Libertarian Party blog: Wayne Root blasts bailouts, touts capitalism on Fox

Posted by Donny Ferguson at LP blog:

2008 vice-presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root appeared on the Fox Business Network on Friday with host David Asman to discuss the Bush/Obama bailout craze and the need for free markets, competition, capitalism and tax cuts.

You can check out the interview for yourself here at FoxBusiness.com.


Reposted to IPR by Paulie.

52 thoughts on “Libertarian Party blog: Wayne Root blasts bailouts, touts capitalism on Fox

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    Interesting. In the interview, Root opines that he is “the prohibitive frontrunner” for the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nomination.

    I’d really like to see some scientific polling on the 2012 race. It’s probably too early to identify anyone as a “prohibitive frontrunner,” but if we have to so identify someone, I can think of two or three actual or prospective candidates who would likely walk right over Wayne for that title.

  2. paulie Post author

    Interesting. In the interview, Root opines that he is “the prohibitive frontrunner” for the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nomination.

    Probably way to early to know who the candidates will even be, much less who is a frontrunner. Who could have guessed accurately at this point in 2005? 2001?

  3. paulie Post author

    Probably way to early to know who the candidates will even be

    I meant leading candidates, since we clearly do already have some candidates.

  4. paulie Post author

    I can think of two or three actual or prospective candidates who would likely walk right over Wayne for that title.

    Obviously Ron Paul, but the chances of him accepting it are slim to none. Susan’s poll indicates Mary Ruwart would, but it also shows Ruwart handily beating Barr, which didn’t happen, so apparently her poll and the convention are different group samples.

    Who else do you see at this time as both likely to seek the nomination and easily beat Root?

  5. Susan Hogarth

    but it also shows Ruwart handily beating Barr, which didn’t happen, so apparently her poll and the convention are different group samples

    Well, they are, I’ll bet. But they wouldn’t have to be in order for these results to be germane. Remember, people chose Barr before he had actually *been* an LP candidate. Now he has. It’s just the slightest bit possible that made him -less- popular relative to Ruwart, you know 🙂

  6. paulie Post author

    Possible, yes.

    But my gut is that the results would be different if the people at the last convention (or those currently most likely to be at the next one) were asked the same questions. Of course, I only have my gut, while you at least have some actual numbers.

    I’d be interested to see what would happen if Steve Gordon used LibertarianLists to popularize your polls.

  7. Searching for Truth

    So who has declared already that they are seeking the nomination? Tom Knapp, Wayne Allyn Root , Angela Keaton (?)

  8. paulie Post author

    All of the above.

    Also, Robert Milnes, and apparently Mike Jingozian indicated he will as well (but may or may not have later changed his mind; reports vary).

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    I don’t think Steve would use Libertarian Lists to popularize an open, non-scientific poll. More likely he’d use it to conduct as scientific a poll as possible … although possibly for a paying customer, which means that the rest of us might not see the complete crosstabs.

    As far as Ruwart beating Barr goes, she beat Barr in the next-to-last ballot at the convention. He only beat her on the final ballot with the assistance of Root, and that was with the after-effects of the “Ruwart supports child pornography” hit job still lingering. That trick won’t work twice.

    Even if Barr throws in, he’ll a weaker candidate this time around versus any opponent. The “we’ll raise $40 million and win this election” hype won’t play as well the second time … especially when he didn’t come anywhere close to delivering on it the first time.

    I don’t know a single person who supported Ruwart in Denver and regrets doing so. I’ve talked with numerous people who supported Barr in Denver and regret doing so. If we replayed that convention right now, she’d whip him like a red-headed stepchild.

    Root’s not out of the running. If his new book brings people into the LP, those people will likely be inclined to support him. If it doesn’t, I don’t think he has much of a shot — the party as currently composed won’t nominate him.

  10. sunshinebatman

    Root lost head-to-head against Kubby also. Maybe Root could be the ShamWow guy head-to-head? If they can’t get Ventura, the LP should just put NOTA on the national ticket.

  11. Searching for Truth

    Looks like of those currently seeking the nomination , Wayne would be considered the “Front Runner” by the standards that he was the VP Candidate, more money, larger donor base, more Media coverage, better name recognition. Wayne shouldn’t have used the adjective prohibitive.

  12. paulie Post author

    I don’t think Steve would use Libertarian Lists to popularize an open, non-scientific poll. More likely he’d use it to conduct as scientific a poll as possible … although possibly for a paying customer, which means that the rest of us might not see the complete crosstabs.

    Probably correct. He did some preference polls before the nomination, but I don’t know if he had a paying client. Perhaps Barr? In any case, I don’t think he wants to introduce the subject yet. But it probably wouldn’t hurt to ask.

    As far as Ruwart beating Barr goes, she beat Barr in the next-to-last ballot at the convention.

    That was not head to head.

    That trick won’t work twice.

    I’m not sure, it might.

    I don’t know a single person who supported Ruwart in Denver and regrets doing so. I’ve talked with numerous people who supported Barr in Denver and regret doing so.

    That’s a better argument. OK, so Ruwart would be more likely to beat Barr now, although I doubt it would be by anything like a 72.5% – 27.5% margin. But what about Ruwart vs. Root? We don’t know yet.

    the party as currently composed won’t nominate him

    I’m not so sure of that, nor do I think the shift to the right is over.

    In fact, just now I got the first indication of a countervailing trend: see the new story I just posted.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    NOTA’s always an option … and in my opinion it would have been a better option than Barr/Root last year.

    Those who support NOTA versus any and all other possible options should organize a campaign and attempt to prevail at the 2012 convention. Those who support NOTA versus certain options might join you at the end if those options are the only alternatives remaining.

    Personally, I believe that the presidential campaign can at least theoretically serve the LP’s interests. Also personally, I believe that the Wayne Allyn Root “let’s make the LP into the Ronco of political parties” approach does not serve those interests.

  14. Scott Lieberman

    “2008 vice-presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root appeared on the Fox Business Network on Friday with host David Asman to discuss the Bush/Obama bailout craze and the need for free markets, competition, capitalism and tax cuts.”

    ************************************

    It’s interesting how a competitor for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential Nomination, and several other LP Radicals, feel the need to hijack this blog article right out of the gate, and start discussing a totally different blog article (regarding a poll for the LP Presidential Nomination).

    I did not see the Fox Business Network interview, but I did see Mr. Root’s Fox News Channel interview that occured the same day, or at least within a day or two of the FBN interview. Mr. Root did a spectacular job during the FNC interview.

    I guess Wayne Root’s detractors have to resort to off-topic blog posts to avoid having to actually criticize the substance of one of Wayne Root’s many national TV appearances.

  15. paulie Post author

    It’s interesting how a competitor for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential Nomination, and several other LP Radicals, feel the need to hijack this blog article right out of the gate

    Actually, I was in the admin panel for comments (which lists all replies to all articles in chronological order, rather than the comments on each post separately as you see here), and I didn’t even realize that this was a separate thread.

    Our discussions often meander; I don’t think that responding to Tom’s comment about Wayne’s chances constitutes an attack on Wayne, and looking at it that way didn’t occur to me until you mentioned it.

    I also don’t consider myself one of Wayne’s detractors.

  16. paulie Post author

    http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090402-085031

    What Capitalism Really Looks Like
    Thursday, April 2, 2009, 08:50 AM
    By Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee

    I woke up yesterday morning and got a chance to see what capitalism really looks like. You see capitalism- for better or worse- is alive and well in Las Vegas, Nevada. The headlines in the Las Vegas paper were filled with pain, losses, doom, gloom, bankruptcy and…CAPITALISM. Station Casinos reported they might file for bankruptcy by April 15th. Bally’s Hotel announced they were closing their Race & Sports book until next fall. The Riviera Casino Hotel and Hooters Casino Hotel both missed interest payments and could file for bankruptcy soon. Herbst Gaming is already in bankruptcy. None of the bad news in yesterday’s headlines even included news about the three biggest gaming companies in the world. Harrahs, MGM Mirage and Las Vegas Sands (Venetian) are all multi-billion dollar conglomerates on the verge of bankruptcy (with stock prices off by more than 90%). And to top it off, one of the biggest developers in Las Vegas, James Rhodes, also made headlines yesterday by filing a petition for bankruptcy on behalf of a multitude of his businesses. It’s all just another day at the office in the midst of the worst economic crisis since 1929. And I have a feeling- with Obama’s tragic economic policies soon to take effect- we are heading for an economic crisis worse than 1929. This folks is what a full-fledged depression looks like.

    But there is one good thing to come out of all these depressing (and shocking) headlines- they prove that in Las Vegas, we still practice capitalism. You see failure is a natural (and unfortunately, necessary) part of capitalism. Failure plays just as big a part in a capitalist system as success. Companies succeed and fail every day in a capitalist system. Companies are allowed (and are supposed) to go bankrupt without the government jumping in to save them. Bankruptcy serves a useful purpose. It doesn’t mean that a company is going out of business. It might mean that the company is restructuring and shedding unprofitable contracts, or bloated union contracts under the protection of bankruptcy court. It might mean that the company is becoming leaner and meaner. It might mean that a competitor will buy the company out of bankruptcy.

    That’s precisely how capitalism has worked for centuries. That’s precisely why capitalism works. In a free market capitalist system, businesses and businessmen are allowed to succeed and fail without government interference. Some people soar, while others flop. That’s precisely how you figure out the winners and losers- you leave companies (and people) alone and allow them to succeed or fail. If they fail, someone new will come along to pick up the pieces and do it better. How would anyone learn from these failures and mistakes, if government doesn’t allow anyone to fail in the first place?

    There is risk inherent in business. You cannot take risk out of the equation, or it isn’t capitalism anymore. To change that equation produces government-controlled Socialism. In the long run, government interference in business is a disaster. Yes, in the short term it might avert a sudden panic or market crash. But in the long run, allowing a company to fail is healthier for the system and the economy. Ask Cuba…or the old Soviet Union (who had to build a wall to keep people from escaping)…or the People’s Republic of China of 30 years ago. Under communism China was once one of the poorest nations in the world. Today, under a capitalist system, it is one of the richest. Asking government to save businesses, to choose winners and losers, distorts the free market system and kills capitalism. In the long run it costs millions of jobs to artificially prop up failing companies. In the long run it damages GDP (Gross Domestic Product) just as Obama’s own Congressional Budget Office now predicts that Obama’s trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus plans will decrease GDP over the next decade.

    Worse, government has no idea how to run a business. Most of the people working in government couldn’t get or keep a job in the private sector. Now we suddenly want them to make life and death decisions about how to save or run major companies or industries? How preposterous. Failure is natural. It is part and parcel of the capitalist system. It is actually…HEALTHY. If government would just leave the banks, AIG, and the “Big 3” automakers alone, we’d all be far better off in the long run. When TWA and Eastern Airlines failed, we all survived. As a matter of fact, out of the ashes rose Southwest Airlines- and flying got better (and more profitable). When the U.S. television manufacturing industry failed, somehow we all survived. We found new companies to make better television sets at cheaper prices- Sony, Sanyo, Samsung, etc. We should all keep this in mind when we discuss the options for companies like GM, Ford and Chrysler. No one is too big to fail.

    Is failure really bad? Or do good things come out of failure? Look no further for proof than the housing market in Las Vegas. Housing prices have collapsed, down 50% or more from just 2 years ago. I’m certainly not happy about it. The Las Vegas economy is downright painful. It has already put one of my businesses out of business. My home is down as much as 50% from its high value. My ownership in two casino stocks is down over 90%. But I haven’t asked government for a bailout. I haven’t asked government for a dollar, or a favor. I’ve been too busy restructuring my life. It’s called initiative. It’s called ambition. It’s called creativity. It’s called tenacity. It’s called being RELENTLESS.

    I want and expect nothing from government. I don’t believe in handouts. I believe in free markets, self-reliance, and personal responsibility. I didn’t complain to my government when my home went up 50%; what right would I have to complain when it goes down 50%? But this is called free market capitalism. We’ve had 25 straight years of economic boom and expansion (since the amazing economic recovery orchestrated by President Ronald Reagan). A bust is to be expected after a quarter century of boom. Government can’t change that (but they can make it far deeper and far worse).

    But this housing crash isn’t bad for everyone. What’s happening right now in Las Vegas is proof positive of why government should keep its hands off of free markets. Some people are cheering the drop in Las Vegas housing prices. Like those who have been priced out of the housing market for years- some for a decade or longer. New buyers, first-time buyers, and young couples are thrilled at the Las Vegas housing collapse. They are finally able to buy homes at prices that reflect reality. The result is a housing BOOM in Las Vegas. Residential real estate sales have doubled from this same period a year ago. Doubled! Remarkable. Las Vegas homes are flying off the shelf. Yes, most of them are foreclosures. Yes, $500,000 homes are selling for $200,000. So what? That’s good for the buyers. This could be the greatest buying opportunity in history. In capitalism, one man or woman’s terrible loss can sometimes be another’s fantastic gain.

    But if government interferes it screws up the natural cleansing process. If government stops homeowners from losing their homes, then new buyers will be locked out of the process. And landlords who want to rent homes to those who lost their homes will suffer. Worst of all, government will be unnaturally propping up home prices- thereby risking a new housing bubble. Only a free market can and should determine the price of a home.

    Wall Street is no different. With casino stocks like MGM Mirage and Las Vegas Sands selling for $2 per share, down from a high of $150 per share (or higher), some investors are cheering. These stocks are affordable for the first time in years. Other investors have made a fortune selling them short all the way down. In each of these cases, there were winners and losers, and none of it was the government’s business. To ask the government to get involved would distort the free market, and favor one group over another. It would kill capitalism. Stock investors have a right to profit or lose on the way up, and on the way down. The problem is that no one complains on the way up, but sore losers and whiners complain bitterly on the way down. They want to keep their massive profits, but demand government take action to take away their losses. I have news for them- that’s not how capitalism works. Worse, government involvement in business is the very definition of “conflict of interest.” You can bet whoever President Obama or Congress chooses to “save” will be chosen by the size of their past and future campaign contributions.

    Bankruptcy in the business world works the same way. Government has no right- according to the Constitution- to get involved in bailouts, managing corporations, limiting salaries of executives, or firing CEO’s. The answer is to leave these companies alone and let the free market and private investors figure out a way to save them, fix them, improve them, or let them go the way of the Edsel. Am I worried about the futures of Las Vegas companies like Harrahs, MGM Mirage, Las Vegas Sands, Stations, Herbst, Hooters or the Riviera? Sure. I want them to succeed. I’m rooting for them (excuse the pun). But in the end, it isn’t government’s job to get involved. It sure isn’t government’s job to use taxpayer money to choose winners or losers (based on legal bribes called “campaign contributions”). These gaming companies will either find a way to survive, get restructured, or get bought by a competitor. That’s called capitalism. I’m proud to say it’s alive and well in my hometown of Las Vegas, Nevada. We don’t ask for bailouts. We don’t need no stinkin’ bailouts. Here in Nevada we believe in capitalism, free markets, self-reliance, rugged individualism, personal responsibility, and the American way. We’ve done pretty well so far with this Frontier Spirit. I think we’ll stay the course.

  17. paulie Post author

    Regarding the use of the term “capitalism,” see Roderick Long at
    http://mises.org/story/2099#6:

    While I’ve said I don’t want to dwell on terminological issues, I can’t resist making a point about “capitalism” and “socialism.” Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as “anti-concepts,” that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it, making it harder for us to grasp other, legitimate concepts; one important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the “package deal,” referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition that certain things go together that in actuality do not.[11] Although Rand would not agree with the following examples, I’ve become convinced that the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” are really anti-concepts of the package-deal variety.

    Libertarians sometimes debate whether the “real” or “authentic” meaning of a term like “capitalism” is (a) the free market, or (b) government favoritism toward business, or (c) the separation between labor and ownership, an arrangement neutral between the other two; Austrians tend to use the term in the first sense; individualist anarchists in the Tuckerite tradition tend to use it in the second or third.[12] But in ordinary usage, I fear, it actually stands for an amalgamation of incompatible meanings.

    Suppose I were to invent a new word, “zaxlebax,” and define it as “a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument.” That’s the definition — “a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument. ” In short, I build my ill-chosen example into the definition. Now some linguistic subgroup might start using the term “zaxlebax” as though it just meant “metallic sphere,” or as though it just meant “something of the same kind as the Washington Monument.” And that’s fine. But my definition incorporates both, and thus conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere; any attempt to use the term “zaxlebax,” meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption. That’s what Rand means by a package-deal term.

    Now I think the word “capitalism,” if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package-deal term. By “capitalism” most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by “capitalism” is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term “capitalism” as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.

    And similar considerations apply to the term “socialism.” Most people don’t mean by “socialism” anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production; instead they really mean something more like “the opposite of capitalism.” Then if “capitalism” is a package-deal term, so is “socialism” — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same.

    And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state remains secure.

    I don’t mean to suggest that evil statists have deliberately conspired to corrupt our language to serve their own nefarious ends. That sometimes happens, of course, but it’s not necessary. Rather, a perverse invisible-hand process is at work: the prevailing use of the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” persists because it serves to preserve the statist system of which it is a part. Think of it as spontaneous ordure. (Sorry.)

  18. Rocky Eades

    @ #17 – Scott, Root is the one who opened the subject of the 2012 campaign. Once the horse is out of the barn, there’s no reason not to make him drink!

  19. paulie Post author

    Actually, his interviewer did. He asked him why he was the VP candidate. I think his answer sounded better coming from a candidate than saying “I did run for President, but came in third for the nomination and traded an endorsement for the #2 spot.”

    “prohibitive” was indeed overstating the case, esp. when we don’t yet know who some of the other players might be, but the overall answer was a good one.

  20. Steven R Linnabary

    Susan’s poll indicates Mary Ruwart would, but it also shows Ruwart handily beating Barr, which didn’t happen, so apparently her poll and the convention are different group samples.

    This is nothing new. At the ’87 LPO convention, I took a poll of attendees. Russell Means won overwhelmingly, but lost handily at the Seattle nominating convention.

    PEACE

  21. Steven R Linnabary

    I doubt I can ever support Root for the nomination. Unless he were to make a STRONG statement against the continuing ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

    By a strong statement, I mean actually going to the wall and saying “Mr. Netanyahu, tear down this wall!!” I won’t be holding my breath.

    Mr. Kubby or Mr. Knapp could also do the same, but the effect would be so much greater with Root making the proclamation. Root has the ability to attract media, and he is Jewish. It would be such a strong statement for the Libertarian Party.

    PEACE

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    Mr. Linnabary,

    I hate to disappoint you, but I do not believe that it is proper for a president — or presidential candidate — to insert himself, as a president or presidential candidate, into arguments between other nations.

    As a private citizen, I’d be inclined to call upon Netanyahu to “tear down this wall” just as soon as Hamas repeals Article 7 of its charter and ends (in substance, not just in form) its own ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestine’s Jewish population.

  23. Susan Hogarth

    I don’t mean to suggest that evil statists have deliberately conspired to corrupt our language to serve their own nefarious ends. That sometimes happens, of course, but it’s not necessary. Rather, a perverse invisible-hand process is at work: the prevailing use of the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” persists because it serves to preserve the statist system of which it is a part. Think of it as spontaneous ordure. (Sorry.)

    I love Long. I’ve listened to a few of his lectures on the ‘pod, and he’s one of the few people who can be excitingly calm in lecture style, if you can grok that. And of course he has a nice voice. I could hear him speak when I read that selection.

  24. Steven R Linnabary

    I hate to disappoint you, but I do not believe that it is proper for a president — or presidential candidate — to insert himself, as a president or presidential candidate, into arguments between other nations.

    Well Tom, I think we are in general agreement here. But the US is subsidizing the occupation of Palestine, so it is a relevant issue.

    As a private citizen, I’d be inclined to call upon Netanyahu to “tear down this wall” just as soon as Hamas repeals Article 7 of its charter and ends (in substance, not just in form) its own ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestine’s Jewish population.

    Isn’t this merely a variation of the playground response “But he started it!”?

    I don’t care who started it. I don’t think most Americans care, let alone Libertarians. Most of us just want the rape, slaughter and destruction to end. A rape and slaughter that is the source of much of the animosity that is directed toward the US.

    PEACE

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steven,

    Yes, the US is subsidizing the occupation of Palestine — by various parties, including the Israeli state, the Jordanian state, the emergent Arab states in Gaza and the West Bank, etc.

    I propose to end the subsidies, not to use the subsidies as leverage to impose the US government’s wishes on the parties receiving the subsidies.

    While I very carefully explained that my personal opinion is a personal opinion, not a statement of proposed government policy, I’ll still answer your question:

    No, my position is not a variation of “but he started it!” My position is a variation of “I don’t give a fuck who started it, it takes both of you to stop it.”

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Lieberman,

    I quoted Wayne verbatim from the interview the blog article references, and reacted to what he had said. That’s not “hijacking” anything.

    Furthermore, my suggestion that scientific polling would be interesting was in no way a reference to the blog article on the current non-scientific polling.

    But, since YOU decided to bring that article up, well, THANK YOU for directing everyone’s attention to a non-scientific poll in which I am currently whipping Wayne’s ass in every iteration of the question (field, field minus Ron Paul, Root v. Knapp).

  27. Scott Lieberman

    “31 Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    Dr. Lieberman,

    I quoted Wayne verbatim from the interview the blog article references, and reacted to what he had said. That’s not “hijacking” anything.

    Furthermore, my suggestion that scientific polling would be interesting was in no way a reference to the blog article on the current non-scientific polling.”

    *************************************

    I am sure that some of the posters to this Web Site would be eager to write an extremely negative article if Ron Paul won the Presidency.

    The point is – I bet Wayne Root has made as many national TV network appearances in the last 30 days as our Presidential Nominees have gotten in any average month during their campaigns. And Wayne is not currently an official candidate for any office.

    If a Libertarian appears on an Internet Radio Show with 1000 listeners, or fewer, is that anywhere near equivalent to Wayne Root appearing on Fox News Channel, or even Fox Business Network? Wayne Root does not have a legal monopoly, or even a voluntary monopoly, on the “libertarian slot” on national TV shows.

    Sure – Wayne does not preach Ludwig-von- Mises-Institute-approved libertarianism. I am waiting for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate who is “LvMI-approved” to list all of THEIR national TV appearances.

  28. paulie Post author

    I am sure that some of the posters to this Web Site would be eager to write an extremely negative article if Ron Paul won the Presidency.

    I am sure that some of the posters on this website would be eager to write an extremely negative article no matter who won the presidency.

    We have a diverse group of people here.

  29. paulie Post author

    Wayne does not preach Ludwig-von- Mises-Institute-approved libertarianism. I am waiting for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate who is “LvMI-approved” to list all of THEIR national TV appearances.

    Good point. My (previously posted) advice to Tom or any other candidate who wants it:

    Get lots of coverage, interviews, LTEs and columns/show – consistently – in alternative weeklies, cable access, and medium-market newspapers, TV and radio.

    Parlay that into larger markets and networks.

    Bust out tons of youtube clips. If possible, try to make them entertaining.

    The tools are pretty good right now if someone wants to use them.

  30. Susan Hogarth

    I am sure that some of the posters to this Web Site would be eager to write an extremely negative article if Ron Paul won the Presidency.

    That made me think of something amusing I ran across in the past few days. Burt Blumert has recently passed away (that’s not the amusing part…), and there’s this funny story about him:

    http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/30/logic/view/index40.html

    I prefer the late Burt Blumert’s position, when asked what he’d do if his friend Ron Paul were elected president: “I guess I’d start impeachment proceedings; they all go bad once they go to Washington”.

  31. Susan Hogarth

    If a Libertarian appears on an Internet Radio Show with 1000 listeners, or fewer, is that anywhere near equivalent to Wayne Root appearing on Fox News Channel, or even Fox Business Network?

    I’d say it all depends on just who the 1,000 listeners are. Peeple are not fungible 🙂

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Lieberman,

    You write:

    “And Wayne is not currently an official candidate for any office.”

    What do you mean by “official?”

    Wayne runs a campaign site titled “Wayne Allyn Root’s Presidential Campaign Web Site.”

    On that “Presidential Campaign Web Site,” Wayne invites readers to “JOIN THE ROOT REVOLUTION 2012” and describes himself in his own press releases as “2012 Libertarian Presidential hopeful Wayne Allyn Root.”

    And in the interview this article covers, Wayne describes himself as “the prohibitive front-runner for the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nomination.”

    Front runners are, by definition, runners. Wayne is either a candidate, or he’s falsely portraying himself as one. Which?

    “If a Libertarian appears on an Internet Radio Show with 1000 listeners, or fewer, is that anywhere near equivalent to Wayne Root appearing on Fox News Channel, or even Fox Business Network?”

    Nope. I don’t recall ever saying it was.

    “I am waiting for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate who is ‘LvMI-approved’ to list all of THEIR national TV appearances.”

    I don’t know of any “LvMI-approved” candidates for the LP’s 2012 nomination. I’m certain I’m not one.

    The closest thing to an “LvMI-approved candidate” I can think of would be a Republican, Ron Paul … and his list of national TV appearances would likely dwarf Wayne’s by an order of magnitude.

  33. paulie Post author

    What do you mean by “official?”

    I suspect, “nominated” – the point being that theoretically, you or other people vying for the same nomination could be doing equivalent levels of media as well.

  34. paulie Post author

    I don’t know of any “LvMI-approved” candidates for the LP’s 2012 nomination. I’m certain I’m not one.

    I thought of mentioning that, but I think it was pretty clear the meaning was radical candidate, rather than literally Mises Institute approved.

  35. The Mango

    Scott at post # 32:
    If a Libertarian appears on an Internet Radio Show with 1000 listeners, or fewer, is that anywhere near equivalent to Wayne Root appearing on Fox News Channel, or even Fox Business Network?

    Scott, you are way too generous in your estimation of the listener pool on libertarian Internet radio shows. It’s probably more like 20. Lots of little kids at some point took a tape recorder into their bedrooms and played out their DJ/talkshow fantasies, and the Internet just provides the equivalent role-play fantasy for grown-ups. At least the kids know better than to list it on their resumes as though it had some significance.

    Wayne Root, on the other hand, manages get into large-audience, mainstream media. He kicks butt, gets the LP positive media exposure, and does it with a big smile. He’s likeable, personable, comfortable, and he gets invited back.

    Root is raising the bar for our other candidates, which is why so many of them are feeling threatened, because they look bad by comparison.

    So the other candidates and their friends stage unscientific internet polls, invent awards for themselves (the Dad in A Christmas Story won a “major award” too), and pretend that it means they’re more popular than Wayne Root. Maybe living in denial makes them feel like they’ve accomplished something, but most psychiatrists see that as a condition in need of treatment.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Mango:

    “So the other candidates and their friends stage unscientific internet polls, invent awards for themselves (the Dad in A Christmas Story won a ‘major award’ too), and pretend that it means they’re more popular than Wayne Root.”

    The unscientific poll — which is plainly ADVERTISED as unscientific — is not being staged by one of the candidates nor, so far as I can tell, is it being staged on behalf of any of the pollster’s “candidate friends.”

    I’m unaware of any “invented awards” so far in this campaign, other than possibly Wayne Root’s star on the Vegas Walk of Fame.

    I suppose I could advertise my latest non-invented award (I received a Certificate of Appreciation yesterday for five years of service as one of a handful of Libertarians serving as federal appointees), but I don’t live under the illusion that that award, or anything else, makes me “more popular” than Wayne Root.

    I don’t consider Root’s media exposure to be “positive” for the LP, but that’s just my opinion. Campaigns are about conflicting opinions. If they weren’t, there’d be no need for them.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  37. paulie Post author

    I’m unaware of any “invented awards” so far in this campaign, other than possibly Wayne Root’s star on the Vegas Walk of Fame.

    I’m guessing that the reference is to Ruwart’s Book of the Year for a book from several years ago, although Ruwart has made no indication of being a 2012 candidate that I know of.

  38. libertariangirl

    Id like to ask Tom , Sipos and other Root detractors is it really Root you don’t like or is it the company you think he keeps. meaning there are some clearly visible factional lines and I feel like some arbritrarily oppose him. Mainly , you all dont like Aaron Starr or the ‘faction’ you veiw him belonging to , and that you disike Wayne based on that

    If Steve Kubby had recriuted him or Nolan or someone else , I dont think you all would be so against him.
    If that was the case then you would veiw his philisophical differences or lib-un-purity as simply someone who needed to learn more.
    Instead , you veiw his differences as some intentional slight to turn our Party into the new GOP.
    I was a bleeding heart Dem when I got here , maybe 5% lib
    I am more LIbertarian now because some smarter , patient and non-judgemental Libs schooled me .
    what if I had been riduculed or told i didnt belong because i had never heard of Ayn Rand and couldnt name even 1 austrian economist?

    Wayne is way , way more libertarian than he used to be probably because some other Libs schooled him . but when the rest of us change our veiws its because were learning more but when Wayne does it he still gets slack . He gets accused of now just saying what we want to hear , or flip-flopping etc .
    Give the guy a fair friggin shake , he has paid his dues , he is more libertarian than before and he’s out there trying.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    libertariangirl,

    You write:

    “Id like to ask Tom , Sipos and other Root detractors is it really Root you don’t like or is it the company you think he keeps.”

    Neither.

    Believe it or not, I happen to like Wayne Root. He’s a nice guy. We’ve had some good correspondence and conversation.

    I even helped him out with one of his position papers last year (at least I assume he considered my advice helpful — he adopted the language I suggested and substituted it for the language I critiqued).

    As far as the company he keeps, when I don’t speak with Wayne directly, I usually communicate with him through Bruce Cohen, whom I also get along with (personally, not necessarily on policy). I consider his association with Aaron Starr to likely be opportunistic on Starr’s part … but that’s another topic, really. I frankly doubt that Wayne has any great interest in the LNC faction fighting.

    I’m willing to give Wayne a lot of benefit of doubt ideologically — and that’s nothing new on my part.

    Back in 2007, I defended him to some degree against the “newcomer” slights by pointing out that he had been publicly supporting libertarian positions on some issues since at least as early as 2003 (in letters to the editor in Vegas newspapers). And if I recall correctly, he identified himself as “libertarian” as far back as 1998 on Bill Maher’s show.

    All that having been said, I don’t think Wayne is a good presidential pick for the LP. If you want to discuss why I think that, instead of this “why don’t you like him?” stuff, we can.

  40. libertaraiangirl

    TK__Believe it or not, I happen to like Wayne Root. He’s a nice guy. We’ve had some good correspondence and conversation.

    me_ now that is funny Tom not to mention un-true. you have been Roots number 1 attacker for some time . I know because I used to be # 2 and paid great attention to the things you said .

    you had a short lived truce ( see last paragraph) then went right back to trashing him at every stop

    Didnt you have to resign from Kubbys campaign for some remarks you made about Root?

    TK_I’m willing to give Wayne a lot of benefit of doubt ideologically — and that’s nothing new on my part.

    me– you give him the benefit of the doubt on nothing. For instance , then and now , you always bring up his gambling business and claim his a dirty business man. .
    every unscrupulous business practice you accuse him of , you got your evidence by googling Root/ scam , and read allegations people were making and decided they were true
    you believe them w/o question and circulate it as truth
    where was the benefit of the doubt with all that ?
    did you talk to Wayne and ask him if if they were true?
    Did you google Wayne Root great guy or Wayne Root super oddsmaker?

    I bet you didnt , you went looking for dirt and found some trash talk , and decided you’d use it.

    TK_(diff. thread)”The only time you see Root is after the game when he thinks he has a shot at skimming off some of the payout.”
    “Root’s just trying to hog the spotlight — a spotlight that others busted ass and risked neck to get turned on”

    ME-those two comments and others you’ve made , make my point about it’s not really his political differences that bother you so bad .
    but that you feel he ‘steals’ the thunder of hard-working activists. thats the envy i was referring to.

    TK_may 2007-I find myself wanting to bash this guy because of this poorly-written article and because Dondero thinks he’s the Second Coming of Christ, but then again I really ought to give him a chance.

    me__ thats the dislike based on association i was talking about. you want to give him a chance but if the evil- Dondero likes him so much , instinctively you want to bash him.

    TK_
    All that having been said, I don’t think Wayne is a good presidential pick for the LP. If you want to discuss why I think that, instead of this “why don’t you like him?” stuff, we can.

    Id like that so long as it doesnt include allegations that cant be proven , like always attacking what he used to do for a living . but what I really want to know is what happened between the time you wrote the post below and now?

    TK_”I mean, c’mon … nobody slammed Root the way I did pre-nomination. If he’ll listen to me, he’ll listen to you, too. He’ll just listen better if you’re working with him instead of against him. My experience is that he wants to learn, that he’s willing to listen. I had genuine doubts about his sincerity, but now that he’s our VP nominee I’ve declared tabula rasa — clean slate — on that and will trust him until and unless he gives me reason not to…

    ,

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    libertariangirl,

    You write:

    “TK__Believe it or not, I happen to like Wayne Root. He’s a nice guy. We’ve had some good correspondence and conversation.

    me_ now that is funny Tom not to mention un-true. you have been Roots number 1 attacker for some time .”

    And your point is? Liking someone and attacking them are not mutually exclusive propositions.

    “you had a short lived truce ( see last paragraph)”

    At no time have Wayne and I been less than 100% personally congenial with each other. If you don’t believe me on that, ask him.

    “Didnt you have to resign from Kubbys campaign for some remarks you made about Root?”

    I resigned as his titular campaign manager, yes. I didn’t resign from his campaign, though. I just took a demotion.

    “you give him the benefit of the doubt on nothing. For instance , then and now , you always bring up his gambling business and claim his a dirty business man. .”

    Beg to differ. Here’s a recent article where I agreed with him on some things, disagreed with him on others, and mentioned his gambling business not at all.

    Feel free to name the factual claim I’ve made that I haven’t provided ample evidence for, or that Wayne has disproven. Take your time. I’ve been waiting for two years for anyone to do that, and nobody has yet.

    “every unscrupulous business practice you accuse him of , you got your evidence by googling Root/ scam , and read allegations people were making and decided they were true
    you believe them w/o question and circulate it as truth
    where was the benefit of the doubt with all that ?”

    Bullshit.

    I did not identify Root as a scamdicapper based on the various “hate on Wayne” posts to that effect. I identified him as a scamdicapper based on, among other things, the fact that he was one of two sports handicappers — out of hundreds rated — who was blacklisted as a scamdicapper by a prominent site devoted to monitoring handicappers.

    I did not identify Root as having a questionable record of business ethics based on rants from his former customers. I identified him as as having a questionable record of business ethics based on the fact that he had a high rate of unresolved — not just to the customer’s satisfaction, but to the BBB’s — Better Business Bureau complaints involving things like unauthorized credit card charges (the rants, however, did back up that angle). He contested that with hyperbolic claims about how many complaints Microsoft and other companies must get, and I exploded every one of those claims with direct statistical comparisons to the records of the companies he chose for that exercise.

    I identified him as not being the “business mogul” he initially hyped himself as by examining his company’s’ SEC filings, noting that his company was in default on debts far exceeding its stock value, and noting that the company’s own auditor had called into question the continued viability of the enterprise.

    Wayne didn’t change his pitch from “I’m a business mogul” to “I’m a small businessman” because I discovered those things. He changed his tack from “I’m a business mogul” to “I’m a small businessman” because of those things.

    I scrutinized his public statements, researched the factual comment of those statements where applicable, and divulged the results. If he’d been the nominee and threatened to actually garner any significant degree of popular support, do you think the mainstream media wouldn’t have done what I did, and then some?

    “did you talk to Wayne and ask him if if they were true?”

    I corresponded with Wayne extensively on the matter on the accuracy of my claims.

    There are two people in this conversation. One of them is believing what s/he wants to believe because s/he wants to believe it. The other is believing what s/he wants to believe because s/he’s actual researched it. It shouldn’t take two guesses to figure out which one is which.

    I do like Wayne Root. I’d sit down and have a beer with him any time, if he drank beer. I think he has a lovely family, and I’m sure he loves them very much.

    Where we have honest political or ideological disagreements, I’m happy to debate them with him, or discuss them with others, civilly.

    When he was the vice-presidential nominee of my party, I accorded him personal respect, welcomed him when he visited my state, and distributed thousands of pieces of literature asking people to vote for him.

    If you don’t like the fact that I’m an attack dog who does opposition research and then uses that opposition research against my opposition, well, too bad. That’s who I am, that’s what I do, I’m damn good at it, and I have no apologies to make for that. Maybe instead of whining about it, you should hone your own opposition research skills and start digging through my closet.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  42. paulie Post author

    Liking someone and attacking them are not mutually exclusive propositions.

    It comes across that way to a lot of people. I don’t think you mean it as a personal attack (more like contact sports), but that’s just how a lot of people see it.

    you should hone your own opposition research skills and start digging through my closet.

    Better to lay it all out yourself and disarm it. Easier said than done, as I know from personal experience.

  43. libertaraiangirl

    TK self described hit piece __”Except, well, it’s not really much like that. The Las Vegas Better Business Bureau lists 14 complaints versus Root’s company over a period of 36 months, with only five of those complaints resolved to the BBB’s satisfaction and none of them resolved to the customer’s satisfaction. Among the complaints are one for “deceptive sales practices,” two for “unauthorized credit card charges,” and one for “unauthorized bank debits.”

    TK_ now-I did not identify Root as having a questionable record of business ethics based on rants from his former customers. I identified him as as having a questionable record of business ethics based on the fact that he had a high rate of unresolved — not just to the customer’s satisfaction, but to the BBB’s — Better Business Bureau complaints involving things like unauthorized credit card charges (the rants, however, did back up that angle). He contested that with hyperbolic claims about how many complaints Microsoft and other companies must get, and I exploded every one of those claims with direct statistical comparisons to the records of the companies he chose for that exercise.

    how much do you stand by these claims?
    now either you didnt investigate past ‘ he’s had complaints at the BBB’ or you got your info second hand or you know the truth and simply wanted any grain of dirt despite it being true or not.
    some simple investigating will see he had 12 complaints , and they were resolved not always to the customes satisfaction but ALWAYS to the BBB voluntary protocol.
    heres the list
    The 12 complaint(s) closed in the last 36 months was/were closed as:
    6 – Resolved
    1 – Company resolved the complaint issues. The consumer acknowledged acceptance to the BBB.
    5 – Company resolved the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledged acceptance to the BBB.
    6 – Administratively Closed
    5 – BBB determined the company made good faith and reasonable offer to resolve the issues, but the consumer did not accept the offer.
    1 – BBB determined that despite the company’s good faith effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

    how mant times does the BBB say ‘in good faith ‘about the company .
    additionally they have a rating system a-f based on the following criteria:

    BBB assigns ratings by evaluating businesses in the following categories:

    BBB experience with the industry in which the business operates
    The business’ length of time in operation
    Whether BBB has information that the business does not have required competency license(s)
    Any known government actions against the business that are related to marketplace activities
    Any advertising issues found by BBB
    The number of complaints processed by BBB from the business’ customers
    The number of complaints processed by BBB from the business’ customers that are of a serious nature
    Whether the business has responded to complaints received by BBB
    Whether complaints have been resolved in a timely manner or the business has demonstrated it made a good faith effort to resolve them
    Business’ overall complaint history with BBB
    Whether the business has honored any commitments to BBB to arbitrate or mediate disputes and comply with arbitrator decisions or mediated settlements
    Whether BBB has sufficient background information and clear understanding of business
    Whether the business is a BBB Accredited Business
    Whether BBB Accreditation was revoked because the business failed to comply with agreed BBB standards
    Ratings are determined by a proprietary formula that represents BBB’s opinion as to (1) the importance of each category, and (2) the appropriate score given to the business for each category.

    BBB assigns grades from A to F with pluses and minuses. A+ is the highest grade and F is the lowest. The grade represents BBB’s degree of confidence that the business is operating in a trustworthy manner and will make a good faith effort to resolve any customer concerns.

    waynes company’s grade/rating :
    A , as in the better than most .

    so when you say :
    he had a high rate of unresolved — not just to the customer’s satisfaction, but to the BBB’s —

    your wrong or your lying , i think the first.

  44. libertaraiangirl

    TK_I did not identify Root as a scamdicapper based on the various “hate on Wayne” posts to that effect. I identified him as a scamdicapper based on, among other things, the fact that he was one of two sports handicappers — out of hundreds rated — who was blacklisted as a scamdicapper by a prominent site devoted to monitoring handicappers.

    and this site has authority to blacklist based on?
    your saying that because this one ‘prominent’site decided to blacklist him , thats your proof?
    there is NOTHING official to that site and in Vegas we actually have a ‘blacklist’ and Wayne isnt on it.
    is it possible this independent site disliked him for other reasons ?
    anyone can make a ‘blacklist’.
    how many other handicap watch sites did you look into to see if it was a common thread?
    maybe the 100 or so they listed all paid to get a favorable listing . You just dont know and cant be serious that is your reliable source

    The Nevada Gaming Commission is strict , and scary . Did you look to see if they had issues with Root? they are after all , the only official ‘gaming’ oversite group that actually matters.

    dont bother , theres nothing there

    TK_There are two people in this conversation. One of them is believing what s/he wants to believe because s/he wants to believe it. The other is believing what s/he wants to believe because s/he’s actual researched it. It shouldn’t take two guesses to figure out which one is which.

    you need to work on your research or rather at lease improve your scrutiny on what ‘;research’ to actually claim true.

    i just blew your BBB argument out of the water with very little research ,

    your ‘blacklisted’ argument falls short when omnes realizes the site has no official capacity and means nothing ,
    hell there are bloggers here who have been ‘blacklisted ‘ from certain sites , petitioners that have been ‘blacklisted’ from working and I wouldnt bet the black-listees were wrong in any instance.

    TK_Maybe instead of whining about it, you should hone your own opposition research skills and start digging through my closet.

    I would never do that , actually ive been following your writings for some time and respect you alot . i would never waste my time tearing down someone i veiw as an ally .

    TK_If you don’t like the fact that I’m an attack dog who does opposition research and then uses that opposition research against my opposition, well, too bad

    yes i know , and your good at it but shouldnt it be true?
    besides i think you stand a good shot of beating him just based on your merits and your activism/political resume.

  45. Thomas L. Knapp

    libertariangirl,

    The BBB maintains its reports on a “rolling” basis; presumably the report you’re citing is not the report for the same period I cited.

    However, in the report you cite, you note that 6 of the complaints were resolved in some fashion (to the customer’s satisfaction, to the BBB’s satisfaction, or both), and that six were “administratively closed,” meaning that they were UNRESOLVED (that’s why the report says that there were 12 claims and that 6 were resolved). That’s a 50% unresolved rate. It was worse than the rate for the only other sports handicapper I found with a BBB report, and it was worse than the rate for each and every company Wayne himself claimed would surely have a worse rate than him if someone checked (presumably assuming I WOULDN’T check).

    If you go back to the posts at Third Party Watch in which Root and I hashed this out, I meticulously analyzed each and every one of Root’s counterclaims using hard, verifiable, linked data, and established beyond any reasonable doubt that each and every one of those counterclaims was Grade A bullshit.

    If you want to defend Root on this or any other issue, feel free to do so. If you think I’m going you’re going to get a defense based on “I want to believe” rather than on the cold, hard facts past me, however, you’re mistaken.

    “your good at it but shouldnt it be true?”

    Once again, I challenge you to identify a single _factual claim_ I’ve made about Root which isn’t true. When it comes to opinion, I sometimes get heated, and even mean. When it comes to questions of fact, I try to make damn sure I’m right, and if it turns out I’m wrong, I admit it.

    With respect to the “scamdicapping” charges I’ve made, I’m going to go back and re-research my claims, just to make absolutely sure I’ve made no unsupportable factual claims. It may take awhile — feel free to get on my ass about it if I haven’t done so by next week some time.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  46. libertaraiangirl

    TK_and that six were “administratively closed,” meaning that they were UNRESOLVED (that’s why the report says that there were 12 claims and that 6 were resolved).

    LOL , spin the truth much.
    of the 6 administratively closed , the findings were:
    5 – BBB determined the company made good faith and reasonable offer to resolve the issues, but the consumer did not accept the offer.
    1 – BBB determined that despite the company’s good faith effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.

    TK__ That’s a 50% unresolved rate

    stop playing tricky debate -semantic games ok? he’s got 100% rating with the BBB and you just cant change that with ridiculous interpretations .
    I know you are not that dumb .
    additionally the complaints are based on a rolling 36 month , but the grade the BBB assigns takes into account the companys history with the BBB.
    Wayne has an A rating so how do you argue against that?

    TK__Once again, I challenge you to identify a single _factual claim_ I’ve made about Root which isn’t true

    me__ gladly , you claim wayne has a bad rating with the BBB. False –Waynes rating is an A ,
    you damn well know that complaints = rating.
    everyone isnt going to be totally happy . Thats why we have arbritration , and to fixing what went wrong he is listed at 100 FRIGGIN % . !

    stop playin..

    #2 false claim – the whole blacklisted thing. so now your saying if someone is blacklisted on a website with no official standing , you take that as gospel?
    what about a blog listing top 100 petitioners on a site that keeps track of 3rd party activist-petitioners . what if Paulie and Andy were two blacklisted names , then your saying it must be true and valid?
    I already know the answer , you would give it no credence.
    I geuss what im asking is what makes this site you refer to as a absolutley credible?
    .
    What are your standards and criteria when researching different sources as to what are facts and what is opinion ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.