Special Update: Plan B from Badnarik for Congress campaign manager Allen Hacker
Lots to cover, feel free to skim to what you need:
-All In
-Touring the demise of our heritage
-Why Badnarik for Congress
-Why Libertarians haven't won
-How Libertarians can win
-The incredible burdens of Liberty
-Why Michael can win this one, this time
-Plan B
-And Smither, Too!
Okay, Guys,
I'm all in.
"All in" is a poker term for when you've pushed your entire bankroll out into the betting area in a gambit to win or lose everything on the turn of a single card.
I'm writing this from the road; Laura and I have given up our home in the California Paradise and become political vagabonds, driving the RV and her car to Austin.
Driving an RV across the country is an adventure all by itself. But this one has been no ordinary adventure.
We've been touring the demise of our heritage.
From Mountain View, CA, until Tolleson AZ, I did not sit on a public restroom toilet seat that was properly bolted down. The service at all the places we stopped into was always excellent, but the food bad; Before we even hit the road, Laura went down with food poisoning. Two days lost. Then in Gorman, CA, just north of LA, it was my turn. Another day and a half lost.
A move that Laura spent a month preparing for, which was to culminate in our driving out of CA 3 over weeks ago, suffered a series of setbacks that can only be described as attitude-abuse. Yes, a little of that was mine, as it took longer than expected (and cost far more than expected) to clear away residuals from my old battles with the State over auto registration and licensing. At least my contribution to the fiasco stemmed from my previous-chapter version of the fight for liberty, an honorable if inconclusive effort.
However: that the moving company sent an inept person who couldn't properly estimate the move, and so sent a smaller truck than necessary with a crew that wasn't prepared to pack anything; that two national motel chains where we holed up while ill both had long since stopped investing in their buildings so that water leaks were rotting them away from the inside; that everywhere we stopped through California people were jealous that we were "getting out"; that it's become dangerous to eat out in national food chains because you never know when you're going to be served spoiled food or secretly-introduced artificial taste-good fats that will cause bowel complications 25 miles before the next restroom--these are not developments that can be attributed to any presumption of honorable purpose.
No, these are simply the real-time manifestations of our country's decades-long drift into socialism's usual manner: over-regulation, suicidal-greed and under-performance.
I found myself worrying that if we don't pull this thing off, it won't be long before we're all waiting in line for toilet paper.
Let me remind you why I joined Badnarik for Congress.
It all started at the 2004 CA LP convention. I met Michael at his table, skimmed through his book (didn't buy it just then), and talked with him a while. I liked that he was coming at the Libertarian ethos from a patriotic perspective, that he wasn't one of those "damn the countries, it's free trade, stupid," anarcho-capitalists. Sure, a lot of my own friends over the years call themselves anarcho-capitalists, and I respect their long-term view, but I've never gotten one to make sense in the short term, where people without other prospects are outliving their jobs. I figure we need both perspectives, so long as each knows his place in the grand scheme of recovering Liberty.
I got busy with the business of the state convention, didn't make it to Michael's class (wanted to experience his version, since I used to run one myself), and except for being one of only a few who voted for him in our straw poll, didn't much carry him forward in mind until the Atlanta Convention.
In Atlanta, I saw what so many others saw: while the other two candidates had gotten caught up in the traditional politics of personal destruction, Michael kept his cool, was genuinely glad just to be there, and showed us he could articulate the message to the masses without technical drudgery.
We all "knew" our candidate wouldn't win the presidency, so we went with the usual purpose in running a Libertarian candidate for president: educating the public.
Nobody's perfect, nobody gets everyone's praise, but Michael and the team that spontaneously formed around him did a fine job of pursuing that purpose. 75 million Americans heard the word Libertarian for the first time in a favorable context.
It was thrilling to be a part of, as CA Coordinator. Expensive, too, to the tune of more than $100K personally not earned while galavanting around the state and country making things happen.
So, what did I see in that campaign that convinced me? I saw an earnest candidate who genuinely liked the voters, who was doing the deed simply because it needed to be done and he was the surprise chosen to do it. Together with Jon Airheart, who derailed his own career as a documentarian to help, this guy (these guys) earned my undying respect.
So when Michael called me to tell me he would run again as expected, I was interested. When we discussed the possibilities and he offered me the management job on terms I could live with, I jumped on it.
One of those terms was having a major say in which race to take on, and with the help of several very dedicated behind-the-scenes lookouts, we chose TX CD10 because, incredibly, it was and still is winnable.
I'll share more later on why. But first I'd like to get rid of the illusions that convince so many of us that we can't win.
Speaking as a successful management consultant and award-winning salesman, allow me to tell you why Libertarians haven't won.
Politics is a marketing scam. It's nothing more than a numbers game pushing pretty faces and sunshine promises. We Libertarians and Patriots don't fit that game, we despise it, and so we've never bothered to figure out how to play it.
We're the Party of Principle, we are above all that, we have the magic message, all we have to do is tell people about it.... Meanwhile, over our more than 30 years we have lost ground at an accelerating rate. Yet, there is still hope.
So, is it true that all we have to do is tell people about it? Yes, and No.
Telling people about it is everything. But how we do that is everything else. And here's where I learned something from the 2004 presidential campaign.
I watched Michael give his presentation several times, to as many fundraisers as we could put together, on as many radio shows as HQ could shove into his busy day (over 400 total!), and slowly I realized something.
For 30-plus years our candidates have been speaking from principle and trying to inspire people without providing enough real-time substance to give them enough confidence to vote for us.
I've been mentioning this to people ever since, and watching the lights get brighter in their eyes. I hope it resonates with you, too.
We do inspire the voters with our principles, but only to wistful hope. Without firm reference to facts and plans around actual issues, we don't talk about the baby steps between here and there, and so we don't overcome their fears of the unknown.
It's not enough to be a philosophy lesson. We have to talk civics, too.
But that's not the only reason we don't win.
Like all marketing scams, politics is a numbers game. No matter how eloquent, how inspiring, or how reassuring Michael or any other Libertarian candidate becomes, we do not have the registration numbers to vote our candidates in by ourselves, and we have not developed the financial reach to move enough other voters our way.
We have the magic message. We have candidates who can deliver it, who could deliver it complete with substance and real-time applicability if they only knew to do that and how to do it. But we don't win because we lose on the numbers side of the game.
Back in my CA county, the San Jose Mercury-News has told us that they don't cover our events because they don't see us representing a viewpoint popular with a significant enough segment of the population. They actually said that all they needed to justify the ink was a 1% Libertarian registration. That's not stonewalling, that's generous.
Maybe they secretly know that our message is so powerful that if we ever figured out how to deliver it correctly we wouldn't need to match the CA Republicans' 34% registration base to give them a run for their money.
Consider this.
Ron Paul gets elected without party assistance on an average contribution of $50. Our average contribution in this race to date is a bit over $144.00 --almost three times as much.
Boy, oh, boy, we're right up there in the quality department, right? Absolutely! But in a contest between our quality and his quantity, we get waxed as he gets $2.5 million from 50,000 loyal donors (many of them ourselves!), while we get $338,290.19 from 2349 precious donors.
With that $2.5 million, Ron Paul worries all the way to the last ballot, and has come close to losing more than once.
So what can we hope to do with our $338K? Stay in the game and pray, that's what --if that's all we get.
I knew these numbers going in, yet I took the job intending to win anyway. Was I stupid? Suicidal? Insane? Some have proposed any and all of these appraisals. But as Michael's favorite action hero, Nick Danger (Firesign Theater) says, "I knew the job was dangerous when I took it."
Besides, I saw several variations on the theme, any one of which makes it all possible. Conformity not being a native concept with me, I naturally went for it.
Permit me to tell you how Libertarians can win.
It's simple, really:
- identify the candidate;
- vett the candidate;
- train the candidate;
- support the candidate;
- count the votes.
After all, it's just a numbers game, right? Politics is just a marketing specialty, right? Anybody can sell a good candidate, right?
Right, Right, and Maybe.
Note that of the 5 bullet points above, the first three aren't selling, they're essentially manufacturing.
You can't sell any significant number of anything without manufacturing and marketing budgets. You couldn't even give away gold coins if nobody knew you had them available!
Of course, by this point we are talking about a "good candidate", remember: one who has been vetted and trained.
Vetting is about making sure that there is talent and there are no fatal skeletons.
The Libertarian version of this has always been, skeletons don't matter because you're not getting elected anyway, and, stupid enough to run for office as a Libertarian is talented enough.
We've never really worried so much about having a good candidate as about having any candidate at all. No surprise that in all of that silliness, many good candidates have come and gone unnoticed: nobody was looking for them and nobody believed them when they announced themselves.
Let me tell you, there are dozens of excellent and near-excellent Libertarians on the ballot all over the country this year and they're all shriveling on the vine for lack of water.
But let's suppose we know that already. Let's allow that we all know at least one of those candidates, and we feel the pain of not being able to support any one of them enough financially.
That would be true, I believe, and that would be the reality, I think, but... it's also completely wrong! It's not that we can't, it's that we simply choose not to.
It's a crucial value judgement that we don't even make intelligently.
Now, let me back off a bit here and remind you all that many of you reading this message have in fact contributed, some heavily, a few to the max, and I dearly love and respect every one of you for what you've done.
But I'm answering the question here as to why we don't win, and I have to tell the truth or it's a wrong answer, yes?
We don't make the choice intelligently for two reasons.
First, we don't analyze what's really necessary, because, second, we surrender in advance to the expectation that it is too much.
Let's go ahead and take the first step. Let's analyze what's really necessary, so we can finally know how much too much actually is.
We could easily win this election with Ron Paul's $2.5 million. Of course, we don't have 50,000 loyal contributors, so our quality needs to be higher. Wait: we're pulling 2.88 times as much per contributor than Ron is. So we only need 17,361 contributors!
Whoops! We only have 2349 contributors so far: we're 15,012 contributors and $2.16 million short.
So, we need those other 15K contributors, right? Maybe. Or we need to balance the books on the available contributors. What does that look like? You already know it's too much, right? Yes, and No.
$2.5 million divided by, let's say, 2500 contributors is, lemme figger here.... only $1,000 each!
Too much? Only if you say so.
Of course, Michael is out of the district for most of you, and even though you know it doesn't matter which district elects the libertarians in congress, you have to be fair to your local candidates, one or two of whom (for each of you) really is an excellent candidate who deserves your support equally as much as Michael does.
So let's be good guys and combine the bunch of candidates you should support generously, and say that you need to invest $2500 in this election.
Too much? Only if you say so.
But it's waaay more than Ron Paul's contributors come up with, what with his $50 average! Not exactly. Most of those contributors also support other candidates. The fact is, people who are used to contributing to political campaigns expect to contribute to at least 3 if not 5 or more campaigns. So Ron's people are shelling out $150, $250 or more per election.
Suddenly, we're looking a little tight, if you know what I mean. Not the most supportive after all. (But no insult intended, please!)
Let's just look at this as a simple marketing proposition. We have a fine product, a limited pool of fine investors, and a public that would buy our product en masse, if we could only mount the advertising campaign the market requires. In this case, the required capital is between 1 and 3 million dollars, and the investor burden is around $1000 each for Michael's campaign and $1500 for all the other campaigns you should be busting your butts to make happen. (Oops, I'm getting pushy! Sorry.)
The incredible burdens of Liberty are simply a matter of quality versus quantity.
Suppose the Republicans in our district have a 68% "share", and we have about 1%. That's 68 to one. Looked at another way, that means that the average Libertarian contributor has to come up with 68 times as much as the average Republican.
The Republican solution to the world's problems is only worth $20 to the average American.
If the average R gives $20 per election, that means you have to cough up $1360.
What's true Liberty worth? $1000? $2500? $1360?
Are any of these amounts too much? Only if you say so.
Why Michael can win this one, this time
We chose this race.
The incumbent has a false image of financial invincibility and little to no name recognition. He's a pretty face on a paper tiger who is one of the prime movers in the ongoing violation of your rights through the so-called Patriot Act abomination--he took point in championing the reauthorization of that federal crime, and he chairs a subcommittee that depends on the Patriot Act for its own existence. He supports interventionist war and empire-building, he's an only-recently flip-flopping Bush yes-man, and he couldn't beat a sincere challenge on an otherwise-level playing field even if he could spend his own money in this race, which, on a technicality, he can't.
The democrat entered this race as a reluctant anti-war candidate to challenge the administration's foreign aggression. He has no help from the D's because (a) they're mistakenly afraid of the incumbent's money, and (b), they smell blood in Tom Delay's district and will put all their surplus into that one. I believe that he's from the libertarian edge of the Democratic Party, and if he thought for an instant that we could win, he'd step aside.
Due to phenomenal growth, a huge percentage of the voters in this district did not live here in 2004 when the incumbent was elected. They've never seen his name on a ballot, but almost all except the first-time voters this year have seen Michael's name on a ballot, because of his bid for the presidency.
When Michael goes to public events and talks to people, 80% of them recognize him or warm up quickly, and 60% or more promise to vote for him, many saying they did or wanted to vote for him last time.
When the incumbent goes to an event, he shows up at the last minute, smiles and waves, and leaves.
The incumbent has consistently voted against the property rights and business interests of the district's conservative rural base, and they have taken a strong disliking to him, they don't trust a democrat, and they like Michael when they meet him.
The incumbent has actually come out against "citizens taking arms into their own hands," and will be losing his good rating from Gun Owners of America.
The incumbent has been repeatedly warned by other Republican officeholders about Badnarik coming for him, and he just scoffs.
The incumbent has betrayed every Republican promise of limited government ever made, while Michael will be offering a legally binding Candidate Employment Contract with the voters that will disqualify him from re-election if he breaks his word.
In 2004, against the now-incumbent, then first-timer and a write-in Democrat, the relatively inactive Libertarian pulled 25% of the vote in the Austin section and 15% of the district overall.
If this were a two-way race, Michael would have already won it.
What if it WERE a two-way race? It might be.
We had a master plan which more than compensated for our lack of numbers, but the first two of several interest groups we've been trying to organize politically have suffered embarrassing failures of leadership and are proving slow to come online.
I have decided not to count on them, and am moving to Plan B.
The financial section of Plan A was, simply, build a dependable organization in the district while encouraging the development of several unrepresented interest groups. One of those groups claims over 25 million people; another 100,000, and a third, over a quarter million.
It was not unrealistic, presuming that these groups would get their act together, that they could become a $100 millon force for political revolution. Our goal was $3.5-$10million of that.
The reason these groups lack congressional representation is very similar to the LP's own story: their leadership is too busy scrambling for position within their as-yet infirm groups to be bothered about taking on a serious political solution to their respective problems.
Plan A included our generating an impressive return from the presidential donor list through the end of June, and boy, did you guys come through on that! Well done, I really mean it.
Then Plan A had the incumbent looking at our fundraising report in July and in all his arrogance, believing that we've shot our wad and already spent it. Spent it well, maybe, but now looking at going broke. Plan A contemplated him seeing exactly that and remaining complacent, figuring that like last time, he has it made.
You know, had the Libertarian candidate in this district had any help at all in 2004, he'd have won this seat because the now-incumbent didn't even campaign in the general election. (That's part of the reason he has such poor name recognition.)
Well, the current Libertarian candidate in this district has support now, and with even more, he will win.
Meanwhile, time is of the essence in politics, and time grows short for us. Therefore, Plan B. Here's the overview.
The Democrat must bow out to make it easy. That has to happen before August 25th. If he withdraws, he can't be replaced on the ballot and there will be no Democrat on the ballot. If he withdraws late, his name stays on the ballot and any votes that go to him are wasted.
I'll tell you in a moment how we can push him off the ballot.
I'm bringing out the big gun: Michael as the constitutional scholar, author, and "professor". We suspended his classes to focus on the campaign, and demand has been building. Now we're going to be giving free 2-hour Bill of Rights seminars to residents of the district, all over the district, every evening and weekend we can schedule a restaurant, living room or stable.
In parallel, I'm going to undermine the religious right's confidence in the establishment by going on tour to all the churches in the district and explaining to them how a simple error of omission by their attorneys has cost them their religious/political freedom of speech, and how to correct that problem with two simple paperwork filings.
To accomplish both of these, we only need to keep our operation going at its current level.
To add the rest of the usual marketing mix (more billboards, radio, door-hangers, postcards, polls, etc.), we need to replace the expected contributions not yet coming in from our as-yet politically prebubescent interest groups.
That's where you come in, with the numbers I analyzed above. And that's where you push the Democrat out of the race and prevent him from splitting the protest vote. Ironic, isn't it, that we should find ourselves in a position where a no-chance Democrat (nice fellow that he is) could split our vote and lose us an election?! Well, it had to happen sooner or later.
So how do you make this happen?
By deciding that "too much" isn't.
By realizing that the unfair burden of Liberty being placed upon you isn't being put there by me, but by the simple reality that we really are engaged in a contest of quality vs. quantity. Too few of us "get it", so the few of us must take on what the many should already be doing.
We have the product the market desperately wants: Hope.
We have the format the market will accept: Michael.
We have a market that is crying our for constructive change: TX congressional district 10.
All we need now is for every single one of you reading this message to realize that what you may have been thinking of as "too much" is actually not enough!
Liberty is priceless. You're used to finding the money to get what you really need. And, you don't need anything, not one single thing, more than you need liberty.
So I need you, the campaign needs you, and most of all YOU need you, to get right up and find that $1360-$2500 I've been talking about and invest it immediately where it will do the most good: AT LEAST $1000 in the eminently winnable Badnarik for Congress campaign, and the remainder in your local deserving quality candidate(s).
Sell your extra car. Borrow. Get some friends to chip in. Put it together in a couple of installments if you have to, but start right now, and do it online.
I need to go to the Democrat in 5 days and tell him that you've newly invested some shocking amount in that same 5 days just to show him that not only do we have the candidate, we have the money and support to win. That will to get him to withdraw and do the only thing he can that might guarantee the defeat of his nemesis.
Sound impossible? Only if you think so. Remember, it's only 2500 people coming up with $1000 each, every one of whom has something he or she sould willingly trade for a real shot at recovering Liberty if s/he only put a little creativity into it.
I think the Democrat will go for it, I really do. Now, all I need is for you to go for it too. Let's all go All-in for Liberty.
My most profound thanks. -Allen
PS: Michael is as good a candidate as we get, and this race is a "perfect storm" for us, but he and we can't do it without your best help. Please, go online right now to
www.badnarik.org/donate.php and make a credit card or check contribution for the most you can do today (and then come back in a couple of days with the rest), and say NO! to tyranny in the loudest voice you've ever mustered.
And then, don't forget to take care of your deserving local candidates!
PPS: AND SMITHER TOO!
It's not widely known yet, and I don't care if it never is, but I recruited Bob Smither for the TX CD22 race at the request of an oldtimer who wanted to fund a credible candidate who could do some damage to DeLay, maybe cost him the election by throwing it to the Democrats.
Well, guess what?! DeLay is gone, and with him my old friend's plan, but we still have Smither. And he's actually looking like the owner of a two-way race that he, too, could win. I've agreed to stay on with him as a senior campaign consultant and fundraiser, doing what I can to help him.
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! Michael, Jon Airheart and I have agreed, with Bob Smither, that we should merge the two campaigns, so far as is realistic. The districts are adjacent to each other and form a triad with Ron Paul. Both TX10 and TX22 include major sections that used to belong to Ron Paul. It's looking like the LNC will like the idea and throw in its support. Conservative Republicans are already coming out of the woodwork to endorse Smither against the Democrat.
This means nobody has to choose between two likely Libertarian winners.
It also means that I already know where your second $1000 needs to go:
http://Smither4Congress.us/donate.php Well, there you have it. Why are you still sitting there? Get that credit card out, get on the phone to your banker, call your friends... and help light the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!
Linear Mode
