Thoughts on the LP 2004 Presidential Race -- Part 2: Things that disappointed or disturbed me about the Russo campaign
(NOTE: I have juggled the placement of the listed items below based on a better sense of priority -- i.e, more important things first. Originally they were listed more randomly. Additional "NOTE"s in italics below have been added since this was first posted.)
Intro:
I've been agonizing about whether and how to reveal all this for months and months. It makes my stomach turn to think about posting it, but my conscience presses me to let folks know what I have observed. Many of the things I've noted below are public matters that I simply have not seen discussed or highlighted clearly by others; others are things that I learned from the two and a half months or so I spent working closely with the Russo campaign, as Campaign Adviser, Web Guy, and (for a spell) Communications Director. (See this entry -- part 1 of this set -- for more about my joining and leaving of the Russo campaign).
I'm uncomfortable posting all of this -- even the publicly available stuff -- because I am opposed to divisiveness and infighting, and because I am not into burning bridges, and because I don't want to hurt anyone or make enemies. My history on the russo-volunteers list and in other public statements, going back to 2000, illustrate my bent against infighting in the LP. But neither do I want to see the Libertarian Party make a mistake without knowing that it may be a mistake.
It should also be noted that I am not endorsing Gary Nolan (pre-nomination, at least), or even saying that people should not vote for Aaron Russo. I just want people to be as aware as they can be.
I also apologize for the fact that this is coming so late. The delay was not intentional, but was due to specific time-consuming difficulties in my home life in the past month, combined with the complexity of the task at hand. It took a long time to decide whether I was going to post anything, and then a long time to decide what to post, and then a long time to try and put all or most of it together. At this point, I have written about 7000 words about this, and I have yet to fill in all the blanks. It will probably add up to 9 or 10 thousand words by the time I'm done, and it would be much more if I was able to put more time into it before the convention.
It's important to recognize that I too believed in the good things that people are saying about Aaron. That he could be just what the party needs. That his "in your face" style is good, as is his passion, etc. That his "extremism in defense of liberty" is an admirable characteristic for a candidate to have. I believed that he could "pull a Ross Perot", as he himself believes (or, as he actually said, "a little less than Perot"). I believed he could wake up the party and the country and create a movement that could potentially storm its way into the White House. (NOTE: Anyone who doubts that I was a true believer in the potential of Aaron and his campaign should check out this page that I prepared back in February when I was planning to go on the road in support of his campaign.)
But I have been moved over the course of months to give up many of those beliefs. I now believe that there is no way to guess how well Aaron will do, but he has not given any real indication that he has any tricks up his sleeve or is particularly savvy when it comes to presidential campaigning. It seems very clear to me that he has made and continues to make inflated promises and projections about what his campaign will accomplish. He did the same thing in 1998 when he ran for Governor of Nevada. Furthermore, I believe that should Aaron manage to gain a really large amount of exposure, the likelihood that he would use that exposure to (unintentionally) damage the image of the Libertarian Party is very great.
Two-time LP presidential candidate Harry Browne voiced a similar concern in his commentary on the various candidates this past weekend. The part that struck me the most was when he said something like, "If Russo gets the nomination, I will spend much of the next several months tense, worried about what Aaron might say or do."
Frankly, I found myself adopting that stance back in February, and my worries were regularly answered by Campaign Manager Steve Gordon in the form of hopes that things were getting better. This continued all the way until after my departure from the campaign, when Steve e-mailed me saying just that-- specifically: "In my opinion, Russo may be beginning to see the light on many issues which we have discussed before."
Ironically (or not), Aaron called in to Harry Browne's show after being told what Harry was saying, and he displayed a great deal of what Harry had been talkign about just minutes earlier. He interrupted Harry at almost every instance, and he threw away 10 years of apparent support for Harry in one instant, finally ending by saying to Harry, "I don't think you're a very good Libertarian, and I don't think you're a man of honor," and hanging up on him on air seconds later. Now, people think a lot of things about Harry Browne, but I don't know many people who would claim that he is a bad Libertarian. Harry is a prolific and articulate defender of liberty, and he has introduced Libertarianism to millions of people -- bringing thousands of folks, myself included, into the Libertarian Party for the first time.
You can (and should) listen to the archive of that show, to see how Aaron handles his reaction to Harry's statements about him. It's very instructive.
It's funny...I asked a friend to read through what I've been writing here, and he sent me a message: "who will ever want to work with you in the future if they know you will expose them like this on your blog?"
My answer to him was: "honest people?"
And that is my hope. I hope that those who respect honesty and openness will be glad that I decided to put the below together. I am privy to a unique perspective -- being the only person who spent substantial time in the core of the Russo campaign and is now outside of it -- and a unique set of information and experiences in regard to the LP's 2004 nomination. I have decided that my obligation to inform my fellow LP activists of what I know, so that they are best-suited to make the very important decision they are about to make, is more important than my desire to keep the few friends, colleagues or supporters who might hold me in contempt for telling the truth, or for burning the proverbial bridges.
I haven't worked these items into a cohesive narrative, so they are in the form of a list (with each item on the list having its own narrative).
If you have comments, questions, or criticisms related to this, I would appreciate it if you post them here in the comments section, so that I have a chance to respond or clarify.
The things I have posted here are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. If I have mistakenly posted somethng that turns out not to be true, I will correct it and note the correction at the top of this piece in bold, as well as in a subsequent entry. I have no desire to misrespresent.
(NOTE: I don't think I make it clear below that I believe most of the below problems are caused by the way Russo runs his campaign, but I do touch upon it in my previous entry and my subsequent entry.)
---Upgrading the Truth---
---Awards and nomination numbers
It has been stated repeatedly that Aaron has had six Academy Award nominations. It's in the Rational Review piece that I discuss below. It was stated by Tom Knapp as something to point out to people as evidence of Aaron's success. And Aaron himself referred to his six Oscar nominations when talking to PBS documentarians at the LPC Convention.
I do not dismiss the successes that Aaron has had, and he has undoubtedly had more commercial and financial success and recognition than I (and probably most of you) have. However, from what I can tell, Aaron Russo has never been nominated for an Academy Award. There is some reality behind the claim of 6 -- from what I can gather, films that Aaron has produced have featured parts or people which have been nominated for Academy Awards. For example, Bette Midler's nomination for Best Actress for "The Rose" appears to be one of the six. Four parties involved with that film were nominated for their work (see them here). In addition, a nomination was earned by one of the people involved with "Trading Places", another movie Russo produced. I wasn't able to find a sixth nomination -- nor was I able to find a nomination that was for Aaron's work on his films.
His website's biography page includes the following carefully worded claim: "His management talents have been recognized with an Emmy, a Tony, Golden Globe nominations, and many gold and platinum records as well as six Academy Award nominations for his films."
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether the nominations linked above make that claim an accurate one or not. I can see a case being made on both sides. However, in every other instance I have seen or heard since, the claim or implication has been that Aaron has received six Oscar nominations. And again, to my knowledge, he has actually received zero nominations, not six.
On Aaron's candidate description on Amazon.com, there is this statement from the campaign:
"The list of Oscar®, Golden Globe, Tony, and gold and platinum record nominations and awards earned by Russo is truly impressive."
That statement is certainly true, since any list of one or more nominations or awards for those sort of things is truly impressive, in my book. However, the list for Aaron does not include Oscar nominations, and that statement clearly is implying that it does. If you take "Oscar®," out of that sentence, the list is still equally impressive, because the list is the same (since the Oscar number is 0). (At least, according to my searches on the Oscar database -- which I began as internal research, when I was still on the campaign.)
Being nominated for an Oscar is a very big deal, and receiving six Oscar nominations would be a very big deal indeed. Which is why it's significant that the Russo campaign has long been implying (or stating outright) that he has had six nominations. How will people who were wowed by that assertion feel when it becomes clear that it's not true, or that it's a half-truth?
(NOTE: Below in the comments I list a series of campaign-generated statements and literature that attribute Oscar nominations to Aaron. Google searches for "Aaron Russo" "Oscar nominations" and "Aaron Russo" "Academy Award nominations" show that the meme is quite widespread. Not too surprising, since the press release announcing the campaign's launch includes this quote: "Aaron Russo, whose movie, television, music, and theater production credits have won an Emmy, a Tony, the NAACP Image Award, six Academy Award and two Golden Globe nominations".)
For what it's worth, I was able to verify Aaron's two Golden Globe nominations and his Emmy Award (which he shared with two other producers and Bette Midler). I wasn't able to verify the Tony award, or the Grammy which has been mentioned in some instances in connection with Russo.
---False claim about Nolan in Rational Review piece
One of the first things that I objected very strongly to was the piece that was published in Rational Review in February. (I'm not blaming RR for publishing it, I'm blaming the campaign.)
I had a few objections to it, most of which recurred in a later letter that I'll speak on in a bit. (NOTE: I touch upon most of the other elements from that letter in the comments section below.) However, there was also one blatantly, provably false statement -- and it was derogatory toward his opponent, Gary Nolan.
The statement in question followed a list of Aaron's claimed accomplishments. He explains what he has done and then says:
"This is in contrast to my opponents, who have never engaged in real world business or political endeavors. "
As I wrote to Steve Gordon after seeing that, "[that statement] is not a true statement. Gary Nolan was both a small businessman and President of a political non-profit, and sits on the board of another."
The article was revised in some ways from the original draft, but that false assertion was left in. I was very disappointed in that. The article is still there with its false assertion, which has not been retracted or corrected in any way, as far as I know. You can see Nolan's bio here.
---"Nobody gets paid!" claim
In his speech at the LPC convention, Aaron included a backhanded attack on the Nolan campaign, alluding to the notion that "the same people who were lining their pockets" in the Browne campaign were behind the Nolan campaign. He followed that with a claim that his campaign, in contrast, was all volunteer. "Nobody gets paid!" he shouted defiantly, hitting the podium, and prompting a hearty round of applause.
While I have a problem with the idea that nobody getting paid is some sort of bragging point for a presidential campaign, or that it is in some way desirable for that to be the case, the real problem with Russo's emphatic statement is that it was not true.
Leaving aside for the time being the fact that I was given $750 just a few days earlier at Aaron's behest, after a campaign conference call about my need to be paid (since it appears that was technically a personal gift from Steve and Deborah Gordon, rather than payment for my services), Aaron's claim was still not true. First of all, Aaron has a personal assistant, Max Hirshman, who was a paid employee of Aaron's before he started his campaign. During the time I was on the campaign (and most certainly during the time of the LPC convention), Max was working essentially full time on campaign-related work for Aaron, and being paid to do so. Aaron would presumably claim that Max doesn't work for the campaign -- and since payments to Max aren't on Aaron's FEC reports, he must be prepared to make that case -- but Max was part of the campaign hub, and was unmistakably part of the campaign as measured by any practical measure. He's even listed as the press contact on Russo's first campaign announcement press release, and on a more recent release from April 20th.
In addition to Max, the people who created the website prior to my arrival were paid, and the guy who set up the server was paid. Comments that were sent through the site's contact form went to Todd Burdeinei, who was paid to set up the site. He generally forwarded them to Max (who was paid as Aaron's assistant). Max would then decide (or ask) what to do with the contact, or who to forward it to, and would either pass it on or act on it.
I have trouble seeing how that jibes with Aaron's claim that "nobody gets paid".
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people being paid -- in fact, I'm in favor of it. But Russo was trying to score points for being the antithesis of the "campaign that lines pockets"; he was trying to sell his campaign as all-volunteer, and earned applause for his effort to do so. But it was less than honest. His FEC records (1, 2 - .pdf files) show that to be true.
For what it's worth, when the campaign paid me $1500 about a week after that speech, Aaron maintained in a phone conversation that I would be the first person to get paid by the campaign. So there's a chance he actually believed that to be true.
---$250,000 toward ballot access
The campaign has made much of Aaron's $250,000 ballot access promise, which goes like this:
"I'm here to move the Party to a new level of success
and recognition. In my quest to elevate the party into
prominence, I realized that we had to be on the ballot in
all fifty states. To do that, the party told me we needed
$250,000 to guarantee success in this endeavor, so I offered
to give 25 percent of the first million I raise to assure
ballot access."
The problem with this claim, which has been touted in fundraising letters and other in-party publicity (as well as in the Rational Review piece), is that it appears that the ballot access drives are going to reach their most critical deadlines before the Russo campaign is able to raise a million dollars. I received an e-mail alert three days ago from LP Treasurer and ballot access coordinator Bill Redpath, which said in part (emphasis mine):
"To accomplish our goal of getting on the ballot in all 50 states plus
DC, we absolutely need to raise $150,000 now."
Yet according to Communications Director Tom Knapp on Harry Browne's radio show last weekend, the Russo campaign has raised $100,000 this year so far. 25 percent of that is $25,000. And that was before Bill Redpath's e-mail quoted above.
How does any of this add up to Russo coming through on his pledge to help the party by raising $250,000 for LP 2004 ballot access?
It was February when I started to examine the idea that the promise to give $250,000 for ballot access was going to go unmet -- not due to malfeasance, just due to lack of money. It seems increasingly likely -- I don't have enough information to say it's certain, but I suspect it is -- that the Russo campaign is not going to contribute $250,000 toward 2004 LP ballot access.
That claim has been a linchpin of the campaign since it began in proper in February, and it appears that it is not going to be even remotely close to being kept. This is of special concern to me, because Aaron has intentionally (by his own public admission) postponed serious fundraising efforts until after he wins the nomination. It was realizing that (when he told me about it on the phone in February) which made me begin to conclude that he was not going to reach a million dollars in time to provide the promised help to the ballot access effort.
---Browne campaign ad $$ numbers in LPC speech
In Aaron's speech at the California LP's convention, he casually misrepresented the amount of money that the Browne campaign had spent on advertising in 2000. In the written speech (which I saw), he had listed the amount of money they had spent on TV advertising (which was $200K+...I don't remember the exact amount). When he delivered the speech to the audience, he stated the same dollar amount, but claimed it was the amount they spent on "advertising" (without the "TV"). I'm assuming that the written text was correct in asserting the amount of the TV advertising budget...but the Browne campaign also ran radio ads, which means that the amount of ad spending overall was greater than the amount for TV ads only. I don't know what the amount differential was, but if it was greater than $500, then it would have produced a different number of thousands of dollars when stating the total ad spending. My assumption is that the Browne campaign probably spent at least a few thousand dollars on non-TV advertising.
The distortion worked in favor of Aaron's point in the speech, because he was trying to illustrate that in contrast to what he says he will do, the Browne campaign had only spent a small portion of its budget on advertising time. That's still true as far as I know, but it's also true that Aaron (intentionally or unintentionally) misrepresented the true amount in a way that tipped toward his advantage -- made his dig at the Browne campaign seem stronger. Browne actually spent a greater portion of its money on ads than Russo led the audience to believe.
---Press release on the return of the draft
In a press release entitled THE MASK COMES OFF: RUSSO BLASTS GOP CALL FOR MILITARY DRAFT, the following statement was included near the end:
"As the Libertarian Party's likely nominee, Russo is the only presidential candidate opposed to the draft and to the war in Iraq whom Americans will find on the ballot in all fifty states this November."
The second part of that statement, about Russo being the "candidate...whom Americans will find on the ballot..." is based on the assumption that he will win the LP's nomination (plus the assumption that the LP's nominee will be on all 50 state ballots). Some people would say that this is a technicality, or that it was just mis-worded (since they precede the claim by saying he's the "likely nominee". But him being the likely nominee does not make the second part of that sentence true. The release is stating as fact something which could not be known at the time the statement was made. If Gary Nolan wins the nomination (which is quite likely), then the claim about what Russo is (the only candidate opposed to the war and the draft whom Americans will find on all 50 ballots) was a false claim. They did not make the claim conditional...the claim is that as the likely nominee, Russo is the candidate they delineate.
The problem is that being the LP's likely nominee (even if that's the case) does not qualify one in the way the campaign implied in their release. If a reporter repeated that claim in a story, and Gary Nolan (or someone else who is not Russo) ended up winning the nomination, then that reporter would have been reprinting a falsehood fed to him or her by the Russo campaign.
That release with that claim was sent out via EWORLDWIRE, a press release distribution firm, as well as posted on the Russo site-- and Steve Gordon sent it to the volunteers list with a request to place it on "as many news groups and e-mail groups as you have at your disposal". So the overstatement of Russo's ballot placement was distributed very widely.
---Cass Co. Poll controversy
The Cass County (Missouri) straw poll is an online poll run by a local LP group, in which the potential LP nominees are voted upon in the months leading up to the nominating convention. The poll has ended, but you can see past results and get an idea of it here.
The poll works by making you choose between three qualifying choices (based on whether you plan to go to the convention), then pick a candidiate. The qualifying options are:
Yes, I will be attending the convention, and I will cast my vote for:
Maybe. If I attend, I will cast a delegate vote for:
No, I won't be there. But if I were to attend, I would cast a delegate vote for:
You choose one of those and then your favorite candidate.
I explained how it works because it helps to understand the significance of an e-mail appeal that was sent out from Aaron's e-mail account, to an unspecified list of recipients. This was near the end of April, when there was intense competition between the two main campaigns over who would win the last month of polling. This was after a request had already been sent by the campaign to the volunteers list, as well as to the larger general announcements list for the campaign. My belief is that this third e-mail was sent to a list of Aaron's e-mail address book contacts, beyond those who have necessarily signed on as campaign supporters. This matters because of what he asks for in his request. This is the e-mail that was sent out:
----------------------
Dear Friends,
My Campaign for President is reaching leaps and bounds especially in the last few months. Most recently we took the California and New York libertarian conventions, each by a landslide. I now ask for a small favor, please vote at the following poll in support of my campaign http://cass.molp.org/polls.htm Click "YES" and then my name "AARON RUSSO" then "CAST YOUR VOTE". We are working towards a victory on this poll to seal up my nomination as the Libertarian Nominee. Thank you so much for all your help and support.
"All your Freedoms, All the Time"
Aaron
----------------------
I've seen requests for poll votes before where the person explained to folks that they need to choose their attendance status, then vote, but I had never seen a request which told people which attendance status to choose. Aaron's e-mail doesn't explain it at that level, but the instructions are specific. The poll has three choices, and the e-mail above is instructing people to choose the "Yes, I will be attending the convention" option.
I think it's widely accepted that the "Yes I'll be attending" vote total is the most relevant of the three, and the best category to be the winner of. I don't know if the instructions above are intentionally crafty, or just unthinkingly eager, but to the extent that they were sent to folks who will or may not be attending the convention, they were not correct instructions...in a way that works to the favor of Aaron's poll results.
And while the "I'm attending" poll numbers did not seem to move much after the e-mails to the volunteers and general announcements lists (neither of which told people which section to vote in), they rose by around 100 after Aaron's e-mail to an unknown blind-CC e-mail list.
(I received the e-mail above, and I will not be attending the convention. Had I followed the instructions as given, I would have filed a false vote, to the benefit of the Russo campaign, upon encouragement from Aaron Russo.)
One more note on the above e-mail: The vote where Russo "took" the California convention was (if I recall correctly) 42 for Russo, 36 for Nolan, and 5 for Badnarik. I'll let you decide if that's a "landslide", or if using that term amounts to (more) coloring the truth upwards.
---Steve Gordon's "the High Road" piece, re: Cass Co. poll
Because I was struck by Aaron's specific instructions to people on how to vote, and because I knew that a lot of people were watching these poll results, and that Mike Ferguson (who runs the poll) takes efforts to "spike" it seriously, I forwarded the above-mentioned e-mail to him so he could decide what to make of it. I'm not sure what if any action was taken due to that, but I know that when Steve Gordon sent out an e-mail titled "The High Road" responding to "mudslinging" and rumors, the Cass County Poll controversy was included in it, and the explanation he sent out is worth noting and responding to.
Here's what he wrote:
---------------
There's no polite or "soft" way to phrase this: Any accusation that our campaign organization in any way attempted to "stuff," modify or
fraudulently influence the Cass County, Missouri LP's Internet poll is false. Period.
None of the other campaigns has encouraged it either. But, if anyone wants to contest Aaron's performance in that poll, here is an excerpt
from an email sent in reply to our campaign's Communications Director by Michael Ferguson, one of the operators of the poll:
"It was several months ago, when we did have a clear, unmistakable problem with the Russo campaign* stuffing the cyber-ballot. At that
time, there were no problems from Nolan supporters. There was a minor problem with a Badnarik supporter, though.
"This past month, the big problem was from a Nolan supporter. She (Dave White tracked her down) has to be frustrated by now, as about 100 of her votes for Gary were deleted. Another 80 for Gary were deleted this month as well."
The key problem identified to me by Mr. Ferguson is that one of our supporters had sent out a message which did not clarify in which of the three categories to vote, and he felt a higher portion of the votes generated from that message may have gone into an incorrect category.
[* I stand by my assertion that this campaign has neither manipulated the poll or encouraged anyone else to do so at ANY time, Mr.
Ferguson's belief to the contrary notwithstanding.]
---------------
I don't know what Mike Ferguson said to Steve, but "one of our supporters had sent out a message which did not clarify in which of the three categories to vote" is an understatement of what really occured in regard to Aaron's e-mail. Aaron is more than just one of their supporters, and his message *did* specify which category to vote in...that was the problem.
Additionally -- and I hadn't planned on mentioning this publicly until I read Steve's public claim -- but Steve Gordon told me on the phone that he had intentionally been clearing the cache on his browser as he traveled from place to place on the campaign trail, so that he could vote for Aaron multiple times within one month. (The poll has a safeguard to prevent multiple votes from the same visitor.)
Now, Steve wasn't on the road much in April as far as I know, so his multiple votes weren't much of a factor in Aaron's victory that month...and normally, I wouldn't care so much about a handful of extra votes that someone got by tricking a poll. It's a little shaky, but one probably wouldn't go to hell for it. However, Steve directly told me that he had intentionally manipulated the poll -- and then he brashly asserted that the opposite was true, on a public campaign e-mail list, in an effort to sway opinion on a matter of trust.
One or the other of the statements is a lie. They can't both be true. Either Steve lied to me when he told me he had manipulated the poll, or he lied when he told everyone that the campaign had never done anything of the kind. And I can't imagine why he would lie to me about clearing his cache from motel to motel and casting multiple votes.
I don't like calling someone a liar, but I also don't like to see someone lie to people, especially not when significant things are at stake. (By which I mean the presidential nomination, not the Cass County straw poll itself.) Steve could have simply not made the assertion he made in his "The High Road" e-mail, and he wouldn't have been lying, and I most likely would not be writing about how he told me directly that he had manipulated the poll. Because grabbing a handful of extra votes in an online poll is not a huge offense...but lying about it is. Especially when when the lie is intended to influence the result of a presidential election and the future of the Libertarian Party.
---"World's First Audioblog post by a presidential candidate"
I just now noticed that the Russo campaign has posted what they claim to be "the first audioblog post by a Presidential candidate in the history of America", and it provides a perfect example of the "upgrading the truth" tendency that has been bothering me for a long time with this campaign. (An "audio blog post" is a sort of online journal entry, in this case in auido instead of written text.) A minute of research allowed me to find an audioblog post from Howard Dean from back in June of 2003 -- almost a year ago. The audio file seems to be not loading anymore, but it's clear that it was up for some time. A transcript of the short message is included on the page.
As someone who has had to endure seeing the Dean campaign claim to be the first presidential campaign with a blog, when it was really either me or another "unknown" who really holds that title, I have a sensitive eye when it comes to claims about being "leading edge" in terms of technological campaign breakthroughs. It's fine to claim first-adopter status, but you have to actually be the first adopter in order to do so properly.
It should have been obvious that the Dean campaign probably already broke that particular boundary (audioblogging), and it was easy to verify that that was the case. Yet the Russo campaign currently claims that Aaron Russo was first to make that breakthrough move, on May 23rd of this year. It is not at all the first or only overstatement or truth upgrade that the campaign has made. In fact, many of the grandiose claims the campaign has made so far have proven to be less than fully supported by the facts. That's why it was not a surprise to see this latest overstatement, nor was it a surprise to find that it was not true.
(NOTE: The Russo campaign has now corrected this on their home page, and posted a sarcastic retraction on their blog. Though the original blog entry has not been changed.)
---Item of concern---
---"I can't stand these people!"
Certainly the most disturbing incident with the Russo campaign was at the California LP convention in March. It's also the most difficult to convey to people who don't know me (and thus don't know that I don't lie). And it's virtually impossible to corroborate, since the only people present for it are all still part of the Russo campaign, aside from me. There was one woman LP activist from Southern California named Martina who came in toward the end of it, and I'm not sure how involved in the campaign she is at this point. I also don't recall how much of Aaron's rant (if any) she witnessed. Other than that, there was just me, Aaron, Campaign Manager Steve Gordon, and Aaron's assistant Max Hirshman.
It was on the balcony of the Russo hospitality suite on Saturday night, March 13th. To put it succinctly, Aaron Russo went on a rant about how he couldn't stand Libertarians. He said exactly that: "I can't stand Libertarians!" I was pretty blown away, and I asked what he meant. He explained that he just didn't like the people he had been meeting along the campaign trail so far, generally speaking. He said stuff like, "I want to like the people that I'm working with, and I haven't liked the people I've been meeting at the Libertarians events I've been at." "They aren't people I'd want to hang out with or spend time with." "They're not fun." "I'm not sure I want to lead these people."
He was extremely downbeat, and clearly frustrated and aggravated. I don't think this was necessarily his typical state of mind on the subject, but rather a bout of frustrated release after a month of what were probably disappointing campaign events. Steve and I tried to explain how some Libertarians have gotten a defeatist attitude over many years of being, well, defeated. And how Libertarians can tend to be better at arguing points of political philosophy than at social skills or activism. And other elements of what makes Libertarians curious entities, which I was hoping was behind Russo's frustration, but it was hard to breach his upset, or to get more from him than generalized frustrated sentiments like the ones above.
I will say this about that experience -- which was my first in-person conversation of substance with Aaron -- I think that his frustration and anger may have been quelled some by the end of our exchange. In talking with him about his discouragement and anti-Libertarian sentiment, I impressed upon Aaron that he was dealing with a party that, in terms of the presidential election, sees itself as in a deep and painful rut, with little opportunity for major gains. I challenged him by saying that if he wanted to be the leader that would become the nominee and then the insurgent contender, that it was on him to trigger and electrify the spirit in folks that would allow them to see the possibility. Any Libertarian candidate for president faces that burden, if he or she wishes to excite a movement that will substantially transcend prior campaigns in LP history. And I told him that there was no way around that -- that it was up to him to bring the party to life in regards to the presidential campaign.
And to his credit, I think Aaron did make an effort to recognize and rise to that challenge. His speech to the convention delegates the next day was super-passionate, and got several standing ovations, and many more emphatic rounds of applause. By most accounts, his performance there (backed by the rest of the campaign's convention presence) "turned" the crowd -- which had been presumed to be pro-Nolan at the convention's outset -- and Russo won the straw poll that immediately followed the speeches. I don't remember if I asked Aaron if he felt better about Libertarians after seeing that they could get on their feet and cheer, but it was clear that Aaron felt that the LPC convention experience was a major booster shot. And just 18 hours earlier, he had shouted, "I can't stand these people!" to the night sky.
I honestly don't know what to make of this experience. I guess I expect that the campaign will deny it or attack me in some way. I think the better thing would be to just explain it -- because it absolutely happened. Steve Gordon knows that it happened, and he should talk to Aaron and then explain what was on his mind that night, and how his views have changed, assuming they have. I don't think this was necessarily a "Mr. Hyde" moment for Aaron, but was probably more of an exercise in releasing pent-up frustration. But he still did say that he didn't like the people he had been seeing on the trail, that he couldn't stand Libertarians, and the rest of the sentiments I mentioned above. It was as bewildering as it probably sounds, and I never did fully grasp what was at the root of the feelings he expressed there.
--------------------
That's the end of what I have been able to go into so far, and I believe it has most of the most serious items of concern that I have noticed. There are some smaller items of concern, which I may try to put togther by later tonight, and there are some areas of strategic concern which I think are substantial, and which I didn't get to now because I focused on the more overarching concern of playing fast and loose with the truth. It is the pattern of not-entirely-true or just plain false claims that is of the greatest concern in my opinion, for what should be obvious reasons, both in terms of ethics and in terms of strategy.
I'll make at least one more post about the race by tomorrow night, where I will say what the Russo campaign has done right (and there is plenty), and what the Nolan campaign has failed to accomplish, and what I think either campaign, should it win, needs to learn from the other. Because the ideal LP presidential campaign would be a blend of the two main choices.
Please do leave comments (negative or positive) or questions below. I will respond promptly.
May 24, 2004
Thoughts on the LP 2004 Presidential Race -- Part 1: Joining and Leaving the Russo Campaign
I'll write about John Kerry and George Bush in a while, but for the time being, I want to focus on the Libertarian Party's race for its presidential nomination. The convention (and the nomination) are in a few days, and it's long overdue for me to weigh in.
Since I left the Russo campaign in April (at Aaron Russo's request), a number of people have asked me to clarify why that happened. And it's possible to answer that in a short sentence, but any answer to it has a lot of context behind it. My departure from the campaign was due to a culmination of things, and I've been struggling with how to explain it fully without explaining it all-- because to explain it all is a very big task, and the more I say, the more there is to hold up for contention within the party.
For those who aren't aware, there is a sort of combative gossip matrix within the ranks of the most hardcore Libertarian Party activists. If someone of any note within the party says something that can form a kernel of controversy or debate, it is likely to ricochet around e-mail lists and discussion boards and form the basis of conflict between Libertarian activists. This is never more true than during (or concerning) the presidential race.
I learned how mighty this phenomena was a few years ago, when I wrote an e-mail, which was titled "On healing, and moving forward for liberty", which was a rant against LP infighting, combined with a plea to end the divisiveness. It ended up being used by a prominent LP activist out of context, and was still being passed around (deceptively-- with the date removed, altering the context) almost a year after I sent it -- being used as fodder for the forces of division in the party. For all I know, it's still being passed around by people who want to tear down instead of build up.
And as people who are close to the presidential campaigns this year know, anything that is said about either candidate becomes instant fodder for the grist mill -- generally with one side silently cheering, and one side attacking, the person who dares to be critical about either candidate.
I'm critical by nature, and when it comes to presidential campaigning, I'm especially critical. Thus my hesitance about sharing my impressions on the presidential campaign -- especially considering that many of the people on both sides of this year's battle will be involved in choosing the camps for the 2008 run. In other words, I could make trouble for myself in my own plans.
In that context, I've been trying to decide whether (and/or how) to share my collective thoughts about my experiences in the Russo campaign. Because my review is, on the whole, not positive.
In the end I decided that my fellow party members deserve to be as informed as possible when choosing their presidential nominee. It's a very big decision, and I think I can add useful information for people to make that decision. If you notice me over-explaining, it's because I am trying as hard as possible to be thorough and clear, and trying to answer questions in advance where I can.
With that said, here is the first of (probably) 3 entries on the LP 2004 presidential race:
--------------------------
I've been almost entirely silent about the respective Libertarian campaigns here on my blog. At first it was lack of interest-- frankly, 7 months ago, the LP race was shaping up to be pretty boring. Gary Nolan -- a dependable and hard-working, if unexciting, candidate -- was taking all the necessary steps to earn favor within the party, and Michael Badnarik didn't appear as though he was mustering up enough steam to put up a serious fight. None of the other competitors were making enough effort to be seriously considered. (In fact, I may chastise them in another entry some day, for wasting our time and interest -- or worse, taking advantage of those things -- with frivolous campaigns. I'm looking at you, David Hollist. ;-\)
Enter (via a spam e-mail announcement) Aaron Russo. I had heard of Russo from here and there in the freedom movement. I probably knew of him mostly from his aborted 2002 run for Nevada Governor, and his offer years ago to put up tens of thousands of dollars to get Nevada's medical marijuana program up and running.
His e-mail announcement, and the site it led to, were charismatic and pretty exciting. The campaign seemed promising, if incomplete -- the site was by no means a thorough campaign site, but was more of an extended video brochure introduction to Aaron and his beliefs. He was labeled "Your Independent Voice", and there was no mention of the Libertarian Party. I looked through a lot of the site, decided not to sign up on the volunteer page because it required way too much info, and that was about it. I think I signed his petition against the draft back then, but I'm not sure. That was in December of last year.
Then in January, there was a new flurry of news about the Russo campaign. There was a story in LP News, which brought out this comment from me: "This is cause for some celebration. The possibility of the LP having a charismatic presidential candidate is very cool." The LP story had Russo explaining that he had planned on running as a Libertarian all along, he just wanted to try and attract independents for a while before declaring as a Libertarian. He said that so many Libertarians were asking him about that that he had to announce as a Lib to settle the confusion. There was a story in WorldNetDaily about Russo's anti-draft petition. And then there was a release posted on LibertyforAll, which was what finally got me back to Aaron's website. I did fill out the volunteer form that time, at least in part because it was the only clear way to keep in touch with the campaign.
A week or two later, I received a YahooGroups invitation to the russo-volunteers group, which I accepted. That's when the ball really started rolling. Campaign Manager Steve Gordon sent me an e-mail that started with "Welcome aboard! I have been read [sic] your blog for some time, and greatly appreciate your efforts for the cause of liberty. I wish you the best of luck." I sent an e-mail back which said in part, "...I'd like to talk to you soon about Aaron's campaign. I'm considering the idea of devoting a lot of time to it in the coming months. Is there a good time this evening or this weekend that we could talk more fully?" And thus began a roller coaster ride in the form of my involvement at the top levels of the Russo campaign (as, variously, ghost writer, Campaign Adviser, Media Manager, Communications Director, and Web Guy) which went on until early April.
It ended on April 9th (correction: 8th), during a phone call between Aaron and I, which was purportedly supposed to be about establishing a workable financial agreement between the campaign and I, and instead ended up becoming a (final) clash of peronalities and opinions. I'm not sure how Aaron would characterize why he decided he didn't want to work with me, but I'm guessing he would say that I had a bad attitude and could be obnoxious. (He had apparently said the former to Steve Gordon about me on one or more occasions, and he said the latter to me during that phone call.) I would say that it was because I was too firmly opinionated, and was willing to stand up to Aaron firmly on various points of contention. It's a matter of perspective, I guess. I can say this, though -- in every situation where Aaron and I came at odds with each other over a certain point, it was after a series of conversations between Campaign Manager Steve Gordon and I, where Steve and I were in agreement and Steve (according to his account) had grown fed up with attempting or had been unable to persuade Aaron on that point.
The disagreements that I can recall are: going negative against Gary Nolan's campaign (I've been very against it), raising and spending more money earlier (I've been for it), and "you can't run a serious presidential campaign on all volunteers" (my claim -- which Aaron didn't exactly disagree with, but our conversation about that was contentious). There may have been a fourth, I'm trying to recall. Mind you, I'm just speaking about actual confrontational conversations I had directly (on the phone) with Aaron -- there were plenty of instances where I disagreed with the campaign, and either the conversation was between me and Steve, or I didn't voice my complaint for whatever reason. I don't know how much my voice reached Aaron through Steve, so I don't know if there were other points where Aaron was seeing me as having a bad attitude.
Beyond the fact that Aaron and I both have big egos and opinions, he seemed to have decided at some point that my strategic opinion was not very worthwhile. Twice during conversations with him, I stated an opinion and he responded with a dismissive, (I paraphrase) "Oh- well, that's a strategy issue," with the implication being that my opinion was not wanted in that arena. At least twice in talking with Aaron I felt the need to re-assert that I was under the impression that I was a campaign adviser -- while on the other side of things Steve Gordon was telling me I was basically number 2 in the campaign after himself (and telling me "you're right" in response to nearly every suggestion or suggestive inquiry I made.)
The last time Aaron pulled the "Oh, that's a strategy matter" thing was in that last conversation we had-- in fact, his saying that was approximately the moment where the conversation derailed for me. We were talking about strategy at the time-- specifically, we had been talking about what I saw as a lack of attention being paid to the general election campaign. Aaron asserted that he had to focus on winning the LP nomination first, and then he could focus on the general election campaign. I agreed that he had to make sure he would win the nomination, but said that I felt that he had made doing that a lot harder than it needed to be, and that it could have been a lot easier to lock the nomination up if he hadn't done some things which had complicated the situation. He said, "Like what?" and I said, "Like going negative on Nolan, for one thing." That's when he responded with the "strategy" line. And I said something to the effect that of course it's a strategy issue, we were talking about strategy. A couple moments later (I don't remember the exact transition) I made the claim that I know more about winning the LP's nomination than he does (essentially taking a stand on behalf of the value of my strategic opinion). He replied, "That may be true." I replied, "It's definitely true." It was just moments after that that Aaron said he didn't want to work with me anymore, and shortly after that the conversation ended in an acrimonious way.
By the way, I do know more about how to win the LP's nomination than Aaron, and I feel very comfortable saying that. It's not bragging, it's just the way things are -- which is one reason I stood my ground on that point. The other reason I stood my ground was because I was tired of the lack of necessary internal campaign reform-- which, if I was to believe Steve Gordon (and I did) was due to Aaron's refusal to acknowledge the realities of the campaign, to develop a coordinated strategy, to solicit and accept input, and so on. Aaron basically summed up that notion in our last phone call, when he said something like, "This is my campaign, and I'm going to run it as I see fit."
Which is fine, as long as you know what you're doing. For example, if John Kerry said that and I was on his campaign, it wouldn't concern me in the same way, because John Kerry running his campaign as he sees fit includes having trusted advisors and taking their advice (i.e., soliciting and accepting input). It includes having a detailed and coordinated straegy. It includes recognizing the realities of the campaign. Certainly, John Kerry's campaign is his campaign, and what he says goes, but he leaves the vast majority of the task in the hands of others, and he relies heavily on the advice of knowledgeable people. Most importantly, he's not afraid to take that advice.
Three things developed between late January and early April: I developed enormous hope for the potential of Aaron Russo's candidacy, and the campaign failed to live up to that potential; the campaign did a number of things that I disagreed with or was disappointed by; and I tried (and mostly failed) to secure a paid position on the Russo campaign. The developments in all three of those areas mounted over time, and by the time Aaron and I talked on April 9th, I was basically fed up. Had I not been so fed up, or had Steve Gordon managed to gain headway more quickly in matters of essential reform in the way the campaign was run, and maybe if I hadn't been living with heavy economic stress over that time period, I wouldn't have been so firm and even pushy in my final conversation with Aaron. It may also be that Aaron had already decided against me before the phone call began, either because of my "bad attitude" or because of my pesky need to be compensated. I don't know...though the conflict between my need to get paid and Aaron's need to resist having paid staff (and to resist fundraising) was definitely a long-standing one. I may detail the money issue more later...it might depend on whether Aaron tries to claim I did a "bait and switch" in terms of asking to be paid (having previously volunteered). That's where he was heading in our last phone conversation, before we got sidetracked (and then derailed). I could explain it all in more detail, but it's a side issue, really. That situation was just a symptom of a bigger problem, and the bigger problem will be discussed in my next entry on this topic.
Next entry: Things that disappointed or disturbed me about the Russo campaign.
Rapid Convention Trip Fundraising Request
I'm about to post the first of two or three long entries about the Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential race, my time in the Russo campaign, and my opinions on the two candidates. They may not be of interest to those of you who don't follow internal LP matters, but they will probably be of interest to Libertarians who may be going to this weekend's convention in Atlanta, to choose (primarily) between Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo.
However, there's a strong likelihood that I will not be able to attend that convention, unless enough of you are able to help me get there.
This year has been a rough year for me financially-- very rough, frankly. It still is being a rough year, and while it should be gradually getting better, it's not going to be un-rough anytime in the immediate future, it would seem. I'll explain more about that (and the status of my company PeoplesForum.com) sometime later. Suffice it to say, I have no extra discretionary funds right now.
Mostly for that reason, I had resigned myself to missing the upcoming 2004 LP national convention. Well, that's not entirely true -- I've been wrestling back and forth with the idea -- but I had accepted as likely the possibility that I might miss it.
It's gnawing at me though -- the idea of missing the convention -- and I've decided I can't let it go without trying to raise the necessary funds. I checked for flight prices, and they are actually cheaper now than they were weeks ago when I first checked them out. That is the biggest expense, and the threshold I need to clear in order to decide to go. There are some other expenses -- hotel, convention registration, ground transportation, food - but there's a chance I can minimize each of those costs through various arrangements.
On the high end of things, the trip could cost $750. I can verify whether I can find alternative arrangements once I confirm that I am going. Such arrangements could cut $200 or more off of the costs.
The entry-level amount that I need to raise in order to book a flight and finalize my decision is $400, which I need to raise within the next two days or so -- the sooner, the better. That's not quite enough to cover even the full low-end trip, but it's enough to get the ball rolling-- primarily, to get a plane ticket before the prices get out of reach. I might be able to find a place to sleep for free, in which case I'd just need to raise a little bit more to cover the rest of the costs.
This is where you (hopefully) come in.
To my long-time supporters: I've never made a direct fundraising appeal like this before, and hopefully that means you've been saving up your financial goodwill toward the campaign, and are ready to make a deposit toward helping me advance liberty. If so, now would be a great time for that. :-)
To my fellow Libertarians: I've poured thousands of dollars and thousands of hours into works for liberty over the past many years -- as Chair (for 3 years) of my local LP; as creator of StopCarnivore.org, PNAC.info, and CampusLP.org and BillofRightsDay.com; as President of the UMass Cannabis Reform Coalition (back in the day); through innovative events like Medical Marijuana School, the Funeral for the Bill of Rights, the forum on law enforcement and the war on terror; and in lots of other ways. I'm not a perfect LP activist by a long stretch, but I'm a tireless and devoted one, without a doubt-- and I've given much of myself when I've been able to give. If you could help me out at this time, it will help to foster an ongoing mutually beneficial relationship -- and I will be sure to return the favor when the opportunity arises.
While donations of any amount would be helpful and appreciated, what I'm hoping for is some donations in the $50-100 (or more) range. The quicker this gets raised the better, because it will give me more time to call around and try to make alternative arrangements for hotel and ground transportation. There was even a way to work off the cost of the convention...I don't know if there are still openings for that, but it's a possibility that I can check once I am sure I'm going.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should warn LP members that I'm not certain if I will be able to be a voting delegate at the convention, because my membership lapsed at the beginning of May, and I haven't been able to afford renewing as of yet. I suppose that could make you decide it's not worth helping me get to the convention, and I don't want to mislead anyone. I'm not going for the voting-- I'm going to network and visit with my fellow Libertarians, to participate in the cheering and rallying, to learn (at breakout sessions, and in general)...and potentially, to defend or explain the claims I'll make over the next couple days, in my posts about the 2004 LP presidential race.
If you donate and I end up not raising enough to go, I will contact you and ask you whether you want your donation back, or how you would like it applied. If you use PayPal and I end up refunding your donation, it will be minus the PayPal processing fees for the transfers.
That notwithstanding, PayPal is by far the best way to donate in this case, if possible. That way the money arrives instantly, and the minute enough money is donated I can charge the plane ticket and commence tying loose ends.
You can donate via PayPal by sending "cash" to lance@freedom2008.com, via http://paypal.com .
The alternative to PayPal is to send a check. If you do send a check, please let me know that you are doing so, and how much it's for, so I can plan for it. Checks should be made out to "Lance Brown". Because I have not yet reached the FEC's $5000 filing threshold, I have not set up a formal campaign committee yet-- but I do have a separate bank account just for campaign funds, which is what the PayPal account is tied to, and where your check would be deposited.
The address to send checks to is 14204 Owl Creek Rd., Nevada City, CA 95959. Again, please let me know right away (lance@freedom2008.com) if you're sending a check.
If I haven't raised close to $400 at least by Wednesday, I will probably call this off. I will be making one more pitch before then, but if you'd like to help, please don't wait.
I don't think this is the most perfectly packaged fundraising request -- but it sure is honest, eh? Probably more honesty than you were looking for. ;-)
My next entry (about the 2004 race) is already written and will be out later today. I've decided I want to sleep on it and re-read it before I send it out, as it could be controversial and heavily scrutinized.
Thanks for your time and consideration -- and especially thanks to those who have been following along for years. You're a big part of what helps me keep moving forward with this, after almost ten years. :-)
May 22, 2004
Bush's (presumed eventual) Third-Party Threat
This is a relatively large article about the story that both Libertarian Party nominees are hoping will become a major part of the Election 2004 dialogue. Below is just an excerpt.
Notably, the article doesn't actually mention the Libertarian candidates by name until about 2/3 of the way down. A lot of people would like to blame the media for that, but I'm inclined to blame the two Libertarian campaigns. Neither of them have shown that their campaign specifically is a threat, and so the article focuses on the more generalized, theoretical threat of the proverbial "Nader from the Right". If either Russo or Nolan had proven themselves in a dramatic, newsworthy way by now, the article would have led with "Gary Nolan could be a threat..." or "Aaron Russo could be a threat..."
Instead the threat theory is backed up by results from other Libertarian candidates, like gubernatorial and Senate candidates who earned more votes than the margin of victory, and even by Nader's ability to be a spoiler in certain states in 2000.
To the Russo campaign's credit, the article does highlight the fact that Nevada, where Russo ran for governor in 1998, is a swing state (where either Bush or Kerry could win). I don't know whether it was a failure of the Nolan campaign or of the reporter that he did not mention that Gary Nolan's home state is Ohio -- the number one "battleground state" and the only state the Bush campaign has said is a "must-win" state.
The more I think about it, the more disappointed I am with the Nolan campaign for not using that to their advantage earlier. The day the Bush campaign said that Ohio was a must-win state, the Nolan campaign should have held a press conference saying that it was going to devote major resources to making sure that Bush does not win Ohio. And they should get folks from the left to fund an ad campaign highlighting Bush's un-conservative stands (and there are many), and touting a vote for Nolan as a way to protest the administration's embrace of big government. It would have made news, and it would have stayed in the news as long as the story continued to have "legs" -- i.e., as long as the campaigns and pundits continued to have something to talk about concerning it. "The Ohio Crisis" for the Bush campaign could have been one of the hot stories for the past month or more.
The openings and weaknesses are still there and can still be exploited later, but I see it as months of free major media frittered away.
The two Libertarian campaigns would probably say that they have been busy pursuing the party's nomination, or battling the opposing campaign, but I don't really think there is an excuse. There is an election on -- it's readily visible when you turn on the news. And right now it's between Bush, Kerry, and Nader. And that's not (just) because of the media bias against thrid parties. It's because those three campaigns have, by a factor of anywhere from 10 to 1000, done a lot more that is electorally newsworthy than any other currently active campaign. No offense intended to my Libertarian brethren, but it's true.
One other note: the article claims that Aaron Russo "believes he can get a million voters to contribute $100 each". If that's true, then it's an apparent reduction from his original goal, which was to get 5 million people to donate $100 each. That bigger goal used to be displayed on his donations page -- here's the original image.
Here's the opening long excerpt from the article that prompted this entry:
CBS News | Bush's Third-Party Threat | May 21, 2004 18:45:11
While Democrats fret over the possibility of Ralph Nader causing them to lose another election by stealing votes on the left, President Bush may face an even greater third-party threat from the right wing. The Libertarian Party nominee could cost Mr. Bush his job in 2004.
With conservatives upset over the ballooning size of the federal government under a Republican White House and Congress – and a portion of the political right having opposed the war in Iraq from the start or else dismayed at how it's being handled – the Libertarian nominee, who will be on the ballot in 49 states, may do for Democrats in 2004 what Nader did for Republicans in 2000.
It is a hypothesis not yet made in the mainstream media. But interviews with third-party experts and activists across the country, as well as recent political patterns, illustrate that there could be a conservative rear-guard political attack against President Bush.
"I think [the Bush campaign] should be concerned. I don’t know how concerned," said Don Devine, vice chairman of the American Conservative Union and a longtime GOP insider. "They need to work on it and I think they know they need to work on it."
Grover Norquist, president of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, says "there is a strong strain of Libertarian in the Republican Party." He agrees with Devine that the Republicans should be paying attention to the Libertarian candidate, but says it is hard to gauge this early if the nominee will siphon many votes from Mr. Bush.
"I don't expect it to happen but it's possible," Devine adds. "A smart Republican campaign has to keep that in mind."
But so far, indications are that the Bush-Cheney campaign is not keeping it in mind. A senior adviser to the campaign, who did no want his name used so he could speak more frankly, said there was no concern in the campaign.
"None, none," the adviser emphasized. "[Mr. Bush is] as strong as Ronald Regan was in 1984."
However, historians point out that Mr. Bush is no Mr. Reagan. The Cold War had the effect of unifying the Republicans like little else. Even the dramatic deficit increases of the time, largely due to defense spending, were seen as necessary in the fight to end communism.
And President Reagan did not have an unstable occupation on his hands. Nor did he face nearly as united a Democratic Party as exists today. The result: some conservatives are questioning the voluminous spending for the war in Iraq.
"There is some unrest, there is some uneasiness, there is some unhappiness," said presidential historian Lee Edwards of the conservative Heritage Foundation, regarding the political right today.
...
Read the whole story here.
May 20, 2004
Ottoman Empire interactive; a Brief History (and approximate future) of Iraq
Here is an interesting web page-- it features an interactive map of the Ottoman Empire, as it changed during the 6 centuries it was around.
Ottoman Empire 1300-1922
In the early 1920's after World War I, Iraq was carved from the remains of the Ottoman Empire by the British.
I think the following excerpt from HistoryChannel.com about how things went in post-invasion Iraq back then speaks for itself:
In World War I the British invaded Iraq in their war against the Ottoman Empire; Britain declared then that it intended to return to Iraq some control of its own affairs. Nationalist elements, impatient over delay in gaining independence, revolted in 1920 but were suppressed by the British. Late that year the Treaty of Sèvres established Iraq as a mandate of the League of Nations under British administration, and in 1921 the country was made a kingdom headed by Faisal I. With strong reluctance an elected Iraqi assembly agreed in 1924 to a treaty with Great Britain providing for the maintenance of British military bases and for a British right of veto over legislation. By 1926 an Iraqi parliament and administration were governing the country. The treaty of 1930 provided for a 25-year alliance with Britain. The British mandate was terminated in 1932, and Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations.
In 1933 the small Christian Assyrian community revolted, culminating in a governmental military crackdown and loss of life and setting a precedent for internal minority uprisings in Iraq. Meanwhile, the first oil concession had been granted in 1925, and in 1934 the export of oil began. Domestic politics were turbulent, with many factions contending for power. Late in 1936, the country experienced the first of seven military coups that were to take place in the next five years.
It doesn't get much better after that either. See for yourself.
May 16, 2004
Greetings from Timbuk3
Presidential elections
Are planned distractions
To divert attention
From the action behind the scenes
Like a game of chess when the house is a mess
Or a petty money squabble when your marriage is in trouble
Or a football game
When there's rioting in the streets
It's just another movie
Another song and dance
Another poor sucker who never had a chance...
-Timbuk3, "Just Another Movie"
It's either really ironic or completely appropriate that the above lyrics come from one of the albums which has had more influence on me than most others. You might remember a one-hit wonder from the 80's called "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades". That was the lead single off the album I'm talking about, titled Greetings from Timbuk3.
That song came out when I was 14 -- when, like most boys that age, my interest in popular music was just shy of obsessive. And no one album held my interest more than this one. Eventually, I played the original tape so much that all of the print on both sides of it wore off. T3 is a very lyric-focused band, with one of the most clever songwriters ever (Pat MacDonald)-- and there's no question that their attitude influenced my attitude, then and throughout the years. (They continued to put out albums -- all of them great -- until the late 90's when the founding couple divorced and dissolved the band.)
"Presidential elections / are planned distractions / to divert attention from the action behind the scenes..." Those lines have probably gone through my head a thousand times in the past 18 years-- probably 50 times in the past few weeks, as I've rediscovered my love for this album. It's an extremely cynical view-- T3 were masters of cynicism (and sarcasm) before Generation X knew we were "Generation X". "Cynical optimism" is how I would characterize their attitude, because they are able to smile and laugh amongst it all, and because ultimately, they see enough good in life at ground level to not get too upset about what's happening in the penthouse suite. But they weren't blissfully ignorant either. They understood how messed up things were, and spoke to it, but retained a positive attitude about today and tomorrow, if you know what I mean.
Like Timbuk3, I'm a cynical optimist (or an optimistic cynic). Maybe the human race is doomed, maybe the US political system is complete charade, maybe the "War on Terror" is really just a voluntary slide into apocalypse...but today is a good day (and tomorrow probably will be too). Look around you in your life and there are a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand little or big things worth smiling about, or loving, or feeling awe for. I live way out in nature, and I can tell you that there is plenty going on here on earth that is worthy of much smiling, and much awe. Every day I am reminded that life is truly wondrous, no matter how much we might work to screw it up.
This side of the equation is touched upon in a Timbuk3 song from 5 years later ("The Little Things"):
Eyes to the heavens
The city folks say,
"Holy cow, it's the Milky Way
All the constellations
And in between
A billion tiny stars that we've never seen"
It's the little things
(the little things)
It's the little things
(the little things)
It's the little things
(the little things)
That make life such a big deal
Darlin' little Delaware
Was the very first state
Unless they're lying on the license plate
I don't know
I don't really care
I just love the sound of your name, "Delaware"
It's the little things...
I could literally go on for hours discussing views of the world through the lens of Timbuk3 songs...and I just might some day. ("Everything I Ever Needed To Know I Learned From Timbuk3". :-)) But not now. This post was supposed to go from the first quote into a discussion of the 2004 presidential election, but the influence of T3 -- which I've been thinking about a lot recently -- took over. I don't think this works as an intro to that topic anymore, so I'm going to post it as a stand-alone ode to a great band that has had a profound impact on me.
If you care to dabble in some Timbuk3, this site seems to be the best site for checking them out, and includes a way to purchase their CDS (most of which are out of print to my knowledge).
May 12, 2004
A smooth way to get back into the groove
I've been trying to think of a smooth way to get back into the groove on the blog. I haven't come up with one. I've got a lot of catching up to do, and one of the options that has been hanging out there is to try and squish all the catch-up items into one big return entry-- but there's too much to do that properly.
So instead I'll post a preview of items that I plan to post about in the coming days and the rest of this month:
--A fuller explanation of the context behind my dismissal from the Russo campaign, and a number of my thoughts on the choices facing the delegates at the upcoming Libertarian Party convention.
--The very sad story behind the loss of one of my pets about 10 days ago, and the difficulties that unfolded from that event.
--My thoughts on this ridiculously tragic war.
--My thoughts on this ridiculously tragic upcoming presidential election.
--(Probably) a request for donations to help cover the cost of getting me to the upcoming LP convention.
--Some links and commentary about some of the articles I've come upon in recent weeks.
On that last note-- while this past month has been one of reduced output for me on almost every project I'm involved with, I've been trying to keep things flowing on The Little Brown Reader. I've posted 1081 entries to that part of the site since I started it in June of last year. At some point I moved to a very trimmed-down format for most entries-- which is to say, most entries these days are just a link, or a link and an excerpt. Very few comments, and I haven't done the rating system in months. It was just too time-consuming. So the 'LBR' functions mostly as a sort of an eclectic news ticker nowadays. It's not all of the articles I've read online, but it's a lot of them.
So far, the top three categories in terms of entries are:
Presidential Campaigns: 179 entries
War: 168 entries
Libertarians: 110 entries
It makes sense that those would be the three dominant categories, I guess. (And they are dominant-- the next largest is California Recall with 85, and then Civil Liberties with 59). The first two links above serve as pretty good compendiums of news articles on Election 2004 and the war in Iraq respectively-- not complete pictures in either case, but probably a lot of stuff you may not have seen in your e-travels.
If you want to get a sense of what I read in any given month, you can flip through the archive pages for March, April, or May here:
http://freedom2008.com/reader/archives/2004_03.html(March)
http://freedom2008.com/reader/archives/2004_04.html (April)
http://freedom2008.com/reader/archives/2004_05.html (I'll give you three guesses...)
You can of course find many other ways to sift through the 1081 entries at the main Little Brown Reader page: http://freedom2008.com/reader
I apologize for letting such a big lull develop in my updates. The plain truth is that the past month or so has been filled with a lot of deep reflection, and not a small amount of internal (and external) struggle. It's not really an excuse for falling behind, but it's the primary reason why I did. There are other, related reasons that are more substantive, and I'll touch upon those in the course of addressing some of the things I listed above.
All things considered, it feels good to be back. :-) I wish I hadn't stayed away so long.
