May 30, 2004

Please thank C-Span

I'd like to ask you to take a minute and write or call C-Span to thank them for covering the Libertarian Party National Convention this year -- and especially for pre-empting their programming so they could stay through until the nomination is complete. They had live coverage today for about 6 hours, which is highly commendable.

(By the way, new LP nominee Michael Badnarik will be on their morning program today at 9:15 AM EST. It may replay later as well...you can check C-Span's schedule as the day progresses.)

There very well may be folks complaining about the pre-emption on the other side of things, and it's important that C-Span knows that it made the right choice. As I mentioned yesterday, this is one of the few times in the year that Libertarians get this much national TV exposure, and C-Span needs to hear your appreciation for their doing so (even if you didn't watch it).

Please contact C-Span's Viewer Services at (765) 464-3080 or viewer@c-span.org and say "Thanks."

And tell them you look forward to seeing lots of coverage of Libertarian and third-party activities in the coming months too!

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (5 so far)

May 29, 2004

Decision Time -- 9 AM EST, on C-Span

Not surprisingly, my three recent posts about the 2004 LP presidential campaign have stirred up some controversy, and some people are understandably angry with me for being "anti-Russo", particularly at the time we need to "get together behind whoever the nominee is". I'm going to post a last explanation of why I did what I did soon, as I've found myself having to justify myself in a few places around the LP 'net...and since these things have only been posted for a matter of days, who knows what is yet to come in terms of P.O.'d Libertarians.

Frankly, I will be so glad when the party picks its nominee tomorrow morning, no matter who it is -- just because it will be done and I can stop carrying the weight of concern that I have been living with since December, when I first started to really care about the 2004 LP race. (If nothing else, Aaron Russo accomplished that much.)

I'm not going to get to the post where I talk about the strengths of Russo and what Nolan has been lacking, at least not before the nomination voting, which is in six hours in Atlanta. There's no more influencing left to do, really. What I am going to do is post something like a top ten list of recommendations to whichever candidate wins the nomination. I don't know if I'll get that out this weekend. Probably not.

I posted yesterday that I was getting up early to watch the convention on C-Span, but it wasn't on early today. Sorry for getting that wrong -- I must have misread the C-Span schedule. It is on early Sunday though -- 9 AM Eastern time. The nomination speeches will be given, then the nominee will be chosen, and the winner will speak -- probably for 15 minutes or so. I think that's about how long the acceptance speech has been the last two times.

Check it out if you're up that early! It's one of the only times in the year that Libertarians are the focus of a full hour or more of national TV. (Yeah, I know...it's just C-Span, but still.)

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (1 so far)

Thoughts on the 2004 LP Prez Race, Part 3 : Russo wrap-up -- Cubic Zirconia in diamond's clothing?

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?

May 27, 2004

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.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (1 so far)

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. :-)

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (1 so far)

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.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

February 21, 2004

Good Campaign 2004 sites

The New York Times: Times on the Trail
NYT reporters posting inside insights from within the various campaigns.

--------------------------------------------
The Blogging of the President: 2004
Bloggers blogging about blogging about this year's presidential campaign, and what it all means.

--------------------------------------------
CJR Campaign Desk
The Columbia Journalism Review with incisive critique of the various coverage of coverage of 2004. A great resource for introspective campaign news junkies, but I find it wildly hypocritical that they crack down on media outlets for bias and not telling the full story and such, while neglecting to list presidential candidates outside of the TwoParty. It takes a special kind of blindness for a site with their mission to turn around and practice journalistic neglect and political table-tipping by pretending that the Libertarian and Green Party candidates don't exist.

I bet they'll put Ralph Nader up there soon enough. If they bother to do that, and still fail to add the major third party candidates, I'll have to seriously expect that there's a real bias behind the scenes there. (A bias toward the status quo, or big government, I suppose.) Especially since I nicely asked them to add the LP candidates, so they have no honest claim to ignorance of their existence.

Feel free to join in the chorus of requests, here.

--------------------------------------------
ABCNEWS.com : The Note
The Note has a daily rundown of the day's major national political events and appearances, followed by extensive insider political rambling, gossip, speculation, and wit. For political obsessives, by political obsessives.


Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

February 19, 2004

Interview with 2004 Presidential Candidate Aaron Russo

This interview with presidential candidate Aaron Russo is good stuff. Deaniacs take note. Kucinichiacs too. And Perotians. And, yes, Naderites.

The only downside is that it doesn't have his picture and the context isn't set at the beginning (because it's an adjunct to this main article). I'm posting the whole thing for archival and e-mail forwarding purposes. (That means-- forward this!)

The Auburn Plainsman Online - Interview with Aaron Russo

Interview by David Mackey
Online Editor
February 19, 2004

Plainsman: Looking at your web site, a common theme of your remarks is that we need to return government to a role as a servant of the people, rather than a master. How do you think we got away from that, and how will you change it?
Russo: We got away from that by getting away from the American Constitution. Only by returning to the Constitution will government return to its proper role.

Plainsman: How do you see the government's role in our lives?

Russo: I see the government as a servant. Have you ever studied the Constitution? The government only has 17 delegated powers -- we're talking about the federal government.

The federal government's designated role is to protect the borders of America, national defense, coin money -- even coining money, which they're supposed to do, they don't do anymore, meaning now it's the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is a private bank, it's not a federal agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also: Russo Rising: Libertarian candidate for president visits Auburn
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what I want to do, as far as the United States, is return America back to the basic principles of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and get away from George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Plainsman: You advocate bringing the troops home from Iraq. What do we do next?

Russo: What do we do next? We don't do anything next.

Plainsman: Then how do you see America's role in the world?

Russo: Friendship with everybody, free trade with everybody, but as George Washington said, no entangling alliances. In other words, I don't think it's America's job to police the world. I don't think it's proper to send American's troops to Iraq for "shock and awe," destroying children, maiming children, killing people for no reason. Saddam Hussein never did anything to America, and we have no reason to be there.

There are many despots all around the world. America doesn't have any right to go into other countries and force a form of government on them. It's up to the people of the country to have self-determination as to what kind of government they want to live in.

America keeps talking about democracy, and America's not supposed to be a democracy. In a democracy, 51 percent of the people control 49 percent, and that's not freedom. In a constitutional republic, as America was designed to be, 99 percent of the people can't control 1 percent of the people. Everyone has their God-given rights as a human being. As long as you don't do violence, theft or fraud, you can do whatever you want with your life. It's your choice.

You own your life. I don't own you, you don't own me, I don't own these people out here. Each one of us owns our own life, we're private property for ourselves, so we're free to do with our life as we wish. That's the basic principles of libertarianism and the basic principles of the Constitution. The Constitution's a libertarian document.

Plainsman: You advocate abolishing the PATRIOT ACT. What can America do to prevent attacks like Sept. 11?

Russo: America has bases in 130 countries around the world. We're the only country that has that. We spend more on defense than the next 25 countries combined.... We're the most imperialistic country in the world. We're the most aggressive country in the world. If we didn't do that, I don't think we would have been attacked on Sept. 11.

Now, if I were the president on Sept. 11, what I would have done is show the American people the proof and then gone after the people who did it. What George Bush did was, he never showed us the proof of what happened and he just told us it was Osama bin Laden. Then they went after Saddam Hussein, who did nothing to us. It's been a giant diversion. If there's going to be a war on terror, and it's going to last years and years and years like they say, then it seems the American people have a right to know what did happen on 9/11. Why is George Bush not telling us?

Plainsman: You talk about how America is supposed to be a republic rather than a democracy, where the majority can't impose their preferences on the minority. What are some examples you see in America today where the majority imposes their beliefs on the minority?

Russo: Look at the polls. People make decisions based on polls. It doesn't matter what the polls say. Fifty-one percent can't tell 49 percent what to do. If 51 percent say "Abortion should be illegal," they make it illegal. They use public opinion polls to determine the policy of the country. Policy is based on polls rather than the fact that you, as an individual, can do whatever you want to do.

It's your life. Let's say you have cancer, and the FDA says you have to have chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. That's nonsense. If I have cancer, I'll do whatever I want. For you to limit my choices, that's tyrannical.

Plainsman: Why are you running? Why do you believe you are the person to --

Russo: Because I don't know anybody else who'll do it. George Bush and John Kerry aren't going to change anything. You'll have the same policies in effect after the election. John Kerry voted for the PATRIOT ACT, he voted against the war, he voted against medical marijuana, the same three things George Bush did. What's going to change?

Whichever one wins, it doesn't matter because nothing's going to change. The only way to change things is to vote a third party in. But they tell you if you vote for a third party, you're wasting your vote, but it's just the opposite. With the two major parties, nothing's going to change, and so it's their fabrication, it's their propaganda so people won't vote for a third party. The two parties want to maintain control.

Plainsman: What is your vision for libertarianism in the future? It seems that most Americans have accepted a role for government in education, in health care, all these things you would take government out of. Do you think that opinion can be changed?

Russo: That's all very recent. I think since government's been involved in education, the education system's completely fallen apart. I remember Bill Clinton, in his State of the Union speech, he talked about "We have to have national testing standards." Congress stood up and applauded, "Yeah! National testing!" What a bunch of fools! If we have national testing standards, that means we have national teaching standards. It goes right along with it. The federal government's going to dictate what you learn in school. That's how they got the brownshirts in Germany.

The last thing you want is a central authority dictating what you learn in school. That's not what it's about. Every community may think different things are important to them. A rural community may think one thing, an urban community may think another. It's up to the parents and the local school people to decide what's best for school.

You should run public schools like a private school, run by the headmaster and the parents. If the federal government was in charge of the school system, they'd never learn the Constitution. They don't want them to learn the Constitution because they don't want them to know what their rights are. See, the Constitution doesn't give you your rights. The Constitution tells the government what their powers are. Once the people know what the Constitution says, then you know what the government's real powers are. They don't know that.

So the whole idea is to educate people to learn the Constitution, learn the Bill of Rights, learn what the Framers meant when they wrote what they wrote and why they wrote it. That's what's important. If you have the federal government teaching you and laying down the rules, it's a very bad situation.

Plainsman: You've had a decades-long career in entertainment, and you've worked with a lot of famous people and flamboyant characters. Do you see any similarities between the world of entertainment and the world of politics?

Russo: Somebody once asked me that question -- it's a good question -- and they said "What's the difference between politics and entertainment?" I said, "In politics, they stab you in the front," and that is the difference. In show business they stab you in the back. That's the big difference between the two. Other than that, it's a stage everybody plays on.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (1 so far)

February 03, 2004

Clark Does It (Wrong) Again

I wrote last week about how Wes Clark almost committed the major misstep of starting his New Hampshire concession speech at the exact same time that big winner John Kerry started his victory speech (thus cheating himself out of live coverage by the cable news channels, which obviously featured Kerry).

Well, as the title of this entry implies, he repeated the error again this week. As I was watching John Kerry's (very effective) victory speech, a small inset box showed up on the left, and I watched as Wesley Clark took the stage and commenced his own victory speech-- silently. He was at least a minute into his speech before FoxNews switched away from Kerry's still-in-progress speech. And frankly, it was too bad they did, since Clark's speech was pretty much boring, empty rhetoric, delivered only somewhat competently. Clark is not going to win this nomination, and shouldn't. He has proven that he is not solid enough to survive the two-party campaign process.

P.S. -- Barring the rise of a serious third-party or independent candidate (and that is not out of the question at all, as I will discuss soon), I think John Kerry is likely to stomp George Bush in November. His speech tonight was extremely poised and presidential-- meanwhile, Bush was on the news in two different contexts, and in both he seemed almost confused. It was like he was saying three words, then saying "uh", and pausing to think, and then saying three more words. Which would have been fine if he was saying stuff that needed to be thought about. But he wasn't. He was saying standard boilerplate avoidisms-- one about the WMD intelligence investigation, and one about the UN. He had a big-time deer-in-the-headlights look to him. (It could be because he sees his unraveling presidency staring him in the face.)

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

January 29, 2004

Meyer and I on defending Dean's Scream, and on trotting out Judy

Dick Meyer echoes my view: that Dean's scream was nothing to be ashamed of, and that he shouldn't have backed down from it. Backing down from yourself is a major mistake in presidential politics. You can shift and spin and remake, but you should not try and pretend that something that is you is not you.

Dean could have spun his Iowa speech into something positive, and could have turned the tables on the media's effort to spin it negative. Instead he folded to the pressure of the nervous mainstream, and in doing so, turned his back on the revolution he's been riding.

He also trotted out his wife when he said he wasn't going to, and I was very disappointed to see that. I have no problem with candidates trotting out spouses, or any other family members that are willing to be trotted, but to hold that principle only until the pressure of pre-Iowa drives you to break it (and then to break it repeatedly in post-Iowa damage control) is a whole other thing. Most pundits and people seem to agree that Judy Dean was an asset to Dean's campaign in her appearances this past ten days, and that she seems to be a charming and lovely woman...but it's not a good sign for the future. If Dean was to stay in the race until the end, imagine how many emergency trots Judy Dean will be asked to do. My guess is that she would reluctantly find herself taking on the traditional campaign support role more and more. Which again is fine, but not so much when you've been saying how you need to stay home for your school-age son and your patients. I just sense a crack in the plan around Judy Dean's involvement. I guess it's a question of whether the campaign spouse thing can be just a weekend job-- and whether the female Dr. Dean is willing to shift her personality from private and shy to public and gregarious.

Who knows-- maybe she'll get into it, and she'll be hooting and screaming right alongside Howard. ;-)

CBS News | Defending Dean's Scream | January 28, 2004 17:06:51

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

January 27, 2004

Thoughts on Clark

Barring the collapse of Kerry's campaign, I see only one real scenario where Wesley Clark could win this race. It goes like this:

Dean eventually drops out, and frustrated Deaniacs move to Clark as the anti-war candidate (Michael Moore will be doing all he can to make that happen). Clark then breaks away as an independent, populist type, and replaces Dean as the Internet/progressive darling candidate.

It doesn't seem that Dean has the same exit strategy option, since he declared that he would back whoever the Democratic Party nominated. On the other hand, Clark is an interloper in the party. He could break away if there was a sufficient movement to support that. That's a really big "if" at this point, though.

Clark has been fumbling a bit too much for the high-pressure primary race. He'd have a lot more breathing room as in Independent. Of course, he would have countless new obstacles from that position, too. But that's a separate story.

Back in September, the day Clark was entering the race, I said he was the oe to watch out for. But that was before he had done any campaigning, and he has not lived up to expectations as a campaigner. It feels like he's not listening to his political advisors enough-- like he's doing what he wants to do, contrary to political common sense. That would be alright if he had some expertise on the matter of running for president, but that's not the case.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

Quick thoughts on: Edwards, Lieberman

John Edwards: If Kerry falters in the next week, Edwards might have a chance. However, since everyone (himself included) agrees that he has to win South Carolina next week, he will most likely get stuck devoting most of this week's attention to it. Both Kerry and Clark are going to work hard on South Carolina too. I think there's a good chance Edwards will lose in SC-- in which case he will drop out of the race that night, I bet.

Lieberman: He's no longer in the race, whether he realizes it or not. He's an establishment player, and the establishment is going to line up behind Kerry. He might just be waiting for the right timing so that he can throw his votes with a sense that he's helping another campaign. I don't know how long he can wait-- there can't be too many people left who are telling him to keep going.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

Kerry = Powerful Politician?

I've never paid much attention to John Kerry, even though I'm originally from Massachusetts. But the more I see him in this presidential race, the more I'm seeing that he is a very savvy and astute politician. He seems to be listening and learning as the race moves along-- in fact, one pundit who rode along with him told a story about how a much younger campaign aide was chastising Kerry about this or that technique, and how Kerry took the advice seriously, accepted it, and adapted. I'm also hearing about how he made smart choices when his campaign was considered dead in the water a month or two ago, and how they have paid off (obviously).

He does carry some of the same airs that made Michael Dukakis a weak candidate, but not nearly as much so. And he has a lot of strengths to counter that effect with. He has the powerful dual-barrel impact of being both a decorated war hero, and a prominent war protestor.

Not that there aren't problems with John Kerry. For one, he offers very little for the Dean and Kucinich supporters who want real change.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (1 so far)

Note to Howard Dean on diffusing distractions

Dean's about to give his New Hampshire speech.

What he should have done is to re-enact his Iowa night performance, but extremely slowly and quietly. He should have taken off his jacket, rolled up his sleeves, and done the whole same exact speech, but comically calmly.

That would have been the perfect move. I think he could have put the scream speech to bed for good I think. He's doing a (relatively) boring, ordinary stump speech instead.

EDIT: He's actually turning out to give a pretty good campaign speech. MSNBC is staying on and showing the whole thing, which is remarkable considering how quickly they cut away from Kerry's speech.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

Cracks in Clark's Campaign

Wes Clark's speech was supposed to be from the heart and energized, but he was reading it (and it was very obvious he was doing so). Combine that with his nearly starting his speech at the same time as Kerry, and it shows some of the weakness in his campaign that pundits are talking about every day now.

I saw another spot of that the other day. Clark had a rally at (I think) a school gym. After the rally, he stepped down and went through the crowd taking and answering questions. Twice during that 20 minutes or so, he rebuffed media people who were trying to get access to him. In the first case, he was almost acting like he wasn't listening to his aide, who kept trying to get him to talk to some reporter. The second time was even worse-- he was going from person to person down the line, and when he found himself mistakenly treating a media person like a real person, he actually recoiled, and rudely said "Oh, you're another reporter? I can't talk to you," and abruptly turned his back on her and moved on.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

Howard Dean half gets it

Howard Dean on MSNBC right now: "I don't think you can really change America if you've spent all that time in the U.S. Senate."

That's correct. What he doesn't realize is that the following is also true: You can't really change America by running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

Notes on New Hampshire Night

I'll be watching the news and activities from New Hampshire tonight, and I'm going to try and post some thoughts as I see and hear things worth commenting on.

Few things are more able to capture my attention than the primary campaigns. It's great to watch all these people campaigning, and to watch all but one of them fail. It's in the failures of all those people, and in the success of the ones who make it through to win, that so much of the story of presidential politics is told.

Kerry's about to give his victory speech. Clark appeared to be about to give his speech at the same time, but I think I saw one of his campaign handlers nab him in the nick of time to get him to hold off until Kerry was done. I can't tell for sure, because Kerry's got the cameras right now.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

The revolution will not be Bipartisanized

There's a site called The Blogging of the President: 2004, where a bunch of folks who are obsessed with blogging and obsessed with politics get it on, so to speak. I've been peeking in there now and then, since I'm at least an 80% match with that crowd, and certainly fascinated by the revolution in media and society that underlies the major current Internet trends (which I would say are blogging and political organizing).

The BOP site is good stuff -- these folks are fanatics, but in a good way. They're like a big lab of scientists, studying themselves and their fellow scientists. Except the science is blogging and politics.

In this post there by Ezra Klein from just after Howard Dean's Iowa plunge, he talks about how the Dean phenomenon wasn't about Dean, per se-- how it was more about the movement than it was about the candidate. (A point I agree wholeheartedly with, by the way.) Then, in the comments area, I found something that made me want to reply. Following is that reply. You can see the full context here-- my comment is currently near the bottom. The comment I'm replying to is a long ways above. (It's hard to point directly to it.)

First, a curious aside: One of the people behind The Blogging of the President is a man named Stirling Newberry-- he's actually the guy who I reply to below. Well, back in May of 1997 I launched a discussion at Salon.com's TableTalk discussion area titled "Lance M. Brown for President -- Year 2008 ????"-- and Stirling Newberry was one of the folks who joined in the discussion. He pounded on me back then-- calling me an imbecile, etc. He had the sort of visceral reaction that some folks have when they hear "libertarian". I can't get into describing that more now, but it's kinda funny to bump into Stirling Newberry again, all these years later. And to know that we will probably interact, to some extent, into the future.

Anyway, here's my post from over there. It's primarily about why the voter revolution which is brewing will not find effective release through the Bipartisan political process.


Stirling said:

I pointed this out in an August interview in Salon.com and made the observation that the internet wants to move to "Open Source Politics" (pace blog of the same name) where everything is manipulable and the basics of politics - including law and policy, as well as message and organization - are open.

Dean empowered people, but he did not enable them to be producers of the political idea.

No candidate of the two major parties can honestly offer to do this. Open source politics -- an actual living, net-enabled Democracy-in-action -- is only going to be possible (or desirable) in the context of a green-libertarian revolution, for lack of a better term. That is to say, co-emergent trends: one a libertarian "get government out of the way" uprising, and the other an exercising of peaceful sociopolitical power-- one that skips past the governing bodies, and puts the process of (directly) creating change into the hands of the people.

For instance, take drilling in ANWR.

The current process is: the enabled masses (the MoveOns, the netizens, etc) use their power to mob the elected officials into doing their bidding (protecting ANWR from drilling).

The new process will be: the enabled masses use their power to mob the drillers (oil companies, etc.) into doing their bidding (staying out of ANWR). In this case, the elected official (optionally) serves as a leader, communicating with her constituents about the issue, and facilitating their action.

That's the way the revolution that is trying to emerge through the blogs and the Deans and MoveOns will be able to come closest to the vision that all three imply (or state outright): namely, "taking the country back" from the powers that be.

The alternative -- fully merging the fluid, instant-action e-revolution with the power of government force -- would create a dangerous sort of "tyranny of the flash mob". The ascendant e-Left might find that delectable for the time being, but it could turn against them (or anyone else) at the whim of a given organized mass. There's a reason the U.S. was not set up as a pure democracy.

This does have to do with Dean's campaign, by the way. I started by saying that no candidate of the two major parties would be able to enable people in the way Stirling discussed. The Iowa screech thing seems to me to be a fracture between Dean's populist revolution, and the CW punditocracy. In a real populist revolution, Dean's behavior was not all that outrageous. He was rallying the troops after a discouraging battle loss. However, the establishment is treating Dean like he grew a second head or something. And Dean took the hit, basically apologizing for being too excited by his own revolution-- too enthusiastic for the thousands of people who had poured their hearts out for months in Iowa for him. He should have fully defended his enthusiasm, but he backed off of it instead.

I knew, once the Dean movement began to rise, that at some point it would come into crashing conflict with the needs of the bipartisan political process. It's very similar to McCain, who also softened his approach to suit the major party establishment. And like McCain, Dean will probably not break away from the party and run as an Independent, because in his heart he believes the party is more important (or maybe just more powerful?) than the revolution. And the party ultimately agrees with that premise, preferring stability and the known over revolution and the unknown.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

January 25, 2004

My Iowa Night Ramble

[I posted this originally on The Little Brown Reader. It was technically related to this news article about the results of the Iowa caucus, but it turned into a more general assessment of the Democratic race.]

I'll say this about John Kerry-- he seems to be the smoothest and warmest in close quarters. He's the only one who doesn't seem to be brimming with nervous energy, like Gephardt, Clark, Dean, and (to a lesser extent) Edwards seem to be. Maybe that explains Kerry and Edwards' strong finishes in close-quarters Iowa.

Also, Dean seemed pretty wild in his post-results "speech"-- at least the segment I saw. I have not seen the whole thing.

Kerry's speech was pretty good for the occasion. He made a lot of smart phrasings and comments. As an outsider observer who won't be voting Democrat, I'm mildly impressed by Kerry for the time being. Anyone who can unsettle the Dean Machine has to be given at least a little credit.

New Hampshire is going to be a major showdown between Kerry and Dean. Both from neighboring New England states, and Kerry on the rise with Dean hitting some bumps (his false claim that Jimmy Carter invited him to Georgia this past Sunday not being the least). Very interesting.

In the end, this is George Bush's election to lose. Most of the main Democrats would suffice to beat him if things go bad in Bushland. The possible exceptions would be Dean, who is volatile, and John Edwards, who is young and inexperienced. (And possibly Lieberman, but he won't be a factor for long. He'll be lucky (and wasting his time) if he's still in the race when his state's primary comes up in March. He lost this race the day Al Gore endorsed Dean-- if not earlier.)

Either Bush (and the facts and reality on the ground, here and in Iraq and Afghanistan) is going to undo himself, or he's not. The best Democrat to beat him would be simply a credible alternative. That leaves Kerry and Clark, strictly speaking. Even if Edwards' youth can be cleared as a hurdle (and I think it can), his inexperience will be a potential achilles heel. And Dean will be a bumpy ride. He'd make a great independent or third-party candidate, but the two-party race doesn't have as much mercy on someone who's volatile. See: John McCain, except ratchet up the heat by a factor of ten.

If Bush blows it (or continues to blow it), then either Kerry or Clark will be able to beat him. With Dean there's a maybe factor, because he's developing an image, and if the image doesn't work for mainstream America, then he'll get whupped. (See: Ralph Nader) Of course, if he makes it that far he will reshape his image as needed (See: Bill Clinton), but he might then lose the base that's into him doing the extreme screaming thing. He's a wild card, to put it simply. And the Bush campaign is going to use anything they're given that might help them win. So far, Dean has given them the most to work with. Clark the second most (all his quotes praising Bush and Cheney are definitely going to be used if it's Clark v Bush). Edwards third. I don't think that to date John Kerry has given them anything to work with in terms of tearing him down.

Kerry now has a Republican guy whose life he saved in Vietnam appearing with him and supporting his campaign. That's pretty powerful. His wife is also a strong campaigner, it seems. And he's on his game, verbally-- very confident and likeable, despite his sort of weird face. (If Jon Stewart can call it "cadaver-like", I feel safe saying "weird".)

Make no mistake-- I expect that I would disagree with and oppose most everything that a John Kerry adminstration would do if he was elected-- and I won't be voting for him, any other Democrat, or Bush. I'm just calling the race as I see it. I'll be voting Libertarian, assuming one of the four current main contenders becomes the nominee. (There's a vague possibility that a Libertarian who supported the war in Iraq could be nominated, which is the only reason I hedge. None of the four main contenders support the war, as far as I know.)

I thought Clark looked to be the strongest solid competitor against Bush, but I'm inclined to think that maybe it's Kerry. I'm surprised to find myself thinking that. If he wins New Hampshire next week, then I'd think about pencilling him in as the possible Democratic Party nominee. And-- and again, it feels weird to say this-- I think that might work OK. John Kerry can appeal relentlessly on his heroism in actual battle, and relate that to the war and decisions regarding war, and essentially shame Bush for his cavalier misuse of the men and women of the military. Other than that, he'll play a centrist, sane, experienced guy who cares, but who can be tough.

All this is contingent on no major skeletons coming out of closets. I can't guess if there are any of those to come. And it's contingent on no powerful third-party or independent candidate showing up. And on Dean sticking with his promise to support the Dem. nominee even if it's not him (rather than breaking away and running as an independent, as some have theorized).

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)

May 17, 2003

The Nader 2004 "threat", and those poor, pitiful Democrats

Salon.com has a decent story about Ralph Nader's potential 2004 bid for the presidency, and how it's causing a painful split in the hard left -- between those who have utterly given up on the Democrats and who support Nader, and those who are scared enough of Bush madness (and trusting enough of the Dems) to say that the Greens should stay out of the 2004 presidential race so as to avoid a repeat of Nader's 2000 "spoiler" effect. Many Greens are worried that if Nader runs it will make even more people resent the Green Party for "helping" Bush win, again.

The issue brings up a lot of thoughts in me. I don't think Nader should run, but it has nothing to do with the "spoiler" potential. I don't think he should run because I think he's proven that he's unelectable, and without some revolutionary new gimmick or campaign plan he's likely to get even less votes than he did last time. I think that would be the case even without the spoiler worry, which will be much more acute this next time around. The simple truth is that Americans have had plenty of time to get to know Ralph Nader -- he probably has almost 100% name recognition -- and have decided that no way do they want him to be president. He's likely to suffer a similar fate as Harry Browne, who ran for a second time in 2000 with virtually the same method and message as in 1996, and got a lot less votes the second time around. You can't try to sell people something they didn't buy the first time, without making any major changes to it or syour sales technique, and expect to get a better response.

I think it must be hard for presidential candidates to see that from their first-person perspective, but it's brutally obvious from the outside looking in. Ross Perot proved it, Harry Browne proved it, and Nader will prove it if he runs in 2004. Even if he could increase his vote capture a bit, it's pretty much inconceivable that he could get it anywhere near the high-30% he would need to win against Bush and a Democrat. Of course, it's highly likely that the same could be said for any other person who might run in his place, but at least a new face wouldn't have a proven track record of having no chance of winning, as Nader does. He certainly isn't going to win over any Republican voters, and I don't think he'll sway any Democrats either...so unless he's got 30-40 million voters outside of those two groups who will rise up en masse, he is a 100% guaranteed loss as a presidential candidate. And I don't see even a shred of a hint that Nader could find a way to invigorate a mass of that size into voting for him, unless he has some sort of really, really amazing tricks up his sleeve. Even then, I think it's clear (as I said) that most Americans have evaluated Nader over the past 30+ years and simply don't want him to be president. I kinda like the Greens, and I even kinda like Nader, and for both of their sakes, I hope he does the right thing and steps away. The Salon article mentions that folks have urged him to run for Senate or Governor -- I think that would be smart, and useful. He almost certainly wouldn't win those either, but he could actually do some good by running for one or the other. I don't see any good coming from a 2004 Nader presidential candidacy, especially considering the anti-Bush nervousness on the left, and the spoiler resentment factor. Even an utterly unknown nobody Green would do more good than him in that spot.

That said, I think the "spoiler" whiners are just that -- whiners. If the Democrats can't field a candidate who can win in a competitive race, against whoever else wants to run, then they don't deserve to win. Nader didn't hand Bush the election -- Al Gore and the Supreme Court did. If Al had simply won his own home state, nobody would be talking about Florida 2000, or the "spoiler effect". During last year's Minnesota Senate race, Working Assets (the liberal advocacy phone company folks) sent out an action alert urging people to press upon that state's Green Party Senate candidate to drop out, so as not to "spoil" Walter Mondale's bid for the seat. I found it pathetic, and I wrote them a scathing letter to that effect. If the Democrats can't win races because a competing liberal party is "stealing" a couplefew percentage points worth of voters, they should just pack it up and quit.

Greens (and Libertarians, and whatever other parties) have every right -- and it could be said, a responsibility -- to run as many candidates as they can, and as hard as they can. Any votes those candidates get aren't "stolen" from the Bipartisans -- they are earned, and earned hard at that. They should be applauded, not castigated -- and certainly not bullied out of the race. The word "pathetic" just keeps running through my head over and over when I think of folks whining about third party candidates earning votes that the whiners seem to think belong to the "major" party candidates. It's not just pathetic, it's backwards and wrong-headed. The proper conclusion to reach, when one sees that a Green is garnering enough votes to make a difference in a given race, is that lots of voters don't want to vote for the old party sell-out politicians. If Democrats want those Green votes, they should work to earn them -- not try to stifle or bully the candidate that is earning them. If the Bipartisan candidates are so great and wonderful, they should have no problem earning all the votes they need. The only reason people are worried about Nader running is because they know that none of the Democratic candidates in the field right now is likely to be able to beat Bush by a comfortable margin, if at all. That's a problem with those candidates, and with the Democratic Party itself -- it's not Nader's fault. Focusing on "winning" Nader's electorate over by simply taking their guy out of the race is ignoring the real problem, and it's lazy politics. And I feel I must say once more -- it's pathetic. It feels strange to pity a behemoth, half-of-a-political-monopoly major party that's been around for over 200 years, but that's what I feel. I pity the poor, dying, lost Democratic Party -- the weakling giant that fears an unelectable, 3-percent-getting guy, while ignoring the problems and failures that have made it so weak.

I fear Bush and the Republicans as much as the next guy, but if the Democrats expect to ride in and save the day somehow, they better focus on figuring out how to do it on their own merits -- whatever those might be.

Posted by Lance Brown || Link to this entry | Post a comment (0 so far)