Login
  • Username:

    Password:
  • Remember my login on this computer
  • Register
Users online
  • Users: 1 Guest
  • 1 User Browsing This Page.
    Users: 1 Guest

  • Most Users Ever Online Is On June 12, 2008 @ 11:50 pm

Libertarian Presidential Candidates debate in Nevada

A few days ago, Nevada hosted a debate between Libertarian presidential candidates. Five were originally going to show up: George Phillies, Steve Kubby, Christine Smith, Gene Chapman, and Dave Hollist.

Unfortunately, Kubby and Smith were unable to attend. Smith canceled apparently without giving a reason, and Kubby, a convicted felon, was unable to secure permission to leave his home in California. Kubby did debate by telephone. Gene Chapman apparently refrained from setting himself on fire and handed out copies of his book.

Kubby’s apparent inability to reliably leave the state of California raises some questions about the viability of his campaign - will he be able to make it to Denver in May 2008? I don’t know why he was not allowed to leave - hopefully his folks can answer that. (Update 2/14: They have, and much more, in the comments.)

UPDATE
: Apparently Paul had already covered this earlier, though it was skillfully phrased to not point out that Kubby is a convicted felon. (A convicted felon under a stupid law, but one nonetheless.)

Print This Post Print This Post
3,885 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

72 Responses to “Libertarian Presidential Candidates debate in Nevada”

  1. Stuart Richards Says:

    Smug alert issued today over Placer County, California…

    Seriously though, it is a valid point. Of course, Eugene Debs campaigned for the Presidency from jail.

  2. pauliecannoli Says:

    Actually, Nigel and Stuart, the problem is very temporary. I’m pretty sure I’ve already explained it in the comment sections, but I could be wrong.

    Steve’s probation is in the middle of being transferred from Placer to Mendocino, where he just moved very recently.

    Placer has already released responsibility and Mendocino has not completed the travel-related part of the paperwork. We were hit with that on pretty short notice. We lined up video equipment for Steve to teleconference in, but the Nevada LP was unable to get high speed internet at the convention site.

    The good news is that one of their members, Sean Morse, felt bad about it and has now generously offered to help us with high-speed internet teleconferencing setups in any future events where Steve can’t make it.

    We also have plans to use high tech in this campaign like it has never been used in any campaign in history, but of course we’re not anywhere near there yet - but the good news is it’s early, and we’re going to be doing a lot more organizing and leveraging to get where we need to be with that
    and a lot of other things.

    We need a lot of help with every aspect of this campaign, so folks can drop me a line at kubby2008@gmail.com if they want to help in any way big or small. We’ll have plenty for them to do!

    Also, since we are on very short notice and we’ve just started any real fundraising (and this is just a bare start) we were not able to line campaign staff to be at the event. That won’t happen again.

    More good news is that Steve can, in fact, travel.

    When he announced his candidacy to 50,000 screaming fans it was out of state, in Seattle. When he campaigned for Bruce Guthrie it was up in Washington State, and he campaigned for Amendment 44 in Colorado last fall. He was on probation then, too.

    We have already scheduled out of state travel to Oregon next month, and as of yesterday (earlier today, depending on how you count it) Steve confirmed he still plans to go to Oregon and may be adding an extra day there for a ski run with disabled skiers, finances permitting.

    We also still have plans for Steve to attend the New Mexico convention, and I have not received anything about cancelling those, which I should have if we’re cancelling since at the moment I am acting campaign manager.

    One thing I have no idea where Nigel got from was that Steve is not free to leave the county. From my conversations with Steve by phone and email my understanding is that he is free to travel anywhere in California during this temporary period while his probation paperwork is being transferred between two counties.

    After that, he is free to travel out of state, and since he just said he was still planning to go to Oregon next month, that particular hurdle should be gone within the next few weeks.

  3. pauliecannoli Says:

    Smug alert issued today over Placer County, California…

    Cancelled, false alert.
    :-)

  4. pauliecannoli Says:

    will he be able to make it to Denver in May 2008?

    We have every reason to believe so.

  5. pauliecannoli Says:

    I’m pretty sure I’ve already explained it in the comment sections, but I could be wrong.

    Yep, I was wrong - it was not in the comment sections, but right there on the front page just a few posts below you - it would help if folks actually read the front page here before posting, although I don’t guess we can make it a requirement.

    http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/02/10/tonights-roundup-of-the-news/

    Nevada LP Presidential Candidate Debate

    Steve Kubby got caught in a last minute snag with a temporary out of state travel restriction while his probation is being transferred from Placer to Mendocino county. Bad timing, he got caught in the gray zone within one county already abdicating jurisdiction, and the other one not fully set up yet.

    Steve called in and we have audio available now, courtesy of the Chapman campaign, which we put up at Kubby’s website at http://kubby2008.com/node/27.

    Steve’s email to me…”It’s hard to be sure, since I could only be there by phone, but it seemed like I got the biggest applause. The debate was filmed and will be uploaded to YouTube soon. Will forward link when I get it.”

    Meantime, Gene Chapman got confused and showed up the wrong day….but eventually he figured it out.

  6. pauliecannoli Says:

    Oh and since folks don’t always read the front page before posting, I may as well add this here too, even though it was already a post…

    Steve Kubby was the guest on
    Liberty Cap Talk Live with Todd Andrew Barnett
    a few days ago. You can listen to the archive:


    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=11242

    I think he did really well, but I’m biased
    check it out for yourself!

    More interviews and clips in the media archive and the rest of the Kubby 2008 website.

    Here’s Kubby being peer pressured into running for President by 50,000 screaming fans:

    hempfest.jpg

    Oh yeah, we could sure use a few bucks to kick the campaign into higher gear.

    To my knowledge,
    George Phillies has been the only other candidate for the LP nomination on the Liberty Cap Talk Live show yet
    , but if other candidates have media files they can send us, we’d love to put them up so folks out there can give them a listen and compare for themselves how the different candidates do in the media.

  7. pauliecannoli Says:

    Seriously, I’d really love to hear some reviews of the debate and the two different Liberty Cap Talk live shows from readers who have not yet picked a candidate.

  8. Stuart Richards Says:

    Hey, c’mon, I’ve missed some stuff too… back in the day, I posted the odd article that was a rehash of something already mentioned.

    But yeah, anyway, I gotta say that both candidates are basically neck and neck for me right now.

  9. pauliecannoli Says:

    LOL

    It’s all good, I was just being a smart-ass.

    Check out the radio shows and debate. I’d love to hear your opinion.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    I’m not writing this on behalf of Kubby’s campaign, but entirely on my own hook.

    Actually, the Nevada debate did raise a serious question … and it answered that question as well.

    Question: Are there any serious candidates for the LP’s 2008 presidential nomination other than Steve Kubby?

    Answer: No.

    Of course, we have to be clear about what “serious” means.

    George Phillies is a serious guy — a respected academic who’s willing to put real resources into his campaign.

    Gene Chapman is a serious guy, too — apparently serious enough to try to set himself on fire, and to engage in “death fasts” (albeit ones that don’t end in death).

    Being a serious guy is very different from being a serious candidate, though.

    Lyndon LaRouche is a serious guy. He has a real organization (like Phillies). He has real money (a lot more than Phillies, probably). He’s done double digits in Democratic primaries before (unlike Phillies).

    LaRouche, however, is not a serious candidate, for several reasons — among them that anyone who gets cornered into listening to him is going to conclude that he’s either pedal-to-the-metal crazy or just boring. It’s not just that he has no chance of winning … it’s that he has no chance of being perceived as deserving of winning.

    Chapman is crazy. No doubt about that.

    Phillies is boring — or, to be more exact, pedantic to the point of audience distraction. I don’t like saying that because I’m a big fan of George’s, but it’s the plain, unvarnished, indisputable truth and someone has to say it.

    Even over the phone, Kubby won the debate hands down.

    He demonstrated that he’s more present than Smith.

    He demonstrated that he’s more sane than Chapman.

    He demonstrated that he’s more interesting than Phillies.

    He also happens to be more libertarian than any of them, but that’s a separate argument. Right now, Kubby is the only declared candidate for the LP’s 2008 presidential nomination who meets all three of three non-negotiable qualifications:

    1) Being there (even if by phone);

    2) Not evidencing a severe need for Thorazine; AND

    3) Being more exciting than watching paint dry.

    There may be additional qualifications for measuring seriousness, but anyone who doesn’t meet all three of these is by definition NOT serious … and right Kubby’s the only one who meets all three.

    A fourth qualification — how well one’s positions represent the Libertarian Party — is also important, and also an area where Kubby is indisputably the candidate to beat, but he’s also the only candidate who gets that far down the scoresheet without having already disqualified himself from serious consideration.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  11. Jason Gatties Says:

    Everyone feels their candidate won the debate. I wish I could talk to someone who was there who wasn’t associated with one of the candidates. I also wish I could see how nutty Gene Chapman came off.

  12. George Phillies Says:

    Jason,

    You can listen to the debate itself, courtesy Gene Chapman, who audioblogged the debate. See above. Chapman was conservatively dressed and came across as calm and reasonable, in my opinion.

    And, at the end, you can hear the closing statements, and the applause for each. There was a very large empty space–a dance floor–between the candidates withmicrophone, and the audience, so what you hear as faint applause was actually pretty loud. Judge for yourself whose remarks raised the fires in the audience’s heart, and who was actually as dull as drying paint.

    George

  13. pauliecannoli Says:

    Jason - yes, I also recommend listening to the debate audio as well as both episodes of Liberty Cap Talk Live - I would love to hear more unbiased opinions.

    And bear in mind that Steve will do a lot better in future debates where he is not on a crappy phone-in connection, unable to hear questions, etc.

  14. pauliecannoli Says:

    UPDATE: Apparently Paul had already covered this earlier, though it was skillfully phrased to not point out that Kubby is a convicted felon. (A convicted felon under a stupid law, but one nonetheless.)

    Nigel - thanks for the re-edit, but what I said was “Steve Kubby got caught in a last minute snag with a temporary out of state travel restriction while his probation is being transferred from Placer to Mendocino county. Bad timing, he got caught in the gray zone within one county already abdicating jurisdiction, and the other one not fully set up yet.”

    Duh…I said probation…what’s “skillfully phrased” about that?

    It sounds like you are trying to exploit a bad law by hammering on “convicted felon, convicted felon” and I certainly hope you and George Phillies are better than that.

    Furthermore, did you read the comments before you did your re-edit? If so, why did you leave in questions that had been answered, like whether Steve will be able to be in Denver, and statements that are factually incorrect, such as claiming he is unable to leave a county (rather than the whole state, and only for a few days or weeks?)

  15. pauliecannoli Says:

    Tom -

    Going negative is not the way we should go at this juncture, in my opinion.

    I realize you put in the disclaimer about not writing that on behalf of the campaign, but let’s try to make friends…

    I also agree with you that Steve Kubby is more charismatic than George Phillies. And like you, I like him better on the issues, although I would certainly prefer George Phillies over the nominees of other parties on the issues, as well as some other contenders for the Libertarian nomination.

    Instead of this atmosphere of bitching and backstabbing which is going to hurt whoever the nominee will be, making him or her less effective in the general election, I propose we work together in a spirit of friendly competition and cooperation.

    Let’s get George and Steve (and other candidates if they are up for it) in as many radio, and possibly call-in TV debates as possible. Let’s share media lists and opportunities to reach the public. Both candidates would be helped by that, and then everyone would judge for themselves who is the better speaker and debater, and who has the best views.

    George, I’ve asked your staff about this, and I’ll ask you - are you up for it?

    By the way, I think you are running a great campaign as far as organizational basics, and I hope we start doing the same thing soon. I’m just coming on board now as temporary campaign manager (a real one would be nice, if anyone with experience is interested) and would like to have a friendly tone between our campaigns.

    I also really like your emphasis on helping build local LPs.

    What we are competing for is a chance to bring Libertarian ideas to the general public. We’re not the ones fighting over the trillion dollar contracts. Let’s leave negative politics where they belong.

  16. cbennett Says:

    Here we go again. Round one of the Kubby-Phillies bout has BEGUN!!!!!! Didn’t any of you learn from the Russo-Nolan bout almost 3 years ago? Phillies, Knapp and I were actually on the Russo team. I really would like to cut the in-fighting NOW or it’s going to make Christine Smith and her gun controlling running mate Anthony Williams look mighty good but who reads this blog anyways, right?

  17. Nigel Watt Says:

    Certainly negativity is bad an damaging. It’s equally certain that the supporters of various candidates will see and say what’s going on in ways more favorable to their candidate. That’s natural. Our job as supporters and Libertarians is to say what we think, but in a positive and constructive manner. Raising questions which are then answered, I think, is constructive, and that’s what I did with this post.

  18. pauliecannoli Says:

    Certainly negativity is bad an damaging. It’s equally certain that the supporters of various candidates will see and say what’s going on in ways more favorable to their candidate. That’s natural. Our job as supporters and Libertarians is to say what we think, but in a positive and constructive manner. Raising questions which are then answered, I think, is constructive, and that’s what I did with this post.

    The questions were already answered when you did your re-edit, but you left them as questions, and instead chose to characterize my response as “skillfully phrased” while continuing to hammer repeatedly on Steve’s undeserved convicted felon status and leaving in factually incorrect information about inability to travel between counties.

    I would suggest, if you really want to be constructive, a further re-edit to reflect the facts.

    The only thing constructive here so far has been my suggestion that we work on scheduling media together. I’ve posed this to Jake, George, and on public fora, including here now.

    So, how about it?

  19. pauliecannoli Says:

    Here we go again. Round one of the Kubby-Phillies bout has BEGUN!!!!!! Didn’t any of you learn from the Russo-Nolan bout almost 3 years ago? Phillies, Knapp and I were actually on the Russo team. I really would like to cut the in-fighting NOW or it’s going to make Christine Smith and her gun controlling running mate Anthony Williams look mighty good but who reads this blog anyways, right?

    Chris, you missed a few rounds:

    http://lastfreevoice.com/2007/01/03/kubby-in-the-news/

    http://lastfreevoice.com/2007/01/04/immigration-and-the-2008-lp-presidential-race/

    But other that you are correct - we need to cut the in-fighting out now,
    and that is what I am proposing.

    I admit I did some of that early on, for which I apologize and resolve to
    do better. Now, I hope everyone else does too.

  20. Jake Porter Says:

    Going negative is not the way we should go at this juncture, in my opinion.

    I agree. We are going to be forced to work together in 2008 and then we will not want to be angry with each other. I don’t care if we don’t like each other; however, we should realize that if Kubby wins, the Kubby campaign will likely want the Phillies campaign staff helping them; likewise, if Phillies wins, I know that I will want the Kubby campaign staff to help us.

  21. pauliecannoli Says:

    Well, Jake, I like you just fine. I like plenty of other people on the Phillies team, and there are a lot of things I like about Phillies.

    I don’t think Nigel’s approach with this post was very constructive, and I don’t think my initial reaction by being a smart-ass and including a link to the “reading is fundamental” website (which he since deleted) was very constructive. I don’t think the manner in which Tom phrased his comments is the best way to go for what needs to be done right now either, although he did say he’s not speaking on behalf of the campaign.

    I think the thing about needing to work together needs to be emphasized more. Let’s learn from the mistakes of 2004 and try to do better.

    Starting with radio debates would be good, I think…

  22. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Paulie,

    You write:

    “Going negative is not the way we should go at this juncture, in my opinion”

    After which you note that I included a disclaimer stating that this is my personal opinion, not a statement on behalf of the campaign.

    You then state that you don’t believe we should be “going negative.”

    I agree — that’s WHY I included the disclaimer. Consider the disclaimer repeated with reference to the following, personal, statement:

    Given the field as it stands right now, there’s only one reasonable choice for the LP’s presidential nomination. Nominating any of the declared /active candidates other than Kubby would be a bald, open statement on the part of the LP that it prefers to blow off the 2008 presidential election entirely, and by doing so forego any opportunity to be “taken seriously” with respect to that election.

    That could change.

    For instance, when I say “declared/active,” I’m leaving out Doug Stanhope, who has sort of declared, sort of undeclared, and not done much of anything else. If he turns out to be serious about seeking the nomination, it’s possible that he might bring something to the race. And there are other potential candidates who might enter the race, receive the nomination, and do something with it.

    If you consider it “going negative” to point out that nominating George Phillies, Gene Chapman or Christine Smith would be stupid on a grand scale, I plead guilty. But it’s the truth as I see it, and I’m not going to pretend that it isn’t.

    I do, of course, differentiate between those three candidates:

    George is a good libertarian (the fact that I disagree with him on some issues notwithstanding) who has offered the LP a lot of sound ideas on organization, whom I’ve supported for internal party office in the past, and whom I would likely support for internal party office in the future. He’s an asset to any campaign he works with, including his own, within certain parameters.

    What he’s not is an engaging speaker of the sort which presidential campaigns circa 2008 call for. That can be hidden in some venues, such as text-Internet communications …

    … but the thrust of serious presidential campaigns isn’t to just put good positions up on a web site. It’s to parlay those positions, and one’s public statements supporting them, into radio and television appearances which call for telegenic appearance and short, sharp, charismatic delivery/retort to media which will be giving the candidate about 10 seconds to show his stuff while angling to make him look like a fool or a nut.

    We don’t have to LIKE the fact that that’s how elections are conducted at this time, but it’s going to be that way whether we like it or not, and it’s going to be that way whether we rise to the challenge or not.

    I’m sure that George is a great physics teacher. However, the set of The O’Reilly Factor is not a lecture hall, the audience of The Daily Show is not composed of students who have to sit still and try to get a passing grade from the candidate, and the viewers of Hannity and Colmes have remote controls and the ability to use them. Getting on those shows, getting the attention of those viewers, and HOLDING that attention are absolute requirements for a presidential campaign. Not because they’ll win the election for a Libertarian — they won’t, at least not yet — but because they’re the prerequisites for reaching people and even getting them to CONSIDER supporting our candidates, or our cause.

    Chapman is a nutjob. That’s a fact. We can ignore it, or we can acknowledge it and move on. Ignoring it raises the risk that we’ll be associated with him by virtue of our silence on the matter. I have no doubt that Chapman could hold his own on the shows mentioned above — he could probably get his two minutes on them, he could probably attract viewer attention, and he could probably hold it …

    … and so could Charles Manson. Nutjobs are very good at attracting attention, but they tend to be the exceptions to the “no publicity is bad publicity” rule. If Chapman was nominated, the public message — whether it was the message we, or he, wanted to send or not — would be “the Libertarians nominate guys who try to set themselves on fire, conduct ‘death fasts’ that don’t culminate in death, and run around impersonating Gandhi and calling everyone else Communists.”

    My evaluation of Smith is somewhat less developed, because so far there hasn’t been much to evaluate. But that in itself is a big weakness. When Steve ran into problems with his probation status, the Nevada LP was contacted and arrangements were made. I don’t know how satisfactory those arrangements were to all involved, but the effort was made. Smith just pulled a no-show, apparently without explanation. Is she going to do that when Barbara Walters calls? And if she does show, is she going to talk about Libertarianism … or about the spirituality of John Denver and what a big fan of Gore Vidal she is? No way of knowing. Maybe she can pick things up and show a different public face than she has so far — but I’m not going to assume that that’s the case. I’m going to evaluate based on what I’ve seen.

    I’m not saying these things on behalf of, or because I’m working with, Steve Kubby’s campaign. I’m with Steve Kubby’s campaign because these things are true — and I’m saying them publicly because it’s way past time to quit fucking around and get serious. We need to either nominate Kubby or find a viable alternative — and at this time, no viable alternatives are being offered.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  23. Doug Craig Says:

    Paulie
    I am glad you guys have this site kicking butt. I tell you I believe a lot of people are willing to help each other out.I have had calls for Kubby’s people , smith and Gene Chapman ( I am working on Phillies campaign). I believe the better everyone does the better off we all are. I would love to see all our guys running Tv ads and newspaper ads.I wish we could have more video from the state conventions when the candidates are there.I would like kubby and Smith to do more posting on the Libertarian blogs.I also believe George is ahead ( I am Bias). George has better material to hand out and has a larger and deeper team than anyone else.
    If George does not win the nomination and Kubby does I would be more than happy to work on his Campaign.

  24. Jake Porter Says:

    I don’t think Nigel’s approach with this post was very constructive

    I agree and I don’t dislike anyone on the Kubby campaign.

    Chapman is a nutjob.

    Remember, his campaign blog evangelist, Doug Kenline, made comments about killing me and then called me a communist.

  25. Robert Mayer Says:

    But, Jake, are you really a Communist? Inquiring minds want to know!

  26. Nigel Watt Says:

    If nothing else Chapman might add some humor to the convention. Let’s hope it’s that and not attempted murder.

    If there was any implication that I dislike anyone on the Kubby team, that’s entirely false. I’m expecting we’ll all be working together after the convention.

  27. Jake Porter Says:

    But, Jake, are you really a Communist? Inquiring minds want to know!

    I did work as a custodian at a public school for about three years. Even worse, I paid taxes on my labor during those years.

  28. George Phillies Says:

    For those of you who missed the Nevada convention, the debate was videotaped by the LPNV. The camera shots should I expect be pretty good, because there was about 25′ of open space between the candidates and the audience.

  29. Jake Porter Says:

    Q. “What is the most important problem facing the Libertarian Party?”

    Gene’s reply: I am very concerned that a person like George Phillies might ever dominate the Libertarian Party. He has presented every characteristic I know of a Communist.

    1) He is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union (a Communist organization).

    2) In Boston (a Communist town).

    3) He is a teacher (a Communist dominated profession).

    4) Who gets his paycheck from a public school (10 Plank of “The Communist Manifesto”).

    (Note: Jake Porter, not Phillies, informs me that Phillies does not get his paycheck from a public school but a private school.)

    5) And he wants to promote a “child tax credit” as the Libertarian Party nominee (a Communist idea foreign to Libertarian principles).

    6) And he’s never taken the time to answer one of my questions to dispute my assertions, making him unaccountable to the people he seeks to represent (a Commuinst tactic).

    While I feel he is unelectable, I fear his longterm goal is to desensitize Libertarians to his Communist world view, as the Communists have done in the Republican, Democrat and Green Parties.

    Gene Chapman
    ChapmanForPresident08.com

  30. matt Says:

    Ok, so who thinks that the parole board might not play fair?

    They’re in a position to screw Kubby over if they want to, and if he gets the nomination and builds even the slightest momentum, they WILL want to.

  31. pauliecannoli Says:

    Ok, so who thinks that the parole board might not play fair?

    They’re in a position to screw Kubby over if they want to, and if he gets the nomination and builds even the slightest momentum, they WILL want to.

    Actually, no.

    It’s probation, not parole. There is no parole board. And one of the reasons why Steve is living in Mendocino is a very friendly county government.

    But, being a county government, they are not the most efficient operation in the world, so they did not have the travel paperwork completed.

    Steve is still scheduled to be in Oregon next month, which means it is scheduled to be done by then.

  32. Robert Mayer Says:

    “But, being a county government, they are not the most efficient operation in the world…”

    You mean efficient like the Federal government? :)

  33. pauliecannoli Says:

    me

    I don’t think Nigel’s approach with this post was very constructive

    Jake

    I agree and I don’t dislike anyone on the Kubby campaign.

    I’m glad we agree.

  34. pauliecannoli Says:

    You mean efficient like the Federal government?

    Not quite that bad.

  35. pauliecannoli Says:

    5) And he wants to promote a “child tax credit” as the Libertarian Party nominee (a Communist idea foreign to Libertarian principles).

    Having spent the first few years of my life in a real life communist dictatorship, albeit one in its later, less mass murdering stages, I don’t like the overuse of the term Communist.

    But, I agree that the child tax credit is a bad idea. I would prefer to get rid of the tax code completely; failing that, makes as many people as possible exempt from it, starting with the bottom up, as well as make whatever taxes are collected less complicated - not more.

    I don’t think George Phillies is even remotely close to being a Communist, but this is one area in which his views could use some improvement.

  36. pauliecannoli Says:

    Incidentally, pitting people against each other by region and profession, as Gene does when he says teachers are a Communist profession and Boston is a Communist town, is itself a tactic used by Communist regimes.

    Recommended reading:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_book_of_communism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_The_Living

  37. pauliecannoli Says:

    For those of you who missed the Nevada convention, the debate was videotaped by the LPNV. The camera shots should I expect be pretty good, because there was about 25′ of open space between the candidates and the audience.

    Look forward to putting up in our media files.

    http://www.kubby2008.com/node/24

  38. pauliecannoli Says:

    Judge for yourself whose remarks raised the fires in the audience’s heart, and who was actually as dull as drying paint.

    So, how about that series of radio debates? Or, here’s another brainstorm I’m just now having: teleconferenced debates we stream ourselves over the web, over both campaign’s websites, or even here at Last Free Voice, if it is feasible here?

    I want to give you as many opportunities as possible to prove to everyone that you are the most compelling candidate, in equal opportunity formats. What do you say?

  39. matt Says:

    Actually, no.

    It’s probation, not parole. There is no parole board. And one of the reasons why Steve is living in Mendocino is a very friendly county government.

    But, being a county government, they are not the most efficient operation in the world, so they did not have the travel paperwork completed.

    Steve is still scheduled to be in Oregon next month, which means it is scheduled to be done by then.
    ===================================
    Well, that’s good news.

  40. pauliecannoli Says:

    So, Matt, you interested in helping us with the campaign in any way?

  41. pauliecannoli Says:

    I’m not sure if I explained the teleconferencing debate idea adequately.

    I’ve proposed teleconferencing debates between the Presidential campaigns, so we can all watch them debate with both audio and video in an equal-content-opportunity format.

    The closest thing we have so far is the Liberty Cap Talk Live interviews with Phillies and Kubby

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/h…..w_id=11242

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/h…..ow_id=9322

    And the Nevada debate - which was not really a level playing field with Steve having to phone in.

    http://www.kubby2008.com/node/27

    Simultaneous live split screen streaming of some sort would be ideal; recorded would be good too.

    Let me know if we can make that happen, and if so how, and in what way if any you can help.

  42. pauliecannoli Says:

    That one was directed at everyone, BTW, but especially folks working on the Phillies campaign and techies.

    In the meantime, I hope everyone, especially those of you who are undecided, checks out the comparative media files available so far (in the comment above) and offers their views.

  43. Darcy Richardson Says:

    When I read the reference to Steve Kubby as “a convicted felon,” I was reminded of what ex-Populist Thomas E. Watson of Georgia said about a sitting president and one of the third-party presidential candidates in 1920: “Woodrow Wilson should be in prison and Eugene Debs in the White House.”

    The same thing could be said today of George W. Bush and Libertarian candidate Steve Kubby. We should be so lucky!

    By the way, this is a great site. Congratulations on putting it together!

  44. pauliecannoli Says:

    Hi Darcy, welcome on board!

    Any interest in helping us with the campaign in any way?

  45. Darcy Richardson Says:

    Hi Paulie,

    I listened to Kubby’s interview on Blog Talk Radio earlier this evening and was pretty impressed. He’s certainly not a single-issue candidate, as some of his detractors claim. He’s also the only candidate articulating what the Libertarian movement really ought to be all about…reaching out to the young and the disaffected environmental and antiwar crowds with something more appealing than warmed over Republicanism.

    I’m not sure how helpful I can be — I’m still recovering from Brian Moore’s failed antiwar candidacy here in Florida’s 2006 U.S. Senate race — but I plan to make a contribution to the Kubby campaign later this evening. Drop me a line when you get a chance.

  46. George Phillies Says:

    Archived Radio Interviews

    Libertarian Politics Live with Eric Dondero
    Dec 28, 8:30PM
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=7323

    The Liberated Space with Angela Keaton
    Jan 4, 7:30PM
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=8736
    Professor of physics and long time libertarian activist announces presidential campaign.

    Liberty Cap Talk Live with Todd Andrew Barnett
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=9322
    Hear Phillies deal calmly with a Republican caller who is not perfectly calm

    Archived Videos and Audios
    George Phillies at the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire
    2006 State Convention
    The lighting conditions were “challenging”
    as in “After we left, there was a Halloween Party”
    but you can hear the message loud and clear
    http://phillies2008.com/node/67

    George Phillies Addresses the Merrimac Valley Porcupines
    (re-recorded for digital sound)
    http://phillies2008.com/node/44

  47. pauliecannoli Says:

    Hiya, George! You just reminded me Steve was on Liberated Space too…

    http://boss.streamos.com/download/blogtalkradio/show_8923.mp3

    So that’s two shows you have both been on where you can be compared equally.

    But what do you say to being on the same show(s) simultaneously, or a teleconferenced debate or series of debates?

  48. pauliecannoli Says:

    Darcy,

    Line dropped.

  49. matt Says:

    Paulie,
    Maybe later.

    Right now I’m throwing my heft behind Ron Paul, but if he fails to get the nomination (likely, of course) I’ll be ready to help the Kubby campaign here in Columbus, OH. I’ll hit you up when the time gets closer.

  50. Nigel Watt Says:

    Tom Knapp - I’d like to know your source that Phillies’s students find him “boring”. All I’ve heard from WPI kids is good things.

  51. pauliecannoli Says:

    I believe Chris Moore cited a website called “rate your professor”

  52. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/SelectTeacher.jsp?the_dept=All&sid=1220&orderby=TLName&letter=P

  53. Nigel Watt Says:

    …And the first comment is “Very knowledgeable on the subject and can talk for ever. Will brake off on random tangent about some war that no one ever heard of and retell it in minute detail. Very understanding when group members do not do their part. A real laugh in lectures. Phillies is the man!”

    Here’s the thing about RateMyProfessor.com (and I am qualified to say this, as an engineering student at a major university), especially with professors teaching science-based courses: if a student gets a bad grade, they will give that professor a bad review, even though there’s a 90% chance that it’s the student’s fault they did badly. RateMyProfessor.com is a good way to see what kind of grades a professor gives, nothing else.

  54. pauliecannoli Says:

    http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/faq.jsp

    All categories are based on a 5 point rating system, with 5 being the best. The Overall Quality rating is the average of a teacher’s Helpfulness and Clarity ratings, and is what determines the type of “smiley face” that the teacher receives. A teacher’s Easiness rating is NOT used when computing the Overall Quality rating, since an Easiness of 5 may actually mean the teacher is TOO easy. Please look here for more information on the rating categories.

    http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/categories.jsp

  55. pauliecannoli Says:

    You can see 9 pages of comments

    http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=68641

  56. pauliecannoli Says:

    By the way, I’m not saying what I think of Ratemyprofessors.com and their methodology. I am providing the links merely to show what they say for themselves. With 40 comments, George Phillies ends up with 3.0 on a 5.0 scale.

    By the way, my dad did a lot worse on their scale than Phillies did. So everything’s relative.

  57. pauliecannoli Says:

    By the way, Nigel, shouldn’t you be retracting false information, such as saying Steve Kubby was not allowed to travel between counties?

    (Note that he also received clearance to travel out of state the very next day, and that the problem was temporary).

  58. Nigel Watt Says:

    Let’s take a look at what I said:

    Kubby’s apparent inability to reliably leave a single county in California raises some questions about the viability of his campaign

    I said that he apparently was not allowed to do this. You demonstrated that this was not true. I did not project this as false, merely as what I saw.

  59. Nigel Watt Says:

    Correction: I did not project false information as true. What I just wrote made no sense.

  60. pauliecannoli Says:

    Kubby was never barred from travelling anywhere in California. I have no idea what gave you the idea that he was confined to a single county.

    Even if you did not read my earlier post on this issue, there was no reason to assume there were ever any travel restrictions within California.

    And that’s the best case scenario for your post.

    BTW, you can edit your comments. Just click on the letter “e” right after the timestamp.

  61. Nigel Watt Says:

    I’ve edited the post to reflect that.

    And thanks for telling me about being able to edit comments - I guess all the people posting multiple times in a row made me think one couldn’t - otherwise why wouldn’t they just edit their posts?

  62. pauliecannoli Says:

    What’s wrong with posting more than one comment?

  63. pauliecannoli Says:

    Thanks for the edit BTW
    :-)

  64. Nigel Watt Says:

    Nothing’s really wrong with posting more than one comment, it’s Wordpress’s response I object to: screenshot.

  65. pauliecannoli Says:

    LOL - nice job with the screenshot image, Nigel.

  66. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Nigel, et al …

    Get a grip. Really.

    I didn’t say that George isn’t a good libertarian. As a matter of fact, he is.

    I didn’t say that George isn’t working hard on his campaign. As a matter of fact, he is.

    I didn’t blow issues disagreements up into ad hominem attacks — those disagreements will be settled over the course of the campaign, to the benefit of some candidates and to the injury of others.

    All I’m saying is that George is a fairly boring speaker, especially when one places his current need to be an exciting speaker in the context of a presidential campaign.

    Call me the Ghost of Goldwater — in your heart, you know I’m right.

    Look … I’ve read George’s newsletter for years. It’s great. I’ve read his books, too (and not just the ones on politics). One of those books moved me to run for LNC on a slate with him in 2000 (I lost, but was later alternate, and elected to the Judicial Committee for a term after that). I consider George a close friend, and I hope that friendship lasts well beyond 2008. That’s one reason I have to say these things here … I don’t have the heart to say them directly to him.

    But …

    … get him to Toastmasters already!

    Or …

    … sit him down in front of the TV with a DVD set of West Wing and don’t let him get up until veins start popping out in his forehead!

    I’m serious. Your candidate lectures. He is unjustifiably verbose to the points he addresses. His inflection doesn’t get the audience’s blood pumping in agreement.

    That’s just the way it is. It’s not something to bitch about people pointing out, it’s something to FIX.

    If you think I’m being hard on George, you haven’t seen how hard I am on my candidate.

    Selah.

  67. Nigel Watt Says:

    I’d like to point out that I said none of the things Knapp just implied I said. I guess it was the “et al”, but I didn’t see that either.

  68. pauliecannoli Says:

    I agree. I did not see you say them , or “et al”.

    You merely asked where Tom got the idea that Phillies’ students find him boring, which I believe I answered.

    Since there is some controversy over the validity of Rate My Professor.com ratings, and since Tom can reasonably considered to be biased, here are some reviews of the debate from Libertarians who are not endorsing Steve Kubby:

    http://www.gatties.us/?p=168

    Steve Kubby
    The biggest disappointment had to be the fact that Steve Kubby could not attend the debate due to his felony probation, which is keeping him from leaving the State of California. Obviously this is an issue that needs to be resolved soon. He is sometimes viewed as a “single issue candidate” due to his fight for medical marijuana rights. However my view of him has changed and I do feel he is a multi-issue candidate and would represent the party well. However, there is now another dark cloud hanging over his campaign due to his current travel restrictions.

    George Phillies
    I’ve listened to many radio interviews with Mr.Phillies and hoped that perhaps he would fare better infront of a live audience, but at this debate, he didn’t. George is flat out boring. He has alot of passion in his views and just like Mr.Kubby, he would represent the party well if he gained the nomination. However, the man almost put me to sleep. I hope someone in his camp can coach him a bit when it comes to public speaking, especially in a political environment.

    http://www.jacquelinepassey.com/blog/2007/02/two_whackjobs_a_convicted_felon_and_george_phillies.html

    Steve Kubby: I can’t really fairly compare him to the other candidates because he wasn’t physically present and thus I only have his speaking style and what he said to judge him by. However, the reason he wasn’t physically there is a big problem — he has a felony drug conviction and the terms of his probation apparently don’t allow him to leave the state of California. Let me be clear, I absolutely don’t have a problem with what he was convicted of — they first tried to get him for growing medical marijuana (which is legal in California), when they failed to get him on that they got him on the discovery of a psychedelic mushroom stem and a few peyote buttons in his guest room. I respect him tremendously and the personal sacrifices and living hell he’s gone through as a drug law reform activist, and I think that our target constituency will also understand and respect him for his drug conviction. But a candidate that can’t leave his own state is not a good candidate for national office! Please consider running for governor or some other state office instead, Steve.

    (…)

    George Phillies: George has been active in the Libertarian Party for a long time and I’ve interacted with him on occasion. I like him, his positions, and his ideas for building the party. But the man has all the charisma of a wet towel. Instead of running for President himself I wish that he would put his time and energy towards recruiting and helping a more appealing candidate to run with his positions and strategy. I wish we could take George’s brain and background and stick it into Michael Badnarik’s looks, charisma, and speaking ability. Or that we could get Bruce Guthrie to run for President. (Alas, his wife would probably divorce him if he did.)

    The title of Jacqueline’s piece may sound negative toward Steve, but the
    next day followup post…

    http://www.jacquelinepassey.com/blog/2007/02/good_news_from_the_steve_kubby_campaign.html

    Good news from the Steve Kubby campaign

    February 14, 2007 | | Links

    This was originally left as a comment on my “Two whackjobs, a convicted felon, and George Phillies post”, but it’s important enough that I want to repost it here for all to see:

    Dear Jacqueline,

    I’m please to tell you that, as of today, the issues with the probation department have been resolved and I am free to travel anywhere in the world.

    Thanks for your kind words and the intelligent feedback on the debate.

    Let freedom grow,

    Steve Kubby

    This alleviates my main concern that was preventing me from taking Kubby seriously as a candidate for national office and thus I would now consider supporting either him or George Phillies for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. I’m not excited enough about it to decide which candidate I prefer yet, though, so I’ll be waiting to see how they do over the next year and who else throws their hat into the ring.

    These are as close to objective reviews as I have been able to find.

    Since there is a good chance that George Phillies might be the LP
    nominee next year, I would like him to be the best possible nominee
    he can be. Thus, any criticism of his speaking abilities which may be
    implied - although I am just posting other people’s opinions - should be
    viewed as constructive criticism and not angling on behalf of Kubby.

    But I’m also willing to take George at his word that he is an excellent and
    stirring speaker.

    Thus, my offer to have him on as many radio and teleconference debates
    as possible with Steve Kubby, and with other candidates if they are interested.

    So how about it?

  69. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Nigel,

    When I advised you to “get a grip,” I was referring to your request for a source for my comment that George’s students “find him ‘boring.’”

    I’ll explain myself:

    When I characterized the claim, I was characterizing it mildly. If I wanted to “go negative,” I could lift some pretty good lines from the source (RateMyProfessors). By naming it, I would have effectively done exactly that, and I didn’t want to. The source isn’t objective (as others have pointed out), and it would be bringing coals to Newcastle in a hurtful way.

    At the same time, the fact that George isn’t exactly a Patrick Henry or Bumper Hornberger at the podium is obvious and non-controversial enough that I didn’t think I needed to source it, in addition to not wanting to.

    The stuff below that in my message was contrast, i.e. all I did was point out that George is a less than stellar speechifier — I didn’t call him a non-libertarian, I didn’t accuse him of sexually molesting the neighbor’s Alsatian, etc. I wasn’t saying that you accused me of making those allegations. I was saying that the statement I did make was nowhere in that league, and that you were taking the “boring speaker” remark too hard.

    You may think I’m yanking your chain here, but I’m serious: Put him in front of the second season of West Wing, especially the State of the Union episode and “Galileo.” Maybe start him on a regular course of Kentucky bourbon to gravel his voice a little, give it an edge. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen him speechifying, but some body language work may be in order as well.

    This isn’t criticism in the sense of bashing — I want George to do well. He has important things to say. Your job, if you’re on his staff, is to help him say them effectively. Here’s the nut of the problem:

    George has decades of academic habit to break. Political audiences are not academic audiences. They aren’t there to be taught, they’re there to be convinced that the candidate is on their side. They aren’t asking for something (a grade) from the professor; the candidate is asking for something (a vote, a contribution, support) from them. These differences in audience and purpose require a difference of approach.

    I suspect George knows this well, but he is, in fact, a long-time professor. He’s been teaching for far longer than he’s been running for president, and it’s going to take effort and assistance to help him successfully make the leap from one type of speaking to the other.

    I believe that my candidate can beat yours down the line on the issues, etc. — but that doesn’t mean I don’t want George to do well. Quite the contrary. I want George to communicate his message as effectively as possible so that Libertarians are choosing between messages, not between qualities of presentation.

    Regards,
    Tom

  70. George Phillies Says:

    For those of you who are puzzled, “RateMyProfessors.Com” runs a web site where students get to express their opinions of Professors. It prints comments. I teach one course in Game Design, and a lot of Freshman Physics.

    An unfortunate fraction of our incoming Freshmen think that “work” is a nasty four letter word. One of my major tasks is to cure them of this misconception. The rumor that I flunk half the students is false. It’s about a quarter. They self select. For example, they show up in exam having cut all their classes, having done none of the seven homework sets, not having read the book–and they can’t figure out why they flunk. (The actual grade is “NR” No Record.

    And now the actual Rate My Prof comments, sorted by Courses:

    The Game Design Course Comment
    Very knowledgeable on the subject and can talk for ever. Will brake off on random tangent about some war that no one ever heard of and retell it in minute detail. Very understanding when group members do not do their part. A real laugh in lectures. Phillies is the man!

    The Physics Course Comments
    Phillies style of teaching physics four is strictly a regurgitation of the derivations of various formulas used during the class. I did not learn anything in the class that was a practical application. May be good for physics majors, but if you’re taking this as an engineer, stay away.
    total jerk
    jerk
    Had him for PH1111. Although his class was pretty difficult his conferences were topnotch, and he does grade almost everything himself. He has a great sense of humor and is concerned about students outside of class. Don’t be fooled by his rough exterior, he is very willing to help students in his office. I didn’t like the book, however. 1930? WTF? we have a point charge Q yes?
    Beware of his metal pointer. This guy does not like A’s for grades or fairness. Only prodigies get good marks in his book.
    Dry lecturer, corny jokes, but that’s okay… he does a good job going over the material and helping answer questions… Also does a good job of predicting what types of questions and variations of questions you’re likely to see on the exams… Grading was easy
    The class is hard but if you talk to him, he will explain the material you do not get to you. His jokes are corny and often similar to each other but its alright. He personally grades the tests so no room for TA abuse…
    This class was a waste of time. He is not a very good lecturer, very condescending personality and not helpful at all out of class. Do youself a huge favor and take 1110. Don’t take this class unless your a physics major or really really bored. 1110 is jsut as good and takes up about half your time. Still not too hard to get an A, but I’m still not sure how i got it.
    worst teacher ever!!!!!! couldnt teach for crap and his jokes werent funny!!!
    A great, smart teacher. Though very hard, he will get the point accross. You just have to make sure to make him explain things if you don’t get it and he will. I took away a lot from this course. Very good conference instructor. Went over what we were likely to find on exams.
    Very difficult class. His office is almost always open to help students. Personally grades exsams. Very good
    This man is not worth writing a creative comment for.
    if you go into this class not expecting to do a lot of work, you will be surprised. if you get midway through this course and still don’t expect to do any work, you’re a moron and you deserve to fail. phillies himself is a good professor, but he DOES de
    Difficult, but a good teacher and an interesting guy.
    He tricks kids into his physics class by offering candy… and they leave with NRs and sore bottoms
    Excellent teacher. Hard course. You learn a lot about not only physics but how to work hard and manage your time well.
    This man is the Anti-Christ, avoid him as such!
    He’s an odd guy but he teaches well. This class is mostly for physics majors so it kind of serves the purpose of weeding out the kids who won’t make it in physics, he has to be hard. If you get through PH1111, you are well prepared for any other course at WPI. The work ethic taught in this class is enormous; gave me a class I was actually scared of failing for the first time in my life.
    A good teacher, very knowledgeable of the material. Difficult material but he explains very clearly (he wrote the book, literally). Surprisingly not a harsh garder at all.
    very tough grader, runs class so only a few will pass
    difficult class, but I learned a lot.
    he is a very difficult prof, I got a B in his class b/c I worked my ass off the coolest man alive
    he teaches his course with the intention of failing many of his students
    if you know what he’s talking about, you’re fine. if you don’t, he doesn’t care.
    Absolutely Excellent professor. Expects students to actually work hard.
    Definitely wants everyone to fail
    hard, but smart, funny, runs wpi committee to legalize marijuana in mass
    He definately wants most of the class to fail…
    Very difficult class. He designs it so that about half the students fail.
    I got a zero!!!!

  71. pauliecannoli Says:

    George -

    The point was not “rate my prof”, we were actually not going to bring that up until Nigel pressed for a source.

    Did you see the reviews from Jason Gatties and Jacqueline Passey I posted above?

    Yes, Tom and I like Steve Kubby better - but we like you.

    We know that Steve may not win. You might beat him. You’re certainly better organized than us right now. If you win, we want you to be the best candidate you can be. Even if you don’t win, we hope that you become more effective - as effective as possible - for future races, including local ones.

    Please take the criticism about your speaking style as constructive criticism. Toastmasters, speaking coaches and/or classes, and body language work will help. We don’t mean this to rip on you. We want you to do as well as possible and set the bar high for Steve!
    That is what the LP nomination process should be all about, so that whoever comes out winning at the end is the best possible candidate they can be.

  72. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    George,

    Thanks for reproducing the material from RateMyProfessors.Com.

    I’ll echo your call to take the remarks there with a grain of salt — unhappy students are a lot more likely to go out of their way to say something bad about you than happy students are to go out of their way to drop in and give you a positive rating, so it’s fairly obvious that you’re good at what you do.

    But … let’s take this from the top.

    We’ve already been over the “dry lecturer” part. Enough said.

    But, additionally:

    “Very knowledgeable on the subject and can talk for ever.”

    On those rare occasions when you have a shot at TV, you’re going to be lucky to get 30 seconds to say what you need to say. In that 30 seconds, you have to be four things: Clear, concise, likeable and memorable.

    “The class is hard but if you talk to him, he will explain the material you do not get to you.”

    “Though very hard, he will get the point accross. You just have to make sure to make him explain things if you don’t get it …”

    Most voters are going to encounter you in print, audio, video or live appearance an absolute maximum of once … unless they “get the material” immediately and actively seek more. They aren’t going to seek you out if you didn’t hit them in the gut the first time around.

    “very condescending personality”

    Now, I don’t believe that one for a minute … but then, I know you. Here’s a problem that may have several sources.

    One of those sources, of course, may be that the commenter is some freshman who still hasn’t grokked that the guy at the front of the room is in charge, because he’s experienced and he’s getting paid to teach, and that it’s the student’s job to sit down, shut up and learn from that guy. That’s his own fault. But remember, as a politician the situation is 180 degrees off from that. In class, you don’t need the students. They need you. On the stump,the audience doesn’t need you — you need THEM. And your demeanor has to reflect that.

    Another source may be that although your accent isn’t highly pronounced, any New England accent at all has a bit of a haughty, condescending tone to many people from most of the rest of the country. Maybe this commenter came to WorcPoly from Iowa or Mississippi or Ohio. So do a lot of voters. Of course, you can’t be expected to completely re-craft your voice, but there may be ways to soften the impact of accent and use your voice to generate empathy in the audience that cancels out any accent effects.

    To go back to your own words:

    “An unfortunate fraction of our incoming Freshmen think that ‘work’ is a nasty four letter word. One of my major tasks is to cure them of this misconception.”

    As a politician, your job is to articulate your positions in such a way that the audience members think to themselves “this guy is saying what I believe, and he’s on my side.” That audience doesn’t want to be “cured” of “misconceptions.” It wants to identify with someone who is voicing the same concerns they brought with them, doing so in a way that makes them believe he has real answers to those concerns, and viscerally/subliminally reassuring them that he is a voice for them, a voice they can count on and should support.

    I’m really struggling for the right words here to describe what I’m saying, and this is the best I can come up with — an old saying put to bad use in Vietnam but metaphorically relevant here:

    “Grab them by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow.”

    I don’t mean that your speaking should be purely emotive rather than content-rich. But it has to be both. Agreement is nice, but it becomes truly effective when it’s coupled with a visceral physical reaction to the proposition.

    Regards,
    Tom

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.