THIS "SELLING OF THE PRESIDENT(IAL CAMPAIGN) THREAD" WITH STEVE GIVOT, GEORGE PHILLIES, RICHARD SCHWARTZ (LNC) AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS DISCUSSES ISSUES OF FAVORITISM AMONG LNC AND NATIONAL STAFFERS, INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITLY OF YEAR 2004 CARLA HOWELL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. IT ILLUSTRATES HOW DIVISIVE THE CLOUD-HOWELL-ISRAEL MODUS OPERANDI HAS BEEN.
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000
16:40:20
EST
From: Firepig01@aol.com
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
In a message dated
11/9/2000
9:12:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
givot@softwarena.com
writes:
<< Browne was not
picked
by some narrow group. He was picked by a broad
crosssection of the
party -- the national convention.
Steve Givot
>>
That's technically
true;
however, Browne was picked by a handful of
influential party members
at least two years prior to the nominating
convention and sold to the
general membership over that period.
The same thing is
happening
right now. Carla Howell has already been picked
as our 2004 candidate, and
for at least six months now the membership has
been trained to think of
her as the one. This process of indoctrination will
continue until 2004, at
which time the membership will freely choose her as
our nominee, just as it
was led to do.
This is not to minimize
the
results of the Howell campaign. The Mass results
are great. Here is the big
question. Will the impact be to grow the party
and
get libs elected to
partisan
and non partisan offices in Mass or will it be
to grow Howell into a
presidential
candidate with no lasting effect in Mass.
In what direction will the Mass momentum be aimed?
Will it be used to fuel
the
employment prospects of the browne campaign
staff
or to build up the party
in Mass?
bill hajdu
p.s. here are several reasons why i am against a howell run:
1) no record of elected office or demonstrated national leadership.
2) no desire to see the browne campaign staff, cloud et al have another run.
3) no hope of real
healing
within the party by choosing a candidate so
closely tied to a group
intimately involved in past in fighting
4) no enthusiasm for a
candidate
who is being sold to me (Neustadt: Selling
of the Prez)
5) no inner feeling
that
howell resonates with me or a broader base than
conservatarians
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
21:56:57
-0700
From: "Steven I. Givot"
<givot@softwarena.com>
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
Firepig01@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated
11/9/2000
9:12:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> givot@softwarena.com
writes:
>
> <<
> Browne was not
picked
by some narrow group. He was picked by a broad
> crosssection of
the party -- the national convention.
>
> Steve Givot
> >>
>
> That's technically
true;
however, Browne was picked by a handful of
> influential party
members
at least two years prior to the nominating
> convention and sold
to
the general membership over that period.
While it is true that
several
"influential party members" -- myself
included -- supported
Browne
long before the convention, I don't believe
it is accurate to say that
all or even most of these people (and me, in
particular) tried to sell
Browne as a candidate to the general
membership.
> The same thing is
happening
right now. Carla Howell has already been
picked
> as our 2004
candidate,
and for at least six months now the membership has
> been trained to think
of her as the one. This process of indoctrination
will
> continue until 2004,
at
which time the membership will freely choose her
as
> our nominee, just as
it
was led to do.
Just WHO has done this,
Bill?
And how have they made that selection?
Or is this just your
fantasy?
> This is not to
minimize
the results of the Howell campaign. The Mass
results
> are great. Here is
the
big question. Will the impact be to grow the party
and
> get libs elected to
partisan
and non partisan offices in Mass or will it
be
> to grow Howell into a
presidential candidate with no lasting effect in
Mass.
Or both. Or neither. Right?
> In what direction will the Mass momentum be aimed?
That, I suspect, is
largely
dependent on what LPMA and Carla Howell do
after the election.
> Will it be used to
fuel
the employment prospects of the browne campaign
staff
> or to build up the
party
in Mass?
Or both? Or neither? Right?
> p.s. here are several reasons why i am against a howell run:
> 1) no record of elected office or demonstrated national leadership.
Just a record high achievement in a three-way US Senate race, right?
> 2) no desire to
see the
browne campaign staff, cloud et al have another
run.
Punish success, right?
> 3) no hope of real
healing
within the party by choosing a candidate so
> closely tied to a
group
intimately involved in past in fighting
Generally as the target
of
attacks and criticism initiated by others. I
don't believe that they
initiated fights. They responded to attacks,
right?
That would make their
attackers
the people "a group intimately involved
in past infighting,"
right?
So should we
> 4) no enthusiasm
for a
candidate who is being sold to me (Neustadt:
Selling
> of the Prez)
Fair enough.
That's
your personal preference. I prefer to support
someone who isn't afraid
or unwilling to sell him/her self. After all,
that is how one gets
elected.
> 5) no inner
feeling that
howell resonates with me or a broader base than
> conservatarians
Fair enough, although I don't share that view.
Steve Givot
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
06:50:11
-0800 (PST)
From: Richard Schwarz
<richardoschwarz@yahoo.com>
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
Steve Givot wrote:
>While it is true
that several
"influential party
>members" -- myself
included
-- supported Browne long
>before the convention,
I don't believe
>it is accurate to say
that
all or even most of these
>people (and me, in
particular)
tried to sell Browne
>as a candidate to the
general
membership.
The FEC reports show
travel
and consulting fees
being paid to Harry Browne
from the LP long after
he had formed his
exploratory
committee.
The LP went to great
lengths
to sell Michael Cloud.
(Browne's chief fundraiser
among other things)
Besides touting and
promoting
him in numerous
articles and
advertisements,
the LP also paid
his travel expenses to
travel
all over
the country and meet with
Libertarians where he
not only sold them on
himself,
but certainly used
the opportunities to sell
them on Browne also.
The LP spent an absurd
amount
of money on the failed
Project Archimedes and its
chief promoter Perry
Willis who just happened
to double as Browne's
campaign manager.
The LP spent an absurd
amount
of money to Jack
Dean's Web Commanders.
They
spent well over 25 times
market value for 2 crappy
websites. And surprise
surprise, Jack Dean was
also a key player in the
Browne camp too.
The LP continued to use
Harry
Browne's book as
a marketing premium to
give
to donors to the party.
Not only did this help
fund
Harry Browne (check all
the FEC reports for the
dollars sent to LiamWorks)
but it also promoted him
as well--and this was all
before he became OUR
official
candidate.
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
15:38:49
-0700
From: "Steven I. Givot"
<givot@softwarena.com>
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
Richard Schwarz wrote:
>
> Steve Givot wrote:
>
> >While it is true
that
several "influential party
> >members" --
myself included
-- supported Browne long
> >before the
convention,
I don't believe
> >it is accurate to
say
that all or even most of these
> >people (and me,
in particular)
tried to sell Browne
> >as a candidate to
the
general membership.
>
> The FEC reports show
travel
and consulting fees
> being paid to Harry
Browne
from the LP long after
> he had formed his
exploratory
committee.
What were the dates and purposes of the travel, Richard.
If the dates of
*service*
were before the exploratory commitee was
formed, then the date of
payment wouldn't matter.
If the purpose of
travel
for to advance an activity of the LP, what is
the problem? Should
we miss the opportunity to have an "internal
celebrity" perform
services
for the party simply because he has thrown
his hat into the
ring?
Isn't that missing an opportunity for the LP?
> The LP went to
great lengths
to sell Michael Cloud.
> (Browne's chief
fundraiser
among other things)
How did the "LP" do that? Please be specific.
Did the LP active
intend
to do that, or what the intention to use
Michael for the skills he
brings to the table -- e.g., as a trainer.
> Besides touting
and promoting
him in numerous
> articles and
advertisements,
the LP also paid
> his travel expenses
to
travel all over
> the country and meet
with
Libertarians where he
> not only sold them on
himself, but certainly used
> the opportunities to
sell
them on Browne also.
We've heard these
allegations
before, and they have been answered
before.
I do find it strange
that
you would claim that the LP touted and
promoted Michael by
accepting
his paid advertisements in LP News which,
I understand, were
accepted
at the same rates and fees as any other
advertiser. Do you
have a problem with accepting his paid advertising
at the same rate we would
charge to anyone else? How does accepting a
paid ad constitute touting
or promoting Michael?
> The LP spent an
absurd
amount of money on the failed
> Project Archimedes
and
its chief promoter Perry
> Willis who just
happened
to double as Browne's
> campaign manager.
Along the way, how much
did
LP membership grow, Richard? What have the
revenues from those new
members been?
> The LP spent an
absurd
amount of money to Jack
> Dean's Web
Commanders.
They spent well over 25 times
> market value for 2
crappy
websites. And surprise
> surprise, Jack Dean
was
also a key player in the
> Browne camp too.
Jack's fee structure
proved
to be higher than the alternatives that were
not accepted largely
because
the response to the web sites was so much
greater than projected and
required significant additional effort to
manage. This has
been
covered in prior discussions. If the web sites
had been failures, Jack's
fee structure would have been the less
expensive alternative.
Personally, I favor
projects
with low fixed costs and high variable
costs. WHile they
may end up giving up some of the "upside net," they
avoid expensive downside
exposure.
> The LP continued
to use
Harry Browne's book as
> a marketing premium
to
give to donors to the party.
> Not only did this
help
fund Harry Browne (check all
> the FEC reports for
the
dollars sent to LiamWorks)
> but it also promoted
him
as well--and this was all
> before he became OUR
official
candidate.
I may be mistaken, but
I
believe that the LNC stopped buying additional
copies of Harry's book
when
his exploratory campaign was announced. I
don't think it would have
made any sense to discontinue offering the
LNC's existing inventory
of the book (resulting in a loss to the LP)
simply because Harry
sought
the nomination a second time.
One final note, I think
that
you are underestimating the effect that any
of these decisions would
have had on the choice of presidential
candidates that delegates
to our national convention would have made.
Do you think those people
are so weak minds that such things would sway
their choice? I
don't.
Steve Givot
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000
00:03:25
-0500
From: "Richard Schwarz"
<hogweed@erols.com>
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
From: Steven I. Givot
<givot@softwarena.com>
>Richard Schwarz wrote:
>>
>> Steve Givot wrote:
>>
>> >While it is
true that
several "influential party
>> >members" --
myself included
-- supported Browne long
>> >before the
convention,
I don't believe
>> >it is
accurate to say
that all or even most of these
>> >people (and
me, in particular)
tried to sell Browne
>> >as a
candidate to the
general membership.
>>
>> The FEC reports
show
travel and consulting fees
>> being paid to
Harry Browne
from the LP long after
>> he had formed his
exploratory
committee.
>
>What were the dates
and
purposes of the travel, Richard.
Long after exploratory
committee
formed.
Before he won the
nomination.
(March 1999)
Purposes irrelevent. The
LP was already
in bed with him at the
expense
of the membership
and other potential
candidates.
>If the dates of
*service*
were before the exploratory commitee was
>formed, then the date
of
payment wouldn't matter.
So obviously it DOES matter.
>If the purpose of
travel
for to advance an activity of the LP, what is
>the problem?
Should
we miss the opportunity to have an "internal
>celebrity" perform
services
for the party simply because he has thrown
>his hat into the
ring?
Isn't that missing an opportunity for the LP?
You just don't get it
do
you? The National LP by doing this
IS advancing the candidacy
of Harry Browne. I didn't notice
any consulting or travel
reimbursements to any other
national candidates for
our nomination.
>> The LP went to
great lengths
to sell Michael Cloud.
>> (Browne's chief
fundraiser
among other things)
>
>How did the "LP" do
that?
Please be specific.
Success 99.
>Did the LP active
intend
to do that, or what the intention to use
>Michael for the skills
he brings to the table -- e.g., as a trainer.
Did any other national
candidate
get to benefit from having
their chief spokesperson
paraded around the country and
meeting new Libertarians
at national expense?
Name one!!!!!!!
>> Besides
touting and promoting
him in numerous
>> articles and
advertisements,
the LP also paid
>> his travel
expenses to
travel all over
>> the country and
meet
with Libertarians where he
>> not only sold
them on
himself, but certainly used
>> the opportunities
to
sell them on Browne also.
>
>We've heard these
allegations
before, and they have been answered
>before.
They've been answered, but only by BS.
>I do find it
strange that
you would claim that the LP touted and
>promoted Michael by
accepting
his paid advertisements in LP News which,
>I understand, were
accepted
at the same rates and fees as any other
>advertiser. Do
you
have a problem with accepting his paid advertising
>at the same rate we
would
charge to anyone else? How does accepting a
>paid ad constitute
touting
or promoting Michael?
Earth to Steve: I'm
talking
about all the LNC advertisements
for Success 99 which
promoted
Michael Cloud as our
"Communications Guru" and
the "Greatest Communicator
in the LP." He was made
out to be a God.
I'm not talking about
Cloud's
own over-hyped ads
(which in light of the BS
suit against Cisewski, should have
been looked at more
carefully
due to their own unique areas
of deception)
>> The LP spent
an absurd
amount of money on the failed
>> Project
Archimedes and
its chief promoter Perry
>> Willis who just
happened
to double as Browne's
>> campaign manager.
>
>Along the way, how
much
did LP membership grow, Richard? What have the
>revenues from those
new
members been?
Oh yeah we're at
200,000
members, just like Archimedes promised.
Sorry. My bad.
>> The LP spent
an absurd
amount of money to Jack
>> Dean's Web
Commanders.
They spent well over 25 times
>> market value for
2 crappy
websites. And surprise
>> surprise, Jack
Dean was
also a key player in the
>> Browne camp too.
>
>Jack's fee structure
proved
to be higher than the alternatives that were
>not accepted largely
because
the response to the web sites was so much
>greater than projected
and required significant additional effort to
>manage. This has
been covered in prior discussions. If the web sites
>had been failures,
Jack's
fee structure would have been the less
>expensive alternative.
Where are the members from these sites Steve?????
Where?
I responded to both of
Jack
Dean's LP websites with
legitimate pseudonym
addresses
and e-mail accounts
and you know what? I never
heard a peep. So any claim
that we benefitted from
all this so-called response to these sites
is more unadulterated
bullshit.
The sites sucked, were
poorly
designed, expensive,
and came in outrageously
over budget. But at least
all that money went to a
key player in the Harry
Browne campaign.
>Personally, I favor
projects
with low fixed costs and high variable
>costs. WHile
they
may end up giving up some of the "upside net," they
>avoid expensive
downside
exposure.
>
>> The LP continued
to use
Harry Browne's book as
>> a marketing
premium to
give to donors to the party.
>> Not only did this
help
fund Harry Browne (check all
>> the FEC reports
for the
dollars sent to LiamWorks)
>> but it also
promoted
him as well--and this was all
>> before he became
OUR
official candidate.
>
>I may be mistaken, but
I believe that the LNC stopped buying additional
>copies of Harry's book
when his exploratory campaign was announced. I
>don't think it would
have
made any sense to discontinue offering the
>LNC's existing
inventory
of the book (resulting in a loss to the LP)
>simply because Harry
sought
the nomination a second time.
You ARE mistaken Steve.
Don't
you remember National Chair
Dave Bergland's directive
that we still purchase Harry's books?
Check the FEC reports
Steve.
Throughout Harry's campaign
(after exploratory
committee,
before official nomination) You will
see numerous expenditures
from the LP to LiamWorks for Harry's
books.
How many other
Presidential
candidates received a continuous
source of income from the
LP during their campaigns?
Name them!
>One final note, I
think
that you are underestimating the effect that any
>of these decisions
would
have had on the choice of presidential
>candidates that
delegates
to our national convention would have made.
>Do you think those
people
are so weak minds that such things would sway
>their choice? I
don't.
So you admit that all
these
"decisions" are true??
(Not that you can hide,
because thanks to the FEC,
we know them to be factual)
The question was about (from Bill's original post):
"Browne
was
picked by a handful of influential
party
members at least two years prior to the
nominating
convention and sold to the general
membership
over that period."
The allegations I have
made,
which the FEC reports
back, prove Bill Hajdu's
statement to be true.
And yes Steve, the
bombardment
our membership received
from all these "Selling
Harry" messages and the direct income
to the key players in
Harry
Browne's campaign WAS
influential.
ght, i will repeat one in
the form of a rhetorical question. Why was
the
> Howell campaign
(probably
read Michael Cloud) running 3, 4 or more ads per
> issue in the LP news
during
the campaign?
I don't know, because I am not them.
However, I suspect that
it
was to promote the campaign and to act as an
adjunct to their other
fundraising
efforts, which were very successful
by any LP standard.
Is there anything at
all
wrong with it as long as they paid the same
rate that any other
campaign
would be when advertising in LP News?
If so, please explain what is at all wrong about it.
And, as a corollary
question:
Would you suggest that the editor of LP
News should have rejected
those ads? If so, why?
Surely if there was
nothing
wrongful in placing the ads and nothing
wrongful in accepting the
ads, then there is nothing wrong with having
the ads in LP News.
Steve Givot
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
22:39:22
-0800
From: "Mike Hihn"
<liberty@MikeHihn.com>
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
On 10 Nov 00, at 17:20, Firepig01@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated
11/10/2000
8:48:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> givot@softwarena.com
writes:
>
> <<
> Those are not
"specifics."
I've read your postings on this subject
> carefully
enough
to know that allegations -- no matter how often or
> emphatically
stated
-- don't constitute fact.
> >>
>
> Givot really thinks
we're
stupid. Well, i'm not stupid, and i'm not a
> conspiracy theorist
nut
case.
>
> Alright, i will
repeat
one in the form of a rhetorical question. Why was
> the Howell campaign
(probably
read Michael Cloud) running 3, 4 or more ads
> per issue in the LP
news
during the campaign?
Givot may not have seen them, but I did.
The answer -- because he could get away with it.
-Mike
Hihn
http://WALiberty.org
WA Liberty PAC &
Grassroots
Liberty Foundation
===========================================
"Libertarians must be
preparing
to GOVERN, or we're
waiting for somebody else
to create a free society."
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
23:56:34
-0700
From: "Steven I. Givot"
<givot@softwarena.com>
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
"George D. Phillies"
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000,
Steven
I. Givot wrote:
> >
> > George, you have
choices.
You can sit back, spew negativism about the
> > activism of
others OR
you can go out and compete with them and show us
> > by
leadership.
Why not find a candidate for high office, get that
> > person on the
ballot,
manage the campaign, and show us that you can do a
> > better job by
doing
things differently?
>
> Been there.
Done
that.
> Or, do what you have
done,
> > which has
done very little
to advance our cause. The choice is yours.
> > Talk is cheap, I
think.
Let's see some dirty hands activism.
> > Steve Givot
> Typical cheap shots of our national leadership.
George, during the past
year,
I've served as a state party officer,
raised thousands of
dollars
for local candidates,
managed a state rep race
that garnered 7% in a D-R-L race, acted as a
campaign treasurer, and
a dozen other things.
Most of what I have
done
has promoted local candidates and local
activism - the causes you
champion.
And you suggest that I
have
done very little to advance our cause? When
I have been doing as you
say we should do?
That seems rather strange to me.
Rather, I think it is a
cheap
shot for someone in your position (having
done little of this) to
criticize someone who
has done much of what you
claim needs to be done. A very cheap shot,
indeed.
Steve Givot
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000
00:20:37
-0700
From: "Steven I. Givot"
<givot@softwarena.com>
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
Richard Schwarz wrote:
> >What were the
dates and
purposes of the travel, Richard.
>
> Long after
exploratory
committee formed.
> Before he won the
nomination.
(March 1999)
> Purposes irrelevent.
The
LP was already
> in bed with him at
the
expense of the membership
> and other potential
candidates.
I understand your point, Richard. I just disagree.
> >If the dates
of *service*
were before the exploratory commitee was
> >formed, then the
date
of payment wouldn't matter.
>
> So obviously it DOES
matter.
No. If the dates
of
service were before the exploratory committee was
set up,
then it would not
matter.
If the dates of service were after the
exploratory
committee was set up, then
the purpose and benefit to the LP would
determine if
it was appropriate.
> >If the purpose
of travel
for to advance an activity of the LP, what is
> >the
problem? Should
we miss the opportunity to have an "internal
> >celebrity"
perform services
for the party simply because he has thrown
> >his hat into the
ring?
Isn't that missing an opportunity for the LP?
>
> You just don't get it
do you? The National LP by doing this
> IS advancing the
candidacy
of Harry Browne. I didn't notice
> any consulting or
travel
reimbursements to any other
> national candidates
for
our nomination.
As far as I know, the
national
party had several people traveling on its
behalf
in the period prior to and
after that date. Now, if Gorman or Hess had
been traveling on
behalf of the national
party
before the announced their candidacies and
then were shut of by
the national party, but
Browne was not, then I would see a big problem.
But that did not
happen.
> >> The LP
went to great
lengths to sell Michael Cloud.
> >> (Browne's
chief fundraiser
among other things)
> >
> >How did the "LP"
do that?
Please be specific.
>
> Success 99.
Michael Cloud appeared
at
these events. But the purpose was not
to sell Michael Cloud, it
was to run seminars for those who wanted them.
You are assuming
wrongful
motivation. I think that's a faulty
assumption without merit
and without proof.
> >Did the LP
active intend
to do that, or what the intention to use
> >Michael for the
skills
he brings to the table -- e.g., as a trainer.
>
> Did any other
national
candidate get to benefit from having
> their chief
spokesperson
paraded around the country and
> meeting new
Libertarians
at national expense?
I thought Willis was running the Browne campaign. Am I mistaken?
> Name one!!!!!!!
There was none, including the Browne campaign.
> >> Besides
touting and
promoting him in numerous
> >> articles and
advertisements,
the LP also paid
> >> his travel
expenses
to travel all over
> >> the country
and meet
with Libertarians where he
> >> not only
sold them
on himself, but certainly used
> >> the
opportunities to
sell them on Browne also.
> >
> >We've heard these
allegations
before, and they have been answered
> >before.
>
> They've been
answered,
but only by BS.
We disagree, again.
> >I do find it
strange that
you would claim that the LP touted and
> >promoted Michael
by accepting
his paid advertisements in LP News which,
> >I understand,
were accepted
at the same rates and fees as any other
> >advertiser.
Do
you have a problem with accepting his paid advertising
> >at the same rate
we would
charge to anyone else? How does accepting a
> >paid ad
constitute touting
or promoting Michael?
>
> Earth to Steve: I'm
talking
about all the LNC advertisements
> for Success 99 which
promoted
Michael Cloud as our
> "Communications Guru"
and the "Greatest Communicator
> in the LP." He was
made
out to be a God.
Michael does have
certain
talents, Richard. What is wrong with the LNC
leveraging those talents.
Or should be put him in
exile
because he is controversial in come
circles?
> I'm not talking
about Cloud's
own over-hyped ads
> (which in light of
the
BS suit against Cisewski, should have
> been looked at more
carefully
due to their own unique areas
> of deception)
>
> >> The LP spent
an absurd
amount of money on the failed
> >> Project
Archimedes
and its chief promoter Perry
> >> Willis who
just happened
to double as Browne's
> >> campaign
manager.
> >
> >Along the way,
how much
did LP membership grow, Richard? What have the
> >revenues from
those new
members been?
>
> Oh yeah we're at
200,000
members, just like Archimedes promised.
> Sorry. My bad.
No, Archimedes didn't
succeed
to the extent that was projected. That is
clear.
But it did grow membership substantially for a long period of time.
I have no problem
acknowledging
that Archimedes didn't achieve its
complete objective.
Do you have a problem
acknowledging
that it did make measurable,
significant, and record
progress in growing membership?
> >> The LP
spent an absurd
amount of money to Jack
> >> Dean's Web
Commanders.
They spent well over 25 times
> >> market value
for 2
crappy websites. And surprise
> >> surprise,
Jack Dean
was also a key player in the
> >> Browne camp
too.
> >
> >Jack's fee
structure
proved to be higher than the alternatives that were
> >not accepted
largely
because the response to the web sites was so much
> >greater than
projected
and required significant additional effort to
> >manage.
This has
been covered in prior discussions. If the web sites
> >had been
failures, Jack's
fee structure would have been the less
> >expensive
alternative.
> Where are the members from these sites Steve?????
> Where?
I'm not sure of the
number
of people who may have become members
directly from the site,
Richard.
However, the "Know your
Customer"
project earned us national attention
AND we effectively
stopping
extremely bad regulations from being
enacted.
Isn't our purpose to
roll
back the state? Isn't stopping forward motion
in government
intrusiveness
and positive thing for us? I think so.
> >Personally, I
favor projects
with low fixed costs and high variable
> >costs.
WHile they
may end up giving up some of the "upside net," they
> >avoid expensive
downside
exposure.
> >
> >> The LP
continued to
use Harry Browne's book as
> >> a marketing
premium
to give to donors to the party.
> >> Not only did
this help
fund Harry Browne (check all
> >> the FEC
reports for
the dollars sent to LiamWorks)
> >> but it also
promoted
him as well--and this was all
> >> before he
became OUR
official candidate.
> >
> >I may be
mistaken, but
I believe that the LNC stopped buying additional
> >copies of Harry's
book
when his exploratory campaign was announced. I
> >don't think it
would
have made any sense to discontinue offering the
> >LNC's existing
inventory
of the book (resulting in a loss to the LP)
> >simply because
Harry
sought the nomination a second time.
>
> You ARE mistaken
Steve.
Don't you remember National Chair
> Dave Bergland's
directive
that we still purchase Harry's books?
>
> Check the FEC reports
Steve. Throughout Harry's campaign
> (after exploratory
committee,
before official nomination) You will
> see numerous
expenditures
from the LP to LiamWorks for Harry's
> books.
>
> How many other
Presidential
candidates received a continuous
> source of income from
the LP during their campaigns?
> Name them!
The books were a very
popular
"premium," Richard. Would it have been
better to
offer donors something
less
valuable in THEIR opinion?
> >One final
note, I think
that you are underestimating the effect that any
> >of these
decisions would
have had on the choice of presidential
> >candidates that
delegates
to our national convention would have made.
> >Do you think
those people
are so weak minds that such things would sway
> >their
choice? I
don't.
>
> So you admit that all
these "decisions" are true??
> (Not that you can
hide,
because thanks to the FEC,
> we know them to be
factual)
NO, what I am saying is
to
the extent that any of them MAY be true, I
think you
overestimate whatever
effect
they might have had.
> The question was
about
(from Bill's original post):
>
>
"Browne
was picked by a handful of influential
>
party
members at least two years prior to the
>
nominating convention and sold to the general
>
membership over that period."
>
> The allegations I
have
made, which the FEC reports
> back, prove Bill
Hajdu's
statement to be true.
I don't think you've done anything to prove Bill's statement.
Bill's statement implies intent. I see no such intent.
> And yes Steve, the
bombardment
our membership received
> from all these
"Selling
Harry" messages and the direct income
> to the key players in
Harry Browne's campaign WAS
> influential.
Who within the LP is so weak-minded?
Steve Givot
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000
15:35:33
EST
From: Firepig01@aol.com
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
In a message dated
11/11/2000
10:02:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
givot@softwarena.com
writes:
<<
Is there anything
at all wrong with it as long as they paid the same
rate that any other
campaign would be when advertising in LP News?
If so, please explain what is at all wrong about it.
And, as a
corollary
question: Would you suggest that the editor of LP
News should have
rejected
those ads? If so, why?
Surely if there
was
nothing wrongful in placing the ads and nothing
wrongful in
accepting
the ads, then there is nothing wrong with having
the ads in LP News.
>>
No, the LP News should
not
have rejected those ads. The News needs ad
revenue.
There is nothing wrong
in
having ads in the LP News. The News has not done
anything wrong. What is
wrong is buying off our only newspaper.
There has been a
continual
problem of interlocking relationships in the
party, resulting in
serious
groupthink, cliquism and exclusionary practice
in LP leadership circles.
The fact is the dominant paradigm is shared by 90% of
our leadership. Even
Congress,
in its worst days, never went more than 2/3
partisan. We are depriving
ourselves of competition, you know one of those
things that we all claim
helped make America a great country.
I will spell it out.
Was
it necessary to put so many ads in one issue of the
news to achieve support
for the Howell campaign? Why not just one, nice half
or full page ad? That
would
have outdone any other libertarian candidate.
Rather, it looks to me
like
the News is bought and paid for, for its value
as an unspoken ally in the
Howell for prez campaign.
What is the effect of
funneling
all that business to the LP News? Well, the
News is the primary
conduit
for contacting the mass of members. Wont it be
nice if the Howell for
president
campaign gets favorable treatment from the
News? Wont it be nice if
the News doesnt publish any comments on why the
Howell campaign might be
bad for the party? The News can promote the Howell
campaign in any number of
legal ways. This is all legal; yet, it is just an
example of how
interlocking
relationships still are being used to sell a
particular paradigm and
group of leaders to the general membership.
There just was another
post
to the LPUS list as to why bickering is
continuing. The short
answer
is the interlocking relationships/conflict of
interest are continuing.
The leadership has not shown any interest in
speaking out against them.
Rather, as Steve is doing on this issue, they
continue to defend them.
Very few of the people
making
negative posts do so because they are trouble
makers (there might be a
couple; there always are), but rather they do so
because they truly want
to see liberty make a comeback in this country and
are disappointed with the
party's efficacy.
When will these people
be
welcomed back? When will the pattern of
interlocking relationships
that excludes anyone who differes from the
dominant paradigm be
acknowledged
for what it is/has been? When will this
party become exclusive?
Until we broaden our
internal
base, we are not going to broaden our external
base. I'm not satisfied
with 250-350,000 voter base nationwide. It's not
going to get us anywhere
in federal races. Certainly the superhuman effort
in Nevada proved that.
Now, are we going to do
the
right thing, or are we just going to protect our
power?
bill hajdu
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000
16:57:20
-0800
From: "Mike Hihn"
<liberty@MikeHihn.com>
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
On 11 Nov 00, at 14:11, George D. Phillies wrote:
> > > >
which has done very
little to advance our cause. The choice is
> > > > yours.
Talk is cheap,
I think. Let's see some dirty hands activism.
>
> > And you suggest
that
I have done very little to advance our cause? When
> > I have been
doing as
you say we should do?
>
> No, those were your
words
about me.
> George
ROFLMAO
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000
20:46:59
EST
From: Firepig01@aol.com
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
In a message dated
11/11/2000
4:10:49 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jhunters-ml@epostoffice.com
writes:
<<
I guess in Richard's
bizarro world, we should bar all presidential nominees
from future
involvement
in the LP, because the fact that they had
previously won the
nomination
gives them an unfair advantage against the other
candidates seeking
any future nomination. Never mind that person will usually be the
most
recognizable
people in our movement making them a valuable PR tool for the
party.
>>
We now know what the results were of the 2000 election.
We also know that
Hunter
has been and still is one of the primary apologists
on this list for the
paradigm
that failed so badly.
Are we going to listen to him again as we think ahead to 2004?
bill hajdu
p.s. this is not to say
we
shouldn't listen to his comments/info regarding
local organization
politics
in Georgia, another matter entirely.
Subject: Re: selling of
the
president(ial candidate)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000
05:59:54
-0700
From: "Steven I. Givot"
<givot@softwarena.com>
Reply-To:
lpus-pres@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-PRES@dehnbase.org
(LP business - presidential)
Firepig01@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated
11/11/2000
10:02:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> givot@softwarena.com
writes:
>
> <<
> Is there
anything
at all wrong with it as long as they paid the same
> rate that any
other
campaign would be when advertising in LP News?
>
> If so, please
explain
what is at all wrong about it.
>
> And, as a
corollary
question: Would you suggest that the editor of LP
> News should
have
rejected those ads? If so, why?
>
> Surely if there
was nothing wrongful in placing the ads and nothing
> wrongful in
accepting
the ads, then there is nothing wrong with having
> the ads in LP
News.
> >>
>
> No, the LP News
should
not have rejected those ads. The News needs ad
revenue.
>
> There is nothing
wrong
in having ads in the LP News. The News has not done
> anything wrong. What
is
wrong is buying off our only newspaper.
What is wrong with that, Bill?
Where else would an LP
candidate
advertise for the purpose of
fundraising or supporting
other fundraising efforts, Better Homes and
Gardens?
> There has been a
continual
problem of interlocking relationships in the
> party, resulting in
serious
groupthink, cliquism and exclusionary practice
in
> LP leadership
circles.
The fact is the dominant paradigm is shared by 90%
of
> our leadership. Even
Congress,
in its worst days, never went more than 2/3
> partisan. We are
depriving
ourselves of competition, you know one of those
> things that we all
claim
helped make America a great country.
We we "depriving
ourselves
of competition," or are there no strong
competitors?
It almost sounds like
you
are taking the position of the Justice
Department in an
anti-trust
case. What if a producer simple has a
product that is in
enormous
demand, should it be broken up to make it
easier for others to
complete
(e.g., Microsoft)? The Clean Slate folks
put on a strong run with
a competing paradigm, didn't they? And if you
are correct and 90% of the
leadership adheres to the dominant paradigm
(what is Microsoft's
market
share of PC operating systems?) does that
mean that there is a
problem?
> I will spell it
out. Was
it necessary to put so many ads in one issue of
the
> news to achieve
support
for the Howell campaign? Why not just one, nice
half
> or full page ad? That
would have outdone any other libertarian candidate.
> Rather, it looks to
me
like the News is bought and paid for, for its value
as
> an unspoken ally in
the
Howell for prez campaign.
That's a theory -- your
theory.
But it is well established that
successful advertising
requires
repetition. The Howell campaign was
clearly very successful
in fundraising. Perhaps their strategy involved
repeat advertising as a
means to achieve that. I don't know. I was not
at all an insider to that
campaign -- just a contributor. While it may
appear to you that the
Howell
campaign bought and paid for good coverage
in LP News in return for
repeat ad purchases, I think that is a strange
conclusion to reach.
Perhaps that is because I know Bill Winter and I
know that Bill is above
reproach as LP News editor. (That, of course,
is *my* opinion, and I
acknowledge
that.) It appears to me that repeat
advertising in LP News was
part of a very successful strategy to support
campaign
fundraising.
Certain that result was achieved. It is only my
speculation that this was
the reason for the ads, just as it is only
your speculation that the
intent of the ads was to obtain strong LP News
coverage of the campaign.
On the other hand, the
Howell
campaign was extremely successful as
measured by any of a
number
of yardsticks. So it would stand to reason
that LP News would cover
it to highlight to our membership what *can* be
achieved by an LP
candidate
for federal office.
> What is the effect
of funneling
all that business to the LP News? Well,
the
> News is the primary
conduit
for contacting the mass of members. Wont it be
> nice if the Howell
for
president campaign gets favorable treatment from
the
> News? Wont it be nice
if the News doesnt publish any comments on why the
> Howell campaign might
be bad for the party? The News can promote the
Howell
> campaign in any
number
of legal ways. This is all legal; yet, it is just
an
> example of how
interlocking
relationships still are being used to sell a
> particular paradigm
and
group of leaders to the general membership.
What a second, Bill. Let's look at those questions.
First, you are assuming
that
there will be a Howell for President
campaign. I have no
clue whether or not there will be. I wouldn't be
surprised if there is, but
I think it is presumptuous to think that this
is all posturing for 2004.
Second, all LP
presidential
contenders should get "favorable treatment"
from LP News if they are
running a credible campaign for the
nomination. I don't
see buying ads as something that would affect
coverage. No one on
staff gets compensated based on LP News ad
revenues. LP News
is not a "profit center" on our books. If there were
a bias in favor of one
candidate
over another in LP News (and I am NOT
saying that there would
be), then it certainly wouldn't be based on ad
sales.
Third, LP News doesn't
publish
negative things about ANY LP candidate or
campaign as far as I
know.
On of the purposes of LP News is to be a
booster of the party and
its candidates. It is not an impartial media
source -- it is a
pro-LP-biassed
publication. If you want criticism of
the LP, read outside
publications,
not LP News. Internal criticism is
not LP News' function.
> There just was
another
post to the LPUS list as to why bickering is
> continuing. The short
answer is the interlocking relationships/conflict of
> interest are
continuing.
The leadership has not shown any interest in
> speaking out against
them.
Rather, as Steve is doing on this issue, they
> continue to defend
them.
I am not defending
"interlocking
relationships/conflict of interest,"
Bill. I dispute
their
existence.
If I felt there was a
conflict
of interest, I'd speak out to remedy it.
I just don't think they
exist at this time.
So please don't
characterize
me as defending them. I haven't said that
they exist but that they
are alright. I have said that -- at present --
they don't exist.
That's quite different.
> Very few of the
people
making negative posts do so because they are
trouble
> makers (there might
be
a couple; there always are), but rather they do so
> because they truly
want
to see liberty make a comeback in this country and
> are disappointed with
the party's efficacy.
Hell, I'm disappointed
with
the party's efficacy. And I don't have any
problem stating that
publicly.
I am not satisfied with our election
results. And by
that,
I am not saying that I am dissatisfied because we
didn't elect a president
or US senators or congressmen in 2000. I
didn't expect to do
that.
I am disappointed that we didn't have a
better showing in many of
our races.
However, I don't
believe
it is because of interlocking relationships or
conflicts of interest.
As I have said before,
I
am working dilligently to help lead the LP to
development of a new,
long-term
strategic plan that is far more
comprehensive than we have
ever done before. I am talking about a
multi-year strategic plan,
built from the floor up, with EVERY aspect of
strategy open to
discussion,
consideration, or reconsideration. I am
talking about a strategic
plan that sets forth goals, strategies, and
tactics for both national
and state parties. Clearly, whether or not
any given state party buys
into the plan is up to that state's party.
But at least, if my
efforts
are successful, the state parties will have
before them the outline
for what they can do in concert with national to
promote local activities,
local campaigns, ballot access, etc.
This sort of
comprehensive,
multi-level plan is, in my opinion,
something new for the
LP.
I see it as a way to move to the next level.
I trust that you support
such an effort.
> When will these
people
be welcomed back? When will the pattern of
> interlocking
relationships
that excludes anyone who differes from the
> dominant paradigm be
acknowledged
for what it is/has been? When will this
> party become
exclusive?
I think you meant the last word to be "inclusive."
Frankly, I don't see
the
part as excluding anyone who differs from what
you call the "dominant
paradigm."
We have at least two or three new LNC
members who view thinks
very differently than most of the rest of the
LNC. They are
included,
not excluded.
> Until we broaden
our internal
base, we are not going to broaden our
external
> base. I'm not
satisfied
with 250-350,000 voter base nationwide. It's not
> going to get us
anywhere
in federal races. Certainly the superhuman effort
in
> Nevada proved that.
I agree with you about
broadening
our internal base. The current
approach -- membership
growth
-- attempts to do so through one
methodology.
However,
its success depends, in part, on the ability of
our affiliates to take new
members, engage them, provide activities for
them that interest them
and get them to become more active than just as
donors. The
considerable
variation among our affiliates in how
successfully they have
done
this demonstrates that there is room for
improvement in this
area.
I don't blame our affiliates for not grabbing
onto these new people and
making them into internal dynamos. One thing
that our comprehensive
plan
should look at is a strategy for state
parties to do so --
perhaps
with some help from national.
> Now, are we going
to do
the right thing, or are we just going to protect
our
> power?
What is "the right
thing,"
Bill. Unfortunately, too many people equate
"doing the right thing"
with "doing things my way." There is often more
than one reasonable way
to proceed. When that is the case, people who
equate "doing the right
thing" with "doing things my way" often
criticize reasonable
decisions
which simply do not conform to their
preference. THAT is
a problem that we need to overcome if we are to
succeed as an
organization,
because it is simply impossible to build
unity and teamwork in an
environment where people equate the two.
Steve Givot