New LP Straw Polls: Chair and Pres

New versions of the informal LP Presidential and Chair Straw Polls are here:

http://lp-discuss.org/polls/

The number of ‘voters’ for last week’s Pres poll is listed as 690, when in reality it was 138 when closed. The individual tallies are correct; I’m not sure what caused the glitch.

101 thoughts on “New LP Straw Polls: Chair and Pres

  1. Susan Hogarth Post author

    Thanks, Morgan. I don’t want so many questions that people don’t want to answer, but I do think it’s interesting to look at the race without the distorting effect of a very popular LP member who is currently committed as a candidate to another Party.

  2. Erik Geib

    I couldn’t help but notice the 4/5 poll includes Glenn Jacobs.

    To my knowledge, he was born off-base (his parents were in the Air Force) in Madrid, Spain, thus making him ineligible. Is there any evidence to the contrary (i.e. he was born on, rather than off, base)?

  3. Libertarian Joseph

    I voted for the “radicals” on this one. I believe n keeping the core of the party radical. The candidates need to be more pragmatic if they aspire to win. Or would they rather “educate”? That’s up to them.

  4. Libertarian Joseph

    It’s hard to be the party of principle when you’re running for a slot inside of an organzation that is inherently evil. Might as well make some compromises.

  5. paulie

    Well, yes, that’s the number of VOTES. But why it recorded that as the number of votERs is what is not clear to me.

    I would guess that it is somehow failing to identify voters on the different questions as being the same voters.

  6. paulie

    I couldn’t help but notice the 4/5 poll includes Glenn Jacobs.

    To my knowledge, he was born off-base (his parents were in the Air Force) in Madrid, Spain, thus making him ineligible.

    Why would that make him ineligible if his parents were US citizens?

  7. Erik Geib

    Because though the Naturalization Act of 1790 stated “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” … the Naturalization Act of 1795 merely states that foreign-born children of Americans “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” The ‘natural born’ language, as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution for a citizen to be president, was removed.

    If one is born outside the United States, they are not a citizen by nature (aka ‘naturally born,’ as required), but rather a citizen by law, or by statutory.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    Erik,

    The relevant portion of the Constitution was ratified prior to 1790 and prior to 1795. The definition of “natural born citizen” pertaining to presidential qualifications would be (absent any constitutional amendment) the definition prevailing as of ratification, not any definition Congress happened to subsequently paste into statute.

  9. Erik Geib

    Thomas,

    By your standards Native Americans would not be considered citizens. Natives were not covered by the 14th Amendment, but instead by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (Elk v. Wilkins in 1872 clearly backs this up). Also, there was no ‘prevailing’ definition at the time of constitutional ratification, which is exactly why this topic has been of great scholarly debate for quite some time. The ‘subsequently paste[d] into statute’ definitions of which you speak are the primary resource for original intent at this time.

    Paulie,

    To some extent you are correct, but I think you are perhaps misinterpreting the contrasting of the terms as defined by legal scholarship. Naturalized implies a a pre-existing foreign citizenship, which one born in Spain has. You cannot be “naturally born” if you are born abroad and have another country’s citizenship first at birth. As I said earlier, you can only be a statutory (by law) citizen at that point. ‘Naturally born,’ in opposition to naturalized, thus means having United States citizenship first and foremost, an act requiring one to actually be born in the United States.

  10. Gene Berkman

    I voted NOTA five times, only because I believe Ron Paul is too old to run again in 2012. None of the others meet my standards for credentials or ability to communicate the libertarian message.

    The real message is for Wayne Allan Root, who is consistently rejected by the majority of people who vote in the poll.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    Gene,

    I’m the last person anyone would consider a Root supporter, but I don’t think your evaluation of the message is correct.

    This is a non-scientific poll, and if I had to bet money I’d bet that the sample so far is heavily weighted toward radicals whom one would expect not to support Root.

    His real level of support is likely much higher than the poll reflects at this point.

  12. Susan Hogarth Post author

    As of April 7, 9Am ET – 72 votes

    LP 2012 Presidential Nomination Straw Poll (April 5, ’09)

    1/5: The Field – Choose One
    Bob Barr 2 (2.78%)
    Bill Redpath 1 (1.39%)
    Steve Kubby 1 (1.39%)
    Mary Ruwart 10 (13.89%)
    George Phillies 4 (5.56%)
    Tom Knapp 7 (9.72%)
    Ron Paul 30 (41.67%)
    Wayne Root 4 (5.56%)
    Michael Jingozian 1 (1.39%)
    Doug Stanhope 3 (4.17%)
    Glenn Jacobs (AKA Kane) 6 (8.33%)
    NOTA 3 (4.17%)

    2/5: The Field sans Ron Paul – Choose One
    Bob Barr 5 (6.94%)
    Bill Redpath 3 (4.17%)
    Steve Kubby 4 (5.56%)
    Mary Ruwart 21 (29.17%)
    George Phillies 6 (8.33%)
    Tom Knapp 10 (13.89%)
    Wayne Root 6 (8.33%)
    Michael Jingozian 2 (2.78%)
    Doug Stanhope 5 (6.94%)
    Glenn Jacobs (AKA Kane) 5 (6.94%)
    NOTA 5 (6.94%)

    3/5: Head-to-Head: Root vs Ruwart
    Wayne Root 14 (19.44%)
    Mary Ruwart 51 (70.83%)
    NOTA 7 (9.72%)

    4/5: Head-to-Head: Root vs Kubby
    Wayne Root 12 (16.67%)
    Steve Kubby 53 (73.61%)
    NOTA 7 (9.72%)

    5/5: Head-to-Head: Root vs Knapp
    Wayne Root 16 (22.22%)
    Tom Knapp 41 (56.94%)
    NOTA 15 (20.83%)

  13. Erik Geib

    There’s still the question of his eligibility. Plus, I should think that picking a professional wrestler (which, yes, would bring in significant attention from that sector’s fan base) would do more harm than good. Just look at the mainstream’s continued inability to take Jesse Ventura seriously.

  14. paulie

    There’s still the question of his eligibility.

    I really don’t think there is. Did he have to go through naturalization? My understanding is that children of US citizens born abroad are automatically US citizens and don’t have to be naturalized.

    Just look at the mainstream’s continued inability to take Jesse Ventura seriously.

    He was actually elected Governor. I’d take that credibility any day.

  15. Erik Geib

    He is a statutory citizen, not a natural born citizen. I cannot emphasize this enough.

    And I suppose you missed the way the media treated Ventura once he became governor. Or that he was lucky to be allowed to debate his opponents, a luxury that Jacobs will not have, and one that Ventura himself acknowledges as the only way he stood a shot.

    Moreover, Ventura was a mayor before he ran for governor, which at least gave him some form of political credential – credential that Jacobs lacks.

  16. paulie

    He is a statutory citizen, not a natural born citizen. I cannot emphasize this enough.

    Not particularly important even if true (and I still don’t think it is), unless you think he will win electoral votes.

    And I suppose you missed the way the media treated Ventura once he became governor. Or that he was lucky to be allowed to debate his opponents, a luxury that Jacobs will not have, and one that Ventura himself acknowledges as the only way he stood a shot.

    Moreover, Ventura was a mayor before he ran for governor, which at least gave him some form of political credential – credential that Jacobs lacks.

    Wrong standards for a Libertarian presidential candidate, unless something very major happens in the next couple of years.

    In a LP candidate for an office with a very low chance of being competitive, I look for someone

    – Who can get noticed
    – Be articulate and know how to use soundbites and interviews
    – Present a comprehensive libertarian vision

    Not necessarily in that order.

  17. Erik Geib

    That’s the same supposed rationale used to nominate the Barr/Root ticket, and that worked out great for everyone I hear.

    And your denial of the statute of the law doesn’t make you correct – it only makes you in denial. I’ve never questioned his citizenship – that, yes, is instantly given to him at birth since his parents are American. But because it’s only given to him because his parents are American, it’s a matter of being a statutory citizen – citizenship by the statute that children of citizens are citizens. Naturally born still requires you to be born in the United States.

  18. Erik Geib

    Besides, the last thing we need is media speculation over his eligibility. We have enough problems gaining credibility as a party.

  19. paulie

    That’s the same supposed rationale used to nominate the Barr/Root ticket

    I think they didn’t present a comprehensive enough libertarian vision, which is why I didn’t back them for the nomination.

    However, I’ll agree that the ability to get noticed, be articulate and know how to use soundbites and interviews is why they won the nomination. I think Mary Ruwart could have won it if she started earlier, ran a more aggressive campaign, had better floor organization, and maybe some speech coaching to punch up her delivery more (she’s a good speaker, but a bit too understated for the purpose).

    Kubby could have won, but I won’t get into a long drawn out analysis of what we did wrong on that campaign at this time.

    And your denial of the statute of the law doesn’t make you correct – it only makes you in denial. I’ve never questioned his citizenship – that, yes, is instantly given to him at birth since his parents are American. But because it’s only given to him because his parents are American, it’s a matter of being a statutory citizen – citizenship by the statute that children of citizens are citizens. Naturally born still requires you to be born in the United States.

    Are you suggesting that there is a category other than naturally born and naturalized?

    I’m not convinced of that.

  20. paulie

    Besides, the last thing we need is media speculation over his eligibility. We have enough problems gaining credibility as a party.

    Just another opportunity to get interviewed.

  21. Erik Geib

    Don’t get me wrong, I like the guy – I like him a lot, in fact. I just don’t think it’s in our best interest to put someone up who may or may not be considered eligible (people can consider him eligible if they want to, despite all the statutes to the contrary), particularly when there’s already other baggage attached to someone of his stature.(unfairly, but the fact remains).

    As to your question concerning whether or not there is a category ‘other’ than naturally born or naturalized… you’re still missing the point. Statutory citizenship is instant naturalization. You don’t have to go through the citizenship process that other foreign nationals do, because your parents citizenship *by statute* affirms your citizenship.

  22. Susan Hogarth Post author

    Besides, the last thing we need is media speculation over his eligibility.

    Just another opportunity to get interviewed.

    Damn. Beat me to it.

  23. Susan Hogarth Post author

    there’s already other baggage attached to someone of his stature

    What baggage? What stature?

    We’ve run two *ex-congressmen*, for cripes’ sake. How much lower in ‘stature’ can you get than that?

  24. Erik Geib

    The baggage of being a professional wrestler. I didn’t say it was fair or that I agreed with it, but it’s definitely there and I think you’d be quite naive to ignore that.

    And if you think being interviewed in a manner that would portray us a laughingstock, and perhaps further any misconceptions people already have is a good thing, then by all means, let’s go for it. It’s almost amusing to envision a world where the media won’t be as vicious as it is.

  25. Erik Geib

    For the record, this is all considered irrelevant if he was born on base, which was my original point of question anyway. Like I said, I like the guy. It’s almost ridiculous the degree of faith (rather than scrutiny) everyone here of ‘open mind’ is taking concerning his eligibility.

  26. paulie

    And if you think being interviewed in a manner that would portray us a laughingstock, and perhaps further any misconceptions people already have is a good thing,

    Preferable to being ignored, and those types of situations can be turned around (Loretta Nall, for example).

  27. paulie

    It’s almost ridiculous the degree of faith (rather than scrutiny) everyone here of ‘open mind’ is taking concerning his eligibility.

    I acknowledged the possibility you could be correct in comment 21, and dealt with that contingency.

  28. sunshinebatman

    Nominating ineligible Presidential candidates used to be the sole province of small socialist/Communist parties. Then last year, both Democrats and Republicans nominated ineligible candidates.

    The 2o08 LP nominee didn’t do shit about it. Nor did the 1988 LP nominee, who had a seat in the U.S. House where the fraudulent election was ratified.

    There’s no reason the LP shouldn’t continue its descent into the anti-American sewer by nominating an ineligible candidate themselves.

  29. Susan Hogarth Post author

    The baggage of being a professional wrestler. I didn’t say it was fair or that I agreed with it, but it’s definitely there and I think you’d be quite naive to ignore that.

    I think it’s more in the category ‘lemon’ than ‘baggage’. It definitely has plus and minus elements, and it can be made into quite a tasty concoction by someone exercising reasonably simple skills.

    As for the ‘eligibility’ nonsense:
    I found the endless obsession with Obama’s and McCain’s ‘eligibility’ to hold office bizarre and laughable. Here’s the truth: no one really cares unless they’re trying to shut you up. If they’re trying to shut you up and you’re as much an underdog as the LP candidate will be, then *that itself* is exciting and good news.

    I love lemonade!

  30. paulie

    Nor did the 1988 LP nominee, who had a seat in the U.S. House

    He was out of office at the time. About as well fact-checked as the rest of your comment.

  31. paulie

    I think it’s more in the category ‘lemon’ than ‘baggage’. It definitely has plus and minus elements, and it can be made into quite a tasty concoction by someone exercising reasonably simple skills.

    As for the ‘eligibility’ nonsense:
    I found the endless obsession with Obama’s and McCain’s ‘eligibility’ to hold office bizarre and laughable. Here’s the truth: no one really cares unless they’re trying to shut you up. If they’re trying to shut you up and you’re as much an underdog as the LP candidate will be, then *that itself* is exciting and good news.

    I love lemonade!

    Exactly!

  32. Erik Geib

    So you don’t think being vetted is important? It’s kind of a big deal.

    Just as Libertarians wish Bob Barr had been better vetted.

    Just as Republicans wish Sarah Palin had been better vetted.

    Just as Democrats wish Thomas Eagleton had been better vetted.

    Much of what happens with the media isn’t necessarily just or fair, but it’s foolish to jump on someone’s bandwagon just because they can speak well and have media presence.

  33. Erik Geib

    And though I disagree with sunshinebatman’s comments, I think he was trying to say that the 1988 LP nominee was in office as a congressman in 2008/9 when the people he thinks were ineligible ran for office in 2008/9.

  34. Susan Hogarth Post author

    So you don’t think being vetted is important?

    *I* think it’s important, yes.

    Much of what happens with the media isn’t necessarily just or fair, but it’s foolish to jump on someone’s bandwagon just because they can speak well and have media presence.

    I’m not seeing any bandwagon-jumping here. Hell, I’m not even seeing the *bandwagon*.

    We’re kicking around names of interesting Libertarians. Jacobs is one. Got any others we should ponder? I’m looking for more fodder for next week’s poll.

  35. Erik Geib

    If you really wanted to just kick around names (as the poll is doing with Jacobs) you could throw in Gary Johnson.

    I, for one, am supporting Mary Ruwart until someone shows me a better candidate, but Johnson is receiving some buzz as ‘libertarian-esque’ from non-libertarians and recent converts.

  36. paulie

    So you don’t think being vetted is important? It’s kind of a big deal.

    Just as Libertarians wish Bob Barr had been better vetted.

    Just as Republicans wish Sarah Palin had been better vetted.

    Just as Democrats wish Thomas Eagleton had been better vetted.

    Much of what happens with the media isn’t necessarily just or fair, but it’s foolish to jump on someone’s bandwagon just because they can speak well and have media presence.

    You’re right. I’d also like to see a consistent hardcore libertarian presentation of ideas, a plan for active and well-organized campaigning, cooperation with local candidates and party organizations, disclosure of embarassing personal past, at least some degree of personal financial viability and/or proven fundraising ability, the ability to work productively with a campaign team, and a few other things I’m not thinking of on the fly.

  37. Erik Geib

    “You’re right. I’d also like to see a consistent hardcore libertarian presentation of ideas, a plan for active and well-organized campaigning, cooperation with local candidates and party organizations, disclosure of embarassing personal past, at least some degree of personal financial viability and/or proven fundraising ability, the ability to work productively with a campaign team, and a few other things I’m not thinking of on the fly.”

    Agreed.

  38. paulie

    I think he was trying to say that the 1988 LP nominee was in office as a congressman in 2008/9 when the people he thinks were ineligible ran for office in 2008/9.

    OK, my bad. You’re right, that’s probably what he meant. I still think he is braking up the wrong moon regarding Obama and McCain eligibility.

  39. Erik Geib

    I agree. The Obama thing is ridiculous on many levels, and too many judges have already stated that any attempt to ascertain McCain’s eligibility would be too retroactive in approach.

  40. sunshinebatman

    President-select Barry is a natural-born British subject (exactly what the Founders were worried about.)

    Unless you think he’s lying about who his babydaddy is?

  41. Erik Geib

    He was born in Hawaii… it doesn’t matter if his father was a Kenyan with British citizenship.

    This goes back to the statutory laws regarding citizenship I was so passionately explaining earlier. Obama may or may not receive statutory citizenship in the United Kingdom (I’m not as familiar with their laws as I am with ours), but he’s still a naturally born citizen of the United States, and thus eligible to be president. Any other citizenship would be statutory naturalization.

  42. paulie

    President-select Barry is a natural-born British subject (exactly what the Founders were worried about.)

    Unless you think he’s lying about who his babydaddy is?

  43. Michael Seebeck

    Erik, and Paulie,

    I researched all that with McCain. The details can be found at my blog, http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html

    The simple fact is that Erik has it right, at least partially. Glen, as nice of a guy as he is and as articulate and well-rooted in the Party and philosophy as he is, isn’t eligible since he was not born on US soil. His lineage is irrelevant.

    That makes Susan’s poll what it actually is anyway, which is an exercise in fun.

    But being a professional wrestler isn’t baggage. Ventura wasn’t taken seriously because he actually tried to govern instead of kowtow to the media and the D/R parties. He had executive experience before as a mayor, for crying out loud! Other wrestlers have been politically active and run for office. In 1999 Jerry Lawler in Memphis for mayor got 11.7% (3rd), for example.

    It’s not a function of celebrity, but of common sense and experience. As Exhibit A of lack of both, I give you Gray Davis Jr., aka Arnold “Taxinator” Schwarzenegger.

    Many celebrities and athletes have gone on to political careers: Sonny Bono (entertainer), Steve Largent (NFL), Fred Granby (actor), Jim Bunning (MLB), Tom Osborne (NCAA FB), Clint Eastwood (icon) all come to mind immediately. It’s really about ability, not previous careers.

  44. Susan Hogarth Post author

    Seebeck,

    Your post starts with “Why John McCain is INELIGIBLE to be President of the United States”.

    That sort of Constitutional nitpicking makes my eyes glaze.

    I should think running a candidate with the same ‘ineligibility issue’ (if indeed there is one) as McCain could only be a plus.

    Either:

    (1) No one cares (sigh) – most likely option.

    (2) People point out that the LP candidate is ineligible to hold the office, and it becomes immediately apparent that so was (is) McCain.

    What’s the downside? I can see an argument that we ought to follow the law in such a thing, but the question of the law in this case -does- seem to be widely disputed.

  45. Erik Geib

    Susan,

    As much as I enjoy point #2, I think most of the questioning of the law in this case was from a McCain apologist standpoint. Given a 3rd party candidate, people would be less likely to defend the other side of this debate, no matter how much fun #2 is.

    Michael,

    My comments concerning him being a professional wrestler were supposed to be taken in context to his questionable eligibility as well as the LP’s already-neglected status. Obviously, I should have done a better job portraying this, but spoke as I did in opposition (on a related point) to Paulie’s point of view.

    My point is more so that factoring in questionable eligibility + media-neglected LP + mainstream view of professional wrestling = a risky candidate. As I said before, Ventura’s success largely comes from having previously been a mayor in the state he was running for governor in, plus his inclusion in the debates. A not-mentioned point includes him originally being on the Reform Party ticket, which at the time still had decent momentum from Ross Perot and guaranteed ballot access. Moreover, I think running for governor and president are two highly different things, as is mayor and president. Jerry Lawler’s success in Memphis is largely due to his well-known involvement in the Memphis area throughout his life, and even then he only registered 11.7% in his hometown.

    Jacobs’ involvement is little known outside the liberty movement and professional wrestling, and I just don’t know what sort of credibility he could walk with in the mainstream media and, consequently, what sort of credibility the LP would have after his campaign.

  46. paulie

    That sort of Constitutional nitpicking makes my eyes glaze.

    Same here. But other people who agree with Michael’s general line of analysis distinguish US military bases, which are considered US soil, so McCain (and possibly Jacobs) would be eligible anyway.

  47. paulie

    By the way, what about Bob Barr? Wikipedia says he was born in Iowa last time I checked, but Steve Gordon once told me he was actually born in Iran. At least that is how I remember it; maybe he just said he grew up there.

  48. paulie

    Many celebrities and athletes have gone on to political careers: Sonny Bono (entertainer), Steve Largent (NFL), Fred Granby (actor), Jim Bunning (MLB), Tom Osborne (NCAA FB), Clint Eastwood (icon) all come to mind immediately.

    …Ronald Reagan…

  49. Erik Geib

    Actually, the debate with McCain lies in the fact that the Panama Canal Zone was not a military base, but rather a U.S. Government sponsored corporation known as the Canal Zone Government.

    “On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated, “While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country.” (Source: The New York Times)

  50. paulie

    (1) No one cares (sigh) – most likely option.

    I agree. The only reason anyone even cared about McCain and Obama eligibility nitpicking is because they actually had a chance of winning.

  51. Erik Geib

    Barr was born in Iowa; he later lived in Iran.

    And Ronald Reagan worked through the two major parties, not the LP, as I recall. You’re also missing the fact that I said wrestling was a factor, not the sole reason, of why I said he could do more harm than good for our message.

  52. paulie

    Jacobs’ involvement is little known outside the liberty movement and professional wrestling, and I just don’t know what sort of credibility he could walk with in the mainstream media and, consequently, what sort of credibility the LP would have after his campaign.

    For the most part it would do with how well he and his team would handle the campaign.

    It seems to me that the credibility would be most likely to be enhanced.

  53. Erik Geib

    And if we want to portray ourselves as having a chance, shouldn’t we care too?

  54. paulie

    And if we want to portray ourselves as having a chance, shouldn’t we care too?

    No, because virtually no one believes such a chance is realistic. It’s mostly about the message and the ability to present it, as well as the ability to mobilize activists and money and turn them into renewable resources for the party, promoting more winnable local campaigns, etc.

  55. Erik Geib

    Besides, what’s the point of running someone who can attract all this (supposedly) positive attention, if he simply loses all momentum when his ineligibility is revealed?

  56. Erik Geib

    The party cannot grow without votes and very few new people will vote for the LP if it’s not about having a chance. The average American voter generally tries to play an endgame strategy that results in the least offensive of two major candidates winning… such a voter won’t waste their time on someone they don’t think can win.

    As such… it goes back to the original point. Even if you have no chance of winning, you at least have to act like you do.

  57. paulie

    Besides, what’s the point of running someone who can attract all this (supposedly) positive attention, if he simply loses all momentum when his ineligibility is revealed?

    A) Ineligibility is an open question
    B) Not many people will know or care in regards to a candidate who does not stand much chance of winning, or even getting any electoral votes.

    “Loses all momentum” sounds like a huge exaggeration built on top of shaky premises.

  58. paulie

    The average American voter generally tries to play an endgame strategy that results in the least offensive of two major candidates winning… such a voter won’t waste their time on someone they don’t think can win.

    This applies to all federal LP candidates, and all or almost all LP candidates for statewide office.

    Luckily, there are some unaverage Americans, and even those who buy into the “wasted vote” myth might vote for downticket LP candidates as a result of being exposed to the message coming from the top of the ticket, join the party, etc.

  59. Starchild

    Although it’s understandable why the decision was made, I think including Wayne Allyn Root in several head-to-head polls is a mistake. It gives the impression that he is presumed to have a lot of support and be a likely nominee. Of course Root himself has been at pains to give this impression, but after the failed Barr/Root campaign last year, I’m not sure even the moderate/conservative-leaning faction of the LP is going to be that thrilled to have him as its standard-bearer again. While Root continues to promote himself as the presumptive 2012 nominee on TV and right-wing radio shows, where his frenetic personality has evidently made him a welcome guest, the supposed hordes of sports gamblers who would support one of their own on a national ticket, or the big money that a self-proclaimed “Millionaire Republican” would supposedly bring to the 2008 ticket, never materialized. And the title of Root’s latest book, explicitly invoking God along with guns and gambling, doesn’t seem likely to generate much enthusiasm among a movement where the religious right’s influence in government has been a major concern.

  60. Erik Geib

    Again, this is a holistic argument. You continually fail to see that, so I don’t know why I’m even bothering to continually respond.

    It’s the combination of all these pieces together which makes me question whether we should front someone like Jacobs as a potential presidential candidate.

    And, again, just because you don’t agree doesn’t mean it’s an open question. There is no law or statute that demonstrates his eligibility; no law or statute that establishes foreign-born citizens of being ‘naturally born.’ Yes, people might disagree, but they do so generally out of apology for past candidates or a misguided sense of patriotism protecting such citizens. There is no denial of citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens, but if they’re born abroad, they are *not* naturally born. Period.

  61. Susan Hogarth Post author

    The average American voter generally tries to play an endgame strategy that results in the least offensive of two major candidates winning… such a voter won’t waste their time on someone they don’t think can win.

    That kind of voter will not pull the lever for a LP presidential candidate for some time. That’s not the kind of voter our presidential candidates need to court (at least not for their votes – we do need to court their attention, their time, their money, etc.).

    Even if you have no chance of winning, you at least have to act like you do.

    I’d go further – I think it’s a bad idea to say things – in ANY audience – like “you have no chance of winning”. As a candidate, my chances of winning are ENTIRELY up to the voters, and to suggest there is no chance is to say that they don’t matter. That’s a really negative message.

  62. Erik Geib

    I dislike Root for the same reason I dislike Barr. You can’t ‘suddenly’ realize a *major* past position (in Root’s case, the Iraq War; in Barr’s case, DOMA, the Patriot Act [sunset clause or not], etc.) was wrong when it’s an opportunistic time to run on a third party ticket because the GOP doesn’t like you. Root and Barr strike me as trying to inflate their sense of self-importance by hopping on whatever momentum libertarianism has been gaining, in contrast to any true dedication to liberty. They’re the Glenn Becks of office-seeking.

  63. Michael Seebeck

    Paulie @52, read the blog. I cited my sources, and the evidence there is pretty clear. Pay close attention to the legal principles, because that’s where the rubber hits the road.

    Susan @50, the fact that no one cares is a statement on the sad state of civics and understanding of the law in this nation.

    I went around and around on this for over a year with thousands of apologists for both Obama and McCain, and NONE of them would ever agree to a simple exercise to settle those issues: show the birth certificate. Neither did.

    As for Glen, he’d have a built-in constituency in wrestling fans, which are far more numerous than people give credit for. Plus, WWE has been very politically active over the past decade as well, being regulars at the conventions, and even last cycle getting Obama McCain and Clinton to pre-tape comments for a show, then having a spoof comedy match (which they screwed up by not letting Jacobs or Morely run in and clean house!). Heck, Ventura even outlined the strategy in his last book, if McMahon wanted to do it.

  64. Erik Geib

    I didn’t say *I* thought we had no chance of winning. I was trying to counter-argue Paulie’s point when he said it’s not about winning. It is at the very least about portraying yourself as able to win.

  65. Michael Seebeck

    As far as a Presidential candidate for the LP goes, their primary goal is to help the LP raise funds, awareness, membership, and help build state and local infrastructure by being a big face for the LP. That’s where Barr screwed up, because he did very little of that.

  66. paulie

    Although it’s understandable why the decision was made, I think including Wayne Allyn Root in several head-to-head polls is a mistake. It gives the impression that he is presumed to have a lot of support and be a likely nominee. Of course Root himself has been at pains to give this impression, but after the failed Barr/Root campaign last year, I’m not sure even the moderate/conservative-leaning faction of the LP is going to be that thrilled to have him as its standard-bearer again. While Root continues to promote himself as the presumptive 2012 nominee on TV and right-wing radio shows, where his frenetic personality has evidently made him a welcome guest, the supposed hordes of sports gamblers who would support one of their own on a national ticket, or the big money that a self-proclaimed “Millionaire Republican” would supposedly bring to the 2008 ticket, never materialized. And the title of Root’s latest book, explicitly invoking God along with guns and gambling, doesn’t seem likely to generate much enthusiasm among a movement where the religious right’s influence in government has been a major concern.

    I don’t see this lack of enthusisasm for Root. Judging by comments here, and some personal conversations, people who supported him in 2008 still do, and some (but not all) former opponents have come around. Unlike Barr, I don’t think he lost many (if any) supporters within the LP due to the 2008 campaign.

  67. Michael Seebeck

    Paulie, that’s mainly because after the election Root has spent a great deal of time in LP circles throwing Barr under the bus. Not saying it’s justified or not, just that’s what he’s been doing. San Diego was just one case.

  68. paulie

    I’d go further – I think it’s a bad idea to say things – in ANY audience – like “you have no chance of winning”. As a candidate, my chances of winning are ENTIRELY up to the voters, and to suggest there is no chance is to say that they don’t matter. That’s a really negative message.

    Yes, when speaking to the voters, you should answer the question in a way that doesn’t rule out the possibility that you might win, but doesn’t paint you as delusional by presenting such a thing as likely (unless it is, say in the case of a local office).

  69. paulie

    I dislike Root for the same reason I dislike Barr. You can’t ’suddenly’ realize a *major* past position (in Root’s case, the Iraq War; in Barr’s case, DOMA, the Patriot Act [sunset clause or not], etc.) was wrong when it’s an opportunistic time to run on a third party ticket because the GOP doesn’t like you. Root and Barr strike me as trying to inflate their sense of self-importance by hopping on whatever momentum libertarianism has been gaining, in contrast to any true dedication to liberty. They’re the Glenn Becks of office-seeking.

    That’s one plausible interpretation of observed facts. Another might be that someone who has come to a breaking point with their former party and/or ideology may feel that one good way of promoting and popularizing their new party/beliefs is to run for office.

    I’d suggest starting with local office before running for president, but I know some counterarguments to that as well.

  70. paulie

    Susan @50, the fact that no one cares is a statement on the sad state of civics and understanding of the law in this nation.

    If the criticism is that the supposed ineligibility hurts our credibility, “no one cares” is a legitimate counterpoint, regardless of whether you think they should care or not.

  71. paulie

    As far as a Presidential candidate for the LP goes, their primary goal is to help the LP raise funds, awareness, membership, and help build state and local infrastructure by being a big face for the LP.

    Yes – Jacobs could do well on these grounds, I think.

  72. Susan Hogarth Post author

    Although it’s understandable why the decision was made, I think including Wayne Allyn Root in several head-to-head polls is a mistake.

    I hear ya, SC. But I intend to have some fun and encourage lively discussion, wild speculation, and heated passion.

    I enjoyed your comments on the site, incidentally. I’ll try to respond there.

    And in Wayne’s favor as a choice for ‘head-to-head’, he was the VP candidate and he has been the most active campaigner, so far as I can tell.

  73. Susan Hogarth Post author

    Rule #1:
    [W]hen speaking to the voters, you should answer the question in a way that doesn’t rule out the possibility that you might win, but doesn’t paint you as delusional by presenting such a thing as likely (unless it is, say in the case of a local office).

    Rule #2:
    You’re ALWAYS speaking to the voters.

  74. sunshinebatman

    The most commonly-understood definition of natural-born citizen (or subject) back then was that one is naturally-born with the father’s citizenship. For the dangerous statist power of the executive, you want extra safeguard against loyalty for a foreign power. Otherwise you could have a Prince William born to Princess Di on holiday in Hawai’i be elected President and reunify the empire. Regardless if Barry born in Hawaii, Canada, or Kenya, he’d have a better claim on the office if he admitted his real daddy is Frank Marshall Davis. (But would that make him a natural-born Unamerican (cf HUAC)?)

    Being “born abroad” complicates one’s natural-born status as you have conflicting claims on citizenship at birth. (McCain was born in Colon, Panama; not the Canal Zone).

    bn. Hawai’i state flag :

    [img]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-of-hawaii-flying.jpg[/img]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-of-hawaii-flying.jpg

  75. Starchild

    Susan wrote – And in Wayne’s favor as a choice for ‘head-to-head’, he was the VP candidate and he has been the most active campaigner, so far as I can tell.

    Yes, I realize this; that’s why I said the choice was understandable. But, like the media focusing their coverage on establishment candidates on the grounds that those candidates are deemed most likely to win, it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  76. Susan Hogarth Post author

    Yes, I realize this; that’s why I said the choice was understandable. But, like the media focusing their coverage on establishment candidates on the grounds that those candidates are deemed most likely to win, it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    There will be some fun matchups and twists in the future polls, I’m sure. If for no other reason, to keep -my- interest going 🙂

    Suggestions for things to poll on other than Char/Pres welcome.

    VP, of course. Perhaps LNC races… platform planks… ‘best local candidate of ’08’… lots of possibilities.

  77. Steven R Linnabary

    And in Wayne’s favor as a choice for ‘head-to-head’, he was the VP candidate and he has been the most active campaigner, so far as I can tell.

    By that criteria, maybe you should include Richard Campagna?

    😉

    PEACE

  78. paulie

    BTW, this might become a post here later, but in the meantime:

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/04/wheres-tom.html



    Where’s Tom?

    The campaign calendar is starting to come together a bit. Here are some places I expect to be — and hope to meet you — over the course of the next year or so. I’ll update and/or replace this post as necessary.

    – 04/18/09: Libertarian Party of Missouri, 2009 State Convention, Jefferson City, Missouri. I’ll be attending this event as an LPMO member. I’m not, as of this time, scheduled as a speaker. I’m looking into the possibility of hosting a Saturday-night hospitality suite.

    – 05/30/09-05/31/09: Boston Tea Party “Meatspace Gathering”, Kansas City. I’m a scheduled speaker at this one. Details TBA.

    – 07/18/09-07/19/09: Libertarian National Committee meeting, Renaissance St. Louis Grand & Suites Hotel, St. Louis, MO. I am not a scheduled speaker at this time, but look forward to meeting Libertarians from around the US who attend to observe and/or participate in their party’s national committee business sessions.

    – 10/23/09-10/25/09: Libertarian Party of Illinois, 2009 State Convention, Collinsville, IL. I’m not a scheduled speaker at this time, but plan to attend. Hospitality suite and other details TBD.

    – 05/28/10-05/31/10: Libertarian National Convention 2010, Renaissance St. Louis Grand & Suites Hotel, St. Louis, MO. I anticipate attending as a Missouri delegate, as well as hosting hospitality/campaign events.

  79. Starchild

    Second for a Starchild vs Root poll.

    Check the site frequently! It wouldn’t surprise me!

    Ha ha ha… for the record, I’m not running. I don’t think the LP is ready for that, let alone the country — or let alone me, for that matter. On the other hand, I’d vote in a poll for the LP to be represented by the rotting carcass of a dead elephant before I’d vote for a candidate who’s going to make Libertarians sound like Republicans (or Democrats).

    My vote is for Doug Stanhope, if we can get him to run. He isn’t that keen on doing it, which is already a point in his favor. But the real reason I want him as our candidate is the thought of him going around the country giving speeches like this to college students and other groups we need to connect with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTOQhPd2Xh4

  80. Erik Geib

    sunshinebatman,

    That is simply not true. The standard definition of American citizenship held up by legal scholarship for quite a long time now has been that if you are born in the United States, then you are a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United States.

    As I said, I don’t know the UK’s laws on this subject in full, and by their definition they might consider him a ‘natural born’ citizen of the UK. Nevertheless, he still remains a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United States.

    As for your arguments concerning the children of the royal family, yes, they would be natural born citizens of the United States if they were born in the United States. The argument that a royal family member would run for president and ‘reunite’ the empire is a tad on the delusional side, however.

    Yes, the Hawaiian flag has the union jack on it… it was, after all, a British protectorate for nearly 50 years. Many former British protectorates feature the union jack on their flag. I can’t even comprehend what you’re suggesting by this, however. Are you implying a centuries old plan to reunite Britain and America? That’s been Hawaii’s flag for quite a long time. Hell, they had that flag 5 years before we even had a state west of the Mississippi.

  81. Erik Geib

    Self-correction: I forgot Louisiana became a state in 1812, 9 years before Missouri. Nevertheless, my point remains valid. The idea of this being a nearly two-century old conspiracy based on Hawaii’s flag is ludicrous at best.

  82. sunshinebatman

    EG, you are mistaken. Check Vattel’s Laws of Natoins; and Jay’s correspondence to Gen Washington for starters.

    BTW – Obama’s own “debunking” website confirmed he was born a British citizen. It also claims Barry is a “native-born” citizen; but never claimed he was “natural-born.”

    The website bases the “native-born” on Obama’s Hawaii birth record, of which the public has been offered only a computer abstract.

    The President of the old Republic of China, Sun Yat-Sen, obtained a fraudulent birth record from Hawaii. Barry’s claim to a Hawaii birth is just about as reliable. Maybe we just have Hu Jintao stand for US President, in the name of equality? Many of the commentators here are insane enough to go along with that idea, no doubt.

    Hawaii’s birth-record laws have been structured for skullduggery since it was a British puppet monarchy. Some of u folks seem awful touchy and defensive about the ethnographic implications of that Union Jack.

  83. Thomas L. Knapp

    I wonder if Wayne Root would be interested in stepping aside and taking the VP slot again if we nominated Bruce Cohen for president. Bruce/Wayne 2012. Kinda has a ring to it.

  84. Steven R Linnabary

    Bruce/Wayne 2012. Kinda has a ring to it.

    So does Michael Reagan/Ken Bush…Reagan/Bush in 2012!

    But I’m about as likely to support Reagan as I am Bruce Cohen.

    PEACE

Leave a Reply

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