Root: TEA PARTY NATION- THE SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD!

The Citizen Revolution Has Begun…just like the American Revolution…in Massachusetts.

Political Predictions of GOP Victory…from the Only Las Vegas Oddsmaker-Turned Vice Presidential Nominee

By Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee

It was only a few weeks ago that I predicted in a commentary that Democrats would pass universal healthcare without a so-called “public option.” At the time, Democratic leaders in Congress were screaming hysterically about the public option having to be included. I predicted in my commentary that this was all a smokescreen…a charade…to distract the voters. Democrats never intended to pass a public option. The plan all along was to pass something with a different name, that appears at first glance to be “more moderate,” and claim they had compromised. In reality this 2000+ page healthcare monstrosity is the death of American business. It is the opening for socialism (government control of business and our lives- medical and financial) that Obama and his radical leftist cabal have sought from day one. My prediction has come true. That’s exactly what is happening.

It was only a few days ago that I predicted in a commentary that President Obama never intended to tax high value health insurance plans that belong to union members. That too was a smokescreen intended to make him look “fair.” In the end I predicted that Obama would give a corrupt special interest gift to the unions that contributed so mightily to his election, and find a way to make unions wiggle out of paying for universal healthcare. That’s exactly what happened late last week. Obama gave the unions an exemption so outrageous it should lead to revolution in the streets from…everyone else. Where’s my exemption? Where’s yours?

I have news for Obama- If you think everyone in the country should pay for universal healthcare…except union members…YOU JUST PROVED YOU’RE NOT ONLY A SOCIALIST….BUT A CORRUPT ONE TOO.

Obama’s corrupt compromise gave unions a 5-year exemption from higher taxes, while the rest of us suffer right away. But that’s only the start of this outrageous scam. The reason Obama gave the unions until 2018 to start paying…is all part of his cynical game. This deal buys them all 8 years to figure out how to exempt union members permanently- in the smoke-filled backroom, while no one is watching and this controversy is forgotten. So there’s my next prediction…if Democrats stay in power, unions will never wind up paying a dime for universal healthcare.

But here’s my most important prediction of all- Obama and the Democrats are about to be swept out of office in the biggest Tea Party revolt since 1776. As a matter of fact, my gut instinct tells me Massachusetts Republican U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown will pull one of the most shocking political upsets in history on Tuesday. Mark it down…whether Brown wins, or simply comes close…the Tea Party political revolution began in Massachusetts just like the first one in 1776.

The only thing standing in the way of this “mother of all upsets” is Obama and his corrupt Massachusetts labor union buddies bringing thousands of dead bodies to the polls on Tuesday. My guess is they are digging up the graves right now. But I don’t think it will be enough. Even the liberal voters of Massachusetts have had enough. What happened? Simple. The citizens of Massachusetts got a head start on experiencing “universal healthcare.” As the first state with government-run healthcare (courtesy of Mitt Romney) they found out firsthand that it’s a huge fraud- medical costs rise, wait times rise, quality of care deteriorates. The Obama lies only work on those who have never experienced government-run healthcare.

Despite my support for a true fiscal conservative named Joe Kennedy, the Libertarian in that MASS. U.S. Senate race, I believe that a Scott Brown victory will be a huge victory for Tea Parties and be the ultimate “canary in the coal mine.” Brown’s victory will destroy the 60 vote margin needed to pass universal healthcare in the U.S. Senate. This red victory in a blue state will give Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Dodd, and Barney Frank a preview of the political beat-down to come. Even the swine flu never caused the amount of violent shaking and vomiting that you’ll see in Washington D.C. on Tuesday night into Wednesday morning.

See the whole article at Root For America


IPR posts about Joe Kennedy

Joe Kennedy For Senate

91 thoughts on “Root: TEA PARTY NATION- THE SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD!

  1. d.eris

    This new Republican meme that the election of Scott Brown would be the single greatest political event since the American revolution is one of the most ridiculous talking points I have heard in some time.

  2. Bruce Cohen Post author

    The following comments were deleted from this article posting earlier.

    They are posted in reverse order due to time constraints, as this is how they were recovered.
    (I already had to spend a lot of time editing out all the code and ‘junk’ for readability.)

    Author Comment
    Deran
    yeslerhill@gmail.com
    2010/01/18 at 2:05pm
    “And the more votes Kennedy gets, the more Libertarian Brown will be as a legislator.

    What part of ‘improvement’ don’t you get?”

    history does not bare out this reading of US politics.

    Obama was elected via a mass alignment of leftists and progressives, with liberals and centrists. The fanatic support on the left, and the money and feet on the ground working for Obama, has not lead to Obama being anything but a centrist corporate hack.

    “And the more votes Kennedy gets, the more Libertarian Brown will be as a legislator.

    What part of ‘improvement’ don’t you get?”

    history does not bare out this reading of US politics.

    Obama was elected via a mass alignment of leftists and progressives, with liberals and centrists. The fanatic support on the left, and the money and feet on the ground working for Obama, has not lead to Obama being anything but a centrist corporate hack.

    ____________________________

    Bruce Cohen
    2010/01/18 at 1:25pm

    Michael: Some Libertarians are knee jerk reflexively pacifists and resist any use of the military, including getting rid of the few Marines that guard our Embassies.

    Other Libertarians are pro-defense, with Objectivists and even folks like Starchild, for example going very far on that, wanting to use the US Military to topple any dictatorships.

    The vast majority of the Libertarian street is more pragmatic, wanting to avoid foreign military entanglements, but not going over either cliff as a ‘pacifist’ or a ‘warmonger’.

    There is nothing Libertarian about being a pacifist. Or being a hawk.

    Being a Libertarian is about working within the system to change the system. Being a Libertarian is to reduce the size and scope of government to the minimum needed to protect individual freedoms.

    When one gets beyond that, one is shoving their own perspective down someone else’s throat.

    _______________________________
    Michael H. Wilson
    2010/01/18 at 12:45pm

    Okay Bruce I’ll bite. What are those vast differences?

    Okay Bruce I’ll bite. What are those vast differences?

    Bruce Cohen
    2010/01/18 at 12:38pm
    ***Straw Man Alert!***

    This is not about foreign policy, global warming, or any single issue. Especially on Foreign Policy where there are vast differences between Libertarians on how this should work.

    Fact is, Joe Kennedy is a fantastic Candidate.

    Fact is, the LP probably could have done very
    well by supporting him, but they have a small staff and a limited budget and they decided they could not, and that’s the way it goes.

    In any case, it’s clear that Kennedy is better than Brown and Brown is better than Coakley.

    And the more votes Kennedy gets, the more Libertarian Brown will be as a legislator.

    What part of ‘improvement’ don’t you get?
    ________________________________

    libertarianblue
    2010/01/18 at 12:00pm

    Im sorry but Brown is still in supportive of our pathetic foreign policy how does that help liberty at home? The Federal Government has used the war on terror as nothing but an excuse to increase its size.

  3. Steven R Linnabary

    Apparently Root doesn’t understand the term “libertarian” as he STILL continues to confuse Libertarians with conservatives or worse, republicans.

    How a win for the architect of RomneyCare could possibly be construed as a win for the “Tea Party” movement or Libertarians is beyond my comprehension.

    PEACE

  4. Lisa

    This race has finally opened my eyes as to what is really going on in the tea movement. I watched the debates and thought Joe Kennedy was awesome, then wondered why the conservative heavyweights like Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, Hannity, etc. weren’t even mentioning his name.

    The fact they are backing a known rino only because he has a better chance of winning makes me sick to my stomach, and now I realize they are nothing but a bunch of republican hack hypocrites. And to boot they are gleefully posting pictures of seiu members supporting Brown as if it’s something to be proud of. I personally don’t want a politician that is admired by union goons.

    I was a part of the whole mainstream conservative group, but now feel betrayed and see them as the phony bastards they are. I don’t live in Massachusetts but if I did I would vote for Joe Kennedy.

  5. Only a liberal

    Only a Liberal would make comments against Wayne Root. Wayne Root has it right. He knows the game and he is going to make headway. The rest of you would be lucky you don’t end up in the Fema camps because you haven’t done NOTHING. I know Wayne believe in Freedom but he is also realistic on how to get their and work it. The rest of you is in LA LA land.

  6. Steven R Linnabary

    O.A. Liberal:

    Well, SOMEBODY is certainly in LA LA Land!! Probably somebody that thinks RomneyCare is the credible alternative to ObamaCare!!

    Libertarians are opposed to both.

    PEACE

  7. woden

    Only A Lib: yes, electing big government Republicans is a winning strategy for small government advocates!

  8. B Bone

    Once again I read and hear those who apparently thought the President could walk on water. Hello– not so, but what I see is a man who is genuine and is trying to bring this country together. This is a tall order when you have obstructionist republicans, lost libertarians, and a large segment who just don’t get it. I wish you people would listen to yourselves and grow up. This is a great country but it can be better. Come on, you people join us in that effort.

  9. Political Chess Player

    Wayne Root is looking at the reality that it will take several elections for Libertarians to break
    the electorate’s Red-Blue mindset. Wayne endorses Joe Kennedy, but at a few percent
    of the vote, Kennedy will not win, no matter how
    hard Libertarians HOPE. Given that reality, and a vote that could be close depending on turnout, the operative question is: what candidate will best slow down or stop the Legislative Sewage pouring out of the DC orifice?

    A Coakley win will ensure Obama and the Dems of a fast track legislative session until the next election; bad situation. On the other hand, a Brown win would put the Republican from Mass on the hot seat as far as voting NO. If Brown fails to deliver on his promise of obstructing Obama, the voter fury in 2012 will be incredible towards the Republicans. Assuming our country survives to then, the Libertarians will be the party that has the best chance of developing alternative platforms and candidates.

    So, if you like vote your conscience (Kennedy) and then, being a realist, hope for a Brown win.

  10. The Last Conservative

    Tea Party nation and libertarians are just a bunch of dirty labor union socialists in disguise. Vote Martha Coakley because she will make sure that Barack Obama is crowned as King of America; then Obama will reinstitute conservatism through absolute monarchy and feudalism, and make Catholicsm the national religion.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    A Brown victory in Massachusetts would indeed be a “victory” for the freedom movement, but only in a very backhanded way.

    If Coakley wins, she won’t damage either of the major parties very much. A Democrat winning in Massachusetts is just not a big deal.

    If Brown wins, he damages the Democrats by showing that they’re beatable even in Massachusetts, and he damages the Republicans by energizing the Democratic base, which has been demoralized lately.

    The best thing that could happen to the Democrats would be for ObamaCare to go down hard. If it passes, they have to defend it until November. If it falls, they get to spend the whole year bitching about obstructionist Republicans.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    Ack — hit “submit” too soon. To continue:

    Most of all, Scott Brown in the US Senate would damage the GOP by showing the tea party types, “libertarian Republicans,” etc. that the GOP has screwed them yet again and co-opted them for the purpose of putting an establishment hack into office. Scott Brown in the US Senate now adds up to at LEAST two lost November pickups for the GOP in each house of Congress.

  13. Solomon Drek

    Check out this article on TPM about the rightwing robocalls trying to fool uninformed voters about Joe Kennedy:

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/conservative_robocalls_in_ma_senate_race_may_be_de.php?ref=fpb

    Note that the script of the call does not provide a disclaimer that Joe Kennedy is not related to the Kennedy clan.

    I think the Libertarian Party shot themselves in the foot on this one, just like they’ll shoot themselves again in 2012 when they fall all over themselves to nominate that rightwing Reagan wannabee Wayne Root.

  14. Marc Montoni

    Knappmanator,

    I think both Root and you are missing something.

    Who *says* Brown is going to vote against Obamacare? You know how these guys are.

  15. Thomas M. Sipos

    Wayne Root is looking at the reality that it will take several elections for Libertarians to break

    No, Root is looking at the reality that conservatives and Republicans are a larger book-buying, radio, TV market than LP members.

    I’ve long said, Root only wanted the LP nomination to give him political creds, so he could broaden his market from gambling fans to the huge right-wing talk radio/Fox News fan base.

    Root will support libertarians, conservatives, Rinos, tea baggers, or whoever else will win him the most customers.

    I’ve also long said that Root’s not stupid. He knows the Coulter/Hannity/Limbaugh/O’Reilly market is much larger than libertarians. Root won’t offend the conservative market. If he has to pick sides, he’ll try to please both, but he’ll pick the larger customer base.

    And this is who some people want to be the LP’s “leader”?

  16. Mik Robertson

    @19 I think it is a big leap to say that this election will have any significant impact on November. I think what congress does between now and then is going to have a much, much greater impact on how the November elections go regardless of who wins here.

    I don’t think the conservatives have nearly the high expectations for Brown that liberals had for Obama. The Teapartiers should be getting used to being used by the GOP by now. I don’t see that having a huge impact in November, although it will help the third parties and independents, to a greater or lesser degree.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    Marc,

    You write:

    “Who *says* Brown is going to vote against Obamacare?”

    I don’t know. I’ve certainly never said that — in fact, I’ve said the exact opposite here, on my own blog, and in numerous other places.

  18. Solomon Drek

    “And this is who some people want to be the LP’s “leader”?”

    Unfortunately there will be enough Libertarians in 2012 who will nominate Root and prove what many already suspected in 2008 that the “Party of Principle” has become the “Party of Expediency”.

    In fact this whole Libertarian campaign for Joe Kennedy would never have taken place if his name was Joe Smith. Just another feeble attempt by the LP to grab a few headlines which will likely blow up in their faces if Coakley loses.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Solomon,

    Solomon,

    The idea that there’s been any attempt on the part of Kennedy or the LP to use his last name as a means of false advertising is an assertion for which neither you nor anyone else has offered so much as one iota of evidence or support.

  20. Eric Dondero

    Scott Brown is just as LIBERTARIAN as is Joe Kennedy. Brown supports the War on Islamo-Fascism which is entirely LIBERTARIAN!!! Joe Kennedy is rather weak on fighting back against the Islamo-Fascists.

    Scott Brown has the endorsement of the longest serving LIBERTARIAN state legislator in the entire Nation – State Senator Bob Hedlund of Weymouth, MA.

    Joe Kennedy does not have Hedlund’s endorsement.

    Scott Brown is fully supported by the libertarian Tea Party movement, all factions of the movement. Kennedy does not have any endorsements from the Tea Parties.

    Good for Root for showing his support for the next Libertarian-Republican United States Senator from Massachusetts Scott Brown!

    Way to go Root!!!

  21. Eric Dondero

    Looks like Steve Linnaberry, a fake Libertarian if there ever was one, doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “Libertarian.” But that’s natural for a Leftist punk who has infiltrated our Libertarian movement.

    Libertarian means LESS GOVERNMENT and support for LESS GOVERNMENT policies. and the ability to impliment those LESS GOVERNMENT policies. One of the three candidates in Massachusetts has the ability to achieve all three. Another one gets it two out of three. The third one, gets zero out of the three.

    Thank you, but I’ll take the three out of three candidate over the weakened two out of three guy.

  22. Aroundtheblockafewtimes

    Mr. Donderooo seems to realize that politics is the art of the possible. That realization started way back, at least, when Jefferson was persuaded to change “property” to “Pursuit of happiness” in order to not to offend a few critical delegates in the Continental Congress.
    If the LP wants to play politics, then play politics. What was the objective of Mr. Kennedy’s race? What did the LP want to get out of it? If it was to simply “get the word out about Libertarianism,” then maybe his campaign should have consisted of stump speeches excoriating American imperialism and the war on drugs. The voters need to hear such views, even if vote totals are 1%. Or, if it was to win something for the LP, then a deal should have been struck between LP and Ms. Coakley or Mr. Brown: do this for us and we will do this for you.
    Not principled? Perhaps, but certainly political.
    Is the LP going to be political – within acceptable bounds – or not????

  23. Andy

    “Eric Dondero // Jan 19, 2010 at 5:15 am

    Scott Brown is just as LIBERTARIAN as is Joe Kennedy.”

    LOL!!!!

  24. Robert Capozzi

    around, consider this: there is a trade-off between holding high theoretical ideas and popular ones. Hold high the MOST theoretical, shocking ideas leads to being discredited and reaching a very small audience. Espousing popular ideas run the risk of having no differentiation, and serving no purpose in introducing L ideas to a broader audience.

    A professorial type advocating private nukes, baby selling, personal secession, debt renunciation, etc., represents one polar extreme. A Sarah Palin-type IN STYLE advocating positions that Rs and Ds do would be the other pole.

    My assessment is that JK was in between, which feels about right to me.

  25. Ken Moellman

    While I agree with the assessment given by Political Chess Player (#15), I am sad to see the Tea Party movement completely hijacked.

    The Tea Parties were supposed to be about demanding more from politicians, and working outside the political parties. Instead, FreedomWorks/Tea has shown that they are just a pro-Republican group. Supporting a big government Republican is just as pathetic as a big government Democrat.

    If I were living in Massachusetts, I’d be voting for Kennedy. (There’s something I didn’t think I’d ever say).

    I saw Mr. Kennedy speak on the Boston-based PBS affiliate, and thought he did a great job, other than not understanding the CPD thresholds (and he’s running for Senate, not President, so that was somewhat of a cheap-shot to even ask such a question).

    My personal “best case” scenario is that Brown loses by a margin smaller than the percentage of the vote that Kennedy takes. This sends a message louder than any other; if you want the small government vote, you’re going to have to earn it.

    Also, this entire debate provides a platform to promote Instant Runoff Voting.

    Eric (#32) – I know Steve Linnaberry well, and he’s very much a Libertarian.

  26. d.eris

    “Brown supports the War on Islamo-Fascism which is entirely LIBERTARIAN!!! Joe Kennedy is rather weak on fighting back against the Islamo-Fascists.”

    The argument that Republicans are big on defense is nothing more than the Republican defense of big government. ‘Libertarian Republican’ is here, as in so many other instances, a contradiction in terms.

  27. Theatre_of_the_Obvious

    Hello, Mr. Dondero! Good to see that the backstabbing hack and traitor to the libertarian movement is still in a narrow category, all by himself! (For those of you who are new to libertarian ideas, Eric Dondero hasn’t been taken seriously by any actual libertarian, since he spitefully suggested that libertarians should vote for Rudy Giuliani over Ron Paul –his former boss–, from 2007-2008.)

    Eric Dondero is a very, very, very stupid human.

    His true intent appears to be to blacklist Root with his toxic association. Root often caters to the mainstream fiscal conservative movement, trying to gently push them towards being more libertarian. Obviously, any place where actual libertarians congregate, Dondero’s incorrect ideas about liberty are as welcome as radioactive waste. So why does Dondero show up here to defend Root?

    To make Root unsupportable by libertarians.

    Why would he do this? I leave that for you the reader to decide.

  28. Don Lake .......... More Churchiness

    Theatre_of_the_Obvious // Jan 19, 2010:

    “Dondero is …. very, very, very stupid ……”

    No, no, no —– he is a very courageous and wise person whom won a big time honor from the former Bishop of Roma and in fact was endorsed for American office by Pope John Paul II. —— I am just [still] awaiting the announcement from Europe. And we are waiting and waiting and waiting ………

  29. Solomon Drek

    Knapp@29: “The idea that there’s been any attempt on the part of Kennedy or the LP to use his last name as a means of false advertising is an assertion for which neither you nor anyone else has offered so much as one iota of evidence or support.”

    Allow me to clarify. The LP and Kennedy campaign has been using disclaimers. However, I’m sure they’re aware that despite those disclaimers alot of people will still get confused. Check out the following link posted earlier today:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/19/826852/-URGENT:-All-doing-GOTV-in-MA-re-Joe-Kennedy

    There already is confusion among some uninformed voters, and I’m sure Kennedy and his supporters were likely aware this would occur despite their disclaimers. Also the name itself has gotten more media attention than otherwise if he ran under a different name.

    My contention is that the LP knew what they were doing when they embraced this guy instead of someone like George Phillies who is much better qualified to offer a comprehensive, principled libertarian alternative to the electorate.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    sd, you amuse me. You know that JK isn’t even on the L line, yes? GP is a strong supporter of JK. In fact, GP had a little campaign criticizing the national LP for NOT supporting JK.

    So much drek, so little time…

  31. Solomon Drek

    @41 “So why does Dondero show up here to defend Root? To make Root unsupportable by libertarians.
    Why would he do this? I leave that for you the reader to decide.”

    Some years ago, in my political activist days, I had a flirtation with the Republican Liberty Caucus. I soon found out they were more interested in eliminating the LP and recruiting its members to the GOP than they were in convincing the GOP to become more libertarian.

    It doesn’t surprise me, from my own experience, that the GOP would want to sabotage Root’s campaign. It’s obvious he would do more damage to GOP prospects in 2012 than any other candidate the LP could nominate (unless Ron Paul quits the GOP and gets the LP nomination).

  32. Solomon Drek

    @44: “You know that JK isn’t even on the L line, yes? GP is a strong supporter of JK. In fact, GP had a little campaign criticizing the national LP for NOT supporting JK.”

    There is no L line. He is running as an independent but was recruited and actively supported by the Mass. LP. He is an LP member and has identified himself as a Libertarian.

  33. Solomon Drek

    @44: “GP is a strong supporter of JK. In fact, GP had a little campaign criticizing the national LP for NOT supporting JK.”

    If this is true maybe Robert Milnes is right. Maybe it’s time the LP and GP got together with a fusion ticket.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    drek, yes, I’m aware of the fact that JK is a L running as an independent. I’ve not seen any reports of how the Kennedy campaign was conceived, have you?

    You made this provocative statement that seems false on its face: “My contention is that the LP knew what they were doing when they embraced this guy instead of someone like George Phillies who is much better qualified to offer a comprehensive, principled libertarian alternative to the electorate.”

    As regular readers of IPR know, GP has been supporting JK vigorously. If you’re going to make wild accusations, you should consider at least building a case, rather than phoning in aspersions with obvious falsehoods.

    My sense is that Teddy died; Kennedy thought it might be interesting to run as did many Ls, but that the effort was largely driven by extraordinary circumstances. The official LP support has been late and largely tepid, so your charges ring very hollow to me.

    If you want us to take your screeds seriously, consider cobbling together a coherent case rather than sanctimoniously whining about “principle.” All things considered, JK has done an amazingly good job with very few resources and almost no past experience.

    Tearing him down as you have is a cowardly act, but then we should expect cowardice from a pseudonymous troll, yes?

  35. LibertarianGirl

    SD_It doesn’t surprise me, from my own experience, that the GOP would want to sabotage Root’s campaign. It’s obvious he would do more damage to GOP prospects in 2012 than any other candidate the LP could nominate (unless Ron Paul quits the GOP and gets the LP nomination).

    me__BINGO! which is why Joey Dauben “inadvertantly -unpurpose” leaked a private email with Root that could and probably will cost him some delegates at convention .

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    Solomon,

    You write: “My contention is that the LP knew what they were doing when they embraced this guy”

    I agree — and I would not be surprised at all if they took his last name into account when doing so.

    And your point?

    All other things being equal, you’re damn right I’d go with a candidate named [any first name] Kennedy in Massachusetts, Joseph Smith in Utah, Sam Houston in Texas, [any first name] Daley in Chicago, etc.

    Not because I think that those names will fool voters, but because the other parties will give my candidate publicity by running around trying to make sure the name doesn’t fool voters.

    The other parties think that voters are idiots. That’s a good thing to know, because it can be used to get the other parties to promote your candidate.

  37. Mik Robertson

    Some voters *are* idiots (and sometimes they are even dead) and they will vote for Joe thinking they are voting for one of the Kennedys.

  38. Solomon Drek

    Capozzi@49: “As regular readers of IPR know, GP has been supporting JK vigorously. If you’re going to make wild accusations, you should consider at least building a case, rather than phoning in aspersions with obvious falsehoods.”

    I’ve been familiar with GP for some years and had always respected him as a Libertarian leader. However, I was disappointed he chose not to run and instead promoted Kennedy. I think it was a mistake and that nothing will be gained from it except to reinforce the mainstream perception that he was in this to gain personal advantage from the use of his name.

    I’m sure Joe Kennedy is a nice guy and sincere about his views. But I think he would have done more for the cause he espouses if he had run for local office instead.

  39. Solomon Drek

    Knapp@51: “You write: “My contention is that the LP knew what they were doing when they embraced this guy”

    I agree — and I would not be surprised at all if they took his last name into account when doing so. And your point?”

    My point is it was a mistake. I think George Phillies should have been the candidate instead. He would have done a much better job at presenting libertarian alternatives to the major parties. I think he would have done better in the major candidate debates. He wouldn’t have gotten as much cheap publicity because of his name, but I really don’t think that will translate into votes anyway.

  40. Thomas L. Knapp

    Solomon,

    There’s nothing that would “translate into votes” in numbers sufficient for a Libertarian to win a statewide election at this time — especially an off-cycle special election in which both “major” parties are free to bring all their money and other assets to bear.

    The LP does not dispose of the kind of money, media connections, etc. that the major parties do. Part of the reason for that, and part of the effect of it, is that we have yet to convince a plurality or majority of American voters that we’re the party they should support.

    Because this is true, “maximizing votes” isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be, our only or even our top priority.

    Maximizing attention on our candidate is what gives us the chance to persuade more people that we’re their party, giving us an opportunity to secure their support (in the form of votes, in the form of contributions, etc.).

    Running Kennedy maximized attention on our candidate.

    Would George have likely performed better in the debates than Kennedy? No, for the simple reason that he wouldn’t have BEEN in the debates.

    Kennedy was in the debates because Martha Coakley insisted that he be included. She insisted on that because his name is “Kennedy” and she wanted to the audience to see that no, he wasn’t “that” Joe Kennedy.

    Would George had given better quotes to the New York Times? No, because the Times wouldn’t have called him. The Times called Kennedy because his name is Kennedy; the story was specifically intended to help make sure that voters knew he wasn’t “that” Joe Kennedy. Name another Libertarian US Senate candidate whom the Times has profiled at that length. I don’t think you can, because I don’t think there is one.

    If Kennedy was a ringer — a Republican trying to grab our ballot line — or some kind of very heterodox candidate whose positions were flagrantly at odds with the party’s, I’d agree that we shouldn’t run him just because of his name. But he is a Libertarian, he was willing to run a real campaign, and I see no reason why his name shouldn’t have been a positive factor in considering him.

    Note: As of right now, the stated returns seem to leave about 1% open as the possible Kennedy vote.

  41. Andy

    “me__BINGO! which is why Joey Dauben “inadvertantly -unpurpose” leaked a private email with Root that could and probably will cost him some delegates at convention .”

    Is this email posted anywhere? If so, where?

  42. libertarianblue

    This race has finally opened my eyes as to what is really going on in the tea movement. I watched the debates and thought Joe Kennedy was awesome, then wondered why the conservative heavyweights like Breitbart, Michelle Malkin, Hannity, etc. weren’t even mentioning his name.

    ______________________________—

    Because scum like Hannity and Malkin also support the growth of the state in the name of “security”. Kennedy opposes all state growth.

  43. Geof Gibson

    It seems there continues to be a confusion about the purposes of a political PARTY and a political MOVEMENT. Tea Partiers and Libertarians should be as *pure* in their ideology as they think is correct. They should NOT, however, be fooling themselves and thinking that they part of the electoral process, except in the most fringe manner. Remember, the purpose of a political PARTY is to ELECT candidates. LPers who constantly bitch about candidates not being pure or real seem to forget that hard ideologs NEVER get elected. Barry Goldwater crashed and burned for the exact same reason.
    Being right, as in correct, often has nothing to do with getting elected. As far as the MA election is concerned, if Brown’s election kills Obamacare, even if it is only the PERCEPTION that it won’t pass that kills it, then thank God. Bringing the country in the direction of libertarianism is a worthy goal which I wholeheartedly support, but that goal is going to be achieved by steps forward, backward, and sideways. This is still politics and it always has been and always will be one of the most frustrating, inefficient processes known to Man. It still beats the Hell out of despotism.

  44. Michael H. Wilson

    Regardless of what Joe Kennedy’s name is, it was up to the Democratic candidate, Coakley, to make her case to the voters and she did not.

  45. Thomas M. Sipos

    Eric Dondero is a very, very, very stupid human. His true intent appears to be to blacklist Root with his toxic association.

    That theory makes no sense, because Dondero brought Root into the LP.

    It’s my understanding that Dondero has claimed that (1) he suggested to Root that Root run for the LP presidential nomination, and (2) Root has thanked and credited Dondero for putting the idea into his head.

    Dondero, is this not so?

    It makes no sense for Dondero to invite Root into the LP only to sabotage him.

    So, sorry, Root supporters. But the Dondero/Root association is both real and substantial.

  46. Steven R Linnabary

    Eric Dondero is a very, very, very stupid human.

    That’s not fair to Eric. For a republican, he is exceptionally bright.

    But as to his assertion that I am a fake Libertarian, well, he gives me way too much credit. This fake Libertarian has somehow managed to pull the wool over the eyes of assembled Libertarians by being chosen to serve on the LP Platform Committee 3 times (’85, ’87, & ’93) and elected by assembled Libertarians to serve on the LP National Committee for 3 terms (’85-’89 & ’93-’96).

    PEACE

  47. George Phillies

    There are a number of historical precedents in Massachusetts politics on the debate issue.

    Some Democrats refuse to debate at all.

    On the other hand, in ’98 when I ran for Congress I was in every debate we had here. There are several reasons for this, one being ‘that’s the way it’s done, and the other being that Libertarians are perceived as people who take votes away from Republicans, whether we do or not. That’s rather clearly why Coakley wanted Kennedy in the debates, and why Brown equally did not.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    It seems that the downside of the Brown win does slow the collapse of the GOP in the NE states. Generally, coastal Rs tend to be economically conservative and socially liberal, including in the NE states. The GOP congressional delegation is I believe toast in the House, which started to make the Rs uncompetitive in at least 6 states. If that trend continues, perhaps reasonable L candidates could start to be taken seriously and even broken through to being competitive. An especially good candidate and poor ones from the majors…and who knows?

  49. Bruce Cohen Post author

    Certainly Dondero is a libertarian by any objective measure.

    Look it up in any dictionary.

    A few folks disagree with Dondero on one issue and wavoom, he’s ostracized.

    Whatever.

    The guy has his good and bad side and frankly, I have had a hard time getting along with him.

    But he does speak his mind openly.
    (Which is a lot more than I can say for a lot of over the top Machiavellian Libertarians!)

    And he is not trying to hurt Wayne or the LP.

    I disagree with Dondero about policy, strategy and tactics a heck of a lot of the time.

    That doesn’t make either of us more or less Libertarian.

    We need to focus on building a party that can AND WILL support the Joe Kennedys in our future political lives.

    And the things Eric says about that are pretty darn much spot on.

  50. Erik Geib

    Wayne Root isn’t a threat to anyone, but he is a threat to what remains of our party’s credibility with independents. Anyone with half a brain can see hin for what he is.

  51. Robert Capozzi

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAY premature to be pronouncing an L candidate a “threat,” especially one who’s not even nominated yet!

    I’ve seen no evidence that “independents” are especially like-minded other than they remain unaffiliated. Whether Root appeals to them more or less than previous Ls remains to be seen, IF he gets the nomination, which is not a lock by any means.

  52. Erik Geib

    Who would want to vote for a “libertarian Republican” con artist? Not even Republicans (the people he most appeals to) want to vote for Root.

  53. Bruce Cohen Post author

    Erik, Wayne doesn’t go to McDonalds and complain how you make burgers.

    How about you stick to things you know and Wayne can continue to try and save America?

  54. Erik Geib

    Bruce,

    Wayne couldn’t save himself from drowning in a bathtub.

    As for ‘how I make burgers,’ I’d wager I’m much more comfortable and happy in my career than you are (hint: and I don’t even work at McDonald’s! *gasp*). Keep it classy, chief.

  55. Stop huffing from that brown bag

    “Bruce,

    Wayne couldn’t save himself from drowning in a bathtub.”

    The chairman of Wayne Enterprises is a very dynamic young fellow. He has saved the people of Gotham on many occasions.

    😛

  56. Thomas M. Sipos

    LG, the pro-war neocons are promoting Root as the face of the LP, because his being the face of the LP prevents the LP from being a loudly, in-your-face, antiwar party.

    George Phillies is loudly antiwar. Ron Paul is loudly antiwar. Not Root, despite the occasional, mildly non-inteventionist stray sentence that one finds buried deep in his book.

    The neocons want Root to be the face and leader of the LP, because it helps neutralize an “antiwar right,” which is a far great threat to the empire than is an “antiwar left.”

    I’ve explained why this is so, at greater length, here: http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-neocons-fear-antiwar-right.html

  57. Michael H. Wilson

    Hell Bruce if Root stood and took an anti-intervention stance as loudly as he does the anti-union one he and the LP might get somewhere.

    Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to understand that interventionism has been a huge corporate subsidy, costs large sums of money, has destroyed large numbers of lives, grown the government and infringed on our civil liberties.

    How and the hell can anyone be for intervention in the affairs of other nations and still call themselves a Libertarian is beyond reason.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    LibertarianGirl,

    If he wins the LP’s presidential nomination, it won’t matter how many times Fox allows him on.

    Having the presidential nominee of a party that has just effectively declared itself defunct by nominating him might be interesting, but it’s no more likely to resurrect the party from such a move than having Charles Manson on is to bring Sharon Tate back to life.

  59. Thomas M. Sipos

    Unfortunately [Root] doesn’t seem to understand that interventionism has been a huge corporate subsidy …

    I’ve been told that Root does say that, in a brief sentence or two, buried deep in his book.

    So it seems that Root is aware of the theory. He just doesn’t really believe it, or care enough, to talk about it loudly and often.

    Ron Paul talks loudly and often against the war.

    Root talks loudly and often about how great and successful he is, and about how he was Obama’s classmate.

    Different core issues for different folks.

  60. Mik Robertson

    A non-interventionist foreign policy by itself is not necessarily a libertarian position. It is possible to be socialist and non-interventionist. Either you are a war-monger or you aren’t.

    It is the same thing as government non-intervention in markets not necessarily being libertarian. If that intervention is to prevent force or fraud, then such intervention could be libertarian actions. Either you believe in increasing individual choices and opportunities or you don’t.

    Wayne Root’s positions on foreign policy or economics don’t disqualify him from being a libertarian, but he does seem to highlight the conservative aspects of his thinking more than others.

    If he were to be the Presidential nominee, he would be someone who would pull votes mainly from the right, and that would be something the delegates would have to consider when they choose a nominee. That won’t happen for some time and a lot of things can change between now and then.

  61. Bruce Cohen Post author

    Hey Thomas, you killed off California Freedom Magazine by obssessing on ‘war’.

    The LP is not the anti-war party.

    It’s the pr0-freedom party.

    The LP is not the anti-Israel party.

    It’s the pro-freedom party.

    We are not anarchists.
    We are believers in a very small, constitutionally constrained goverment, barely sufficient to protect individual liberty.

    You seem to be confused.

    Please take your dishonest and talentless soul away from the LP until you become a Libertarian and not a saboteur.

    Thank you

  62. Thomas M. Sipos

    Hey, Bruce. It’s three months since CF has folded, due to lack of funds, and you’re still obsessed with my editorship?

    Yes, CF has antiwar articles. But it also had many pro-freedom articles.

    I don’t recall any anti-Israel articles, though. Are those the voices in your head?

    BTW, just this Monday, an Israeli-American peace activist spoke at the libertarian Karl Hess Club. I know, because I helped book him: http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2010/01/israeli-peacenik-yossi-khen-addresses.html

    Yossi Khen served in the Israeli military, some 40 years ago. He later served 3 weeks in an Israeli military jail for refusing to serve any further in the Occupied Territories.

    You should have come, Bruce. Khen’s a true libertarian, in that he stands up to the State. You might have learned something from him.

    It’s ironic, that Khen likely regards himself as a progressive, yet he’s more libertarian than many of the LP’s “libertarians.”

  63. 91%

    Drek,

    “In fact this whole Libertarian campaign for Joe Kennedy would never have taken place if his name was Joe Smith.”

    False.

    ” Just another feeble attempt by the LP to grab a few headlines which will likely blow up in their faces if Coakley loses.”

    We grabbed a few headlines and Coakley lost. How did this “blow up in our face”?

  64. 91%

    “Check out this article on TPM about the rightwing robocalls trying to fool uninformed voters about Joe Kennedy:

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/conservative_robocalls_in_ma_senate_race_may_be_de.php?ref=fpb

    Note that the script of the call does not provide a disclaimer that Joe Kennedy is not related to the Kennedy clan.”

    Drek,

    First of all, the calls you cite, were those affiliated with Kennedy’s campaign? I think the answer is no?

    Second, why should he have to provide a “disclaimer” every time? The Kennedy “clan” does not own the name.

  65. 91%

    Dondero

    “Scott Brown is just as LIBERTARIAN as is Joe Kennedy.”

    False, and ridiculous.

    Brown voted with legislative Democrats 91% of the time, with the Teachers Union 94% of the time, was one of the authors of RomneyCare which he is still proud of (the pilot program for ObamaCare), voted for Northeastern regional cap and trade, publicly opposed rolling back income taxes and sales taxes in Massachusetts, campaigned to REcriminalize marijuana, opposes gay rights, voted for property tax increases, the list goes on and on.

    “Brown supports the War on Islamo-Fascism which is entirely LIBERTARIAN!!!”

    Supporting endless war (at great expense to our treasury and civil liberties, and inviting blowback to perpetuate a vicious cycle), domestic espionage, warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, indefinite detention without charges or due process, and torture makes him more libertarian than those who oppose such things, such as Joe Kennedy? Only in Dondero’s delusional world.

    “Scott Brown has the endorsement of the longest serving LIBERTARIAN state legislator in the entire Nation – State Senator Bob Hedlund of Weymouth, MA.”

    Wrong again, Hedlund is a Republican, and not a Ron Paul Republican either.

    “Scott Brown is fully supported by the libertarian Tea Party movement, all factions of the movement. Kennedy does not have any endorsements from the Tea Parties.”

    Wrong yet again. Joe Kennedy was endorsed by the Boston Tea Party as well as top Massachusetts Tea Party activists such as Carla Howell. BrownBaggers are fools.

    “Good for Root for showing his support for the next Libertarian-Republican United States Senator from Massachusetts Scott Brown! ”

    Root endorsed Joe Kennedy, and repeated it again in this article. Nobody except Dondero would make a stupid assertion such as claiming that Brown is a “libertarian” Republican.

    http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/feature/conclusion-warning-to-tea-party-activists-even-tempted-to-vote-for-big-government-scott-brown/

    Links to parts 1 and 2 exposing Brown’s real record are included.

    Dondero and other BrownBaggers are delusional.

  66. 91%

    “Libertarian means LESS GOVERNMENT and support for LESS GOVERNMENT policies.”

    Brown’s record in the legislature and his statements on the campaign trail show that he is for MORE government and supports BIGGER government policies.

  67. 91%

    “My contention is that the LP knew what they were doing when they embraced this guy instead of someone like George Phillies who is much better qualified to offer a comprehensive, principled libertarian alternative to the electorate.”

    Getting Phillies, or anyone else who was registered to vote Libertarian on the state-specified date, would have been too expensive. Massachusetts requires 10,000 valid signatures, but candidates who are registered unenrolled can collect them from all voters, whereas Libertarian candidates can only collect them from registered Libertarian and unenrolled voters.

    Carla Howell may be registered unenrolled now, but she is far too busy with the Sales Tax Rollback campaign to have run herself this year.

    No Libertarian had the means to get on the ballot, which is step one.

    Dozens of other unenrolled (independent) candidates attempted to get on the ballot; none even came close.

  68. Bruce Cohen Post author

    I think we have to look at this is the best we all could do under the circumstances.

    The available and willing cumulative force and effort of the national Libertarian Party was on display for all to see in this election.

    Looked at alone, NOTA is far more Libertarian that Mister Brown.

    Brown has an extroardinarily bad voting record, so it’s not like Boston Libertarians are singing arias and throwing flowers over his election.

    But getting uptight at any of the players on our team is not going to work.

    We need more people to put their shoulder to the wheel.

    Joe’s election should have been considered a dress rehearsal for all systems. A practice run for the LP and the whole freedom movement for the 2010 and even more important, the 2012 Presidental election.

    We really have no idea what we could really do in terms of sheer volume of mail, phone calls and advertising, because we, as in the greater ‘we’, all Libertarians and libertarians…

    Because while we get hung up about whether somone is pro-life or pro-choice, or they are ‘anti-war’ or not… (Who isn’t anti-war?)

    We are spinning our wheels in a urination contest.

    With each other.

    Which is probably even worse than getting in a urination contest with our two opponents.

    I want to apologize to Joe Kennedy and his staff for not helping out more. It’s a really tough job to be a Federal Candidate as a Libertarian.

    Especially when your friends don’t call.

  69. Starchild

    Bruce Cohen (@2) refers to my position on international affairs. He wrote,

    “Other Libertarians are pro-defense, with Objectivists and even folks like Starchild, for example going very far on that, wanting to use the US Military to topple any dictatorships.”

    For the record, in case that summary is misleading to anyone, I would like to clarify my position on this topic in greater detail.

    While I agree with Ayn Rand that it is moral for democratically elected governments to force dictatorships from power, I do not automatically favor the U.S. government militarily intervening to topple any dictatorship. Such extra-national military actions should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, to determine whether they would likely lead to more or less net freedom in the world, and should be held to certain minimum standards of humane conduct (e.g. adherence to the Geneva Conventions).

    I do *not* believe that overthrowing a dictatorship constitutes aggression, since a dictator has already committed aggression against the people under his or her (usually his) control. Nor are they a violation of “national sovereignty,” since only individuals, and not national governments or territories, are properly sovereign. However, I do feel that certain military methods (e.g. weapons of mass destruction, bombing civilian areas) constitute aggression against innocent parties, and should therefore be considered war crimes.

    Coercive taxation is also aggression, and therefore monies obtained in this fashion are not rightfully the U.S. government’s (or any other government’s) to spend. So returning the stolen money to its rightful owners is always the preferred solution. But short of this sadly politically far-off ideal, it will sometimes be a more pro-liberty action for a government to spend the funds on a military effort to topple a human-rights-abusing dictator than to spend them in whatever manner political realities would have otherwise dictated they be spent.

    Since all present nation-states are fundamentally based on coercion and therefore have no real, legitimate authority either within or without the areas over which they claim jurisdiction, I do not draw any distinction between interventions which are intra-national (“domestic” in the language of nationalism) and those which are extra-national (“foreign” in the nationalist paradigm).

    For the government which claims jurisdiction over the area known as the United States to use its military forces against human rights abusers in Afghanistan is not automatically less right or more wrong than for this government to use those military forces against looters in Los Angeles. However extra-national interventions do tend to be more expensive and fraught with more potential unintended consequences, so they should not be undertaken lightly.

    Despite favoring extra-national military interventions in many cases, I reject the nationalist (aka U.S. neo-conservative) approach to such matters, since I would favor basing decisions on what is good for liberty in the world overall, and not what is in the “national interest” of the United States.

    While my views are based on a sincere interpretation of the Non-Aggression Principle, I recognize that most libertarians (and Libertarians) do not share these views. Therefore I am in favor of the Libertarian Party retaining its traditional platform stance against extra-national military interventions so long as
    it remains the libertarian consensus that this is the correct interpretation of the NAP.

    The only way the LP should revise this platform stance is if another view of the NAP becomes dominant within libertarian thought, because I believe it is more important to uphold the integrity of the Non-Aggression Principle and its centrality to libertarianism, than for the LP to “get it right” on this particular issue.

  70. Trent Hill

    “Wrong again, Hedlund is a Republican, and not a Ron Paul Republican either.”

    Quite false, actually. Hedlund endorsed Ron Paul in the Presidential Primaries of 2008 and served as co-state coordinator in MA for the campaign. So, I’d say this statement is…demonstrably false.

  71. Trent Hill

    Also: Hedlund is looking to run for Congress, MA-10 specifically, in 2010. Libertarians would be wise to back him as they did Ron Paul–he’s very much of the same stock as Ron and Rand.

Leave a Reply

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