Wes Benedict for LNC

Texas Libertarians' rise versus California's decline

2009-03-12T14:10:00.000-07:00

This is not just another one of my Mr. Way Too Proud of Texas articles gloating about how well the Libertarian Party of Texas did under my service as Executive Director from 2004 to 2008.

When you feel like you've got the situation under control, things are going well, your team is breaking new fundraising records, you're getting tons of positive feedback, morale of the group is high, and people are working together (or at least working separately and leaving each other alone most of the time), like in Texas, it's quite easy to be a Libertarian Party activist.

On the other hand, when things are going poorly after years and years of seemingly unstoppable decline and it feels like even the simplest of things seem to go wrong and you're just banging your head against the floor, and working harder just causes more headaches, like in California, it's tough to be a Libertarian Party activist. Those who keep trying are the real Libertarian heroes.

This is a list of some of the simple, humble approaches I've tried to take here in Texas.

1) I encourage people to run for any office they're willing to run for, and to run whether they have a realistic chance of winning, or are just likely to get a percent or two at the polls to help build the Party.
2) I've run for office five times, so I know what other candidates go through and can coach them.
3) At first, most prospects decline to be candidates because they don't want to disappoint the Party. I tell prospective candidates that they are doing the party a favor by running even if they don't spend a dime and only have a few hours all year to put into it. Most exceed expectations.
4) I don't nitpick the candidates' platforms. I support the right of candidates to have radical, moderate, left-leaning, or right-leaning libertarian platforms.
5) I try to give Texas Libertarians realistic hope they can achieve, and our results show it has worked.

I'll leave it to Californians to decide if any of this could be helpful to them or not.

I'm also writing this article to bring to your attention that I think a few former California leaders who let the California LP decline under their watch are now having too much influence on National LP strategy and we're seeing California-like declines at National.

For the record, I have offered to fix things myself by serving as the National Executive Director. Similarly, if California or any other states want my help at the state-level, they should give me a call. Pennsylvania? Wyoming? Hawaii? Hawaii?

The Libertarian Party of Texas had $25,000 in debt when I was first hired in 2004. Don't let an empty bank account prevent you from calling. My first job is to start filling your bank account. I can work out a realistic no-risk plan with you.

I actually like fixer-uppers. Makes it real easy to improve.

Check out my resume: Executive Director * Sold Business * MBA * Engineer

My resume reveals that I'm not a native Texan and that I've lived all over the US and overseas. I can work from a distance or re-locate, work full-time or part-time. I'm getting kind of tired of Texas, anyway. Aren't you? ;-)

(No permission necessary to re-post this article. Data for the graph is imprecise. CA data was the best I could find from their website. On 3/29/09 2000-2001 data for TX added. TX 2000 is estimate based on reported Jan-Sep of $37,344. If you see something that needs correcting, please let me know.)

My Final LP Texas Executive Director's Report

2009-03-10T17:38:00.000-07:00

Documenting another outstanding performance by Texas Libertarians.

Here's the full report.

Texas Libertarians Announce New Executive Director

2009-03-10T17:35:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Libertarians Announce New Executive Director

Butler takes over for Benedict

AUSTIN - January 5, 2009 - The Libertarian Party of Texas (LPT) has announced that Robert Butler is replacing Wes Benedict as its executive director.

Robert Butler comes to the Libertarian Party of Texas from a political consulting position in Washington, D.C. He previously served as the executive director of the Libertarian Party of Ohio.

In Ohio, Butler worked on litigation to eliminate restrictive ballot access laws. The litigation resulted in Ohio's ballot access laws being ruled unconstitutional in 2008, and the Ohio Secretary of State was required to place the Libertarian Party on last year's general election ballot.

Butler is fluent in Spanish and expects to make use of his bilingual skills in his new position. He has an International Relations degree from George Washington University (September 1991 - May 1995) and an English as a Foreign Language Teacher Certification from Harmon Hall in Cancun, Mexico (July 1999 - December 1999). He is married and has three young children.

Wes Benedict was named executive director for the LPT following his leadership on a successful petition drive in 2004 to gain ballot status for the party. Benedict directed many of the volunteers and paid petitioners who gathered over 82,000 petition signatures to keep the Libertarian Party on the Texas ballot. The LPT's state executive committee named Benedict as executive director in June of 2004.

Over the next four years, Benedict grew the LPT's revenue from $58,000 to over $140,000. The number of donors to the LPT grew from less than 200 in 2005 to over 900 in 2008.

Benedict twice broke the party's all-time candidate recruiting records with 168 candidates on the Texas ballot in 2006, and 173 candidates in 2008. Also in 2008, the LPT had its first candidate ever to earn over one million votes on the Texas ballot (William Strange, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 9).

Benedict plans to seek other opportunities in the private sector. Prior to his work with the LPT, Benedict owned a custom countertop manufacturing company. "Wes was the single person most responsible for our unprecedented success over the last four years," said state chair Pat Dixon. "Robert has big shoes to fill, but we feel we selected an excellent candidate."

Benedict commented, "I really enjoyed my time as the LPT's executive director, and I hope that our strong growth over the past four years will continue into the future."

Arthur DiBianca will continue working with the LPT as its operations manager.

The LPT began recruiting for the executive director position in October 2008, and received nine applicants in a nationwide search (2 from Washington DC, 1 from Nebraska, 1 from Louisiana, and 5 from Texas). The state executive committee formally selected Butler in December, to begin work on January 1, 2009.

High-resolution photos of Pat Dixon and the staff are available here.

Contact:
Pat Dixon, LPT chair
512-771-3936
chair@lptexas.org

Contact:
Robert Butler, LPT executive director
614-805-8292
director@lptexas.org

###

Texas Libertarians break records again

2009-03-10T17:32:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Texas Libertarians break records again

AUSTIN - November 6, 2008 - The Libertarian Party of Texas (LPT) showed strong results in the 2008 general election. The party broke several of its own records, and played "kingmaker" in several key races.

The party had 173 candidates on the ballot, its highest count ever.

By getting more than 5 percent in at least one statewide race, the LPT is automatically qualified for ballot access in 2010.

William B. Strange, the Libertarian candidate for Court of Criminal Appeals Place 9, received more than one million votes. That is the first time any Libertarian in Texas has crossed the million-vote threshold. According to ballot access expert Richard Winger, Strange is one of only two minor-party candidates to cross the million-vote threshold since 1970.

Yvonne Schick, the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senator, received over 184,000 votes, or 2.34 percent. That is the highest vote count, and the highest percentage, ever received by a Texas Libertarian for that office.

Libertarian candidates played "kingmaker" in several legislative races. In State Senate District 10, State House District 11, State House District 52, State House District 105, it appears that candidates will win with less than 50 percent of the vote. The Libertarian presence may have been crucial in those races.

Earlier this year, current and former Republican officeholders had contacted several Libertarian candidates asking them to drop out of the election.

In Travis County, two Libertarian candidates played "kingmaker", holding the winners under 50 percent, and possibly costing two Republican incumbents their seats.

Wes Benedict, LPT Executive Director, commented, "I'm glad to see that we might throw the election to the Democrat in District 105. If Republicans lose control of the Texas House, that could be a good thing for taxpayers. Government generally grows much faster when the same party controls both the legislative and executive branches. Divided government might be healthy for Texas."

Election results are reported by the Texas Secretary of State's office:
http://team1.sos.state.tx.us/enr/results/nov04_141_state.htm

List of Libertarian candidates:
http://www.lptexas.org/candidates.shtml

Contact:
Wes Benedict, LPT Executive Director
512-442-4910
director@lptexas.org

Texas Libertarian Debates Fair Tax National Communications Director

2008-07-14T20:30:00.000-07:00

Is the "Fair Tax" national sales tax proposal a good plan for America? Not according to the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas, Wes Benedict (that would be me).

Ken Hoagland, National Communications Director for Americans for Fair Taxation, and Wes Benedict debate the Fair Tax June 14 at the 2008 Libertarian Party of Texas state convention.

View excerpts of the debate in the video below:

In case the video doesn't display above try the link below:
http://seananderson.blip.tv/#1079998

Special thanks to volunteer Sean Anderson for recording the debate and posting the video online. Also note that Sean is still editing many videos from the LP Texas convention and it's possible this video may be updated in the future and not available from these links posted.

My Richard Viguerie Confession

2008-05-22T08:37:00.000-07:00

Having Viguerie as a keynote speaker has sparked some controversy, lately. Here's some of my thoughts about this I sent to the Radical LP group plus some of my thoughts from nearly a year ago.

I have not been involved in any of the recent discussions where Viguerie was actually chosen as a replacement for Bob Barr as a keynote speaker.

--Wes

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: My Richard Viguerie confession
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 04:09:46 -0500
From: Wes Benedict
To: lpradicals@yahoogroups.com

Richard Viguerie was a guest speaker just over a year ago at the 2007 Libertarian State Chairs Conference in Orlando. I found his presentation quite inspiring, and as you can see from the note I wrote below to the LNC (almost a year ago), I recommended him as a keynote speaker for our 2008 convention.

Keep in mind I had no idea Bob Barr would be running for President at the time, and as the note below makes clear, I recommended Bob Barr as my second choice.

I found Mr. Viguerie's story quite inspiring. And make no mistake, Mr. Viguerie was clear he was a "conservative" with the goal of holding the Republican Party true to conservative principles, not libertarian principles.

While I did not agree with Mr. Viguerie's goals of achieving conservatism through the Republican Party, I thought Libertarians could learn a lot from the methods he used. I read his book about how he wanted to use tactics that would pull the Republican Party in the conservative direction and thought many of those same principles could be used by the Libertarian Party to pull the general electorate in a more Libertarian direction.

One particular thing that stood out as a tactic that I think Libertarians (including myself) often misunderstand is the role that direct mail plays as a form of advertising, not just fund raising.

I've seen many instances where a Libertarian campaign gets criticized for spending too much money on fund raising. I'll give two scenarios to help make my point. Consider these two scenarios:

Scenario A: Libertarian candidate Smith raises $1 million and spends $500,000 on postcards to voters. (Great--50% spent on advertising!)
Scenario B: Libertarian candidate Smith raises $1 million and spends $500,000 on fund raising letters to voters (with the same info as the postcard but has a return envelope and a fund raising pitch, etc., and results in $300,000 in new revenue--which is spent on more letters). So in this case the campaign spends $800,000 or more on outreach.

I used to be of the mindset that Scenario A was good because 50% was advertising, but did not understand that fund raising letters as in Scenario B were also a form of advertising but one that brought in money to keep the advertising going.

It's late and I'm tired and not in a condition to make sure what I'm writing is clear, but to be clear, I'm saying that despite the recent Bob Barr connections and that I recognize there's a potential conflict here, a year ago I thought Libertarians could learn a lot from Mr. Viguerie's methods.

In 2004, I was one of the main leaders of the successful ballot access petition drive in Texas. Libertarians hadn't had to petition in Texas for 16 years so none of us had experience. We learned on the fly by working very closely with and cooperating with the Nader petition effort. I don't support Nader's views, but definitely learned a lot and benefited a lot by coordinating with his petition effort.

Again, it's real late and I can hardly read my own typing. Not expecting this to alleviate concerns about conflicts. Just providing more background from my viewpoint.

--Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian Party of Texas
512-442-4910

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Keynoter?
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 16:38:26 -0500
From: Wes Benedict
To: lnc-discuss@lp.org
References: <2058229974.1183728878466.javamail.root@fepweb09>

Can you confirm for me exactly what the keynote speaker is? Is that the main speaker at the fundraising banquet dinner on the last major night of the convention?

Who gets the money from that banquet, the party or the presidential nominee?

I may change my recommendation based on answers above. In any case . . .

I recommend Richard Viguerie:

1. I found his speech at the state chairs meeting to be the most inspiring I've heard in years. And, he inspired me to want to support the LP! Having someone like a libertarian-leaning elected Republican judge doesn't inspire me to want to support the LP.
2. I don't think having someone like Brian Doherty or Neil Boortz who will bash the LP (regardless of whether that's deserved or not) will be good for fundraising for the LP. Might as well get Timothy West and Greg Dirasian if critiquing the audience is the goal (inside joke--not all LNC members will understand this reference).
3. Despite several months upward trend in membership numbers, by most measures, the LP is in pretty bad shape when compared to just a few years ago on objective measures: elected libertarians, "active" donors, revenue, etc. I recognize many people are optimistic because we have this or that new program that's fixin' to take off, but by objective measures, we're in the doldrums and I think most rational Libertarian Party members realize that. DEPRESSED? Well, misery loves company!
Richard Viguerie, a Republican, really bashed the Republican Party hard, and that inspired me to work harder for the LP.
4. Junk Mail. Viguerie was a big fundraiser and direct-mailer for conservative and Republican causes. Many Libertarian Party members don't know much about the vital role that direct mail plays in raising funds and in providing advertising and growth of the party. I think having several hundred Libertarian Party members getting a lesson on direct mail might not only help them if they work on fundraising efforts, but might also get them to feel better about opening up their wallets at the banquet or in response to future fundraising letters from national.
5. Richard Viguerie claimed he started a "vast right-wing conspiracy." He said no party leaders asked him to do it--he just took it upon himself to do it. I think it would be great for a room full of Libertarians to hear that they don't need to wait for an invitation or approval from Libertarian Party leaders to make something happen. Just do it!
6. Richard Viguerie was interesting and entertaining and informative. Great for a fundraising banquet. I forget who the guy was in Portland who did the PowerPoint presentation full of technical details that I found extremely boring--and way too long (right before the fundraising)!!!!! Ron Paul was the keynote speaker at the LP Texas convention in 2006 and he was great, but we let him go on and on and on for way too long and he was like the third speaker. People were restless, yawning, sneaking out, bored. We still raised good money, but I think we would have raised a lot more if we hadn't let it go on so long. In any case, our state convention banquet was not nearly as bad as that Portland National banquet. Keep it short, interesting, inspiring!

My 2 cents.

Actually, Congressman Barr would also be at the top of my list.

--Wes Benedict
PS: January through June 2007 LP Texas revenue: about $53,000.

rwsully@charter.net wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Any recommendations for a keynote speaker in 2008?

Withdrawing from LNC Vice Chair race

2008-04-03T23:16:00.000-07:00

I have decided to withdraw from the race for LNC Vice Chair and don't plan to seek any other position on the LNC at the 2008 Libertarian Party national convention.

It's been an honor and pleasure and a learning experience to serve as the Southwest Region 6 Representative to the LNC for the past two years. Our current LNC has had some spirited arguments and disagreements, but at the risk of inciting plenty of ridicule (that's your cue) I don't think the LNC did anything really stupid this term--and I'm proud of that!

While the Libertarian Party continues to face plenty of challenges, I remain committed to building the Libertarian Party, think it's a worthwhile vehicle for promoting freedom, and I am very positive about the prospects for strong growth in 2008. I'm not bailing out on the Libertarian Party. I'm just changing where I intend to focus my efforts in the short term.

I currently serve as the Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas. Once again, in 2008, we had strong candidate recruitment success in Texas. I've got more than enough to keep me busy.

Our preliminary reports in Texas show that we had a record first quarter fund raising effort of over $42,000 (Jan. 1, 2008-March 31, 2008).

Additionally, I'm running for office myself, again (and promised myself to learn how to make and update my own website, which I'm doing for the first time--so please go easy on me in the short-term; I know it's not up to par yet).

In order to help fill a void that I see, I'm also working on a couple of projects to help Libertarians throughout the country who may find some of the materials I'm offering useful to their efforts:

FreeLibertarianStickers.com

QuizAcrossAmerica.com

As far as the LNC Vice Chair position goes, the only other announced candidate I'm aware of is Chuck Moulton, our current Vice Chair. While I think it would be premature to endorse him before we see who else might decide to seek the position, I have great respect for Mr. Moulton, think he's done a fine job as Vice Chair, am quite aware of his strong activism at the state and local level, and think the Libertarian Party would be well-served if Mr. Moulton serves for another term.

I want to thank my colleagues on the LNC (even the Californians) who spend lots of time and thousands of dollars of their own money (it's a volunteer position) just to attend the quarterly meetings, among many other tasks they perform.

I remain committed to the principles of the Libertarian Party and will be doing my part to help make 2008 a year of growth for the Libertarian Party. And I appreciate all of you who find a way and make an effort to help build the Libertarian Party and support Libertarian Party candidates.

Yours in liberty,

--Wes Benedict

Former LP candidate, Robert McDonald, leads rEVOLution to victory in my Texas district

2008-03-30T12:43:00.000-07:00

I am so proud of Robert McDonald and all of the libertarian Ron Paul Republicans in my state senatorial district. Last night's Austin American Statesman reports:

Paul supporters win one, lose one in Travis County

In the SD 25 meeting, the temporary chair who had hoped to be elected the permanent chair of the confab was defeated by a challenger backing U.S. Rep. Paul, R-Lake Jackson, for president. In turn, delegates elected Paul-majority committees to guide them through sorting resolutions and selecting delegates to the state convention in June.

Robert McDonald, an Austin CPA elected the permanent chair of the county’s GOP SD 25 convention, said he won the post by about 17 votes—after which some of what he called the old guard walked out, including the temporary chairman, Brian Padden.

Robert McDonald was the Travis County Libertarian Party candidate for Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3, in 2006.

Since I am the Libertarian Party candidate for Travis County Commissioner, Precinct 3 (see wesbenedict.com), I obviously was not a delegate to this district 25 Republican convention. Ironically, however, I did attend the district 14 Republican convention as a vendor representing Stop Domain Subsidies.

I have to admit, it was a bit awkward at times, because our vendor table was right next to the COST table. COST is a group working to prevent transportation boondoggles in Austin like light rail. And while I'm against light rail myself, the Executive Committee of Cost includes my Republican opponent, Gerald Daugherty, plus Jim Skaggs, who recently sent me an email saying he used to like the Libertarian Party, but now hates them all because of me. Oh well.

Gerald Daugherty is known as a "toller" in Travis County for supporting putting toll booths all over Central Texas highways. With so many Ron Paul supporters in our precinct (many of whom have helped my campaigns for Austin City Council in the past), and with Ron Paul supporters being suspicious of the taxing and tracking aspects of these toll booths, Gerald Daugherty is likely to get kicked out of office by a strong Democratic challenger in November, and that's partly because I'll be drawing away a lot of Daugherty's former supporters.

In any case, back to the Republican conventions. I found the write-ups below highly entertaining, informative and inspiring.

Blogcritics: Liveblogging a GOP District Convention, by Dave Nalle, the 2002 Libertarian Party candidate for State Representative, District 46.
Daily Paul: Texas Conventions: Update HERE. Definitely read the posted comments.

Some Libertarian Party members have been justifiably concerned about the future of our party with so many current and former Libertarian Party members now working inside the Republican Party. I'm personally more committed to libertarian principles than to the Libertarian Party. Nevertheless, my experience in Texas has been that the Libertarian Party and libertarian principles are both benefiting from the Ron Paul Revolution even though many are working part-time or even full-time inside the Republican Party. The efforts are synergistic, as happens sometimes with organizations like the ACLU on privacy rights, and Democrats when some of them are genuinely supporting freedom issues.

Keep up the great work everyone!

--Wes Benedict

Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, please run for President

2008-02-20T19:14:00.000-08:00

Dr. Ruwart:

Libertarian Party members need someone they can trust and respect to run for President. We need someone who can effectively communicate our principles with the public. You're increasingly looking to be the best person who's potentially willing and available to represent the Libertarian Party in 2008.

I know it has not been your ambition to run for President. You, like so many others, have stood by patiently waiting and watching and hoping for someone else with the right principles, experience, skills, and motivation to emerge as a strong candidate to represent the Libertarian Party.

I can tell you with confidence based on my observations and conversations with many Libertarian activists that no such candidate has emerged, yet many Libertarians who have heard your name mentioned (and who haven't yet) as a potential draftee would be thrilled if you were to step forward.

You've been a long-time Libertarian Party activist. Your book "Healing Our World In an Age of Aggression" has on the back cover an endorsement from Congressman Ron Paul: "Healing Our World bridges the gap between conservatives and liberals, Christians and New Agers, special interests and the common good, with practical solutions to our economic and societal woes."

I recently re-read the first two chapters to reassure myself that your book has the ability to reach out to people outside of the Libertarian Party and that's what we need to do to grow the Libertarian Party.

Of course your book "Short Answers to the Tough Questions" remains an excellent resource to help all libertarian activists communicate with others. You've done so much more, but I won't go into greater detail right now.

I was hoping Ron Paul would seek the Libertarian Party nomination and I know you've been actively supporting his campaign as a volunteer, but I think he's made it clear now that he's going to stay in the race for President as a Republican and won't consider a Libertarian Party nomination. I still hold out hope that former Congressman Bob Barr, who's serving on the Libertarian National Committee, will consider entering the race. If he does, I think he'd make the strongest candidate and I'd support him, but he has not indicated a willingness to run.

About a dozen others are seeking the LP nomination, but based on the Presidential debate hosted last weekend by the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance in Las Vegas, none of the current contenders are inspiring enough support. Like many others, I came away from that debate with the feeling "is this the best we can do?"

Here's a rundown on some of the top contenders who participated in that debate.

Wayne Allyn Root

I had high hopes for Root, but he has let me down. While some are put off by his aggressive sales approach, I actually like his enthusiastic presentation style even if at times it seems over the top. Root justifiably claims to be a Barry Goldwater conservative and free market supporter. Nevertheless, Root's comments continue to show he instinctively supports the so-called "war on terror" and foreign intervention. He made comments at the debate that the war on terror was real but that the Iraq War was mismanaged. I beg to differ. Our military readily and efficiently conquered the Iraqi military and facilitated the execution of Saddam Hussein. The issue is that America should follow a policy of non-interventionism and should not have invaded Iraq in the first place, regardless of how well it could be managed. Doing so was unjust and likely has added to the instability in the Middle East and has served to recruit even more terrorists. The unjust invasion of Iraq is not made just by attempts at nation-building. We need to get the US military out of Iraq now. Root has ignored advice from Libertarians on this issue. Perhaps he's received bad advice from misguided Libertarians on how to handle the terrorism issue. Nevertheless, he's unlikely to gain the support of a majority of Libertarian Party delegates.

Additionally, Root wrote a book titled "Millionaire Republican." When asked how much of his own money he would spend on his campaign at the debate, something he's been asked many times before, he responded that he would donate five thousand dollars of campaign contributions (not his own money) to a Libertarian political action committee.

Steve Kubby

Steve Kubby is a well-known cancer survivor who successfully led the passage of a medical marijuana initiative in California. By all means he's a heroic activist and a proven warrior for freedom, but his performance at the debate showed he wasn't going to be a strong articulate spokesman for the party. He gives a good stump speech explaining the oppression he's endured under the heavy hand of government, but when asked questions, his responses aren't sharp and on topic.

George Phillies

George Phillies scored some points on humor at the debate, but his constant attacks on fellow Libertarians over the years continue to alienate him from potential supporters. He's his own worst enemy. He's run for National LP Chair four times and lost every time. While I respect his tenacity, he continues to wrack up ever more enemies, few supporters, and is unlikely to get enough support to win the nomination. Additionally, he's taken positions on numerous issues that Libertarians disagree with, and his presentation style is that of a brainy physics professor, which he is.

Michael Jingozian

I originally wrote him off as a flake and considered him bottom-tier. But Jingozian has assembled a strong professional campaign organization and appears legitimately to have raised and spent more on his campaign than any of the other candidates. He's a very successful businessman and a likable guy. He actually scored points with me at the debate which is why I now rank him up with the other top contenders mentioned here. But I have doubts that his vague policy prescriptions and feel-good presentation style will resonate with enough Libertarian Party members to garner the nomination. He's the Barack Obama of the Libertarian Party without the oomph!

The Others

Several other candidates have been campaigning but none of them are serious enough or credible enough to be likely nominees although several provide ample entertainment value.

In Conclusion

Dr. Ruwart, I'm confident that if you are willing to seek the nomination for President, you will win the nomination and will represent the Libertarian Party well. I don't think Libertarians are expecting miracles this time. But many of us are concerned that our current cast of characters just aren't going to do justice to our party as our Presidential nominee.

You're someone with a proven track record of successful libertarian activism, generosity, sincerity, and a complete understanding and dedication to the principles of freedom. I'm offering you my support and encouraging others to support you if you're willing to carry the torch for the Libertarian Party as our Presidential nominee in 2008.

And despite all of the hard work and burden involved with running a Presidential campaign, I bet you'll have a damn good time if you decide to do it.

Please let Libertarians know if you're willing to run and do so soon. Many of us are eagerly awaiting for a highly respectable candidate like you to support.

Sincerely:

--Wes Benedict

(Wes Benedict is the Region 6 Representative to the Libertarian National Committee, serves as Executive Director of the Libertarian Party of Texas, and is a candidate for Vice Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.)

Defiant Till the End: Terry Liberty Parker

2007-12-22T18:01:00.000-08:00

August 2007: Terry Liberty Parker is diagnosed with a brain tumor.

October 2007: Medical treatment provides enough temporary relief to allow Terry to once again demonstrate his uncompromising dedication to freedom for all without compromise.

In response to a stroke victim asking me what is the libertarian prescription for healthcare:

Wes says:
I'm going to forward your email to Terry Liberty Parker and ask him to respond to one question. Note that Terry Liberty Parker has a severe condition, was recently given a dire prognosis though he's fighting it heroically and he may not be able to respond.

Nevertheless, Terry, please tell us now if you can, given that you've spent much of your life fighting for freedom for all, and given that you're fighting for your life today, and that what you say today could have a long-lasting effect on the freedom movement, what's your long-term prescription for health care in America today?

a) more government b) less government

Terry's response is:

(c) No government.

The full conversation:

http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/10/disabled-libertarian-macho-flash.html

Terry Liberty Parker was a 10-year host of the show "Live & Let Live" and first invited me to appear as a guest on his show in 2002. It was my first live television appearance, I was nervous as heck, and also offended quite a few people. Terry let me know that, but in a supportive way and with plenty of constructive criticism. As libertarians often do, we occasionally butted heads in our future political activism. Terry was as stubborn as they make 'em and I will never forget him and will always consider his unwavering support for freedom to be an inspiration to me.

I hope this excerpt from the final "Live and Let Live" show before his passing shows how much Austin libertarians appreciate all that he did.

From the Austin American Statesman:

Terry Liberty Parker
Terry Liberty Parker Terry Liberty Parker, longtime Austin Libertarian activist, passed away peacefully on December 17, 2007 after a short but valiant fight against aggressive brain cancer. Terry was born on October 26, 1944 in New York City. For over 30 years Terry was a vocal and passionate champion of Libertarian principles. In the early 1970s, Terry gained worldwide fame for establishing a clothing-optional apartment whose tenants signed a "non-aggression pact" whereby "they were free to do whatever they want as long as they don't aggress physically against one another." He was active in the Libertarian Party during the 1980s and once served as Travis County Libertarian Party Chair. For 10 years, Terry hosted "Live and Let Live," and for the past two years he co-hosted the "Jeff Davis Show," both on Austin's local public access television station. In the 1990s, he began using the Internet to expand his Libertarian voice by establishing himself as moderator of the Libertarian Yahoo Group and provided the valuable service as archivist for televised Libertarian programs. Terry was most admired for his unwavering commitment to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and his unconditional love for his friends and family. Terry's survivors include beloved daughter, Clare Burchfield; cousin, Mary Partlan (John); loving life-mate, Rita Gonzalez; and numerous lifelong friends. A private memorial will be held in Austin to celebrate his exceptional life. Obituary and guestbook online at http://wcfish.com

Bill Redpath, Please Run for Reelection to LNC Chair

2007-12-11T07:27:00.000-08:00

Bill Redpath,

After years of a scarily downward slide in membership, candidates, officeholders and contributions, plus a high DC headquarters staff turnover, at the 2006 Portland Convention you stepped in and seized the office of Libertarian National Committee (LNC) Chair with the overwhelming support of delegates (64.3% versus 23.1% for Ernie Hancock, 9.1% for George Phillies, and 3.5% for None of the Above). You provided inclusive stability and dignified leadership in a divisive and unstable environment when the Libertarian Party (LP) needed you most.

You served as Treasurer for the LNC for two terms and have run for office as a Libertarian three times including Governor of Virginia in 2001 as one of the first Libertarian candidates for statewide office to be on the Virginia ballot.

In addition to your various other roles, most Libertarians know of you as the de facto Ballot Access Champion and petition organizer for the Libertarian Party.

Having volunteered full-time at my own expense for six months for the successful 2004 ballot access drive in Texas which garnered over 82,000 raw signatures, I know how difficult and unpredictable these petition drives can be.

While well-meaning people can disagree on the funding priority that ballot access should receive, I believe some people have either mistakenly or for political reasons questioned your handling of ballot access. I also believe you have been criticized at times for circumstances beyond your control: specifically, for previous LP headquarters staff’s inability to provide a detailed accounting of ballot access expenditures which they were responsible for doing.

You hung in there time and time again, at times making mistakes, nevertheless achieving incredible results when no one else was willing to step up to the plate and take on this enormous responsibility.

At the recent Charleston LNC meeting, you said you would announce your future intentions regarding running for LNC Chair again soon and before you did that I wanted to do my best, if you are willing, and if the Libertarian Party were to be so fortunate, to persuade you to run for Chair again in case you hadn’t made up your mind yet.

The Libertarian Party needs you again in 2008.

The only other current LNC member I could support for LNC Chair is the well-respected Emily Salvette, currently the Region 3 LNC Representative from Michigan, the Convention Credentials Committee Chair, and a former Michigan LP Chair.

If neither you nor Salvette are willing to run for LNC Chair, I’d run for LNC Chair myself.

Serving as LNC Chair might cramp my style and take away from other valuable projects I’d prefer to focus on and would if I were confident the Chair’s position was in good hands.

Nevertheless, I would campaign vigorously for LNC Chair just as I plan to campaign vigorously for Vice Chair of the LNC if neither you nor Salvette agree to run for Chair in 2008.

Wes Benedict for Vice Chair

Libertarian Party members,

No one asked me to run for the Region 6 Southwest LNC Representative position in 2006. In fact, people asked someone else to but I took it upon myself to run and win because I was concerned that the performance of the National LP was impeding my State of Texas and allowing other states to decline. I believe I earned the support of delegates based on my resume of business and well-known Libertarian Party activism as was presented here:
http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_archive.html

I have a proven track record of helping the Texas LP that was once in a state of chaos: http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2006/07/texas-two-step-turnaround-2.html
And bringing it to a much higher level of performance: http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2007/11/belatedly-reporting-step-two-was.html

No one asked me to run for Vice Chair but I plan to do so even in the event Redpath or Salvette or anyone else preferred I didn’t. I would not be surprised to hear from critics that I might be trying to ride someone’s coattails into the Vice Chair position.

I don’t care.

I enjoy vigorous campaigns both for internal LP positions and in my four campaigns for public office. I have stood up to some of the biggest bullies within the Libertarian Party like M Carling. Occasionally when necessary I’ve successfully defended myself and others against innuendo and fact distortion.

While showing signs of improvement, the National LP remains at a much lower level by most measures than where it was just a few years ago and many of the current LNC members (including Redpath and Salvette both of whom I deeply respect) served on the LNC during that period of decline.

If the National LP and most state parties were growing like gangbusters, then I’d feel comfortable stepping off the LNC and getting out of the way and letting whoever was currently on the board continue to serve and lead.

But, that’s not happening now so let this be my announcement that I’ll be running like gangbusters for LNC Vice Chair or Chair, though my first choice for Chair is Redpath and second choice is Salvette.

Belatedly reporting: "Step Two" was a success!

2007-11-09T20:02:00.000-08:00

Previously I reported about efforts to turnaround our state party:

http://wesbenedictforlnc.blogspot.com/2006/07/texas-two-step-turnaround-2.html

I'll let the press release below speak for itself . . .

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Texas Libertarians make major gains, break records

AUSTIN - November 8, 2006 - The Libertarian Party of Texas (LPT) showed major improvement in the 2006 general election, relative to its performance in previous years.

The party had 168 candidates on the ballot, its highest count ever.

By getting more than 5% in at least one statewide race, the LPT is automatically qualified for ballot access in 2008.

Overall trends:

In 2002, Libertarian candidates in a three-way race for U.S. House received an average of 1.6% of the vote. In 2004, they received an average of 1.7%. In 2006, they received an average of 2.6%. (Note, "three-way" means a Libertarian running against a Republican and a Democrat, with no other candidates in the race.)

In 2002, Libertarian candidates in a two-way race for U.S. House received an average of 8.8% of the vote. In 2004, they received an average of 6.9%. In 2006, they received an average of 17.0%.

In 2002, Libertarian candidates in a three-way race for Texas House received an average of 2.4% of the vote. In 2004, they received an average of 2.7%. In 2006, they received an average of 3.6%.

In 2002, Libertarian candidates in a two-way race for Texas House received an average of 10.3% of the vote. In 2004, they received an average of 9.7%. In 2006, they received an average of 16.0%.

LPT Executive Director Wes Benedict said, "The results show that voters are no longer afraid to vote Libertarian. More and more voters know who we are and what we stand for."

In this 2006 election, 22 Libertarian candidates for federal and state offices received over 20% of the vote. The last time Libertarian candidates for federal or state offices earned more than 20% of the vote was in 1992: two Libertarians broke the threshold that year.

Individual races:

Benedict said, "We're very pleased with Bob Smither's results in District 22. Bob broke the Texas Libertarian record for a Congressional candidate running against a well-funded Democrat and Republican." Preliminary results showed Smither with 6.1% of the vote.

U.S. Senate candidate Scott Jameson received 2.3%, the highest received by a Texas Libertarian for U.S. Senate since 1990.

Libertarians showed strength in local races, too. Travis County JP candidate Matt Finkel earned 34.5% of the vote against a Republican incumbent. In Brazos County, Linda Wilbert earned 18.5% in a three-way JP race. (These percentages are based on unofficial county results.)

Playing kingmaker:

It is very unusual in Texas elections for a federal or state candidate to win without a majority of the vote. However, apart from the race for Governor, several legislative races with Libertarians had winners who failed to obtain a majority. They included Texas House Districts 17, 32, 85, 93, 106, and 118.

In District 17, the Democrat led the Republican by 417 votes, while Libertarian Rod Gibbs received 1,281 votes.

In District 32, the Democrat led the Republican by 602 votes, while Libertarian Lenard Nelson received 2,026 votes.

In District 85, the Democrat led the Republican by 193 votes, while Libertarian David K. Schumacher received 798 votes.

In District 93, the Democrat led the Republican by 473 votes, while Libertarian Max W. Koch III received 755 votes.

In District 106, the Republican led the Democrat by 231 votes, while Libertarian Gene Freeman received 591 votes.

In District 118, the Democrat led the Republican by 904 votes, while Libertarian James L. Thompson received 1,699 votes.

"I'm pleased to see that we acted as kingmaker in several of these races," said LPT chair Patrick Dixon.

In 2004, Libertarian candidate Greg Knowles was credited with ousting incumbent Jack Stick from his District 50 seat. Stick lost by 569 votes, while Knowles received 2,390 votes.

Other stats:

On average, Libertarians running in two-way races for statewide judicial races received 24.1% of the vote. In 2000, their average was 16.7%. (In 2002, there were no two-way statewide judicial races.) In 2004, their average was 15.1%.

In statewide races with both a Republican and a Democrat, the best Libertarian performers were Lieutenant Governor candidate Judy Baker, with 4.4%, and Railroad Commissioner candidate Tabitha Serrano, with 4.2%.

In Congressional races, the highest Libertarian result was 21.3% for Gordon R. Strickland, running in District 16.

For State Board of Education, the highest Libertarian result was 29.6% for Martin Thomen, running in District 10.

For State Senate, the highest Libertarian result was 22.2% for Phil Kurtz, running in District 17.

For State House, the highest Libertarian result was 24.0% for Kris Overstreet, running in District 18.

The highest Libertarian vote count was for Jerry Adkins (running for Supreme Court, Place 4), who received 830,331 votes (24.5%).

Percentages and vote counts are according to the Secretary of State's unoffical results as of 4:40 pm.

Contact:
Wes Benedict, LPT Executive Director
512-442-4910
director@lptexas.org

###

A disabled “Libertarian Macho Flash” featuring Terry Liberty Parker

2007-10-01T23:31:00.000-07:00

From an email exchange in September, 2007:

Dear Mr. Benedict:

My name is John [name changed to protect privacy]. I am writing to you to seek information on where the Libertarian party stands on helping the disabled. I suffered a career-ending, major stroke several years ago. And, if it weren't for the private disability insurance and Social Security Disability insurance that I receive, my family and I would be out on the street. I've been a life-long Republican, but the shenanigans of the Bush administration have left an awful taste in my mouth. I'm a big fan of Neal Boortz and after spending time on his website, taking the 1-minute "political quiz", I realize a lot of my values are congruent with the Libertarian party's.

I've posed my question to Mr. Boortz and to the Libertarian party at the national level only to get no response. I figured trying at the local level may prove more enlightening.

So, what is the stance on what to do for a man cut down at the age of forty in the prime of his career? I sincerely hope the answer is not "tough luck, mister, Go get a greeter's job at Wal-Mart."

I apologize if I've been long-winded, but it happens to be the issue that determines my political choices from here on in.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

--John

-----------------------

John:

Based on the fact that you're a big fan of the famously offensive yet entertaining Neal Boortz and the fact that you made the self-deprecating comment, "tough luck, mister, Go get a greeter's job at Wal-Mart," I'll assume you have a high tolerance for sarcasm.

If not, I advise that you hit the delete button fast without reading further.

Because, I'm going to ratchet up the sarcasm a few notches.

Where does the Libertarian Party stand on helping the disabled like you?

Perhaps we should buy you a one-way bus ticket to Canada, eh? They've got socialized medicine. Better yet, we could bulk-rate ship you on a slow boat to Cuba, no? Castro offers free health care. If you're xenophobic, we could just send you to Hillary's Village, HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

To answer your question more seriously requires considering the current state of our health care system in America, how we got there, the resulting effect on people's behavior, what your situation is now, how the response to your situation would be different had our health care policies evolved in a truly free market system, and how changing our system more towards free markets might affect people currently afflicted with serious medical conditions.

Education, health care, and transportation are three areas where the government keeps getting more heavily involved, and the results are abysmal. Increased government intervention has resulted in costs escalating, with quality and service deteriorating. We'd be better off without government involvement in all three areas, but I'll restrict my further comments to health care.

I wish the government had never gotten involved in health care. Had that been the case, you and I and others would be much better off. Government licensing and regulations restrict the supply of and innovation of health care providers which drives up the costs and drives down the quality.

The fact that the government will ultimately take care of any of us in dire need of medical care also has affected our behavior and planning for the future.

Many decades ago, the government did not provide health care. If we knew government would not be there in case we were afflicted with a debilitating health problem, we'd adjust our behavior to plan for that possibility. Families (including extended networks of cousins) might maintain stronger ties because they'd realize they might be needed to take care of one another in case of a tragedy. Specific medical problems cannot be predicted, but on average we all know that some of us will have them before old age.

We might be nicer to our parents, children, brothers and sisters, cousins, neighbors and friends knowing one day we might need to rely on each other. If we knew government would not be there as a provider of last resort, more of us would be sure to get adequate insurance to cover serious problems. Family and friends would put pressure on those renegades who resisted getting insurance using the argument that "we love you and would do whatever it takes to provide for you in case of tragedy so you owe it to us to take some personal responsibility in the matter." Perhaps some parents of adult children would pay for medical insurance rather than giving money for tuition, BMW's or Chevrolets. Charities would be there to provide for some where the family bond failed, and the recipients of charity would probably be more likely to behave in ways to maintain the willingness of charities to provide for them.

I already mentioned how medical costs would be drastically lower under free market conditions making all of this more practical than it sounds in today's environment.

Nevertheless, we haven't had a free market in health care for decades and now you're afflicted with a debilitating medical condition. I think it's completely rational for you and your family to take advantage of whatever services are available to you, even if some of it is provided by the government. I support privatization of transportation and utilities yet we don't have that and I walked on the government sidewalk and drove on the government roads today, plus flushed some waste into the government sewerage system today (didn't count how many times).

What to do with you today is a difficult thing for me to answer and how to fairly transition from our current situation to a more libertarian world is not easy for me to answer either. What's easier for me to say now is that we need to make LESS GOVERNMENT the goal of a majority of Americans and only then can we find and implement ways to transition from what we have now to what we should end up with keeping in mind those who now rely on certain government provided services.

One of the most radical libertarians ever is named Terry Liberty Parker and he lives right here in Austin, Texas. He was recently afflicted with a brain tumor. While Terry has long been an advocate for less government, I know he's receiving some government provided health care services and that's quite rational given the government's imposition in all aspects of health care services in America today.

I'm going to forward this email to Terry Liberty Parker and ask him to respond to one question. Note that Terry Liberty Parker has a severe condition, was recently given a dire prognosis though he's fighting it heroically and he may not be able to respond.

Nevertheless, Terry, please tell us now if you can, given that you've spent much of your life fighting for freedom for all, and given that you're fighting for your life today, and that what you say today could have a long-lasting effect on the freedom movement, what's your long-term prescription for health care in America today?

a) more government b) less government

In my opinion, the shorter your response, the greater the long-term impact.

Yours in liberty,

--Wes Benedict

PS: Boortz is wrong on the Iraq War.

-----------------------

John writes:

Mr. Benedict: Thank you for your thoughtful response. BTW, I love the sarcasm...it's what keeps me sane in this forced, premature retirement.

I wanted to clarify my situation just a tad. While my stroke left me handicapped (irregular gait, right arm doesn't work too well, emotional liability, etc.) my health is actually pretty good. I would love and try to get back to work, but if I were to try and fail, I would lose all my income and everything. Or, if I were to stroke out again, the insurance company would say, "Sorry, you have a preexisting condition." It's a shame that an intelligent, capable man like me is trapped by a system that, at the end of the day, is broken and unfair. I'll likely end up in poverty as a result.

Thank you for forwarding to Mr. Parker. I certainly wish him the best in his health challenges and certainly understand if he cannot share his thoughts.

Again, my sincerest thanks.

Regards,

John

PS: I'm not sure what I think is right in the Mid-East unless it involves using the words thermonuclear and annihilation in the same sentence.

----------------

Terry says:

Hi Wes: Sorry this response is so late. We had a very busy day today, but here is my answer.

Wes Says: Nevertheless, Terry, please tell us now if you can, what's your long-term prescription for health care in America today?

a) more government b) less government

Terry's response is:

I am using only a small fraction of the money stolen from me over the years by the government. No one owes me anything. I am getting better and some people think that's good and some think it's bad. I consider it a good thing.

---------

LOVE IT!!!!!!!! Thank you Terry!!!

--Wes

---------

“Libertarian Macho Flash” is a term coined by Michael Cloud in an essay "The Late, Great Libertarian Macho Flash" in 1978.

http://www.theadvocates.org/secrets-interview.html

While I agree with Mr. Cloud to a degree, lately the message from many Libertarians has gotten a little too watered down, risking losing its inspirational message and appeal.

My heart goes out to Terry, John, and all 300 million Americans trapped in our increasingly socialistic health care system in America. Terry, thanks for sticking by your radical libertarian principles even in distress. You’ve been a radical thorn in the side of government for decades, an inspiration and guide to many libertarians including me, and I wish you the best in your struggle against cancer. May you live long, live strong, and live free.

Iraq Withdrawal - Proposed LNC Resolution for Pittsburgh Meeting

2007-06-21T22:33:00.000-07:00

Libertarian National Committee (LNC) Representatives Angela Keaton and I (Wes Benedict) will co-sponsor a motion at the July 21, 2007 LNC meeting in Pittsburgh asking the LNC to adopt the following resolution requesting withdrawal of United States armed forces from Iraq.

====
WHEREAS the Platform of the Libertarian Party calls for the government of the United States to return to its historical libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, foreign quarrels, and military adventures; and

WHEREAS the armed forces of the United States have invaded Iraq, a foreign nation that neither directly attacked nor imminently threatened to attack the United States; and

WHEREAS this invasion was unjust and imprudent; and

WHEREAS the injustice and imprudence of this invasion cannot be undone by the continued presence of the armed forces of the United States in Iraq; and

WHEREAS the stability and security of Iraq lie outside the jurisdiction of the government of the United States;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party calls on the government of the United States to withdraw the armed forces of the United States from Iraq, without delay or preconditions.
====

If you are a Libertarian Party activist, I urge you to contact your LNC Representatives and express your opinions on this matter. Your LNC Representatives can be found here: http://www.lp.org/organization/lncdirectory2.shtml

Please post your opinions on this blog as well. Let us know who you are. Feel free to list campaigns you've run or any officer positions you hold at the county or state level (recognizing that listing those positions does not imply that your personal opinion represents the official position of the organization in which you hold office), and tell us why you do or do not support this resolution.

I do not know whether or not this resolution will pass. I'll maintain an up-to-date listing on this blog of any LNC members who publicly offer their positions in advance of consideration of this issue.

LNC Members:

Bill Redpath, Chair
Chuck Moulton, Vice Chair
Bob Sullentrup, Secretary
Aaron Starr, Treasurer

Angela Keaton, At-Large - FOR
Patrick Dixon, At-Large
Michael C. Colley, At-Large
Jeremy Keil, At-Large
Dan Karlan, At-Large

Tony Ryan, Region 1
M Carling, Region 2
Emily Salvette, Region 3
Bob Barr, Region 4
Jim Lark, Region 5
Wes Benedict, Region 6 - FOR
Hardy Machia, Region 7

While I believe this resolution clearly reflects the position implied by our platform, I don't think this position has been consistently communicated by various actions of the National Libertarian Party over the past few years.

Below are some arguments against adopting this resolution that you might come across.

1) This resolution is unnecessary because the platform is clear on this issue.

Rebuttal: The June 29, 2005 Iraq Exit Strategy (IES) posted on the LNC website called for a "complete withdrawal in one year's time" and that time has long since passed. Additionally, the IES recommended some steps many members felt were in violation of the platform.

Regardless of the merits of points made in that June 29, 2005 IES, the current LNC needs to make clear its position on this issue now.

2) The Libertarian Party should not adopt positions that some of its members may disagree with or find divisive. Our party needs to grow, even if that includes recruiting and retaining members who support the Unites States' continued military presence in Iraq.

Rebuttal: I support growing the Libertarian Party. I welcome people who predominantly support the platform of the Libertarian Party even if they may disagree on some issues, including the Iraq War. That doesn't mean our party shouldn't take a bold stand on issues that aren't unanimously supported by its members. Democrats disagree amongst themselves on the War in Iraq. Republicans disagree on immigration policies. Mature political parties should expect and welcome internal debate and disagreement on important issues.

I recently proposed this same resolution to the Libertarian Part of Texas (LPT) Executive Committee. The LPT Executive Committee voted it down. Some members supported it, while others opposed it for various reasons. Some opposed it because they supported the continued occupation of Iraq, while others opposed it because they preferred avoiding a divisive issue.

While I was disappointed that the Libertarian Party of Texas failed to adopt this resolution, I continue to work with the opponents on other issues and support their willingness to serve the Libertarian Party of Texas in their various roles.

While I support growing the Libertarian Party, I recognize the risk that some people may decide to quit the Libertarian Party based on the outcome of the vote on this resolution.

My message to potential quitters is: "There's some chance that by ceremoniously quitting you'll send a small message to other Libertarians how you feel about this issue and perhaps that will affect a change in direction. However, I believe it's more likely that by quitting, you'll be removing one more voice and one more vote that may be needed to tip the balance in the future on issues you feel are important. Rather than quitting the Libertarian Party and giving up your one vote, how about recruiting five or ten or one hundred other like-minded people to help guide the future direction of the Libertarian Party?"

I appreciate the time and energy that so many people have invested in working for the success of the Libertarian Party and for the cause of freedom in general, even though at times we may disagree on some issues. This might be one of those issues where we disagree.

Please contact your LNC Representatives and voice your opinion on this resolution. And of course, I hope that when you do, you'll be sending the message that you support this bold resolution demanding withdrawal of United States armed forces from Iraq without delay or preconditions.

--Wes Benedict
LNC Region 6 Representative

6/29/07 ***UPDATE***

The Iraq Exit Strategy has been removed from the lp.org website and I no longer plan to submit this resolution.

My $600 says the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign benefits the Libertarian Party

2007-05-03T10:16:00.000-07:00

On February 25, 2007, I contributed $600 to Ron Paul’s campaign for president. Proof (see Robert Benedict). Ron Paul, as you probably know, is the District 14 Republican congressman from Texas seeking the Republican Party’s nomination for president. Ron Paul is a Life Member of the Libertarian Party and was the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president in 1988.

Many Libertarian Party members know and respect Ron Paul. I personally think he is the best current member of Congress and there are no close seconds. His nickname is “Dr. No” in political circles for his record of voting against all legislation that isn’t specifically authorized by the Constitution. (You’d think all congressmen ought to meet that standard, but that’s a separate topic.)

I have great respect for Ron Paul’s uncompromising opposition to the Iraq War: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10862

Many people have contacted me asking various questions about the effects of Ron Paul’s campaign on the Libertarian Party and its potential nominee for president. Some of these people have been outright hostile. Picture someone walking up to me with their fist clenched and arm cocked in a ready-to-punch position demanding, “You Libertarians aren’t going to run someone against Ron Paul, are you!?” (That hasn’t actually happened, but that’s the tone of some of the e-mails I’ve received.)

My first response is, "I've contributed $600 to Ron Paul’s campaign--what have you done?” That’s usually enough to diffuse the tension.

My next response is, “Thanks to election law, there’s no need for this to be a conflict between Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party. It’s very likely the Republican nominee for President will be certain by March of 2008 because so many of the state Republican primaries will have occurred by then. The Libertarian Party nominating convention isn’t until May of 2008. If Republicans nominate Ron Paul for President, I expect Libertarians to defect in droves. However, Paul is a long shot for the Republican nomination. For that reason, Libertarians need to continue preparing to have a candidate for president.”

Finally, picture me with my fist clenched, my arm cocked in a ready-to-punch position and demanding, “If McCain or Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, you’re going to support the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, aren’t you!?”

Here’s some additional information specifically for Texans, although some of the concepts apply to many other states as well.

In some states, when you register to vote, you can affiliate with a political party or remain independent without a party affiliation. Texas doesn’t have registration by party. It has open primaries. Voting in the Republican or Democratic primaries, or participating in the conventions of the Libertarian Party or other minor parties, makes you an affiliate of that party for that election cycle. You can only be affiliated with one party. Some people have suggested Libertarians should vote in the Republican primary for Ron Paul. However, under the Texas Election Code, if you vote in the Republican primary, then you can’t participate in any Libertarian conventions, or run as a Libertarian candidate, or act as a Libertarian county chair. Therefore, I recommend that if you’re a Libertarian Party activist who wants to support Ron Paul for president, support him with your financial contributions--but do not vote in the Republican Party primary. Participate in the Libertarian Party conventions instead.

In 2000, 1,126,757 people voted in the Republican Party primary in Texas with 986,416 voting for Bush. In 2004, 678,615 people voted in the Republican primary with 635,948 supporting Bush. In both 2000 and 2004, I estimate fewer than 500 voters participated in the Libertarian Party conventions, and I expect a similar level of Libertarian participants in 2008. Even if all 500 Libertarian affiliates defect to the Republican Party for their primary, that would still have less than a 0.05% impact, which is almost no impact at all. Unfortunately, by voting in the Republican primary, those Libertarian activists would cause the Libertarian Party of Texas to lose its ballot access. We would have no candidates anywhere else on the ballot. The Libertarian Party of Texas would effectively disappear.

In 2004, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Michael Badnarik received 38,787 votes in Texas (0.52%). I’m not worried that some of those voters will temporarily defect to the Republican Party primary next year to vote for Ron Paul. But it would be foolish for any of the 500 Libertarian Party activists (candidates, county chairs, and officers) to do the same.

Ron Paul is a long shot for the Republican nomination. He’s being ignored by much of the mainstream media and shunned by most of the Republican Party. I hope he wins—that’s why I gave his campaign $600. But we should not wipe out the Libertarian Party in order to give him an invisibly tiny boost at the primary polls.

What’s much more likely is that the Republicans will nominate another big-government Republican who will follow in the footsteps of George W. Bush. If so, many honest conservatives disgusted with big-government Republicans may come join the Libertarian Party. That would be a nice consolation prize for us.

Most coverage of Ron Paul’s campaign for president mentions his past Libertarian Party affiliation. Whether or not Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, his campaign is definitely helping to publicize the Libertarian Party. That’s another reason I want to support him financially.

Some of you have asked, “Why doesn’t the Libertarian Party nominate Ron Paul for president, either as a dual nomination with the Republican Party, or separately if he fails to win the Republican nomination?”

My response: “In some states, including Texas, it’s not legal to be nominated by more than one party. Additionally, Ron Paul has expressed that if he fails to win the Republican Party nomination, he is unwilling to be the Libertarian Party nominee. He will seek re-election to his Republican seat in Congress instead.”

For those of you still unconvinced by my recommendations, and still concerned about what action the Libertarian Party might take regarding nominating a candidate for President, I have this advice: the Libertarian Party will make its presidential nomination at its National Convention in Denver in May 2008. If you want to have a voice in that decision, you can do what it takes to become a delegate and attend the Libertarian Party National Convention. I look forward to having you there.

I hereby reject the CULT of the omnipotent Reformers!

2007-03-21T19:32:00.000-07:00

From the skepdic: "A delusion held by one person is a mental illness, held by a few is a cult, held by many is a religion."

I’m no expert on cults or religions (more aligned with Christians than anything else), but I’ll attempt to show how the Libertarian Reform Caucus is dominated by Extremist Reformists who apparently use many of the strategies and tactics that cults employ. If this keeps up, the Reformist Cult runs the risk of turning into a full-blown religion!

Jiminy Tap-Dancin’ Crickin’-burgers!

Skepdic: Three ideas seem essential to the concept of a cult. One is thinking in terms of us versus them with total alienation from "them."

From the Libertarian Reform Caucus (LRC) Is the Libertarian Party Worth Fighting For? January 21, 2007: What we have now is a party with sharply drawn lines between the two camps. We can expect the purist elements to redouble their efforts to maintain control of the party. So now we face a determined foe. What sort of party will emerge out of this conflict, even if we win? I’d imagine a lot of the old guard will leave in protest. In fact, we should do everything we can to encourage the hardliners who refuse to compromise to pack their bags and go.

Skepdic: The second is the intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to recruit and hold members.

Guru: You’re not ready for this information.

Skepdic: The third is the charismatic cult leader. Cultism usually involves some sort of belief that outside the cult all is evil and threatening; inside the cult is the special path to salvation through the cult leader and his teachings.

LRC (home page): The Libertarian Reform Caucus is a coalition of freedom lovers who want to have an effective libertarian party, one which is designed to win elections now in order to turn the tide from ever increasing statism to more liberty. The current Libertarian Party does not meet this standard.

That statement is loaded with tricks. They’re in effect claiming that everyone who isn’t with them opposes an “effective” party and opposes “winning elections.” I hear that from Extremist Reformists frequently. As President Bush would say, “you’re either with them or against them.”

Skepdic: Communal reinforcement is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people.

How many times have you heard Extremist Reformists abuse the phrase: Are we a real political party or what!!??!! Therefore [insert unsubstantiated claim possibly backup up by anecdotal evidence].

Extremist Reformers have mocked use of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz as a recruitment tool. They have claimed our platform is too long and detailed and idealistic. Yet, they have failed to acknowledge that the Republican Party Platform is 92 pages and the Democratic platform is 43 pages long. The Extremist Reformists are now proposing a New Approach to the LP Platform that is looking remarkably similar to, believe it or not, in a full circle kind of way, the World’s Smallest Political Quiz! They appear to be confusing the purpose of a Political Platform with that of a Political Pamphlet that’s handy for distributing to people. Are we a real political party or what!!??!!

My current favorite outlandish claim by an Extremist Reformist is “Why Alternative Parties Must Get Range Voting or DIE.” Die? That’s sounds a little cultish to me. One of the co-authors, Clay Shentrup, actually phoned me at home and launched into a 19 minute monologue about how we should elect all public officials with range voting. After about five minutes of his rant, I pulled the phone away from my ear and totally quit responding with “uh-huh’s” “okay’s” and grunt noises, and stared in awe at the timer on my phone as the minutes racked up and the sounds kept emitting. Shentrup is the champion Range Voting zealot!

Observation 1: The Reform Caucus is dominated by extremists who are hypocritical, often wrong, silly, and frequently annoying.

Corollary 1: It’s too soon to start a conversation about destroying the Libertarian Reform Caucus.

Corollary 2: It’s time to start a conversation about Reforming the Libertarian Reform Caucus. After all, there may be something it has that is still worth salvaging.

So let’s choose which method to deploy to reform the Reform Caucus:

Option A: the 3-step Method (my personal favorite):
Step 1: Let them have their way.
Step 2: Let them drive each other crazy.
Step 3: Friendly fire, paranoia and cannibalization will drastically reduce their numbers without an intervention by peers.

Option B: the 2-step Method:
Step 1: Encourage moderates and pragmatists to infiltrate the Reformist Cult, perhaps with a peppering of purists to block and tackle for the moderates and pragmatists.
Step 2: Use a two-pronged approach involving logic to confuse them and the Socratic Method to re-program them.

One insightful attendee of the Orlando State Chairs Conference brought up the concept of perspectives. I may get the gist of this wrong, but perhaps the way the Reformists see the Purists and vice-versa is a matter of perspectives. Perhaps both sides are a little extreme and paranoid. Perhaps if they took a little time to see things from the perspective of the other side, they’d come to terms or at least agree to disagree but remain on the same team.

On the other hand, peace is dull, boring, and bad for ratings. There’s smoke on the battlefield and where there’s smoke there’s fire. Perhaps pouring a little gas on things (and I hope by now everyone realizes I’m totally full of gas) we could ignite an all-out flame war!!

Here’s some gas—it’s time to get ready for the Denver 2008 “Platform Rumble in the Mile-high Concrete Jungle.”

Purists and Reformist Extremists, you both face annihilation at the hands of the enemy unless you start planning now! Tickets go on sale soon, but you can start getting ready now (that means start budgeting for it now). You’ll need backups, so get your like-minded friends into the mindset of attending this epic battle to control the future of the Libertarian Party!

Whose side am I on? Who cares?!? How will I measure success? Ticket sales, baby!

Cash is king but Gold Packages glimmer!

[This is the pre-released editor’s uncut version. Final version to be released April 1st, April Fool’s Day.]

Bob Barr joins the LNC. Is he just another Neal Boortz?

2006-12-17T21:38:00.000-08:00

Much to the surprise of Libertarian Party (LP) members throughout the US including myself, Bob Barr was just elected to fill a vacancy on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), the body that governs the national LP. As a former Republican Congressman known for supporting many anti-libertarian initiatives in the past, might Barr turn out to be just another Neal Boortz?

I certainly hope so.

Let’s take a closer look at radio talk show host Neal Boortz first. Boortz is widely known for claiming to be a libertarian, for supporting the LP on air, and for voting for LP candidates. However, he’s significantly despised by many libertarians for his adamant support for the War in Iraq.

As a libertarian who is against the War in Iraq, where do I see the positive impact of Neal Boortz? Purely and simply, Neal Boortz helps to publicize the LP. Even though he supports the War in Iraq, I can’t think of another person in 2006 who has done more to advertise the LP, and quite paradoxically, to advertise the LP’s opposition to the War in Iraq, than Neal Boortz.

As a former Cobb County LP Chair (a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, home to Neal Boortz) and activist, I found that a huge percentage of people that would come up to me at LP outreach booths would mention that they first heard about the LP through Neal Boortz’s talk show. Similarly, now as an activist in Austin, Texas which has a widely followed Boortz syndicated show, I find more and more that people are finding out about the LP in Texas through his popular talk show. Sure, Boortz frequently espouses his rabid support for anti-terrorism methods and his so-called “War on Terror against the Islamofascists,” but the net result in Austin is that with Boortz on the air, more people know about the LP, and similarly, more people know that the Libertarian Party opposes the War in Iraq, even if Boortz supports it.

As a former Republican Congressman, it’s almost assured that Bob Barr will be faced with many questions about his passed support for issues that conflict with the LP platform (current or past versions). Whether or not Barr now fully agrees with the LP platform, the simple fact that he is well-known and will likely gain national media coverage discussing these issues to me is a good thing even if he ends up spending significant time explaining what most Libertarians support and how he doesn’t agree with all of it. We Libertarians need all of the publicity we can get.

As a former Republican, I used to oppose abortion rights, opposed gay freedoms, supported the War on Drugs, thought privacy advocates were simply getting in the way of prosecuting criminals, and I also supported most military actions in our recent history. However, I wasn’t diehard on those issues. I mostly supported them because I was a Republican and the Republican Party held those views. I was a Republican because I was a diehard supporter of free markets, lower taxes, free trade, and opposed welfare.

After Bush One broke his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge and Gingrich’s “Contract with America” failed to make government smaller, I stumbled upon the Libertarian Party. I found the Libertarian Party’s consistent support for smaller government on all issues, including civil liberties and social issues, quite compelling. After studying the social and civil liberties issues in more detail, I found compelling evidence to support them, and became an avid supporter of all libertarian principles.

Regarding the War in Iraq, ten years ago, as a knee-jerk Republican, I would have supported it. As a more open-minded and rational yet pragmatic person now, I'll have to prepare a separate posting to list the overwhelming arguments against the horrible mistake of invading Iraq.

As an LNC member, I look forward to working with Bob Barr. Perhaps he’s seen the light on many issues and now supports all Libertarian Party issues as I do. Or, perhaps he still holds faith in government solutions on too many issues. Either way, I expect the net effect of his decision to join the LNC will be more publicity for the diehard libertarian view, even if some of the publicity is in the form of his expressed opposition to some of those views.

Former Congressman Barr, welcome to the Party and thanks for joining us. For now, I'll give you some leeway on social issues. However, if you come out in support of something economically ridiculous like socialized healthcare, well, that would be the last straw for this Texan.

Was the LP Taken Over by Neo-Cons in Portland?

2006-08-06T19:58:00.000-07:00

About 311 people in America decided it was worth their time to be delegates and attend the National Convention. About 55% of those delegates voted to delete almost all of the existing platform planks. Afterwards, a much shorter platform was produced by those 311 people willing to show up.

People who did not show up for the convention did not get to vote on the platform. If the Libertarian Party was taken over by Neo-Cons (which I don't believe to be the case), that's because there wasn't 156 non-Neo-Cons (about 3 per state) in America who deemed the convention and its platform worthy of their time.

I missed most of the platform related debate at the convention because I was working on the credentials committee. Additionally, I haven't read the old National LP platform in its entirety in years nor the new National LP platform. Additionally, I didn't read the old LP Texas platform before the state convention nor have I read the new LP Texas platform in its entirety. I recognize those are simply documents
produced by a very large committee and I have very little faith in committees producing much of great value.

I know what it means to be Libertarian regardless of the result of a document produced hastily and haphazardly by a convention.

There are quite a few people who believe a long detailed platform has held back the success of the LP. There may be some truth in that, but I disagree changing the platform will have much affect one way or the other. I field lots of phone calls and e-mails from prospects. Most of them that have issues with the platform have fundamental differences. For example, many claim they agree with us except for the drug issue, or abortion, or public education, or the war on terror, etc.

What I think is necessary for our success is more focus on outreach, such as getting our candidates mentioned in the press, getting yard signs up, and getting Libertarian brochures such as the door hangers we now have out to as many people as possible. That is my focus.

The platform that resulted from the National Convention is posted on the National website:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

One section entitled "Foreign Affairs" is posted below. I don't think it can be construed to be supporting the War in Iraq. In case it needs to be said, I was against the War in Iraq and support bringing home our troops immediately, not providing another dime for their reconstruction, and ending financial and military aid to all of the Middle East immediately.

The National LP platform:

IV. Foreign Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

"Why use the word 'member' in the context of fundraising?"

2006-07-23T09:46:00.000-07:00

Here's what one very successful fundraiser had to say on this topic.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: the LP's use of the word "member"
Date: 7/11/2006, 11:41 AM
From: Rob Kampia
To: Wes

Hi Wes,

I thought I'd take a moment to summarize my thoughts about the use of the words "member" or "membership" that I expressed to you at the beginning of the LP convention in Portland.

As I mentioned at the microphone in the main convention hall on Sunday, I raise $20,000 a day for MPP -- every day, including weekends and holidays -- in addition to having recently raised $25,000 for the LP, plus $2,100 for each of five congressional candidates. With a total budget of $7,000,000 for 2006, MPP is the largest organization in the world that is solely dedicated to ending marijuana prohibition. I say all this only as a way of noting that I have some experience with raising money.

To my mind, there are two ways for the LP to view the word "member": To determine the number and distribution of voting delegates at the national convention, and to maximize the amount of money the LP raises.

When the LP determines the number of delegates each state may send to the LP's national conventions, it makes sense to make each state's number of delegates proportional to the number of people in each state who have donated, say, $25 or more to the national LP in, say, the last 12 months. Whether or not you call such donors "members" or not is immaterial, but it might be useful to call such people "members" -- or some other word -- as shorthand for "people who have donated $25 or more to the national LP in the last 12 months." In this sense, you'd be giving the word "member" a legal definition.

On the second question -- the use of the word "member" as it applies to fundraising -- I absolutely encourage the LP to use the word "member" in this arena. But, in this arena, the use of the word is merely rhetorical; it has no legal meaning.

Why use the word "member" in the context of fundraising? Because the American people -- through decades of exposure to nonprofit organizations, for-profit membership organizations, and almost any other type of organization -- associate the word "member" with the notion of "needing to donate annually in order to keep my membership current." In other words, asking someone to become a "member" of the LP is a powerful marketing tool because -- even though you're initially asking people to make only one donation -- you're also putting the LP in the morally upright position of being able to ask them to renew their "memberships" one year later; indeed, they will *expect* you to ask them to renew their "memberships" one year later (and a handful of times in between). The same expectation does not apply to, say, someone who donates money to an organization by buying a ticket to a benefit concert or buying a brownie at a bake sale.

In addition, someone who views himself or herself as a "member" of an organization is necessarily more mentally and emotionally invested than someone who merely "donates" money to an organization.

In sum, the word "member" is a gift to the LP from thousands of organizations that have worked together to define the word in a way that increases organizational revenues. The LP should accept this gift and use the words "member" and "membership" (in a non-legal sense) when building the LP's donor base in the months and years to come.

Please feel free to share these thoughts as you see fit. Thank you for reading this far ...

Sincerely,
Rob Kampia, Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
P.O. Box 77492, Washington, D.C. 20013
http://www.mpp.org

Please visit http://www.mpp.org/subscribe to sign up for MPP's free e-mail alerts.

Portland Delegates for Dues

2006-07-22T15:40:00.000-07:00

Considering the steady drumbeat of propaganda put out by the so-called "Zero Dues" advocates, I was pleasantly surprised how many Portland convention delegates disagreed with the bad business decision of the former LNC to eliminate dues.

I conducted a survey of Portland convention attendees to gauge their support level for dues. I collected 99 responses, then completed one myself to make it an even 100 which makes the statistics easy to report. This was not a scientific survey, but I did attempt to include as many delegates as I could.

The survey is posted at: http://wesbenedict.com/dues_survey.pdf

More favored dues (51) than were against dues (29), with undecided (20).

Key to the list below:

State:
Two-letter abreviation (responses from 30 states)

Response to the question "Are you FOR og AGAINST Dues?":
1=Strongly support dues (29 responses)
2=Somewhat favor dues (22 responses)
3=Undecided, flexible, depends, other (20 responses)
4=Somewhat against dues (12 responses)
5=Strongly against dues (17 responses)

Delegate Status:
D=Delegate (95 responses)
A=Alternate Delegate (2 responses)
blank=Not a delegate or delegate status not indicated (3 responses)

Name:
Delegates amended the Bylaws to require roll call votes for all substantive LNC motions. This was largely a response of indignation to the secret ballot vote by the prior LNC which temporarily raised dues from $25 to $50. As dues is a substantive issue, I trust most delegates to the convention who responded to my survey will apply the same standard of openness to my survey results. If you want your name made secret, call me at (512) 442-4910 and I'll hide your name.

LNC Officers:
7 LNC officers with positions noted submitted responses.

State, Number, Delegate Status, Name, LNC Officer

AL 4 D Barbara Gordon
AL 4 D Deborah Gordon
AK 1 D Scott Kohlhaas
AZ 3 D Barry Hess
AZ 5 D George Squyres
AR 1 D Gerhard Langguth
CA 1 D Andrew Bourdon
CA 1 D Jerry Dixon
CA 1 D Jay Jones
CA 1 D Vibeke Seymour
CA 1 D Thomas Sipos
CA 2 D Elizabeth Brierly
CA 3 D Lois Garcia
CA 3 D Scott Lieberman Region 2 1st Alt
CA 5 D Bud Raymond
GA 3 D Mark Augustyn
IL 1 D Kenton McMillen
IL 2 D John Jascob
IL 3 D Val Vetter
IN 1 D Robert Everline
IN 2 D Greg Hertzsch
IN 2 D James O'Gallagher
IN 2 D Mike Sylvester
IN 2 D Karena Sylvester
IN 4 D Sheri Sharlow
IN 5 D Charles Geckler
IN 5 D Laura Rutherford
IN 5 D John Rutherford
IN 5 D Todd Singer
IA 3 D Edward Wright
KS 5 D Rob Hodgkinson
KY 2 D Ken Moellman
MD 1 D Steve Boone
MD 3 D Mick Sarwark
MI 1 D James Hudler
MI 1 D Jeremy Linden
MI 2 D Nathan Allen
MI 3 D Andrew Hall
MI 3 D Robert Schubring
MI 4 D Elizabeth Bagwell
MI 4 D Lawrence W Johnson
MI 5 D Lawrence W Johnson (I guess I didn't say not to vote twice)
MS 2 D Gregory Arrigo
MT 3 D Roger Roots
NV 3 D Brendan Trainor
NH 5 D Brendan Kelly
NJ 2 D Dan Karlan At-Large Rep
NY 1 D M Carling Region 2 Rep
NY 2 D Alden Link
NY 4 D RVKS
NC 2 D Bernard Carman
NC 2 D Joy Elliot
OH 1 D David Macko
OH 2 D Kevin Knedler
OR 1 D Edith McDaniel
OR 1 D Don McDaniel
OR 1 D Carla Pelaer
OR 2 D Inessa Hamilton-Lee
OR 2 D Lars Hedbor
OR 2 D Steve Pearson
OR 3 James Foster
OR 3 D Richard Whitehead
OR 4 D Derek Bradley
OR 4 D Thomas Rowlette
OR 5 D Jerry Defoe
PA 3 D Michael Robertson
SC 5 D Jeff Dimit
SC 5 D Steward Flood Region 4 Alt
SC 5 D Timothy Moultrie
TX 1 D Wes Benedict Region 6 Rep
TX 1 D Matt Finkel
TX 1 D Nancy Neale Region 6 Alt
TX 2 D Jon Airheart
TX 2 D Emily Cowan
TX 2 D Frederick Drew
TX 3 D Guy McLendon
TX 5 D John Shuey
UT 1 D Willy Marshall
UT 3 D Rob Latham
VT 4 D Hardy Machia Region 7 Rep*
VA 1 D Elizabeth Bowles
VA 1 D William Redpath National Chair
VA 1 D Shelley Tamres
VA 1 D Marianne Volpe
WA 1 D Sharon Ayres
WA 1 A Jeffry Fisher
WA 1 D Robert Hill
WA 2 D Richard Bonesteel
WA 2 D Peter Wilkie
WA 3 D Ruth Bennett
WA 3 D Ruth Bennett
WA 3 David Carson
WA 3 D Judi First
WA 4 A Mikael Mortensen
WA 4 D Arne Mortensen
WA 5 D Dan Goebel
WA 5 D Brett Wilhelm
WA 5 D Michael Wilson
WI 4 D Jeremy Keil At-Large Rep
?? 1 Anonymous

* Macia checked 3 and 5, so I assigned 4 as an average.
Judi First of Washinton wrote the comment "don't like the limitations of the choices" so I assigned her a 3.

I attempted to get these surveys out to every delegate (there were about 315 total). However, this was admittedly not a scientific survey.

Texas Two-Step Turnaround 2

2006-07-14T20:32:00.000-07:00

On October 30, 2003, I e-mailed all 59 County LP Chairs and Executive Committee members listed on our lptexas.org website. I explained the upcoming 45,540 signature petition drive we faced and asked for volunteer coordinators and signature commitments.

Much to my surprise, AOL froze my e-mail account!

I had to phone tech support to have it re-instated. They had frozen it because nearly half of the e-mail addresses had bounced. Not to be defeated, I picked up the phone and started calling our county chairs. Depressingly, many of their phone numbers were either disconnected, gave fax tones, or rang continuously without any answering system.

I began to fully realize the mess our state party organization had become. For the first time in 16 years we faced a petition drive for ballot access, and our state and county organizations were in shambles. The state database volunteer had resigned and our website was a wreck with outdated contact information. A few months later the state treasurer ceased activities. The state secretary hadn’t published minutes for months. All of the officers had been at each others' throats but were done bickering and basically went AWOL. While many of those individuals were excellent county activists and some continue to contribute significantly today, for whatever the reason, the group dynamics at the time proved dysfunctional.

Fortunately, a ballot access committee formed with Pat Dixon at the helm and took charge of the petition drive. None of the state party officers were on that committee. Without being able to do justice to the heroic efforts of the people who made this happen, I'll just say that in May 2004 the LP of Texas turned in over 80,000 signatures and qualified for the ballot.

At the 2004 state convention, most ballot access committee leaders took positions on the state committee. I was hired for the newly created position of Executive Director.

Shortly after taking my position as Executive Director, I proceeded to work with our new Secretary, Laura Coker-Garcia, to update our website contacts. On July 1, 2004, I phoned the 800 number listed on our website and left a voicemail to see what would happen. The message on the 800 number mentioned our former (2002) candidate for governor as well as another person’s phone number which I tried, but it was disconnected.

With additional investigation I was able to find who had access to the voicemail box for the 800 number. Upon checking it, I found it had 6 months' worth of unchecked messages and there had probably been more that were automatically deleted. A sampling of transcripts of some of those voicemails:

“This is Michael M@@@ 210-533-####; want to know if y'all have 28th congressional district candidate; I would run as libertarian. . . .”

“Ross, interested in helping LP with campaigning in El Paso”

“Ken F@@@, Dallas TX 214-275-####. I called R H and his phone is disconnected. Chris J's message center doesn't give anything to leave a message on. I'm in Arlington and want to get a hold of where the Gary Nolan campaign meeting will be. Maybe I'll get on the computer one day.”

“Albert Wood with Valley Morning Star, we're doing series of stories . . .”

“Hi, my name is Melvin W@@@, I'm trying to find a petition to sign.”

“Hi, this is Wes Benedict, I was calling about the...the-uh...this phone number...the uh 800-422-1776 [gee I sound weird on tape]. I'm curious who gets these messages. If you'd give me a call at 512-442-4910. Thanks a lot and I hope this voicemail works. Thanks, bye.”

In August and September, I was bombarded by requests for contact information for our November 2004 candidates. Unfortunately, much of the contact information I had was outdated. The press was begging for phone numbers and photos of our candidates, but I only had that information for some of them.

While some of you may find this information depressing, I found it truly inspiring. Libertarians constantly whine about the lack of press coverage, but what I found was that the press was begging to cover us if we would only help them a little. Volunteers contact us begging to help if we will only give them something worthwhile to do. We make it extremely difficult for voters to find out about our candidates, yet many voters continue to vote Libertarian.

Recently, some Libertarian activists have argued extensively over the failure of the Libertarian Party to achieve greater success and have blamed things such as our platform, the membership pledge, and plenty more.

I’m not sure how much our platform has to do with our success or failure, but I’ll bet my boots that unanswered phones and outdated websites are problems we can all agree on.
Have you heard of Dallas (Dallas County) or Fort Worth (Tarrant County) Texas? Pretty big cities, right? Now check out their Libertarian websites:

http://lpdallas.org/

http://www.liberty4all.net/

(Note: these websites might have changed since this was posted.)

Nobody from Dallas or Fort Worth gets to tell me why the LP is not doing better without explaining this first.

Despite our continued localized weaknesses, the LP of Texas has a record number of candidates this year, is on track for record fundraising, and our party and candidates are getting record amounts of media coverage.

Step One of the Texas Two Step turnaround was electing new officers, getting our state party communications and database management functioning, and recruiting an army of candidates. There was no magic bullet. Just hard work, common sense, and attention to detail.

Step Two is still in progress for the Texas LP. I’ll let you know how Step Two turns out in November.

Step One is just getting under way for the National Libertarian Party. I urge you to contact your state chairs and LNC Representatives and tell them to focus on Step One. Clean up their unfinnished business before starting new projects they can't handle. No more gimmicks. No more excuses. No more silver bullets. No more pretending to dance when they're barely able to stand up without hurting themselves.

Lots of obvious easy fixes have me bullish on the National LP and I'm excited about getting to work. Stay tuned for details . . .

(disclosure: my boots are hiking boots and I'm not a dancer)

Elected Regional LNC Representative

2006-07-04T19:15:00.000-07:00

I want to thank the delegates from the states who agreed to form the Southwest Region at the Portland National Convention for electing me to serve on the Libertarian National Committee. Nancy Neale of Texas was elected Alternate.

The following state delegations agreed to join the Southwest Region:

Arizona
Arkansas
Louisiana
Nevada
New Mexico
Texas
Utah

I hope you all traveled home from Portland safely. I look forward to working with you to build the Libertarian Party's effectiveness at the local, state, regional, and national levels.

Libertarian Branding, Logos, Africa & 3M

2006-06-15T16:09:00.000-07:00

An old note of mine. Note, the last paragraph is what matters.

National should avoid potentially divisive ideas like adopting certain colors when there are other more urgent projects. Bold and risky experimentation should occur at the state, county, candidate, or PAC level rather than being imposed by the National LP. If wildly successful at the local level, then those ideas would likely be easy to sell nationally. However, many great new ideas tend to not have quite the success envisioned. Better to fail small than waste everyone's time.

--Wes

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Libertarian Branding, Logos, Africa & 3M
Date: 2/21/2005, 6:38 PM
From:
Wes Benedict
To: Tx

Ten years ago I was driving across Botswana back to South Africa when an agitated elephant stepped onto the roadway a short distance away (true story). I guarantee you the following thought NEVER crossed my mind: "There's the Republican Party logo!"

Much LP discussion lately has focused on branding, marketing, messaging, logos, and other terms that have different meanings, and are frequently misused. Here I want to specifically point out problems with our Libertarian Party LOGO along the following categories:

1. What the Statue of Liberty symbolizes
2. Inconsistent designs
3. Color
4. Connecting the logo to the party

1. Uses of the Statue of Liberty

Similar to the way not all elephants or donkeys make you think of the Republican or Democratic Parties, not all Statues of Liberty make you think of the Libertarian Party. Below are some of the thoughts invoked by the Statue of Liberty (note these are thoughts that may pop into the general public's minds, not necessarily mine):

a) a symbol of America
b) a symbol of New York
c) a government monument
d) a government monument from the damn French
e) the big green broad who keeps inviting all those damn foreigners to America (just to clarify, I'm pro-immigration; I'm referring to non-libertarians here)
f) the ACLU logo
g) open up the business pages, count the number of businesses with Liberty that use the Statue--my favorite is Liberty Tax Service
f) the Libertarian Party

2. Inconsistent designs

Similar to the way not all the elephants remind you of the Republican Party, not all Statues of Liberty lead people to think of the Libertarian Party. The Statue of Liberty is overused which dilutes its value as a symbol for the LP. The one Statue of Liberty that actually does invoke the LP when I see it is the blue one attached below. It's repeated use and distinctive color and shape is what causes me to associate it with the LP. Unfortunately, artists for our lp.org website and lptexas.org websites have confused "any" statue of liberty with the LP logo, Lady Liberty. The LP Logo should be the most prominent symbol on the websites, but instead appear discreetly. Even worse is our Libertarian Party of Texas logo, a black Lady Liberty on a pea-green Texas. No kidding, print out the LPTX logo in color, then open a can of Lessuer brand Very Young Small Early Peas, smash a pea on the paper, and you'll see it is exactly the same color as our LPTX logo.

Before working at 3M in South Africa, I had a project as a manufacturing engineer at a 3M diskette manufacturing plant in Oklahoma. One of my responsibilities was to reduce the number of 3.5" diskettes that had to be discarded because of manufacturing defects. Would you believe that one of the most expensive categories of waste in the manufacturing process was when the 3M logo which was silk-screen printed onto the metal shutters had slight imperfections like tiny holes in the image or slight smudges? 3M guarded the look of it's logo so closely, that even a slightly imperfectly printed logo caused the whole product to be discarded regardless of whether the diskette still worked fine. Eventually they did the only smart thing, which was outsource to China, but that's a free trade story and I'm talking about branding and logos. The point is, 3M, and many other companies, are extremely protective of their logos and have exact font, design, and color standards that are rigidly imposed on all divisions worldwide to ensure consistency.

3. The Color Purple

I don't know who first proposed it, but I like the idea of the LP taking on the color purple as a branding tool. Reasons:

a) The red state, blue state paradigm has firmly taken hold associating Republicans with red and Democrats with blue.
b) Purple is a cross between blue and red, and in some ways, the LP is a combination of liberal and conservative.
c) The orange thing in Ukraine really proved how powerful a color associated with a movement can be, but that color won't work for us now.
d) Green is associated with the Green Party. Yellow sounds cowardly, is associated with Lance Armstrong now (who is trying to ban smoking in Austin bars) and doesn't show up on white paper very well unless surrounded by a darker color.
e) For some, purple invokes images of royalty or even gayness, but I think the relationship is weak, and additionally, in some ways appropriate for the LP.
f) Red White & Blue looks really good and patriotic, but it's too over-used and diluted for people to associate it with the LP.

Frequently when I hear Libertarians planning a presence at a public event, the topic of "wouldn't it be great if we could all wear the same T-shirts?" It never happens because there are so many various LP T-shirts of various colors. If purple was adopted as the LP color, I think you'd see a proliferation of LP T-shirts that may not all say the same thing, but many would be purple making it easier to achieve a team look spontaneously and individually like when lions attack a baby giraffe and there's a bunch of orange cats altogether creating a temporary voluntary herd of cats wearing the same color who actually didn't have to be "officially" herded or told what to wear.

Finally, I think we'd all look really good in purple T-shirts, collared shirts, or a combination.

4. Connecting the Logo to the Party

I've already stressed how the Statue of Liberty symbolized many things besides the Libertarian Party. Another frequent problem mentioned is how the word Libertarian is too long, sounds like liberal or librarian, and we frequently stumble over the small l or big L Libertarian designation. I'm reminded of a company I once worked for with a similar problem that was called Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Inc. What a mouthful and how totally misleading considering that they didn't really do any mining and were an international company, not just a Minnesota one. Eventually they took on the name 3M.

I'm proposing a similar transformation for the Libertarian Party. Start calling it the "LP," and use a color purple logo like the one below to help start the transition. Retain the Lady Liberty logo and the text "ibertarian" and "arty" at least temporarily until "LP" is well enough known in the general public that the additional designation is no longer required. All states and counties should use the same logo, but could follow it with the name of their state or county in black the way 3M does with "Worldwide" above. Another benefit of the Logo below is that from a far distance, you can still make out what it is if you are already somewhat familiar with it, similar to the way you can recognize the 7 in 7-Eleven even if you can't read the "eleven" part from the distance. Also, think McDonalds, BP, etc. here. A trick I use to judge the effectiveness of a bumper sticker or yard sign is to stand it up, and then start waking away from it until I can barely see it anymore. If it rapidly becomes a blur, I don't like it. If it retains a distinctive identifiable shape at long distance, I like it.

We are lucky that the term "LP" used to refer to a type of recording media that is fading away which makes the term available for us to transform its meaning similar to the way CD changed meanings from financial instrument to music recording media. Also, LP rolls off the tongue plenty easily.

Although I'm more of an engineer than a marketing expert, I did take a marketing class in graduate school at Michigan and saved the textbook, "Marketing Management" by Philip Kotler, which is considered to be the bible of marketing in many circles. Additionally, in 2001, the company I one-third owned spent $25,000 to buy out the rights to a trademark and trade secret. I've thought about branding and trademarks before when my money was at stake.

Finally, marketing has many definitions and is a very broad topic. Nevertheless, in general, there is a difference between marketing, market research, surveys, sales, branding, images, messages, symbols, and logos. In my opinion, the purple thing I drew above is simply a logo (which contains an image of Lady Liberty which is loosely a symbol of what the LP stands for), which is a component of branding and marketing.

The above is just one idea created with a few hours work this afternoon because I keep hearing about marketing and branding from the LP at the state and national levels and wanted to provide my 2 cent worth (4 hours worth) before the LP embarks on some big expensive branding effort (plus due to dissatisfaction from the Badnarik signs and stickers). I'd rather they postpone the branding effort until they can get the national database and website functioning more efficiently. If the LNC embarks on an expensive branding effort with poor results and meanwhile allows the lp.org website and national database dysfunction to go on, I'll work to elect different LNC reps next time. Marketing experts know that poor customer service will destroy any brand.

--Wes Benedict

Dues Consideration at Convention

2006-06-13T22:39:00.000-07:00

I'm asking for help with a proposal to achieve a consensus on the path forward for the National Libertarian Party with respect to dues.

What I'd like to accomplish is to take a poll of the delegates at the National Convention to determine how many would like to see a dues-paying membership option restored. If a dues option prevails, I'd prefer to defer the determination of the amount or inclusion of UMP or not to the LNC. While secret ballots, parliamentary maneuvers, and by-laws interpretations have plagued past efforts, I do believe the next LNC would respect a clear mandate, if there is one, from the delegates.

I don't know the appropriate mechanism to make this happen. While a voice vote sense of the body requested by the chair might suffice, with this being such a contentious issue, I'd rather see an actual vote count than rely on the volume of ayes and nays from the delegates on what has become an emotional issue.

I personally would like to see a dues plan re-implemented if a large majority of delegates (perhaps 60%) agreed and I would work to achieve that consensus through an educational effort. I've made it clear in the past that I thought eliminating the dues option was a negative move.

We can retain the free membership option with the signing of the current pledge or perhaps another act an individual might take that demonstrates a request to be a member for free.

"I'm Pro-Choice on Everthing--Including Dues."

Nevertheless, I also think changing the policies too frequently incurs its own costs. I've spent lots of time myself changing brochures, getting changes made to Texas websites, and explaining the changes to Libertarians in Texas.

If a consensus of delegates voted to re-institute dues, then I think theLNC could feel comfortable changing the policy again. Otherwise, I'd be hesitant to make another change so soon.

I've written many successful fundraising letters for the Libertarian Party of Texas. I think the National LP could explain the change to its members in a positive letter with a rational strategy for the future that contained something like the following:

"The Libertarian Party is the party of entrepreneurs. As every entrepreneur knows, experimentation and change is essential for progress. However, most entrepreneurs also know that not every idea or change proves to be successful. The elimination of dues was a bold plan intended to transform the Libertarian Party into a more politically oriented party. However, the results are in and the reality of the data cannot be ignored. blah blah blah . . ."

"While our party will continue to strive to focus more on real world politics, dues-paying memberships appear proven to be a more successful form of fundraising and party building than other things we've tried. Sixty-X percent of convention delegates agreed. We're proud to be able admit our mistake, and will certainly make more in the future, but blah blah blah . . . Please renew your membership today."

What I don't want to see is a by-laws committee ruling or a parliamentary procedure that throws the party into chaos or causes us to take a path that's different from what most of us would choose if given the chance to make a fair choice.

For the record, fundraising and political activity has been on a strong upward trend in Texas recently and we haven't implemented a dues plan, but I think our success has nothing to do with eliminating national dues. If many other states are experiencing an upward trend, then perhaps the National LP has taken the right path by eliminating dues. However, if many other states are hurting and the National LP is weaker and unable to assist other states in need, then we need to correct a mistake.

Texas has now built up about $3,600 in monthly pledge revenue from over 100 donors while our UMP check was only $1,481. Likewise, one-time donations are strong as well.

I think state and county LP organizations should focus on politics and candidate recruitment and campaigns, while the National LP is better positioned with bulk mail economies of scale to focus on identifying new Libertarians willing to make a small financial commitment by paying dues or even signing up as free members.

I'm asking for your help in figuring out a plan or procedure that might help our party achieve a consensus vote and move forward.

-- Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian Party of Texas
512-442-4910
Disclosure: these views are my own and should not be construed torepresent others.

Yard Sign Selection

2006-05-08T12:30:00.000-07:00

Results from the fundraising letter and yard sign survey sent to Texas Libertarians.

1. Torch with purple and black
(15% 1st choice)

2. Blue text only
(19% 1st choice)

3. Torch with teal and brown
(16% 1st Choice)

4. Blue and red with text only

WINNER (50% 1ST CHOICE)

DUES: Geoff Neale's comments to the LPTX

2006-04-10T16:20:00.000-07:00

These comments are from Geoff Neale to the LPTX Executive Committee and should not be construed to imply support or opposition to Wes Benedict's campaign for a position on the LNC.

-------
From: Geoff Neale
To: LPTX Executive Committee
Date: 4/9/06

I humbly disagree with one insinuation - that dues don't work.

The LNC set the dues level at $25 in about 1989.

In 1998, the LNC created UMP. At that time, most states had dues, and National had dues. The idea that each state and National were duplicating renewal efforts was behind the impetus to offer economy of scale improvements. By having National do the renewals for both, and then forwarding a portion of dues to the states, the renewals would be done professionally, and both state and National would benefit.

Prior to UMP, every California member paid $20 for California membership, and $25 for National membership. California received $20, but paid their own renewal expenses. National received $25, but paid their own renewal expenses.

Then UMP was codified, but the LNC screwed up big time. Rather than saying "Let's make this attractive enough by coming up with a new dues number that is somewhere between the old and the new", they didn't change National dues. Dues remained at $25 - but now it was for BOTH National and State.

Prior to this, we were making huge outreach mailings under a project called Archimedes. Some have argued whether or not this was worthwhile monetarily, but our dues paying membership rose rapidly up to about 32,000.

After UMP, for some strange reason, funds started drying up. Membership flattened, and peaked at about 33,000. National could no longer afford much in the way of outreach mailings. Starting in 2000, membership began falling. National tried one more Archimedes mailing, but it dropped a few days after 9/11 - it cost over $75,000 and garnered a few hundred responses. Since then we've been basically broke, and we've not done any significant outreach.

These economic problems started when UMP was created. Why?

Prior to UMP, National retained $25 of every $25 membership. Afterwards, with UMP I, it retained on average $10 per member. With UMP II (Son of UMP), it retained only $7 per member.

Because the LNC made a fiscally stupid decision, primarily because Steve Dasbach told them that the increased numbers of members other-than-renewal donations would offset the losses (which they never did), the LNC fell into an ongoing deficit situation.

So now, in order to correct the mistakes that were made, we've eliminated dues altogether, and our revenues are plummeting. National is now telling groups like the state chairs that their fundraising is more effective, because they HAVE REDUCED THE PEOPLE THEY ARE FUNDRAISING FROM TO PROVEN DONORS. In other words, no new donors, because we
don't ask for money from people who haven't given before.

What mistakes did National make?

1). Dues should have been a reflection of the costs of providing the direct and indirect services, and should have been adjusted over time to reflect the realities of inflating expenses. If we'd followed inflation, the $25 1989 dues would today be in excess of $40.

2). When UMP was created, a new dues level of approx: $40 per member should have been set, and the members should have been educated as to why $40 is better than $25 (National) plus $20 (State). Instead we reduced revenues drastically while increasing the costs of services.

If these two mistakes had not been made, then dues would have gradually risen to about $50 by the time of UMP.

Assuming a small drop-off in membership ($50 is not that much), we would have quite easily have continued our outreach efforts, because a significant amount of money would have been available to do that. The actual costs for National would have been somewhere around $30 ($18 for UMP and $12 for servicing, LP News, etc), leaving $20 for outreach. That means that every
year, every member would have given enough in surplus dues to reach approximately 40 people. Given that we achieve a new member rate of approx 1 in 60, and also experienced a very normal dropout rate of 30% of first year members, we'd have achieved and maintain continuing growth of membership. Also, delivering growth significantly increased renewals and non-renewal donations, both of which have floundered.

I've estimated conservatively that our membership could be in excess of 50,000 today if these two mistakes had not been made.

So, you see, Einstein is correct, but the Irish saying goes "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." The LNC fixed what wasn't broken.

Now, to compound things, they've decided that the thing that wasn't broken, that they broke, can't be fixed at all, because it's beyond repair. God forbid they'd say "We screwed up - many times - and should now go back where things were working." No - instead, we fumble forwards into unproven territory.

Geoff

Why I'm running for regional LNC Representative

2006-02-24T20:55:00.000-08:00

I'm excited about the opportunities for Libertarians throughout America, but concerned about recent results from the National Libertarian Party. I want to do my part to make sure the Libertarian Party is strong at the national, state, and local levels.

In the coming weeks, I'll offer my views and solicit your opinions on:

* The LNC
* Political activity
* State parties
* Ballot access
* National fundraising
* Accounting policies
* Dues vs zero-dues membership
* Database management
* Revenue sharing
* The Platform
* National staff
* Independent PACs vs centralization

and many more issues that are critical to the success of Libertarians throughout America.

While I see many serious challenges on many fronts, I see plenty of achievable opportunity for growth in the near term. That's why I'm willing to apply my efforts and resources towards building the Libertarian Party. As an LNC representative, I will do my best to make the most productive decisions for the Libertarian Party.

Qualifications - Resume

2006-02-24T20:38:00.000-08:00

Wes Benedict

wesliberty@aol.com
1403-B Kenwood Ave.
Austin, TX 78704
(512) 442-4910

WORK EXPERIENCE

2004 – present Libertarian Party of Texas, Austin, TX

Executive Director

· Full-time paid position responsible for fundraising, candidate recruitment, state and county organization development, media relations, and infrastructure development including database, website, e-mail lists, and marketing materials. Created this paid position for previously volunteer only organization. Created Assistant Director and Fundraising Director paid staff positions. Multiple appearances on television, radio, and in local newspapers. Recruited record 218 candidates for November 2006 elections.

2000 – 2003 Custom Quality Marble, Inc., Austin, TX

President/CEO

· Bought 1/3 ownership kitchen/bath synthetic marble countertop, shower and tub manufacturing company. Employees: 17. Grew sales from $900,000 to $1.2 million. Sold company in 2003 for $1.2 million (sale price, not gain).

Sept 98 – Jan 00 PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Atlanta, GA

Consultant, Supply Chain Management/Consumer & Industrial Prod.

May 97 – Aug 97 Intel Corp., Hillsboro, OR

Tauber Manufacturing Institute Internship

· Designed flexible manufacturing process for server systems assembly.

1992-1996 3M Company various states and overseas

Advanced Manufacturing Engineer

· Worked on teams in manufacturing plants to improve productivity, quality, and delivery. Included 6-month projects in South Africa and Italy.

EDUCATION

1986-1998 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, MI
Dual Degree: M.B.A. and Masters of Engineering in Manufacturing

1986-1991 University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX
B.S., Mechanical Engineering

POLITICAL EXPERIENCE

May 2005 Austin City Council Candidate

· Placed 2nd out of 5 candidates receiving 10,439 votes or 18% in non-partisan race with incumbent. Campaign activity: $15,000 budget; paid part-time campaign manager; 93 volunteers distributed 40,000 flyers door-to-door; 1,200 bumper stickers distributed; 1,400 yard signs installed; 20,000 automated phone calls; endorsed by Green Party, Austin Toll Party and Independent Texans; 53 public events and forums attended.

2003 - 2004 Volunteer Coordinator, LPTX Ballot Access Committee

· Volunteers collected 10,000 signatures. Assisted management of paid petitioners and validation team. 82,000 raw signatures were submitted to satisfy 45,540 valid signature requirement.

May 2003 Austin City Council Candidate

· Received 35% of vote in at-large two-way non-partisan race.

2002-2003 Travis County LP Secretary

2001-2002 Travis County E-Newsletter Editor: circulation over 700

Nov 2002 Candidate, Travis County Commissioner, Precinct 4

· Received 1,609 votes (4.6%) in 3-way race.

1999 Chair, LP Cobb County, GA

· First meeting I attended in 1998 had 2 other attendees. Started e-newsletter; was appointed chair by existing chair; meetings consistently attracted 15 attendees by the time I left in 2000 for Austin.