Just extremely sleep deprived and without a laptop, or money for the Sheraton business center. Just found a free cybercafe by the exhibitor booths. Standing room only, unfortunately. Anyone with a laptop I can borrow, come see me or give me a call. My number is on my facebook.

Floorspace to crash always appreciated. Thanks to several of you who offered, but I lost y'all. when the time came. I was not supposed to be allowed to sleep where I got my two hours, so I won't say where, but thanks.

In answer to a question on my last deathblog, best dressed at the masquerade: my award goes to Mr. and Mrs. Pimperato. Dannyboy was sporting a white ice cream suit with an open collar shirt straight out of Scarface, and Mrs. Imp had on all-black leather zippered get-up with a gold chain and Carmela Soprano hairdo. It reminded me of partying on Long Island in the 1980s. Speaking of which, anyone know if there is any snow left in the Rockies this time of year? I haven't been outside much. Let me know.

Skipping ahead around 36 hours, I tried to go for a run with Michelle this morning and lasted about a block and a half. Reminded me why I'm no longer in crime for a living. Outrunning cops is pretty much not going to happen. I'll fill you all in later on the 36 hours or so. Someone please fix my spelling, I do not have my glasses on.

Oh yeah, come see me if you want Kubby buttons and signs or if you want to give a token to the tokin' candidate.

And thanks to GE for saying I'm cool. Actually I used to be a lot cooler, I'm kinda lame now. But I appreciate the compliment.

Anyway, I lost track of time, and when I went into the actual event, Mary Ruwart was speaking. I had missed Jim Burns. Ruwart gave a nice Ron Paulian speech, but the crowd had not warmed up yet.

Next up was Imperato. He was wearing some kind of papal knight accessory. He said he had an office next door to the Twin Towers and that he had friends who jumped out of windows. He said his employees heard bombs go off in the basement, but that he thinks they were planted by the terrorists. The cover up, he says, is to protect the bureaucrats who failed. Plausible enough. Then he goes into how the reason Muslims hate America has to do with Jacob and Esau, and that Christopher Columbe, a Jew, consecrated America as a Judeo-Christian land (no mention of the fact that "Columbe" never set foot on North America). George Washington also took his oath of office on the exact spot of the Twin Towers, according to Imperato, and Muslims attacked out jealousy . . . Jealousy over the Jewish people's "shrewdness" at "controlling Wall Street."

I can't remember who came next, but I'm pretty sure it was Jingzian. Mike Jingozian is a really good speaker, and he did a great job. Seems like a nice guy. Not 100% libertarian, though. Also puts on airs. Presents self as expert on foreign policy and finance and is mildly condescending.

When Gravel came to the stage, there were cheers all over the place. I thought maybe the general audience "Truthers" were fans of his, but in reality, he had packed the crowd. He went on about his Maoist "Direct Democracy" and offered a free signed copy of his book, Citizen Power, to any delegate who agreed to read two chapters. Gravel's big message was that the Libertarian Party is full of overly principled morons who've never accomplished anything, and that he can win if we give him the nomination. We have our heads in the clouds, he argues. Gravel is big on "power" (his word). He says Nixon should have been put in jail, and wants to use subpoena power (presumably on citizens as well as government officials) to get to the bottom of 9/11. When he was done speaking, there was huge applause and then, when he left, so did about 1/3 of the crowd.

This was unfair to Steve Kubby who went on next. Wow, Steve looks a lot better (not to sound Donderian) in real life than in his pictures. He looks very healthy and he is an excellent public speaker. He got the crowd riled up unlike any of the others before him, despite its smaller size. He dealt with the matter at hand, and limited his comments to the demand for an investigation. The crowd liked that.

Then came Alden Link. Yeah. He talked about socialist energy policy -- he approves. Bragged about the solar panels he's having installed on his house. Said the military-industrial complex was a good thing, for it kept us safe. But then talked very libertarianly and knowledgeably about ending the Drug War.

DRAMA ALERT!!!

That was supposed to be it, but then John Finan arrived. He seemed normal enough. He's a handsome guy (I swear this is not Dondero posting under my name) who would be a believable as a business titan in a movie. His speech was fairly straight forward -- although he did say he would get on Oprah, Letterman, and Conan O'Brien if made the nominee. He didn't really address the issue at hand. Then, when he was finished, Jim Duesning (leader of Libertarians for Justice) stood next to him on the podium and, completely innocently, said (I'm paraphrasing) "I've just been informed that John Finan has not signed our pledge calling for an investigation. I have this glossy page right here, and this fancy marker, would you like to sign right now?"

It seemed to be that Duesning was giving Finan a nice little publicity opportunity here, but Finan did NOT take it that way. He took the mic from Duesning, he gladly gave it to him, and said (again, paraphrasing), "What do you think of me being put on the spot to sign this? Should I sign it?" The crowd was, surprisingly mixed. "I WILL NOT BE AMBUSHED! I WILL NOT BE PRESSURED!"

I should also mention that, while Finan's speech seemed normal enough, after the following events, some of his gestures and facial expressions took on a Mussolinian context.

Duesning snatched the mic back from him and was like, "I'm giving you a chance to sign this or not." Finan tried to grab the mic, but Duesning wouldn't let him have it. Finan screamed in a booming voice, "I DON'T NEED A MICROPHONE! I WILL NOT BE PRESSURED!" And then made was looked like a Nazi salute and walked off stage, still carrying the apparently precious silver marker. "Give back the marker," Duesning demanded. "I'm keeping the marker!" Finan declared.

Wow.

Eventually, a little lady in a red shirt stormed across the room saying she had paid for this event and the marker and demanded it! Finan passed it to a guy sitting down, who gave it to the lady. He was then escorted out of the conference hall.

And that wasn't the end of the drama... (to be continued)

The approximate order in which I’m seeing buttons and signs is: Barr, Imperato (?), Root, Gravel, Ruwart, and Phillies. I’m not sure who’s running against Dixon for LNC, but it seems like three-quarters of the delegates are wearing Dixon stickers.

It seemed like almost all the volunteers and workers with the Barr camp are either: (1) Ron Paul activists who moved over, or (2) Stephen Gordon.

It’s really strange running into people that I only know from the blogosphere, and noting the difference between that and the real world. I’ve argued a ton with Knapp online, but met him in person and found him to be really cool guy.

I found out about an hour after I checked in that my state affiliate could have gotten my press credentials if I’d thought to ask (oh well).

Anyway, joining us in the shuttle six other Libertarian -- three of them women. Taking shotgun was none other than Susan Hogarth. Susan heartily endorsed Ruth Bennett for chair. One of our shuttlemates, a guy named Scott who does ballot-access work for the LP, says a change would be disastrous to the LP's ballot-access program. Maybe he has a point. But my vote goes against the current regime.

When I got to the hotel, the first thing I saw gave me chills: Allan Hacker and Daniel Imperato walking hand in hand. Is there a new conspiracy in the works? How do thetans relate to the Knights of Malta? Regardless, Austin's friend and I got turned around in the hotel, and Allan Hacker lent us a helping hand. A little later, Daniel Imperato approached me -- seeming totally normal and nice -- trying to get my debate token. When I told him "I have to think about it," he was totally cool with it.

No hardcore bad blood so far. But rumor has it that the former owner of TPW (and not the one now affiliated with IPR) wants to initiate force against my face. I guess I have become a scapegoat for everyone who sees this certain someone as part of a plot -- call it a neocon plot. To the best of my knowledge, I have never called him a neocon, and if I have, I shouldn't have.

Had lunch with Paulie, Angela Keaton, and Michelle Shinghall (sp). All of these people are way cooler in real life than they seem online, and they seem pretty cool online. Angela in particular has been very helpful to me and to the bloggers who were stripped of press creds following the Viguerie coup. I was invited by Angela to blog the LNC meeting, but my laptop was in my room which is like a mile away. I got here and decided to write this blog instead, and then I'm going to sleep. (I've had a combined total of four hours in the past 48).

Anonymous source: The radicals have, at best, 15 percent strength and either Barr or Root is going to be the nominee. This multi-person source supports Kubby/Ruwart. He/she/they all agree that the role for radicals will be to be kingmaker -- who will do less damage to the LP: Barr or Root?

Not-so-anonymous source (Susan Hogarth): "I think Ruwart will take it."

More to come.

Trying to stick within my five free minutes, $16/hour after that. Business center

2 PM. Danny Imps is in the house. The lobby of the Denver Sheraton smells like a case of Eau de Palermo fell off the back of a truck in South Boston.

4 PM. Helped unload Laissez Fair Books. Said hello to Mary Ruwart, hubby Ray Carr and campaign staffer Brian Irving getting off the elevator. Headed off to get herbalife uppers from Carol McMahon of the Phillies campaign.

6-7 PM. Said hello to (among other people) VP candidate Daniel Williams (we discussed whether my punk rawk friends from New York were here; the answer is no, they barely leave Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, much less New York); LNC member and Wayne Root staffer Scott Lieberman (we talked about ballot access, especially in regards to Oklahoma); Rob Power from Outright Libertarians; Deb and Steve-O "The Fixer" Gordon; my acting region rep, Stewart Flood, who lobbied heavily for my vote, and told me we had a deal with Texas and Louisiana to become a superregion with two reps; rumored challenger for his position, R. Lee Wrights; John Wayne Smith; The Duensings; Tony and Bette Rose Ryan; and Bob Barr, who seemed to be under the impression that I might not make it here.

Oh yeah, and I finagled a free shower up in Casa Phillies. In what may be a move to get support from Steve Kubby backers, George is passing out Phillies Blunts.

Endorsements: Wayne Allyn Root, Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart, or George Phillies for President; adopt the World's Smallest Political Platform

The Libertarian Party national convention is this weekend in Denver. I won't be going, but I know at least one delegate reads this blog, so I'm posting my endorsements for candidates and issues in the hopes that they are at least somewhat influential in the delegates' decisions.

First, to give my endorsements the necessary context, I should explicitly disclose my history, positions, and biases: I've been involved in the LP since 2000, including working as the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Washington State (2001-2002) and running as a Libertarian candidate for Washington Secretary of State (2004), but I've been less active since the 2006 election. I'm a minarchist, but I welcome anyone who supports reducing the size, scope, and power of government as a member of the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement even if they don't share my exact vision of what Libertopia should be. I think that the Libertarian Party has the greatest chance for success in local races (state legislature and lower) and thus the role of the national party and Presidential candidates should be to first do no harm (do not say or do anything wacky that will hurt local candidates), and second, help recruit and develop a pool of Libertarian activists, donors, and voters that local candidates and organizations can tap into.

To get caught up on the candidates and issues, I read their websites, their Wikipedia biographies, searched YouTube for videos of them speaking, and sought out opinions and gossip from other Libertarians on blogs. I've also had personal interactions with George Phillies and Mary Ruwart, and I heard George Phillies and Steve Kubby debate at the LP Nevada convention last year.

GOOD CANDIDATES

Unfortunately, none of the candidates this year really excite me. However, there are a few that I think would help our party grow if they won the nomination:

Wayne Allyn Root:

Pros: Moderately famous for his gambling TV shows/books and Millionaire Republican personal finance book. He's a very good speaker and smooth with the media, as shown here. Has raised the second most money of the "good" candidates".

Cons: He only recently made the switch from the Republican Party and is a little on the conservative side. He also seems to have already alienated a lot of people within the LP, although it's not clear to me what exactly he did to get their panties in such a bunch.

Steve Kubby:

Pros: Relatively famous politically. He was successful in getting California Proposition 215 (Medical Marijuana) passed, so we know he has the connections and resources to get things done. He would probably get media attention for being a convicted felon, but this is a good thing because it would show the stupidity of the Drug War. He's been campaigning for 2 years. Consistently libertarian positions.

Cons: Most Americans are more concerned about other issues than the Drug War right now, so Kubby's biggest strength is sort of wasted this year. Despite campaigning for 2 years he hasn't raised much money.

Mary Ruwart:

Pros: Is an excellent speaker and communicator. Is moderately famous within the libertarian movement. She's able to explain fairly radical libertarian positions and policies without scaring the crap out of people. Running a woman for President or Vice President this year might win us more media attention than we would otherwise get. She's been involved with the libertarian movement for a long time so we all know her pretty well by now. Consistently libertarian positions.

Cons: She entered the race pretty late and hasn't raised much money or probably built much of a campaign yet. She doesn't seem to know how to dress appropriately for a Presidential candidate. Please, Mary, go get some black or navy suits and wear them to all future events instead of that hideous gray thing.

George Phillies:

Pros: George is probably the most sane/mainstream candidate for the nomination -- he consistently advocates reducing the size of government, but in incremental ways that are actually politically viable. Has raised the most money of the "good" candidates. He's a long-time member and activist in the Libertarian Party, so we all know him pretty well by now. He "gets it" that the Presidential campaign should be a recruiting tool for building the party and helping elect local candidates. He's been campaigning for 2 years.

Cons: I think George might have a touch of Aspergers Syndrome -- those of you who have met George know what I'm talking about. He's not at all notable outside of the party.

I wish that George was working as the campaign manager or strategist for a prettier, more charismatic candidate instead of running for the nomination himself. Regardless of who wins the nomination, I hope that George stays involved in the Presidential campaign, because I think he's got the right mix of libertarian ideology and strategic pragmatism that we need to run a party-building Presidential campaign.

MEDIOCRE CANDIDATES:

I don't think these candidates would either help or hurt us that much:

Christine Smith:

Pros: She seems to have consistently libertarian positions on all the issues. She's a decent public speaker as seen here. Although I generally wish that female candidates would dress more conservatively, she pulls off the red suit look well. Running a woman for President or Vice President this year might win us more media attention than we would otherwise get.

Cons: She's just not that notable -- it's too bad that she decided to jump into running for President, because she would have made a great candidate for local office if she actually wanted to be elected to something. She desperately needs a web designer to improve the look and feel of her campaign website.

Other: She shares a name with a Playboy Playmate (NSFW Google images search). Inevitably, some people will get the two mixed up -- not sure if that will help or hurt her campaign. :)

Michael Jingozian:

Pros: Seems comfortable speaking, as shown here. Long-time member (claims he joined the LP in 1980). Founder and CEO of a successful small marketing company. Managed to score a Wall Street Journal blog post about his campaign ("A Small Business Owner for President"). I think his internet-focused campaign strategy is a smart idea given the LP's lack of resources for conventional campaigning. Has raised the most money of the not-bad candidates. Hasn't done anything to motivate people to write nasty things about him on blogs.

Cons: That no one is writing nasty things about him on blogs indicates that he's not campaigning hard enough or being taken seriously as a candidate. Complete lack of notability -- again, he should have run for local office instead of President. Campaign literature is way too cluttered and too focused on negative things.

Alden Link:

Pros: Seems innocuous. The positions he describes on his website are fairly consistently libertarian.

Cons: I had never heard of him and didn't know he was running until I did one last check of the LP's website to make sure I hadn't missed anyone. Has he raised any money or spoken anywhere? His website is pretty sad.

Jim Burns:

Pros: Seems to have consistently libertarian positions (although I couldn't bear to finish slogging through all the text on his website, so there might be something that I missed). Strategically-minded.

Cons: I couldn't find much about him so he doesn't seem to be campaigning very much. Seems a bit nutty. His campaign website was difficult to find and is pretty lame. Keeps referring to himself as an "old, bald, fat white guy," which may be accurate but is not the winning campaign rhetoric we should be looking for. He's so very earnest that I want to pat him on his little bald head, but I don't want him representing our party.

BAD CANDIDATES:

I think these candidates would be harmful to our party and I would be very disappointed if any of them were nominated:

Bob Barr:

Pros: As a former elected Congressman, he's much more famous than most of the other candidates. His experience in public office gives him credibility, and demonstrates that he is able to run an effective campaign. His campaign website is very professional-looking.

Cons: HE'S NOT A LIBERTARIAN. He's still really a Republican at heart, and he's running to get Republicans to vote and help down-ticket Republican candidates (via), not to build the Libertarian Party. He'll never be accepted by many libertarians due to his support of the Drug War, Defense of Marriage Act, and Patriot Act while he was an elected Congressman -- he may give lip service to libertarianism now, but his actual legislative record on libertarian issues is abysmal. He waited until the last minute to officially announce, which seems to me like a slimy tactic to avoid giving Libertarians adequate time to investigate and debate his candidacy before the convention. I don't trust him or his supposed change of heart (he doesn't even declare his current positions on drugs or gay rights on the Issues page of his website) -- this is a guy that we helped defeat for re-election in 2002, and now he sits on the LNC and is seriously being considered for our nominee for President?! Ron Crickenberger must be spinning in his grave.

Mike Gravel:

Pros: As a former elected Senator, and as a former candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, he's much more famous than most of the other candidates. His experience in public office gives him credibility, and demonstrates that he is able to run an effective campaign. His campaign website is very professional-looking.

Cons: HE'S NOT A LIBERTARIAN. The only reason he's running for the Libertarian Party nomination is because he couldn't win the Democratic Party nomination. He is campaigning for socialized medicine, which would be a massive increase in government. Need I say more?

Bob Barr and Mike Gravel are examples of one of the worst threats to third parties -- major party candidates who can't get along in their own party and decide to leave and try to co-opt a third party's ticket. We saw this happen with the Movimiento Libertario in Costa Rica (which was the most successful Libertarian party in the world to date). There, the co-opters were successful, and the Movimiento Libertario doesn't even call itself "libertarian" anymore. Let the fate of the ML serve as a cautionary tale to US Libertarians -- don't be so excited over the prospect of an experienced and proven "electable" candidate from a mainstream party that you ignore their ideology.

Daniel Imperato:

Pros: He seems to be putting a lot of effort into his campaign.

Cons: He's not actually a Libertarian, he's just a slut for third parties -- he's also tried to win the Green Party, Reform Party, and Constitution Party nominations, and seems to just want to be on the ballot regardless of whose ticket he's on.

PLATFORM:

I support the World's Smallest Political Platform (click the link to sign the petition):

"The Libertarian Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose."

I support it because I know from experience that opponents and media can and do go to the national Libertarian Party website, dig up something wacky from the platform, and use it confront local candidates in potentially winnable races. So while I personally don't object to much in the current or old platform, I think it is a handicap and not a help for winning elections at the level we can realistically win them at. Let our CANDIDATES define their own platforms individually, based on the issues that THEY want to campaign on, instead of having to fend off questions about issues not related to the office that they're running for or about positions much more radical than they themselves espouse.

________________________________

Jacqueline Passey is the former Executive Director of the Washington state Libertarian Party, and former LP candidate for Washington Secretary of State. Blog enthusiasts likely remember her from her 2006 blog entry covering the Nevada LP presidential debates, amusingly titled "Two whackjobs, a convicted felon, and George Phillies". That blog entry set into motion a short-lived "memogate", in which a memo from then-LP Executive Director Shane Corey, referencing her blog and asking whether the LP can offer better candidates, was leaked into the blogosphere.

Ms. Passey lives in Las Vegas with her husband and dachsunds, and is currently working on her Master's Degree at UNLV. Her current blog is "Jacqueline Gets Her Geek On".

Latest Entries in TPW LP Photoshop Dissathon - Both by anonymous. No editorial comment here, just passing ‘em along.

None are intended as a serious attack on any of the candidates.

Mike Gravel has has not yet made his April filing, so I have included his numbers from December. Also, Daniel imperato appears to have a corrupted computer file, as explained in the notes, so his totals are not given; and Bob Barr had no exploratory committee as of 3/31 so his total for that date is zero. Otherwise, all candidates are compared as of their March 31st FEC filing.

Mike Jingozian
Others $ 13,090
Total $228,525

George Phillies
Others $ 16,727
Total $198,254

Wayne Allyn Root
Others $ 34,409
Total $ 59,410

Christine Smith
Others $ 16,244
Total $ 16,244

Steve Kubby
Others $ 16,219 (inferred from previous filings))
Total $ 16,219

Mary Ruwart
Others $ 5,655
Total $ 10,655

Bob Barr
Others $ 0
Total $ 0

Mike Gravel
Others $447,880
Total $521,396

Daniel Imperato:

Imperato filing appears to have a corrupted computer file. His most recent report claims his receipts for the quarter ($39,574) are larger than his total receipts for the cycle ($12,500), which is impossible.

LP Presidential Candidate FEC and Liberty Decides '08 Filings

Wayne Allyn Root
LD '08: $15,764.00
Individual: $29,988.00
Candidate: $4,421.90

Daniel Imperato
LD '08: $10,474.00
Individual: $0.00
Candidate: $0.00

Michael Jingozian
LD '08: $8,490.00
Individual: $13,090.79
Candidate: $0.00

Mike Gravel*^
LD '08: $895.00
Individual: $447,378.97
Candidate: $0.00

Steve Kubby**
LD '08: $1,280.00
Total: $2,951.22

Alden Link
LD '08: $885.00
Individual: $259.00
Candidate: $4,225.00

George Phillies
LD '08: n/a
Individual: $16,727.75
Candidate: $81,527.01

Mary Ruwart***
LD '08: $1,060.00
Individual: n/a
Candidate: n/a

Christine Smith**
LD '08: $2,460.00
Total: $16,244.00

Bob Barr (still in Presidential exploratory phase):
Total Reported by Candidate Web site: $53,163.64

Most Individual Contributions Raised: Root
Most Personal Money Invested: Phillies

*Numbers reflect previous campaign for President in different political party
**No electronic report available. Only total available is net contributions that do not separate individual contributions and candidate contributions
***No FEC report available
^Candidate had failed to file April Quarterly Report when data was compiled

(LD '08 totals current as of May 5, 2008. FEC Filing data taken from Election Cycle-To-Date totals from candidates' April Quarterly filing. This information can be viewed at www.FEC.gov.)

Posted by Andrew Davis at May 6, 2008 12:52 PM

ENM responds:

Perhaps I am somehow confused, but in their wrap-up of "Most Individual Contributions Raised", they list Root as the winner. Yet, isn't Gravel's $447,379 a LOT more than Root's $29,988?

I still have to respect the heck out of George Phillies for putting so much of his money where his mouth is, so I think he should wear the "Most Personal Money Invested" win as a badge of honor.

I still think "Liberty Decides" is both a rip-off for the candidates, and misleading to voters. I have had to explain over and over again, to people across the net, that LD'08 has no bearing on a candidate's actual chances of getting the nomination, because it's nothing but a fundraising tool for the LP; and that if they contribute money to a candidate through LD'08, the candidate they choose doesn't actually get the money. Argh.

All told, 48 people voted up to three times each.  Phillies and Barr each got 22 votes, Gravel got 20, Ruwart 19, Jingozian 16, and Root 16.

Imperato, Hess, Smith, and Kubby got single digit totals, but still polled lower than "None of the Above".  Others - Link, Finan, Burns, Hollist, Milnes - received no votes.  At this point, many if not all of those candidates should drop out of the race and endorse one of the frontrunners, since it seems quite clear that they have no chance of becoming the LP nominee.

I cannot help but wonder if the NOTA votes are holding out for Ron Paul to run on a third party ticket (which seems extremely unlikely at best) or if they simply don't like any of the candidates who have declared.

Unlike most mainstream presidential candidates, God The Great Holy Spirit Saint Michael Jesus The Archangel doesn’t think he is God. He knows he is. This also ends the debate about the true name of God, since he quite clearly denotes his name as “Mike”. That’s a much easier name to spell and remember than “Yahweh”, for sure.

Apparently God/Mike runs a “modeling agency”, and if his website claims are to be believed, it’s quite successful as models literally flock to him. I’m not sure how lucrative that endeavor has become for him, but that’s okay because he also makes his own money. By that, I don’t mean that he works and makes money. No, I mean that he quite literally makes money, which he calls “Heavenly Banknotes”. Are you against the Federal Reserve? He’ll take care of that problem too, and replace it with his own “Cosmic Reserve Bank”.

It appears that God/Mike is an Old Testament kind of Creator, because he wants to arrest abortion doctors, judges who ruled abortions legal, and women who have had abortions, and execute them all within a year. He also thinks that smokers are both suicidal and homicidal, and he plans to arrest and execute, without representation or trial, all of the “tobacco lords”. He also has a problem with gay marriage, because the Bible (which he refers to as “My Holy Word”) speaks against it; for that reason, he plans to execute all gays and lesbians. On the other hand Mike/God is not quite so completely violent as it would appear, since he also thinks that nations should settle conflicts with a paintball war.

If you’re interested in contacting God/Mike, you can do so by telephone or email, since both are listed on his website. However, you can’t send him a fax, since his fax is listed as “CIA Top Secret Ultra-Grade.”

Like any other non-mainstream candidate, God/Mike has run into some difficulties during his campaign. Most notably, he was charged with attempted murder, undoubtedly while “at war with the homosexual Satan and his leftist queer devils and demons”. That’s okay, though, because since he’s God, he has the power of prophesy. To that end he says, “I prophesy that I will win by a crushing landslide.”

On the other end of the spectrum Jonathan “The Impaler” Sharkey may not be a Papal Knight, a Knight of Malta, or a Knight of the Orden Bonaria like Daniel Imperato; or God, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost like Mike/God, but he is an ordained Satanic Priest. Not only is he a Satanic Priest, but a quiz on his MySpace profile declared that he is Satan, so it must be true. He also promises to murder (by impalement, of course) certain people with his own hands as soon as he takes office; that list includes Osama bin Laden, George Bush, O.J. Simpson, and even Mike Tyson.

Jonathan is also a “Satanic Vampyre” as well as a “Hecate Witch”, and has some very serious military experience as a “Commanding General” of a vampire regiment known as the “Death Dealers”. He also has a great deal of previous political experience, having run for Congress in multiple states, for President during the last election as well as the present one, and he once also ran for Governor (of Minnesota). His campaigns have been unsuccessful, undoubtedly due to the media’s bias against third party candidates.

On the downside, he must be one of those shapeshifters David Icke warns us about because, while in Florida, he assumed the name “Kathleen Sharkey” and claimed that he is is his own half-sister, and also his own pagan wife. He sent a notice to the FEC under the Kathleen persona, implying that Jonathan is dead.

Not surprisingly, The Impaler does have an arrest record, including a record for stalking a former girlfriend, but for those who wish to support The Impaler, that could be easily spun into his being far more loyal than most people will ever be. He was also ordered to undergo psychiatric care since he believes himself to be a vampire, and of course that could be spun as his having had his right to practice his religion denied by the government. Despite The impaler’s shortcomings, there is always a way for a politician to spin anything into something positive.

Then again, if God and Satan aren’t quite down-to-earth enough for you, there is also John Taylor Bowles. Bowles claims to be “the White People’s Candidate”. Dressed like a Neo-Nazi storm trooper, Bowles claims that it is “time for the white people to put a real white man in the White House”; apparently he believes that previous presidents weren’t really white.

Bowles wants to give us lower taxes, lower food prices, free health care, zero unemployment, no outsourcing of jobs, forgiveness of all credit card debt so all white people start with a fresh slate, a 5% flat tax on income with all other taxes abolished, no more foreclosures, and interest-free mortgages (though together those last two items are equivalent to free housing on a first-come first-serve basis) ….. but only after he has deported all non-whites in a “humanitarian” manner. He plans to give all non-whites a one-time stipend of $30,000 to make their involuntary move more palatable.

Bowles also wants to bring the white soldiers home, at which time he will position them at the southern border to help “stop the invasion”. He also believes that birth control is an invention of those who wish to destroy the white race, and to that end he suggests that whites take over the country by having as many children as possible (though if he deports all non-whites, we would have no need to out-breed anyone to maintain control). White families who produce four or more children will have their mortgage debt forgiven, though again, it doesn’t matter if the debt is forgiven, if there are no more foreclosures.

I’ve heard this particular line of thinking before. Former wacky Libertarian candidate Gene Chapman suggested that libertarians out-breed the non-libertarians, and even offered to store his sperm for any women interested in bearing his children. He also mentioned that both he and his webmaster Doug Kenline were single. Big surprise there.

So who gets to stay in the United States, and who will be forced to leave? According to Bowles, a white person (which he refers to as “Aryan”) is defined as “wholly of non-Jewish, non-Asiatic European ancestry, descendants of the autochthonous Peoples of the contemporary states of Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Many persons of Albanian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Georgian, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Portugese, Romanian, Serbian, and Spanish heritage also qualify as Aryan, their ancestors being pioneers of Aryan communities in those lands.”

Now that we’ve reviewed the candidates, here is the interesting question. Given that the mainstream parties limit our choices to only three candidates at this point, soon to be only two candidates; and given that many Americans do not agree with any of the mainstream candidates on the issues …. if these were the only candidates from which you could choose, who would you choose, and why?

___________________________________

Originally posted by ElfNinosMom on Last Free Voice

Unlike most mainstream presidential candidates, God The Great Holy Spirit Saint Michael Jesus The Archangel doesn't think he is God. He knows he is. This also ends the debate about the true name of God, since he quite clearly denotes his name as "Mike". That's a much easier name to spell and remember than "Yahweh", for sure.

Apparently God/Mike runs a "modeling agency", and if his website claims are to be believed, it's quite successful as models literally flock to him. I'm not sure how lucrative that endeavor has become for him, but that's okay because he also makes his own money. By that, I don't mean that he works and makes money. No, I mean that he quite literally makes money, which he calls "Heavenly Banknotes". Are you against the Federal Reserve? He'll take care of that problem too, and replace it with his own "Cosmic Reserve Bank".

Apparently God/Mike is an Old Testament kind of Creator, because he wants to arrest abortion doctors, judges who ruled abortions legal, and women who have had abortions, and execute them all within a year. He also thinks that smokers are both suicidal and homicidal, and he plans to arrest and execute, without representation or trial, all of the "tobacco lords". He also has a problem with gay marriage, because the Bible (which he refers to as "My Holy Word") speaks against it; for that reason, he plans to execute all gays and lesbians. On the other hand Mike/God is not quite so completely violent as it would appear, since he also thinks that nations should settle conflicts with a paintball war.

If you're interested in contacting God/Mike, you can do so by telephone or email, since both are listed on his website. However, you can't send him a fax, since his fax is listed as "CIA Top Secret Ultra-Grade."

Like any other non-mainstream candidate, God/Mike has run into some difficulties during his campaign. Most notably, he was charged with attempted murder, undoubtedly while "at war with the homosexual Satan and his leftist queer devils and demons". That's okay, though, because since he's God, he has the power of prophesy. To that end he says, "I prophesy that I will win by a crushing landslide."

On the other end of the spectrum Jonathan "The Impaler" Sharkey may not be a Papal Knight, a Knight of Malta, or a Knight of the Orden Bonaria like Daniel Imperato; or God, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost like Mike, but he is an ordained Satanic Priest. Not only is he a Satanic Priest, but a quiz on his MySpace profile declared that he is Satan, so it must be true. He also promises to murder (by impalement, of course) certain people with his own hands as soon as he takes office; that list includes Osama bin Laden, George Bush, O.J. Simpson, and even Mike Tyson.

Jonathan is also a "Satanic Vampyre" as well as a "Hecate Witch", and has some very serious military experience as a "Commanding General" of a vampire regiment known as the "Death Dealers". He also has a great deal of previous political experience, having run for Congress in multiple states, for President during the last election as well as the present one, and he once also ran for Governor (of Minnesota). His campaigns have been unsuccessful, undoubtedly due to the media's bias against third party candidates.

On the downside, he must be one of those shapeshifters David Icke warns us about because, while in Florida, he assumed the name "Kathleen Sharkey" and claimed that he is is his own half-sister, and also his own pagan wife. He sent a notice to the FEC under the Kathleen persona, implying that Jonathan is dead.

Not surprisingly, The Impaler does have an arrest record, including a record for stalking a former girlfriend, but for those who wish to support The Impaler, that could be easily spun into his being far more loyal than most people will ever be. He was also ordered to undergo psychiatric care since he believes himself to be a vampire, and of course that could be spun as his having had his right to practice his religion denied by the government. Despite The impaler's shortcomings, there is always a way for a politician to spin anything into something positive.

Then again, if God and Satan aren't quite down-to-earth enough for you, there is also John Taylor Bowles. Bowles claims to be "the White People's Candidate". Dressed like a Neo-Nazi storm trooper, Bowles claims that it is "time for the white people to put a real white man in the White House"; apparently he believes that previous presidents weren't really white.

Bowles wants to give us lower taxes, lower food prices, free health care, zero unemployment, no outsourcing of jobs, forgiveness of all credit card debt so all white people start with a fresh slate, a 5% flat tax on income with all other taxes abolished, no more foreclosures, and interest-free mortgages (though together those last two items are equivalent to free housing on a first-come first-serve basis) ..... but only after he has deported all non-whites in a "humanitarian" manner. He plans to give all non-whites a one-time stipend of $30,000 to make their involuntary move more palatable.

Bowles also wants to bring the white soldiers home, at which time he will position them at the southern border to help "stop the invasion". He also believes that birth control is an invention of those who wish to destroy the white race, and to that end he suggests that whites take over the country by having as many children as possible (though if he deports all non-whites, we would have no need to out-breed anyone to maintain control). White families who produce four or more children will have their mortgage debt forgiven, though again, it doesn't matter if the debt is forgiven, if there are no more foreclosures.

I've heard this particular line of thinking before. Former wacky Libertarian candidate Gene Chapman suggested that libertarians out-breed the non-libertarians, and even offered to store his sperm for any women interested in bearing his children. He also mentioned that both he and his webmaster Doug Kenline were single. Big surprise there.

So who gets to stay in the United States, and who will be forced to leave? According to Bowles, a white person (which he refers to as "Aryan") is defined as "wholly of non-Jewish, non-Asiatic European ancestry, descendants of the autochthonous Peoples of the contemporary states of Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Many persons of Albanian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Georgian, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Portugese, Romanian, Serbian, and Spanish heritage also qualify as Aryan, their ancestors being pioneers of Aryan communities in those lands."

Now that we've reviewed the candidates, here is the interesting question. Given that the mainstream parties limit our choices to only three candidates at this point, soon to be only two candidates; and given that many Americans do not agree with any of the mainstream candidates on the issues .... if these were the only candidates from which you could choose, who would you choose, and why?

Good job and many thanks to Sam Wood at the Inquirer!

LIBERTARIANS HOLD CONVENTION IN PA

By Sam Wood, Inquirer Staff Writer

There's a joke making the rounds that the Libertarian Party would like to dispel.

Q: What is a Libertarian salad?

A: Lettuce alone!

Libertarians prize individual rights, say party leaders. But really, the emphasis on "individual" ends there. They're tired of being alone. They'd love to make more converts.

In fact, Libertarians are aggressively pursuing voters in the region, seeking to raise the profile of their party's presidential candidates. (There's at least 8.)

This weekend in Malvern, Libertarians from Pennsylvania and New Jersey will hold a joint convention scheduled to run three days at the Desmond Hotel and Conference Center.

"Everyone's invited," said James C. Babb, a small Main Line businessman and organizer of the weekend gathering, which begins tomorrow. "Saturday is the best day for someone who is not already a party member."

The confab will give regional Libertarians an opportunity to size up eight presidential candidates before the party's May 22 national convention in Denver, Colorado. About 200 delegates are expected to attend the Malvern event.

Babb said he's routinely asked why the Libertarians even bother to run a presidential candidate.

"People say, 'Gosh, you're never going to win. Isn't it a wasted vote?'

"But voters are really disappointed with the Democrats and the Republicans right now," Babb said. "This is an opportunity to make a statement."

The Libertarian party platform, Babb said, reflects the values of the Founding Fathers.

Babb said the party stands for a humble foreign policy, a sound currency, protection of individual rights, the elimination of taxes, an end to the war on drugs, no torture and no wiretapping.

He said the Republican Party had used bait-and-switch tactics to win the White House for the past eight years.

"They promised no nation building and invaded Iraq. They promised fiscal conservatism and they brought us a $3.1 trillion budget. And that's just one year's worth of squandering."

Democrats, he said, haven't done much better.

"They swept the House of Representatives promising to get us out of Iraq, but they've continued to fund the war and they've failed to protect civil liberties."

Bill Redpath, the national party chairman, will also attend.

Among the candidates wooing voters in Malvern this weekend include:

Bob Jackson, 68, born in Woodbury, NJ and a 1961 graduate of Lehigh University. An inventor and engineer now based in Michigan, Jackson operates import-export businesses Triax Inc. and Jackson International.

Michael Jingozian, 48, an Oregon entrepreneur and founder of Angelvision Technologies, an internet marketing firm.

Alden Link, 76, businessman and entrepreneur from White Plains, New York. He owns Sundance Industries, the nation's leading manufacturer of wheat grass juicers.

George Phillies, 61, M.I.T. trained chemist, former Libertarian congressional candidate, ACLU activist, and resident of Worcester, Massachusetts.

Wayne Allyn Root, 47, a Las Vegas-based sports oddsmaker, author, self-made millionaire and television personality.

Daniel Imperato, 50, of West Palm Beach, Fla. Businessman and self-described former semi-pro hockey player, Papal Knight and Knight of Malta.

Christine Smith, 31, a humanitarian activist from Golden, Colorado and author of A Mountain In The Wind - An Exploration of the Spirituality of John Denver.

For more information, see the state party websites at www.lppa.org and www.njlp.org or the national party website at www.lp.org.

By the way, I'm not trying to be mean. I met Mr. Jackson in Las Vegas, and he was a nice fellow from what I can tell. I've also met and talked one on one with all the other Liberty Decides qualifying candidates and I don't hate any of them. This is just supposed to be a lighthearted parody as a followup to

Liberty Decides

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If it were not for “Liberty Decides“, Imperato would still be just the butt of jokes among those of us who follow the lunatic fringe in politics. Without “Liberty Decides”, he would have forever remained an obscure Independent candidate whose only supporters were the voices in his head.

The Libertarian Party, however, recognized Imperato as a fully qualified Libertarian presidential candidate on their website, in “Liberty Decides”, which is nothing more or less than a moneymaking scheme for the LP since it does not stop candidates from buying their way to the top; and there is absolutely no accountability regarding the dates, amounts, or identities of contributors. Yet Imperato is not even a Libertarian candidate, even by his own admission, since he filed with the FEC as an Independent.

It is pathetic that no one invited the media just because Imperato was there, since it robbed the legitimate Libertarian candidates of much-needed exposure (especially true when it cost them $500 to participate, not to mention travel and lodging costs). Wackjob or not, I think Imperato would only have made the other candidates look even better, so perhaps you should have invited the media anyway. It’s not like it’s going to be shown on the evening news, after all. The only people who would be interested at all are libertarians, and insomniacs.

However, since you decided not to alert the media due to Imperato’s participation, someone in authority at that event should have alerted the media themselves (again, because they charged the candidates $500 each for the opportunity to participate). If they and you both thought Imperato was just too far out in left field to invite the media, you could have simply said, “We’re sorry, Mr. Imperato, but you’re registered with the FEC as an Independent, and thus you are not qualified to participate in this debate as a Libertarian. Here is a refund of your participation fee”.

How hard is that?

In my opinion, the LP has made a mockery of the party’s entire presidential candidate process. Not only did they ignore their own candidates in order to support a candidate from another party who repeatedly said he was not interested in becoming the LP’s nominee, but they also rolled out the red carpet for a wackjob who isn’t even registered with the FEC as a Libertarian candidate (and did the same for a lot of candidates who aren’t filed with the FEC at all).

The entire situation is an embarrassing mess, but it didn’t need to happen at all. Nevertheless, no matter how I view it, the LP is entirely to blame by lending Imperato credibility where he otherwise would have none.

Originally posted on Adventures In Frickintardistan

Just as some brief background, Mr. Imperato is either a liar of unimaginable proportions, or insane. I haven't decided yet, mostly because I honestly don't care one way or the other about his candidacy since he will never in a zillion years become President, or even the Libertarian Party's nominee. Yet his wackiness also isn't interesting enough to keep my attention for more than a minute or two.

I started to respond on that blog, then decided to do so here instead, so my thoughts on this issue aren't buried in the comments section of someone else's blog. I am so disgusted with the Libertarian Party and its powers-that-be that I don't care if they know it. What follows is that response.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If it were not for "Liberty Decides", Imperato would still be just the butt of jokes among those of us who follow the lunatic fringe in politics. Without "Liberty Decides", he would have forever remained an obscure Independent candidate whose only supporters were the voices in his head.

The Libertarian Party, however, recognized Imperato as a fully qualified Libertarian presidential candidate on their website, in "Liberty Decides", which is nothing more or less than a moneymaking scheme for the LP since it does not stop candidates from buying their way to the top; and there is absolutely no accountability regarding the dates, amounts, or identities of contributors. Yet Imperato is not even a Libertarian candidate, even by his own admission, since he filed with the FEC as an Independent.

It is pathetic that no one invited the media just because Imperato was there, since it robbed the legitimate Libertarian candidates of much-needed exposure (especially true when it cost them $500 to participate, not to mention travel and lodging costs). Wackjob or not, I think Imperato would only have made the other candidates look even better, so perhaps you should have invited the media anyway. It's not like it's going to be shown on the evening news, after all. The only people who would be interested at all are libertarians, and insomniacs.

However, since you decided not to alert the media due to Imperato's participation, someone in authority at that event should have alerted the media themselves (again, because they charged the candidates $500 each for the opportunity to participate). If they and you both thought Imperato was just too far out in left field to invite the media, you could have simply said, "We're sorry, Mr. Imperato, but you're registered with the FEC as an Independent, and thus you are not qualified to participate in this debate as a Libertarian. Here is a refund of your participation fee".

How hard is that?

In my opinion, the LP has made a mockery of the party's entire presidential candidate process. Not only did they ignore their own candidates in order to support a candidate from another party who repeatedly said he was not interested in becoming the LP's nominee, but they also rolled out the red carpet for a wackjob who isn't even registered with the FEC as a Libertarian candidate (and did the same for a lot of candidates who aren't filed with the FEC at all).

The entire situation is an embarrassing mess, but it didn't need to happen at all. Nevertheless, no matter how I view it, the LP is entirely to blame by lending Imperato credibility where he otherwise would have none.

At last check, John McCain and Mitt Romney were separated by only ONE vote. So let that be a lesson to all who have ever said that their vote doesn’t matter. Ha! I hope someone out there said that and would have voted for Romney or McCain, deciding the Boone County election for them.

Barack Obama was outpacing Hillary Clinton in Boone County votes, but has been declared the “not winner” by both the Associated Press and St. Louis Post Dispatch. Meaning Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Missouri, but the Democrats’ votes are divided between the candidates proportionately and Obama received 47% of the vote, so Missouri was essentially another draw for the Democrats.

I finally found some Libertarians in Columbia and Boone County, but as one person commented on my last post, “they’re the ones holding Ron Paul signs”. Every Libertarian I spoke with told me they voted for Ron Paul, a former Libertarian, but they all plan to vote Libertarian in the general election.

After speaking with a few Columbia Libertarians, I was able to get a hold of Libertarian Presidential hopeful Daniel Imperato. He was born in Boston and has the traditional “chowda” Bostonian accent, even though he currently resides in West Palm Beach, FL. Imperato claims he will begin a full-fledged campaign tomorrow and seems to be reaching for the stars with his presidential aspirations.

He believes he will attract not just Libertarians, but the 22% of Americans who identify themselves as Independents, the Hispanic population, and the Christian conservatives. Essentially, Imperato thinks of himself as a Huckabee-Obama-Cesar Chavez hybrid.

Perhaps Imperato can unite America and bring the change he believes is only possible through means of electing a third party candidate, only time will tell. But one thing is for sure, he probably, most likely, almost positively, with little doubt not even scratch the surface of America’s 2008 Presidential election. I didn’t even know his name until today. How many of you did?

There is no requirement that the donations/votes come from a registered member of the LP, or even that the voters claim to be a libertarian (many libertarians are not registered with the Libertarian Party, since that would remove their right to vote in many state primaries). The Libertarian Party will keep 60% of the money collected, while the eventual presidential nominee will get the remaining 40%, to be used in promoting the Libertarian Party.

There are a number of glaringly obvious problems with this competition.

Right off the bat, I can tell you that there are candidates listed there who have not raised $5000, period. However, if they left out candidates who hadn't accomplished that yet, there would only be three candidates listed. I'll get to those candidates in a moment.

There is no indication how many individual contributions each candidate received, and the competition is not set up to gauge support in that manner. This is important for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is no way to tell if the candidates received contributions from others, or if all their funds came from them.  While at first glance it would seem unethical for the candidates to contribute to themselves in a competition, since that normally would be viewed as rigging the results, there is in fact nothing stopping the candidates from using their own funds. The rules quite specifically state, "Donations from the candidates will be counted towards funds raised".

Given that three of the candidates have a great deal of money (specifically the ones sitting in the top three right now) there is absolutely no way for anyone to tell if those candidates simply contributed to themselves, though it definitely appears that they have done exactly that. Furthermore, allowing candidates to contribute to themselves places the wealthy candidates at an unfair advantage, and explains the current results.

The current frontrunners are Wayne Allyn Root, Mike Jingozian, and Daniel Imperato. However, I have seen no indication whatsoever that those three have any significant following. Quite the contrary, since all three have been subjected to a great deal of negative opinion from libertarians.

Imperato in particular is a candidate who has no discernible support, and his "press releases" are met with a great deal of laughter and derision, including from Yours Truly. Many others across the blogosphere have voiced their concern that Imperato may not be completely sane, though he does have enough money to rig the competition with ease. He is now in third place, undoubtedly due to contributing to himself.

Root is new to the LP, and even still has a website called "Millionaire Republican"; as a result he is viewed with suspicion, and is considered to be a Republican by most. Furthermore, Root is running on what is primarily a pro-gambling platform, since he is a Vegas oddsmaker. While libertarians believe gambling should not be illegal, one cannot run a presidential campaign on that stance alone, and some of his other ideas are hardly libertarian. For example, he is pro-war (and as a matter of fact, regularly uses his initials, which spell "WAR", in place of his name), whereas libertarians adopt a strict non-interventionist policy. Root is currently in first place, also undoubtedly due to contributing to himself.

Jingozian is simply not very well known. I recall reading his site back when his candidacy first came to my attention, and I got the distinct impression that his views are a cross between the Greens and the Libertarians. Few libertarians will support a fusion candidate. By necessity Green goals require governmental intrusion upon our property rights, whereas libertarians believe the government's only proper activity is to protect our rights. A successful businessman, Jingozian is in second place, also undoubtedly because he contributed to himself.

That the three wealthiest candidates - who have no chance of actually gaining widespread support among LP members - would appear to be winning was a completely foreseeable situation, given how the competition is designed; and it is inevitable that those candidates will contribute to themselves, then use that poll to falsely state they are a "frontrunner" in the race for the LP nomination. It is equally strange that, based on my own estimate of those candidates' personal wealth, they are in exactly the order I would expect.

That's a very serious problem, not only because misrepresentations about their own support among LP members might mislead people who are not already familiar with the candidates, but also because as discussed, those candidates who are winning have some decidedly un-libertarian ideas which will undoubtedly reflect very poorly on the LP as a whole.

This poll may also have a very strange effect on the Libertarian Convention. If delegates vote pursuant to what their constituents want, they cannot in good conscience ignore an official LP poll, especially since they may not realize that the wealthy candidates are contributing to themselves, as that information is not available on the same page as the competition. The actual rules are contained in a PDF file.

As much as I disapprove of the LP keeping the majority of the contributions for itself, and stipulating that the other 40% must be used to the LP's advantage, that does explain why they are allowing candidates to contribute to themselves since there are three wealthy candidates who would get little if any support otherwise.

Another matter of concern is that, according to the rules, the poll counts funds raised since each candidate announced their campaign, including any funds raised by an exploratory committee. That gives an advantage to candidates who announced early, though as it is that early advantage is canceled out by the wealthier candidates who contribute to themselves. Again, it is impossible to ascertain the amount of actual support each candidate has during the course of the competition, which negates any possible usefulness the competition might otherwise have.

Last but not least, even in a poll where actual money is involved, "None Of The Above" rated fourth (for those of you not familiar with the Libertarian Party, delegates can actually vote for NOTA rather than to nominate a candidate). Quite honestly, I think it's a very popular choice in this presidential election, and if not for the three wealthy candidates contributing to themselves, it would be ranked firmly in first place. NOTA is almost $2000 ahead of the next most popular candidate, which is "Future candidate"; in other words, those contributing to this competition (not counting the first three who are obviously contributing to themselves) by far prefer none of the candidates. NOTA and FC, if placed into one category as it should be, would be roughly equivalent to the current third-place competitor who contributed to himself, and firmly in first place if the three wealthy candidates were discounted due to contributing to themselves.

That says a lot.

Can the serious LP candidates overcome this negativity, based in a lack of excitement about the announced candidates, and a great deal of excitement about Ron Paul, who is running as a Republican? I honestly don't know, but I somehow doubt it. The LP may end up not nominating a presidential candidate for 2008.

_______________________

The Libertarian National Party has a new program, Liberty Decides '08 designed "to promote our pre-nomination presidential candidates as they engage in a competitive process. To participate in the program, candidates must cross three thresholds: meet the LP bylaws requirements; file with the FEC; and raise at least $5,000 for the LP or LP state parties for ballot access.

Once qualified, candidates will be ranked by the funds they have raised for the program and promoted through the Internet, mail and LP publications."

40% of all donations to this program will be set aside in a special fund to be used for expenditures coordinated with the candidate who does eventually win the LP nomination in convention. The remainder of the funds will be used to help the LP move forward with core issues such as media, ballot access and member recruitment.

One candidate has declined to participate, noting that the money does not go to help the candidates now, when they need help the most, and only 40% will go to the eventual nominee - whoever that may be - not necessarily the candidate that the donors click on to contribute in the name of.

Further controversy ensued when, in an early version of Liberty Decides, this candidate was included without his consent, and a silhouette of Ron Paul was used as a "Future/Unannounced Candidate." The silhouette was removed, as was the objecting candidate, but in a controversial and widely talked about move, the LNC voted unanimously to invite Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination for President if he does not get the Republican nomination.

Some candidates are more positive about Liberty Decides.

Some other Libertarian activists have criticized Liberty Decides, notably Susan Hogarth, who wrote:

It would be a much more useful tool for Libertarian activists and likely convention delegates (you know, the folks who actually select the LP nominee) with two simple additions, which I mentioned yesterday:

1) some indication of how many individual donors each candidate has (and, ideally, how many of them are Party members).

2) some indication (other than a link to their websites) of positions.

Susan shares her thoughts about Liberty Decides here, here,
here, and
here.

Despite the criticism, the LNC expressed support for Executive Director Shane Cory and Liberty Decides at its recent meeting in Charleston.

The Libertarian National Party has a new program, Liberty Decides '08 designed "to promote our pre-nomination presidential candidates as they engage in a competitive process. To participate in the program, candidates must cross three thresholds: meet the LP bylaws requirements; file with the FEC; and raise at least $5,000 for the LP or LP state parties for ballot access.

Once qualified, candidates will be ranked by the funds they have raised for the program and promoted through the Internet, mail and LP publications."

40% of all donations to this program will be set aside in a special fund to be used for expenditures coordinated with the candidate who does eventually win the LP nomination in convention. The remainder of the funds will be used to help the LP move forward with core issues such as media, ballot access and member recruitment.

One candidate has declined to participate, noting that the money does not go to help the candidates now, when they need help the most, and only 40% will go to the eventual nominee - whoever that may be - not necessarily the candidate that the donors click on to contribute in the name of.

Further controversy ensued when, in an early version of Liberty Decides, this candidate was included without his consent, and a silhouette of Ron Paul was used as a "Future/Unannounced Candidate." The silhouette was removed, as was the objecting candidate, but in a controversial and widely talked about move, the LNC voted unanimously to invite Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination for President if he does not get the Republican nomination.

Some candidates are more positive about Liberty Decides.

Some other Libertarian activists have criticized Liberty Decides, notably Susan Hogarth, who wrote:

It would be a much more useful tool for Libertarian activists and likely convention delegates (you know, the folks who actually select the LP nominee) with two simple additions, which I mentioned yesterday:

1) some indication of how many individual donors each candidate has (and, ideally, how many of them are Party members).

2) some indication (other than a link to their websites) of positions.

Susan shares her thoughts about Liberty Decides here, here,
here, and
here.

Despite the criticism, the LNC expressed support for Executive Director Shane Cory and Liberty Decides at its recent meeting in Charleston.

The Libertarian National Party has a new program, Liberty Decides '08 designed "to promote our pre-nomination presidential candidates as they engage in a competitive process. To participate in the program, candidates must cross three thresholds: meet the LP bylaws requirements; file with the FEC; and raise at least $5,000 for the LP or LP state parties for ballot access.

Once qualified, candidates will be ranked by the funds they have raised for the program and promoted through the Internet, mail and LP publications."

40% of all donations to this program will be set aside in a special fund to be used for expenditures coordinated with the candidate who does eventually win the LP nomination in convention. The remainder of the funds will be used to help the LP move forward with core issues such as media, ballot access and member recruitment.

One candidate has declined to participate, noting that the money does not go to help the candidates now, when they need help the most, and only 40% will go to the eventual nominee - whoever that may be - not necessarily the candidate that the donors click on to contribute in the name of.

Further controversy ensued when, in an early version of Liberty Decides, this candidate was included without his consent, and a silhouette of Ron Paul was used as a "Future/Unannounced Candidate." The silhouette was removed, as was the objecting candidate, but in a controversial and widely talked about move, the LNC voted unanimously to invite Ron Paul to seek the LP nomination for President if he does not get the Republican nomination.

Some candidates are more positive about Liberty Decides.

Some other Libertarian activists have criticized Liberty Decides, notably Susan Hogarth, who wrote:

It would be a much more useful tool for Libertarian activists and likely convention delegates (you know, the folks who actually select the LP nominee) with two simple additions, which I mentioned yesterday:

1) some indication of how many individual donors each candidate has (and, ideally, how many of them are Party members).

2) some indication (other than a link to their websites) of positions.

Susan shares her thoughts about Liberty Decides here, here,
here, and
here.

Despite the criticism, the LNC expressed support for Executive Director Shane Cory and Liberty Decides at its recent meeting in Charleston.

Kent Mesplay

Dr. Mesplay has pursued the Presidential nomination before, in 2004. In the final voting, he came in third, behind nominee David Cobb and "No Nominee."

He's an air quality inspector in San Diego, with his Ph. D. in biomedical engineering from Northwestern University. (If the Greens nominate Mesplay and he's allowed in debates, and the GOP nominates Dr. Ron Paul, wouldn't it be fun to watch them talk medicine over the head of the Democratic nominee?)

In a Lifted Magazine interview, he lists his Myers Briggs profile as one of the reasons he's qualified for President. He talks on his site about the need for ballot access in order to promote change in the US. He certainly has a point, there.

My favorite endorsement from his site is "Someone from Oregon." I'm not sure whether he knows he has a supporter in Oregon, or is just guessing ... or maybe he's daring us to prove him wrong by asking every potential voter in the state.

Jesse C. Johnson, Jr.

A former stand up comedian, country line dance instructor, and flower designer from West Virginia, he used to design flower arrangements for "As the World Turns," and played a pirate in the movie "Hook."

He's a perennial also-ran in the West Virginia gubernatorial election for the Mountain Party, now apparently running for the Green Party's Presidential nomination.

Katherine Lynette Swift

The former head of the Texas Green Party, Kat Swift appears to have been the first official candidate for the Green nomination for 2008. She's very young (actually, three months older than I) and will only be 35 in time for the election.

Her positions focus mainly on more-direct democracy and directly-proportional representation.

Her "20 views from Kat" (which I can only find on Wikipedia) are pretty clear and interesting, if the writing leaves something to be desired (capitalization and punctuation rules do exist). My personal favorite is:

7.Cuba i've always wanted to go

With insightful comments like that, I'm sure that she's a shoe-in.

Her gun control comments could have used more depth, but were certainly more interesting than most of what you read from "minor" candidates:

18.Gun Control the purpose of the bill of rights article was to prevent the government from being able to establish military might over the citizenry in order to overthrow a duly elected government. Now the government has nukes and what all else, there is not much we citizens can do in this regard any longer. we can stop providing guns to dictators and governments. and i still don't think someone needs a semi-automatic to hunt with - come on, what kind of hunting are you doing? not the kind to get sustenance for your family with regard to the life you are taking. Be a man, use a bow! (or a rifle)

I think that I picture her walking into a meeting of world leaders in conflict and saying, "Come on, get over it!" as her solution to, say, the Palestinian conflict.

On the other hand, her blog refers to her run as an insane step, under the headline "ru18 w/@least a GED?" Sigh ... Presidential candidates who write in text-message language.

This might be a sign that it's time for US civilization to collapse.

Paul Kangas

When I first saw the name, I was shocked. Paul Kangas is running as a Green? No, not that Paul Kangas.  This one.

Kind of a radical, he wants to lock of George H. W. Bush for the murder of President Kennedy, and asserts that the Watergate coverup was all about hiding Bush's involvement in the assassination.

Uh-huh ...

His rambling, largely incoherent home page wanders from stopping the war in Vietnam to the need for selenium to cure cancer, and then the two badly-written paragraph/sentences:

As soon as the 2008 election is over, whomever wins, is going to bomb Iran.

There is no balance of power in the US. Congress does not operate as a check on the Presidency.

I usually commend people for the use of "whom" ... but the use of it as a subject is pretty bad.

This private investigator asserts that the Supreme Court was acting in a Fascist fashion when it installed George Bush as President in 2004. I assume he means 2000.

Before you hire him to find out if your spouse is having an affair, you might want to make sure he gets the name and dates right ...

Glenda ("Gail") Parker

Accused of being the spoiler in the US Senate race between Jim Webb and George Allen, no one knows whose campaign she spoiled. Maybe, just maybe, she was her own candidate and shouldn't be judged by the Democrats and Republican perspective ...

Gail Parker is the most prominent candidate of the Independent Green Party of Virginia, which runs largely on a platform related to expanded rail service in the interest of reducing traffic (and thus pollution).

I don't see her fitting with the majority Green Party very well, given that she's a retired Air Force officer (her site doesn't list her rank, but the picture shows her with gold leaves, so she was at least a major ... possibly higher if the picture is old) and holds to Christian values.

It seems wrong to have Gail Parker positioned directly after Paul Kangas ... he's kind of a nut, and she seems so reasonable and intelligent. If you're reading this, Ms. Parker, you have my apology.

Rebecca Rotzler

One of the seven co-chairs of the Green Party, Rotzler was also deputy mayor of New Paltz, New York.

Although she's apparently expressed some interest in being the Green nominee, she wasn't present for the July 13 candidates' forum, nor has she officially filed as such.

Daniel Imperato

No, I'm not going to write about him again. He already got his own entry in this series. But he was at the Green forum, which is probably a better match for him than the Libertarian Party.

Michael Paul Jingozian

"Jingo" Jingozian is listed as a Libertarian candidate and also as a Green. Actually, I'm interested enough in what he's saying to give him his own post.

Joseph Charles Schriner

"Average Joe" Schriner is one of those guys you just have to love ... Traveling the country to run as an independent, participating in the Green forum, and really just trying to say what he has to say.

Joe started his first run in 2000 as a Republican candidate, but ran as a write-in when he failed to get the nomination.

Joe is running because he has things that he believes are best, and he wants to see them enacted. I don't want to put him down, to be honest with you. If every candidate had his kind of heart, the country would be a lot better off.

The former leader of an independent Catholic Ministry and former substance abuse counselor, Joe is deeply committed to social justice. He wants amnesty for illegal aliens, a guest worker program, family reunification, living wages, and a North American Union.

He's a fan of disarmament, he's pro-life, and he's for cleaning up the environment.

I disagree with him on a number of particular issues, but I can't help but like this guy. He's a true believer, and deeply committed.

I am always intrigued by the Libertarian Party and its candidates and positions. Daniel Imperato is particularly fascinating.  I do think that he has done an especially wise thing -- reaching out to other "third parties" in order to help them all have access to ballots. He even addressed the Green Party in July of 2007 on the subject of ballot access.

It looks like he's pursuing potential nomination from the Green, Libertarian, and Reform Parties. I'm not sure how that works, since there isn't that much overlap between the three ... or even any two of them.
In 2000, I have to admit, I voted for Ralph Nader. It was and probably will be the only time that I voted for someone I didn't want to win. My hope, though, was that Nader and the Green Party would make their 5% nationwide, which would give them access to federal funds and ballots that they don't have as a minor party (read: not the Democrats or Republicans). My hope was that this would splinter the Democratic Party, and then embolden "third parties" on the Right, thus creating more competition, more discussion of ideas, and more candidates in the arena. I'd like to see a real run between the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, Reform, Constitution, and Socialist Parties. Of course, it didn't happen.

Back to my point ... Daniel Imperato. He's an interesting-looking character. The Libertarian Party, of course, is best known for its very-small-government beliefs. (Supplemented here.) Daniel Imperato is not exactly on board there. His own site, in fact, makes very little mention of reducing the size of government. In fact, he wants to impose a whole new regulation in taxes on the 501(c)3 charitable giving (which he lists as part of "Social Security" ... I'm not sure that this approaches enough reform to fix Social Security ...)

I propose a new charity system, where the only charity that can receive unlimited contributions is the Social Security 501(c)3 Charitable Fund. That way, wealthy Americans, who wish to have the largest tax deductions through charitable donations, will donate back to the American people and the Social Security Charitable Fund that will be run by we the people.

In addition, this will hold accountable the principals of our current charities for their distribution of funds. It is necessary to close down the rest of them that are abusing our system. Charities that maintain honest business practices will be categorized numerically, with a rating system, and preference will be given to the ones that direct money towards America, and its people first.

Only the government-run charity can receive unlimited donations? Others will be shut down? The rest will be categorized? This doesn't jive with my concept of a Libertarian, but I don't know that much about him. I'm looking for some input from a couple of his supporters, and I'm hoping to get some of this cleared up.

He also wants to impose new FDA approval fees to pay for health care funding, and to set up an online education system. While an idea of some merit, I again wonder what it's doing on a Libertarian's agenda.

Though I don't see it mentioned, it appears that Imperato has a socially-conservative agenda. His web site includes links to the American Family Association, Islamic Society of North America, Christian Coalition, Make A Wish, American Basketball Association, Children's Miracle Network, American Cancer Society, and other groups. In some cases, I'm not sure of the connection.

He is a Knight of Malta, a Papal Knight, and has apparently been made recently Grand Prior of the Orden Bonaria... which is certainly something not on most candidates' resumes.

Besides being an active entrepreneur, Imperato has recently been made a Chaplain in the Latin/African American Chaplains Association, and has served as a trustee and head of the Palm Beach branch of the United Nations NGO the African Center Foundation. Actually, his list of credentials is very impressive. He seems smart, service-minded, and shows a great deal of international experience -- in terms of doing business in foreign nations and involvement in relations with his knight and chaplain duties.

I had every intention of writing about a few of the Libertarians in this post, but Mr. Imperato took more time than I'd intended.