(Sorry for the absence of links in this post; we're at the beach and I'm using a public computer; besides the links George mentions below are difficult to work anyway.) After reading my post on the dismal performance of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, former LP Presidential cnndidate George Phillies did a little more digging. I utilized the FEC summary reports, which showed the $5,000 actually distributed in 2006 as going to Other disbursements rather than Libertarian candidates. George went back to the original scans of the reports, and tells me that the $5,000 apparently did go to two Libertarian candidates--Hardy Marcia in Vermont and one other whose name he could not find. So I stand corrected on that detail. Notwithstanding that, an LNCC that consumes one-third of its contributions in overhead (and what, pray tell, do they have overhead for?) while disbursing less than 25% of the monies collected for candidates--and not even having a candidates' lis...

As reported via a Phillies press release at Last Free Voice : Concord, New Hampshire, June 19: Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Presidential candidate George Phillies has filed his candidacy papers with New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner. “Being nominated for President is the highest honor a political party can bestow on one of its members,” Phillies said, “and I will do my utmost to show that New Hampshire’s trust is not misplaced.” Speaking of the National Libertarian Party, which separately nominated a different Presidential candidate, Phillies said: “The New Hampshire Party has been collecting signatures for me since Spring 2007. Unfortunately, the people of New Hampshire in their wisdom do not permit political parties to replace their Presidential candidate. I was chosen as the candidate, and so I must remain.” Truth in advertising: I supported Phillies for the LP nomination, and would have preferred him to Bob Barr. That aside, Phillies' intent to take the m...

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 cons...

For the moment I don't really care whether or not 9/11 was an inside job, or whether a jumbo jet could have managed to impact the Pentagon. Let's just assume it's all correct, just for the sake of argument. Now here is a selection of calls by Libertarians 4 Justice and its fellow travelers here and on Third Party Watch over the past few days: "The Libertarian Party has Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential candidates on the ballot in 2008 who are all calling for a new investigation into the attacks on 9/11 until we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the terrorists have been brought to justice." "We want justice. Simple as that. We want the truth. We want those responsible to pay. The families deserve no less. The only way to provide this is to hold an open and public Congressional inquiry with full subpoena powers." "Libertarians For Justice want an open and public congressional inquiry." [Referring to the Popular Mechanics inves...

I really hate it when this happens. When I end up agreeing with Eric Dondero, I mean. Dondero is a self-styled Libertarian Republican who concept of Libertarianism is about as far from mine as you can get. (Take, for example, his recent article on Dubya as a Libertarian President , or his insistence "that if we flee Iraq and al Qaeda takes over in the MidEast the price of oil will be $250 a barrel and our economy and civil society will be destroyed"--which is actually a quote from Dondero's talk-show partner, but reflects his views accurately.) To put Dondero in context for Delaware non-Libertarian readers, he is to the LP as is Mike Protack to the DE GOP. But this time he's right. Third Party Watch just published a post on the Libertarians for Justice (a 9/11 Truther organization) gaining enough credibility within the party to land several presidential candidates as signatories on their petition for a new September 11 inquiry. At this point, Mary Ruwart, Steve Ku...

. . . and that's to stop listening to people who call each other assholes , or worse. I have been perusing, and occasionally participating in, a variety of threads at Third Party Watch that I'm not even going to bother to link with. That's because, instead of actually discussing the issues, or even the candidates, most of the posts devolve into scatological name-calling and multi-paragraph self-justifications of "my prior credentials as a better Libertarian than you are." What's truly disturbing about this is that it is occurring in The Party of Principle , in which the fundamental principle is supposed to non-aggression or the non-initiation of force, fraud, or coercion . Now I am a firm supporter of free speech, even though I am fighting the urge to initiate force and send a few of these jerks to the gulag. But exactly how does a Libertarian, who supposedly believes in personal responsibility and non-aggression actually rationalize (a) the idea that calling...

While there is a great deal of entertainment to be found in this year's electoral politics, there's very little comfort. Between them the various wings of the Demopublican Party offer three Senators who all fully support the military-industrial complex, an interventionist foreign policy, and the continued creep of government into virtually every aspect of our personal lives. If there is a significant original idea between them, I can't find it. Clinton and Obama--when they actually talk policy--admit that the differences separating them are distinctions of nuance. McCain offers his own brand of perpetual pandering that is neither conservative nor moderate, but clearly aimed at purchasing votes anywhere he can find them. I have spent a lot of time examining the available candidates in the Libertarian Party, and while I see a lot of divergent personalities (as well as the basic split between Radical and Reform Libertarians), I see only one candidate for whom I could vote...

This is what Dr. George Phillies says on his website : America is in deep trouble. We are on the wrong track. America needs answers. Only the Libertarian Party has those answers: Answers true to our traditions. Answers that will bring us Peace, Liberty, and Prosperity. To bring the Libertarian message to the American people, we need the right candidate: A candidate with a sound Libertarian message. A candidate with solid credentials. A candidate with an effective campaign. A candidate who is proud to campaign as a Real Libertarian. Who is that Candidate? Obviously, Phillies believes that he is that candidate. Trying to find out, Delaware Libertarian posed the same five tough questions we asked of another hopeful yesterday. Here are his answers: 1) Even when the United States has withdrawn from Iraq, the issue of our relationship with Iran (and the potential of an Iranian nuclear program) will still be high on the new president's foreign policy agenda. What are your initial thoug...

In one sense I go way back with Dr. Phillies, even though we never actually met. In the late 1960s-early 1970s he was already legendary as one of the premiere wargamers of his generation, and the virtually undisputed master of Avalon Hill's Stalingrad . Now he's mounted a drive for the Libertarian Presidential nomination, running his campaign as if he might actually become President--a tactic that has both mystified and repelled some Libertarians, while intriguing others. If I were handicapping things right now, I'd put him in the high second tier of candidates, chiefly because Bob Barr and Mike Gravel have serious name recognition advantages, Wayne Allyn Root manages to get national audiences, and (until the recent age-of-consent controversy) Mary Ruwart has been the darling of the hard-liners (but see below on that subject). At this point, I don't think there's a front runner; I think there's happy, Libertarian chaos. Tomorrow, Dr. Phillies will answer the ...