The American Independent Party of California will hold its state convention on June 8-10, either in Sacramento or West Sacramento. On June 9 the party will choose its presidential nominee. In 2008 the party chose Alan Keyes for President.
The American Independent Party of California will hold its state convention on June 8-10, either in Sacramento or West Sacramento. On June 9 the party will choose its presidential nominee. In 2008 the party chose Alan Keyes for President.
To any AIP of California official:
Will you allow Jack Fellure to speak to the AIP Convention there in West Sacramento on June 9th and ask for the AIP presidential nomination?
He had asked earlier to be placed on the AIP Presidential Primary ballot, but for some reason he was not added.
So the question is, will you allow him to appear at the Convention and seek your presidential nomination?
I am confused. Isn’t the AIP the same as America’s Party? After the coup, they changed the name of the AIP to America’s Independent Party and then recently dropped the “Independent” part. According to http://politics1.com/p2012.htm , they have already nominated Alan Keyes Kool-Aid drinkers Tom Hoefling and J.D. Ellis.
Jeff Becker: Not exactly. It is my understanding the California AIP did affiliate in 2008 with what was called on the national level “America’s Independent Party” supporting Alan Keyes. And you are right the national group recently dropped the word “Independent” (for what reason I have no idea)calling themselves now simply “America’s Party” but they are already having trouble using the new name is some states (such as Florida) where there is already a recognized American Party and (as I understand) election officials are not allowing the “America’s Party” in Florida to operate with that name in Florida.
Others reading this might know more about this. But this is the way I understand what is going on.
Any chance they nominate the Constitution Party’s Nominee?
Thanks Alabama. National versus state party names. That hadn’t registered. I was thinking all California.
IS JACK ON THE BALLOT ANYWHERE?IVE KNOWN HIM SICE 1992 HOWEVER AS FOR THE PROHIBITION PARTY JIM HEDGES EARNED THAT NOMINATION FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE, AS FOR THE AIP NOD IN CA , ANYONE WHO EMBRACES THE PLATFORM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SEEK THE NOMINATION. JACK FELLURE IF HE WOULD CAMPAIGN WOULD BE A GREAT CANDIDATE HE WOULD APPEAL TO SENIORS AND RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES, THIS IS AMERICA I SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF ANYONE TO SEEK AND PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS, BALLOT STATUS IN CA WOULD BE A BOOST TO ANY CANDIDATE, THE AIP PRIMARY IS JUST A BEAUTY CONTEST
Nominate by convention? Is this something new for the CA AIP? Is there a way to have a primary to offer voters choices? A small convention will almost guarantee continuance of the crazies who’ve practically run AIP into the ground. A state primary with Virgil Goode as a candidate will at least offer CA voters a sane choice come November.
#7, the AIP of California has always chosen its presidential nominee by convention. The presidential primary contest for the AIP has always just been a beauty contest.
All minor party presidential primaries are just beauty contests, except the Green Party says its presidential primaries are binding.
Pingback: American Independent Party of California Sets its Presidential Convention Date | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Why would this group nominate the CP candidate. I think the CP should get its own ballot line and become a political party in California. Otherwise just support the Libertarian party candidate in California.
Kevin Says: February 23rd, 2012
“Any chance they nominate the Constitution Party’s Nominee?”
[a] Pete, you are entitled to your [California AIP] opinion, no matter how misguided
[b] Old California AIP / national CP as grossly unethical and dysfunctional
[c] do not expect a warm, lovey dovey reception
I believe Virgil Goode’s name will come up and be seriously considered.
I’m still waiting for any official of the California AIP to answer my original question of will the AIP allow Jack Fellure to speak to the AIP Convention there in West Sacramento on June 9th and ask for the AIP presidential nomination?
He had asked earlier to be placed on the AIP Presidential Primary ballot, but for some reason he was not added.
So again, the question is, will you allow him to appear at the Convention and seek your presidential nomination?
its a damn shame these parties and i mean every political party can treat potentional candidates with no respect . this is pitiful
To Rick Knox (#6): Seniors who are religious conservatives already have a party here in the Golden State. It is called the Republican Party and it is slowly but surely turning into a minor-sized party (partly because most moderates do not feel comfortable in the GOP anymore). With all due respect to you and to Mr. Lowell “Jack” Fellure, the American Independent Party of California needs to move to the left (or at least to the center) rather than further to the right.
Phil Sawyer
Philippe L. Sawyer, Member:
Sacramento County Central Committee
Peace and Freedom Party of California
PHIL, HAS YOUR PARTY PICKED ITS NOMINEES YET? IF MY MEMORY SERVES MR RIGHT DR SPOCK WAS YOU CANDIDATE IN 1972
No, it has not. The presidential and vice-presidential ticket will be selected at our State Nominating Convention to be held August 4-5 (from what I have been told so far). You are correct; Dr. Benjamin Spock was the presidential nominee in 1972. In 1976, Dr. Spock was the vice-presidential nominee and Ms. Margaret Wright was the presidential nominee.
To Phil Sawyer: I agree the California AIP needs to “move” philosphically, but it needs to move into the “populist” wing of American politics – not to the left (as you suggest) or to the “liberal” wing. As far as the right or the “conservative” wing, the GOP already has the market on that as you correctly point out. If you or others would take the time to read Jack Fellure’s positions on the major issues, you would be surprised that he is not echoing the GOP’s conservative position. He addresses issues which neither the Democratic or Republican parties will address. This is again why the California AIP leadership needs to seriously consider Mr. Fellure as their nominee.
Thank you, “Alabama Independent” (#18) for your response. I do think that Mr. Fellure should be allowed on the AIP’s primary ballot and that he should be allowed to speak at that party’s State Nominating Convention in June. I also admit that I do not know very much about today’s Prohibition Party.
As far as where the AIP should position itself on the political spectrum, that is (of course) something that the people in the Party must decide. I would like to suggest, though, that if the Party moved more toward the left on economic issues (more “populist” as you suggested), it would attract many more members. We are probably in pretty close agreement there. Beyond that, though, I also would like to mention that, not counting AIP, we already have five other capitalist parties on the ballot in California: Americans Elect; Democratic; Green, Republican; and Libertarian. The Peace and Freedom Party is the only ballot qualified politial party in the Golden State that offers democratic socialism.
Well, I was not finished with editing my message (#19) and I somehow hit the “Submit Comment” button too soon. It may be too early to classify the Americans Elect Party. In addition, I did not spell “political” correctly in the last sentence and I wanted to fix that.
Hi, I’m Markham Robinson, the often-vilified Chairman of the Executive Committee of the State Central Committee of the American Independent Party of California. I seldom contribute to any thread of this biased web site that refuses to face facts and recognize the American Independent Party’s State Central Committee and its leaders as the AIP’s legitimate party organization thus taking the losing side in a dispute that has been decided in Court in favor of the American Independent Party’s Elections Code, AIP Bylaws, Robert’s Rules of Order-obeying Party Organization.
It’s time to face facts, if you want any guarantee of information from AIP party officials, soon BTW to once again be a national party, not just the 3rd largest California party.
FYI, we submitted 14 names to the Secretary of State including likely CP Presidential nominee Virgil Goode. We also submitted Phil Berg of natural birth challenge fame. I contacted Buddy Roemer’s campaign about the possibility of being on our Presidential Preference Primary (Beauty Contest) ballot in June 2012, but they weren’t interested then. I see I should contact them again about being submitted to our Convention in June.
We will be filing a lawsuit to force the Secretary to do her duty according to the Elections Code and not in a capricious manner.
Yes, I can confirm that our “Presidential Primary” has always been a beauty contest. And yes, I can confirm that the real nomination that gets someone on the November ballot as a true Presidential candidate is and always has been from 1968 on, the vote at our quadrennial Presidential nominating convention.
In fact the California Elections Code gives the AIP of California the power to ignore the choice of Presidential nominee of its national party.
The AIP of CA’s national party affiliation is still officially America’s Independent Party, despite the fact it’s changed its name. A’sIP recently made it clear that unless the AIP of CA adopts their loose construction of the Constitution based on their version of natural law, that the CA AIP is unwelcome in their party. As we are still and always have been a State’s rights party, there was small chance of that!
In the light of these developments, I have now been given the go-ahead by our Executive Committee to draft a national party plan for the AIP. I am also in process of developing model bylaws for AIP County Central Committees that use Caucuses to select their members rather than the primary process. In the future I expect these caucuses to produce at their upper levels all of our Convention Delegates, State Central Committee members and candidates. It will be 2016 before the fruits of these efforts are ripe.
However, the AIP of CA has some cards with which we have realistic efforts of making a significant contribution to the defeat of Barack Obama in this 2012 election cycle. I have three such cards and I am not revealing any of them at this time, although 1 of them should be obvious to the astute!
“realistic efforts” ==> “realistic prospects”
I am also going to propose an amendment to the AIP of CA’s Bylaws that places the winner of the “Beauty Contest” in nomination at our Presidential Nominating Convention.
Right now we have 3 SOS-designated candidates “generally-recognized candidates” on our Beauty Contest ballot: Edward C. Noonan, Mad Max Riekse, and Laurie Roth.
At the moment I expect Noonan, Roth, Berg, Roemer & Goode to be nominated at our Convention in June 2012.
Oh yes, Jack Fellure may also be placed in nomination if we still have any Prohibitionists in our midst! ROFL
He wasn’t in our submission of 14 candidates by an oversight. Mark Seidenberg’s disposition was to include quite a number of marginal candidates for reasons of his own. In the future I expect that the Chairman will not be able to make such recommendations to the SOS without approval of the SCC of the AIP or its Executive Committee, as I will be proposing a Bylaws Amendment to that effect which has excellent prospects of passage.
And a very big “Oops!”
Another person certain to be nominated at our Convention is the Tom Hoefling who received abuse in an earlier comment in this thread. It is certain that he will be nominated, because I myself will put him in nomination.
Of course being one of the seven people possibly nominated at our State Presidential nominating convention is no guarantee of election as our candidate. Other candidates may appear. Some of the seven may not end up even nominated.
We are still open to suggestions, particularly if they are appealing enough to defeat Barack Obama in the California General Election in November 2012.
To Markham Robinson: I am happy that an official of the California AIP has finally responded to the threads of this post. I only wish Richard Winger could place a more current post regarding this issue so that those logging on and interested in the latest threads do not have to keep looking to previous entries to find this post and read what is the latest.
I do have one question. Why do you think there has to be some “Prohibitionists” in attendance at the AIP Convention for someone to nominate Jack Fellure? You obviously do not know what other issues Jack Fellure and Prohibitionists advocate. You might be surprise(and enlightened)if you read some of Jack Fellure’s positions papers and of the pary’s recent platforms. But what is wrong with someone advocating governmental policies which might address the damage which Alcohol, Tobacco, and Gambling has done to this nation? It has been estimated by some that as much as 40% of the taxes (federal, state, and local) go to pay for the health care, law enforcement, and social services of those negatively affected by Alcohol, Tobacco, and Gambling.
On the other hand, if you are one of those who doesn’t mind paying some 40% extra in taxes so that people might have the right to drink Alcohol, smoke Tobacco, or foolishly engage in Gambling, then this is your right – and your tax money. If you believe these “liberties” are a justifiable “costly tradeoff” then this is your right.
But if you want a candidate who believes we need to get out of the United Nations, then Jack Fellure is that candidate.
But if you want a candidate who believes we need to get out of the Federal Reserve System, then Jack Fellure is that candidate.
But if you want a candidate who believes we need to stop trading with China and stop our jobs and factories being moved overseas, then Jack Fellure is that candidate.
But if you want a candidate who believes in the 10th
Amendment and allowing the states to do those things now being ursurped by the federal government, then Jack Fellure is that candidate.
I could go on and on. And I take your word that his name not being on the AIP Prmary was an oversight. But such does not keep you, or anyone else attending the Convention as a delegate, from nominating and voting for Jack Fellure.
So why don’t you make up for the “error” of his name not being placed on the AIP Primary? Why not personally invite him to the AIP State Convention?
Wow. With all due respect to Mr. Lowell “Jack” Fellure (who should be on the AIP presidential primary ballot and who should be allowed to speak at that Party’s State Nominating Convention in June); and with all due respect to “An Alabama Independent”: Mr. Fellure is not very well known and the Party should be looking for a famous person to be its presidential candidate.
Of course, I do not belong to that Party (and my own Party does not have any well known candidates either at the present time). Nevertheless, is it not reasonable for people to expect more well known people to represent their parties?
If it makes Markham feel better, I no longer stand with Don Grundmann; haven’t for awhile anyways- in fact his persistent vindictiveness undermines the healing and negotiations between the warring factions of the AIP (or formally part of the AIP).
Its been 4 years since 2008 and the fighting has gone on long enough; many people are sick of it, including me.
Personally, me and Mark Seidenberg have buried the hatchet on a few matters and both the AIP and IAP will be working closely together in the near future.
In the meantime, its good that the AIP will put Virgil Goode on their primary ballot and hope that he wins & that he will be the AIP’s choice for president, since it looks like after Ron Paul gets knocked out at the GOP national convention, he will be the only constitutionalist & principled conservative choice for prez.
And a word of advice for both Marks and the AIP; even if reunification with the CP is impossible, at least consider joining with another third party that’s already organized, instead of starting from scratch.
#27, California Secretary of State rejected Virgil Goode from the AIP presidential primary ballot. It is always possible she will reconsider. He hadn’t formally declared when she rejected him.
To Phil Sawyer #26. I appreciate your defense of Jack Fellure’s right to have been included on the AIP Primary ballot. And I agree he is not that well-known, but he is one that will stand by what he says he believes in.
Have you noticed, Phil, that the other threaders to this post ignores my comments about where Jack Fellure stands on other issues? Have you noticed not any them -who are supposed to be strong “anti-tax” advocates, will not touch the issue of how Alcohol, Tobacco, and Gambling are beleived to account for %40 of the taxes spent by government to treat the negative results of such activities being made legal?
One would think the AIP, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party – all being “anti-tax” parties, would grab this issue and run with it. I wonder why not?
To “Alabama Independent” (#29):
Party of the reason for people not taking on that issue could be because it is rather complex. One should give some real thought about such matters before commenting.
To Cody Quirk (#27):
That is really wonderful that you and Mark Seidenberg “have buried the hatchet on a few matters and both the AIP and IAP will be working closely together in the near future.” I think that by doing so, it shows real manhood and maturity on the part of both of you. In addition, it will help all of us to better challenge the two-party oligarchy in this country.
What I meant to write (in #30, above) was “Part of the reason …”; not “Party of the reason …”
To Phil Sawyer #30. The issue is not that complex. Just ask the law enforcement agencies, the medical care professionals, and the various social services how much of their expenditures are spent for the costs of dealing with people whose legal, medical, or social activities or conditions are related to either Alcohol, Tobacco, and/or Gambling. It costs you and me tax dollars to treat the negatives of these activities and conditions.
No, the problem is many – if not most – of these “anti-taxers” regardless of 3rd party – love to drink, smoke, and gamble. But they’ll turn around and in the same breath lambast government tax money spent on education, social security, and medicare, but “mums the word” on those other expenditures listed above. How hypocritical.
Are you advocating that alcohol, tobacco, and gambling be prohibited?
Richard, Seidenberg told me he was going to challenge the SoS’s decision about Virgil Goode.
Yes AI, I maybe be persistent & stubborn, but when the writing is on the wall, its time to come to your senses and switch gears.
To Phil Sawyer #33.
“Are you advocating that alcohol, tobacco, and gambling be prohibited?”
Well let me answer you by asking this. Are you in favor of allowing the legal activity (sale, usage, etc.)of any commodity or activity that costs taxpapers more than it brings in in revenue? Do you think we should continue allowing illegal immigrants to come to this country, even though the cost of dealing with them are more than the taxes they pay from the work they perform?
gladly joining this party for the first time. ihope thigs will be better in our party and also our planet earth.may everything will be okay for the near futer. sincerly, danny.