Wayne Root Blasts Federal Takeover of GM

2008 Libertarian Party vice-presidential nominee Wayne Root blogged today against the federal takeover of General Motors; excerpts below.  Separately, Root announced that the first guests on his new talk radio show will Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano of FOX News Channel.

From Root’s blog entry:

Government only survives by confiscating money from smart people in the private sector to pay for its mismanagement, waste, corruption and nonstop failure and losses. Government runs Social Security. It is fast approaching bankruptcy. Government runs Medicare. It is fast approaching bankruptcy. Government runs education. Education runs through tens of billions of dollars each year and yet somehow manages to produce worse results virtually every year (and always demands more as a reward for utter failure). […]

Government took over Amtrak in the same way it took over GM, promising a quick return to profitability. Amtrak bleeds losses every year for the U.S. taxpayer. In 1970 when Amtrak was founded, $300 million was approved by Congress to run it. The government predicted profitability within 5 years. That was 39 years and over $30 billion dollars in losses ago!

53 thoughts on “Wayne Root Blasts Federal Takeover of GM

  1. Just Asking

    If GM’s employees and their “bloated union compensation” are as bad as Wayne Allyn suggests, then one has to wonder why he selected one of the oversized and overpowered gas-guzzling products built by those workers for the cover of his ridiculously titled book, MILLIONAIRE REPUBLICAN — you know, the graphic where he’s standing on top of a militarized-looking Hummer adorned by rags on a stick in front of a mansion?

  2. robert capozzi

    umm, he liked the product at the price? His demand curve intersected with Hummer’s supply curve?

    I take issue with some of Bono’s political stances, but I buy U2 CDs, too.

  3. Fed Up

    From Root’s blog entry:

    Government only survives by confiscating money from smart people in the private sector to pay for its mismanagement, waste, corruption and nonstop failure and losses. Government runs Social Security. It is fast approaching bankruptcy. Government runs Medicare. It is fast approaching bankruptcy. Government runs education. Education runs through tens of billions of dollars each year and yet somehow manages to produce worse results virtually every year (and always demands more as a reward for utter failure). […]

    Weren’t the programs mentioned above solvent until we had to bail out the so called smart people?

  4. NewFederalist

    “Someday, he may even invite some Libertarian Party supporters to his show.” 🙂 Good one, George!

  5. robert capozzi

    Dr. Paul is a life member of the LP, last I checked.

    But – hold on, now – guest selection is being criticized even before the FIRST show?

    oy vey.

  6. Leymann Feldenstein

    “Government only survives by confiscating money from smart people in the private sector”

    If this guy is so smart whatever happened to his betting business?

  7. libertariangirl

    LF__If this guy is so smart whatever happened to his betting business?

    He sold it .

  8. Holden

    Perhaps Phillies can invite some Libertarians to his own show…oh wait…he doesn’t have one.

    I can’t figure out why that is…

  9. Mik Robertson

    Don’t be too hard on George. One day he may be on WPI radio. Then he can have guests on the air too.

  10. Another Denver Delegate

    Yeah I am sure if George Phillies had a radio talk show, Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano would at the front of the line to be on his show, NOT.

    Guest on the George Phillies show would include the 5 Libertarian Druids or was it Wiccans, BTP Malcontents and of course Christine Smith.

    Maybe we could call it “The Twilight Zone” .

  11. George Phillies

    We all have choices of how we spend our time. I actually do a great deal for my state party and other activities of benefit to the party. However activities can be of positive, negative, or no benefit. Starting a radio show that says it is libertarian, and opens by publicizing far-right-wing Republicans, counts as negative.

    We do not advance ourselves by fronting ourselves as the party of homophobic bigots, race-baiters, or evolution-denyers by using those people as leads for ‘libertarian’ guests, and with respect to the cowardly @16 who is afraid to use its true name, well, your showing that your section of the party supports religious bigotry does not advantage us either.

  12. George Phillies

    If I were to do a radio show — I lack the time — I would have tried to get a somewhat different list of first-few-program guests:
    John Monds (GA) comes at once to mind. Bill Redpath, asking about his plans for the next year. Mr. Harris, who is actively reviving the LPWV. Rob Power, as Chair of Outright Libertarians. New LPWA Chair Rachel Hawkridge. Perhaps Wes Benedict, who could talk about his ideas for a party national office. Any of several LPNH Libertarians.

    We also have several candidates for President or National Chair at this point, such as Tom Knapp and Jake Porter.

    There are lots of *Real Libertarian* guests, if you put your mind to it.

  13. paulie

    I don’t lack the time.

    I do lack internet access in excess of one hour a day, however.

    If anyone wants to take charge of booking guests and timeslots, I’ll be happy to talk to all of the above and any other reasonable suggestions on IPR blog talk radio.

    I’d also have to be informed of show times by phone, since I don’t always make it down to the library to check email every day.

  14. JT

    Phillies, if you were to host a radio show, the people listening would fall asleep. People don’t want to listen to a science geek on political talk radio, sorry. Root has the right personality to be successful in that medium. However, I agree that he should back off from the ultra-conservative rhetoric and appeal to people on the left as well.

  15. robert capozzi

    in the media market, a host needs first and foremost to offer the audience compelling, entertaining content. Root needs to make his show a success for him to stay on the air. part of that will require his getting “name” guests.

    over time, perhaps he can work in LP activists. It’d be unlikely that sustainable market share will be garnered with low profile guests…my take on the harsh realities of the media BUSINESS.

  16. Holden

    Wow, George, all you lack is the time? Are you writing another book on how the LP screwed you over and you really should have won the LP nomination? Make sure you mention the wild support you had from a broad base of libertarians!

    If you spent half as much time working to make the Libertarian Party a hospitable place for all newcomers, as you do trying to tear down the party and everyone who doesn’t fit into your kooky mold, you might actually become more than a inconsequential gadfly.

  17. George Phillies

    @23 The book title is “Phenomenology of Polymer Solution Dynamics”, and it has rather little to do with politics.

    Defending the party from looters disguised as Presidential candidates — that does not include Mike Badnarik, whose Presidential campaign made effective use of its money within certain strategic limitations — is an important step in the right direction.

  18. mdh

    George Phillies, through his Freedom Ballot Access organization, has been doing great things to help the LP. FBA recently contributed $1,200 to making ballot access a reality in West Virginia for our candidates here in 2010 and 2012. That’s the sort of grass-roots work that we need more people doing more of!

  19. mdh

    By the way, Holden, since you’re such a big LP supporter and are criticizing George, how much are *you* contributing to get LPWV candidates on the ballot for 2010 and 2012? That’s a very real way to support the LP.

  20. paulie

    My message today on LP of Alabama Exec Comm list…….


    Keep the office, but only at 10% of what we raise, with the rest going towards ballot access (which will also include many unpaid party-building efforts: setting up and strengthening precinct LP organizations, county LPs, student groups and single issue groups, etc). If we can’t manage to devote most of our time and money to growth-oriented activities, getting on the ballot and talking
    to the public face to face, what good is an office, website, phone line, etc? All of those should only be tools for getting field organizers out in the field, not ends in themselves.

    If there’s no concensus for the plan outlined in the last paragraph and in previous messages, dissolve the LPA and reaffiliate with only people who want the LP to be both ideologically libertarian and an actual political party. Folks who want to be involved in a libertarian organization which is not a political party have many other choices available to them, as do those who wish to be
    involved in a political party which is not ideologically libertarian.

    If anyone has any questions or thoughts about any of these issues, please call me at 415-690-6352. I check the yahoo lists website very rarely (this is the first time in several weeks), but I have unlimited minutes on my phone for all US calls.

    Peace and liberty,

    Paul

    (That number again, 415-690-6352. Operator is standing by!)

  21. paulie

    Also posted to LPA exec com list
    by Steve Gordon


    Dear State Chair,

    Is it just me, or are others sometimes disturbed by the amount of inconsequential information and petty squabbling posted on this Libertarian Party e-mail list? Some of us are so busy fighting for liberty that we don’t even read most messages on this list. I’ve got a suggestion.

    If you have five minutes:

    · Help Alabamians finalize their win on the Free the Hops bill they’ve been working on for so long: http://www.examiner.com/x-9094-Birmingham-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m5d21-One-final-tweet-to-free-the-hops

    · Help put a libertarian TV show on Fox News: http://www.lp.org/blogs/donny-ferguson/put-a-libertarian-tv-show-on-the-fox-news-channel

    · E-mail five personal friends or family members and ask them to join the LP.

    If you have five dollars:

    · Donate $5 to the John Monds campaign in Georgia: http://www.votemonds.com/donate.php

    · Donate $5 to help Alabama obtain ballot access: http://lpalabama.org/pages/contribute

    · Help West Virginia with their ballot access: https://secure.donortownsquare.com/SSL/donate.aspx?sgst=0&amt=0&ai=876&qs=SS7G6

    If you don’t have five minutes or five dollars, perhaps you should be looking for a job as opposed to spending so much time on this list. If you haven’t got a ha’penny, then God bless you!

    Regards,

    Stephen Gordon

    Chair, Libertarian Party of Alabama

    P.S. You might wish to pass a copy of this to your LNC Representative; their list can be worse than this one at times. I’m also sending a copy to my state executive committee.

  22. Rich Vanier

    I just made a small contribution to John Monds campaign. Thanks Stephen for the suggestion. Anyone else willing to contribute.

    I will make my contribution for Alabama Ballot Access later in the month. 🙂

  23. stefan

    Accroding to Dr. Phillies, only Libertarian Party and Boston tea Party members count as libertarians. You cannot be a libertarian if you are a member of the Republican Party, Democratic Party, Independence Party and libertarian leaning.
    Let us see, if the 2004 LP presidential candidate Michael Badnarik supports the politician with whom Root will have his first radio interview? Then Dr. Phillies have some logical inconsistencies to deal with…
    It also seems Dr. Phillies cannot distinguish between evolutionism and evolution. I am sure the person he is referring to Ron Paul believes in
    evolution within the perspective of Christianity. A medical doctor is also a type of scientist, the last time I checked.
    Dr. Phillies also implies that Judge Andrew Napolitano has made no contribution to the libertarian movement, he does not have a highly popular internet TV show promoting liberty and the ideals of the liberty movement and the Libertarian party for that matter… seems like a certain professor is quite estranged from reality.

  24. stefan

    I wonder where Dr. Phillies sees the “homophobic bigotry” in a presidential candidate whose campaign manager in 1988 as well as in 2008, Kent Snyder, was reportedly gay and who has spoken himself with openness about them and in SF received more votes from gays than Hillary Clinton, for example. And where has Dr. Paul been anything rometely “race=baiting’…some of his supporters perhaps, but defin itely not him. Newsflash: int he GOP primary Paul has received the most of the African-American and other minority voters among Republicans. The other day Angel Robinson – an African-American mother – with the Campaign for Liberty promoted HR 1207 on TV. But oh, I remember, Dr. Phillies consider every criticism of the fed as a “far right wing conspiracy theory”. We got it, Dr. Phillies.

  25. George Phillies

    Stefan,

    You should try looking at his newsletter. And you should note that he said that Dont Ask Dont Tell was all right with him. You should also try listening to his interview on The American View. It might clarify your thinking, though I doubt it. For example, it makes clear where Paul stands on evolution, and “evolution in an allegedly Christian context” is a branch of evolution denial.

    As the fellow who wrote the serious analysis of Michael Badnarik’s book, I am unsurprised that Badnarik supports Paul. They are rather similar in many respects. However, unlike Paul, Badnarik dod not transfer three and a half million dollars out of his Presidential campaign fund into his Congressional campaign fund. My analysis was on LibertyForAll, Lee Wright’s newsletter.

    Logical inconsistency? No, that’s only an issue for some of our party’s religious folks of a particular persuasion.

    My late father and my brother were/are physicians. They are both wonderful and intelligent people. I am a physicist. The notion that an M.D. is a research degree, or that physicians are a type of scientist, is unusually deranged, and is enough to draw into question the rest of your claims.

    What I got Stefan, is that like many Paul supporters — whether you are yourself I cannot tell — you are in denial.

    To end this remark on a positive note, the Paul campaign was successful in luring many of the eccentrics who were subject to the delusion that they were Libertarians out of our party. And someday, the individual libertarians who are Democrats, Revolutionary Socialists, or whatever may come over to our party.

  26. Jim Davidson

    @21 Prof. Phillies is an educated and interesting man. Perhaps talk radio is not the market for the erudite. Pearls before swine, etc.

  27. stefan

    Dear Prof. Phillies:

    I have read critically through the newsletetrs, rather only parts of the newsletters that were published 1,5 years ago and compared it to the Kirchzik articles, as well as many reactions on this whole issue. It became clear to me that Paul did not write many of the referred to passages – it is not his writing style as well – and that some (not all) sentences can be interpreted in a different sense than some do, except for the derogatory words like Dirtburg etc. Paul did not review everything that was written during that specific time when he was busy full time as a medical doctor, so he is not responsible. He is originally also no Southerner, he is from PA. The news letter issue is really a red herring and so much overblown, with political interests of stopping the only anti-war candidate in the GOP by TNR, who were all pro-war.
    I did listen to his interview on the American View last year, where he spoke with understanding about gays, reminding the interviewer – who may be homophobic – that they are also God’s children. Listen to the interview again.

    I think he changed his view on Dont ask, don’t tell, liek also Barr. It all depends on how one defines it. You know human science and politics is NOT exact science like in politics: one has to understand someone’s intention and meaning.
    I may also note that Justin Raimondo – who is most definitely gay – is a great friend of Dr. Paul and certainly has also respect in this sense. Now
    we have the initeresting issue that at least a few gays, who know Paul since years personally, do not regard him as a homophobe in any way, yet a “distant”(non-gay) professor, who does not know Paul personally in any way, consider him a homophobe. Well, it should be clear which opinion I do trust as reliable.

    Badnarik supported Paul even when the LP already had its nominee. Mary Ruwart and Karen Kwiatkowski also supported Paul all the way, and they are Libertarians, yet Dr. Phillies do not consider Paul a libertarian/libertarian Republican or Republican with libertarian leanings in any shape manner or form. Very surprisingly. If you have to be consistent, you have to say Badnarik – on whose campaign you worked – is also no Libertarian, especially as you see such a similarity in their views.

    Paul has as a fiscal conservative also in his campaign been left with a few million. He can use those money for any political or other non-money generating purpose, as far as I know. A presidential candidate may not use these funds in any way for personal purposes, like building a house, car etc. So what wrong has Paul done or acted as if no Libertarian in similar circumstances would do. Badnarik did not had 3,5 million USD left and was no congressional member to use the money for. had Badnarik been a sitting congressman, I am sure he would have used some of it for his own congressional campaign. Dr. Phillies also also not considered that maybe Paul has used some of his congressional money race previously, e.g. left overs or form his Liberty PAC and from his own personal expenses, for his presidential race in the beginning.

    From Dr. Phillies’s discouse it is clear that he does not regard anyone who believes in creation
    (including evolution in a christian context) as a libertarian or a scientist or intelligent. It sounds like religious bigotry! Paul is a specialist, and he has talked to specialists, e.g. medical professors/researchers about the birth issue, so he can ground it on scientific grounds. Creation is of course an issue that is to believed, one cannot explain it all, just like those that believe in “only evolution” postulate a “big-bang”a s the origin of evolution. The big-bang theory is a reconstruction and assumption: where is the scientific evidence for that? I do believe there is evolution in species etc, but not over categories, e.g Darwin theory of monkey – man.
    I am not in denial, but rather aware of my limits, including the limits of reason and the ability to explain everything. There will always be a mystery, though I am no misticist. While being a very logical thinking person, I also know the limits of logic. It cannot explain everything!!

    My father is also a scientist, Dr. Phillies. He has his PhD from MIT in Metallurgical Engineering.

    Dr. Phillies has declared sen. Barry Goldwater as his hero, yet Goldwater was never a Libertarian (not any time since 1971), he was a libertarian Republican and was in 1963/1964 (falsely) described as the same sort of Republican Dr. Phillies currently describes Paul and Napolitano. It makes one think, doesn’t it?
    On a positive note: Dr. Phillies, good luck with creating a “true” libertarian, fed-loving, non-eccentric political majority where you screen every LP whether he is really a libertarian according to your definition or not. You will certainly need all the help you got.

  28. stefan

    BTW: Sen Goldwater was also a Christian, thus he believed in creation, and Dr. Phillies would surely describe him today as also “in denial”.

  29. Robert Capozzi

    gp, thanks for bringing the American View to our attention. Can you expand on why you found RP’s take on DADT so offensive? The upshot of his position was he didn’t have a problem with it because DADT should apply to heteros and gays was my understanding.

    That may be a bit nuanced, but I can’t imagine how it’s offensive. It also may not be a forthright and strong endorsement of gay rights, but those were not the words of a hater.

    Perhaps the policy should be Don’t Ask, period. And “telling” that one is openly gay should not violate military code.

    I’m ambivalent on this one. Some have argued that integrating heteros and gays in the military is like integrating whites and blacks. I’m not sure that’s a fair analogy. I’ve never been in the military, but I understand they are often in close quarters, but they attempt to keep men and women in separate facilities for sexual reasons. That seems abundantly reasonable to me. If practicing gays were to be accepted in the military, the same logic would imply 4 rather than 2 facilities.

    What am I missing?

  30. Robert Capozzi

    The funny thing about “science” is how often it is “proven” incorrect. There was “evidence” that the Sun circled the Earth, until that was found to be false. Newton was “right” until Einstein “proved” him wrong.

    Perhaps “science” should be viewed as our best guess, given the fact set and ability to replicate isolated events. The Whole Truth? The evidence and track record seems to suggest not even close.

  31. mdh

    DADT as a policy applying to both heterosexuals and homosexuals is fine, but being able to remove people from the military for being gay is not fine. What it comes down to is equality, and when you have an inequality like the policies which allow people to be court-marshalled for being gay, I think that’s a problem which needs to be addressed.

    This amounts to the government creating seperate “privileged classes”, in this case, heterosexuals. I believe that government-mandated or enforced privilege classes are inherently wrong and should all be immediately abolished.

  32. Michael H. Wilson

    Robert @ 39 writes: “I’m ambivalent on this one. Some have argued that integrating heteros and gays in the military is like integrating whites and blacks. I’m not sure that’s a fair analogy. I’ve never been in the military, but I understand they are often in close quarters, but they attempt to keep men and women in separate facilities for sexual reasons. That seems abundantly reasonable to me. If practicing gays were to be accepted in the military, the same logic would imply 4 rather than 2 facilities.”

    Robert both gay men and lesbian women have been in the military for years. Though it has been unacceptable it has often been up to the local commanding officers to enforce the policy.
    As a navy brat and as a veteran myself I can give you plenty of examples to support this.

    Only in the last 20 or 30 years has the issue been in the news to the extent we now see it.

  33. robert capozzi

    mhw, it’s become an issue because some are pushing it in recent years, which I think is great. Challenging codified taboos is helpful. Whether one is “homophobic” because they entertain practical considerations is not obvious.

  34. Michael H. Wilson

    Robert I should have been clearer, or more clear whatever the proper grammar is.

    I think it has become an issue because it has been pushed from both sides, however there is a significant growth in religious activity in the military and this has resulted in much of the negative, anti gay activity we have seen and read about.

    Is that a bit better?

  35. robert capozzi

    mhw, yes, clearer. I’m sure there’s WAY more than 2 sides. While I don’t doubt your reportage, there are, for ex., religious gays and tolerant atheist heteros.

  36. Michael Seebeck

    Uh, Newton was not of the earth-centric variety, at least according to his contemporaries Halley and Kepler. In fact, it was Newton who provided Halley and Kepler with the ellipse answer that had been puzzling Kepler over Tycho Brahe’s observations of the planetary orbits around the sun.

  37. robert capozzi

    ms, yes, perhaps that Newton sentence should’ve been a separate ‘graph, as it’s another illustration of the idea. I’d think that it’d be obvious in context of the Einstein contrast.

  38. Leymann Feldenstein

    Wayne Root is nothing but a very glib, smooth-talking, self-promoting snake oil salesman who is packaging paleoconservative and dixiecrat ideology under the Libertarian label to further advance his own agenda which is feeding his own ego (and bank account) by selling books and other media outlets while promoting his political interests and other activities.

    When Root makes comments about government confiscating wealth from “smart people in the private sector” it reminds me of similar comments made by social darwinists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century to justify the enormous disparities of wealth and poverty in the days of robber barons and cowboy capitalists. Root implies that people who pay taxes are smart, and people who don’t pay taxes are stupid. From my own experience I know an awful lot of stupid people that pay taxes, and an awful lot of smart people that don’t pay taxes. And I also know an awful lot of “smart people” in the private sector who benefit directly from government contracts and other subsidies that come from the wealth that Root says is confiscated by government from the other “smart people”

    I honestly have no respect whatsoever for the likes of Wayne Root. However, if he were to change his kid’s name from Reagan to Gandhi I might, just might, develop a smidgeon of begrudging respect.

    As to George Phillies I may not agree with his politics but at least he is sincere and honest about his intentions and beliefs, unlike most of the other LP candidates and leaders I’ve been familiar with. And he is absolutely right about the shamelessness of the LP pandering to the paleocon dixiecrats in the Republican and Constitution Parties.

  39. libertariangirl

    I agree George Phillies in honest and sincere in his motives.

    I disagree greatly with your characterization of Root.

  40. stefan

    Also agree that George Phillies is honest and sincere in his motives. Plus he is a hard worker, and launched a site thedailyliberty.com among others, also written a book about liberty a few years ago. And I say this as someone who disagrees with some of his views, while agreeing with others.

    Leymann: many people who propose the 10th Amendment do it on constitutional grounds, not “dixiecrat” ones. Although “states powers” would be a more appropriate and better term than “states rights”. It simply refers to decentralism. It is really ludicrous to throw the baby out with the bathwater and consider ALL dixiecrats as racists who want to take away voting rights for black people/African-Americans.
    As to the term “paleoconservative”, you should know the term “paleolibertarian” has also been used and is NOT the same as paleoconservative. The person who coined the term is no longer using the term “paleolibertarian”. Mainly “paleo” refers to a more positive relationship towards religion and “pro-life” rather than a negative relationship. The latter would be represented by Ayn Rand’s objectivism, who was an out and out atheist (and actually not a libertarian in a few respects, she was more of a hawkish neocon with regard to war).

    Do you consider Dr. Mary Ruwart being a LP candidate two times, as also “most of the other LP candidates and leaders” who are supposedly dishonest and not sincere about their intentions and beliefs?

  41. stefan

    libertariangirl: well I have my criticism of Root, but agree he is also not this “monster” some int he LP wants to make him out. IMHO he is more like an enthusiatic and energetic “backbencher” in a party, e.g. someone that “shoots from the hip” and make quite a few careless mistakes and not quite a totally balanced view, but someone with good intentions nonetheless and right on a few important issues and can bring that message across. As standard-bearer for the LP, he is IMHO not yet appropriate.

  42. Leymann Feldenstein

    “Do you consider Dr. Mary Ruwart being a LP candidate two times, as also “most of the other LP candidates and leaders” who are supposedly dishonest and not sincere about their intentions and beliefs?”

    No, and I was disappointed she did not win the nomination. Her views may be controversial but at least she would have sparked a national debate on issues relating to personal morality and liberty.

    The fact the LP rejected Ruwart in favor of a couple of caveman conservatives in Barr/Root is enough proof the LP is no longer the party of principle but rather the party of compromise and expediency.

  43. whatever

    Ruwart was not rejected by the LP in favor of Root. Ruwart refused to run against Root for VP. She rejected herself.

  44. Robert Capozzi

    lf: …LP is no longer the party of principle …

    me: That depends on your definition of what “principle” is. Mine would be advocating less government across the board. Interestingly, most L candidates do exactly that, including Barr/Root. I can’t think of a L candidate (certainly ticket toppers) who has advocated no State, but rather incremental changes. Can you name one who explicitly held high the anarchist banner? If so, please cite specifics of his/her statements to back that up.

Leave a Reply

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