Wayne Root: ‘Rules for Radicals: Obama’s New Plan to Destroy America’

Written by Wayne Allyn Root.

From his website: Root for America dot Com

Could voters be foolish enough to fall for Obama’s new plan to destroy America? A few months ago I played Paul Revere with my commentary “The Real Obama Economic Plan: Purposely Overwhelming the System to Destroy Capitalism.” This commentary, exposing Obama and his Marxist plans, was rated by some Internet authorities as the second most popular story on the entire Internet for several months. It’s time for a refresher course, because Obama has just launched Plan B to destroy America.

First let’s review. As Obama’s college classmate at Columbia, I was familiar with the teachings of our Marxist professors, Cloward and Piven. Following their strategy, Obama launched his original plan to distract America and overwhelm the system with Obamacare, cap and trade, stimulus, extending unemployment benefits, card check, banning offshore oil drilling, suing Arizona for enforcing federal laws against illegal immigration, onerous new environmental and banking regulations, and even an attempt to make Puerto Rico the 51st state. We couldn’t keep up with all the socialist bills and proposals. That was precisely the point — create a crisis, overwhelm the system, and make our heads spin with multiple distractions.

Specifically:

A) Make Americans desperate and even more dependent on big government begging for jobs, welfare, unemployment, food stamps and free medical care. As one of Obama’s supporters so aptly put it, “Give me some of that Obama money.” The plan is working.

B) Help his political cronies by redistributing wealth and giving more power to unions, lawyers, lobbyists, environmentalists, and big businesses (at least those that contribute to him). The plan is working.

C) Starve the political opposition — Raise taxes on upper and middle class Americans and create more regulatory hurdles on small business so they have no money left to oppose him. The plan is working.

Why would Obama launch this all-out assault on capitalism, you ask?  The answer is simple.  He’s an ideologue who hates America and believes the capitalistic system is destructive and exploitive (as do most of my Columbia classmates). Like Mao and Lenin, Obama sees himself as the “people’s savior.”

Fortunately, the American people woke up to what is happening and in the biggest landslide in modern political history voted to stop this progressive/socialist/Marxist strategy. So Obama has decided to re-shuffle the cards. Time for Plan B.

Obama’s new plan is brilliant. Act like you’ve learned a lesson. Compromise. Move to the center. Talk like a moderate conservative. Support tax cuts. Become a friend to business. Act supportive of repealing parts of your own Obamacare plan. Make nice to the Chamber of Commerce. Appoint business leaders to your management team. Talk about tort reform. Talk about the dangers of debt. Become “the jobs” President. Allow Bill O’Reilly to interview you and claim your new goal is to get spending under control. Spend your entire State of the Union praising America. You are now a patriot bleeding red, white and blue.

Why would he commit this act of fraud and deception? One over-riding goal: Get re-elected in 2012. This is a strategy right from the pages of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals playbook. Alinsky was a Marxist who believed the ends justified any means. That includes deception and fraud. Obama is following it to the letter and he’s good at it.

Why is getting re-elected so important? Because then Obama has nothing standing in his way of completing the job he set out to do — DESTROY AMERICA. Once re-elected Obama is no longer responsible to the voters, and has four long years to do so much damage to America, that it may never recover. The community organizer is free to destroy the system with an unprecedented barrage of socialist and Marxist attacks, from within the White House — something even Alinsky never imagined.

In his first term Obama crippled America, our economy, and capitalism. We are on the ropes, hanging by a thread. In his second term, he goes for the kill. He’ll put the finishing touches on his plan to overwhelm the country with deficit and debt; destroy small business and the upper middle class (his political opposition); redistribute wealth to his voters; give unions unprecedented powers; turn twelve million illegal aliens into future Democratic voters who will reliably vote for bigger government; and put a majority of Americans on the dole — either collecting money from government, or working directly for government.

After getting re-elected, Obama will be free to be the real Obama — free to wreak havoc. He can be himself — the Marxist enemy of business, capitalism and patriotism. He will be free to base the economic system on “social justice” and affirmative action. He will be free to reward his friends and punish his enemies. He will be free to condemn Israel and buddy up to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama’s second term is what this is all about. The enemies of America have been waiting for this opportunity their entire lives. This is their version of the American Dream. A socialist in the White House with four years to destroy America from within, and no one to answer to. Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky would be proud of their student. And all he has to do is “be cool” for the next two years. Hold his fire. Smile. Kiss babies. Praise America. Befriend the rich. Become a cheerleader for business. And show just a little spending restraint…for two short years. The ends justify the means.

Two more years of patience and the keys to the kingdom…and the economy…and the Fed…and the United States Military…and the nuclear arsenal…all belong to Obama.

And the America that we know and love could be gone forever.

Wayne Allyn Root, is the author of the new paperback, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold, and Tax Cuts.” He is a Las Vegas oddsmaker turned Vice Presidential nominee. Root is available to the media to provide pre and post election analysis, discussion and debate. His website is: ROOTforAmerica.com

120 thoughts on “Wayne Root: ‘Rules for Radicals: Obama’s New Plan to Destroy America’

  1. Root's Latest Whooper

    Root: “This commentary, exposing Obama and his Marxist plans, was rated by some Internet authorities as the second most popular story on the entire Internet for several months.”

    Wow! The “entire internet”!

    That would mean more people read Root’s commentary than those who read any of the tens of thousands (millions?) of articles and blog postings written about Angelina Jolie, Oprah, Obama, Lindsay Lohan, Snookie, Rush Limbaugh, Lady Gaga, Prince Williams and his upcoming marriage, Sarah Palin, Black Swan, The King’s Speech, the Beatles, etc., etc…

    Taken literally (as opposed to taking it as a lie), this would mean that Root is more famous than God!

  2. George Phillies

    Glory, glory paranoia! Glory glory paranoia!

    If you want some real enemies of America, look at Mr Root’s buddies on the tea party, such as the people who advocate assassinating Julian Assange.

  3. d.eris

    LOL. Roots really seems to have an obsessive compulsion on this issue. His personal grudge against Obama appears to be blinding him to the fact that the Democratic and Republican parties have been allied with one another for decades, with the express goal of DESTROYING AMERICA. The Democratic and Republican parties, the ruling political class ARE ENEMIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and the Constitution of the United States. They are literally at war with the people of the United States. Root wants to pretend that this is all just about one guy? He makes it seem like if we just only defeat Obama, then everything is solved. As absurd as Limbuagh.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    “This commentary, exposing Obama and his Marxist plans, was rated by some Internet authorities as the second most popular story on the entire Internet for several months.”

    Wayne trots this out occasionally, and I call him out on it every time.

    No, it was not “rated by some Internet authorities as the second most popular story on the entire Internet for several months.”

    It was rated by snopes.com as the second most widely disseminated urban legend on the Internet for several months.

    There’s a difference.

    “As Obama’s college classmate at Columbia, I was familiar with the teachings of our Marxist professors, Cloward and Piven.”

    Apparently Root got lost on his way to class. During his time at Columbia, Piven was at Boston University (1972-82) and City University of New York (1982-).

    So, in the first two paragraphs, Root goes 2 for 2 with counterfactual bullshit. If he cut those 193 words out, he’d have the piece down to op-ed range in size — which might be a good thing if the rest, which I haven’t read yet, isn’t also counter-factual bullshit.

  5. OCD TO WAYNE ROOT

    Funny how most people in the real world see what Wayne puts out is correct. Root knows it not about just one guy, but we have to start somewhere. There are a lot of people in power that backs Obama who should also go down with him. If the constitution was truly followed. This would have happened a long time ago. You people are soo focus on Wayne Root. All about Wayne Root, you can’t see anything but Wayne Root. You talk OCD. You are OCD on Wayne Root. Wayne Root this, Wayne Root that. How about looking truly outside of Wayne Root and consider how in the hell this guy Obama became President. Lets start there. One a lot of this is brought out, the rest is a domino affect. The rest will follow. Like I said. We start there, with Obama.

  6. wayne root

    Tom, tom, tom…

    Cloward and Piven are famous Columbia professors. That is how they are known to all. Check Wikipedia. Columbia is their tag line forever more. That will never change. Could be because Columbia is a famous institution, always rated as one of the Top 5 in America. I’m very proud of that fact.

    Many professors teach at multiple colleges…but Cloward and Piven will always be identified as Columbia professors. What I stated was 100% accurate- as it always is. I triple fact check everything I write.

    You seem to think if you call someone a liar, it will stick. Even if what they wrote was the truth.
    Maybe your 6 followers believe your manipulations of words, but millions enjoy my commentaries.

    The other mistake you keep making is talking about “Op Ed length.” What I write gets published all over the Internet by the biggest conservative sites on the world wide web…and is viewed by millions of readers. It then attracts national media, where I appear multiple times per week- again reaching hundreds of thousands…to potentially millions more.

    You can keep lying, manipulating words, denigrating me to your 6 followers…but my words, thoughts and ideas continue to reach millions. I’ve built a remarkable media platform in a short amount of time. Libertarians should be very happy and proud. It’s an almost impossible accomplishment for a Libertarian. I’ve made the impossible…possible. I will continue to do so.

    Best,
    Wayne

  7. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wayne,

    Yes, Piven was a Columbia professor.

    She was not, however, YOUR Columbia professor, or Obama’s Columbia professor. She was not at Columbia when you were. That’s a fact. It will remain a fact whether you like it or not. “Triple-checking” your claims apparently seems to consist of watching three episodes of Glenn Beck.

    “The other mistake you keep making is talking about ‘Op Ed length.’ What I write gets published all over the Internet by the biggest conservative sites on the world wide web…and is viewed by millions of readers.”

    Yes, your stuff is published on conservative sites. Congratulations — the people who already know who you are and agree with you now know what you have to say. Hooray!

  8. paulie

    Wayne, presuming everything you say here is correct, would you say it is crucial to keep Obama from being re-elected?

    Does it then follow that we need to unite around the biggest and strongest opposition to Obama – presumably, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 – rather than split the vote?

    Do you believe the Libertarian Party should run any Presidential candidate in 2012? If so, would that help Obama get re-elected? If not, why not?

    I’m not presuming to know your answer here nor am I trying to imply anything. I would sincerely like to understand your thought process on this.

    Another reason I ask is that I would like to have a good answer to people who say the same sort of thing to me all the time. Maybe you can provide me with one I have not thought of so far.

  9. Kyle Hartz

    Wayne,

    “He’s an ideologue who hates America and believes the capitalistic system is destructive and exploitive”

    Your political hyperbole is an embarrassment to the party. If you don’t that statement is hyperbole, then that article is an embarrassment to your own intelligence.

    “This commentary, exposing Obama and his Marxist plans, was rated by some Internet authorities as the second most popular story on the entire Internet for several months.”

    This is an outright lie. I’ve seen some statistics on the back-end of that post. It wasn’t even the most popular post on LP.org, much less the entire internet.

    “Fortunately, the American people woke up to what is happening and in the biggest landslide in modern political history voted to stop this progressive/socialist/Marxist strategy.”

    You seem to really like the Republicans and think it’s fortunate that they were elected. Maybe you should join their party?

    “suing Arizona for enforcing federal laws against illegal immigration”

    And we wonder why small-l libertarians do not want to join the party…

    Root, I really hope FOX gives you a TV show so you can finally leave the LP.

  10. wayne root

    Paulie,

    If and when a Republican is President, you’ll see me attack him or her just like Obama, if I disagree with their views or actions. The proof is found in my nonstop commentaries and media appearances about Bush. And of course my decision to leave my party of 20+ years because of Bush’s actions and decisions.

    I don’t fool around- I don’t just talk. I walk the walk. It took great courage to walk away from the party I’d grown up loving since almost birth, grown up campaigning for, fought for while at Columbia U. It was the hardest decision of my life.

    Since then, every ounce of my energy has been used to spread a Libertarian message and to fight specifically for the LP. I give 110% to whatever cause I believe in.

    My critics can continue to knit-pick a word here or there…one sentence in a 1000 word cover story…one view among hundreds of media appearances…but they can NEVER, EVER, EVER outwork me.

    What this party has never lacked is words. What the LP needs is sacrifice, volunteers, and work ethic. Talk is cheap. Compete with me by outworking me. Out sacrificing me. Out performing me. Instead of criticizing my 1000 media appearances a year…go get your own.

    And most importantly, stop saying something so incredibly silly as “Wayne is obsessed with Obama.” No I’m not. I’m obsessed with beating the party in power. I’m obsessed with writing commentaries that attract media attention- so I can get my Libertarian viewpoint out. I’m obsessed with proving that big government is bad.

    I’m obsessed with stopping progressives from bankrupting my children and grandchildren. I’m obsessed with proving to Americans that government fails at whatever it does. What is today’s symbol of all of that? Obama.

    If you don’t understand that…well it’s no wonder I’m getting the media exposure in front of millions, and no one else in LP is.

    You CANNOT argue with success. My strategy is successful.

    The media and mainstream voters understand my language. They do not understand “Libertarian language.” Is this Groundhog Day? What the LP has been doing for 40 years has not been working…has never gotten through to mainstream voters. You think MAYBE we should try a different way of speaking to people? I’ve done that.

    My goal isn’t impressing Libertarians. It’s impressing and converting (eventually) the majority of mainstream voters. My media success proves my “model” is successful. The people I’m going after believe in smaller government and lower taxes. Period. That principle- kept to it’s simplest- is very effective. Obama is today’s symbol of big government, big spending, and big taxes. Simple. Effective. I’m interested only in success, not in the intellectual quality of my commentaries. Not in Libertarian “purity.”

    Only in slowly winning over a majority of voters. Being subtle. NOT hitting them over the head. Not condemning them. Not making them feel inferior. Only in getting the Libertarian light bulb to go off…and somewhere down the line they’ll be more open to voting LP once.

  11. NewFederalist

    I agree with most sentiments here… far too much hyperbole and too much emphasis on one person being the problem. I would also like to see Mr. Root’s answers to paulie’s questions. They should reveal a lot about his thinking.

  12. Observer

    Wayne, you are clearly obsessed with Obama. Can you post some of the links where you bash Bush? I seem to have missed them.

    You keep talking about how your strategy works, but I don’t see registration numbers to support that. I keep looking. What I do see is a split in the party over you. Just who are you working for?

  13. Robert Capozzi

    Root seems to have a bit of Sipos in him — that is, the ability to read minds — in this case, Obama’s mind. I get that he saw the sort of training that Obama was getting at Columbia, the sorts of influences that were at work there and then. While not in quite the heady space as Root was, I recall sitting through classes with Marxists and socialists wondering how these ideas might play out with my classmates, too…how these ideas, if instituted, would not be good for America, IMO then and now.

    However, just as Root has thrown off some of the shackles of conservatism, is it not possible that Obama has thrown off some of his leftist shackles, too? Maybe he hasn’t, I dunno. Maybe Obama is still secretly in lockstep with Alinsky.

    But then again, maybe not. Perhaps his experiences and on reflection, he’s less, at least, of a leftist than he presumably was in college.

    For ex., I’ve thrown my Randian/Rothbardian shackles off, although I still love liberty…I just don’t think about liberty in quite the same way as I did.

    I would agree with Root, I think, that I would not want to see another major downturn or geopolitical event during Obama’s term. To the extent I believe that Obama maintains Alinsky-like reflexive thinking in his head, statism really does tend to flourish in a crisis.

  14. Kyle Hartz

    Root,

    I don’t think your media appearances are really doing much to promote the party. Membership is still flat and when you appear on TV or on the radio there isn’t a spike in traffic on the website. Most of the fund-raising can be attributed to Wes’s work at the National office.

    Worst of all, you don’t even talk about the party in your media appearances. Most of your articles don’t even talk about Libertarians. I’ve seen you praise Republican victories, but haven’t seen you talk about our candidates much.

    You’re promoting yourself, not the party.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    wr6: The other mistake you keep making is talking about “Op Ed length.”

    me: Yes, I’ve been meaning to mention this to Tom as well. At this point, writing op-ed length for newspapers seems sorta passe to me, too. It can’t hurt to be in print, and perhaps one could have a shorter version for print, but at this point angling for newspaper pickup seems a low priority.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    As for the charge that Root is simply promoting himself, I of course don’t know what his motive is, but in politics and the opinion biz, some amount of self-promotion and personal brand-building is necessary. To cut through the clutter, one needs a pulpit from which to preach.

    Cindy Sheehan and Joe the Plumber have done so, fer chrissake. It’s how the game is played in Rome. Root’s doing a pretty good job of it, near as I can tell.

  17. Kyle Hartz

    @19

    There is a difference between brand-building and purposefully not using the word Libertarian.

    In 90% of his interviews, he does not talk about the LP. In nearly 100%, he praises the Tea Party and Republicans.

  18. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob @ 18,

    “It can’t hurt to be in print, and perhaps one could have a shorter version for print, but at this point angling for newspaper pickup seems a low priority.”

    Priorities are something you set on the basis of what you’re trying to accomplish.

    I doubt that you and I are trying to accomplish the same things.

    It seems that Wayne and I aren’t trying to accomplish the same things either. No problem — I’ll stop advising him on how to accomplish things.

  19. dL

    Radical vs “Reform” debate:

    On one hand, we have Julian Assange, a radical who publicly identifies closely with “American Libertarianism,” being involved in a radical entrepreneurial enterprise to de-legitimize dictators vs the head of the last LP presidential campaign who appears to be embarking on a different sort of entrepreneurial enterprise to re-legitimize them.

    One appeared recently on 60 Minutes and managed the actual historical feat of striking a sympathetic figure in critiquing American Exceptionalism. The other, the author of some stink gas called “relevant libertarianism,” probably would decline to to use that forum to defend his most recent “entrepreneurial enterprise.”

  20. paulie

    On one hand, we have Julian Assange, a radical who publicly identifies closely with “American Libertarianism,” being involved in a radical entrepreneurial enterprise to de-legitimize dictators

    I think Libertarians everywhere should be proud of that and do everything possible to publicize it. Unfortunately, if you look at the comment threads on those posts, you will see that the biggest reaction I got was several people who believe that Assange/WikiLeaks is a government plot. That’s a drag. On the other hand, I’m happy to see this, and hope to see more along the same lines.

    One appeared recently on 60 Minutes and managed the actual historical feat of striking a sympathetic figure in critiquing American Exceptionalism.

    Yes. It was inspiring to watch.

  21. David Colborne

    I’m with Robert (@19) when it comes to Root. Yes, he pounds on the “Obama is a Marxist” note rather regularly, but it’s an incredibly popular note to hit. Heck, Huffington Post was just sold for north of $300 million because they’re really, really good at performing search engine optimization on their news articles and consequently spiking their traffic. Wayne’s just playing the same game they did.

    Unfortunately, there are more than a few people out there who are disgusted by the “process” that goes into everything that surrounds them. Whether it’s the effectiveness of political machines, media’s need to chase stories that are popular, or just how sausage is made, many people are just straight out disgusted with the compromises that are made and how rudely the “real world” intrudes upon the whole process.

    That’s not to say there isn’t some value in encouraging reality to resemble theory once in a while, though. Throwing the occasional plate of Libertarian vegetables in among the conservative meal courses wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen to Wayne’s articles.

  22. Eric Sundwall

    I continue to find it interesting that Wayne engages his critics here recently . . .

    What I discern from his retaliatory effort is that ‘millions’ enjoy his efforts and the intellectual content takes a back seat to the aforementioned adoration. Nobody works harder or sacrifices as much . . . yada, yada. If millions dig you, why bother with RC, Paulie & TK? Let alone the dozens of anonymous heroes of liberty chirping away here. Again, I’m just an upstate bumpkin, so these things escape me.

    While deriding TK’s 6 followers may be good fun for Wayne (and maybe even Tom), outwardly decrying Obama as a Marxist and out to destroy his Chimerica is just not good political practice for a third party seeking support from disenchanted progressives and conservatives a like. Consistent anti-war and calls for severe fiscal reduction may. I doubt this on a fundamental level given the historic role of third parties in America. But we’re capable of trying in our own manner I guess.

    I personally threw down a lot of time, money and effort last year to get us on the ballot in NY and don’t see that effort as direct competition with other party members. Ok, maybe a bit of license when it comes to Tom Stevens and Sam Sloan, but dammit I had to deal with Roger Stone in the wings the whole time . . . but I digress. Really, it’s not about me. In the end we’re still trying and that counts. Look for our lawsuit news soon.

    Media appearances don’t build local, state and national efforts. An appeal to a cult of personality may be the hallmark of major party endeavors, but they’ll always be strained in the small pond environment stocked with big egos. They help, don’t get me wrong.

    Media appearances are important for the in the moment of a campaign or for candidate. If they can’t get them and have severe financial limitations, issues and ideas won’t go very far however wonderful or right they may be.

    There is a cutting liberal elite bias that libertarians face in these media arenas. Deriding and attacking it have limited roles in my own estimation. Clear, sophisticated and simple reasoning often wins the day if done well. But it’s an art, not an axiomatic grind towards more delusion. Reporters I know, can sense that delusion and usually put up the stops right away if pressed too hard.

    Let Wayne be Wayne I say. We’ll see how far it gets him if the inevitable showdown is between him and Wrights for the LP POTUS nomination. If Ron Paul runs again, a lot of that will be highly irrelevant to the rest of the political world. I will send Wayne fifty bucks the minute his committee forms.

  23. John Jay Myers

    Wayne, we can’t argue with your success in getting on TV, but it could very much argued that your success in getting on TV is harmful to this parties growth.

    Yes, you get on TV, congratulations, now the portion of the American public that has ever heard of you, believes we are all Sarah Palin.
    Thanks for that.

    (You probably take that as a complement)

    But anyone who likes a group that sounds like Sarah Palin is going to vote Republican. They may like you, but they are not going to vote for you.

    The first target audience this Party needs to win over is libertarians, and because of you we have a hard time doing that.

  24. paulie

    Wayne,

    Thank you for taking the time to answer. Let me start by agreeing with you.

    My critics can continue to knit-pick a word here or there…one sentence in a 1000 word cover story…one view among hundreds of media appearances…but they can NEVER, EVER, EVER outwork me.

    What this party has never lacked is words. What the LP needs is sacrifice, volunteers, and work ethic. Talk is cheap. Compete with me by outworking me. Out sacrificing me. Out performing me. Instead of criticizing my 1000 media appearances a year…go get your own.

    I think you are 100% correct on that, as I have said many times before.

    I realize that in the context of the other responses you are receiving it here it may seem like I am piling on. Let me assure you, that is not my purpose in asking the questions I do.

    One reason I ask is that in my work I frequently run into people who say “Yeah, I agree with you guys, but we can’t allow Obama to get elected again. I can’t allow you guys to be on the ballot, much less vote for you, because you could end up taking votes from the Republicans and putting Obama back in office.” I have a number of answers I provide to this, although my most frequent answer is to thank the person for their time and move on, because there are other people walking by who will sign and not waste my time trying to convince them.

    On the other hand, you are in a position where you are trying to convince them to do more than just allow us to be on the ballot – as a Libertarian Party candidate, spokesman, and board member, your mission is to convince them to vote for us, and if possible join the party, contribute money and time, perhaps become candidates themselves. So, what do you say to me if I am someone who says “Wayne, you are 100% correct. We can’t allow Obama to get re-elected. What this means to me is we must all unite around whoever the Republicans pick and get Obama out of office.”?

    Now, I know that you know that I’m not that person. And you know that I know that there are a lot of people who say that, and that you run into them all the time. So what I want to know is how you overcome their objections, and convince them to vote Libertarian?

    I’m obsessed with beating the party in power. I’m obsessed with writing commentaries that attract media attention- so I can get my Libertarian viewpoint out. I’m obsessed with proving that big government is bad.

    Thank you. Seriously.

    What the LP has been doing for 40 years has not been working…has never gotten through to mainstream voters. You think MAYBE we should try a different way of speaking to people?

    Yes.

    My goal isn’t impressing Libertarians. It’s impressing and converting (eventually) the majority of mainstream voters. My media success proves my “model” is successful. The people I’m going after believe in smaller government and lower taxes. Period. That principle- kept to it’s simplest- is very effective. Obama is today’s symbol of big government, big spending, and big taxes. Simple. Effective. I’m interested only in success, not in the intellectual quality of my commentaries. Not in Libertarian “purity.”

    Only in slowly winning over a majority of voters. Being subtle. NOT hitting them over the head. Not condemning them. Not making them feel inferior. Only in getting the Libertarian light bulb to go off…and somewhere down the line they’ll be more open to voting LP once.

    I appreciate that. Thank you for your work.

    However, you know as well as I do that there will be a lot of people who will say that 2012 is the most important election in history and that we can’t allow the Libertarians to screw it up by running someone against whoever the Republicans put up.

    What do you say to those people?

    I’m asking this in all sincerity.

    I saw a lot of it in the Joe Kennedy race in Massachusetts. When it got down to the wire, I can’t even count how many Tea Partiers were begging, pleading, asking, even literally threatening him to get out of the race. And often times what they were saying was exactly the same: I agree with everything you say, but we can’t allow the Democrats to win, no matter what. Get out of the race and endorse the Republican.

    And even when it comes to the simple act of allowing us to be on the ballot in the first place, I still run into some of that same resistance.

    So, with that in mind.

    I am not trying to beat you over the head with this. I don’t presume to guess what your answer would be. I’m not casting aspersions, unlike some other people here.

    I’m asking in the spirit of sincere dialogue, and completely open to discovering a way of looking at things and/or a way of presenting things to people that I have never thought of before.

    1. Should the Libertarian Party run a presidential candidate at all in 2012? Why or why not?

    2. If we do, would it help or hurt Obama’s chances of being re-elected, and why?

    3. If your answer is that we should run a candidate, and you are talking to the people that say “everything Libertarian Candidate says is correct, but we can’t allow Obama to get re-elected. Why doesn’t Libertarian Candidate drop out and endorse Republican Candidate?”

    What do we say to those people?

    I am seriously asking here, because I might learn something. Maybe something about how to answer that type of question/response when I get it. Maybe even that I am wrong, and we should not nominate a candidate, but should instead focus on getting rid of Obama. I’m open to considering that possibility if that is your answer and if you make a good case. I’m open to the possibility that your answer could completely surprise me and give me a new way of looking at things.

    I’m not one of these people who are only here to nip at your heels. That’s not why I ask.

    If you don’t want to answer the actual questions I asked, or just don’t want to answer them at this time, that’s perfectly fine. I know you are busy and I appreciate your work, regardless of whether other people that I line up with more closely in terms of ideology do or not.

  25. Observer

    Wayne, as usual, you haven’t addressed legitimate questions. All you’ve done is take one of your favorite talking points–how busy you are–and repeat it in different words. WE KNOW YOU WORK HARD. WE KNOW YOU STAY BUSY. I’ve never disputed that. But, you know what? Many of us work hard, too. We do get letters published in newspapers. We write on blogs. We talk to people, and do our best to recruit them to being Libertarians. No, I don’t get media appearances like you do. Congratulations. I’m not disputing that you are a very busy, very popular man.

    What I am wondering is why you do not REALLY talk about Liberianism as opposed to you and your right-ish, authoritarian causes. I’m very embarrassed that you bash Obma so much. You know what? There are other people taking away our freedoms. How about talking about the war criminals that are still walking around free, such as Cheney, Rove, and Dubya himself? How about pointing out when other Libertarians accomplish something good, or publish an excellent article, such as the article Mark Hinkle put out about Egypt last Friday?

    I’m not nit-picking a word here and there. I’m questioning your very commitment to the cause of Libertarianism. If you REALLY wanted to further our party, I believe that you would enter into honest discussions of why people get so angry with you, and why we continue to tell you that you misrepresent us and the party.

    You say: “You CANNOT argue with success. My strategy is successful.”

    You see, I don’t believe that you are being successful in furthering the Libertarian brand. Prove it! Where are the registration numbers? Where are you hiding all these converts?

    You haven’t answered paulie’s questions in # 8, nor truly addressed the very genuine concerns from most of us on this thread. All this, frankly, makes me think you are a PLANT, sent by someone to destroy our party.

  26. paulie

    Observer,

    Wayne, as usual, you haven’t addressed legitimate questions. All you’ve done is take one of your favorite talking points–how busy you are–and repeat it in different words. WE KNOW YOU WORK HARD. WE KNOW YOU STAY BUSY. I’ve never disputed that. But, you know what? Many of us work hard, too. We do get letters published in newspapers. We write on blogs. We talk to people, and do our best to recruit them to being Libertarians.

    I highlighted the word all. That’s not all he said. He also said some other things. Excerpted:

    The media and mainstream voters understand my language. They do not understand “Libertarian language.” Is this Groundhog Day? What the LP has been doing for 40 years has not been working…has never gotten through to mainstream voters. You think MAYBE we should try a different way of speaking to people? [..]

    My goal isn’t impressing Libertarians. It’s impressing and converting (eventually) the majority of mainstream voters. [..] The people I’m going after believe in smaller government and lower taxes. Period. That principle- kept to it’s simplest- is very effective. [..]

    Only in slowly winning over a majority of voters. Being subtle. NOT hitting them over the head. Not condemning them. Not making them feel inferior. Only in getting the Libertarian light bulb to go off…and somewhere down the line they’ll be more open to voting LP once.

    Now, back to Observer:

    What I am wondering is why you do not REALLY talk about Liberianism as opposed to you and your right-ish, authoritarian causes. [..] All this, frankly, makes me think you are a PLANT, sent by someone to destroy our party.

    Do you find this kind of approach helpful when you are trying to have a dialogue with someone? When someone questions your sincerity or accuses you of being a plant, and says your causes are authoritarian, what is your instinctive reaction?

  27. paulie

    We’ll see how far it gets him if the inevitable showdown is between him and Wrights for the LP POTUS nomination.

    I’m thinking there will be other candidates. I have no inside knowledge, that’s just a guess.

  28. Observer

    paulie @ 30: “Do you find this kind of approach helpful when you are trying to have a dialogue with someone? When someone questions your sincerity or accuses you of being a plant, and says your causes are authoritarian, what is your instinctive reaction?”

    Well, your question is fair, and in any situation besides Wayne Allyn Root I would agree with you that honey works better than vinegar. However, I’ve had dialogue with this man for MONTHS. I have politely asked questions, and pointed out words of his that aren’t Libertarian in a gentle way, but nothing works. I’ve talked to him here, on Facebook, and in person. NOTHING WORKS. All this time, I continue with my personal activism, which is substantial, yet he continues to destroy the Libertarian brand, which makes all my work for naught. I’m trying to get his attention, although I guess I don’t expect him to respond.

    It might seem that I’m being a coward not using my real name, but I used my real name a month or so ago, and someone managed to find me and mailed me some very strange and unsettling information. So, I’ll hide here.

    If I’m the only one constantly questioning him, it won’t be hard for Wayne to figure out who I am.

  29. paulie

    Observer

    Just who are you working for?

    This reminds me of a question that I get a lot of times when I petition:

    “You won’t sell my information, will you?”

    I say, in all honesty, No ma’am.

    And I’ve never heard of a case where people’s names and addresses were sold off a petition to form a mailing list.

    In fact, if I wanted to sell them, I have no idea how or where I would do that.

    But, at the same time, what if I was going to sell their information? What would my answer be then? Think about it.

    I’m not saying Wayne is “working for someone” as a plant to destroy us, and I don’t think he is.

    But let’s consider both possibilities.

    1) He is a plant on a mission to destroy us. If that is the case, you expect what, an honest answer?

    2) He is sincerely trying to do everything he can to make things better in the world through the LP. In that case, do you think that taking the approach of calling him a (possible) plant or an authoritarian makes him consider other aspects of your viewpoint as

    A) More likely
    B) Less likely
    C) Makes no difference ?

  30. Stephen VanDyke

    I propose the term “rootbot” (“rootbots” plural) to hereby be the pejorative term laid upon followers of our mortal enemy Wayne Allyn Root.

    That’s the plan.

  31. paulie

    It might seem that I’m being a coward not using my real name,

    Not at all. I don’t use my last name, even though a lot of people know who I am, because I’ve received – among other things – fairly credible death threats and other kinds of threats due to my opinions alone.

    Of course, you probably know you are not completely anonymous. To see the list of people who can see your email address and IP address, go to our “about” page.

    If I’m the only one constantly questioning him, it won’t be hard for Wayne to figure out who I am.

    LOL. I don’t think you are the only one at all.

  32. Erik G.

    It’s nice to see Kyle Hartz finally able to post here.

    Also, if Wayne doesn’t think he at least comes off as sounding obsessed with Obama, he’s kidding himself. From my perspective, he just sounds like an envious classmate.

    Also, kudos to RC for pointing out that it’s ridiculous to presume Obama is a Marxist for having been around Marxist professors (even though TK has pointed out that one of the professors clearly wasn’t there at the time), even though Mr. Root is not one.

    I also agree with anyone/everyone who points out the very astute fact that Wayne seems more interested in promoting himself than promoting the party.

  33. paulie

    It’s nice to see Kyle Hartz finally able to post here.

    I remember when Steve Gordon left LPHQ, he called his site Gordon Unleashed. I can dig that.

  34. AroundtheblockAFT

    Paulie, at #28, hits the nail on the head. Wayne has convinced me that Obama is the anti-Christ and must be stopped at all costs. So I can’t throw my vote away on the Libertarian candidate; in 2012 I will have to go all out for the lesser of two evils and then hope we can stop him in 2016. This is sort of like jumping in bed with Stalin to beat that other guy. Keep beating the “Obama is satan” drum long enough and the LP will cease to exist.

  35. DiscoStu

    @37 and 39
    I (heartz) Kyle Hartz

    See what I did there? I added a z to heart.

    I am still the worlds number one personality on the planet ever to do that word play, and Obama has never done anything like that according to friends of mine who monitor these types of things on the interwebs, ever.

    Also, Obama is a socialist marxist canibal trying to eat you and every other god fearing red blooded true tea party American patriot in this entire universe, ever.

    Peace out to everyone, but not to you Obama you are the only reason that our economy has nose dived off a cliff, farther than any disaster in history of man ever on the face of this planet, just you and your programs, they are the reason my friend had to shutter his “insert name of made up business here” business 12 times in the last 10 days.
    And when I said Peace out, I didn’t mean that to insult Israel, because Israel is better than the United States.

  36. NewFederalist

    paulie- why did you pull down your original post? It was #17 I think. I know you re-posted much of the same things later but not until you properly prostrated yourself before the throne. Why? I am being serious by the way. I think you revere Root too much.

  37. paulie

    why did you pull down your original post? It was #17 I think

    Not sure about comment numbers. I pulled down a post where I had not seen that Wayne had already answered my earlier query in the meantime, and re-wrote it based on his answer.

    you properly prostrated yourself before the throne.

    You can think whatever you want. I’m trying to create a sincere dialogue. That includes appreciating the good things in the person you are talking to – in Wayne’s case, his hard work, relentlessness and ability to get media. It includes demonstrating that you have an open mind and are willing to listen to what the other person has to say, especially in an environment where other people clearly do not. It includes asking questions, but not in an accusatory fashion. It includes the willingness to change your own mind.

    Do I have differences with Wayne’s views? Yeah, I do. But I also feel like I have something to learn from him. If you don’t feel the same way, you are totally free to take a different approach. Although, personally, I don’t see what being part of a pack that’s attacking him will accomplish. There are already enough people here filling that function.

    I think you revere Root too much.

    And I think you’re wrong about that. I can see where someone might think that, but I revere no man.

    I like some things about Wayne, and not others.

    I like some things about the people that criticize him, but not others.

    I call ’em as I see ’em.

  38. NewFederalist

    Good response, paulie. I really respect you and the fact that you never seem to get defensive and petty. I wish I was more like you! Good on ya, man!!

  39. Gains

    O @33: “All this time, I continue with my personal activism, which is substantial, yet he continues to destroy the Libertarian brand, which makes all my work for naught.”

    Look man, if your activism depends on people like WAR doing or not doing what you want, you may not be doing activism.

    Try this, “Wayne Root, hmm… oh wait, you are thinking about the TEA Party guy… yeah, he is still learning, trust me, after only one conversation I can already tell that YOU are farther ahead in wisdom than he is. In the mean time, don’t worry about it, he’s harmless; like a child really.”

    “It might seem that I’m being a coward not using my real name, but I used my real name a month or so ago, and someone managed to find me and mailed me some very strange and unsettling information. ”

    Right with ya on this one. I had a freak find my facebook page and start sending friends of mine intimidating messages over my posts here. Other posts that criticized officers and representatives in California have resulted in threats to me and my family.

    But check this out, the activism that I do, is largely unchanged. There is a psychopath state officer showing up and throwing conniption fits at our county meetings (our county did not support his run and he is out for revenge it seems). But, even that prick hasn’t stopped us; people are still coming to our meetings and donating to our county, but they want no part of the state. In the end, the assholes get known for what they are. My advice is don’t waste your time trying to change them.

    Take responsibility for yourself brother. As soon as your activism depends on someone else to prop it or stop it, it is no longer your activism.

  40. paulie

    Paulie, at #28, hits the nail on the head.

    Actually, I think Wayne hit the nail on the head when he said

    “What this party has never lacked is words. What the LP needs is sacrifice, volunteers, and work ethic. Talk is cheap. Compete with me by outworking me. Out sacrificing me. Out performing me. Instead of criticizing my 1000 media appearances a year…go get your own.”

    Marc Montoni recently made a similar point, from a different direction:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/marc-montoni-what-hurts-the-libertarian-party-extremism-or-lack-of-effort/

    It seems blindingly obvious what has to be done here. So let’s get it done!

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    Eric @ 26,

    If I have six “followers,” I’d be interested in knowing who they are so that I can tell them to knock it off and get their own lives — if by “follower” you (or Wayne) mean “disciple” or something of the sort.

    If Wayne’s talking about Twitter “followers,” then the actual number is 1,895 for my personal account and 3,588 for RRND (versus Wayne’s 574).

    Or maybe the “six” he’s thinking of is my blog‘s Google Page Rank (RootForAmerica.com’s is five).

    Or maybe it’s something else. I’ll see if my Marxist professors can shed any light on the question.

  42. Michael H. Wilson

    So what is it that Libertarian propose that is different from the Dumbocrats and the Repugnicans?

    And while paulie may “revere no man” it ain’t that way with the ladies from what I hear. 😉

  43. JT

    Kyle @ 16: “Root,

    I don’t think your media appearances are really doing much to promote the party. Membership is still flat and when you appear on TV or on the radio there isn’t a spike in traffic on the website. Most of the fund-raising can be attributed to Wes’s work at the National office.

    Worst of all, you don’t even talk about the party in your media appearances. Most of your articles don’t even talk about Libertarians. I’ve seen you praise Republican victories, but haven’t seen you talk about our candidates much.

    You’re promoting yourself, not the party.”

    Me: Dead on.

    Btw, I don’t see how it’s remotely accurate that he’s getting 1,000 media appearances per year, as he claims. He’s averaging 2-3 media appearances per day for an entire year??? I’d believe 2-3 per week. That’s still more than any other LP member, but it’s not even close to 1,000.

    Anyway, I digress. There’s zero point, in my view, in getting a lot of media appearances if you don’t use the words “Libertarian” and “Libertarian Party” to build brand recognition and see a significant effect in terms of party inquiries, membership, and fund raising. Otherwise, what’s being achieved? People hearing the opinions of Wayne Root?

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT@51,

    A thousand media appearances a year isn’t beyond credibility. He’d have to average 19 per week. He occasionally issues a “roundup” of a previous week’s media appearances running, IIRC, in the 20-30 range.

    Not every “media appearance” is going to be CNN or Fox. He does quite a bit of local talk radio.

    As far as him not mentioning the LP a lot, try thinking of it as a feature rather than a bug.

  45. paulie

    Robert Capozzi @ 14

    Root seems to have a bit of Sipos in him — that is, the ability to read minds — in this case, Obama’s mind.

    Sipos is to Root as Root is to Obama?
    Does that make Sipos the Square Root of Obama? LOL

  46. Thomas M. Sipos

    Capozzi: “Root seems to have a bit of Sipos in him — that is, the ability to read minds

    First Capozzi claims he can read minds, then he accuses others of doing the same.

  47. Robert Capozzi

    p54: Does that make Sipos the Square Root of Obama? LOL

    tms55: First Capozzi claims he can read minds, then he accuses others of doing the same.

    me: Paulie, not sure about the math…will sleep on it! There is certainly SOME connection, perhaps they both know Kevin Bacon? Sipos is an NYU grad, as I recall, far downtown from Columbia, but the Rock ain’t that big a place. Ya never know!

    TMS, that is simply not factual. You and perhaps Root may well be able to read minds, but it’s a skill that, alas, I do not possess and have never claimed to possess.

  48. JT

    Paulie: “Here’s 20+ over 3 days:”

    Wow, that’s a hell of a lot! Can that be extrapolated very far out? I doubt it.

    Knapp: “He occasionally issues a “roundup” of a previous week’s media appearances running, IIRC, in the 20-30 range.”

    Twenty to thirty in a week for a few months in a year? If so, then I take it back.

    Knapp: “As far as him not mentioning the LP a lot, try thinking of it as a feature rather than a bug.”

    I’m not sure I understand what you mean? If you’re saying it’s good and not bad that he doesn’t mention the LP, you may be right. But I meant that someone in a leadership position in the party should be doing that on a regular basis or else there’s little point to getting a lot of media appearances anyway.

  49. Robert Capozzi

    jt51: There’s zero point, in my view, in getting a lot of media appearances if you don’t use the words “Libertarian” and “Libertarian Party” to build brand recognition and see a significant effect in terms of party inquiries, membership, and fund raising. Otherwise, what’s being achieved? People hearing the opinions of Wayne Root?

    me: Root is following the old adage, Sell the sizzle, not the steak. He is often introduced as former VP candidate of the LP or author of Conscience of a L. He doesn’t — nor should he most times — provide a tutorial on L-ism. That would likely make him less interesting, coming across as a preacher rather than a pundit.

    Of course, he would not represent absolutist L-ism well, since he’s not an exponent of it that school of thought. He’s another flavor of L, not mine and certainly not yours, JT.

    Another adage comes to mind: Be careful what you wish for…

    Imagine Root saying “A is A.” “As Aristotle taught us, Existence Exists.” “Fetuses are parasites, and you are a former parasite.” 😉 “Taxation is theft, and I have here a 2 year plan to abolish the State.”

    Such inauthenticity would be excellent ways for him to get knocked off the go-to guest list!

  50. George Whitfield

    I appreciate Wayne Allyn Root’s activism and am impressed by his willingness to communicate with us here on IPR. I also can see some valid points made by his critics here, too. I think this is a healthy dialogue. Lets keep working and bring liberty to our country.

  51. paulie

    Observer @ 33

    Well, your question is fair, and in any situation besides Wayne Allyn Root I would agree with you that honey works better than vinegar. However, I’ve had dialogue with this man for MONTHS. I have politely asked questions, and pointed out words of his that aren’t Libertarian in a gentle way, but nothing works. I’ve talked to him here, on Facebook, and in person. NOTHING WORKS.

    Then let me suggest another approach. Refer back to Wayne’s response to me @ 11.

    Wayne says:

    What this party has never lacked is words. What the LP needs is sacrifice, volunteers, and work ethic. Talk is cheap. Compete with me by outworking me. Out sacrificing me. Out performing me. Instead of criticizing my 1000 media appearances a year…go get your own.

    Maybe he doesn’t want advice from people that he believes are not reaching as many people as he is, regardless of whether that advice is friendly or hostile.

    So, how do you get his attention and convince him that your concerns are worthwhile?

    I’ve been told that Wayne gets all the press that he gets by hiring a media booking person. Thus, what we need is one or several energetic, knowledgeable spokespeople that are willing to devote some time to writing fairly regular op-eds and making media appearances. Perhaps you might be one of them, or perhaps doing interviews is not your forte.

    Regardless of the answer to that first question: Perhaps, you and several people could chip in to hire a media booking person for the person or several that takes on the spokesperson role.

    http://newslink.org provides numerous contacts for every type of print and broadcast publication. Someone could go through that and book tons of media interviews and places to publish op-eds. Small town daily, urban free weekly and college newspapers are usually very easy to get published in.

    Include a note with every column that lists your website, contact info, the fact that you are interested in doing interviews, and encouraging people to disseminate and publish your articles far and wide with proper author credit and that same note attached. Send your media clips to your fans and other media with that same note.

    On your site, have your media clips featured prominently, like Wayne does on his. Include an easy, and (sorry folks) in your face way to get everyone who visits to either sign up for your column and interview clip release email list or reject signing up for it before proceeding. Have other interactive features on the site that keep people there more.

    At the very top of the site, feature your core message graphically as well as verbally. For example, a peace sign, a marijuana leaf and a gold dollar sign and below them the words PEACE, CIVIL LIBERTIES, FREE MARKETS.

    Find a few friendly LNC reps to make sure all your op-eds and lists of your media appearances appear on the official LP blog. Send them to contact.ipr@gmail.com as well. Share them on twitter, facebook, etc. Post the media clips on a youtube channel.

    Rinse, lather, repeat.

    We need a list of a few people that are ready, willing and able to disseminate the flavors of libertarianism that you and I are closer to, just as Wayne is doing with his. And we need a few people with the time and/or money to hire the people with the time to get them booked.

    After that, just keep building, step by step. Build your lists of supporters. Give them stuff to do. Build your lists of warm media contacts. Build your lists of appearances and places published. Use them to leverage more and bigger ones.

    Rinse, lather, repeat.

    Let’s say you are like me, with a face for radio, a voice for print and a writing style that best suits a TV soap star, but no money. Well then, help spread this idea and maybe a few people with money will hire one or two of us to be the media booking people – “the back office,” so to speak.

    Tell your friends. Spread this concept. Make it happen.

    Don’t feel like it? No problem. Maybe someone will read this and do something about it.

    I’ll try to remember to post this every time we discuss a Wayne Root op-ed from now on 🙂

  52. paulie

    I appreciate Wayne Allyn Root’s activism and am impressed by his willingness to communicate with us here on IPR. I also can see some valid points made by his critics here, too. I think this is a healthy dialogue. Lets keep working and bring liberty to our country.

    Amen.

  53. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT@57,

    You write:

    “I’m not sure I understand what you mean? If you’re saying it’s good and not bad that he doesn’t mention the LP, you may be right. But I meant that someone in a leadership position in the party should be doing that on a regular basis or else there’s little point to getting a lot of media appearances anyway.”

    I agree that people in leadership positions in an organization should promote that organization when doing media appearances.

    Whether or not Root mentioning the LP in a media appearance promotes the LP (as opposed to demoting it) is a matter of opinion on which people differ. I was just suggesting that you look at it from the other direction.

  54. paulie

    @ 64 If you feel that way, help create bigger and better alternatives.

    Other people: regardless of whether you feel that way, help create bigger and better alternatives.

    More voices, more choices.

  55. Brian

    @65

    Anyone and any cause can now have a following because of the internet. It’s a disservice to the alternative/third party movement to pretend that any fool with an internet connection (Like Root, no matter how energetic or obsessed he is) is creating “bigger and better alternatives.”

  56. paulie

    @ 66 I said build bigger and better alternatives to what Wayne is doing. I also said build them through all media, old as well as new. See @ 60, 62.

  57. Brian

    @65

    I have more to say. Some of us do real work to build coalitions and movements. Root is an opportunistic egoist that is engaging in entryism. He is not leading a movement. He is not creating alternatives. His work is not contributing to any cause other than his own and is counterproductive to not only the libertarian movement but also the alternative party movement in general.

  58. paulie

    @ 68 So, what do you want to do about it…get mad or get ahead? Clearly you did not understand @65. Read @ 60 and @ 62. That’s the long version. @ 65 is the executive summary.

    Ain’t nuthin’ to it but to do it.

  59. Thomas M. Sipos

    1. Root has not grown the Libertarian Party.

    2. Root has increased his media profile/career.

    3. Root claims he’s been successful (i.e., that he’s attained his goal).

    From this one may infer that Root’s goal, from the start, was to increase his media profile/career, and not to build the party.

    That’s not mind-reading. That’s Reason; i.e., making a rational inference from facts and circumstances.

    Only Carpozzi would call it “mind reading” to analyze a person’s statements, contradictions, and behavior, and from that infer motives and predict future behavior.

    Then again, Capozzi has in the past claimed to be a mind reader (when he’s not busy denying it), so perhaps he’s invented a new definition for mind reading.

  60. Michael H. Wilson

    Instead of labeling people are socialist, communist or whatever, may I suggest that the platform be used as a guide to explain to the public what the Libertarian alternatives are to the policies offered by the R&D faction.

    There is no one in the U.S. government who is going to explain the costs of keeping troops deployed around the world to somewhere in the neighborhood of 130 plus bases unless we do.

    No one is going to explain the history of Free Banking unless we do.

    Neither the Rs or the Ds will stand up and say the Drug War is wrong unless we do.

    I suppose I could go on and on, but I think that gets the idea across and if not going on and on won’t help.

  61. Robert Capozzi

    Tms70: 1. Root has not grown the Libertarian Party. 2. Root has increased his media profile/career. 3. Root claims he’s been successful (i.e., that he’s attained his goal).

    Me: The LP has not grown since perhaps 1980. National membership has remained in the tens of thousands for decades. Sipos seems to not understand how marketing works. Impressions are put in the marketplace in a symphonic fashion, but they pay dividends over time. There are likely members today who first saw a Root appearance, but the totality of the symphony is why they join and why they stay. Root is not the membership director, nor Chair of the LP. He’s not the closer when it comes to membership. His efforts are geared toward presenting his ideas in the marketplace and as a prominent L, he has been reasonably successful, which no one that I’ve seen disputes. He is not the Pope of the LP; he’s not even a Missionary. The Missionary Model of marketing is outdated. He’s generating and extending his energy in a larger flow toward L ideas, sometimes well, sometimes not so well IMO.

    Tms70: From this one may infer that Root’s goal, from the start, was to increase his media profile/career, and not to build the party. That’s not mind-reading. That’s Reason; i.e., making a rational inference from facts and circumstances.

    Me: Thanks for clarifying. I agree that your thesis about Root is an inference. It may well be correct and in line with “reason.” When I refer to your inference as “mind reading,” I do so because other reasoned inferences can be made about Root’s behavior. You seem to believe that YOUR inference is 100% correct. I disagree…strongly. Rather than give the benefit of the doubt to Root, you seem to cast the first stone. My job here is challenge the first-stone casters! Are you sure of your inferences? Or are you projecting your own guilt onto Root? In my experience, character assassins often have a deep-seated, often unconscious, resentment that manifests as an attack on the projectee. The “angrytarian” syndrome seems well identified. Whether you are one is up to you.

  62. Robert Capozzi

    mhw: Instead of labeling people […] socialist, communist or whatever,….

    me: Yes, dive deep and question why people feel the need to label at all. Some Ls seem to have a penchant for such judgmentalist, which I submit gets us nowhere fast.

  63. Carpozzi's Projection

    Capozzi: “Thanks for clarifying. I agree that your thesis about Root is an inference. “

    Wow! You needed “clarifying” on that?

    Any normal person could see I was inferring from Root’s statements, circumstances, behavior — and that I never implied otherwise.

    Only you projected mind-reading claims and abilities onto me, against my repeated denials.

    I’ll make another inference…

    Your statements are consistently so obtuse that you’re either an idiot, or dishonest in that you feign ignorance.

    I don’t think you’re an idiot.

    So reason compels me to infer that you’re simply dishonest.

    — T. Sipos

  64. AroundtheblockAFT

    What Paulie said at #60.
    Hey, if you have time to post here, you have time to take the weekly Monday message from LP HQ, rewrite in your own words, and submit it to your local newspaper as a letter to the editor.
    If it appears several hundred places each week, that will put the official LP message in front of more eyes than anything Root is doing.
    Impossible? No, team up with your fellow local LPers to have a different person put his name to the letter every week. I know it works – my team has had 9 letters printed of 12 submitted since election day.

  65. JT

    Me: ” There’s zero point, in my view, in getting a lot of media appearances if you don’t use the words “Libertarian” and “Libertarian Party” to build brand recognition and see a significant effect in terms of party inquiries, membership, and fund raising. Otherwise, what’s being achieved? People hearing the opinions of Wayne Root?”

    Robert: “Root is following the old adage, Sell the sizzle, not the steak. He is often introduced as former VP candidate of the LP or author of Conscience of a L. He doesn’t — nor should he most times — provide a tutorial on L-ism. That would likely make him less interesting, coming across as a preacher rather than a pundit.”

    What? Did I say he should provide a “tutorial on L-ism”? Maybe that’s not really a response to me.

    Anyway, I said he should build up the brand by using the words “Libertarian” and “Libertarian Party” in all of his media appearances. He’s in a leadership position in the party and he should promote it as much as possible. There’s an abundance of opportunities to relate a point about an event with Libertarians and the LP. I’d think any Libertarian who thinks marketing is important would agree with that.

    Robert: “Another adage comes to mind: Be careful what you wish for…

    Imagine Root saying “A is A.” “As Aristotle taught us, Existence Exists.” “Fetuses are parasites, and you are a former parasite.” 😉 “Taxation is theft, and I have here a 2 year plan to abolish the State.””

    What in the hell? Again, maybe you’re really answering somebody else on this thread and not me. That’s all I can think of, since I didn’t post about the content of his appearances.

    And even if I had, I wouldn’t have chastised him for not saying any of those things or anything similar to them. But if this is somehow a response to what I said, I’m reminded of an adage I’ve already said as well: when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

  66. Thomas M. Sipos

    JT, I sympathize. Capozzi writes in a confusing manner.

    You must realize that Capozzi likes inventing issues (e.g., mind reading, projection), lace it with vague phrases that imply much but say nothing (e.g., “In my experience…”), and then he responds to his own invented issues.

    From which I infer that Capozzi is a dishonest debater.

  67. Gains

    My recollection of the whole “mind reading” sub-conversation went somethings like this:

    “Mr. X is a no-good so and so whose secret plan to rule the LP and is motivated by nothing but greed.”

    “You are not a mind reader and presuming peoples motives and stating them as fact is dishonest.”

    “Calling me a mind reader is dishonest.”

    “I know you are but what am I?”

    “You are a dummy.”

    “You are a dummy.”

    “No, you are.”

    “No, you are.”

    “No, you are.”

  68. Robert Capozzi

    g80, for the record, I do not think Sipos is “dishonest.” And I certainly don’t think he’s a “dummy.”

    I do think he appears to lose perspective and a sense of proportion.

  69. Starchild

    Thomas Knapp @4:

    A story debunked by Snopes.com as the second most disseminated urban legend on the Internet for several months gets transmogrified by W.A.R. into being “rated by some Internet authorities as the second most popular story on the entire Internet for several months”, and he has repeated this on multiple occasions?

    ROFL!! I wonder if he has ever heard of the 1950s radio sitcom “The Bickersons”, a husband/wife comedy routine with Don Ameche and Francis Langford. He’s practically channeling Blanche in this segment:

    Blanche (amidst a discourse to her husband John on how he should be more like her successful uncle in Canada): “You know as well as I do, he was knighted for his operations in the stock market.”

    John (exploding in exasperation): “It was the black market, and he wasn’t knighted, he was indicted! (repeats disgustedly) “Knighted!”

    Blanche: “Well, whatever it was, he’s got money and that’s what counts.”

    Root (paraphrasing) “Well, whatever it was, I get media and that’s what counts.”

    LOL!

  70. Starchild

    On a more serious note, I too would like to hear W.A.R. answer the questions Paulie asked him @28 (and I can only stand in awe at Paulie’s capacity for patience and diplomacy!):

    1. Should the Libertarian Party run a presidential candidate at all in 2012? Why or why not?

    2. If we do, would it help or hurt Obama’s chances of being re-elected, and why?

    3. If your answer is that we should run a candidate, and you are talking to the people that say ‘everything Libertarian Candidate says is correct, but we can’t allow Obama to get re-elected. Why doesn’t Libertarian Candidate drop out and endorse Republican Candidate?’ …

    What do we say to those people?

    I don’t think a credible response exists that can square Wayne’s own ambitions to run for president on the LP ticket in 2012 (only since that’s the biggest ticket to which he has any hope of getting nominated) with his obsession over the dangers allegedly posed by the “Marxist” Obama winning reelection.

    But since W.A.R. claims @6 that “I’ve made the impossible…possible (and) I will continue to do so,” perhaps he’s up for the challenge of taking a shot at it?

  71. David Colborne

    Paulie (@60): Being a local LP chair and all, I’d love to follow your advice regarding newslink.org. Unfortunately, when I click on the “state-by-state” link, Chrome is warning me that they’re hosting a malicious ad on there. I’m not sure if you have any contacts there, but if you could pass the message along, that’d be great.

    I’m a big fan of the old adage, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” In this case, taking a serious look at your advice on #60 is not a bad idea.

  72. paulie

    By the way, how many of our libertarian readers here have actually read Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals? I read it a couple of times. I should read it again. If you have not read it already, you should read it.

  73. David Colborne

    Paulie, what browser are you using? I’m using Chrome, so Google’s doing some of the “checking” for me. I know Firefox has a similar system in place; I don’t think Internet Explorer does. Then again, it might in IE8… I’ll have to check.

  74. paulie

    Oh hell no that is not a problem. Spread it far and wide. Please. The more places the better. I don’t care if I get credit for it, just that it gets to enough people that someone starts doing something about it.

  75. paulie

    I’ve got chrome and firefox open and not having a problem wit either. I’ve also used it with explorer, on many different computers and networks, and never encountered a problem.

  76. Jill Pyeatt

    Regarding Starchild @ 86: I’d also like to hear paulie’s questions answered by Mr. Root.

  77. paulie

    If any of our other writers would like to post it as an article for discussion here, or any of my other comments on any articles, please feel free.

    It’s against our rules to post our own editorials, but we can do it for each other.

  78. David Colborne

    @92: Hit it with IE8 and no error message. On the other hand, the site doesn’t show any listings, either. Weird.

    As for @85, I can’t speak for Wayne, but here’s how I would personally answer those questions:

    1. Should the Libertarian Party run a presidential candidate at all in 2012? Why or why not?

    I think we have to run one in order to secure ballot access in more than a few states. Consequently, if we wish the LP to have a credible opportunity to run LP candidates in all 50 states, we need to have a presidential candidate. Whether the LP puts any effort (or should) into getting said candidate elected, however, is a different story.

    2. If we do, would it help or hurt Obama’s chances of being re-elected, and why?

    I doubt it’d matter much either way. LP presidential candidates haven’t received over 0.4% of the vote since Harry Browne pulled 0.5% in 1996. That’s almost a rounding error; it’s certainly not enough to really tilt a race one way or the other, especially since the Greens place a countervailing candidate on the other side of the political spectrum that usually does about as well.

    3. If your answer is that we should run a candidate, and you are talking to the people that say ‘everything Libertarian Candidate says is correct, but we can’t allow Obama to get re-elected. Why doesn’t Libertarian Candidate drop out and endorse Republican Candidate?’

    What would the endorsement accomplish? Half of the LP comes to the party from the social liberal side of the aisle, not the fiscal conservative side, so such an endorsement would net the GOP candidate an extra… 0.15%? It’s not nothing, but it’s awfully close. Meanwhile, where would the remaining 0.15% go? To the Greens? To Obama? Such an endorsement would, at best, convince everyone that the LP is just a GOP vassal, and at worst hand Obama votes that he wouldn’t have otherwise.

    Personally, I think the only good reason for the LP to run presidential candidates is to guarantee ballot access in states that require it. If it weren’t for that, I’d recommend the LP abandons the expensive enterprise completely and focus on local and state elections, where the barriers to entry and victory are significantly lower. Realistically, people aren’t going to elect a Libertarian president when they don’t even trust us to serve as their county recorders. For better or worse, we need to work ourselves up to that point, govern effectively in starting positions where people are more willing to take risks, gain credibility, then work our way up to national campaigns.

    The good news? Local governments are the ones most people have direct experience with, even if they don’t realize it. When was the last time you sent a title request to Pennsylvania Avenue? How about a zoning request? Voter registration change? Car registration payment? Property taxes? Sales taxes? Permit to build? Business license? PTA meeting? Those are all the product of local governments at work. Our thinking on politics is upside-down.

  79. paulie

    @ 95 mine is showing clickable links for

    Nevada newspapers

    Major metro
    Daily
    Business
    Non-daily
    Alternative
    Campus
    Association
    Inactive
    Major metro:

    Las Vegas:Review-Journaland Las Vegas City Guide
    Las Vegas:Sunand Las Vegas City Guide
    Back to Top
    Daily:

    Carson City:Nevada Appeal
    Elko:Free Press
    Ely:Times
    Incline Village:North Lake Tahoe Bonanza
    Reno:Gazette-Journaland Reno City Guide
    Back to Top
    Business:

    Las Vegas:Business Pressand Las Vegas City Guide
    Back to Top
    Non-daily:

    Boulder City:News
    Elko:Independent
    Gardnerville:Record-Courier
    Henderson:Home Newsand Henderson City Guide
    Las Vegas:View newspapersand Las Vegas City Guide
    Lovelock:Review-Miner
    Pahrump:Valley Times
    Back to Top
    Alternative:

    Las Vegas:CityLifeand Las Vegas City Guide
    Las Vegas:Weeklyand Las Vegas City Guide
    Back to Top
    Campus:

    Nevada-Las Vegas:Rebel Yell
    Back to Top
    Association:

    Nevada State Press Association
    Back to Top
    Inactive:

    Las Vegas:Chronicleand Las Vegas City Guide

    network:

    Las Vegas:KTNV (Ch. 13)and Las Vegas City Guide
    Reno:KOLO (Ch. 8)and Reno City Guide
    Back to Top
    CBS network:

    Las Vegas:KLAS (Ch. 8)and Las Vegas City Guide
    Reno:KTVN (Ch. 2)and Reno City Guide
    Back to Top
    Fox network:

    Henderson:KVVU (Ch. 5)and Henderson City Guide
    Back to Top
    Independent:

    Las Vegas:KINC (Ch. 15)and Las Vegas City Guide
    Back to Top
    NBC network:

    Las Vegas:KVBC (Ch. 3)and Las Vegas City Guide
    Reno:KRNV (Ch. 4)and Reno City Guide
    Back to Top
    PBS network:

    Las Vegas:KLVX (Ch. 10)and Las Vegas City Guide
    Reno:KNPB (Ch. 5)and Reno City Guide
    Back to Top
    My Network TV:

    Las Vegas:KVWB (Ch. 21)and Las Vegas City Guide

    Will discuss rest of @ 95 later, either here or in a separate post.

  80. Mike B.

    I’m trying to decide if Wayne is a “Republitarian” or a “Conservatarian”….hmmm.

    Always in his articles or media appearances, liberals are always protrayed as evil but aren’t the conservatives equally repulsive and evil? I guess not.

    Maybe try representing the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party, instead of calling yourself a “Reagan Libertarian” or a Libertarian Conservative?

  81. Mike B.

    Paulie @99

    I did see that, lmao. I think I’ll use that picture and set it as my background picture on my work computer.

  82. Robert Capozzi

    tms77: Anyway, I said he should build up the brand by using the words “Libertarian” and “Libertarian Party” in all of his media appearances. He’s in a leadership position in the party and he should promote it as much as possible. There’s an abundance of opportunities to relate a point about an event with Libertarians and the LP. I’d think any Libertarian who thinks marketing is important would agree with that.

    me: I guess you didn’t get my point, then. Root is selling the sizzle. He’s doing what pundits do. He’s wearing several hats. When he’s on TV and radio, he’s on because he’s a different voice, he’s Wayne Root, a package. He’s under no obligation to use certain phrases that meet the JT quota. Could he use the word “Libertarian” more? Sure. Could he pitch the LP? Yes, but if he does that too much, he becomes a partisan, a narrow one, one that’s less interesting, most likely.

    If you maintain that he’s not a L in your mind, then as TK points out, it’s a “feature” that he doesn’t meet your quota. If Root’s words hurt the brand in your mind, then his not meeting your quota should be a GOOD thing in your mind.

    Again, to be clear, I like Root as a pundit, not so much as an LP candidate, though I’d say he’s becoming more of one over the past few years.

  83. Robert Capozzi

    dc95: Personally, I think the only good reason for the LP to run presidential candidates is to guarantee ballot access in states that require it.

    me: Are there any states where the prez vote is the basis for ballot access? I don’t know any, but there may be some.

    Regardless, I can’t say I agree. The presidential candidate is the biggest megaphone for the LP. After the presidency, I do agree that pursuing a more down line focus makes sense after ballot access considerations are addressed.

  84. David Colborne

    @105: Oklahoma requires third parties to receive a certain percentage at the “top of the ticket” (either President or Governor, depending on who’s on top in that cycle) to guarantee ballot access. I’m sure they’re not the only ones with similar requirements.

    Outside of that – how big of a megaphone does the LP really get out of a presidential election? LP candidates aren’t allowed at most debates and they’re not heavily interviewed by news organizations. I agree that it could be a large microphone, given a halfway interesting and compelling candidate, but it seems to me to be an expensive substitute for running large slates of local candidates and some basic street-level activism.

    Then again, the rub is that the LP doesn’t have ballot access in all 50 states. Consequently, the only exposure the LP has in those states is news on our presidential candidate.

  85. Wayne Root's Evil Twin

    “1. Should the Libertarian Party run a presidential candidate at all in 2012? Why or why not?”

    The Libertarian Party should only run a candidate in 2012 if that candidate is Wayne Root’s Evil Twin. If we give Wayne Root’s Evil Twin the nomination, he can tell people at the last minute that they should vote for the Republican – especially if it’s Sarah Palin, but even if it’s Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee – so as to STOP OBAMA.

    He can be a hero and SAVE AMERICA by dropping out of the most important election of our lifetime and helping the Republicans get elected.

    In turn all the Tea Party Republicans will show their gratitude by voting Libertarian after that.

    Really, they will.

    “2. If we do, would it help or hurt Obama’s chances of being re-elected, and why?”

    2012 is TOO IMPORTANT to give the Libertarian Nomination to anyone except Wayne Root’s Evil Twin. Only Wayne Root’s Evil Twin can be relied on to the necessary, unselfish thing and ASK his supporters to vote for the Republican instead. If any other Libertarian gets the nomination, they will be a Nero not a Hero and can get Obama re-elected especially if the race is close.

    Wayne Root’s Evil Twin will be a HERO by doing the right thing even at the cost of self-sacrifice – and no one in the Libertarian Party sacrifices as much as Wayne Root’s Evil Twin.

    The 2012 election is TOO IMPORTANT to allow a Losertarian candidate to mess it up. The fate of America and the world hangs in the balance.

    At the 2012 National Convention it’s Wayne Root’s Evil Twin or it’s NOTA. Nothing else will do unless Wayne Root’s Evil Twin tells you otherwise.

    “3. If your answer is that we should run a candidate, and you are talking to the people that say “everything Libertarian Candidate says is correct, but we can’t allow Obama to get re-elected. Why doesn’t Libertarian Candidate drop out and endorse Republican Candidate?” …

    What do we say to those people?”

    We say THANK YOU for being right!

    Please don’t vote for Wayne Root’s Evil Twin even though he will be on your ballot. Vote Republican. Please consider voting Libertarian next time. Thank you. And good night, America!

  86. whatever

    Who is more “radical” anyway?

    Someone who criticizes the ruling regime in hard-hitting terms?

    Or someone who wets their pants when they read such criticism?

  87. Michael H. Wilson

    Yes the LP should always run a presidential candidate.

    The candidates should also learn to personalize, as in “You my friend are paying taxes to help defend your foreign competition in the global market, which is why we have much of our military stationed in Germany, Japan and So. Korea”. If the LP would hammer on this issue then over time we might see some significant results.

    Unfortunately having tied it self in knots over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as support of Israel the LP’s focus has not been on the costs of the U.S. foreign aggression policy.

  88. Libertarians for Mubarak-Duvalier 2012

    Some of you people still don’t get it.

    What do we have to do, beat you over the head with a baton or something?

    Wayne Root’s place is not to run for President in 2012. That job now falls to Hosni Mubarak.

    Wayne Root has a different mission that he needs to get on top of at this point before it’s too late…

    If Wayne Root is not already in Egypt, or on a plane to Egypt, we need to get him on one ASAP!

    Hosni Mubarak couldn’t begin his journey of bringing hope to the people of the United States as the Libertarian Candidate for POTUS 2012 until he vacated his previous position as President of Egypt. That has now finally happened.

    There is an LNC meeting that will be filling two At Large vacancies coming up, and Hosni Mubarak needs time to gather support among LNC members and hangers on to convince them that himself and J.C. Duvalier should fill those two At Large seats in preparation for a 2012 run.

    Now, why is Wayne Root being all jealous of Hosni Mubarak?

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/wayne-root-mubarak-ego-plunges-egypt-into-tragedy/

    Is it just because when Mubarak comes to the US and gets on the LNC, he will immediately replace Root as the frontrunner for the Libertarian Presidential nomination?

    Perhaps Root is genuinely concerned for the hard working Republican millionaire small businessmen of Egypt, who may be about to get robbed of everything they worked so hard for by the insolent communist, anarchist, islamist peasants. This is a valid concern. If Mubarak did not move fast enough, Suleiman may not be able to hold on to power and the Anarcho-Islamist hordes may still take over the whole cotton-pickin’ plantation.

    Only one man save the people of Egypt now.

    And that man is Wayne Root.

    Since Hosni Mubarak will now be taking Root’s place in the USA, there will be no more need for Root here, and there is an opening in Egypt.

    Root already has solid contacts on the ground in Egypt who can fill him in on the situation and provide translation services if they are needed. He can hit the ground running. With his winning personality, famous smile and hearty handshake, he can take charge of Egypt the way he has taken charge of the LP, prevent anarchy and restore order.

    Wayne Root already has extensive experience keeping anarcho-islamists in check within the Libertarian Party. He can do the same thing in Egypt.

    We need to get Wayne Root to Egypt before the diabolical Marxist mastermind Obama thwarts our brilliant plan!

  89. paulie

    I’ll answer my own questions. Bear in mind that I am not giving what I think Wayne’s answers would be (I genuinely don’t know), these are just my own answers.

    “1. Should the Libertarian Party run a presidential candidate at all in 2012? Why or why not?”

    A: Yes, absolutely. See

    http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/WasItWorthIt.htm (also appended at the end here).

    “2. If we do, would it help or hurt Obama’s chances of being re-elected, and why?”

    A: It would probably make no differences as to the Republican-Democratic contest. Contrary to what many people assume, what actual scientific data exists shows that Libertarians draw about equally from people who are otherwise more likely to vote for Democrats as from those that are otherwise more likely to vote for Republicans. In fact, some data indicates we are may be more likely to draw from those who would vote for Democrats if we were not on the ballot, but not overwhelmingly.

    From http://www.lp.org/campaign-resources

    http://www.lpo.org/news/press-releases/233-libertarian-voters-come-from-democratic-and-republican-parties-nearly-equally.html

    http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/nc-poll-8-of-liberals-6-of-moderates-4-of-conservatives-support-libertarian-beitler

    We do give a choice to some people who would otherwise not have one at all, too. Remember that not voting is an option.

    “3. If your answer is that we should run a candidate, and you are talking to the people that say “everything Libertarian Candidate says is correct, but we can’t allow Obama to get re-elected. Why doesn’t Libertarian Candidate drop out and endorse Republican Candidate?” …

    What do we say to those people?”

    I like Wes Benedict’s answer: “My view is, Republicans are wrong on foreign policy, they’re wrong on social policy, and they’re lying hypocrites on economic policy. Their stool has no legs.”

    The Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for our problems. We need to vote against both.

    They are just two sides of the same bad penny. Not only is there not a dime’s worth of difference between them when they actually get elected, there’s not even a penny’s worth anymore.

    If you vote for what you always had, you’ll get what you always had…just faster, deeper and harder.

  90. paulie

    Was it worth it?
    by Harry Browne

    Like other Libertarians, I was disappointed with the vote total we received.

    I had hoped we would achieve two electoral breakthroughs:

    1. Surpass a million votes for the first time.
    2. Outpoll Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party.

    Neither achievement would have created a turning point in American politics. But either one would have been a boost to Libertarian morale, probably would have accelerated the flow of new members to the Libertarian Party, and might have helped us command more media attention in the future.

    As it turned out, we came pretty close to beating Pat Buchanan (getting 386,024 votes to his 448,750), despite his having roughly 15 times the money we had and probably more than 50 times the press coverage we had.

    But we didn’t come anywhere close to getting a million votes. Any hope of it went up in smoke when the closeness of the race between George Bush and Al Gore became the focal point of press coverage during the final weeks of the campaign. The result was a much lower vote than expected for Ralph Nader, for Pat Buchanan, and for us.

    THE WASTED VOTE SYNDROME STRIKES AGAIN

    How much were we affected by the perceived closeness of the race?

    A great deal, I’m afraid.

    The Clinton-Gore administration generated such hatred among many small-government people that a great many of them would have done anything to keep Al Gore out of the White House. I’ve received a number of emails from people who say they voted Libertarian in 1996, but couldn’t bring themselves to do so in 2000 — for fear that not voting for Bush would help elect Gore.

    It isn’t just Republicans who felt that way. A somewhat prominent California Libertarian who has been in the LP since the 1970s sent a message to his email list that said in part:

    I consider Al Gore to be totally unacceptable. I think it vital that Gore be defeated — because of his views on the issues, and for his ruthlessness and untrustworthiness.

    In contrast to prior Republican candidates such as Bob Dole, or other Big-Government Republicans, George W. Bush is certainly a more attractive choice. Although he’s far from a libertarian, he represents a meaningful alternative on the issues to Al Gore.

    But, overall, I think the BEST VOTE is a vote for Harry Browne — unless, perhaps, you think YOUR vote might decide the outcome in a very tight race. In this case, George W. is worthy of consideration for those who value liberty, if you apply the formula set forth below.

    Here’s my recommendation:

    Watch the presidential tracking polls in your state. If your state’s electoral votes are NOT going to be PIVOTAL in the electoral college — AND — if it’s NOT a CLIFFHANGER in your state on the eve of the election — Harry Browne’s the BEST vote for those who believe in liberty and minimal government.

    To that Libertarian our getting a million votes and beating Pat Buchanan were far less important than keeping Al Gore out of the White House.

    For the life of me, I don’t understand how people can hope they will ever get any better choices than they’re getting now from the Republicans and Democrats if they keep choosing the “meaningful alternative” or the “lesser of two evils.” If you’ll vote for them despite what they do, what incentive do they have to offer you more of what you really want?

    WHAT WE HAVE

    Now we have George Bush in the White House promoting greater intrusions into education, health care, charity, and dozens of other areas of society. I can understand it if you dislike Al Gore, but thinking the minor differences between Gore and Bush will affect your life significantly is simply beyond me.

    And if a Libertarian can be inspired to throw his vote away on the lesser of two perceived evils, imagine the incentive for someone who’s been a Democrat or Republican all his life.

    Of course, it’s our job to help people see things differently. And recognizing the hurdle posed by the close race, I made it a point in all my appearances during the final month of the campaign to bear down on the need to vote Libertarian if we are going to have real change in the future. Obviously, I didn’t do a good enough job.

    ONE-SIDED STATES

    I’ve read an analysis of the campaign that maintains that, because we didn’t do any better in states that were very one-sided either for Gore or Bush, the “wasted vote” syndrome wasn’t the cause of our lower vote total. Anyone who lives in a state where his vote wouldn’t tip the election one way or the other would have freely voted Libertarian if that’s what he really wanted. The fact that so few people chose to vote for us supposedly demonstrates that virtually no one likes what we’re offering.

    That argument doesn’t hold up, however. The average voter doesn’t study political websites, read detailed analyses of the campaign, watch CNN and C-SPAN, or in any other way stay abreast of the fine points of a presidential campaign. All he knew was that the news broadcasts were saying this would be one of the closest presidential races in history.

    He may live in a state like Nevada (that went almost 2-to-1 for Bush) or a state like New York (that voted overwhelmingly for Gore), but he still thought he must vote for Bush or Gore in order to keep a worse alternative out of the White House.

    Not only were most voters ignorant of statewide polls, many of them (I was surprised to find out during the campaign) didn’t even understand how the electoral vote works. It was only after the post-election recounts repeatedly explained how Bush won in spite of Gore’s larger popular vote that those people understood the significance of a statewide total.

    IS THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IRRELEVANT?

    Given our small vote total, a natural question arises: was the presidential campaign worth the trouble? Was it worth the money donated? Was it worth the time and energy expended by the campaign staff, by the thousands of volunteers, and by me?

    In the December-January issue of Republican Liberty, the newsletter of the Republican Liberty Caucus, editor Thomas D. Walls wrote:

    I hate to say it, but the election further demonstrated the irrelevance of LP Presidential campaigns. . . . when the quixotic LP presidential run consistently gets next to nothing in the popular vote, you’ve got to either mend it or end it. Remember, insanity is repeating the same action expecting a different result. Look, I feel your pain, but it’s a losing strategy, and diverts time, talent and resources.

    Are LP presidential campaigns irrelevant?

    I don’t think so.

    During 2000, I appeared on 53 national television shows and 90 national radio shows — plus 80 local TV shows and 375 local radio shows. I had hundreds of press and Internet interviews, and I gave dozens and dozens of speeches.

    Those appearances told millions of Americans that there was something well beyond the big-government proposals of George Bush and Al Gore. People heard that it was possible to have an America quite unlike anything they had seen in their lifetimes.

    It is an America in which the government stays out of your life — and government is so small that you don’t pay any income tax at all. An America in which you’re completely free from the oppressive and wasteful Social Security tax. An America in which the government doesn’t foster gang warfare and violence through an insane War on Drugs. An America in which government doesn’t interfere in any way with your ability to defend yourself, your family, and your property.

    It is an America of charity hospitals, free clinics, doctors who make house calls, low-cost health insurance accessible to almost everyone, and hospital stays that don’t bankrupt you — in short, the kind of health-care system we once had before the government systematically destroyed it with Medicare and Medicaid.

    If there had been no Libertarian presidential candidate, how many times would Americans have heard ideas like that on television and radio?

    That’s right: not once. No one else was describing possibilities that go beyond the narrow, depressingly pessimistic choices offered by Democrats and Republicans.

    No one else was on TV and radio across the country proposing to reduce government dramatically. No one else was giving specific examples of government failing to achieve what it promises, or explaining Libertarian proposals to large audiences.

    Having a Libertarian candidate lets millions of Americans know that there’s a large number of people who think as they do — who want to get government out of their lives, who want them to be free to live as they think best, not as George Bush or Al Gore thinks they should. Such a campaign gives hope — no matter how faint — to people who had long since given up on the idea that anything would ever change or that government could ever be cut down to size.

    It’s true that LP officials appear on TV and radio outside of presidential campaigns (and so do I). But those appearances are very rare compared to those generated by a presidential campaign. More important, a non-campaign appearance is linked almost always to a specific issue of the day — and usually an issue in which the Libertarian has to argue against a change in the status quo. During the presidential campaign, most of the time I was able to raise the issues I wanted, I was able to talk about a better world that would come from positive change toward truly smaller government, and I was able to draw people to our website where they could learn more about libertarian ideas.

    OTHER EXPOSURE

    In addition to the media appearances, a presidential campaign contributes to the growth of the libertarian movement in other ways.

    We had over 1.5 million different visitors to the website — people who learned that there’s a better life possible than what the Republicans or Democrats are offering. Many of them came back over and over to become new members of the LP or the libertarian movement.

    And then there were the many speeches and media appearances that our vice-presidential candidate Art Olivier made. He represented our ideas articulately, persuasively, and passionately.

    LOCAL CANDIDATES

    Lastly, we should recognize the help that all this coverage gave to local LP candidates.

    The more coverage the presidential ticket generates, the more votes accrue to down-ticket Libertarian candidates. Many people hear of Libertarians only through the presidential campaign, and they are persuaded by libertarian ideas. But they have learned to detest one or both of the two major presidential candidates. And they feel constrained to vote for the major candidate they detest the least, in order to keep out of the White House the one they detest the most.

    In most cases they have no such strong feelings about Congressional, state, or local candidates. In fact, I think most voters have never even heard of any of the candidates for most lower offices. So they have no emotional urge to defeat any particular person. They are perfectly free to vote Libertarian in these races if they’ve become convinced that Libertarian ideas are the closest to what they want. The more visible and persuasive the Presidential candidate is, the better local Libertarians do.

    Here is one of many similar emails I received after the campaign:

    I voted Libertarian everywhere I could this year except for President, as I was more afraid of Gore’s agenda than Bush’s. I did vote for Harry in the 1996 election as I felt the offerings were essentially equal. . . . I just believe under Gore that we would move away from a possibility that we could have a constitutionally limited Republic in the future.

    We should recognize that no local LP candidate is going to be invited to appear on Hannity & Colmes, Meet the Press, National Public Radio, or Politically Incorrect. And yet it is the national TV and radio shows that give an aura of respectability and plausibility to our ideas — that in an unspoken way tell the voter that our ideas are not beyond the fringe.

    Happily, local Libertarian candidates reached a new record in votes received. I don’t think those kind of vote totals could be achieved without a presidential campaign.

    RESULTS

    Although we didn’t get the vote total we wanted, we did get a great deal of exposure.

    Here are excerpts from just a few of the many emails I received from new Libertarians:

    If it was not for your appearance on Politically Incorrect, I would not have even known about Libertarians, and would have been one of the millions of non-voters on Nov. 7. I found your campaign speech made in Portland and aired on C-SPAN to be very touching and well done. It prompted me to make a persuasive speech of my own in my public speech class and I should be part of a new Libertarian Club at my university.

    And:

    I was not aware of the existence of the Libertarian philosophy, much less the Party, before I took a quiz on America Online that matched a candidate with my views. Harry Browne was that candidate. Being one who is investigative by nature, I took a look at Harry’s web site. I was starting to become convinced about the Libertarian philosophy, but was not sold completely. I ordered Harry s book, The Great Libertarian Offer, read it, and was ever so much more convinced of the philosophy.

    And:

    Your arguments regarding the drug war and foreign intervention, among others, have shown me the folly of the big-government answers offered by the Republicans.

    None of these people would have heard of the LP or libertarian ideas if there had been no LP presidential campaign.

    TRUE IRRELEVANCE

    So was the campaign irrelevant? I don’t think so.

    What would be irrelevant would be a political campaign in which the only proposals offered would make things worse — greater government intervention in health care, in schooling, in charity, in social control. Without a Libertarian presidential candidate, millions of Americans would have believed that the only alternatives on any issue are a Democratic plan to increase government and a Republican plan to increase government.

    VOTES & WINNING

    No, we didn’t get a lot of votes, because Americans knew we had no chance to win now. But millions of Americans got something better than a Republican President: the knowledge that it doesn’t have to be this way. And if we keep putting these better proposals in front of the American people, someday we may well win.

    No, we Libertarians aren’t winning significant electoral victories yet.

    But neither is anyone else who believes in individual liberty, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and small government.

    It’s no victory to elect a man who wants to increase federal subsidies to the destructive government school system, who wants to enlarge the disastrous government health-care system, who wants to add religious charities to the list of institutions hooked on government aid and control, and who claims that government (an agency of coercion and bureaucracy) can be compassionate so long as he’s the one running it.

    If “insanity is repeating the same action expecting a different result,” why do so many people continue to support Republicans or Democrats — thinking this will somehow lead to smaller government?

    The question isn’t whether you want to be on a “winning side” whose prize for winning is to get more government — nor which of the two old-party candidates is the “meaningful alternative” or the lesser of the two evils. The question is whether we want to do what we can to make it possible to elect a Libertarian President and a Libertarian Congress in the not-too-distant future.

    THE LIBERTARIAN FUTURE

    In later chapters of this report, I’ll discuss some of the things I believe can put us in a better position to reach the American people and induce them to vote for us — even if they believe we can’t win.

    I still believe we have good reasons to be optimistic about the future. And I’ll give some of my reasons during the course of this report.

    The war hasn’t been lost. I don’t even know that we’ve lost a particular battle.

    I do know that we are the only party offering to set people free, the only party offering dramatic improvements in the life of almost every American.

    With that on our side, there has to be a way to win eventually.

    I feel proud and privileged to have been chosen to represent such a party in 1996 and 2000. And I thank you deeply for the opportunity.

  91. Deborah

    This is all true, some of it Obama signed a bill months ago to take over all banks,Grocery stores,gas stations,all businesses through bail out. Obama already has GMC and Obama won’t let GMC buy it back. All of you people that don’t think this is true, you will have a rued awakining. I sure am glad I know who my Savior is that is Jesus Christ not Obama. Jesus will keep me safe or Jesus will take me home to HEAVEN.

  92. Jill Pyeatt

    Deborah, if you’re talking about Executive Orders, please go the White House’s website and read EO’s 10995 to 11005. The hideous opportunity to take over everything in the US has been in place 30 years.

Leave a Reply

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