 |  |  |
2012 Libertarian Party VP candidate and retired California Judge James Gray recently wrote a column titled Theodore Roosevelt-The Great Patriot. In the IPR comments on that article, which as of this writing have been for the most part strongly negative, Andy posted this video of Judge Andrew Napolitano discussing his book Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom with Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie:
Judge Gray has been rumored to be a likely candidate for the Libertarian Party 2016 Presidential or VP nomination. Judge Napolitano has also had some such rumors swirling around him as well, and at the very least implicitly endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson in the 2012 presidential general election; however, Judge Napolitano is a close associate of Senator Rand Paul, who is likely to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 also.
Judge Gray’s columns have been drawing some ire from other libertarian commentators lately, for example see:
Judge Gray: The Police As Noble Public Servants
Opposing Viewpoints To Judge Gray’s Article About Policemen
Judge Gray: John Adams-Defender of Freedom
Judge Gray Responds to IPR’s Opposing Viewpoints on Policemen As Noble Servants
A sampling of IPR comments on Judge Gray’s column about Colonel Teddy Roosevelt:
George Whitfield:
I suggest that Judge Gray read “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom” by Judge Andrew Napolitano for a more libertarian perspective of Theodore Roosevelt. I previously had a very high opinion of Judge Gray as a Libertarian Party leader but his articles praising John Adams and now Theodore Roosevelt are giving me doubt.
Jared King:
Okay, this is getting silly.
J.D.:
I think Teddy is an interesting character in American history. I have no clue what he has to do with libertarianism though.
[…]
The judge has really dug himself in deep with his recent columns. I don’t think people will forget these.
Bondurant:
[..] Is the lionizing of Woodrow Wilson next?
Thomas Knapp:
Most American presidents at least give a nod or two toward American conceptions of freedom.
TR was one of the few who openly despised the whole idea, referring to the architect of American liberty, Thomas Paine, as “that filthy little atheist,” ushering in the “progressive” movement, keeping the US at perpetual war in the Philippines while president, and post-presidentially browbeating Wilson (and America) toward the disastrous intervention in World War I.
ATBAFT:
Teddy gave us Wilson who got us into WWI which gave us two brutal dictatorships and WWII. So much for carrying a big stick and going looking for trouble.
Jed Ziggler:
I can’t tell if Judge Gray is uninformed, delusional, or a GOP plant.
langa:
OK, this has to be a satire. Right?
It would be hard to name 10 presidents that were less libertarian than Teddy Roosevelt.
DSZ:
“Roosevelt believed…the United States of America is special.” …to the point of jingoism and a positive right to assert “civilization” on other nations. After the Spanish-American war, Filipino leaders had set up their own provisional government (under Aguinaldo), but Roosevelt disallowed it because those “brown boys” weren’t ready for self-government, in his view. Look at his 1907 commemoration speech at the 300th anniversary of Jamestown…one of the most racist presidents ever. And that’s recognizing people of the time period as being rather racially insensitive, so he was really a bigot among bigots.
George Phillies :
We have Libertarian Socialists (mostly in the UK); why shouldn’t we have Libertarian Fascist Warmongers? (hint: heavy sarcasm).
I believe Wayne Root did a better job of faking being a Libertarian.
Jared King:
Maybe, but Root was also more of a douchebag. Gray seems basically likable. Just lost.
Electoral Watch:
Gray had nice things to say about the EPA when he was on the hustings as the LP VP candidate. He came across as more of a “good government” “pragmatic” type who happened to want to end the drug war than he did a libertarian, much less an anarchist. None of these columns should really be a surprise to anyone.
Steve Scheetz:
During his lifetime, Theodore Roosevelt’s accomplishments were many. He was a naturalist, to the degree that he was the virtual founder of our National Parks system.
While there is nothing Libertarian about the above, I am grateful to Judge Gray for publishing this. Too many people are wanting to shut the opinions of others down before they are written for all to see.
Thank you Judge Gray for having the courage of writing your opinions here and around the internet for everyone to see and to agree with, or disagree with.
Being a Libertarian means that I will be supportive of those embracing Libertarian philosophy, and until I see and or hear candidates writing/speaking their philosophies, I will not know who to support or not support.
With this article and many other articles the Judge has had published, recently, I am able to consider from a more educated position.
If you would like to take your turn commenting on this story or any of the previous IPR stories linked herein, we’d love to have more input from our readers, and not just the ones who comment regularly already.
Americans Elect likes him a lot…
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/01/jim-cook-americans-elect-leader-starts-whispering-about-2016-with-reference-to-roosevelt/
And Milnes:
http://rwm4prez2012.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/woodrowtheodore-how-this-ticket-could-have-revolutionized-the-world/
Ivan Elland is part of the Andrew Napolitano camp on the issue of Theodore Roosevelt. He was a poor quality president. Peace: 11/20 Prosperity:10/20 Liberty:8/20 Total:29/60 His policies were really bad and also a bad precedent as well. His was one of the first interventionist presidents.
Happy Thanksgiving Jill and everyone!
I was sent this quote in a Thanksgiving greeting, and thought it was only fitting that I should share it with my friends at IPR:
Teddy Roosevelt was absolutely right when he said:
“No people on earth have more cause to be thankful than ours, and this is said reverently, in no spirit of boastfulness in our own strength, but with the gratitude to the Giver of good who has blessed us.”
Happy Thanksgiving!
Seems like it would be a tough sell to get him to run for the reasons I named earlier. Most groups trying to draft candidates onl consider what the candidate wuld bring to the table, not what the costs, benefits and risks of running would be to the candidate they are trying to recruit. I haven’t clicked the link to see if this one is any diferent in that regard.
Here is a link to the website for the Committee to Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano to run for President:
http://andrewnapolitano.com/
It would depend on a lot of things, such as who would turn out delegates. Someone being more popular among (some unspecified population of) people at large does not necessarily translate into getting the nomination.
Actually, that was mostly a throwaway line anyway, since the main point was to explain why I highly doubt he will agree to seek the LP or any other nomination.
Paul said: “. In fact, depending on who else runs for the LP nomination (say, Ventura, Johnson, Stern, some billionaire, etc) he would not even necessarily be guaranteed even that. Seems like a tough sell to me.”
I think that Andrew Napolitano would beat Gary Johnson for the LP nomination. I think that he’d beat Jesse Ventura as well. The only way that Napolitano would lose at the LP National Convention would be if somebody had a coordinated effort to flood the convention with delegates, or if Ron Paul decided to show up at the convention and run for the nomination.
Having Napolitano on a ticket with Jesse Ventura or Gary Johnson would be pretty appealing as well.
I don’t know if Napolitano is really interested in running for President under any banner, but he’s the most well known person I can think of who has a strong libertarian philosophy, and who is a good communicator, outside of Ron Paul. I’d like to see him run for President.
We could certainly do worse, and have.
I still doubt he’d do it though – Rand Paul will have a legion of rabid fans who will believe he will win with absolute certainty up until the bitter end, even if it goes in the face of any and all evidence, and then Rand will actively work to shoehorn their votes for Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush or even Santorum during the general election. Their ire willl be turned against whoever dares to run as the LP candidate, all the more if it is someone they liked up until then. Judge Napolitano wants these people to like him, buy his books and pay to see him speak; why would he want to make enemies of many of them by running as an LP candidate? It might be one thing if he could win, or at least get to debate someone more significant than the Green and Constitution Party nominees, but neither seems even remotely likely right now. He’s not a do or die LP loyalist, so building the party long term probably would not be the reason either. In fact, depending on who else runs for the LP nomination (say, Ventura, Johnson, Stern, some billionaire, etc) he would not even necessarily be guaranteed even that. Seems like a tough sell to me.
Thank you for posting the video interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano. He is knowledgeable and articulate and understands libertarian philosophy. He would be an excellent Libertarian Party Presidential candidate.
Since we are talking, among other things about Republicans in this thread, over on Facebook Clayton Hunt says “So I hear the Grim Old Plutocracy is changing their official stance on immigration, in honor of honest and open communication it will now be this George Strait song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXPZYbh_96M&feature=youtu.be
I have to say that Gray’s words about TR were head scratchers. Saying TR was “interesting” I can grok, on balance TR was pointing away from peace and liberty. I’d need to hear WAY more justification from Gray on his outlier view.
“Jake Porter November 25, 2013 at 8:52 pm
I think Tom Knapp would agree that the strategy didn’t work out well when Steve Kubby tried it:”
I don’t know what you are talking about here, because I thought Steve Kubby endorsing Ron Paul worked out well, and was a wise move. It showed that Steve Kubby was not delusional or an egomaniac. It was a reason for me to vote for Steve Kubby at the convention.
It is true that he did not win at the convention, but his endorsement of Ron Paul had nothing to do with why he did not win at the convention.
I also do not recall Steve ever saying he would drop out after accepting the nomination and I of course supported him for the VP nomination. We won’t discuss my youthful indiscretion in the Presidential race.
I don’t always endorse Rand Paul, but when I do, I do it while snorting coke off a hooker’s tits
Knapp was not a fan of Ron Paul or of Steve endorsing Ron Paul to start with. But what you quote is what I remember, which is different from promising to withdraw and endorse another party’s nominee after accepting the LP nomination.
And in this case it would be worse since
1) Rand Paul is worse than Ron Paul and
2) While still a long shot, he’s not quite as much of one as Ron Paul was, especially in 2008.
Of course, I received about 10,000 more votes in Iowa than Ron Paul has. Perhaps the real question is who I will throw my support to in 2016.
I think Tom Knapp would agree that the strategy didn’t work out well when Steve Kubby tried it:
Steve Kubby “As you are probably aware, I endorsed Dr. Paul’s GOP presidential campaign, and promised to end my own Libertarian presidential candidacy if that campaign was successful. Many of you disagreed with that decision for various reasons — reasons which I understand and sympathize with.”………….
“Kubby states that if his fellow freedom activists’ long-shot bet pays off and Ron Paul becomes the Republican nominee, he will withdraw, ask the party to nominate “None of the Above” at its national convention, and work as a volunteer on Paul’s general election campaign. “And I’m urging my fellow Libertarians to approach this in the same way,” he says. “But at the same time, I’ll continue preparing to give the LP the best presidential campaign I can give it if that doesn’t work out.””
The LP cannot endorse Rand Paul because we will be too busy running around naked and smoking pot. I’m sorry Rand, if you want our support you have to do better than that.
It’s all good. See smiley.
“paulie Post authorNovember 25, 2013 at 5:37 pm
More like infamous
I don’t think that I qualify as that either.
In certain circles”
Not in any circle that is seriously trying to advance the party and cause in any meaningful way.
In certain circles 🙂
I said here. You have now brought up the possibilty of him running for the Republican nomination, but at the time I said that it was true.
“paulie Post authorNovember 25, 2013 at 5:24 pm
More like infamous ”
I don’t think that I qualify as that either.
I just thought of another well known LP member who endorsed Ron Paul for President: Doug Stanhope.
Paul said: “I don’t think anyone was discussing Napolitano as a Republican presidential candidate here.”
There is a group that is trying to draft Andrew Napolitano to run for President in 2016. I think that their preference is that he run in the Republican primary.
I’d like to see Napolitano run for President regardless of which party banner he runs under, including him running as an independent. My first preference is that he run as a Libertarian Party candidate, but I just want to see him get in the race.
More like infamous 🙂
But as far as the endorsements of Ron Paul I think none of those people were under any serious delusion that he would actually get the Republican nomination.
Paul said: “That’s different than endorsing the other party’s nominee once you already have the LP nomination.”
Steve Kubby did endorse Ron Paul for President, as did Mary Ruwart, as did other well known LP members such as David Nolan, David Bergland, Michael Badnarik, Gary Nolan, L. Neil Smith, and Glenn Jacobs (aka-“Kane”), and probably some others I’m not thinking of right now.
I endorsed him as well, but I probably don’t qualify as well known.:)
We are talking about Napolitano and whether he might still be interested in a LP run in a year when Rand Paul will almost certainly run for the Republican nomination.
I don’t think anyone was discussing Napolitano as a Republican presidential candidate here.
I’d need to see the details again. He may have meant he would stop campaigning for the LP nomination if it looked like Ron Paul could win the Republican nomination, whih it did not. That’s different than endorsing the other party’s nominee once you already have the LP nomination. It is possible Steve said that too, but I don’t remember it. In any case it was little more than a rhetorical flourish, since Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination was never really in the cards. On the other hand, I think Rand Paul may have a realistic shot at VP in 2016. If he comes in second for the P nom, and/or if he gets VP (both of which I believe ar realistic possibilities), he could have a real shot by 2020.
They have less problem with him than they do with Ron, and by then they may need him to keep large chuns of their supporters from going LP, independent or staying at home and sitting on their hands. They might throw him the VP nomination, especially if it looks like they will lose anyway, which they probably will to Mrs. Clinton in a big blowout.
If the Republicans in charge don’t want Rand, why would they want Napolitano? He isn’t a warmonger and certainly isn’t a typical Republican. I think we should consider recruiting him.
Paul said: “It’s been a while, but I don’t remember that. I do recall Steve endorsing Ron Paul for the Republican nomination but not specifically him saying he would drop out if that happened.”
I remember him saying that he would drop out of the race and campaign for Ron Paul if Ron Paul won the Republican nomination. He said something to the effect of that he was more interested in achieving more liberty than he was than being the person who marches at the front of the parade. This actually made my opinion of him go up, because it showed that he was not an egomaniac or delusional.
“Rand Paul getting a spot (more likely VP than P) on the Republican ticket in ’16 seems more plausible than Ron Paul getting the Republican nomination in 2008 did.”
Rand Paul may not be as much of a long shot of being on the GOP Presidential ticket as his father was, but he is still a long shot, so I doubt that it is going to happen.
The Republican establishment will probably do whatever they can to make sure that Rand is not on the Presidential ticket, including out right cheating, just like they did with his father.
Like I said before, it should be apparent by some time in February or March of 2016 if Rand Paul has any real chance of being nominated. If he does not, that would be a good opportunity for Andrew Napolitano to pick up his supporters, and he could easily win the Libertarian Party’s Presidential nomination, with or without any support or endorsement from Rand Paul.
If Napolitano were to seek the LP Presidential nomination, I predict that he would not have any serious opposition to winning it, and that he’d win on the first ballot in a landslide vote, more so than Gary Johnson did in 2012.
Yep. Go big or go home.
Paul said: “We already have Eric Dondero..”
That’s right. He was the driving force behind Libertarians for Bush, Libertarians for Lieberman, Libertarians for Giuliani, Libertarians for Romney, etc…
Libertarians for Hitler or Libertarians for Stalin is only a few steps away if you are headed down that road.
Didn’t Gary Johnson endorse Ron Paul while also seeking the LP nomination? Something to the effect of ‘I want Ron Paul to win, but I don’t think he will, so I’ll carry on his message’. I’ll leave it to IPR readers & LP faithful to debate the merits of such a strategy, but Judge Napolitano could do the same thing.
That’s different than actually saying he would drop out if Ron Paul got it, although it implies it to some degree.
I remember Steve Kubby saying that back in 2007 or 2008, that is, if Ron Paul captured the Republican nomination, that he’d drop out of the race. True that he did not win the LP nomination, but I don’t think that this had anything to do with why he did not win it.
It’s been a while, but I don’t remember that. I do recall Steve endorsing Ron Paul for the Republican nomination but not specifically him saying he would drop out if that happened. Knapp should know for sure if he is reading this. Rand Paul getting a spot (more likely VP than P) on the Republican ticket in ’16 seems more plausible than Ron Paul getting the Republican nomination in 2008 did.
Also, I meant that Andrew Napolitano would drop out of the race for the LP nomination if it looked like Rand Paul was going to win it. This would be known BEFORE the LP National Convention, being that the convention is going to be held in May. It will likely be apparent by February or March if Rand Paul has a realistic chance of winning the Republican nomination.
That might work, although theoretically the Republicans could have a real convention fight instead of a made for TV nomination show…it hasn’t happened in many decades.
Maybe Judge Gray should recruit Robert Milnes to run as his VP candidate and the two could bill themselves as the Teddy Roosevelt Libertarians.
One of them would have to get a sex change, otherwise it would not be a true PLAS ticket 🙂
Also, I think Milnes wants the top spot.
Hey, if Wayne Root could win the LP VP nomination by billing himself as a Ronald Reagan Libertarian, there is no reason why Judge Gray and Robert Milnes could not win the LP Presidential ticket by billing themselves as Teddy Roosevelt Libertarians.
Perhaps one day we shall see Adolf Hitler Libertarians, or Joseph Stalin Libertarians.
We already have Eric Dondero..
Didn’t Gary Johnson endorse Ron Paul while also seeking the LP nomination? Something to the effect of ‘I want Ron Paul to win, but I don’t think he will, so I’ll carry on his message’. I’ll leave it to IPR readers & LP faithful to debate the merits of such a strategy, but Judge Napolitano could do the same thing.
“paulie Post authorNovember 25, 2013 at 10:57 am
I don’t think Libertarian delegates should vote for a candidate for our presidential nomination who promises to drop out if a primary candidate for another party’s nomination gets their nomination.”
I remember Steve Kubby saying that back in 2007 or 2008, that is, if Ron Paul captured the Republican nomination, that he’d drop out of the race. True that he did not win the LP nomination, but I don’t think that this had anything to do with why he did not win it.
Also, I meant that Andrew Napolitano would drop out of the race for the LP nomination if it looked like Rand Paul was going to win it. This would be known BEFORE the LP National Convention, being that the convention is going to be held in May. It will likely be apparent by February or March if Rand Paul has a realistic chance of winning the Republican nomination.
“Also, he can’t fully drop out even if he wants to, since his name would already be on the ballot in some states. Some of them would remove him or allow substitution, but others would not.”
Andrew Napolitano’s name would not be on any ballots by the time he’d know if he was dropping out of the race or not, because the states that require the name of the actual candidate to be on ballot access petitions do not have their ballot access deadlines until after the LP National Convention in May.
“Judge Gray has been rumored to be a likely candidate for the Libertarian Party 2016 Presidential or VP nomination.”
Maybe Judge Gray should recruit Robert Milnes to run as his VP candidate and the two could bill themselves as the Teddy Roosevelt Libertarians.
Hey, if Wayne Root could win the LP VP nomination by billing himself as a Ronald Reagan Libertarian, there is no reason why Judge Gray and Robert Milnes could not win the LP Presidential ticket by billing themselves as Teddy Roosevelt Libertarians.
Perhaps one day we shall see Adolf Hitler Libertarians, or Joseph Stalin Libertarians.
I don’t think Libertarian delegates should vote for a candidate for our presidential nomination who promises to drop out if a primary candidate for another party’s nomination gets their nomination. Also, he can’t fully drop out even if he wants to, since his name would already be on the ballot in some states. Some of them would remove him or allow substitution, but others would not.
I didn’t expect my posting this video in that Judge Gray thread to merit its own article, but cool anyway.
“Judge Gray has been rumored to be a likely candidate for the Libertarian Party 2016 Presidential or VP nomination. Judge Napolitano has also had some such rumors swirling around him as well, and at the very least implicitly endorsed Libertarian Gary Johnson in the 2012 presidential general election; Judge Napolitano is a close associate of Senator Rand Paul, who is likely to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 also.”
This would actually be all the more reason for Judge Napolitano to run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. Rand Paul is not likely to win the Republican nomination. Napolitano could run for the Libertarian Party’s nomination while Rand is running for the Republican nomination. Napolitano could announce that he’ll drop out of the race if Rand wins enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination. There could be a well planned, and coordinated effort to get people who are supporting Rand Paul for the GOP nomination to switch to Andrew Napolitano for the Libertarian Party’s nomination if Rand Paul does not win the Republican nomination, and this should be apparent before the Libertarian Party has its 2016 National Convention.