Barr fundraiser at Root’s ‘ostentatious’ mansion draws crowd of 25

The “25 or so” people who showed up for Bob Barr‘s Las Vegas fundraising event — hosted by Wayne Root at Root’s “ostentatious” mansion — were described by the Las Vegas Review-Journal as “mostly Libertarian Party stalwarts, including many who are running for office locally, and friends of Root, including his physician, Dr. Loring Jacobs, and poker player Phil Gordon, former host of television’s ‘Celebrity Poker Showdown,’ who lives down the street.”

Another attendee of note was Allen Hacker.

One of the fundraiser attendees, Allen Hacker, had seen many Libertarian tickets come and go, and said he felt good about this one. Hacker was there for the Libertarian Party’s original chartering in 1972 and ran for U.S. Senate in Nevada in 1980.

“We have credible candidates this time, guys the public will respond to,” Hacker said. “We’re not all computer programmers anymore. Some of us are salespeople.”

The Review-Journal says, “it wasn’t clear a financial contribution was required to attend — some said they were there for the free food.”

Read the entire article.

39 thoughts on “Barr fundraiser at Root’s ‘ostentatious’ mansion draws crowd of 25

  1. Austin Cassidy

    The poor turnout certainly doesn’t look good for Root’s 2012 campaign.

    Interesting to see that Barr is polling at 9% in Nevada though.

  2. Steve LaBianca

    Hacker says ““We have credible candidates this time, guys the public will respond to . . .”

    Left leaners in the public will “respond” negatively, and some conservatives may “respond” positively, depending on how they interpret Barr and W.A.R.’s support for foreign intervention.

    I guess Harry Browne wasn’t credible, nor was Ed Clark. Sounds like Hacker, though a long time LPer is just like the rest of the reformers who “are sick of losing”, and will support anything that walks which appears to give a better chance at a higher vote total.

    Perceived potential to get votes count in the LP today, not principle, unfortunately.

  3. inDglass

    Barr has not reached $500,000 yet on the site donation meter. He has a goal listed there of $750,000 by August 1st. What ever happened to the $40 million he kept saying during and after the convention?

  4. Deran

    “Interesting to see that Barr is polling at 9% in Nevada though.”

    I think Barr may get a lot of votes from people who don’t like McCain, that won’t think of donating. I think McKinney might be the same; not a lot of people donating, but votes from people angry at Obama?

  5. inDglass

    Barr’s polling numbers according to Lew Rockwell should scare the GOP. 5-10% in 25 states. This combined with allegations that McCain was born in Panama and is therefore ineligible to be President should scare the pants off Republican delegates and voters. Could we see a “September surprise” at the GOP convention? 😀

  6. G.E. Post author

    Maybe Milnes can crash the GOP convention and remind delegates how many Repugnicans defected to the national-socialist candidacy of his Bull-Moose idol, T.R., back in 1912.

  7. inDglass

    I agree with Deran that the high polling numbers for Barr will not translate to donations. Barr was expecting to tap into the support that made Paul the most successful Republican fundraiser. However, Barr doesn’t have the strength in personality or message that Paul used to inspire all those donors.

    An appearance at the Revolution March might have built that for Barr. However, he declined to attend, while Chuck Baldwin was one of the headline speakers at the rally. I expect we will see surprising financial support for Baldwin in the next few months, while Barr continues to disappoint. The Revolution Broadcasting community seems to be the most active place remaining in the Ron Paul r3VOLution, and most of the people I run into there are nuts about Baldwin.

  8. G.E. Post author

    He declined to go to the March because he would have been thoroughly exposed as a neocon in comparison to Baldwin. He would not have built support for himself by attending — he would have lost whatever support he has among Ron Paulians.

  9. JimDavidson

    I remember in 1980 that John Anderson polled very high in the Summer, before the conventions coronated Carter and Reagan. Yet, most of those numbers had evaporated by election day. I could be mistaken, but it seems like Anderson’s numbers were nearly twice what I’ve seen for Barr.

    It is an excellent libertarian tradition to show up for the free food. That was a very endearing quote.

    I’ve no doubt that Barr is going to lose the election, based on what we now know, but it still seems possible he could pull in a million or two million votes. There are a lot of racists, sexists, gun grabbers, homophobes, and Christian theocracy enthusiasts in the country.

    But after the election, are any of those voters going to join the Libertarian Party?

  10. G.E. Post author

    Peter – Jingozian is a “fair trader” — i.e. he favors centrally planned, government-managed restrictions on consumer choice. What’s worse, he is a snake. He had virtually no support and accepted charity from Mary Ruwart to appear in the debates. He then used that stage to endorse one of her opponents — who himself was only there thanks to charity from Bob Barr.

    I think only Ruwart, Barr, and Phillies legitimately got enough tickets to participate in the debate, and the debate would have been MUCH better if they didn’t give away their tickets. Of course, Barr wanted as many participants as possible — it benefited him by making it much less likely that anyone would call him out as being a neocon, since doing so would give him extra time. It limited the number of hard questions asked (to zero — since the debate was rigged by Redpath & Co.), but a 3-way debate would have put a lot more pressure on him.

  11. Mike Theodore

    The Gravel/Jingo deal was thought out about a month or two in advance. I know Ruwart helped get him in the debate. Do you want him to just drop the whole deal just for that?
    You want to start off the Gravel temper, that’s a good way to do it. He would have tossed Jingozian across the room like a football.

  12. G.E. Post author

    Mary Ruwart would not have given him the tokens if she knew he’d use them to endorse an opponent.

    Jingozian is a fraudster-statist. He’s in good company as vice chair of the LP.

  13. G.E. Post author

    She gave them to him assuming he was a real candidate, so of course she’d give them to him if he said he’d endorse her. Why wouldn’t she?

    If Gravel had any support outside of the Social Democrats he brought with him, and if Gravel had given him the tickets, then that would have been legit.

    Jingozian betrayed Mary Ruwart’s trust. How do you not see that or see the difference between what happened and what you’re suggesting? Is this another blindspot like not understanding the evil of tax-funded primaries?

  14. Mike Theodore

    Define real candidate. Was it the assumption that Jingozian was going to blow up and win a “come from behind” victory? I think everyone knew that his chances were fading. Thus him not having enough support for the debate.
    BTW, did he not endorse Gravel after he conceded, not during the debate?

    I’ll have a delayed response. Taking the dogs out.

  15. G.E. Post author

    He endorsed Gravel after his nominating speech.

    Neither of the bums had any real Libertarian support.

  16. Mike Theodore

    Gravel had a good amount, more than I would have expected. Most of the ones that everyone knew were going to lose had there future endorsements pretty well known. Kubby to Ruwart. Root to Barr. Jingozian to Gravel.
    I’m missing something…
    Imperato to Barr?

    But should they drop that and give the endorsement to whoever helped them get into the CSPAN debates?

    Sorry for the longer than expected delay. I had to help my mom make a facebook group for Citizens for Health Reform.
    “LOLZ, you nowz the internetz!”

  17. G.E. Post author

    Your ethics are extremely suspect.

    Mary gave Jingo tickets because she thought he was a nobody nothing loser, which he was, but then he turned around and used the platform he achieved through her generosity to endorse one of her chief rivals.

    What a shock: A socialist Democrat comes to the LP convention and aligns with the Republicans to steal the nomination away from a real libertarian.

  18. tsipos

    Mike Theodore: “Most of the ones that everyone knew were going to lose had there future endorsements pretty well known. … Root to Barr.”

    That’s not the way I heard it.

    I heard that Root expected to win, and was shocked as it sunk in that he wouldn’t. He then desperately went after Barr out in the halls, wanting to “make a deal.” Root would endorse Barr in return for VP.

    Barr brushed off Root, wanting nothing to do with the man.

    But then when it looked as though Ruwart might beat Barr, Barr changed his tune. When Root came after him a second time, he listened and struck a deal.

    That’s how it was told to me, by someone who supposedly saw Barr brush off Root in his first attempt at a deal.

    I’d heard others report that Barr had earlier sought Gravel and Ruwart as potential running mates.

  19. Mike Theodore

    So are you mad that he endorsed Gravel, or that he might have had an impact if he endorsed Ruwart?

    Maybe I’m just looking at it as if I was in Ruwart’s position. If I helped someone get in the debates, I wouldn’t care who they endorsed. But on the other hand, if I was in Jingozian’s position, I’d feel inclined to endorse Ruwart (even as a Gravel guy), but then I’d feel torn after telling Gravel that I’d endorse him.

    Sticky situation.

  20. G.E. Post author

    I really don’t understand how someone could not understand the underhanded nature of what Jingozian did. My mind is truly blown by you, Mike.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp


    You write:

    “Mary Ruwart would not have given him the tokens if she knew he’d use them to endorse an opponent.”

    I seriously doubt that’s true — and if it is, then it doesn’t speak as well of her as it does of Gravel, who gave tokens to Kubby knowing full well that if eliminated Kubby would be endorsing Ruwart. Ditto Phillies. Ditto Smith.

    “If Gravel had any support outside of the Social Democrats he brought with him”

    Gravel had plenty of support outside of “the Social Democrats he brought with him.” One member of the Missouri delegation who has been an LP member since 1972 came to the convention planning to vote for Gravel, and did so.

    For that matter, Gravel was my third choice after Kubby and Ruwart.

  22. G.E. Post author

    It doesn’t speak well of her that she wouldn’t have wanted to help a guy stab her in the back?

    I just don’t agree.

    Okay, so Gravel had one supporter who was not a socialist outsider.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    And by the way:

    No, Jingo did not “use the platform he achieved through her generosity to endorse one of her chief rivals.”

    Jingo had collected enough tokens on his own to secure nominating speech time before he received any help from Ruwart for debate participation — and he didn’t even use that time to do it, but rather a portion of Gravel’s time.

    Don’t like Jingo? Understood … but your particular argument doesn’t hold any water at all.

  24. G.E. Post author

    His stature was heightened by his participation in the debate.

    Anyone who gave anyone else tickets did so with the understanding that they were serious candidates in the race and would be honest in their dealings. Jingozian was a underhanded snake, and that’s why he’s a better fit in the LNC leadership than the honorable Chuck Moulton.

  25. G.E. Post author

    That is an asinine question, Mike. She did not give him the tokens in exchange for anything, but she did do so under the assumption that he was being honest as a legitimate candidate, and did not want to participate in the debate for no reason other than to bolster Gravel’s socialist campaign.

    I don’t speak for Mary, but I am echoing the feelings of some of her prominent campaign staff (not me).

    Jingozian and Gravel, unlike everyone else at the convention, were not on the up-and-up.

  26. Mike Theodore

    So he wasn’t being a legitimate candidate? He bolstered himself in the Jingozian way during the debates. He didn’t praise Gravel. He gave his pitch. Not Gravel’s.
    He just had an endgame in the wake of his inevitable failure. Better than being caught off guard. I’m sure most candidates had a plan in their mind if they failed.

  27. George Phillies

    My opinion was that excluding one of the reasonably substantial candidates from the debate would have been very bad for the party. Also, in advance it was completely unclear how hard it would be to collect tokens, and a substantial fraction of the candidates therefore agreed to pool as needed. This candidate position was echoed by the bulk of the delegates, who wanted us to agree to pass on tokens once we had enough. The convention chair tried to sabotage this by objecting to ‘scratch-out’ tokens, a rule made up when tokens were collected, but to no effect–we collected blanks.

    Having said this, the one token that I had blocked under the ‘rule’ was from one of my staffers, who started signing on the same line and then corrected himself.

  28. Steve LaBianca

    G.E. // Jul 13, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    I’d vote for Root 1000 times over the snake Jingozian.

    Though you and I agree on A LOT, I must disagree on this one G.E. W.A.R. is someone I wouldn’t vote for, unless someone had a gun to my head. My life is worth more than W.A.R. not getting my vote. Outside of that, W.A.R. is horrible . . . as a thinker, as a promoter, and as candidate for liberty.

  29. Steve LaBianca

    inDglass // Jul 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    I agree with Deran that the high polling numbers for Barr will not translate to donations.

    I think that the “high” polling numbers “for” (more likely against McCain) Barr will not translate to VOTES!

  30. tsipos

    Well, I’m considered a longtime radical, and I voted for Gravel on the first 3 ballots. I know of at least two other decades-long radicals, from Los Angeles, who voted for Gravel.

    Mostly because he was both prominent and good on the antiwar issue.

    One of the radicals who voted for Gravel told me that Gravel wasn’t his top pick, but he voted for Gravel on the first 3 ballots because he wanted to encourage Democrats to feel welcome in the LP.

    My dream ticket was Paul/Kwiatkowski.

    Among the candidates at the convention, I think Gravel/Kubby would have been the best ticket.

    I agree with Steve: W.A.R. is worse than Barr.

  31. tsipos

    Polls show the McCain/Obama race is very tight.

    A tight race in November means poor performance for all third parties, as voters will think, “Every vote counts, this race is too important to waste my vote on someone who can’t win.”

    OTOH, if McCain or Obama has a wide lead, then people will feel more inclined to “waste” their votes.

  32. Carl M

    Barr/Gravel would have been better than Barr/Root. Barr/Gravel would have sent a clear message of the LP being a mix of the best D and R positions. Very credible.

    And no, Harry Browne was not credible. He had no executive experience. And the title of his book was laughable. Government does work. Duh! (Yes, the market works better in a great many fields, but to deny the obvious is silly.)

    It also says something about Browne that he had to earn lunch money on the campaign trail. Not a ringing endorsement of his career as a writer of financial advice! He who writes financial advice should be able to save up for an early retirement.

  33. MarcMontoni

    Harry Browne was not credible. He had no executive experience.

    Kinda like Jesse Ventura in that regard.

    Or maybe Jim Webb.

    Gotta have experienced men behind the SS squads, or you might have anarchy.

Leave a Reply

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