St. Louis Beacon: Libertarian Party Votes to Stay True To Its Past

The St. Louis Beacon, one of the area newspapers for St. Louis, Missouri, reports on the Libertarian Party National Convention in this article as a battle between the traditions of the past and possible future directions.

Sunday afternoon, more than 500 delegates from around the country selected a new party chairman in a battle that exemplified the tug between two party factions: one camp favors reaching out to the socially conservative Tea Party movement, and the other side preaches standing firm on longstanding libertarian principles.

As Missouri delegate Julie Stone of St. Louis put it: “The big bone of contention is whether the party should remain as pure or become more inclusive.”

Personifying the big-tent approach was Wayne Allyn Root — an effusive, unapologetic self-promoter who’s a dead-ringer for Bill Clinton (“I get stopped in airports all the time,” Root said) — and a human hurricane.

Accompanied by an ever-present film crew (it’s shooting a reality show that Root said would air “only if I’m elected”), he admitted upsetting some by preaching a more-inclusive message that he said will move the Libertarian Party into the nation’s political mainstream.

“If I move this country toward Libertarians, I’m the most radical person here,” Root said in an interview, as he and his entourage traveled between events — accosting delegates for potential votes along the way.

The rest of the article is well-worth reading for its interesting perspective on the convention.

114 thoughts on “St. Louis Beacon: Libertarian Party Votes to Stay True To Its Past

  1. Misleading "Inclusiveness"

    A misleading “talking point” of Root & Company is that they want to make the LP “more inclusive.”

    More accurate would be that they want to make the LP more inclusive toward the Right.

    They want the LP to appeal to the Right by being more open to border restrictions, war, support for Israel, military spending, etc.

    They do not want the LP to appeal to the Left by being more open to socialized health care, money for public education, etc.

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    Agreed, Steve. He also had a nasty habit of not answering questions, but simply inserting one or several of his much-too-often-repeated talking points.

  3. Steve Kubby

    I personally think the membership showed remarkable wisdom in making the selections that they did for Chair, Vice Chair, Treasurer and At-Large.

  4. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steve,

    Actually, Root publicly took your “Sherman pledge” from the stage at the chair debate on Saturday evening.

    He said unequivocally, “I will not run for president in 2012.”

    And just FWIW in advance, I will not try to hold him to that pledge now. The pledge was clearly made in the context of his intent to serve as chair. I don’t see myself supporting him for POTUS in 2012, but I won’t cry “foul” on the grounds of that pledge if he does run.

  5. George Whitfield

    I feel really good about the Libertarian Party’s future. We have a great team. Lets pull together for peace, prosperity and freedom.

  6. Eric Dondero

    And is there something wrong with making the Libertarian Party more inclusive on the Right? For far too long, the LP has appealed to the kooky Left. All the outreach the LP has done these past few years has been done to the AntiWar movement. Rightists and Pro-Defense Libertarians have felt discriminated against by the LP. Many have left to the RLC.

    Look at Ryan Christiano who at one time was the boy wonder of the New Jersey Libertarian Party. He’s Pro-Defense. He got so disgusted with the LP coming out against the War in Iraq, that he denounced his membership and joined the Republican Party.

    Ask yourself, how many former Libertarian Party members do you know, who are now Republicans, precisely because of the LP’s leftist stance on foreign policy?

    Case closed.

  7. Jill Pyeatt

    I know of no one, Eric, who became a Republican due to the LP’s anti-war position. I honestly don’t know how any Libertarian can be anything but anti-war to interventionist wars, and I consider Iraq and Afghanistan to be interventionist wars.

    Interesting you feel discriminated against. Could it be that you continue to instruct on Libertarian values when you’re a Republican?

    “Kooky left”? Those of us not wanting to blow up someone eles’s country and citizens are kooky? Hmmm.

    I’m proud to be kooky.

  8. John Jay Myers

    It’s like some sort of misfire with folks, a good percentage of the right is against the war, a very large percentage of the left is against the war.

    Common sense tells you to be against being the worlds police because we can do basic math.

    Morality tells you to be against being the worlds police because we can see through the bull.

    Being Libertarian tells you to be against being the worlds police because it is none of our business.

    So if it’s not worth it financially or morally and completely against our principles, why would we want to become the third war party?

    The war and our foreign intervention should be one of our major issues.

    I wouldn’t even consider associating with this party if we changed our tune on that issue.

    We need to be screaming it from the roof tops.

    The choice this weekend wasn’t to stay small, it was to grow the party by educating folks on our principles, we did not decide not to “reach out” to the Tea Party, we will still be there with open arms waiting for them to see the light and helping guide them in.

    This was not a all or nothing weekend in our history…. it was an exciting weekend that I hope ends the bickering from the hard right, and the activist only crowd, we are a political party…. but we have principles.

    We are not left or right, we are for less government.

    Now let’s do this.

  9. P-Funk All-Star

    For far too long, the LP has appealed to the kooky Left.

    Not nearly enough.

    All the outreach the LP has done these past few years has been done to the AntiWar movement.

    I wish.

  10. P-Funk All-Star

    The LP has come out of this convention better than it went in. Unity was the correct path, and that was what we chose.

    I must admit I gained respect for Wayne Root, I did not expect he would run for LNC other than chair and I am glad he is willing to serve in a lower level office first.

    John Jay Myers is quite correct @ 12, too bad he did not get elected At Large but there were so many good choices! I think there were 13 candidates and out of those there were only 2 I did *not* want to vote for!

    I hope JJM’s website for state and county parties and candidates will still be coming out, and that LPHQ will help steer local candidates and local parties his way so they become more effective.

  11. P-Funk All-Star

    LG

    P daddy in tha house

    Only for a minute. Waiting to switch buses in Memphis. Love ya babe 🙂

  12. P-Funk All-Star

    I feel really good about the Libertarian Party’s future. We have a great team. Lets pull together for peace, prosperity and freedom.

    I’m feeling optimistic too!

  13. P-Funk All-Star

    @ Steve

    I think the bigger issue is that Wayne has never served on the LNC before. Many of us felt that right at the top was not the best place to start. So, I’m glad that he is willing to start below the top.

    Also, Wayne and some of the other choices (Hancock, Phillies) were too polarizing, in that one wing of the party or another was strongly against the.

    I think the message we sent was that we want to heal the rift and unite the party to move forward as well as to rely on the benefit of our past experience and institutional knowledge, and to reach out in all directions to grow forward.

    A truly balanced big tent approach.

  14. A Odd Punk Rook

    All this use of the word “kook” made me look it up.

    The New American Dictionary has a disappointingly terse entry:

    kook (k??k)
    n. Slang
    A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.

    [Possibly from cuckoo.]

    kook. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kook (accessed: June 01, 2010).

    BUT I found that common… vulgar and Califonia usage is more specific and probably more in line with the usage in @8:

    3. kook 243 up, 95 down

    Kook is a term, most often used by aggro locals, to describe any surfers that:
    – don’t live in the shithole little coastal towns
    – don’t work construction and/or drive old, beat-up trucks
    – pretend like they can surf when, in reality, they suck-ass
    – don’t follow the rules of the lineup
    – show up in the lot with a frappachino, excited about 2-footers

    However, the term kook has a different meaning to different types of surfers. It is most likely the case that every surfer, at one point or another, has been called a kook themselves and has called other surfers kooks. You don’t have to be an asshole local to enjoy this fun, degredating term!!!
    “That guy has a surf-rack on a land-rover, what a kook!”
    “Hey Kook, get off my wave!!”

    http://kook.urbanup.com/2173715

  15. Jill Pyeatt

    I love Libertarians! You never know what they’ll come up with next!

  16. Eric Dondero

    And I don’t know how in the bloody hell anyone can call themselves a “libertarian” yet put themselves on the same side of Islamo-Fascism that wants to destroy our civil liberties: force our wives and girlfriends to wear black burqas from head to toe, jail all marijuana smokers, outlaw booze and gambling, cut off the genitals of our gay friends, and destroy all forms of free speech.

    Someone PLEASE EXPLAIN how it is that Sharia Law is consistent with libertarianism?????

  17. Eric Dondero

    Sorry John Jay Meyers you are absolutely and completely wrong. Libertarianism is most certainly a RIGHTWING PHILOSOPHY.

    We have been aligned with our friends the Conservatives since the days of Hayek, Mises, Hazlitt and Goldwater.

    Everyone of our founders from the 1940s and 50s were “Rightwingers.”

    It is a complete myth that we have some things in common with the Left, hoisted upon us by the infiltration of Leftwing Anarchists like Rothbard and Raimondo in the middle 1970s. They took over the LP platform committee and like the true Leftists they were whitewashed Libertarian history to make it seem that we were never aligned with the Right.

    Sorry, but some of us have very long memories.

    I know that Dr. John Hospers – A PRO-WAR LIBERTARIAN – was our very first Presidential candidate.

    Whitewash history for the libertarian movement you want. But unless you kill me, and burn down my home – garage with all my extensive Libertarian Movement archives, you will NEVER EVER! be able to claim that we Libertarians are somehow just as aligned with the Left as with the Right.

    You lose buster!

  18. P-Funk All-Star

    We have been aligned with our friends the Conservatives since the days of Hayek, Mises, Hazlitt and Goldwater.

    Our movement has been around much longer than that. Frederic Bastiat sat on the left in the French parliament for good reason, and Lao Tzu (founder of Taoism) is given credit for being the earliest known libertarian.

    For everyone who hasn’t read

    http://mises.org/story/2099

    yet….what are you waiting for?!

  19. Mik Robertson

    I think these comments summarize pretty well why it is so difficult to define “pure” libertarianism. Quite frankly, I don’t think there is any conflict between being true to libertarian principles and including all who want to move public policy in a direction toward greater individual liberty and less coercion in the Libertarian Party.

    I do see a problem when some in the LP start claiming their version of libertarianism is the One True Path and all others are unprincipled heretics.

    There are clearly some strains of libertarian thought that come from the left and some that come from the right. Sometimes the two can be confusing. There are a lot of elements in libertarian thought that would appeal to non-socialist Greens as well as strains that would appeal to Tea Party and Campaign-for-Liberty types.

    Why not include both?

  20. Mik Robertson

    @6 “I don’t see myself supporting him for POTUS in 2012, but I won’t cry “foul” on the grounds of that pledge if he does run.”

    I believe I did hear Wayne indicate he would run for President in 2012, but there is a lot of time to reconsider yet. I think Wayne will do very well on the LNC, and I would expect to see him emerge as a stronger candidate as a result of the experience. Perhaps David Nolan would be the VP candidate…

  21. Eric Dondero

    I don’t acknowledge ANY strains of libertarians on the Left. If they are Leftist, they are simply the enemy of us REAL LIBERTARIANS.

    Leftists include Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Welfare Statists, Liberals, and even Moderate Liberals. All are enemies of Libertarians.

    We Libertarians have only one group of true friends, and that’s the Conservatives. Unfortunately the Conservatives don’t fight the Left hard enough. They’re kind of – ahem – wimpy. Thus the job is left up to us Libertarians to take on the entire Leftwing. They are our enemy. Our bitter enemy.

  22. Doug Craig

    I will tell you I did not vote for Wayne at any point this past weekend. I was just Ok with getting elected to the LNC but during our first LNC meeting his knowledge was coming in handy because we are helping Calf with prop 14 and he was helping with the radio buy (BTW before some yells it he is making no money on the buy)

  23. Thomas L. Knapp

    “And I don’t know how in the bloody hell anyone can call themselves a ‘libertarian’ yet put themselves on the same side of Islamo-Fascism that wants to destroy our civil liberties: force our wives and girlfriends to wear black burqas from head to toe, jail all marijuana smokers, outlaw booze and gambling, cut off the genitals of our gay friends, and destroy all forms of free speech.”

    Well if you hate it that much … stop doing it.

    You are objectively an ally of al Qaeda and the supporters of a new Caliphate ruled under Sharia law.

  24. Jill Pyeatt

    Eric, are you, or are you not, registered as a Republican?

    Wimpy? You’re so funny, Eric! That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard in weeks!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  25. John Jay Myers

    I don’t believe it comes from the left or right.
    But I can tell you there is nothing conservative about war.

    This isn’t about not including people who believe we need to have some taxes, or whether we should have roads, this is about the most important distinguishing feature of this party.

    There is nothing Libertarian about war.

    Everyone is welcome to join this party, but they should understand the basics.

    Free markets, Anti-war, self determination, personal responsibility.

    We need to stand up for our principles, if we do not then there is no reason to join this party…. there is no reason for this party.

    The reason we have failed to capitalize on what should be our biggest moment in history is a retreat from our principles…. combine that with an on going fight as to whether we should actually be doing real politics and we have been our own worst enemy.

    Things are going to turn around, but we can not continue to turn away from our principles.

  26. Danny S

    @Mr. Dondero,

    you are aware that Hayek wrote an essay explaining why he was NOT a conservative, right? Hayek described himself as a liberal in the essay, “Why I am not a conservative” found in The Constitution of Liberty. Yet you described him as an ally in post 24.

    So you really can get along with liberals?

  27. Jim Duensing

    Dondero,

    Nice dodging of the question again.

    Are my fellow Sin City Militia Members part of your libertarian left because we oppose the very existence of an unConstitutional permanent standing army?

    That’s almost as non-sensical as your description of the guy in the dress in the bottom of Building 7 as more Libertarian than Ron Paul.

    That question again Dondero was “Are you an anti-Paul Republican Troll or a pro-Barr Libertarian Troll?”

    In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,

    Jim Duensing

  28. Brian Holtz

    There is nothing Libertarian about war.

    War against aggressors and tyrants can be quite libertarian.

    we can not continue to turn away from our principles.

    When precisely did this turn happen? Can you be a little more specific than just repeating the content-free phrase “third war party”?

    Did it happen in Jan 2008, when the #2 LP.org headline was antiwar?

    Did it happen in July 2007, when 3 out of 4 headlines on LP.org were antiwar?

    Did it happen in Feb 2007, when LP.org featured a a blog link attacking nation-building in Iraq?

    Did it happen in Jul 2006, when the first non-party-business LP.org headline was antiwar?

    Was it in Jan 2006, when all three blog headlines are anti-war or anti-war-on-terror?

    Was it in Jul 2005, when the top LP.org headline called for exit from Iraq?

    Was it in Jul 2004, when the top two LP.org issue headlines were defending “Fahrenheit 9/11″ and protesting the Iraq war at the GOP convention?

    Was it in Jan 2003, when an LP.org headline attacked Bush’s “global warfare” even before the Iraq war started?

    The fact of the matter is that since even before the invasion of Iraq, no issue has been more prominent on the LP.org front page than antiwar.

  29. Jim Duensing

    God Brian, do you hate peace that much? How long did it take you to look that up? The LP’s Executive Director once told me “We have nothing in common” with those lefties who want peace.

    By aggressors and tyrants, do you mean the terrorists responsible for 9/11?

    And, if so, don’t you think an investigation is warranted at least until we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that all the terrorists have been brought to justice?

    In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,

    Jim Duensing

  30. Brian Holtz

    Goddess, Jim, do you hate truth that much?

    It took me no time at all to look that up, because I long ago debunked this “third war party” urban legend, and I know how to effortlessly retrieve Truth that I’ve already looked up.

    Yeah, Jim, I “hate peace”. What other possible reason could I have for wanting to accurately report what the most prominent issue has been on the LP.org front page over the last seven years? 🙂

  31. Jim Duensing

    You didn’t mention the white paper the national party released suggesting an increase in troop levels in Afghanistan.

    Hey Brian, are you tough enough on terror to call for the capture and trial – in front of a fully informed jury – of Mahmoud Ahmed – chief financier of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001? Ahmed’s ISI, centered in Pakistan, is funding the Quetta Shura Taliban and the Haqqani Network fighting against our troops in Afghanistan right now. By the way, Ahmed was meeting with the heads of the House Intelligence Services Committee in Washington D.C. at the time of the attack.

    We peace lovers are for letters of marque and reprisal against Mahmoud Ahmed and Porter Goss and Nancy Pelosi.

    http://jimduensing.com/should-nancy-pelosi-or-porter-goss-be-tortured-to-save-the-constitution.html

    In Liberty, with Eternal Vigilance,

    Jim Duensing

  32. John Jay Myers

    Brian you are funny guy, I am sorry we didn’t get more of a chance to talk, your family was as beautiful in person as they are on video.
    (now to address your post)
    If we have been that anti-war, apparently Eric didn’t get the memo.

    And yes I am saying in 2008 we made a decision to lay off the war issue by picking candidates that wouldn’t argue it (much).

    That was a big mistake.

    If you get Ron Paul on television and ask him about health care, by the time he is done he will tell you that if we were concerned about peoples health care we should bring our troops home, if we are concerned about going broke, we should bring our troops home. If we are concerned about terrorists attacking us we should bring our troops home, if we are concerned about inflation we should bring our troops home.

    We need to bring our troops home and stop being the worlds police, we need to scream it from the roof tops.

  33. Michael Seebeck, activist kook per Dondero

    Poor Eric. He obviously wasn’t in the room when Rebecca Sink-Burris, of all people, proposed a Platform plank amendment that was overwhelmingly ratified by the body that put PEACE back in the platform. I had stepped out for a moment and when I came back in I read it up on the screen and my jaw fell through the floor in astonishment at its almost-perfect statement.

    So yes, once again, the LP calls for Peace. HUZZAH!

  34. Brian Holtz

    The Iraq Exit Strategy said:

    The first step is immediately to begin the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. Currently American troop levels are at about 140,00011. Troops would leave gradually, in increments of approximately 11,600 per month, resulting in a complete withdrawal in one year’s time. This will bring the troops out of harm’s way quickly, preventing more unnecessary loss of life. Allowing a year for the withdrawal will give the Iraqi government time to train and deploy a sufficient security force in trouble areas.

    As the United States removes troops from Iraq, 30,000 will be relocated to other Middle Eastern countries. Ten thousand troops will be placed in Afghanistan for peacekeeping purposes. […] The remaining troops, numbering approximately 100,000 would return home rather being relocated to other Middle Eastern countries.

    What a terrible blow to peace it would have been for that plan to be enacted.

    If we have been that anti-war, apparently Eric didn’t get the memo.

    Eric who? When was the last time this Eric person was any kind of LP officer or nominee?

    We need to bring our troops home and stop being the worlds police, we need to scream it from the roof tops.

    I for one don’t want the LP to scream from the rooftops that we should cut the “1/3 of our budget that goes to our foreign policy and these wars” when what we’d actually cut is only 15% of federal spending.

    I for one don’t want the LP to scream from the rooftops that cutting entitlements is not a priority because entitlements are “self-funded” by their own taxes.

    If you’re going to criticize the policy priorities of fellow Libertarians, please do them the courtesy of quoting their words, rather than making up strawmen like “third war party”.

  35. Michael H. Wilson

    Brian I could understand your willingness to ignore the troop issue if the troops were overseas play rugby. But they are not oversea playing rugby.

    The U.S. government has been responsible for the deaths of a million or more people in undeclared wars, most of whom were civilians, since the end of WWII. And those deaths are a pretty serious violation of civil liberties. May I also suggest that killing innocent others is worse than theft.

    MHW; veteran

  36. John Jay Myers

    Brian …..focus.
    Jeez let me make this clear, as I did during the thread you often quote.
    I do not care about entitlement spending during this conversation. It is another conversation.

    I am talking about war, not entitlements. I am talking about terrorists, not entitlements.

    If you care to stay on topic let me know. I can’t quote someone NOT talking about something.

    I can however mention that they don’t bring it up, where people I very much respect bring it up over and over again.

    And if you are going to keep bringing that up, just link the conversation, so people can read the whole thing.

    My point was simple, that if you stop welfare medicare, medicade SS today. But continue the wars… we will still go broke because of the Wars.

  37. Brian Holtz

    Mike, the “seek an America at peace with the world” language has been in plank 3.3 ever since I first drafted the 2008 platform on a Saturday in March 2007: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPplatform-discuss/message/1928.

    What Rebecca did was fix a flawed PlatCom proposal to improve the readability of the “peace” sentence that I had copied straight out of the 2006 platform. I opposed that flawed proposal in committee on Friday because it watered down the language to merely “emphasize” peace.

    That language about peace has been in every LP Platform since 1980. The St. Louis convention made some noteworthy improvements to the Platform, but “putting peace back in” it was not one of them. Rebecca’s proposal did a good job of making a 30-year-old sentence more readable by splitting into two, at the minor cost of introducing some redundancy with the “entangling alliances” language we already had in 3.1.

  38. What a sad reputation you and Bruce Cohen ????????? ......... Lake

    Brian Holtz // Jun 1, 2010:
    ——– There is nothing Libertarian about war.

    [and Doctor George Phillies says that the LP is the one and only 21st Century American Peace Party!]

    “War against aggressors and tyrants can be quite libertarian.”

    [oh come on ……… ya did not learn any thing from LBJ and Nixon and our multi $M abuse of the indigenous folks in south east Asia. Like the Phillipines in 1898, we were the invaders, the intruders, the slaughters, the rapists and the Christian culture(s) of south Asia (and Hawai’i ) suffered for our sins! ]

    [Ya ever hear of Little Big Horn or Sand Creek or Wounded Knee ???????? What a statis you are! Even you are not THAT DUMB!]

    we can not continue to turn away from our principles.

    When precisely did this turn happen?

  39. Brian Holtz

    John, saying “focus” doesn’t win a debate about what should be our primary focus. 🙂 Especially when you complain it isn’t our primary focus, but the facts show it already is.

    I have no problem with LP leaders and candidates “screaming” their advocacy of their favorite parts of the Platform. I don’t even have a major problem with LP leaders trying to advise the rest of us which part we should be screaming the loudest — as long as they don’t complain when they are on the receiving end of such advice. But I do have a problem when such leaders talk about the LP “continuing to turn away from our principles”, when the facts show that no such turn ever happened.

    Again: if you’re going to bad-mouth the principledness of the LP or its leaders, can’t you at least quote them? Is that really too much to ask?

  40. John Jay Myers

    Not when my problem is their lack of quotations on an issue.
    Is that too hard to understand?

    I don’t agree with you Brian, I don’t agree because “The Facts” do show it, in my opinion.

    Now, we made a huge turn in the right direction this weekend, and Wes has been making great strides in the right direction, and I think we will see more of it.

  41. What a sad reputation for JT ???????? ......... Lake

    John Jay Myers // Jun 2, 2010:
    “Is that too hard to understand? I don’t agree with you Brian, I don’t agree because “The Facts” do show it ………..”

    No, no, no, Mister Myers: right even when they are wrong, JT, Edward Tesslier, Richard Rider (more nasty than merely misguided), Israel First American Zionist Bruce Cohen, Brian Holtz, and, of course, W. A. R. These jerks are always right, far right!

    These spin doctors do not let the facts get in the way of an interesting story ………. *personal experience* and *multiple documentation* !

  42. Jeremy Young

    Really, the lesson the New Path people should take from this convention is that, since they control about 40% of the delegate votes in the LP at present (witness the losing margins of Marbry and Power), their organizing efforts should be directed at LNC at-large and regional rep elections rather than at the top four spots. A solid 40% block is more than enough to elect perhaps four of five at-large members and to swing several more regional seats, if more organizing went into those races.

    In particular, the New Path slate dropped the ball on the at-large seats. They were never going to keep Root off the LNC, but had they come in with a solid slate of (say) Ruwart, Wrights, Nolan, Hill, and Myers, they could easily have gotten three elected and perhaps even four. Similarly, putting some muscle into getting (say) Mike Seebeck elected regional rep instead of Dan Weiner is just as good, in terms of votes, as knocking off Aaron Starr.

    The message the delegates sent is that they want the LNC to continue to operate as a mature, reasoned political party rather than a radical activist one — but that they want the more conservative forces to knock off the shenanigans. Two of the three people most closely identified with the shenanigans — Starr and Carling — were soundly defeated by the delegates. Stewart Flood survived because he is a regional rep, but he needs to consider that the LNC as a whole definitely did not endorse his behavior, and he needs to behave somewhat differently during the coming term if he is to accord with their wishes.

    The delegates apparently didn’t consider Alicia Mattson’s connection with the shenanigans sufficient to knock her off the LNC, but that brings up another point: the delegates rewarded energy across the board. They seemed to ask: “What have you done for liberty recently?” Candidates who are undeniably active despite being controversial — those as diverse as Redpath, Mattson, Root, and Ruwart — found themselves on the LNC, while those who have been less active were not elected. The surprising defeat of Judge Gray can perhaps be attributed to his lack of Libertarian activism in recent months; his “big name” status was not enough to get him on the LNC. Aaron Starr’s defeat can be explained in the same way, perhaps. Ironically, his defeat may have less to do with his shenanigans than with the fact that they seemed to be all he had to offer the party, other than being a competent treasurer. In a race where his opponent, James Oaksun, personified energy — producing charts and analyses almost faster than people could read them — Starr failed to advance a compelling reason for his candidacy. With two competent Treasurer candidates, why vote for the one with less energy and more baggage?

  43. Trent Hill Post author

    “Really, the lesson the New Path people should take from this convention is that, since they control about 40% of the delegate votes in the LP at present (witness the losing margins of Marbry and Power), their organizing efforts should be directed at LNC at-large and regional rep elections rather than at the top four spots. A solid 40% block is more than enough to elect perhaps four of five at-large members and to swing several more regional seats, if more organizing went into those races.”

    I don’t know where you get that number, 40%. Phillies himself recieved only 70 delegate votes in the chair’s race and was the first to be eliminated from that contest. He received 10.55% of the delegate votes–as the top of the ticket, this probably demonstrated the New Path’s delegate strength more easily than two-person races in which various factions were allied against others (such as the Power and Marbry losses). I suspect this number, 10.5% is much closer to the New Path’s delegate strength. Still–this is nothing to shake a stick at and George should definitely be trying to become a regional rep or trying to get one elected from his New Path group. 10.55% of the delegates can do quite a lot.

  44. George Phillies

    “had they come in with a solid slate of (say) Ruwart, Wrights, Nolan, Hill, and Myers, they could easily have gotten three elected and perhaps even four”

    Two of the people you list were actively campaigning against us, and two (Ruwart, Wrights) were not interested in belonging to any particular slate. We actually had two At-Large candidates, one of whom decided after seeing the officer outcomes that there were better uses of his time and money for building our party, which was his interest.

  45. Chuck Moulton

    Jeremy Young wrote (@53):

    The message the delegates sent is that they want the LNC to continue to operate as a mature, reasoned political party rather than a radical activist one — but that they want the more conservative forces to knock off the shenanigans.

    I think we should start the No Shenanigans Caucus. It could be a solid group of people who email a “No shenanigans.” message to the entire LNC right before each meeting and use the public comment period before the meeting to emphasize “No shenanigans.”

  46. Trent Hill Post author

    NO shenanigans? I dunno, I’m a fan of shenanigans myself–just not the type LP leadership sometimes engages in.

  47. Jeremy Young

    Trent, I should have been clearer — when I said the New Path people, I meant the radical wing of the LP, or rather those who desire a radical change of direction in the party (a group that includes George Phillies, but not Mark Hinkle). I don’t consider the Chair vote an accurate representation of that group, since plenty of people in that group had Hancock or Myers or Hinkle as their first choice, and plenty of “reformers” couldn’t stomach Root in that position (I’m pretty sure Brian Holtz voted for Hinkle in the final round, for instance). There may have been 10% of delegates who were willing to vote for Phillies, but there were just over 40% who were willing to vote for less-qualified radicals (Marbry and Power) over more-qualified reformers (Rutherford and Mattson).

    George, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Nolan and Myers were actively running against your slate. Nolan doesn’t care for you, but he’s been very positive about other New Path candidates, particularly Carolyn Marbry. Myers made it clear that he thought you were the best candidate in the race, but that he wasn’t sure you could win, and that he supported the other members of the slate.

    Also, recall that there was in fact a de facto radical “slate” at the 2008 convention (Ruwart, Wrights, and Keaton) which succeeded in pulling Keaton across the finish line when she would otherwise have likely not done so. Their mistake was in picking Keaton over the more intellectually weighty and less controversial Susan Hogarth, which ultimately cost them a seat. Nevertheless, this is the sort of strategic thinking I’m talking about. A more effective New Path floor tactic would have been to marshal the ca. 40% of delegates who supported 3 of 4 New Path executive officer candidates behind those candidates who were clearly emerging as radical favorites, whether they asked for that backing or not. That would have included Ruwart, Nolan, and Wrights for sure, and probably a couple of others. Such a move likely would have pulled Wrights ahead of Knedler for the fifth seat.

    Chuck, I think the No Shenaniganns Caucus is what just got elected to the LNC. I expect a much calmer term this cycle than last, as the more level-headed and moderate members of all factions got on the LNC. (Keep in mind that I don’t think this is a good thing — I’m a flaming radical in my politics, whether or not I share ideological goals with the party in question.)

  48. Jeremy Young

    I should also do a “Winners and Losers” post. Here are the convention’s big winners, as I see it:

    – Mark Hinkle. Went from being everybody’s lackluster second choice to LNC Chair while riding an unprecedented show of unity. In order to maintain that unity, he’ll need to show more decisiveness than he has in the past term, especially with two former Chairs and a runner-up kicking around on the committee.

    – Wayne Root. No matter how many times this guy loses, it just seems to make him stronger. Losing the LNC chair race has, ironically, probably made him the frontrunner for the 2012 Presidential nomination. He’s a real rock star, but he’s also shown an incredible amount of endurance; both continue to work in his favor.

    – John Jay Myers. Despite losing two races, came out of the convention with probably more goodwill from all sides than any other Libertarian. Myers went from being a nobody in the party to being able to mount a credible race for any party office in future, even Presidential candidate.

    – Mark Rutherford and Alicia Mattson. With the departure of Starr and Carling and the demotion of Root and Redpath, these two are now the ringleaders of the conservative “reformer” faction on the LNC. Given the LNC’s composition this term, that gives them a lot of power indeed, maybe even more than Hinkle has.

    – Kevin Knedler. Way to run a come-from-behind race to get on the LNC in perhaps the toughest year ever. Any Libertarian who can beat Lee Wrights, Pat Dixon, and Judge Jim Gray all at once belongs on this list.

    Losers:

    – Aaron Starr. This was a complete rebuff for a guy who many people clearly thought had it coming, but who always manages to pull through anyway. This time, he failed utterly. Did Starr actually do anything to try to win this race?

    – Ernie Hancock. It’s hard to remember that Hancock was the frontrunner at one point for LNC Chair, so much so that Root was attacking him. Hancock showed himself to be not only radical but erratic and irresponsible, likely ending any chance at serving in LNC national office in the future.

    – George Phillies and the New Path slate. No matter how hard George tries, people in the LP just don’t like him enough to trust him with any position of power. He performed much worse in 2010 than he did in 2008, when he came in a surprising fifth in the Presidential race (beating Steve Kubby and Michael Jingozian and finishing just below Mike Gravel). Additionally, only one member of the New Path slate was elected. If the LP won’t turn to George when it’s in this much trouble, it won’t ever turn to him.

    – Judge Jim Gray. This was the real shocker of the convention — I don’t think anybody expected Gray to fail to make the top five in at-large voting. I guess he lost because he wasn’t there in person, but still — it’s Judge Jim Gray.

    – The ACHIEVE Slate. Two candidates in competitive races, zero of these candidates were elected. Also, the candidates were a sitting LNC rep and…Judge Jim Gray. What more is there to say?

  49. Tom Blanton

    Sayeth Master Brian:

    But I do have a problem when such leaders talk about the LP “continuing to turn away from our principles”, when the facts show that no such turn ever happened.

    Perhaps if Holtz spent less time perusing archive.org for headlines that preach to the choir and more time reviewing the websites of LP candidates for House and Senate, he might find that war is often not even mentioned. Often the many LP candidates that proclaim their conservatism explain their entire foreign policy perspective is summed up as: strong national defense.

    The LP candidates in 2006 and 2008 were NOT antiwar candidates by any stretch of the imagination. The few 2010 LP candidate websites I have looked at aren’t much better.

    The worst I’ve seen so far is Dondero’s pal, Jim Prindle (known to Dondero as Tim Prindle).

    http://www.prindleforcongress.com/

    Be sure to note Prindle’s bio (pdf) where he describes himself as a conservative. Note how he is selling the LP by counting the number of times the word “libertarian” appears. Be sure to check out his “issues” page. Admire the pics of people like Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter on his Flickr feed and don’t forget to read the rabid right Twitter feeds he has set up.

    While Root and Beck confuse the general public about what libertarianism is on a national level, it is people like Prindle that confuse the general public up close on the local level. All while Holtz tells us the LP is committed to libertarian principles. It’s unfortunate that most people never see that commitment unless they are really looking for it.

  50. Eric Dondero

    John Jay Meyers, back at ya…

    There is NOTHING Libertarian about Sharia Law. Please stop avoiding the question.

    Europe is under assault by Radical Islam. I’ve been there twice in the last decade. It is astonishing the freedoms that have been lost in France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands.

    Gays can no longer feel safe going outside. They will be harrassed by stone-throwing Muslim youth in Amsterdam and Paris and Copenhagen.

    Marijuana shops are closing all across the Netherlands because of opposition by Muslim political leaders, pressuring them to close their doors.

    Bars and Taverns are threatened too.

    Muslims are rampaging against Casinos.

    In the south of France, women are now afraid to go topless on the beaches. Paris recently outlawed topless sunbathing on the River Seine due to Muslim pressure.

    Is this what you want for the future of the United States?

    Please tell me how it is that Islamist law is consistent with Libertarian tolerance?

  51. Eric Dondero

    Okay Blanton, I publicly and profusely apologize for calling Jim Prindle, “Tim Prindle.”

    Readers of IPR, let the record show, that I – Eric Dondero Rittberg – fully admit I made an error in my first comment post above, mistakenly calling an LP delegate to the National Convention “Tim” instead of his correct name Jim.

    Sincerest apologies to Blanton, all IPR readers and most especially to the Prindle family.

  52. Eric Dondero

    Blaton obviously doesn’t know this little factoid. He thus embarrasses himself.

    He blasts Prindle for having a photo of Ann Coulter on his home page.

    Fact:

    In the late 1990s, the Libertarian Party of Connecticut met with Ann Coulter about the possibility of her running for a US Senate seat against Democrat Christopher Dodd. Coulter welcomed the meeting, but later decided against the run.

    And Prindle gets criticized for having her photo up on his website? How about criticizing the LP of CT?

  53. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jeremy,

    Not to disrespect Susan Hogarth, but I’m hard put to think of anyone more “intellectually weighty” than Angela Keaton.

    As to the failure of the ACHIEVE slate, it’s pretty simple: There were just too many “big names” running for at-large, and both Gray and Dixon have two weaknesses that stand out in a “big name” field.

    Their first weakness is that they’re not firmly tied to any party faction that gives them a fairly automatic “base” of support — they have to get their votes piecemeal from people who watch what they’re doing and approve of it.

    Their second weakness is that they’re not self-promoters in the way that some of those other big names are. No, they’re not wallflowers by any stretch of the imagination, but they tend to spend more time blowing the party’s horn than their own.

    Those two things — things which would make them great choices for LNC — perversely make them less likely to be elected in a field like the one they were running in.

    And, of course, Gray wasn’t there. That cost him some votes.

    My guess is that Dixon will continue to work on building the “ACHIEVE” brand so that it might eventually function in much the same way as a factional base of support.

  54. George Phillies

    @59 “Mark Hinkle. Went from being everybody’s lackluster second choice to LNC Chair while riding an unprecedented show of unity. In order to maintain that unity, he’ll need to show more decisiveness than he has in the past term, especially with two former Chairs and a runner-up kicking around on the committee.”

    The LNC meeting showed the future rather clearly.

  55. Brian Holtz

    Michael @45, if minimizing the killings of innocents should be the top priority of U.S. military policy, then that would make the U.S. military into the policeman of the world. I can oppose all the unjust American military actions of the last century without being forced to agree that antiwar should be the LP’s primary message.

    Our primary message should always be that the LP is the only party that is neither Left nor Right. Opposition to policing the world is an important part of that message, but it’s not the most important part.

    JJ @51, if your problem with the LP or its leaders is simply their “lack of quotations” on the antiwar issue, then it’s not fair for you to throw bricks like “third war party”. You’re not just a random county Chair any more. Please take more personal responsibility for building the party unity that you advocate.

    It’s not fair to say there has been a “lack of quotations” on the antiwar issue by the LP, or by Barr, or by Root. It’s fair to say that they haven’t “screamed” antiwar “from the rooftops”, but that doesn’t justify rhetoric like “third war party”. Hancock-style brick-throwing like that will not help unite our party. Candidates who clearly campaigned on making antiwar the LP’s top issue got 29% of first-round Chair votes — or maybe 39% if you count Phillies. However, 38% of first-round votes went to a Chair candidate who disagreed with antiwar being the LP’s top issue. I agree with Root that the LP should continue to oppose the nation-building wars of Bush and Obama even as they wind down. There will always be troops overseas for us to oppose, but with bailouts and Obamacare and tea parties in the headlines, the LP can’t be just another anti-empire party alongside the Greens and CP and Naderites.

    Ditto to Knapp on Keaton’s intellectual heft. She doesn’t always “show her work” in her polemics, but the rhetorical shortcuts she takes are invariably clever, and sprinkled with knowing references to the movement’s serious thinkers. She also knows her way around an LP convention microphone, and would probably have again out-polled Wrights in the at-large voting, as she did in Denver 188-146.

  56. Michael H. Wilson

    Brian I very clearly stated that the U.S. government has been involved in those deaths and nowhere did I suggest that the U.S. military be used to stop the violence we see world wide.

    “The U.S. government has been responsible for the deaths of a million or more people in undeclared wars, most of whom were civilians, since the end of WWII. And those deaths are a pretty serious violation of civil liberties. May I also suggest that killing innocent others is worse than theft.”

    You can twist my words all you want to satisfy your own desire. Have fun! If that is the way you wish to work then I will feel sorry for anyone who you supervise or comes before any committee you are on.

  57. Nicholas Sarwark

    one of whom decided after seeing the officer outcomes that there were better uses of his time and money for building our party, which was his interest.

    That was a stand-up move by Captain Wilhoit, and I hope he stands for a leadership role at a future convention. It’s too bad though, that we’re now missing a retired naval flag officer on the LNC. 😉

  58. Brian Holtz

    Michael, my point was this: where you seem to value minimizing the number of innocents killed by America, I value minimizing the number of innocents killed, period. If you value the ghosts of innocents less than you value your own clean hands, then more ghosts line up on my side of the argument than the ones you summoned @45.

    And please don’t accuse me of arguing against strawmen when you seem so eager to lay at my doorstep every innocent death that has ever resulted from America’s military and foreign policy mistakes.

    When “antiwar” advocates lazily argue against imaginary advocates of “murder”, they give aid and comfort to real-world advocates of misguided wars built on the faulty justification that the wars will prevent murders instead of provoke them.

    The only people I count as serious opponents of war are those with the intellectual courage to confront head-on the arguments that get us into wars and keep us in them. Antiwarriors who lazily question the sincerity of their opponents are seen as endorsing their opponents’ pro-war arguments in the eyes of the crucial fence-sitters who tend to grant each side’s sincerity.

    These nation-building wars are wrong even if they are well-intentioned. If you can’t make that case, then you are not a real antiwar advocate, you just play one on the Internet.

  59. James Oaksun

    @59 Jeremy

    Perhaps a topic for another time/place… but something I picked up pretty clearly as I made my rounds this weekend (and no I didn’t talk to everyone, and there were many I was hoping to talk to and didn’t/couldn’t (and I hope they know who they are and know I am available and accessible now too))… is that among a substantial number of delegates there seemed to be some uneasiness (or worse) around the notion of “slates”.

    Whether there is a learning there for future campaigns I do not know. And no it wasn’t a scientific survey, just shoe leather and intuition.

  60. Susan Hogarth

    Jeremy @58:

    I appreciate the compliment, but it pains me that people might actually think that you know what you’re talking about. No one ‘carried’ Keaton – and no one ‘picked’ Keaton over Hogarth (except the voters).

    That’s nothing, though, compared to this whopping misunderstanding:

    “… when I said the New Path people, I meant the radical wing of the LP, or rather those who desire a radical change of direction in the party (a group that includes George Phillies, but not Mark Hinkle).”

    I’m glad you made clear that your definition varies from reality, but why confuse matters? “Radical” in the context of LP factionalism doesn’t refer to “change in direction” or Party governance (although many others make this same mistake, sadly), but instead to the sort of libertarianism that Rothbard referred to as ‘plumbline’ – strictly noninterventionist, free market, open borders, etc. Radicalism in this sense is not strictly anti-incrementalist, and it really has no bearing on Party governance, though radicals within the LP tend to favor activism as well as running candidates, membership growth, inreach as well as outreach, and in general, a more long-term strategy for change of the political system (i.e. we tend not to get too caught up in the idea that the LP is about to sweep the next election …).

    Mark Hinkle most certainly *is* a radical by this understanding, while Phillies is emphatically *not*.

  61. Jeremy Young

    Susan, I’m pretty sure everyone on this board knows I don’t know what I’m talking about! I’m not a Libertarian, have never been to an LP convention, and have never met anyone else who posts on this board. I say these things pretty frequently to make them clear to other readers. However, I am adept at Monday-morning quarterbacking. 😉

    As for my errors of fact, as you put them, though I am apparently wrong about Keaton polling lower than Wrights on the Radical “slate” in 2008 (can’t find a confirmatory post for that), here’s the IPR article that discusses the existence of such a slate, noting, “This might leave Susan Hogarth out.” It does say nothing was confirmed, but IPR is a pretty good source of news, so I feel justified in having assumed that article was correct.

    As for the labels, I will gladly defer to your judgment since you run the LP Radical caucus. In that case, what terms would you prefer for the view that the party should radically change its governance (held by many “radicals”, plus Phillies) and the view that its governance is pretty good as is (held by many “reformers”, plus Hinkle)?

  62. Chuck Moulton

    Sadly the radical caucus had no organized presence at the convention.

    There was the radical lunch at the Chinese buffet, but that had no speaker and tables (of 4-5) pretty much kept to themselves rather than intermingling with other tables. It was very well attended even though it wasn’t organizationally effective.

    The “Bar not Barr” event seemed very well attended as well. Because I only arrived at the very tail end I don’t know for sure whether it contained any organization, but I believe it was just a networking opportunity for radicals. (Note: Unlike the organizer of that event, I consider Bob Barr to be a fine libertarian and a friend — though his campaign was heavily mismanaged. I attended the event because my good friend Jim Babb hosted it.)

    Main radical organizers Susan Hogarth, Marc Montoni, and Morey Straus didn’t attend the convention. The radical caucus had no vendor booth.

    I believe distributing literature identifying a slate of radical At-Large candidates (Lee Wrights, Mary Ruwart, and David Nolan) along with a coordinated outreach campaign persuading delegates could have been effective at boasting their vote totals.

  63. Michael H. Wilson

    re: 70 Brian you may want to see about getting some help. Either that our you have this astonishing skill to misreads others words and their thoughts not to mention their intentions. I don’t know how you can put to good use such a skill but I’m sure there must be a place for misreading others somewhere.

  64. Thomas L. Knapp

    Chuck,

    The LP Radicals Caucus (proper name as opposed to descriptive) is probably better understood as a loose affiliation/tendency in the party than as a formal caucus, at least at this time.

    In terms of the LNC proper, I’ve seen little to no interest in an organized radical takeover attempt. Most radicals would like to see radical representation on the LNC “to keep them honest,” but don’t consider the LNC to be an ideological body per se.

    Wrights and Ruwart were not formally affiliated with the New Path slate (which in general composition leaned more radical than its chair candidate), but were on friendly terms with, and effectively supported by, them.

    The Nolan stood alone. His personal prestige in the party is sufficient to allow him to run independently rather than as part of a slate — and doing so allows him to build bridges between factions, which I think is a pretty good thing.

    Nolan certainly had the active support of radicals for his election. I know that I was one of the people who distributed his fliers to the delegate tables, etc., and I was not the only one.

    Descriptively, there was at least one active radical caucus at the convention, formed in the suite of and under the aegis of George Phillies. He may be generally a centrist, but he’s radical on foreign policy and brought together the Libertarian Non-Intervention Caucus.

    LNIC had low double-digit attendance at its organizational meeting (which began half an hour after the radical lunch started, probably negatively affecting attendance).

    At that organizational meeting, we resolved initial organization matters (near-future outreach plans, resolution to meet early at each convention to craft platform priorities, etc.).

    We also chose one immediate issue to work on, that being defeating the platform committee’s recommendation on section 3.3.

    We we the sole players in defeating that proposal? Certainly not. On the other hand, I believe we were instrumental in its defeat. We explained our case in a short flier distributed to the delegates, we got our speakers to the mics to oppose the change, and it went down.

    We were not, however, ready for what happened next — Rebeccas Sink-Burris proposed, and the body passed, a beautiful amendment which improved the language AND kept the priorities of that plank in the order we wanted them in. That amendment won Sink-Burris my vote for at-large LNC, btw.

  65. Doug craig

    well said Susan. I am a radical myself in that context but I love to work on campaigns no matter what side the candidates come from. I look forward to the next two years plus we scheduled one of our LNC meeting in Vegas during Freedom fest . That should be a blast

  66. Steven wilson

    I don’t understand why the focus is always on the national level. The long term foundation of this party is the state chair. This faction ideal or slate persona means nothing in regards to function.

    Glenn Nielsen is a fine state chair and has a good reputation. He is not flashy, but he is credible and hard working. We need to recruit solid state chairs.

    Root needs maturation outside of the TV. He is still a child in regards to policy formation and strategy. And Hinkle was a non-root pro unity vote. THe national level NEEDS to prove itself outside of ballot access.

    Myers couty chair idea is also solid. No matter who it is, we need foot soldiers, not window dressing.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steven,

    You write:

    “Glenn Nielsen is a fine state chair”

    Yes, he is.

    Unfortunately, Glenn just resigned for health reasons, effective June 13th (when an emergency state committee meeting will convene to choose his replacement).

  68. paulie

    @ 79 Gotta work a way to go there. Maybe I’ll work a week on mpp’s thing even though it’s paying crap just to pay for the trip, or something.

    @ 74 “Candidates” were supposed to speak at Bar no Barr, but the only one I remember actually speaking was Hancock.

    Glad I got to see Jordan Page play though…

  69. Andy

    “paulie // Jun 2, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    @ 79 Gotta work a way to go there. Maybe I’ll work a week on mpp’s thing even though it’s paying crap just to pay for the trip, or something.”

    Wait a while and maybe they’ll raise the pay.

  70. John Jay Myers

    I am going to make a short video this week requesting people to step up and take county leadership roles with a short bit of information on what to expect.

    Maybe national will put it out there, maybe we will just forward it around ourselves. But it will be out there.

    We should have a demo of the website available by the end of the month. I look forward to input on all of these things.

    I am very sorry to hear that about Glenn Nielsen I think he is a great guy.
    I have my fingers crossed for him.

  71. Steven wilson

    @Tom,

    I hope it is not serious. Is this a permanent move, or will the committee choose someone temp until Glenn comes back?

    Glenn was a reason I joined the Missouri Libertarian Party.

  72. Thomas L. Knapp

    Steven,

    Glenn survived a small heart attack a couple of months ago. I don’t think I’m talking out of school here — I know he at least told the executive committee, and I thought it was general knowledge by now.

    He’s decided to make his health a priority, and that means he’s taking time off from the heaviest lifting he has to do with LPMO. He’ll remain webmaster, and will probably just do the work of two or three regular activists instead of five or ten 😉

  73. Melty

    these days a noninterventionist message is about as ‘neither left nor right’ as it gets

  74. Steven wilson

    Glenn is an outstanding foot soldier. I am glad he is taking his health concerns seriously. I hope he will be around a long time.

    I checked in about the committee county seat, and going through a campaign now seems off to helping the county presence grow in that capacity. I am interested in seeing what ideas Myers had in the chair on the web, but also in other ways. Not everybody down here has internet. Osage county has some C4L and tea party people, but not alot.

  75. Eric Dondero

    The Libertarian Defense Caucus actually held an official organizing meeting at the convention. Yes, there were only 5 or 6 in attendence. But we met. Elected officers, and chartered a course for the future.

    One of our officers – Vice-Chair – is Dave Haase, Libertarian candidate for US Senate in Alaska. Another LDC member is Brenden Kelly, a Town Selectmen in Seabrook, NH and the LP’s best shot at electing a State Rep. for 2010.

    Good to hear that we in the LDC are actually more organized than the Radical Caucus. That’s a great start!! in bringing the LP back to a REAL! Libertarian position of Pro-Defense.

  76. Michael H. Wilson

    Dondero you don’t get it. The Rads don’t need to elect officer to get the job done. They just do it!

  77. Eric Dondero

    And we’ll “do it” too. We Pro-Defensers will never, ever rest until the entire libertarian movement loses the pacifist leftie wing. Pro-Defense is the ONLY! view consistent with libertarian philosophy.

    Islamo-Fascism and those who lend it support are not in any way libertarian. Sharia Law is the exact opposite of Liberty. We Libertarians must fight Sharia with all our might. Give us Liberty, or give us Death.

  78. Robert Capozzi

    ed: Give us Liberty, or give us Death.

    me: hmm, last I checked, we’re all going to die, and odds are VERY high that liberty will remain elusive for us all, so it seems this is a false choice.

    But who else would pay to see Dondero vs. Davidson in a mudwrestling match to the end?

  79. Starchild

    Root is proclaiming at his website MilllionaireRepublican.com (which he still actively uses) that he came in first in the voting for at-large slots on the LNC.

    I could be mistaken as I do not have my notes from the convention in front of me, but I thought Mary Ruwart drew the most votes. I believe they listed her name first when reporting the results. Anyone care to confirm this one way or the other?

  80. Starchild

    Jeremy @73 – I think some of the confusion over who in the Libertarian Party is “radical” results from the fact that there are really *two* different radical/pragmatic (or radical/moderate, radical/opportunist if you prefer) splits.

    The one Susan is focused on is the ideological split. On that division, she’s right that Mark Hinkle is radical-oriented and George Phillies is not. However there is also the *methodological* split. In terms of methodology and approach to party governance, I count George Phillies as a radical and Mark Hinkle as a status quo guy.

    In my view, the methodological question is actually more important to the immediate future of the party than the ideological question. There are a number of Libertarians who are radical in their personal beliefs (favoring a stateless or near-stateless society, etc.), but who nevertheless believe the best way to get there is by being cautious, moderate, appealing to the mainstream, worrying about image, not appearing “kooky,” etc.

    In my view, these folks are well-intentioned but misguided. We need to be the change we want to see in the world, and the ends we achieve will reflect the means we use to get there.

    I started the Grassroots Libertarians Caucus (www.groups.yahoo.com/groups/grassrootslibertarians) with the aim of bringing about a party culture that is sustainable and does not subtly undermine the party’s radical ideology.

  81. Chuck Moulton

    Starchild wrote (@96):

    Root is proclaiming at his website MilllionaireRepublican.com (which he still actively uses) that he came in first in the voting for at-large slots on the LNC.

    I could be mistaken as I do not have my notes from the convention in front of me, but I thought Mary Ruwart drew the most votes.

    Root got the most votes for at-large.

  82. kevin knedler

    At-Large to LNC:
    Mr. Root 250
    Mr. Redpath 225
    Dr. Ruwart 202 or thereabouts
    Mr. Nolan 183
    Mr. Knedler 177

  83. Nicholas Sarwark

    Root is proclaiming at his website MilllionaireRepublican.com (which he still actively uses) that he came in first in the voting for at-large slots on the LNC.

    1) I think he still owns the domain and has it point at his site. The content is the same between that site and root4america.com (and whatever other domains he owns).

    2) As to him getting the most votes, I’ll take some of the blame for that. In retrospect, I still think it was the right thing to do to second his nomination.

  84. Brian Holtz

    And a classy move, too. Nick was absolutely right in his seconding speech to say that somebody who can command 40% of the Chair votes in a field that strong should obviously have a voice and a vote on the LNC. (If Root is merely a “conservative” and not a libertarian as critics like Ruwart and Wrights suggest, then how do they explain that 40% of the delegates voted for him? Are they non-libertarians too?)

    On my blog Sunday night I had predicted Redpath and Nolan finishing ahead of Root in the at-large race. Wayne noticed my prediction and told me Monday morning that he liked his chances of finishing in first place. I said this would be a good test of his oddsmaking skills, but darned if he didn’t confound my prediction. I had the right names in my top 4, but Knedler in 5th was not on my radar.

  85. "What have you been smoking ????" ......... Don Lake

    Trent Hill // Jun 3, 2010:
    “It was a unifying move, for sure ……..”

    Reminds me of Vermont Progressive Tony Pollina running AND LOSING the recent bid for governor AS AN INDEPENDENT, instead of winning Lt Gov on Bull Moose lable …………

    Reminds me of the new, young Emperor of Austrio – Hungry (1917) continuing to fight with the Germans instead of using the dying Megalomaniac Franz Josef as a way to disengage from the Western Front or even a path to sign a separate armistice with pre Soviet Russia!

    Reminds me of the USA canceling the Viet namese 1954 nation wide elections ……..

    Reminds me of Hitler as VICE Chancellor to the ailing and aging Hindenberg and the ‘anarchist / socialist / Communist’ fire at the Reichstag!

    Reminds me ……….. oh Trent, plz tell me you kinda get the idea! How is W. A. R. and his GOP site doin’ ???????

  86. "What have you been smoking ????" ......... Don Lake

    Nicholas Sarwark // Jun 3, 2010:

    “………. Exclamation Point Rule of Thumb: never use more exclamation points in a month than you have thumbs …….”

    [altho, if you do, make sure there is spacing between such and the last word, as both will jump to a new line. Same with “………..” ]

  87. "What have you been smoking ????" ......... Don Lake

    Lib Grrl // Jun 3, 2010:

    Brian Holtz is a decent (wrong, he and Bruce Cohen are both agents provacateur!) , honest (not in the least!) man of his word (when, where, how ?????)

    he (neo con GOP mole Brian Holta) is however a barracuda (corrected spelling) of a debater (and barracuda have no humanity, no morals, no soul!),

    don’t (corrected spelling) play if you can’t (corrected spelling) take it! so fuck off Lake

    [I am more than willing to fight the good fight against religion in secular politics, DISHONESTY from any corner, and the lack of logic in general. ]

    [I am more than willing to take it —— and from better people than you!]

    [Plz tell me how to ‘phugue oph’ as I am unfamiliar with the process …………]

    —— Lake, not the river, not the stream, but the Lake ……….

    Cohen and Holtz RICHLY deserve the shared ‘John Edwards Fidelity Award 2010’ ………

  88. Carolyn Marbry

    Dondero @ 93 says: “… We Pro-Defensers will never, ever rest until the entire libertarian movement loses the pacifist leftie wing. Pro-Defense is the ONLY! view consistent with libertarian philosophy.”

    Me: Mr Dondero, even setting aside the menacing tone of your statement… I recommend you look closely at a martial art called aikido, AKA “the art of peace.” Its philosophy is virtually identical to the non-initiation of force pledge for Libertarians, essentially the notion that we will not start a fight, but if attacked, we will end it with the minimum amount of force necessary.

    Nobody would accuse a martial artist of being a “pacifist.” And as some of you may remember, in Denver two years ago, I actually did have to deal with a guy who was a few bats short of a belfry who was trying to disrupt the unofficial chairs’ debate. I used a very minimal expenditure of aikido, mostly using my voice, and only once having to lay hands on him. That was not initiation of force. I was simply not allowing him to use force in trying to silence our candidates. He was unharmed, if somewhat baffled at being unable to stand and shout at our candidates. Had he pushed it to a physical altercation, I would have escalated my response, as well. But I was not going to clock the guy cold unless he did so. THAT is non-initiation of force but certainly not pacifism.

    There’s a difference between a true pacifist who would die before raising a hand in his own defense and someone who does not believe in the initiation of force. It’s not really subtle, so it shouldn’t be too hard to grasp. And you’ve been a Libertarian for a while now, so I have to assume you were merely being hyperbolic.

    Dondero says: “Islamo-Fascism and those who lend it support are not in any way libertarian. ”

    Me: Libertarians do not support the use of force in the name of any ideology, and I’d challenge you to show me any Libertarians who have expressed support for such force in the name of Islam. For someone to express an extremist viewpoint pertaining to Islam, however, is not a hanging offense. Only when these so-called “Islamofascists” act on those extremist opinions and actually exert force should we oppose them.

    Dondero says: “Sharia Law is the exact opposite of Liberty. We Libertarians must fight Sharia with all our might. Give us Liberty, or give us Death.”

    Me: Um… okay, but we’re not in any danger of sharia law in this country. Not remotely. So while this sounds really gung ho and rah rah boo-yah, it’s rather empty. Are you suggesting that it’s our place to go make sure that other people in other lands who WANT sharia law not be allowed to have it?

    Don’t get me wrong, I studied Islam and Sharia Law for several years and yeah, it’s not exactly compatible with Libertarianism. I would not want to live in a culture dominated by Sharia Law. On the other hand, as a Libertarian, I don’t believe it’s my place to forbid others to live under that law if they so choose. To do so would require initiation of force, which is actually about as unlibertarian as one can get.

  89. "What have I been smoking ????" ......... Don Lake

    Eric Dondero (The GOP Mole) // Jun 3, 2010:
    …….. “We Pro- Defensers”…………

    [what, where, how ???????????]

    “libertarian philosophy”……….

    [wait, wait, hold it, Doctor George Phillies and Thomas Knapp say that LP is the One and Only 21st Century American Peace Party ………]

    “Give us Liberty, or give us Death!”

    [bet millions of South Western Aisans are possibly, probably wishing for the liberty from a bunch of heavily armed Americans strolling THEIR streets!]

Leave a Reply

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