The Libertarian Party gets some nice coverage in today’s papers.
Mister Root is quoted in both articles:
“If I’m not on the right track,” said Root when asked about his Libertarian critics, “how can you explain Fox News, a conservative TV network, giving TV shows to Glenn Beck, Jon Stossel and Judge Andrew Napolitano — all strong libertarian thinkers?
How can you explain the success of Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Sharron Angle?
How can you explain [my coming] out of nowhere to become the 2008 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential nominee, and now becoming an overnight media sensation on Fox News, Fox Business, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC — doing 20 to 30 radio interviews a week across the country?”
Several other Libertarians take potshots at Wayne in the Washinton Independent article by Alexander Zaitchik.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/a_libertarian_star_who_drives.html
“I think” is an opinion, not a statement of fact. Opinions are still legal in this country, especially when they are part of highly exaggerated political humor, even if I denied I was being funny. But the guy makes me laugh – though not in the way he prefers. And he does get my competitive juices going. But more on that in the future…
@227 You made a highly damaging assertion to someone specific character. Where is the evidence?
Steve Jobs is a level headed fellow. So are many people who seek publicity to further their goals. Hmm, if I stop here maybe I’ll get the last word in.
cm, you might, OTOH, say that Steve Jobs is “addicted to publicity.” Or, you might recognize that publicity is free advertising, and vital in politics.
By your logic, perhaps BP purposely blew up the well in the Gulf in hopes of garnering publicity. That worked, in a sense.
OK. I WAS being serious. I think Root’s addicted to publicity and would become a Hotelier for Unlicensed Sex Therapists (to be totally euphemistic so as not to inflame tender male sensibilities) if he thought it would get him scads more publicity.
cm: Or do I hope I am [getting laughs]?
me: Don’t quit your day job.
Looks like Wayne is partially off the hook. He can get lots more of that publicity he so personally desperately craves by becoming a Madam – or whatever it is called when a man does it (feel free to supply your preferred descriptor) – and as a libertarian he of course supports his right to do it.
Hope I’m not pricking any over-inflated balloons here in and effort to get ever more ROFLs from ever the more people. Or do I hope I am?
she is just grandstanding and trying to get attention. Seen it before and we will see it again.
People just “arrive” and try to take advantage of open races with a minor party. Seen it before and we will see it again.
They have no historical perspective of the party and probably don’t care either. Here today and gone tomorrow. “Legends in their own minds”.
cm: She was a candidate for LP gov. nomination and that fact was STILL in the news after she lost it.
me: Near as I can tell, this is also false. Davis did not attend the nominating convention, I do believe, so she didn’t stand for the nomination, although she was strongly considering it for reasons that continue to baffle me. Almost every news story I’ve seen about her mentions Roger Stone, her campaign advisor, so it appears Stone’s involvement makes Davis’s run newsworthy, too.
cm: there is no doubt that if Wayne Root because a Male Prostitute and went around flaunting the fact he would get LOTS more publicity. Do you deny that obvious fact that one doesn’t have to google to know??
me: This is — I’m sorry — just ridiculous. You may be beyond redemption, but for those that still have some connection to reality, Yes, I DO deny “that obvious fact,” because it is NOT a fact. It’s wild speculation, based on one flawed extrapolation.
Playing along, if Root changed from “devoted family man” to “male prostitute,” yes, he might get some “curious and strange” type coverage. Whether such a severe change would make him more newsworthy long term seems unlikely to me, but possible.
Davis was not a prostitute, by the way. She was a madam. That in and of itself was not newsworthy, but rather her involvement in the Spitzer sex scandal and more specifically her disproportionate verdict compared with Spitzer’s.
Qualitative coverage makes a difference from mere quantitative hits. While Davis is getting some coverage now, it’s not obvious that her story is the makings of a real political movement. Root may or may not be, as L-ism may or may not be, and, for some, Root may not be an L.
(I certainly consider him a L, although I find his approach sometimes sub-optimal. He certainly gets an A for effort in my book. I find Root’s efforts far more valuable than dorm-room-type pontificating amongst ourselves.)
Mayflower was my mistake and not in the google search. She was a candidate for LP gov. nomination and that fact was STILL in the news after she lost it. And she’s still in news for wanting to start another type of libertarian party, so she’s definitely some sort of “libertarian” – just like wayne is. ha ha. https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/06/kristen-davis-to-run-under-reform-party-label/ The error was reading Spitzer’s 600 stories as hers. However, there is no doubt that if Wayne Root because a Male Prostitute and went around flaunting the fact he would get LOTS more publicity. Do you deny that obvious fact that one doesn’t have to google to know??
NOTE: There are 2 Kristin Davises…one’s an actress from SEX AND THE CITY, the other is the MANHATTAN Madam, not Mayflower Madam, the nickname for Sydney Biddle Barrows, who was in the news in the 80s. Gross Google hits seem to be a poor proxy for news coverage for numerous methological and analytical reasons.
Last I checked, Kristin “Manhattan Madam” Davis is NOT the LP candidate for governor, Warren Redlich is. Davis considered seeking the LP’s nomination, but in the end, did not, as I recall.
Sex does sell generally, although it generally does not sell in politics…it usu. involves a scandal of some sort that often is the undoing of the politician. Not sure why that is, since politics is widely recognized to be a “whorish” business, that is, selling out to the highest bidder. Perhaps we like our whores to remain closeted about their sideline business 😉
OTOH, the beefcake pics of Scott Brown and Obama seemed to help them in their respective most-recent elections. Palin in running attire seemed to hurt her. Probably a double standard is at work on some level…some sort of bizarre-yet-semi-universal repression syndrome would be my guess.
Let’s try to get our stories straight, folks.
Kristin Davis is soooo frickin hot , holy shizzle batman!
Carol@217 – ROFL
But my names were “CUTE” – and a test to see if you all could be cute or respond with harsh, crude, negativity. I see a couple of you flunked the test.
By the way, Wayne’s got a Libertarian Party competitor for national attention: LP NY Candidate Kristin Davis (the “Mayflower Madam”). She has over 600 NewsGoogle stories today compared to Wayne’s paltry dozen. Guess he’ll have to go into another line of “victimless crime” to get that kind of attention… 🙂
Robert: “Ms. Moore, should I call you…what…Poor Moore in return for Posie Wosie?”
How about Carol Mooron? I think mocking the names of people whom you sharply disagree with is childish and lame (like using dumb puns), but if she insists on it then that seems like a better option to me.
anon 214, allow me to clarify, then. I am not suggesting NOT criticizing a foreign nation’s behavior per se. As an L living in the US, I prefer to use my limited bandwidth focusing on what’s more properly my business, ie, USG behavior.
I would strongly suggest that my fellows Ls — esp party leadership and candidates for office — allocate their finite resources in a similar manner.
This anon. statement: “Criticizing a foreign country of exercising undue influence on U.S. foreign policy is not “racially and ethnically divisive hatemongering.””…begs the questions “What are ‘undue’?” and “How do you know that a foreign country is actually doing so?”
In the case of Israel, there have been a few INSTANCES of reasonably well proven undue influence in a specific case. However, I suggest strongly against make BLANKET statements.
(I’d allow suggest not making BLANKET statements like Michael Moore has about the Saudis.)
Making statements about what the Chinese or Israeli governments do is not the issue, as I understand the hard-right view that some Ls seem to buy into. It’s that there’s an assemblage/complex/conspiracy involving Israel, American Jews/Zionists etc. Like an Alex Jones documentary, those who advance these conspiracy theories assemble some seemingly damning facts and then spin out conclusions that do not necessarily follow, IMO.
Again, I am NOT suggesting that Ls never critique behaviors of foreign nations. I’d would strongly suggest that such critiques be balanced, however.
Off the top of my head, the narrative might go something like this: If there’s a lesson to be learned in the ME, it’s that US military and foreign aid tend to provoke animosity rather than promote peace. Yes, Saddam’s regime was brutal, as are many regimes around the globe. I believe the price for toppling Saddam was far too high for US taxpayers, military and the Iraqis themselves in both blood and treasure.
Similarly, the Arab/Israeli conflict has shown no discernible improvement after decades of US busybody policies. We’ve sent an aggregate of $_ billion to that region over the past 3 decades, yet the security of Israel and the rights of the Palestinians and others have still not been secured. I believe we need to consider the possibility that US tax dollars have only made the situation worse, that we’ve added fuel to the fire.
This nanny state at home, busybody abroad approach does not work, in my judgment. I believe we need to more in another direction, a peaceful direction. etc. etc. etc.
Robert Capozzi: “We can leave the Jewish lobby/Zionist cabal conspiracy theorizing stuff to the hard right and Alex Jones.
Criticizing Israel’s influence on U.S. foreign policy is “cabal conspiracy theorizing”?
Robert Capozzi: “alienating and/or provoking broad constituencies of Americans with racially and ethnically divisive hatemongering.”
Should we never criticize China because it might “alienate and/or provoke” Chinese-Americans? Should we never criticize Syria because it might “alienate and/or provoke” Arab-Americans? Or are you suggesting that only Jewish-Americans are “alientated and/or provoked” by criticism of a foreign country?
Criticizing a foreign country of exercising undue influence on U.S. foreign policy is not “racially and ethnically divisive hatemongering.”
We’re told to ignore Israel’s misdeeds because it may upset some folk and that would not “advance the cause of liberty.” I suggest that improving the lives of Gazans would indeed “advance the cause of liberty.”
mhw, it appears we have a causality question here. And a epistemological question (in the end, aren’t they all?) about whether we can know another’s true motive.
So let’s break it down.
– Were Kristol and New American Century for the Iraq War? Yes, no question in my mind.
– Did they singlehandedly convince the USG to go to war in Iraq? I can’t say for sure, but I do believe it’s safe to say No.
– Are Kristol and NAC in charge of a “Jewish lobby/Zionist cabal”? No. I believe Kristol is Jewish and others in NAC are Jewish, but not all are. I am unaware that any of them claim to be Zionists, making knowledge of a cabal impossible.
– Is Kristol in charge, then, only of the “Jewish lobby.”? No. There are many lobbying organizations that could fairly be characterized as “Jewish lobbies,” and there is no evidence that Kristol is in charge of all of them.
– Is Kristol in charge of A “Jewish lobby”? No, not to my knowledge. NAC is not explicitly Jewish and is not a lobbying organization.
– Is there evidence that the REAL motive of the Iraq War was to advance Zionism? No, not to my knowledge, since I am unaware of anyone in the USG who claims to be a Zionist. There may be some who lobby the USG who claim to be Zionists, but I am unaware of their existence.
– Was the REAL motive of the Iraq War to advance Israeli territorial expansion? No, not to my knowledge.
– Were there multiple motives by those of influence on the USG’s decision to invade Iraq, including Israel’s security? Yes, there were multiple motives, and probably yes one of those motives was to enhance Israel’s security.
For me, “may be a fact” is a weak basis for drawing a conclusion.
I could ask many, many more questions that further dissolve any certainty about “Zionists” and/or the “Jewish lobby” running US foreign policy. Most of these conspiracy theories are deeply speculative rabbit holes, IMO.
Rather than imputing motives that may or may not be there, why not save our energy and strength to undo dysfunctional policies, straight up?
Or, Michael, do you have a more serviceable perspective on the matter, one more likely to advance the cause of liberty?
Robert at 203 you wrote: “We can leave the Jewish lobby/Zionist cabal conspiracy theorizing stuff to the hard right and Alex Jones. With any luck, they will remain on the ineffective fringes.”
I’ll suggest that it isn’t a theory. It may be a fact and Mr. Kristol’s group was pushing the issue.
mhw, thanks for the suggestion. I read the one co-written (in 05) by Kristol. I didn’t agree with his conclusion in 05, and I don’t now.
You seem to be driving to some point, but it’s a point that I don’t find obvious. Can you give us the short version?
mhw: Robert at the top of the list you might wish to put this group of people and their organization founded by Mr. Kristol, head neocon
me: And which “list” would that be, the “enemies list”? To what end?
I am not a fan of Kristol. I am not a supporter of neoconservatism. I do not agree with most of the ideas that fall into that set of concepts that that label implies.
Nor am I a fan of politics as a recreation of high school, where people seemed to form social cliques. Jocks good, freaks bad, nerds loooosers.
These sorts of silos I can definitely do without.
But, then, I’m a philosophical radical, questioning and challenging conventional wisdom in the relentless pursuit of truth, love and peace. 😉 On my better days, at least!
BTW, was Kristol elected or appointed “head” neocon?
@ 203 Robert Capozzi wrote; “We can leave the Jewish lobby/Zionist cabal conspiracy theorizing stuff to the hard right and Alex Jones. With any luck, they will remain on the ineffective fringes.
The cause of liberty, I’d suggest, is not won by alienating and/or provoking broad constituencies of Americans with racially and ethnically divisive hatemongering.”
Robert you can call it whatever you wish but at 205 I post a url that contains a significant number of pieces written by others, of whom Mr. Kristol is one, about the Middle East.
May I politely suggest you read them.
MW
tk, I don’t find it useful to label all in the defense community as an “assemblage.” Near as I can tell, some in the defense community advocate for things they sincerely believe in. Some seek to maximize their profits at the taxpayers expense. And sometimes they compete with each other, wanting a bigger portion of defense spending for the projects they believe are most effective OR which maximizes their profits AND sometimes both.
Any industry could be labeled a “complex,” especially those that have government as a customer.
Yes, of course there have been many instances of military and congressmen and women who have gone from government to industry. There may be documentable, coordinated efforts among interested parties to increase defense spending in percentage and absolute dollars.
So, it’s not obvious to me what the distinction is between a conspiracy, a complex, and an assemblage. They seem to overlap in their definitions.
I’d prefer to make the normative and economic case for reducing overall government spending, including military spending. I’d prefer to do that than to make unsubstantiatable claims about Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, etc., and their interest in X, Y or Z project or even aggregate spending.
As Ls, why get into those accusatory weeds? Why engage in character assasination about Bill Kristol or AIPAC? Why make it personal?
That approach just seems petty and an energy drain.
Eyes on the prize…
Overnight sensation?!?!?!?! More like overnight douchebag.
—–
Quite obviously, there is no MIC. There may well be coordination between military contractors and the Pentagon, but it’s at best a placeholder to say there is an MIC.
—–
Not at all.
You’re treating what is correctly labeled a “complex” (“Assemblage of related things” — Webster 1913) as a “conspiracy” (“A combination of people for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert as treason; a plot” — op. cit.).
That makes it easier to dismiss, but it’s also patently false. If Eisenhower had wanted to call it a conspiracy he would have done so.
The Military-Industrial Complex is an aggregate of people and organizations in government and enterprise, bound by a common interest.
That interest is, to put it as simply as possible, convincing politicians to spend as much money as possible on “defense.”
The assembled general officers of the US armed forces and CEOs of America’s “defense” contractors don’t have to “conspire” in any formal sense to pursue that interest. They don’t have to get together in a room and put together a plot.
Military/intelligence personnel identify alleged threats and lobby Congress to finance countermeasures. The most responsive congresscritters are usually the ones with big “defense” contractors in their home areas and/or big checks from “defense” contractors in their campaign accounts.
“Defense” contractors tailor their offerings to the identified threats and lobby for a share of that finance to be spent on their products.
A third sector of the Military-Industrial Complex is the “defense/security” think tanks which act as an additional lobbying arm for the other two.
There’s a set of metaphorical revolving doors, built by what’s best thought of as an “invisible left hand,” connecting those three sectors.
People move through those doors between the three different institutions frequently, taking their priorities with them and trailing government or corporate money behind them.
If you’re looking for a retired general or a former congressman, there’s a very good chance that you’ll find him on the board of a “defense” contract company, as a “visiting fellow” at a “security” think tank, or both.
The members of the Military-Industrial Complex can be counted upon to exaggerate threats because they are subject to biases in favor of their own bread and butter like everyone else is.
They can’t very well be expected to wave their arms and yell “no, we didn’t mean THAT” when they’ve so successfully marketed a “threat” that the politicians feel free — from perceived or necessity or mere opportunism — to crank up all those expensive toys and set carnage in motion for real. They built the bandwagon and and pushed it down the hill. Of course they’re going to hop on board when W or BO or whomever is behind the wheel pops the clutch and the engine turns over.
Robert at the top of the list you might wish to put this group of people and their organization founded by Mr. Kristol, head neocon http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm
I got teased , Debbie Do debbie dont debbie aint got no neck…because i looked like a giant head on shoulders ,
c.marbry, good point. sorry for the confusion, although it should have been obvious since I was quoting Carol.
Ms. Moore, should I call you…what…Poor Moore in return for Posie Wosie? In kindergarden, some of the kids called me Bobby Slobby, maybe you can alternate? 😉
Can we stop this madness, please, and maybe elevate the dialog just a tad?
But, sure, there are informal social and economic networks of people seeking mutually beneficial outcomes. This is not news. I’d love to see the USG and therefore taxpayers to get out of the foreign aid business ACROSS THE BOARD.
We can leave the Jewish lobby/Zionist cabal conspiracy theorizing stuff to the hard right and Alex Jones. With any luck, they will remain on the ineffective fringes.
The cause of liberty, I’d suggest, is not won by alienating and/or provoking broad constituencies of Americans with racially and ethnically divisive hatemongering.
Interesting article on threats against female bloggers CMoore.
spelling correction.
While in person, people will act somewhat different. On posting, chat or blog, people seems to show their true side to themselves as it is easier to hide behind a computer, you just never know when you will come face to face with a person however.
OK, C.Marbry, understand details of the list and I certainly don’t deny Muslim men more sexist because more committed to fundie Patriarchal religions. Like orthodox Jews I’ve met who would not even take something from a woman’s hand because it might be somehow rendered unclean- but at least they politely refuse, as oppose to insulting you. And of course many Xian Fundies. And Hindus, etc. worldwide. However, internet hatred of women is a common phenomena worldwide, left, right and libertarian. See my collection of women’s quotes on that topic here plus a couple examples. http://carolmoore.net/articles/internet-hatred-of-women.html
Posie Wosie: You are right, I should not be using terminology created by a US General and US President (Eisenhower), i.e., military-industrial complex. Even if this article exists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex So it’s a network, just like the pro-Israel lobby is a network, just like libertarians create networks. Some networks just got more bling and more pull than others.
i already thought that was confusing too:) C Marbry
@196, the CM you mean here is Carol Moore, right? It would make it easier if you would use post numbers or names because there are two of us with initials CM in this thread. Thanks.
cm: …saying a group is “promoting” something does not mean that it is the ONLY influence, for example the military-industrial complex promoted Iraq war and doubtless does Iran war. The difference is the hard core Israel supporters did it openly, in the media, day after day after day, while MIC did it in back rooms and at fundraising events.
me: While I have used the term “military-industrial complex,” on reflection, I would ask, who are “they” and how do they make decisions? It’s very, very easy to wave our hands and say the MIC wants this or that without further scrutinizing who “they” are. It’s lazy discourse, IMO.
Quite obviously, there is no MIC. There may well be coordination between military contractors and the Pentagon, but it’s at best a placeholder to say there is an MIC.
There are obviously many organizations that support Israel. There are, of course, many that support Arabs, too. There are lots and lots of irresponsible behavior in the ME, much of which is subsidized by US taxpayers.
I believe Ls lose if we buy into conspiracy theories about who’s to blame for various dysfunctions in US foreign policy. Singling out Israel and Israeli interests in the US is especially unwise, because it’s not true. Ancillary to that may be that Jewish Americans as a group appear to be disproportionately influential, but that should not have to be a consideration.
The truth will set us free. All else is distracting static.
What a bunch of losers, kickin it about Root. & you don’t even get it. He’s just the establishment lackey. To get the LP nomination to make sure somebody that really might make difference-like me-doesn’t get it. The LP nomination is the only thing of value you have -that & your bloc vote which you piss over to the republicans. Evidently most l libertarians do not vote LP. That says a lot right there. The Nolan, McCain doesn’t even bother to scoff at you. Carol Moore, just hold the sign up. Don’t bother to yell. Nobody hears you-of any consequence. Nobody here is of any consequence. For consequence you need to get elected & nobody here is going to get elected.
So have fun kickin it about Root. Waste more time until it’s too late-November. Then say we’ll do better next time-NOT.
@192, the people who threatened me were mostly men in their teens and twenties from Pakistan, actually. I had jihad declared against me quite a few times by some of these folks, again because I was an atheist woman who talked way too much about freedom and “was putting ideas in their women’s heads.” 🙂 Gods but I hope so.
The fact that their profiles were usually written at least partially in Urdu and that they belonged to other groups like “Karachi Nightlife” and such tends to make me think they were genuine.
The “list” in question was not just a yahoo list but an early social site, pre-FB, that focused almost entirely on discussion groups. Some had strong moderation, some had weak moderation, and some had almost no moderation.
The threats tended to be in the groups like “International Relations” with zero or close to zero moderation, and the discussions in those groups tended to devolve into poo flinging anyway because of it.
As far as positive attributes to make one stay? Heh well, obviously, in spite of at one time moderating over 200 groups there myself, I didn’t stay, ultimately. Between real life intervening and getting tired of fighting the same old battles over and over, I finally had enough.
But the positive attributes that kept me there as long as I stayed were that I had literally thousands of people from all over the world sharing ideas, talking, brainstorming with me… Yeah, there were some threats, but by and large, the discussions were amazing. If I hadn’t been on that site in all those groups, I doubt I would have come into my own as a Libertarian as quickly or as well as I did, because it forced me to be able to articulate my viewpoints clearly and logically, get blasted apart sometimes when my assumptions were false… and yes, do all this even while people threatened evil against me to try to shut me up.
Trial by fire, as it were.
OK LP Daddy!
Speaking of growing the party, I’d hate to see Root take credit for the good work Wes Benedict is doing in helping a lot of longtime members feel the party has not gone totally down the tubes. I might even send it $25 myself, though I will wait til after next LNC meeting and make sure there aren’t any nasty WAR type successful machinations. Re: internet lists with a lot of death threats, one must remember that any savvy internet user can create a Gmail or Yahoo address with any name, and hide the origin or even fake it, all in order to freak people out and turn them against who ever they are impersonating. I just wonder where the moderator was and what positive attributes the list had to make one stay. Finally, Posie Wosie, saying a group is “promoting” something does not mean that it is the ONLY influence, for example the military-industrial complex promoted Iraq war and doubtless does Iran war. The difference is the hard core Israel supporters did it openly, in the media, day after day after day, while MIC did it in back rooms and at fundraising events. See this yahoo group for a long list of articles by well known individuals alleging Israel and its supporters actively promoted war on Iraq: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iraqwarandisrael/
we’re all still learning , some more than others.
LG – I did not mean to imply that you alleged a backroom deal; I was trying to respond to several threads in one message.
JJ M @184: Very well said. What attracted me to the party were the principled individuals who, for the most part, lived by those principles. I won’t apologize for continuing to want that for my party.
I agree most people didnt want him as Chair , but they still wanted him , itll be interesting to see what the future holds…
I never said there was a backroom deal , and may I just say that whole straw poll thing was SUPER EXCITING! glad to have been a part of that 🙂
LG@185 – Your observation is basically correct, but the lesson Wayne should have earned, IMHO, was that while most of the delegates wanted to see Wayne on the LNC, they emphatically did NOT want to see him as the party’s official spokesman. To WAR’s credit, he’s contributing positively on the LNC; to his DISCREDIT, however, he continues to talk like a Republican far too much of the time.
And there was no “backroom deal” made by Myers and Hinkle; Myers simply dropped out because he knew he wasn’t going to win and Hinkle was his preferred choice. The IPR straw poll the night before predicted almost exactly what would happen; you know because you were there while the results were compiled. So if Wayne is whining about being cheated in the Chair’s race, that’s pathetic. He wasn’t. He lost, fair and square, despite spending (he claims) more than all of the four other candidates combined.
Geez, here we go with more sour grapes and whining about losing… Nah, more like pot kettle black, actually.
Look, it’s not a back room deal for two like-minded candidates to agree between themselves on a strategy of endorsement to maximize the possibility of one of them or the other being elected. This is how it’s done. That’s a strategy, not a back room deal. Does anybody really find it surprising that Myers’ supporters would be drawn to Hinkle over Hancock or Root, even without John Jay endorsing him? So that was mostly pro forma anyway and mostly ended up saving us one more round of voting.
No one has suggested, at least in my hearing, that Hinkle offered Myers any sort of pay off to endorse him. If there was some kind of pay off, I’d like to know about it because that would drastically change my opinion of both men involved.
No, if you want an example of a REAL back room deal, though, here’s one. When one candidate goes to his exact political opposite who was dropped right before the final round of voting and makes the offer to give that other candidate’s media website a listing on lp.org and to “make sure” that other candidate gets elected to the LNC if he makes an endorsement, THAT is a back room deal.
To Hancock’s credit, he refused this offer.
The “back room deal” of which I speak was caught on film, apparently, by Root’s own film crew, so he apparently didn’t think so ill of back room deals at the time.
Wake me up when the grown ups are in power again…
JJ_Wayne lost the LNC race because around 60% of the group did not want him to represent them.
me_ correction , 60% did not want him to represent them as CHAIR.
For At-Large he was their 1st choice to represent them.
So the majority in fact chose him to represent them
I do not know if Wayne believes that there were back room deals that were made that caused him to lose the LNC race.
If he does that’s unfortunate….. because he didn’t learn a lesson.
Wayne lost the LNC race because around 60% of the group did not want him to represent them.
It was my belief that his losing would cause him to reevaluate his take on the Libertarian Party.
Give him an opportunity to learn more about what freedom means.
This party isn’t about drug laws… it’s about freedom.
That being said, Waynes statement that we have to stand behind Israel because Jews donate the most money is hard for me to get around.
In one statement he has shown that there is no principle, it is all about money and power… and absolutely not about principle.
We want the average person to learn about liberty and then join our group.
Waynes approach is not acceptable, if he got his way we would triple our size, and that 60% of our membership would be out voted by pro-Intervention, pro-war, drug-war, who believe we need tone down our message of freedom.
That is not the direction this party should go.
I am also sick of being called a “radical” because I believe in this parties platform. Or that I say something that sounds like Judge Napolitano or Ron Paul or even John Stossel. But on a regular basis, Wayne makes statements about saying those types of things on TV is just too radical….
Give me a break.
I never take anything here too personally , for instance TK and I have gone at it here many of time , were I to see him in person , I would kick it with him , have a beer and be happy to see him.
Hehe nobody busted me on this typo, so I’ll bust myself.
” staring in a television series” should read “starring in a television series”.
I seem to recall he did a lot of staring, too, but … well, whatever.
alan p, glad it delighted you!
We could all use some guidance from Krishna about now! 😉
(For those who don’t know Arjuna and Krishna, they are figures in the ancient Indian text BHAGHAVAD GITA. Good stuff. HD Thoreau drew many of his ideas about non-violence from that teaching, which, oddly enough, takes place on a battlefield.)
Good points, Carolyn, especially with the face-to-face test. Civility in discourse seems to be an obsolete virtue these days. Too many people act as though polite, reasoned disagreements with others is an indication of lack of strong conviction. Whereas insults and ad hominem attacks become proof of one’s moral superiority over the target: That person could not possibly be having an honest disagreement, he or she must be crazy or lying or part of an evil conspiracy to assert an opposing opinion.
tk, that seems reasonably well framed. Aside from the instance I don’t recall, I’ve not witnessed these lash-out spasms that you report, but it’s entirely possible. Net communications makes communications easy, including angry barbs.
One of the reasons I like to communicate here on IPR is for my personal growth. Practicing civil discourse. None of us is perfect at it, myself included.
TK pretty well hit it on the head.
A few years ago, I spent a fair bit of time on another site in a political forum where I was one of a handful of Libertarians, and it just wasn’t a complete day unless I received death threats, usually from young men in third world countries who very much sympathized with Al Qaeda and wanted some violence and drama in their lives, who did not believe women, especially atheistic women who talk about freedom, should speak publicly.
At first it was a bit scary because it wasn’t just “Shut up or I’ll kill you.” It was very graphic, very detailed and very elaborate about how they would hunt down my family, rape and kill my mother and myself, butcher my children… well, you get the idea.
It didn’t take me long to figure out that it was the internet equivalent of getting acid thrown in my face and they were all talk and no action, and I got used to it, to the point where with that crew, that was my metric by which I knew whether I’d sufficiently argued my political point or not.
A couple of years later, a friend of mine on Myspace, someone who had attained a measure of fame by staring in a television series, received a similar graphic death threat against himself and his family from some idiot simply for existing and being approachable. He was so frightened and horrified by it that he immediately deleted his accounts and changed all his emails.
Point is, those of us who do a lot of posting online and have been threatened and seen that it’s pretty meaningless most of the time can get very jaded about it. When we turn our insult filter up to high, we can forget rather easily that this is not normal human interaction.
So one of the things I try to do is check my posts to be sure that what I say I would be willing to say to the person, face to face. I’m not always perfect — no one is — but it’s what I try for.
For what it’s worth.
There are differences between the three following claims:
1) Wayne lashes out.
2) Wayne lashes out often.
3) Wayne lashes out with sufficient venom that onlookers are either embarrassed for him or by him.
Wayne does lash out.
As far as I can tell, he doesn’t do it very often.
When he does, the lashing out is generally of a character/temperature that moves me to embarrassment on his behalf … except when I’m the one he’s lashing out at, in which case I’m content to let him make himself look as bad as he wants to.
Then again, I suspect that I and many of you are very subjective on this whole thing. Those of us who spend a lot of time on the Internet tend to become both less … violently emotive … and more sensitive to “lashing out” precisely because we’re used to throwing, and being hit by, little barbs all damn day long.
On any given day, I can count on being called a Nazi or some other ugly name at least a couple of times, and to return fire proportionally.
People who don’t spend a lot of time playing the dozens on the Internet are probably more sensitive to insults, respond to them less frequently … and really let it all hang out when they DO respond.
My impression of Wayne is that he doesn’t spend a lot of time arguing in Internet fora. Which probably makes him smarter in at least one way than all of us “here.”
No, Robert, he lashes out, and usually in a much disportionate way. I could deal with him if he really was “setting the record straight”.
Deliberately insulting/calling names to anyone who disagrees with him on a public forum like Facebook I think should be completely unacceptable to someone serving on our National Committee.
Robert @ 166: “Fell like Arjuna?” You gotta love libertarians! And I mean that most sincerely.
lg, et al, since we don’t have examples in front of us, it’s hard to say, but there’s a difference between lashing out, even in response, and setting the record straight. Near as I can tell, almost always setting the record straight is indicated, aggressively or defensively lashing out, not so much.
Cacophonies counter civil communication.
Wayne’s lashing BACK is very disproportionate to the lashings he recieves. The man is human ya know and a dude can only take so much ecsp. when people were trying to insinuate he was criminal in his business dealings
Speaking of targets and lashing out, my Swiss-cheese brain seems to recall a LOT of static going Barr’s way. He seemed more above-the-fray than Root…perhaps the better model of L politician.
And, heck, didn’t he pull maybe not a 180, but, say, a 150 on DOMA?
Redemption.
Has a nice ring to it.
oh, I guess I did see it, since you say I commented about it…early onset Alzheimer’s…think ObamaCare can fix me?
tk, I recall your BBB expose’. I don’t recall the lash out by Root.
As you know, I’m a forgiving sort, so perhaps that happened and I just don’t recall it. Or perhaps I didn’t even see it.
When I’m talking lashing out, I’m thinking of the former acting chair of the BTP or the perennial candidate for LNC Chair/de facto ombudsman/professor. Heck, I’ve even lashed out….I vaguely recall getting irritated by a Richmond-area brethren…so even I don’t let love rule 24/7/365, but I’m working on it!
1. Root’s supporters have long said that Root is too busy “growing the party” with his many media appearances to stoop to reading or replying to the “haters” on IPR.
Guess not.
2. Whenever Root (or indeed, most LP members) says the LP should avoid issue X because “voters wont’ go for it,” I suspect it’s because HE doesn’t support issue X.
Root wants the U.S. to support Israel and never criticize Israel’s anti-libertarian, statist, apartheid politics. But Root knows that’s not a popular position in much of the LP.
So Root says “you can’t grow the party by criticizing Israel” as an excuse not to criticize Israel.
Bob,
In order for you to be “impressed” by the fact that Wayne doesn’t “lash out,” you’d have had to have not seen him do so.
Since I know beyond a shadow of any doubt whatsoever that you have seen him do so (because you’ve commented on it, e.g. at Third Party Watch when he “lashed out” at me over my critique of his enterprise’s Better Business Bureau record) you’re either kidding, lying or suffering from amnesia.
I usually try to dismiss the middle possibility unless the others are ruled out. Asking you if you’re kidding seemed like the best first diagnostic, since if you’re suffering from amnesia you don’t seem to know it, whereas if you are kidding you would in fact know it.
…as one readies oneself for an onslaught of criticism from Abolitionists on just how truly evil Mark Sanford is…
Note to self: Think I can say anything nice about Gary Johnson?
thanks, Observation. Since I haven’t myself observed Root’s FB pages, I’ll have to wait until more evidence is presented.
You know, this Internet thing is quite a tool, sometimes a dangerous one. Some pretty cool folks have done some pretty dumb things on the ‘Net. Anyone recall the John Mackey Yahoo! controversy. Huge fan of Mackey’s…my kinda L, much more than Root. Crunchy, green and alternative, Mackey — founder and CEO of Whole Foods — is. He was caught making loopy statements under an alias on the Yahoo Finance message board about his stock and company.
Ah, thank you, Shakespeare…to err IS human, to forgive divine. My hero Mackey fell like Arjuna. But he pulled himself together and seems to be doin’ jus’ fine.
And then there’s one of my favorite Rs, Mark Sanford….dooooh.
LG @ 163: Which may be one reason he rarely posts here.
tk and mhw, lighten up, brothers! Thanks, Tom, I didn’t even know there WAS a consolate in Vlad, but so there is!
It should be obvious that I was kidding!!! It’s one of my reducios. I picked Vlad because it’s semi-obscure yet mysterious sounding.
Is there a US embassy in Lichtenstein? 😉 Andorra?
But, yes, Tom, were it up to me, I’d agree, bring the Marines and the State Dept/CIA agents home from Vlad.
wayne cant delete posts from here. LOL
Robert Capozzi @ 152: For regular FB users, we know that Wayne lashes out frequently and inappropriately on a regular basis. There was an exchange Saturday night that I wanted to post as an example, but–amazingly–it’s gone. It’s obvious that Wayne reads over his exchanges at a later time and
deletes those where he’s let his true colors show.
He resorts to childish name-calling and especially loves to denigrade anyone with any kind of left leanings.
I do think he’s thick-skinned, however, because anyone who truly cared about the party would recognize the division he’s causing in the party and at least attempt to correct behavior.
Let’s see if Mr Root tries at all.
tk, nope, not kidding. Has Root been launching personal attacks on fellow Ls that I missed?
The most defensive behavior I’ve seen is that he felt closed out of and under-utilized by the Barr inner circle during the 08 campaign.
Does Root actually threaten people with rebar and narc to the FEC? Maybe there’s a Mr. Hyde side that I missed…entirely possible. We all have ’em…mine, as you know, is to endlessly spin out reducio ad absurdums for absolutist nostrums, but I’m working on that one. 😉
@ 152 RC writes; “Some may not be satisfied until he explicitly calls for bringing the Marines home from the consolate in Vladivostock,”
Capozzi. In all my years in the party I have seldom heard anyone seriously suggest such nonsense as you do and attempt to attribute it to others so regularly.
My B.S. detector just hit the maximum level!
@156 The independent Libertarian news press can only cover the news it knows about. If people want us to cover additional aspects of these stories the independent Libertarian news press needs additional news proceeding anonymously over its transom.
I will take your word there were other emails from people, but I have not yet seen the ones that match your description. Also, I believe the statements by Root on the issues in question, or several others that have since been brought to our attention, are reasonably unambiguous.
“Some may not be satisfied until he explicitly calls for bringing the Marines home from the consolate in Vladivostock”
The US managed to make do without a consulate in Vladivostok from 1922 to 1992. Is there some special reason why it needs one there now?
When I was in high school, I took part in an interview (for Bittersweet magazine) with Russell Harper, one of the last US soldiers allowed to leave Vladivostok after the revolution (at the time of the interview, he was 95 years old and the incumbent treasurer of Camden County, Missouri). He spent several years confined to a rail car there. Best as I could tell, he was very glad to get out of there and not in any hurry to go back.
google milnes4prez2012 freehosting.net
It doesn’t post here.
I sit on the LNC with Wayne he of course he is not as hard core as I,but if Wayne can bring in new people more power to him. I was once a hard core righty until I hang out with people like Ron Crickenberger Micheal Badnarik and read more and more stuff. I moved farther and farther into being a hardcore Libertarian. It he can bring them to the party we can win people over with logic over time.
great job getting press we need to learn lesson from him I have said here lately it is not our message it is our poor sales force we have to learn how to run campaign better how to do better press releases. If you want more coverage for left libertarian issues then go out and get the press. I am working on an ad with Norml right now these are the thing we have to do.
Also I am not happy with George dropping the LNC emails with only part of the story if you are going to do it just dont send the juicy parts. I believe there was and earlier Email with Wayne talking how he gets the whole spectrum he just finds it hard for him to sell. You know what I am ok with that. but if you are in the spot send those questions to the mary Ruwarts of the world or a guy Like Steve Kubby just tell the reporter thier are better Libertarians for answering those questions but dont say you disagree with those part of the party
“If Root is indeed thin skinned, I’m impressed that he doesn’t seem to lash out like deeply defensive people often do.”
You’re kidding, right?
Im not sure . I got an invite from LP National . You’d have to check with Robert Krauss I think.
Is this for anyone to come over for the fund-raising event at Wayne house?
dfn, interesting data point. If Root is indeed thin skinned, I’m impressed that he doesn’t seem to lash out like deeply defensive people often do. He charges ahead like an energizer bunny. Lose the presidential nomination, take the #2 slot. Lose the Chair race, take At Large.
He seems to process criticism well, even if he actually is hurt by his critics’ words. I only met the dude once, but since our Abolitionist brethren seem to track his every move and utterance, it’s easy to get a reasonably good sense of the SOB.
As for his incorporating the substance of his critics’ attacks, while I don’t follow Root’s positions closely, he seems far less hawkish than he was a few years ago. Some may not be satisfied until he explicitly calls for bringing the Marines home from the consolate in Vladivostock, but this dove is pleased that he’s moving in my direction.
Now if we could strap him down like the Alex character in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE was and reprogram him to cease and desist using the term “states’ rights”! 😉
Alan Pyeatt @ 150: “I would suggest that he put more effort into winning over his fellow libertarians.”
I agree!
LG @ 144: I agree that the drug war is very important. So I ask, what American president launched the drug war, along with its wholesale destruction of the posse comitatus doctrine, increase in violence, overflowing jails, etc., etc.? O.k., now look at Mr. Root’s profile on Facebook and see how he describes himself. He has also posted on FB (since deleted) about how great a libertarian Reagan was. I don’t know, but I suspect that many of his FB friends are not familiar enough with us to know how most libertarians view the subject.
Favoring Ronald Reagan is not a problem, but telling the general public that Reagan was a libertarian most definitely IS a problem. And that’s the potential difficulty with newbies: if they don’t come in with a sense of humility, and get the “lay of the land” before making bold pronouncements, they are likely to trip up. Regardless of Mr. Root’s view of Reagan, things could have happened much more smoothly if he had tried to learn more about the LP and its membership first. Then he would have been better prepared to deal with the discrepancy between his view and most other libertarians.
I personally think Mr. Root can eventually be a great spokesman and candidate for our party. But I don’t think he’s there yet, and his entry into our party has been much rockier than it needed to be. And if he’s still following this thread, I would suggest that he put more effort into winning over his fellow libertarians.
For what it’s worth, Wayne himself told me that he is far from “thick skinned” and that he tends to take criticism personally. I’m pretty sure he’s an ESFJ type – “The Salesman” – in the Kiersey-Bates personality typology. People of this temperament often succeed in sales, and believe that when they sell something, the buyer is buying THEM, as much as the product or service they are offering. They find it very difficult to separate someone’s rejection of their product from a personal rejection. This personality type is rare in libertarian circles, so most libertarians are perplexed when they encounter it.
Nice bait and switch, Capozzi.
First, W.A.R. is NOT open to criticism of any sort. If he was, he’d actually respond in a substantive way. simply by saying “the voters don’t want that” isn’t a substantive answer . . . and that is virtually how W.A.R. responds to criticisms that he isn’t libertarian, or even libertarian “enough”.
Second, his “thick skin” is a fallacy . . . I have on good info that W.A.R. is STEAMED about losing the LNC chair election, and blames it on “deals” cut, and lost as a result, even though W.A.R. believes that he is the favorite of the delegates!
Third, the evidence is there . . . W.A.R. is simply a conservative with a few libertarian leanings. Yet, even though he SEEMS to have a few libertarian leanings, when he speaks to different audiences, he tells them different things. W.A.R. has told me that “he’s “with me” on the non-intervention in foreign countries, yet he tells others that he’s “with them” as well, when it comes to being “pro-defense”, i.e. stopping the “islamo-fascists”. Ask Dondero what W.A.R. tells him.
If it makes you feel better Bob, that I and maybe a few others have deep “emotional pain” and “attack” as a cry to others about this internal pain, fine. Delusion has its comforts, I guess.
lg, ya know, I can’t say I’d call this a trial by fire. Politicians need to be open to constructive criticism and yet to have thick skin. Root seems to have both qualities.
Malcontents are generally people in a lot of emotional pain, which is often deeply repressed. When they project that pain onto others, it can appear like an attack. Compassionate recipients of these attacks recognize this as self-loathing acted out.
@ Libertarian Girl – “I wonder when the mans trial by fire will be over ?”
When he becomes a libertarian.
I, however am not optimistic, as he is stuck in the rut of “tailoring his message by how his slightly libertarian leaning conservative wife” sees things.
A great “messenger” for liberty is a wonderful thing. W.A.R. certainly has the tools and drive to be that. He simply needs to learn the product he’s selling. In 3 + years, he’s hasn’t figured it out yet, learned what the product, “liberty” is. Being a “Reagan libertarian” is nearly a contradiction in terms . . . an oxymoron.
cm 140, guilty as charged! Big fan of political correctness when it advances peace and respect. Smear? Dunno. Seems like a lot of the segregationists advanced revisionist theory on the Civil War, for ex. So, while in concept secession in the self-determination sense is not INHERENTLY segregationist or racist, why would Ls EVER use the charged term “secession”? To be shocking? Interesting approach to making friends and influencing people.
I’ll let others decide whether statements like the following sound like conspiracy theories or not:
“4. Israel’s powerful lobby of Zionists, Christian Zionists and Neocons promoting the US to war against Iraq and now Iran not for US interests but to support Israel’s expansionist goals.”
Does to this hombre….
The drug war is a primary way our liberties are being eroded and my number 1 issue , number 1 by far… the LP’s stance on that was the entire reason I joined and if it were to ever change it would break my heart. I can understand maybe avoiding the issue if possible with certain audiences , however even then there are arguments that work well will a ‘right leaning ‘crowd. such as prison overcrowding allowing rapists and murderers to get an early kick out like the murderer of Polly Klass , the utter and complete failure of the system to keep young people from using , put it back in the hands of churches and parent and communities , the EXORBITANT cost, and so on .
so there are ways to speak about decriminalizing drugs w/o sounding like a pro-drug liberal hippie. I would be upset if anyone publically claimed anything otherwise as the LP’s official stance
L-Girl wrote: “I wonder when the mans trial by fire will be over ?” Hmmm… when W.A.R. becomes a knowlegable and consistent “Libertarian and Proud of It!!”???
As one of the oldest “old guard” members, I will say that the “seniority” argument against Root (or Barr, or anyone else) holds no water at all. If, say, John Stossel, decided to run for President as a Libertarian in 2012, I’m sure most of us would be delighted, even if he only joined the LP the day he announced. The issue is not seniority, it’s a demonstrated consistent grasp of libertarian principles. Anyone who says we should not advocate decriminalizing all drugs because it’s “scary” or “political suicide” should not be our Presidential candidate, regardless of how long they’ve been in the LP. (This comment is not aimed at anyone in particular, so don’t take it as such.)
I wonder when the mans trial by fire will be over ?
I can see that when he doesn’t have an argument Mr. Capozzi stoops to politically correct smears, like asserting “segrationism” and “conspiracy theories.”
Carolyn: “How are we going to recruit young people and new members to the party and have them feel like their input means anything if every time they turn around, they’re hearing that anyone who wasn’t a party before 1975 might as well shut up because nobody will listen to them?”
I’ve been active in the party for about 15 years, but I don’t know “old guard” Libertarians who say that others should “shut up” because they haven’t been in the party for decades. I’m aware of Libertarians who say that someone who hasn’t been in the LP for at least a few years shouldn’t be the party’s presidential nominee or national chair. Maybe your experience in the LP has been drastically different than mine.
Steve: “By the LP advancing a radical libertarian stance, there is at least a chance of reforming in the libertarian direction.”
No, there isn’t. The old parties will ONLY move gov. policy seriously toward liberty IF the LP is big enough and strong enough to push them in that direction. Having a very small party comprised of anarchists + minarchists (gov. limited to military, courts, police) virtually guarantees that the party won’t be big enough and strong enough to achieve that goal on different issues.
Carol: “If you REALLY want to get publicity sufficient to satisfy your big ego, starting talking up SECESSION.”
Ranting about secession gets the same kind of publicity (and trust) as campaigning naked. “Publicity” isn’t necessarily good, as anyone in public relations will tell you.
Tactically, the LP might want to advance several positions that agree with those of the Tea Partiers (to get their attention, paint us as some of the good guys, etc.) and then pair those ideas with consistent ideas (decriminalize marijuana, non-interventionist foreign policy) that Tea Partiers will not initially agree with but might be intrigued by. We aren’t going to make a great leap forward overnight (unless we lie about our platform). So let’s figure out the best way to market a product that tastes great but most consumers have a hard time swallowing.
cm: Deflating massive egos of politicians through a little humor is always appropriate Posie-Wosie.
The LP platform had a plank on Secession for 34 odd years.
me: My feedback is there indeed is little humor in your “little humor.”
And, yes, I am profoundly aware that that segregationist code word (secession) besmirched the platform for decades. You should “blame” “Posie Wosie” for that one. While it’s my practice to be passionately dispassionate, I may have actually pounded the table during PlatCom to exorcise that malignancy from our platform.
Lester Maddox need not apply.
If he’s welcome by super majorities, I’m gone.
cm 134, I see we’ve made progress…no name calling. Excellent!
This post reminds me of the argumentation technique that right-wing talk radio engages in. They read a bracing passage from the Koran, then imply or conclude that Islam is evil to the core. (One could do this with the Torah or the NT, too, but we’ll avoid that subject.)
Pointing out that “Zionist philosophy” has dysfunction in it should be no surprise to anyone. Zealotry almost always has its excesses.
Since this is all off the top of your head (as are my comments!), I’ll give you a pass, but this statement is steeped in many logic leaps and unwarranted inuendo: “Israel’s powerful lobby of Zionists, Christian Zionists and Neocons promoting the US to war against Iraq and now Iran not for US interests but to support Israel’s expansionist goals.”
Right. Israel is calling the shots…yes, we’ve heard that theory before, especially from the Old Right. How does this work, exactly? There’s some rabbinical council somewhere in Jerusalem that pulls the strings to get the US to go to war with Iraq to provide cover so Israel can annex southern Lebanon, western Syria and Jordan, etc. etc. Why stop there? Maybe Israel masterminded 9/11 to help sell the idea. Maybe we can work in the Jewish banker angle, too.
You know, anything’s possible. But I would not want the LP to invest in these Zionist conspiracy theories, either, UNLESS the goal is to position the LP as kooks.
Or, we can be thoughtful. Just as the US does unpeaceful, dysfunctional things like the Iraq War, so do other nations, like Israel, like Iraq, like them all.
I encourage my fellow Ls for us to build the peace party, not the conspiracy theory of the week party.
Deflating massive egos of politicians through a little humor is always appropriate 🙂 Posie-Wosie.
The LP platform had a plank on Secession for 34 odd years. http://lpedia.org/2002_Libertarian_Party_Platform#5._Secession 5. “Secession: We recognize the right to political secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals. ”
The right to alter or abolish government was its almost as good replacement.
And the LP retains the Omissions Plank: ” 4.0 Omissions : Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.”
1. Ethnic cleansing and expropriation of private property, ongoing on a daily/weekly basis since 1948. Part of Zionist philosophy since it’s inception. See http://whatwouldgandhido.net/zionistquotes.html
2. The Likkud Party especially has promoted expansion to all of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and even beyond through its long history.
3. The massive and disproportionate attacks on civilian areas in Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-2009 and continued threats of more of the same.
4. Israel’s powerful lobby of Zionists, Christian Zionists and Neocons promoting the US to war against Iraq and now Iran not for US interests but to support Israel’s expansionist goals. You are paying for that one Robert, not to mention the billions in military and financial aid the US gives directly to Israel every year.
5. Constant intimidation of every Jew or gentile who speaks out about these crimes by labeling any and all critics “antisemites.”
And that’s just off the top of my head.
cm: So, Root-toot-tootie. Would you use federal, state or local police (or US military) against secessionists who were not aggression on those who did not want to secede??
me: Consider reading up on bad karma. If you engage is such childish name-calling, why would someone ever wish to engage with you in conversation? I suggest you consider this a teachable moment.
The LP platform doesn’t mention “secession,” but rather “self determination.” That one I’ll take a bow for.
The last time secession was tried, the insurrectionists certainly DID want to aggress against slaves and others, a majority of the population of some states, Rockwellian rationalizations aside.
If one wishes to secede onto his or her property, that should be accommodated.
cm: Israel claims every one of its crimes committed on a daily basis is in “SELF-DEFENSE.” So Root saying he’s just talking about “self-defense” issues is a code word for EVER criticizing Israel about anything. Get real…
me: Carol, your post creates more questions than answers. I don’t pretend to be an expert in ME geopolitics, though my casual observation is that Israel has used excessive force on occasion. My understanding is that many Israelis would agree with my assessment. But you seem to be holding back…if we were to agree that Events X, Y and Z were excessive, what would your read be as to Israel’s motives? (Let’s stipulate that nations don’t have motives per se, but that we might be able to glean what the motives of their political leaders might be.) Is Israel bent on global domination? Arab extermination? What?
And, if you are correct that Israel commits “crimes” on a “daily basis,” what would to the appropriate legal response to determine guilt and re-establish justice?
Histrionics are easily seen through.
So, Root-toot-tootie. Would you use federal, state or local police (or US military) against secessionists who were not aggression on those who did not want to secede?? Do you believe it is the right of the people to alter or abolish government, as is in the LP platform. If you REALLY want to get publicity sufficient to satisfy your big ego, starting talking up SECESSION.
th: I have heard many Reform Faction folks say the Radicals simply do not want to win elections–I thought that was an exaggeration. Most Radical LPers I’ve met WANT to win elections and believe this is part of the LP’s function–they just don’t think it’s the ONLY function, or maybe even the PRIMARY function.
me: Directionally correct. As Chair of Reform Caucus PAC, it’s fair to say that many Reformers are more interested in doing real electoral politics than in “education-only” exercises. But this is not the case for all Reformers. Holtz, for ex., often talks about the LP’s highest and best use being to run credible campaigns and other activities as a means to influence the majors in a L direction.
My view is that political campaigns ARE educational, and that a well-run, well-funded campaign that represents a serious challenge in a race has the highest-impact “education” activity we can do as a political party. My hobby horse is the idea of electing ONE L to Congress to serve as a kind of Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders figure. Such a person could single-handedly put the LP on the map and advance the cause of liberty and L-ism more than all the books churned out by L think tanks and OPH booths at county fairs combined.
But of course all these things are worthwhile efforts.
I prefer the more accurate term “Abolitionists,” but those who call themselves Radicals do seem to wish to win elections, but I think it’s fair to say that that is not their emphasis for the LP. Hancock may be a useful emblem, encouraging people not to vote while at the same time running for office. An interesting strategy, that.
Like Reformers, Abolitionist Ls come in many different flavors. My sense is that the mean Abolitionist would like to see the LP push the envelope by advocating major breaks from the status quo on all fronts, not so much to win elections but to convert large numbers of people to their worldview. They seem to anticipate a major, calamitous break in the current social and economic climate, and my sense is — like Hancock — they expect a breakdown where one’s only hope is to possess a lot of weapons and stores of food.
I hope that doesn’t happen, but anything is possible. Personally, I don’t have the bandwidth to invest heavily in that remote possibility…others may.
Israel claims every one of its crimes committed on a daily basis is in “SELF-DEFENSE.” So Root saying he’s just talking about “self-defense” issues is a code word for EVER criticizing Israel about anything. Get real…
mr: Where I come from, the basic LP question is what the government is doing sticking its nose in anyone’s marital rights.
me: Please expand on what you mean here. I don’t know what “marital rights” are. It sounds as if you want it both ways: government out of marriage AND government in marriage, with the legal definition of marriage expanded to include same-gender couples.
If so, I agree. I’d ultimately like to see government out of marriage licensing. Ultimately, I’d like to see government out of even civil unions. If civil union could be achieved by common law, that would be preferable.
In the meantime, liberalizing marriage law is worthwhile and certainly something Ls can and should support. There are of course a wide range of means to effect liberalization. The federalism approach is the de facto method being used by our more enlightened states. It’s likely that the Supremes will be the ones to sort this out, as the legal bounds of what is a “marriage” contract and where is it binding will be tested.
I’ve seen no evidence that Root is the reason we don’t have same-gender civil contracts nationwide. If Root takes the Outright view on this issue, this legal doctrine will unfold at the same pace it is without his 100% adoption of your view. He ain’t that influential, one way or the other.
http://milnes2008.freeservers.com/
cm 104: Root thinks no libertarian should ever criticize Israel because “Jewish voters” give half the money to the Demopublicans and libertarians need to get that money. On his facebook page. I kid you not.
me: Well, Carol, I bit. I followed your links, and read your “evidence.” I’d encourage others to do so, because it’s this sort of distortion that serves to undermine the credibility of Root critics more than Root. For ex., Moore says: “Root thinks no libertarian should ever criticize Israel… ” Yet her own link has Root saying something QUITE a bit different: “Interestingly, I do not ask Libertarians to love Israel…or support Israel…I ask them to stop making outrageous statements that denigrate Israel for defending herself…”
So, Carol, when you said “I kid you not,” were you kidding?
Like I said, give me 35 million instead of the Pauls and I will win in 2012 & many downticket coattails.
This is why I’m running Independent. The LP fix is in. The GP is a joke so no fix is necessary.
He already knows the fix is in for his nomination for 2012. The powers that be have ssurred him. Just like for Obama.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/nvpats/blog/2008/04
W.A.R. – from the North Virginia Patriots show – 4/21/2008
“If you believe in free markets, you have to believe in NAFTA.”
(regarding the Federal Reserve), “of course I’d reestablish some sort of gold standard or fiat money standard.” (My apology for misquoting the EXACT words in # 115 above)
Regarding W.A.R. becoming the LP presidential nominee “I will be the Libertarian presidential nominee, that much I guarantee you.”
Wayne Allyn Root – BLOWHARD, and NOT AT ALL libertarian! Even the hosts of the show said he sounds like a Republican, (and a used car salesman) and doesn’t understand the control of the economy the Federal Reserve has.
Trent Hill – just another hack who thinks that third party “politics” is just the same as R’s and D’s.
The LP has people elected to soil and water district, and dog catcher positions. There is not a SINGLE LP’er elected so much as even to a state legislature!
Maybe you ought to check your facts Trent . . . the only LP candidates EVER elected to a state legislature, without cross running on another party’s line, is Andre Marrou and Dick Randolph, both more than 25 years ago, and both in Alaska! As a matter of fact, Finlay Rothhaus and Don Gorman (maybe it was Andy Borsa) both LOST when they tried it solely on the LP line.
And for your information Trent, you misrepresent me; it isn’t a matter of not WANTING to win elections, its a matter of realizing it isn’t going to happen. Your misrepresentation is just more fuel for the fire of you being a hack!
Trent, wake up. YOU are the one running a “third party” site!
“The LP isn’t about politics. Third party “politics” is really a misnomer. It isn’t about getting elected. For at least 20 more years, there will be no “electing libertarians to congress, the presidency, etc”.”
….what? The Libertarian Party is a Political Party. How is that not about politics? As for about getting no one elected–you know just as well as I do that the LP has hundreds of elected officials locally. It has, at one point or another, had several state legislators.
I have heard many Reform Faction folks say the Radicals simply do not want to win elections–I thought that was an exaggeration. Most Radical LPers I’ve met WANT to win elections and believe this is part of the LP’s function–they just don’t think it’s the ONLY function, or maybe even the PRIMARY function.
From above, quoting W.A.R. “Anything else is political suicide.”
The LP isn’t about politics. Third party “politics” is really a misnomer. It isn’t about getting elected. For at least 20 more years, there will be no “electing libertarians to congress, the presidency, etc”.
The LP is about education and persuasion, and pressuring the major parties to adopt positions advanced by the LP.
If the LP pushes marijuana legalization, maybe the major parties adopt legalizing medical marijuana. IF the LP pushes all drug legalization, then maybe the major parties will adopt marijuana legalization and reducing criminal penalties for other drugs.
If the LP pushes for a COMPLETE non-interventionist foreign policy and bringing ALL troops back to the US, then maybe the major parties will adopt a position of reducing America’s military posturing around the world.
The purpose of the LP, for the foreseeable future is to move the political debate in the direction of libertarianism. By toning down the properly principled libertarian position, or only advancing ideas which the “voters want to hear or can support RIGHT NOW”, only means that real liberty will NEVER be realized. By the LP advancing a radical libertarian stance, there is at least a chance of reforming in the libertarian direction.
160 years of third party “failure” to get into one of the top two positions should tell everyone that trying to get elected as a third party candidate is completely futile. If W.A.R.’s goal is “to win elections” then I think he really should go back to the Republican Party. Heck, he speaks like he’s already there!
I love how he makes a mild, not really appropriate remark just so we all know he’s seen this thread.
Good, I’m glad he read it! So now he knows that several of us share the same opinion of his misrepresentation.
Bruce Cohen says about W.A.R. , “Wayne is also pro-legalization.”
That is pure and utter BS! Go to the transcript of the LSLA banquet panel forum in Feb. 2009, Charleston, S.C . . . out of the horse’s mouth, which I documented on #115.
W.A.R. “Trent, You need to make me a partner in IPR. I’m good for business!”
AND BAD, VERY BAD for libertarianism and liberty.
“If the Libertarian Party wants to legalize all drugs, then maybe I’m in the wrong party.” – Wayne Allyn Root; 2/28/2009-Charleston, S.C. @ LSLA banquet dinner panel forum
“I’m for a gold standard and a fiat money standard” – Wayne Allyn Root – April 2008, in his North Virginia Patriot Network radio interview, WHILE RUNNING FOR THE LP PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION!
Contrary to what anyone who thinks this is JUST about W.A.R.’s personality . . . WRONG – it’s about his non-libertarian positions and his complete naivete about the fundamentals of libertarianism.
Trent,
You need to make me a partner in IPR. I’m good for business!
LOL.
Good night all.
Ah Wayne Root. Always good for over 100 comments in one day. =)
Typo-my laptop occasionally skips the a.
Either-He moron. Or: He’s a moron.
Libertarians are not going to attract a whole lot of new voters. That has been played out a long time ago. Libertarians should coordinate their bloc vote & try to win by a plurality in a 3 way race. There are only 2 possibilities-the CP & counterrevolution or the GP- progressivism & revolution.Root is advocating the former without even realizing it. He’s moron.
@109, yep. This would probably be better handled in a less public discussion list. But as happens sometimes, topics grow and diverge.
As far as the slam about his not having enough history in the party, I agree. There’s another side to that veneration of the ancien regime culture that’s sabotaging the party, too.
How are we going to recruit young people and new members to the party and have them feel like their input means anything if every time they turn around, they’re hearing that anyone who wasn’t a party before 1975 might as well shut up because nobody will listen to them? Who would hang around in that case?
Those of us who are younger and newer to the party may still have a bit to learn or may have some resume building to do, but that doesn’t mean we should be considered unworthy just because we haven’t been around as long. That’s a terrible reason to discount someone’s potential contributions.
How long any one of us has been in the party should matter less than the contributions we make in the present tense (not just the past) and the ideas we put forward. I say that for myself, for Root, for all of us who are not and probably never will be the old guard.
I really don’t give a rip about your internal party politics–but I must say that the bickering about it sure is a waste of time and oxygen.
As for Mr. Root–I am not a rooter by any stretch, but I think that this slam that he came late to libertarianism is quite a crock. Everyone has come to libertarianism through their own path–whether they are a Democrat who took an economics course or a Republican who got busted.
If you guys are ever going to win you are going to have to attract a whole lot of voters who have not been libertarians for a very long time.
It is a real disingenuous attack–especially considering that Wayne Allyn Root is susceptible to some really serious challenges to the strength and sincerity of his commitment to liberty.
Moulton @105, based on that answer, it sounds to me like Root would support this resolution, in that case.
Here’s what I really think.
I think that Root believes that what he says is “close enough” to the platform that it is acceptable while being more poll friendly and more immediately palatable to those he wants to bring in. Kinda like putting sugar on a kid’s veggies.
For a candidate, this is … well, less than ideal, but understandable, and certainly that kind of damage is easily contained. For someone who is an officer of the party, though, it seems far less acceptable because an officer of the party’s voice carries more weight than a simple member of the party or even a talk show host who claims to be Libertarian.
Again, why Root? Because he’s the guy who gets the media attention and has brought this to a head. I imagine it’s quite possible we’d be having this same discussion with slightly different stripes if instead of Root it were Hancock, for much the same reasons. Hancock is also a strong media presence, and he might also have brought this issue to a head.
It’s. Not. About. Root. It’s about the fact that we’ve reached a point with the party where we have to pay attention to such things.
I agree with Marakay’s position that, even better, than a State’s rights position, would be some kind of Amendment or Federal Act or other protection.
Give me a ruling!
In the meantime, going for State’s Rights as a huge step in the right direction cannot be all bad.
I would find it hard to believe any Libertarian would not support equal rights at both a State and a Federal level.
This is all BS, anyway.
Wayne has not a racist or sexist bone in his body.
Just because he lives in a nice house with his only wife ever and four kids does not mean he wants it to be illegal… ANYWHERE… for people of the same gender to have equal protection under the law.
Someone ought to just ASK Mister Root instead of putting fake words and opinions in his mouth.
It also is a pet peeve of mine when one individual thinks they are the sole arbiter of what is and what isn’t Libertarian.
And good post, Marakay, but you might be surprised that Wayne is more pro on your issue than you think.
@104 — if I recall correctly, Wayne, at least in his book, has placed at least one gay rights issue, that of same-sex marriage, on the altar of “states’ rights”. Personally, I don’t believe that my rights as an LGBT American should be subject to ANYONE’s vote, neither federal nor state level. I’m not so sure that the fact of his showing up at a Gay Pride event during a campaign, something I’ve always taken for granted as a desirable Libertarian activity regardess of campaigning, indicates Mr. Root’s actual support for LGBT rights, given the state-vote position on marriage. Where I come from, the basic LP question is what the government is doing sticking its nose in anyone’s marital rights.
The LGBT community is ripe for Libertarian membership, as I well and personally know, but most of the community that hasn’t yet been convinced will only be turned off by his proposed approach.
But then, I didn’t come to the LP from the GOP. I came in from the Left, and I don’t consider that to be any form of conflict.
Carolyn Marbry wrote (@92):
See question 2:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/root-answers-moulton/
LG @ 83:
Wayne was the VP Candidate and Barr could not make the Gay Pride event, so Wayne went.
Wayne is also pro-legalization.
The folks alluding otherwise are mistaken or prevaricating.
As far as Ms. Pyeatt’s assertion that Wayne should be getting Members, err… Isn’t that the Chair’s job?
I’m not familiar with any Membership Committee assignment or anything such as that.
Wayne isn’t misrepresenting anything.
There is no position he has taken, nor statement he has made, that other prominent and accepted Libertarians have not also taken.
This is pure slimy mudslinging without any specifics to back it up.
Jill, you just don’t like him. Whateverrrrr.
Root thinks no libertarian should ever criticize Israel because “Jewish voters” give half the money to the Demopublicans and libertarians need to get that money. On his facebook page. I kid you not. See the four messages, a lecture to David Nolan! and link to page if you want to befriend Root on Facebook. http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2010/06/wayne-root-shut-up-and-take-jewish.html
Everyone, please be aware that none of this is a surprise to Mr Root. Many, many Libertarians have expressed our concerns to him in a much more private manner. He is choosing to continue misrepresenting the party. Perhaps this public airing of dirty laundry seems uncalled for, but it was Wayne who made the choice to continue to misrepresent.
It is shocking that after less than a month on the LNC, he has the party in an uproar. I’ll also ask the question several others have: If he has the ability to bring in so many members, where are they? He’s been in the media for months now.
cm, “blanket party” is over my head, sorry.
Perhaps it’s the anti-authoritarian in me, but passing resolutions as an indirect means to discipline a members just seems bush league to me. If the LNC really feels the need to communicate what is cool and what is not, then I’d say that Hinkle should preamble the next LNC meeting with words that say, “Yo, dudes and dudettes, please don’t misrepresent what the party’s position is on TV and radio. It ain’t cool. Say it’s your opinion, and leave it at that. OK, Wayne?”
Or…we can all go to law school and then get certified as Robert’s Rule geeks…it’s an option….
@98, so having a blanket party for Root is preferable to passing a resolution that would put the entire LNC on notice of how the party expects them to behave now that we’re getting more press exposure?
REALLY?
rc97, I just hope Wayne doesn’t urge people go to the tv screen and tell people to lay hands on each other as a point of libertarian contact. Man, I miss Rothbard!
cm: Everyone wants to make this a personal thing about Root, but Root isn’t the problem in and of himself. He’s just kind of brought it to a head by suddenly having so much media exposure, and god love him for it. But because of all this exposure, obviously situations where his viewpoints are being represented as “our LP answer” bring attention to the responsibility of an LP officer and what he should be representing as a spokesperson for the party.
me: Well scoped. Root’s wildly disproportionate media success leads to increased scrutiny.
Dealing with his — I assume — misstatements is another matter. Passing a resolution is a junior-high student council response. Having a mano y mano ex parte conversation in the alley behind the building seems far more indicated to this hombre.
mike b: I’m just curious, is Wayne our Libertarian Moses that will help lead us out of the libertarian wilderness?
me: No. The title of L Moses goes to MNR 😉 Bringing the tablet with the words caste in stone is most definitely Rothbardian.
Root is more like the L Billy Graham, a revivalist. Sometimes he gets a bit hyperventilated.
well said CM
lg, no, you are correct. However, all things considered, esp. #81, my sense is that reigning in Root is DFN’s primary motive with this Politboro-esque resolution.
This coming from someone who’d like to wring his neck every time he says the words “state’s rights”! No, sorry, I just whince, actually.
@90 said: “I must be naive , I didnt see Nolans proposal as directed JUST at Root . Am I wrong?”
Not at all. You may well be one of the few who really gets this. 🙂 The problem is so many people are so blinded by their factional assumptions and so forth that everything becomes a personal issue.
I’m just curious, is Wayne our Libertarian Moses that will help lead us out of the libertarian wilderness?
Bear in mind that nobody is trying to silence Root or anybody else. The issue is very precisely and very narrowly defined as WHEN an LNC member is representing the party and expressing the views of the party, they should actually be expressing the views of the party and not themselves. If they are speaking personally, they should clarify that point.
This applies to the hardcore anarchists as well as the so-called conservatarians equally. The platform is pretty centrist, actually, no doubt the child of decades of compromise between the factions, and thus is far less likely to alienate anyone or upset anyone inclined toward dipping a toe in Libertarianism than either of the other “extreme” positions.
Why is this so hard to grasp? Everyone wants to make this a personal thing about Root, but Root isn’t the problem in and of himself. He’s just kind of brought it to a head by suddenly having so much media exposure, and god love him for it. But because of all this exposure, obviously situations where his viewpoints are being represented as “our LP answer” bring attention to the responsibility of an LP officer and what he should be representing as a spokesperson for the party.
jjm, hmm, I read IPR fairly regularly, but I must have missed something Angela saw, that Root has implied that “Mexicans, Queers and the average libertarian Jew (read: anti-foreign aid/pro-leaving the Palestinians alone) are not welcome and that the vile Drug War is of no moral consequence.” Since you felt moved to quote this, perhaps you can point us to where he said anything like these things.
If he did, I may well want to distance myself from him. If he did not, I may want to distance myself from you and Angela.
Of course, I would prefer to maintain a libertarian admiration society, while recognizing that we won’t always agree. Wouldn’t THAT be boring?
“You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”
I must be naive , I didnt see Nolans proposal as directed JUST at Root . Am I wrong?
Many years ago David Bergland used to give presentations to libertarians on Myers Briggs personality types, and how skewed libertarians tended to be category-wise relative to the general population. I think it’s clear that Wayne Root has a dynamism and marketing style that is not common among the geek-types (myself included) who have traditionally made up the bulk of the Libertarian Party.
In other words, there is a sizable fraction of libertarians who are rubbed the wrong way by W.A.R. because of personality differences and not just because of policy disputes. In many cases I suspect that the policy disputes are exaggerated as a way of justifying their dislike of W.A.R.
The fact that the personality types which dominate Libertarian Party are not representative of the general population has major implications for how we present our ideas. We each tend to have our favorite libertarian issues, and every such issue will play well when pitched to the niche segment which cares strongly about it.
I credit Wayne Root with having a better feel for the issues which matter to the broad swath of the population which is rising up against the explosive growth of government spending and regulations and taxes and the concomitant damage to our economy. The “tea party” movement developed because the frog in the pot experienced a huge spike in the water temperature instead of the normal steady increase.
Tea partiers are often political newbies who are attending rallies and town hall meetings for the first time in their lives. Passionate political ads such as the one at appeal to the passion and concerns of tea party members. Wayne Allen Root shares that same passion and can also appeal to them. He wants to focus on the issues which matter to them, even if those aren’t always the issues which matter most to current LP members.
We finally have an awakening populace which is mad as hell at big government and doesn’t want to take it anymore. No, they aren’t all libertarians, but a substantial portion are (or are persuadable). We shouldn’t be denigrating them, we should be out there leading the bandwagon.
That’s what Wayne Allen Root is trying to do, and I applaud him for it. This is a huge opportunity for the Libertarian Party to turn the tide in favor of liberty. Let’s not stay curled tightly in our little cocoon, doing the same thing year after year which attracts the same 1/4 to 1/2 percent of the vote every Presidential election.
dfn: Some members (not yet a majority, but a substantial minority) already believe that WAR poses just such a threat.
me: I sometimes do not agree with Root, but if a substantial minority believe that Root is anything like the threat that Sonny Lanham represented, I’d be inclined to go the other way and cut off communication with those who hold that view of Root. Root=Lanham is not worthy of consideration, given my limited bandwidth.
Dave, I appreciate that you don’t believe Root=Lanham, but attempting to mollify those that do is an energy quagmire. IMO, of course.
Just because a wheel squeeks doesn’t mean it necessarily merits grease, a finite commodity. Lanham himself was a squeeky wheel that I’d just as soon see seize up. Perhaps he and the extreme Root-a-phobes can hit bottom and really take stock of the chaos they create.
Yes, Root is still rough around the edges, which is both his strength and his weakness. Passing oblique resolutions designed to reel him in is unlikely to work on any level I can think of.
Example that may be helpful: In 1988 when Jim Turney, myself and others recruited Ron Paul to be at the top of our ticket, we asked that Ron downplay his pro-life views, out of respect for the vast majority of LPers who were/are pro-life. Dr. Paul — an adult — agreed. Dr. Paul was adult enough to recognize that the life/choice issue was not going to be solved by his candidacy. The LP was adult enough to recognize that Dr. Paul was a pro-life lover of liberty and our best available vehicle to spread the word of liberty near and far.
32 years later, we’re passing resolutions rather than having an adult conversation.
Lord help us.
This is the type of thing Wayne’s style of politics begets:
Angela Keaton:::”Thankfully my career is far enough along that when representatives of the political party with which I was once associated make comments which imply that Mexicans, Queers and the average libertarian Jew (read: anti-foreign aid/pro-leaving the Palestinians alone) are not welcome and that the vile Drug War is of no moral consequence, well, it is no reflection on me.”
I hate to have to fight every day telling people “He doesn’t represent us”….
Wayne Root is not the enemy. He has an unfortunate tendency to backslide into the Republican Zone — “Ooh, I can be on a stage with SARAH PALIN!” — but he’s not the enemy, in that sense that Obama is (and Bush was). Like Glenn Beck, he’s a work in progress. He’s still a bit too fond of mucking around in other nations’ business, and a bit reticent about coming out for “scary” positions, but he’s not the enemy. (At this point, I’m more inclined to think that Phillies is the enemy, but that’s another whole topic.)
I am talking about the intention versus interpretation. On the ground the people here believe he is amway. A showman from Vegas.
The southern part of my district is mostly Catholic. This does not play well.
He is always presenting something like the elephant. He would smile telling you about cancer. This is how he comes off to people watching him.
My analysis is based on their responses. If Hinkle can make a dent, then let him. If Root has that power, then put Mark out front. If he takes the loss in motion, let him prove it.
That is why I try and get people to focus in on the state level. Here in Missouri, Glenn Nielsen was a force of information and strength. He is no longer our state chair, but I still tell people to stay local. I believe Cisse Spragins is our new chair, but I don’t know her personally. She is a candidate for Senate and is very intelligent in her public appearances. I hope she can fight like Glenn did. She fought MIAC report.
“Root needs to mature and show he can work as a team.”
me_ u mean like running for at large even after he lost chair , or working really hard an putting his money where his mouth is fighting top 2 , or hosting a meet the LNC / funraiser for LP candidates at his home , or for those who think he never supports the social aspects , he was the only candidate to march in the gay pride parade in SF in 08 ( altho not sure if he did this as a Pres candidate or VP pick)
The one thing that must be avoided is getting a conversation from a citizen about what Root said on TV last night.
It’s already happening. It’s actually been happening for a while in this case.
Robert@79 – “I trust the LNC would also respond with that sort of wisdom when an individual obviously represented a grave threat to the party’s reputation.”
And therein lies the rub. Some members (not yet a majority, but a substantial minority) already believe that WAR poses just such a threat. Right now, I do not agree with them. But he really needs to curb his tendencies to make personal pronouncements that create misimpressions. If he’d follow his own advice and talk ONLY about the “five key issues” he identifies, that would be a good start. It’s his observations on foreign policy and social issues that cause many Libertarians to tear their hair out.
The LNC should be as vague as possible in regards to actual issues. It should remain a membership organization that is a combination of information booth, recruitment for candidacy, and meeting place.
As a candidate, to have clarity would be nice, but if the only talking head is Root, he isn’t going to help me. I have people here who don’t respect him.
Root needs to mature and show he can work as a team. The LNC needs to maintain a sense of abstraction, so each candidate can speak for themselves. If aid comes from the national, so be it.
The one thing that must be avoided is getting a conversation from a citizen about what Root said on TV last night.
The LNC must let me respond to the people, not the LNC.
dfn: The resolution which I am submitting to the LNC (@38) simply requires LNC members to clearly distinguish between their own personal views and the party’s platform. Is that so hard to grasp? If someone on the LNC thinks we should deport all gay people to Iran and then bomb the place, then we can’t stop them. But we can require that they make it clear that this is a personal view, and not the party’s position.
me: First, belated congratulations on your election to LNC. May your term be fruitful for you and the party.
As to its graspability, yes and no. Of course the black and white of your resolution is clear. However, it may or may not be clear if a prominent L makes an offensive statement.
If a deranged L publicly advocated deporting “all gay people to Iran and then bomb the place…” I’d want our LNC to do everything in its power to distance the party from that sick individual. I seem to recall the state party expelling Sonny Lanham a few years back for wandering WAY off the reservation into Haterville. Seemed an appropriate response to this hombre. I trust the LNC would also respond with that sort of wisdom when an individual obviously represented a grave threat to the party’s reputation.
@75, yeah, this editor could stand to have a “preview post” button…
@72, when he says “Our LP answer is the only sane one. Cut off the incentive for illegal immigration by ending entitlements for immigrants and enforcing employment law against businesses hiring illegal immigrants…but at same time raising the bar for LEGAL immigration…” he’s presenting his viewpoint as the party’s viewpoint. This was from June 16 on Facebook.
That bears only passing resemblance to the party platform and inserts a fair bit that isn’t there. Reactions to this post mostly focused on how calling for more law enforcement isn’t a typically Libertarian position. And he does indeed present it as the LP’s position.
Statements like this, I believe, are what prompted the resolution in question.
@71 I dont understand , you say medpot is a big issue and you work at gay events , but being socially progressive is bad policy? u lost me on that one
Oh, posted too soon — to be a party that people are so aware of as socially progressive and then drop the ball in the messages sent out.
@68 said: ” Of course, if you ask one about those issues straight-up, they’ll answer you honestly, if not necessarily completely.”
Not to focus too tightly on your example, but you’re right in that none of the LDS members I’ve ever known would actively conceal elements of their faith from people they knew would find them odious in order to recruit them to the church. They don’t deny the church’s central belief in God when they approach atheists, for example. And they’re not likely to go to a gathering of Hindus and claim to believe exactly what the Hindus believe, carefully omitting the rather important parts where they don’t.
There’s the difference. As far as not answering completely, well, a lie of omission is still a lie, but it depends on context. Again, my test is relevance. Talking about gay rights at an economic summit is just stupid. Not talking about gay rights at a Harvey Milk Day event is just as stupid.
It comes down to the motive behind why we would fail to disclose our position on something. If we know someone is a pro-war anti-gay conservative, we can be reasonably sure that she is not going to be happy once she signs up and sees what our actual positions are, and we should not try to deceive her, even by omission.
Deliberately hiding viewpoints that don’t poll as well just to get people’s membership, just to get their money, just to get their votes, as I said, is absolutely unethical and borders on fraud.
Mike B, in furtherance of my Rothbardological studies, perhaps you know, as it sounds like you’re a follower: After MNR rejoined the Republicans, is there any record of his advancing his “fetuses are parasites” view among the GOP faithful? Near as I can tell, he was unable to convince Rockwell of his epiphany, but the Murray I knew would doggedly pursue what he thought was truth, no matter where it might take him.
cm: Besides, I think you’d have a hard time supporting the view that any individual LNC member’s personal brand of Libertarianism is a better representation of the will of the delegates than the platform except MAYBE David Nolan’s, and Nolan is the one calling for folks to stick to the platform. Again, as I say, if you don’t like what the platform says, CHANGE IT.
me: Feeling way misunderstood here. My main point is this sounds like a legalistic stunt to shame Root. If I were on the LNC and I saw Root representing the LP’s position as reflected in the platform, I’d have a sidebar with him, strongly suggesting that tweak his language so it’s clear he’s presenting HIS ideas, not the LP’s collective will. If after I did this, he persisted, I might fallback to something like this resolution approach.
As for changing the platform, I was on the Platcom and we did the best we could to fill the crater of a platform post-06. It’s serving its purpose now, more or less. But it has very limited value in doing politics, IMO. Most of the loopy extremism was exorcised in 06, but with it a lot of the serviceable, lean material fell to the cutting room floor.
Root has demonstrated he can make adjustments. If he says “in my view” vs. “we Ls” when he appears on TV, I’m not sure what’s been accomplished. Viewers don’t listen THAT closely. TV appearances are not court rooms!
Personally, I’m much more likely to squirm when he uses the term “state’s rights,” which is horrible positioning for Ls IMO.
I’m the alternate delegate to the LNC for Region 5S, but more particularly I’m the Libertarian governor candidate in Pennsylvania.
Medical marijuana is a huge issue out here, and one of my major constituencies is the LGBT community — I campaign at gay pride events, I’m state coordinator for Outright Libertarians, and so on.
It’s simply bad policy to be a party that people KNOW is socially progressive, or at least socially tolerant at worst.
As for what sells and success, I don’t see much basis for Wayne’s claims of success, expertise, or media access.
Regular appearances on AM talk shows and local TV aren’t all that difficult to grab.
We’ve already seen that Wayne’s claims of extensive business success have been rather convincingly undermined by the atrocious performance of his publicly traded firm.
And I’m still trying to figure out how Wayne’s public racism is supposed to grow the LP with an America that’s increasingly a “majority of minorities” and increasingly urban.
The fact that he was voted on to the LNC by the members of the Libertarian Party should say something about the representing the party. He hasn’t said anything new, and he was voted onto the governing board for a reason. Maybe the majority of the active party membership feels he has something to say. It seems as though the ‘leadership’ of the party is trying to silence a member of the leadership, and I would point out a member of the leadership that had not only the highest votes received in the first round of chair voting, but the highest number of votes for at-large member. Seems to me the membership might be trying to tell the leadership something, but maybe that’s just me.
Hmmmm… seems I remember a similar thing being said a while back, to much derision by the reformistas… I’m trying to remember what it was about *sneeze*AngelaKeaton*sneeze*
Carolyn, I don’t think you’ll find too many Mormons that believe they’re keeping the more esoteric portions of their beliefs to themselves “because that implies that [they] know [they’re] somehow wrong or ashamed of [their] positions in that light.” They just acknowledge that those issues are better approached within a holistic understanding of their beliefs, instead of addressing them piecemeal. Of course, if you ask one about those issues straight-up, they’ll answer you honestly, if not necessarily completely.
Similarly, the Libertarian Party has adopted positions in the past that, individually, don’t make a whole lot of sense to 90% of the public, but are far more understandable when considered with the rest of the party’s philosophy. For example, the LP recently issued a press release declaring that the BP oil spill was due to too much government regulation, not too little. This point isn’t intuitive to many people – they see that there were regulations, they see that they weren’t enforced, and so they make the understandable connection that the answer is increased regulation. If you consider this issue within the framework of the philosophies that guide the Libertarian Party, however, you’ll find it’s a very consistent position – the LP’s point is that, since government regulation can be easily manipulated by political realities instead of market forces (e.g. liability caps, regulators *literally* in bed with oil industry “experts”, etc.), it’s going to be more prone to these sorts of failures than a privately run and certified group that can be prosecuted and held liable in a court of law.
Nobody that I know of is trying to “muzzle” anyone else, or “force” them to take positions they are uncomfortable with. The resolution which I am submitting to the LNC (@38) simply requires LNC members to clearly distinguish between their own personal views and the party’s platform. Is that so hard to grasp? If someone on the LNC thinks we should deport all gay people to Iran and then bomb the place, then we can’t stop them. But we can require that they make it clear that this is a personal view, and not the party’s position.
@65, the resolution offered @38 to instruct LNC members to stick to the platform when representing the party was written by Nolan and is the proposal LG’s referring to.
@49
Which Nolan proposal?
” Phillies…should be told to stop. ”
Was that object you presented from Nolan? I have spent several hours gardening, and am mucho behind on reading my leaks. Though the communication with the LNC member who admitted to no knowing how to forward an email was interesting.
RC 61 please don’t remind me!
Mike B. @ 55: Murray would write another multi-volume follow-up to “the Betrayal of the Old Right!”
@59, if we don’t like the platform, we should change it. Sure, it’s not perfect, but absent any other document that expresses the party’s positions, it’s the best we have.
Besides, I think you’d have a hard time supporting the view that any individual LNC member’s personal brand of Libertarianism is a better representation of the will of the delegates than the platform except MAYBE David Nolan’s, and Nolan is the one calling for folks to stick to the platform.
Again, as I say, if you don’t like what the platform says, CHANGE IT.
mb 55, recall that MNR died a Republican. Yes, I suspect he’d not be pleased with the direction his party has taken.
Truthfully, I think he would be a better fit philosophically in the Republican Liberty Caucus. He still has one foot in Republicanism.
cm 52, I’m not sure I’d characterize the platform as “approved”…more like “allowed.” The rules surrounding platform adoption are also quite Politboro, and the language in place is largely a function of years of intra-party static. I’d venture to say that almost no one is enthusiastic about the platform language; it’s just tolerable by sufficient majorities.
This makes appeals to the platform as a guiding document for action feeling weak to me.
@50, yes, yes it would. If the hardcore anarchists you’re talking about are LNC members, they would need to present the party’s position from the approved platform when speaking as LNC representatives.
I think WAR should go back home to the Republicans.
@49, the resolution speaks specifically of LNC members, not of activists. It’s not just about Root. Root is just the most visible person to present his own viewpoints as LP viewpoints.
I wonder if Murray Rothbard is rolling in his grave?….WWMD…What Would Murray Do?
I think WAR should join the Green Party. He can lead the conservatives in the Green Party to much success in 2012 and 2016.
@51, a resolution is essentially that. If it were a by-laws change or a policy manual change, it would be more binding.
@47 “Seems to me the membership might be trying to tell the leadership something…”
Me: That they don’t actually want the leadership to represent the platform that they approved…? That doesn’t really make a lot of sense.
cm, so it sounds as if McCrystal should be court martialed. Perhaps he should! The military seems way too large as it is, so that would be a start.
In the corporate situation, proving damages is VERY difficult. In my experience, corporations generally handle these sorts of situations privately and out of the public eye.
So, in the case of LP officers, it seems they should frequently say “in my view” or its equivalent when speaking publicly, and they would be spared being sanctioned by the party for going off the reservation. If so, I’m not sure what purpose is served by this bureaucratic rulemaking.
I seem to recall Corey and Ferguson each saying publicly that they are pro-life, although the party platform is essentially pro-choice. I found this inappropriate more because as employees they should not inject their personal views in their official capacities. (I happen to be tepidly pro-choice, but I also believe the platform should accommodate the pro-life position, or remain silent on the issue.)
When it comes to non-paid party officials, I would MUCH prefer to informally counsel them on NOT going against the platform when speaking for the party. It feels a bit Politboro and heavyhanded to codify such a practice via a resolution. Heck, I don’t think I’d support a resolution against narcing to the FEC, since it’s so obviously over the line. 😉
hardcore – anarchists , not activists , LOL
Why does the Nolans proposal have to do with Root exclusively , it would also make those hardcore activists admit our Platform does not call for the abolishment of all government
44Thane Eichenauer // Jun 22, 2010 at 4:03 pm
LibertarianGirl @25
Wayne Allyn Root has a different emphasis that other libertarians but from what I have seen he seems consistent. So far those with concerns have run against him and laid out their concerns. Rather than speculate about a trojan horse I would rather people who have such a worry do a better job than Root in promoting their favorite libertarian issues.
me_So would I… Im not the 1 who said Trojan Horse , I dont think that , I dont critisize Root and consider him an ally , u have me confused or did not comprehend the thread
The fact that he was voted on to the LNC by the members of the Libertarian Party should say something about the representing the party. He hasn’t said anything new, and he was voted onto the governing board for a reason. Maybe the majority of the active party membership feels he has something to say. It seems as though the ‘leadership’ of the party is trying to silence a member of the leadership, and I would point out a member of the leadership that had not only the highest votes received in the first round of chair voting, but the highest number of votes for at-large member. Seems to me the membership might be trying to tell the leadership something, but maybe that’s just me.
@43, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Even statements publicly criticizing strategy or involvement in the war BY OFFICERS are subject to prosecution under this article. If the military chooses not to pursue it, that’s their call, but it is there.
888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Corporate officers who divulge secrets or “badmouth” the corporation such that it damages the corporation are subject at least to firing and at worst to lawsuits from both the shareholders and the corporation itself, especially if it causes substantial harm to the corporation’s ability to do business. The big exception to this is when a corporate officer exposes criminal activity.
As far as it being “unlibertarian,” one could well argue that it’s unAmerican to keep our officers from being able to speak freely when they think the President is a putz. And it is. But as I pointed out, that’s the sacrifice you make when you wield the kind of power they have. Likewise when you’re publicly representing the LP, it may seem unLibertarian to hold you to representing the actual LP’s positions, but to do otherwise harms the party.
I remind you, I said that they should be able to represent their own viewpoints PROVIDED they qualify them as their own viewpoints and not the viewpoints of the party as a whole. Why would that be unLibertarian? I would find it unLibertarian to bind the perception of the party and its other members to my personal perception of what it is to be a Libertarian.
cm: I don’t, however, agree with the idea that we need to “hide” our “temple undergarments” from all but the true believers because that implies that we know we’re somehow wrong or ashamed of our positions in that light.
me: Great point. I used to get my knickers in a twist about these sorts of matters, too. But then I lightened up. And I recognized that we all have limited bandwidth. So, sure, I think heroin should be legal for adults, but I don’t advocate heroin legalization…in my judgment, the issue is not ripe, not likely to pass in my lifetime, and beyond my persuasive powers. I’ve tabled it. If the circumstances change, I will reconsider actively advocating legalizing heroin for adults.
Why make life (and politics) more complicated than it already is?
LibertarianGirl @25
Wayne Allyn Root has a different emphasis that other libertarians but from what I have seen he seems consistent. So far those with concerns have run against him and laid out their concerns. Rather than speculate about a trojan horse I would rather people who have such a worry do a better job than Root in promoting their favorite libertarian issues.
AroundtheblockAFT @29
That sounds great.
cm, please expand on why you believe that the military or a corporate officer toeing the line is a requirement, and, if it is, what would violate the requirement?
The military model is being tested right now wiht Gen. McCrystal’s interview with ROLLING STONE, where he went off the reservation. This will test the model you point to, real time.
What should he do now…resign, apologize, be fired, etc.? (I have no position on either the policy nor the specific application…I’d just like your opinion.)
When we’re specifically talking about the LP, it also gets a bit murky. For ex., the Platform calls for abolishing the income tax. So, does this mean that any time the issue of taxes comes up, an LP officer must say “we’re for abolishing the income tax.” What about abolishing OTHER taxes? What about reducing the income tax next year? IOW, just how literally do you wish to apply this “toe the line” rule? And what would be the punishment if one deviated?
To be clear, I kind of like the sentiment you express, but I’m not sure how workable it is. It may be that politics is quite a bit messier, less precise, and less disciplined than the military or the corporate world are.
So the Libertarian Party, the beacon of individual liberties, is going to pass a resolution that it’s governing board can’t express their opinions on principle and policy? Doesn’t sound very Libertarian…
@39, a better analogy would be the guy who wants to hook up with some girl he knows is really not into BDSM, which he is into. But he’s afraid to scare her away, so he withholds that information and implies strongly or even says outright that he’s not into it, right up until they end up in bed together.
Imagine her surprise…
Meanwhile, if he’d just been straightforward and honest, he would have found another girl who actually WAS into it, and they’d have a great time together.
That’s closer to the mark.
we dont have to show ouselves entirely when trying to recruit new members all the time is the point of the above post
When a guy meets a girl that he likes , he wants to bang her , we know thats what he wants , but does he say that right off the bat? No , if he did he would never get any . Instead , he plies her with dates, talk and time and sometimes it takes longer than others.Reel em in playa:)
RESOLUTION CLARIFYING THE ROLE OF LNC MEMBERS
IN THEIR ROLE AS REPRESENTATIVES TO THE PUBLIC
WHEREAS members of the Libertarian National Committee are viewed by the voting public as representatives of the Libertarian Party, its principles, and its policy stands, and
WHEREAS the principles and policy stands of the Libertarian Party are clearly spelled out in our national platform,
THEREFORE the Libertarian National Committee hereby instructs its members to adhere as closely as possible to the national platform when stating “the Libertarian position” on issues – especially when being interviewed by news media, civic groups, and others who have the ability to influence public opinion. LNC members should always clearly distinguish between their own personal views and the Libertarian Party’s stands whenever the two are not congruent.
Any candidate for political office will have his core issues that he will emphasize to his voters and issues that he will only address if someone asks about them. That’s reasonable because in any given area or at any given time, one issue may take precedence over another to his audience.
So in principle, I definitely understand focusing more of our media time on issues deemed more relevant at a given time or to a given audience than on making sure the entire platform gets equal exposure all the time.
I don’t, however, agree with the idea that we need to “hide” our “temple undergarments” from all but the true believers because that implies that we know we’re somehow wrong or ashamed of our positions in that light. I’m sorry, equal treatment under the law, ending victimless crimes… these are NOT issues we should be afraid to talk about because they tie to a core ideal of the party.
It makes sense to tailor your message to your audience, but only for relevance, NOT to hide a core belief from them and trick them into joining something that they don’t actually support. That borders on fraud, if not legally at least ethically.
As far as what Root said in his message, I have no problem if he himself wants to focus on those five issues he mentioned. I have no problem if he never mentioned our positions on social liberties at all except when asked, especially if those positions make him personally uncomfortable. But as an LNC officer, whatever issues he would address and whenever he would address them, he really should stick strictly to the positions expressed in the platform and approved by the majority of our delegates as the official positions of the Libertarian Party. This point is of more concern to me than those few times when he doesn’t want to talk about an issue at all. 🙂
I’ll go one step further. As a party officer, I believe he should not only be able to articulate these official positions but he should be able to defend them vigorously in debate if necessary.
Officers in the U.S. military give up their freedom of speech, even when the uniform is off, because of the amount of power they have over the morale and mindset of their personnel but also because of the power they command and the role they play in public opinion. Likewise, when you’re an officer of a corporation, especially a publicly traded corporation, you don’t have the luxury of presenting your own opinion of how screwed over the books are. Your number one priority is the survival and continued well being of that organization according to its mission statement and its internal goals, and for that reason, you present a unified front to the public. It may seem dishonest but to do otherwise is to violate your responsibility to that organization. For those who are not comfortable with that responsibility, there’s always the door.
There’s no reason why LP officers shouldn’t be held to the same standard for the same reason — their responsibility to the will of the delegates and the long-term health of the party. If they absolutely MUST express where their personal opinion deviates from the platform in public for whatever reason, then it should be with the qualifier that it is their personal opinion and not the position of the party.
There is a resolution coming before the LNC at the Vegas meeting essentially to this effect, by the way.
“Curious, isn’t it, that W.A.R. is still hanging around the LP when it appears his notoriety would allow him to become prominent as a male Ann Coulter or something.”
Not at all. Like any smart strategist, Root is keeping all his options open, until the day he has to pick one.
Why would Root choose sides until he has to? Best to keep both the LP and Fox News as bases to work from.
If Root is ever forced to pick a side (pro-war/pro-Israel neocons vs. antiwar libertarians), well, then it’ll be interesting who he picks.
gp and tk, “supervise” to me means that one has control over the LNC, like the LNC Chair has control over the National Office and its day to day operations. Of course there are ways to monitor, influence, and vote against the NEXT LNC. Supervise? Nope, not buying it, although GP seems to question my “functional literacy,” so that could be an explanation. 😉 My self evaluation is that my literacy is just fine, thank you, as is yours.
Thomas, I find your reading of what constitutes “business” to be tortured and hyper-technical. The LNC meets periodically to VOTE on issues; they can VOTE electronically when necessary. Having a rolling discussion about party matters is not “business,” as I see it. I guess we disagree. I’d want them to continue their conversation informally between meetings to the extent they can and have time, and I feel no need to monitor what they say to each other in such a forum. It’s a thankless job without pay, and while you seem to think that Dr. Phillies’s narcing to the FEC was not something that he should apologize for, I do. It’s that sort of stunt — based on a filing error and then an even bigger error on George’s part to flag it to the Feds — that keeps us small and petty.
George can keep his checkbook closed…that’s certainly his right. His unwarranted attack on Root — calling it a plot! — illustrates for me the difference between “intellect” (which Dr. Phillies seems to have an awful lot of) and “wisdom” (which he seems to need to do a LOT of work on). Root has been extremely upfront as to where he’s coming from, a Goldwater/right kinda place. He ran for Chair and barely lost. He ran for At Large and won handily. The membership has a pretty good sense of Root’s agenda. He wants to appeal to the many who have a similar ideological background as he does. That’s profoundly predictable and obvious — hardly a “plot.” (I note that I’d like the LP to tack more center than right, surprise!, because that’s where I’m coming from.)
If anyone is plotting in a subterranean way, it is Phillies. We only recently found out about his unwise narcing to the Feds over nothing. He’s even gone so far as to suggest that we should be grateful for his “uncovering” of the bookkeeping error that he apparently felt (based on his actions) should be made into a federal case.
Finally, George, while sunshine is disinfecting, pouring a toxic substance like bleach is as well. But the wise recognize that too much disinfectant kills everything.
Ponder that.
Mr. Knapp,
So – if instead of posting my email about candidate Barber’s TV ad to the LNC-discussion email list, I instead sent it to it all LNC members directly (using BCC:), then should my email be considered private or would that be public record and fair game for mischief like Phillies seems to enjoy?
And BTW the email ballot access mechanism you describe from the LP bylaws is not conducted on the LNC-discussion email list. There is no connection.
Don Wills
I can confirm that in California, marijuana legalization and gay marriage are definitely important issues.
That said, I don’t know why anyone would advocate a “one size fits all” approach. Voters in the San Fernando Valley or south Central Los Angeles are very different from voters in Orange County. Voters in Houston’s Fourth Ward or Kashmere are very different from voters in the Alief or Bellaire suburbs. Regardless of the demographic, we can find issues that appeal to them, as long as we’re not alienating people unnecessarily. Politics is about building bridges, not burning them. But even more than that, it is about group identification. So we need to learn how to talk to people in their own language.
As for Observation’s comment @ 19: Not referring to WAR specifically, but in general, we have to assume that we have been infiltrated by people who mean to destroy us. This is one of Saul Alinsky’s key principles in “Rules For Radicals.” When I moved to California, his book was recommended by a speaker at the very first LP meeting I ever attended out here. We can learn a lot from our opposition, even the late Alinsky. Again, I am NOT accusing Wayne Root of this, I’m just pointing out that we need to be vigilant. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has a mallard’s markings… maybe it’s a duck.
We also need to realize that as a 3rd party, we are not likely to obtain a majority in any legislature anywhere, anytime soon. In the near future, success for us should be measured in how effective we are at shifting the debate. This is how the socialists have succeeded in implementing so much of their program. Obviously, electing candidates to office helps us to achieve that goal.
If the socialists can sell s*** on a stick, we ought to be able to sell prime rib. Clearly, we need to improve our sales techniques. This debate is helping in that process, and I appreciate all those (including Wayne Root, George Phillies, and Don Wills) who are making a positive, constructive contribution.
LG @ 25
He is a Trojan horse for the Republicans. He’ll fill it up with Repulican lites, drive it into the Libertarian Party, let ’em all out, and take over.
Bob,
Yes, I mean “supervise.” See Dr. Phillies @27 for elaboration on how.
You write:
“Most organizations I’m familiar with allow the governing board to communicate and ‘think out loud’ as they are considering some issue. If they cannot use a listserv”
As well they should.
Most organizations I’m familiar with treat such collective communications/thinking out loud as part of the board’s official proceedings.
The LP even more so, as per article 8, section 10 of the bylaws: “The National Committee may, without meeting together, transact business by electronic mail. The Secretary shall send out electronic mail ballots on any question submitted by the Chair or cosponsored by at least 1/5 of the members of the Committee.”
The electronic venue in which business is so transacted — which happens to be the LNC-Discuss listserv — should be treated as a public meeting.
At present, it is not — those of us who want to know what the LNC is up to have to try to get LNC members to tell us, to forward messages from LNC-Discuss, etc.
The way it SHOULD work is that all message traffic posted through LNC-Discuss gets automatically posted to a public, searchable archive.
@23, @26
“The sun’s disinfecting effects are well known.”
Taking both sides of the issue, vigorously, in the course of two messages. You have a great future in politics.
Curious, isn’t it, that W.A.R. is still hanging around the LP when it appears his notoriety would allow him to become prominent as a male Ann Coulter or something. Maybe he is sincere, just putting a different emphasis on how to advance the LP? Maybe we need a prominent, air-time grabbing spokesperson for appealing to left-wingers? Mary Ruwart? Angela Keaton?
@1) Welcome to this prequel to the next issue of Liberty for America magazine, blowing the whistle under various titles since 1998.
You can get your own subscription for free at LibertyForAmerica.com
@26
“me: Do you really mean “supervise,” TK? I was unaware that the membership has that capability in the ByLaws or in practice.”
You should try reading the bylaws. Paths the membership has for controlling the LNC:
#1) Judicial committee appeal.
#2) Replacement of Regional Reps via whatever rule the region has set up
#3) “This is a scan of my checkbook. My closed checkbook.”
There are several others, though functional literacy is required to find them.
When a member of the LNC is trying to organize a plot to walk away from our core platform positions and become Republican lite, it is very much the business of the membership.
tk: If you don’t want the members to be able to supervise your words and actions on the LNC, you don’t belong on the LNC.
me: Do you really mean “supervise,” TK? I was unaware that the membership has that capability in the ByLaws or in practice. Of course the membership can and should pay attention to what the LNC does, and perhaps agitate for or against matters before the LNC.
Most organizations I’m familiar with allow the governing board to communicate and “think out loud” as they are considering some issue. If they cannot use a listserv, they will start using the phone to converse offline, for fear that their out-of-context considerations might be leaked.
Is that REALLY what you want?
We already have one prominent member who unrepentantly narcs to the FEC, exposing the party and the LNC to all sorts of legal entanglements. In a time when we should be growing like mushrooms, we have a party engaged in perennial CYA.
I gather you don’t care for the term, but this is capital D dysfunctional.
Observation // Jun 22, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Hasn’t it occurred to anyone that Wayne Allyn Root is a Trojan horse? That’s certainly what it looks like to me.
me _ which way ? a trojan horse from them sent to us or from us sent to them?
dont ever say anything in an email you dont want public is a good rule of thumb
Actually, now would be a good time for Ls to adopt a more “throw all the bums out” messaging. It need not be particularly ideological. There’s a growing recognition that the Rs and Ds are hopelessly corrupt, and that their bipartisan corruption got us into this mess. We need a real third party, if for no other reason than to keep the Rs and Ds honest (relatively speaking, of course!) The sun’s disinfecting effects are well known.
Hey Tom, there is a big difference between LNC Board Meetings, LNC Executive Committee Meetings, and LNC discussion emails that are used to air out ideas, but not necessarily formal policy.
“I was under the impression that LNC discussion was for members of the LNC in private discussion.”
The LNC is the governing board of a membership organization. Its proceedings are not “private,” although some errant board members do periodically throw tantrums abusing that word when the word they’re actually looking for is “secret.”
If you don’t want the members to be able to supervise your words and actions on the LNC, you don’t belong on the LNC.
From the Washington Independent article:
“Like Barr, Root joined the party in late 2007.”
That’s wrong on both counts.
Root joined the LP in late 2006 or early 2007, and was publicly referring to himself as a “libertarian” as early as the late 1990s.
I’m not sure when Barr joined the party, but he was serving on its national committee by late 2006.
The whole “newbie” line of attack is weak in any case — Harry Browne didn’t join the LP until about the time he declared for its presidential nomination, but I don’t remember anyone, even his opponents, playing that card.
Hasn’t it occurred to anyone that Wayne Allyn Root is a Trojan horse? That’s certainly what it looks like to me.
I certainly agree with Squire Molton that Ls should not focus exclusively conservative-sounding issues. In times of a strong economy, that’s an easier task. In challenging economic times, less so, as meat and potatoes is more important to the vast majority than less broadly important issues.
GP’s list contains mostly narrowcast matters. Sure there may be a few districts where DADT is important to a measureable percentage of voters, but for the most part this is issue is important to a very tiny sliver of the population. Anecdotally, gays I know who live is prenominantly liberal areas wonder why anyone would want to be in the military in the first place, so based on that, I’m not even sure the gay community is unified on this issue.
Same sort of thing with repealing DOMA. I agree with repeal, but I cannot imagine many voters would pull the L lever because an L candidate made that issue a top-fiver. In some districts, DOMA repeal might be a non-starter, but my guess is that an L who stands for repeal is more attractive than repellant.
Decriminalizing hemp is a fine issue, but as a top-fiver…I’m not seeing it.
I’m unaware that unifying all families in on the table politically anywhere, and I don’t know what it is. There are members of my family I’d rather not be unified with.
I’d be VERY surprised if end Foreign Aid is politically popular except in the context of the federal deficit.
So, in these times, what issue could an L emphasize to not come across as a right winger? Accelerating the US exit from Iraq and Afghanistan would get my vote. An L could emphasize what a collosal mistake the Iraq War was and is, and the strain it has put on taxpayers.
Log Cabin Republicans should be a target audience of the LP ! And I am sure it has been in the past.
Frankly, 65% of the US population (my numbers) could find a home in the LP in some fashion.
I appreciate that Root is getting tons of media exposure for himself and the LP. The LP needs all the exposure it can get right now. I also like the basic gist of what Root is pushing for – stick to emphasizing the parts of the Libertarian platform that the majority of Americans agree with, “pleasantly surprise” them with the rest when Libertarians get into office. That’s just sensible politics.
I mean, seriously, do you really think the LDS church (a.k.a. “Mormons”) would be one of the fastest growing churches on the planet if they started conversion conversations with temple undergarments and patriarchal blessings? Of course not. Instead, they do what most people do when they’re trying to convince someone else that they’re right; they start with common ground and work from there. It’s really not that complicated.
That said, I do agree that Root needs to get out a little more and branch out from the Fox News crowd. At the very least, gay marriage and drug legalization would play pretty well in many coastal jurisdictions.
And thank you # 7 Robert.
I have been very reserved but there is a time to stand up. We have a great LP Ohio team now, and yet have varying opinions on how to “get er done”. Each person has a natural or god-given gift to provide some form of support to the liberty movement and the LP. It’s my job and that of the management to find the right place for everyone to help. One thing is for sure, the “losers, clowns, and negative malcontents” are not in charge. They are outside, trying to figure out who painted those yellow lines for the parking lot. I have no time for people that have the “3-D syndrome”: Divisive, Disingenuous, and Dishonest”. Everyone can fill in the blanks from here. Over and out.
I don’t want whatever your selling Mr. Phillies.
We still are trying to retain some shred of moral and ethical fiber, here in the Ohio LP.
I’ve spent some thime thinking about those five issues Root says are what voters care about (small business, fiscal responsibility, jobs, taxes and spending.) I am four of those people Wayne is courting: mother, grandmother, Christian, and small business owner. I have run my small business for over 26 years. Many of those people I’ve had the privilege of serving over 20 years. I’ve known them through divorces, marriages of their children, their children becoming parents. I have many people who I considered wealthy, who are now having a tough time paying bills. I will tell you this: yes, everyone is worried about the economy. Everyone is worried about government overspending. But I see that they’re equally passionate about never-ending wars, loss of civil liberties, equality for their gay family and friends. Perhaps Mr Root, in his mansion in Las Vegas, isn’t speaking to members of the general public like others of us are.
Focusing is fine, but sticking only to conservative issues is a pretty terrible idea.
@3
However, I am happy to take your word that in his heart Wayne believes in those libertarian ideas.
It’s just that in politics the ideas you believe in and don’t talk about don’t do much good.
@9
Actually, I quoted your message part of because Wayne’s message “GREAT ad Don. This is what the LP should have been saying and promoting for 39 years now.” makes no sense without it.
I will analyze the message of the Republican Party of Crazy in a later post.
Root thinks Glenn Beck, Rand Paul & Sharron Angle are “strong libertarians”??
George writes “most Americans tend to be able to tell the distance [sic] between having a passionate belief and screaming somewhat incoherently at the top of your lungs.”
George, your dissembling verges on idiocy. In the ad you introduced into this thread, Mr. Barber is not “screaming somewhat incoherently”. Neither does Mr. Root when he advocates for tax reduction.
George, I can only surmise that you decided to inject my private email, which had nothing to do with Mr. Root, into this thread, which was originally about Mr. Root’s philosophy, because you’re pissed that I dismissed your candidacy for LNC chairman in my speech nominating for John Jay Myers for LNC chairman. My dismissal rings more true today than then.
And BTW, Mr. Root was not the only Libertarian leader who recognized the genius of this ad.
@4 Welcome to political reality. If you are a politician, you are always on the record. That includes those phone calls you were hoping were not going to get reported.
@5 It’s hard to get much more operationally concrete than
Repeal all laws against marijuana use and consumption
Repeal DOMA
Repeal DADT
Unify all families
FEC? “We call for … the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. ”
End Foreign Aid
Those are not “more theoretical matters”. Those are core party positions that Mr. Root wants to abandon, hide under a bushel and leave behind us.
KK, perhaps you were too busy building your state party to notice that there is a small, angry, cantankerous subset of the membership who believe that “transparency” means that anything and everything that the LNC does must be completely conducted in public. While any business or organization could not operate in such a paralyzing regime, one gets the sense that this subset secretly (or unconsciously) wants maximum internal drama and is not especially interested in advancing liberty.
Be not dissuaded by these squeeky wheels. Liberty is too important to allow a few malcontents from disrupting your important work.
Bruce,
You ought to reconsider what Mr Root says in his letter:
” American voters care about *small business, fiscal responsibility, jobs, taxes, and spending.*..NOT drugs, open borders, gay marriage, and abandon Israel.
…
*Our ads should stick to those same 5 issues. PERIOD.*”
I say that ‘our ads should stick to…period.’… is abandoning our core issues, by hiding them under a bushel.
As to whether Mr. Root is a hypocrite, as you propose, who supports our party positions but wants to hide them from the public, or is suffering from situational honesty, I do not know.
@2 I have watched the ad. Actually, most Americans tend to be able to tell the distance between having a passionate belief and screaming somewhat incoherently at the top of your lungs. That’s why polling shows that the more people know about the Tea Party movement, the less they like it. However,t here are also some good people in the tea party groups, not to mention some lost libertarian souls in need of rescue.
Only in certain alternative universes is emphasizing popular ideas and de-emphasizing more theoretical matters a case of “abandoning” the platform.
Imagine what might happen if the next PlatComm suggests that plank 3.6 adds the sentence “We call for the abolition of the Federal Election Commission.”
In such an alternative universe, this might be viewed as a conspiracy by the “dumbinant coalition” to gain the ability to conduct malfeasant acts with the membership’s dues and contributions. 😉 Who then could we narc to were there no FEC?
WHY is an internal LNC post being put on this?
I was under the impression that LNC discussion was for members of the LNC in private discussion.
Looks like I need to go back to making telephone calls, if people are going to post LNC comments.
Mister Phillies is quite inaccurate when he says, and I quote, “Wayne Root would have our party abandon some of our most fundamental platform positions,for example, equality for all before the law, drug legalization, and foreign non-intervention…”
I hate to call a friend a liar, so I will just say that Mister Phillies is wrong, is incorrect.
Wayne is FOR all three of those points and has said so on national TV repeatedly.
Mister Phillies needs to get his facts straight.
(Hey George, you have my phone number, you ought to call me on this, buddy.)
I realize that anything I write may be published anywhere, but the purpose of my email publish by Mr. Phillies that was sent to an internal LNC discussion email list was to point out THE PASSION of the Tea Party folks, and the lack thereof in Libertarians. It was not about policy issues or libertarian philosophy or W.A.R.
So dear readers, please understand that, unlike W.A.R., I am a strict non-interventionist with respect to foreign affairs. However, I am not an anarchist or radical like some in LP leadership.
And BTW, the advertisement by Mr. Barber was absolutely tremendous! The link is at the end of Mr. Phillies post. It is one minute long and well worth your time. Make up your own minds.
Wayne Root would have our party abandon some of our most fundamental platform positions,for example, equality for all before the law, drug legalization, and foreign non-intervention. If you don’t believe me, here are his own words as sent to the LNC-discuss list. He’s responding to another message which I attach.
” From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Sent: 6/21/2010 1:04:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Why the Tea Party is winning
GREAT ad Don. This is what the LP should have been saying and promoting for 39 years now.
American voters care about *small business, fiscal responsibility, jobs, taxes, and spending.*..NOT drugs, open borders, gay marriage, and abandon Israel.
The Tea Party sticks to _only_ the 5 major economic issues above…and NEVER goes near controversial issues that do not have a majority of Americans support.
And like me- they are not calm and quiet and afraid to be dynamic and colorful…they are intense and passionate about those 5 issues…and about smaller government.
*Our ads should stick to those same 5 issues. PERIOD.*
Anything else is political suicide.
Wayne Allyn Root
2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee ”
The message is in response to a message discussing a Republican candidate and his television ad. If you watch the video, you will rapidly learn why many Americans think that far right wing Republicans are crazy (they think the IRS can unilaterally raise your tax rates) and skirting the edge of sedition (“Raise your armies”, coupled with a political campaign that appears to be recruiting volunteers, is not speech because there is also a substantive act.) But here is the message:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Don Wills <[email protected] wrote:
Hello LNC list folks,
I apologize if you think this is off-topic for the LNC discussion list, but this one minute political advertisement is a must-watch for all Libertarians. The 'Tea Party' has become successful because they're passionate, and even though they don't know what they want to do or how to do it, they want to do something, anything. I don't sense that passion in Libertarians. Sad.
Enjoy –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4
The punch line had me jumping up and saying – YES YES YES.
Don Wills
chairman, Wyoming LP"