Today Wayne Root appeared on Fox News and briefly discussed the Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination and North Korea’s latest missile test:
Yesterday, Root was the center of a 20-minute discussion about libertarianism on Fox’s online Strategy Room show. Host Eric Bolling toured a broad spectrum of issues, saying to the panel of guests: “What do you think of this libertarian stuff? It’s compelling. […] Help me poke holes in this stuff. ‘Cause I can’t.”
How often do you talk to Wayne, since he is doing all these shows?
Here is a Libertarian reason to oppose Sotomayor’s nomination:
http://www.slate.com/id/2219251/
PEACE
srl, I need more explanation.
MM say “…both should be prohibited from owning [nukes].”
Since States DO own them now, MM seems to believe that nukes SHOULD be “prohibited” from those States if they are “too dangerous.”
Since MM established that — with exceptions — they ARE too dangerous, this HAS TO BE a call for some sort of disarmament.
While I like the sentiment on some levels, disarmament presents some VERY practical problems about how to do so. How would it be enforced? Who goes first without being threatened by those that keep them?
Since THAT practical problem has yet to be solved, the question then turns to prohibiting proliferation among other States and non-States, e.g., individuals.
Until the practical problem of States having them already, I’m aOK with prohibiting nuke proliferation among certainly non-States and, if practical, more States. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
What am I missing?
Aaron, you are putting words in Marc’s mouth.
When he says: “’If a weapon is deemed too dangerous for individuals to own, it’s also too dangerous for governments to own, and both should be prohibited from owning them.’”, he is NOT advocating unilateral disarmament. Indeed, I read it as a pro RKBA statement, as any disarmament MUST begin at the top, and NOT with the citizen!
PEACE
mdh @ 126, please note that my remarks were addressed to someone who is in a position to correct the situation.
I agree that as individuals, we should not wait around for others to solve our problems, unless they are part of a body which was elected to do so.
Marc Montoni @ 187
“I’m from the libertarian wing and I think the following statement suits the question:
“’If a weapon is deemed too dangerous for individuals to own, it’s also too dangerous for governments to own, and both should be prohibited from owning them.’”
Perhaps I’m reading this incorrectly, but it appears as if you’re stating that those who hold a view in opposition to unilateral disarmament are not really libertarians.
I’m from the libertarian wing and I think the following statement suits the question:
“If a weapon is deemed too dangerous for individuals to own, it’s also too dangerous for governments to own, and both should be prohibited from owning them.”
I’ve written about this in the past.
I agree there should be exceptions for peaceful use of nukes (such as for extra-solar rocket propulsion, mining/moving asteroids, etc).
I don’t believe such a position conflicts with libertarian libertarianism.
Jim Davidson @ 185
“I’m not sure Mark Skousen is in “our movement” but he’s probably in Aaron Starr’s movement for more war and more government control of peaceful things while pretending to be a libertarian. And Skousen gets on national shows.”
Jim, you clearly do not know me at all.
Next December I will have been “pretending” to be a libertarian activist for the last thirty years.
I don’t know where you get your information about my beliefs, but to clear up any misunderstandings you might have, I’ll just state my beliefs here.
I believe that as libertarians our goal should be minimize to the greatest extent possible the degree to which coercion exists in human relationships. I believe that such a state of affairs is most likely to take place under a limited, constitutional republic that is established only to respect and defend individual rights.
I respect that there are those who sincerely believe that anarchy will accomplish this goal of minimizing coercion, but I believe that anarchy quickly devolves into tyranny under an oligarchy, which ultimately increases the amount of coercion.
It is possible that anarchists are right and I’m wrong. I do not care to invest much emotional energy and time debating the subject. I’d rather maintain my friendships with these people with whom I disagree. It’s largely not productive to engage in debates and I do not believe we will be presented with the option of limited government versus no government during our lifetimes.
For those who are interested in viewing a well made video on the subject of limited government versus all other forms of government and non-government, I encourage you to watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
Regarding war, I believe that engaging in war almost always results in larger government and is therefore dangerous to individual liberty.
Unfortunately, there are cases where war becomes the least bad option — and that is when you have no choice but to defend against an actual attack or imminent attack. The power to declare war must be constitutionally prescribed and it should never rest in the same branch of government that actually executes the war.
War can never be considered a first option, it should never be engaged in with enthusiasm and to the extent possible it should be executed with an eye toward minimizing the inevitable loss of innocent human life.
js, “thousands” seems overstated. Source?
@178 Ron Paul also answers to this charge of being able to get television coverage and being in our movement. Peter Schiff does, as well. I’m not sure Mark Skousen is in “our movement” but he’s probably in Aaron Starr’s movement for more war and more government control of peaceful things while pretending to be a libertarian. And Skousen gets on national shows.
Jon Stewart identifies himself as a libertarian and has his own national television show. One could go on.
JT is right. How soon they forget. Harry Browne made thousands of television and radio appearances promoting libertarianism and free market economics — many, if not most, of them long before he decided to seek the LP’s presidential nomination. Unlike Wayne Allyn Root, he just wasn’t narcissistic about it. Low-keyed and dignified, Harry took advantage of those media opportunities to promote libertarianism, not to mindlessly repeat right-wing talking points over and over again.
Aaron, it is my belief that talking with Root on the phone will result in A) ear damage, B) perpetual follow-up phone calls at all hours, and C) time better spent on other things.
Wayne has people who read this stuff, you inlcuded. If he can’t read it himself, then his handlers *should* be able to filter out the stuff you’re complaining about and present to him the constructive parts.
Furthermore, as long as he’s been in broadcasting and selling, most of that is 101 stuff that he should know by now anyway.
Aaron hit it on the head . Nevada is VERY pleased we have moved beyond the past and are VERY excited that Wayne is from Nevada.
If I were Wayne , I wouldnt read any of this . there are so many mean , meaningless comments that nonetheless would piss a person off into wasting valuable energy responding .
quite frankly I think he’s shown monumental restraint in NOT responding except for once or twice.
if it were me id get caught up in the pettiness , but thats me 🙂
So why is it that articles about Wayne Allyn Root get some many comments and discussions?
JT @ 178
We will definitely agree there. Harry Browne was great and I was a big fan of his, especially during his 1996 campaign.
But as great as Harry was — and I miss him a lot to this day — he was never on radio and television to the extent Wayne Root is now.
And considering that Wayne Root is accomplishing all of this while not being a current nominee or a national party officer, it’s nothing short of amazing.
Michael Seebeck @ 177
Frankly, the noise to sound ratio is too high on this web page for most people to bother. And I’ve noticed that e-mails and web page writings tend to bring out the worst in people.
People are influenced by the quality of the relationship they have with others.
It appears that many of the members in Nevada have had an opportunity to work with Wayne Root in person and they seem to have a much better appreciation for eachother than when they first thought they knew him.
It is my belief that your speaking on the telephone with Wayne Root will greatly improve your relationship with him and it is far more likely to result in an outcome you want.
Aaron Starr: “It’s very difficult to get television coverage. I’ve never come across anyone in the national office or anywhere else in our movement who has that ability.”
Two words: Harry Browne. Even before he became the LP presidential nominee in 1996 and 2000, he was making regular appearances on TV discussing clearly libertarian ideas. And I’m talking about national TV as well as local TV. He’s dead now, but I hope not forgotten this easily.
Aaron @172,
What, he can’t read a web page?
@170 “We lost our freedom in steps. It’s likely we’re going to regain our freedom in steps.”
It is unlikely that the establishment is going to provide anything like freedom to anyone, ever. Calling for gradualism is foolhardy.
The Libertarian Party candidate isn’t going to win the presidential election. Since we all know that’s true, the best we can expect is a Libertarian Party candidate who is actually a libertarian and not some sort of conservative Republican wearing a disguise. An actually libertarian presidential candidate would promote actually libertarian positions on issues, not compromises and baby steps.
Anyone can find a candidate willing to compromise away liberties in the name of expedience. Anyone can elect an office holder to distribute government favors, corruptly allocate contracts, fondle their underage pages, and commit atrocities in the name of the people. Those who want such things have long had two parties which are really good at it.
Since it is clear from their posturing and demands for compromise and assertions that the only “principle” is winning, one would think the LP headquarters team would go get jobs in the Democrat party. Or the GOP (though they seem to have trouble with winning lately). Why bother being a Libertarian party apparatchik if you aren’t going to bother to be libertarian?
Of course, the unserved market for a national libertarian party with actual libertarian principles has been met by the Boston Tea Party at bostontea.us.
WTF is this? We have an increasingly totalitarian state which has not just reconsolidated its power, but is rapidly and exponentially growing to levels heretofore unseen under the Obama personality cult and his anti-American, anti-liberty appointees and lapdog worshipful media-propaganda complex…
Meanwhile, the LP “radicals” are sucking their thumbs complaining Root is being mean to Fuhrer Barry?
Seriously?
The sleazy Zionist Root looks better every day compared to you numbnuts.
@168
That’s the exception to the “no such thing as bad publicity” rule.
If the media’s actually paying attention to Root on this issue, it won’t take them long to dig up Root’s disgusting racist rant on Obama’s college career.
That rant was bad enough for the LP when it appeared in a movement publication (Reason). If it makes the “mainstream media,” we’ll still be working damage control on it years from now.
Michael Seebeck @ 121
Wayne Root might find some of these comments useful. Call him up on the telephone and talk with him about it.
Alan @ 117
“So my question to you and the other members of the ExecCom is this: What are you doing about it?
“This discussion has made it obvious that Mr. Root is, at this point at least, in no position to speak for most of the LP. Yet you want us to throw up our hands and accept this situation as a fait accompli: ‘Oh gee, we can’t do anything about it, but maybe if we’re lucky, he’ll turn into a real libertarian before the whole country decides that we’re a bunch of Mongolian despots.’
“I do not accept that viewpoint as reality, and as a National ExecCom member, it seems to me that it’s your job to counter this.
“Don’t we already have a spokesperson? Many of us have had issues with Donny Ferguson, but he IS our Communications Director. It seems to me that most of his gaffes could have been avoided through proper direction by the ExecCom. Unfortunately, instead of representing the main body of the LP membership, the ExecCom seems to be pushing us to the right! We saw it in Denver, and now we’re seeing it in this thread.
“Has the ExecCom done anything to try and create more media opportunities for leaders like Steve Kubby and Mary Ruwart, who can appeal to the left wing of American political thought? And here’s a thought: Maybe Mr. Root would be more widely accepted among libertarians if he acquired Ms. Ruwart’s ability to present libertarian policies as the most compassionate ideas, rather than comparing us to Attila the Hun.”
I’m sure that Wayne can learn a thing or two from Mary. And I’m sure that Mary could do learn a thing or two from Wayne.
It’s very difficult to get television coverage. I’ve never come across anyone in the national office or anywhere else in our movement who has that ability.
If it was easy, I’m sure Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby and others would have done so by now.
Wayne Root has this ability and he is out there getting his own media. I couldn’t stop him even if I wanted to.
The best course of action for us is to create a friendly, supportive environment so that he will increasingly turn to us for advice.
Susan @ 115
“I haven’t criticized Wayne for emphasizing medical marijuana, or getting the military out of some countries first, etc. I *have* criticized him for calling for *adding* regulation and taxation to gambling …”
I see advocating moving from a consensual act being illegal to having it regulated and taxed is a first step toward more freedom.
We lost our freedom in steps. It’s likely we’re going to regain our freedom in steps.
Susan @ 112
“Assisting Wayne Root is not exactly at the top of my activist ‘to-do’ list.”
Okay, so you apparently have time to engage in e-mail exchanges with him so you can report back to all of us on your findings.
If your purpose with that approach is to get him to communicate with the world in a way you are more likely to favor, you may want to reconsider your methods.
Folks, you are not going to believe this.
NBC tonight aired a prime time special on a day in the life of President Obama. They featured the White House reaction to criticism of Supreme Court Sotomayor and guess who they featured?
Wayne Root with his quote on Sotomayor stating that, “her comment was 100% racist” and showing the White House panicing as a result. They were concerned that the tide was turning against them in the effort to confirm their pick for SCOTUS.
Wayne Root’s face was there — full-screen, not just background.
He’s everywhere.
libertariangirl – relative is a significant term in respect in my comparison of Goodman’s and Root’s integrity. I have little respect for Goodman.
Not only was Goodman a Mob mouthpiece, many of the gangsters he represented were total a**oles, dim-witted, and enjoyed violence for its own sake. He represented some real fleas including: Tony ‘The Ant’ Spilotro, Fat Herbie Blitzstein, Jimmy Chagra, Phil Leonetti, Rick Rizzolo, Lefty Rosenthal and Nicky Scarfo. Many of these thugs were low-life morons, who never thought it might be a bad idea to strangle the golden egg laying goose; a state sanctioned license to steal. They weren’t the strip mobsters of my childhood, about whom Debbie Reynolds once said, “they never killed anyone who didn’t deserve it”.
Goodman had an uncanny ability to get friendly judges to preside over his cases, including Federal Judge Harry Claibone, who was convicted for taking bribes from future defendants in trials he would preside over.
Goodman is/was friends with Joey Cusumano, the golf-course developer conman, Billy Waters, and the dark in-law side of the Binions family, the Behnens.
I had several long discussions with Buffalo Jim Barrier at his auto electric repair shop next to the Crazy Horse Too about Rizzolo before that Gotti wannabe got taken down, and one in 2002 was clear evidence that Rizzolo was about to get slammed by the DoJ. Rizzolo had messed with Sig Rogich, who handled Reagan’s PR, and had GHW Bush’s phone number on his speed dial. One call from him to GW, succeeded in his getting a direct line to Ashcroft, causing the local FBI put some serious heat on him. Good riddance; Rizzolo got off easy for his thuggery.
Yeah, I live in Vegas, was born here, grew-up here, and even when I worked elsewhere, always have considered it home. I may be here permanently at this point. As for not knowing that Goodman isn’t up for reelection; that’s because I don’t read the RJ anymore, and have never much cared for the Sun. I tend to read National/World news, and lately a great deal of Founders’ Writings. It takes up most of my allocated reading time these days.
Root is a sports tout; and they are low-life swindlers. If Root was as good a prognosticator of sporting event outcomes as he claims to be, he’d have a select well-heeled clientele, paying him a small fortune for his picks, and placing his own personal bets. He wouldn’t be tossing them out for nickles and dimes, because that would affect the lines negatively on his picks. Root doesn’t provide his picks to an independent audit organisation, so his win claims are unverifiable, and according to many who track the touts, dishonest as hell. He plays the same boiler room shell game with the rubes, that almost all touts do with their “free lock” picks: half of the callers are told to bet one team, while the other half are told to bet the other team. That way he is assured to get a good shot at locking 1/2 of the rubes dumb enough to call in for it. Additionally, Root played patent troll, cheaply buying a dubious patent, that did nothing more than describe a common , logical business plan for an online cooperative of sports touts. He then proceeded to shake down other online sports tout businesses, threatening a costly long drawn out civil trial process against them, if they did not pay him usage fees, which amounted to much less than the trial would cost them, even though it was unlikely he would prevail against them at trial. As CEO, as well as other concurrent executive positions at the corporation, Winning Edge International/Inc, Root managed to be well compensated while the company’s stock value went from being worth pennies a share to a fraction of a penny per share. During the same time-frame, many of that corporation’s outstanding debts, including promised employee compensation, were settled by giving out stock warrants that were continuously spiraling downward in worth. I’m not alleging any criminal activity by Root, only that it offers illumination into his Millionaire Republican game plan.
So yeah, relatively, I rate Goodman’s integrity over Root’s.
BTW, how long have you lived in Vegas, and been associated with the LP? Long enough to know the Morris Brothers, Joe and Gordon? I grew up a couple of blocks from their house, and they were family friends, although I haven’t seen either of them in too many years now.
It was obviously a racially biased test as the great pagan scholar Phillies pointed out on another thread. The questions were probably all about putting out fires at debutante parties and taco stands, with no questions about fires at fried-chicken joints. As a wise Latina woman — perhaps even wiser than the sage Phillies — Sotomayor made the correct decision to throw the test out.
pdsa__If Root intends to run against our current mayor, the souse and former mob shyster, Oscar Goodman, I’m rolling of the floor laughing.
Root would get buried. We’re talking about relative integrity, with the comparison being between a mob mouthpiece, and sport betting tout. The former wins, hands-down…
me__ if you actually live in Vegas , shouldnt you know that Oscar Goodman isnt running again knuckehead. His wife is running and a host ofothers Im sure.
Its funny you say Oscar has relative itegrity , when he is a highly connected mob lawyer , and everyone knows it.
The thing Root and oscar have in common and why I think Waynne woud make an excellent candidate for Mayor is they are both pure ‘las vegas’ characters.
Wayne has every bit of the flavor that makes him a Las Vegan , just likeOscar and it works in this case.
Please stop defending Root Eric , your not helping him , people cant stand you . Keep your good intentions confined to thinking and wishes.
@149
It wouldn’t be a real Root entry without anti-libertarian neocon Republican Dondero showing up to defend Root.
pdsa: The charge that Sotomayor is racially biased towards Hispanics is greatly weakened by this case though.
me: that seems like a misreading of the charge. Her detractors are saying she’s a typical liberal, a staunch supporter of AA. I’ve not heard anyone say she’s all about JUST Hispanics, but rather she’s just another in a series of social engineers, legislating from the bench.
And I thought the problem here is that there was no opinion written, therefore no smoking gun revealing her biases.
Regardless, she’s likely to be confirmed, likely to not be a closet L, and in my judgment this is all mostly inside baseball. I don’t like AA as a means for the LP to draw in members and voters. We sound too right-wing on the subject, our constitutional legal theories are still in flux and contentious in the party.
Still, Root as a pundit can’t shy away from the issue, as it’s today’s headlines. I’d prefer it if he could frame the issue in a way that is critical of “the 2 party system” and the need for a major course correction, not “reverse racism.”
Robert C. – Want to see a real nightmare of unintended consequences from attempting to achieve racial parity? Read the SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Ricci v. Destefano.
This is a case in this year’s SCOTUS docket, which many of Sotomayor’s detractors claim proves she is racist. New Haven, Conn. was faced with a dilemma after a firefighter advancement test had been given in that no blacks had performed well enough to get a promotion. This left them between a rock and a hard place, because if they authorized the test scores, they were facing a Title VII disparate impact lawsuit, yet by throwing it out, and planning to a do-over with a different test, they ended up facing a Title VII disparate impact lawsuit.
The charge that Sotomayor is racially biased towards Hispanics is greatly weakened by this case though. Two Hispanics performed well-enough on the test to garner promotions from it.
Based on the Oral Argument questions posed by the SCOTUS Justices, my guess is that Roberts, Scalia, and Alioto are in favor of reversal, with Thomas utterly silent, as usual in Oral arguments, but probably for reversal, while Ginsberg. Breyer, and Souter are in favor of affirming the case, with Stevens leaning. Kennedy, as is often the case, is unreadable from his questions.
pdsa, thanks for the background. I use AA in the more colloquial meaning of the term. On the list of L issues, I’d put it fairly low. Personally, I think Ls too quickly adopt right-sounding rhetoric regarding and analysis of the issue, to our detriment, to some extent.
Ls often parrot the reverse racism charge, and while there’s some truth to that, one would have to have one’s head in the sand to not recognize that certain groups have been discriminated by law and by cultural more’s. The combination is like metamorphic rock at this point, i.e., deeply intertwined.
Yet, we’ve seen a LOT of bad public policy in the attempt to socially UNengineer bad public policy from the past, as well as outright social engineering. I think government WAY overreached in redressing old injustices. But I also happen to think we’ve got MUCH bigger fish to fry, and some good has come from AA.
Peter Orvetti @ 155 – If Root intends to run against our current mayor, the souse and former mob shyster, Oscar Goodman, I’m rolling of the floor laughing.
Root would get buried. We’re talking about relative integrity, with the comparison being between a mob mouthpiece, and sport betting tout. The former wins, hands-down…
Robert Capozzi @ 116 – There is a problem with the term “affirmative action” in that it has at least two definitions; the predominant being: a legislated quota system, attempting to achieve racial parity with the general population’s racial make-up, which is not redressing harm cause by any policy proven to be in violation of the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Another definition of “affirmative action” is a judicial remedy to redress harm to a racial-based class of plaintiffs proven as fact at trial, that was clearly in violation of the 13th and 14th Amendments. It is a fine-line to differentiate between these two, yet the latter is a proper as a judicial remedy. The former is not proper, as it is clearly legislated policy in violation of the 13th and 14th Amendments, regardless of the legislation’s warm and fuzzy feel-good intent.
This blurring of terms is all to prevalent. There are two current examples I can think of immediately.
Rendition is one of these terms. There is a world of difference between extraordinary rendition and rendition. Rendition, that is nothing more than extraditing a person to another country, known to respect human rights, and to provide due process of law at trial, is not unlawful. The Convention Against Torture; Article 3; implies this:
—————{
Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
}—————
See: Scott Horton, “Renditions Buffoonery“, Harpers, February 2,2009
Military Tribunals is the second term. A properly constituted military tribunal, which affords the defendant the same due process afforded US Military Personnel in a court martial proceeding, is a legitimate trial process, suitable for persons charged with war crimes. The bastardisation proposed by Bush, and backed by Congress is not a properly constituted military tribunal. Either is the bastardisation light, recently proposed by Obama.
We hope in Nevada that Root will run for ANY office in Nevada. We arent holding our breath though as we’ve been told it may not happen.
Peter, he said in his blow-in-blow-hard-blow-out speech in Visalia last month at the LPCA convention that he would run if Redpath would not.
On the Internets, asking ridiculous questions and baiting people is called “trolling.”
ed, looked at your RLC page. You misunderstand my Goldwater comment, it appears.
I’ve some admiration for G’water. My point is he’s obscure at this point in history.
BTW, in my case, I don’t answer to the “left L” label, or “right L,” for that matter. Centrist, moderate L I’ll accept in the hand-grenade game of labeling.
pc 150, your statement, yes. sh’s statement, no, in my judgment. hers is a HUGE hornet’s nest on just about any level I can think of.
“The Department of Homeland Security stops Kubby from traveling to television studios in New York with his medication.”
Steve can use Marinol for such trips fairly effectively, although he likes the natural plant much better. He’s developing an alternative delivery system through his new company.
Susan,
“I am not sure you could say ‘Let the Israeli government go f*ck itself’ (in gentler terms, of course) on FOX and have any appeal to their audience.”
Actually, I think you can.
Something along the lines of “Israel has demonstrated its military strengthen over and over again, and is only weakened by the strings that inevitably come with US military and financial aid. Both Israel and the US would benefit from putting a stop to US meddling in Israeli affairs.”
Insane, that there’s over 140 comments on this post. Say what you want about Wayne, but he seems to stir up a lot of emotions and opinions within the libertarian sphere.
Anyway, I linked to this article and mentioned you all’s comments over at Libertarian Republican blog.
Westmiller, you’re still an ass. But I do agree with your sentiments here about Root.
mdh 145, I really don’t care to belabor this, but consider inquiring further on your thinking there.
Ya don’t believe nukes are appropriate weapons. But you trust individuals with them more than governments.
I hear that…to some extent. But I’d suggest that you might be bait-and-switching yourself. You trust individuals GENERALLY over governments. But ALL individuals in ALL cases?
C’mon. Really?!
Consider whether your desire to reduce all analysis to “the individual” is overstated. For starters, are there not LOTS and LOTS of individuals you know personally who you’d not want to own a nuke?
Deontological constructs are no substitute for common sense.
I’d go on TV, but I’m more the sneaky, conniving, scheming, strategist sort. I’m more than willing to let others take the spotlight so long as they are serving my ends, y’know? 😉
My point on all of that was that critics will use the absurd extreme of the logical position to try tom hang us, and I don’t believe Root is experienced enough to see that coming or have a good response when (not if) it does.
Lots of us have that experience, but I have a face made for radio, too. 🙂
I don’t believe anyone should have nuclear weapons.
I believe that governments are inherently LESS trustworthy with nuclear weapons than individuals are. Hence, private nukes scare me a lot less than nukes in the hands of governments.
I read “W.A.R. and Peace” in its entirity . . . a little non-interventionism here, a little interventionism there . . . amounts to interventionism. It’s got many a good paragraph but, upshot, it’s Israel expansionism cloaked in libertarian garb.
here I think it relevant to mention the responsible use of numchucks on the streets of Manhattan (Maloney versus Cuomo)
And why not? If I want to stroke my nuclear weapon Angie while fading off to sleep, who has any right to deny me that?
early still…better answer:
“Of course not! That’s a ridiculous question! Like most Americans, I’m a strong supporter of the right to weapons that people use to defend themselves and their families. Obviously, when 2A was written, weapons technology wasn’t where it is today. No one has the right to inherently dangerous weapons.”
The answer I’m seeing is QUITE literalistic, perhaps appropriate among Ls, not network TV.
Maybe a network TV answer might be:
“That’s a ridiculous question! I’m a strong supporter of the right to weapons that people use to defend themselves and their families. Obviously, when 2A was written, self-defense technology wasn’t where it is today.”
It’s more likely they’d ask about more relevant questions, unless the intent was to make the interviewee look like a lunatic. Media savvy people know how to deflect such questions, to turn them around, to give an answer that is correct, reasonable-sounding, and attracts large sections of the pop to your overall agenda….in our case, liberty.
On a theoretical, among Ls, level, I do wonder who’s to decide what is “used responsibly.” For ex., strikes me that an automatic weapon COULD be used responsibly in the wilds, not so much on the streets of Manhattan.
I’m pleased that the CONCEPT of “used responsibly” is a consideration here. That requires some relativistic judgment, not absolutist nostrums, which generally fall apart upon close examination.
Yes. That is exactly what I’m saying. Ditto a bioweapon or a chemical weapon or any other WMD.
So a nuclear weapon cannot be used responsibly, is that what you are saying?
Mik:
They *can*, but by negligent or malevolent use, not design. Negligence goes back to personal responsibility. So does malevolence.
That’s what I said, phrased differently.
That one is too easy to flip, even though it’s true. They could say the same thing about firearms, blades, or any weapons. In fact, the gun grabbers *do* say that already as a justification for bans, trigger locks, and every other draconian measure they push. That’s why I focus on the responsible use of the item rather than the item itself.
@ # 128 John C. That’s good stuff. Try working that up a comedy routine. 😉
@134 “Q: Do you support the right to keep and bear private nuclear weapons?
A: No, because such a device kills innocent people as well as aggressors. Weapons when used responsibly in self-defense can deter aggressors, but when used irresponsibly in offense they cause aggression and violent crime.”
I suppose that is one way to put it. Doesn’t the use of handguns result in the deaths of innocent people as well?
I think a better approach may be that the very presence of things such as nuclear weapons, chemical poisons, or biological warfare agents poses a threat to the surrounding population.
Unless safely stored and properly handled, which many places including government facilities that handle these materials do not have the proper equipment or staff to do, these kinds of weapons pose a significant risk to human health if exposed to the environment. “They do not have to be used to be dangerous” may be the three-second response.
Mik, you make a fair point. There’s probably a 15-second answer in that essay somewhere. The problem is finding it and getting it into that form.
But it goes something close to this:
Q: Do you support the right to keep and bear private nuclear weapons?
A: No, because such a device kills innocent people as well as aggressors. Weapons when used responsibly in self-defense can deter aggressors, but when used irresponsibly in offense they cause aggression and violent crime.
@125 If it takes an essay to explain a position, that makes it tough to do what Wayne Root is doing. With the types of places Wayne is going, 15 seconds for a response is long-winded. Maybe some things get said in a moment of trying to respond quickly that can get picked apart upon consideration. I think it is better to get the ideas Wayne brings up out there and talked about than not.
Obviously we would create a taskforce to study the development of a new agency to handle such a project.
p.s.
I forgot to mention that my proposal includes fair compensation for your lost property and the requirement that all property be returned to the country of origin.
@128 ?
Does DHS do that or DEA?
Dear slaveholders,
While we have some differences of opinion on minor political details, I would like to assure you that I am a strong supporter of private property rights. I believe every man should be able to run his business and private affairs free of government interference.
I am primarily concerned about the plight of the white worker and believe that our current system enriches the Negro race at the expense of our fellow citizens. Negroes have been granted access to work and accommodation far above their station while many of our fellow men have struggled to find work and feed their families. Rumor of rampant miscegenation is also troublesome.
Do not think of how my proposals may help the Negro. Think of how they will help strengthen white families and the white workforce and how they will protect our daughters and future generations from savagery.
While our methods may differ slightly, we have the same goals. I hope that we can find some common ground and work together on this important issue.
Signed,
The Respectable Libertarian Candidate
The Department of Homeland Security stops Kubby from traveling to television studios in New York with his medication.
@117 – As far as the national committee creating media opportunities, I don’t think they’ve done so for anyone. Root’s created his own opportunities. If Mary or Steve did that for themselves as well, I think that’d be just wonderful. I should note that Wayne gets a lot more media outlets than Donny does and he’s the official spokesperson for the LNC, Inc.
When it comes right down to it, complaining that the national party isn’t doing enough for us is pointless, useless, and a waste of time and energy. Root isn’t doing that. He’s creating his own opportunities, building his own in-roads, and generally doing what I’ve been advocating all along – Do It Yourself Libertarianism. That’s a good thing.
Don’t like Wayne’s message? Fine! Go create those media opportunities for yourself. No one did it for Root but Root. And nothing stops Kubby, Ruwart, Hogarth, or anyone else here from doing it for themselves, too!
Robert, I’d have to put it out in an essay to explain it (and admittedly I should do that anyway), but the short form is that the answer has to do with personal responsibility in choice of weapons and how they can and are used, be it for an offensive or defensive purpose. It ties directly into the NAP.
Most likely most libertarians actually say it because most don’t think of it in those terms, and it is admittedly a different way of looking at it. 🙂
ms: usually when confronted with the hypothetical RKB a rocket launcher, tank, or at the absurd extreme, a nuke. There is a correct answer to all of that, but I have yet to hear few if any libertarians actually say it.
me: I’m all ears.
sh 115, we may be watching a different movie, but I’d say the Rs and Ds do what will get themselves re-elected, first and foremost. They play not so much to the “middle,” but to not alienate too many, which is a BIG difference.
I’d say there are 3 basic models for 3rd parties in America: Communist, Socialist, and Reform.
The Communists held high the banner of Marxism/Leninism, basically not caring about public opinion, perhaps hoping for the day of Revolution.
The Socialists attempted to be thought leaders, influencing the majors.
The Reformers tried to be the common-sensical, middle grounders, with a heavy dose of throw the bums out.
I’d say all three models have been used by the LP. Were it up to me, I’d suggest the LP’s highest and best use would be somewhere between the Socialist and Reform models. That is, remain on the edge of the public square, try to influence the ideas, but not kid ourselves that major-party status is around the corner. I’d say the best way to introduce the ideas of liberty to the most people, however, is to act AS IF we were a serious force with serious but sensible ideas.
And, who knows, with the Rs is disarray and showing no sign of righting themselves, I could imagine them fracturing, in which case, all bets are off.
The Communist model is a non-starter, IMO.
In one of his appearance Mr. Root used the phrase “American interest”. This is a catch all phrase designed to make any action by the U.S. government acceptable.
As one of the women on the panel with Root pointed out much of the pollution on the west coast is from China, brought here on winds crossing the Pacific Ocean. Thus is it in America’s interest to attack China and shut down China’s polluting indutry?
A rare metal used in litium batteries comes from So. America. Is it in America’s interest to seize that supply to protect our lithium battery industry?
This is why we need to get serious about what our political positions are, get them in writing and up on the web. That way people working booths, writing letters to the editor or getting out and campainging whether it is in New Mexico, or Vermont have the same sources to draw from. Having done more than one radio spot and ran a few times for office I know that consistency matter.
In the business world we call it product knowledge. And it doesn’t help to bad mouth the other guy. We need to focus on the qualities of our product.
Aaron:
The minute Root goes from advocating a 0% income tax for all to 0% for those making less than X dollars, he’s fallen into the class warfare trap, and it’s going to bite him in the butt when he least expects it, and on national TV at that. Having done radio myself, I’ve exposed that trap consistently. It’s the same trap that libertarians who are milquetoast on gun rights fall into when they claim RKBA only applies to certain types of weapons (usually when confronted with the hypothetical RKB a rocket launcher, tank, or at the absurd extreme, a nuke. There is a correct answer to all of that, but I have yet to hear few if any libertarians actually say it.)
What Susan is saying is that Root needs to further grow into the role(s) he wants to have.
That means:
– Before he would be Chair he needs to spend some time learning how the LNC dysfunctions so he can do (much) better if he becomes Chair. He’s not going to get the Chairmanship without the experience–the delegates would never vote for that anyway.
– Before he would be the 2012 Presidential nominee (admittedly a long way off), he needs to grow further on his pronouncements on policy, to make them consistent and libertarian in nature. He can (and certainly should) present them in populist wording. He also needs to get his behind to local LP affiliates across the nation and help them build! Not just state conventions where he comes in, gives one speech, then disappears again (ala Visalia–very tacky!). He needs to roll up his sleeves and show people he’s in it for the Party and not the glory of Wayne Allen Root.
– Before being a national LP spokesman, de facto or not, he needs to learn better presentation skills, starting with toning it down so he doesn’t make hard-sell people recoil in a “WTF?” reaction. He can give a good speech, but he needs to slow down and quiet down just a little. He could learn a lot from how elected officials like Bill Masters and Jim Gray speak (two members I wish we could clone and run all over the country, BTW)–calm and measured.
He’s raw, and bright, with great potential, but he’s simply not there yet.
Wayne Allen Root has the potential to be a star for the LP, but he’s not ready for prime-time yet. He would be better pursuing an LNC seat in 2010 instead of Chair, and expanding his speaking experience in mass media beyond FauxNews and into other arenas. Get him on Air America, for example–Thom Hartmann needs to be set straight that libertarians aren’t just conservatives who want to get stoned and laid (his words, multiple occasions), and Root would do well to reach out to both sides of the aisle anyway.
Consider that constructive criticism.
Correction noted.
Mongolian despots
I don’t think ‘Hun’ is the same thing as ‘Mongol’. But I get your point 🙂
As a young LP member, I noticed that the more experienced members were able to re-frame issues from a larger perspective.
This used to amaze me, too. I’d wonder how they could have a consistent answer about everything. I still do wonder at it to some extent, but at least I see that what it proceeds form – and of course I was told this – is simply thinking and speaking about these things over and over.
Susan @ 92: Agree completely. As a young LP member, I noticed that the more experienced members were able to re-frame issues from a larger perspective. So, for example, the question of whether Israel should be allowed to use U.S. bases in Iraq to attack Iran should not have been answered. Rather, another question should have been asked: Why should the U.S. have bases in Iraq at all? The late John Vernon was very good at this.
Aaron @ 101: “Wayne Root is not about to seek our permission to address large numbers of people on radio and television. And because he is doing this, he has become the de facto spokesperson of the LP. When his book comes out at the end of July, more of the media will treat him as such.” So my question to you and the other members of the ExecCom is this: What are you doing about it?
This discussion has made it obvious that Mr. Root is, at this point at least, in no position to speak for most of the LP. Yet you want us to throw up our hands and accept this situation as a fait accompli: “Oh gee, we can’t do anything about it, but maybe if we’re lucky, he’ll turn into a real libertarian before the whole country decides that we’re a bunch of Mongolian despots.”
I do not accept that viewpoint as reality, and as a National ExecCom member, it seems to me that it’s your job to counter this.
Don’t we already have a spokesperson? Many of us have had issues with Donny Ferguson, but he IS our Communications Director. It seems to me that most of his gaffes could have been avoided through proper direction by the ExecCom. Unfortunately, instead of representing the main body of the LP membership, the ExecCom seems to be pushing us to the right! We saw it in Denver, and now we’re seeing it in this thread.
Has the ExecCom done anything to try and create more media opportunities for leaders like Steve Kubby and Mary Ruwart, who can appeal to the left wing of American political thought? And here’s a thought: Maybe Mr. Root would be more widely accepted among libertarians if he acquired Ms. Ruwart’s ability to present libertarian policies as the most compassionate ideas, rather than comparing us to Attila the Hun.
psda 108, yes they were talking about the context of Sotomayor’s full speech this morning on the talking heads shows.
My comment 21 was written as if I were advising Root. Regardless, the sentence does point toward an attitude — a prevailing one, especially on the liberal side — that forced affirmative action is good and necessary. I don’t share that view. I have NO REASON to believe that Sotomayor doesn’t share that mentality. Maybe she’ll surprise us.
You will note that my talking points at comment 21 critiqued both Rs and Ds, which is what we Ls should do if we want a seat at the table. I do think Root should not position Ls and himself as conservatives, only “better.” More like a hybrid, or something new and different, but, I’d suggest, non-threatening and positive.
I’d also say that Sotomayor’s more subtle point is a good one. For all the hype about justice being blind, we shouldn’t kid ourselves: it’s not. It should be as objective and on-point as possible, but judges necessarily bring conscious and unconscious biases to the bench. The legal industry likes to perpetuate the myth of objectivity for a host of reasons, some benign, some not.
In life, you can’t do everything at the same time. Similarly, in politics, you can’t win every battle on the same day, so you first select the ones you can win and then you build from there.
I get that, I really do. I haven’t criticized Wayne for emphasizing medical marijuana, or getting the military out of some countries first, etc. I *have* criticized him for calling for *adding* regulation and taxation to gambling, and for *not* saying *anything* about the idea of noninterventionism as it applies to Afghanistan, and for stating that he supports the US government supporting Israel preemptively attacking Iran, and similar mis-steps. These aren’t (as I see it) simply areas where he is proposing some movement toward freedom – they are places where’s he proposing the status quo or worse.
But, beyond that, I think you’re making the same tactical error that Wayne seems to be. If the LP was in, say, the position of the RP *or stronger*, we could possibly make use of the soft-pedaling, coalition-forming, middle-capturing ground typically used by the two major parties when they are close together. But even now we see that the RP, cast aside by Americans after Hurricane Bush, is going for the ‘back to our roots’ approach, trying to win back a solid base before striking out to the ‘middle ground’ again. It makes *much less* sense for a party like the LP to aim for this ‘middle ground’, because they *already have one or two parties that promise to represent them*. And yes, they grumble that those parties -don’t- represent them, but they vote for them anyway. Why? Because otherwise they’re ‘throwing away’ their votes.
We are not at the stage where we can reasonably convince voters (certainly at the national level, at any rate) who have angst about that sort of thing that they are not ‘throwing away’ their vote – what we need to do is to attract, represent, and *motivate* people who are not obsessed with this silly notion that their vote has to go to a candidate whose chance of winning is rated above a certain percentage by the national news media.
So this idea that we can out-dem the Dems or out-rep the Republicans, and capture some mythical vast middle ground of commonsense voters is silly and counterproductive. Those voters are middle-of-the-ground for the most part not because they are against gov’t intervention in both personal and private sectors, but because they simply can’t be bothered to ponder and adopt a coherent political philosophy. That sort of voter will almost always go with the blowin’ wind, so the idea is not to influence *them*, but to change those on the margin who *create* the blowin’ wind.
Of course this means the LP *as such* will probably never be one of the ‘big two’, because the vast middle will cast their votes with the Power Party which best adopts and presents in a palatable (i.e. watered down) form the ideas of the ideological (‘third’) parties. But we CAN have a huge influence on individuals, *and* on the policies adopted by the ‘big two’ power parties.
This is how politics works (or ‘works’) in the US, and to pretend otherwise is to invite disaster. People complain about the lack of progress of the LP, but the fact is that for a third (ideological) party, it has had a long and successful life. The *death* of a third/ideological party is when folks start imagining that if they can just act like one of the ‘big two’, they can adopt the same position as the ‘big two’ parties. But the reality of our electoral system precludes that – what happens instead is that those who *want* principle in their politics get disgusted and leave, and those who want ‘the middle ground’ find it in a party that actually gets people elected.
Need I say ‘Reform Party’?
But frankly I don’t even see *that* (aiming for the middle ground) strategy from Wayne. His outreach has been – as far as I can tell – strictly aimed at the disaffected right, so his talk of looking for ‘moderates’ on both left and right is laughable.
This is the time for the LP to accept and embrace the fact that we are an ideological party rather than one of the duopoly – we even use ‘Party of Principle’ to remind ourselves of that. But instead we have staff, leadership, and people like Wayne we *talk* about capturing the ‘middle ground’ and being ‘mainstream’, but who in fact pander to the right-of-right ‘conservative’ crowd. This is a disastrous course for the LP, and I for one will do what I can to reverse it.
mhw, suffrage, slavery, and segration were single issues. Political parties and pols attempt to advance a RANGE of issues.
The slavery issue was hardly resolved in a satisfactory manner, IMO. There was a range of thought on the issue, from a strict “property rights” perspective, to the back to Africa movement, to abolitionism. With the intensifying pressure of abolitionism, the Calhounists reacted violently and staged a kind of insurrection, covered up by a unique and tortured interpretation of States rights. That led to a Civil War and many dead. And that led to racial segregation.
So, in that case, I’d say absolutism failed miserably, another illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Politics is a game of three-dimensional chess, that requires some strategic and tactical flexibility, while keeping the eyes on the prize…in our case, on liberty.
@ 111 Aaron writes: “If the vast majority of Americans disagree with you on an issue that you choose to emphasize, you’re simply not going to win.”
Aaron how did this approach work with the women’s right to vote, or slavery and of course racial segregation?
How does one define winning? Is it a short term effort, or something we look at over the long term?
And last, but not least if the LP had adequate literature on many of these issues there wouldn’t be much debate, but we don’t.
Sometimes I get the impression we are the
Hell-o Kitty of political parties. We change with the current fashion.
If you and other critics of his sincerely want to assist him, this forum is the wrong place to do that.
Assisting Wayne Root is not exactly at the top of my activist ‘to-do’ list. If Wayne wants to grow, he will seek out criticism and respond appropriately, and won’t wait for people who don’t think he is suited for either of the two roles he has picked for himself in the Party (Chair, pres. candidate) to write him a fan letter with a few nice suggestions of where he could tweak his message, backed up with reading links.
I think you have it backwards – people are not using this forum to help Wayne, but *he* *could* be using it to help himself.
If he’s unwilling, that’s fine.
Susan @ 107
“What if ‘the vast majority of Americans’ *want* a particular policy that the LP is against? There is only so much sidestepping a candidate can do – at some point you have to say ‘Here is where we stand’, and accept the fact that you are representing people who agree with you mostly, rather than trying to trick those who agree with you partly into supporting you.”
If the vast majority of Americans disagree with you on an issue that you choose to emphasize, you’re simply not going to win.
If your goal is to influence policy, you need to treat politics as a game of addition, not subtraction. You do this by trying to find points where you agree with the other person, not where you disagree.
The goal is not to keep putting out positions until you finally find a bone of contention, where you can fight about it.
Where you have points where you disagree, you do your best to deemphasize them. Find ways to honestly state that you share the same goals and priorities as the person you are addressing.
In life, you can’t do everything at the same time. Similarly, in politics, you can’t win every battle on the same day, so you first select the ones you can win and then you build from there.
If you want to legalize all drugs, you might first need to build a case for legalizing drugs for those who have a medical need for them. After you win that, you push for legalizing all recreational drugs. If you’re getting too much resistance to that, focus first on marijuana and show that this policy change has improved people’s lives.
The same goes for taxes. If you can’t eliminate the income tax tomorrow, push to at least get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Or get the rates reduced. Or push for a one-year tax holiday during a recession.
If you can’t get foreign troops out of all countries, at least get them out of all of the countries that are rich enough to defend themselves.
Whatever net amount of progress we accomplish here increases the net amount of freedom in the world.
Susan @ 106
“Personally, I think this reflects a misunderstanding of the role of third parties in American politics and would be a huge strategic blunder for the LP, which is one reason I reject Wayne as a candidate for either Chair or president.”
Based on your comments here, it wouldn’t surprise me if Wayne Root wasn’t enthusiastic about writing to you.
If you and other critics of his sincerely want to assist him, this forum is the wrong place to do that.
You should instead write an e-mail along the following lines:
Dear Wayne,
I saw you on the John Smith show last night. Congratulations for getting on television again. I really liked it when you stated that we own our bodies and that prostitution and recreational marijuana should be legalized. Here are some additional arguments that you might want to use to bolster that position. Blah..blah…blah. Here are some website links to support this.
On the issue of X, I would suggest that you modify your position as follows: Yada .. yada..yada. The way to argue it so that it doesn’t turn off the viewers is by stating blah..blah..blah. If you have any questions on the approach here or if you want my assistance in further refining the language, let’s talk on the phone.
Keep up the good work.
Your friend and supporter,
Susan Hogarth
srl, I don’t know that US bases are LEGITIMATE targets of Iran, but they may well be targets. They are targets NOW, after all.
Generally, I don’t use the term “legitimate” about Statecraft.
Yes, apparently the term “wipe off the map” was mistranslated, and subject of some controversy.
Personally, I have no problem with an L candidate or otherwise expressing support for Israel, for a host of reasons. Tempered support, that is. I’m for balanced but tactful extrication from all these entangling alliances.
But, then, my approach is ontological relativism, not deontological absolutism. The point I was discussing with Susan about paying for the troops illustrates the unwieldy nature of absolutism. If each and every act is viewed through a NAP microscope, then it strikes me that, in an absolute sense, paying the troops way home is theft. Period. End of story.
I used to be a deontological absolutist, so I understand it and respect it. But, it doesn’t work for me. And my observation is it doesn’t for too many of the Normals, as The Keaton calls them, which is why L nomenclature often sounds like another language to the uninitiated.
Robert Capozzi, have you read the whole transcript of the speech in question? If not, you should. This quote was lifted out of a speech without context, and both before and after she said it, Sotomayor qualified it.
The speech was given by Sotomayor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law’s annual Honorable Mario G. Olmos Law & Cultural Diversity Memorial Lecture in 2001. In the part of the speech where the quote came from, Sotomayor was discussing opinions Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum at expressed at a symposium held the same time as this speech. This speech was given as a sort of cheerleading for Hispanic law students at Berkeley. Some excerpts from the speech:
———————–{
Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then “as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically” but instead of “acting intuitively.” I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes’ movement.
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases…
[. . .]
No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives – no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.
[.. .]
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
[. . .]
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering.
}———————–
I could have been much more selective with the cited excerpts from this speech, painting Sotomayor with a much less harsh brush, but that would just be playing the same brutal game as the GOP is presently. One sentence was lifted out of a speech, and this is what substantiates the charge that Sotomayor is racist? The real “identity politics” at work here is a variant of the same Republican Southern Strategy, they’ve been playing since 1968.
Everyone’s perspective is affected by their life’s experience. “Legislating from the Bench”, “Activist Judges” and “Original Intent” are right-wing rationalisations, justifying their opposition to the other side’s judicial appointees.
Any judge who wills to overturn legislation is by definition, “legislating from the bench”. A judge who votes to overturn legislation is in effect, being an activist. A study done in 2005 rated the activism of current SCOTUS Justices, based on the percentage of cases they had voted to strike down Congressional laws. The results were:
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
Original Intent is a valid method for juridical decisions, yet taken to the extreme, it is just nine old farts in black satin moo moos, auguring the entrails of a Dead Constitution. Original Intent must be applied to contemporaneous cases, often arising from new technologies. Judges must decide how to apply this, and their decisions will be filtered through their own life’s experiences. Original Intent is not the only thing that need be decided. The text of The Constitution and legislative acts must be taken to mean what it plainly says, whether or not the effects were intended by the originators of them. I believe that the Bill of Rights were incorporated as bars against legislative acts of individual states by the 14th Amendment, yet that is a perspective that has never been advanced by SCOTUS. They have always held that complete substantiation of the Bill of Rights was not part of the 14th Amendment’s original intent. Recently, in a post-Heller appellate case heard by the 9th circuit, Nordyke v. King, it was decided that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated by the 14th for the first time ever. Seems a bit hard to justify, based on past SCOTUS determinations of Original Intent, doesn’t it?
This whole Sotomayor opposition, based upon one sentence from one of her speeches, is nothing more than Republican disinformation spew, and it’s sad to see so many libertarians enthralled by this scrapple trickled-down for their short-attention span ditto-head base.
To win over larger numbers of people, our
challenge here is to figure out how to present a credible libertarian argument on foreign policy that meets the requirements set forth @ 14 and accomplishes what the vast majority of Americans want.
What if ‘the vast majority of Americans’ *want* a particular policy that the LP is against? There is only so much sidestepping a candidate can do – at some point you have to say “Here is where we stand”, and accept the fact that you are representing people who agree with you mostly , rather than trying to trick those who agree with you partly into supporting you.
Attempting to close the barn door now accomplishes nothing.
No one is attempting to ‘close the barn door’ – that is, to stop Wayne from making appearances. What some people -are- trying to do is to point out where Wayne deviates from libertarian thought, and to point out that he is a poor choice for leadership of the Party at present, either as internal leader (Chair) or as external spokesperson (Pres candidate).
When people take the time to point out his deviations, the response can be one of these: (1) point out that it’s not in fact deviant, (2) take it as constructive criticism or (3) respond defensively.
Wayne isn’t posting here, and his supporters here seem to be mostly taking tacks (1) and (3), above, rather than (2). For supporters, I suppose that is appropriate; I should hope Wayne himself will take the criticism as constructive and make use of it.
However, it has not been my experience that he has done so. A simple request on my part to him for a clear statement regarding Afghanistan was met with this reply (I’ve clipped out the only relevant bits; there was MUCH more):
On any issue my opinion is clear- I follow the constitution
He did, though offer some interesting insight into his strategy for the LP and his place in it:
That’s an interesting vision of what the LP should be doing strategically, and it’s certainly one that a lot of people subscribe to. It also explains his interest in Perot. Personally, I think this reflects a misunderstanding of the role of third parties in American politics and would be a huge strategic blunder for the LP, which is one reason I reject Wayne as a candidate for either Chair or president.
I also think it’s interesting that Wayne talks about targeting ‘moderates’, but thinks it’s cute to describe himself (**repeatedly**) as ‘to the right of Attila the Hun’. Eh?
@47 – Not sure I’d say I’m a close friend of the family, but I worked closely with the Paul campaign and spent time around most of Ron’s children, grandchildren, and brothers. 🙂
Stefan @ 90
Unfortunately, most Americans are not philosophers. Perhaps that’s largely because our opposition controls the government run school system.
Americans by and large view policies through a consequentialist’s lense, and they accept and judge the merits of the ideas and the people promoting them from that paradigm.
The vast majority of Americans do not want to see the state of Israel destroyed and they are going to reject a policy prescription that suggests that this will be the likely end result. I’m sure Wayne Root instinctively recognizes that. He would not want Americans to reject the rest of our libertarian positions because they have a problem with a few of them. That would be bad for freedom.
It is not sufficient to merely state the moral reasoning for our position. I have almost 30 years of experience composing that type of argument. I’m sure many of us here can make that argument as easily as I can. That does not win very many converts.
To win over larger numbers of people, our
challenge here is to figure out how to present a credible libertarian argument on foreign policy that meets the requirements set forth @ 14 and accomplishes what the vast majority of Americans want.
Does anyone want to take a crack at this?
Perhaps this is an “in the meanwhile” difference. While I agree the base should close, I’m open to the notion that an ally that’s been threatened with extinction could use the base to defend itself. I don’t advocate that, to be clear, but I don’t find the idea inherently offensive.
And until the bases are closed or otherwise abandon them, they are legitimate targets of the Iranian military!! At least as long as the US is seen as a close ally of Israel, and offering the use of US bases in Iraq.
BTW, when has Israel’s existence ever been
threatened by Iran?
You tell a lie often enough, pretty soon people start to believe it.
PEACE
Wayne Root is going to do what he is going to do.
Well, yes.
As I stated before in comment #66, we can simply be critical and become irrelevant or we can constructively help him improve his message.
You keep repeating the ‘be constructive’ refrain, but criticism *is* constructive, if the recipient takes it that way rather than acting defensively.
And there have been a lot of constructive suggestions here – a few are:
*lose the reverse-racism fetish
*stop blathering about Obama-as-a-person so much and just stick to policy criticisms
*don’t call a warmongering president a dove
*don’t compare yourself favorably to Attila the Hun (fer chrissake!)
*come out strongly against the occupation of Afghanistan
*don’t say you would, as president, support Israel in an attack on Iran
and those are just off the top of my head, without reviewing the thread carefully.
Perhaps you could distill these comments down and offer them to Wayne. Or, you could just keep complaining that people aren’t being ‘constructive’ enough in their criticisms.
Susan @ 77 and 92
“I’m happy to have him ‘on TV and radio’.”
“This is an excellent argument for spending your first few years within the libertarian movement mostly thinking, discussing, reading, writing, and speaking to smallish audiences – it’s a way of training yourself to nearly ALWAYS have the right ‘libertarian soundbite’ when asked a question.”
Okay, so he can be on radio and television, as long as it’s only small radio and television audiences?
Let’s not delude ourselves.
The horse has already left the barn. Attempting to close the barn door now accomplishes nothing.
Wayne Root is not about to seek our permission to address large numbers of people on radio and television.
And because he is doing this, he has become the de facto spokesperson of the LP. When his book comes out at the end of July, more of the media will treat him as such.
Wayne Root is going to do what he is going to do. As I stated before in comment #66, we can simply be critical and become irrelevant or we can constructively help him improve his message.
sh, gotcha. So, in the case of Root’s Israel using US bases, your objection is really only to the base itself. You object to the base, therefore you object to the base being used.
If on Day One, the US exits a base in Iraq, but on Day Two Israel uses it as a stop-off, that’d be OK, or none of the US’s business, more properly.
This is an interesting view, but it seems to lack any sense of sequence, at least in the real world. In the real world, bases exist. We’re on the same team that says the US should leave.
Perhaps this is an “in the meanwhile” difference. While I agree the base should close, I’m open to the notion that an ally that’s been threatened with extinction could use the base to defend itself. I don’t advocate that, to be clear, but I don’t find the idea inherently offensive.
Bob,
The sale of the lands and equipment could surely be used to finance the soldiers’ return.
A maintained military base is most certainly an aggression. At the simplest level, US taxpayers are being forced to have US government minions shipped overseas.
sh, which gets me thinking from an anarcho-capitalist perspective:
How would y’all close the bases in Germany? Would you say to the US troops there, you are all discharged, effective immediately? If you want to return to the US, you must book your own passage. Leave your uniforms, as we will be auctioning them and all munitions here off.
If the troops were to be reimbursed for flying back to the US on commercial jets, would that not be “aggression”?
This is a serious question. I need to understand just how literally you take the notion of aggression.
sh, nope. ‘splain it to me, Lucy.
btw, Concur on to the right of Attila the Hun. Deeply tonally challenged.
Capozzi @80:
The base is a sunk cost, so no “aggression” going on there that I can tell.
Yer kidding, right?
If Root is to be the new face of the LP, it seems that he is simply to the right of the GOP in almost ALL aspects, except for online gambling.
This reminds me: Aaron, please convey to Wayne that the ‘I’m to the right of Attila the Hun’ remark is (1) lame, (2) baffling, and (c) unappealing.
I’ve heard him use it several times, and each time it’s like biting into an apple and seeing a worm.
From wikipedia:
“During his rule… he invaded the Balkans twice and marched through Gaul (modern France) … In much of Western Europe, he is remembered as the epitome of cruelty and rapacity.”
Aaron:
yes, in a certain sense of course I realise a person can take an issue out of context and repesent it the wrong way witht he wrong interpretation. With regard to Root, we are well aware of his previous positions and his sentence in the “rapid-fire” does not seem to be a gaffe, but rather consistent with the previous/initial position.
If “war on terror” is a very undesciptive word, why use it, why not use an alternative, or simply say war against terrorists?
Root: “It’s time to admit the war in Iraq has distracted us from the real “war on terror” we are waging against the Taliban in Afghanistan”.
I still do not know how the Taliban attacked the US or threatened to attack the US? So what is the reason that they would be the US’s “main enemy” in this piece which Root had time to formulate his thoughts without any pressure?
Yes, one’s true feelings can also only come out when you can differentiate and explain in writing, instead of a heated discussion. This seems to be the case with Root’s stance on the Taliban.
With regard to what you consider as his “gaffe”, how many ordinary people listening to the TV show is going to read everything that he has written? face it, except for certain journalists (and critical Libertarians), almost no-one, so they are going to view his “gaffe” as his and the party he represents true position.
You see, if you think you have to get attention by acting aggressively, you can at times fall over your own feet….
btw: Ross Perot also did not get so many votes because he was this rhetorical speechwriter or pressed himself to speak with every media. It was rather his honesty and sincerity and refreshing third way that attracted people. And of course it also had to do with the fact that he could participate in a debate.
IMHO Root is making a strategic mistake in attacking Obama almost in a personal way. One should attacks ideas and rather be positive baout personality. The issue is also Obama is a media-creation and has an almost teflon-image and it would be a mistake to attack him. Obama’s policies are also a lot less popular than him as person. Many Independents that voted for him, wanted to go out of Iraq and also liked his calm appearance and not the almost erratic behaviour of McCain. Compared to Obama and McCain, Root’s behavior seems closer to that of McCain. Some people might like a brash reaction, but perhaps many may dislike it, even if they like many of the libertarian ideas. Perception is a very important issue.
In a different medium, such as writing, one has the luxury of being able to write and edit many times until the communication is crystal clear.
This is an excellent argument for spending your first few years within the libertarian movement mostly thinking, discussing, reading, writing, and speaking to smallish audiences – it’s a way of training yourself to nearly ALWAYS have the right ‘libertarian soundbite’ when asked a question.
Wayne has not yet put in that time, and it shows painfully.
Could be that Stefan and Aaron are both correct, in a sense. Quiet reflection and writing allows us to tap into our “higher” thoughts, if you will.
Sometimes, verbal gaffes reveal our old defense mechanisms and thought patterns. Susan noted how Root got a bit more subdued on the Israel question. Perhaps he’s feeling a bit conflicted between his new found enthusiasm for non-interventionism and his long-held views on Israel. Frankly, that’s perfectly understandable.
Susan seems to suggest that the L position on Israel is: ‘Let the Israeli government go f*ck itself’ (in gentler terms, of course).
I trust that most fair-minded Ls recognize that Israel is there for a reason. That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize Israel or foreign aid to Israel. Nor does that mean that we can’t be concerned about the plight of the Palestinians…I know I am.
But these issues are some of the toughest ones, like, I’d say choice vs. life.
Interesting inconsistency: the US could provide Israel assistance to bomb Iran, though the US is supposed to have a non-interventionist foreign policy, but the US should not be involved if say South Korea wants to attack North Korea (not that they will)?! I always thought both Israel and South Korea are democracies. Are Libertarians Israel-firsters or do they consistently advocate a neutral policy with regard to foreign wars between countries?
During the campaign Bob Barr strongly advocated diplomacy with Iran (which has earned him some respect from certain in the left) , but Root consider diplomacy with Iran as a “weak” foreign policy? What is his position regarding sanctions vs. iran? Test question: Is Israel the only democracy int he Middle East? Lebanon also has a democracy, and even more, they do have full religious liberty, unlike Israel (where Christians are for instance not allowed to practice their religious liberty with missionary work for instance). One cannot take sides between Israel and Palestine, yet Root and others clearly seems to take sides. How does this rhythme with a non-interventionist foreign policy? (Aaron, in Root’s article he does not mention Israel, which is one of the richest countries per capita in the world, received gazillions in foreign aid and has I think the 5th strongest military in the world).
Stefan @ 86
You’re still not taking into account the medium here. Wayne Root is competing with six other people for time to get a few words in edgewise, which he is able to do more so than the others.
The link here demonstrates his much more comprehensive understanding of this issue in his piece: “Destroy the Fed Before the Fed Destroys Us”
http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090105-120103
One can’t possibly read this and conclude that he doesn’t understand why the dollar depreciates in value over time.
Stefan @ 84
That’s simply not correct.
An accurate representation of one’s ideas is much more likely to come out when one has the time to quietly reflect and write them down.
Almost every one of us is much more likely to mischaracterize their position when they have to speak without adequate preparation, especially if they have to speak in front of a large audience. That’s where verbal gaffes come from. I unfortunately know this from experience.
Stefan @ 82
It’s simply not possible to present long, comprehensive dissertations in the television environment you’re watching here.
The alternative of not presenting ourselves on television is not an attractive option.
Even Wayne Root describes it in his writing as the “so called ‘war on terror.'”
Look at the general theme and context of what he writes, rather than attempt to cherry pick parts, looking for disagreement where there largely is none.
Here are a few choice paragraphs from that link I sent you:
“There are a significant number of libertarians (I among them) who believe that only a direct attack or an imminent attack from a foreign enemy can justify our use of the military to defend our country.”
“The fundamental basis of libertarianism is ownership of one’s life and honestly acquired property. Very few other actions of the government can do more to infringe upon basic libertarian values than waging a war upon others. Waging war almost always results in the expansion of government and the military-industrial complex, which in turn results in waste, corruption, debt, budget deficits and ultimately higher taxes upon the wages and property of Americans. War, while sometimes unavoidable, should be seen only as a last resort. And when war is waged, its mission should be to eliminate the threat to our country in a manner that minimizes the loss of innocent life.”
“Eliminate the international ‘war on drugs.’ This policy will eradicate the huge profits that terrorist groups and terrorist nations reap from the monopolistic prices the ‘war’ creates. The current misguided policy wastes billions of dollars and unwittingly subsidizes America’s enemies around the globe. To be blunt, what farmers in Afghanistan or Columbia grow on their properties is none of the business of the United States of America. But if we stop increasing the profits that this ‘war’ creates, it’s much more likely that they will be harvesting grains instead of poppies and coca leaves.”
“The so-called ‘war on terror’ must be aimed at our enemies, not our own American people. Warrantless wiretaps are a violation of the constitution and must be ended immediately. PERIOD. It’s quite simple: if the government has proof of a possible crime being committed then get a judge to issue a warrant. Many provisions of the Patriot Act should be repealed. The so-called Real ID program is yet another abuse of the rights of privacy of American citizens. Real ID will be a bureaucratic boondoggle run by the same government bureaucrats who lost one laptop and thereby exposed the private information of millions of U.S. veterans to identity thieves. Worse, Real ID will turn America into a Big Brother-like police state. As long as the Homeland Security Administration is in place, our liberties will be in jeopardy.”
“Lastly, if the day should come where war is necessary, it cannot be implemented in contravention with the restrictions imposed by our Constitution. We must reject the notion that the President has the power to declare war. The entire concept of an imperial presidency is anathema to our Constitution’s checks and balances. In a Root Administration, wars and offensive military actions will require Congressional authorization, as our Constitution dictates – preventing a President from ever again involving this nation in unpopular wars without the full support of the American people. And while a military response in self-defense of this nation in the hours after being attacked does not require immediate Congressional approval, the President must seek a timely ratification after the fact. This is clearly a standard that prevents future unnecessary, unpopular or controversial wars or military actions, yet allows America the leeway to defend herself without debate or delay.”
“In summary, a Wayne Root administration will never unilaterally engage in pre-emptive war and it will implement and champion Libertarian policies that reduce the likelihood of Congress ever having to declare war. A Root administration will stand ready to defend America should she ever be attacked, or if Congress concludes that irrefutable proof exists that our being attacked is unavoidable. And wherever possible, we will employ the superior power of the marketplace to preserve our safety.”
Sorry, Root does not seem to understand the real reason or pressure on the USD. he says the USD will fall if China sells, well the USD can fall on its own weight due to the debt and deficit, bailouts and especially inflation of the money supply.
stefan: They look at all past writings and statements as well.
me: you’re right, as we painfully learned during NewsletterGate. Politics can be a brutal business. Only the thick-skinned need apply.
It is often in a “rapid-fire” and TV appearance that your real ideas come out, e.g. which may differ from what you write.
Pundits always look for inconsistencies in policy and will relentlessly attack Root on these issues, should he get any traction in politics. They look at all past writings and statements as well. In short: Root will be pushed back on the defense and would have to justify his various switches to find out his true beliefs.
One theme I’ve read on this thread is that Root is claiming he’s the voice of the LP. I’ve not heard him say that…has he? He is a leading voice, certainly. Political parties don’t have Popes, people who can say THIS is THE party’s view. Politics is way more fluid than that.
Of the three roles under consideration: pundit, chairman and presidential candidate, my assessment is chairman is actually least appropriate. A Chairman is supposed to be impartial, and stick most closely to “canon”.
I think he’s pretty much arrived as a pundit, and look forward to seeing more good works.
Top of the ticket in ’12? Depends on the field and depends on how he hones his positions. I’d say still work to do there.
Has he taken a view of the King beating 😉 Could be a dealbreaker for me!
Aaron:
thank you for the link. Well, I think you have to admit that what came out of that video does not reflect his article at all. A good communicator would be well guarded also in a rapid-fire and formulate wisely, so that his/her views cannot be distorted or spun.
During the campaign last year I have listened to almost all (of not all) online interviews with Root and at least once he did criticize Paul explisitely, about the Giuliani exchange and “blowback”. He said Ron Paul actually got a blow back! Ron paul is also NO pacifist at all, except if you define pacifism as resistence and utter rejection of pre-emotive war.
On that article of Root, he still uses the term “war on terror”, e.g. a term even Bush later wanted to move away. Also, on a logical level, how can you wage war against a tactic???
he also writes the war is against the Taliban. Now did the Taliban attack the US on 911, had they anything to do with it?? The clear answer is NO! So why is a war against the Taliban justified? The Taliban in Afghanistan asked for
proof that Bin Laden was involved witht he planning and execution of 911, but they never received an answer. BTW: Have you checked the FBI’s website and asked yourself why Bin laden’s previous terrorist attacks are mentioned,WTC bombing in 1993 as well as in Africa etc, one finds NOTHING about 911. Is that not strange??? (Note I am most definitely no “inside job” theorist in any way).
What does Root really know about foreign policy? Most/all freshmen congressmen usually have no or little knowledge of foreign policy and only develop it possibly later.
Michael Seebeck @ 54
During the second interview @ around 11:08 remaining in the segment, Wayne Root says he would like the income tax rate to be zero.
For a fuller explanation of Wayne Root’s views on spending and taxation, see the following:
http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080414-074912
http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080415-081044
sh: Root said he supported the US government allowing Israel to use US bases in Iraq to attack Iran. That’s more than just some minor ideological deviation or some internal schism.
me: hmm, kinda interesting. If the US allowed Switzerland to use US bases in Germany to attack Lichtenstein, I’m not sure there’s been L theory on this matter. There IS for US bases in the first place, but allowing transit?
The base is a sunk cost, so no “aggression” going on there that I can tell.
Or if the US allowed Canadian jets to fly over US air space en route to attacking Mexico…don’t know of any theorist who’s opined on the matter.
Further, if the US has a treaty with Switzerland and Canada, and Lichtenstein and Mexican pols had said they wanted to wipe Switzerland and Canada off the map and were developing nuclear capabilities… Hmm. Dunno. Seems gray.
Please expand with counter theory.
Susan:
Do you also realize the difference between Barr’s and Root’s response to most important foreign policy issues? While Barr criticized McCain’s warmongering and alligned him closer to Obama on a more diplomatic role with regard to the Middle east etc., Root criticized Obama because he is supposedly more diplomatic and in the exchange the GOP women has a much more diplomatic tone compared to that of Root’s!
Message to Root: Stop comparing you with Ron Paul in any shape, manner or content, you will never be a young Ron Paul, never and you will also never be able to create such enthusiasm with young people as Ron Paul! BTW: We already have younger Ron Paul’s in his son Rand Paul as well as in B.J. Lawson. And Ron Paul still works much younger than his real age, has a lot more ideas, also when he was your age. You will also never be able to gain as much trust and honesty as Paul. Thank God Ron Paul decided not to run under the LP ticket as if to be associated with you, perhaps as his VP would have totally diluted his message and everything he stands for. Newsflash: He beats you in news coverage by miles.
Alan @24 – excellent points.
I’ll just add to:
Have we forgotten his early ambivalence regarding the war in Iraq?
Have we forgotten his PRESENT complete and utter refusal to tackle the issue of the US occupation of *Afghanistan*?
Some may not like it that Root is on TV and radio.
I’m happy to have him ‘on TV and radio’.
I’ m not happy to have him claim some role as the LP’s mouthpiece.
I’ll fight tooth and nail to keep him from becoming Chair of the LP in ’10 or the presidential candidate in ’12 unless he starts sounding a LOT more libertarian pretty quickly.
Aaron @14,
Interesting challenge. I was thinking of the Israel question where the host actually spent a few moments nailing Wayne down to a particular answer, and Wayne finally mumbled (I thought it was interesting how his voice got much lower at this point) that he would in fact let Israel attack Iran from US bases in Iraq as president.
So my answer would have been a “As president, I’d be too busy moving US personnel out of the bases and putting up craigslist ads (do they have craigslist in Iraq?) to sell them off to spend time and taxpayer resources helping one country’s government attack another country.”
But I suspect my answer would fail criterion #2:
“Make sure your answer sounds libertarian and yet still appeals to this particular audience.”
I am not sure you could say ‘Let the Israeli government go f*ck itself’ (in gentler terms, of course) on FOX and have any appeal to their audience.
In other words, I’m not sure libertarianism *can* be sold to the FOX news crowd.
Bless Wayne for trying, but lying to those guys and then having them bitch when (and if) they actually show up at an LP meeting and find that the Party is still (ostensibly at least) non-interventionist is probably the wrong tack.
Whatever @ 68
By the way, both me AND Susan Hogarth drink Diet Dr. Pepper. She just doesn’t often admit it.
Stefan @ 72
Rather than drawing a conclusion based on the rapid-fire, rough and tumble environment of television, I’d suggest you read Root’s written thoughts on the subject.
I provide a link at comment # 62.
ms 63, I’m always quick to apologize when I’ve offended, but you accuse me of something I didn’t do. I asked you a question. Could be that you think that V for Vendetta is a strategy. Could be that you think insurance companies will leap into the void of a stateless society to maintain a serviceable domestic tranquility. Could be that you read “sole dominion” differently, perhaps in a new, refreshing way that we’re all unfamiliar with.
How we are to achieve a Golden Rule of Sole Dominions is the stuff of much theory, as well as — I’d suggest — experimentation and, Heaven forfend, judgment. The Icelandic and Somalian experiments were in MY judgment failures, but Seasteading may just do the trick.
But, yes, $50K is an arbritrary number for an exemption level for Root’s rough flat tax plan. It’s no more arbitrary ultimately than the border between the US and Canada. But it is good politics, reasonably good and practical economics, and is I’d say pretty sellable. And the side benefits that Wilson cites are compelling to me.
Susan: Smart observations. Did you also got the end of the youtube clip, e.g. about “make sure congress is on board” regarding Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq!!! It surprises me that many did not realize this point. Root is basically saying the war/invasion in Iraq was good, only the right procedure should have been followed and congress should have voted for it!!! And this is regarding the war in Iraq, NOT in Afghanistan where Bin Laden was!
My my, anyone you were so naive as to think Root changed his mind on the Iraq war or think that he advocate non-interventionism is hugely surprised.
If Root is to be the new face of the LP, it seems that he is simply to the right of the GOP in almost ALL aspects, except for online gambling.
The trillion USD plus cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the tremendous loss of innocent lives, demonstrates anyone who even think of himself as a libertarian, also if only in economic terms, should be absolutely AGAINST the war in Iraq.
The idea I had of a libertarian is the one that show to the electorate that there is a third way/option between the D and R in terms of solutions and how to solve problems and also that libertarians are the intellectually superior – in all humbleness – politicians. Not so with Root.
Also, the LP see people as individuals, and therefore do not play along with “identity politics”. Root seems to play this in the way he formulares and express his views, regardless of how justified his position may (or many not) be.
He probably is also unaware that Barry Goldwater later said attacking Vietnam would have been a bad idea, based on later knowledge. One wonders whether he knew of the Tonkin incident. Barry Goldwater Jr. has also said his father would never have voted to go to war in Iraq.
About North Korea, please listen to the chairman of the Campaign of Liberty’s response on the 30th on the whole issue for a true libertarian response. True Libertarians are welcome to work transpartisan with the campaign for liberty, rather than being associated and working for a presumptive leader of the LP that does not really reflect the essence of the LP on most important issues like war and peace.
At this moment, I’m liking him more as a pundit than as a standard-bearer.
I agree with Capozzi’s assessment here. I’d sooner have Neal Boortz as our chair or pres candidate as Root, and I would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent either one of them from occupying either spot.
I get so tired of the malcontents complaining about Wayne Root. Root is bringing positive media coverage the Libertarian Party has never received in the past.
Actually, this isn’t true at all. Neal Boortz has for years proclaimed himself a Party member. We get lots of interest through him. Some of the people he interests in the Party stick around and others do not. But for Wayne to imagine that he’s the first Libertarian with any real media exposure is simply ahistorical.
Moreover, misrepresenting the Libertarian Party and at the same time presenting yourself as the voice of the LP is not what I’d call ‘positive media coverage’.
Root said he supported the US government allowing Israel to use US bases in Iraq to attack Iran. That’s more than just some minor ideological deviation or some internal schism.
Root refuses to (publicly or privately) call for the US to get the hell out of Afghanistan, and in fact accuses Warbama of being too ‘soft’ on ‘terrorists’ (whatever the hell that means).
Root whines about Obama not ‘talking to Republicans and Conservatives’ (which is 1 irrelevant, and B wrong) and occasionally tacks on ‘and Libertarians’ at the end. Why does he spend so much time identifying himself and his message with Republicanism/Conservatism?
I’m glad Wayne is in the Party, and I applaud his hard work, and hope he continues to develop as a libertarian. But *within* the Party, he is campaigning for both a seat on the LNC as chair in ’10, and for the president spot in ’12. For somewhat, but not entirely, overlapping reasons, I think that he would be a very poor choice for either of these offices, so naturally I will criticize him.
Others will too. You can’t seriously expect someone to set himself up as a Party’s spokesperson and have everyone simply stand around and applaud?
I really feel most Libertarians would rather the LP be a glorified debating club, rather than a political party that could make a difference.
I really feel that I’ve heard that stupid line way too many times. Why don’t you give other people some credit for simply having a different idea of what is meant by “a political party that could make a difference” and how to get there?
Whatever @ 68
I represent that remark. 🙂
Diet Dr Pepper causes brain damage.
Michael H. Wilson @64
I wholeheartedly agree that the website and literature could be improved. And I believe they will be. But even if we do this, that won’t mean that we know how to better market ourselves.
For the most part, I believe the people who largely look at our website and literature are ourselves, not people who are curious about us.
I wonder if people here have the mistaken notion that it is easy to get on radio and television and that the national LP office makes arrangements for Wayne Root’s media events.
Neither is the case.
Wayne Root is a communications machine. He’s relentless. He used to be a news anchorman, so he has well developed media skills. He writes his own commentaries, which he sends out to the media several times per week and has hired his own public relations person to set appointments for him. Since the 2008 election he has written a 400 page book on libertarianism (this is his seventh book) being published by Wiley & Sons and is coming out in July.
To give everyone a perspective here, most every book written on libertarianism in the past 25 years has been self-published and might reach an audience of a few thousand people, at best. The publisher Wiley & Sons employs around 5,000 people. They have revenues in excess of $1.5 billon. We are talking about a lot of books.
Wayne Root earns more media in a couple of weeks than most of our Presidential candidates get during an entire election campaign.
Wayne Root gets on the air 10-20 times per week. This will include quick sound bites, short segments, sometimes a full half-hour. Occasionally, it’s a program like the Glenn Beck show, where he’ll reach millions of people.
Wayne Root has become the de facto spokesperson of the party, not because anyone in leadership put him there. He has achieved this lofty position because he has put himself there in a way that few people can. And he helps media outlets earn more money, so they keep bringing him back.
Many of our former Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates go away after the campaign and are not heard from again. Not Wayne Root. For better or worse, like him or not – and I recognize that some people here do not – Wayne Root is here to stay.
For those of you who are worried about how he presents himself and our ideas, I’ve got good news for you. He sincerely wants to make most libertarians — at least those who are polite — happy. He’ll listen to anyone who wants to be helpful. He’s coachable.
Present him with a way to present an idea in a television medium where it is entertaining and appealing to that particular audience. I speak with him several times per week. He always takes my phone call. He’s polite, courteous and he’s all ears.
Wayne Root has completely bypassed the rest of us. Wayne Root is going to continue what he’s doing, which is talking to millions of people.
As I see it, we fellow libertarians have a choice. We can complain about his performance here and become irrelevant to what he says. Or we can provide a supportive environment for him and influence his message.
I believe the latter choice is going to make us happier in the long run.
Steven R Linnabary @ 55
Yes, you are right that Wayne Root has “the gift of a rapid fire speaking style.”
Unfortunately, the medium of television rarely allows you to aim before you shoot. You’re going to get some misfires.
If I were to ask you a question and then tell you you’ve got to answer immediately because we are on live television or radio, I guarantee you that after the program is over you will be kicking yourself over what you should have said.
Heck, I have that experience sometimes with ordinary everyday communications, much less in front of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. And it’s easy to go into instant panic mode when your girlfriend asks you whether she looks fat in that outfit. Or if your wife asks you whether you would get remarried if something awful ever happened to her. You better answer that question the right way or else you’ll be in the dog house for weeks (or she might post something about you on IPR). 😉
For many of us, being in front of a camera or a microphone evokes an instant “deer in headlights” — fight or flight reaction — reaction. I’m speaking from personal experience.
Wayne Root has a gift of being able to keep his composure and gets the host and the audience to like him enough so that he will be invited back. And he’ll talk with the level of energy that I can only muster after drinking one too many Diet Dr. Peppers.
In a different medium, such as writing, one has the luxury of being able to write and edit many times until the communication is crystal clear. And even then you have people who will take away a different meaning than you intended.
Radio and television is different. And you need to keep that in mind when you are judging someone’s performance.
re # 58; Robert I prefer to start with low income earners because it puts more money in their pockets and then allows us to cutback on wefare and related programs, thus reduce taxes even more. Incrementalism as some are accused of.
# 60 Aaron writes; “Libertarians offer a great product, but lousy marketing.”
Aaron it would help to get the website in better shape, more up to date on the issues, and improve the literature package. Now those two items are the responsibility of the LNC to oversee so what is the hold up on your part?
Both Wilson and Carpozzi missed my point, which was that $50K was an arbitrary (and far too low) number.
The platform comment was in reference to the point that most people still don’t read it, and when you eliminate the arbitrary number, there you are at the platform again.
Yeah, I do believe that people should have sole dominion over their own lives and property, not just the first $50K worth, and only within the limits of not denying others that same dominion for themselves.
BTW, when I was making under $50K I paid plenty of taxes, too, and it hurt just as bad then as they do now, if not more. Even got audited once, on a freaking 1040EZ.
And Robert, trying to portray me as advocating a violent approach when I never said anything remotely near that is so Holtzian that it’s pathetic, and you owe me an apology for such insulting garbage.
Melty @ 51
To gain more than a sound bite understanding of Wayne Root’s views on foreign policy, I encourage you to read his position paper — W.A.R. and Peace — that he put out in April of 2008.
http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry080428-194148
It’s well written, in my opinion, and certainly within the boundaries of mainstream libertarian thought.
srl: I get fairly peeved at people that come to the LP and immediately expect to jump to the front of the line as spokespeople for us.
me: A fair point. Of course, when is a “conversion” enough? And what does one need to “convert” to? Seems like that’s pretty much up to our conventions, as we don’t have a Purity Politburo (thankfully).
Erik @ 49
Our ideals are both wonderful and necessary, but in this world you can’t sell a product unless you package it well. We libertarians understand philosophy. We libertarians have the keen ability to lecture people .. at least until they fall asleep or ditch class. 🙂
Our Democrat and Repubican opponents are winning in the marketplace of ideas, not because they offer better ideas. They’re winning because they know better how to package and promote them. They understand better how to address our hopes and stoke our fears.
Or to put it another way:
Democrats and Republicans offer an awful product, but great marketing.
Libertarians offer a great product, but lousy marketing.
ms, the platform also says:
“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives…”
Some Ls might say that means “Government should dissolve tomorrow.” Perhaps you’re one of them. I respect that some Ls hold that view. However, I’d ask them: Do you REALLY think such a message has any broad-based appeal? If Root said that, for ex., can you realistically imagine his EVER being invited back on that show?
V for Vendetta was (somewhat) an interesting film, but do you think that’s the strategy we should follow…an underground, violent approach?
Obviously, I don’t.
mhw, I’m sure he mispoke. It was factually incorrect, never a good idea.
More important, I think Ls should come across as supportive of the least well off. Appealing to “millionaire Republicans” as a primary target audience is a non-starter for the LP, IMO. There aren’t that many of them, for one. More importantly, freedom works for ALL, not just the affluent.
M.S. comments; “$50K? Why nor $100K? $200K? $1M?
Why not everybody?
Oh, wait, that’s that danged platform again…”
‘Cause it get the discussion going and it not the negative comment that Root came out with that people making less than $50K don’t pay.
Then show how it is done by bringing all the trops home, cutting corporate welfare, opening markets, etc. By the end we have no need for the income tax on anyone.
Alan @ 48
Judge Jim Gray on television would be wonderful. He has media skills that he developed from promoting his book. He comes across as distinguished and he speaks well on the issue of prohibition. David Nolan has the pedigree, but I have a hard time imagining that he has the media skills.
Unfortunately, television is not really about news; it’s about entertainment. This is a business. It’s about money. The reason why Fox News (or any other television or radio outlet) puts someone on the air is because they want to increase the number of viewers and listeners. They don’t want to educate the world. They don’t care about being “fair and balanced,” regardless of any slogan they have. Journalism standards are irrelevant. Their primary interest is satisfying their stockholders.
Aaron, FWIW, I get fairly peeved at people that come to the LP and immediately expect to jump to the front of the line as spokespeople for us. It isn’t only Root, but I felt the same about Barr and even Russo in ’04. Newbies get a lot wrong about the libertarian philosophy. However, in each case, they all got better as time went on. In Barr’s case, he had a lot of baggage. But even there, when I expected to find trouble petitioning for him last year at the Pride Festival only two out of maybe a thousand people I approached for signatures even knew of Barr’s past.
That said, in the first video, Root starts off very good. He extols the virtues of Sotomayor with her story and how her story parallels his. He should have continued with something along the lines “I’m a Jewish Libertarian, everything I do and think clouds the way I think of world and contemporary issues, I think of the ways to be more free on every issue. It’s human nature to use one’s experiences to make future decisions. And I expect Sotomayor to use her experiences when make high court decisions. It’s human nature, and I wish her the best”. I would urge Root to avoid making comments that her comments were racist, it sounds patronizing coming from a white man. He could have avoided the entire “reverse racism” segment, which only plays well with the David Duke/Trent Lott republican crowd, by condemning the Plessey-Ferguson decision which led to Sotomayor’s out of context comments. “If a freedom loving Libertarian had been on the bench during that decision, Sotomayor would not have been able to make that comment, and years of racial animosity would have been avoided”.
When Root said “when somebody says something that is antiwhite” was just plain ugly. It’s an out of context comment I don’t want to see democats making a 30 second commercial out of!
Just before the break, Root did good by saying he was a Libertarian and opposed George Bush, always a winning statement even on Fox.
After the break, Root launched into a tirade about Obama “making nice” (??) with terrorists all over the world and “Obama won’t negotiate with republicans”. The comments had NOTHING to do with NK missile testing nor with their nuclear ambitions. It would have been a good time to mention that “Obama has 36,000 troops on the NK border, of course NK feels threatened”.
Root ended the segment with two good soundbites, “Goldwater was right that the UN is worthless” and Root again condemned Bush (always good, even on Fox) and his undeclared war and “let’s hope when Obama goes to war he does it with a Congressional declaration”.
Let’s get this straight, Aaron. Root has a gift. The gift of a rapid fire speaking style, a style that prevents an interviewer from interrupting. But I want him to be Libertarian, not some whiny politician that panders to racists, war mongers and republicans. But I repeat myself.
PEACE
$50K? Why nor $100K? $200K? $1M?
Why not everybody?
Oh, wait, that’s that danged platform again…
@ # 33 Robert and I have the following exchange; mhw: People making under $50,000 do pay income taxes.
R.C. : true, but you’re interpretation of that statement seems very literalistic. The lowest 2/5ths or so pay very little of the TOTAL income tax revenues.”
If anyone in the LP takes the attitude that people making under $50K don’t pay taxes then we will pay with lost credibility. That may be somewhat correct if one looks at the totals, but when a person making minimum wage looks at what the government takes out each week they have a different attitude.
As far as a total elimination of the national income tax for those making less than $50 K. Right ON! That is a good approach and should be applauded.
ap: [The Barr campaign] also resulted in the most divided LP membership at any time in the party’s history. Was it worth it?
me: Not sure I agree. Read the Libertarian Forum from the early 80s. Read about when Rockwell and Rothbard left the LP for Buchanan. I’m told Rockwell left in part over “children’s rights.”
Hard to say if it was worth it. Maybe it was. Would Root be getting the coverage he’s getting were there not a Barr campaign? We can’t know, but possibly in part.
Vote totals are one metric, I’d suggest not a very good one, since ALL our prez vote totals are mouse nuts.
when Root started talking about Israel like a Likudnik, that’s when I was aghast
2) What does the Obama do today [about NK]?
Look, I’m a non-interventionist. I’m all about world peace. Playing world policeman hasn’t worked out too well for the US, and it hasn’t worked out for places like Iraq and Vietnam. Not only has it led to senseless deaths of Americans, Iraqis, and Vietnamese, but it’s hitting Americans in the pocketbooks…hard. I’d say our current deep economic recession is in part due to our crazy, globetrotting, busybody foreign policy. Do you know that America spends about HALF of TOTAL military spending of all nations combined, but represents about 5 percent of total population? That’s out of proportion, WAY out of proportion.
Is North Korea an inherent threat to the US? I’d say No. Is North Korea an inherent threat to places like South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan? I’d say probably Yes. Obama should encourage those four affluent nations to take the lead in isolating and, if necessary, stopping the brutal North Korean regime from developing nuclear capabilities.
3) How does the UN factor into this?
I’ve got no problem with having a place where diplomats can talk about world problems, and to address multi-nation conflicts, but at this point, the UN is a joke. It went off the rails a LONG time ago, if it was ever ON the rails. Remember, the UN bought the Bush Administration’s case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and guess what?, they didn’t!
Of course, with active weapons testing, there’s a smoking gun when it comes to North Korea. But we should learn the lessons of the past, and not stick our nose where it doesn’t belong. But, if we need action, Obama should call for a Peace Summit in Hawaii. He should invite the heads of state from China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, and that group can decide what should be done about their neighbor North Korea.
[I wouldn’t change a thing about Root’s point that wars should be declared. A+++ on that soundbite.]
—-
My take is that Root’s being a bit cute in associating L with conservative Rs. Yes, Fox is watched by conservatives, so he should reach out to them, but he should also differentiate from them. He can reach out to them by noting the economic costs of the military-industrial complex; that Iraq and Vietnam were failures (or at least dubious); and introduce to them the notion of non-intervention. Bush bashing is pretty fair game at this point. The narrative should be something like: I used to be conservative, in some ways I still am, but I realize I used to be inconsistent in my approach. I invite you to reconsider some of your premises. As conservatives, ask yourselves, do you REALLY believe that it makes sense to have the US play world policeman? Do you really believe government should be in your bedroom and deny you or your neighbors the right to smoke pot, or to put you in jail for it? It’s mashuganah! Root does a lot of this already; I’d suggest there’s room for improvement.
With his book title, the comparison with Goldwater comes naturally. But, at this stage, Goldwater’s becoming an obscure 60s figure. Most under 40 may not even know (or very vaguely know) who Goldwater was! If he wants to resuscitate an historical figure, I’d suggest Eisenhower, coiner of the military-industrial complex term. Plus, Goldwater was painted as a bit nutty, and it stuck with LBJ’s Girl with Daisy ad. Fixing Goldwater’s cred ain’t Wayne’s job.
We as observers need to remember this is a sound-bite game. The rules are WAY different than ponderous, logical essays. Debates over IP, or the very existence of the State, or rarefied theory are inappropriate to the venue. The idea is to establish you know something; to be “interesting” and a plausible authority/leader; to assemble facts in a poignant, entertaining way; and to get people thinking outside the box. It’s show business, in the end.
so what I’m hearing from Aaron Starr is that it’s more important to be entertaining and paid attention to than actually having ideals? Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s more or less what I’ve read of his statements.
I’m not a fan of more people becoming ‘aware of’ libertarianism, or even more people liking it persay, if the libertarianism they claim to like isn’t really libertarianism. That’s the criticism, plain and simple. It’s much in line with how most of the libertarians here likely shudder when they hear Glenn Beck call himself a libertarian.
I agree that we need a spokesman who is well-received, but we shouldn’t sell out the ideology for the sake of attention. Until paleo-conservatives realize they don’t represent a great number of libertarians the party will never grow.
For the life of me I can’t understand this idea of attracting people from a dying party. What, do we want to become the opposition party in a two-party system? Wouldn’t we be better served targeting the socially tolerant/fiscally conservative crowd (pardon the common cliche) who voted for Obama – the ones who more or less did so out of disgust for Republicans, not love of Democrats?
This whole ‘the Republicans lost their way and the Libertarians are the principled ones who can restore fiscal conservatism’ thing is f*cking nonsense.
We’d be much better served developing actual libertarians into better public speakers, providing them the training to be more politically savvy, and taking advantage of our new media skills. Trying to desperately
And, for the record, I’m not a ‘radical.’ I don’t know that I’d consider myself part of the ‘reform’ group just because of the implied negative associations, but I certainly do consider myself a ‘moderate’ libertarian – those who are aghast at the ‘moderate’ notion be damned. For those of you wondering how *I* define moderate: I would never advocate a net increase in taxes (in fact, I propose greatly cutting the net total), I will always advocate the protection of civil liberties, and I struggle to see any foreign interventionism as justified. I just think that half-step solutions can be okay (such as vouchers instead of eradicating govt. involvement or gay marriage instead of keeping govt. out of marriage completely) because I think they’re an easier sell. Long-term (I’m an incrementalist) it’s a lot easier to sell libertarianism once you get people half-way there. But there aren’t a lot of people willing to be sold on the idea the govt. shouldn’t approve their ‘straight’ marriage either (no matter how philosophically correct the idea is). From what I’ve observed, people would rather allow gay marriage and straight marriage than have no marriage by govt. These are ‘moderate’ solutions.
By the way – mad props to Firefox. I wanted to post this before work (5 pm EST), but my power rolled out and I had to reboot. I thought for sure what I wrote in a comment box would be gone, but much to my surprise it was sitting here when I got home.
Aaron @ 41 – Thanks for the good thoughts. Yes, Jill is a very special woman, or I would not have renounced 28 years of confirmed bachelorhood. In fact, she was still a registered republican when I met her. It’s been very nice to see her find her true political community, and become a leader in it.
It’s good to hear your interest in marketing libertarian ideas. However, that’s one reason why I think it’s useful to distinguish libertarians “from the right” as distinct from libertarians “from the left.” I am neither, and like to say that I came right up the middle. However, most libertarians arrived at our philosophy by starting from a point of view that emphasized either civil liberties or economic freedom, and remain influenced by that p.o.v. To effectively increase our numbers, we need to appeal to those on the fringes of our movement, and we find many of them on our left (even using the Nolan chart model).
It seems to me that the national leadership has abandoned the idea of winning converts from the left, and as a result, we have lost our balance. For the first time, I’m hearing large numbers of “libertarians” advocating foreign intervention. And instead of issuing press releases decrying Obama’s continuing the practices of rendition, advocating pre-emptive detention, and broadening the Afghanistan war to include Pakistan, our leadership advocates closing the borders over swine flu. No wonder so many people are getting fed up (see Guy Fawkes @ 26 – although he’s exaggerating, he has a good point).
Regarding Wayne Root, I’m glad you’re coaching him up (as per your remarks @ 43), but this illustrates my concerns. His views aren’t libertarian enough at this time to represent me. But what’s really scary is that we don’t know how he will react to future problems.
For all Mr. Root’s positives (and yes, he certainly does have an upside), he has not been elected to represent our party for anything other than a Vice Presidential run. as for commenting on Judge Sotomayor, wouldn’t Jim Gray have been a more appropriate choice? How about LP founder David Nolan? A newbie who most definitely IS on the right wing of the LP, and as far as I know has no legal training, doesn’t make sense. Unless, of course, FOX News wants to direct public perception of our party. In this context, we should not forget their propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq: Beware the mushroom cloud!
It would be a good thing if FOX was pointing out different perspectives within the LP, but it’s not. Instead, they are presenting a fringe element of the LP as the mainstream. This may be the direction you and the ExecCom want to take our party, but it’s not the way most LP members I know want it to go.
Selling out to Bob Barr’s Republitarian newbies didn’t make any significant difference in our vote totals. But it sure did affect public perception of what the libertarian viewpoint is. It also resulted in the most divided LP membership at any time in the party’s history. Was it worth it?
mdh @ 34: Yes, Tom is my cousin. I’m the black sheep of the family, who moved to California during the oil crash of the mid-late ’80s. But I’ve been a proud member of the LP since 1981, and voted for Dr. Paul when I lived in his district in Texas.
I take it you are a friend of the family?
Hi, Aaron. I just wrote it like how I talk, trying to be dismissive and brief, on the thinking that conservative audiences might be amused by somebody who shuns political correctness. I don’t rightly know what Fox News audiences find entertaining.
Yes, I see what you’re aiming at, and I agree it ain’t easy appealing to a specific audience outside your element and holding their attention.
OH. MY. GOD. Root is far worse than I ever could have imagined–even worse than Bob Barr. How big of a fascist do you have to be to think Obama is a *dove* on foreign policy?
Any real libertarian would have laughed at that idiot neocon and his ridiculous “hypothetical scenarios” (always outlandish to the extreme). These scenarios only exist in the crazy imaginations of stupid neocons.
@ 40 — Hello Melty. That’s a good first attempt. However, take a look at the three requirements I wrote @14.
When you do this, keep in mind the following points:
1) Writing is not the same as speaking. Make sure you read your answer out loud before you post it here. Your answer is not supposed to read well, it’s supposed to sound well.
2) Make sure your answer sounds libertarian and yet still appeals to this particular audience. These were both Fox News programs, not National Public Radio. This particular audience is conservative leaning. Tailor your answer to this audience. It’s not sufficient that you like the way the answer sounds to you, it needs to also sound good to your particular audience.
3) Make sure your answer is entertaining. You want to be invited back to the show in the future.
Let me give this a shot:
1) Are you offended by this comment? Do you agree with Gingrich that she should withdraw? Was Sotomayor’s a racist comment?
I’m not personally offended by her comments, but I do see a double-standard out there when it comes to what people find offensive. Our goal should be a color-blind society, where justice is not determined by our ethnic heritage or the color of our skin.
I haven’t read enough of her opinions to have a complete picture of her, but I am very concerned about her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, where the Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. I believe that the entire Bill of Rights should apply to both the Federal government and the States. Sotomayor believes that states do not have to recognize our Second Amendment rights. That alone should disqualify her.
My answer above would probably appeal to a Fox News audience, at least in that it focuses on an issue that appeals to them, but when I read it out loud I’m thinking it comes across as too academic sounding and my answer is probably too long. I would have to further work on this answer in order for it to sound better and be entertaining to the audience.
Do you see what I’m trying to do here?
@ #25 — Hello Gary Julian. Welcome to the Libertarian Party.
It doesn’t matter to me whether you’ve been in this party for almost 30 years, like I have, or a few months. I’m just glad you’re with us now.
And even if one is new, if that person can effectively present our ideas to the public in a way where others want to hear more, I’m open to that person being our standard bearer.
I’m a believer in meritocracy, not seniority.
I’ve been told I do a reasonably good job of presenting our positions to those who already believe as we do. And I believe I’m capable of doing this in a way that makes both limited government and anarchist types reasonably happy.
However, it’s much more difficult to be able to get the media attention required to present our ideas to millions of people and to tailor these ideas to different audiences.
I’ve been counseling Wayne Root on ideology for the better part of two years now, and he continues to improve all the time. He listens attentively and is ready and willing to learn, which is unusual for a man with the size of his ego.
I believe I know how to transform a good marketer into a good libertarian, assuming he is willing to spend enough time to listen and learn.
I do not know how to convert a good libertarian into a good marketer. If I ever figure that one out, I’ll be dancing in the streets.
More Reverse White Man’s Burden:
————————{
While interviewing for jobs during her (Sotomayor’s) final year of school, she accused the firm, then known as Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, of discriminating against her by asking questions about the qualifications of Puerto Ricans and other minorities.
Sotomayor’s complaint caused a campus furor. A student-faculty panel found the complaint warranted and ordered Shaw Pittman to write her a letter of apology.
The complaint resulted from a dinner conversation between Sotomayor and a Shaw Pittman partner, Martin Krall. According to news reports at the time, Krall asked her whether she would have been admitted to law school if she were not Puerto Rican and whether law firms did a disservice by hiring minority students with inferior credentials and then firing them a few years later.
Before attending Yale, Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University and won that school’s highest academic honor for an undergraduate.
She served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and was one of just a handful of Latinos in her class.
James Oliphant and Andrew Zajac, “At Yale, Sotomayor won apology from law firm“, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2009
}————————
A top flight Yale Law School senior, who graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University, had her qualifications questioned by some unripened cowchip of a prospective employer, simply because of her Puerto Rican heritage. Has Newt ever had his credentials questioned because he is a bastard child of Scot heritage, or because his Ph.D thesis was both unremarkable and lame, or because he is a thrice married recidivist adulterer who claims he represents the “family values” party? Probably not, although Gingrich must have learned some of his own “identity politics”, as a smart-assed, four-eyed, flat-footed munchkin, attending Baker High School in Cloumbus, Georgia, and having to choose between the monikers “Newton” or “Newt”. He must have been thumped repeatedly for that. Everyone’s’ perspective is going to be viewed through the lens of their life’s experiences. Root suffers from “identity politics” predicated upon his occupational choice as a paid Vegas sports tout. He wears the rose colored glasses of a conman.
@ #24 — Hello Alan Pyeatt. It’s good to see your comments here. Congratulations on your most recent nuptuals with Jill. I remember her mentioning to me a few months ago that you were getting married in Lake Tahoe during May. She’s a wonderful woman. I first met her 20 years ago and I believe she’ll tell you I was the first libertarian she ever encountered. Amazingly, she was still willing to meet more of us after that. 🙂
I’ve never really bought into this idea of left wing versus right wing of the party because it embraces the old left-right paradigm the establishment wants to impose on the rest of us.
I first recall noticing this language creeping into our party’s nomenclature perhaps 15 years ago.
When I first became a libertarian activist almost 30 years ago, we didn’t talk in those terms. You were either a libertarian on an issue or you weren’t.
Many of us can present our libertarian ideas in ways that appeal to ourselves. But what Wayne Root seems to understand (and many of us do not), is the need to present our ideas such that they appeal to those who are not yet libertarian.
Wayne Root has a marketing and promotion background. It’s only natural that given a choice between presenting something in a dry ideological way versus an entertaining way, he’s going to pick the latter.
The challenge is to find ways to present ideological views in a marketable manner.
Where some of us disagree with Wayne, we need to offer him alternative ways to present the message that come across as reasonable to the typical viewer or listener in that particular audience.
Wayne Root has always been gentlemanly toward me.
Whenever I have suggested an approach to presenting our ideas, he has never denigrated me for the suggestion. I really enjoy his perspective. He will politely challenge me, asking how do we satisfactorily address “concern X” of this television viewer in 30 seconds or less. I admit that I don’t always have a great answer for him. His questions force me to think beyond saying what will only appeal to the choir (I already know how to do that). He makes me think about what will appeal to those who can be converted, which is what we need to do if we are to grow the size of our movement.
ok the Starr Challenge, Q #1
Are you offended by this comment? Do you agree with Gingrich that she should withdraw? Was Sotomayor’s a racist comment?
I’m sure you could dig through things I’VE said TOO, find something offensible, take it out of context, get indignant and go on and on about it, calling me a sexist and a racist. How about let’s NOT toady up to the hyperoffensible. Let’s talk about something that matters.
Well, as far as logos, there’s always these: http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-lp-mascot.html
Israel not using their nukes is not a matter of restraint. It is a matter of consequences. They know perfectly well that if they do they lose all claim to the moral high ground they’ve claimed since 1948, because of the very nature of that weapon. They do that and they are screwed, the peace efforts that they’ve worked for all these decades will be shot, and WW4 breaks out in the Negev. And they *know* it.
Frankly, neither Pakistan nor Iran having a nuke bothers me, primarily because the former has no delivery system and we’re watching in ways that the general public knows nothing about, and the latter because they don’t have one and their processing facilities are not geared to enriching the Uranium to get to one.
Plus, the moment Pakistan launches a nuke India goes bananas, and Pakistan knows it. Yes, that’s MAD in practice, but in that area with those mentalities, it seems to work.
North Korea, OTOH, is more of a concern, but we have yet to hear anything on radiation readings from this last “test”. Even so, they’re stuck in missile-delivery mode, which we possess the technology to take care of.
The real concern isn’t a nuke delivered by missile (theater or ICBM) or by aircraft, but by ground. On that method our security is crap, and nobody in power in DC has any inclination or will to do anything about it.
That’s one case where proper border security is an issue. But the next terrorist attack, to be effective, doesn’t need a ground nuke or even a “dirty” bomb, or even hijacked airplanes as missiles (if you buy that idea). Lots of way to screw with this nation conventionally.
@ #21 — Robert Capozzi, that’s constructive. We need more constructive comments, such as this.
@ #32 and 33 – The more people who have been excluded – or who exclude themselves through various means – from paying income taxes, the better, as far as I’m concerned. That’s just that fewer number of people we have to free from tax slavery!
@ #28 – Michael, at the LNC/Charleston meeting, there was a suggestion that the LNC release high quality versions of LP logos, so that grassroots activists could use them to create their own high quality propaganda documents. You would think that they were being asked to surrender the missile launch codes! “Control! Control! This LNC will not surrender control of the LP brand” Yet Root apparently gets carte blance use of the LP brand any time he wants it.
pdsa and mhw touch upon some third-rail issues that this interview brings up. Alito spoke of his Italian heritage. Root brings up his SOB and big mouth NY Jew background. And then the Iran and Israel discussions. This all dances on some third rails.
This sort of conversation is at once vital and fraught with danger. “Where we’re coming from” is something we can and should share in the public square if we really want to be effective. We’re not tabula rasa, not really.
While there are of course exceptions, I’d venture to say that American Jews are generally pro-Israel for obvious reasons. To expect Root to be any different in this regard is unrealistic. Since identifies himself as such, we have context for his position.
The open secret that Israel has the bomb is out there. It’s been the case for quite some time. That they’ve not — USED one demonstrates their restraint, surrounded as they are by enemies. I’m quite critical of many things Israel has done over the past decades, but there’s been aggression all over the place in the ME. Can’t say there are any nation-state saints, particularly in the ME.
Iran getting a nuclear capability has frightening implications. That Pakistan in particular has them is more so.
So, lots of complex geo-political issues at play. I’d suggest Root get a lot crisper on these matters…US in the ME is a bull in the china shop, let’s get out. Personally a strong supporter of Israel. International community should pressure Iran on bomb…and get out. Nothing’s gained by getting into the weeds of the ME.
C- on this section of the interview.
@24 – Are you related to Lori and Tom? Fairly unusual last name. 🙂
mhw: People making under $50,000 do pay income taxes.
me: true, but you’re interpretation of that statement seems very literalistic. The lowest 2/5ths or so pay very little of the TOTAL income tax revenues. He was laying out a very rough flat tax plan that would exclude the first $50K or so. I’d say that’s among the best real-world L ideas I’ve seen. Much as I’d love to see the income tax abolished, I don’t think it’s credible in the short to intermediate term. Flattening, simplifying, and excluding the least able to pay has a great ring to it. A- on that section of the interview.
A few comments on Root’s presentation.
People making under $50,000 do pay income taxes.
If the U.S. policy is to demand that Iran has to give up its nuke program than Israel should give up theirs.
He needs to point out that much of the financial problem stems from errors of ommission and errors of commission in the Bush adminstration. The money supply M3 grew from about $2 trillion to $8 trillion during the Bush adminstration. Much of it was invested poorly and then evaporated. When commodity prices fell. That was part of the problem.
his Israel talk is in the last few minutes of the second one
@ 27. What did he say about Israel?
Why wasn’t the issue of “identity politics” brought up during the Alioto Senate Judiciary Committee Confirmation hearing? He seems to have played that card and gotten away with it:
—————————–]
I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
]—————————–
So an old white guy Repulbican appointee to become a SCOTUS Justice speaks of his Italian roots, and how it has affected his world view, yet no one complained it was racist or “identity politics”.
In reality this isn’t about reverse racism, but about reverse white man’s burden. rotflmao…
I thought it was the Communications Directors job to get people on television and radio, as well as get out news releases. Am I wrong?
Root had some bright moments on here, brightest was when he brought up pot himself and spoke for legalizing it.
Darkest moment, what he said about Israel, belies all else he said about foreign policy that made sense.
I don’t think there are any real libertarians in the LP anymore. Certainly not the national office.
Alan makes some very, very good points.
I am totally new having re-registered from the GOP to Libertarian only 3 months ago. I cannot even imagine a short term party member getting a nomination for a statewide office let alone VP. You need to “pay your dues” as they say for those higher offices.
Being new to the LP Root should have started off maybe running for Congress from Nevada and then perhaps Governor. What gives ANY CANDIDATE the right to jump right to the top and avoid all toil at the lower levels of the party?
After some reflection this desire for a rapid promotion to self-proclamined national LP spokesman does not pass the smell test.
I think Mr. Root does a great job of representing the right wing of the LP (of which I am NOT a member). As a newbie to the libertarian movement, it’s not surprising that his responses are a mixed bag of libertarian and right-wing responses. However, his constant references to the right wing of American politics will make it far harder to recruit from the left, based on arguments for peace and civil liberties. Again, this is no surprise, but he could have easily made the same arguments without invoking Barry Goldwater or the right wing. I’m not against Goldwater, and prefer his conservatism to the neocons any day. But unfortunately, this is an immediate turn-off to most of the anti-war activists who are also our natural allies, and who we should be recruiting into our party.
I’m glad that Mr. Root now identifies himself as a libertarian, and am happy to have him in the fold. But we need to remember that he is a newbie who showed up last year, asking for the presidential nomination right off the bat. Have we forgotten his early ambivalence regarding the war in Iraq? Do we have any confidence that he will understand libertarian views of new issues that develop? Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just what we should expect from a newbie.
We can debate the details of Root’s views all we want, and of course, that’s a healthy thing to do. But it misses the big picture, as does Mr. Starr.
Guy Fawkes @ 13 is on to something important. Why does Root all of a sudden get such media attention? Does he really have a superior p.r. group than Aaron Russo did? Especially with Russo’s extensive media contacts and background in the entertainment industry? How does Mr. Root get more media exposure than Ron Paul did in 1988, despite Dr. Paul’s years serving as a U.S. Congressman?
We need to realize that people from outside our party are determining what the face of the LP is, and how we will be perceived by the general public. This is a VERY dangerous development, regardless of whether Mr. Root is consciously participating in the process (and I really don’t have any reason to suspect his motives). And we just ran a presidential ticket of two candidates that, just 5 years ago, had absolutely NO track record within the libertarian movement, much less the LP.
I wish I could say that our national leadership was aware of the danger, and is working to make sure that the way the LP is presented to the public really does reflect libertarian views. But with the swine flu press release debacle (not to mention the whole Denver convention takeover), we know that is not the case. Instead, our current national leadership seems content to purge dissent by the radicals who actually built this party.
It’s pretty clear that there are people (both within the LP and without) who want to turn us into Republican lite, at least in public perception. If we allow that to happen, it will mean the death of our party, and the end of the greatest challenge to the Republican/Democrat political cartel.
By the way, this is not intended to be a criticism of Mr. Root. I think he is an asset to the party. I’m just concerned that FOX News is misrepresenting mainstream LP views to the public. If we allow ourselves to be defined by outsiders such as FOX and other media outlets (who have vested interests, and have proven hostile to us in the past) we are in deep trouble.
Marshall McLuhan has left the room.
Wayne is the “energizer bunny” of the movement. He may not know *exactly* where he’s going, but he’s going to get there sooner or later.
We chat occasionally and he’s been very open to criticism and “framing” ideas. He’s naturally (as far as I know) “hot” and aggressive. That’s good for almost any venue, though he needs to nurture some “cool” for television.
I think he’s a huge asset for the movement, even if his bombastic style isn’t my cup of tea.
Aaron, nice exercise. Lemme give the first one a shot:
1) Are you offended by this comment? Do you agree with Gingrich that she should withdraw? Was Sotomayor’s a racist comment?
Personally offended? No. It IS offenSIVE that someone nominated to the Supreme Court is pointing in exactly the WRONG direction, AWAY from a color blind society, AWAY from gender equality. The LAST thing we need is government seeking to continue Jim Crow, separate-but-equal-ism. Yet Obama is off to a good start mimicking Bush and using the Constitution like a doormatt. It’s the 21st century, for crying out loud! We should be SO OVER identity politics that people like Gingrich and Obama CONTINUE to play.
Remember the series of Cabinet Secretary’s who had tax problems, like Daschle and Geithner? What did Obama say when so many had to withdraw? He said, “I screwed up.” Sotomayor’s another screw up in a series of screw ups.
Withdraw? Yes, but, then, I think Obama and the Congress should withdraw, too. The inmates have been running the asylum for FAR too long.
all I know is stories about Wayne have dominated IPR as well lately 🙂
Ill repeat a point Aaron made and that is Wayne is very open to constructive criticism.
Everybody wants to whine but nobody is playing in his field.
I dont see ANYBODY doing any better ,
finger-pointing and ridicule is easy ,
I thing he did a fine job off the cuff , sure there are small things that coud have been better but the bigger picture is
we have a member getting major media almost every day , wtf could be wrong with that?
Root did OK. When he talks about race it is because that is the topic of the day. It is not like he is seeking out race to talk about. Besides, is there something wrong about supporting a color-blind society? Is not equal treatment under the law what Libertarians want?
Some may not like it that Root is on TV and radio. BUT at least he is fighting to get on TV and spread his version of Libertarianism. That is something. Rather than complain maybe other Libertarians should be making the calls needed to get on the list of approved “talking heads” that appear on 24 hour cable news.
I saw an old college friend on Lou Dobbs. He is a 5th generation Communist (really!). He is head of some phony political action group that has a web-site, phone number and nothing more. But he got on CNN as a “spokesman” for this so-called group.
We need to play that game and get on the tube.
I think Aaron Starr’s challenge is a good one.
I only have about 8 minutes on the computer left, so I can’t try it myself, but I would be interested to see if some people can write some good answers for it next time I’m here (probably Monday or Tuesday).
pdsa, my challenge stated @14 remains the same.
Wayne Root is relentless and tireless (I need to find out what types of vitamins he’s taking).
He is going to be with us for a very long time and the audience he is speaking to is much, much larger than IPR.
He is winning many fans out there and no one else in this party appears to be willing (or able) to get out there on radio and television.
So, we can select one of two possible paths here: Criticize him on a forum few people read or help him refine what he says on radio and television to millions of people.
The first path is less work, and may even seem more emotionally satisfying in the short term, but it eventually leads to Root’s critics becoming irrelevant. The second path requires more work, but we’ll be happier with the outcome.
The choice is ours to make. Choose well.
Wow, I don’t watch the cable news a whole lot but I guess people have really short attention spans don’t they? I can’t believe how rapid fire lots of these intensely complicated issues have to be.
Aaron Starr : let me be sure I understand what you are saying: that Root respewing right-wing disinformation, heavily tainted with racist undertones, and vilely anti-libertarian is ok, because he’s pitching his snake-oil to the short-attention span ditto-heads who comprise a significant portion of FoxNews’ viewing audience.
I for one, am deeply offended that a person purported to represent the LP, is in reality a polliwog for Newt.
The Sotomayor quotation at issue has been taken way out of context, and in the same speech she qualified it anyway. Anyone capable of decent reading comprehension, not suffering from Acute Logic Deficit Disorder (ALDD), can easily see through this deceit. simply by reading the whole transcript of Sotomayor’s speech. It was, after all, nine white old fogeys with fetishes for black satin moo moos, who decided both Dred Scot and Plessy v Fergunson, as well as many other SCOTUS decisions that legitimised governmental discrimination based solely upon differences of race and gender.
Anytime Newt whines about reverse bias, one should remember that Newt was leading the charge to take dwon a sitting President for lying about an act of consensual fellatio in a deposition given for a civil suit so frivolous, it was tossed summary judgment, while at the same time was himself engaging in acts of adulterous fornication with a woman who was also a paid member of his Congressional staff, had no prior work experience indicating she was competent to fulfill the duties of that position, and was primarily a French Horn player in the D.C. orchestra. How’s that for reverse bias?
I have found that Wayne Root is very good when it comes to incorporating constructive comments.
It’s always easier to tear someone else down than it is to be constructive.
So, I have a request (and a challenge) to those who are Wayne Root’s critics.
You now have the luxury of being Monday morning quarterbacks. Take each of the questions Wayne had to field and post here for all of us to see how you would have answered each one.
When you do this, keep in mind the following points:
1) Writing is not the same as speaking. Make sure you read your answer out loud before you post it here. Your answer is not supposed to read well, it’s supposed to sound well.
2) Make sure your answer sounds libertarian and yet still appeals to this particular audience. These were both Fox News programs, not National Public Radio. This particular audience is conservative leaning. Tailor your answer to this audience. It’s not sufficient that you like the way the answer sounds to you, it needs to also sound good to your particular audience.
3) Make sure your answer is entertaining. You want to be invited back to the show in the future.
Wayne is too overbearing and in your face. Where’s all the young, well spoken, and attractive libertarians we can put out for TV appearance? Why always Root?
I get so tired of the malcontents complaining about Wayne Root. Root is bringing positive media coverage the Libertarian Party has never received in the past. I really feel most Libertarians would rather the LP be a glorified debating club, rather than a political party that could make a difference.
Just because Wayne has not always been 100% ideologically pure, he is treated with disdain. I joined LP because of Wayne Allyn Root. Now I know why we brand as the Losertarians by some Non-Libertarians. We need to decide if we a political party or college philosophy club.
I’m impressed with Wayne’s ability to quickly formulate an answer that is able to keep the attention of his audience.
It’s not as though you can tell the host, let me get back to you tomorrow with an answer on that question.
He maintains high energy the entire time, which is not easy to do.
By the end of the program, he had the entire group eating out of his hand.
Can anyone name another libertarian alive today who can do this?
I watched both segments and thought Wayne Root did a great job of handling this particular medium for this particular audience.
How many of you understand that being on television is primarily about being able to entertain that program’s viewers enough to be brought back on a second time?
Wayne definitly has some strong opinions about race relations. They’re based on his own personal experiences, so they may be a bit biased, but far from anything approaching racism.
Wayne Allyn Root is seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination.
Well, if he wants the support of THIS Libertarian, he will have to drop the repulsive race baiting he used in the shows above. 1) Sotomayor did NOT rule against poor white firefighters, but against advancement tests where blacks failed (kind of like when a judge overturns ballot law when opposition parties can never get on the ballot). 2) Complaining about whites not being able to get SBA loans is factually wrong, but more importantly shows little insight into libertarianism.
In the two instances that came immediately to mind, he shows absolutely NO understanding of libertarian ideals, and plays to the troglodyte republican base. Let’s leave those people to David Duke and Trent Lott, as I don’t think there are enough of them to build a political base upon.
Root, while stating several times that he opposes war because it always raises taxes and increases government, he repeatedly proposes a “flat tax” to pay for them while at the same time condoning anything Israel does.
Finally, Root seems preoccupied with republicans and how Obama supposedly will not debate them?? He seems intentionally to be confusing the republicans with Libertarans.
PEACE
#1, Wayne Allyn Root is seeking the Libertarian Party’s nomination. He has admitted to being upset with the Republican Party, feeling like the party left him in the same manner as Bob Barr.
My take is Root is really growing in many ways. At this moment, I’m liking him more as a pundit than as a standard-bearer. I’d like him a lot more as a standard-bearer if he dials WAY back on his comments about race, ethnicity, and religion. At one point he says something about non-minorities and SBA loans…”I don’t know if you can get one” if you’re not a minority. Non-minorities DO get them, but more important, this tone leans in a direction that could easily be read as code, code I don’t support for a standard-bearer.
“I’m a big-mouthed NY Jew…” is true and charming (in a way) for a pundit, not so much for a candidate. To be clear, I like his what-you-see-is-what-you-get NY style (I’m born and raised there), but it may be too in-your-face for a national stage AS A CANDIDATE.
I’ll be very pleased if he avoids using the sort of blonde joke he told. Feels to me in an encoded direction.
His energy and ability to synthesize in soundbites is very impressive to me. He picks out quick illustrations that show the folly of “government solutions” in very effective ways. Whether his style ports from pundit to presidential candidate…we’ll see…
did Root mention he was libertarian . . . much?
can you say liberventionist?
folks in South Korea don’t even care about what the North’s been doing lately
Root really likes talking about race for some reason. Maybe he is just doing his best to catch up on libertarianism and thinks everyone liked Ron Paul because of the newsletters.
And why the F*CK do NONE of these asses EVER talk about Afghanistan? I guess they agree with BO that it’s the ‘right war’.
Not impressed by Wayne in the Sotomayor bit. Poor white male! Wah! Should have pointed out that this stuff is a Republican distraction from the real issues, a silly and desperate attempt to place personality and cheap shots above substance.
Obama ‘weak on terror’ and won’t sit down with Republicans, Conservatives, or Libertarians? sigh.
Wayne says his book “basically cites chapter and verse Barry Goldwater’s book”… umm, in which case, why did he write it?
Re: NK nukes – never mentioned that it’s really not the business of the US government to oversee NK.
Second vid: Root totally misses the opportunity to talk about real structural issues with two-party system, and instead simply asserts that HE will carry the LP simply by being mouthy. Umm, good luck with that.
Excellent point on foreign aid.
Wow, so Wayne wants to keep an income tax. Surprising! haha – and a progressive ‘flat tax’ at that. sigh.
Starts off good re: noninterventionism “not our business (NK)” but then it becomes somewhat incoherent… a mix of pugilism and noninterventionism. Ah, the host finally manages to pin him down – Root WOULD support Israel using US bases in Iraq to strike Iran. VERY BAD (this is about 1:45 from end).
WOW. Is Root seeking the republican nomination or the Libertarian nomination?
Root clearly needs to learn a good bit more about libertarian philosophy.
Sheesh.
PEACE