Buttrick v. Root

Hat tip to Mike Renzulli (via the LP Radicals list) and Freedom's Phoenix, which just posted video of a speech given by Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court Judge John Buttrick at the 2009 "Freedom Summit."

What qualifies Buttrick to opine on the future of the Libertarian Party? Well, he's a Libertarian. He's been a party activist for decades. That should be plenty, but there's more -- in November of 2008, he got more votes for retention as a judge in one single Arizona county than the LP's presidential ticket got nationwide.

Buttrick's speech was supposed to be a debate with Wayne Allyn Root -- the Libertarian Party's 2008 vice-presidential candidate, failed CEO, and candidate for chairmanship of the Libertarian National Committee.

Root ducked the event. Smart move. Watch the speech if you want to know why. Buttrick's talk begins about nine minutes in, but the extended intro by Ernie Hancock is worth a listen, too.



Update, 02/04/10: Wow ... I actually stopped listening to this video at the end of Judge Buttrick's formal speech and skipped the Q&A. Bruce Cohen clued me in to the fact that I'm mentioned in the Q&A and that Judge Buttrick wrote in the Boston Tea Party's 2008 presidential ticket -- presidential candidate Charles Jay and Arizona "favorite son" VP nominee Barry Hess (I was the BTP's national VP nominee and appeared on the ballot in Tennessee). Very, very cool -- and I agree with his comments on the BTP in general, by the way.

Thoughts on the BTP's "meatspace gathering"

I just spent a tremendously enjoyable weekend in Kansas City at the second annual Boston Tea Party "meatspace gathering." Thanks to Jim Davidson for putting this event together. Notes and asides:

At one point "confirmed" attendees for the event numbered in the 30s. The actual active1 attendance was 50, but only with application of the Bob and Doug McKenzie metric conversion factor ("double it and add 30"). Folks, if you aren't going to attend an event, don't RSVP "yes, I'll be there!"

That said, having only ten (non-metric) people in attendance allowed for a nice, intimate "roundtable" affair.

A plurality of attendees were in one way or another formally affiliated with, and damn near all would likely characterize themselves as supporters of, the Alliance of the Libertarian Left. Two attendees were past vice-presidential candidates, two were current presidential candidates, two were past chairs of the Boston Tea Party, one was a past and one a present "public official." One was "a vegan, but not an asshole," the rest were apparently omnivores. Attendees came from as far afield as California and Maryland. 20% of active attendees and 23% of nominal attendees were female. I could probably think of other ways to demographically describe the makeup of the event, but enough's enough.

I had considered trotting out my stump speech as a presidential candidate, but even in advance that didn't feel quite right.

By the time we got to Kansas City, my intent was to riff on William Blake's maxim, "the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." I won't try to pass that off as particularly original ... it just struck me as a new and possibly attractive skin for some of L. Neil Smith's hardcore "don't move to the center, move the center" wine.

By the time Brad Spangler was done with his presentation, it was clear that the weekend was going to be given to brainstorming on the best ways to raise revolutionary consciousness, and to hashing out strategy in terms of "politics" versus "anti-politics." I can't think of group better coincidentally composed for the purpose of such a discussion.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I came home with a lot to think about, including how to convert one of my own digressions into a paper. Seeing as how Spangler referred to that digression as "maybe the most sophisticated argument" he'd ever heard in favor of engaging in electoral politics as part of an anarchist/agorist strategy, it seems like a worthwhile thing to follow up on.

In honor of our own counting methodology, we split the evening between English (12 oz.) and metric (750 ml.) units of measurement. It occasionally got loud, but it never got ugly. A good time. Thanks again, Jim!

[update: Jim Davidson has posted his opening remarks from the gathering here]

-----

1. There were actually 13 people who came to Kansas City for events, but three of them -- Tamara and our sons -- took their anti-politics all the way and spent most of their time on recreation rather than on formal event participation. I think they may be onto something.

Announcement of candidacy

Fellow libertarians,

I initially planned to announce my 2012 candidacy for the presidency of the United States on April 6th, 2009, from the steps of the Old St. Louis Courthouse (history buffs shouldn't have too much trouble figuring out why), and I still intend to conduct a campaign event of some kind at that time and in that place.

I see, however, that others are already lining up with formal announcements or at least clear indications of their own intent ... and when a fight's brewing, I prefer to get in early.

It is therefore my distinct pleasure to announce that I will seek the 2012 presidential nominations of the Libertarian Party and the Boston Tea Party.

Why run for president -- and why, especially, for the presidential nominations of two parties which together usually account for less than one percent of the popular vote in presidential elections?

I could give you lots of reasons, but I'm going to stick with three for the moment: There are some hard truths that need to be told, I'm interested in telling them, and they're most effectively told from a bully pulpit.

Among those those hard truths are that the political wing of the libertarian movement will never make substantial progress toward its goals so long as it clings to the apron strings of the failed movements and parties of the past, remains in orbit around the present political "center," or falls prey to cargo-cultish notions of what constitutes "serious" politics.

If we want a libertarian future, we must create that future, not hope that our political opponents drag us along to it. They won't. They're not going in the direction we want to go in, they have no desire to go in the direction we want to go in, and to the extent that they're interested in us at all, they regard us either as fuel to be consumed or ballast to be dumped overboard at the earliest opportunity. I don't blame them. We haven't yet given them reason to regard us as a true threat to their power. It's time to change that.

As my friend and mentor L. Neil Smith once observed, "great men don't move to the center, they move the center." It's a big center, folks. Moving it will require a long lever, with us at the far end. I don't claim to be a great man ... but I hope to be part of a great movement, and to help that movement get further out on the lever and put some weight on it.

Insofar as cargo-cultism and "seriousness" are concerned, rest assured that I have nothing against suits and ties, friendly media interviews and the other requirements of realpolitick. What I do oppose is the absurd notion that waving around "mainstreamism" like some kind of voodoo fetish will magically boost us to competitive stature versus our older, more established opponents. It won't.

The future of the libertarian movement, if it is has one, requires a principled populist approach rooted in class theory. Not the theory of the socialists (labor versus capital) or of the liberals and conservatives (ad hoc identity politics adjusted to appeal to society's phobias du jour), but rather the theory of the productive class (those who make their living through work and voluntary exchange and cooperation) versus the political class (those who siphon off as much of that productive activity as they can get away with, using the coercive apparatus of the state, for their own ends).

For these reasons, the first phase of my campaign will largely be internal to the parties and the movement; as we move on, it will become more outwardly focused, of course, but first things first.

My fundamental goal in seeking the nominations of the LP and the BTP is not to achieve those nominations or to be elected President of the United States. It is to help the libertarian movement outfit itself for a journey yet to begin -- a journey which that movement has stood stock still at the starting point of for nearly four decades now. If I achieve that goal, the nominations and the election results are of secondary importance, as I'm certain others are at least as qualified as I am to march at the front of the column. If I do not achieve those goals, then the nominations and the election results will resemble John Nance Garner's description of the importance of the Vice Presidency of the United States: "Not worth a bucket of warm spit."

I look forward to an exciting campaign, and I humbly request the support of all who value the future of freedom.

Yours in liberty,
Thomas L. Knapp
Knapp2012.Com

Some thoughts on the Boston Tea Party

As the founder and 2008 national vice-presidential nominee of the Boston Tea Party, that party is naturally on my mind a lot, especially as it wraps up its second biennial national convention and nears its first presidential election. And, also naturally, I find myself saying various things about it to various people (including, as of a few minutes ago, a reporter for the Associated Press).

Some of the points I'm trying to make keep coming up, so they seem worth writing down in one place ... like maybe here.

When I founded the BTP, I held out hope that it would, sooner or later, merge back into the Libertarian Party as an internal caucus. That's obviously not going to happen. With the nomination of its own presidential slate and the placement of that slate on several state ballots, our split from the LP at the national organizational level is complete. The split also proceeds apace at the state level as we recognize new affiliates which are likely to seek their own ballot access in 2010 and beyond.

Where that split is concerned, I once viewed it with trepidation, but that view has now changed to one of hope. The LP had a 36-year virtual monopoly and head start on cornering the libertarian political niche in America -- yet the BTP appears to be doing better coming into that competitive niche for the first time than the LP did when the niche was effectively uncontested.

We have more members than the LP did as of its first presidential election. We're on the ballot in more states than the LP was as of its first presidential election. I expect that our presidential slate will outpoll the LP's first presidential slate.

The LP appears to be unable to expand the American libertarian political niche against its major party opposition, or to defend its monopoly on that niche versus newcomers.

Enter Darwin. Personally, I expect that the next major stage of the Boston Tea Party's growth will include several state Libertarian Parties disaffiliating from the Libertarian National Committee and re-affiliating under the BTP umbrella.

The obvious cause to point to for the current situation -- up-and-coming BTP, LP teetering on the edge of the dustbin of history -- is the descent of the LP as a national organization into cargo-cultism. The nomination of the 2008 Libertarian Party Barr-Root ticket represented a final triumph of image over substance, and now we're watching that image crumble to dust under the wind of apathy. Image can't survive or thrive on its own. Without substance, it is dead.

Beyond the obvious, however, the BTP has its own reasons for optimism. We are a "principled populist" party, not just in rhetoric but in action. Just as we oppose the rule of "power elites" (in libertarian class theory, the political class) in the world at large, we deny those elites the ability to run our own party.

We are an activist-powered party -- our national committee is constrained by our bylaws from becoming a money sink, and therefore from becoming a central planning board. If something gets done, it's because our members want it to be done and go out and do it. Ernie Hancock, your new party is calling -- your approach failed in the LP because the Politburo/Commissar structure had already taken firm root before you tried so valiantly to shatter it.

We are a genuine mass-participation party. If you want to be involved, you don't have to travel hundreds of miles, shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars, and miss a week of work every time there's a convention. You don't have to send a representative and hope that representative actually represents you. If you're a member of our party, you can take part in its business activities via any Internet connection.

Finally, we're a consistently "smaller-government" party. Our platform isn't going to be cut by 3/4th at one convention and completely re-built at the next like the LP's has. It's perpetual and unmodifiable:

"The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose."

Until and unless the state is completely eliminated, we will always be the party agitating to make it smaller tomorrow than it is today. That's the standard the national LP is going to have to meet if it wants to recapture its place of primacy in the freedom movement ... and I no longer believe that it can, or will, or even wants to, meet that standard.

I realize that many fellow libertarians whom I know and respect will continue to cling to the LP for some time ... and that's okay. I continue to work in my state LP and plan to do so for at least awhile longer. Breaking up is hard to do. I urge those libertarians remaining in the LP to think of the BTP as an ally, not an enemy. Our existence is an incentive to the LP to become better at what it does, and to think harder about what it wants to do. If it responds negatively to that incentive (as I believe it will continue to do), at least it no longer holds the claim over your head that "you have no place else to go." Because now you do.

[Cross-posted at the Boston Tea Party web site and Last Free Voice]

Buy the ticket, take the ride

Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party's candidate for President of the United States.

Readers of this blog know that I'm no Paul cultist. And, while I haven't belabored the point (I prefer to ignore them), I keep the Constitution Party lower than the Democrats, lower even than the Republicans, on my preference list. Put a gun to my head, I might vote for John McCain to save my miserable life. If it's Baldwin, though, go ahead and pull the trigger. You can splatter my brains all over the wall before you can have my vote for him. Cigarette, blindfold and mason jar full of cheap bourbon first, if you don't mind too terribly much.

Thing is, it didn't have to be this way. It could have been prevented. Hell, it took herculean efforts on the part of the Libertarian Party and Bob Barr's presidential campaign to make it happen.

The Libertarian Party could have held out for a libertarian presidential slate. It had several good candidates to choose from. Instead, it decided to play cargo cult dress-up games and nominate a duplicate Republican ticket.

Bob Barr could have shown up to the Campaign For Liberty event he committed to participate in, smiled, accepted a handshake from Paul, and walked out without an exclusive endorsement but with more money and more votes than he had walked in with. Instead, he chose to cancel at the last minute, make an ass of himself (and his party) in public by trying to upstage Paul, and piss off the voter bloc that constitutes the closest thing to a libertarian groundswell since at least the 1964 Goldwater campaign, probably since Grover Cleveland's 1892 anti-tariff/hard-money run for a second non-consecutive term, and just maybe since 1776.

Even after that, the Libertarian National Committee could have minimized the damage. It could have issued an apology to Paul and C4L, on the LP's behalf, for Barr's antics. It could have even, in extremis, removed Barr as the party's presidential nominee. Instead, the LNC gridlocked -- its Irresponsibility Caucus met proposals for an apology with proposals for further insult, and neither side prevailed. Unfortunately, either the Irresponsibility Caucus or the Barr campaign apparently has de facto operational control of LPHQ, which has issued a stream of communiques designed to make the situation worse, not better.

It took three massive systemic failures -- at the convention level, at the campaign level, and at the national committee level -- to bring about the current situation. All of those failures were avoidable. The party and the campaign chose not to prevent them. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

The LP is broken, big-time. This year is pretty much shot. Barr looks set to raise a little more money, and probably pull down a few more votes on his name recognition, than Michael Badnarik, the LP's 2004 candidate whom Barr's acolytes have so much enjoyed laughing down their noses at. I doubt more than ever that Barr will bust the 1980 Ed Clark ceiling and reach a million votes, and even if he did, it would be a poison pill -- the more attention he attracts, the more silly and less serious the LP looks.

Can the LP be fixed? Should it be fixed, at least in anything resembling its current form? So far as I can tell, The Libertarian National Committee's main function at this point is to serve as a live demonstration of the futility of central planning and top-down politics.

The LNC also no longer has a monopoly on libertarian partisan politics at the national level. The Boston Tea Party may only be on the ballot in three states this year, but I seem to recall that that's one more ballot line than the LP made its first time out. If the LNC system continues to fail partisan libertarians, they -- as individuals, and as state Libertarian Party organizations -- have somewhere else to go.

That swirling sound you hear ...

... is Bob Barr's presidential campaign circling the drain of history.

Brief recap:

Barr was scheduled to appear with Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader at a press conference yesterday to endorse a joint four-point issues statement on which all these candidates (and Boston Tea Party candidate Charles Jay) agree.

At the last minute, Barr canceled, with campaign manager Russ Verney allegedly giving as the excuse "it just isn't worth it." When a Campaign For Liberty official, Don Rasmussen, asked Barr campaign deputy director Shane Cory what was up with that, he alleges that Cory's reply was "go f**k yourself." Barr then held his own press conference, grandstanding on Paul's name with an offer of the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential slot, while Verney, the campaign, and LPHQ spun like mad about how this "demonstrates Barr's leadership" and how Barr would be lowered by appearing on stage with someone "like" Cynthia McKinney. Over the last 24 hours, the Barr campaign has continued to run smack on Paul.

Now for a brief digression, just to make things crystal clear: Nobody with two or more functioning neurons is going to accuse me of being a Paul sycophant. I opposed his GOP presidential campaign and believe it did significant damage to the libertarian movement (the newsletter scandal, the pork-mongering, the anti-gay and anti-immigrant BS, etc.). If you don't believe me, Google "Ron Paul" and this blog's URL.

But that doesn't matter, for three reasons:

- One of the major premises and promises of the Barr campaign -- from well before his announcement that he was considering running, going at least back to his sponsorship of a motion on the Libertarian National Committee asking Paul to seek the LP's nomination -- was that Barr would appeal to the Paul voter and supporter bloc. No need to belabor that. Read the history. It's all there in the search engines.

Hint: You don't deliver a voter bloc by monkeywrenching that bloc's hero's event, trying to upstage him, telling his supporters to "go f**k themselves," claiming you're too big and important to appear on a stage with him and other presidential candidates, then talking about him like he's a fool and a knave out of one side of your mouth while offering him the second fiddle position in your own failing effort out of the other, all the while blowing about how this bundle of nonsense constitutes "leadership."

- Secondly, Barr's delusions of grandeur and absurd strategies aside, Barr isn't just a presidential candidate, he's the presidential candidate of a party, the Libertarian Party. That party has longstanding ties to Ron Paul, who was its 1988 presidential nominee. At one point, polling indicated that more than seven of every 10 LP members wanted to run Paul on the LP ticket again this year. Whether I liked it or not -- and often I didn't -- Libertarians across the country put gallons of sweat into building bridges with the Paul movement over the last 18 months. I don't know if Barr has succeeded in burning those bridges with his antics yet or not ... but make no mistake about it, he's poured gasoline on those bridges and he's capering around them with a Zippo^® in one hand, a can of accelerant in the other, and a deranged grin on his face.

- Thirdly, the Paul press conference was a no-brainer. It was a major media opportunity with no down side. It was a cake walk. All Barr had to do was stand on a stage with four other people, at least two of whom are more famous and well-thought-of by the public than he'll ever be, smile and say nice things about an issues statement that every last freedom-loving American can wholeheartedly sign on to, and watch the money and votes roll in. It was seemingly impossible to screw this up. But -- wouldn't you know it? -- the Barr campaign found a way to turn a cake walk into a fiasco, just like his old party seems to do every time.

The Barr campaign broke its promise to try to deliver the Paul voter bloc yesterday. The Barr campaign created a major schism between the Libertarian Party on one hand, and a major ally of the LP and his supporters on the other, yesterday. And the Barr campaign demonstrated the most mind-blowingly blind level of incompetence and inability to discern opportunities to even promote its own candidate yesterday.

And they don't seem inclined to even try to stop the bleeding.

The Libertarian National Committee needs to issue an abject, no-exceptions, no-excuses apology to Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty for its presidential candidate's misbehavior, repudiate that misbehavior, and dissociate itself from that misbehavior. Actually, it needed to do that yesterday afternoon, and the clock is ticking. That's what it owes to Paul, to Paul's supporters, to the Campaign for Liberty, and to the LP members who resemble all those descriptions. And, for that matter, that's what it owes to the Barr campaign. Sometimes supporting the presidential campaign, as it is the LNC's obligation to do, entails at least trying to clean up the presidential campaign's messes.

The Libertarian National Committee also needs to take up the question -- i.e. get a motion made, seconded, and in play -- to remove Barr as its presidential candidate. Barr has arguably attacked the party's interests multiple times -- in terms of publicly espousing positions that conflict with the party's Statement of Principles, and in terms of running a campaign that embarrasses, misrepresents, and diminishes the credibility of, the party. If the LNC doesn't take official notice of that and deal with it by considering its options under the party's bylaws, then the LNC is a dead stick and should stop wasting the members' money on the pretense that it is a real board overseeing the real operations of a real political party.

Three down, 47 to go ...

OK, so we're not going to get another 47 this year, but there may still be a few more states coming up.

The Boston Tea Party's presidential slate is on the ballot in Colorado, submitted petition signatures and elector statements in Tennessee earlier this month, and submitted elector statements in Florida today.

Although I'm the national vice-presidential nominee, so far I'll only appear alongside presidential nominee Charles Jay on the ballot as such in Tennessee. I've been encouraging the BTP's state parties to run "favorite sons or daughters" in each state, so the BTP's VP slot is filled in Colorado by Dan Sallis, Jr. and in Florida by John Wayne Smith.

I suppose we could stretch this to five states: The BTP's national committee has endorsed the Libertarian Party's ticket of George Phillies and Chris Bennett in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Congratulations to the BTP on accomplishing so much, especially given its bumpy road to reorganization and reactivation earlier this year!

On Testicular Fortitude

Voter: Really, I’m a Libertarian at heart.
David Bergland: Well, when it reaches your balls, give me a call.

That's from a post at Positive Liberty by Jim Babka of Downsize DC. Best. LP. Quote. Ever.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking: Knapp's gonna give Babka what for over his treatment of the Boston Tea Party and Charles Jay's excoriation of Barr.

Nope. I want to talk about that, but not in precisely the way you might think.

It's true that I've sworn off my support for the Barr campaign, and that I've described Barr's candidacy as Dixiecrat 2008, and I stand by that characterization. Having already rhetorically positioned Barr alongside Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Lester Maddox, I didn't feel any great need to weigh in on his Jesse Helms eulogy. Coals to Newcastle and all that.

And I do want to respond briefly to Babka on two points, so let's get that out of the way:

I don't know if this party will have their candidate on a single ballot. They appear to exist entirely for unherdable cats, hell-bent on criticizing the LP.

As it happens, the Boston Tea Party's presidential ticket is on the ballot in Colorado, will be on the ballot in Florida and Guam, and will likely manage several other states (we're looking at possibles in Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and New Jersey). We've got nine state affiliates with more organizing right now. We got started too late this year to run down-ticket slates of our own, but we're endorsing and aiding a number of independents and candidates of other parties who in turn endorse our platform. One prospective endorsee, an LP candidate, just emailed me to mention that she had received a campaign contribution just from asking for our endorsement.

Ultimately, we're not anti-Libertarian Party ... we're pro-libertarian. Conditions are such that that may be less than perfectly clear to all right now, but we'll get there.

I'm not going to apologize for Charles Jay's critique. He said some things that needed to be said -- not just because they're true, but because at this point in its existence, the Boston Tea Party very much needs to explain itself to the rest of the freedom movement. We need our fellow libertarians to understand why we're doing what we're doing.

Nonetheless, I don't think that Jim's criticism is entirely unjustified. So far, the BTP's existence and career as a party has been closely tied to various critiques of the LP. That's just a fact. There's no disputing it and I'm not going to try.

Babka refers to the BTP as a "spin-off" -- but I think maybe he's giving us too much credit. We haven't really spun off yet. Rather, we've remained, to a large degree, in the LP's orbit. Our criticisms have so far largely been leveled at the LP and its presidential candidate rather than at the status quo parties and their candidates. On the positive side, we've been happy to endorse LP candidates who meet our standards.

This election cycle is the adolescence of the Boston Tea Party.

In our infancy (from 2006 to earlier this year) we were half-in, half-out of the LP. I offered a resolution at the BTP's organizational convention which would have constituted it as an internal caucus of the LP. That resolution was rejected by the members, but we didn't go in the opposite direction that year, either.

This year, we've decided to start doing the things a "real" political party does. We've nominated candidates for office and we're working to put those candidates on the ballot. We're chartering state affiliates so that we can hit the ground running in 2010 with congressional and state legislative slates. We're establishing recruitment efforts that stand on their own and don't rely on the internal LP "dissatisfaction grapevine."

Between now and 2012, I expect that the BTP will grow into young adulthood, establish itself as a proven, permanent third party ... and of course make its best attempt to do better than other third parties have done and break into "the big leagues."

The reality is that there are now two libertarian political parties on America's electoral landscape, and that (in certain respects at least) the newer one is coming up fast in the older one's rearview mirror.

Breaking up is hard to do ... but perhaps it needn't be as painful as we're making it. Can we just be friends? OK, well, maybe not, at least for the three months and change while the LP conducts its "great experiment" and the BTP embarks on its "maiden voyage." But ...

Odds are that there will always be cross-traffic between the LP and the BTP as angry or discontented libertarians of one seek expression in the other (or, as is now the case, participate in both). It's a safe bet that the two parties will bring different approaches to the longstanding and vexing problem of electing candidates to office. Hopefully as time goes on, the two parties will learn to, well, learn, from each others' mistakes and from each others' successes instead of just going at each other.

I'm not going to promise to go easy on Bob Barr. The LP made that bed, and now it (we -- I'm still an LP member and candidate) gets to lie in it. But I can, and do, promise you that I'll do my best as a member of the Boston Tea Party to make that party about more than internecine freedom movement conflicts. We have bigger game to hunt, and we're just now getting our boots on.

Release: Boston Tea Party adds affiliates, endorses candidates

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
07/09/08
POC Thomas L. Knapp
media@bostontea.us
314-750-6993


BOSTON TEA PARTY ADDS AFFILIATES, ENDORSES CANDIDATES


CYBERSPACE -- The Boston Tea Party, America's new libertarian political alternative, is on the move. Since the beginning of June, the Internet-based political party has nominated a presidential ticket, chartered affiliate parties in eight states, and is now in the process of endorsing candidates in states where it lacks its own down-ticket ballot access.

The party's first slate of candidate endorsements includes Phil Rhodes for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina and Morey Straus for State Representative in New Hampshire. Both candidates are running on the Libertarian Party's ballot line in their states.

Also endorsed is the party's only sitting elected public official, Jim Y. Casarjian-Perry. Casarjian-Perry, a Town Meeting Representative in Billerica, Massachusetts, is seeking election to the town's planning board.

"As a new party, we have our hands full seeking ballot access for the presidential ticket and building active organizations in the states this year," says Boston Tea Party chair Jim Davidson of Lawrence, Kansas. "Endorsing qualified independents and candidates of other parties is a win-win proposition -- it helps us build the party and it hopefully helps those candidates gain additional support for their efforts."

The party's national committee expects to endorse additional candidates between now and the November general election. The party requires candidates seeking its endorsement to certify that they support the party's one-sentence platform: "The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose."

The party's presidential candidate, Charles Jay of Florida, will appear on the November ballot in Colorado. The party expects to achieve ballot access in several additional states. It has recently chartered affiliate organizations in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas.

-30-
about 300 words


BOSTON TEA PARTY WEB SITE
http://www.bostontea.us

JIM Y. CASARJIAN PERRY FOR BILLERICA PLANNING BOARD
http://casarjianperry.com

MOREY STRAUS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE REPRESENTATIVE
http://vote.stra.us

PHIL RHODES FOR NORTH CAROLINA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
http://www.philrhodes2008.com

Release: Boston Tea Party presents presidential slate for Colorado ballot

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
06/18/08
POC Thomas L. Knapp
media@bostontea.us
314-750-6993

BOSTON TEA PARTY PRESENTS PRESIDENTIAL SLATE FOR COLORADO BALLOT

DENVER -- America's new libertarian political party submitted its 2008 slate of electors to Colorado's Secretary of State Tuesday in anticipation of contesting this November's presidential election.

Wes Pinchot , chair of the state's Boston Tea Party, turned in the name of Charles Jay as that party's 2008 presidential candidate. Because of logistical problems in securing paperwork for national BTP vice-presidential nominee Thomas L. Knapp, the party's veep candidate here will be Colorado's own Dan Sallis, Jr.

Also submitted were the names of nine constitutionally mandated electors, who will cast votes in the Electoral College if the Jay/Sallis ticket carries the state in November.

The Boston Tea Party was founded in 2006 around a one-sentence platform: "The Boston Tea Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose."

The party's 2008 presidential slate was nominated Sunday and Monday in online voting, the culmination of a process which began in May with a Denver meeting of the party's national leadership. Colorado is the first state in which the party's ticket has qualified for the ballot. Party leaders say they also expect to seek ballot access in Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, Tennessee and Utah.

The party's web site is located at http://www.bostontea.us.

-30-
about 220 words

Release: Boston Tea Party nominates 2008 presidential ticket

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
06/16/08
POC Thomas L. Knapp
media@bostontea.us
314-750-6993


BOSTON TEA PARTY NOMINATES 2008 PRESIDENTIAL TICKET


CYBERSPACE -- The first American political party to hold its national convention online has now nominated a presidential ticket online as well. In a 24-hour polling process on June 15-16, the Boston Tea Party's members chose media consultant and content developer Charles Jay as their 2008 standard-bearer.

"I look forward to the challenge of spreading a message that directly relates to increasing freedom and liberty," said Jay, 47, of Hollywood, Florida. "The Boston Tea Party's platform and program represent the true fulfillment of what the Founding Fathers envisioned."

Jay received the support of 76% of voting Boston Tea Party members in a nomination poll conducted using "approval voting," in which voters may support more than one candidate. Second-place finisher Robert Milnes polled 14%, while "None Of The Above," a required polling option in all party selection votes, received 24%.

"As someone who is not a professional politician, I see this as the continuation of an amazing journey," said Jay, who appeared on Utah's ballot as the 2004 nominee of that state's Personal Choice Party. "A tremendous learning experience and a great collaboration between people who are committed to decreasing the size, scope and power of an all-too powerful government."

Thomas L. Knapp of Missouri, the party's founder, received the vice-presidential nomination in a four-cornered race with Todd Andrew Barnett of Michigan, Chris Bennett of Illinois and NOTA.

The Boston Tea Party was founded in 2006. This is its first electoral outing, and its ticket is expected to appear on the ballot in several states.

-30-

about 250 words


Party Web Site: http://www.bostontea.us
Presidential Campaign Web Site: http://www.cj08.com
Vice-Presidential Campaign Blog: http://www.myfrontporchcampaign.com

The three reasons why ...

... I'm up for this.

The first reason is the Boston Tea Party itself. It's my baby. I created it, and it just seems wrong not to tag along for whatever ride it may take me on. Vanity? OK, fine -- I'm relentlessly clawing my way to the top of the "exceedingly minor historical footnote" pile. I hear there's a free set of steak knives or something waiting up there.

The second reason is that, having consulted my various fiduciary duties, etc., I've found no real conflict. There's no possibility that the Boston Tea Party will be on the Missouri ballot this year, so I'm free to campaign for Congress as a loyal Libertarian (which will be my first priority in any case), and to support the LP presidential ticket, here. I'm not a member of the Libertarian National Committee, nor am I LP staff, etc. ^[1] And I don't plan to run against the LP ticket, even if I campaign in one or more of the few states where BTP ballot access looks possible. Anyone who'd consider voting for me (and the BTP ticket-topper, of course) would likely be from a small population which has already examined and rejected the LP ticket in any case.

I'd run against Obamacain, except that that sounds way too much like some weird club drug I'd like to try if I could find a trustworthy dealer. So instead of running against anything, I'll try running for something -- hey, how about freedom? I think maybe I've heard that somewhere before.

The third reason is the people who've asked or encouraged me to do so (intentionally or unintentionally, jokingly or seriously, on this ticket or any other). No, there aren't hundreds, or even dozens, of them. Just a handful, and if they want to be named they can name themselves. Here you go, folks. Remember the old saw about being careful what you wish for.

1. For those of you who are no doubt already clawing at your monitors and screaming "hypocrite!" at the top of your lungs ... stipulated. What else ya got?

Open letter to the Boston Tea Party national committee

Dear members of the Boston Tea Party's national committee,

It warms my heart to see the BTP chartering affiliates and engaging in real activity once again. Congratulations to chair Jim Davidson on his efforts, and I look forward to meeting all of you in Denver.

It is that meeting, and the motion passed by the national committee pursuant to that meeting, which occasions this letter.

The motion, offered by Dr. Stevens on May 11th and carried on May 13th, reads as follows:

that a meeting of the National Committee of the Boston Tea Party be held on Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. at The Buckhorn Exchange in Denver, Colorado (Denver's Oldest Restaurant located at 1000 Osage Street; 303-534-9505; www.buckhorn.com); that all BTP members be invited to observe the proceedings; that all LP Presidential & Vice-Presidential Candidates be invited to seek the BTP Presidential & Vice-Presidential nomination, as well as other individuals invited by other National Committee members; and that the bylaws of the Boston Tea Party be suspended to enable the National Committee to select the Presidential & Vice-Presidential nominees of the Boston Tea Party and to conduct such other business as it deems necessary and appropriate to ensure the future of the Boston Tea Party.

I do not object to a "meatspace" meeting of the national committee. The bylaws provide for it insofar as they only specify that meetings shall be conducted via Internet "in the usual course of things." This clearly allows for the committee to occasionally, for good reason, do otherwise -- and the Libertarian Party's national convention seems like exactly the kind of occasion I had in mind when I wrote those bylaws.

However, the national committee has no legitimate authority to suspend or abrogate the party's bylaws. Nor does it have the authority to select presidential and vice-presidential candidates for the party. Those actions can only be undertaken by the membership in national convention. By blowing the organization of the 2008 national convention per the bylaws, which require it to open no later than Memorial Day and to be preceded by a number of specific actions, some of which were not undertaken by their respective deadlines, we (I sat on the national committee at the time some of this happened) deprived the membership of the ability to exercise its power. Following that screwup with a usurpation of the members' authority is not a solution.

When I founded the Boston Tea Party and wrote its bylaws, I did so on the specific premise that I was setting up an organization based on full member participation of a type which has only become possible on a national scale in the last few years thanks to near-universal Internet access. The portions of the motion above relating to suspension of the bylaws and nomination of a presidential slate by the national committee are not merely in conflict with the bylaws -- they are in conflict with one of the core values of the Boston Tea Party as intended by me and as ratified by the membership at its 2006 convention.

Therefore, I respectfully request that the national committee refrain from following through on those portions of the motion, and give notice that if those portions are acted upon, I will exercise my right as a member, in concert with other members under Article 9, Section H of the bylaws, to overturn the committee's actions.

I would be proud to see the national committee -- speaking for, and ONLY for, itself rather than for the membership -- endorse the Libertarian Party's presidential slate. Of all the likely nominees, even the least "purist libertarian" example, Bob Barr, clearly endorses, at least implicitly, the Boston Tea Party's platform. As a matter of fact, Barr has specifically publicly quoted the affirmative portion of that platform in several articles and interviews, stating that he supports "reducing the size, scope and power of government." The other likely nominees -- Dr. Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby and even Wayne Allyn Root -- are also running on campaign platforms which clearly fall within the scope of the BTP's. I would even suggest that the national committee consider organizing an "emergency" convention for the summer in order to ask the membership to add the party's endorsement to the national committee's and perhaps get the party back on track as a mass-participation organization.

In extremis, if the members of the state affiliates simply cannot support the LP's ticket, then they're free to nominate their own presidential slates, individually or in collusion. In doing so they would not be in conflict with the bylaws requirement that they endorse the slate nominated by the national convention, since there is not and cannot be any such slate. So long as they don't claim that their slate or slates represent the national BTP, they're well within their rights to go that way.

Thanks again to all of you on the national committee for your efforts to rebuild the Boston Tea Party. I wish you every success and look forward to meeting you in Denver.

Yours in liberty,
Thomas L. Knapp
Founder, Boston Tea Party