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.
Posted by Lance Brown at May 27, 2004 01:11 PM
Lance,
Thank you for sharing your perceptions of the Russo campaign as a former "campaign insider" (who was heading out about the same time I was heading in).
Here is my response -- as an individual who is busy packing for the convention, and temporarily out of communication with the rest of the campaign, not as the campaign's communications director. I hate to be terse, but there are points which need to be corrected and I am short on time.
1) "I can't stand these people"
I don't have any doubt that the incident you described happened, or that it happened as you described it.
Suffice it to say that, after 8 years in the LP and four candidacies for office, I have to confess that I've sometimes felt the same way.
It's not that I don't like Libertarians. Far from it, almost all of my best friends are Libertarians, and I think I get along well with most Libertarians.
However, when you take a candidate who wants to run a serious campaign and put him elbow to elbow with the LP, there is GOING to be some frustration. We're a small pond, and we respond to artificially created big fish above and beyond the response that their efforts deserve.
To put it a different way:
* Gary Nolan has been campaigning for the LP's presidential nomination for a year-and-a-half ... almost exclusively WITHIN THE LP. Not a single radio commercial. Not a single television commercial. Newspaper coverage limited mostly to "candidate comes through town, visits with 5 LP members at diner" stories.
* By any objective standard, Russo has reached far more Americans, with a libertarian message, than Russo. His radio ads have been running on more than 100 stations nationwide for a month. His television commercials are airing now. He routinely reaches 2-3 times as many newspaper readers as Nolan, and the stories he reaches them with are about pertinent issues, not "see the weird candidate" pieces.
The fact that Nolan is even considered to be in serious contention with Russo for the nomination does not speak well of the LP or of Libertarians. It shows that a high percentage of us are ready to buy into hype instead of demanding real campaigns -- that we can be flattered by attention, to the point of nominating the candidate who GIVES US the most of HIS attention, instead the candidate who GETS US the most of AMERICA'S attention.
2) Audioblog
I don't know how the ball got dropped on that one. I know that we've been proceeding under the impression that we were doing something new. Not being "the research guy" in that respect, I can't tell you whether a search for prior audioblogging candidates was conducted, or if so how in-depth that search was.
3) Awards and nomination numbers
Russo has always been careful to frame his references to Academy Awards in terms of nominations garnered by films he has produced, not nominations of him for those films. I suppose that it is possible that slips of the tongue/pen have occurred, but it has not been the standard.
4) Browne campaign ad numbers
I think it's fairly obvious that Russo intended to be taken as talking about television commercials on this item. I don't know if Browne did any radio advertising at all in 2000. While the Russo campaign has produced, and is airing, radio ads, the focus has definitely been on television.
5) False claim in Rational Review piece
I'm not even going to try to defend this one, because any way you cut it, I am responsible for it. As publisher of Rational Review, I accepted the piece for publication (I was not affiliated with Russo's campaign at the time). The article underwent several revisions between initial submission and final publication. It's quite possible that I posted the wrong revision; if not, it's still something that I should have noticed and called to the campaign's attention.
6) Nobody gets paid
I can't comment on this one, as I have no knowledge pertaining to it, other than to state that I have never been paid anything by the Russo campaign, with the exception of some reimbursement of expenses related to representing Russo at a convention (my mate, VP contender Tamara Millay, and I split a hospitality suite in Ohio; the campaign reimbursed).
Had it been up to me (I still was not working for the campaign at the time the claim was made), the claim wouldn't have been made -- because it is fairly obvious that a real campaign is going to have to pay its staff something. I've been a volunteer because I wanted to be. Others can't do that. I also don't think that Nolan has been in any way outlandish in staff salaries, etc. It's just not an issue.
7) The Cass County poll: I substantially wrote the piece that was released as "the high road."
FYI, if Steve personally manipulated the poll with some "uncookied" votes (something I doubt -- there's just real effort advantage there), that still is not _the campaign_ manipulating the poll.
I'm going to stand by the statements I, and the campaign, made in "the high road." Asking people to vote in the poll is not "manipulation." Neither is asking them to be delegates.
8) $250,000 toward ballot access
This one is a slam dunk. Russo made a very specific promise and is keeping it. He helped put together and fund Freedom Ballot Access, which is even now disbursing money to state ballot access efforts. FBA is not affiliated with the Russo campaign, but it would not have happened without the Russo campaign -- and it is to Russo's credit that he helped set up a stand-alone group to fund ballot access whether he is nominated or not, and to support efforts that will stretch far beyond the timespan of his own campaign in any event.
It is true that Russo is unlikely to raise $1 million before the nomination. I consider it also likely -- and obvious, and appropriate -- that if he is not nominated, he won't sprain many muscles continuing to raise money for a party which chose to nominate one of the other, clearly inferior, candidates. I suspect that he'll continue to support Freedom Ballot Access, however, which will indirectly benefit those other candidates and the LP in general.
I hope that you don't take any of my rebuttals personally. Your observations about the campaign are, indeed, valuable. However, in summary, they come to this:
Aaron Russo isn't perfect.
Aaron Russo's campaign hasn't been perfect.
However, by any reasonable set of criteria, Aaron Russo and his campaign are the best among those vying for the nomination this year. He, and his campaign, have more potential to reach voters, get votes and affect the outcome of this November's presidential election in a way that will redound to the benefit of the LP for the foreseeable future.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I'm going to mostly agree with the other Thomas (Mr. Knapp) on this one. Admitably, I'm a bit biased, but I do feel like there are a few things to say.
#1) You seem to dislike Russo's optimism, I find it very refreshing. Maybe he's being to optimistic, maybe not -- but "I think I can" has some truth in it and Gary just doesn't seem to have the drive, he doesn't seem to want to do ANYTHING with this. His website is horrid, his speeches, while well composed, are canned, and so forth.
"I can't stand these people" -- I'm not going to deny it happend but I have to say I very much agree with Knapp's synopsis above. Many times I've been scared off by the LP because of the apathy combined with the ego "We're right! Why isn't anyone listening?" -- I know many others who say they're pure libertarians who don't like the party for the same reason.
"First Audioblog" -- Once again, I'm not in charge of researching so I don't know how this call was made or if it is false. Your case is convincing but I hardly think its all /that/ bad. If he's the second, he's the second.
Awards -- Rational Review aside, I don't see a problem with Aaron's claims.
Press Relase -- Now this is just silly. They identify him as the likely nominee, any reader who went on could understand if he doesn't get it then the rest is probably a moot point. You're making a huge issue out of an anthill IMHO.
Browne numbers -- Knapp once again summed up my view point quite well.
Manipulating the poll -- in all honesty, who cares? I certainly don't. Lieing on the poll hurts the supporters of the one cheated in favor of; at least I think so. It makes them more confident, less likely to go out and show others why they support Aaron over the others and so forth. The only reasoning I see is to get anyone with 'bandwagon' syndrome; which I'd hope with the limited number of delegates wouldn't really be a big issue... Maybe I'm wrong, who knows
Browne: Now, I've got to say I'm really with Aaron on this one. Browne talks about how you have to go get advice from previous candidates or you won't get more than 500,000 votes. Wait? What were your totals in 1996 and 2000 Mr Browne? DESPITE being a libertarian (lowercase l, not a party member) since long before the 2000 election I heard about Browne from only 1 source: lp.org. Period. I heard of Russo several times from several sources before he began to excite me. This is WHY he excited me.
10 years of apparent support? According to Russo it was really in 2000 that he lost the support, since I'm not *that* close to Aaron and have never even seen Mr Browne outside a photo I can't say for sure but I'd believe it. Aaron is opinionated, that's why I like him. I heard the Browne show and I really felt like Browne was undercutting Aaron unfairly, and that was with me conciously trying to side against Aaron (overcome my biases, prudent with things like this) -- now maybe I didn't do it but I think Aaron felt rightly offended, I felt Browne overstated many things and pulled others out of the netherregions and so forth.
I think the last, and most vital thing, is that Nolan is stressing what in his campaign? Economy and Small Business. Yippie. I'm sure no one will say that the issue is moot, Bush and Kerry have the same 'spend spend spend' issues and we'll get a few votes, but I know NO ONE who votes on National Deficit, its a small factor. Almost EVERYONE I know is voting on the War and Civil Rights, and they know Kerry nor Bush is a choice for that and they're begrudgingly looking at a lesser-of-two-evils. Aaron's website, with a little coaxing from myself, has made at least 6 guaranteed votes inside a month. I'm betting closer to 30 based on the reactions I've gotten. I've tried using Nolan once or twice to just help people support the LP once they like Russo - mostly they shrug and say it does nothing for them.
Now, I won't say Aaron is perfect by any means. There ARE things Gary has done better than Aaron. I'd hope Gary would help with speeches afterwards -- combining Aaron's passion with a few of Gary's "one liners" would be an amazing speech, at least I think so. Other issues I'm more conflicted about. I understand WHY Aaron has said he won't seriously raise money until post-nomination but I don't nessicarily think it was the best idea, for example. It's a nuance though.
I guess in the end we'll see what occurs this weekend.
Tom (Knapp),
Thanks for your quick and courteous response. I've quoted and responded to a few of your points below.
You: "The fact that Nolan is even considered to be in serious contention with Russo for the nomination does not speak well of the LP or of Libertarians."
I can't argue that Gary Nolan's campaign has been terribly impressive, but I think your assessment of the supposed gulf in value between Russo's campaign and Nolan's involves a narrow type of calculation. For example, you did not seem to compare which candidate has turned off more people per time campaigning. Do you contest the notion that Aaron Russo has *turned off* far more people since January of this year than Gary Nolan has since March of last year?
I've only read one anecdote of Gary Nolan offending someone with his behavior, and it turned out to be a false report. (Which I don't recall you sending a correction out for, BTW.)I've read many many anecdotes of people who found Aaron to be offensive, inappropriate, or otherwise repellant, and they were almost all first-person, current accounts, rather than stuff found through searches of old e-mail list postings. Do you think that is an insignifact matter for LP members and delegates to consider?
In other words, you're adding up the positives without subtracting the negatives. And you don't seem to be factoring in the risk factor at all in your valuations. Aaron is a vastly more risky candidate. And yes, that means a potential for greater gains -- but it also means the potential for greater loss.
Where does the fact that a highly visible embarrassing candidate could do a decade's worth of damage to the reputation of the Libertarian Party factor in? And do you recognize that Gary Nolan's score in that column is between low and zero, and Russo's is some number that denotes a very real risk of damage?
I bought into your exact argument when Aaron made it to me at the LPC Convention, but Aaron has not illustrated in the time since then that he is some sort of master candidate that is heads and shoulders above the competition. I believe that Aaron could have and perhaps should have been able to run away with this nomination, but he has made a tremendous number of misssteps in a short period of time. The fact that this is a competitive race is not indicative of something being wrong with the LP -- it's indicative of the fact that Aaron has blundered what should have been an easy sale.
You: "Russo has always been careful to frame his references to Academy Awards in terms of nominations garnered by films he has produced, not nominations of him for those films."
I don't see how you can make that statement in the face of what I talk about in my entry. On the Amazon.com candidate's page, and on the Rational Review piece, his purported Oscar nominations have been referenced, inaccurately. In your message to volunteers telling them what to say to people in responding to inquiries about Aaron, you reference his Oscar nominations. When Aaron spoke with PBS documentarians, on camera, for a special to be aired this election season, he referenced his Oscar nominations.
Furthermore, George Phillies' fundraising letter, which was sent out to hundreds of past LP delegates under Steve Gordon's name, references Russo's Oscar nominations. That same letter was adapted and sent by George (as Senior Campaign Advisor) to the Russo Staff and Volunteers e-mail lists, with instructions to "please circulate to your elists".
A different version of that letter, with the same innacurate claim, was redistributed to the russo-volunteers list *yesterday* by a Russo volunteer. It looked pretty official and prepared -- and the reference to Russo's alleged nominations was the saem as it has been in most of the written items I mentioned above.
How many "slips of the tongue" does it take to become misrepresentation? Is the campaign such that it can make a dozen major, public, uncorrected slips of the tongue about something as relevant as whether Russo got 6 Academy Award nominations or zero?
It's worth noting that I raised this issue of getting the story straight in terms of Russo's awards repeatedly when I was in the campaign. And the misrepresentation has continued steadily since February, as cited above.
So I guess if "Russo has always been careful" about this, I'm left wondering what careless would be like. Or I'm wondering why you'd make an assertion that is so provably untrue. Or both.
You: "I think it's fairly obvious that Russo intended to be taken as talking about television commercials on this item. I don't know if Browne did any radio advertising at all in 2000."
Browne did do radio advertising in 2000, as I stated in my piece. And Russo may well have meant to be talking about TV ads, but that's not what he said. The text on the page said TV ads -- I know because I printed it out -- and Aaron said something different, which was not correct. One of my biggest concerns about Russo is that he is too "loose" in his campaigning, and ad-libbing part of a speech so as to alter a factual statement and make it false is problematic. I don't think it was a big deal -- I just think he misstated the facts about a prior LP campaign that he was scorning, to an audience of probable delegates from the state with the most delegates.
I can't say for sure, but I don't think Gary Nolan engaged in any public deceptions via mass media that day -- unintentional or otherwise. I know that Aaron engaged in at least three (all cited in my entry above), and at least one was knowingly misleading. Is that differential something that Libertarians should find significant, in your opinion?
You: "5) False claim in Rational Review piece
I'm not even going to try to defend this one, because any way you cut it, I am responsible for it. As publisher of Rational Review, I accepted the piece for publication (I was not affiliated with Russo's campaign at the time). The article underwent several revisions between initial submission and final publication. It's quite possible that I posted the wrong revision; if not, it's still something that I should have noticed and called to the campaign's attention."
I disagree that you were responsible for that. Your publication was accepting open submissions from candidates. It's hardly your job to fact-check or correct them -- I think most people would probably say it would be inappropriate to get editorial on candidates who are submitting their statements.
I'm aware that the article was revised...I was cc'd on the e-mails for the first and the final draft that were sent to you. The mistake was not yours, it was in the document you were given to publish. I did notice it, and I did call it to the campaign's attention...and Steve or whoever was editing it did not change the statement. I spoke with Steve about it later on, and he actually tried to defend its inclusion, saying that a case could loosely be made that the claim was accurate. (For the viewers, this is the claim that neither of Aaron's LP opponents have any real-world business or political experience...even though Gary Nolan has both.)
Aaron made a regular habit of dismissing the accomplishments of Nolan and Badnarik, and this was part of that methodology. It just went too far, and there was not the discipline needed within the campaign to make sure a falsehood didn't get published. It's not all that different than the dozen or so misstatings of Russo's "Academy Award nominations".
You: "FYI, if Steve personally manipulated the poll with some "uncookied" votes (something I doubt -- there's just real effort advantage there), that still is not _the campaign_ manipulating the poll."
If the Campaign Manager manipulating the poll -- while actively working all his time on the Russo campaign...while on the road campaigning -- doesn't amount to _the campaign_ manipulating the poll, then I guess I have no case here. Your implication must be that somehow the campaign didn't know about it, or wasn't involved in the decision. But Steve -- who was the nexus of the campaign and oversaw everything -- was the one who was doing it. How exactly did he do that without the campaign knowing, or being involved in the decision?
That's a rhetorical question. I don't accept that Steve's actions were seperable from the campaign's during the time in question. He was in charge of the campaign, and he knew about what was happening (since he was doing it). He allowed it to continue, while still acting as Campaign Manager.
You: "I'm going to stand by the statements I, and the campaign, made in "the high road." Asking people to vote in the poll is not "manipulation." Neither is asking them to be delegates.
I of course agree with your two statements, but I don't know why you're making them. No one has claimed that asking people to vote in the poll is manipulation, or that asking people to be delegates is. I didn't mention the topic of asking people to be delegates at all..nor did you in "The High Road" e-mail. So I don't know where you are coming from with that. Your dismissals appear to amount to one "straw man", and one non sequitur. You don't seem to be addressing the point that Aaron tried to get a bunch of people to say they were going to attend the convention, regardless of whether they were or not.
You: "$250,000 toward ballot access
This one is a slam dunk. Russo made a very specific promise and is keeping it."
The promise:
"Our Party needed $250,000 to guarantee fifty-state ballot
access for our Presidential candidate. Aaron has committed 25 percent
off the top of the first million his campaign raises. That’s $250,000 of
his first million, no matter whether he wins the nomination or not,
going to ballot access."
So if Russo does not get the nomination, he is still going to raise "his first million" and donate 25% of that to ballot access? If he doesn't have the nomination, what is the other $750,000 going to be being donated to?
Here is a specific promise: "Aaron has committed 25 percent off the top of the first million his campaign raises."
And if he doesn't get the nomination and his campaign doesn't raise a million, how does that promise get kept? And are you saying that he did not imply that he was going to come up with the $250,000 for this year's ballot access struggle? If not, then why so many references to "I was told we need $250,000 to ensure 50 state ballot access." If that figure is not for ballot access in 2004, then what is it?
It would help if you could clarify this "slam dunk", and the very specific promise Russo made and is keeping. You mentioned things he is doing, and they sound great, but you didn't address the simple math issue at all. Bill Redpath says we need $150,000 *now* in order to achieve 50 state ballot access. I did the rest of the math above, but you didn't address that at all.
You: "I consider it also likely -- and obvious, and appropriate -- that if he is not nominated, he won't sprain many muscles continuing to raise money for a party which chose to nominate one of the other, clearly inferior, candidates."
I agree that it is likely and obvious. Which makes his allusions to "$250,000 of his first million, no matter whether he wins the nomination or not, going to ballot access" sound very misleading to me.
You: "Your observations about the campaign are, indeed, valuable. However, in summary, they come to this:
Aaron Russo isn't perfect.
Aaron Russo's campaign hasn't been perfect."
I disagree with your summary of my observations. I have talked about deception, widespread disinformation, empty promises, defamation of fellow LP candidates...or, at the least, a very casual approach toward representing the truth, from February until present.
I don't expect Aaron or his campaign to be perfect, and I think your use of that characterization amounts to an effort to brush away legitimate concerns as some sort of nitpicking.
You: "However, by any reasonable set of criteria, Aaron Russo and his campaign are the best among those vying for the nomination this year."
So Nolan and his campaign have made *more* proveably false, public, campaign-issued statements than Russo and his campaign? I was not aware of that. Or is that not a reasonable set of criteria?
Thomas (James),
You said: "#1) You seem to dislike Russo's optimism, I find it very refreshing."
I don't know where I indicated that I dislike Aaron's optimism, or where I refer to his optimism at all. I am one of the most optimistic people there is when it comes to third-party presidential politics. Just look at this page I created earlier this year, when I still believed in the Russo campaign, and then come back and tell me I dislike optimism.
You: '"First Audioblog" -- Once again, I'm not in charge of researching so I don't know how this call was made or if it is false. Your case is convincing but I hardly think its all /that/ bad. If he's the second, he's the second.'
I didn't say it was all that bad. I just said it was a false claim, made prominently on the site, and that it provides a recent example of what has been an ongoing problem with the Russo campaign.
In many places on the web right now, people have repeated the campaign's false claim that Russo was the first to audioblog. You are welcome to think that's not a big deal. I'd like to see less spreading of falsehoods, personally.
You: "Awards -- Rational Review aside, I don't see a problem with Aaron's claims."
Again, you are welcome to not see a problem with the claims, but that doesn't make them any less false or widespread. Tom Knapp fell victim to the misinformation from the campaign he worked for, and repeated the false claim that Aaron has received Academy Award nominations. So we have a campaign that is fooling itself into fooling others.
Are you saying you don't have a problem with Aaron claiming to have gotten Oscar nominations he didn't get? It's OK for an LP candidate to distort something that significant?
You: "Press Relase -- Now this is just silly. They identify him as the likely nominee, any reader who went on could understand if he doesn't get it then the rest is probably a moot point. You're making a huge issue out of an anthill IMHO."
I did not make a huge issue out of that one. And while you're probably right that most people could figure out that the statement was not necessarily true, I don't think that's something you are supposed to make reporters figure out. And however you slice it, if Nolan wins the nomination, then that press release made a false claim. Words might not matter to you, but they matter to the press and editors, and they should matter to a campaign's press release writers.
You: "Manipulating the poll -- in all honesty, who cares?..."
The folks who ran the poll. Both campaigns. Delegates and observers who are trying to determine who has how much support.
The Russo campaign cared so much that they sent out three separate requests in the span of a day to three audiences trying to drum up enough votes to ensure a strong victory. Both campaigns have cared enough to include the poll results in making their cases for their campaign's success, and the national LP News has reported the results as well.
So it sounds like just about everybody involved cares.
Beyond that, my problem is more with the lying about the manipulation, rather than the manipulation itself. But it does say something that you are simply willing to accept the idea that the campaign manipulated the poll as no big deal.
Tom Knapp,
What does this imply?
"He’s won an Emmy, a Tony, Golden Globe nominations, and six Academy Award nominations."
How about this?
"Famed Hollywood producer 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..."
(Note that the six Academy Award nominations are clumped with the two Golden Globe nominations, which Aaron did actually get.)
And what about this one?
"Point out that Aaron's professional background proves his ability to run "promotional" rather than "educational," enterprises -- and that he has six Oscar nominations, two Golden Globes, an Emmy and a Tony..."
And how about this one?
"My peers have given me an Emmy, a Tony, Golden Globe nominations, many gold and platinum records, and six Academy Award nominations."
And this one?
'so I just decided to put myself out there to Libertarians so that they could say "look, here's Aaron Russo: he's got six Academy Award nominations, he's won an Emmy, he's won a Tony, he's won a Grammy, an NAACP Image Award, a Golden Globe nomination".'
The first quote is from the fundraising letter PDF file that is currently posted at the russo-volunteers Yahoo Group. (The same letter that says: "We are not going to promote this campaign with smoke, mirrors, glitz, hype, and fabulous promises. Instead, we’ll stay with facts".) The file is dated March 9th.
The second one is from the first press release announcing Russo's campaign back in December, which is also posted on the russo-volunteers Yahoo Group site.
The third quote is from your letter in April (as volunteer coordinator) to the russo-volunteers list, as a suggestion of a thing for volunteers to point out in answer to this hypothetical question: "Which candidate can best take a libertarian political message to the nation and elicit support for that message IN THE FORM OF VOTES come November?"
The fourth quote is from the "Meet Aaron Russo" letter that just went out to the volunteer list on the 26th of May, and which concludes with a request for "your support in Atlanta this upcoming weekend at the Libertarian National Convention." (Meaning, it is a new draft, not just an old letter re-issued.)
The fifth quote is from TLE's interview of Russo, Part One, from February. It's Russo himself speaking.
December, February, March, April, May. For a campaign that didn't really release anything in January, that's a pretty troubling record, in my book. And as I've made clear, that's just a handful of the instances.
This issue of Russo saying he "can't stand Libertarians" is a laugh and a half. I've been a LP member pretty much continuously since 1980 and I have to say there are a lot of Libertarians that I can't stand, either. Fact is, we're libertarians because we don't necessarily care what other people think about us, and even though we may not like each other all the time (or even some of the time) we all defend each other's right to be who we are. If I ever got to know Russo personally, I might like him or I might not. That's hardly the point. I'm supporting him because I think he's the best chance we've ever had of getting all the non-libertarians (i.e., the vast majority of the country) to pay attention to and possiblty even -- gasp! -- vote for an LP candidate for president. If Nolan is the nominee, who's going to see any post-election value in the fact that he's a nice guy who didn't offend anyone, but only got a couple hundred thousand votes? I hope Russo DOES offend some people -- Bush and Kerry offend the hell out of me.
Lance, thanks for the reply. I have a few more comments on it, hope it is no trouble.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by 'who cares' on poll manipulation. I completely realize that the campaigns used the poll results and the pollsters had every interest in keeping it accurate, my bigger point was what in the long run matters about it? As I stated the first time, except for those in the bandwagon idea I don't see winning the poll as vital in any way, shape, or form and in fact see inaccurate polling as a way to hurt the campaign. That is, of course, unless we're using this poll to get into the debates (a la 15% rule) at which point it becomes vital. *laughs*
I'm going to agree to disagree on many of the issues but I must say this latest post with the different phrasings of Aaron's awards is better evidence (or at least better phrased) in your favor. The Russo campaign has already issued a retraction on the audioblog issue, perhaps Aaron can clarify what his exact awards are and how.
I can't believe I read this whole thing.... Still I support Russo, lots of good points made against him, but really at some point you just have to go with your gut, and my gut says Aaron can get far more attention then Nolan and get more votes than Nolan and introduce more new people to the LP then Nolan, and get more people excited about the upcoming race than Nolan. Nolan is just Harry Browne Jr. as far as I can tell, and I think we need someone completely different than Harry to carry the torch, otherwise we will continue to get put into this intellectual box. Where we are perceived as philosophy types with no real world experience. Aaron to me is the only one who is running who can connect with ordinary people. Look if he hurts the LP, who would even notice? We have to try something new or else we might as well give up on the LP and focus on other things to get the message out, the LP has been around too long to be so irrelevant.
I personally like Mike Badnarik, and wish everyone weren't talking like there were only two candidates. But I also like Aaron Russo, from what I've read on him so far. To me, Lance Brown's "articles" here are laughable. Lance seems to be a very whiney person with no idea what constitutes a real issue worthy of telling others about. What made you imagine we would care about your inside information unveiling Mr. Russo's secret balcony conversations? Oh, the scandal!
Anyway, just trying to inject a dose of reality. These are the kind of piddly gripes you complain about to your co-workers on luch break.
Thanks for the new comments guys. I've got a missing pet sitaution I have to focus on, but I just want to pose a question.
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 been met. A oft-repeated claim of Academy Aawrd 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 presidnetial campaign, I say: he already has" -- how much has it been discussed that Aaron drew only 34,000+ votes?
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.
John,
Thanks for pointing out that the "I can't stand this" item is less pressing than I indicated by its placement. I have moved it down to the bottom of the items...though I can tell you that Steve Gordon and I did not think it was insignificant at all when it happened.
That's the only item that I think qualifies under your dismissive label. Things like falsely claiming to have won Academy Awards in multiple public statements from the start of the campaign until two days ago is not water cooler gossip. It's a serious issue, one that I raised in both February and March when I was in the campaign, and which has simply not been dealt with. The campaign (and Aaron) has been lying about Aaron's accomplishments, to the tune of 6 extra Academy Award nominations.
Anyone who sees that as minor has a much lower standard of honesty than I do.
Look at the result...Here is an article about Russo from a stop he made in Alabama:
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/107782119962710.xml
"I've won six Academy Awards, an Emmy and a Tony," he said. "People know who I am. The American people are just not going to vote for someone who's not had success in their life."
Now, I don't know if he was misquoted, or misspoke, but he has not won or been nominated for *any* Academy Awards, and he is being sold as having *won* 6 of them. That is a very, very big difference.
BTW, after that article was one of the times I raised this concern with Steve Gordon. And yet most of the things I have cited (where the nominations were claimed as real) happened after that.
The point being that Russo's campaign (and I believe this is due to Aaron's running of it) is loose and undiligent when it comes to something as basic and important as biographical accomplishments. Not only was it misstated, but it was done so over and over again, and nothing was done about it.
And I'm not whining. I care very much about the Libertarian Party and its future, and I'm concerned about the folks in the party making a mistake based on (to quote George Phillies) "smoke, mirrors, glitz, hype, and fabulous promises".
Lance,
I wish that you hadn't come forward with this information. I am not defending Mr. Russo, but we are all on the same team here. This guy could very well be our candidate in a few days. I believe that your posts could hurt Russo badly if he gets the nomination, and possibly lead to the negative attention from the mainstream press that you were afraid of. This could cost the Libertarian party new members and cause division within the party.
I'm sure that all of use feel that with a big-spending Republican in the White House, the LP has a better than normal chance to do well in this election. It is vital that we do everything we can to capitalize on this opportunity. Having our candidates trashed from within the party only works to divide us -- and at the worst possible time.
Danny,
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?
I very much agree with Lance's last post. If we have issues we need them brought forward now. If everyone in the LP can answer queries like this we're all the better off, we have no reason to suspect the news media would be kinder to Aaron's record than Lance is being here. As great as Aaron is and as much as I think he's 100x (and more) better than Nolan (unfortunately Badnarik seems to have lost his chances completely, but I may be surprised) we need to make sure his bases are covered.
Asides:
I would be so much more excited if the race had come down between Aaron and Badnarik -- both of these guys I really like. Badnarik is such a great guy, but unfortunatly he *is* a lecturer. I think if we magically won the election he'd make a great cabinet member or Supreme Court justice (though he doesn't have a legal background which is, admitably, a problem :P )
I read an account, http://www.badnarik.org/news/04192004.html , of someone outside the LP seeing the three debate and saying "If this world made any sense, the entire race would be between these three. Russo would be the Democrat, Nolan the Republican … and Michael Badnarik would be the third-party idealist." -- I think that's quite true.
Lance, I don't think we are looking at cubic zirconium and think it is a diamond, more it is like we are very poor and are forced to chose between 3 pieces of zirconium, even though we would like a diamond, we cannot get one so we have to chose what we feel is best.
I am trying to post a decent point but your system thinks I am trying to spam you, I am just trying to make a point. Maybe I will try again later, but my post will not go through right now.
Great site! Keep it running!
William
