In an interview with the Jewish Exponent, previously covered by IPR here, Libertarian Party vice-presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root characterizes the “surge” in Iraq as a success, and says a similar “surge” should be imposed upon the people of Afghanistan:
Root has said that the success of the surge should be declared a victory, allowing troops to depart as quickly and as safely possible.
“I felt Iraq was always the wrong war, and if there is such a thing as a right war, Afghanistan was [it],” said Root.
He said that he had supported the surge in Iraq, and that the government should “do the same thing in Afghanistan, and make plans to get out quickly.”
The Jewish Exponent is a newspaper catering to Jewish-Americans in the Philadelphia area, and also has a large national Web audience. The paper boasts of being a “significant voice in favor of Zionism during the earliest years of the worldwide movement.”
VTV // Aug 19, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Please use “would have” as the proper word construction instead of “would of”.
I do believe that there are subjects which are tough for the average, and even not so average voter and media person to swallow, and “age of consent” and laws regulating it is one of those topics. The same was said of ending drug prohibition just 10 to 15 years ago. True, the libertarian position on ending the War on Drugs isn’t universally accepted (yet), but it is certainly talked about more scholarly, rather than emotionally now.
I believe that age of consent laws can and would follow the same path. Right now, libertarians are “crazy”, “ridiculous”, etc, in support of ending age of consent laws, but over time, the merits of the position of eliminating age of consent laws would be talked about, and at the very least, the idea of scrapping a one size fits all solution to sexual coercion of young people would be seriously considered.
THIS concept of presenting liberty and its application to every realm of human existence IS the driving force of libertarianism. Yes, ideas are laughed at, criticized, and the people who support them are ridiculed. However, what is more ridiculous (at this juncture in history) . . . fielding a presidential candidate to “win”, or promoting liberty, however much out of the “mainstream it is at any given moment?
Ayn R. Key – Says// Aug 19, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Everything I’ve been saying for . . . what seems like forever now! Thanks “Ayn”!
Yes, the Ruwart supporters would rather have Gravel than Barr (NOTA would be better than both of them, though), but the problem is that Gravel and his supporters did NOT prefer Ruwart to Barr/Root, and that’s why Gravel can be damned.
1. He supported Root, quite literally, by voting for him.
2. He helped the Republican takeover by not doing anything to stop it; i.e. supporting the one remaining libertarian candidate versus the two Republicans who were left after he was out of the running.
Obvious enough answers, aren’t they?
“You are pipe dreaming if you think a candidate who says they are going to turn off all social versions of health care is going to stand a snow ballâ€™s chance in hades come election day.”
You may be right, but this same argument could be made about the LP’s hardline positions on drugs, guns, taxes, welfare, prostitution, censorship, and literally dozens of other issues. If we got rid of all our unpopular positions, we wouldn’t be libertarians at all. We’d be populists. Just like Gravel is.
Being as how I was involved with the Gravel campaign, I would like to know G.E. when Gravel EVER supported Root? Or in any way helped the Republican take over of the LP?
I know you guys didn’t like hearing what he was telling us as to why our party has problems come election day, but it was bitter honesty that I think had a lot of people putting their pride before the truth.
As for socialized medicine, I don’t like it either, but we need some plan for how to handle the addiction of socialism that our country has. You are pipe dreaming if you think a candidate who says they are going to turn off all social versions of health care is going to stand a snow ball’s chance in hades come election day. Meanwhile, we bicker about that endlessly, and the real problem, the fascists slowly take over this country.
Why did he not endorse Mary Ruwart? I know this is another sore point, but I have given up on ever making most of Mary’s supporters understand that whether intended or not, Mary’s unearthed statements about child pornography would of buried this party if we got anywhere close to being a threat to the neo-cons, the liberals, or the fascist puppet masters behind them. It wouldn’t of just cost us the election, it would of cost us our parties viability. Probably forever. You say the word sex and the media turns on their cameras, you say the words “sex” and “child” in the same sentence, and you have the media’s full attention.
I have been called “naive” here before, but no offense to my fellow libertarians, it is completely naive to think that Mary would of ever been able to dig herself out of that hole if we ever got any real traction.
At any rate, every Ruwart supporter I met at the convention made it clear they would of rather of had Gravel then Barr. Now we are all in the same boat. We couldn’t unify to stop Barr before. We cannot afford to be bickering about it now. We had a real chance when the Ron Paul wave hit our party, then we refused to unite against Barr and now we are stuck with him. The Ron Paul wave has quickly run right past Barr and on to Baldwin.
This is why freedom fighters throughout history have struggled to succeed. Our opponents are organized and unified, we are not.
I hope WAR is loud and clear in his pro-war views.
Because I hope that enough of LP members remember so that they’ll prevent WAR from winning the nomination in 2012.
Nobody was fooled by WAR’s conversion to defense instead of offense. The offense caucus supported him because he believed in offense, but when he found out that most of the LP believed in defense he changed his tune.
During the time he favored defense instead of offense, I kept asking our hawks why they continued to support him since he now believed in defense instead of offense. They never answered me, since I’m basically a nobody and they don’t have to answer me.
I knew the answer, and they knew the answer. WAR was never in favor of defense, he was always in favor of offense, but WAR and the liberventionists were winking at each other whenever WAR said he was against interventionims. *wink wink* I don’t believe in sending the military over there to fight *wink wink* we believe you. *wink wink*
Whenever someone like me said “wait, isn’t that guy an interventionist” all the other interventionists took time out to yell at me repeatedly about how stupid I was to not believe his conversion from offense to defense.
Now that he’s secured the LP nomination, the pretending has ended. He’s no longer pro-defense, he’s pro-offense.
Nobody should be surprised.
Also–the declaration of force in Afghanistan gave no right or pretext for occupying Afghanistan..only for enterring it to kill or capture bin laden.
Bill Woolsey // Aug 18, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican, voted for War against the Taliban as well.
Woolsey doesn’t tell the whole story. Ron Paul authored a “Letter of Marque and Reprisal” bill to catch Bin Laden. Obviously that failed, as the congress was nearly as war-mongering as Bush.
Ron Paul then reluctantly voted FOR the war effort in Afghanistan, believing that it was better than no action, as I understand it. I think he somewhat regrets that vote now.
So Mr. Woolsey, please give ALL the relevant facts before coloring how Dr. Paul was voting.
Trent, that was one of my biggest disappointments with Gravel, that one decision.
Gravel’s daughter told me that she heard a rumor on the convention floor that the Washington Post was about to nominate child pornographer Mary Ruwart.
I don’t know if that last-minute smear got back to her father, or if it affected his decisions regarding Ruwart.
Gravel should have thoroughly endorsed Mary Ruwart..and I have NO IDEA why she didnt.
Gravel surely has his flaws – I would cringe every time he told Libertarians why they’re supposedly losers – but everyone has their flaws. He is such a morally superior man to Barr, and in his lifetime he has done so much for libertarianism. There was no need for Gravel to apologize for what he did when he was in power.
Let us not forget, either, that Gravel supported Root. The old Democrat aided in the Republican takeover of the LP.
I wonder why we weren’t “quick to welcome Gravel,” who came to Denver to school us on why no one votes libertarian… As if he’s the master vote getter!
Gravel’s solutions, of course, were to endorse socialized medicine and education.
“Personally, I could never understand the level of support given to either Barr or Gravel. If people were really that desperate for â€œmainstream credibilityâ€, why not just go all the way and nominate Hillary? Hell, sheâ€™d probably get 30% of the vote, and sheâ€™d definitely be able to get into the debates.”
Barr sure stumps me, but Gravel brought his own supporters. Now the LP wasn’t that quick to welcome him, but that’s so with most anyway.
At the time, I was drifting between between the Ron Paul camp, Gravel, and the LP. I just kind of flowed in…
“Gravel would of never voted for most of the crap we chide Barr for in the first place.”
That’s true. I was just responding to the idea of nominating Gravel instead, which I think would have created its own set of problems. Remember, this is the guy who couldn’t bring himself to denounce socialized medicine at the convention debate.
Personally, I could never understand the level of support given to either Barr or Gravel. If people were really that desperate for “mainstream credibility”, why not just go all the way and nominate Hillary? Hell, she’d probably get 30% of the vote, and she’d definitely be able to get into the debates.
I want to dial them, but I don’t know where they lead…
I think Root needs to be called on this!
Here are his private phone numbers:
langa, my point was that Gravel was “more” Libertarian then either Root or Barr. Gravel would of never voted for most of the crap we chide Barr for in the first place. Even when he was a democrat.
Gravel is a populist, not a libertarian.
As far as Candidates, if I do manage to get into Congress I absolutely intend to run for the LP nomination. Not likely that I will win this time around, but it is my plan.
If bin Laden is alive, he’s more likely in Pakistan than Afghanistan, anyway.
Oh, and he’s CIA buddies with the LP nominee, too.
Oh, and I always hated Root. I always knew he was a used car salesmen. But now I see he is also still a neo-con.
The people who were so motivated by having a “name” candidate should of supported Gravel. He was a heck of a lot more Libertarian then either Barr or Root. And already had more national exposure then either of them are likely to get this election cycle.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. Benazir Bhutto revealed that a couple months before she was murdered. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=How+to+create+an+angry+American+slight+re-mix&btnG=Search
It’s in that first few seconds of that video.
Invasion is not a good strategy for getting one man. Take a clue from MOSAD when they got everyone who bombed Israel’s olympians. They got everyone involved and they didn’t invade anything. This whole thing is a means for the military industrial complex to keep national defense spending high.
Ron Paul knew the Afghan force resolution vote was BS, but he pussed out in the face of political vulnerability. It happens. It wasn’t exactly the deciding vote. But he supports getting now, not SURGing Obama-style.
Many Libertarians (including the LNC) supported going to war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan because of its alliance with Al Quaeda–which attacked civilian targets in New York.
Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican, voted for War against the Taliban as well.
Few Libertarians believe d that the U.S. should try to “nation build” in Afghanistan. The dominant approach is that the U.S. should be long gone.
I do believe that Osama Bin Laden remains in Afghanistan, so a “surge” in troops to finally get him has some merit. It really should have been done long ago. But perhaps, better late than never.
Root is one of those people that kind of makes me hang my head for all of us Jews.
And the Exponent sometimes makes me do the same, with their frequent thoughtless and radical Zionism.
Well, at least this story isn’t getting any coverage in the media read by 99.5% of all Americans. As a matter of fact, no alternative candidates are getting much coverage. I guess Russ Verney isn’t quite so good without several millions of dollars to make a sow’s ear into a silk purse. Good job, Perot re-treads!
Root calls himself the “King of Las Vegas” and yet none of Nevada’s 6 delegates voted for Root. They voted for Gravel, then switched to Ruwart when Gravel dropped out.
Root was part of the California delegation. So was his wife and 16-year-old daughter.
Root the “King of Las Vegas” apparently carpet-bagged his family into the California delegation.
I asked the Nevada delegation why they didn’t vote for Root. They told me that everyone was asking them that. They said they knew nothing about Root. That Root never attended their convention or asked for their support.
Odd behavior for the “King of Las Vegas.”
Yea–my dad is a car salesman….and a committed non-interventionist. =)
“This Jimmy Duncan character?
How about Bob Bird?”
GE–you’ll have to email me for a full list.
Ever since the first time I saw him, a couple of years ago, when he was hosting that terrible “King of Vegas” show, Root has made my skin crawl, and the more I’ve gotten to know him, the less comfortable I’ve felt with him. Comparing him to a used car salesman is an insult to used car salesmen everywhere.
While they’re at it, how about they dump Barr, too?
Are we sure that “cockroach” thing didn’t pan out?
Even if not, hopefully this latest is enough for the LNC to get together a 3/4 majority and dump Root from the ticket in favor of Paul, or Kubby, or Ruwart, or Baldwin, or Gravel or just about anyone else… I guess the “get out quickly” part will provide Root enough cover for this not to happen, however…
(PS. How many Obama supporters know that Obama has the same position — send the kids straight from Iraq to Afghanistan. Probably building up for an invasion of Pakistan…)
â€œI felt Iraq was always the wrong war, and if there is such a thing as a right war, Afghanistan was [it],â€ said Root.
Actually, I recall Root saying in 2007 that Iran was the right war.
Although Root told me in February 2008 that what he really meant was that Iran might be the right war, except that he know longer thought it was.
I never believed that Root was a non-interventionist at heart, though I tried to give him credit for his verbal softening in that direction.
Ugh, this is just embarrassing. I lean pretty strongly toward Barr, but it’s garbage like this from Root that almost makes me want vote Baldwin or write-in Ron Paul. I always balked at Root and wish the LP had chosen a better VP candidate, but this interventionist crap takes the cake.
This Jimmy Duncan character?
How about Bob Bird?
Well, Root might think that Afghanistan is the “right” war (an oxymoron). But obviously the PEOPLE there don’t believe it:
That is the group that was made famous by Jay Leno’s wife about ten years ago, when they were being raped, tortured and murdered by the Taliban. But now they are being raped, murdered and tortured by our puppets.
Some people are never happy, I guess.
darolew // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Let us hope Root does not get the nomination in â€˜12.
darelow, it is going to take folks like you and me to make sure it doesn’t happen! There is no question, Mary Ruwart can beat W.A.R. in the nominating process, but if she decides not to run, someone else has to run . . .there just has to be someone else who can beat him!
je’d = he’d . . . sorry.
Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Great job LP delegates.
Don’t blame me (I was a delegate in Denver), I’ve been hammering away at W.A.R. since I first saw him 17 months ago in Orlando. I sent him private emails calling on him to quit his quest for the LP nomination. He kept firing back that we agreed on non-interventionism, that je’d changed. I know his type. . . he is a liar and a used car salesman. The problem is, he a GREAT used car salesman. I wasn’t buying however. Even in the LP, you can get people to believe the lemon for sale is a cream puff!
It’s been a few months now, but I recall W.A.R. saying that he is now a non-interventionist! I always knew he was full of it (and himself!), but now it should be as clear as day as to just how little W.A.R. has actually changed since he first hit the LP scene in early 2007.
His appearance in March 2007 in Orlando was the first I’d heard of him. He was talking Islamo-fascism then, and he is still talking war in the middle east today! Big change!
I short, W.A.R. lied to Libertarians, because he knew that in order to get nominated, he had to stop with the neocon rhetoric. Guess what . . . it’s back!!!
Im already recruiting for the CP’s presidential nomination. Im shooting for a congressman who is ALSO anti-war. =)
It feels wonderful! And our VP candidate is a committed non-interventionist. Also, we’ve allied ourselves with other independent state parties (like Alaska and Kansas) in order to INCREASE ballot access,rather than losing 4 states for no coherant reason.
As i’v said before–the LP is undoubtedly bigger and more successful, but the CP is younger and on its way up.
Let us hope Root does not get the nomination in ’12.
Well, I suppose this is what you get when you nominate a candidate who donated a thousand bucks to Lieberman.
What does it feel like, Trent, to belong to a party whose delegates reject a celebrity usurper by a 3-to-1 margin in favor of a more principled candidate?
Great job LP delegates.
Comments are closed.