Brian Doherty of Reason Magazine has this interview with Lincoln Chafee.
Comments
Lincoln Chafee Interviewed by Reason Magazine — 22 Comments
Ah, the usual suspects in the libertarian lite community are already gushing over, and giving publicity, to Lincoln Chafee.
Now on the surface I don’t have a problem with interviewing somebody, but given the past actions of those in the Reason and Cato crowds, a lot of whom went gaga over Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, and some of whom urinated on the Ron Paul r3VOLution of 2007-2012, even though it was by far the best thing to happen in the liberty movement in decades, I just have to wonder if there is an agenda at play here.
This makes me wonder if there should be something in the Libertarian Party By-Laws that requires a person to be a member of the Libertarian Party for a certainly length of time, say 2 years, or maybe 4 years, before they can run for the presidential nomination. I am sick and tired of these last minute party hopping carpetbaggers popping up and immediately running for President or Vice President, especially those who lack a background of even being a small “l” libertarian activist.
If the Republican Party had had a bylaw like that, it could not have done so well in its first election, the congressional election of 1854. The party didn’t even exist until July 6, 1854. Many of its candidates were already in office, and had been elected as Whigs, or Free-Soiler Party members, or even Democrats. The Republican Party won a plurality in the 1854 elections in the US House. They didn’t have a majority, so the speaker for the congress that convened in 1855 was a member of the American Party.
New parties swept into power in recent years in France, Mexico, and Ukraine. New parties almost by definition can’t have rules that ban the party from nominating people who haven’t been members for years.
The Libertarian Party is not a new party anymore. The Libertarian Party has been around for over 48 years. After 48 years, can’t the Libertarian Party build up its own people out of the party activist base and find two of them to be on the presidential ticket, rather than nominating Johnny-Come-Latlies from the major parties who show up not long before the National Convention?
I guess the Libertarian Party is now the party of Lincoln.
LOL @ Casual Observer’s comment!
@Andy – ditto for the Constitution Party. Come and gone are: Michael Peroutka, Alan Keyes, Chuck Baldwin, Tom Tancredo, and Virgil Goode. Now comes Don Blankenship who was a Republican through the 2018 primary, then CP until losing legal challenge to run again for US Senate, then switched to Democrat for most of 2019, and now back to CP. Hmmmm…
I think Peroutka and Baldwin were at least good on the issues.
I would have less of a problem with party hoppers and Johnny-Come-Latlies going to the Libertarian Party and immediately running for high level offices IF they had backgrounds of being at least fairly strong small “I” libertarians beforehand. My problem with carpetbaggers like Bill Weld and Lincoln Chafee is that they were NOT even small “I” libertarians. They have ZETO records of being libertarian activists, and they want to come to the party, and go straight to the top of the ticket. This is not the way things should work.
Obtaining ballot access is hard. Even big name politicians sometimes have a difficult time getting on the ballot.
The fact that the Libertarian Party has ballot access in more states than any party besides the D’s and R’s makea it an attractive vehicle to hijack by unprincipled opportunists to get on the ballot, not to mention all the Deep State spooks who want to sabotage the party and turn it into controlled opposition.
How many undercover RED commie Donkeys getting RED commie $$$ to become the LP Prez candidate and DIVIDE and CONQUER the Elephants [TRUMP} in the 8-10 marginal EC States ???
I don’t see Richard posting articles of most of the other candidates. It appears he is a supporter of Chafee. I sure hope that isn’t the case.
“I don’t see Richard posting articles of most of the other candidates. It appears he is a supporter of Chafee. I sure hope that isn’t the case.”
As soon as the other candidates appear in national magazine/newspaper articles and not just online blogs I’m sure he will.
@RW,
There was no presidential election in 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed in the first session of the 33rd Congress.
You know very few congressional candidates ran as Republicans in 1854, and NONE in 1855. There was a lame duck session in 1854-55.
Congress did not meet for the 34th Congress until December 1855, by whivh time many candidates identified with a different party thaan the one they were elected with (similar to Justin Amash or Jeff Van Drew).
Nathaniel Banks was elected speaker on the 103rd ballot on Groundhog Day 1856.
As I have said before, the Libertarian Party has a valuable asset that makes it a takeover target: extensive ballot access.
WalterZiobro said: “As I have said before, the Libertarian Party has a valuable asset that makes it a takeover target: extensive ballot access.”
This is an argument in favor of what I said above, that is that maybe the party should implement a change to the By-Laws that requires candidates for President or Vice President to have been dues paying party members for at least 2 years, or 4 years, before they can run. Perhaps there should be a similar restriction for National Convention delegates.
Sound too harsh? Maybe, but what is the alternative? Keep letting the party’s ballot access to be hijacked by opportunistic con-artists and Deep State operatives?
This would not completely solve the problem, but it would it least make it more difficult for last minute party hoppers and Johnny-Come-Latlies.
Keep in mind that the fact that the Libertarian Party has ballot access in something like 35 states right now is worth millions and millions of dollars, not to mention all of the hard work it takes to get on the ballot in all of those places. The party basically has no defense mechanism in place to protect this multi-million dollar asset, therefore leaving itself open to be hijacked by people who do not really have the best interest of the party, or the philosophy, in mind.
Andy- have you formally made this suggestion to your LNC representative?
No, but my guess is that this would not pass with the current LNC, or with the delegates who are likely to show up in Austin for the National Convention.
Andy – sounds to me like the Libertarian Party needs to tighten up its presidential nominating rules rather than changing its bylaws. Does the party allow proxy votes at its convention? Unfortunately the Constitution Party does, which is a shame. With them, if only one delegate attends, they can cast multiple votes depending on how many are allocated to that state – all just based upon their own personal opinion. Also with the CP, it only takes two state delegations, which could potentially just be two people, to place a candidate’s name into nomination. Does the Libertarian Party allow states to nominate multiple candidates? Sounds odd, but with the CP, there is no rule and no limit on this. Split delegations are one thing, but the delegation is supposed to be representing its voters. As I have listed on a previous post, the LP currently has over fifty declared candidates. Exactly how many show up at the physical convention is yet to be determined, but things could get messy.
I think tightening up the presidential nominating rules would take changing the By-Laws.
There is no proxy voting in the Libertarian Party.
FORM A N-E-W PARTY WITH AN EQUAL NOMINATING SYSTEM —
BY PARTY MEMBERS ONLY ???
CRISIS NOW MUCH WORSE THAN IN 1854-1860
— NUTCASES IN CONGRESS
— NUTCASE IN OVAL OFFICE
— NUTCASES IN SCOTUS.
LAST HOPE – 18 STATES WITH VOTER PETS FOR STATE CONST AMDTS.
—
PR AND APPV AND TOTSOP
How many of those 1854 NE-KS Act band-aid HACKS survived to count the 1861-1866 dead/injured and see the 13-14-15 Amdts ???
The MONSTER super-HACK Sen Douglas [of the dubious Lincoln-Douglas debates] died 13 June 1861 —
AFTER the first shot at Ft Sumter in April 1861 and BEFORE the 1st Battle of Bull Run in July 1861 [Union Army disaster] – TOTAL Union mobilization in Aug 1861 via various Congress panic laws >>>
doom for slavery in USA – 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866.
Ah, the usual suspects in the libertarian lite community are already gushing over, and giving publicity, to Lincoln Chafee.
Now on the surface I don’t have a problem with interviewing somebody, but given the past actions of those in the Reason and Cato crowds, a lot of whom went gaga over Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, and some of whom urinated on the Ron Paul r3VOLution of 2007-2012, even though it was by far the best thing to happen in the liberty movement in decades, I just have to wonder if there is an agenda at play here.
This makes me wonder if there should be something in the Libertarian Party By-Laws that requires a person to be a member of the Libertarian Party for a certainly length of time, say 2 years, or maybe 4 years, before they can run for the presidential nomination. I am sick and tired of these last minute party hopping carpetbaggers popping up and immediately running for President or Vice President, especially those who lack a background of even being a small “l” libertarian activist.
If the Republican Party had had a bylaw like that, it could not have done so well in its first election, the congressional election of 1854. The party didn’t even exist until July 6, 1854. Many of its candidates were already in office, and had been elected as Whigs, or Free-Soiler Party members, or even Democrats. The Republican Party won a plurality in the 1854 elections in the US House. They didn’t have a majority, so the speaker for the congress that convened in 1855 was a member of the American Party.
New parties swept into power in recent years in France, Mexico, and Ukraine. New parties almost by definition can’t have rules that ban the party from nominating people who haven’t been members for years.
The Libertarian Party is not a new party anymore. The Libertarian Party has been around for over 48 years. After 48 years, can’t the Libertarian Party build up its own people out of the party activist base and find two of them to be on the presidential ticket, rather than nominating Johnny-Come-Latlies from the major parties who show up not long before the National Convention?
I guess the Libertarian Party is now the party of Lincoln.
LOL @ Casual Observer’s comment!
@Andy – ditto for the Constitution Party. Come and gone are: Michael Peroutka, Alan Keyes, Chuck Baldwin, Tom Tancredo, and Virgil Goode. Now comes Don Blankenship who was a Republican through the 2018 primary, then CP until losing legal challenge to run again for US Senate, then switched to Democrat for most of 2019, and now back to CP. Hmmmm…
I think Peroutka and Baldwin were at least good on the issues.
I would have less of a problem with party hoppers and Johnny-Come-Latlies going to the Libertarian Party and immediately running for high level offices IF they had backgrounds of being at least fairly strong small “I” libertarians beforehand. My problem with carpetbaggers like Bill Weld and Lincoln Chafee is that they were NOT even small “I” libertarians. They have ZETO records of being libertarian activists, and they want to come to the party, and go straight to the top of the ticket. This is not the way things should work.
Obtaining ballot access is hard. Even big name politicians sometimes have a difficult time getting on the ballot.
The fact that the Libertarian Party has ballot access in more states than any party besides the D’s and R’s makea it an attractive vehicle to hijack by unprincipled opportunists to get on the ballot, not to mention all the Deep State spooks who want to sabotage the party and turn it into controlled opposition.
How many undercover RED commie Donkeys getting RED commie $$$ to become the LP Prez candidate and DIVIDE and CONQUER the Elephants [TRUMP} in the 8-10 marginal EC States ???
I don’t see Richard posting articles of most of the other candidates. It appears he is a supporter of Chafee. I sure hope that isn’t the case.
“I don’t see Richard posting articles of most of the other candidates. It appears he is a supporter of Chafee. I sure hope that isn’t the case.”
As soon as the other candidates appear in national magazine/newspaper articles and not just online blogs I’m sure he will.
@RW,
There was no presidential election in 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed in the first session of the 33rd Congress.
You know very few congressional candidates ran as Republicans in 1854, and NONE in 1855. There was a lame duck session in 1854-55.
Congress did not meet for the 34th Congress until December 1855, by whivh time many candidates identified with a different party thaan the one they were elected with (similar to Justin Amash or Jeff Van Drew).
Nathaniel Banks was elected speaker on the 103rd ballot on Groundhog Day 1856.
As I have said before, the Libertarian Party has a valuable asset that makes it a takeover target: extensive ballot access.
WalterZiobro said: “As I have said before, the Libertarian Party has a valuable asset that makes it a takeover target: extensive ballot access.”
This is an argument in favor of what I said above, that is that maybe the party should implement a change to the By-Laws that requires candidates for President or Vice President to have been dues paying party members for at least 2 years, or 4 years, before they can run. Perhaps there should be a similar restriction for National Convention delegates.
Sound too harsh? Maybe, but what is the alternative? Keep letting the party’s ballot access to be hijacked by opportunistic con-artists and Deep State operatives?
This would not completely solve the problem, but it would it least make it more difficult for last minute party hoppers and Johnny-Come-Latlies.
Keep in mind that the fact that the Libertarian Party has ballot access in something like 35 states right now is worth millions and millions of dollars, not to mention all of the hard work it takes to get on the ballot in all of those places. The party basically has no defense mechanism in place to protect this multi-million dollar asset, therefore leaving itself open to be hijacked by people who do not really have the best interest of the party, or the philosophy, in mind.
Andy- have you formally made this suggestion to your LNC representative?
No, but my guess is that this would not pass with the current LNC, or with the delegates who are likely to show up in Austin for the National Convention.
Andy – sounds to me like the Libertarian Party needs to tighten up its presidential nominating rules rather than changing its bylaws. Does the party allow proxy votes at its convention? Unfortunately the Constitution Party does, which is a shame. With them, if only one delegate attends, they can cast multiple votes depending on how many are allocated to that state – all just based upon their own personal opinion. Also with the CP, it only takes two state delegations, which could potentially just be two people, to place a candidate’s name into nomination. Does the Libertarian Party allow states to nominate multiple candidates? Sounds odd, but with the CP, there is no rule and no limit on this. Split delegations are one thing, but the delegation is supposed to be representing its voters. As I have listed on a previous post, the LP currently has over fifty declared candidates. Exactly how many show up at the physical convention is yet to be determined, but things could get messy.
I think tightening up the presidential nominating rules would take changing the By-Laws.
There is no proxy voting in the Libertarian Party.
FORM A N-E-W PARTY WITH AN EQUAL NOMINATING SYSTEM —
BY PARTY MEMBERS ONLY ???
CRISIS NOW MUCH WORSE THAN IN 1854-1860
— NUTCASES IN CONGRESS
— NUTCASE IN OVAL OFFICE
— NUTCASES IN SCOTUS.
LAST HOPE – 18 STATES WITH VOTER PETS FOR STATE CONST AMDTS.
—
PR AND APPV AND TOTSOP
How many of those 1854 NE-KS Act band-aid HACKS survived to count the 1861-1866 dead/injured and see the 13-14-15 Amdts ???
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Kansas_Nebraska_Act.htm
The MONSTER super-HACK Sen Douglas [of the dubious Lincoln-Douglas debates] died 13 June 1861 —
AFTER the first shot at Ft Sumter in April 1861 and BEFORE the 1st Battle of Bull Run in July 1861 [Union Army disaster] – TOTAL Union mobilization in Aug 1861 via various Congress panic laws >>>
doom for slavery in USA – 750,000 DEAD in 1861-1866.