The following article about the Libertarian National Committee Chair’s race was posted Apr. 30 by Tom Knapp on his blog. Knapp is a former member of the LNC, and has endorsed said he will be voting for George Phillies for Chair.
A month from this coming Wednesday,over Memorial Day weekend, St. Louis, Missouri will host the Libertarian Party’s 2010 national convention.
The order of business for that convention includes the election of a new Libertarian National Committee: Officers (chair, vice chair, secretary, treasurer) and five at-large representatives. Regional representatives will also be selected through caucuses of the states composing the regions.
I am supporting and/or endorsing some candidates for some positions, and will probably write an “omnibus” article on those recommendations between now and the convention. This article, however, is dedicated to one candidate, and it is most manifestly not an endorsement.
My case against Wayne Allyn Root for chair is simple and consists of two claims which I invite my fellow delegates to investigate. Those two claims are as follows:
1) Wayne Allyn Root is a liar
When I say that Root lies, I don’t mean that he tells inconsequential little “white lies” — pretending that the Major League Baseball franchise of whatever city he’s speaking in is his favorite or whatever. He tells big, ballsy whoppers for his own political benefit … and he tries to cover his tracks to keep the truth from coming out.
I’ve specifically and irrefutably documented one of those lies. I’ve presented the lie itself on video, and I’ve presented both the still-existing evidence that it’s a lie, and contemporaneous references to the parts of the evidence that he memory-holed to cover the lie up. Click here for that evidence.
Having caught Root lying once, I have to wonder what else he might be lying about. I take every statement he makes with a grain of salt. And you should too.
That includes his … well, equivocal is the nicest way of putting it … statements regarding his intention to seek or not to seek the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nomination. Click here for more on his conflicting utterances.
2) Wayne Allyn Root’s record as a CEO is dubious at best
Don’t trust me on this. Trust Wayne Allyn Root himself.
As CEO of W Technologies, inc., formerly Global Sports & Entertainment Inc., formerly GWIN Inc., formerly IMSCO Inc., formerly IMSCO Technologies Inc., formerly Winning Edge International, Inc., Root signed that company’s filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Here are some high points from the company’s last SEC filing, a form 15-12G (“Securities registration termination”) dated October 28th, 2009:
Accumulated deficit: $29,394,197
Stockholder equity: -$936,202
From Note 2 (“Going Concern”): “The Company has no established ongoing source of revenues sufficient to cover its operating costs and allow it to continue as a going concern.”
From Note 5 (“Current Portion Long-Term Debt”): “In September of 2006 the Company entered into a $655,000 short term loan with a private investor. … As of July 31, 2009 the outstanding balance on the note was $538,520. This note is in default. … On September 26, 2007 the Company amended the existing Laurus Master Fund, Ltd note …. As of July 31, 2009 the outstanding balance on the note was $146,728, and is in default. … During the year ended July 31, 2007 the Company received two loans from J. Wright totalling $60,000 …. As of July 31, 2009 the outstanding balance on the note was $55,000 and is in default.”
The Libertarian Party has been walking a financial tightrope for nearly a decade now.
The chair of the Libertarian National Committee is the party’s Chief Executive Officer.
Is this the kind of record we’re looking for in a CEO? I hope it isn’t.
If the LP is stupid enough to name Wayne chair, it deserves to have Wayne do to it what he did to his business (and its creditors).
Doing goals is contra-indicated per R.C. except when it comes to that old CW song, “Jesus won’t you drop kick me through the goalpost of life”.
Bob,
Every time you use the word “contra-indicated,” Jesus strangles an innocent little puppy.
I strongly disagree with this. I think that every time Capozzi writes “contra-indicated”, Satan sends a SWAT team into someone’s home and an innocent little puppy is shot in the head.
Bob,
Every time you use the word “contra-indicated,” Jesus strangles an innocent little puppy.
ap: Do I infer correctly that you’re saying that you do not favour, as your end goal, either (A) a state very limited in power or (B) complete and utter self-government? What sort of libertarian can fall outside of one of these two categories?… Again, is this too hard-lined, or an appropriate approach?
Me: Yes, you infer correctly. It’s not a matter of being hard lined, it’s a matter of which paradigm and which construct you choose. Most Ls choose a deontological absolutist construct, mostly because the pioneers of L-ism did. I used to as well, but now am a Randian/Rothbardian in recovery.
One point Ayn often made that I still useful is to check your premises. So, I’d ask, on what tablet is it written that says that Ls, or anyone involved in political matters, must have an “end goal”? Hearing the sound of one-hand clapping, I moved on to Rothbard. He cited Lao Tzu and the Tao as being the first L, so I read that. Then I reread Hayek. Both those sources would suggest that end goals are pretty much futile, that constructs become less and less useful in making change now. The Tao certainly advises that we be informed by a sense of virtue in our daily lives, but the notion that we must invent our own version of Plato’s Republic is contra-indicated.
So, no, I don’t do end goals. I describe my political philosophy as theoretical asymptotic anarchist/applied lessarchist, Hayekian Taoist, with green leanings and war aversion. I feel no need to specify precisely how big, small, or nonexistent a State might be because, like Hayek, I recognize that the state of affairs and the rule of law EVOLVES over time. I would like to reduce the State’s scope and scale down to the point that the anarcho/minarcho debate is meaningful. What would we do with all those nukes? How would a semblance of domestic tranquility be maintained privately? Would insurance companies and private security firms be able to take the place of a State? My answer today is maybe, maybe not. In my judgment, they cannot in the here and now, so I table the question until it becomes relevant.
I would suggest that false precision about “ideals” is inappropriate and contra-indicated.
Mr. Shepard,
While I agree with you that we must give new members time to grow, I don’t think we should completely snub our noses at matters of purity. While I do not demand that one be a complete Rothbardian, I do believe that the purity of the candidate is one of the factors that should be taken into account, along with ability to communicate libertarian ideas to large audiences, when deciding who should be our presidential candidate. Obviously, we wouldn’t want someone like Daniel Imperato to be our candidate.
Mr. Capozzi,
You write, “I’m neither minarchist nor…anarchist.”
Do I infer correctly that you’re saying that you do not favour, as your end goal, either (A) a state very limited in power or (B) complete and utter self-government? What sort of libertarian can fall outside of one of these two categories?
You write, “Constitutionalists are lessarchists almost always, and there are a lot of them in the L ranks, and they are also not really minarchists, even. (Minarchists generally want the government to be even smaller than the Constitution would specify.)”
The Constitution doesn’t specify a size for government, but rather a range. The constitutional size of government is anywhere between no state whatsoever and a limited central state. Adopting anarchy right now would not require an amendment to the Constitution in order to be constitutional.
Perhaps you would prefer to say that minarchists generally want the government to be even smaller than the maximum size permitted by the Constitution. Probably true. But, then, I don’t see anything libertarian about advocating that the distribution of first-class mail be given to a government monopoly.
Because I believe that one can be a libertarian and still hold the wrong view on certain issues (as Ron Paul certainly does), I wouldn’t go so far as to say that anybody who supports the USPS is a non-libertarian. But I would say that support for the USPS is an unlibertarian position.
Therefore, since I would not be inclined to call all USPS-supporters non-libertarians, I likewise would not be inclined to call all USPS-supporters non-minarchists.
Where tha matter might get a bit dicey is at the state level. While the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to regulate drugs, adult sexual encounters, immigration, minimum wage, or gambling, it does allow the states to have power over all of these things. I will say unequivocably that if someone supports having Virginia regulate all of these things, that person is not a minarchist nor a libertarian. Quite frankly, I would not be inclined to describe such a person as a lesserarchist, either, since the person is not really supporting less government.
Perhaps we could say that someone who supports having Virginia regulate only one of these things is a libertarian minarchist who has adopted an unlibertarian stance (just as we’d say of the libertarian minarchist who defends the USPS), but the more of these things a person wants to see Virginia regulate, the exponentially less likely I will be as forgiving.
Do you think my approach to this matter is appropriate, or do you think it’s too hard-lined?
I should add that, even with regards to those whom I would not describe as a libertarian, I would not necessarily reject the idea of working with such persons on issues where I believe we do agree.
But, I would not call someone who wants to decrease the power of government in ways 1, 2, 3, and 4—while wanting to increase government power in ways 5, 6, and 7—a lesserarchist, a minarchist, or a libertarian, regardless of my willingness to work with such a person on issues 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Again, is this too hard-lined, or an appropriate approach?
Best regards,
Alex Peak
@Timothy #159
Amen. I’m certain if you’d talked to me 5 or 10 years ago I would have been less likely to rail against foreign interventionism, hadn’t read much on Austrian economics or the history of the CIA or any number of things. I would have seemed “less libertarian” certainly than I am today.
We must give people the chance and opportunity to grow.
As for previous comments by others about Phillies not being divisive. I personally have some issues with the divisions that George created in Mass. in 2008. And while a very bright man he is not the person who is going to be help bring positive media attention and success to the party.
If Wayne Root is the guy that help us get the liberty train moving faster that is great. We’re all on the train together and those who want some kind of purity test will never be happy and those who want to be a “debate club that likes to throw rocks” aren’t going to get us anywhere.
Perhaps we should start directing our political efforts externally instead of to constantly keep us all segmented into factions? And, I think it is obvious that anyone who can’t accept that someone’s opinions may change over time or that offering up an opinion is the same as “endorsing” isn’t being intellectually honest. And if libertarians are supposed to be anything, it is intellectually honest.
David Nolan, you are soo full of it. I know for a fact what you are saying is incorrect. It is unbelievable that you would lower yourself to lie to the extent that you are, either you are on meds or you are living in la la land. Once caught you are never again to be believed.
The Nevada LP wanted WAR to run in the Senate race but Root declined, I am told, because “he did not want to hurt the Republicans’ chances of beating Harry Reed.” Indeed, after declining to run as a Libertarian, Root went and spoke at a “Retire Reed” rally where the featured speaker was Sarah Palin. Root did not even mention the LP, but harped on how bad the Democrats are and why they must be defeated.
Does this sound like a man whose top priority is building the Libertaran Party?
@156,
True, recent converts shoudln’t be turned away from the LP. At the same time, however, it’s perfectly reasonable to not want one as the face of your organization, be they as chair or presidential candidate.
Though I heavily dislike WAR, you wouldn’t hear much complaining from me were he to run for, say, a U.S. Senate seat from Nevada.
For as much as Mr. Knapp has astutely pointed out the flaws of WAR’s platform, as well as WAR’s personality defects, the biggest reason to oppose him (to me) is, indeed, his recent conversion. Not only is his immersion into libertarianism still new and limited, but I very much doubt you’d see a major party (such as the Dems or Reps) allow a candidate so shortly removed from the opposition as the face of their organization either.
“What businesses have the other candidates created? How many chances have they taken.”
In 2003 I started a business, it has made a profit since the first month of its inception. I have 10 employees working at our Dallas office, with sub contractors around the country.
I am not campaigning on my business savvy.
I would however consider it relevant if you say you are making millions of dollars to a group of people in attempt to get them to vote for you, whether or not you actually make millions of dollars.
If I were the LNC chair, we would not be putting it all on RED and let it ride.
We would make the correct moves based on our income, which would allow us to grow naturally without the fear of a giant boom or bust in our group.
But with a steady growth that comes like the Ron Paul movement, based on principle and a grass roots infrastructure.
This is not a late night informercial.
“I’m not interested in debating the importance and role of reputation in the marketplace of ideas.”
Role is correct.
Reputation is however not the only capital in the marketplace of ideas. The idea itself is the real bulk of the capital. Reputation is part of packaging.
ap, yes, all Ls are lessarchists, but all Ls do not fall into your categories. I’m one. I’m neither minarchist nor abolitionist anarchist. I don’t do constructs except when necessary to get through the day, and I especially don’t do very long term constructs, as minarchists and abolitionists employ on a regular basis.
Constitutionalists are lessarchists almost always, and there are a lot of them in the L ranks, and they are also not really minarchists, even. (Minarchists generally want the government to be even smaller than the Constitution would specify.)
So, while I respect that the term “lessarchist” is useless FOR YOU, I find it quite useful. It describes the LP’s target audience, which is large, rather than the narrowest of philosophical debating societies, as we have always been.
Politics is a numbers game. To be taken seriously in the public square, we need a lot more people advocating for more freedom (at least on a net basis).
The alternative seems to be continued whining while the country continues down the road to serfdom.
Que sera, of course, but why not take our best shot at rolling back the State?
Mr. Capozzi,
I believe the only reason some radicals “sniff” at the term privatisation is that the term has, to some degree, been usurped by conservatives and perverted to mean “government-funded sub-contracting.”
I have a libertarian friend who is definitely not an anarchist by any stretch of the imagination, but even he “sniffs” at the word “privatisation” because he associates it with the Bushian attempt to socialise the stock market.
I haven’t given up on the word. I even wrote an article this semester for the campus paper arguing that my university should be privatised. 🙂
I don’t like the word “lesserarchist” because it seems to imply that there’s something within the libertarian movement that somehow falls outside of the so-called “lesserarchism.” All libertarians are “lesserarchists,” because all libertarians prefer less government control rather than more government control. The term is therefore useless, as well as bulky.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Jesus, man, let it go. You’re giving the man crap about a suggestion he made four years ago? I’ve got converts who supported Sarah Palin and/or Obama just a year ago before they saw the light.
Are we never to trust anyone who ever supported R’s or D’s? Why then, do we even bother arguing with them or even campaigning? Are we hoping to stay a small group of elites who have always been right?
And by the way, 4 out of 5 businesses fail within the first year. 4 out of 5 of the survivors fail within the next 5 years. Failure is how we learn and grow, and it’s an essential part of the American Free Enterprise system. I’d rather support someone who took a chance and failed, then someone who was too afraid to try. What businesses have the other candidates created? How many chances have they taken.
Now seems to be the time to bet big on the Libertarian Party.
Publicus @149: “Do Mr. Nolan and Mr. Holtz feel that they have the right, or responsibility to hold people accountable when their thoughts or words displease either of them?”
Publicus @154: “The argument regarding rights has not been made.”
These dueling Publicuses make my point for me.
I’m not interested in debating the importance and role of reputation in the marketplace of ideas.
Mr. Holtz,
“By “anonymous comments”, I mean comments where the commenter is not putting his or her reputation at stake. An online reputation doesn’t have to be connected to a meatspace firstname/lastname identity.”
That mechanic does not exist as you cannot test for uniqueness without being able to test for identity.
Why would I, as a consumer of rational thought and reasonable responsibility, want to read much less engage in debate only from people who have something “at stake” when they compare and contrast opinion and understanding?
Will an unpopular subject be fully vetted?
Will reason prevail in such overshadowed discussion; or will fear instead?
Perhaps you would educate me on how fear of repercussion for ones words is healthy for any community of any size. Either in cyberspace or meatspace; OL or IRL.
Is there a status quo that needs protecting?
Is liberty really so threatening?
Is your proposal just and thoroughly thought out; or is it just reactive?
“I indeed believe I have the right to advocate for the health of commenting ecosystem of this consensual community. I also believe its proprietors have the right to ban any person or comment, any time, for any reason.”
The argument regarding rights has not been made. The owners of any property are free to build an open pit latrine or and 5 star hotel at their whim.
The health of a commenting system is exactly what is being addressed by my criticism of your proposal.
With respect to the Chair campaign:
I am *not* going to run for President again in 2012. I will not campaign for the nomination, I will decline an honest draft not that there is such a thing, and that’s the end of things on that topic.
If elected Chair, I will ensure that the LNC and its staff treat all candidates for our nomination in a fair and even manner.
Furthermore, anyone who appears likely to be running in 2012 should not be elected Chair.
I will, however, *not* fault anyone who has promised friends to run for chair if he keeps those promises and continues to run.
TB, Cowell must be a great actor too. Because he sure acted pleasantly surprised & amazed at Boyle’s warbling to me.
Most good promoters are great actors, much like politicians and con men. Some are better than others. Good acting is a major part of perception control.
Surely you don’t think Boyle’s first appearance before Cowell (where his reaction is seen exactly 5 seconds after she begins singing) was the first time he heard Boyle. Do you think she had just walked in off the street with no audition?
I suppose you also must believe that the “spontaneous” eruption of applause (also at 5 seconds in) had nothing to do with prompting the studio audience with a flashing applause sign.
C’mon, five seconds? A standing ovation less than half-way through the song? The hype clearly exceeds the talent.
How does this relate to the topic of this thread about Mr. Root? Well, the hype clearly exceeds the talent. Also, it is a safe bet that the secret identity of Sara is not Simon Cowell.
By “anonymous comments”, I mean comments where the commenter is not putting his or her reputation at stake. An online reputation doesn’t have to be connected to a meatspace firstname/lastname identity.
I indeed believe I have the right to advocate for the health of commenting ecosystem of this consensual community. I also believe its proprietors have the right to ban any person or comment, any time, for any reason.
How on earth did Susan Boyle become a topic here? The weirdness of Milnes knows no bounds.
The tradition of anonymous communication has its own merit and value within a free society. As a tool for preventing tyrannical paradigms it is crucial.
Can a blog or forum site be tyrannical? Sure, maybe people don’t get hauled off to the dilapidated arena to await execution, but it is a barrier to illuminated conversation. It does stifle illuminated conversation however and encourage ad hominem over substance.
Do Mr. Nolan and Mr. Holtz feel that they have the right, or responsibility to hold people accountable when their thoughts or words displease either of them?
Have I displeased them?
ap 102: While the Party has only been around since the ’70s, it has always had a variety of people participating, including…
me: Your list is about right. Those are all generally tiny philosophical schools of thought, so aggregating them into a LP yields a tiny third party. There is a HUGE constituency of lessarchists that, if the LP loosened up its litmus tests, could become a force in the public square and the ballot box.
Your point about the popularization of the term “privatization” doesn’t ring true for me. Historically, the word came into the popular lexicon from the Thatcherite Brits, then Reason, then a variety of academics and wonks State-side that popularized that idea. Heck, some abolitionist Ls sniff at the term “privatization” for its “timidity.”
TB, Cowell must be a great actor too. Because he sure acted pleasantly surprised & amazed at Boyle’s warbling to me.
After watching Simon Cowell’s cruel hoax upon pop culture (Susan Boyle) warble through a tune, compare her with a few other female singers such as Timi Yuro, Shirley Bassey, Etta James, Aretha Franklin, kd lang or even Amy Winehouse who dabble in the torch song genre.
Forty years from now, you will not find people listening to Ms. Boyle, but people are still buying Yuro’s recording of “Hurt” (1961) and Bassey’s recording of “Goldfinger”. Etta James’ catalog from 1955 to 2006 still sells.
Simon proved he was the Malcolm McLaren of pop when the world fell for Susan Boyle. If Cowell could transfer his music promotion talents to politics, he could rule the world.
Bob,
“Ban” or “bar” or “expel” would all work.
FYI, the owners of IPR have consistently rejected proposals that they in any way restrict commenting on the site. I happen to agree with their policy. But they have the right to set any policy they like.
Alex, for once I agree with Bob. Watch a video of Susan Boyle on “Britain’s Got Talent.” The woman can sing.
Tom, that is correct. Censor would not be the totally correct word. Hmmmmm. What word would that be?
Alex, google Susan Boyle & fasten your seat belt. you are in for a treat!
Bob,
IPR is a privately owned site. If its owners wanted to decide who could and could not post here, there would be no “censorship” involved.
I must say this is unexpected. An almost unholy alliance between you & Brain on Hold? Are you joining the Troll Fuzz? I have no significant quarrel with you.
Holtz tried to censor me. You seem disappointed that my postings would not be included as colateral damage in ending anonymous postings.The Milnes.
The Nolan, it seemed clear. Why are my postings at issue at all?
Yeah, right, sure!
Drat. Where I wrote “must,” I meant to write “much.” Weird typo.
Mr. Berkman,
Whether or not a third-party presidential candidate looks kooky depends upon how she answers the question, “Do you really think you’ll be elected?” If the third-party candidate says, “Yes, of course I’m going to be elected,” people will think poorly of both the candidate and the party for nominating such a person.
But, if the candidate says, “I’m not running because I’m under the delusion that I will be elected—although I am prepared to serve if I am—but rather to provide voters who are fed up with the empty promises of both establishment parties with an alternative. More and more Americans conclude every year that they’d rather stay home than to waste their vote on the Democrats and Republicans. I’m running in order to give these people a voice”—if a candidate says this, nobody will look at the candidate as kooky.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Apparently, my wording was unclear. I favor ending the practice of anonymous postings. Milnes posts under his real name, so it would not affect him.
Big tents are for collectivists. Why not have lots of pup tents – one for everybody? It would also be a good idea to have plenty of Porta-Johns.
Let’s see. Paulie posts like crazy. IPR would be half of what it is without him. He posts limited info about commenters often to just correct incorrect guesses about identity of anonymous poster like tom did @79. I personally have given up guessing. Holtz has some sort of problem with anonymous posters. Nolan seconds a fool Holtz motion to moderators to not reveal any info about identities. But that doesn’t affect-red -censor-me so nolan is disappointed. Not enough room in IPR comments for THE Nolan & THE Milnes?
Nolan, you have a problem with me posting here? I can’t imagine what that might be. Milnes.
Mr. Robinson, just how small a tent do you want? I want a tent with room enough for the 13%-21% of voters who polls show want more personal and economic liberty. No bigger, no smaller.
thx thomas, for next to nothin’ ……..
By the way, Root is a Marxist. Rootcare proves it. Has anyone seen his birth certificate?
I know many here were terribly offended and simply not amused by my quip that Sara is actually Wayne Root, but I think I have solved the mystery.
Using a writing analysis program similar to the one found on Batman’s computer, I have determined that Sara’s postings contain a composite of the communication styles of Sarah Palin and Wayne Root. This suggests the posts are being made by Palin, but Root is telling her what to say.
P.S. – Alex, you do not want to know who Susan Boyle is. Just one glimpse of her could cause erectile dysfunction for months.
Gene, you’re right that local candidates can get invited to local forums and get some coverage in local newspapers. And none of them can get on national radio and TV with millions of listeners and viewers. The Libertarian presidential candidate can do MANY such interviews…even if most of them are a one-shot deal. And that’s how many new people say they first heard the libertarian message and of the LP. It doesn’t really matter if someone has held office before as long as he/she is a good salesperson and trustworthy, and embraces libertarian ideas.
A ‘big tent’ party is a dime a pair. Why not admit a ‘big tent party’ is just a sewer for toxic political sludge? I’m an unreconstructed Party of Principle addict. I like my drug as pure as I can get it. You are free to lick the white line down the Road to Serfdom [plug for my forthcoming blues song] towards any big tent it leads you into.
If we eliminated ‘anonymous’ posting, wouldn’t people just register multiple accounts? I know I, for one, occasionally post anonymously, and now don’t even post with my full last name after being told by a job interviewer that they saw my comments on here and found them ‘objectionable.’
“presidential candidate can get media attention, while local and state candidates often have difficulty doing so. ”
Actually, my experience over 40 years of third party activism is that local candidates can get invited to forums, have their campaigns profiled in local newspapers etc, while most third party candidates for President get little attention, and that usually either pro-forma (to show “fairness”) or to paint the third party as kooky.
I run a bookshop open to the public, and talk politics with a lot of people. It is far more common for people to ask what I think of a the major party candidates for President than it is for people to ask who the Libertarian candidate for President.
I’ll second Holtz’s motion. Of course Milnes posts under (I assume) his real name, so eliminating anonymous posts won’t solve all problems. But it’s a start.
Paulie, if IPR is going to continue its ill-advised policy of allowing anonymous comments, then let’s not compromise it by having moderators leak information about who does or doesn’t post anonymously, or who an anonymous commenter is or isn’t. Any such leak of information — even confirmation of someone’s claim to have authored an anonymous comment — sets a precedent that people can use in the future to pry identity information out of us.
I could be wrong about BC posting under assumed names, but an awful lot of pro-Root messages are written in Bruce’s almost childlike prose. Maybe we have more developmentally delayed people posting on IPR than I thought!
Paulie,
I guess I do not know that much about Dr. Phillies, then. I saw his concession speech on C-SPAN and thought it was rather pleasant.
Mr. Holtz,
I agree that a platform that short would not be good.
Mr. Berkman,
Would you argue that Harry Browne made the party “look kooky”? If so, you might as well call me kooky, because he’s the primary person who attracted me to the party and the movement. 🙂
Also, I believe there is must utility in running a presidential candidate. After all, the presidential candidate can get media attention, while local and state candidates often have difficulty doing so. By having a presidential candidate, we not only expose people to a political philosophy they might not have heard of before, but we also help to advertise our local and state candidates who have a shot at winning. All in all, I think running a presidential candidate is a good investment.
Person posting as “I doubt it,”
I do not know what you mean by “Mr. Kubby is good at sharing his medicine.” Is this supposed to be some reference to medical marijuana?
You also write, “Would you share your prozac.” I am not positive what prozac is, although I think it’s probably some sort of anti-depression medication, right? I do not believe I’m in a position to judge who is and is not depressed; I would probably leave such decisions up to a doctor. While I don’t believe there should be any laws regulating the sale or possession of any medication, my answer to your question is no, I would be unlikely to share that medication if I were in possession of it.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Mr. Kubby is good at sharing his medicine. Would you share your prozac. No I don’t think Kubby is a good idea. Sorry.
As far as Bruce Cohen posting under fictional. I doubt it. He like the attention he gets and wants to make sure everyone knows it is him.
Maybe we can apply that lesson next time.
Do you know for a fact that Cohen writes under a pseudonym? What pseudonym(s) do you believe he has used?
BTW, I frequently read the comments in dashboard, which shows IP addresses, and I don’t remember ever seeing Cohen post under a pseudonym that I can recall. I also seem to recall that he denies doing so.
Barr in my opinion wasted money and time trying to kick McCain and Obama off the Texas ballot like that was really going to work for example. Me personally, I don’t care for Barr.
Why I see all the dumocrap and repulipuk have their booth, I do not see libertarians doing this. I have seen money wasted numerious times doing things like hand out flower seeds at fairs, or people sitting at some booth when they do have them not doing a good job promoting the party. I also see that good ideas being brought up and poo pooed. I also see that libertarian at state offices as well as office have poor public service. I see a lot of libertarian also hard to get a hold off or don’t return calls. Well thats a good start.
There are a lot of things going to waste. I rather work for someone who wants to progress not regress or stay in limbo.
Mr Peak – Steve Kubby was the LP candidate for Governor of California in 1998 and he was a disaster.
He made claims of his own role in legalizing medical marijuana – prop 215 – that nobody in the legalization movement believed. He failed to raise any money, and the campaign was invisible.
Running someone for President who has never won a lower office makes any third party look kooky. Running a former officeholder who has changed all his views is also questionable, whether it is Bob Barr or Mitt Romney.
The main reason the Libertarian Party has not made more progress is that we waste resources – time, money, credibility – on campaigns for President that are guaranteed to lose, and guaranteed to provide a sound bite or two that makes our movement look ridiculous.
John Jay Myers @74: If we can’t put someone up with some principles we might as well hang it up.
Mr. Myers, are you suggesting there is a risk that the delegates you want to elect you Chair might instead “put someone up without any principles”? Do you agree with Hancock’s apparent belief that the St. Louis delegates might put the LP at existential risk by electing non-libertarian leadership?
Darryl @59, a platform that short would not do its job, which is to guide and defend our candidates. More details at http://libertarianmajority.net/platform-purpose
George @69, in what ways are you suggesting the LP has been “playing with their core platform and stands”? Is the New Path ever going to identify the alleged “core positions” it says have been “tossed aside in name of expediency”?
Truly.
Paul
Really?
Alex
I’d say Phillies, at least, is in the same ballpark with Root and Hancock in that regard.
Paulie,
Of course anyone and everyone is bound to alienate someone, especially if the person is a libertarian (regardless of the stripe). My point wasn’t to imply that no one would be alienated by Phillies, Hinkle, or Myers, but rather that, relatively speaking, Root and Hancock are far more likely to alienate people.
Best,
Alex Peak
Regarding Paulie’s comments in post #106, I stand corrected.
(1) Mr. Nolan’s statement does not imply that he necessarily agrees with Mr. Knapp’s, only that it is not unclear.
(2) If Mr. Root were to respond to words with violence, he would be violating the pledge he took when he joined the party. If he were to aggress against Mr. Nolan at a Libertarian National Convention, he would definitely not be elected to LNC chair, regardless of what non-threatening words Mr. Nolan were to use.
(3) I suspect that both Mr. Root and Mr. Nolan would have more class than to respond to one another with violence.
Yes, I agree. This why I think that LP “sane” member did well to put “sane” in scare quotes.
Paulie,
Looking back, I really wish we had elected Steve Kubby to be our presidential candidate. I watched the convention on C-SPAN, and was blown away with Kubby’s performance.
I had been supporting Ruwart because (A) I had seen her speak in public, and it has been good, and (B) I wanted a female presidential candidate. But it turns out that Ruwart is not all that good with speaking off the cuff, despite the fact that she’s great when she’s written a speech. But Mr. Kubby was good at speaking off the cuff and he knew how to speak persuasively in defence of Liberty.
I also think he would have made a far better candidate when taking college students into consideration. Barr was a major turn-off to college students. While I did go ahead and vote for him on election day, I can confirm that our College Libertarian group didn’t even care enough about the candidate to chalk his name, let alone do anything else. I can’t help but to think that, had Kubby been our candidate, the group would have been extremely active in promoting the campaign.
Regretfully yours,
Alex Peak
Your preference is for a candidate, Mr. Root, who alienates many people. There are three candidates (Phillies, Hinkle, and Myers) who will not alienate people.
Any of them would alienate some people. Phillies certainly alienates quite a few people. Hinkle has his detractors. Myers probably does not have as many, but he hasn’t been as prominent at the national level of the party for nearly as long. Probably because he has been sensibly focusing his energies at the state/local level.
The LP candidate did not win the election, but did successfully get enough voters disgusted with Mr. Barr’s big government policies that his Democratic opponent took his place.
Not exactly. Barr and another Republican incumbent ended up being rezoned into running against each other in the same district, with the bulk of the constituents in the new district being the other Congressman’s constituents from his old district. The other Republican won, which surprised few people. The extent to which the LP played a role was hyped by the LP, but likely exagerated.
Paulie,
(1) Mr. Nolan’s statement does not imply that he necessarily agrees with Mr. Knapp’s, only that it is not unclear.
(2) If Mr. Root were to respond to words with violence, he would be violating the pledge he took when he joined the party. If he were to aggress against Mr. Nolan at a Libertarian National Convention, he would definitely not be elected to LNC chair, regardless of what non-threatening words Mr. Nolan were to use.
(3) I suspect that both Mr. Root and Mr. Nolan would have more class than to respond to one another with violence. I also think that they would avoid even talking to one another in person unless necessary.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
I do not know who “Susan Boyle” is or what she “did for herself in one night.”
Contestant on American Idle or some such program who was laughed at because she is not good looking, yet won critics over with her singing abilities. What this has to do with Root and LP, I’m not sure.
The future of the libertarian movement is with the youth. We need to build the movement in our high schools and universities. Young people around college age are just starting to really consider matters of politics. They’re starting to reconsider the views with which they were raised. They’re open to new ideas, and fresh approaches for implimenting them. Sure, they don’t vote as much as older demographics, but that could be a result of lack of allegience to the old two-party system. Ultimately, I think we have a huge potential with this demographic.
Exactly.
And 90% of Americans don’t switch political parties after age 30.
And the most common OPH score at colleges is about 80 personal, 50 economic – borderline libertarian, with the economic positioons least emphasized/fixed.
And people who become involved at that age can go on to be contributors, candidates, activists, etc, for decades, even if they can’t right away.
Dear Ms. Sara,
You write, “You people are making things up because you are afraid the LP won’t be a little boys club that has been runing on non-elections for the last 39 years. Time to grow up children.”
Your comment is vague. When you write “you people,” I do not know to whom you refer.
Are you referring to Root supporters, or to those who do not support Root? I’ll assume the latter.
I also do not know what you mean by “runing on non-elections.” What is a non-election?
I would argue that Myers, Hinkle, and Phillies are all better candidates for LNC chair than Root or Hancock. While Hancock focuses too much on conspiracies, and Root focuses too much on alienating the so-called “left,” the other three appear to eschew these problems.
You write, “I like for some of you people to be able to do what Root did, I like for some of you people to ask Root personally what you are saying on here.”
I have no questions for Mr. Root that I have not sent to him directly and privately on Facebook. The last I checked, he had not responded to my question.
You’d like to see me do what Mr. Root has done? I’ll try.
A few years ago, I was in charge of what I am told was the second-most active College Libertarian group in America during my reign. I don’t know if Mr. Root has done this or not. And while it might not be as “big” as some of the things Root has done, I do think it is extremely important. The future of the libertarian movement is with the youth. We need to build the movement in our high schools and universities. Young people around college age are just starting to really consider matters of politics. They’re starting to reconsider the views with which they were raised. They’re open to new ideas, and fresh approaches for implimenting them. Sure, they don’t vote as much as older demographics, but that could be a result of lack of allegience to the old two-party system. Ultimately, I think we have a huge potential with this demographic.
Back to Root…
I know he’s written some books, and while I have not done this yet, it is definitely my intention to do so later in life. A friend (a fellow students who is also graduating this month) and I are thinking about possibly writing a book this summer. Let’s hope we make something of this.
I’ve never been interviewed on television, like Root, but I know plenty of LP candidates have. Harry Browne, for example, our 1996 and 2000 candidate, certainly did. In June of 2004, he wrote, “Between February and November 2000, I appeared on 53 national TV shows and 90 national radio shows—and had a total of 852 media appearances—along with making dozens of speeches.” Thus far, I’ve been interviewed a few times for a local paper and once on a radio programme—nothing else.
You go on to write, “So far all you lazy haven’t been able to do nothing in the last 39 years as this party has been a big nothing.”
One, I’m only 25 years old, and have only been a libertarian for about a half a decade. I doubt I can really be held responsible for the last 39 years, particularly those years in which I was not yet alive.
Two, calling people lazy is hardly a polite or grown-up thing to do. Have you ever been in charge or the second-most active College Libertarian group in America? I dedicated huge portions of my time to keeping the group active, so much so that my grades suffered as a result.
Three, it’s quite false to say the LP hasn’t achieved anything in 39 years.
The libertarian movement is older then 39-years-old. The modern libertarian movement began in the 1940s. And throughout this time, we’ve had many people with many different ideas trying all sorts of different actions and writing all sorts of different arguments in favour of freedom.
If you’re interested in learning more about the modern libertarian movement as a whole, I recommend checking out Brian Doherty’s 2007 book, Radicals for Capitalism. But, the book is probably not the best source for a history of the Libertarian Party itself.
While the Party has only been around since the ’70s, it has always had a variety of people participating, including minarchists (those who advocate states with limited power), anarchists (those who believe all useful functions of the state can be provided for by private businesses competing on the free market), constitutionalists (those who believe government is only legitimate when constrained to that which is permitted by the Constitution of the United States), Objectivists (those who believe that the foundation for legitimate government are found in the ideas of Ayn Rand), utilitarian libertarians (those who advocate libertarianism because it will maximise the utility of the greatest number of people), natural law libertarians (those who advocate libertarianism because big government necessarily infringes upon the natural rights of individuals), et caetera.
The party has never had a one-size-fits-all approach to promoting libertarianism.
As for the party’s positions, all I can really say is that I believe, sincerely, that we are moving this country in the right direction. Let’s look at the drug war, for example. While the majority of Americans still support it, that number has decreased over these last 39 years. We have some states actually repealing or rolling back their marijuana laws. And this is the direct result, in my opinion, of our having a LP that consistently explains to voters the problems associated with drug prohibition. Another indication that we’re gaining popular support is that the establishment is stealing our terms. We have been talking about privatisation for decades, popularising the concept. These days, Republicans are taking the word and using it to describe their subcontracting policies, because they realise the term has growing popularity. Of course, their subcontracting policies do not reflect real privatisation, but the point remains. Would Bush have used the word “privatisation” when discussing his desire to socialise the stock market if it weren’t for the fact that the term “privatisation” has become popularised, and would it not have become popularised had it not been for the LP and its many, very diverse candidates?
All in all, I think the LP’s approach of keeping its door open to former Democrats and former Republicans, to those who think that Bush was too big-government and to those who think Obama is too big-government, is working, and should be allowed to continue to work. It would be a huge mistake to close one of those doors, like Mr. Root appears to want to do; and it would be a mistake to close the door to anyone who doesn’t accept conspiracy theories, and Mr. Hancock appears to want to do. Therefore, I cannot support either Root or Hancock.
You write, “On a smaller scale Root is doing for this party what Susan Boyle did for herself in one night.”
I do not know who “Susan Boyle” is or what she “did for herself in one night.”
Ms. Sara, you unfortunately repeat the falsehood, “Yet in the last 39 years this party did a big nothing.”
One, this comment is extremely negative.
As someone else in another thread said,
“Negativism is like a ‘cancer’ that can easily infect the rest of us.
“Winners don’t necessarily always win, but at least they have a positive attitude and look forward. Their attitude rubs off on other people in a positive manner.”
Two, it’s not even accurate. The Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the United States. We have more elected officials than all other American third parties combined. We have more state affiliates than any other third party in America.
Our candidates have used our access to the media in order to force bad politicians out of Congress. For example, there was this one Congressman named Bob Barr who was really big on keeping the federal war on drugs going. The LP candidate did not win the election, but did successfully get enough voters disgusted with Mr. Barr’s big government policies that his Democratic opponent took his place. This proves that we can inspire fear in the Democrats and Republicans currently in office. We’re powerful enough to force them out of office. If they don’t want to lose their seats, we can tell them, then they should alter their positions in a more libertarian direction. If it were true that the LP had achieved “nothing,” we would not have that much power. We wouldn’t have any. The fact is, we have influence. It might not be as much as we’d like, but to pretend that we have none is simply untrue, and immature. (I say that not to be offensive, but rather because I want to offer some constructive criticism. You’ll get more people to consider your view if you don’t bash the party with all this negativity.)
Finally, you write, “So it is time to step aside and let adults start handling this. You had your chance. It’s over.”
Who had her/his chance? Last I checked, none of the five candidates have served as LNC chairman. And, I think most of them have not even served on the LNC before.
Your preference is for a candidate, Mr. Root, who alienates many people. There are three candidates (Phillies, Hinkle, and Myers) who will not alienate people. Alienating people does not seem like a good strategy. It will lead to a smaller party than we want.
Now, if someone were to come to you and say, “Sara, we’ve tried not-alienating people, and it hasn’t worked. Let’s give alienating people a shot,” wouldn’t you say that the person is proposing a bad strategy? I’m not saying this is your intent, or Root’s intent for that matter; but there are candidates that will do better. Should Root really come around to a strategy that I believe will target disenfranchised Democrats and disenfranchised Republicans without preference, then I’ll throw my support to Root. In the mean-time, I believe the most pragmatic thing to do is support either Phillies, Hinkle, or Myers.
Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak
Alex, I think that the allegedly sane person believes that if David Nolan was to walk up to Wayne Root and say “I think Tom Knapp’s points are pretty clear. Whether you think they’re significant is a judgment call, but there’s little doubt as to the content of his piece: you lie, and you’re a lousy/crooked CEO.” that Wayne Root would give David Nolan a wedgie, stick his head in the toilet, and take his lunch box. Or something else allegedly sane like that.
Then again, I note that the word sane in this person’s screen name is in scare quotes.
The person posting under the name “LP sane member” writes that he would like to see Mr. Nolan tell Mr. Root that Mr. Knapp’s comments were not unclear, and that Mr. Knapp’s comments constitute an endorsement. I don’t see why “LP sane member” would think that Mr. Nolan would have any problem with telling Mr. Root this, or why Mr. Root would have any problem with Mr. Nolan saying this.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
@97 – I deduce that Wayne’s attack dog, Bruce Cohen, monitors IPR constantly, and jumps in to defend Wayne (and attack his detractors) at the slightest provocation. More often than not, he posts under a pseudonym. Let’s see how long he takes to reply to this message!
@95
Also, fueled by Perot’s personal wealth. No such windfall on the horizon for a compromised LP.
So, my point @ # 80 to the person who believes he/she is a pragmatist at #11 still stands.
are you sure Root goes to the IPR himself, or maybe someone send the IPR of interest to him.
That makes no difference. He sometimes responds by proxy to points made in IPR comments – sometimes within minutes. Deduce from that whatever you wish.
I also don’t expect to cast any first or second round votes for Root or Phillies at this time.
First or second place in the first round, I mean.
the Perot / reform movement of the 1990s!
Became a political party in time for the ’96 election cycle (Perot ran as an independent in ’92). Imploded in 2000.
Revising and extending my earlier remarks:
“The extent to which the LP is or is not, or should or should not be, a “big tent” is debated. Even those who believe that the current LP “purity test” standards are too stringent generally have some sort of purity test standards of their own. ”
Likewise, since no two people, as far as I know, agree absolutely on everything, everyone is for some mix of purity tests and a big tent; no one is completely for one or the other.
I won’t stoop to checking out IPs to prove anything one way or another, but I doubt that “Sara” is Wayne Allyn Root.
My guess — and it’s only a guess — would be that she’s Bruce Cohen.
No, she is not Cohen.
IMO, the biggest obstacle that Root faces as a candidate for national chair isn’t any past business failure; it’s that some Libertarians don’t trust him. His effusive recommendation of a 2008 McCain/Lieberman ticket (perhaps the two biggest warmongers in the entire U.S. Senate, btw) and his unflappable view of conservatives as libertarian allies and of liberals as libertarian enemies (reflected, for one example, in his oft-repeated statement that libertarians are fiscally CONSERVATIVE and socially MODERATE) makes some Libertarians very wary of him and how he’ll represent the LP if he’s indeed elected.
I’ve seen some progress from Wayne on this front in the last month or two. For example, the 500 words in LP News and the answers to Moulton’s questions.
I would urge people interested in factors that move political parties toward victory to read Schrager and Witwer “The Blueprint” describing how the Democratic Party made progress in Colorado. You will note when you do the Democrats did not make progress by playing with their core platform and stands, they advanced by doing real politics.
Good point.
60, 61: Good points.
@38 “I like for some of you people to be able to do what Root did, I like for some of you people to ask Root personally what you are saying on here.”
Who are ‘you people’?
Just ask Ross Perot.
But if the Libertarian Party is to break through to attract the attention of the cultural and electoral mainstream (where the votes are),
Voters =/= voters available to the LP.
How many state parties operate like the Indiana LP? It appears they operate like a real political party. The “debaters” are not in charge. Let the business people, those with political experience, and those with media and personal skill sets take leadership roles in state parties. There is plenty to do for everyone.
So which states have their “stuff” together.
I really like what I’m seeing from Texas lately.
are you sure Root goes to the IPR himself, or maybe someone send the IPR of interest to him. That you don’t know for sure. Again, Root is busy with bigger issues. Got bigger fish to fry.
Robert, I think it is fairly obvious that “Sara” is Wayne Root.
I’ve talked to “Sara” on the phone. She blocks her number when she calls. If she’s Wayne Root, she does a great job of immitating a female voice. LOL
now thats an insult, not Bruce clown fish either. Although it is interesting he hasn’t been posting, maybe he hasn’t paid his internet bill.
I like for some of you people to ask Root personally what you are saying on here.
Wayne is more than welcome to post here himself, rather than by proxy, any time he wants. I’ve seen evidence that he reads IPR comments, at least on posts relevant to him.
So far all you lazy haven’t been able to do nothing in the last 39 years as this party has been a big nothing.
On the contrary, the LP has done more in the last 39 years than any other non-duopoly party in the last 80 years. And before that, previous alternative parties existed in an era before significant ballot access barriers, debates broadcasted to millions, billions of dollars spent on politics, etc, etc.
On a smaller scale Root is doing for this party what Susan Boyle did for herself in one night.
Please provide the numbers to back this up. How many members has he brought in? How much money? How many votes for other candidates besides himself?
We wouldn’t have a socialist country today.
We don’t. Neither the workers, nor the government acting allegedly as a proxy, own the means of production.
So it is time to step aside and let adults start handling this.
Your behavior here has been anything but adult.
You had your chance. It’s over.
Just getting started 😛
Jim Duensing,
W.A.R. may be a washed up infomercial personality, but even he is not a bigger liar than Arlen Specter.
http://jimduensing.com/arlen-specter-is-a-liar.html
Phillies once told me during his run for President that he believes in a strong central bank, and of course, he is a government conspiracy theorist. He’s out in my book.
Ernie Hancock will be the LP’s next chair or the LP will become bankrupt or irrelevant – or both.
Libertarians should be thankful to still have the option of supporting a Hancock.
In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,
Jim
I also don’t expect to cast any first or second round votes for Root or Phillies at this time.
Actually, at the moment my preferred candidates are Hinkle, followed by Myers.
What is your case that they would make the LP “bankrupt or irrelevant,” if you have one?
the Perot / reform movement of the 1990s!
I also thought the LP was a “big tent” party. Is the reality that the LP is not a big tent party and should move to a “purity” test?
The extent to which the LP is or is not, or should or should not be, a “big tent” is debated. Even those who believe that the current LP “purity test” standards are too stringent generally have some sort of purity test standards of their own.
Should we move to being so pure that 70% of the members are not welcomed anylonger, thereby imploding many state parties, ending the opportunity for candidates, and moving the LP to a Debate Supper Club.
This appears to be a question, although there is no quesion mark attached. What is the evidence that if the LP was “more pure” that this would happen? The LP was “more pure” throughout the 1990s, and grew to more than twice its present membership – and four times its present financing at the national level. Anecdotally, I can attest that state conventions I attended in several states then had much greater participation than those same states a decade later. We had many more candidates then. ETC.
Should a new 3rd party be developed that will easily pass by the LP and take hold of the “center” voter that is neither an R or a D ?
Many have tried. Many have failed. When you or anyone actually develops one that “easily passes the LP” and does not implode in 5 years or less, please let me know.
I won’t stoop to checking out IPs to prove anything one way or another, but I doubt that “Sara” is Wayne Allyn Root.
My guess — and it’s only a guess — would be that she’s Bruce Cohen.
BTW if you still think I am Wayne, I will bet your house and put it in writing that I am not Wayne Root. I am serious about this.
haaa haaaa, do you really think Wayne has the time to post here. Oh brother. Wayne is very busy doing real life things, like being on talk radio, TV on stage. What are you guys doing? LOL. To think I am Wayne, haaa haaaa ROFL, that is soo funny. I am just small french fry that hates what is going on in the country.
@56 ““…the only plausible alternative conclusion is that you’re going out of your way to pretend that you don’t understand and/or don’t believe me, when in fact you know that my case is Air. … Tight.
Condescension is the most polite response I can muster to that.”
If I knew that your case was air tight, we would not be having this discussion. I have explained why I think your case is not as you think. If you don’t care to present the other evidence you claim you have, that’s fine. If you have to resort to condescension to try to bolster your argument or remain polite, that is fine as well. At least we know where we stand.
@60 “I suppose Mik thinks that a pundit proclaiming he was too radical cost him the election.
A wise person once said “Moses supposes his toeses are roses, but Moses supposes erroneously.” In fact I neither thought at the time nor do I think now any such thing.
Obama may be called a marxist because of the public policy positions he has advocated, but it is not because of the positions of the Democratic Party as an organization. In fact the Democratic Party is the largest political party in the United States and enjoys the support of more American voters than any other.
In this case, candidates were being cast as being too radical not because of positions they presented, but because of the positions outlined in the party platform. At no time was the issue one of winning or losing an election.
Of course there are many factors that affect the ability of alternative political party candidates to significantly influence the political process. With all of those obstacles in place, does it make sense to unnecessarily add more obstacles?
There are many different public policy positions that can be derived from the same set of principles. Having stands in the platform that strongly indicate children have a right to participate in child pornography allows reporters to make comments such as the one noted and be correct.
It so happens that I do not believe that particular position was correct and I never promoted such a thing as a public policy. I think it is a very good thing the platform no longer says some of the things it did.
Such platform changes do not mean principles have been diminished in any way. I have no problem with taking radical positions as long as they are consistent with maximizing liberty and minimizing aggression.
If reporters are going to claim a candidate is too radical and be correct, it should be because of what the candidate has said, not the party platform.
Tom B.: “What more do you want? I agreed with you that it is totally ridiculous that I would make such an absurd claim. What’s obvious is that you take the matter of Wayne Root so seriously that you are unable to discern when someone is joking – even after I agreed with you it was absurd.”
You’re saying you were just being funny when you accused a Root defender of actually being him? Okay. I have a good sense of humor, but I guess I just didn’t think that was a good joke. Or maybe that was serious but the later reflection that it was absurd b/c Root and his supporters are also absurd was the joke. Whichever.
I do admit that I take the “matter of Wayne Root” seriously though. That’s b/c I take being elected LP national chair seriously, and he’s a popular candidate.
Thank you JT, Ron Paul gets bashed a lot on this board. I don’t think it’s fair.
Ron Paul is a great defender of liberty and goes out of his way time and time again to talk about real Libertarian principles, never promoting himself. Taking his time on the news to educate and promote his message.
He became popular because his message was popular. Because “freedom is popular”. If we can’t put someone up with some principles we might as well hang it up.
And as you say, some of our old dogs have a mighty long track record of neo-conish behaviour.
I should add that this doesn’t mean Root won’t win; Barr won (on the sixth ballot, I think). But it does mean that if he does eek out a victory he’ll have many, many Libertarian detractors, just as Barr did.
IMO, the biggest obstacle that Root faces as a candidate for national chair isn’t any past business failure; it’s that some Libertarians don’t trust him. His effusive recommendation of a 2008 McCain/Lieberman ticket (perhaps the two biggest warmongers in the entire U.S. Senate, btw) and his unflappable view of conservatives as libertarian allies and of liberals as libertarian enemies (reflected, for one example, in his oft-repeated statement that libertarians are fiscally CONSERVATIVE and socially MODERATE) makes some Libertarians very wary of him and how he’ll represent the LP if he’s indeed elected.
Brian Holtz sometimes points out to Libertarian opponents of Bob Barr that Barr’s statements during the 2008 presidential race were as libertarian as Ron Paul’s were, if not more so on some issues.
What this completely misses is that Paul has a long history of consistently voting according to the Constitution, introducing unmistakably libertarian bills in Congress, and assiduously promoting freedom and peace in the media as well as on the floor of the U.S. House.
Bob Barr has a long history as a CIA man, a drug war prosecutor, an anti- gay marriage and medical marijuana activist, a war hawk, a proponent of curtailing civil liberties, and as one of the foremost social conservatives in the U.S. House during his tenure. Barr repudiated these things AFTER he finally lost his House seat and BEFORE he ran for president as a Libertarian.
It often comes down to trust.
But obviously I said that it was ridiculous that YOU would accuse a poster of being Root merely based on a strong defense of him, saying that’s “fairly obvious.”
What more do you want? I agreed with you that it is totally ridiculous that I would make such an absurd claim. What's obvious is that you take the matter of Wayne Root so seriously that you are unable to discern when someone is joking – even after I agreed with you it was absurd.
Has Wayne Root become so sacrosanct that he is above ridicule? I don't think so. In fact, he makes himself an easy target for ridicule with his bombastic statements, his boorish demeanor, his notion of Reagan libertarianism, his strategic sophistry, etc., etc., etc.
Perhaps what I find most absurd is that his supporters feign over him because of his "dynamic personality" and are barely able to write a complete sentence in his defense. Valid criticisms of Root are never addressed. We are told he is the savior of the LP, but he's been on the stump for months and where are the multitudes of new members or big donations. He parrots the extreme right-wing by calling Obama a socialist over Obamacare, only to reveal Rootcare – localized "health care reform" paid for by new taxes on "sinners". That is about as absurd as it gets. He can take that malarkey and shove it up his infomercial.
Tom B.: “Of course it’s a ridiculous accusation to make. It is totally absurd. The whole Wayne Root zeitgeist is absurd. The claims made by his supporters are outlandish. Root’s whole act is ridiculous.”
Nice twist on my last comment, Tom. But obviously I said that it was ridiculous that YOU would accuse a poster of being Root merely based on a strong defense of him, saying that’s “fairly obvious.” It seems that in your mind, Root has no supporters in the LP and therefore any poster who firmly supports him must really be him. Just b/c you can’t understand why any Libertarian WOULD support him doesn’t mean there aren’t many Libertarians who DO.
Frank: “One person may use the word ’support’ to include ‘endorse’. In which case one can support another, but withhold a public endorsement, by making a contribution of financial assistance or by casting a vote. Either of the latter may be somewhat confidential. but an endorsement is a public act – unless the endorsee withholds disclosure.”
Frank, Tom isn’t just privately giving George money and/or voting for him; Tom has publicly announced that he thinks Phillies is the best candidate and will vote for him at the national convention. By your own words, that’s a public act and therefore an endorsement. As I said before, you don’t have to also say “and I urge others to do the same” for it to qualify. Your own announcement that you back X implies that you want others to follow suit.
To put it another way, the back cover of books often have “endorsements” from other notable people in a particular field. All of them offer praise for the specific work, but not every one of them explicitly say “and you really should read it too.” Does that mean those blurbs aren’t really endorsements? They’re all called the same thing.
Anyway, I’m done with this semantic debate. There are more important things to discuss.
I would urge people interested in factors that move political parties toward victory to read Schrager and Witwer “The Blueprint” describing how the Democratic Party made progress in Colorado. You will note when you do the Democrats did not make progress by playing with their core platform and stands, they advanced by doing real politics.
Yes, you can find a very small number of cases in which other political parties have done things to change their electoral chances by dropping or adding stands. The Republican parties of California and Arizona apparently jettisoned their Hispanic support by taking their new stand on immigration.
tb: Why do people who disagree with the LP platform and/or disagree with the LP pledge join the LP?
me: There are members NOW who disagree with the planks of the platform. Some abolitionists do and some non-abolitionists do, too.
Political parties are not religions. There is not a dogma and a blood oath.
Nor is there an in-stone of what an L is, or what a conservative or liberal are. There are people, however, who describe themselves as conservative, independent or liberal who I’d say should be in the LP. Like the current membership, they may disagree with one plank or another. They may disagree with a few, even, but they generally want less government and generally want it across the board.
Rothbard used to refer to those who were deviating from his philosophy as “leaky.” Those who behave like adults, OTOH, recognize that everyone’s “leaky” about something. Rather than breaking down politics into a series of litmus tests, I’d suggest taking an all-things-considered approach.
For ex., for me the all-things-considered approach would “allow” me to vote for Ron Paul, even though I disagree with him on abortion and some of his constitutionalist ideas. I’d vote for Holtz even though I disagree with him on the Iraq War.
I DO agree with you Tom that it IS time for the grownups to step up.
# 60 Leave it to the LP state affiliates to figure things out on platform. Some states lean more left and others more right. Craft the high points of the Libertarian message for each state.
@JT: One person may use the word ‘support’ to include ‘endorse’. In which case one can support another, but withhold a public endorsement, by making a contribution of financial assistance or by casting a vote. Either of the latter may be somewhat confidential. but an endorsement is a public act – unless the endorsee withholds disclosure. In fact, I have withheld disclosing ‘endorsements’ in the past for various reasons.
Your usage may vary, but that is mine. Tom can speak for himself.
I have learned more about the two business failures I’ve had than about any success as an employee. I’d like to think I’m still qualified to lead
TK – feel free to use the rant @60 in any manner you wish
But first, let’s get on the Wayne Train and take a little trip to la-la land…..
Wayne’s Economic Plan:
A Revolutionary Tea Party Plan to Save the U.S. Economy from Economic Disaster ……
STEP #5) LEGALIZE AND TAX SIN TO FUND HEALTHCARE REFORM
http://www.millionairerepublican.com/home/economic.php
The LP should never advocate ending the drug prohibition, that would be too radical. Far better to just “legalize sin” and tax it to pay for “health care reform”. But not Obama-style health care reform, which is unconstitutional. Wayne-style health care reform would be local and funded by local taxes on “sinners.”
@53
If you have a copy of that McCain Lieberman article , I’d like to get a copy from you.
Tom B @ 60:
I’d like your permission to turn that comment into a pamphlet.
The fact remains that issues such as ballot access, debate access, plurality voting, gerrymandering, single-member districts, etc. have hurt the LP’s ability to “break through” far more than ‘purists’ or ‘reformers’ having their shot at leadership. To pretend one group or the other is the primary reason for our lack of electoral success is absurd.
That being said, everyone is well within their rights of association to have strong feelings regarding party leadership. I know I, for one, don’t much see the point in supporting a third party if it’s going to be run by people I don’t like. Third-party activists are among the most principled and dedicated people I know, and that’s for a reason – it takes those sort of people to take the leap away from the two major parties and/or apathy to bother with a different option at all.
To use Tom’s logic (which I find quite sound, btw), a Root victory would likely mean the LP would still have (some of) my support, but not my endorsement.
Excellent link, Holtz. It begs the question:
Why do people who disagree with the LP platform and/or disagree with the LP pledge join the LP?
That political enemies use the platform to attack the LP is a given. That’s what political enemies do. Democrats and Republicans attack each other continually, each and every day, by misrepresenting each others positions on various issues – often using downright lies to misrepresent each other. This is what political parties do and it is what they have always done.
My suggestion is that people who aren’t libertarians should probably not join the LP. People who believe that third parties can win elections to national office in America need to understand the reasons why this is unlikely, regardless of issues and internal strategy.
People looking for some sort of moderate centrist party will not be happy in the LP. Conservatives will not be happy in the LP. People who believe government can solve all problems will not be happy in the LP.
This is fundamental stuff that really should need no explanation.
“A few days before the election a local paper did an article on the race, in which I was characterized as being “too radical for the residents of Clarion County”. The article did not mention the LP platform, but when I talked to the reporter to ask why he would write that, his response was that he had done some research and looked at the LP website, and the platform was a big factor.” Mik Robertson, LP Pennsylvania. 2006-08-05
Well, oh my gosh. How awful. How many times have I heard that Obama is a radical Marxist over the last 2 years? How many times have I heard that the tea party people are racist militia goons and pose a danger to society?
I suppose Mik thinks that a pundit proclaiming he was too radical cost him the election. For all he knows, that may have earned him more votes than it cost him. Does Mik have polling numbers for before and after that one remark?
Of course it couldn’t have been anything else that caused him to lose an election. It couldn’t have been that his opponent(s) raised and spent vastly more money than he did. It couldn’t be that the local political machine(s) of his opponent(s) consisted of many more people than his network of supporters. It couldn’t possibly be that the party hacks of the major parties had better press relations and connections than Mik. Oh no, it was the LP platform and the remark of a local pundit that sunk Mik.
Proof that the LP platform is too radical for the folks in Clarion County and therefore should be changed immediately so Mik can win next time. Then his opponents won’t say mean things, only kind words and best wishes.
Yeah, it is time for the grownups to step up.
Brian, if so many people in the party supposedly have issues with the platform; would you support a shorter simpler platform?
“Libertarians believe that each of us has a natural right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property; and that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else. And that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to individual liberty, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”
http://www.lpedia.org/Uses_Of_Platform_To_Attack_LP
Sara: “So it is time to step aside and let adults start handling this. You had your chance. It’s over.”
The “adults” have been in charge for about as long as the radicals.
For decades, the LP has been full of members who’ve said, “We are not a social club,” and “We’re a political party and should focus on winning elections,” etc.
For decades, moderates have complained about radicals and purists holding them back, but it just ain’t so.
No one in the LP, radical or moderate, has ever held anyone else back. Every type of Libertarian candidate and activist has always been free to run whatever type of campaign they wished.
For decades, there have been as many “adult” moderate candidates and activists as radicals — and they’ve nothing to show for their efforts and campaigns.
Yet they keep complaining about the “radicals” as though the “radicals” held them back.
The moderate “adults” imagine that electoral success is just around the corner, if only it wasn’t for those pesky radicals and purists.
These “adults” need to grow up for real, and own up to their share of the LP’s failures.
Mik,
If I thought that you were an idiot, condescension would indeed be unbecoming. One should be gentle and understanding with idiots.
I don’t think you’re an idiot — and the only plausible alternative conclusion is that you’re going out of your way to pretend that you don’t understand and/or don’t believe me, when in fact you know that my case is Air. Fucking. Tight.
Condescension is the most polite response I can muster to that.
Tom B.: “Robert, I think it is fairly obvious that “Sara” is Wayne Root. It is also obvious that he would do well to have his ghost writer handle blog posts for him.
That’s not obvious at all. In fact, it’s a ridiculous accusation to make just because someone is strongly defending him. I know it irks you, but he does have his staunch Libertarian supporters. I don’t happen to be one, but I try to be objective.
Of course it’s a ridiculous accusation to make. It is totally absurd. The whole Wayne Root zeitgeist is absurd. The claims made by his supporters are outlandish. Root’s whole act is ridiculous.
But he could redeem himself and pick up millions of supporters at the same time by posing nude in Playgirl. Christian women all across America would flock to Root rallies just to get a glimpse of his teeth and his piercing eyes, hoping that he would invite them into the backseat of his limo. It’s no secret that Christian women find him irresistible.
Root pin-ups would be everywhere. Top hat, cane, bow-tie, wingtips, silk socks, garters, and nothing else. Why do you think he calls himself the son-of-a-butcher? It’s the meat, dummy.
@38 “I like for some of you people to be able to do what Root did, I like for some of you people to ask Root personally what you are saying on here.”
Who are ‘you people’?
@23 “Mik,
OK, remedial reading time.”
Condescension is not becoming.
“1) I assert that Root is a liar.”
This you do.
” 2) I prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the truth of that assertion through reference to still extant sources available to inspection by all. The fact that I mention that I had a more complete record on an old computer does not erase the portion of the record that I provide.”
This you do not do. Promoting a dream ticket that you propose, and suggesting it would be successful is not an endorsement. Wayne suggests a dream ticket that never develops, end of story. There never was a GOP candidate named Lieberman. There was never such a ticket to support or endorse.
The fact that you have to split hairs over the meaning of the word ‘endorsement’ should indicate that you have not made your case beyond a reasonable doubt. Saying what Wayne does not say does not bolster the claim you are making.
So what you have done is accuse Wayne Root of lying with very sparse evidence, indeed. It is obvious that you want to damage the credibility of Wayne Root and it appears you are stretching the statements made to do so.
“3) I then assert that when someone is established to have told significant lies, his future statements should be subject to scrutiny.”
I suppose if you can establish the first part the second part would be reasonable. However, you have not come close to establishing the first part, unless the evidence is on the computer you claim cannot be readily recovered.
Again, I think if you don’t wish to present that evidence, it would be better to stop making the claim.
Even if you could establish the first part with evidence from that computer, is it really that significant? What one person considers an endorsement, another does not. That much should be clear just from this thread.
“4) I do not claim that Root’s position on whether or not he will run for president in 2012 is a lie, I simply note that it seems to be highly equivocal and that per (3) it should be scrutinized.
No, that is not all you do. When you say this:
“Having caught Root lying once, I have to wonder what else he might be lying about. I take every statement he makes with a grain of salt. And you should too.”
the clear implication is that other statements made by Root may be lies. This is followed by the “conflicting utterances” comment about whether Wayne will seek the LP Presidential nomination, as if this were something else “he might be lying about”.
If you did not mean to indicate that the presidential nomination statements made by Wayne were lies, then the context in which the comment was written could have been chosen better.
@LP Pragmatist
Indiana’s strength is in a long line of candidates over the past decade (including folks like Andy Horning) who can not only debate the issues, and many of them all the way down to their anrcho-capitalist or even anarchist cores; but, can do so in a way that engages mainstream voters and doesn’t sound kooky or crazy.
Heck, the former Republican councilor in Indianapolis that joined the LP even has a support team that has helped him introduce pro-liberty and government transparency legislation (and some of it has passed and been signed into law). Forget being a debate club that likes to throw rocks, some of those folks in Indiana are having a real impact and Root’s running mate, Mark Rutherford, helped lay the foundation for it all when he was State Chair.
It is often said that the more viscously someone attacks a person, the weaker their case is. Such is the situation here.
Wayne Root is not a liar. And the fact that he had financial troubles doesn’t bother me either, particularly in the current environment. He is a true entrepreneur, which is more than many can say. In any case, Wayne will be the chair of a board that governs the party and makes major financial decisions.
But if the Libertarian Party is to break through to attract the attention of the cultural and electoral mainstream (where the votes are), it cannot be denied that Root not only can talk to them – but has access to them. It cannot be denied that no other candidate running for LNC chair has demonstrated this important potential for the LP.
Richard P. Burke
How many state parties operate like the Indiana LP? It appears they operate like a real political party. The “debaters” are not in charge. Let the business people, those with political experience, and those with media and personal skill sets take leadership roles in state parties. There is plenty to do for everyone.
So which states have their “stuff” together.
Sara @ 38 writes; “So it is time to step aside and let adults start handling this. You had your chance. It’s over.”
Okay Sara what’s your business plan?
Wait a minute. Somebody is going to call out Wayne over the financials of a business?? What are the other business conditions?
As somebody who bought a business just weeks prior to being told by the primary supplier that they were discontinuing our core product because of a merger, as somebody who knows that 80% of all businesses fail in the first 5 years and all the other things (including risk) that go with venturing out into the marketplace, I am not impressed with picking on an isolated example of business success or failure.
As a Libertarian I am not interested in continuing on as the party of 1% and trying to make us all feel better by thinking we educated some folks. At least Root’s running mate was able to set up Indiana as one of the top Libertarian states in the country where triple the national average results is the norm.
If that is indicative of his decision making then it sounds like we’re on the right track.
So what we have here is just more character assassination worthy of Democrats and Republicans. No thanks. Find something substantive to talk about. This guy can take the libertarian message to the masses and the media and that is what this country is looking for now.
“You should NOT be surprised at just how many people support Wayne Allyn Root. The LP is committing suicide, with or without the libertarians.”
There, fixed that for ya.
You should NOT be surprised at just how many people support Wayne Allyn Root. The LP is changing course, with or without the radicals.
Frank: “I can appreciate Tom’s endorsement even when his support is not possible.”
Actually, Frank, you weren’t paying attention. Tom said he didn’t endorse but supports. And that isn’t possible, according to your logic, since supports “goes beyond” endorse. Anyway, I think this argument is absurd.
Tom B.: “Robert, I think it is fairly obvious that “Sara” is Wayne Root. It is also obvious that he would do well to have his ghost writer handle blog posts for him.
That’s not obvious at all. In fact, it’s a ridiculous accusation to make just because someone is strongly defending him. I know it irks you, but he does have his staunch Libertarian supporters. I don’t happen to be one, but I try to be objective.
Sara @38, if Root comments here he can respond to anything written & say anything he wants.
Robert, I think it is fairly obvious that “Sara” is Wayne Root. It is also obvious that he would do well to have his ghost writer handle blog posts for him.
Jim Duensing // May 7, 2010 at 5:34 pm
W.A.R. may be a washed up infomercial personality, but even he is not a bigger liar than Arlen Specter.
http://jimduensing.com/arlen-specter-is-a-liar.html
Phillies once told me [that the Libs are the only 21st Century Peace Party. He has been called on this often and on more than one web site. He has yet to correct him self and has exhibited few ‘people skills’ since personal contacts starting in 2003]
He’s out in my book. [Ah, yeah!]
Sara: “you are afraid the LP won’t be a little boys club that has been runing on non-elections for the last 39 years. Time to grow up children.
I’ve been hearing Libertarians complain about purists for 10-15 years.
Sara: “in the last 39 years this party did a big nothing.”
For at least 15 years, maybe longer, the LP has had plenty of “anti-purist, voter-oriented” Reformer types (though by differing factional names).
They’ve long been a part of the LP, and are as much responsible for the party’s failures as are the purists and absolutists and every other long-time faction.
Saying Root would be bad for the LP that it could not recover from is like saying the LP will die because of not winning a single election…oh wait, it’s failed to do that in any statewide/national partisan race since the dawn of time. Root is a distraction.
The LP needs some serious reforms and it really doesn’t matter who LNC chair is.
Sara @38, if Root comments here he can respond to anything written & say anything he wants.
Concerned Citizen @32, yes, agreed. Pelosi would become President. But that is not what I meant exactly @13. What else would happen if Biden ws assassinated?
I like for some of you people to be able to do what Root did, I like for some of you people to ask Root personally what you are saying on here. So far all you lazy haven’t been able to do nothing in the last 39 years as this party has been a big nothing. On a smaller scale Root is doing for this party what Susan Boyle did for herself in one night. Yet in the last 39 years this party did a big nothing. If it would amount to really anything. We wouldn’t have a socialist country today. So it is time to step aside and let adults start handling this. You had your chance. It’s over.
W.A.R. may be a washed up infomercial personality, but even he is not a bigger liar than Arlen Specter.
http://jimduensing.com/arlen-specter-is-a-liar.html
Phillies once told me during his run for President that he believes in a strong central bank, and of course, he is a government conspiracy theorist. He’s out in my book.
Ernie Hancock will be the LP’s next chair or the LP will become bankrupt or irrelevant – or both.
Libertarians should be thankful to still have the option of supporting a Hancock.
In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,
Jim
Tom Knapp’s distinction between endorse and support seems logical.
Endorse means that one urges those that are in a position or situated to vote or contribute publicity or financially to a candidate do so. One may endorse a person’s candidacy without being able to vote or financially contribute to that candidate. Endorse signifies approval and advises others that approval is justified.
Support means that one does actually make a tangible financial contribution to a candidate and also actually votes for that candidate. If one cannot legally vote for a candidate, then one’s support is attenuated by circumstances beyond one’s control. If no financial contribution is requested, needed or possible and no vote is possible, then all one can do is ‘endorse’ a candidate to others.
To endorse is to speak in favor of, to support goes beyond endorse to include actions like giving money and voting in an actual election.
Finally, to put a point on it: American citizens can ‘endorse’ a candidate for President of Costa Rica, but they may not be allowed or capable of ‘supporting’ them by contributing to that person or voting for them.
I can appreciate Tom’s endorsement even when his support is not possible.
I trust delegates to make up their own minds if they have the facts. But if people keep speculating about my opinions, I’ll keep repeating them:
I endorse
I un-dorse
And again: in the 2008 presidential race I’m sure I cast more first-choice votes for Phillies than did any other Libertarian in the entire Party. I voted for him in the first round in Denver, I voted for him in the LPCA convention’s straw poll, and in the LPCA California primary I mailed in two absentee ballots for him — mine and my wife’s. In each case, I voted for Phillies over Root.
I would like the real Mr. David Nolan to say those same words to WAR at the convention.
Sara@30
“You people are making things up because you are afraid the LP won’t be a little boys club that has been runing on non-elections for the last 39 years. Time to grow up children.”
Oh good, finally someone that can set a decent adult example for the rest of us.
Robert Milnes,
If that happened, Nancy Pelosi would become President.
I endorse Phillies for LNC chair.
I think Tom’s points are pretty clear. Whether you think they’re significant is a judgment call, but there’s little doubt as to the content of his piece: Root lies, and he’s a lousy/crooked CEO.
As to the difference between “endorse” and “support,” that’s a little murkier. By my standards, openly declaring that you intend to vote for a candidate is pretty indistinguishable from endorsing him/her unless you make it clear to everyone that you’re voting for that candidate only as a “lesser of two evils.”
Thus, by my criteria, Tom Knapp has endorsed George Phillies for LNC Chair. Conversely, while it’s obvious to everyone who reads the postings here on a regular basis that Brian Holtz supports Root, he has not yet ENDORSED Root.
You people are making things up because you are afraid the LP won’t be a little boys club that has been runing on non-elections for the last 39 years. Time to grow up children.
Nick,
Ah … that explains a LOT.
For the record, I don’t think that Root is a “Republican plant” or whatever, although I do suspect that he brings a certain amount of ideological baggage with him that he’s having to work on shedding because it doesn’t fit well with the LP.
I can sympathize. It took me awhile to get rid of my tendency to look kindly on military interventionism, etc.
In 2008, my concern with Wayne’s endorsement of a McCain-Lieberman ticket was how he would explain it (on Meet the Press; in a debate across from McCain; to Joe Sixpack at the county fair) if he was nominated.
If you endorse candidate X 19 months before the election, then jump into the race yourself, you had better be able to explain why Candidate X was the best thing since sliced bread then but is unacceptable now.
In 2010, my concern with Wayne’s endorsement of McCain way back then is that when a Libertarian asked him about it in public, he just flat-out lied about it.
Lying isn’t usually a very good idea.
Lying in public, with cameras running, on an issue that you know or should know you can easily be exposed on, is even worse — dishonesty and hubris are a bad combination, and they tend to be chronic afflictions.
I thought you were arguing that he remained a Republican after coming over to the LP, not that he was recently a staunch Republican. The former would be a huge negative (a la Barr’s financial support of GOP candidates while on the LNC), the latter is less so.
Er:
“I’m talking about ideological persuasion here”
should have been:
“I’m not talking about ideological persuasion here”
Nick,
You write:
“He does sound like he wants them to be successful, but there’s no direct suggestion that Libertarians vote for McCain (or any Republican) rather than the LP candidate.”
Nor would I expect there to be, given that at the time he made the endorsement he was clearly still a partisan Republican, not a partisan Libertarian (I’m talking about ideological persuasion here).
He made the endorsement in late 2006. As of that time, he had recently made (within 30-60 days prior to the endorsement):
– A $1000 contribution to the US Senate campaign of Joe Lieberman, who was running as an independent with heavy Republican support after losing the Democratic primary.
– A $1000 contribution to the US Senate campaign of Republican John Ensign.
He didn’t make his first FEC-recorded contribution to the Libertarian Party until January 30th, 2007.
So why would you think I’m claiming that he asked Libertarians to support McCain/Lieberman? His endorsement was addressed to his “beloved Republican Party,” which he also referred to as “us.”
tk, yep, Root’s a risktaker. As you know, I neither support nor endorse him, but I happen to think the LP should be less risk-averse than it is. Perhaps paradoxically, moving toward the edge of the mainstream could be viewed as riskier, in that a moderate L message has a LOT of appeal to a MILLIONS. It’s my contention that our historically (often stealth) absolutist, abolitionist is less risky, since it is only likely to appeal to the VERY patient or the true believers…a tiny universe, IMO. But being a small, abolitionist party IS cozy.
Mr. Milnes,
If my master plan as you describe comes to fruition and the Kenyan imposter resigns and the foot-in-mouth idiot gets killed, or vice versa, then I finally take my rightful place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, San Francisco, DC.
Now that it’s been exposed, I must execute it and figure out how you knew. America will be mine, mine, MINE, I tell you!
In fairness, he endorses McCain/Lieberman as a the ticket the GOP should nominate to be successful. He does sound like he wants them to be successful, but there’s no direct suggestion that Libertarians vote for McCain (or any Republican) rather than the LP candidate.
The question does remain as to whether that’s an appropriate level of interest in the success of the Republican Party for a person who is seeking the Chair of the Libertarian Party.
Mik,
OK, remedial reading time.
1) I assert that Root is a liar.
2) I prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the truth of that assertion through reference to still extant sources available to inspection by all. The fact that I mention that I had a more complete record on an old computer does not erase the portion of the record that I provide.
3) I then assert that when someone is established to have told significant lies, his future statements should be subject to scrutiny.
4) I do not claim that Root’s position on whether or not he will run for president in 2012 is a lie, I simply note that it seems to be highly equivocal and that per (3) it should be scrutinized.
As far as whether or not Root’s verbiage about McCain constitutes an endorsement, I consider the following to be the semantic equivalent of proclaiming one’s support and recommending that others do likewise. Each of the following quotes is available at, or linked from, my article on Root’s endorsement of McCain-Lieberman:
“I have a vested interest in seeing my beloved GOP back in power. … I’ve come up with a simple and easy 2-step plan that would instantly return the United States Senate to GOP control (today- without an election), energize the GOP base, and put a Republican in strong position to reclaim the White House in 2008 (giving us a great opportunity to control the Presidency for 20 consecutive years)”
“[T]his Millionaire Republican is suggesting that GOP leaders offer the Senate Majority Leader position to Senator Joe Lieberman in order to convince him to cross the aisle.”
“But I’m not done yet- here’s the coup de
grace: the GOP offers Lieberman one more carrot that is impossible to turn down- a place on the GOP Presidential ticket! That’s right- I’m
suggesting an unbeatable GOP ticket of McCain- Lieberman in 2008”
He doesn’t just say “I’m voting for McCain in the primary — you do whatever you want.”
He tries to convince Republicans that nominating McCain-Lieberman is a fantastic idea.
That’s an endorsement.
Should read:
“[“Is Wayne Root the only candidate who has indicated an intent to seek the LP presidential nomination in the future and then reconsidered? Pushing that into the category of lying seems like a stretch to me.”]
And to me as well. So … um … why are you doing it?”
I am doing no such thing. In the article, the statements are made under this heading:
“1) Wayne Allyn Root is a liar”
If such “conflicting utterances” are are not meant to be considered evidence to support the heading, then perhaps they could have been discussed under another topic.
@10 “So would I. Not sure why you bring that up, though, since that isn’t the case. I provide more than enough evidence to erase reasonable doubt.”
Not by your own standard. Nowhere in any of what was presented does Root say “I am supporting John McCain for President and I urge you to support John McCain as well.”
It is implied that Root said such a thing, but that the evidence is on an old computer that is not really accessible, so the evidence won’t actually be presented.
“[“Is Wayne Root the only candidate who has indicated an intent to seek the LP presidential nomination in the future and then reconsidered? Pushing that into the category of lying seems like a stretch to me.”]
And to me as well. So … um … why are you doing it?”
I am doing no such thing. In the article, the statements are made under this heading:
“1) Wayne Allyn Root is a liar”
If such “conflicting utterances” are are not meant to be considered evidence to support the heading, then perhaps they could have been discussed under another topic.
Brian,
Please feel free to change the article back to “endorsed.”
This is what an endorsement looks like.
JT,
Your wish is my command. Bob writes:
“[A]re you saying that anyone who is/was CEO of a company that fails is disqualified in your opinion from being the LP Chair?”
No. But:
When a candidate cites his business record as evidence of his leadership acumen, that’s an invitation to take said record into account when assessing said acumen.
Root launched his presidential campaign on claims that he was a business mogul. Later he walked that back to “small businessman.”
He’s also walked a two-way street between the LP and his business endeavors, using his VP nomination as booster/promo fodder for his multi-level marketing promotions, infomercials for stock pick schemes, etc.
Is this Root’s first failure? Is it an outlier?
In 1997, Root published The Joy of Failure in which chronicles all kinds of past business failures and “reveals the nine ‘Power Principles’ that helped him develop a positive attitude and turn failure into success.”
More than a decade has passed since he published that book, yet his record remains a record of movement from failure to failure, always touting the current failure as a success before retiring it to the “past failures” list.
Does the LP want to be his NEXT “past failure?”
“Companies fail for a variety of reasons, and the LP is not a profit-making company, nor is it intended to be one.”
That depends on what you mean by “profit.”
Any enterprise has to pay its expenses to survive.
Any enterprise that wants to guarantee its future survival and health has to generate enough revenue above and beyond those expenses to expand and to build reserves against future contingencies.
A business enterprise generally attempts to generate revenues beyond those things to return a profit to its owners.
A political party’s “profit” is achieving its owners’ (“members'”) political goals rather than (for example) payment of cash dividends to stockholders.
While it’s certainly worth questioning whether or not Root will return that sort of “profit” to the LP, the question I’m asking is “will the rent get paid, or will we drown in red ink?”
That question is just as valid for the LNC as it is for a hypothetical for-profit company.
Tom,
I agree that there is a difference. I also agree that it’s quite a fine line, which is why I – and I assume Brian – thought you *had* endorsed George Phillies. Probably best for all concerned to have cleared that up, though.
It would certainly be interesting to know what sort of CEO experience George has. He was Chair of LAMA, so he obviously has experience. One would have to examine it more closely in order to decide if it was good or bad, but I suppose you could at least say that the Libertarian Association still exists.
Tom: “I probably make a finer distinction between support and endorsement than most people do.”
I think you do. IMO, if someone publicly says “I intend to vote for X,” that’s an endorsement. Saying it’s not b/c that person hasn’t actually said “and I urge you to do so also” is splitting hairs to me. It’s implied that if someone announces that he or she is voting for X then that person wants others to do so as well.
I’m interested in knowing your response to Robert Capozzi’s post 8. Obviously, you’re not obligated to give one, but I’d like to read it.
Personally, I’d choose Myers as LNC Chair. I had no clue who he was months ago, but I’ve been very impressed with what he’s said since then. He has done a hell of a lot to organize his LP chapter in Dallas already and has good ideas for the national party. I also think he wouldn’t be as divisive as the other Chair candidates, something the LP definitely doesn’t need more of now. I know he certainly isn’t favored to win, but I’d like to see him pull an upset.
Ah, I see — the reference to an endorsement was to this IPR article (not written by me), not to my own article which it references.
Sorry about that.
I probably make a finer distinction between support and endorsement than most people do.
For example, in 2008 I supported Cynthia McKinney for president by voting for her, but I did not endorse her candidacy by urging other people to do likewise.
In that same election I endorsed Charles Jay for president by urging people to vote for him, even though I could not do so myself (he was not on the ballot nor registered as a countable write-in in my state).
I support George Phillies for chair. I intend to vote for him.
I will probably also endorse him for chair — write or otherwise publicly communicate a request to others to vote for him with me. But I haven’t yet.
Nate,
You write:
“Tom, at the beginning of the article it claims you have endorsed a candidate.”
No, it claims that “I am supporting and/or endorsing some candidates for some positions.”
I support (i.e. intend to vote for) a candidate for chair, and I’ve mentioned that in various places.
I don’t think I’ve endorsed (i.e. asked others to support) that candidate, however.
There’s a difference.
When and if I endorse a candidate for chair (and I almost certainly will), I will make a clear statement to that effect — “I support Candidate X, and I urge you to support Candidate X as well.”
I corrected the article.
I have a hypothetical question for everyone. What would happen if Obama resigned for some reason & pursuant to the 25th Amendment Biden assumed the presidency…Then the next day Biden was assassinated, what would happen? (note: the wording is “…Biden was assassinated…” not “…Biden died…”)
Tom, at the beginning of the article it claims you have endorsed a candidate. Now, either that claim is incorrect, that claim is misleading (for example meaning you endorsed Phillies in some prior year), or that claim is correct. I think we’d all like to know which it is, with corrections to the article if needed. If you don’t mind.
Let’s get this straight. So a guy does something illegal or stupid in his/her past life, or just does something because they are mis-informed and we are never to ever forgive? We are to hold it against them forever? OK, if someone is a child molester or murders somebody, I can see putting the kabosh on them. I thought that in a Christian-based society, we were to forgive “past sins”.
I also thought the LP was a “big tent” party. Is the reality that the LP is not a big tent party and should move to a “purity” test?
Should we move to being so pure that 70% of the members are not welcomed anylonger, thereby imploding many state parties, ending the opportunity for candidates, and moving the LP to a Debate Supper Club.
I just want to know what I am in this for and contribute $$$$ to.
Should a new 3rd party be developed that will easily pass by the LP and take hold of the “center” voter that is neither an R or a D ?
“I would think if you have to resort to saying the computer ate my evidence that Wayne Allyn Root endorsed John McCain for President in 2006, it may be better to stop making the claim.”
So would I. Not sure why you bring that up, though, since that isn’t the case. I provide more than enough evidence to erase reasonable doubt.
“Is Wayne Root the only candidate who has indicated an intent to seek the LP presidential nomination in the future and then reconsidered? Pushing that into the category of lying seems like a stretch to me.”
And to me as well. So … um … why are you doing it?
“Is the record of the endorsed candidate by the author as a CEO better than that of Wayne Root? The article does not address that issue.”
That’s because it can’t. I haven’t endorsed a candidate.
I would think if you have to resort to saying the computer ate my evidence that Wayne Allyn Root endorsed John McCain for President in 2006, it may be better to stop making the claim.
Is Wayne Root the only candidate who has indicated an intent to seek the LP presidential nomination in the future and then reconsidered? Pushing that into the category of lying seems like a stretch to me.
Is the record of the endorsed candidate by the author as a CEO better than that of Wayne Root? The article does not address that issue.
It seems there are hit pieces, and there are hit pieces that fail.
tk, regarding point 2, are you saying that anyone who is/was CEO of a company that fails is disqualified in your opinion from being the LP Chair? Companies fail for a variety of reasons, and the LP is not a profit-making company, nor is it intended to be one.
Mr. Root and the other candidates have been making their case at state LP conventions. I don’t think there is much they haven’t been asked save that I haven’t see anybody ask Mr. Root Knapp’s got-cha question about John McCain.
I’m still a fan of the Ernie Hancock solution which is to teach as many young people about about freedom and truth anywhere, any way, any how.
Does he ever not smile?
FWIW, his website says he’s looking for folks to help him “hit the ground running” in the 2012 Presidential race…
http://www.rootforamerica.com/home/become.php
I’d like to see Root deign to comment in IPR to defend Root.
could not agree more, except for Doctor Phillies ……….
I wonder how long before “He Who Has Not Endorsed Anyone” jumps in to defend Root?
I say Ron Paul is a dixiecrat conservative-not a libertarian.
Tom says Ron Paul is a dixiecrat conservative-not a libertarian.
George says Ron Paul is not a libertarian.
Excellent blog post, Tom. Thank you for posting on IPR, Brian.
I oppose Root. Tom opposes Root.
I endorse George. Tom endorses George.
I propose PLAS. Tom says it is fantasy.
As Jay Leno would say, “What’s up with that?”