Phillies Files Declaration of Intent

Concord, New Hampshire, June 19: Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Presidential candidate George Phillies has filed his candidacy papers with New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner. "Being nominated for President is the highest honor a political party can bestow on one of its members," Phillies said, "and I will do my utmost to show that New Hampshire's trust is not misplaced."

Speaking of the National Libertarian Party, which separately nominated a different Presidential candidate, Phillies said: "The New Hampshire Party has been collecting signatures for me since Spring 2007.

Unfortunately, the people of New Hampshire in their wisdom do not permit political parties to replace their Presidential candidate. I was chosen as the candidate, and so I must remain."

Phillies says his campaign will emphasize an immediate end to the Iraq War, termination of warrantless wiretaps of most telephones with criminal prosecution of the wiretappers, and massive cuts in Federal spending of all sorts. "The people of New Hampshire pay far more in Federal taxes than they get back. The only way to fix the system is to leave your hard-earned money where it belongs, in your wallet," Phillies said.

The New Hampshire Party has already completed petitioning for Phillies and other candidates, including U.S. Senate Candidate Ken Blevens of Bow, New Hampshire, Congressional candidates Robert Kingsbury of Laconia and Chester LaPointe of Swanzey, as well as candidate for Governor Susan Newell of Winchester.

To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://ChooseGeorge.org/donation today.

To arrange an interview or obtain a short quote from the candidate, contact:

Carolyn Marbry, Press Director pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216
George Phillies for President 2008 http://ChooseGeorge.org

That cesspit of lunacy termed American conservatism continues to kick up claims that there is no global warming. Unfortunately, right wing nonsense is now infiltrating press releases allegedly from our national committee.

Conservative lie #1): Global Warming stopped in 1998. So here is the graph courtesy http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

There is an averaged trend line (black) and there are year to year fluctuations (year numbers are the red and blue lines). 1998 is the red line sticking way way up, the line that does not match neighboring lines at all.

The trend is overwhelmingly visible, with flatness until around 1920, and then trending up with shorter and long term bounces around the trend.

Of course, if you are an American conservative, you take 1998 as 'typical' and say 'we're getting colder again' which is clearly not the case.

Oh, why do we get these bounces from the trend? The air holds heat. The ocean holds about a thousand times more heat. The deep ocean is shielded from the air. Change how the shallow ocean is stirred, and you will change how heat exchanges between ocean and air. This cools air all around the world, or heats air all around the world. The La Nina and El Nino Pacific events are examples of this mixing effect. These events last around a year, are unpredictable in advance, and cause some of the bumps you see in the above graph.

Conservative Lie #2) If you can't predict weather, you can't predict climate. To predict my climate, you need to predict that Worcester gets around 4" of rain a month, more in some months, less in others. To predict weather, you needed to predict that, for this June, 3" fell on one day, and *which day* the 3" fall would occur. Obviously getting the day right is harder than getting the month right.

Conservative Lie #3) We can't measure climate change. I call the reader's attention to the marvel of modern 18^th century science, the thermometer, a device that measures temperature quantitatively. Around the world are vast numbers of people recording and reporting the weather. Earth satellites measure much of the rest of the globe. Careful averages--some areas have fewer measurements than others--eliminate fluctuations, smooth out day to day changes, and give accurate measurements of the temperatures of the whole earth, with precision visible in the above graph.

I could go on, but the short message is that climate change denial is wrong and dangerous, both to our country and our party. Denial is dangerous to our country, because it leads us to take bad decisions as private citizens and entrepreneurs. Denial is dangerous to our party, for the same reason that homophobia is bad for our party: The younger generation will reject us, even as the younger generation is rejecting that sinkhole of bigotry that is American conservatism.

As state chair of LP of Massachusetts, I am now in a rather difficult position. Not ten years ago, Bob Barr tried to persuade the army to ban Wicca services from fields near Fort Hood. He also, I am told by Arthur Torrey, referred to Arthur's religion as 'bogus'.

I am in the same position as a State Chair who has a majority-African-American State Committee, and whose Presidential candidate was, ten years ago, a Grand Dragon of the KKK who spent his time trying to persuade storeowners not to rent out their storefronts to African-American churches.

Bob Barr was a Grand Dragon of the KKK? How many more skeletons does this career statist, and now racist, have?

Update: It appears Phillies was using an analogy. However, more information on Bob Barr's racist history can be found here.

I thought the best performance came from Steve Kubby. My personal favorite candidate Mary Ruwart was decent but unspectacular. Mike Gravel seems like a nice enough guy, but his obsession with the National Initiative is scary. Barr and Root are good speakers, although Root's intensity makes me crawl under the bed occasionally. George Phillies and Michael Jingozian had no flare. Unfortunately, Christine Smith did not participate in the debate, but I heard she gave an anti-endorsement of Bob Barr in her concession speech. I would like to hear that speech, but I can't find it.

I've certainly had my fun at the expense of the Libertarians, but it isn't really my fault -- they keep giving me fresh material. So, for the record, this run-through of the debate (available in full at C-Span Junkie) is not intended to offer their substantive arguments: the substance in this summary is mainly incidental. Want to know what they stand for, read Reason Magazine -- they have plenty of their own debate analysis. I already know what I think of the Libbies, so I just wanted to continue the fun...

Opening Statements

Bob Barr (BB): "People say I'm uncharismatic, but inside this heart beats the heart of a Libertarian." See? He admits right off the bat that the heart of a Libbie is small enough to fit inside another heart. Honesty.

Mike Gravel (MG): "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!" Seriously... he said that. And I was worried that a sit-down debate would keep him from having a stage-wandering Stockdale moment.

George Phillies (GP): Wow... what a personally unappealing and unlikeable man. Ran for Congress in Massachusetts in '98, was involved in the debates, "the press said I won them." "I'm the centrist Libertarian." Too much Left Libbie/Right Libbie splits. Keep Uncle Sam out of pocket-book and bedroom; GOP has exposed themselves as the Party of bigots. And to top it all off: "I will give us the campaign you've always dreamed of." Modest guy.

Wayne Allyn Root (WAR): Another man of whom I developed an instant and instinctive aversion. Seriously, a Phillies/Root ticket might have been the most unlikeable ticket in the history of politics. "I'm going to make history for our Party."

Michael Jingosian (MJ): "It's so nice to be in a room with so many who care about liberty and freedom." Unlike the rest of the Stalinists in the U.S.? He's been a Libbie since 1980. Don't really know why -- just something about realizing the two-party system controlled everything. Oh -- this is priceless... he cares so deeply for his country that he's been on the road, forced to talk to his kids on the phone long distance, willing to "sacrifice so much" for the country he loves. Hey, I'm not asking for military service or anything, but at least Romney's kids sacrificed for this country by campaigning for him.

Steve Kubby (SK): Has some kind of aggressive form of cancer, and was given six months to live. Has had that prognosis for 34 years. I'm happy for the man, but remain unconvinced that medical marijuana, while undoubtedly pain relieving, is the reason for his survival. Sort of a "kids, don't try this at home" moment, but I would recommend that cancer patients actually get treatment, perhaps in addition to the medical marijuana thing.

Mary Ruwart (MR): Vote for me, I'm a woman... just like Hillary Clinton... only not at all like Hillary Clinton.

Question One: Favorite Philosopher

Quick digression: I hate this question... hate it when its asked in a Democratic debate, a Republican debate, and probably especially in a Libertarian debate. It's ridiculous.

BB: First respondent gets the worm! "Ayn Rand." Take that, rest of the participants!

MG: "Solon," the Athenian lawmaker and poet. Took the words right out of my mouth.

GP: "Barry Goldwater." Wait, that answer didn't get the applause I was hoping for... plan B: "Cicero!" Then, I kid you not, "most of you probably haven't heard of him." Real respect for your audience, professor.

MJ: "Benjamin Franklin." I'm predicting this is just the first shot in an "I heart 1776" theme for the day.

MR: "Ayn Rand." Oooh... too bad its taken. Don't get much of a response going second, I guess.

Kubby: "David Nolan, founder of the U.S. Libertarian Party." I think he was a contemporary of Cicero... maybe Phillies can help me out on that one.

WAR: "Yogi Berra." Seriously, what a dick. Oh! And, "Barry Goldwater."

MG: Second consecutive statement in which he invokes the Military Industrial Complex. We could be in for a long day.

GP: Stop shouting! You have a microphone! What a grating little lecture-y voice! While we're at it, stop with the soundbite sentences: "Bring troops home!" "End the war!" There are available sentences that don't begin with verbs.

MJ: Ooh, he just stole Gravel's Military Industrial Complex. Also, it's a primary, this guy needs to stop preaching to the choir and pleading with his audience to vote Libertarian in 2008.

Question Two: Foreign Entanglements

SK: "We don't have enemies, we have ideological competitors." Um, okay, but it seems to me we have a few enemies as well.

WAR: Now his hero is Jefferson - sorry Goldwater and Berra. He's only anti-war because of his economic conservatism. These guys sure are a warm and fuzzy crowd.

GP: When you add together incoherence and ego, you get George Phillies: "I've called for..." and then a whole lotta nothing. Something about private enterprise, but he lost me along the way.

MJ: "I agree with George Phillies" (you could follow that?). Another plea to vote Libertarian.

MR: Put true cost of oil at market price.

SK: What the hell is that sound coming from Kubby's mike??? Every time he speaks now it sounds like a snake charmer in the background combined with a series of "door open" beeps. I can't even listen to what he's saying.

Question Three: Energy Policy

WAR: "Politicians aren't the solution, they're the problem." Way to go out on a limb. "Drill, Drill, Drill!" And a shot at Al Gore. Doesn't seem like Root is all that concerned about global warming.

BB: "I have nothing against polar bears." Good to know, that'd make a great bumper sticker.

MG: "Had the same problems thirty years ago, and government did nothing." ??? Um... Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Environmental Protection Agency, Earth Day, most effective environmental measures since TR was in office.

Question Four: Tragedy of the Commons

MJ: "I'm going to do something politicians never do: say 'I don't know.'" Wow - a good minute in, and he's still talking about how great it is that he admitted he didn't know the answer. Move on.

MR: She said taxes! Then she retracted. Then she said "fee!" Why do I doubt that will play well?

SK: "U.S. government worst polluters on planet."

WAR: "And the second biggest polluter is Al Gore." Is this a vendetta he has or something?

BB: Don't sign Kyoto. Does anyone remember what the question was?

MG: "The only thing that works is the concept of private property." Keep telling yourself that, Mike.

GP: Come on... do we have to listen to your "liberals on one side, conservatives on the other, I'm somewhere else, and I'm the only one who's right" argument again? We get it. Brave, brilliant, and always correct. And not the least bit incoherent.

Question Five: PATRIOT Act and REAL ID

MR: Abolish them both. Only people who "understood" the Patriot Act were Ron Paul and "myself." Sorry, Feingold, guess you didn't make the cut. Then... "if everyone was armed, there would've been no 9/11."

SK: Attacks Barr on vote for Patriot Act. Government wants to "track and control us." Yeah... big brother is watching.

WAR: "This is what made me a Libertarian." "Government is corrupt." Under a Root Administration? "Patriot Act - GONE; Warrantless wiretaps - GONE; REAL ID... no way Jose, OUT!" He should be selling some kind of cleaner on an infomercial. Now he wants to privatize the war on terror. I'm thinking bad thoughts about this guy.

BB: Worked with ACLU and ACU to "drive a stake through the heart of the Patriot Act."

GP: "The government is reading almost every email sent." Really? How boring for them.

MJ: (gets a laugh with) "How can you not like the Patriot Act?" Says he's "running for President to "educate the American people." Thanks, I sure is learnin'.

Question Six: Immigration

SK: "Our immigration policy is the same as I would expect from the KKK." Important to keep in mind though, Mr. Kubby, that the KKK is not an enemy - merely a competing ideology, right?

WAR: I don't know, something dickish about being fine with immigrants as long as they don't use any social services or end up on welfare.

BB: "We have no immigration policy."

MG: "We should have no barriers." Praises Europe, then pivots to Fair Tax.

GP: Second time in the debate someone has felt obligated to "do something real politicians won't." We get it. You're not your average politicians. Still can't untangle his words and discern his point. I think he's either for or against open borders.

MJ: Stop beginning your answers by saying you agree with the person who just spoke! This time, he picked Bob Barr to agree with. He also wants to end the welfare state.

MR: Government limits the number of available jobs because of regulation. End regulation and welcome immigrants.

Question Seven: War on Drugs

WAR: "End the war on drugs."

BB: Pretty much ditto. I'm okay with that, but do you think they realize that if you end the war on drugs, you essentially end a private, untaxed, unregulated industry and establish one that can be taxed and regulated by government? Ironic, huh?

MG: Oh yeah, he's a big pot guy. I remember that from the Democratic Primary when he recommended to a bunch of New Hampshire High Schoolers that they light up or something like that.

GP: "When I was a little boy..." Here we go. Some prohibition lesson. And then: "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." Ya know what George? That's not something you'll need to worry about at the moment.

MJ: You gotta be kidding! He agrees with his colleagues again!

MR: "We need to follow the lead of the Netherlands." That must've made Gravel swoon.

SK: "I'm getting a major buzz right now." Alright, in fairness, the guy does have some credibility on this issue.

Question Eight: Judges

BB: "Libertarian judges."

MG: "Also Libertarian judges, but more importantly, change the judicial system. They're appointed for life! They're Papists!"

GP: "I do this... I do that..." Wants to call up some Libertarian law professor and "ask them to compile a list of Libertarian law professors and to include their own name. That'll get you a pretty good list." Um... I'm just thinking, but if you ask them to include their own name, wouldn't it be human nature to turn in an otherwise fairly weak list? Come on... you guys are supposed to understand this whole "competition" thing. What was it you were saying about the stupidity of humanity?

MJ: "Judicial branch is just as corrupt as the executive and legislative branches." Wow -- these guys don't just think government is inefficient, to a person, they all think it's corrupt as well. HE JUST DID IT AGAIN! "I agree with Mike Gravel and all my colleagues here."

MR: Using way too many words to simply say "I'd appoint Libertarian judges."

SK: "Don't even like the concept of the Supreme Court." Hehe... he just unintentionally referred to Marbury v. Madison as "Mayberry v. Madison." Then, without any irony, said the Supreme Court is made up of "idiots."

WAR: "Follow the Constitution." He just referred to education as his "niche" issue. That's not something you should generally have to point out if you really do own the issue... Now he's paraphrasing Charlton Heston: (shouts) "over my cold, dead fingers!" regarding the Supreme Court telling him how to educate his kids. Wow.

Question Nine: Health Care and the FDA

MG: Ding! 60 seconds, 10 uses of the word "free" or "freedom." That's gotta be a record. Then he pivots again - this time to education. Says we are a "dumb population." Seems to be a theme with these guys. Maybe its just the company they keep.

GP: "I'm going to propose answers Americans can understand." Right... just after you explain Cicero to us.

MJ: Yay! "The American people are not stupid." That's refreshing. They're "smarter than we think they are." And then... "deregulate the health care industry." Damn. For a second, you had me. Then you answered the question.

MR: Parrots deregulation. Wow, I didn't know that in England and other countries with universal health care seniors who needed treatment were told to "go home and die." That seems harsh...

SK: "As a cancer patient..." Okay buddy, you're starting to overplay that credibility card now.

WAR: "Government is the problem, not the solution." "Answer is Freedom! Answer is Choice! Answer is Competition!" "Tort reform!" See? Complete asshole.

BB: "Almost 50% of medical costs go to cover government regulation, including FDA."

Question Ten: Gay marriage

GP: "I'm proud to be from Massachusetts." "States rights were wrong when they took away an African American's right to vote, and wrong when they take away a homosexual's right to marry." Also tosses in a quick pro-choice line.

MJ: It's not even funny anymore... he "agrees with everything that was just said... why is government even involved in this issue?"

MR: She also agrees with colleagues. Marriage should be a private contract between people.

SK: He's "perplexed" that government can decide who can marry and who can't.

WAR: "Can you believe that gays in this country want to get married?" I'm guessing his wife didn't really need an added argument for divorce, but I think she just got one... "Just kidding... I love my wife..." Then: "None of the governments business to define marriage, period." Yeah, it's fitting that he's the guy that uses the word "period" to punctuate his sentences. That infomercial deal awaits...

BB: Stands up before answering. That's visually weird. Now he's apologizing for being the author of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Now he wants to repeal it. What was that thing about being unfair for people "who come into this country"? Is this somehow tied to the immigration debate in his mind?

MG: "Marriage is a secular term... what is marriage?" Yes... let us muse... "it's a commitment of love between two human beings. If this world needs something, it needs more love." That's deep. I can already hear Dionne Warwick singing in the background.

Question Eleven: How would your nomination help the Libertarian Party?

MJ: Uh-oh, when you get the first crack at the question, there's nobody you can agree with... "My mentor is Harry Browne." He enrolled all the American people - some Libertarian issues appeal only to Libertarians, some appeal to all Americans. My campaign is focused on those issues." Some stuff about the two-party system. Wants to deliver the message of unity.

MR: "I want to get more votes for the Libertarian Party." Back to the whole "run a principled, Libertarian woman" to get more women involved. Now some more Ron Paul stuff... she just said she's active in his Meet-up groups. This is near stalker material.

SK: "This party has grown phenomenally in the past few years..." Predicts that one day Hillary Clinton will write a book claiming she's always been a Libertarian. Says the Party has "leaned too far to the Right," need to "pick up on the Ron Paul revolution." Wow - that's two candidates with Ron Paul crushes. "Insane McCain" reference got some applause. Nice applause line with that "we need someone who will fight for your freedom!"

WAR: "Number One: Voters and constituencies." "Number Two: Fundraising." Now he's bragging about how much money he can bring in. Now bragging about how many online poker enthusiasts consider him a celebrity.

BB: "I have been in the belly of the beast. I have been in Washington." Now he thinks we're "on the cusp of a Libertarian era!"

MG: "Who can walk the talk?" Talking about his days in the Senate - I think back in the '20s. Just yelled that the applause was cutting into his time. They oughta just twinkle. Up, there's his mantra, "freedom, freedom, freedom!"

GP: "What can I do for the Libertarian Party?" See... even he doesn't know... Great. Now he's back to "left wing television and right wing radio." Let me guess. You have a third way that's much much smarter than those two. "I'm not going to make fabulous promises... not going to talk about what I might do if elected." No George, you seem perfectly contented telling us about what you (think you) have done already. And there he goes, "I've already reached out to Ron Paul folks..."

Question Twelve: Do you favor the repeal of all gun laws including FDRs attack (or tax) on machine guns? (rapid fire round)

MR: "Yes."

SK: "Real freedom less likely to come from Congress and more likely to come from Smith and Wesson."

WAR: "What part of the second amendment don't the bureaucrats understand?" Whatever part it is, I'm sure Mr. Phillies would be happy to teach it to them.

BB: Another shout-out for "Chuck" Heston. "The second amendment is the first amendment."

MG: "Leave the second amendment the way it is," and "the American people have the wisdom to deal with this issue." Really Mike? I thought we were a "dumb population?"

GP: Still incoherent babbling... I think it's just random quoting of the 2nd amendment.

MJ: "I own a gun, and no one's taking it away from me."

Closing statements:

BB: Spent the day going over the Libbie platform. "No longer should fear be driving public policy, courage should be." Now he's quoting Dante. "Big government destroying this country." So much for not using fear.

MG: Gotta love it when it all comes full circle - Gravel just picked up Phillies' earlier Cicero reference. We should give power to the American people so they have control over what effects their lives. "They (presumably the dumb population) will be empowered to make the decisions."

GP: "We're all great speakers!" Um... think again. "Why should you choose me? My skeletons are all out of the pocket." Pocket. Bad timing on that "great speakers" comment. And then six sentences in a row (yup, 6) started with "I'm already...", "I have already...", or "my press releases already..."

MJ: "Running a government is like running a business, and I'm a CEO." Ah, Biff.

MR: "I'd like to remind us of our victories." Seems like that could've been accomplished in the rapid response round. She's talking about how "mainstream" the Libbie position has become. Yikes!

SK: Back to medical marijuana. "Every other candidate has been taking freedom from you... I'm the only candidate who has written and helped to pass a law that increases freedom."

WAR: "What this Party needs is energy, spirit, passion, dynamic communicator!" Oh... my... God... "Raise your hands! How many of you believe I have energy?!" Scattered applause. He's standing up now. I think he's about to take out the whole room. "How many believe that I have passion! Now compare my energy and my passion to an employee of the Department of Motor Vehicles." Now he's screaming, "That's the message!" Oh, here's a good one: "You know what else this Party needs? A New York street fighter. My hero is Winston Churchill..." I hadn't realized Churchill was a New York street fighter. Guess that was before he moved to England and told all those old, disease-ridden people to "go home and die." This man is INSANE.

And that is, mercifully, the end of the debate. I can't believe these guys are actually gaining in prominence...

ENM: The guy doing the introduction is boring. They are going to cover the presidential debates, and then the Chairman debates. They are showing Mike Gravel, and I can see Wayne Root. There's Phillies and Barr as well.

Jim Pinkerton is moderating. When the person introducing him pointed out that he worked for Bush, he got boo'd. Seems like a lively crowd, to say the least.

The candidates debating are Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, George Phillies, Mike Jingozian, Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, and Wayne Allyn Root. The moerator called him "The King of Las Vegas!" as if that's something that makes him qualified for the presidency. Can you see my eyes rolling?

Each gets a two-minute introduction, then will answer in the order in which they were introduced. Pinkerton wants the delegates to hold applause, booing, etc in order to allow more time to ask questions.

Pinkerton made some really strange jokes, which didn't really go over very well.

Question: What philosopher most closely represents your views?

Barr: Ayn Rand. (Yeah, right.)

Pinkerton actually screwed up and forgot to let them make their opening statements first. I wondered about that.

Barr says his journey has taken many years to get to libertarianism. He brings up Ayn Rand again. he says he has lived in societies with no freedom, no liberty, and said he was referring to Congress. That joke fell flat, he was the only one who thought it amusing. He said people think he is not charismatic. He did okay, but not great.

Gravel said we're in a mess, and it's silly to think the ones who got us here can fix it. Only libertarians can fix it. The Dems and Reps have a monopoly, follow the money to find out what will happen when they are elected. I thought he did well.

Phillies is proud to be a Libertarian, and have the opportunity to spread the message of peace, liberty, and prosperity. Proud to have had many opportunities to serve the party, mentioned his congressional run and his PAC, made a jab at Barr without naming him. Phillies will cover issues the American people care about. He is the centrist who can hold the party together. He actually did very, very well.

Jingozian talks about what we have seen in this country. Does he have pink eye in his left eye? It looks odd for some reason. Hopefully it's just a shadow, because pinkeye sucks. He sacrificed his own time and money to get us where we need to be.

Ruwart got applause right off the bat. Interesting. Democrats made this "the year of the woman", then dropped the ball. Her hair looks like it's plastered, she looks much prettier when it's more natural. She's still very attractive for a woman her age. Libertarianism is the passionate choice, decrease crime, slash healthcare costs. Only liberty can deliver those things. She has the experience and the depth of understanding of principles to accomplish it. Big applause at end.

Kubby has good news and bad bews. He has 6 months to live, adrenal cancer. Good news is that this is the 34th year they've told him that. Big applause. Medical marijuana is the only treatment which has worked. His campaign is not about marijuana, it's about liberty. Applause again. Has nearly died and gone to jail for liberty. Most cant define liberty. It's not freedom, it's freedom from government. He looks like he has some splotches on his forehead. is he okay? I sure hope so!

Root claims we're the anti party. Anti this, anti that. He talks like a used car salesman. Claims he's the first Jewish American to get presidential nomination (not true). SOB, blah, blah. Obama, blah blah. Does he not realize that people are tired of hearing the same crap over and over again from him? I know i am. He's a SOB, for sure, but the B doesn't stand for butcher.

Okay, now back to questions about philosopher. Gravel says laws permit us to have the sovereignty. Small applause at first, then big applause. Didn't catch the name of the philosopher, sorry.

Phillies: Goldwater. He got applause during his answer. Then mentioned Marcus Cicero, wrote "Essay on Duty", sacrifice for country. Small applause.

Jingozian said (dammit, dog was barking, missed it). He says this is the year we will put LP on map.

Is it just me, or are these guys not really answering the question about philosopher?

Ruwart named Ayn Rand. Judge and be prepared to be judged. Unity of our party being challenged. We need to practice non-judgment and love. Big applause.

Kubby said many, but most influenced by David Nolan, LP founder. Taught him liberty works. Without liberty, everything in jeopardy. Moderate applause.

Root said "Yogi Berra". What a retard. Who wears a fuschia tie on television? Root, that's who. Ugly, ugly tie.

Question: any part of the world where you'd send troops?

Gravel: No. Wants to withdraw troops from around the world, close bases around world. Treat everybody as equals. Golden rule is answer to meaningful foreign policy. Huge applause.

Phillies: Cold war is over, bring troops home, close bases. End foreign aid, compete economically. Applause.

Jingozian: Most people in world just want to live in peace, have a good standard of living, hope kids have it a little bit better. It's the governments at war, not the people. War will not end unless we vote libertarian. big applause.

Ruwart: bring troops home. They're in a Middle Eastern Vietnam. Were at war with Japan just a few decades ago. Be friends to all, trade with all, offer hand in friendship. Applause.

Kubby: strange feedback sounds. We have competitors, we need to figure out that bombing civilians won't help. People look to US as leader. Some applause.

Root: Thomas Jefferson is hero. Impoundment. Damn, this guy sounds like a broken record. He has said the same things in other debates. He claims he has come the farthest of everyone in the panel. Cut military budget, give money back to taxpayers.

Barr: Missing emphasis on word defense. It is not defending America to occupy foreign nations. Bring troops home, remove security blanket propping up foreign regime. Conveniently doesn't say anything about his recent statement about invading Colombia. Applause.

Sorry, missed a question because I had to let my dogs out.

Gravel bashed Barr on energy, LOL, and got some applause. Got big applause at end.

Question: Are you familiar with the tragedy of the commons(?)

Jingozian: I don't know. Big applause. He's successful not because he knows all the answers, but knows what questions to ask. We need to work together, need a president who admits he doesn't know. Learn from other countries. Big applause.

Ruwart: Restitution. Make people clean it up. Mentioned taxes, then corrected herself and called it a "fine". Her response makes no sense, she's stumbling over her own words. I get the impression that she's just making it up as she goes along.

Kubby: US government is biggest polluter on planet. He looks really tired.

Root: Al Gore is 2nd biggest polluter, pollutes more when he gets on his private jet to get a Nobel Peace Prize. What a stupid statement. Ends with "government is a failure". What a retard.

Barr: He says he has no idea what the question was about, but he keeps talking anyway. Retard.

Gravel: Concept of private property should be honored, let people sue polluters, that's the answer. Applause. Lobbyists set up barriers to stop citizens from doing this. LP offers freedom. Big applause.

Phillies: Not going to bash people because they are conservatives or liberals, is running for President of all. Scientific truth is that there is global warming. Suing people not the answer. If somebody pollutes, put them in prison.

How would you deal with Patriot Act and Real ID Act?

Ruwart: Abolish them both. Ron Paul. Mentioned herself? That fell completely flat. Liberty gives us the way to choose.

Kubby bashed Barr, got laughter. Set clear limits for government. Big applause.

Root: Patriot Act turned him into libertarian. Get rid of it all.

Barr: Full-body x-ray, fear is driving public policy. Claims he has been working with broad coalition to drive a stake through its heart, burn it, blah blah blah. Methinks he doth protest too much.

Gravel: Ask the American people if they want this stuff gone, brings up his National Initiative for Democracy, let people make their own decisions. Cheering from audience.

Phillies: Accidentally said "Congress" instead of president, put Bush et al into prison. Applause.

Jingozian made crack about how can't you like the Patriot Act, it has the word "patriot" in it. First joke that actually went over well.

Question about American Indian immigration policy. What an incredibly stupid question.

Root will open borders only if he can be guaranteed that there will be no welfare recipients. Secure borders.

Barr says we have no immigration policy. We should require people to go through checkpoint, provide verifiable identification, and check them for communicable diseases.

Gravel says 6 countries in Europe lowered all barriers. Do they know something we don't? We're great because we are an amalgam of people of the world.

Phillies said he will actually answer the question, unlike the other candidates. Indian immigration was a failure. We'll go broke if we have open borders and a welfare state.

Jingozian says we have a "feel good legislation policy". Native Americans didn't have welfare state. We must end welfare state. If he used the same practices in his businesses the government uses, he'd be in prison for life for accounting fraud.

Ruwart says government has limited the number of jobs we have. If we got rid of government, we'd be begging for immigrants. Government too busy at border.

War on Drugs question.

End international drug war on drugs. Legalize all drugs. I can't get over that ugly ass tie he's wearing.

Barr says drug war hasn't worked. Turn it over to states. What a cop-out answer.

Gravel says treat addiction as a public health problem. Got big applause.

Phillies: Prohibition was a failure, never underestimate the power of stupidity. We can't afford it. Applause.

Jingozian agrees with everybody else. Legalize it and deal with it honestly. Can't win war on drugs. Property crime comes from drug abuse. Will pardon all nonviolent drug offenders first day in office.

Ruwart: War on drugs kills more people than drugs themselves through AIDS. Says legal drugs are also problem, talked about people who tried to buy unapproved cancer drugs. Big applause.

Kubby is "getting a major buzz right now". Never imagined he'd see such diverse group all agree that medical marijuana should be legalized. Wrote two books on it. Passed Prop 215. 12 states and 2 countries now copy that law. End the drug war by executive order. Big applause.

Barr is really boring compared to the other candidates. At least he's wearing a nice tie, unlike Root.

Phillies' tie is crooked, but at least it's not fuscia.

Sorry, I had to take a break.

Why is Root always yelling? I feel like I'm on a used car lot. Sheesh.

What involvement should the government have in medical care, including FDA?

Gravel: If you're not healthy, you're not free. You don't have freedom if you have a dumb or unhealthy population. Wants to empower people, they will shrink the government better than anyone else.

Phillies: Will propose answers Americans will support, not a philosophy. Vetern healthcare is government obligation, they paid for it with their arms, legs, etc and their friends' lives.

Jingozian: Deregulate.

I dislike Root more and more, as he talks and gives his fake smile. I'm getting to the point that I actively dislike both him, and Barr. Root in particular, though, grates my nerves. He makes this debate seem like an infomercial, which cheapens it.

How will your campaign help the LP?

Jingozian: Harry Browne enrolled all Americans, not just libertarians. Focusing on issues all Americans have in common.

Ruwart: Invokes Ron Paul. Says women want to vote for a woman. Huh? I'm a woman, and I'm going to vote for the best candidate regardless of whether they have a penis or a vagina. That's insulting as hell. I suddenly don't like her. At all. I hate it when people pander and condescend simply because I am female. I hate it even more when the person doing it is a female, because a female should know better.

Kubby: Too many conservative candidates for LP. Invokes Ron Paul.

Root: Fundraising. Will get small business vote (yeah, right). He needs to stop yelling. Education reform. Online poker enthusiasts who consider him a celebrity. Gee, I thought they considered him a scammer.

Barr: Travels, need change. Can reach voters in way they can understand. I don't think he realizes how much he is hated by Democrats for Clinton impeachment. Seize Libertarian era.

Gravel: Judge people by actions, not talk. Ended the draft, stopped nuclear testing, Alaska pipeline, risked jail with releasing Pentagon Papers, did all that in four years.

Phillies: Has already reached out, so won't say what he might do, he's already done it. He's got the campaign, the volunteers, etc. Will build stronger party.

Root turns his closing statement into an infomercial, by trying to excite the crowd. Gawd, I despise that man.

My least favorite candidate is Ruwart, she lost any possibility of my support or respect when she made the comment about how women want to vote for a woman. That is almost as annoying as Root's yelling and ugly fuscia tie. I don't have a favorite, it wasn't a very good debate in my opinion. It was almost a waste of time to even watch it, I'm very disappointed.

I'll skip the blow by blow and tell you that Gravel and Starchild had a rather length exchange. Stardchild kept SC's cool, but dismissively (and deservedly) shook SC's head and smiled at some of Gravel's outlandishly statist propositions, but Gravel got fuming mad, shouting down SC. Gravel said you can't have liberty without education and that without government schools, everyone would be dumb. And of course, we are too dumb now precisely because government schools are too decentralized. SC pointed out Gravel's many contradictions which made the old man rage. "What do you want?" he asked, "voluntary education?" YES!, the crowd roared. "Show me where that has worked," Gravel demanded.

At this point, Andy got into the act. "Right here in this country," he said. Gravel disagreed. Andy set him straight. "FINE!" Gravel barked. "You want to go back to the 18th century, go right ahead." Andy rejoined: "It's not going back to the 18th century, it's going back to freedom." (That was a direct quote). The crowd erupted in cheers while the Maoist Gravel cohort sat on their hands.

Finally, Jim Duesning made Gravel shut up and let Steve Kubby speak. "There's never a justification for using force to achieve goals," he said. Short and sweet. Jingo said the same thing (he may have said it before Kubby, actually), and I waned to ask him how he saw protectionism as non-coercive.

There were a lot of questions on which Gravel's anti-libertarian colors were exposed. At one point, he literally ridiculed libertarians for never getting anything done. Mary Ruwart pointed out that libertarians have changed people's attitudes. This did not register with Gravel, who thinks change can only come through coercion.

A gentleman asked a question about the Fed and central banking. Link had disappeared by now and no one noticed. Jingo recalled a conversation with the Liberty Dollar founder (Bernand something) and agreed with him that a competing currency would destroy the Fed in a less tumultuous manner than an outright abolition. Jingo pointed out that saying "let's allow competing currencies" seems completely logical to average voters.

Kubby and Ruwart gave predictably sound answers. Kubby pointed out that the dollar's value, when compared to the loony, has halved. Ruwart blamed regulations for gold-standard-era depressions.

Gravel's answer was thoroughly statist. He said gold and silver were dumb because Russia and South Africa had all the gold and silver (as if that matters). He then lionized that great libertarian, Abe Lincoln, as the pioneer of fiat money, with his government-issued greenbacks. Gravel thought it was great that these helped fund the War Against Southern Independence. He wants more authority for the government over money.

Oh, and I should mention that Jim Duesning said, "I wish George Phillies were here to answer this question." Phillies, of course, supports the Fed's monetary fascism. It was the second potshot at Phillies. Earlier, someone asked, "Where's Bob Barr?" Duesning said all candidates had been invited and that anyone who did not think 9/11 needed an investigation, who trusted the government, was not a libertarian. He specifically mentioned the names Phillies, Root, and Barr (although allowed for as how they may have had legitimate commitments to other events).

Andy asked the next question: What do you think of the Fair Tax and the NAU. No one really talked about NAU, but a FairTax debate erupted, with Gravel supporting it strongly. Kubby made a whole new set of arguments against the FairTax that I had not even considered -- as if that even needed to be done! Mary Ruwart said, "the only FairTax is NO TAX." The crowd liked that. Gravel rambled on about how the LP was a "half-percent party" because of things like this. He is Dear Leader, and if we only follow him, we will win. What a hollow victory that would be.

There was some other mild drama, although I don't remember when. A weird guy tried to take the stage, and Jim Duesning had to have him thrown out. "Don't make me come off this stage!" he yelled at the dude. I felt bad for Duesning. He put on a good event.

The approximate order in which I’m seeing buttons and signs is: Barr, Imperato (?), Root, Gravel, Ruwart, and Phillies. I’m not sure who’s running against Dixon for LNC, but it seems like three-quarters of the delegates are wearing Dixon stickers.

It seemed like almost all the volunteers and workers with the Barr camp are either: (1) Ron Paul activists who moved over, or (2) Stephen Gordon.

It’s really strange running into people that I only know from the blogosphere, and noting the difference between that and the real world. I’ve argued a ton with Knapp online, but met him in person and found him to be really cool guy.

I found out about an hour after I checked in that my state affiliate could have gotten my press credentials if I’d thought to ask (oh well).

Trying to stick within my five free minutes, $16/hour after that. Business center

2 PM. Danny Imps is in the house. The lobby of the Denver Sheraton smells like a case of Eau de Palermo fell off the back of a truck in South Boston.

4 PM. Helped unload Laissez Fair Books. Said hello to Mary Ruwart, hubby Ray Carr and campaign staffer Brian Irving getting off the elevator. Headed off to get herbalife uppers from Carol McMahon of the Phillies campaign.

6-7 PM. Said hello to (among other people) VP candidate Daniel Williams (we discussed whether my punk rawk friends from New York were here; the answer is no, they barely leave Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, much less New York); LNC member and Wayne Root staffer Scott Lieberman (we talked about ballot access, especially in regards to Oklahoma); Rob Power from Outright Libertarians; Deb and Steve-O "The Fixer" Gordon; my acting region rep, Stewart Flood, who lobbied heavily for my vote, and told me we had a deal with Texas and Louisiana to become a superregion with two reps; rumored challenger for his position, R. Lee Wrights; John Wayne Smith; The Duensings; Tony and Bette Rose Ryan; and Bob Barr, who seemed to be under the impression that I might not make it here.

Oh yeah, and I finagled a free shower up in Casa Phillies. In what may be a move to get support from Steve Kubby backers, George is passing out Phillies Blunts.

Who: All candidates for the Libertarian Party nomination for President who wish to engage in debates under rules agreed to by them. All delegates and alternate delegates to the Libertarian Party Convention, the public, and the media are welcome to view the event (this means you are welcome).

When: Thursday, May 22, 2008, 9pm – 11pm.

Friday, May 23, 2008, 8pm – 10pm.

Where: Sheraton Hotel Denver, Tower Building, Terrace Level, Columbine Room. Seats 150, first come first seats, plus standing room. Employees at the front desk (a short distance from the Columbine Room) and all Sheraton employees will be happy to give you directions.

Why: For the first time, each delegate when they register for the convention will receive two tokens: One to be given to the Presidential Candidate and one for the Vice-Presidential Candidate of their choice. The Candidates must receive enough tokens in order to be given time to address the convention. These tokens may also affect who will participate in the “official debate” Saturday evening.

You and your tokens are important. If you do not see and hear the candidates in action, how can you make an intelligent and informed decision? So, don’t give away your tokens until you have seen the Great Debates!

This Event is Hosted by The Libertarian Party of Kentucky.

This Event is Sponsored by: George Phillies and Jim Burns, plus Alden Link

Endorsements: Wayne Allyn Root, Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart, or George Phillies for President; adopt the World's Smallest Political Platform

The Libertarian Party national convention is this weekend in Denver. I won't be going, but I know at least one delegate reads this blog, so I'm posting my endorsements for candidates and issues in the hopes that they are at least somewhat influential in the delegates' decisions.

First, to give my endorsements the necessary context, I should explicitly disclose my history, positions, and biases: I've been involved in the LP since 2000, including working as the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Washington State (2001-2002) and running as a Libertarian candidate for Washington Secretary of State (2004), but I've been less active since the 2006 election. I'm a minarchist, but I welcome anyone who supports reducing the size, scope, and power of government as a member of the Libertarian Party and libertarian movement even if they don't share my exact vision of what Libertopia should be. I think that the Libertarian Party has the greatest chance for success in local races (state legislature and lower) and thus the role of the national party and Presidential candidates should be to first do no harm (do not say or do anything wacky that will hurt local candidates), and second, help recruit and develop a pool of Libertarian activists, donors, and voters that local candidates and organizations can tap into.

To get caught up on the candidates and issues, I read their websites, their Wikipedia biographies, searched YouTube for videos of them speaking, and sought out opinions and gossip from other Libertarians on blogs. I've also had personal interactions with George Phillies and Mary Ruwart, and I heard George Phillies and Steve Kubby debate at the LP Nevada convention last year.

GOOD CANDIDATES

Unfortunately, none of the candidates this year really excite me. However, there are a few that I think would help our party grow if they won the nomination:

Wayne Allyn Root:

Pros: Moderately famous for his gambling TV shows/books and Millionaire Republican personal finance book. He's a very good speaker and smooth with the media, as shown here. Has raised the second most money of the "good" candidates".

Cons: He only recently made the switch from the Republican Party and is a little on the conservative side. He also seems to have already alienated a lot of people within the LP, although it's not clear to me what exactly he did to get their panties in such a bunch.

Steve Kubby:

Pros: Relatively famous politically. He was successful in getting California Proposition 215 (Medical Marijuana) passed, so we know he has the connections and resources to get things done. He would probably get media attention for being a convicted felon, but this is a good thing because it would show the stupidity of the Drug War. He's been campaigning for 2 years. Consistently libertarian positions.

Cons: Most Americans are more concerned about other issues than the Drug War right now, so Kubby's biggest strength is sort of wasted this year. Despite campaigning for 2 years he hasn't raised much money.

Mary Ruwart:

Pros: Is an excellent speaker and communicator. Is moderately famous within the libertarian movement. She's able to explain fairly radical libertarian positions and policies without scaring the crap out of people. Running a woman for President or Vice President this year might win us more media attention than we would otherwise get. She's been involved with the libertarian movement for a long time so we all know her pretty well by now. Consistently libertarian positions.

Cons: She entered the race pretty late and hasn't raised much money or probably built much of a campaign yet. She doesn't seem to know how to dress appropriately for a Presidential candidate. Please, Mary, go get some black or navy suits and wear them to all future events instead of that hideous gray thing.

George Phillies:

Pros: George is probably the most sane/mainstream candidate for the nomination -- he consistently advocates reducing the size of government, but in incremental ways that are actually politically viable. Has raised the most money of the "good" candidates. He's a long-time member and activist in the Libertarian Party, so we all know him pretty well by now. He "gets it" that the Presidential campaign should be a recruiting tool for building the party and helping elect local candidates. He's been campaigning for 2 years.

Cons: I think George might have a touch of Aspergers Syndrome -- those of you who have met George know what I'm talking about. He's not at all notable outside of the party.

I wish that George was working as the campaign manager or strategist for a prettier, more charismatic candidate instead of running for the nomination himself. Regardless of who wins the nomination, I hope that George stays involved in the Presidential campaign, because I think he's got the right mix of libertarian ideology and strategic pragmatism that we need to run a party-building Presidential campaign.

MEDIOCRE CANDIDATES:

I don't think these candidates would either help or hurt us that much:

Christine Smith:

Pros: She seems to have consistently libertarian positions on all the issues. She's a decent public speaker as seen here. Although I generally wish that female candidates would dress more conservatively, she pulls off the red suit look well. Running a woman for President or Vice President this year might win us more media attention than we would otherwise get.

Cons: She's just not that notable -- it's too bad that she decided to jump into running for President, because she would have made a great candidate for local office if she actually wanted to be elected to something. She desperately needs a web designer to improve the look and feel of her campaign website.

Other: She shares a name with a Playboy Playmate (NSFW Google images search). Inevitably, some people will get the two mixed up -- not sure if that will help or hurt her campaign. :)

Michael Jingozian:

Pros: Seems comfortable speaking, as shown here. Long-time member (claims he joined the LP in 1980). Founder and CEO of a successful small marketing company. Managed to score a Wall Street Journal blog post about his campaign ("A Small Business Owner for President"). I think his internet-focused campaign strategy is a smart idea given the LP's lack of resources for conventional campaigning. Has raised the most money of the not-bad candidates. Hasn't done anything to motivate people to write nasty things about him on blogs.

Cons: That no one is writing nasty things about him on blogs indicates that he's not campaigning hard enough or being taken seriously as a candidate. Complete lack of notability -- again, he should have run for local office instead of President. Campaign literature is way too cluttered and too focused on negative things.

Alden Link:

Pros: Seems innocuous. The positions he describes on his website are fairly consistently libertarian.

Cons: I had never heard of him and didn't know he was running until I did one last check of the LP's website to make sure I hadn't missed anyone. Has he raised any money or spoken anywhere? His website is pretty sad.

Jim Burns:

Pros: Seems to have consistently libertarian positions (although I couldn't bear to finish slogging through all the text on his website, so there might be something that I missed). Strategically-minded.

Cons: I couldn't find much about him so he doesn't seem to be campaigning very much. Seems a bit nutty. His campaign website was difficult to find and is pretty lame. Keeps referring to himself as an "old, bald, fat white guy," which may be accurate but is not the winning campaign rhetoric we should be looking for. He's so very earnest that I want to pat him on his little bald head, but I don't want him representing our party.

BAD CANDIDATES:

I think these candidates would be harmful to our party and I would be very disappointed if any of them were nominated:

Bob Barr:

Pros: As a former elected Congressman, he's much more famous than most of the other candidates. His experience in public office gives him credibility, and demonstrates that he is able to run an effective campaign. His campaign website is very professional-looking.

Cons: HE'S NOT A LIBERTARIAN. He's still really a Republican at heart, and he's running to get Republicans to vote and help down-ticket Republican candidates (via), not to build the Libertarian Party. He'll never be accepted by many libertarians due to his support of the Drug War, Defense of Marriage Act, and Patriot Act while he was an elected Congressman -- he may give lip service to libertarianism now, but his actual legislative record on libertarian issues is abysmal. He waited until the last minute to officially announce, which seems to me like a slimy tactic to avoid giving Libertarians adequate time to investigate and debate his candidacy before the convention. I don't trust him or his supposed change of heart (he doesn't even declare his current positions on drugs or gay rights on the Issues page of his website) -- this is a guy that we helped defeat for re-election in 2002, and now he sits on the LNC and is seriously being considered for our nominee for President?! Ron Crickenberger must be spinning in his grave.

Mike Gravel:

Pros: As a former elected Senator, and as a former candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, he's much more famous than most of the other candidates. His experience in public office gives him credibility, and demonstrates that he is able to run an effective campaign. His campaign website is very professional-looking.

Cons: HE'S NOT A LIBERTARIAN. The only reason he's running for the Libertarian Party nomination is because he couldn't win the Democratic Party nomination. He is campaigning for socialized medicine, which would be a massive increase in government. Need I say more?

Bob Barr and Mike Gravel are examples of one of the worst threats to third parties -- major party candidates who can't get along in their own party and decide to leave and try to co-opt a third party's ticket. We saw this happen with the Movimiento Libertario in Costa Rica (which was the most successful Libertarian party in the world to date). There, the co-opters were successful, and the Movimiento Libertario doesn't even call itself "libertarian" anymore. Let the fate of the ML serve as a cautionary tale to US Libertarians -- don't be so excited over the prospect of an experienced and proven "electable" candidate from a mainstream party that you ignore their ideology.

Daniel Imperato:

Pros: He seems to be putting a lot of effort into his campaign.

Cons: He's not actually a Libertarian, he's just a slut for third parties -- he's also tried to win the Green Party, Reform Party, and Constitution Party nominations, and seems to just want to be on the ballot regardless of whose ticket he's on.

PLATFORM:

I support the World's Smallest Political Platform (click the link to sign the petition):

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

I support it because I know from experience that opponents and media can and do go to the national Libertarian Party website, dig up something wacky from the platform, and use it confront local candidates in potentially winnable races. So while I personally don't object to much in the current or old platform, I think it is a handicap and not a help for winning elections at the level we can realistically win them at. Let our CANDIDATES define their own platforms individually, based on the issues that THEY want to campaign on, instead of having to fend off questions about issues not related to the office that they're running for or about positions much more radical than they themselves espouse.

________________________________

Jacqueline Passey is the former Executive Director of the Washington state Libertarian Party, and former LP candidate for Washington Secretary of State. Blog enthusiasts likely remember her from her 2006 blog entry covering the Nevada LP presidential debates, amusingly titled "Two whackjobs, a convicted felon, and George Phillies". That blog entry set into motion a short-lived "memogate", in which a memo from then-LP Executive Director Shane Corey, referencing her blog and asking whether the LP can offer better candidates, was leaked into the blogosphere.

Ms. Passey lives in Las Vegas with her husband and dachsunds, and is currently working on her Master's Degree at UNLV. Her current blog is "Jacqueline Gets Her Geek On".

Steve Kubby

George Phillies

Mary Ruwart

Christine Smith

I have down to these four because I feel they best represent libertarianism and libertarian ideals.  To choose between either of them would be difficult.  If I had to vote, I would vote for Steve Kubby because I have been familiar with his ideas for over a decade.  I voted for him for Governor when I lived in California.  But I will wholeheartedly support any of the candidates listed above.

On the other hand, if Wayne Alan Root or Bob Barr get the nomination, I am not sure I could vote for either of them.  But I will not vote for Clinton, McCain, or Obama under ANY circumstances.

A week from today, our Libertarian Party reaches a fork in the road. We'll choose a Presidential candidate.

On the plumb-line/libertarian/radical side are Jim Burns, Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart, and Christine Smith, with Mike Gravel giving very different yet very radical positions. On what Reason magazine called the right-leaning/pragmatic/celebrity side are Wayne Root and Bob Barr.

We have huge opportunities this year. John McCain champions the statist war philosophy that is conservatism, and Barack Obama's Party voted to go along. To seize our chance make our party stronger, we need to stay together. If we choose either a radical or a right-leaning Libertarian, staying together will be a challenge.

Staying together is the problem, and

Libertarian centrism is the answer.

I'm George Phillies, Libertarian centrist. I'm not a radical and equally I'm not right-leaning. Like our party, I'm in the middle. That's not the faint-voiced, compromising middle. Our Libertarian Party is the party of the outspoken, principled middle, and I am an outspoken, principled centrist candidate.

I'm your best choice to become our Presidential nominee, because I'm the candidate that most radicals and most pragmatists can come together to support. I happily work with people more radical than me, and happily work with people who make me look radical.

Then there's the second-best reason I should be our candidate. I have a campaign up and running. If nominated, I have over $100,000 in the bank ready to go to launch my campaign. I was Badnarik's national volunteer coordinator, so I've seen the practical limits of Libertarian resources.

For more on me, please go to http:/ChooseGeorge.Org

Being a centrist doesn't mean that I don’t take radical stands. I do. That's why Outright Libertarians endorses me. That's why I call for an army of special prosecutors to send to prison the Bush administration people who illegally wiretapped every telephone in America.

Being a centrist doesn't mean I don't take right-leaning stands. I do. That's why I denounce the national debt as the grandchild tax. We spend. They'll pay for life. That's evil.

Being a centrist does mean I take issues that concern real Americans, issues like medical care costs, education, energy, and the environment. I give sensible libertarian answers that Americans will support.

I support fellow Libertarian Party candidates, because when you support a candidate, your support counts twice. Your support counts once for him, and once for his party. I don't support Democrats or Republicans, because when you help one of them you help their party avoid extinction.

A closing thought. The Nolan chart has four corners. The two party system means two corners govern, and two corners are ineffective. I want to change the world, so the "Republican conservative" corner is an ineffective joke, and "libertarian" is the governing corner.

Please make me our nominee.

George Phillies
http://ChooseGeorge.org
phillies@4liberty.net
508 736 7333

P.S. To read my strategic plan to start changing the political world, go to http://phillies2008.org/files/qwerty.pdf

P.P.S. I am hearing rumblings about ballot access. I've pledged 20% of my donations, up to $300,000, to pay for ballot access, and have already spent thousands. If I am the nominee, I have a hundred thousand dollars in place not already committed for office rent, high-paid consultants, or television production; that money could go to ballot access right away if need be.

Phillies Salutes Advance of Liberty in California

Worcester, Mass., May 15: Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies today congratulated Californians on their latest step toward freedom, the legalization of gay marriage in California. "It is wonderful to hear that once again our Courts have defended our Constitutional rights," Phillies said. "Once again, our courts have agreed that separate is not and cannot be equal. To the people of California I say: Thank you for taking another step toward liberty and equality for all. To my civil-union supporting Democratic opponents I have a shorter message: Civil unions are major-party apartheid for GLBTQ people.

The California Supreme Court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, today found that the California Constitution made clear: If gays and lesbians are allowed a status that is substantially the same as marriage, it may not be given a different name.

"The people of California could have avoided this long and expensive trial," Phillies said, "but their spineless governor, loyal to the conservative philosophy of bigotry, vetoed bills establishing that marriage is for gay as well as straight adults."

"Voters should remember that conservative bigotry can be bipartisan," Phillies continued. "The bigoted Defense of Marriage Act was authored by a Republican and passed with bipartisan support. The trail from the terrorist Ku Klux Klan through White Citizens Council to its most recent successor, the Conservative Citizens Council, winds from the Democratic over to the Republican party.

"Americans should cheer the good news that conservative bigotry has been driven back. You can tell when bigotry is losing at the Federal level," Phillies noted, "because conservative bigots start bleating about their Jim Crow 'states rights' doctrine. Patriotic Americans know the truth: States have no right to take away your liberties.

"The conservative philosophy of bigotry is a vast tapestry," Phillies said, "but it is all woven from the same thread. No matter whether conservatives are bashing lesbians, banning internet gambling, or so shocked by the thought of a woman's breast that they forbid women to breast-feed their hungry infants in public, they are practicing bigotry. Americans should see and reject the bigotry that lurks in the dark heart and soul of far too much conservative thinking."

Decision in In Re Marriage Cases:
http://www.santacruzlive.com/photos/051508gaymarriage.pdfCouncil of
Concerned Citizens
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked=3&item=12

To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://ChooseGeorge.org/donation today.
To arrange an interview or obtain a short quote from the candidate, contact:

Carolyn Marbry, Press Director pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216
George Phillies for President 2008 http://ChooseGeorge.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Phillies: Time to End the Wars

Worcester, Mass., May 14: "We are at 'war' with everything, it seems," said Libertarian Presidential hopeful George Phillies in a statement earlier today. "We have the War on Iraq. The War on the Constitution. The War on (some, but not other) drugs. The War on Guns. The War on Science. It's time to end these wars."

Phillies outlined the cost of all the various "wars" the United States is fighting, pointing out that a baby born today can expect to be responsible for at least $200,000 of government debt. "We must change, or we will go broke," he emphasized.

He not only spoke about the war on Iraq, which he said should be ended "already," but about the failures of prohibition and the parallels in the war on drugs. "The War on Drugs leaves two million Americans in prison, and insures that millions of others will forever have felony records for smoking the wrong dried leaf. That's millions of Americans whose lifetime participation in our thriving economy will be pointlessly hindered. The War on Drugs, and specifically on marijuana, is racist to the core, with selective enforcement and a racial double standard on jail time. The war on drugs means that pot smugglers, like the booze smugglers of the prohibition era, settle marketing disputes with guns. Ending booze prohibition meant no more Saint Valentine's Day massacres. Ending drug prohibition will end battles that accidentally kill innocent children."

He went on to discuss the battle over gun control. "The war on guns endangers the lives and safety of millions of Americans. In America, home invasion--breaking into an occupied home to rob and assault the occupants--is very rare. In England, it's common. That's because Americans own guns, so home invasion is potentially a suicidal act. That's why European tyrants try to disarm their subjects; victim disarmament means your secret police can live to enjoy their pensions. Ending efforts to disarm Americans will make America safer and less crime-ridden, while protecting the civil liberties for which George Washington's volunteer army gave their lives.

"No real Libertarians disagree," he added. "Even Senators Obama and McCain voted for the Vitter Amendment banning firearms confiscation.

"Not only is it time to end all these wars," said Dr. Phillies, "but it's time to stop thinking in terms of 'war' every time we have a problem to solve. Except for Iraq, these are not wars, and we cheapen the sacrifice of those who fight on our behalf in real wars by calling them such. War is a tool of statecraft reserved for the most desperate circumstances, not a word to be lightly applied to every problem."

61 trillion dollars in spending not covered by taxes. -- General Accounting Office Report http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08371cg.html A call for Stewardship (61 trillion dollars over 300 million people is quoted here.)

A sea of lies see http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf especially pp. 1-4

The Vitter Amendment text and vote http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00202

Racial Disparities Found to Persist as Drug Arrests Rise http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/05cnd-disparities.html

Phillies: Time to End the Wars

Worcester, Mass., May 14: "We are at 'war' with everything, it seems," said Libertarian Presidential hopeful George Phillies in a statement earlier today. "We have the War on Iraq. The War on the Constitution. The War on (some, but not other) drugs. The War on Guns. The War on Science. It's time to end these wars."
Phillies outlined the cost of all the various "wars" the United States is fighting, pointing out that a baby born today can expect to be responsible for at least $200,000 of government debt. "We must change, or we will go broke," he emphasized.
He not only spoke about the war on Iraq, which he said should be ended "already," but about the failures of prohibition and the parallels in the war on drugs. "The War on Drugs leaves two million Americans in prison, and insures that millions of others will forever have felony records for smoking the wrong dried leaf. That's millions of Americans whose lifetime participation in our thriving economy will be pointlessly hindered. The War on Drugs, and specifically on marijuana, is racist to the core, with selective enforcement and a racial double standard on jail time. The war on drugs means that pot smugglers, like the booze smugglers of the prohibition era, settle marketing disputes with guns. Ending booze prohibition meant no more Saint Valentine's Day massacres. Ending drug prohibition will end battles that accidentally kill innocent children."
He went on to discuss the battle over gun control. "The war on guns endangers the lives and safety of millions of Americans. In America, home invasion--breaking into an occupied home to rob and assault the occupants--is very rare. In England, it's common. That's because Americans own guns, so home invasion is potentially a suicidal act. That's why European tyrants try to disarm their subjects; victim disarmament means your secret police can live to enjoy their pensions. Ending efforts to disarm Americans will make America safer and less crime-ridden, while protecting the civil liberties for which George Washington's volunteer army gave their lives.
"No real Libertarians disagree," he added. "Even Senators Obama and McCain voted for the Vitter Amendment banning firearms confiscation.
"Not only is it time to end all these wars," said Dr. Phillies, "but it's time to stop thinking in terms of 'war' every time we have a problem to solve. Except for Iraq, these are not wars, and we cheapen the sacrifice of those who fight on our behalf in real wars by calling them such. War is a tool of statecraft reserved for the most desperate circumstances, not a word to be lightly applied to every problem."
61 trillion dollars in spending not covered by taxes. -- General Accounting Office Report http://www.gao.gov/htext/d08371cg.html A call for Stewardship (61 trillion dollars over 300 million people is quoted here.)

A sea of lies see http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3GuideFind_SummRec.pdf especially pp. 1-4
The Vitter Amendment text and vote http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00202
Racial Disparities Found to Persist as Drug Arrests Rise http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/05cnd-disparities.html

To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://ChooseGeorge.org/donation today.
To arrange an interview or obtain a short quote from the candidate, contact:
Carolyn Marbry, Press Director pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216
George Phillies for President 2008 http://ChooseGeorge.org

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO, SEATTLE, KNOXVILLE, PHILADELPHIA and ATLANTA -- This Monday, former Congressman (and recent LNC committee member) Bob Barr announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Nomination for President of the United States.

Many of you are wondering where Outright Libertarians stands on this recent development, and the short answer is this: our position has not changed.

We continue to strongly support Dr. George Phillies as our endorsed candidate. Dr. Phillies has shown the courage, character and commitment that Outright's membership seeks in a presidential nominee. A longtime Libertarian activist and longtime supporter of equality under the law for all people (including LGBT Americans), Dr. Phillies has established an enviable record of achievement in the fight for liberty.

His platform includes uncompromising support for the rights of LGBT Americans in military service, marriage, immigration, adoption, and tax treatment. He has been an implacable foe of the Defense of Marriage Act and the military's anti-gay recruitment policy since their inception. Most importantly, he has led important initiatives to fight for us everyday, while bringing the message of the Libertarian Party to LGBT people. We can think of no finer candidate, and are proud to reinforce our support for Dr. Phillies' candidacy.

Regarding Mr. Barr, we find that though he has shown some welcome evolution on the issues, he has a record that remains notably different from the other Libertarians in the race. Mr. Barr has not completed Outright's Candidate Survey, but is "on the record" regarding two issues key within the LGBT Libertarian community and the broader LGBT electoral base.

First, while we applaud the former Congressman's repudiation of the anti-gay military policy that he drafted for the Wall Street Journal, and the evolution that this represents for Mr. Barr, his opinion on this issue simply moved into the Libertarian mainstream -- rather than pushing the debate forward. Every Libertarian candidate who has answered our survey -- plus Dr. Mary Ruwart (who has not yet answered our survey but is "on the record" on this issue) -- shares that view.

On the Defense of Marriage Act -- an odious law that Bob Barr co-sponsored as a Congressman -- his evolution has been far slower. We have discussed the law with him a number of times, and recently he has telegraphed support for repealing the half of the law that creates a federal definition of marriage. However, he has not consistently campaigned on this point, and seems reluctant to speak of it. (An example of this reluctance may be heard at approximately 16:30 in this linked Atlanta radio interview with Mr. Barr:  http://media.podcastingmanager.com/81570-71406/Media/CFL-20080420-S3-S4.mp3 )

In contrast, Democratic nomination candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has adopted a similar position, yet appears more willing to campaign upon it. Barack Obama has declared that he would repeal the law altogether.

Every Libertarian candidate who has completed our survey, as well as Dr. Ruwart, goes a major step further by calling for repeal of the law.

We believe that the difference between the Democratic and the Libertarian commitments on this issue is that while the two Democrats talk about doing something (despite a multi-year do-nothing record as Senators), Libertarians will fight from day one for us. We are not yet convinced that Mr. Barr would fight vigorously to promote his reluctantly-expressed position, a problem given that his position is the most statist of the serious Libertarian candidates in this race.

We welcome Bob Barr's engagement with the Libertarian Party, and are always delighted to welcome new Libertarians into the movement. We look forward to continuing to work with him as an LNC member or in any other role he takes within our Party. However, we must hold our presidential candidates to the highest possible standards, for the benefit of both our Party and LGBT Americans. In this regard, we believe that Bob Barr has quite a bit of work to do in order to enter the mainstream on LGBT issues in comparison to the other declared Libertarian candidates in this race. Just as many of us did when we first joined the LP, he needs to "steep in the brine of Liberty" for a while longer before running for nomination as our Party's standard-bearer.

Further, we note that regardless of who is nominated, the Libertarian Party will perform an invaluable service to the queer community in this election cycle -- even if the delegates ignore Outright's endorsement of George Phillies and instead choose Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party's nominee, the silver lining for the LGBT community will be that a Barr candidacy will almost certainly spoil any possible victory by John McCain.

In summary, recent news has only reinforced our commitment to Dr. George Phillies, and we encourage Outright members and supporters -- as well as all Libertarian Party convention delegates -- to support his candidacy in Denver with their votes, their ideas, and every other resource at their disposal.

About Outright: Outright Libertarians is the largest association of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Libertarian Party supporters. With hundreds of members across the United States, it is the intellectual and policy hub of the LGBT libertarian movement, serving as the voice for LGBT Americans within the Libertarian Party as well as a voice for Libertarian candidates in the LGBT community. Its web site is http://www.outrightusa.org.

Phillies Reiterates Commitment to Keeping Government out of Abortion Question

Worcester, Mass., May 13: In a statement issued earlier today, Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies reiterated his commitment to keeping government at all levels out of the abortion question. "Government, no matter whether state, Federal, or local, has no legitimate right to interfere in your private life or your medical decisions," he said. "You will not hear me talking about making abortion obsolete, banning abortion, or encouraging abortion."
Phillies said that he completely supports a woman's right to choose, but added that he believes the government should likewise respect individuals' beliefs. "Remember, no matter your side on the issue: Once you agree that our government can intervene in these decisions, you have agreed that a future government that disagrees with your stands can compel you to take actions that you find morally repugnant."
Phillies compared the position of those who believe abortion should be decided at the state level to that of segregationists in the last century. "All too often, Republican conservatives talk about handing
decisions over to states... The Jim Crow southern conservative 'state's rights' doctrine was wrong 50 years ago, and it hasn't gotten any better since. Whatever powers states may have, one power they do not have is the power to take away your rights. The Federal government is constitutionally forbidden to take away a woman's right to choose...
"Young people are turning their back on Republican social reactionaries," Phillies added. "Those young people are the future and opportunity of our party, especially the young people who detest high taxes, invasive federal regulations, and perpetual Republican wars…but only if we show that we are a party that supports social liberty. To do that, we have to stand with our traditional libertarian position on
abortion: Government should have no role in this matter."

To support the George Phillies campaign, please visit http://ChooseGeorge.org/donation today.
To arrange an interview or obtain a short quote from the candidate, contact:
Carolyn Marbry, Press Director pressdirector@phillies2008.org
(510) 276-3216
George Phillies for President 2008 http://ChooseGeorge.org

We're Libertarians. There is no issue we all agree upon, except perhaps how we spell our party's name.

It's not surprising, then, that sometimes some members of our party will support an isolated Democrat. Or a lone Republican.

If you are an LNC member, your burden is more severe. You made a commitment to your fellow Libertarians. You ran for our office so you could leverage your time and energy to build a stronger Libertarian Party. If you instead spent your time building an opposing party, you are not doing what you implicitly promised.

I'm state chair of LPMass, the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts. I've worked vigorously to revive my state's Libertarian Party. Our State Committee is now meeting monthly. Our State newsletter is now appearing monthly. We've revived fundraising. I've committed thousands of dollars of my own money for our Presidential ballot access campaign.

You may rest assured, I haven't given a Democrat or a Republican a dime or a minute.

And I'm a Presidential candidate. When I identify my political beliefs, I say I'm a *Libertarian*.

Here we come to one of my differences with LNC member Bob Barr, who I view as a friend.

While on the LNC, Bob Barr has also been the champion of the Bob Barr Leadership PAC. Since the start of 2007, his PAC has raised more than a million dollars. That's very impressive. Now, raising that money was expensive. Much of it went to general expenses.

But when Bob Barr PAC money went since the start of 2007 to individual political candidates, it largely went to Republicans. And that means?

If I'm your nominee this Summer, that means I hope to be in Georgia to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Allen Buckley. His opponent Saxby Chambliss received $3,500 from Bob Barr's PAC.

I hope to be in New Hampshire to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Ken Blevens. His opponent John Sununu received $3,000 from Bob Barr's PAC.

I hope to be in Virginia to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Bill Redpath. The Gilmore for Senate campaign received $1,000 from Bob Barr's PAC.

I hope to be in North Carolina to campaign with Libertarian Congressional Candidate Thomas Hill. His opponent Robin Hayes received $1,000 from Bob Barr's PAC.

I hope to be in Texas to campaign with Libertarian Congressional Candidate Ken Ashby. His opponent Jeb Hensarling received $3,500 from Bob Barr's PAC.

I hope to be in Idaho to campaign with Libertarian Senate Candidate Kent Marmon. His erstwhile opponent, Larry Craig, dropped out, but not before he received $1,000 from Bob Barr's PAC.

That's Republicans who have a Libertarian opponent. Bob Barr supported a longer list of Republicans who don't yet face Libertarian opposition.

The longer list matters, too.

When you donate to a candidate, your money counts twice. It counts once for that candidate. It counts again for the candidate's party. When I invest money in my campaign, I am building our Libertarian Party. And when Bob Barr through his PAC invested in Republican candidates, he was
building up the Republican Party.

And that leads to the question. What do we want and expect from a Presidential candidate?

I urge you to consider: We only get one Presidential campaign every four years. It's your decision.

Worcester, Mass, May 10: Libertarian Presidential candidate George
Phillies today condemned ITAR (International Traffic in Arms
Regulations) export restrictions as "a highly effective American
subsidy for foreign manufacturers," and said they should be repealed.

"ITAR makes sense if you believe that America has a monopoly on
high-tech engineering and research," Phillies said, "and if you
believe that foreigners are not smart enough to solve problems until
told the

answers. Indeed, under ITAR an American may come into violation of
the 'deemed export' rule simply by saying the wrong thing to a
foreigner."

"Foreigners are as smart as we are," Phillies said. "The result of
ITAR is that foreigners are highly motivated to replace American
high-tech products with foreign equivalents. For example, in 2005
French firm EADS Sodern dropped their American star tracker
components, in favor of European equivalents. They did this because
they were building components for a satellite, the Apstar 6, for Red
China, and Americancomponents could not be used."

"What were the results? The Chinese got the same access to the
technology. European research got extra investment. The French are
replacing their American-component star tracker with an all-European

unit. American small business has been shut out of the market.
Permanently."

"Then there is massive waste to satisfy the letter of the law,"
Phillies continued. "The wonderful Boeing 787 is built from 'black
aluminum'--carbon composites. The same material is used in the B-2
bomber. Twenty years ago, B-2 research showed how long you could
store certain materials. Before the 787 could use those materials,
Boeing had to repeat the research, not to learn something new, but to
be able to prove that their knowledge didn't come from a military
program. That's a total waste of investors' money.

"Like most bad government programs, ITAR is completely out of
control. Thanks to ITAR, some American manufacturers don't have to
fear terrorist attacks on their foreign sales. ITAR means they don't
have them in the first place, because it's easier to buy from Europe.
The Libertarian solution: Let free trade work. Repeal the law."

Bush War Waste Endangers America

Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies today condemned the War on Iraq as an overwhelming financial catastrophe. "We will spend three trillion dollars," he said, "on a war without a reason. Beyond the irreparable loss, the Iraqi and American war dead, an astronomical financial loss is now being visited on the American taxpayer.

"Thanks to profligate Bush deficit spending, that debt will be visited on every future generation," he said. "George Bush wasted ten thousand dollars for each man, woman, and child in the United States, and that's just on his war. Thanks to George Bush, America has more than nine trillion dollars of funded debt, and close to ten times that in unfunded liabilities."

Phillies noted that the national debt soaks up liquidity, and turns it into consumer spending. "Our banks are in a liquidity and counterparty risk crisis," Phillies said. "The Federal government is borrowing savings that could have stayed in private hands, and spending those savings on projects with no plausible return. That destabilizes the banking system, motivates banks to foreclose on shaky mortgages, and means that small businessmen face increasing obstacles to borrowing money to expand their businesses and create new jobs."

Phillies reminded Americans of the link between the national debt and the trade deficit. "The only reason we can run a huge trade deficit," Phillies said, "is the national debt. All those Treasury bonds mean that China and Korea and Japan can store dollars in their banks, rather than needing to use them to buy American goods. If there were no national debt, worries about outsourcing and foreign competition would largely fade away. That debt is the Republican legacy, a legacy of a generation of wastrel Congressmen throwing money away like drunken sailors on their last binge."

"The only solution to this crisis," Phillies said, "is to pay down the debt we have inherited from our foolish ancestors. We can't do it overnight, but it can be done."

--30--

Three trillion down the drain in Iraq? That's a lot of money. Read

The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (Hardcover)
by Joseph E. Stiglitz (Author), Linda J. Bilmes (Author)

for more details.

--
Carolyn Marbry
Press Director
National Mobilization Facilitator for Electronic Operations
(510) 276-3216
(520) 975-8002 (cell)

Phillies for President, 2008
http://ChooseGeorge.org

Mike Gravel has has not yet made his April filing, so I have included his numbers from December. Also, Daniel imperato appears to have a corrupted computer file, as explained in the notes, so his totals are not given; and Bob Barr had no exploratory committee as of 3/31 so his total for that date is zero. Otherwise, all candidates are compared as of their March 31st FEC filing.

Mike Jingozian
Others $ 13,090
Total $228,525

George Phillies
Others $ 16,727
Total $198,254

Wayne Allyn Root
Others $ 34,409
Total $ 59,410

Christine Smith
Others $ 16,244
Total $ 16,244

Steve Kubby
Others $ 16,219 (inferred from previous filings))
Total $ 16,219

Mary Ruwart
Others $ 5,655
Total $ 10,655

Bob Barr
Others $ 0
Total $ 0

Mike Gravel
Others $447,880
Total $521,396

Daniel Imperato:

Imperato filing appears to have a corrupted computer file. His most recent report claims his receipts for the quarter ($39,574) are larger than his total receipts for the cycle ($12,500), which is impossible.

Phillies: Private Enterprise Can Solve Energy Cost Issues

Worcester, Mass, May 7: Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies proposed that the Federal government should actually do something to improve the energy price situation. "Sensible Libertarian approaches have two important features," he said. "First, they are based on reality. Second, they do not ask the Federal government to do things it does poorly."
"The rapid climb in energy prices has two main causes. First, petroleum production has been nearly static for several years. Second, India, China, and other places are entering the modern wealthy world; their energy demand is soaring.
"There are few credible opportunities for more oil drilling in America. We'll be lucky to replace old oil fields. Foreign competition will only increase. Our real choice is to move to alternative energy sources. Fortunately, from sunny southwestern deserts to the windy northern border, America is enormously well placed to do this.
"I propose that Uncle Sam should make an offer to private enterprise: We will give you long-term, fixed price contracts at competitive rates to buy electricity from new, renewable sources. Uncle Sam will offer to buy up to its entire energy consumption.
"The government won't try to do research or build its own power plants. That's what private enterprise does best. However, those long-term contracts are guarantees private firms can take to the bank for financing. At present manufacturing rates for wind and solar-concentrating generators and wind and solar storage facilities, ,y offer needs years to implement. As it is implemented, Federal demand for hydrocarbons will plummet, reducing market competition with private Americans."
George Phillies is a candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination. He's a physicist, with degrees from MIT;he teaches at the Worcester polytechnic Institute.