The Free View - weblog of a presidential candidate

I've spent a lot of my writing time today responding to comments that were posted onto my last entry -- and I've been adding notations and rearranging the items in that entry in a more sensible order. The below entry consists of two comments that I posted there in response to other comments (which I've now edited slightly, mostly to fix typos and add links).

Note that the various things alleged below are discussed at length in the content and comments of my previous entry, if you haven't read that. And my time as a Russo supporter and staffer is detailed somewhat in the entry before that.

By the way, I'm getting up early to watch the LP National Convention on C-Span Saturday (and Sunday). You should watch it too, unless you're already there.

Here's one of the comments I posted onto yesterday's entry, after having read what some Russo supporters had posted:

A common refrain seems to be that you're going to stick with Aaron, either because you see Gary Nolan as pathetic (or Harry Browne, Jr.), or because you think Aaron can bring new levels of exposure, or a new image (away from the philosopher/geek image).

This is despite the fact that his campaign has engaged in a steady stream of misinformation from the outset -- at the very least, on the issue of how many Academy Awards Russo has been nominated for (which again is zero, not six).

Here's the question: How much deception would be too much? What if Russo had not really won a Tony, or the Grammy that's been attributed to him?

And when you have faith in Russo, isn't it based at least partly in the fact that you believe what he and his campaign have been saying? Isn't it fair to believe that many people have been sold on Russo at least in part because of this idea that he has been recognized by the long chain of awards that is cited so often as evidence of his success? Does it not bother you that a good deal of that faith is founded on a string of false claims emanating directly from the campaign over the course of 6 months? From the Communications Director, the Senior Campaign Advisor, and from the candidate himself?

The same holds true for his promises of electoral success. Does it concern you that before his 1998 gubernatorial run, he told a reporter that he was "way ahead" and leading "by miles", even though once he entered the race he was 40 points behind (and lost by 33 points)?

Does it bother you that he originally planned to raise $500 million dollars for this campaign, but that it's now $100 million -- and that he's actually only raised (if we can believe what the campaign says) $100,000 so far?

As I said in my post, I bought into all the things that folks are saying here, about how Aaron was heads and shoulders above the rest, and a new opportunity for the party, and so on. I just feel that it's not been borne out by reality, and that the campaign has been riding a chorus of overstatements, hype, and deception. A promise to help ensure 50-state ballot access this year which has not been met. A oft-repeated claim of Academy Award nominations that do not exist. And so on.

And how much has it been talked about that Aaron's much-celebrated gubernatorial race -- which the campaign fundraising letter uses as the basis for saying, (paraphrase) "When you ask if Russo can handle running something as big as a presidential campaign, I say: he already has" -- how much has it been discussed that Aaron drew only 34,000+ votes? Is that a smaller number than you imagined? It was for me.

Is it not true that Aaron's "success" in Nevada in 1998, coupled with his list of claimed awards and nominations, have been cornerstones of what have sold people on Russo's campaign?

I just worry that the LP is so desperate, and so disappointed in Gary Nolan, that they are willing to look at Cubic Zirconia and think it's a diamond.

And here's how I responded to someone who was upset that I had posted all I did, in that it might drag down the potential LP nominee's campaign going forward:

I appreciate your concern, but the fact that this stuff could hurt Russo in the future is exactly my point. I didn't create any of this stuff...it existed whether I pointed it out or not, and my concern was that the LP was going to nominate someone without having the whole truth to base their decision on.

I tried to get many of these things addressed when I was in the campaign, and it was the campaign's inability to straighten up and fly right that was one of the main reasons I got frustrated --which is one of the main reasons I chose to stand up to Aaron, which is one of the main reasons I was dropped from the campaign.

The awards issue is a perfect example. I repeatedly made the point to Steve that it was bad form for the campaign (and Aaron) to be touting an inaccurate list of awards. And simply nothing was done about it. That's not my fault, and it's not my fault that it's still happening, and it shouldn't be on me that I'm continuing to bring it up.

The campaign thanked me on their blog for pointing out their misrepresentation of the audioblog issue. I don't see why exposing other misrepresentations isn't equally helpful.

Also, I don't intend to continue posting "exposés" from inside the campaign if Russo is nominated (though I may post strategic critiques, as advice). But I sure hope somebody holds the campaign to account in terms of the truth -- because nobody has so far (except Carol Moore, to an extent.)

Let's take Jack Nicholson for example. His support of Russo in 1998 has been mentioned countless times in selling Russo's potential this year. However, Steve Gordon told me that Russo and Nicholson are not speaking to one another. The same sort of "selling the past as the future" has taken place with the $1.5 million Russo spent on his 1998 gubernatorial campaign. He has no intention of spending anything close to that this time around. $100,000 is the highest number I've heard from him...and he's spent about half of that much already, I think. But that $1.5 million has certainly been alluded to repeatedly as part of the (present) potential of the campaign.

I tried to reform the campaign from this sort of hype and misleading when I was within it, and then when I left I waited to see if the campaign would reform itself. And what I saw was misinformation, flat-out lies, and no apparent increase in campaign discipline.

If the LP nominates Russo, then the information I have posted should serve as notice that we need to demand that the campaign be more diligent about being honest and disciplined.

However, I don't believe that will do any good, as I believe that the heart of the lack of discipline and the shading up of the truth is Russo himself. He will commandeer this campaign as he sees fit, which is what has produced the past 6 months of irresponsible campaign behavior. If he had cared about his awards being properly represented, for example, he has had plenty of time to do something about it. He certainly was in a position to stop the campaign fundraising letter from going out with that claim in it. He certainly was in a position to approve his campaign's launch press release, which misstates his awards.

If the LP nominates Russo, it won't be my doing that damages his campaign.

Would you rather read about the falsehoods here, and be able to force Russo to take corrective action, or would rather it came out on Hardball with Chris Matthews, or the pages of a major U.S. newspaper?