Announcement of candidacy

Don't panic, folks. You don't have another presidential contestant to worry about or anything.

I've served on the Libertarian Party's Judicial Committee before (from 2002-2004). This year, I'm seeking election to that committee once again. If you're a party member, I request your support. If you're a delegate, I request your vote.

Not excited? Entirely understandable. The Judicial Committee elections are almost an afterthought, coming after the "exciting stuff" -- presidential and vice-presidential nominations and LNC elections. We dispensed with electing a Judicial Committee altogether in 2000 after a quorum call and sine die adjournment of the convention in Anaheim. The world did not end.

And, frankly, I can't remember the last time the Judicial Committee had to swing into action -- I'm pretty sure it was in the late 1980s, before I joined the party. The Judicial Committee is an appellate body. It acts only when an action of the National Committee or the national convention is sent to it for review under specific rules (which you can find out more about in the bylaws).

So, if you're still reading, you probably have two questions: Why is this committee important, and why should I vote for Tom Knapp to sit on it?

The Judicial Committee is important because it functions as the LP's "Supreme Court." Its job is to review actions of the national committee on appeal by a percentage of the party's membership (for regular actions), or by suspended committee members or disaffiliated state parties. It may also be called upon to review actions of the national convention as they relate to the Statement of Principles (and can be overruled by that convention in its findings). It's to the party's credit that the Judicial Committee is so seldom called into action -- but it's a necessary party institution.

As to why I am qualified, well, I meet the bylaws qualifications (I'm a party member). Beyond that, I pledge that if a matter is brought before the committee for review, I will adhere to a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the bylaws: They say what they mean and they mean what they say. If overwhelming evidence that an "original intent" trumps my own "strict construction," I'll give that evidence due consideration. I will vote in accordance with that "strict construction," as possibly modified by evidence of "original intent," and I will do so without regard to whether or not my vote gores anyone's ideological ox -- my own included. Finally, I will recuse myself from any appeal to the Judicial Committee which represents a personal conflict of interest.

I believe that service on the Judicial Committee requires personal honesty, respect for truth and fact, and a willingness to apply the party's rules impartially. I leave it to the delegates to judge whether or not I possess those qualities in sufficient measure to properly discharge the duties I'm asking to be given.

[Addenda Q&A: What moved me to run? I was asked by a couple of party members whose views I respect to seek party office, and this is one I'm comfortable with. Always happe to be of service. What effect might my election have on the outcome of this national convention? None whatsoever -- the new Judicial Committee takes office at that convention's close - TLK]

Introducing IPR

Third Party Watch is ... dead? Well, not exactly, but under new management and apparently at least temporarily in harness to Bob Barr's presidential campaign and the Libertarian Reform Caucus. So call it dazed, or stunned, or just maybe undead and coming to eat your brain.

So: Long live Independent Political Report! I've been asked to write there, and expect to do so. Hopefully IPR will fill the niche that TPW seems to be vacating as a place for diverse (as opposed to unbiased) coverage of alternative political parties.

Resist much!

It started off as a silly little conspiracy theory -- too far-fetched to take seriously, almost (but not quite) too silly to discuss publicly even in the age of Art Bell and Alex Jones.

But it bugged me, and I said so. And, over the last week or so, it's gone from far-fetched conspiracy theory to all-but-proven fact:

The Libertarian Party is under attack. Its 2008 presidential nomination is the target of a "hostile takeover" bid by social conservatives, fronted by a former congressman of that persuasion and honchoed by two past practitioners of the art of the party raid, Richard Viguerie and Russ Verney.

How organized is the takeover plot? How deeply are its claws already buried in the Libertarian Party? I don't know.

I do know that one of its principals, Viguerie, was inserted as the convention's keynote speaker when Barr himself withdrew pursuant to setting up his presidential exploratory committee.

I do know that Viguerie bought the premier "third party news site" on the Internet over the weekend and the the new management immediately memory-holed an article (by me) casting Barr in a negative light vis a vis an article which appeared above the fold in Sunday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In fairness, TPW seems to still be giving other candidates fair coverage, although it has given a different spin to the AJC article.

I do know that Viguerie has hired -- and appointed as interim editor of TPW -- the former executive director of the party, who resigned shortly after using his party position to boost a smear campaign against one of Barr's opponents, Mary Ruwart with an official LP press release calling for expanded (!) federal government powers (a release which seems to have now been memory-holed from both the LP site and Viguerie's new, improved Third Party Watch).

I do know I've received forwards of emails soliciting ringers to meet in Columbus, OH for a bus ride to Denver to support Barr -- arriving immediately before the presidential nomination vote and leaving immediately after.

In my opinion, this effort is highly organized, enjoys support within the LP's national office and national committee, and has been in motion for some time. No telling what surprises await in Denver.

It can, however, be derailed.

Delegates:

Regardless of whom you support for the presidential nomination -- including Barr -- if you are an alternate to the convention for your state, I encourage you to confer with other state delegations and, if they are amenable, take a seat as a full delegate with them. I further encourage you to do whatever it takes to close your delegation to packing by last-minute ringers for any candidate.

Regardless of whom you support for the presidential nomination -- including Barr -- I urge you to carefully consider how you handle your delegate tokens, which determine who gets to participate in the Saturday evening candidate debate. In order to participate in the debate, each candidate must collect tokens representing a number of delegates equal to 10% of those who voted in the last presidential nomination contest. That means about 80 tokens.

It is in the party's interest that all the "serious" candidates (in alphabetical order, that list, in my opinion, consists of Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, Steve Kubby, George Phillies, Wayne Allyn Root and Mary Ruwart) receive the opportunity to present their messages, make their arguments, and demonstrate their ability to debate the issues. Before you hand over that token, ask how many tokens the candidate has already collected. If your candidate is already over the threshold, do the party a service and help make sure that the others make it as well.

The Libertarian Party could survive a Barr nomination. There are reasonable arguments that it would even benefit from one. That it could survive a complete takeover of its infrastructure by an outside political bloc is much less certain.

Regardless of whom you support for the nomination, please join with your fellow Libertarians in preserving the party as "a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements."

Regardless of whom you support for the nomination, insist that it be a nomination -- not a coronation.

The thousands of LP members and millions of Americans whose interests we go to Denver to represent deserve nothing less.

Knowhutimean, Verney?

Over at The Atlantic Monthly, Marc Ambinder reproduces Russ Verney's "Barr Strategy Memo," a fundraiser I also received by email earlier today.

The interesting part is Verney's timeline on Ross Perot's 1992 campaign, linked with Verney's assessment that "I believe Congressman Bob Barr has the same potential."

early October: 7% in national surveys
Mid October: wins televised Presidential debate
late October: 12% in national surveys
election day: captures 19% of national vote

Problem is -- as Verney almost certainly knows -- that Perot's 1992 and 1996 performances brought about a change. The "big debates" are now controlled by a bi-partisan (not "non-partisan" -- it's strictly a duopoly preservation tool) Commission on Presidential Debates, and that commission has different standards:

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.

If Barr performs to Verney's assessment of his potential, he almost certainly won't be invited to debate his major party opponents, even if -- as seems unlikely -- he's able to secure the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.

Press-TO Change-O

In earlier posts, I alluded to my plans to blog on the Libertarian Party's national convention at Third Party Watch.

With TPW under new management, I am apparently posterata non grata there, and I received notice this morning that that new management had withdrawn its request to LPHQ for press credentials for myself and two other bloggers, Pauli Cannoli and Michelle Shinghal.

Let me make it clear: This was not LPHQ denying the credentials (as it did, for whatever reason, with Last Free Voice blogger GE Smith), it was the publication which I had previously been affiliated with ending that affiliation (at least for purposes of convention coverage, and I don't anticipate writing there any more except as a commenter).

As a matter of fact, Andrew Davis at LPHQ promptly honored my request for press credentials on my own hook as publisher of Rational Review, which reaches thousands of LP and libertarian movement readers through its daily newsletter and its ISIL rebrand, Freedom News Daily.

So, I'm not complaining. The press credentials were secondary anyway -- I'm not looking to raid banquets without buying a package or anything, I just want access to press events and the media room so I can get the job done.

Here's what you can expect to see (and hear) from me as a reporter at the convention:

- "The LP National Convention is Decadent and Depraved" -- periodic podcasts from the convention.

- As convenient, blogging or liveblogging here on KN@PPSTER.

- As also convenient, cross-posting of that blogging/liveblogging at Rational Review.

- Subsequent "hot washup" articles here, or at Rational Review, or elsewhere (which will, most likely, be blurbed and linked in Rational Review News Digest).

Tune in. This convention promises to be some kind of bastard hybrid of 9/11 and The Thrilla in Manila. And maybe pole dancing during the intermissions.