Sunday, March 31, 2013

My Interview With Darryl W. Perry, First Announced Candidate for 2016 LP Presidential Nomination

This article was originally published on March 31, 2013 on IPR. 

Darryl W. Perry is a writer whose articles are published in several publications, including the monthly newspaper The Sovereign.  He is a co-host on a radio show on Liberty Radio Network. He is the owner and managing editor of Free Press Publications ( Perry is a co-founder and co-chairman of the New Hampshire Liberty Party, a party created in September 2012 to promote secession of the state from the federal government and individual liberty. From 2010 to July 2012, he served as the chairman of a small libertarian political party, the Boston Tea Party. He has announced that he is running for president in 2016 seeking the Libertarian Party line (

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok before we begin talking about your presidential run, could you give some background about yourself?


  • Darryl W. Perry

    I am an author, activist, radio host, and small business owner. I’ve won several awards & recognitions for my writing and editing.
    I first joined the LP in 1999, and have been a life member since 2008. I’ve spent most of my adult life as an advocate & activist for peace and liberty.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. Now I know that besides the LP, you’ve been associated with other political parties. Namely, I believe you were one of the founders of the Boston Tea Party, which I believe existed from 2006 to July 2012. What was the general purpose of the party, and why do you think it disbanded? Also, I think you are one of the founders and co-chairmen of the New Hampshire Liberty Party, which promotes individual liberty and NH secession from the US. Could you also briefly talk about that party?

  • I was involved with the BTP from early on, though I was not a founder of that party. The party was the brainchild of Tom Knapp, who formed the party for a variety of reasons. He said at one time that he wanted to see if the “incrementalists” in the LP would join a party with such a “broad” platform. I believe he also stated one time that he wanted a party for people to go if the LP ever stopped being radically libertarian.
    I believe the party served a purpose in letting the “reformers” in the LP know that not everyone was happy with the changes they wanted to make to the platform and also as a protest party during the 2008 election. The party dissolved because of the lack of activity. During the last National Convention, NOTA won 2 positions on the National Committee, and not long after the convention 2 At-Large reps resigned. The Presidential nominee had a stand-still campaign, despite offers to pay 10% of the ballot access fee to get on the Louisiana & Colorado ballots (a total expense of $1,000).
    At the time I resigned, there were approximately 5 people that could be said to have been “active” in party discussion. The national convention only had 20 or so people “attend” the online convention. The party was dead long before I resigned as chair in July of last year.

    The NH Liberty Party was formed as a secessionist party in New Hampshire, something the state lacked. In the 6 months or so since it was founded, the party has received favorable press from news outlets across the state. The 3 co-chairs of the party were also candidates for the Keene School Board, and the party was mentioned pretty much any time we were mentioned in print or on radio.
    Myself & Ian Freeman (another co-chair) have made several trips to Concord to lobby legislators on various bills, and I believe I have made some headway with a few State Rep’s on possibly getting a ballot access reform bill introduced next session.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. Now I’m assuming that you didn’t vote for Bob Barr in 2008. He has since rejoined the GOP and endorsed Gingrich in 2011. However, on your campaign website, you say that you didn’t support Gary Johnson in 2012 or vote for him. So, who did you support in the LP nomination battle, and in the general election, if you are comfortable telling us, who did you support?

  • Darryl W. Perry

    I supported Lee Wrights in the LP race, and seconded his nomination to be the official nominee of the LPNH.
    In 2008, I cast a write-in vote for Charles Jay, the BTP nominee.
    In 2012, I cast a write-in vote for NOTA

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. Now on to your presidential race. The way I see it, there are to big factions in the LP, the Radical caucus, and the Reform caucus. I assume you are more aligned with the radicals. If you are ,why, and do you think you will be able to generate significant support from them in 2016? Also, do you think you will try to reach out to more moderate LPers that might have supported Johnson, and if so, how?

  • Darryl W. Perry

    I guess you could say I’m “aligned with the radicals” if by that you mean I believe the LP should stand firm to libertarian principles. I acknowledge that at times we must compromise in order to get legislation heading in our direction, though I refuse to take the incrementalist position as my position (ex. “Fair Tax,” tax & regulate weed, etc).
    As far as caucuses that I actually belong to: I’m a member of Libertarians for Peace, Grassroots Libertarians, LP Sunshine Caucus, LP Anarchists (which seems to be inactive) & The Rent is Too Damn High Caucus (a single issue caucus to get the LPHQ out of the Watergate).
    I’m not going to change my principles to reach out to the “moderates” or the “reformers” in the LP, I intend to run the most radical, principled libertarian campaign in history.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Brief question, could you see yourself supporting Libertarians for Life? I am personally pro-life and from your website I think you are too, even if you said you don’t believe in explicitly banning abortion.

  • Darryl W. Perry

    I believe that all human life is valuable, from the unborn child to the elderly. It is one reason that I am strongly anti-war and pro-peace. That said, I do not advocate making abortion illegal because I believe education is a much more effective means of reducing the number of innocent lives lost.
    By education; I mean privately funded sex-ed, and education about the option of giving the baby up for adoption. I do not advocate a government solution to the issue.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. Now to segway into your platform, what are, say, the top 3 issues/platform planks your campaign is advocating?

  • Darryl W. Perry

    In 2 words: Peace & Liberty
    Peace: I believe the United States of America should immediately end ALL wars. This includes the military campaigns around the world, militarization of local police, as well as the war on drugs, war on poverty & war on privacy/civil liberties.
    Liberty: Everyone has the right to do with their body and their possessions as they wish, as long as they do not unjustly harm another person. And further, all individuals have the god-given right to life, liberty & pursuit of happiness, whenever governments become destructive of these rights, the people have the right to alter or abolish it. The federal government has been destroying rights since 1791, therefore I believe that the federal government should be abolished!

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. Do you think the website, which you often link to on your site,, also might have a good slogan for you” anti state, anti war, pro market? Unless it’s copyrighted, lol. But anyway, what do you plan to do to build the LP with your campaign? Also, how do you plan on doing outreach to activists? And do you know any people who are going to work on your campaign, or do you have an inclination of potential endorsements you might get?

  • Darryl W. Perry

    I like the LRC slogan, though I prefer to say what I’m for that what I’m against.

    I intend to, at every opportunity, promote the ideals of liberty and the principles of libertarianism while promoting the LP as an alternative to the Republicratic Duopoly that currently controls the federal government.
    I can only speculate as to who will support my campaign. As far as reaching out to activists, I intend to use the reach of the various media outlets already at my disposal, and will use as much of my campaign contributions as possible towards media & outreach. (DWP later said, “I’m hoping to get the support of Ruwart & Wrights among others.” )

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. As far I as I am concerned, you are the first announced LP candidate for 2016. Is it too early for you to think about a potential running mate? Also when do you think you might start aggressively campaigning? And if you’d like to, would you like to comment on potential 2016 LP presidential candidates? So far, I have hear d Gary Johnson mentioned frequently, but Judge Andrew Napolitano has popped up as well.

  • Darryl W. Perry

    I’ve heard people mention Johnson as a 2016 candidate, though after the 2012 election he sounded as though he were not going to run again.
    I like Judge Napolitano, though I don’t think he’d run – he seems to be the kind of guy who would support Rand Paul in the GOP (though that’s speculation).
    Several years ago I had the idea to attend the 2013 Boston Tea Party Annual Reenactment (it’s the 240th anniversary) and then march to Washington, DC. I doubt I’ll do the march to DC, but I believe a campaign event will be planned at the 240th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. I also intend to attempt to gather support at some more local Libertarian (and libertarian) events this spring, summer & fall.
    As far as running mates, it’s too early to speculate though I’d like to have someone I know & trust be on the ticket with me.

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok. I’ve been researching some philophies lately, such as anarcho capitalism and voluntarism. Do you support those? Also, on your campaign website I see a link to the United States Pirate Party? Do you support them, and their general principles and goals?

  • Darryl W. Perry

    I do not like the term anarcho-capitalism, as it requires a definition of capitalism that most people do not use.
    However, I do generally support the ideas promoted by “an-caps.” I also like the idea of voluntaryism (I’ve seen it with & without the “y”), though most self-proclaimed voluntaryists refuse to engage in electoral politics.
    Regarding the Pirate Party, yes, I do support their principles, and if they decide to nominate a Presidential candidate, I intend to seek that nomination. I believe that current copyright laws are flawed and in serious need of reform. I, personally, release my content under a Creative Commons license, the newspaper I publish is released under a “copyheart” that says “Copying is an act of love. Love is not subject to law.”

  • Darryl W. Perry

    I know that seeking multiple nominations may not be popular with some in the LP, however, I believe that doing so is a way to build coalitions

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Alright, besides your website, are you on social media networks (ie Facebook page, Twitter, YouTube etc)?

  • Darryl W. Perry
 (personal) (fan page)

    at some point in the next few months, I will be moving the website to

  • Anything, at all, that you’d like to add for the IPR audience?

  • Darryl W. Perry

    I can’t think of anything at the moment – I can always explain myself in the comment section of IPR

  • Krzysztof Lesiak

    Ok great. It was a fun interview. Thanks.

Friday, March 29, 2013

Two Libertarians In 2012 Came Close to Being Elected State Legislators

This article was published on IPR on February 7, 2013. 

By Krzysztof Lesiak

In 2012, though not a single Libertarian candidate won election to either upper or lower house of any state legislature, two came quite close. In Colorado, Tim Menger managed to secure an impressive 13,951 votes, or 41% of the vote in a two-way race with Republican Jared Wright in the 54th district. The former incumbent in that race, Laura Bradford, had stepped down after her party asked her to resign for using her political post to attempt to avoid a citation for driving while under the influence. However, the candidate chosen to replace her on the party ballot line, Wright, had problems of his own. These included lying about his reason for termination from his employment in a police department and also lying about his reason for filing for personal bankruptcy. These circumstances likely provided fertile ground for Menger and contributed to his strong showing. The race was Menger’s first, and he largely was dependent on a grassroots campaign that utilized homemade signs and word of mouth, during which he stressed the need for legalization of marijuana and a concealed carry law. Menger’s hard work campaigning paid off: he was endorsed by the biggest newspaper in his district, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. Prominent endorsements like these are rare treats for candidates running outside of the two-party realm.

In South Carolina, Jeremy Walters fared even better. Walters, a high school dropout, won 5,243 votes, or 46.77% against Republican (but on the ballot as a petition candidate) candidate Raye Felder. Had he won, South Carolina would’ve been the fourth state to elect a Libertarian state legislator, after Alaska, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Felder originally was to appear as a Republican on the ballot but was removed to due a technicality. She subsequently collected enough signatures to appear on the ballot as a petition candidate. The local GOP, sensing she was vulnerable,  tried to get Walters knocked of the ballot, but was unsuccessful in doing so. So, with a place on the ballot secured, Walters proceeded with his campaign that was essentially a match-up between a David and Goliath. Walters was outspent 7 to 1 and produced no TV, newspaper or radio ads. He received only $4,620 in total donations, compared to Felder’s $31,251. A newcomer to politics, Walter originally wanted to run as a Republican, but switched his affiliation to the LP after a dispute with the local GOP, who discouraged him from running. Walters said his campaign received a surge of fresh momentum after LP presidential nominee Gov. Gary Johnson spoke at Winthrop University in his district. Walters received $1,800 in donations following Johnson’s public endorsement of him. Despite the big endorsement, Walters ended up just short of what would have been a key milestone victory for the LP.

Even though he lost, Walters doesn’t necessarily view it in that way. He said:
“I lost but I really didn’t lose.”

Building on that positive attitude and very strong showing as a first-time third party candidate, Walters has stated that he will run again in 2014.

Robby Wells Speaks To Constitution Party National Committee Meeting About His 2016 Campaign

The following was my first article for the Independent Political Report (IPR). It was published on December 31, 2012. 

By Krzysztof Lesiak 

On December 1, 2012, the Constitution Party held their National Committee Meeting in Saint Louis, Missouri. One of the invited guest speakers was Robby Wells, who back in November announced his 2016 presidential candidacy as an independent. Wells had run for the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination this year in April, but came in 3rd place, with 58 votes, or 14.6%.

Wells was introduced by CP National Vice-Chairman Randy Stufflebeam, who said he had received many inquiries from people as to what Robby Wells was up to.  Stufflebeam decided that the best way to set the record straight was to invite Wells to speak to the National Committee meeting.

Wells mostly used his 15 minute speech to promote himself and his campaign, throwing out nifty campaign slogans like “we are not the left wing or the right ring but the bird that sits in the middle.” He also mentioned that he was a national spokesman for the Clarion Call to Unite Committee (CCTUC), headed by Nevada CP activist Cody Quirk, which seeks to unite various constitutionalist parties like the America First Party and Independent American Party and bring them into the Constitution Party fold. He explained that running as an independent was a strategic plan designed to appeal to members of these parties so as to eventually unite them with the CP.

At the end of his speech, Wells took two questions from the audience. The first person inquired about his affiliation with the Reform Party and his support for Virgil Goode. Wells said he did support Goode and stated that he has always been listed as an independent. Earlier, in reference to Goode, Wells noted that “Virgil was so good that I stole his cousin to be my campaign manager.” Aaron Lyles, the present campaign manager for the Robby Wells 2016 campaign, is Goode’s first cousin.

The second individual, noticeably irritated with Wells, asked him if he had paid the $100+ fee that CP members paid to attend the meeting. Wells, after being pressed, admitted that he had not, and the CP member told him that since he had come to campaign, he should “support our group”. He elaborated that what Wells was doing did not feel right with him. Wells, unshaken and still smiling, said that he would cut him a check. After that, there were no more questions, and Wells left, saying he had to catch a flight.

Kristen Meghan, the Chicago press secretary for Wells’s campaign, issued a statement on this last question:
I just want to clarify one of the questions that was asked at the end of the speech. The Robby Wells Restoration team funded their own way to the event, we were invited and the fee one man referred to covered room/food/drinks, which we did not utilize.

Peter Gemma, a member of the CP’s National Executive Committee, attended the meeting. He had the following observations:
Wells was not well received…Outside of his entourage…there was only a smattering of polite applause. He left lots of questions and derisive talk in his wake.

He continued:
CP leaders and grass roots activists at the CP mtg. couldn’t remember anything he said or did to support Virgil Goode. When asked points blank, there was an excruciating 10 second pause before he said, he, um, supported the CP ticket; he offered no specifics and said he was in a rush to catch a plane. Now that he’s running full steam as an independent (since the day after the election), inquiring minds want to know: so, how’s the “continuing to be active in the CP party” thing working out?

In response to Peter Gemma, Robby Wells said this:
I was invited by the Vice Chair of the CP. Did anyone in the CP donate to my campaign when I was traveling around the country helping the CP with ballot access? There were several promises broken by CP members, but I have let that rest. You see, I believe that trivial differences and being small minded is what keeps things from growing. As far as Virgil is concerned, I put out a statement congratulating him. He and I spoke after the National Convention, and I offered to campaign with him. He had my phone number, but I did not receive a call.

Trent Hill, IPR contributor, responded to Wells by writing this comment:
You left the Reform Party, got crushed in the CP convention (And swore you’d stay in the party), decided to try to run as a Republican and win Ron Paul delegates (and won zero), and then decided to run as an Independent. All in about a 10 month period. That’s the definition of inconsistent and opportunistic.

When asked by this reporter if he was seeking the CP nod in 2016, Wells said that his goal was to bring all “Constitutional Conservative Parties” back together and unite them with the Constitution Party to gain traction and produce winning campaigns.

Whatever Wells ultimately decides to do, and regardless of what people think of him, one thing is for sure: this is not the last time that we’ll be hearing from this football coach turned presidential candidate.

A video of Wells speaking to the CP meeting is available below:

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Will There Soon Be A Libertarian Party Of Poland?

This article was originally posted to Independent Political Report (IPR) today. 

By Krzysztof Lesiak 

The answer to that question increasingly seems to be yes. The Facebook page for the movement to create a Libertarian Party in Poland (Partia Libertariańska) has already garnered over 4,300 likes. Currently Poland has a party called Kongres Nowej Prawicy (Congress of the New Right) which promotes classical liberalism. They have garnered over 29,000 Facebook likes, and in the 2011 parliamentary elections in Poland secured over 151,000 votes, or 1.06% (interestingly enough, this was the same percentage of the vote the LPUS got in the U.S. Senate elections in 2012). Their leader is Janusz Korwin-Mikke, longtime free-market Austrian school economics advocate and 4 time presidential candidate (in the 2010 presidential elections he received his best showing percentage wise ever, garnering 416,898 votes for 2.48% of the vote).  He has been dubbed by several media sources as the “Polish Ron Paul”, and he has frequently referenced to the 3 time presidential candidate and former U.S. congressman on his blog and website, as well as in public interviews. Besides the Kongres Nowej Prawicy, there is also the Unia Polityki Realnej (Real Politics Union), which was founded by Korwin-Mikke but he abondoned it to form his current party. They are now very small, however, and when they ran on a joint coalition with a socially conservative Christian party, Prawica Rzeczypospolitej (Right of the Republic), they received a mere 0.24% of the vote in the 2011 parliamentary elections.

However, the Libertarian Party of Poland, when officially registered as a political party, will become the first genuinely 100% libertarian political party in Poland. In Poland, a very socially conservative country, currently 70% of the people are opposed to gay marriage and 55% also oppose civil unions. Kongres Nowej Prawicy and Unia Polityki Realnej both hold some traditionally conservative views on social issues, as both are explicitly pro-life and against gay marriage (however, they support marijuana legalization). The Libertarian Party of Poland, from its website, gives its members jurisdiction over matters like abortion and gay marriage, and frequently posts links and references to the LPUS. There biggest issue that they are promoting, however, if a free-market economy. Currently, the biggest 6 political parties in Poland all either support crony capitalism or outright economic socialism.

According to an interview with Jacek Sierpiński (who openly calls himself an anarcho-capitalist), one of the founders of the Libertarian Party of Poland, conducted with the news website Salon24, the party is planning on registering as a formal political party in spring of this year. In the interview, his says that Congress of the New Right and Real Politics Union are not genuine hardcore libertarian parties. He calls them conservative-liberal parties that are closer to traditional Polish conservatism and that place a rather significant emphasism on Christian values (Poland is one of the most religiously homogeneous countries in the world, with 95% of the population being Catholic). He says many libertarians in Poland do not want to be lumped in with the right-wing or conservatism in the country. He cites that the Congress of the New Right actually wants to increase defense and military spending as well as expand the police force in the nation, as well as mandatory service in the nation’s armed services for all 18 year old and up able bodied males. He also says the Real Politics Union wants to protect states secret and isn’t big on transparency. He adds that the party wants to censure pornography. He mentioned that the Real Politics Union’s alliance with the Right of the Republican, a very socially conservative Christian party that he labeled as being “anti-freedom” repelled a lot of libertarians from this party. Sierpiński also criticized Janusz Korwin-Mikke, Congress of the New Right’s present leader. He said Korwin-Mikke could be a potential barrier to the Polish Libertarian Party’s potential collaboration with the Congress of the New Right.  He also mentioned that he is an “infoanarchist”, meaning he does not believe in copyright laws and views them as incompatible with true liberty.

Sierpiński further said that the Polish Libertarian Party would neither be a Christian or anti-Christian party, but would rather be neutral in this regard. He stressed individuals will be able to live their lives any way they see fit as long as they are not infringing on the rights and liberties of other people. The party supports all types of gambling, drug legalization, no censorship of pornography, legalization of prostitution, religious liberties (he said the owner of a pharmacy would be able to not sell any contraceptives).  He elaborated by saying that the party supports gay rights, and will oppose the banning of gay parades (in 2004, Lech Kaczyński, president of Warsaw, did not authorize a gay pride parade to take place in his city. Kaczyński later became president of Poland). He also said he wouldn’t oppose parades against homosexuality and in favor of traditional marriage. He said the party has no official stance on abortion, explaining that that libertarians disagree on this issue. He added the party supports euthanasia. He further stated they are against the Polish state financing religion classes in high schools as well as some Catholic universities.  He added the party stresses Internet freedom, and once again called himself an “infoanarchist”.

The Libertarian Party of Poland Website is below (you can Google translate the whole website if you’re interested):

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

YouTube Playlist for My Radio Show, The Lesiak Report

My inaugural broadcast of The Lesiak Report aired on on February 17th. The show airs every Sunday at 10 AM CST. Here is a playlist for all the shows I've had so far, that I have archived as YouTube videos:

Also, please subscribe to my YouTube channel:

Krzysztof Lesiak: The Failure That Was The Presidential Campaign of Virgil Goode

Original to IPR, by Krzysztof Lesiak. This was published on Independent Political Report on January 5th, 2013 and offered my post-mortem of Virgil Goode's 2012 presidential campaign. Back then, I considered myself more or less to be a supporter of the Constitution Party. These days I think of myself as a  libertarian, while at the same time retaining one or two paleoconservative tendencies, such as the life issue. I nonetheless continue to have a lot of respect for the CP, however. 

On April 21, 2012, Virgil Goode, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1997-2009, was elected the presidential candidate of the Constitution Party at its national convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Goode won on the first ballot with 203 votes, or 50.37%, beating out former national vice-chairman and 2008 VP nominee Darrell Castle, former Savannah State University head football coach Robby Wells,  activist Susan Ducey, and radio-talk show host Laurie Roth. Goode was introduced by outgoing national chairman Jim Clymer, who mentioned that Gooded served in the Virgina State Senate for 24 years and with his 12 in U.S. Congress, had more federal experience that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama combined. Goode delivered his acceptance speech, which was televised by CSPAN. Goode thanked by name Don Grundmann, a candidate himself who ultimately decided to support Goode, throwing his three California votes behind him. Goode noted that if Grundmann hadn’t voted for him, a second ballot would have had to take place. In his speech, Goode outlined his platform positions, which included opposition to illegal immigration, a 100% pro-life stance, support for the Second Amendment, traditional marriage, opposition to the NDAA, and a balanced budget. He also admitted to making mistakes while in Congress, including voting for the Patriot Act, and said that his association with the Constiution Party helped him to see the light on several issues, including foreign policy. While in Congress, Goode had voted for both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thus, Virgil Hamlin Goode, Jr., a Virginian with a notable, thick Old Dominion accent ( - areally awesome accent), became the most well known nominee in the history of the Constitution Party, and the only one to have held elected office. Things looked bright for the CP.  Goode looked on track to set a record for the CP, a party that has never exceeded 200,000 votes in a presidential election.  No doubt, even though many CP members probably had their concerns with his past voting record, longtime CP’ers were surely happy to have such a prominent individual, a former U.S. Congressman, be their presidential nominee.

On November 6, 2012, the presidential election was held. Virgil Goode came in 5th place nationally, behind the duopoly candidates as well as Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Goode received 122,191 votes, or 0.09%. This was significantly less than Michael Peroutka’s 2004 showing (144,499 votes, or 0.12%) and Chuck Baldwin’s 2008 showing (199,880 votes, or 0.15%). In fact, Goode’s showing was the second lowest percentage of the national popular vote that a CP candidate has ever received, behind Howard Phillips’s 0.04% result in 1992, the same year the CP was founded.

How did this happen? Why did a former U.S. Congressman, and the most prominent individual ever to run as the CP presidential candidate, fare so poorly? There are several reasons.

1. Ballot Access.  This one is by far the most important factor that caused Goode to under perform by such a large margin. Goode was on the ballot in a mere 26 states, which is likely the lowest number a CP candidate has ever been on, besides 1992. He was on the ballot in states that had a total Electoral College vote of 257, short of the 270 needed to be elected president. Even though he was a certified write-in candidate in 14 other states, where the total EC vote was 204, this doesn’t amount to much, because very few people vote for write-ins and they typically get only 0.01 or 0.02% of the vote. The campaign missed many states that it should have got on, including Arkansas, Illinois, Vermont, Maine, Kansas, Oregon, and Montana, among others. Goode, despite being quite wealthy by one account, didn’t really spend a whole lot of his money on the most important thing that third party candidates need: ballot access. Goode’s very poor ballot access is likely the reason that Justice Party nominee Rocky Anderson was surprisingly added to the Free and Equal debate in Chicago on October 23. Rocky was only on the ballot in 15 states, but had write-in status in 16 others, for a combined total of 379 accessible E.C. votes. Goode’s terrible ballot access put him in the same league as a former mayor and leader of a brand new party that had been created less than a year before.

2: Hijacking By The Neocons Of The AIP: The American Independent Party of California, with over 477,000 registered members as of October 2012, used to be the largest state affiliate in the Constitution Party. However, in 2008, it was hijacked by Alan Keyes supporters who placed Keyes on the ballot instead of Chuck Baldwin and affiliated the AIP with Keyes’s new America’s Independent Party (now called America’s Party). In 2012, however, many CP’ers had hoped to take back the AIP and place Virgil Goode on the ballot. However, at a smoke filled back room convention in August attended by 7 AIP members who were part of the Keyes faction, America’s Party nominee Tom Hoefling won the nomination unanimously.  Hoefling went on to receive 38,372 votes in California, 95% of his national total. Had Goode been on the California ballot, he would have likely received between 30,000-50,000 votes, significantly helping his total.

3. A Weak General Campaign. Goode didn’t run a very active campaign, even if you, like me, followed his website’s news section regularly as well as his campaign Facebook account. Sure, he did some travelling, but he mostly confined his efforts to Franklin County, Virginia, where he lives. I guess it sort of worked, because Franklin County was his best county in the nation, giving him 2.58% of the vote. However, he was virtually nonexistent on the national scene, and besides the Free and Equal Debate in Chicago. Goode didn’t even have a campaign manager, according to Wikipedia. He drove himself everywhere. Also, by limiting himself to only donations of $200 or less, Goode only hurt himself. Also, he raised only $202,558, much of that coming from his personal fortune. By comparison, Chuck Baldwin raised $262,010, and Baldwin  was not close to having the monetary wealth that Goode possesses.  Goode didn’t hold any major rallies, and to my knowledge, was not interviewed by any major news network, except for CSPAN, which is usually pretty fair to third party candidates.

4. A Terrible Campaign Website. This is another big one. In today’s digital media age, there is no excuse for not having a good website, especially if you are seeking the highest office in the land. Goode’s campaign site might have passed muster were he running for Congress, but he wasn’t. When it was first released, I thought it was only a draft, and would drastically be improved in the future. To my dismay, it was not. In contrast, Baldwin’s 2008 site, which can still be viewed using WebArchives, was much more aesthetically pleasing and informative. Here are some specific critiques of Goode’s site:

a. First of all, the biography page sucked. Goode’s section only listed his birth date, education, military service, and political experience, having only a couple words for each. When you scrolled down to VP candidate Clymer’s section, you’ll see it’s more than three times the size of Virgil’s! But again, no complete sentences, just a list of important information about Clymer. Any serious campaign would have put out a MUCH longer actual biography, filled with anecdotes and the such.

b. The issues page was nothing to rave about, either. Good listed his issues as bullet points, which is a very amateurish way of organizing the issues page for a political campaign. Most campaigns would have a page listing all the issues, with picture for each one, and a “read more” button that takes you to a more detailed summary of the candidate’s position on that specific issue. Some of Virgil’s positions were one liners (!),  including his position on health care, which simply stated “I support ending Obamacare.” Virgil, let me remind you, you’re running for the most powerful office on the planet, not state representative!

c. The media page was also “weak sauce”. The videos section just had a bunch of YouTube videos lumped together on one page, while the photos page wasn’t even organized as a gallery  just had all the pictures on one page with captions underneath. It was slightly better than the video page, but still not nearly good enough for the presidential nominee of America’s 3rd largest political party (according to voter registration, December 2010).

d. Lastly, the “campaign news” page was atrocious. It had some links to articles and media coverage of Goode’s campaign, but it wasn’t even updated regularly. In fact, from September 15th, to October 13th, almost an entire month, there was not a single news item posted!! Before that, not a single news item was posted between July 13th and August 1st. C’mon Virgil, how many times do I have to remind you that running for POTUS is a serious matter?

These are the four major reasons why Goode’s campaign was such a major failure. Let’s compare again more closely Baldwin’s results from 2008 with Goode’s showing in November:

In 2008, Baldwin’s best state was Utah, where he earned 1.25% of the vote. His best county was Millard County in Utah, where he got 5.57%. By contrast, Goode’s best state was South Dakota, where he got 0.65%, and his best county was the one in which he lived, Franklin County, Virginia, where he got 2.58%.

Baldwin was on the ballot in 37 states, Goode in only 26.

Baldwin out polled Libertarian nominee Bob Barr in 10 states. In 2012, Goode  out polled Libertarian Gary Johnson only in Michigan (and that’s only because Johnson wasn’t on the ballot).

Baldwin had some prominent endorsements to boast of. Baldwin was endorsed by such prominent figures as Congressman Ron Paul, radio host and filmmaker Alex Jones,  Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation andUnfit for CommandMark Dice, a famous 9/11 truther and YouTube “vlogger”,  John Hosteler  a former U.S. Congressman from Indiana, Joel Skousen, a well known author, Joseph Sobran, famed columnist and CP’s original VP candidate in 2000 before dropping out, and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a “politically incorrect” historian and the author such bestsellers as The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (one of my personal favorites – KL) and Meltdown. Some pretty impressive names, wouldn’t you say? Now let’s look at Goode’s endorsers. Jay Anderson, a former mayor of Columbia, Virginia, Stephen Andrew, President of USA Christian Ministries, and Daniel Cassidy, a conservative activist and former GOP staffer. Have you heard of any of those people?? I sure as heck haven’t. None of them even have Wikipedia entries.

To summarize, Goode’s 2012 showing surely disappointed many. I sure as heck was disappointed by it. To avoid the mistakes Goode made, CP leadership (and regular members as well) need to read this article to make sure they do not make the same mistakes again.

And what of Goode’s political future? Should he run for president again in 2016? No way Jose.  However, he should definitively run for U.S. Congress in his old district, Virginia’s 5th, in 2014 as the CP candidate. Goode is still well known and liked by his former constituents, and in a 3 way race with duopoly candidates, would only need 34% to win. The CP would gain a MAJOR boost by electing their first member to Congress. I’m not the only person hoping Goode will run in 2014. A Facebook draft page has even been created, and has already garnered 33 likes. (Here’s the link, and I hope everyone reading this will like it and share it:

This draft effort has been endorsed by 2012 VP nominee and former national chairman Jim Clymer. He said:
I think it’s a great idea.

Also, I think that in order to maximize success in the future, the CP should run Chuck Baldwin for U.S. Senate in Montana in 2014. Last year, Dan Cox, got an impressive 6.56% of the vote, and due to Montana’s high concentration of Ron Paul supporters and freedom-loving people, Chuck would surely set records for the CP for a U.S. Senate race. Another endorsement from Dr. Ron Paul could put him over the top. Scott Bradley, to the best of my knowledge,  currently holds the record for a CP candidate running for U.S. Senate. Bradley got 5.67% in Utah in 2010. Chuck would surely beat that. A Facebook draft page has been started for him as well. (Here’s the link, and please like and share too:

Finally I believe the CP’s best presidential ticket for 2016 would consist of Darrell Castle for president and former Missouri state representative Cynthia L.  Davis for vice-president.  Castle is an attorney,  longtime party activist, and he knows his issues well, and would make and excellent standard bearer. He was the VP nominee in 2008 and former Vice-Chairman. He has also recorded over 100 phenomenal podcasts concerning the news and issues of the day. Cynthia is new  to the CP but she has already proven herself to be a loyal CP’er and has run for lieutenant governor as the CP candidate. Her 8 years of legislative experience would add a lot to the ticket. She could be like the Sarah Palin of the CP, except that she, of course, unlike Palin, is actually a true constitutional conservative. Darrell should announce his candidacy as soon as possible so that that he can (1 build name recognition (2begin raising funds (3 unite the entire CP behind his candidacy. A draft page has been created for Darrell. (Here’s the link, be sure to like and… you know the drill:) - ).

Ok, now let’s summarize  this article’s key thesis. Goode’s extremely poor showing has proven one thing for third parties:  that nominating a former U.S. congressman who has little name recognition on the national stage does not translate into more votes. We saw this with Bob Barr’s epic under performance of only 523,o00 votes in 2008, as well as Cynthia McKinney’s low total of 161,000 votes. Third parties should be mindful of this and choose presidential candidates who are loyal party members and who articulate the party’s platform well, not newcomers who held elected office before but aren’t ideologically pure.

I’m Krzysztof Lesiak, a high school student and brand new IPR contributor, and I’d like to personally congratulate you for getting through this mammoth (whew!). Since I’m new here, feel free to add me on Facebook. Also, I have a YouTube channel, which has a ton of Constitution Party videos you won’t find anywhere else. I hope you subscribe to it.

Thanks for reading, and Happy New Year everyone!

Welcome to The Lesiak Report Website!


I'd like to welcome you to The Lesiak Report website. This is the place where all my articles will be published, which (hopefully) will get syndicated by a few websites. I am already a contributing editor to the Independent Political Report, the leading news website covering third parties and independents in the U.S. Please check out my YouTube channel, Here is a brief bio about me, taken from the Facebook page of my radio show, also named The Lesiak Report:

Krzysztof (Chris) Lesiak was born on March 7, 1996. He is a young libertarian patriot who is also a first generation Polish American. He first became interested in politics because of Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. Since then, it has become one of his major hobbies, and passions. He is a contributing editor to the Independent Political Report (IPR), the leading website in the U.S. coveringthird parties and independents. Lesiak also frequently writes hard hitting political commentary. He also is the campaign manager for David Earl Williams III, who is running for U.S. Congress in Illinois's 9th district in 2014 as a Ron Paul Republican. In his spare time, Lesiak also is an avid cyclist, skier, and enjoys traveling.

The Lesiak Report covers the news of the day from a liberty minded perspective and delves into many political topics on each broadcast. History is also an important component of the show.

My radio show airs every Sunday at 10 AM CST on Please like the Faecebook page for it:

Stay tuned for upcoming articles, and please follow by my radio show and this new website. Also, feel free to add me as a friend on Facebook, my profile:


- Krzysztof Lesiak