards right in Denver, but let’s have a little perspective, okay?

    Mike, dial it down a notch, dear. I may myself be an 8 on the bitchy queen meter, but, hon, you’re way past 11.

    Really, Mike. Go to a doctor. Our schadenfreude at watching you self-destruct after your vigorous attempt to destroy Outright Libertarians is starting to be overcome by our serious concern for someone who clearly needs medical attention. Don’t use the comment sections of blogs as your therapy. Go to a professional.

    Oh, and YAY, RUTH! :-) Speaking of mood stabilizers, I’ve found that Ruth’s leadership style is exactly what the LP needs—someone who has grown past factionalism and is only interested in bringing us all together for the cause of Liberty. She’s been a stabilizing force within Outright, and I think she’d do wonders for the LNC.

  26. David F. Nolan Says:

    I’m kinda surprised at disinter’s outburst, as he is usually one of the saner posters here. But that aside, I am delighted to see Ruth Bennett enter the race for National Chair. As other have already noted, Bill Redpath has been a very weak chair (thus allowing Shane Cory to run amok) while Ernie Hancock is just too blustery and confrontational for the job. A great activist, but a bad choice for National Chair. Ruth has my vote!

  27. Mike Theodore Says:

    “I’m kinda surprised at disinter’s outburst, as he is usually one of the saner posters here.”

    I thought I only noticed that. I was stunned for a minute, there.

  28. Chuck Moulton Says:

    During his 2001 run for Governor of Virginia, Mr. Redpath indicated support for firearm registration by government. Granted this doesn’t have anything to do with executive abilities, but to the extent that the LNC Chair is a/the spokesman for the LP, this is a very bad representation for liberty.

    Every time I’m aware of that Bill has been interviewed as LNC chair he has presented the LP position on this issue rather than his own.

    Case in point:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kg2avPCyR4

  29. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    I won’t write off the allegations of past problems (“Project 51” or whatever) without looking at them, but so far I am enthused to finally see a candidate for chair who looks like someone I can support.

    I love Ernie Hancock to death, but I just don’t see shutting down the national party as the solution.

    Bill Redpath is obviously dedicated to the party, but as others have already pointed out he doesn’t seem to have the temperament required to chair the LNC. It requires a more forceful approach, or at least an unwillingness to be steamrolled.

    George Phillies is off on a quixotic presidential run.

    So, so far, Ruth Bennett looks like what the doctor ordered.

  30. Ruth Bennett Says:

    Project 51-96 was an attempt to get 50 state ballot access for the 1996 candidates. Ed Clark, Craig Franklin, Michael Cloud and I were the ones primarily involved. We started raising money, but could never get beyond raising just enough money to pay for the next mailing to just raise enough to pay for the next mailing. After a couple of months, I strongly suggested that we pull the plug as we had accomplished so little. We sent fairly small checks - a couple of thousand bucks each - to a few states, but, again, we could never really raise enough to be successful.

    It was a frustrating effort, but I certainly enjoyed working with Ed and Alicia Clark and learned a great deal about direct mail fundraising which I have used since to raise tens of thousands of dollars for Libertarians and other organizations.

    If a group trying to accomplish something fails, is that worse than not having tried? If you think so, there are other candidates to support. I certainly don’t claim perfection, but I try to learn from my mistakes.

    I have been involved in the Libertarian Party for over 30 years. I am not proud of everything I have done or said and have tried to make amends where possible. My intentions are to build and re-build the Libertarian Party into a force for Liberty in this country. I would hope to have your support, but there are other good people in the race, if you think their intentions and histories are superior to mine.

    For Liberty,

    Ruth Bennett

  31. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    Go Ruth! Go.

    MHW

  32. Richard Schwarz Says:

    To Steve LaBianca: Yes the LP was on the ballot in all 50 states in 92 and 96. But this success was not the accomplishement of Project 51 in 92 or Project 51 in 96. Those organizations did little to nothing to help in this goal and could be argued they hindered our route to success. No, it was the Libertarian Party itself which organized the successful ballot drives which got us on the ballot.

  33. Richard Schwarz Says:

    To Ruth Bennett: Don’t forget the money you paid yourself and the money you paid to Cloud. I don’t fault an organization for trying and then failing, but coming off the horrendous track record of Project 51 in 92, it was appalling to see Project 51 in 96 perform even worse, (and I realize you weren’t in charge of 51 in 92; that was Cloud’s baby.) It also wasn’t just about raising enough money to pay for future mailings, (of which one of those “costs” was to PAY Michael Cloud for use of his mailing list, so he certainly profited), but you also found it fit to pay yourself. This is what the FEC reports document. Sorry, if I ask people to give me money for a project and I don’t raise enough cash for any of it to actually go to that project, the very LAST thing I’m going to do with that money is pay myself. It comes across as a lack of integrity.

  34. disinter Says:

    Such behavior on his part is one of the reasons why the Texas membership of Outright Libertarians did not seek to renominate him to represent them for a second term.

    Texas membership = one straight guy and me. Big time membership there.

    Umm, dumbshit, I have pointed out to you many times now that I only volunteered for the position because no one else was dumb enough to take it (and you still can’t find anyone). After I found out how corrupt and utterly retarded the national organization was (after what, 1 month?) I was not interested in continuing to be associated with your silly little circle jerk and I most definitely didn’t even try to be.

  35. disinter Says:

    Again, this Ruth Bennett nutjob is WAY the fuck removed from anything remotely resembling sanity. You do NOT want to elect this lunatic national chair. Email me if you want juicy details.

  36. disinter Says:

    Mike Nelson (i.e. “disinter”).

    Yes, that is me. Mike Nelson. disinter. Mike Nelson. disinter….

    You act like you are trying to expose me or something. I am SOO scared. Shakin in my boots here.

  37. disinter Says:

    Who are all the candidates running for LNC chair? Perhaps TPW could provide a list?

  38. Libertarian Joseph Says:

    Who cares if she’s running for it? What will she do for the Party? Any details? Rhetoric is just not good enough.

  39. disinter Says:

    What will she do for the Party?

    Attempt to ban anyone that doesn’t agree with her. She has a history of that…

  40. disinter Says:

    MUCH better choice: Ernie Hancock

    http://www.ernesthancock.org/

  41. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I find it interesting that Libertarians, who understand the market process as well as anyone, would fault people who get compensated for efforts. Were the 51-92 and 51-96 failed efforts? From the posts I’ve seen here, it seems that it was. However, when people dedicate a lot of time and effort, it seems odd to me that Libertarians get all bent out of shape because the effort failed.
    Also if Michael Cloud “profited” from his list, have any of you stopped to think at the time and efforts of Mr. Cloud to compile such a list? Is there no value there?

    If you are skeptical of a project, then don’t contribute.

    BTW, I have NEVER taken money for ANY of my effort for the LP, at the local, state or national level, but I am not going to tear down others who do take money for their efforts and corresponding productivity.

  42. Former LP Life Member Says:

    To disinter:

    I don’t have your email address to get all the “juicy detail” on Ruth Bennett. Please provide it for me, or just email me: [email protected]

  43. Richard Schwarz Says:

    Steve LaBianca: Please don’t even get me started on Cloud, a charlatan who’s been ripping off naive LPers for decades. There was NEVER enough money in these projects to do anything they promised, but there was always enough to pay the organizers (ie Cloud and Bennett). Compensated for their efforts? What efforts? They raised money promising to do something but could never do, but they paid themselves, then raised more money with the same promises to do something they could never do, but paid themselves again and again. If they had accomplished anything then maybe they deserved to get paid, but they accomplished nothing OTHER than getting themselves paid. Its borderline FRAUD if not outright FRAUD! You say you’re not going to “tear down others who do take money for their efforts and corresponding productivity” But there was no corresponding productivity. They just took money. And its not rocket science. The LP has managed to successfully raise money for ballot access, pay the fundraisers a hefty commission, and then actually have the money to do the ballot drives for years and years. Projects 51 in 92 and 51 in 96 never came close to accomplishing this. If nothing else it was gross incompetence, although I believe it was worse than that and I’m not afraid to call it fraud, but in either case I could not for the live of me see how one of the principal organizers whould become National Chair. Its a shameful record.

  44. Steve LaBianca Says:

    “promise” is something I highly doubt was said.

  45. M Carling Says:

    First, I can attest that Ruth Bennett is quite sane and has many fine qualities, though the negativity in her announcement does not evidence the temperment that I would hope to see in a Chair. I hope and believe that was just a momentary lapse. The implication that Bill Redpath is somehow responsible for the negativity that two LNC members (one of whom is stepping down) inject into the body is without merit. If anything, Bill Redpath has (along with Jim Lark and Aaron Starr) minimized the negativity and kept most of us focused on productive work.

    If Bill Redpath has any weakness as Chair, it is in occasionally trying to do 30 hours of work in a 24 hour day. He has certainly not been steamrollered by anyone. The idea that Aaron Starr has been de facto Chair would be absurd if Mark Nelson hadn’t been de facto Chair from mid-2005 to mid-2006. Aaron is one of the hardest working members of the board, but he has not taken on any of the Chair’s powers or duties.

    Steve LaBianca wrote:
    “During his 2001 run for Governor of Virginia, Mr. Redpath indicated support for firearm registration by government.”

    I don’t believe a word of this. I don’t believe that Bill Redpath has ever supported fiream registration by government. Please either post some evidence or post a retraction.

    The baseless attacks in this thread against both Bill Redpath and Ruth Bennett, two fine people and hard-working activists for liberty is very disappointing. If we cannot rise above petty, baseless, ad hominem attacks on our best activists, then we will not rise up to restore liberty.

  46. Bruce Majors Says:

    I first worked with Bill Redpath on Nancy Lord’s campaign for mayor of Washington D.C. in the late 80s. He is a very reasonable and intelligent man and devotes much of his time and energies to the cause of liberty.

  47. Eric Garris Says:

    Here is Bill Redpath’s answers to a questionairre on gun laws:
    http://www.pinkpistols.org/answers2001/redpath.html

    Here is a letter criticizing Bill Redpath for his pro-gun-registration views:
    http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:7fRjGmbiLTUJ:www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b708e352923.htm+%22william+redpath%22+gun+registration&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

  48. Melinda Moore Says:

    Mr. La Bianca and Mr. Garris,

    Your facts are simply incorrect regarding Bill Redpath’s support of government registration of firearms. If he is in support of government registration (which he isn’t and has never been), then why does he support his wife (me) in my efforts to protect myself without it? I’ve carried a concealed weapon for years and have defensively protected myself on three separate occasions, one of which was a life-threatening situation. I seriously doubt anyone who is posting and criticizing my husband—quite unfairly and, frankly, without the correct information—has ever had to use a weapon to truly protect and defend themselves as I have. My husband has the utmost respect for this constitutional privilege. Please try to find something else to complain about.

    Very truly yours,
    Melinda Moore

  49. Bruce Majors Says:

    Libertarians should really be above misrepresenting people’s positions.

    Bill Redpath does not favor gun control. The credibility of people who find it necessary to misrepresent his position is questionable.

    By the way, libertarians should not allow liberals and conservatives to frame this discussion of topics like gun control or speed limits or anything else. Libertarians oppose the state interfering with private gun ownership. Employers, condominium and homeowner’s associations, and companies or individuals that owned and managed bridges, streets, and sidewalks should be able to say what kind of weapons could be carried on their property and by whom.

  50. Eric Garris Says:

    I never commented on Bill’s gun positions. All I did was post the info to clarify his positions, I did not comment on the links I posted. I assure you I didn’t create the links.

    My main objection to Bill has nothing to do with guns. Although he has been a strong and effective fighter for liberty before he was Chair, he has been a very weak and ineffectual Chair of the LP.

    The Peter Principle is important to recognize. I would not make a good party chair, which is why I wouldn’t run for such an office just because I felt it was “my turn.” We should choose the person who would be the best Chair, not on the basis of something we feel he “deserves” or our love for him in general.

  51. Eric Garris Says:

    By all means, don’t address the actual issues.

    Instead, make sure you misprepresent the previous poster’s statements before you attack them.

    —Unwritten rule #4 regarding posting at TPW.

  52. disinter Says:

    MUCH better choice: Ernie Hancock

    http://www.ernesthancock.org/

  53. Former LP Life Member Says:

    Dear Joe McCarthy (i.e., disinter):

    I have asked that you reveal the list of offenses you claim against Ms. Bennett, but no response, except repeating yourself.

    I challenge you to reveal these “juicy details” you claim to have, either by post here or by fulfilling your promise to send them to anyone who asks.

    Once again, my email address is [email protected] I would write to your email as you requested, but I don’t know what it is and it does not appear on your blog.

  54. Bruce Majors Says:

    I am not actually seeing people make a case FOR their candidates for chair. I suppose one must read all these links for that?

  55. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Disinter, whether you agree with his views on Bennet or not, did ask a good question that went unanswered above, so I’ll ask it again, as a delegate:

    Who’s running for what, and can we get a list, including links?

    I’m referring to LNC positions and the VP nomination, specifically, but the Prez nomination wouldn’t hurt either.

    Not asking for a position on anybody here, just a little infro directory so we can more easily figure it out.

  56. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Sorry for the typos above, that should be “Bennett” and “info”.

  57. Angela Keaton Says:

    Mike Theodore:

    If you are interested in some youth organizing and outreach for the LP, please email Grandma Keaton at (my first name) at liberatedspace dot com.

  58. disinter Says:

    Seebeck - I found a list here:

    http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2008/voting/

    It looks like the candidates are:

    * Bill Redpath (incumbent)
    * Ruth Bennett
    * Ernie Hancock

  59. Former LP Life Member Says:

    After a torrent of insults about Ruth Bennett, disinter said:

    Email me if you want juicy details.

    I have asked disinter to send me the details, but he apparently has none.

    I assume he will now make additional posts quoting himself and continue to provide no backup for his claims.

  60. Paulie Says:

    Here are a couple of ideas from Redpath’s issues page

    http://www.redpathforchair.com/issues.htm

    which I support.

    National Committee Elections

    CHANGE THE ELECTION METHOD FOR NATCOM

    Why does the LP use election rules for internal elections that are the same rules that are used to make our candidates unelectable in the United States? Single member legislative districts hurt the electability of our candidates. So, why do we use them for NatCom? And, how can all the effort expended to form NatCom regions before and at our conventions be termed anything but “waste?”

    I will ask the Bylaws Committee at the upcoming convention to recommend that the delegates amend the method of electing NatCom members. Instead of five at-large representatives and up to nine regional representatives, I suggest 14 at-large reps should be elected using Single Transferable Voting, also known as “Choice Voting.”

    This is a proportional voting system that has a history of being used in the United States and other democracies around the world. In many instances, Choice Voting would greatly enhance the electability of LP candidates to legislative bodies. You can learn more about Choice Voting at fairvote.org/pr/choiceintro.htm or elsewhere on the Internet.

    I have nothing against NatCom regional representatives—but this is not about them. This is about internally adopting voting systems that would greatly enhance our election prospects if implemented in the outside world.
    National Committee Meetings

    IT’S TOO EXPENSIVE TO BE ON NATCOM

    I’ve been on the Libertarian National Committee during two periods: September 1989 to September 1993 and March 2003 to the present. During the earlier period, the LNC met three times per year in face-to-face meetings. During the latter period, the LNC has had in-person meetings four times per year. I would be surprised if the total cost of any LNC meeting is less than $10,000, with the members of the National Committee paying the bulk of this as travel expenses. Given our resources, this is far too expensive. And, with the airline industry’s financial problems, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the cost of air travel increase.

    The LNC should strongly consider online meetings. Six online meetings per year, each taking six to eight hours, should be sufficient to handle to LNC’s business. NatCom members would probably need to have broadband Internet service, but that would be much less expensive than traveling to NatCom meetings.

    If the LNC doesn’t institute online meetings, it should at least reduce the number of annual meetings from four to three. It worked from 1989 to 1993; it would work again.

    Where do Bennett and Hancock stand on this?

  61. Paulie Says:

    http://www.chuckmoulton.org/libertarian/2008/voting/

    Scroll down to bottom of page

  62. George Phillies Says:

    “I will ask the Bylaws Committee at the upcoming convention to recommend that the delegates amend the method of electing NatCom members. Instead of five at-large representatives and up to nine regional representatives, I suggest 14 at-large reps should be elected using Single Transferable Voting, also known as “Choice Voting.” ”

    My university’s faculty does this for committee elections. While it depends which set of rules you use—the Cambridge MA rules actually work, and are readily implemented electronically—the various transferrable vote schemes that I have seen turn out once understood to drive minority opinions out of the system.

  63. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Selecting 14 at-larges would require amending 50 sets of state Bylaws. Is that really a good idea?

  64. Michael Seebeck Says:

    That link helps immensely, thanks!

  65. Michael Seebeck Says:

    “Grandma”???

    Angela, you do yourself injustice! :D

  66. Paulie Says:

    Selecting 14 at-larges would require amending 50 sets of state Bylaws.

    I doubt it. Logically, national region formation or lack thereof is a function of national, not state, bylaws.

  67. Angela Keaton Says:

    Mr. Seebeck:

    Thank you for joining the Keaton 2012 team as Minister of Public Relations. Together, we will reclaim the Libertarian Party in the name of liberty or at least help Yank find a date.

    Since my employer is reading this thread and your wife is my future drinking buddy, I will get back to fighting for peace.

    Angela Keaton, the New Face of the Old Right.

  68. Paulie Says:

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/27/who-is-running-for-lnc/

  69. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Angela,

    First, SSBL! (Side-Splitting Belly Laugh) I’m in! :)

    Second, I hate to break it you, but Lidia is allergic to alcohol! (No kidding, she really is!). But she’ll drink you under the table in regular iced tea!

    I can pinch-hit for her on the drinking part, though. :)

    Third, find Yank a date? With or without an air pump?

  70. Susan Hogarth Says:

    “Since my employer is reading this thread and your wife is my future drinking buddy, I will get back to fighting for peace.”

    Hmm. So there is a downside to a movement job, eh?

  71. Jacqueline Says:

    I was delighted to discover tonight that Ruth Bennett is running for LNC Chair and I enthusiastically endorse her candidacy. Please read my full endorsement here: http://tinyurl.com/6y47y5

    Unfortunately I was not paying attention to the LNC Chair race or I would have begun campaigning for her sooner.

Leave a Reply