Here are a couple articles regarding Mr. Root and his comments (or lack of) about the controversy of Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Reposted to IPR by Jill Pyeatt.
Written by Ayn R. Key
Although Wayne Root has a multitude of media appearances, and has his own blog, and publishes articles through the Libertarian Party Website, he appears reluctant to respond to feedback.
The only place where negative comments are allowed is when Independent Political Report reposts one of his articles.
He deserves credit for replying to some comments on IPR when they are directed at him, but some questions are rather consistently ducked.
Perhaps it is because he markets himself with the rather contradictory title “Reagan Libertarian” and had positioned himself as the most pro-war of libertarian presidential candidates until he discovered that libertarians are anti-war. But given that he is attempting to become the Libertarian Party presidential candidate for 2012, perhaps he should consider answering the really hard questions.
Such as “What is your position on Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, et al?”
For libertarians it would be easy to answer to the point where there is no point in asking the question. Support for Bradley Manning is unequivocal. Support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks is very strong. No libertarian would have anything negative to say about the posting of the Collateral Damage video.
Why then is Wayne Root not giving his opinion on this issue?
If he treats reporters the way he treats Libertarians when they start asking the difficult questions they will be far less forgiving, and while he will still get more press than any other Libertarian it will not be the press he desires since not all press is good press.
And there’s this:
Written by Thomas M. Sipos
The Clintonesque Wayne Allyn Root knows how to speak forcefully — without actually taking a clear position on controversial issues.
Bold, empty statements are common among politicos. Buried within Root’s latest anti-Obama rant, Root says:
“Is Julian Assange of Wikileaks really a ‘threat to national security’ or is Obama and the United States Congress a bigger threat to the average taxpayer?”
This is clever, in that Root appears to defend Julian Assange — without actually doing so.
When Bush Sr. said that Saddam was “worse than Hitler,” Bush did not mean that Hitler was good. Merely that Saddam was worse.
Actually, Root doesn’t even say that Obama is worse than Assange. Root merely asks whether Obama is worse than Assange.
Root’s brief statement can thus be interpreted in every possible way:
1. Julian Assange is a pro-liberty hero.
2. Julian Assange is a monster, second only to Obama.
3. Julian Assange is a monster, worse than Obama.
4. Julian Assange occupies some moral position between “hero” and “monster.”
Root’s statement about Assange can mean anything. Root doesn’t defend Assange. To do so would threaten Root’s aspirations to join the lucrative field right-wing, media punditocracy. Instead, Root’s implied defense leaves him free to condemn Assange at some future date, should the neocon customer base require Root to do so.
However, if Root runs for a Libertarian Party office or nomination, one of his lapdogs can always spin Root’s statement so that it looks as if Root is defending Assange.
(It’s always better for Root’s LP lapdogs do the antiwar/anti-police state spinning, as it leaves Root free to renounce that spin should the neocon media require it. “My supporters misunderstood my statement,” Root can always say.)
Root knows how to be direct, even blunt. If he’s coy, or vague, it’s intentional.