Sonny Landham, the Appalachian Predator and convicted wife & child abuser who served 31 months in prison, is upset that he isn’t a featured speaker at this year’s Fancy Farm in western Kentucky.
Apparently, Landham and psycho Bob Barr were denied the opportunity to stand at the bully pulpit this year because they’re not mainstream enough for whatever. For record: We think Landham should be allowed to speak just for the sheer circus freak nature of his personality.
His “campaign” just put out a fancy little release crying about it:
Organizers of the annual Fancy Farm Picnic in Western Kentucky have denied two Federal candidates the opportunity to participate in the political “stump” speaking portion of the picnic. Libertarian Presidential candidate, Bob Barr of Georgia, and Libertarian Senate candidate, Sonny Landham of Ashland, KY, were informed that they were not invited to speak and would not be allowed to speak, as they were not members of the two main political parties.
-SNIP-
Mark Wilson, the Political Chairman of this year’s event responded to a request to participate with the following statement:
“We have a long tradition of hosting a speaking forum in which we personally invite local, statewide and national officeholders and candidates from the democrat and republican parties to speak at the Fancy Farm Picnic and that is done at our discretion. The only time the Fancy Farm Picnic has deviated from the traditional two-party system in more recent times was with Gov. George Wallace in the early 1970′s or someone such as Ross Perot in the 80′s or 90′s.”
With Congressional ratings at an all-time low and the voters of America crying out for a third option, it is disheartening to have such a fine institution and tradition as the Fancy Farm Picnic exclude these candidates from speaking to the voters of Kentucky.
Hahaha. How great is this?
Maybe Landham would be invited to speak at political functions if he were actually a filed candidate? He can’t get enough signatures to appear on a ballot. And maybe it’d help if he weren’t a complete jackwad to bloggers and journalists who offer him free publicity. And maybe, just maybe, it’d help if he weren’t a former hardcore pornographer.
Just saying.
God. We love Kentucky.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Yellow Dog // Jul 16, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Mark Wilson: That’s DemocratIC Party, you repug shill.
Off with his head!
2 Ken Moellman, LPKY Chair // Jul 21, 2008 at 12:42 am
As an FYI – Sonny and Barr will be on the ballot. Current signature count is 5400 raw, after basic eliminations for incomplete lines and whatnot. As I am in charge of the ballot access, I take offense in your statement of ignorance that I would fail in my duties to my state party.
We’re going to be collecting between 7000 and 8000 signatures, to avoid any challenges. They will be on the ballot.
Sonny Landham has spoken at Fancy Farm in the past as a Republican, in 2002, and was not on the ballot then, either, as it was too early to file to even be on the ballot, during his run for governor in 2003.
Meanwhile, while I am unable to be directly affiliated with the campaign, due to stupid McCain-Feingold crap, I read the list of questions sent to Mr. Landham and I also found them to be of a non-serious manner.
People are utterly fed up with government, and this is reflected in the 9% US Congressional approval ratings. Inflation is out of control. If you want real change, you must look outside of the Republicrat and Democan parties. However, if you like crappy government, and the dollar on its way to being as worthless as the peso, then by all means, keep voting for and supporting them.
This action is simply discrimination against non-D, non-R candidates, which could adversely effect the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church that hosts the event, and by extension, the Diocese under which that Church falls in Church hierarchy.
Regardless of whether or not you like the platform of our party or not, or if you like a particular candidate, or not, I find that your focusing on events that occurred 30 years ago, when he was a different man, disheartening. If people must have lived perfect lives for their entire life to run for political office, then no one would be qualified run for office at all.
If you would like an interview about real issues facing America, I’m quite sure that Landham or any of our other candidates would be happy to respond. If your goal is to talk about BS from 30 years ago, irrelevant to the issue of the campaign, I wouldn’t respond either.
3 Steve Bittenbender // Jul 21, 2008 at 2:51 am
Let me make sure I understand this crystal clear — the Libertarian Party is crying foul because a private organization exercised its right (or freedom, if you will) to not invite the party’s potential (pending petition signatures) candidates for office. Is it now the Libertarian view that an organizer no longer has the right (or freedom) to invite only who it wants to speak at an event?
This country’s political landscape is about as free a market as you can find. People have the freedom to join whatever party best represents their viewpoints. And in this market, the Libertarian Party has attracted only a niche audience at best. If it were a for-profit product, it’s maker would have gone out of business many, many years ago.
4 jake // Jul 21, 2008 at 7:27 am
That’s funny, Ken. You view the questions as non-serious and the rest of the state views your candidate as a non-serious party switcher, wife/child abuser, former prisoner, perverted hardcore pornographer, and all-around nutbag.
Word of advice: Don’t let your candidate and his campaign agree to answer a list of questions only to later backtrack. Our questions were quite serious. Humorous, but serious. For your joke of a candidate to respond calling us perverts told us everything we need to know about him.
And no, he wasn’t a “differen’t man” 30 years ago. He still has the same name and is the same man. 30 years doesn’t change the fact that he served 31 months in PRISON for abusing his wife and children. 30 years doesn’t change the fact that he was in perverted hardcore pornography.
5 Ken Moellman, LPKY Chair // Jul 21, 2008 at 10:00 am
Steve,
The Libertarian Party lives by the rules. I didn’t make the rules, I don’t even like the rules, but since the other 2 made the rules, I have to live by them, as does the party.
Part of those rules, courtesy of the IRS, state that all non-profits (which includes most Churches) must remain non-partisan. Not bi-partisan; non-partisan.
Sonny was invited to speak when he was running as a Republican, before he was on the ballot. He’s been excluded when he’s running as a Libertarian. That’s straight-up party bias.
And the Libertarian Party is growing. Here in Kentucky, membership is up significantly (20% per year) in the last 2 years, the majority of which are youth and former and active-duty military. We are building a party for the future.
Jake,
I have no involvement in any Federal campaigns due to McCain-Feingold. However, a request for an “interview” would suggest serious questions. Your questions were appropriate for a show like Inside Edition, though they were probably even too racy for that venue.
Have you done your homework on Landham’s incarceration? I have. Based on how you’re reporting it, which actually borders on slander, you have not. I read the entire case, the appeal, etc. How the conviction was overturned, and said to have have been without merit.
If you consider questions about sexual activity in which he engaged 30 years ago, asked a different way 5 times each, ‘serious questions’, I think I may be visiting this blog for the last time. Pathetic.
McConnell has been and continues to be a bought-and-paid-for politician. Lunsford made a bunch of money in crooked business deals. You’re worried about someone who engaged in activities 20 and 30 years ago, and a conviction that was thrown out.
Good luck.
6 jake // Jul 21, 2008 at 10:08 am
Moellman, like I have repeatedly said on this site, the questions were provided to Brian Houillion and Sonny Landham BEFORE the interview and there was a guarantee at that point that there would be an interview based on those questions. Quit trying to spin this.
Yeah, I have done my homework. HE WAS CONVICTED. The law’s the law, hoss. He served 31 months in prison. That’s fact, not slander.
7 Ken Moellman, LPKY Chair // Jul 21, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I told you, I don’t have any direct involvement with the campaign, due to restrictions courtesy of McCain-Feingold, so I don’t know what you did or didn’t have arranged. And that’s not my point.
I can tell you that I vehemently disagree with the line of questioning, as I believe they were irrelevant to the issues at hand. If someone were to ask me about my sex-life, past or present, I’d given you the same verbal finger that you received.
Meanwhile, he was convicted, but not of abuse. And that conviction was overturned, and thrown out. Yes, it’s important to tell the whole story.
While pondering this situation while driving, I realized that you do not have any sort of journalistic integrity, as I could possibly just be someone impersonating Ken Moellman. You did no fact-checking or background work to verify that it was indeed the real Ken Moellman, prior to posting that I’d responded right there on your website.
Now this time, sure, it’s me. But someone looking to make sure they were accurate would have checked into it. You didn’t. That answers all questions for me.
8 Terri...Or Am I? // Jul 21, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Hilarity!
9 jake // Jul 21, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Regular readers of this site know that I abhor “journalistic integrity” and work only on personal integrity. Because journalistic integrity these days means selling out and answering only to the hand that feeds you.
As far as figuring out who you are? That’s very easy to do with IP addresses.
As far as his past sex life? IT WAS HIS CAREER! In public. When you’re running for office, EVERYTHING is on the table. You don’t get to selectively deny access. No way, no how, Holmes (no pun intended). Further, it was explicitly understood that the interview would be humorous and controversial. And, judging things just on Landham’s interview with Joe Gerth that was reported today, my questions were a walk in the park compared to the racist, bigoted crap Sonny is pedaling these days.
10 Ken Moellman, LPKY Chair // Jul 21, 2008 at 3:10 pm
As I’ve said several times over, I can’t be involved with particular campaigns, which includes anything they say or do, due to McCain-Feingold.
What I objected to is being illegally excluded from Fancy Farm due to political affiliation (or lack of the “right” affiliation).
I also objected to was that you said Landham and Barr wouldn’t be on the ballot. They will. That’s the only place where I’m allowed to be involved, and I’m driving that process. He will be on the ballot.
Finally, I objected to your lack of research and the twisting of the truth.
Whatever. You’re not going to admit this (though you almost admitted that your blog is all about BS and not about fact) and I give up.
11 jake // Jul 21, 2008 at 3:17 pm
You’re not ILLEGALLY excluded. It’s a private function. Cry me a river.
You can be upset over me saying Landham wouldn’t be on the ballot. When I said it, no one in your party almost-non-existent structure could prove to me that he would be.
Twisting of the truth? I haven’t twisted shit. He served 31 months in PRISON. His conviction may have been overturned, but give me a goddamn break. He served 31 months in prison for allegedly abusing his wife and kids. That’s out there in the press, hoss. Deal with it.
This site is hardly about bullshit. But explaining that to someone like you who believes your candidates actually have a shot? Ha. Carry on with your day, sweetcheeks.
Leave a Comment