We Don’t Need Civility Towards Our Political Leaders; We Need Rage!
We Need to Limit Our Politicians to Two Terms- One in Office, One in Prison!
We need to Throw All the Bums Out- V.E.T.O. the U.S. Congress (Vote Everyone of Them Out).
By Wayne Allyn Root, Author
The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts
When Congressman Joe Wilson screamed “You Lie!” at President Obama, many liberal critics, political commentators and media experts responded by criticizing the lack of manners and civility in modern day politics. Yet I believe the opposite is true. We’ve all been too nice, mannered, and civil. For far too long, we’ve stood by as politicians destroyed our country, wrecked our economy, spent us into bankruptcy, and indebted our children and grandchildren for generations to come. This situation doesn’t demand civility; it demands rage. Why should we show respect and civility to the corrupt thieves who are lying to our faces and robbing us blind? Why show respect to the very people who are stealing our children’s future?
The problem isn’t civility; it is stupidity. We’ve been far too civil and docile. We’ve been intimidated and blinded by the power and fancy titles of our political leaders. We’ve all accepted the lies for far too long. We’ve actually given the benefit of the doubt to the people in charge- even though most of the political class is a bunch of criminals. We’ve respected and re-elected the very people who have been lying to our faces and robbing us blind. In reality we should have been throwing the bums out- ALL of them, from both parties. We should have been limiting our politicians to 2 terms- one in office, one in prison!
We stuck our heads in the sand. We wanted to believe they were telling us the truth. We might have cursed “Congress,” but we each praised and thanked our own Congressperson. We showed “respect” for their authority. It can only be called “Groundhog Day.” Each day we keep doing the same illogical things (supporting the same incumbents who are bankrupting the country); and wake up the next morning hoping the outcome will be different. But it never is.
A half century of manners and civility has led to the worst depression since 1929; an unimaginable annual deficit of almost $2 trillion; and over $100 trillion in national debt. Our country is at the brink of economic ruin, bankruptcy and insolvency because we’ve been so nice, naïve, and trusting. We all should have screamed “You Lie” a long time ago.
OTB recently filed for bankruptcy in New York. That’s Off Track Betting- otherwise known as government-run gambling. You mean the government can’t make a profit in the gambling business, but President Obama wants us to believe that they’ll magically run national healthcare profitably? That’s a lie. Obama wants us to believe that we’re going to add 50 million uninsured to the healthcare rolls, and it won’t cost us a thing? That’s a lie. Or that government will “save” us money by spending trillions on a new program? That’s a lie. That the estimate of one trillion dollars is accurate, even though Medicare was once estimated to cost $12 billion annually, and actually cost $110 billion? That’s a lie. That the trillion or trillions Obama wants to spend on government-run healthcare won’t add to the ballooning deficit? That’s a lie. That adding 50 million new patients, while losing doctors, won’t result in rationing? That’s a lie. That the rest of us can forever keep our present health insurance and doctors at no added cost? That’s a lie. That illegal immigrants won’t soon be included in universal healthcare? That’s a lie. Politicians like Obama are good at lying. They’ll actually remove illegals from the new healthcare bill, but soon thereafter they’ll make sure that illegals are granted legal citizenship, thereby allowing all of their healthcare bills to be added to the government’s tab.
Or how about cap and trade. President Obama wants us to believe that a massive multi-trillion dollar cap and trade program won’t hurt business? That’s a lie. That cap and trade won’t put us at a competitive disadvantage to China and India (who won’t agree to the same rules and standards)? That’s a lie. That cap and trade won’t double or triple our energy bills? That’s a lie. That this massive increase in our utility bills is not a tax increase on the middle class? That’s a lie. That cap and trade isn’t an excuse for a government takeover of business? That’s a lie. That cap and trade is necessary to fight global warming (even though the last decade has seen more proof of global cooling)? That’s a lie.
Do you remember the original fairy-tales told to you by President Obama? He said that his $800 billion stimulus bill was necessary to “save” the economy. That was a lie. Instead it was an almost trillion dollar handout to his campaign contributors and supporters that did nothing for the economy. Obama said we had to spend trillions to create 3 million new jobs. That was a lie. Instead we wasted trillions and lost 3 million jobs. Obama said we had to spend billions to save U.S. automakers. That was a lie. Instead Obama fleeced taxpayers, stockholders, lien holders, banks and hedge funds to hand control of the U.S. automakers to the auto unions- his campaign contributors. Now GM and Chrysler are a $100 billion government-funded welfare program, that just happens to make cars (that no one wants). Obama said that corporate bailouts would be paid back. That was a lie. Now it turns out that we may never get back tens of billions loaned to AIG, GM or Chrysler. How many more lies are we willing to accept, while still being civil and mannered?
But Obama is far from being the only politician to lie to our faces. They all lie. Pelosi, Reid, Dodd and Frank have lied about virtually every spending bill that Congress passes. Bush lied about the war in Iraq and wasted a trillion dollars (or more) on his military misadventures, all the while allowing Congress to break the bank on spending, earmarks and waste. The leaders of the Republican Congress lied about virtually every bill they passed too. It’s what politicians do.
Just don’t tell me to accept it anymore. Don’t tell me to respond to being lied to my face with manners, grace and civility. No, it’s well past the time for civility. It’s time for rage. It’s time to throw all the bums out. It’s time to V.E.T.O. the entire Congress- Vote Everyone of Them Out. It’s time to send a message to the spoiled, corrupt, overpaid D.C. political class. It’s time for a political revolution. It’s time to increase unemployment- by at least 435 members of Congress (and every Senator up for re-election too). It’s time to say to every incumbent politician in America: YOU’RE FIRED! In 2010, let’s forget civility and let’s get angry, vicious and vengeful. Let’s fight with tenacity and passion. Because this is the battle of our lives- our country, our economy, capitalism itself, our children’s future is at stake. It’s time to take back our country from the liars and thieves currently in control. It’s time to admit “THEY ALL LIE!”
Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate. His new book is entitled, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” For more of Wayne’s views, commentaries, or to watch his many national media appearances, please visit his web site at: www.ROOTforAmerica.com
mhw, yes, me too! I’m making a much more fundamental point. I’ve seen waves of purges in the LP, including the infamous Clark/O’Keefe purge of 83, when I was a jr operative in the “Crane machine.” It was profoundly toxic and dysfunctional.
We have to learn to get along, to have Accord, else we’ll be in this also-ran quagmire in perpetuity.
Robert I am not suggesting we use specific wording from the platform, only that the ideas be drawn from there.
Using the “right” words with real examples always helps to get the messsage across.
Simple, consistent and repeat!
mhw, yes, staying on message with a *persuasive* message is best repeated. We are on different planets if you think using platform/resolution language is persuasive. It’s not done in the wider world. Messages are crafted for a broader audience, and almost never uses terminology one sees in a resolution or plank. They are synthesized into sound bites
But, with the asset impaired, it’s no wonder that LPHQ is playing things so risk aversely. I’d probably do the same!
Robert repeating is often how you get the message across. Good advertisng is about repitition.
mhw, thanks for the feedback, but I believe you misunderstand.
Most enterprises I know of invest resources that have the highest ROI. That’s what I advocate.
As adults, I also think we should recognize asset impairment when it’s occurred. If LPHQ has to repeat resolution and platform language in press releases, that indicates asset impairment to me. It’s highly defensive and risk averse, IMO.
Robert I’ll be polite. You’re making excuses for not doing something. That doesn’t get the job done. Yes some will always be there to bitch but things can be stated in such a way as to limit the complaints. It is not difficult.
ms, yes, gaining influence, reputation and “power” would be most helpful. That could take a LOT of different forms. For ex., Wes Benedict could do what Root does…get on TV and comment a lot on news.
Of course, if he EVER says anything that even IMPLIES that any aspect of government is “necessary,” he’d be in for a shit storm of criticism, based on results. And, if he has to measure his language to never offend anarchoNAPster sensibilities, he will sound strange and weird (or, perhaps, guarded and uninteresting), and he won’t get invited back.
Hence, my focus on the St. Louis Accord. I’m a first things first kinda guy.
I tend to agree with Seebeck. We need to throw as much as we can at them. Run candidates, write letters, call on the elected ones, hell that good experience for future candidates, do door hangers and on and on.
Re: it: the not-done activities @234, middle of the larger paragraphs.
ms, I’m still not clear on what “it” is, but perhaps you should share your views with Wes Benedict, who has by all reports done a great job in TX.
Holding onto bygone grievances seems contra-indicated.
Lucy was ineffective because she was not properly trained before she was proverbially thrown into the deep end of the pool. That’s inapplicable here.
To do them well requires first and foremost doing them at all to become good at them, and that’s the problem–not doing it. Doesn’t always require money, either–just time and informed and well-presented people.
Some of the states seem to be doing it. why can’t LPHQ?
Ayn R. Key // Oct 6, 2009 at 4:36 pm
@214
When Barr fought in the courts to get McCain and Obama off the ballot (as the law said they should never have been on in the first place) that was one of the few Barr moves I enthusiastically supported.
You may have supported it, but where did it get you, wasted money and nowhere. These two still remained on the ballot. The money would have been better spent getting the word out.
ms, I’d like to think I offer positive, constructive comments, at least most of the time. “Carpozzi’s” amusing once!
To do all of those things WELL would take more resources, a LOT more. And add to that the challenge of getting Ls on the same page and not open LPHQ up to carping from the rank and file.
I have no doubt your intentions are sound, but cavalierly suggesting “just do it” doesn’t make things happen. Lucy in the chocolate factory was working hard, but not smart, and she was certainly ineffective.
Bruce @ 235, there was zero willingness to “overlook” the Barnes situation, and the only “defending” was of the need for access to the actual evidence behind the Me/gan’s Law entry. You obviously don’t know what was happening behind the scenes.
Calling other people “low class, scummy liar and cheater” only reflects on you, not on them. I’ve never heard of any “waving axes, getting into fistfights, throwing food, making rude/sexxual comments about children” at any LPCA event or meeting.
Your ongoing attempts to embarrass the LPCA are only embarrassing yourself.
@214
When Barr fought in the courts to get McCain and Obama off the ballot (as the law said they should never have been on in the first place) that was one of the few Barr moves I enthusiastically supported.
Obviously you missed the reference to all your carping.
The focus is on all of those issues, specifics at a time, DUH!
Why do I need to be lecturing you on this stuff? It should be bleeping obvious!
Oops, I used the wrong word above in # 248: the word I meant was “discretion”.
ms, one person’s inertia is another’s management by shiney rocks.
Even if LPHQ was the appropriate vehicle for federal lobbying, what would the focus be on? War in Afghanistan? Bailouts? Stimulus? ObamaCare? Same-gender marriage? The “evil” of laws against blackmailing?
If you want to talk about organizational basics, consider the concept of sticking to your knitting. Most successful organizations will report that’s a key to success.
btw, is it really necessary to mangle the spelling of my name? I take no offense, but it sounds like something you’d hear in a grade school playground…
Bruce @ #235: Very interesting that you seem to know what was going on between all the members of the Executive Committee last week. The truth is that we had the disgression and intelligence to handle things privately, as mature adults often do.
What’s wrong with you? I don’t know anyone in the party who causes trouble like you do. What the heck is your problem?
Carpozzi, the only thing stopping them now is institutional inertia born of apathy.
And you won’t see Kraus taking any initiative on that anytime soon. It’s not his M.O. to do real political work.
And Scott, it’s disappointing that you seem to advocate NOT doing the political basics here.
Are you sure you’re fit for national representation with that attitude?
ms, I look forward to a day when the LP can “take point” on any issue. My take is that that’s premature. Those who take point on national issues have the heft of large numbers of supporters. We’re not anywhere near having large numbers.
Look at the Tea Party movement as an ex. Initially an L initiative, it was co-opted by conservatives.
This is not to say that Ls can’t ever take point. My view is that Ls have been focused on inreach and infighting for nearly 30 years, largely over the def. of “L.” Things have not been the same since Ed Clark blurted out “low-tax liberal.” We’re still reeling from MNR’s hissy fit over that one.
I’d like to put this all (mostly) behind us with the St. Louis Accord of 2010.
Scott, you do both. “The book” has been supplanted in modern times. It was effective 50 years ago when there weren’t computers and 400 TV channels and communications were much more limited and people weren’t so PC paranoid. Nobody kisses babies anymore for fear of being labeled a pedophile. Incumbents run and hide from their constituents instead of precinct walking.
But you seem to be stuck in last century’s failed modes. And the result will be the same.
Time and time again we don’t run candidates with substantial meat in their campaign platform, and then we come across as lightweights. Those that do get elected do so because they know their stuff as well as their people and it shows. Ask Bill Masters, Norm Westwell, or Joe Johnson. They know it, because they’ve done it, and done it successfully.
In my lone electoral campaign, I got info straight from the incumbents and turned around and shoved it down their throats. I lost the election, but I saved that school district’s taxpayers $47M, so I won the war while losing the battle. For you to say it doesn’t work is junk, because it does.
Your Tree of Liberty is long on fertilizer but short on leaves–termites, lots of manure, and no water do that.
“Michael Seebeck // Oct 6, 2009 at 2:12 pm
If the candidates for that office are up there in DC lobbying on issues, or even doing so at their Congressman’s LOCAL offices, then they are in the position to do something, since the incumbent’s blowing them off then becomes election material to bury them with.
It can all be done without national or state LP having any role.
OTOH, when was the last time the LP did a press release or policy position blanket in Hart, Dirksen, Russell, Rayburn, Longworth, and Cannon? Or crashed a press conference and asked hard-hitting squirm questions? Or did their own press conference on the Capitol Steps?”
************************************
Those are good activities for the libertarian movement, but not for CANDIDATES. The people who do that stuff the best are in organizations like Beaurocrash, or they do it the way Hannah and James did their clandestine taping of ACORN.
If you are running to win an election, you have to “follow the book”, meaning you have to do the normal kissing babies, shaking hands, and if it is a local race, the miles and miles of precinct walking necessary to “meet the people.” Maybe you can win 1 election out of 100 by the tactics you describe, but I want to use the techniques that win 99 out of 100 elections.
Michael, you are describing one prong of a multi-pronged attack on statists. Trying to make a political party into a lobbying organization or a protest organization is not an effective use of the precious resources of money, time, and volunteers.
You want publicity for the LP: then get say, 45 Libertarian County Supervisors elected in California (something like 15% of the total number of Supervisors), and I bet we will get publicity in California.
If you don’t use the Tree of Liberty approach, patience is not a virtue: it is a necessity.
Carpozzi, don’t be so dense.
If the candidates for that office are up there in DC lobbying on issues, or even doing so at their Congressman’s LOCAL offices, then they are in the position to do something, since the incumbent’s blowing them off then becomes election material to bury them with.
It can all be done without national or state LP having any role.
OTOH, when was the last time the LP did a press release or policy position blanket in Hart, Dirksen, Russell, Rayburn, Longworth, and Cannon? Or crashed a press conference and asked hard-hitting squirm questions? Or did their own press conference on the Capitol Steps?
When indeed?
This is bread and butter stuff, folks, THAT ISN’T BEING DONE!
Instead we get blather about electing people while others muck around with policy manuals and removing members over dues notifications and being unable to handle sarcasm.
Then you wonder why the LP gets nowhere and point the finger everywhere else…
The point of the national LP is take point on national issues and national elections.
So why isn’t that being done the way it needs to be done?
Bruce,
Anyone who accuses you of sending that out can come talk to me. I know from the investigation what is involved in getting that info and from that you didn’t do it.
But I still think your take and commentary on the rest of the Executive Committee is inaccurate and out of line.
Scott, if you think the major parties don’t lobby, then you really have no idea what the various Democratic and Republican Caucuses do up there. They lobby, no doubt, but in their positions they get their policy orders from the parties and lobby their own or holdout votes. Classic politics of give-to-get and compromise.
The ultimate goal is to get to a libertarian society, and to pass off part of the essential stuff we should be doing to others to do, and with it the credit, reputation, and influence, simply sells us short.
That’s not a recipe for success.
We want the name influence and recognition and growth, we have to develop the reputation, and we do that in the halls of power, not just from without.
bh, the first observation is interesting. It would get MIGHTY complicated, though, as you can only fire that weapon once every two or six years. Which single piece of legislation is SO important that the LP won’t challenge for the seat? And is an L non-challenge sufficient leverage in most races to be a meaningful carrot?
Then there’s the fact that National can’t dictate to the state and local LP’s when they can run a candidates. Imagine Wes and Bill trying to suppress a candidate from running over X legislation? Can you spell dysfunction?
c3’s can “lobby” more than you’d think. They can “educate” on a bill all day long. Cato does quite a bit of this. They run ads against ObamaCare and stimulus and for SS reform. NTU and FreedomWorks have both a 3 and 4 as a workaround.
One reason you might listen to her is if she can promise the LP won’t run a candidate in your race. That’s something that DownsizeDC and Club For Growth can’t do.
Also, note that 501(c)(4) organizations these two have no tax advantage for donors compared to the LP. In order for donations to be tax-exempt, you have to be a 501(c)(3) (like Cato) but then cannot lobby about particular legislation.
ms, please expand. When you say “boots on the Hill,” that sounds like “lobbying.” That seems strange. Political PARTIES don’t lobby, they try to get elected, where they ARE lobbied.
Say you were a D congressman. An LP lobbyist came to your office urging X. Why would you listen to him or her…he or she wants to unseat you no matter what you do?
” Michael Seebeck // Oct 6, 2009 at 11:42 am
Scott,
Yeah, that’s a slow process.
And it doesn’t do jack squat to help create a libertarian society or move policy in a libertarian direction NOW, and makes no guarantees of anything down the road, except to repeat the same strategies used for the past 38 years that have gotten the LP little if anything.
Meanwhile, the LP has no influence in DC politics because it doesn’t put boots on the Hill to get that job done. It’s not just about money and membership–it’s about influence, reputation, and power. What I see coming from you is a concern about the former two and nothing about the latter three, and that’s a major problem that the LPUS seems unwilling to address.
You need all five to be successful in politics, and we seem to forget about building up the latter three, which helps the former two, and instead we focus on the former two in hopes it will facilitate the latter three.
Seems to me a new approach is needed since the old one isn’t working.”
**************************************************************************************
Of course the Libertarian Party needs to obtain influence, reputation, and power. The way you acquire those things is by electing Libertarians to office. Until you do that, you are limited to lobbying incumbent Democrats and Republicans, or educating people about freedom. If you think electing Libertarians to state legislatures will take a long time, then you probably realize that educating the public about freedom so that they vote for libertarians will much, much longer than that.
If you want to lobby or “influence” incumbent Dems and Reps, then you can already do that through organizations such as the Club for Growth or Downsize DC.
Basically, the Libertarian Party exists to give Ron Paul and Gary Johnson type politicians the emotional AND electoral support that they need to get into office, and then the LP can use them to attract other libertarians with good electoral instincts to join the Libertarian Party. But to do that, you need money and campaign volunteers. That is where the “Presidential campaign to attract as many donors as possible” idea comes into play.
The tree of liberty approach can also work, but it is much more painful than the plan that I am suggesting.
It’s certainly a relief to see the LPCA finally do the right thing. [re: the ch/i/ld mo/les/ter] Interesting that, for the most part, the same people were defending him, that defended the other crazies that had to be expelled.
And, right up until a certain Libertarian Girl got in their faces and applied pressure, Collier and Takenaga were willing to ‘overlook’ it all.
These people were warned and not only by me, but by reality. Barnes was observed leering at, and making lewd comments about, minors, and not only by me, and not only once.
I was not smart enough to realize he was more than just a low class, scummy liar and cheater.
I figured he fit in with Takenaga, Westwell, Newell and Collier, in that they also are this way.
And just for the record… It was not me who sent out the initial email. I passed it on to a few dozen folks who I thought should know.
Including folks with young boys, who Matthew had been around, and had opportunities to molest. [Isn’t Barnes legally required to inform people if he’s going to be around children?]
Instead of doing the right thing, certain LPCA folks spread some bizarre rumor that a) this was all my doing (it wasn’t) and b) that I was spinning things to build some kind of political capitol. (Bwahahaha!)
It’s typical of sub-competent people to apologize for, and/or ignore this kind of thing.
And that, folks, is the real reason the LP and its affiliates downstream, do so poorly.
Because when people come to our meetings and events, they find folks waving axes, getting into fistfights, throwing food, making rude/sexual comments about children, leering at women and just generally behaving badly.
For Libertarians to take charm school and dress for success classes would make a bigger difference than probably anything else we could do. [And to borrow a Seebeckism, STHU, Starchild!!!! lol]
Scott,
Yeah, that’s a slow process.
And it doesn’t do jack squat to help create a libertarian society or move policy in a libertarian direction NOW, and makes no guarantees of anything down the road, except to repeat the same strategies used for the past 38 years that have gotten the LP little if anything.
Meanwhile, the LP has no influence in DC politics because it doesn’t put boots on the Hill to get that job done. It’s not just about money and membership–it’s about influence, reputation, and power. What I see coming from you is a concern about the former two and nothing about the latter three, and that’s a major problem that the LPUS seems unwilling to address.
You need all five to be successful in politics, and we seem to forget about building up the latter three, which helps the former two, and instead we focus on the former two in hopes it will facilitate the latter three.
Seems to me a new approach is needed since the old one isn’t working.
Robert it wasn’t me. It was those who volunteered got discouraged. me, I’m still at it.
mhw, sounds like they didn’t “stop” you as much as discouraged you.
Robert they didn’t have much in the way of follow through. The didn’t reply to phone inquires, etc.
“228 Thomas L. Knapp // Oct 6, 2009 at 12:49 am
From whence do you derive a correlation between donors to the national LP and “chang[ing] our laws to be more libertarian?” Is that a correlation you believe could come to exist, or one that you think has, at some point or another, already existed?”
**********************************
Mr. Knapp:
I believe that political parties exist to get their candidates elected to office. Since the Libertarian Party is not going to win a Presidential campaign for at least 8 to 12 years, the only benefit a Presidential campaign will get us is obtaining more members for the National and State LP’s. That means more money and more volunteers and more candidates for those organizations. A person who donates to an organization has a lot more connection to that organization than one who does not donate any money to that organization.
Let’s just say that, theoretically, Wayne Root is the 2012 Presidential Nominee of the LP and he get us 6000 new National LP members. If the powers that be encourage those new members to run for winnable offices, maybe we can get 50 or 100 of them into local office within 5 years.
Is that a slow process – yes, it is. But if you are not going to use the “tree of liberty” route to give us more libertarian governance, then you have to be willing to wait a decade or two before you will see Libertarians in the majority in at least a few State Legislatures.
mhw, this sounds like a much larger story.
Some LPers were protesting the Iraq War. Then the state LP somehow stopped you, even though this was activating people.
I was more interested in the metrics of how your protest efforts increased membership, but now I’m more curious how and why the state LP stopped the protesting.
Dr. Lieberman,
Please don’t take this the wrong way — I agree that it would be a good thing for the presidential campaign to share its donor data, etc.
BUT!
From whence do you derive a correlation between donors to the national LP and “chang[ing] our laws to be more libertarian?” Is that a correlation you believe could come to exist, or one that you think has, at some point or another, already existed?
If you want the Libertarian Party to accomplish something in the real world, that is, to actually change our laws to be more libertarian, then the key statistic that you look at for the Presidential campaign is how many new donors to the National and State Libertarian Parties it brings in.
One way to maximize that number is to require the Presidential Nominee, per a signed contract, to turn over all donor info to the National LP and State LP’s within say, one week of the receipt of a donation. If you haven’t signed the contract before the Presidential Nominating vote, you can not be nominated. If you violate the contract, you lose all support from the National LP.
RC @ 219 ask: “Tell us more about the headway you made from protesting. Perhaps the LP should shift toward that as a strategy if the headway is significantly effective, as you seem to suggest.”
Every time we got out and did something it encouraged others to get active. That worked until the state party decided to squash things.
How dat be RC?
Gene is right that the wasted vote fallacy suppresses our presidential vote totals. In the decade that I’ve been watching LP results here in California, our down-ticket candidates usually get five or ten times the votes of our presidential candidate. In general, this effect should be similar across presidential campaigns, so that vote totals can still measure relative performance. On the other hand, my intuition (and the third-party results of 2004) suggests to me that the Nader/Florida/2000 phenomenon heavily reinforced the wasted-vote fallacy in the minds of many third-party voters.
bh, yes, a billionaire VP, a year to prepare, and good management is a prescription for an effective campaign.
perhaps, with the St. Louis Accord, we can get on an upward trajectory.
Gene Berkman wrote:
Most people, including most who agree with us, just don’t want to waste their vote in a Presidential race. They are far more willing to vote for a third party candidate for Congress – as evidenced by the vote totals.
This is true, as evidenced by the fact that some of the LP’s top vote totals are not from Presidential candidates! Although these were in two-way races.
I would agree with anybody who, contra Rothbard, said that Clark was our best candidate so far, and his campaign our best ever.
I have a YouTube playlist of 50 Barr media appearances, nearly 40 of which were on national TV between the nomination and mid-September: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=3E88B5A97A94D08C. There were dozens more that I never got around to adding to the list.
I would guess that Clark and Barr each got more eyeball-minutes than our other 8 LP presidential campaigns, combined.
Bob,
You write:
“Near as I can tell, the Barr campaign focused on and were successful in getting national media. They did that extremely well at that…far better than all past L candidates, probably in aggregate.”
I’ve seen similar claims, numerous times.
What I’ve never seen is evidence to support those claims.
Ed Clark appeared on Nightline with Ted Koppel in 1980 — four million viewers.
Barr appeared on several Fox News shows. Fox averages between 500,000 and 1 million viewers depending on the host (O’Reilly and Hannity are the top eyecatchers with 1.x-2 million viewers).
Clark aired a lengthy infomercial-style ad in prime time on national broadcast TV in 1980 (I was in 8th grade at the time — I still remember seeing it).
My guess is that that ad alone probably reached more viewers than all of Bob Barr’s television campaign appearances combined. However, that’s just a guess, not a claim. Those making an actual claim (“far better than all past L candidates, probably in aggregate”) should consider themselves invited to prove that claim, if they can.
In 1984, David Bergland received ca 232,000 votes – a decline from the ca 922,000 votes that were cast for Ed Clark.
Bob Barr, on the other hand, received ca 525,000 votes – an increase from the ca 403,000 votes cast for Michael Badnarik.
Still, judging whether the party is effective based on votes cast for its Presidential candidate is pointless. Most people, including most who agree with us, just don’t want to waste their vote in a Presidential race. They are far more willing to vote for a third party candidate for Congress – as evidenced by the vote totals.
mhw, nope, not tellin’ ya that. I support all actions that promote peace and liberty.
Tell us more about the headway you made from protesting. Perhaps the LP should shift toward that as a strategy if the headway is significantly effective, as you seem to suggest.
So rc are ya tellin’ me it ain’t gonna do us any good to go to the protest?
Hell a group of twelve of us were at the first anti-war protest over Iraq a few years ago with our county party banner held high enough for all to see. Got a tv interview as well. Every damn time we have been out to one of those it has made headway. Others see us in a different light.
mhw, sure, it MIGHT help. My gut tells me Ls don’t do mass protest well for an obvious reason: we’re few in number.
Sporadic protest rarely works, near as I can tell.
But I’m open minded: Why should the LP attempt to get to the front of the protest line? Paint a picture how that’s the optimal step-function up for liberty from an organizational perspective.
Yes, Correction, people complain. That’s what they do. Near as I can tell, the Barr campaign focused on and were successful in getting national media. They did that extremely well at that…far better than all past L candidates, probably in aggregate.
Specific tactical moves can criticized til the cows come home. Maybe Barr should have done a whistle-stop tour, foregoing national TV appearances. Seems like whistlestop tours are passe to me.
Be smart to get on the anti-war bandwagon real soon. There will be protest in some cities this week over the war in Afghanistan. Might help if we were there. I won’t hold my breath.
Actually I heard numerious people were not really happy with Barr. They thought the money was wasted in fighting to get the two candidate off the Ballot in Texas, like the government is really going to listen when it is corrupt already. Barr money should have been better spent getting the word out letting people know about libertarians. Also there were a lot of complaints about what happened between Barr and Ron Paul. Ron Paul who ended up endorsing Chuck Baldwin, when we needed Ron Paul endorsement for Barr. Another complaint, Barr didn’t show up to a lot of events or meeting or whatever and people really were upset by that. I read and heard enough that it was out there all over the place.
ts, sure, if that’s how you choose to frame it.
An L candidate who cannot win plays a different role, is how I frame it. That role is marketeer. We don’t have data, but I suspect there were millions who liked what Barr had to say, but didn’t vote for him for the same reason as usual: the wasted-vote syndrome.
Yes, it could be that if 2012 is MORE chaotic than 2008, we’ll have similar vote percentages. Past results would suggest that, since Ls don’t get over 1% at that level.
The game, however, as I see it is to “make noise,” noise that resonates with voters, which influences their perspective.
If the LP is ever to break through into the Big Leagues, it’s highly unlikely to be at the presidential level at first. Our standardbearer’s job is that of high-level marketing, not winning.
Barr played on a MUCH bigger stage than Bergland did, in that Barr reached millions more people.
So you’re saying that millions more people knowingly rejected Barr/Root than had knowingly rejected previous LP candidates.
the world is in a chaotic state in 2012,
In which case, more voters than ever before will be thinking that “this election is too important to lose” by “throwing away” their votes on a third party.
gt, the “Apocalype” will be televised 😉
gp, please elaborate on the “gross impressions” stats of the last 3 candidates.
It would be useful to have a candidate who, perhaps in combination with a competent campaign manager, actually focused resources on reaching people.
The recent candidate who reached really large numbers of people was Badnarik, who had a huge media campaign — relative to Browne or Barr — and a stronger internet campaign.
If the predictions about 2012 are correct (and I’m not talking about that Mayan prophecy stuff), then the last thing the LP should be worried about is running a prez candidate because we will be pre-occupied with basically surviving.
tk, I was referring to Bergland’s low-profile, theoretical approach to politics, not his vote totals.
Barr played on a MUCH bigger stage than Bergland did, in that Barr reached millions more people. That they didn’t VOTE for Barr is a separate matter. If he positively impressed them with a L approach, he did his job…although his campaign could have been more effective, of course. Vote percentages are one metric, and L candidates for prez have all been insignificant.
My main point is that if the world is in a chaotic state in 2012, we’d need to have a VERY dynamic, articulate candidate IF we want to reach people. Bless the hearts of folks like Bergland, Marrou and Badnarik, but I don’t think a L candidate in that low-gravitas mold is what’s indicated. Barr is a bit low-key, too, although I’d say he knew how to speak on TV. Too lawyerly, though, IMO.
IF — a big if — 2012 is highly chaotic, I’d like to see someone like Jesse Ventura as our standardbearer. Unfortunately, he’s careened off into the Truther weeds. Gravitas, forceful, reasonable resume, interesting if a bit quirky.
“Another Bergland-type candidate would not seem indicated.”
Yeah, the difference between Bergland’s 0.3% and Barr’s 0.4% is sure a gaping chasm.
Well, I’m not supersticious, but a lot of people believe 2012 is going to be a REAL interesting year. With the state of the world being what it is, I would not be surprised.
Another Bergland-type candidate would not seem indicated.
how do you know?
“just a little boys club for all you people to come together at restaurant and blogging and doing NOTHING.”
Agreed. I’ve been there (usually a corner booth at a local diner), done that, and moved on.
“If it wasn’t for him, we’d still be NOWHERE. ZIP NADA NOTHING> comprenda.”
And still will be after 2012.
No we actually have someone who believe in a lot of libertarian ideas and you just can’t stand it that he is the very one of the few if not the only one; because of him promoting the libertarian party and breaking barrier to actually become the party that it should be, not just a little boys club for all you people to come together at restaurant and blogging and doing NOTHING.
If it wasn’t for him, we’d still be NOWHERE. ZIP NADA NOTHING> comprenda.
“I suspect will profit financially (at least in the long run) as well.”
Good for him, those of us who are not communists have nothing against that.
“Obviously you guys have plenty of time to throw insults because you got nothing else better to do”
Actually it really isn’t much of a bother for me to take a couple of minutes from my busy schedule to call out a “snake-oil” salesman for what he is.
And if I’m proven wrong in 2012 so be it.
“Got news for you, Wayne Root is too busy 24/7 with his interviews on radio and TV to have anything to do with this. Obviously you guys have plenty of time to throw insults because you got nothing else better to do.”
I agree Wayne is busy promoting his own brand of political “snake-oil” to a gullible audience desperate to get themselves into big-time politics, and I suspect will profit financially (at least in the long run) as well.
Got news for you, Wayne Root is too busy 24/7 with his interviews on radio and TV to have anything to do with this. Obviously you guys have plenty of time to throw insults because you got nothing else better to do.
my moneys on president P
well, I hope L=P is happy now. He can go back to reading Rockwell, Hoppe, and Wallace.
Harry @192, interesting that you mention Milnes v paulie. I have been considering challenging the president to a supervised regulation boxing match. In the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, who was an avid boxer. Perhaps ppv, proceeds to charity. The big reason I have not done so is what I perceive as a lack of support for me personally & politically or mandate to do so. So I’ll tell you what. If somebody creates a website for it & enough people demand it, maybe it could happen. I think we are closely enough physically matched to be fair. I’d also be willing to boxing match with the previous president. To celebrate the election of 1912 centennial & sportsmanship, political intrigue, charity & all in good fun.
Root going around posing as Mary? Doubt it–he lacks the wardrobe and the looks. 🙂
More seriously, per the Chair, Matthew Barnes has officially resigned from the LPCA Executive Committee. And that’s all that needs to be said about it.
@ 188 , Czolgosz claimed to have been an anarchist. I realize that he was not known to others in the movement. He seems to have had a facination with Emma Goldman. Most anarchist repudiated violence, but she apparently did not. Maybe he was just in lust. I’ll have to check the books, but I do recall he claimed to be an anarchist.
Some thought he was a policeman trying to infiltrate their group. Maybe he was like some libertarians who haven’t really read or thought much about the subject. I’ll accept his claim.
Milnes vs. paulie? Milnes in round 3. TKO
I suspect that post # 185 is actually none other than Wayne Allyn Root trying to associate the potential running mate of Robert Milnes with this Barnes fellow in order to discredit the progressive alliance ticket, leaving the field wide open for himself.
Nah, that would make Root a liar if he was running around posing as Mary Ruwart, and he would never lie or mislead anyone after writing this article.
But, wait a minute, Root does say that they all lie. They being political leaders. Is Root a political leader? Or is he merely a shill for Big God, Big Guns, Big Gambling and Big Millionaire Republicans? The Elmer Gantry of Liberty?
Anyway, it seems odd that people want to banish Barnes from the LP merely because of a lifestyle choice. They obviously want to keep the LP small forever.
You don’t see the Pope kicking priests out of the Catholic Church just because they diddled some kid.
Root hasn’t said anything about Barnes and, to the best of my knowledge, neither has Glenn Beck. Maybe everyone should just quit criticizing Barnes until they have walked a mile in his tassled loafers.
The IP is the same as the nazi comments.
Milnes, make up your mind. I’m not politically correct? Or I am? And is it good or bad? Not that I give a shit either way, you’re the one who keeps talking about that.
Remember it was an anarchist who shot McKinley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Czolgosz
Czolgosz was never known to be accepted into any anarchist group. Indeed, his fanaticism and comments about violence aroused anarchists’ suspicions; some even thought he might have been a covert government agent. Furthermore, Czolgosz was known to have been a Republican (the same party as President McKinley), and had voted in the Republican primaries in Cleveland;[7] this participation in representative democracy being directly at odds with an ideology which rejects all forms of government.
PEACE
RM @ 171 writes: “& you don’t think Teddy Roosevelt was later in his career a left libertarian approaching anarchist.”
Robert I usually don’t comment on what you say, but on this issue I’ll make a exception.
TR criticized anarchist shortly after he took office. Remember it was an anarchist who shot McKinley. It would have been political suicide for TR to say anything kind about anarchist. If you can show me otherwise I’ll be glad to read it.
I think there is reason to believe that Dr Ruwart did not make the post attributed to her @ # 185.
The lack of a live link is of a pattern with the troll on this thread.
Regarding the issue of Matthew Barnes, the only thing that matters is whether the children he had sex with consented.
In my Short Answers to the Tough Questions, here is what I wrote on the subject:
“Children forced to participate in sexual acts have the same rights and recourse as a rape victim. We can, and should, prosecute their oppressors.
“Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess; this is part of life.”
Roosevelt left-libertarian anarchist at the end of his life? Seriously, he died right before the 1920 election. He spent his time getting ready to make a bid then for president by saying Wilson was too soft on Germany and hadnt executed the war with enough force.
You don’t have to say you are politically correct. It accompanies your comments like waiting room music.
If not, there are others like her there.
Is she a resident of NJ & meet the age requirement?
I never said I was politically correct.
I don’t know paulie. Making fun of the homeless and/or mentally ill doesn’t seem very politically correct to me.
kindred spirits, I knew it!
She doesn’t sound all that crazy to me. Esp. the stuff about marriage!
bm
You get to ridicule me here?
Yep.
Major faux pas.
173 is the new running mate for Milnes in NJ
😛
So, what if you are wrong on these matters & I am right? You get to ridicule me here?
& you don’t think Teddy Roosevelt was later in his career a left libertarian approaching anarchist. LOLROTFLMAO!
Yep, I said that. So?
& you think the Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy is wrong. LOLROTFLMAO!
Go ahead, paulie. Say on this thread what you said on the other. You supported Ron Paul & will (would) again. & you believe he is a (l)libertarian. LOLROTFLMAO.
Like I said before, if there is a Draft Milnes for NJ Governor write in & a woman libertarian comes forward as Lt. Governor candidate, I’ll give it a go. As late as it is to the election.
Maybe this guy? It would be a good fit..
As much as I like “Independent” candidate Chris Daggett for NJ Governor I may write-in Bob Milnes if he’s still in the running.
But then who would I write-in for Lieutenant-Governor?
rofl.
Overthrow away. There’s nothing to overthrow.
Paulie, every time you detract me and/or The Strategy it is like you are throwing more weight on everybody or digging a deeper hole, whichever, to people who just might like to try it. But they can’t risk getting laughed at by politically correct paulie cannoli. THAT they might want to overthrow.
IPR is not a creature, it is several different writers and each one decides for themselves what to write about.
Drek,
Then why isn’t it called “Third Party Political Report” instead of “Independent Political Report”. To me an “Independent” candidate is not affiliated with any political party.
Independent has at least two meanings here – one, the candidates and parties we cover are independent of the mainstream.
Two, we are independent of any faction, unlike TPW which ended up being the tool of one side of the LP and then discarded. Here, we have radical and moderate libertarians, Greens and ex-Greens, CP and ex-CP, etc.
Me: “From the comments it appears that EC there is dealing with the situation and a story at IPR will not help anything.”
TLK: That doesn’t sound like a very sound criterion. The role of IPR isn’t to “help” third parties, it’s to “cover” third parties.
P: I meant that it would not help resolve the problem, since it appeared to me that it was already being addressed. But, since you bring it up, I do think at least some of what we do here is to strengthen alt-parties by getting them and their candidates and supporters more attention (which sometimes spins into larger media), a place to network, and a place to air differences and grievances.
Although we haven’t done a story about this (at least so far), no writer has been told that they can’t do one, and the issue has been discussed in the comments here and addressed in these same comments by several of the CALP EC. It seems to me that we have served the function we are supposed to serve.
TLK: The real question is whether or not the Barnes story is news.
In my opinion, it will be minor news if the California LP acts expeditiously..
P: It appears that they have; his name and picture are off the CA LP website.
It wasn’t as instantaneous as when the LNC removes members that the majority doesn’t like, but I think we should be able to live with that.
Milnes, overthrow? I can’t be overthrown, I’m not in charge here and never was.
In what way don’t we live up to our title? We cover both independents and alt parties and often put forth info that the leadership of those parties does not like, although we also put forth opinions that the opposing factions don’t like either.
As for the name…I can’t say definitively as I did not come up with it. I think it was supposed to be somewhat similar to “Third Party Watch” but not too similar.
I think we have done a good job of presenting a variety of opinions and staying independent. Although, I do wish we still had some more competition, I miss that.
Paulie @154. I noticed that too. Maybe it is the calm before the storm. Starting with the overthrow of Robert Milnes detractor & Ron Paul supporter paulie. Then a concerted effort to WIN SOME FRIGGIN ELECTIONS this November.
Knapp@155: “The role of IPR isn’t to “help” third parties, it’s to “cover” third parties.”
Then why isn’t it called “Third Party Political Report” instead of “Independent Political Report”. To me an “Independent” candidate is not affiliated with any political party.
I find it strangely ironic that so much space is filled with trivial arguments like deck chair arrangements on the Titanic (except in the case of the LP it would be the political party equivalent of the “SS Minnow”) while as I am writing this a real “Independent” candidate, NJ gubernatorial candidate Chris Daggett, is not only holding his own in tonight’s debate with the other two major party candidates, but has seen his recent poll numbers go up to 13%, enough to have a significant impact on the race which has narrowed to only a four point lead for Republican Chris Christie.
The fact is “Independent” candidates can and will have a much greater significant impact on the political scene than the plethora of alternative parties who, judging by thizs thread, spend more time bickering over trivial nonsense.
It’s too bad this website doesn’t seem to live up to its title.
Paulie,
You write:
“From the comments it appears that EC there is dealing with the situation and a story at IPR will not help anything.”
That doesn’t sound like a very sound criterion. The role of IPR isn’t to “help” third parties, it’s to “cover” third parties.
The real question is whether or not the Barnes story is news.
In my opinion, it will be minor news if the California LP acts expeditiously, and in accord with fairly common “community standards” on it. “Third party learns of board member’s criminal history, removes him.” Just like the stories of criminals in other parties, and even in government itself, get a couple of column inches and are then forgotten if they’re similarly handled (“appointee had immigrant maid and/or didn’t pay taxes, withdraws”).
Also in my opinion, it will be major news if the executive committee goes in some other direction or the whole thing breaks down into acrimony.
Right now, though, things seem to be on the rails. Allegations have been made, and there’s a process for investigating and acting on those allegations, which seems to be being followed. That’s not “news,” any more than a 24 cent discrepancy in the party’s books would be while the numbers were being re-examined, however much a few people may want to jump up and down and yell about it.
Today is the deadest I’ve ever seen IPR comments that I can remember….
The timing is bad, as there is a bill that may very well pass in California right now that would be extremely detrimental to alternative parties, and any news story that involves an alt-party scandal could be seized on to help pass the bill right now. In fact if I understood correctly from email discussion, Bruce Cohen agreed with that after some discussion.
From the comments it appears that EC there is dealing with the situation and a story at IPR will not help anything. Many of the California EC members have posted to this this thread, so they are seeing your comments.
Yes, I am for transparency, and I think we have had it here.
No thread is sacred, discussions here frequently go off topic.
No comments here so far warrant removal under our policies, although some of them do warrant mockery (especially the nazi bonehead ones).
@151 Doubtful it will get it’s own story, since IPR seems disinterested in the story to begin with.
You know, this crap should be posted either on a different blog, or removed all together, this should not have been in the same post with Wayne Name here. It is disgusting.
For any Russian speakers….”what does a nazi need a penis for?” LOL
@147 I love that graphic! LMAO
No need to investigate, I am sure the government is doing that enough already. LOL
???????? ?????, ???????? ?? ??????!
“Mr. Knapp I wonder what your skeletons are that you should say that.”
Feel free to investigate if you’re that interested — my skeletons are all out of the closet and dancing up and down the hall, and none of them are Megan’s Law material.
l=p? has recently been caught on video.
Appears that self loathing is the operative term…
Pederst. I am not sure who you are, either a white supremist or nazi, but my guess you would be a lot happier in Russia.
Clean slate is correct.
We must cleanse California and America of undesirable elements.
Marxism is behind much of this push for acceptance of deviant and degenerate behavior.
The purpose is to weaken American moral fiber and allow Red Chinese to take over with no opposition while Americans are too busy watching pornography, shooting dope, race mixing and buggering young boys.
Get rid of the germs – purification now!
People runing their own lives does not include taking the life of someone and ruin theirs such as child molestors, abusers. Do what you will with your own life. BTW people who are screwed up should not be in office either President or LP cheif. If there own life is screwed up why should he help screw the rest of us because his head is not on straight. Look at the Demorepulipuk, they are already proving that along with Nazism.
Well obviously the Nazis are going to attack the party of liberty, they are the complete opposites of libertarianism. In the same manner that liberals are the opposite of conservatives.
Godwin’s law violation!
Pederasty Party is closing ranks, accusing anti-buggery elements of ties to Naziism, even those of us with Austrian economics views (and I do not mean Hitler or Schwarzenegger), where is the logic in that?
It is well known that some prominent leaders in the Republican Party have had drug problems, and a Democrat fund-raiser is on trial for a ponzi scheme. Yet noone accuses the GOP of being a party of drug-addicts or the Democrats of being a party of thieves. I could be wrong on the second point.
If someone with objectionable personal behavior is found in The Libertarian Party, enemies of freedom accuse us of approving of the objectionable behaviour because we defend the freedom of people to run their own lives.
Clearly the troll(s) on this thread have a sympathy for Nazism, and would be expected to attack the party of freedom.
The problem is being dealt with. As for Nazis, the libertarian position is clear:http://calibertarianalliance.com/2009/09/26/anti-nazi-rally-in-riversid/
pederast , go fuck yourself with your false opposition.
Yes, for instance Mr. Barnes has so to speak “come out” of the boy buggery pederast closet albeit unwillingly- so who is next?
Will perhaps one of his defenders be found with a heroin needle in his arm, or a donkey’s penis in his mouth in Tijuana?
It must be close to Halloween because the loonies are coming out.
Good question!
Mr. Knapp I wonder what your skeletons are that you should say that. HMMM
robert capozzi
Unlike some here I do not loathe myself, my race, or my ancestors and the blood they spilled for the supremacy and progress of white civilization; nor the morality that allows for the survival and procreation of mankind.
Children do not born out of boy buggery, just blood covered feces. It is an unnatural practice – no wonder that it breeds GRID/AIDS.
At least some such as Hans Hoppe, Bob Wallace, and others know this.
Jill, no need to feed the bigoted troll. Let the fool put the rant in ignorant over his long-defunct obsession over levels of skin pigment. Besides, he can’t even get his dates right.
PS I See Chelene Nightingale (Save Our State) had the good sense to leave the pederast lover LP and to join American Independent/Constitution Party, the exodus is officially on!
L = P, sounds like you’ve got all the hate bases covered. Consider reading up on projection and self loathing.
2008
😡
Jill Pyeatt
LOL You allow a pederast cancer cell to continue in your leader circle yet I am one who is out of line?
By the way Wayne Root would be perhaps not so bad, he sounds like a libertaryan/true conservative at first glance, but I understand that he is actually of Khazar (fake jew) ancestory. This would be a real step down for a party that nominated proud Aryan and friend of Stormfront, Ron Paul in 1988, and Council of Conservative (White) Citizens speaker Bob Barr in 2004, true that he had this mud on his ticket, which is perhaps why many Patriots voted for Chuck Baldwin despite that he is a mystic.
libertarian=pederast
You’re out of line. Maybe you should change your name.
So if your friend the pederast is to be found with parts of young boys in his freezer and cooking-pot, and a naked young boy running from his house and bleeding from his anus, how many days will it take to remove him from your ranks?
It is a great shame that you do not change your party’s name to something like the Pederasty Party, Narcomania Party, Unite With Mexico Party, etc.
Lew Rockwell is a great man (so were Norman Rockwell and George Lincoln Rockwell) – he and Ron Paul were wise to leave your party 20 years ago and pursue the paleolibertarian strategy of unity with white nationalists and Confederate Americans.
@124 It wasn’t Reno….it was Winnemucca. Kevin is one tough cookie.
“Call it Suspension until further actions are taken ASAP.”
Now it’s just getting silly. Will you say the same thing if I send an email out tomorrow saying that I heard Kevin Takenaga once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die?
Well, in the meantime, Mr. Barnes picture and information on the CALP.org should be removed. Call it Suspension until further actions are taken ASAP.
LG,
You write:
“How long does it take to call a phone conference and execute a unaninous vote.”
I’m not an expert on the California LP’s bylaws, but at a glance they don’t seem to specifically allow for meeting/voting by phone conference. If they do, presumably the lead/notification time for such a conference is the same as for a regular meeting — 14 days.
The committee CAN vote by mail. In order to do that, there has to be a request by five members, then a minimum 48-hour time from transmission of mail ballots to end of voting (that’s if 2/3 of the committee has voted one way or another), and a maximum of 120 hours (if the voting is mixed or the votes aren’t all in) — and then the votes are not ordered until the next regular committee meeting.
If the action involves removing a member, there’s also a 15-day appeal period.
By my count, it’s now been right at 120 hours — five days — since the allegations began to surface. That’s not enough time for a meeting to have taken place. It’s unlikely that it’s been long enough for:
a) Five members of the executive committee to have been notified of the allegations;
a) Five members of the executive committee to have investigated the situation, decided that it required immediate action, and requested a mail ballot for an action on the matter;
b) The Secretary to have noted those requests, prepared mail ballots and sent them out; and
c) 2/3 of the committee, all voting one way, to have returned their ballots.
In other words, no, the members of the LPCA’s executive committee do not have radar dishes hooked up to a whatever-libertariangirl-wants detection system which alerts them to slide down to the batcave and make it happen on five minutes’ notice.
Setting the record straight:
Everyone in leadership positions inside the Libertarian Party of California, presumably like everyone else here, received the email on Friday morning.
In discussions with the rest of the officers in the party we did everything we could do to proceed in a forthright and deliberate manner. We also had to make sure that we did not comment on things about which we did not know and had to obtain all the facts. All we saw was an ANONYMOUS email with allegations and a Megan’s Law link that brought up the picture of Barnes. Unlike others here, we were not going to rush to a judgment without a good-faith effort to obtain all the facts.
An attempt on Friday was made to get the file from Los Angeles County Criminal Records. The file was unavailable because it had been transported, by request, to Pasadena. It was presumably transported to the individual who sent the anonymous email.
Clearly, Saturday and Sunday were days that the file was not accessible.
On Monday, a promise was made by certain individuals to obtain the file and submit it to the Executive Committee. Unfortunately these individuals failed to follow through.
Sadly, despite our best efforts, it was only yesterday that a known good and whole copy of the record was made available. Chain of custody was minimal and verifiable. Our highest concern was the possible release of the identities of the victims. It has been our wish and therefore procedure to do everything possible that they may keep their anonymity.
We were concerned that those who were letting their emotions get ahead of them might not apply such caution.
The process is moving forward and there will be a resolution soon. There is no further comment.
Those who wish to express their outrage at how this has unfolded are invited to contact me personally.
-Zander Collier, III
Southern Vice Chair, Libertarian Party of California
Libertariangirl, your outrage is appropriate.
The situation is being taken care of.
All of the demands for immediate action are noted. This is also complicated legally and it isn’t appropriate at this time to scream the details.
I will tell everyone that many of us on the Ex Com have agonized over this since the news broke Friday. We’ve been elected to take care of California’s LP and we will.
Please respect the extreme seriousness of this and let us do our job.
troll , your transparent!
Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell would not condone this, which is why they are not Libertarian Party any more. Along with narcomaniacs and dirty hippies, abortion of white babies and the Mexican invasion! We must cleanse our land and protect our borders. We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.
TK_WHATEVER decision they make, there’s a certain amount of damage / credibility loss involved. You seem intent on maximizing that damage regardless of whether they deal with the situation appropriately or not.
me_ excuse me? your saying Im trying to maximize damage? thats absolute bullshit , Ive damaged nothing. this has the potential to damage us all . the longer they take the greater the damage . how dare you accuse me of causing damage but stop short of saying the molester has caused damage. my god you are so ass backwards. are you accusing me of having ulterior motives besides the reputation of our party for my outrage? if you are , do it directly , dont beat around the bush.
Im vocal because Id like to see it handled expediently. How long does it take to call a phone conference and execute a unaninous vote.
nice attempt to try and paint those who are againt child molesting as anti-gay.
weak , but nice, were all a little too smart for that. your offensive.
we are not talkig about condoning ‘boy’buggery , were talking about a chiled predator. gay has NOTHING to do with it.
If your party does not act quickly to cut out this cancer you will become known far and wide as the Party of Pederasty. You may as well infect yourselves with leprosy and GRID (gay related infectious disease, aka AIDS) on purpose. Cast this disease agent out or become outcasts along with him/it. What is takeing so long, do you condone and promote boy buggery?
libertariangirl,
You write:
“good it should be public record who spoke up and who stood by.”
This is a difficult situation for LPCA. Unlike those of us in the peanut gallery, they are going to have to make a decision and deal with the consequences of that decision.
WHATEVER decision they make, there’s a certain amount of damage / credibility loss involved. You seem intent on maximizing that damage regardless of whether they deal with the situation appropriately or not.
I’d like to know why that is.
Debra, I was giving Matt the benefit of the doubt about whether his case was a miscarraige of justice like those described here: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2009/09/there-is-fury-and-and-sadness-inside.html
Tom’s eyewitness report about court documents has eliminated that doubt.
Kevin Takenaga
[Contact]
Southern Vice Chairman
Zander Collier, III
[Contact]
Northern Vice Chairman
Richard Newell
[Contact]
Secretary
Gale Morgan
[Contact]
Treasurer
Brian Darby
[Contact]
At-Large Members
Eric Bresson ¹
San Bernardino County
[Contact]
Matthew Barnes ¹
San Bernardino County
[Contact]
Matthew “Boomer” Shannon ²
San Bernardino County
[Contact]
TJ Campbell ¹
Santa Clara County
[Contact]
Jill Stone ²
Los Angeles County
[Contact]
Alan Pyeatt ¹
Los Angeles County
[Contact]
Michael Seebeck ²
Riverside County
[Contact]
Mark Selzer ²
Los Angeles County
[Contact]
Terry Floyd ²
Alameda County
[Contact]
Jesse Thomas ¹
San Diego County
[Contact]
Alternates (one-year term)
First
Tricia Marcos ¹[Contact]
Second
Savva
Vassiliev ¹
[Contact]
¹ Term Ending in 2010.
² Term Ending in 2011.
I seem to recall some radical Ls, possibly Bergland himself, once reaching out to NAMBLA for support, and that some maintained that this sort of behavior could be viewed as consensual. I don’t, to be clear, but I’m curious if there are still L NAMBLA (open) sympathizers among us.
I would strongly suggest quickly — but fairly — distancing the LP from any official with this skeleton. No good can come from this association.
You can always call, and if you can’t reach the chair than contact the next one down and so forth, someone will tell you something.
http://www.ca.lp.org/excommembers.shtml
yes I did , went to the LPCA website and shot him an email .Very respectful and pleasant ( dont let my hot-headedness here fool you:) . I havent heard anything back , but hopefully its because he’s being inundated with so many emails he cant answer them all.
i wont hold my breath:)
Libertarian girl you wrote the CA chair?
TK_Happy now?
me_ no , there is no happy when talking about child predators. why would you even ask that?
BH__ rather than demanding that this story be covered by a news site like IPR whose content is indexed and archived in places like Google News.
me_ good it should be public record who spoke up and who stood by.
I did. I wrote the chair , I got no response.
libertariangirl,
OK, now I’ve seen a number of alleged court documents dealing with Mr. Barnes.
Assuming those documents are not forgeries (and I have no reason to believe that they are), he appears to have pled no contest to, at the age of 20 or older, engaging in sexual activities with children of 14 or younger.
Based on that, if I was a member of the LPCA’s executive committee, I’d take whatever steps are available to dissociate the party from Mr. Barnes.
Happy now?
As for the other claims, they seem a bit overheated.
For example, Barnes is alleged, in the court documents, to have “molested” his nephew at age 15. But according to those same documents, the nephew was the same age as Barnes — 15.
There’s no claim in the documents that the incident was non-consensual or that the nephew was mentally retarded or incompetent. Absence such a claim, it’s a stretch to refer to that incident as “molestation.”
The only information I have, beyond what the Megan’s Law site says, are the allegations from the email that many of us received. I don’t know anybody who claims to have seen the public record that the anonymous email says exists. Gene, are you saying you’ve seen them, or have info about them from something other than this mystery email?
I’m not on the LPCA ExCom any more, but I trust them — including Matt — to do what’s best for the LPCA. It is definitely not best for the LPCA to have an ExCom member with a Megan’s Law entry that can’t be explained with teen-to-teen peer consent.
As Mike said, this issue is being worked. People who are concerned about how this affects the reputation of the LPCA should focus on contacting our ExCom (http://ca.lp.org/excommembers.shtml) rather than demanding that this story be covered by a news site like IPR whose content is indexed and archived in places like Google News.
libertariangirl,
I didn’t say you’re a liar. Matter of fact, I believe that you believe what you’re saying.
What I said is that I haven’t yet seen evidence for the truth of claims that you have accepted as factual and seem to be demanding that everyone else accept as factual, too.
Yes, I said I generally trust Gene Trosper to get his facts right before he starts passing those facts around as facts. But I generally trust Brian Holtz in the same way, and he’s less certain about the facts than Gene is.
Believe it or not, I generally don’t just jump to conclusions of fact, even if there’s someone screaming at me to do so. Maybe even especially if there’s someone screaming at me to do so.
Even though my opinion on this matter is of little importance (I am neither a member nor an official of the California LP), I don’t see any reason for me to reach that opinion half-assed.
Patience and Peace, folks.
Please. For all parties concerned.
All of your concerns are noted.
This is being worked on.
Last Name: BARNES First Name: MATTHEW Middle Name: SCOTT
Description Offenses Scars/Marks/Tattoos Known Aliases
BARNES, MATHEW SCOTT
BARNES, MATTHEW
BARNEZ, MATTHEW SCOTTMCKINLEY
THE REGISTRANT MAY HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY RELOCATED
Last Name: BARNES First Name: MATTHEW Middle Name: SCOTT
Description Offenses Scars/Marks/Tattoos Known Aliases
Offense Code
Description
288(a) LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS
Description Offenses Scars/Marks/Tattoos Known Aliases
Last Known Address: 1004 E LONGDEN AVE
ARCADIA, 91006
County: LOS ANGELES
Zip Code 91006
Date of Birth: 11-12-1967
Sex: MALE
Height: 6’3″
Weight: 375
Eye Color: BLUE
Hair Color: BROWN
Ethnicity: WHITE
THE REGISTRANT MAY HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY RELOCATED
These are act of denile and co-dependence. Chances are people who try to talk nice about child molestors have been either abused themselves and haven’t come to terms with it, been in abusive situation and or are still in abusive situation and can’t deal with the reality. I don’t care how nice a person comes across, they are still a horrible child molestor. End of story.
Maybe these people themselves should go seek help themselves as to their own reasons for making excuses for these predators.
— On Fri, 9/25/09, Bruce Cohen wrote:
From: Bruce Cohen
Subject: Fw: Matthew Barnes is a sexual predator
To:
Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 3:38 AM
So everyone said I was mean for holding a grudge against
Matthew Barnes.
Everyone said I was rude for refusing to shake his hand.
Everyone said I should get over all the lies and crazyness
he displayed at LP meetings…
Well, I guess I was right.
Look what arrived in my email this morning.
Another one of Takenaga’s hand picked minions…
Might want to share this with any Libertarian with children…
Subject: Matthew Barnes is a sexual predator
To: [email protected]
Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 3:01 AM
Matthew Barnes is a convicted child molester. This is his Megan’s Law webpage entry
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/cgi/prosoma.dll?zoomAction=Box&zoomAction=clickcenter&zoomAction=clickoffender&lastName=barnes&firstName=matthew&Address=&City=&zipcode=&searchDistance=.75&a mp;City2=&countyLocation=&zipcode2=&SelectCounty=&ParkName=&SearchDistance2=.75&City3=&zipcode3=&countyLocation3=&schoolName=&searchDistance3=.75&City4=&zipcode4=&countyLocation4=&refineID=&pan=&distacross=107211¢erlat=38409907¢erlon=-121514242&starlat=&starlon=&startext=&x1=&y1=&x2=&y2=&mapwidth=525&mapheight=400&zoom=&searchBy=namelist&id=&docountycitylist=2&OFDTYPE=&lang=ENGLISH
which can also be viewed at: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/
Matthew Barnes is a self-confessed pedophile charged with six counts of 288(a), Lewd or Lascivious Acts with a Child under 14. Matthew Barnes pled no contest to and was convicted of three of the six charges in a plea bargain to reduce his maximum prison term from 24 years to 8 years. No contest is legally the same as a guilty plea.
288(a) is defined as willfully, unlawfully, and lewdly committing a lewd and lascivious act upon and with the body and certain parts and members thereof of a child under the age of fourteen years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires of the said defendant(s) and the said child. It is a serious felony within the meaning of penal code section 1192.7 (c) (6).
Matthew Barnes has a history of child molestation. At 15 he molested his nephew. At the age of 16 or 17 he molested a boy a few years younger than he. At 20 he became involved as a Junior Assistant Scout Master with the Boy Scouts of America. The camping trips with the troop provided opportunities for him to molest the boys in his charge. For over a year he repeatedly molested at least three boys in the troop. He was eventually confronted by the troop leader and fled to Utah. It was for these molestations that he was later tried and convicted.
Matthew Barnes had to be extradited. He was deemed a flight risk and his bail was set at $180,000.
Psychological evaluation of Matthew Barnes unequivocally deemed him a risk to re-offend. Matthew Barnes agreed with that conclusion, stating he believes the inclination to molest young boys will always be present. He was unsuccessfully treated following his molestation of his nephew. Matthew Barnes resisted the psychological evaluation after his conviction. There is no record of his treatment in prison.
Matthew Barnes is a dangerous individual. Please pass this information on to anyone who may be harmed or whose family may be harmed by contact with him.
His complete file is available to the public for viewing:
Case Number: GAO14071
Los Angeles County Records Center Archive
222 N. Hill St. Room 212
Los Angeles, CA 90012
LOL , all you folks who SAY you want transparency and so many secrets when it one of your own .
Im gonna go smoke a bowl and chill.’
thanks for the advice:)
Everyone: CHILL! : )
there are no opinions , he’s a molester , a fucking predator , and he should be removed. there is no room for discussion. unless your saying you dont mind having a child predator in an important position for the LP.
you either care or you dont and its clear which one you are
@88 I know the name of which you refer to.
so your both calling me a liar but saying Gene isnt a liar in the same post?
FOR FUCKS SAKE THE DUDE IS A CHILD PREDATOR. PERIOD.
i dont give a crap what you think < i m pointing out the silence of everyone , most notably those in Cali , like Sipos , editor of Cali Freedom , who still wont answer my question.
your soo funny and contradictory .First you say youve seen no reliable source then you say Gene Trosper is a reliable source. which is it?
Gene,
You write:
“What hasn’t been spoken about is why those initial anonymous emails were sent out. Was it a victim? Dunno. Could it have been someone in the LPC who has an axe to grind?”
Hmmm … someone I know attributed the initial emails to a specific source — before I even knew what they were about. Whether or not the attributions were accurate or not, I can’t say for sure, so I’m not going to publicly name the alleged source. Gene, I’m at kubby dot communications at gmail dot com if that information is of interest to you.
libertariangirl,
Where are you getting your facts?
You’ve linked this to people “bitching about Root.” When I make a factual claim about Root, I spend a good deal of time documenting it and proving it before I make it, both because I care about the truth and because I don’t like making claims that I can’t defend.
I’ve seen various factual claims made about Barnes — and have yet to see so much as a single citation of a reliable source for those claims.
You’re demanding that they be taken at face value because you want them to be taken at face value, and you’re slamming anyone who a) doesn’t take them at face value and/or b) reach the conclusions from them that you want them to reach.
My general experience is that Gene Trosper doesn’t write claim checks he can’t cover with evidence, and he seems to agree with you on the facts and their import.
On the other hand, Brian Holtz isn’t as sure and I generally also regard him as having high respect for fact and proof of fact (even if I think he jumps to perverse conclusions from fact on occasion).
I’m not going to have an opinion just because you demand that I have one, let alone conform that opinion to your expectations just because you expect me to. Furthermore, not being a Californian, I’m not going to expect that any opinion I might have will, or should, carry great weight with the California LP’s executive committee.
Brian is obviously a friend of Matthews and obviously won’t speak out even though its beyod wrong. In fact , he keeps defending him ,twice suggesting Matthews crime is the youthful indiscretion type.
The facts are in Holtz , what do you have to say for your friend?
@78 This will be my last word on this situation here on IPR, unless situations warrant it: I know Matthew Barnes. He has always treated me kindly. I know many people feel the same way. That’s fine, but this is about business and taking care of a potentially damaging situation. Anyone who says “he’s nice, let’s look the other way” is not fit to be on the ExCom or in any party leadership position because they clearly do not have the best interest of the LPCA in mind. I’m not making any allegations toward anyone on the ExCom. I’m just hearing conflicting rumors and not giving them much thought. I’m waiting for action to be taken.
Enough has been spoken about Mr. Barnes. What hasn’t been spoken about is why those initial anonymous emails were sent out. Was it a victim? Dunno. Could it have been someone in the LPC who has an axe to grind? Likely. I’ll say that if these were sent merely because someone had an axe to grind, then that was rotten to the core. However, now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag, let’s just deal with it and move on.
@81 A quick perusal through the court records will. he was in his 20’s and they were under 14 years of age. You down with that age differential, Brian?
brian he was 20.
it just seems to me strange noone is talking about it.
Debra, not everything that is being said or done about this is being said or done in public. As for the “facts”, note that the Megan’s Law site doesn’t tell the age differential at the time of the offense.
cali freedom should do a story so all LP parents have a choice about socializing or not with Matthew.
I wont hold my breath
ts, sounds like you’ve got quite a task ahead of you: Recruiting what you consider “real” Ls to cancel out the throngs of “faux” Ls that Root will be bringing in.
Question: How can you tell the real from the false?
TK_So far, no, it’s not a story. I’ve seen not a single report on it anywhere, just some blog comments.
Me_ thats a shame. it is not i given that he’ll be removed. Word id Takenaga really likes him as do many others who feel hes being victimized.
The facts are at 20 he molested boys under 14 and went to jail for it . He never disclosed it to colleagues w/i the LP. I think its force to go into peoples homes , where children are , and to never have given thier parents the choice to allow him or not.
Ask Lydia Seebeck how she feels about that?
at 17 he molested a boy a few yrs younger and before that he molested his nephew. this is all documented. This is a pattern , not a youthful indiscretion.
why isnt this a story??
why wont Sipos answer my questions?
LG,
You write:
“its a story no??”
So far, no, it’s not a story. I’ve seen not a single report on it anywhere, just some blog comments.
“why no comment?”
Because I do not have sufficient knowledge of the situation to comment intelligently.
” is he your friend and so your remaining silent”
Nope. Never heard of the guy before now.
“care to share if you think cali should remove him?”
If the worst of the rumors I’ve heard about this are true, then I think they should (and I think they will). I’m not sure how me — or you — jumping up and down and squealing like a mouse trapped in a box with a scorpion is supposed to help them determine the facts or decide how to act on those facts, though.
and your feelings about Matthew Barnes are???
Silence is condoning.
can you find me just one “LP rube” who believes Root will be elected president on the LP ticket?
Root’s been claiming he’ll be elected president on the LP ticket in 16 years, or thereabouts. And some delegates then voted for him. It follows that at least some might consider Root’s promises to be plausible.
If Root has a financial/career incentive for doing a good job as the LP’s standardbearer, that sounds mutually aligned with the LP’s interests, yes?
No, it doesn’t.
Root does not have an incentive to do a good job for a libertarian LP.
Root’s interests lie in telling the biggest and most lucrative audience within his range exactly what they want to hear.
Right now, that means pleasing Fox News and rightist radio listeners. And attracting those people to the LP.
And no, I don’t want to “grow the party” if it means diluting it to the point that most voting delegates are no longer libertarians.
i didnt compare Wayne with a child molester . I pointed out that folks here chime in on him every day. Noone has said shit about Barnes.
its a story no??
why no comment? is he your friend and so your remaining silent? id say a convicted molester on the cali excomm is a helluva story . but nothing, and still you say nothing.
this is a blog and by definition , a peanut gallery. noones saying panic , but for fucks sake , you’d think people would have something to say.
nope , nothing, theyd rather bitch about Wayne.
care to share if you think cali should remove him?
LG,
You write:
“honestly guys Im SHOCKED more people arent weighing in on the Barnes issue.”
So far as I can tell, the California LP people have both a grasp of the situation’s facts and are acting accordingly. What doth panic in the peanut gallery gain us?
“talking trash about Wayne every single day and noone says says a fucking word about this.”
Let the record show that it was you, not me, to whom it first occurred to compare Wayne Allyn Root to a convicted child molester.
kudos and applause to Gene for have the principles and balls to do and say what is right.
I suspect Seebeck is doing the same behind the scenes , so kudos to him too.
hijack again , honestly guys Im SHOCKED more people arent weighing in on the Barnes issue.
I guess everyone are folks like Brian who ‘thinks he’s a nice guy’ .
The dude molested boys under the age 0f 14 , so 13 and below. He’s also has two other molestation cases. Its a friggin habit.
I am appalled that he wont resign , Im appalled cali hasnt removed him yet. But most of all Im appalled at the deafening silence.
Sipos?? your from cali. why dont you weigh in?
you relentlessly attack root but dont chime in on a child molester on your excomm?
Brian , anything else to say , now that you know the facts?
is everybody gonna give this guy a free pass , cause you think he’s nice?
WTF???
talking trash about Wayne every single day and noone says says a fucking word about this.
whatever…
@68 The LP still pretty much lusts for a presidential vote total above 1%!
Mr. Sipos, can you find me just one “LP rube” who believes Root will be elected president on the LP ticket? It is universally accepted within the LP that none of its candidates for president will be elected in the foreseeable future.
(The Nolan may have thought so back around 2000 but I doubt he thinks it today.)
Sorry for the threadjacking, but somehow, someone decided to initially mention it here. Actually, considering the news of this, I’m surprised IPR didn’t jump all over it.
@60 I have written Takenaga and our Southern Vice Chair Zander Collier to inform them that unless the LPCA ExCom boots him or unless Matthew Barnes resigns from his position on the LPCA Executive Committee in 30 days, I am resigning my position as county chairman. I cannot and will not work with someone convicted of child molestation. I know some people who have had rough and tumble lives who have turned things around and I’m fine with that, but molestation is a whole other matter and for good or bad, there will always remain that issue of trust and an underlying “what if?” which is extremely distracting and opens up a can or worms in terms of potential liability. My preference is to eliminate these distractions and potential liability by Having Mr. Barnes step aside voluntarily (which he is so far refusing to do) or having him removed by the LPCA ExCom. Matthew Barnes is NOT a victim, even though he is acting like one. Ultimately, he is responsible for the situation he finds himself in because he chose to molest those boys (under the age of 14 years old) when he was an assistant Scout Master. Yes. He served his time and on a personal level, I forgive him for his past transgressions so long as he keeps his hands off children. However, he must realize his continued association with our organization harms it each day he decides to drag this out.
ts, so, are you making a case FOR a Root nomination? Sounds like it. If Root has a financial/career incentive for doing a good job as the LP’s standardbearer, that sounds mutually aligned with the LP’s interests, yes?
I say this as a Root skeptic, btw.
Incidentally, Root may well know the outcome of his strategy, and I believe he’s fine with it.
As I’ve been saying since 2007, Root’s end goal is not political success, but carving out a niche as a well-paid media pundit. Root primarily wants book deals, and radio and TV hosting gigs.
Root’s LP connections are just a booster rocket to get his punditry career into orbit.
Root doesn’t believe that he’ll be elected president on the LP ticket. He says it, but he’s too smart to believe it. He only says it because he knows that’s what the LP rubes want to hear.
Root bashes Obama, and now both major parties, because that’s where the money currently is, for him. If it helps him secure the 2012 LP nomination, great. If not, oh well, by 2012 his paid punditry career should be well established, so screw the LP.
That’s Root’s strategy. I’ve been saying it since 2007. Can I read his mind? Not literally, but I think he’s a fairly transparent fellow. And my 2007 predictions of his actions (using the LP nomination to secure books deals and media gigs) have proven correct so far.
Drek,
Au contraire. Paleocons such as Robert Taft were isolationist (relatively speaking) in the 50s. Goldwater was no paleocon; I agree that he was not a libertarian, though.
Ironically, Root is planting the seeds of his own defeat.
Root is encouraging people that Obama is the Great Satan. That will sell books and garner popular attention for Root, today.
But the more convinced people are that Obama is the Great Satan, the more convinced they’ll be that the 2012 election is “too important to lose” by throwing away their vote on Root or the LP.
Solomon Drek: Root will recruit, if he has not done so already, palecons/populists and other frustrated former GOP rightwingers into joining the Party
It’s a good strategy, in that it may get Root enough delegates to win the 2012 nomination.
But that strategy also has a potential flaw: Obama.
Although Root’s Obama-bashing should encourage rightists into joining the LP, the GOP will also be shifting to “the right” and increasing its Obama attacks.
And the GOP, unlike the LP, can offer actual victory in November.
If the GOP runs a charismatic libertarian-sounding figure (such as Palin), Root’s rightist supporters will lose interest in the LP long before the LP convention, and Root will be left facing radical delegates.
The GOP will look and sound very libertarian in 2012, and most frustrated rightists, who hate Obama, will think that “this election is too important to lose” and possibly “the most important election of our lifetimes,” and go home to the GOP.
Some will hold their nose, some will “go home” enthusiastically, but if Root or the LP Reformers think they can increase vote totals by appealing to the Glenn Beck crowd, they’re blind to history.
I wonder how Cali is progressing on it’s little(big) problem. I wrote Takenaga today urging him to do whats right .I urge everyone else to do the same.
@ 53 SD writes: “As to medical insurance I support the single-payer system as it exists in other countries, including every other democratic, industrialized nation. ”
If what you mean is that every other democratic, industrial nation has single payer insurance then may I politely correct you.
The Swiss, Germany, the Netherland do not have single payer system. Those nations have private insurance companies providing medical insurance under government regulation and I believe the French have a mix of government and private.
““Goldwater was certainly not a paleoconservative on social issues or foreign policy/military spending,”
There may be some confusion here. Paleocons today are isolationist, but back in the 50s and 60s they largely supported military action against communism, which they viewed as America’s real enemy. To this extent they supported huge military budgets and spending, and a belligerant foreign policy as long as it was directed at communist countries and insurgencies.
I suspect if Goldwater was alive today he probably would be a big government conservative, though mildly progressive on social issues. He endorsed George Bush for President in 1988, and would probably have been an enthusiastic supporter of John McCain.
But when he ran for President in 1964 it was clear Goldwater had distanced himself from the progressive, big government wing of the GOP and embraced the “Southern strategy” of support for “state’s rights” and “victory in Vietnam” exemplified by Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond.
“Goldwater was certainly not a paleoconservative on social issues or foreign policy/military spending, and I know of no one who would classify him as a paleoconservative – where do you get your definitions?”
The 1964 presidential campaign. The Old Confederacy didn’t vote Republican for the first time because they thought Goldwater was libertarian (unless you equate libertarian with Dixiecrats who maintain the right of individual states to uphold their unique brand of racial apartheid). And I don’t recall Goldwater calling for an unconditional withdrawal from Vietnam, or an end to US military involvment with NATO.
I don’t recall Goldwater opposing compulsory military conscription either.
I believe Goldwater modified his views somewhat as he got older and seemed to mellow with age. His support for Sandra O’Connor and repudiation of Jerry Falwell indicated some socially progressive views. I also believe he endorsed gays in the military.
Re; 54 Yes, I feel the same way, I like Barr more post-campaign. And at the time I said he was promoted to the presidential campaign too fast and should have had more time to develop his libertarian ideas. I felt the same way about Root, and I think he is making some progress and may well be a really good candidate by 2012. I have seen his views change a lot in two years and if he makes three more years of progress in the same direction, he could be awesome. I think some stronger competition from more radical and left leaning libertarian candidates would help that progress, or provide an alternative if the progress stops short.
In 2005 you could have predicted Barr? I said 2005, not 2006.
Goldwater was certainly not a paleoconservative on social issues or foreign policy/military spending, and I know of no one who would classify him as a paleoconservative – where do you get your definitions?
And yes, big government leftists like you are certainly welcome at IPR; some write here, and we cover many. I even cover many myself and have some as friends.
But you say you think Milnes has good ideas? Oooootay…
I forgot to mention about my previous statements concerning Bob Barr. I didn’t like him as a candidate, but in the last few months I have come to develop a smidgeon of respect for the guy. While Wayne Root and other LP apparatchiks are issuing statements and sending out press releases echoing RNC talking points, Bob Barr has been noticeably nonpartisan in the columns he has posted recently on libertarian issues (ie. Patriot Act, etc.) that differentiate from both major parties.
Kudos to Bob Barr for writing about issues that don’t reflect the typical rightwing mantra we’ve become accustomed to these past few months.
Paulie@51: “Who could have predicted the 2008 candidate in 2005, the 2004 candidate in 2001, or the 1996 candidate in 1993?
Yet Drek seems to think he knows what we will be doing in 2013, but then he also thinks Barry Goldwater was a paleoconservative and that people without medical insurance should be jailed and that he is a libertarian.”
Actually I posted an essay on another website, under a different username, in 2006 when Bob Barr first announced he joined the LP. I predicted then that Barr would run for President, win the LP nomination, divide the Party, raise more money than any other LP candidate and end up with the usual less than one percent.
With Root being a professional handicapper he’d probably set his odds as a five-to-one favorite. and I’d be inclined to agree.
As to Goldwater he was a paleocon except for being mildly progressive on some social issues like abortion and homosexuality. I don’t know how he would be considered anything else. I certainly don’t see how most libertarians (at least the ones I know of) would ever embrace him as one of their own.
I quit the LP a long time ago and I do not consider myself libertarian. However this is not an LP website and my personal beliefs should not disqualify me from posting comments, or even prognosticating, about the LP or its candidates. I have a great deal of personal admiration and respect for Mary Ruwart and George Phillies, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and even Bob Milnes who I think has some interesting ideas. That does not mean I have to be in philosophical accord with them.
As to medical insurance I support the single-payer system as it exists in other countries, including every other democratic, industrialized nation. I also pay my taxes and send my kids to public schools.
“sd, this is QUITE a charge. It seems that LP prez candidates generally don’t “take the LP over” at all…if anything, they run and then go away, more or less.”
Not so much in the past. But I do believe Root will recruit, if he has not done so already, palecons/populists and other frustrated former GOP rightwingers into joining the Party and forming an alliance with the same folks who gave us Bob Barr.
“the LP continues to have challenges, in part from competing visions of what a L party should and should not be. It’s why there’s a growing chorus from several strains of L-ism that we need a St. Louis Accord. Are you on board?”
If this question was directed at me my answer would be that I am not on board because I jumped ship a long time ago.
I don’t know that we can make predictions at this point what the LP will do in 2012. For all I know, we might run Mary Ruwart, Dennis Kucinich, or Hulk Hogan. Folks, it’s 2009. Who could have predicted the 2008 candidate in 2005, the 2004 candidate in 2001, or the 1996 candidate in 1993?
Yet Drek seems to think he knows what we will be doing in 2013, but then he also thinks Barry Goldwater was a paleoconservative and that people without medical insurance should be jailed and that he is a libertarian.
RC__Still, the LP continues to have challenges, in part from competing visions of what a L party should and should not be
me__ yep and trust me the real enemies laugh thier asses off . divided and conquered we are.
I am so down with the St Loius Accord!!!!
sd, this is QUITE a charge. It seems that LP prez candidates generally don’t “take the LP over” at all…if anything, they run and then go away, more or less.
A case for an exception could be made that the Browne forces “took over,” and they were “radical” Ls, yes?
My impression is that the BTP seems quite fractured. It’s founder Tom Knapp has reportedly quit.
Still, the LP continues to have challenges, in part from competing visions of what a L party should and should not be. It’s why there’s a growing chorus from several strains of L-ism that we need a St. Louis Accord. Are you on board?
I agree Root is newsworthy, and I am firmly convinced he will be the 2012 LP candidate for President.
Pat Buchanan was also newsworthy when he broke with the GOP in 2000 and took over Ross Perot’s Reform Party. He packed the Reform Party with his own Buchanan Brigades, remade it into a populist/paleoconservative throwback to the old nativist, isolationist wing of the Republican Party, and drove the moderate Perot loyalists to form their own separate Party, which didn’t fare any better at the polls than the Reform Party despite Buchanan getting $20 million in public campaign funding.
We’ve already seen radical libertarians break from the LP to form the BTP and other groups. The Root takeover in 2012 will accelerate this process.
All of this is newsworthy because we are witnessing the destruction of the LP as a less than viable alternative political party based on a unique philosophy of anti-coercive principles, and its remakeover into a paleoconservative, populist shill for Glenn Beck/Michael Savage/Lou Dobbs/Fox News/Wayne Root talking points and slogans.
The LP will survive 2012 as little more than an organizational entity composed of frustrated paleocons and libertarian hangers-on with no place else to go, except maybe the BTP or some other internet-generated activist groups.
Why is it that every time Root spouts an unoriginal opinion — a cliché, even — it merits attention as a “news story”?
Wayne Root is the leading known 2012 contender among all alternative parties and independents that I know of at this stage, except perhaps Ralph Nader, and if Nader is doing as much written commentary and major media as Root right now, he’s not letting us know about it. We’re on Root’s mailing list, and not on Nader’s.
Root stories frequently and reliably create discussion when we post them.
For these reasons, I deem Root news and opinions to be news.
I extend the same consideration to other 2008 and 2012 candidates, including for instance Tom
Knapp, whom I have personally endorsed from among the declared candidates early on.
It was news when Knapp wrote about it, and it’s news when Root writes about it.
My own biases are on the table, but I have to work with what I have to work with. Root is doing regular media; other candidates aren’t, at least yet. Root emails IPR when he writes something (or has someone do it); other candidates usually don’t.
Of course, he also has to compete for attention with other candidates, parties, news reports, opinion writers, etc. I’ve tried, so far unsuccessfully, to recruit a radical libertarian candidate to start doing all the outreach and inreach Root is doing. Maybe you’d have better luck than me.
Aside from NewsletterGate, the second lowest point of the Paul for President 08 campaign was when his supporters pelted Sean Hannity with snowballs in a fit of rage.
Small trivia item: Matt Harris (mdh) claims credit for the snowball incident.
“Some manipulate with words a lot more than others.”
Which is a good definition of marketing and promoting products, including political candidates.
I give Wayne Root credit for one thing. He understands marketing better than most political candidates I’ve come across. He understands his target and how to appeal to their basic emotions and instincts.
As I stated before advertisers, including political candidates, manipulate words and images to please their audience. With no disrespect to the late Billy Mays, you won’t see an infomercial snake-oil salesman be completely truthful about their product anymore than political candidates. even libertarian candidates, are completely truthful about their beliefs and backgrounds.
I can’t say I’ve met the person who has NEVER lied.
Some are more forthcoming than others. Some manipulate with words a lot more than others. That’s the range.
“what has Wayne lied about??”
“Calling someone a lier could be slander/defamation of charactor. ”
My the Rootbots are hypersensitive these days. I question whether Root has always been truthful. If he has never told a lie then he definitely belongs in the pantheon of statesmen like George Washington and “Honest Abe” (maybe we should add his likeness on Mount Rushmore).
I don’t know much about his past, but I did read a few press items during last year’s presidential/vice-presidential campaign about his previous business dealings which led me to believe he was less than forthcoming about his “successful” business career.
If its “slander” or “defamation of character” to question the veracity of a political candidate, then I plead guilty.
Calling someone a lier could be slander/defamation of charactor. I know Wayne is straight forward with a cleaner history slate then the general politician that is appointed with a colorful history in office and more than one office to date.
what has Wayne lied about??
please name one concrete instance where you can name an actual lie Wayne has said.
Root is a pompous ass. He’s no different than any other politician, including libertrarian politicians. Ron Paul is a politician, Bob Barr is a politician, and Wayne Root is a former gambling promoter seeking to become the very thing he says he despises.
And even if politicians do lie, so what? I see people on this board accuse each other of lying all the time. And is Root implying that capitalists don’t lie? How many advertisers really tell the truth about their products? Sure politicians lie in order to sell themselves as a product to the voters (read Joe MacGuinness “Selling of the President, 1968” about the Nixon campaign).
And does anybody really think Wayne Root never told a lie, like he’s George Washington or “Honest Abe”? Has anybody ever bothered to investigate Root’s own checkered past? All the businesses, including gambling, that he’s been involved with?
There’s an old saying that “it takes one to know one”. Maybe Root knows something about liars because he’s been there himself.
People follow the incentives that operate on them, right? The incentives for pols to act badly are strong, and weak to do the right things. This will apply to whoever replaces any given batch. Plus they have a personality quirk – they care more than is healthy about being liked. Now all that applies to the current bunch and any new batch that replaces them.
Therefore, to to change their behavior change the incentives that operate on them. How? Here’s a little pamphlet that starts to suggest some ideas: the Mackinac Center’s Tea Party Activist Toolbox: http://www.mackinac.org/archives/2009/TEApartytoolbox.pdf
Thomas, it’s not that people are so interested in what Root has to say. For some reason though, his threads attract more than their share of trolls and other commenters who want to talk about other issues.
Why is it that every time Root spouts an unoriginal opinion — a cliché, even — it merits attention as a “news story”?
Most Americans have been calling all politicians liars for well over a century.
What’s next? A “new story” in which Root breathlessly announces that water is wet?
Not quite. According to the CNN exit poll, the median voter in 2008 was late 40s, had some college education but not a graduate, household income roughly $65k/yr, and decided who to vote for more than 2 months prior to the election.
For Wayne to be breaking the barrier where this should have been done way back when and for all the work he is doing and all some people can do is insulting. What exactly are YOU doing? Hmmm?
As a friend of Mike Seebeck, I can tell you that he is taking this extremely seriously and in a very professional manner. He is not even telling me all the information that is coming his way. he is earning the respect of all California Libertarians, IMO
I respect that
LG, I rarely speak or write in my party office capacity. As a party member or a regular person, yes, but this one is different than that.
@27 Oooohhhh…a pre-emptive STFU!
MS__ I’m not authorized to really say anything
me__lol thats funny , since when has that ever stopped you.
Oh please, Root! Give me a frickin’ break! 🙂
Message to Wayne Allyn Root: Of course politicians “all lie.” Of course both parties “all lie.” It’s just that you lie too.
You say you’re on the same side as us, that you’re on the side of human liberty. Yet you’ve got nothing to show for it. Well, Waynie, you’ve got much to prove to this movement that you’ve barely started.
Someone please gag me with a spoon.
Yours in Liberty,
Todd Andrew Barnett
just get rid of him , there is no other answer.
LG, I know this sounds lame, but for now I’d like to defer comment on it, for two main reasons–one, I’m not authorized to really say anything, and two, I’m not totally sure myself about proceedings at the moment.
Best to ask Kevin Takenaga on that one.
And before he starts in: STFU, Bruce, because you don’t know Jack Schitt about what’s going on, either.
Brian Holtz // Sep 28, 2009 at 1:08 pm
BH__I’ve never known Matt to be anything but a gentleman and a credit to the LP. The Megan’s Law web site does not record “lying” or even “weak excuses”, but it does record non-crimes like those documented here. If someone wants to accuse Matt of something, they should do it using their real name.
Me _ Brian are you serious? you MUST NOT know the whole story . This isnt a Genarlow Wilson case . Its a cliche even it’s so chester the molester.
The dude was a friggin assistant scout leader and 20 yrs old His conviction ( the last one) was for molesting boys under the age of 14 , so the oldest they could have been is 13.
20 and 13 that fall far beyoned what is consensual victimless sexual acts that are illegal and shouldnt be.
this is a potential disaster , not just for the LPCA but all of us.
he needs to go and soon.
seebeck? your on the excomm there , how do you guys intend to proceed?
Gene @ 24
I’m surprised he didn’t resign immediately.
The stakes are much higher than most people understand though here in California.
There is a ballot measure in June called “top-two” that could eliminate third party candidates from ever showing up on the ballot in November.
I had to fight against a similar measure pretty hard back in 2004.
We were able to argue that alternative voices should also be heard during the November election. We prevailed that time.
This argument will not carry any weight if people associate us with this bad behavior.
@19 LMAO. Good point. I, too, found Mr. barnes nice and very personable. Even with this controversy and considering his past actions, I am concerned about his personal life and would like to see him never repeat those crimes again. That said, I can separate that from his position on the LPC ExCom, which he should have immediately vacated when news of this first hit on Friday. He did NOT do the right thing by resigning and now the LPC will have its reputation muddied during a critical time when the party is fighting just to stay afloat financially. I have heard from reliable sources that donors are backing off from the LPC because of this revelation.
WAR: We Don’t Need Civility Towards Our Political Leaders; We Need Rage!
Me: Hmm, well, Wilson is himself a pol, so I’m not sure this structure works.
Rage is incindiary. Despite the tendency among Ls to invoke the language of the “angry white males,” I’d be very, very careful playing with this fire. I suppose if it worked, a bit of rage might be indicated, but count me skeptical.
Aside from NewsletterGate, the second lowest point of the Paul for President 08 campaign was when his supporters pelted Sean Hannity with snowballs in a fit of rage. Now, I’m no Hannity fan, but that sort of uncivil behavior did not help the cause.
I submit that you can’t have liberty without peace. The Angrytarian Way ain’t peaceful, as I see it.
“Don’t you know that you can count me out.”
ATBAFT, are you saying we should re-nominate ex-congressman Barr in 2012? The list of living LP members who have been elected to state or federal legislative office is, what, about half a dozen people?
Let’s see Mr. Root get elected to the Nevada State Legislature first. That will give him “tightrope walking” practice and show that at least some people trusted him enough to elect him to office.
Steven @ 17
You may be right.
What I’ve noticed about Wayne’s style is that he almost always includes several hooks at the beginning.
The famous copywriter Joe Sugarman stated that the purpose of this is to get the person to read the first sentence of the copy. And the purpose of the first sentence of the copy is to get the reader to read the second, and so on. I’m oversimplifying this, there’s actually a lot more to it than that, but you get the picture.
Anyway, when I read Wayne’s titles and short hook statements, I feel compelled to read the first sentence. And if I read the first sentence I’m inclined to read the second.
It’s hard for me to argue with success. Maybe he can do a test, with one long piece and one short piece. My guess though is that Wayne Root’s instincts for media are pretty well-honed after all these years.
Of course people going to think Mr. Barnes is a nice guy, so the same with Jeffery Dahmer, nobody suspected. Jeez, idots. People like that should not be officials in office of any kind, sorry. excuses for c0-depence type.
Michael @ 14
Michael, I believe you’re right. This is a good foundation for a speech.
Wayne Root runs the risk though of coming across as too bombastic and other than presidential.
As long as he is aware of this, he might find a way to include a positive vision about the future. Perhaps by doing this he could come across very well with this.
Wayne Root needs to walk somewhat of a tight rope here. It’s a real challenge and he is definitely going to make some missteps along the way.
On the one hand, he needs to garner the attention of the media to get a message out and increase the ratings of the host’s radio or television program. On the other hand, he needs to come across to listeners and viewers as someone people would trust in an elected position.
This is not easy, especially when keeping in mind that the typical voter is age 55 and over.
Aaron @ 13:
I could be wrong, but I recall during the LNC reign of Steve Dasbach that he could write pithy “sound bite” news releases. It was these one liners that got him and the rest of the crew on radio interviews on a consistent basis.
IMHO, the same phenomenon is happening here. Not the news release itself (which is too long), but the sound bites that are memorable.
I would be willing to bet that Root could increase his share of “libertarians in the news” if he would learn to focus on just his “hook” and a 500-600 word essay to drive home his point.
The above essay wanders from the bankruptcy of OTB’s, to insurance companies to Chrysler & GM to a slew of other failed government activities. And that is AFTER he made his point in the first 3-4 paragraphs!
PEACE
I don’t like this guy. He is just too sleazy for me. With that said… this epistle (although lengthy) really isn’t too bad. Yes the comment about “both parties” is accurate and the fact he made no exception for Ron Paul in the V.E.T.O. gimmick may rile some (me included) but on balance not a bad effort IMHO.
I have to say that, even though Wayne Root is actually a statist, not an anarchist, he sounds like a real libertarian in this piece.
I think it is always a good idea for libertarians to be rude and screaming at the top of our lungs in the public square to show that we really, really mean it!
I propose we hold a piss-in and all urinate on cutouts of Obama, Pelosi and other leading politicians. You think they would get our message?
Aaron, if the formatting is cleaned up, this has the foundations of a great speech.
Steve @ 2
Yes, I agree it’s too long for publication.
But Wayne uses this writing approach to get interviews on radio and television, not to have these published in newspapers.
His approach seems to work.
Incoherent. You may need a newer version of Babblefish.
Wayne, please don’t ever say “both parties”. Say “both incumbency parties” or something like that.
My understanding is that Wilson’s charge against Obama was accurate in the sense that the Democrat bills excluding coverage for illegal immigrants do so merely by wishing, and do not include any enforcement measures.
I’ve never known Matt to be anything but a gentleman and a credit to the LP. The Megan’s Law web site does not record “lying” or even “weak excuses”, but it does record non-crimes like those documented here. If someone wants to accuse Matt of something, they should do it using their real name.
OMG!
WTF??
Cali this is disgraceful enuf to damage us all , please clean house.
Wayne is right: they all lie, even some of our own Libertarians, such as Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee member Matthew Scott Barnes who is making weak excuses for his conviction on multiple child molestation charges. One doesn’t spend years in prison for “homosexual experimentation”, especially when the perpetrator is an adult and the victims are under 14 years of age. IPR won’t allow me to post links, but a search on California’s Megan’s Law website for Matthew Scott Barnes reveals the sordid truth. Why is he still on the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee? Enquiring minds want to know!
Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy
Greens & Libertarians & Progressives
Actually that is a terrible idea. Now we have instead of Liberals Demo or Liberal Reup.
Will have liberal from a different party. Right back to square one.
NO WAY.
That is the trouble with society; the attention span has gotten shorter. Not everything can be explained in two sentence. Today people are caught up with MTV, Video games and I-Pods. Poor school systems. Back in the old times before all this, people read Books. Novels, Encycolpedias, Bible, History. All these took a long time to complete, and thus taught patience.
Wayne’s post would be nothing to read if you were already used to heavy reading.
a Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy. What a novel idea!!
why havent you mentioned it before Milnes?
you know what would be cool , in addition to diversity in the alliance how bout diversity in gender as well.
say like your the top of the ticket , you get a female to be the V.P pick.
just an idea
We could have had a progressive government for the past 100 years if Teddy Roosevelt had won. We can vote out most democrats & republicans & replace them with Greens & Libertarians & Progressives by 2012. But only by pursuing The Progressive Libertarian Alliance Strategy. We have about 30 days to do that until the next set of elections in November.
we agree there . Waynes written essays are too long.
although , they are shorter than they used to be:)
1287 words.
Waaay too many words for my attention span.
Skimming over the text though, I see some great one liners that should come in handy for a news release or two.
Which is too bad for Root. Root comes up with so many good one liners, and then buries them in mindless verbiage. This article might make a decent 10-15 minute speech. But as an essay about civility, it is lost to the reader.
PEACE
see also
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/09/tom-knapp-they-all-lie/