Candidates, Purges and Principles

Skip to first unread message

Mike Blessing

May 12, 2008, 3:09:52 AM5/12/08
Re: Time for a Purge?

Neil --

I just read your article "Time for a Purge?" and am somewhat amused at
the latest from the Watergate Gang.

This press release from Cory []
really makes me wonder what the dues of the LPUS's Sustaining Members
are going for. I was under the <i>impression</i> that Cory was hired
to run the day-to-day operations of the Libertarian Party's Watergate

A question for Shane Cory -- How does calling for MORE State action
help to fufill the LP's professed mission of SHRINKING the State?

My answer -- It DOESN'T. So what business does the Executive Director
of organization supposedly dedicated to shrinking the State have in
calling for more State activity?

And I think that the War on Kiddie Porn will go the same route as the
Wars on Drugs and Terror -- as an excuse for Democrats and Republicans
to expand the reach and expense of the State, regardless of what their
constituents say, never mind common sense, the Constitution, the rule
of law.

As for the presidential candidate, it wouldn't be Christine Smith,
would it?;-Shane-Cory;-Buttons.html

This comes as a disappointment to me, as I was operating under the
assumption that Smith was one of the more principled candidates. My
main fear about her was that she would burn out, being such a high-
energy candidate.

But not to fear -- another potential nominee has been dropping the
ball. This would be former GOP congressman Bob Barr. It turns out that
the Bob Barr Leadership Fund has been making campaign contributions to
Republican candidates who were opposing Libertarian candidates, while
the BBLF wasn't making ANY donations to the Libertarian candidates.
All of this while Bob Barr has been a sitting member of the LNC.

We in the LPNM had a guy who did this kind of schtick. Back in 2005,
he had announced that he was seeking the LPNM's nomination for U.S.
Senate. At the time, he was the Vice-Chair of the LPNM. Come March
2006, he says that "If nominated, I'll use my campaign to stump for
Jeff Bingaman." Bingaman was (and still is) the Democrat incumbent.
He didn't show up at that year's (rump) State Convention two weeks
later in Rio Rancho. I wonder why?

Fast-forward about two months later, and he announces that he's
forming the "Independent Voters of New Mexico" with the Green Party's
perennial traitor, Abraham Gutmann. As one of the leaders of this
outfit, he endorsed then-New Mexico Attorney General Patsy Madrid for
U.S. Congress, 1st Congressional District, against Democrat-wannabe
Heather Wilson. (I'm NO fan of Wilson, either.) Given that Madrid had
used her powers of office as State Attorney General in an attempt to
kill off the LPNM as an organization, what business does a sitting
officer of the LPNM do having ANYTHING good to say about her?

As for purging the undesireable members from the Libertarian Party, I
don't know that the Party has any specific mechanism for doing that.
Is that good or bad? I'll leave that question for the readership to
answer for themselves. It seems to me that those who think along the
lines of Carl Milsted and Eric Dondero like to conduct their purges by
playing games with the membership and credentials rules, so as to cut
the radical and principled elements out of the loop[1].

I say this in sharp contrast to those of us from the radical side --
when we are deemed to have purged someone of the Milsted/Dondero side
from the LP's ranks, it's mostly that person who was "purged" simply
heard, "You're full of shit" one too many times from other LP members.

[1] The current State Chair of the LPNM, Jay Vandersloot, while a
member of the "Reform" Caucus started by Milsted, has no problem with
Bill Koehler and I being in the radical camp. In fact, when Jay hears
complaints about Bill and I from others, Jay will back us up, asking
the complaintant, "What have YOU done to advance the cause?"
- Mike Blessing / Phone - 011-001-505-918-6567 / Yahoo IM - mikewb1971

Who owns you? Who runs your life?
Who should - you or someone else?

KCUF Media, UnIncorporated
Commentary and Opinion for the Undamaged Mind

Mike Blessing

May 12, 2008, 6:28:02 PM5/12/08
L. Neil Smith wrote:
> Excellent!

Thank you! :)

> And I'm glad you named the candidate. I was disappointed, too,
> although I'd always been frustrated with a certain vagueness.

I wasn't sure about who you were talking about -- that's why I phrased
it as a question.

And then there's her immigration plank --

(Scroll down til you see the bold type -- "State's rights")

> I never trusted Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel is crazy as a bedbug.

Ha ha ha.

I think I'm going to set a personal rule to not support anyone as a
candidate til I've at least known of them, what they've been doing,
that sort of thing, for two years. This way, any squirrelly stuff
(like C. Smith's planks, or Barr's money games) will come out into the

And Barr drops the ball AGAIN --

If you want some good laughs, check out the Wayne Root campaign.
Tom Knapp's taken him to task quite a bit --

As for Gravel, until I see otherwise, he's just nomination-shopping.
If he sticks around in the LP after this election year, THEN I'll
(MAYBE) start to respect him (A LITTLE). Even if he does beat that
one-in-a-trillion chance and get the LP's nomination, several states
have "sore loser" laws in their election codes, which will severely
limit his ballot access.

> Unfortunately, George Phillies has swallowed the Adminstration's lies
> about 9/11 hook, line, and sinker.

Phillies has also swallowed the "conventional wisdom" about "global
warming," hook, line, and sinker. At the 2007 LPNM Convention in
Farmington, one of the attendees asked him what he thought of the idea
that dissenters on the issue were being squashed. George said that the
reason that you didn't hear much dissent is that most of the
scientists agree with the mainstream line, and that he did, too.

The only saving grace for George there was that he explicitly said
that government should take no action on the issue, and let the
market settle it.

> I'm probably going to endorse Steve Kubby.

Last year, I was divided between Kubby and Stanhope, leaning more
towards Stanhope. Then in May 2007, Stanhope dropped out, saying that
his plan of using his comedy tours as a campaign venue would have been
squashed by the FEC.

Thus Kubby it is for me, too.

Mike Blessing

May 12, 2008, 8:10:16 PM5/12/08
L. Neil Smith wrote:
> Excellent!
> And I'm glad you named the candidate. I was disappointed, too,
> although I'd always been frustrated with a certain vagueness. I never
> trusted Bob Barr, and Mike Gravel is crazy as a bedbug. Unfortunately,
> George Phillies has swallowed the Adminstration's lies about 9/11 hook,
> line, and sinker.

Follow-up piece for Candidates, Purges and Principles --

'Tis the Season for Treason

This is my SECOND response to L. Neil Smith's article in The Libertarian
Enterprise, titled "Time for a Purge?" It's also a follow-up to my own article,
"Candidates, Purges and Principles."

After I finished "Candidates, Purges and Principles," I copied and pasted it to
an email message, then sent it off to L. Neil and to Ken Holder, editor of TLE,
as a submission. Neil got back to me, and while composing my response to his
response, I spent some time looking through Tom Knapp's blog for supporting
details. While there, I noticed this article about current Libertarian Party
National Director Sean Haugh. It might be old news, dated 22 February 2008, but

It seems to me that the LP's Treason Caucus is in full swing this election
cycle. Think about it -- we have Bob Barr giving thousands of dollars to
Republican opponents of the LP's candidates while he's been sitting on the LNC,
and not giving much of anything to the LP candidates themselves.

Barr Barr Jinx

(It was in the comments section of this story that I first found about Barr's
providing cash to Republicans against Libertarian candidates while sitting on
the LNC.)

And we have the LP's national Political Director, Sean Haugh, said that he would
support a Republican over the LP's candidate, Susan Hogarth.

Is it time for some sort of a purge in the LP's ranks? YES, it is. But there's
one problem.

The LP doesn't have any specific mechanism that I know of to kick people out of
the organization. Maybe this is a bad thing, but in the mean time, those of us
who are of the radical or "purist" mindset simply have to let the members of the
LP's Treason Caucus know that this sort of behavior simply will not be tolerated.

Think about it -- what if Barr or Haugh were hockey players, and said to their
teammates, "Let's shoot the puck into our own net!" How would the team react to
this insanity? I think that they would probably offer Barr and/or Haugh an enema
of hockey sticks, minus any sort of lubrication. And deservedly so.

Now we've had this sort of problem in the LPNM at times, once from Socorro in
2000, and again here in Albuquerque in 2006. Both times, the perpetrators of
this stupidity got hammered for it, and haven't repeated the offense.

What does it take to stop such idiocy? Simple -- vigilance on the part of the
membership, and a willingness to stand up (and speak up) for principle. That's
it -- nothing more needed. Nothing less will suffice.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages