Jim Duensing issues statement regarding trying the prisoners at Guantanamo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jim Duensing for President

http://www.JimDuensing.com

Obama the socialist sees nothing wrong with secret Stalin show trials.

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Jim Duensing Calls on the Obama
Administration to Defeat the Republicans in Congress by releasing KSM from
Gitmo so he can be tried by a Fully Informed Jury.

Yesterday, the Obama Administration reversed itself on the issue of bringing the terrorists to justice.

During the campaign, Obama talked about closing Gitmo and ending the practice of torture. His base and the rank and file members of his party were excited about ending the torture of the Bush / Cheney years. But as
soon as he was elected to office, he covered up the destruction of torture tapes from the cia.

Now, Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General is blaming Congressional Republicans for – Holder’s decision – to try certain alleged terrorists in a military tribunal where the American people will be unable to witness
the events or the evidence.

In December of 2009, Holder publicly expressed his intention to try KSM
and other alleged terrorists in New York. That indictment, which has now been withdrawn, has also now been unsealed. It charges KSM with being the “plot’s operational leader”, but does not allege any actions by KSM on the
actual date of the attacks. The indictment leaves it unclear what exactly KSM is alleged to have done on the day of the attack.

A public trial could have cleared that up. We won’t have that now. Thanks to a cowardly Attorney General who once called the entire nation cowards. Guess it takes one to know one.

Holder’s excuse: Congressional Republicans have removed allocations of money in the federal budget to pay to transport prisoners from the torture facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba to America for trial.

In this way, the Congressional Republicans are showing themselves to be weak on terror. Budgets are about priorities. How many more things should be more important to the United States Congress than preventing another 9/11?

Eric Holder said this in his press conference to announce that he had decided to remove the case from a real court:

“Unfortunately, since I made that decision, Members of Congress have
intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from
bringing any Guantanamo detainees to trial in the United States,
regardless of the venue. As the President has said, those unwise and
unwarranted restrictions undermine our counterterrorism efforts and could
harm our national security. Decisions about who, where and how to
prosecute have always been – and must remain – the responsibility of the
executive branch. Members of Congress simply do not have access to the
evidence and other information necessary to make prosecution judgments.
Yet they have taken one of the nation’s most tested counterterrorism tools
off the table and tied our hands in a way that could have serious
ramifications. We will continue to seek to repeal those restrictions.”

If Eric Holder is sincere in his position that the trials should be held in New York, than he should not be so much of a coward in the face of
Republican opposition. He should call on his President to release KSM from Gitmo so that there would be money in the budget to transport him to trial.

KSM and any other alleged terrorists, must be brought to trial according to our Constitution – or the terrorists will have won. Our Constitution
does not just apply in simple easy times. All persons charged with any crime in America have an absolute right to a full, fair, public, and
speedy trial in front of a fully informed jury. This is as bedrock a principle of American justice as there is.

Ask John Hancock, William Penn, or William Mead.

It is simply not an issue that merits any serious discussion. Secret Military Tribunals are for Stalinist Russia not Modern America. And, they
are part and parcel of what is wrong with Socialism.

Since Eric Holder lacks the courage to stand up to the Republican House’s political maneuvering, he has shown he lacks the character required to be Attorney General. He should resign or be replaced by a more courageous Attorney General with the courage of his convictions and a healthy respect
for the traditional American rights protected by our Constitution and secured by generations of American Fighting Men.

The Obama Administration should use this as an opportunity to keep one of its campaign promises. It should close the torture facility at Gitmo, not start holding secret trials there.

111 thoughts on “Jim Duensing issues statement regarding trying the prisoners at Guantanamo

  1. whatever

    @1 — Since most LP Presidential candidates are judged based on their libertarian agitprop, having little other relevant experience; hiring an editor/ghostwriter could almost be considered cheating!

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    whatever @ 3,

    I don’t know if every LP presidential nominee has used ghostwriters, but I do know that every LP presidential nominee since at least as far back as 1996 has used ghostwriters.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    whatever@5,

    I don’t know if he ever got his money. He did get a court judgment ordering payment, though.

    Not paying your ghostwriters is a bad idea. The only worse idea I can think of is trusting a political campaign to pay you later.

  4. LibertarianGirl

    Jim will never get an editor or proof-reader , nr will he ever admit he needs one or that anything he’s said or will say is anything but perfect.Ive known him 8 years and I can tell you w/o a doubt he NEVER thinks hes wrong and never thinks hes made a mistake and never thinks he’s anything but 100% perfect.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG,

    I guess it just remains to be seen whether or not the LP’s 2012 convention delegates agree with him that he walks on water, then. I’m kind of guessing not.

  6. LibertarianGirl

    he wont get it , and he knows he wont get it , he just wants the opportunity to be a thorn in Waynes side and to be able to debate him , and thats ok with me, its his right . Jim is an excellent public debater, Ill give him that. But he knows he wont win , and I predict with almost certainty , unless someone else he admires more joins up , he will throw his support behind Lee Wrights when he gets knocked out of the race.

  7. From my view

    @ # 9
    So in other words, this duffoos Jim dude is going to waste peoples time at the national convention. He won’t make it thru the token process. Now I see WHY there is a token process for the POTUS candidates. People are spending large sums of money to attend and many want serious business, not some entertaining freak-show.

  8. Thomas L. Knapp

    Fmv @ 11,

    Duensing can’t, to any great degree, waste the time of anyone who isn’t willing to have his or her time wasted.

    Nor should you expect too much from the token system in terms of keeping him quiet. He organized a well-attended candidate forum in 2008 in Denver.

    I’m sure he’ll find ways to get his message — whatever that message may be — in front of 2012 delegates, and then they’ll decide whether they like the message and/or messenger enough to give him a bigger stage and louder microphone.

    Once again I’m guessing not, but I’m not as sure about that — after all, Root made it over the 2008 debate bar.

  9. LibertarianGirl

    hell pass the token thingy , the way it worked when i was there was people would ask who needed tokens to get in and give them to the candidates that were low not the 1 they particularly would vote for later ( I know I did) that way every candidate had the chance to participate.

  10. Here's a radical idea

    Too funny @ # 11 “Freak Show” .
    Yes, that is how the Libertarian Party showcases itself a lot of the time.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG,

    In 2008, at number of candidates failed to make it over the signature token bar to participate in the “big event” debate.

    Some of those candidates (Jim Burns, Christine Smith) were more credible than Jim Duensing is.

    If I had to compare Duensing to a 2008 candidate, it would be Daniel Imperato. Their fantasy lives are very different, but equally rich.

  12. LibertarianGirl

    u know what your right , but they then fell to the VP race and both made it there, that must be what im thinking of….I think hell do better than Imperato , his mom and dad will foot the bill for some super cool event and he’ll likely get some support like that/ know this anything he has ever done that costs money his mom and dad paid for, that includes ,when i was his best friend , paying for all our meals when we were with them , GOD I MISS THAT:) they really are good folk..

  13. From my view

    All this “feel good”. What does it do for the LP Brand and Marketing to the American public that is watching on C-span? Already have the answer and it ain’t good. Yes, we all get labeled as part of the “freak show”. LOL.

  14. JT

    Knapp: “In 2008, at number of candidates failed to make it over the signature token bar to participate in the “big event” debate.”

    A couple of others shouldn’t have made it into the televised debate either, IMO.

    Knapp: “Some of those candidates (Jim Burns, Christine Smith) were more credible than Jim Duensing is.”

    Yikes…that’s really saying something.

  15. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Apr 10, 2011 at 11:41 am

    lets be real the only people watching the LP Convention on C-Span are Libs that couldnt ttend the convention , rofl”

    Not totally true. It was flipping through the TV channels and stumbling upon the Libertarian Party’s National Convention on C-SPAN back in 1996 that got me to join the Libertarian Party.

  16. Andy

    “Some of those candidates (Jim Burns, Christine Smith) were more credible than Jim Duensing is.

    If I had to compare Duensing to a 2008 candidate, it would be Daniel Imperato. Their fantasy lives are very different, but equally rich.”

    Oh come on, Jim Duensing is way better than that.

  17. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Apr 8, 2011 at 11:15 am

    he wont get it , and he knows he wont get it , he just wants the opportunity to be a thorn in Waynes side and to be able to debate him , and thats ok with me, its his right .”

    If Jim works hard and runs a smart campaign, he could be a competitive candidate. Whether or not he’s going to do this remains to be seen.

    “Jim is an excellent public debater, Ill give him that.”

    I saw Jim Duensing in a debate when he ran for Congress in 2004 which was held at the University of Nevada Las Vegas campus. He debated the Democrat incumbent as well as the Republican candidate. Jim aquitted himself quite well in that debate.

    But he knows he wont win , and I predict with almost certainty , unless someone else he admires more joins up , he will throw his support behind Lee Wrights when he gets knocked out of the race.

    “But he knows he wont win ,”

    I hope that he’s got a better attitude than this. The “field” of candidates vying for the LP nomination is very weak right now. Jim could take it but for him to do this it would take a lot of hard work and some “outside the box” thinking.

    “and I predict with almost certainty , unless someone else he admires more joins up , he will throw his support behind Lee Wrights when he gets knocked out of the race.”

    I sure do hope that some better candidates emerge.

  18. JT

    Anyone who couldn’t even muster 10 percent of the delegate vote (i.e., not Barr, Ruwart, Root, or Gravel) 🙂

    I think the standard for participating in the televised debate should be a higher one. In 1996 and 2000 Dave Hollist was included, and he was an embarrassment. And to anyone who says not allowing anyone who wants to be in the televised debate to be included is unlibertarian: you’re wrong. The LP is an organization, not a government.

  19. JT

    That would also take less time finally nominating a candidate. It shouldn’t take hours eliminating each candidate one-by-one who obviously isn’t going to win after the first ballot. I’m a Libertarian, and even I was somewhat bored until the last few candidates were left.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT @ 26,

    You write:

    “In 1996 and 2000 Dave Hollist was included, and he was an embarrassment.”

    I was embarrassed in 2000, and the embarrassment was related to Dave Hollist, but I wouldn’t call him the source of the embarrassment.

    I was embarrassed that

    1) Live on C-SPAN, the delegates listened respectfully to Neal Boortz, and then some other guy who wasn’t even a party member, both telling the LP that if it insisted on talking about the drug war, it was just a worthless hippie stoner organization; but then

    2) Live on C-SPAN, when Hollist promoted his hobbyhorse — “contract insurance,” which whatever you think of it is definitely an actual libertarian idea — the delegates continuously snorted and laughed at him.

    In my opinion, (1) deserved boos, catcalls, and perhaps a few tomatoes, while (2) deserved a respectful reception and, at the very least, polite applause.

  21. JT

    Knapp: “Live on C-SPAN, the delegates listened respectfully to Neal Boortz, and then some other guy who wasn’t even a party member, both telling the LP that if it insisted on talking about the drug war, it was just a worthless hippie stoner organization; but then…”

    I don’t remember the other guy, and I didn’t support Boortz as a convention speaker. Once Boortz was a speaker, I don’t think being overtly hostile or throwing things at him would be the thing to do. A cold reception with no applause would be fine.

    Knapp: “Live on C-SPAN, when Hollist promoted his hobbyhorse — “contract insurance,” which whatever you think of it is definitely an actual libertarian idea — the delegates continuously snorted and laughed at him.”

    I think it’s a libertarian idea also (although I wouldn’t make that the centerpiece of a campaign). But I watched on C-SPAN, and I honestly don’t remember hearing a lot of snorting and laughter when Hollist was speaking. I do remember seeing a guy who didn’t bother even dressing well for a televised appearance and was a truly awful speaker. He should never have been on the stage with Browne, Gorman, and Hess.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT,

    I’m glad the rude, giggly reception didn’t come through on C-SPAN. I was on the floor there in Anaheim, and it seemed very bad.

    As far as Boortz is concerned, one of the reasons I hated seeing him used as a speaker was that that’s his schtick — talk about the need for a libertarian political party, but slam the LP itself.

    The Republicans and Democrats slam each other internally, but they don’t usually do it by way of having keynote speakers do it from the stage at their national conventions. Those public, televised speeches are supposed to be party-building events. The speakers are there to proclaim what’s so great about their party, not what sucks about it.

  23. JT

    Knapp: “I’m glad the rude, giggly reception didn’t come through on C-SPAN. I was on the floor there in Anaheim, and it seemed very bad.”

    I don’t remember it. Of course, that was a decade ago. I don’t think Hollist deserved more than a neutral response though. Had I been there, I would have just sat there silent and disgusted.

    Knapp: “As far as Boortz is concerned, one of the reasons I hated seeing him used as a speaker was that that’s his schtick — talk about the need for a libertarian political party, but slam the LP itself.”

    I didn’t think he should be a speaker. But I really don’t recall him slamming the LP in 2000. I recall him having Harry Browne on his show a bunch of times and talking about how people should vote Libertarian. Once the so-called War on Terrorism started, he changed his tune.

  24. Andy

    “In 1996 and 2000 Dave Hollist was included, and he was an embarrassment.”

    I disagree. Hollist wasn’t that bad. He didn’t run much of a campaign so from that standpoint he sucked. However, he was more libertarian than several of the candidates who went for the nomination in 2008.

    I think that 2008 was the weakest field of candidates for the LP Presidential nomination since I’ve been in the party (since 1996). There were several candidates whom I’d question their libertarianism (or lack thereof), and out of the ones who I felt comfortable with their libertarian credentials, none of them ran anything close to what I’d call an effective campaign.

    So far, the list of candidates for the 2012 nomination is extremely weak. The only one that I’d even consider voting for is Jim Duensing. I’ve met Jim a few times and I like the guy, but he’s got a lot of work to do to have any chance of winning the nomination, or for that matter, to have anything resembling a real campaign.

    I hope that the prospects improve for the LP’s Presidential nomination for 2012. If it doesn’t, then 2012 will end up as another huge disappointment for the LP just like 2008 was.

  25. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Apr 10, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    you think Jim is better than Lee Wrights even Jim doesnt think he’s better than Lee Wrights Id veture”

    I’ve met Jim Duensing, Lee Wrights, and Wayne Root. Jim is definitely the best of the three. If Jim doesn’t believe that then he needs more self confidence.

  26. Andy

    I’ve met several other candidates for President and/or for Presidential nominations. They are as follows:

    Harry Browne

    Barry Hess

    Don Gorman

    Dave Hollist

    Irwin Schiff

    Michael Badnarik (I actually petitioned for LP ballot access with him at a gun show in Texas, I met him on some other occassions as well)

    Gary Nolan

    Steve Kubby

    Ron Paul

    Michael Jingozian

    Mike Gravel

    Mary Ruwart

    Christine Smith

    Cynthia McKinney

    Charles Jay

    Brian Moore

  27. LibertarianGirl

    ROFL , Jim doesnt need anymore self confidence , he needs less , he needs to realize he doesnt know everything and get the people that can do things better than him , like editing this release , do so…

  28. LibertarianGirl

    so what your really saying is you LIKE jim the best , not that he’s the best candidate. Being the best candidate would have to include running the best campaign and Lee is WAY AHEAD of him on that.

  29. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Apr 10, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    ROFL , Jim doesnt need anymore self confidence , he needs less , he needs to realize he doesnt know everything and get the people that can do things better than him , like editing this release , do so…”

    Jim’s campaign certainly needs a lot of work. What I meant was that I think that Jim as a person is a better candidate than Wrights and Root. I think that Jim has a good grasp on the issues and philosophy and “the big picture” and I also think that he can do a better job at presenting those issues and doing outreach to the public.

    If I was looking for somebody to send out to the general public to do libertarian outreach (which is the job of a candidate), and I could send either Wayne Root, Lee Wrights, or Jim Duensing, I’d send Jim Duensing.

  30. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Apr 10, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    so what your really saying is you LIKE jim the best , not that he’s the best candidate. Being the best candidate would have to include running the best campaign and Lee is WAY AHEAD of him on that.”

    Oh come on, Lee Wrights has done NOTHING to indicate that he’s “WAY AHEAD” of Jim Duensing in anything. If anything, Jim Duensing has done more real world political outreach.

  31. Andy

    I just thought of another person who was a candidate for President whom I met whom I neglected to mention above.

    L. Neil Smith. (Interesting guy.)

  32. Andy

    “Being the best candidate would have to include running the best campaign and Lee is WAY AHEAD of him on that.”

    All Wrights is doing is riding on Mary Ruwart’s skirt. Any fool could do that. Without Mary Ruwart he’d be nothing.

  33. JT

    Andy: “I disagree. Hollist wasn’t that bad. He didn’t run much of a campaign so from that standpoint he sucked. However, he was more libertarian than several of the candidates who went for the nomination in 2008.”

    Um, there’s more to being a good candidate than being most libertarian. Being a very good public speaker, caring about your appearance, and raising money are also important. Hollist was abysmal.

  34. Andy

    “Um, there’s more to being a good candidate than being most libertarian. Being a very good public speaker, caring about your appearance, and raising money are also important. Hollist was abysmal.”

    I agree that there is more to being a good candidate than just being a good on libertarian philosophy, however, since this is the Libertarian Party, libertarian philosophy is the foundation for a candidate. If a candidate is weak on libertarian philosophy, then they are not a good candidate, no matter how strong they are (or appear to be) in other areas.

    Dave Hollist was pretty good as far as being a libertarian goes. He ran a very weak campaign so by that standard he was not good. I don’t think that he was a bad speaker though. I personally didn’t have a problem with his casual attire. I’m not saying that candidates should dress like bums, but it can be refreshing to see a candidate who doesn’t always wear a suit and tie.

  35. Andy

    I’d vote for Dave Hollist before I’d vote for Bob Barr or Mike Gravel.

    Hollist was the weakest candidate in the field in 2000 though.

    Harry Browne was definitely the best candidate in the 2000 race. He was a hardcore libertarian. He ran a real campaign. He had the most active campaign of anyone else who sought the nomination. He was a persuasive speaker and writer. He was in my opinion one of the best – if not THE best – Libertarian Party candidates ever.

    Barry Hess and Don Gorman are both good Libertarians and they would have been acceptable candidates. They just didn’t do as much as Harry Browne.

    Jacob Hornberger could have been a good candidate if he had ran a more active campaign (and if he hadn’t dropped out of the race and then dropped back in at the last minute with no organization or money).

    I think that Gary Nolan, Aaron Russo, and Michael Badnarik were all good candidates in 2004. They all ran active campaigns and all of them were acceptable to me. The only problem that I had with Badnarik was that he was the least known and had raised the least amount of money of the three, but he campaigned hard and got a lot out of a shoe string budget, so I respected that.

  36. LibertarianGirl

    JT_Being a very good public speaker, caring about your appearance, and raising money are also important.

    me_ well Jim has 1 of the 3. Id sooner donate( and have) to his legal defense fund , his attorney is very good and expensive than I ever would to his Presidential campaign. ecsp.

  37. JT

    Andy: “I agree that there is more to being a good candidate than just being a good on libertarian philosophy, however, since this is the Libertarian Party, libertarian philosophy is the foundation for a candidate. If a candidate is weak on libertarian philosophy, then they are not a good candidate, no matter how strong they are (or appear to be) in other areas.”

    I guess it depends on what you consider weak on libertarian philosophy. To me, calling for a major reduction in government intervention in social, economic, and foreign affairs is acceptable. I don’t need the candidate to call for eliminating the entire federal government except the military and judiciary.

    Andy: “I don’t think that [Hollist] was a bad speaker though.”

    You don’t think Hollist was a bad speaker? I’d hate to hear the person you do think is a bad speaker then.

    Andy: “I personally didn’t have a problem with his casual attire.I’m not saying that candidates should dress like bums, but it can be refreshing to see a candidate who doesn’t always wear a suit and tie.”

    Wearing a stylish dress shirt, dress pants, and dress shoes at a convention isn’t a suit and tie. I don’t want any candidate for President who thinks it’s cool to wear a polo shirt, khaki pants, and tennis shoes on TV unless he’s playing golf or something like that.

    Andy: “Harry Browne was definitely the best candidate in the 2000 race. He was a hardcore libertarian. He ran a real campaign. He had the most active campaign of anyone else who sought the nomination. He was a persuasive speaker and writer. He was in my opinion one of the best – if not THE best – Libertarian Party candidates ever.”

    I think he was THE best.

    Andy: “Barry Hess and Don Gorman are both good Libertarians and they would have been acceptable candidates. They just didn’t do as much as Harry Browne.”

    They were okay but not good, IMO. I’d still have voted for them.

    Andy: “Jacob Hornberger could have been a good candidate if he had ran a more active campaign (and if he hadn’t dropped out of the race and then dropped back in at the last minute with no organization or money).”

    I’m not gonna touch that one.

    Andy: “I think that Gary Nolan, Aaron Russo, and Michael Badnarik were all good candidates in 2004. They all ran active campaigns and all of them were acceptable to me. The only problem that I had with Badnarik was that he was the least known and had raised the least amount of money of the three, but he campaigned hard and got a lot out of a shoe string budget, so I respected that.”

    I didn’t think Badnarik was a good candidate, actually. He’d raised virtually NO money (and thus had no real campaign), done NO media, and lectured about the Constitution more than persuaded about freedom. But he was better than Hollist, that’s for sure.

  38. Andy

    I just thought of a few more Presidential candidates and/or candidates for Presidential nominations that I’ve met whom I neglected to mention.

    George Phillies

    Frank McEnulty (He was a candidate from some weird Independent American Party (not affiliated with that party in Nevada) or something like that.)

    James Germalic (Black & White Party)

    Some other weird candidate that didn’t even make it on the ballot in any state (I can’t think of his name).

    I also met Darrell Castle who was the Constitution Party’s candidate for Vice President in 2008. He was actually pretty libertarian. He said that he opposes the War on Drugs at both the federal level and the state level.

  39. Andy

    “‘LibertarianGirl // Apr 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    JT_Being a very good public speaker, caring about your appearance, and raising money are also important.’

    me_ well Jim has 1 of the 3.”

    I think that the only one of those three where Jim is lacking is that he has yet to show that he can raise much money.

    (It should be pointed out that Lee Wrights record for raising money is pathetic. Probably worse than Duensing in that area.)

    “Id sooner donate( and have) to his legal defense fund , his attorney is very good and expensive than I ever would to his Presidential campaign. ecsp.”

    I’m going to wait and see who else gets in the race. If nobody that I think is better gets in the race then I’ll donate to Duensing.

  40. LibertarianGirl

    um , I know Jim way better than you , i was his best friend and more for a long time , he has serious personal hygeine and appearance issues both with his body and his living space. period. and if he could EVER wear an outfit that didnt include his Hot Topic anarchy beltbuckle it would be a freaking miracle

  41. Andy

    Wayne Root has a lot of positives going for himself as a candidate, however, there are some good reasons to not support him inspite of his positives.

    1) I question just how libertarian he really is. I think that he is mostly libertarian, but I don’t think that he really supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. Foreign policy is a huge issue. War is the most destructive government program that there is and it should be avoided. Wayne has also made a few other statements which I find disturbing, such as his comments about that Mosque (actually a Muslim Community Center) in NYC. He also said something to the effect of it being the duty of the US government to support Israel. That’s not libertarian.

    2) Wayne has said that he wants to focus his outreach efforts on Republicans/conservatives. I think that this is a horrible strategy. While I’ve got no problem with doing outreach to Republicans/conservatives, it should not be done at the expense of ignoring and/or alienating the rest of the political spectrum. A Libertarian candidate should do lots of outreach to the left as well as to independents and non-voters (I’ve long thought that independents and non-voters are the biggest potential constituency for the Libertarian Party). Wayne Root has continued to call himself a “Ronald Reagan Libertarian” which is a completely absurd label since there’s no such thing as a “Ronald Reagan Libertarian” (unless the term is used to indicate somebody who is confused and/or uninformed, or it is used to indicate a person who is a phony libertarian).

    If it weren’t for the two reasons I listed above, I’d support Wayne Root.

  42. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Apr 10, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    um , I know Jim way better than you , i was his best friend and more for a long time , he has serious personal hygeine and appearance issues both with his body and his living space. period. and if he could EVER wear an outfit that didnt include his Hot Topic anarchy beltbuckle it would be a freaking miracle.”

    Jim may well be a slob when he’s at home. You’d know better than I would about that. I’m just going from the times I’ve seen him at LP conventions/meetings as well as at that debate where I saw him. He was well dressed at those events.

    A candidate can be a slob at home but still be well dressed/groomed in public.

    Lee Wrights is certainly not a sharp dresser by any stretch of the imagination.

    Wayne Root dresses well. Jim Duensing dresses well, at least when he attends LP conventions.

    I liked Jim’s belt buckle by the way.:)

  43. LibertarianGirl

    dude he’s over 30 , it looks like it should be worn by an emo teenager at a Marilyn Manson concert. I like the idea of a Anarchy beltbuckle , but come’ on get something a little more versatile. Black and Red does not go with everything and IMO is isnt Presidential wear… and trust me , he’d wear it:)LOL

    he a good looking guy , but he needs a make-over bad. No tapered Jeans Jim!!

  44. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Apr 10, 2011 at 9:01 pm

    dude he’s over 30 , it looks like it should be worn by an emo teenager at a Marilyn Manson concert. I like the idea of a Anarchy beltbuckle , but come’ on get something a little more versatile. Black and Red does not go with everything and IMO is isnt Presidential wear… and trust me , he’d wear it:)LOL”

    So what if he’s over 30. He’s not that old, and he doesn’t look old. I think it’s good if a candidate dresses “hip” rather than the typical boring, generic looking suit and tie that looks like it came from Sears or JC Penny.

    “he a good looking guy , but he needs a make-over bad. No tapered Jeans Jim!!”

    Maybe you should take him out shopping. Finding a chick that’s good with fashion is the best way for a guy to get a good wardrobe.

  45. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Apr 10, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    hahahaha , I got him wearing Birkenstock sandals , I aint the girl for that job:)lol”

    LOL! At least you are honest about this.:)

  46. JT

    I guess my last post got lost in the midst of who knows which presidential candidates (?) and belt buckles. It’s all good.

  47. Andy

    “I didn’t think Badnarik was a good candidate, actually. He’d raised virtually NO money (and thus had no real campaign),”

    This is not true. Post nomination his campaign raised just over $1 million. He didn’t raise much prior to the nomination, but he did raise some money and he ran about as good a campaign as one could mount on a shoe string budget.

    “done NO media,”

    He did some media. Not as much as Browne, but he did some.

    “and lectured about the Constitution more than persuaded about freedom.”

    Yeah, he did focus on the Constitution a lot but he still had a strong message for individual freedom.

    “But he was better than Hollist, that’s for sure.”

    Yes, he ran a much better campaign than Hollist.

  48. JT

    Andy: “This is not true. Post nomination his campaign raised just over $1 million.”

    Obviously I was talking about the time he got the nomination. Any Libertarian can raise $1 million after getting the nomination.

    Andy: “He did some media. Not as much as Browne, but he did some.”

    Wow, that’s an understatement. Browne did a lot of TV/radio shows before the nomination, including national ones. How many did Badnarik do? One or two local ones?

    Andy: “Yeah, he did focus on the Constitution a lot but he still had a strong message for individual freedom.”

    Primarily lecturing people on the Constitution isn’t a good approach for a Libertarian candidate for President, IMO.

    Andy: “Yes, he ran a much better campaign than Hollist.”

    I said HE was better than Hollist. In other words, he was a better speaker and looked polished. Prior to the nomination, Badnarik barely had a campaign.

  49. Is it your Business

    LG if someone is a slob behind closed doors and in their personal life who cares ? Jim has been seen well groomed in a public setting many times If you are his “best friend” then why are you telling everyone about his personal hygiene? Must not be that good of friends if you put him on blast like that .

  50. LibertarianGirl

    oh we’re not friends at all anymore , thanks for noticing, his choice ,and he has taken to publically bashing me so anyways , i used to tell him the same thing when we were best friends, dude needs a makeover , period

  51. Andy

    “his choice ,and he has taken to publically bashing me so anyways”

    Where did Jim bash you and why? What exactly did he say?

  52. Andy

    “I said HE was better than Hollist. In other words, he was a better speaker and looked polished.”

    Agreed.

    “Prior to the nomination, Badnarik barely had a campaign.”

    Badnarik had more of a pre-nomination campaign than Hollist and many other Libertarian Party also rans. Badnarik also had more of a pre-nomination campaign than Bob Barr did and Barr won the nomination in 2008 (Barr may have had more name recognition than Badnarik, but I think that Badnarik was a better candidate for the LP than Barr turned out to be).

  53. Andy

    “You don’t think Hollist was a bad speaker? I’d hate to hear the person you do think is a bad speaker then.”

    I don’t think that Hollist was a particularly good speaker either. I kind of appreciated his “guy next door” style, but, yes, he needed work and his campaign was basically a joke.

    Having said this, there were several candidates for the 2008 nomination that I’d say were worse than Hollist.

  54. JT

    Andy: “Badnarik had more of a pre-nomination campaign than Hollist and many other Libertarian Party also rans.”

    Hollist had none, so that’s not hard to beat. Better than nothing is a pretty low expectation.

    Andy: “Badnarik also had more of a pre-nomination campaign than Bob Barr did and Barr won the nomination in 2008 (Barr may have had more name recognition than Badnarik, but I think that Badnarik was a better candidate for the LP than Barr turned out to be).”

    He did? Barr actually had a campaign team in place. Badnarik was being driven around in a car by a college kid.

    I’d say they were pretty even as far as candidates. Even David Nolan said he didn’t think Barr turned out to be a bad one, given his rhetoric while campaigning (his main drawback was his socially conservatism while in Congress, IMO). I didn’t think Barr was a very good one, but I didn’t think Badnarik was either.

    Andy: “Having said this, there were several candidates for the 2008 nomination that I’d say were worse than Hollist.”

    From an ideological standpoint maybe. Not from a speaking or appearance standpoint. I’d have taken any one of those candidates on the stage over Hollist.

  55. Andy

    “Barr actually had a campaign team in place.”

    Yes, Barr had a campaign team in place, but the key words are in place, they didn’t actually do much of anything. Barr’s pre-nomination “campaign” was a joke.

    “Badnarik was being driven around in a car by a college kid.”

    Badnarik may have been driven around by a college kid, but at least he traveled around the country and preached the gospel of liberty. Badnarik didn’t duck out of non-scripted debates like Barr did either.

  56. Andy

    “I’d say they were pretty even as far as candidates.”

    No way. Badnarik was much better than Barr. Barr’s campaign didn’t even come close to living up to what Barr and his supporters said they were going to accomplish. Barr didn’t really do much better than Badnarik, inspite of the greater name recognition, more money (but not THAT much more), and a more libertarian friendly and “minor party or independent” friendly political climate in 2008 as compared to 2004. Barr was the first time the Libertarian Party has ever had a candidate that TURNED OFF a lot of people for not being libertarian enough. There are a lot of people who would have voted for the LP Presidential ticket in 2008 if not for the fact that they didn’t trust Bob Barr.

    “Even David Nolan said he didn’t think Barr turned out to be a bad one,”

    I think that the late Mr. Nolan was just being polite here.

  57. LibertarianGirl

    andy , im not getting into what he’s saying about me or to whom, im also not the one who brought up appearance and grooming as being an important pre-requisite for being a good candidate , but after it was brought up , i was just honest. he does not have a presdential look.

  58. Is it your Business

    @LG you claim that he has been” publically bashing ” In other words is this an eye for an eye ? I have yet to read anything he has said public about you , I’ve yet to read a single thing on IPR for that matter This sounds like a grade school game to me.

  59. LibertarianGirl

    he’s been talking shit about me to our mutual friends, really bad stuff only half of which theyll tell me ( they wont even repeat the other stuff) , he’s been putting up ( since he’s an organizer) Inveterate Dissembler on my profile on a group we belong to. I had to make a stink to get it removed. He’s caused , with his lies , people I really liked to quit talking to me and If I was his friend , maybe , MAYBE I wouldnt have said anything , but he’s the one who chose not be friends and I have no loyalty to hold my tongue

  60. JT

    Andy: “Yes, Barr had a campaign team in place, but the key words are in place, they didn’t actually do much of anything. Barr’s pre-nomination “campaign” was a joke.”

    No, they didn’t. They were organized just a few weeks before the convention.

    Andy: “Badnarik may have been driven around by a college kid, but at least he traveled around the country and preached the gospel of liberty.”

    To whom? I saw Badnarik was speaking at LP events. Who else was he talking to? Again, what media did he do? “Preaching the gospel of liberty” to the church choir has very limited value. Harry Browne was doing outreach outside the party well before the convention.

    Andy: “Barr’s campaign didn’t even come close to living up to what Barr and his supporters said they were going to accomplish.”

    That’s true. What they said they wanted to accomplish was ridiculous from the outset.

    Andy: “Barr didn’t really do much better than Badnarik, inspite of the greater name recognition, more money (but not THAT much more)…”

    That’s why I said they were more or less even.

    Andy: “Barr was the first time the Libertarian Party has ever had a candidate that TURNED OFF a lot of people for not being libertarian enough.”

    He did turn off a lot of people because of his socially conservative history. As a candidate, however, his constitutional rhetoric was very similar to Badnarik’s.

    Andy: “I think that the late Mr. Nolan was just being polite here.”

    No, he wasn’t. He said that in an interview on Lew Rockwell’s podcast. You can probably still find it on his site. Nolan said Barr had a bad campaign, but as a candidate he wasn’t bad and his rhetoric improved a lot. And Nolan was a pretty radical libertarian.

  61. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 79 JT writes; To whom? I saw Badnarik was speaking at LP events. Who else was he talking to? Again, what media did he do? “Preaching the gospel of liberty” to the church choir has very limited value. Harry Browne was doing outreach outside the party well before the convention.

    He managed to have at least two media interviews while in Portland, Oregon.

  62. JT

    Michael: “He managed to have at least two media interviews while in Portland, Oregon.”

    Before the convention? With whom?

  63. Michael H. Wilson

    As I recall these were after the convention. One was with Steve Duin (pronounced Dean), political columnist for the Oregonian as well as a ten minute interview with local radio host Victoria Taft. I am sure of these because I managed to schedule them and was there for one of them although not in the room.

    I believe he also did an interview with KPOV radio in Bend, OR and possibly the Bend Bulletin newspaper.

  64. JT

    Michael: “As I recall these were after the convention.”

    Right. What I said about Badnarik (i.e., raising almost no $ and doing no media) was aimed at BEFORE the LP convention. AFTER the LP convention any Libertarian nominee can raise $1 million and get on radio/TV to some extent.

    IMO, that’s not a GOOD candidate for the presidential nomination. But Badnarik was a good speaker and polished and wanted to cut the federal government dramatically, so he wasn’t an awful delegate pick either (like Hollist would’ve been). I think Barr in 2008 wasn’t a great deal better or worse than Badnarik. The late Harry Browne leaves them both in the dust.

  65. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT @ 79,

    “I saw Badnarik was speaking at LP events. Who else was he talking to?”

    Anyone he could find.

    Early in his nomination campaign, he agreed to come to St. Louis and do any and all events I could find for him to do. His price was a place to sleep (I got him a hotel room, but he would have accepted a couch).

    I set up an LP event for him. I also got him a speech gig with the student libertarian group at Washington University. I did everything I knew how to do at the time about contacting media to get interviews/stories done (I think he got minor mentions in the Wash U student paper and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch out of it).

    If he had it to do over again, he’d presumably do whatever it took to find an experienced media coordinator. He didn’t know that, or couldn’t afford it, or whatever, then, so he just worked his ass off as best he knew how.

    Once he became the nominee, he was a damn machine. He was everywhere. I watched him do 11 TV and radio interviews in one day, and heard that he’d done three others earlier that morning. If he hadn’t blown his party cred with a poorly-run congressional campaign, he’d have had a strong shot at the presidential nomination again in 2008, and he’d have earned that shot big-time.

    LG @ 80.

    “Badnarik did a commercial funded mainly , i think , By aaron russo , who was a very graceful loser”

    The money went in the opposite direction. The Badnarik campaign hired Russo to produce its commercials.

    He did several, but at a certain point the campaign wasn’t happy with the quality of his work, and he kept trying to force them to accept ads on issues/topics that they didn’t want (“THE ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE UNDER YOUURRRR BEDDDDD!”). There was an argument, the campaign went elsewhere for its commercials, and it got nasty. I don’t remember if Aaron threatened to sue or not, but he really played the victim.

  66. Thomas L. Knapp

    @87, I wrote:

    “I watched [Badnarik] do 11 TV and radio interviews in one day, and heard that he’d done three others earlier that morning.”

    I should mention that that particular day also included a live speech on the floor of the Kansas City Commodities exchange, three hours of retail politics at a Rural Electric Cooperative festival in Columbia (he probably shook 500-800 hands, minimum), and an LP event that evening.

    On the night he got arrested at the presidential debate in St. Louis, he made bail, got on a small plane, flew to Kansas City, did an event, got back on the plane, flew to Carbondale, Illinois for another event. I drove from St. Louis to Carbondale to pick him up after that event. He did a local radio phone interview in the parking lot, Harry Browne’s show via phone on the ride back to St. Louis, and ran into his hotel to do get ready for Art Bell as soon as we got there at 10:30pm. He had a plane to catch at 6:30 the next morning.

  67. JT

    Knapp: “I also got him a speech gig with the student libertarian group at Washington University. I did everything I knew how to do at the time about contacting media to get interviews/stories done (I think he got minor mentions in the Wash U student paper and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch out of it).”

    That’s not so bad. Not great, but not so bad.

    Knapp: “Once he became the nominee, he was a damn machine.”

    That’s irrelevant to what I was saying.

    Knapp: “If he hadn’t blown his party cred with a poorly-run congressional campaign, he’d have had a strong shot at the presidential nomination again in 2008, and he’d have earned that shot big-time.”

    Thank god for small favors then.

    Nobody questioned Badnarik’s commitment to the party (at least at the time).

  68. LibertarianGirl

    that sucks to hear , I still love me some Russo tho , he was my pick , but I think Badnarik worked his ass off , and that kid driving him around was pretty cool too , what was his name again?

    besides , he didn’t fly because he carried all the time and he didn’t believe in drivers licensing i heard

  69. JT

    I should note that I think Badnarik was a good candidate for U.S. Representative from his district in Texas, despite running a poor campaign, as Tom said. He’d also have been a good candidate for U.S. Senator from the state of Texas, IMO. But I just have higher standards for a candidate for U.S. President to qualify as a good one. This person is the top Libertarian representative of almost all, if not all *50* states in the election year. When different factors (i.e., commitment to across-the-board reduction in government, speaking skill, dressing and grooming, money, background) are considered in combination during the nomination campaign, I think that person should be head and shoulders above all other candidates to qualify as a good one, as opposed to a bad one or an acceptable one. IMO, during my time in the LP, only Harry Browne qualifies.

  70. Robert Capozzi

    Interesting trade off. A “good” candidate is one who passes your evaluation of ideological standards. An effective campaign is a separate matter, based on certain metrics.

    I’m not sure one can know in advance, but when considering a nominee, both seem useful.

    A 100% score on a candidate might conduct a 10% campaign. An 80% candidate might conduct an 80% campaign.

    Fair? How would you use the JT Evaluation to score two prospects? Say Root (or X) is a 70% candidate with a 50% campaign prospect. Wrights (or Y) might be a 90% candidate with a 10% campaign prospect.

    How would you work with these numbers do determine who to vote for in convention?

  71. JT

    Robert: “A “good” candidate is one who passes your evaluation of ideological standards.”

    Of course, commitment to substantially reducing federal government intervention across-the-board (i.e., economically, socially, militarily) is one factor. I don’t know any Libertarian who thinks that isn’t important (though different Libertarians have different ideas about how much of a reduction in each sphere they require of the candidate for President). But I pointed out other things too, and I think a candidate should be judged overall.

    Robert: “How would you use the JT Evaluation to score two prospects? Say Root (or X) is a 70% candidate with a 50% campaign prospect. Wrights (or Y) might be a 90% candidate with a 10% campaign prospect.”

    I think a candidate for the nomination should be judged overall while considering the individual factors I mentioned in post 91. It’s not an exact science though. I don’t have a numerical scale for each factor by which a candidate gains a point for this, a point for that, etc., which results in a composite numerical score for each candidate.

    IMO, during the campaign for the nomination, Harry Browne was very good on all the points I said. Therefore, I considered him a very good candidate overall (and so did most of the delegates, since he won handily on the first ballot in both 1996 and 2000). I think Badnarik was good and not good on various things, so considered him merely an okay one. I think Hollist was bad on almost everything (and awful on a couple of things), so I considered him a bad one.

    Root is definitely good as far as speaking and appearance. Though he boasts about his fund raising prowess, I don’t know what kind of money he’d actually raise if he ran for the nomination, so I can’t say anything about that now. His commitment to substantially reducing the federal government across the board hasn’t been good, and his identification as a “libertarian-conservative” or whatever and worshipper of Ronald Reagan isn’t good, IMO. To me, he’s a very mixed bag. If he had a balanced approach (which I’m not counting on) and built a real well-funded campaign while running for the nomination, I’d think he’d be a good candidate.

  72. Thomas L. Knapp

    LG @ 90,

    I loved Russo, too, and thought for a long time that the LP made a bad decision rejecting him and then got very lucky that Badnarik was the guy they got instead.

    Jon Airhart was Badnarik’s driver and all-around aide.

    JT @ 91,

    I agree that Badnarik was a good candidate for Congress.

    His approach to campaigning is vulnerable, though. He throws himself into the retail, personal end of it 1000%, and trusts others to handle the surrounding details. If the people you trust can’t or don’t deliver on the back end, it can’t work.

    In his pre-nomination presidential campaign, things were simple. He just busted his ass getting to every LP event he could get to for two years and personally, positively impressing the people who were likely to be delegates to the national convention.

    Post-nomination, he had a competent campaign team at pretty much every level — he could basically say “tell me where to go and when to be there, and I’ll tear it up — the rest is YOUR job.”

    I don’t know enough about the internal workings of his congressional campaign to say exactly what mistakes were made. But ~$450k for 4.x percent — less than a write-in candidate got in the previous election — is a pretty good indicator that you’re not doing it right.

  73. Andy

    Michael Badnarik would have been an excellent candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination in 2008. Why? Because he would have gone over really well with the Ron Paul r3VOLution crowd. I think that there’s a good chance that he would have gotten more votes than Bob Barr did, plus the Libertarian Party would not have been under the perception as having “sold out” by nominating him like the party did with Barr.

  74. JT

    Andy: “Michael Badnarik would have been an excellent candidate for the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination in 2008.”

    Excellent? If you think Badnarik would’ve been a better candidate in 2008 than Barr, fair enough. But if you think Badnarik comes close to Browne as a candidate no matter what the year is, then we’re operating on different levels here.

  75. JT

    You think Badnarik is hot? He dressed well, but I wouldn’t consider him a good-looking person. Anyways…

  76. LibertarianGirl

    itthink it was whole , older man running for pres thing , butyeah I hadda bit of a crush on him , also Sherriff Mack , David Nolan and Jim Lark , rofl……….

  77. JT

    You had a crush on all of them? Which high-profile LP men have you NOT had a crush on? LOL 🙂

  78. Starchild

    Good to see Jim Duensing focusing on the important issue of prisoners being held without trial, and championing the important principle that,

    “All persons charged with any crime in America have an absolute right to a full, fair, public, and
    speedy trial in front of a fully informed jury.”

    However I agree with those who commented that his press release could have used a good copy editor.

    Also, I would encourage Jim, as I’ve encouraged W.A.R. and others, to use the term “statism” or “state socialism” rather than “socialism”.

    The problem is not the philosophy of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — the socialist approach actually works well in many small-scale groups such as families. The problem is when people try to *force* it on others through government.

    Plus, complaining about Obama’s “socialism” (W.A.R.’s favorite topic, after himself) makes you sound like a right-winger more than a libertarian.

  79. Darryl W. Perry

    Plus, complaining about Obama’s “socialism” (W.A.R.’s favorite topic, after himself) makes you sound like a right-winger more than a libertarian.

    Obama is (as are Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan & all other President’s since circa 1912) a FASCIST!

  80. Andy

    “But if you think Badnarik comes close to Browne as a candidate no matter what the year is, then we’re operating on different levels here.”

    I never said that. I like Michael Badnarik, but he was not as good a candidate as Harry Browne. Harry Browne was probably the best Libertarian Party candidate ever.

    Harry Browne was ahead of his time. It is a shame that he wasn’t 10 or 20 years younger. Just an imagine what an amazing candidate he could have been for the 2008 election, and for the 2012 election as well.

  81. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Apr 12, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    itthink it was whole , older man running for pres thing , butyeah I hadda bit of a crush on him , also Sherriff Mack , David Nolan and Jim Lark , rofl……….”

    Michael Badnarik wasn’t that old when he ran for President. He was born on August 1st of 1954 (I justed looked him up on wikipedia) so that means that he would have turned 50 during his campaign for President. That’s not really old when you consider the fact that there are a lot of people in their 60’s and 70’s who run for President.

  82. LibertarianGirl

    he was damn sexy ! not as sexy as Sheriff Mack , who the whole cop thing just got to me , but my biggest LP crushes were #2 Jim Lark and by far ad above #1 David Nolan , damned sexy men!

  83. Andy

    “not as sexy as Sheriff Mack , who the whole cop thing just got to me ,”

    You like cops? YUCK! I know (former) Sheriff Richard Mack is cool, but still, the whole cop image turns my stomach. Most cops are assholes. If a woman is a cop that’s a turn off to me.

  84. JT

    I agree with what you said about Browne, Andy. I just meant that I don’t see how Badnarik would’ve been an “excellent” candidate for the nomination in 2008 given that Browne was clearly superior to him. What would that make Browne–the most excellent? 🙂

  85. Andy

    “JT // Apr 13, 2011 at 2:37 am

    I agree with what you said about Browne, Andy. I just meant that I don’t see how Badnarik would’ve been an “excellent” candidate for the nomination in 2008 given that Browne was clearly superior to him. What would that make Browne–the most excellent?”

    I think that Michael Badnarik would have been an excellent candidate in 2008 because I think that he would have gone over well with the Ron Paul r3VOLution crowd. I think that Harry Browne (if he had still been alive) would have gone over well witht he Ron Paul r3VOLution crowd was well, so he would have been even more excellent.

Leave a Reply

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