RETURN TO NEW LIBERTARIANS PAGE

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