Paleocon Red Phillips Discusses Potential Libertarians for President

Posted by Red Phillips at Conservative Heritage Times. Although Phillips also writes for IPR, I (Paulie) am posting it here to make it clear that any opinions expressed are those of Phillips, not an IPR editorial. As with many other stories I post, I am posting it for the sake of discussion, not necessarily because I agree with the author.


Everyone is talking about the potential GOP candidates for President, so I thought I might spice things up a bit by discussing the potential and confirmed list of Libertarian Party candidates. I am neither an LP member nor a philosophical libertarian, but I am sympathetic to third party activism, and I enjoy observing the internal wranglings of the LP. Internal wranglings are actually a sign of some health in a party. A lack of internal wranglings would indicate inactivity or that nobody cares.

This IPR article announces the candidacy of Jim Duensing, but it lists the other potential candidates as well.

Duensing’s main “claim to fame,” for lack of a better phrase, is that he was shot by the police and currently has a case pending. He appears to be from the Ernest Hancockesque faction of the party. He is a philosophical anarchist and radical, but “rightish” in feel and a believer in conspiracy theories such as 9/11 truth. While I am certainly not an anarchist nor am I generally inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, I have a greater problem with outright anti-rightists and conspiracy phobics. From my perspective, this faction of the party is easier to work in coalition with in some respects. Many of them supported Ron Paul, and they don’t seem to have that Blue America tendency to want to purge or distance themselves from undesirables because they are the undesirables in the opinion of some.

Jim Burns is a perennial candidate, and I am not quite sure what faction he represents. He has been arrested in the past for tax protesting and once officially changed his middle name to James Libertarian Burns. He generally has a rightist feel. He has gotten grief in the past for wearing a Confederate Battle Flag themed tie in his campaign picture, so the fact that he hasn’t changed it to appease the PC police makes me sympathetic to him.

Wayne Root, the 2008 LP VP nominee, hasn’t announced but everyone expects him to run. Wayne Root is not a plumbline Libertarian, and is alleged to be weak on non-interventionism. He is able to garner a lot of mainstream media attention and is definitely playing to the Tea Party and anti-Obama Red America crowd. Normally, someone similar to him might be the natural choice of realist and pragmatists within the LP, but Root inspires visceral emotions in people for reasons I plan to delve into in greater detail at a later date. Suffice it to say for now that his polarizing effect makes it hard for him to be the realist/pragmatist candidate per se. He is more likely to be the candidate of the Republican Liberty Caucus wing of the LP.

R. Lee Wrights has formed an exploratory committee. He was a supporter of Mary Ruwart in 2008, and is generally considered a radical, but he is a bit hard to characterized entirely as such. He is a prolific writer and is well known in libertarian web circles. Despite being a radical, he isn’t particularly polarizing and seems to be intentionally leading with a unifying message of opposition to war. (His links include the CATO Institute and the Mises Institute.) Of the four candidates, he has the most leftish feel.

Again, I am not an LP member, and so I am not privy to all the internal factions and distinctions in the LP. These are gestalt impressions based upon my outside rightist perspective of things. I welcome corrections and clarifications, but keep in mind these are my impressions, so I hope people won’t nit-pick or blast me especially about my use of left and right which are admittedly imperfect designations.

50 thoughts on “Paleocon Red Phillips Discusses Potential Libertarians for President

  1. Mark Seidenberg

    The American Independent Party of California
    is looking for person that want to run on February 7, 2012.

    If you are interested in running for President in
    California in 2012, please post here. All will be
    considered.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman,
    American Independent Party

  2. Consider ... John Jay Myers

    My dream ticket is Ron Paul/Karen Kwiatkowski, but neither is running for the LP nomination.

    I also like The Keaton — but though she announced for 2012, she’s long since quit the race, and the LP.

    When I look among current LP officials who might make a good candidate … John Jay Myers looks better and better.

    Every time Myers writes about foreign policy, it’s on the money. Not only principled, but unafraid to offend — yet without sounding fringe lunatic.

    BTW, I notice that Red Phillips ignores Robert Milnes and Barbara “Joy” Waymire, both of whom have also announced.

    — T. Sipos

  3. JT

    Red: “While I am certainly not an anarchist nor am I generally inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, I have a greater problem with outright anti-rightists and conspiracy phobics.”

    Conspiracy “phobics”? LOL, good one.

  4. paulie Post author

    Keaton — but though she announced for 2012, she’s long since quit the race, and the LP.

    That is what I thought too. Lately I have been hearing people bring it back up, but I don’t see that happening.

    When I look among current LP officials who might make a good candidate … John Jay Myers looks better and better.

    Myers seems great to me. I’d be happy to support him. The only issue is whether he is willing. I asked him, and he said probably not.

    BTW, I notice that Red Phillips ignores Robert Milnes and Barbara “Joy” Waymire, both of whom have also announced.

    I was his source of information on who the candidates are in my article on Duensing’s announcement. Remember that Red is not in the LP and may have never heard of Waymire. Honestly, I don’t think she has much of a chance either.

    Since the convention is not in Philadelphia, Milnes probably won’t be able to make it, so I’m not sure there’s really a reason to include him. Of other “fringe of the fringe” candidates, Dave Hollister (the contract insurance guy) is actually much more likely to show up and run again (assuming he’s still around), since he’s within driving distance.

    I mentioned Root, Duensing and Burns because I thought it was significant that they are all from the host metro area of Las Vegas. I added Wrights because he is running an active campaign – already sending out regular news releases to a variety of media and traveling to state conventions.

  5. Gains

    P @5:

    David Hollist I think you mean. He is currently going through a long series of corrective surgeries to repair serious congenital issues with his legs and hips. He has promised that once the surgeries are done, he will return… with a few more inches added to his height.

  6. paulie Post author

    Yes, thank you.

    Maybe people will finally start to listen to him when they are looking up at him rather than down 🙂

    On a more serious note, my best wishes that all surgeries and recovery go well.

  7. Red Phillips

    Joy Waymire is actually one of my Facebook friends, but she is not one that appears on my homepage regularly so I didn’t recall her. My oversight.

    While Milnes and I don’t agree on much, I think we have similar gut assements of where candidates are coming from. That Milnes dubs Ron Paul a counter-revolutionary is in many senses correct and the reason I love the guy.

  8. Red Phillips

    By conspiracy phobics I mean people who seem more concerned about protecting themselves and their brand (libertarianism, conservatism) from “taint” by the “fringe” than they are about advancing their cause.

    As I drifted from the mainstream right to the far right I realized that conspiracy theorists were all around me. They are an inherent part of any outside the mainstream political movement, and “fringe” non-conspiracy theorists just need to accepts this. Attempts to purge them do more harm than good.

    For one thing (and this is speaking broadly so I am sure there are exceptions), the conspiracy phobics often strike me as more interested in protecting themselves than the brand. There is an “I’m a conservative (or a libertarian) but I not one of those types of conservatives (or libertarians)” feel to it. Secondly, it demonstrates a profound lack of self-awareness of our place in the world. Don’t these folks know that by virtue of being in a third party and advocating what third parties advocate, that we are by definition ourselves fringe by mainstream standards. For every Libertarian who is worried that Truthers are going to taint the brand, there are many more mainstream conservatives who are worrying that talking about the Fed or taking seriously the Constitution is going to taint their brand.

    We are all in this fringe boat together. Get used to it.

    That said, I don’t think we should lead with conspiracy theories or necessarily have a prominent conspiracy theorist as our spokesman or define the movement by conspiracy theories. I just think conspiracy theorists should be tolerated.

  9. Michael Cavlan RN

    Well Red

    Speaking as a “lefty” consiwacy theowist, I like your comment and observations of conspiracy-phobic.

    As an aside, I am a Registered Nurse, specializing inn Burn and Trauma Intensive Care Nursing who actually treated some of the folks from the Pentagon attack, a week after 9-11.

    I am a member of Medical Professionals For 9-11 Truth

  10. JT

    Red: “By conspiracy phobics I mean people who seem more concerned about protecting themselves and their brand (libertarianism, conservatism) from “taint” by the “fringe” than they are about advancing their cause.”

    A phobia is an irrational fear. As a Libertarian, I don’t want to be represented by 9/11 truthers, Obama birthers, etc.–but not because I’m irrationally fearful of being represented by them. So “phobic” isn’t an applicable term. I’d prefer “opponent.”

    Red: “Don’t these folks know that by virtue of being in a third party and advocating what third parties advocate, that we are by definition ourselves fringe by mainstream standards.”

    Yes, although I think libertarian ideas have much more respectability now than they had when the LP was founded.

    Red: “That said, I don’t think we should lead with conspiracy theories or necessarily have a prominent conspiracy theorist as our spokesman or define the movement by conspiracy theories. I just think conspiracy theorists should be tolerated.”

    If by “tolerated” you mean they shouldn’t be expelled as members of the party, then it seems like we’re in agreement there.

  11. Fun K. Chicken

    Red,

    Perhaps you would be willing to do an expanded post including these other candidates being mentioned?

  12. Sane LP Member

    who are these clowns? Never heard of them.
    Keep running people that no one has heard of and keep spending money trying to retain ballot access as a result.

  13. AroundtheblockAFT

    #15, o.k. so who that “people have heard of” will agree to seek the LP nomination? In the past, only one who got the nomination – Ron Paul – had been “heard of.” Two others sought it but were rejected: actor (Law & Order) Michael Moriarity, and Indian activist/actor Russell Means. It might be pretty cool to have Means as our candidate – appearing in full Lakota regalia and waving Chingachguk’s war club!

  14. paulie Post author

    so who that “people have heard of” will agree to seek the LP nomination?

    Most likely nobody. But you never know. And if it does happen, is that going to be a good thing?

    On a related theme, from Green Party Watch on the thread about Roseanne Barr possibly seeking the Green presidential nomination,

    Daryl Northrop says:
    January 28, 2011 at 8:59 am

    Nader probably did the most for the party, BUT, he has never been a member of the party and has had little to do with the Greens since 2000.

    McKinney, while taking principled stands on issues, has such a poisoned self image that she has little value to the party in general. I know that sounds harsh, but that’s reality. Her narrative is already cast in concrete, and the Green Party does not have the money, will, or political expertise to change that. We just need to be realistic about that. McKinney may be able to to great things for the party, just not as our marquee candidate.

    We need to cultivate, support, and run home-grown Green Party candidates. It allows us to have more control over the narrative, and build the party under our own terms.

    p] The same might have been said for Bob Barr in the LP. And while he did have a narrative that was, and remains, better known than anything he (partially) recast himself as a LP candidate, the end results were no better than LP performance in every presidential election since 1984:

    0.4% +/- o.1%.

    Despite unquantified claims some have made, I have seen no evidence yet that Bob Barr got more or higher quality media appearances than Harry Browne, and when he did, he didn’t mention the party nearly as much.

    Nor did Ron Paul do anything out of the ordinary as an LP candidate in 1988.

    So, even if we get an ex-Congressman, our own experience and that of the Greens shows that is likely to end us up no better than if we run, say, Lee Wrights.

    Well, what if get someone even more famous?

    Well, in 2000, the Reform Party got Pat Buchanan, who had

    …Been all over TV, radio and newspapers since the 1960s
    …Served in high profile positions in several presidential administrations
    …Was on a first name basis with the top journalists covering national politics, as well as a once and future colleague
    …Had previously run in the Republican presidential primaries and won or come close in some states
    …Had millions of dollars in federal election welfare for the campaign
    …In the previous four years, the party he was running with had elected a Governor and received almost 10% of the vote for President.

    So how did Pat Buchanan end up doing? Barely ahead of Harry Browne, who had none of those advantages.

    And while Nader did somewhat better that year, he did not do anything outside of than range as a Green candidate in 1996 or as an independent candidate in 2004 and 2008. What he did in 2000 got him and the Greens hated by most of their target audience, too.

    The Constitution Party did as well or better by running Chuck Baldwin as they did by running the better known Howard Phillips.

    The LP did about as well running Michael Badnarik as by running two ex-Congressmen, and in institutional terms, did best by running Harry Browne.

    It might be pretty cool to have Means as our candidate – appearing in full Lakota regalia and waving Chingachguk’s war club!

    Kinda cool, in a way. The wife beating thing…not so cool. And leading armed patrols to keep booze off the rez? Not so libertarian. Also, I’ve sat next to him and listened to him talk, and literally could not understand a word he said. Might be a problem for some.

  15. paulie Post author

    Parties which stop running presidential candidates usually tend to die not too long after that. You can focus on state activities without going NOTA. Just don’t pay attention to the presidential race if that’s not your thing. Everyone has a different focus, don’t run down other people’s.

  16. Libertarians for Duvalier-Mubarak 2012

    Duvalier-Mubarak 2012!

    Bring hope and anarchy prevention to the USA!

  17. langa

    The main reason why I would prefer that the LP not run a conspiracy theorist for president is not because it might “taint” the party’s reputation, but rather the fear that such a candidate would waste valuable media appearances going off on tangents (such as where Obama was born) that have virtually nothing to do with the basic libertarian message that government “solutions” are morally wrong and counterproductive. Even talking about 9/11 “truth” is only an indictment of the specific actions taken by a specific set of government officials, not an indictment of government itself.

  18. Gains

    There is a stigma there to overcome, but a media hit like, and don’t treat this as a suggestion please, Jesse Ventura would produce returns for a while if you could keep the wolves off of their entourage.

    In the end the public recognition of the word Libertarian would be raised and you would have a “kooky but lovable” donation base if you made friends and gave them a corner to play in. These are the mainstay of all political movements. The kooks are everywhere and they donate.The other thing is that the stigma is gone with the next viable candidate, if (s)he cant laugh off the last candidate, (s)he’s not worth hir salt.

    I prefer a charismatic principled candidate for the flagship race. I would prefer they didn’t concentrate on conspiracy or catering to any one group. I would prefer that they make the party sound energetic and active, serious about social change, and strong in principle to guide all of it.

    There are a lot of out of work, unhappy, disillusioned homeless, living with mom or grandma again with 3 kids (not to mention another sibling and family about to lose their house), people out there right now. I think that they want to hear how to fix not just the economy but the paradigm that created it and they want to feel good about it.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    g, yes, if it’s to be a conspiracy theorist, Ventura’d be good candidate. As a former guv and a third-party guy, that alone makes such a candidacy interesting to me. He knows how to speak on TV, more effectively in many ways than Barr does.

    If he could dial down the conspiracy stuff, and develop a more consistent L message, Ventura might be our best choice on many levels. Ideal he’s not, but then who is? Paul has heavy baggage, too. So do the largely no-name activist candidates, who, while well-meaning, would represent a step backward, most likely.

    Given a straight up Obama/Romney/Ventura match up, who appeals most to the Tea Party? Anti-war activists? Vets? The NASCAR set? Flyover America?

    Some elements of the Tea Party likely would NOT support Ventura, who is pro choice and pro gay rights. From where I sit, that’s a great way to differentiate Ls from conservatives (although I respect the pro-lifer view on L grounds).

    Absolutist Ls can find any number of plumb line violations, of course. That’s what they do, God bless them. 😉 Ventura’s support for light rail can only be overcome with 8 years of penance mopping the floors in Auburn! 😉

    IMO.

  20. paulie Post author

    I don’t think Ventura is interested. Most recently, he has been saying he’s against all political parties, big and small. He talked like a libertarian before being elected as mayor and governor, but did not govern as one. And even if it did come together, Republicans can easily cut off a big chunk of the potential coalition you describe by nominating Palin, while Democrats can cut off another chunk by scaring people with Palin.

    I don’t think that the no name people are necessarily a step backwards. Besides, at this early stage, they still have time to get better known.

  21. langa

    RC: “Given a straight up Obama/Romney/Ventura match up, who appeals most to the Tea Party? Anti-war activists? Vets? The NASCAR set? Flyover America?”

    Honestly, I don’t think it matters, since most people don’t decide who to vote for on the basis of who “appeals most” to them, but rather on the basis of who appeals least to them.

    In your example, I would expect most of the Tea Party types to vote for Romney (in order to thwart Obama), most of the anti-war types to vote for Obama (in order to thwart Romney), and so forth.

  22. Robert Capozzi

    p, yes, Obama/Palin/Ventura has a very different dynamic, agreed. At the moment, I’d say Palin would be suicide for the GOP. They know that, too, and the elders ain’t gonna let that happen. I’d say Pawlenty or Daniels are more likely, even Gingrich or Thune.

    Ventura may well not be interested. This is just a thought experiment, but I’d be WAY more willing to overlook Ventura’s plumb line violations in office than his conspiracy theorizing. Politics is theater, and conspiracy theorizing is generally bad politics, worse than disowning support for light rail and other poor performances.

    I agree a no-name candidate is not necessarily a step backward. Still, credentials burnish credibility and media-readiness, and at the moment, the field has less credentials than Marrou! Another Badnarik-type is not inspiring to me, though, although I’m grateful for his efforts.

  23. Robert Capozzi

    l27, I agree that some vote against, not for, but I’ve not seen data that suggests that’s how most decide for whom to vote. My impression is that many voted FOR Obama, for ex., perhaps with reservations. I voted FOR Barr, and I had reservations, too.

    In a Obama/Romney or Pawlenty or Daniels/Ventura thought experiment, I would not of course expect Ventura to win. I would not even expect a Perot 92 type outcome. I could see him tripling the historical LP vote. I could see him maybe polling well early. I could see him getting even more media than Barr did.

    BTW, while I’ve backed off the idea that Obama won’t seek re-election, I still think it’s possible. Another leg to the economic downturn or even status quo makes him very vulnerable, IMO. I’d advise him to, since being president in bleak times probably sucks! The dude seems to be an adulation junkie, and I suspect the enthusiasm of his supporters will continue to wane UNLESS the economy snaps back.

  24. langa

    Robert, I agree that Ventura would probably be able to get a lot of media attention, given his combination of fame and charisma. My fear, as mentioned earlier in this thread, is that he would waste those opportunities by focusing on conspiracy theories and other themes only tangentially related to the libertarian message.

    As for Obama, I fully expect him to run, but I also fully expect him to lose, almost regardless of who the GOP nominates, unless he can manage to inflate another bubble between now and next fall.

  25. paulie Post author

    At the moment, I’d say Palin would be suicide for the GOP.

    Not quite. She would be a good “shore up the base” operation. They will need that in ’12, because the “Tea Party” congress will have by then more than amply illustrated its failure to get spending under control. Of course, it will be all Obama’s fault, but the unholy ghost of father and son Bush is still too fresh, and they’ll have a harder time keeping the Tea Partiers on the reservation with a moderate Republican presidential candidate.

    Republicans usually tend to nominate a “next in line”: Ex-VP/Ex-VP candidate, runner up in recent past primaries, or family member of a former Republican president.

    Thus, in non-incumbent years:

    2008 – 2000 runner up McCain
    2000 – son of a Bush
    1996 – 1976 VP candidate Dole
    1988 – VP Bush
    1980 – 1976 primary runner up Reagan
    1960, 1968 – Former Eisenhower VP Nixon

    You’d have to go back to Goldwater for an exception to this rule.

    So who’s available for 2012?

    2008 VP candidate Palin
    Bush Jr. VP Cheney
    Bush Sr. VP Quayle
    2008 runner up Romney

    Out of these, Romney alienates the base and risks a strong alt party/independent conservative vote – the one thing the Republican elders you mention hate more than losing, even losing big.

    Cheney is kinda creepy and may have a hard time connecting with primary voters. He also has some health problems. Quayle, like Palin, suffers from being perceived as the epitome of ditzy in the media. Either one would serve the Democrats’ purpose in scaring their disaffected base into marching to the polls for sellout Obama one more time.

    But which one will inspire loyalty, donations, and prevent a Tea Party walkout? I’m thinking Palin.

    Pick Palin, and they’re taking a dive in the generals, but exercising their organizational muscle and keeping themselves in shape for 2016.

    Pick Romney, and they lose a big talking point – Obamacare is Romneycare writ large – and practically begging for a walkout on the right.

    I’d be WAY more willing to overlook Ventura’s plumb line violations in office than his conspiracy theorizing.

    Never mind plumb line. He was a run of the mill Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party governor and mayor in all but name.

    Another Badnarik-type is not inspiring to me, though, although I’m grateful for his efforts.

    At this point, I’d take a Badnarik over a Barr, although another Browne would be even better.

  26. paulie Post author

    Another thought on the Republican side: 1990s primary runner up Pat Buchanan. It may be long enough that he can be forgiven for running Reform Party in 2000, even though elephants have notoriously long memories, so maybe not. Migrant bashing and trade protectionism are “hot” on the populist right, and patented culture war issues such as “marriage protection” are a steady draw. War weariness could conceivably spread to conservative ranks by 2012. China-bashing is getting more popular again. What do you think?

  27. langa

    Paulie, Buchanan would certainly be an interesting, outside-the-box type choice, but I think the GOP elites would do everything in their power to keep it from happening. Buchanan is a guy that they like having on TV, but they would be terrified of having him in the White House, as he would be too hard for them to control. Someone like Palin would be a much better puppet.

  28. paulie Post author

    As for Obama, I fully expect him to run, but I also fully expect him to lose, almost regardless of who the GOP nominates, unless he can manage to inflate another bubble between now and next fall.

    I hear the printing presses warming up already.

  29. paulie Post author

    l27, I agree that some vote against, not for, but I’ve not seen data that suggests that’s how most decide for whom to vote. My impression is that many voted FOR Obama, for ex., perhaps with reservations.

    I think that’s more the exception rather than the rule. I would agree with Langa that probably most Americans in most elections vote their fears, not their hopes. Data…not sure off the top of my head. I do know that the “wasted vote/spoiler” argument is effective in repressing anti-establishment alternatives in the general election for that reason.

    In a Obama/Romney or Pawlenty or Daniels/Ventura thought experiment, I would not of course expect Ventura to win. I would not even expect a Perot 92 type outcome. I could see him tripling the historical LP vote. I could see him maybe polling well early. I could see him getting even more media than Barr did.

    I don’t think he would use it to build the party at all. He’s just not a team player that way. Even if he accepts the LP nomination, he won’t be using the L-word much, much less sharing his list with the LP during and after the campaign.

    BTW, while I’ve backed off the idea that Obama won’t seek re-election, I still think it’s possible.

    My prediction is that he is most likely to run and most likely to win. All problems can be laid at the foot of the intransigent Republicans in Congress, just as they in turn can lay all their inability to cut government on him. It will once again be the most important election evah.

  30. paulie Post author

    Pick Palin, and they’re taking a dive in the generals,

    I should qualify that with an “if the economy doesn’t get much worse and barring some unforeseen lingering crisis…”

    After all, in early 1979, many – probably most – political observers thought Reagan was too far outside the mainstream to win a general election, correct?

  31. paulie Post author

    AFT 16

    In the past, only one who got the nomination – Ron Paul – had been “heard of.”

    Not so much at that time. And to that extent, so was Barr. Neither did anything out of the ordinary as an LP candidate.

  32. Fun K. Chicken

    Somebody get Paulie elected to the Alabama legislature already, and don’t forget to get him a urine jug for his podium time. He certainly has the art of the filibuster down pat…

  33. paulie Post author

    Well, my felony conviction would not necessarily be a problem. This is the Alabama legislature we’re talking about, after all.

    More serious roadblocks: I’m an anarchist, a member of a non-recognized party, foreign born, don’t profess faith in Christ, look like I sort of might be a Mexican or a Muslim, 38 year old single male, broke as a joke, speak with a New York accent, and spend most of my time outside Alabama.

    Besides that, I could probably get elected 🙂

  34. Andy

    “paulie // Feb 4, 2011 at 8:32 am

    I don’t think Ventura is interested. Most recently, he has been saying he’s against all political parties, big and small. He talked like a libertarian before being elected as mayor and governor, but did not govern as one. And even if it did come together, Republicans can easily cut off a big chunk of the potential coalition you describe by nominating Palin, while Democrats can cut off another chunk by scaring people with Palin.”

    If Jesse Ventura ran he’d get way more votes than any Libertarian Party candidate ever has.

    I don’t know if Jesse Ventura is really a libertarian yet, but he appears to have moved in that direction and is probably more libertarian now than he was the last time he held office.

  35. Andy

    “paulie // Feb 5, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    I don’t know about that, he talked completely libertarian then too, just didn’t govern that way.”

    I think that he sounds more libertarian know than back then.

    Also, a couple of things to consider:

    1) When Jesse Ventura held office he was surrounded by advisors/staff who were not libertarian.

    2) It is possible that he was threatened to not do anything that was too libertarian. There are all kinds of special interest groups that could have threatened him in a number of ways, including death threats. I remember an interview with Jesse Ventura a while back where he said that he was suprised when he found out after he took office that the CIA had people imbedded in the state government in Minnesota. Perhaps he was threatened with the JFK treatment if he did anything that was “too radical.”

  36. paulie Post author

    I think that he sounds more libertarian now than back then.

    I don’t know how much you paid attention to him then. I remember him saying he scored 100/100 libertarian, and he wrote a strongly libertarian book before he became governor.

  37. paulie Post author

    Can’t argue with your brilliant intellectually deep analysis, but could you confine it to one or two threads at a time in the future? I’d rather not have to give you a helping hand with that. Thanks in advance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *