Those of really long memory may recall direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie's 1976 attempt to take over the American Independent Party (whose last significant candidate had been George Wallace) or his 1977 fund-raising efforts for the Moonies (in which New York State auditors discovered that $926,000 of the $1,500,000 he accumulated went into his own pockets rather than to the Unification Church).
This is what Viguerie stated as his long-term goal in 2000:
To use the Internet to involve Americans in the political process, to help conservatives gain an advantage over the left.
Viguerie was one of Ron Paul's backers, and now that Dr. No is out of the mix, he is apparently pursuing his next step in the process of helping "conservatives gain an advantage over the left" by buying the two things ever aspiring Right-wing Satan should have: a political party (the Libertarian Party) and a presidential candidate (Bob Barr).
As Rod Serling would say, "Presented for your consideration, a series of events. . . ."
1) From David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party:
First, the convention organizers were told that they MUST have former Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia as the convention's keynote speaker. When Barr became a Presidential candidate [SITE], they were then told that his replacement would be fund-raiser Richard Viguerie, a conservative Republican and strong Barr supporter. This choice was imposed on BetteRose Ryan, the convention manager, against her will -- even though dozens of LIBERTARIAN speakers were available and eager to fill the keynote slot.
BetteRose was also told that she MUST invite Neal Boortz, another Barr supporter, to be the speaker at the Sunday Banquet. Boortz had to cancel because of knee surgery, but the pattern of placing Barr supporters in all of the prominent speaking spots has continued.
2) This followed an intriguing attack launched on Libertarian Presidential candidate Dr Mary Ruwart. I have blogged before about Dr Ruwart's problematic position on age-of-consent laws and child pornography, but here's where the story gets really interesting. The charge that Ruwart was soft on child porn and therefore a liability as an LP Presidential Candidate gained its greatest exposure from the organization of opposing candidate Wayne Allyn Root. Ruwart is Libertarian verging on Anarchist, and therefore the darling of the party's radical wing; Root is libertarian verging across the boundary to neo-con, and trying to hustle his hardest for the support of the party's reform wing. Root is often mentioned by Barr supporters as a sound choice for VP. Right in the middle of all this, the LP's Executive Director, Shane Corey, issued a statement calling for greater government/law enforcement coordination to root out child porn. This action was (correctly) perceived as a direct shot at Ruwart and the radicals by the paid (not elected) LP ED, who--it turned out--had acted without consulting the elected Libertarian National Committee. The radicals, however, still possessed enough punch within the party to force Corey to resign his ED position in early May. Now Corey has gone to work for Richard Viguerie.
3) Yesterday, Viguerie purchased Third Party Watch, probably the largest site for (among other things) free-for-all Libertarian in-house arguments. The previous owner, Stephen Gordon, had already gone to work for the Bob Barr Exploratory Committee, and had become increasingly discomfited by the anti-Barr sentiments expressed both by commenters and several individuals like Thomas Knapp who had posting privileges. As of today, anti-Barr posts (and even comments) have begun to disappear.
4) Meanwhile, in what seemed to be an initially unrelated story, Last Free Voice contributor G. E. was denied press credentials to the Libertarian Convention. LFV, coincidentally, has been one of the harshest Barr critics, and has been the source for a lot of the reporting I've done here (the Allen Buckley story, for example). Well, today, the other shoe dropped. LFV reports (because Third Party Watch no longer can) that the new regime at TPW has prevailed upon the Media Director of the Libertarian Party to revoke the press credentials already issued to TPW contributors who had written negative articles about Bob Barr.
What's going on here?
It's very simple, really.
Richard Viguerie is attempting, for the second time in his career, to hijack a large third party with nationwide ballot access in order to pursue his goal of advancing his particular brand of conservatism and wounding the campaign of Senator John McCain.
What's going to happen in Denver this weekend? I'll tell you.
A Borg-like machine is going to attempt to assimilate the Libertarian Party is going to run up against a motley collection of anarchists, minarchists, paleo-libertarians, and (if enough of them have any sense) pragmatic, reform-minded Libertarians who are going to stage a spirited if disjointed fight for control over the amorphous entity we jokingly call a political party.
In order to beat him, they'll have to first keep Barr from winning on the convention's initial ballot, and then coalesce around either Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, or George Phillies as a compromise choice for a real Libertarian candidate. Pundits will be briefed by the Viguerie machine to paint Barr as the party's chance of legitimacy and millions of votes. The others will be cast as unknowns and loonies. Mike Gravel will be hovering in the background, with gravitas and a smart mouth, but no real organization.
Unvarnished opinion: at this point only Dr George Phillies has the resources and campaign organization capable of defeating Barr and launching a national campaign. I realize that many radicals find him to be too centrist (even Statist) for their liking, and that over the years he's managed to piss quite a few people off.
But unlike Bob Barr, George Phillies has put years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars of his own money into building the LP, and--again--unlike Bob Barr, George Phillies has spent the last several weeks actually laying out in detail his position on major policy issues.
The best medicine to defeat a Barr/Root ticket would be a Phillies/Ruwart or Phillies/Kubby, or even Phillies/Smith ticket. That would place a more radical Libertarian on the ticket with a centrist veteran with money and organizational skills.
Think about it, folks, before that smarmy bastard Richard Viguerie steals our party.
************
Note: I will be leaving Third Party Watch on my blogroll for a little while until I see how things pan out. However, if you really want good information on Libertarian politics as they unfold, check out recent additions Last Free Voice, Libertarian Intelligence, and Kn@ppster.
Comments
"I have the memory of an elephant. In fact, elephants often consult me."
-Noel Coward
Third Party Watch carried an item on the AJC story May 19, according to Google, but when you click on the link you get an "Error 404-Not Found" message. The announcement of the Viguerie purchase went up on TPW a couple of hours after its take on the AJC story went up.
What do you want the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential ticket to accomplish?
I will assume electoral victory is off the table.
Do you want the ticket to reflect ideological purity?
The closest possible alignment with your own views?
Reward for longest-standing loyalty to the party?
Best chance for mainstream national exposure?
Greatest crossover appeal for disaffected Republicans and libertarian conservatives to identify with the LP?
I will not quibble that Barr and Viguerie are hardly lily pure. They are both highly-experienced political operators with baggage to match. Notwithstanding any specific heresies, both have track records of mainstream political success beyond anything the LP or any of its candidates have ever seen. Ever.
Maybe I am missing something, but I think the LP stands to gain far more from Barr and Viguerie than anything they can expect to get out of the deal. From what I know of both, their views are consistent with the fundamental precepts of the LP. Both are strong on curbing government and protecting personal liberties. I have seen no indicators of theocon or neocon taint in either.
I think that questioning their motives, saying they are out to stop McCain, or they are simply trying to hijack the LP sounds niggling and counterproductive.
Again I say this with a fairly detached perspective. I am not advocating for anythin or anyone. But I can say that from a practical, realistic, big picture nuts and bolts political perspective it seems like your grievances are rooted in the same kind of all or nothing litmus testing the LP applied to me 2 years ago in rejecting my candidacy.
Again, I am not looking to second guess, scrutinize, or critique any of your reasoning or conclusions. I just want to point out, notwithstanding your intensity and passion, that your objections did not convince me that Barr and Viguerie would be a net negative to the party.
My gut sense is that Barr and Viguerie present serious opportunities for the LP, worth the short-term risk. I think the alternatives within the LP would ensure the LP's ticket is not only irrelevant but also invisible.
Fair comment; I disagree but many in the LP share your viewpoint.
However, as for that "taint" of neo-con or theo-con in Barr and Viguerie I think it is pretty well evident.
Barr as the author of DOMA has said he favors state's rights on marriage, but has worked against gay unions in Georgia.
Barr remains consistent with previous statements on the war on drugs.
Barr's position on Iraq is a phased withdrawal at some undefined point in the future.
Barr's PAC (like most of Vigeurie's operations) seems designed to put money directly in his pocket rather than to expend it for political purposes.
I seriously doubt the early polling for Barr will hold up, Tyler. At this point several years ago, for example, Harry Browne polled 5% in New Mexico and was toasted as a rising candidate; in the end he managed about .75% of the vote.
Even if I put aside my ideological disagreements with Barr, I think his popularity is severely over-estimated.
There's that inconvenient "not Libertarian" thing, but hey, we've already proven that philosophy isn't as important as media coverage, right?