An editorial (ok a rant) from IPR’s owner:
Gary Johnson continues his effort to fragment the liberty movement. In his latest email he included the image below:
Johnson is plying libertarians with empty words. There is no need to redefine the liberty movement. There is zero substance behind the words.
What Johnson and his establishment puppet masters really want is to undercut the movement.
Gary Johnson offers nothing of substance. He brings with him a history of massive spending increases as Governor of New Mexico, support for interventionism, and an entourage of corrupt consultants.
Sadly many libertarians are just like the sheeple they so readily decry. They fall in line behind liars who tell them what they want to hear.
The establishment has sent in their mercenary consultants to prop up Johnson as a way of fragmenting the liberty movement on one side while they do the same on the Tea Party side through Freedomworks and other groups.
One would hope libertarians would see through the charades.
I would guess maybe 50-something.
I don’t think it will happen either, but I respect those who are trying to make some sense of that awful day. Many of those people are family members of those who died. I believe it’s disrespectful to ignore their questions, let alone call them idiotic names like “troofers”. How old is Robert Capozzi? Ten?
Whuh?
This is a possible theory.
Internet, not just IPR. It’s the lack of face to face contact.
Callin for a new investigation is largely symbolic, since I don’t think it is likely to actually happen.
And using the word “troofer” is insulting to the families of those deceased who also wish answers to very basic questions.
What is it about IPR that makes everyone so prone to call others names?
Good point about government investigations. I don’t especially trust them to investigate, especially since they are a possible culprit and/or accomplice/accessory. However, an investigation needs subpoena power and access to classified information to be effective, and it’s not likely the government will grant those to an outside completely private investigation. So it is a bit of a catch 22.
Honestly I think the time to make it a big issue has passed and the time for info to likely be declassified (maybe after some individuals die and/or a major change in our government) has not yet come, so I really don’t talk about the question much unless other people bring it up. You seem intent on keeping the conversation tangent going. Any reason why?
Another investigation by the government seems likely to yield a similar result. The Andys of the world will likely shout “cover up.” But it seems likely to HURT their cause, 9/11 “Truth.”
Were I a Troofer, I might be OK with the status quo, as they can rattle off all their critiques of one report. Two reports coming to similar conclusions seems harder to critique with any sense of propriety.
I don’t really push that as an issue very much. In theory, I would love to see a better investigation, but I don’t think it will happen and I have other priorities.
Why bring it up, then? If another investigation yields nothing, has no impact, what’s to be gained?
Exactly.
I’d be willing to be that a majority of Americans do not believe that the US Government’s explanation of the events of 9/11 is 100% true/accurate. I’d also be willing to bet that a majority of those people don’t spend much time thinking about it in 2014. Further, I’d give you odds on a bet that a vast majority would rather get kicked in the balls repeatedly than bring the whole mess up again with a serious, governmental investigation, and accompanying media circus.
At the end of the day, investigation or not, few, if any people will ever be 100% certain about what happened. In my opinion, its simply not worth worrying about anymore. There are fresh fish to fry. That nasty, 13 year old 9/11 fish ain’t gonna taste good, no matter what you do with it.
JP, the proximate cause for THIS set of wars MIGHT be 9/11, but even if the 9/11 Truth take is correct, I’m not sure we’d learn anything from an investigation of the investigation.
Humans war, sad to say. America seems to especially like it, doubly sadly.
I’ve been VERY disappointed that the lessons of Vietnam, for ex., seem to have been lost.
I would not push for a 9/11 investigation investigation. If there was a huge cry for one, I would not oppose one, either. My sense is it’s over, except among the tiny conspiracy theory set.
I would also say that the center is not interested in new wars, at least for now. Seems about the best we can do, for now.
America seems to be in a more domestic mind set. Good news is that social “tolerance” and fiscal conservatism in tandem is mainstream. If the L thrust is off in the weeds, that would be another lost opportunity for changing the conversation.
My top issue will always be wars, but I don’t think people can understand why the country is so entrenched in them until we look at one of the main catalysts for war in the last decade. That would be the events of 9/11. Almost everyone I know, except these few on IPR I think, also want to know what really happened, or, if things happened the way the government said, let’s fill in all the gaping holes in the story. Most people I know who “think out of the box” ask those quesions, and many of them are Libertarians. Most Libertarians I know here in Los Angeles ask those questions.
I think the top issues should be based on policies, not whodunnit. Even if the government’s story of 9/11 was true, I would still be against interventionism abroad and police state measures and domestic surveillance in the US.
The quest for an investigation is one of Jesse Ventura’s top issues, and, imo, the reason he remains so popular despite my belief that he’s not serious about running for President. There are many, many people calling for answers. I think it should be a top issue for a Libertarian candidate.
If a few people choose to call us “crazy”, I believe they’ll be the minority.
I don’t think it should be a leading issue, but I do believe we should call for a real investigation.
a: the Libertarian Party SHOULD HAVE officially gotten on board with the 9/11 Truth Movement a long time ago
me: OK, sorry I misunderstood your view. But, it still feels a bit evasive. I understand your opinion is that the past should have been different. ‘spose I have that feeling about many other things as well, in my weaker moments.
So, if someone is running as a L this year, and your would be his/her campaign advisor, and you had maybe 3 issues you advised the candidate lead with, would 9/11 Truth be on that list? If not, how far down the list of priority issues would you put it?
Remember, this is politics, not laundry list assemblage. Politics means the candidate has a crisp, short message, and the candidate’s job is to stay on message. Do you buy THAT basic premise?
I’ll share that I think the issue should be avoided like the plague, as it puts the candidate immediately into TK’s “crazy” category. Playing the Vermin Supreme role seems a great way to remain on the fringes, heard by few.
“9/11 had all the signs of having been a false flag attack”
Except for the small problem of no one, ever, having produced so much as a crumb of evidence that it was a false flag attack. Other than that, yeah, “all the signs.”
And that has been the problem for the LP. It’s impossible to call for a real investigation without the “we know it’s an inside job, even though we’ve never been able to find any evidence at all that it’s an inside job” crazies pretending that that makes you one of them, as Michael Badnarik found out early on.
“Robert Capozzi March 27, 2014 at 5:50 am
‘a: Frankly, it is late to the game on 9/11. If this party wasn’t populated by so many gutless pansies’
me: Glad we agree that at minimum 9/11 is no longer topical. I would suggest you look deeply into your motive for calling colleagues ‘gutless pansies,’ as such name-calling is often symptomatic of psychological projection.”
I do NOT agree that 9/11 is no longer topical. Yes, it did happen over 12 1/2 years ago, but we are still feeling the effects of it today with the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, US military intervention in middle eastern countries, NSA spying, etc…
What I meant by late in the game on 9/11, is that the Libertarian Party SHOULD HAVE officially gotten on board with the 9/11 Truth Movement a long time ago, and the national party should have passed a resolution to call for a real investigation into the 9/11 attack.
9/11 had all the signs of having been a false flag attack, and governments have a history of using false flag attacks to increase their power. The more people who are aware of this deceptive tactic from government, as in false flag attacks, the less people who will fall for it the next time the government stages a false flag event.
a: Frankly, it is late to the game on 9/11. If this party wasn’t populated by so many gutless pansies
me: Glad we agree that at minimum 9/11 is no longer topical. I would suggest you look deeply into your motive for calling colleagues “gutless pansies,” as such name-calling is often symptomatic of psychological projection.
You also seem to assume that others AGREE WITH YOU on 9/11, but are too cowardly to hold high the “Truth” banner as you are. But is your assumption itself true? I don’t think so. Many, perhaps most, Ls don’t buy the conspiracy that the Feds took down the Towers.
Care to retract your charge?
A: What you are doing is bringing up one of the more well known “out there” conspiracy theories and using it to discredit people who have real questions based on documented evidence about 9/11, JFK, etc…
me: No, beg your pardon, that’s not what I’m doing. I am illustrating the difference between politics and single-issue extremism. If one believes in the MORE out there and the less out there matters, that’s up to the individual. Icke and Jones can offer their views to the buying public, and you can pick and choose whether you buy any or all of it. Whether their views are “documented” is how one chooses to assemble facts. Both those noted conspiracy theorists DO have SOME “facts” that they employ, but whether their CONCLUSIONS are TRUTH is another matter.
You also don’t seem to get that I agree that there are “real questions” behind conspiracy theories. To have a question, however, is quite different than drawing grandiose conclusions.
A wise L candidate would not go anywhere near the 9/11 Truth issue, in my view. Unless y’all can produce the smoking gun or Dick Cheney makes a death bed confession, it’s a matter to at most be monitored.
As you said in this thread: “THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP.”
a: Heck, the national Green Party did this?
me: Some have jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, too! 😉
a: The War in Vietnam. Watergate. Iran-Contra. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ruby Ridge. Waco. Operation Fast & Furious. These are all examples of government officials engaging in conspiracies!
me: Stipulated largely, esp. WaterGate and Iran-Contra. But there are conspiracy THEORIES about Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan that may or may not be accurate.
Several have drawn the distinction between a “conspiracy” – secretly plotting to do ill – and a conspiracy THEORY, which is usually no better than a guess based on elaborate, sometimes heroic, dot connecting.
During Vietnam, it seems clear to me that most of the US was concerned with the Red Menace. That seems true enough to me. The Domino Theory was widely held. Were there also commercial interests pushing for war? It seems so. Was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident a ruse to trigger war? I’ve not looked into it, but I certainly think it’s possible. It’s entirely possible – I’d even say probable- that if Tonkin didn’t happen, there STILL would have been war in Vietnam involving US troops. I think that war was a BIG mistake. I don’t need to get into the conspiracies that may or may not have been happening at the time, since those have no bearing on the big picture (i.e., war was inappropriate and a mistake). Going down side alleys chasing ghosts seems like a colossal waste of time and is also counterproductive. Why dig a deeper hole when getting OUT of the hole is what is indicated?
Regardless, that’s a LOT different than saying Cheney ordered those jets to fly into the Towers. It’s quantumly different than saying the Lizard People ordered Cheney to give the orders.
Being absurd is a relative thing. Still, when doing politics, any amount of absurdity is to be avoided.
If you are doing something else,e.g., promoting a single issue cause, perhaps sideshow hucksterism is effective.
While we’re at it: Where does Alex Jones get his funding? I’ve noticed that his MANY productions have high production values. That takes capital, a lot of capital. Has anyone looked into his finances? Any connections between Jones and JBS?
Hey, is this the makings of a conspiracy theory? 😉
Alex Jones and other conspiracy researchers had been talking about the NSA spying on Americans for years, and some people dismissed it as “kook talk” another crazy “conspiracy theory”. Well, thanks to the revelations of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, we now know that Alex Jones and the others like him who had been talking about this issue for years were correct.
“langa March 27, 2014 at 12:22 am
Government tends to be very poor at efficiently providing goods and services that are in demand. On the other hand, it tends to be very good at committing criminal activities, not because it’s efficient, but because it has almost unlimited resources at its disposal, far more than any private criminal organization.”
The true purpose of government is not to efficiently provide services. Government is really just a criminal enterprise that is set up to rob and control people, and to murder people if necessary or if so desired by the control freaks in charge of it.
“langa March 27, 2014 at 12:22 am
Government tends to be very poor at efficiently providing goods and services that are in demand. On the other hand, it tends to be very good at committing criminal activities, not because it’s efficient, but because it has almost unlimited resources at its disposal, far more than any private criminal organization. For example, the IRS is notoriously inefficient, but still manages to steal far more money than any private criminal organization could ever dream of.”
Some libertarians make the mistake of thinking that everyone in government is a bunch of bumbling boobs, like the Keystone Cops. This is not a full, accurate description of government. Yes, there are stupid, bumbling people in government, but they tend to be in lower level positions in government. The people who run government are not stupid, they are actually very intelligent, and they are also evil.
Robert Capozzi said: “Just because conspiracy theorists have a propensity to be L leaning does NOT mean it’s necessarily a good idea to PANDER to the conspiracy-theory minority. Obviously not all CURRENT Ls are conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists are a minority. And conspiracy theories – fairly or unfairly – are a great way to attract ridicule in the Public Square.”
Actually, I would say that all Libertarians are conspiracy theorists to one degree or another, including yourself, assuming that you believe what you say that you believe. If one questions government, and one believes that government officials make plans to take away our freedoms and otherwise engage in various crimes, then one is by definition a conspiracy theorist.
The War in Vietnam. Watergate. Iran-Contra. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ruby Ridge. Waco. Operation Fast & Furious. These are all examples of government officials engaging in conspiracies!
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura did an episode about The Reptilian Conspiracy, and as much as I hate to give details of a show away to people who have yet to see it, after investigating the issue, Jesse’s team finds that there is no compelling evidence to support The Reptilian Conspiracy. Jesse Ventura confronts David Icke near the end of the show and it gets kind of nasty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hptRSa1GvYA
A typical tactic for “conspiracy poo poo-ists” like Capozzi is to bring up some “far out” conspiracy, that I’m not even aware of any Libertarians even talking about, and then using that to discredit anyone who talks about government officials engaging in conspiracies.
The Reptilian Conspiracy is most famously promoted by David Icke. I’ve checked out some of David Icke’s material, and much of what he says actually is well documented, HOWEVER, he gets into some really “far out” stuff as well, particularly the theory about Reptilians from another dimension covertly controlling the world. He actually does present evidence to back up this theory, BUT IN MY OPINION, AS WELL AS THE OPINION OF MOST “CONSPIRACY THEORISTS” I KNOW OR AM AWARE OF, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP. David Icke needs to show us the body of a Reptilian, either dead or alive, and maybe then more people will believe him.
I’ve actually wondered if David Icke is a disinfo agent who is sent out to talk about a lot of real, well documented conspiracies, but then throw out some crazy sounding stuff that can’t be backed up, so then it makes all “conspiracy theorists” look bad, so mainstream people and “conspiracy poo poo-ists” can throw David Icke around and say, “Oh, you are just one of those people who believe that Lizard people rule the world!” This is a convenient way to shut down discussions about 9/11, the JFK assassination, the Bilderberg Group, the New World Order, etc…
I don’t know if David Icke is really a disinfo agent or not, or if he really believes everything he talks about or not, or heck, maybe if he is even right, but like I said above, show everyone the body of a Reptilian and maybe then he’ll be taken more seriously.
Regardless of what David Icke’s motivations are, or whether or not he is sincere, the fact of the matter is that David Icke does NOT represent the views of most people who question official government stories, and bringing up Reptilians or other outlandish sounding “conspiracy theories” is a way of shutting down discussions about things that are far more well documented such as 9/11, JFK, etc…
It is a well documented, irrefutable fact that government officials engage in conspiracies, some big, and some small, some well hidden, and some done right out in the open. There are theories about what these conspiracies are, and what the details behind them are. Some of the theories are true, and some of them are not true. Some of them are well researched and have lots of compelling evidence, and others not so much. Conspiracies and the theories about them are the norm when it comes to governments.
Government tends to be very poor at efficiently providing goods and services that are in demand. On the other hand, it tends to be very good at committing criminal activities, not because it’s efficient, but because it has almost unlimited resources at its disposal, far more than any private criminal organization. For example, the IRS is notoriously inefficient, but still manages to steal far more money than any private criminal organization could ever dream of.
Incidentally, I remember that exposing the government lies surrounding the federal government raid on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco was a big topic at LP conventions back in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. I recall one national convention where a documentary that exposed the government’s lies about Waco was shown.
Robert Capozzi said: “Play it out in your mind, Andy. What do you think would be the reaction if the lead issue of the LP’s 2016 nominee was a call for an investigation as to whether Queen Elizabeth is a Lizard Person? Do you really believe that would be good politics, a great way to get the message of peace and liberty to a broad number of citizens?”
Nobody here or that I’m aware of in the Libertarian Party has ever said that they believe in Lizard People, or that Queen Elizabeth is a Lizard. What you are doing is bringing up one of the more well known “out there” conspiracy theories and using it to discredit people who have real questions based on documented evidence about 9/11, JFK, etc…
“That’s the extreme example. Let’s pull it back some. How about if the lead issue was a demand for 9/11 ‘Truth’? Forget government spending, government spying on citizens, same-gender marriage, absurd, deadly overseas wars, etc. Lead with 9/11? Doesn’t that ring more than a little ‘off” for you?'”
9/11 Truth and exposing other government false flags and lies should absolutely should be a big issue for the LP, right along with taxes, government spending, gun rights, ending the drug war, etc…., and I’d also add jury nullification of victimless crimes and the promotion of alternative currencies to the list of important issues as well.
Frankly, it is late to the game on 9/11. If this party wasn’t populated by so many gutless pansies there would have already been a 9/11 Truth resolution passed by the national party a long time ago. Heck, the national Green Party did this? Where in the hell was the LP? Lots of Libertarians and small “l” libertarians already know that the official government story about 9/11 is a lie, the problem is that they tend to not be the ones who burrow themselves into seats on party committees.
I think that it is equally disgusting that the Libertarian Party went through 8 years of George W. Bush without passing a resolution to call for his impeachment. The national LP did one for Bill Clinton, and that was a good thing, but Dubya actually did more damage to the country than Clinton did, so not officially calling for his impeachment made the LP look like a bunch of Republican suck ups.
NS, insightful. However, I’m not sure it’s two “groups,” but perhaps two “bases.” I, for ex., believe that “government is functionally less efficient, less responsive, and worse at doing most things than individuals or the private sector.” I also believe “government[s can be] …highly effective, well-organized, groups of people.” I’d say highly effective governments are often corrupt or deeply confused about their roles or what is appropriate for their roles.
IOW, governments should govern least. To the extent they are necessary (for now, at least) they should be heavily checked and balanced, as government’s monopoly power and access to resources makes it a dangerous weapon.
My general observation is that governments do most things poorly, but when it comes to use of force, sometimes governments can be quite effective.
I’d also say in all walks of life, there are impressive and unimpressive experiences with people in and out of government. I do my best not to be prejudiced based on anecdotes. I would say, though, that while most of what the military does I don’t support, it’s hard to deny that some of what they do is impressive from a technical perspective.
Skepticism of government correlates with willingness to entertain or adopt libertarian ideas, since those ideas require less government. People who are skeptical of government or its benevolence are more comfortable with reducing the size and scope of it. This is not controversial.
That skepticism breaks into different groups, though. There are people who believe government is functionally less efficient, less responsive, and worse at doing most things than individuals or the private sector. This belief leads to things like opposing the death penalty because, if I don’t trust government to do a good job, why would I trust them to do a good job deciding who to kill?
The other group believes that within government there are highly effective, well-organized, groups of people with nefarious or sinister intent to control or harm the population. And that their existence is at least partially secret. This leads to arguments about how government should not have the power to control teaching standards or have access to telecom network equipment because it would be abused to spy on or control citizens.
Both of these groups are open to libertarianism, since both groups want government reduced. However, if they start talking about reasons, arguments ensue between those who believe there are sophisticated conspiracies being run by government agents and those who do not, often as a result of having dealt with actual government agents in the past and been unimpressed.
Of the PPP/Wired list in the link above, I will disclose that I assume aliens exist, somewhere. It seems wildly unlikely that life only exists on Earth. It’s an awfully big universe, after all.
I have no proof, of course. Just a SWAG, really.
Whether aliens built the pyramids across the globe that are curiously similar, I haven’t a clue. Anything’s possible.
LH Oswald acting completely alone also seems an insufficient explanation, but whether he was a patsy, and for whom, I don’t have an opinion. Nor do I feel the need to have one.
I do sometimes find great wisdom in fiction, like this iconic scene in THE GODFATHER:
Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don’t have men killed.
Michael: Oh. Who’s being naive, Kay?
😉
a: years of personal experience in dealing with the public has clearly shown me that those who believe official government stories are less likely to be people who would ever support the Libertarian Party, and those who question official government stories are more likely to be people who would support the Libertarian Party.
me: Yes, and your experience may well accurate, more or less. But your point completely misses the forest for the trees. A LOT of people are in the middle, that is, skeptical about aspects of the “official” story, and yet NOT FULL-BLOWN, KOOL-AID DRINKING, LIZARD-PEOPLE FEARING, conspiracy theorists.
Just because conspiracy theorists have a propensity to be L leaning does NOT mean it’s necessarily a good idea to PANDER to the conspiracy-theory minority. Obviously not all CURRENT Ls are conspiracy theorists. Conspiracy theorists are a minority. And conspiracy theories – fairly or unfairly – are a great way to attract ridicule in the Public Square.
Play it out in your mind, Andy. What do you think would be the reaction if the lead issue of the LP’s 2016 nominee was a call for an investigation as to whether Queen Elizabeth is a Lizard Person? Do you really believe that would be good politics, a great way to get the message of peace and liberty to a broad number of citizens?
That’s the extreme example. Let’s pull it back some. How about if the lead issue was a demand for 9/11 “Truth”? Forget government spending, government spying on citizens, same-gender marriage, absurd, deadly overseas wars, etc. Lead with 9/11? Doesn’t that ring more than a little “off” for you?
http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/
“langa March 26, 2014 at 1:31 am
‘How about watching an episode of the show before you knock it or dismiss it?’
How about actually reading what I said before you reply? I didn’t knock or dismiss jack shit. I said that the show did not focus on the kind of mundane conspiracies that you were discussing earlier, and I was right.”
Why would they focus on lesser known conspiracy theories when more people are interested in watching something about more well known conspiracy theories? The answer should be obvious.
How about watching an episode of the show before you knock it or dismiss it?
How about actually reading what I said before you reply? I didn’t knock or dismiss jack shit. I said that the show did not focus on the kind of mundane conspiracies that you were discussing earlier, and I was right.
langa said “For example, I haven’t really watched any of Jesse Ventura’s show ‘Conspiracy Theory’, but I’d be willing to bet that none of the episodes have focused on bank robberies, or other sorts of ‘everyday’ conspiracies.”
How about watching an episode of the show before you knock it or dismiss it? The show was pretty good, but unfortunately it is not on the air anymore. Jesse Ventura has a new show that is online called Jesse Ventura: Off the Grid (or something like that).
Anyway, here is the Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura Police State episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROQGR2mJzKM
“Thomas Knapp March 25, 2014 at 10:49 am
Yes, Andy is ‘in tune with what the public is thinking,’ if by ‘in tune with what the public is thinking’ we mean ‘fantasizes that the public thinks whatever it is he wants the public to think.’”
No, like I said above, I mean going out and talking about politics to hundreds or thousands of people most days out of a year, like I did today. Contrast this with somebody like yourself who apparently rarely goes out of their home and who has little engagement with the public outside of posting on a few message boards online.
langa March 23, 2014 at 8:09 pm said: “Again, you are using the term differently than most people. Using your definition, if a prosecutor alleges that a group of guys got together and planned a bank robbery, that prosecutor would be offering a ‘conspiracy theory’, and perhaps that’s true by the dictionary definition, but I don’t think that’s what most people have in mind when they use the term. For example, I haven’t really watched any of Jesse Ventura’s show ‘Conspiracy Theory’, but I’d be willing to bet that none of the episodes have focused on bank robberies, or other sorts of ‘everyday’ conspiracies.”
I’m using the terms as what it actually means. There is even a crime that is called conspiracy, as in conspiring to commit a crime. There are big conspiracies, and there are small conspiracies, and as far as theories about conspiracies, some have strong cases to back them up, and others have not so strong cases to back them up, and some of them could even be wrong, and on the flip side, some of them are true.
The fact of the matter is that the very nature of government is that they engage in conspiracies, some big, some small, some well known, and some not well known. It is the nature of the beast.
“Robert Capozzi March 25, 2014 at 5:10 am
Andy, did you READ Paulie’s link about Dunning – Kruger?
Ya know, you could well be more in tune with the general public than most in the LP. Then again, I’d say that’s a fat man’s race.”
I’ve been involved in politics since 1996, and I’ve spent most of the last 14 years working on petition drives around the country. I have talked about politics with I don’t even know how many thousands of people, and even more if you count online discussions. It is quite possible that I’ve talked politics with over 1 million people. I have also talked about politics with every demographic that there is. I have worked on campaigns in 32 states plus DC, and I’ve been to 48 states, with Alaska and Hawaii being the only two states that I have not visited.
You get to know a lot about the public when you actually go out and talk to the public. One thing that I’ve learned, is that people who are open to, or are advocates of, the idea that there are people within government who engage in nefarious plans behind the scenes, also known as conspiracies, are people who tend to be open to the Libertarian Party and other minor party and independent candidates. People who are not open to the idea that people within government engage in nefarious plans, and who deride those who think otherwise as “conspiracy theorists” (as if that is a bad thing), or “kooks” or people who wear “tin foil hats” or people who believe in “black helicopters,” are also people who tend to not be the type of people who are open to the Libertarian Party or other minor party and independent candidates, as they are people who are likely to support the mainstream Democrats or the mainstream Republicans, and not only do they support them, they tend to be among their most die hard supporters.
A lot of the public who are not “wed” to the mainstream Democrats or mainstream Republicans are actually open to the idea that people within government engage in conspiracies, and even among a lot of Democrats and Republicans, a lot of them believe that the other major party from the one that they support engages in conspiracies, as in Democrats who will believe bad things about Republicans, and Republicans who will believe bad things about Democrats.
A lot of the public do not believe the official government stories about the JFK assassination, 9/11, and etc…
So as this relates to the Libertarian Party, years of personal experience in dealing with the public has clearly shown me that those who believe official government stories are less likely to be people who would ever support the Libertarian Party, and those who question official government stories are more likely to be people who would support the Libertarian Party.
Andy is right. You must be the informant for disagreeing.
jp: Seriously, Robert, you don’t have to believe Andy. He says things that others won’t, however. I don’t consider that “evading” at all.
me: Thanks, Jill, I’m aware I have a choice about what I choose to believe and not. Was that ever in question? I admire Andy’s bravery, in a sense. He’s repeatedly said that it’s not unL to be a racist, for ex. And, actually, I see his point, especially within the NAPsolutist construct. (My issue is with NAPsolutism there.)
Don’t you see that one can be both brave and evasive?
TK puts it well: “He’s very good at hearing what he wants to hear, often by conflating two things that are only somewhat similar.” Not hearing leads to evasiveness. Conflating only somewhat similar matters leads to the moving of goalposts.
Andy reiterates “charges” against those who don’t share his belief in conspiracy theories. I responded: “You don’t seem to be able to grok that people can sincerely prefer a lessarchist approach and NOT subscribe to your belief in extraordinary (let’s call them) conspiracy theories.”
He’s completely evaded my point. His implication is that I (and the many who come down where I do) am a more-archist because I don’t buy into 9/11 “Truth” and various Bilderberg-type conspiracies. It’s absurd of him, actually, on its face, though I am open to Andy-an proof to the contrary.
Just because I don’t think Queen Elizabeth, the Rothschild Family and the Lizard People selected Obama to be prez, how does that make me a more-archist?
Andy’s silence is deafening….
The syndrome is well known. My reason for raising it is what was obscure.
Yes, any number of people will come to conclusions. Most will be wrong.
Yes, Andy is “in tune with what the public is thinking,” if by “in tune with what the public is thinking” we mean “fantasizes that the public thinks whatever it is he wants the public to think.”
He’s very good at hearing what he wants to hear, often by conflating two things that are only somewhat similar.
For example, he will announce that 9/11 was an inside job, and that only a fool would believe otherwise, in full confidence that the American public agrees with him — because X% of Americans “question the official account” or “want a new investigation.”
Seriously, Robert, you don’t have to believe Andy. He says things that others won’t, however. I don’t consider that “evading” at all.
Andy’s propensity to evade?? Are you kidding???
Andy, did you READ Paulie’s link about Dunning – Kruger?
Ya know, you could well be more in tune with the general public than most in the LP. Then again, I’d say that’s a fat man’s race.
Nevertheless, being more in tune doesn’t preclude having blind spots. I’ve not met the person who doesn’t have a weakness, an area where he or she struggles.
You may be the exception, but your propensity to evade has now become legendary here on IPR.
“Robert Capozzi March 24, 2014 at 6:07 am
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Andy responds with an amateur video featuring an apoplectic conspiracy theorist!
We all have our blind spots, so hopefully this thread will be helpful to you in seeing yours.”
I don’t believe that I have any such spots. I’m more in tune with what the public is thinking than most people in the LP. I just hand not gotten around to posting a response. I stumbled upon that video, thought it was cool, and decided to post it here.
Not that obscure; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Dunning – Kruger syndrome. Accept no substitutes.
This remark deliberately totally obscure.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Andy responds with an amateur video featuring an apoplectic conspiracy theorist!
We all have our blind spots, so hopefully this thread will be helpful to you in seeing yours.
Mark Dice at the White House Asking Tourists about Bilderberg Group!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VElCLSgyIdA
Relatively few?!?!?! I’d say that there are thousands of conspiracies that are true. A conspiracy is anytime more than one person plans to commit a crime. Politicians and other government officials do this on a regular basis, and the vast majority of the time they get away with it. How many times do one or more cops violate people’s rights, and how many times do they lie about it afterwards? This is something that HAPPENS EVERY DAY across this country.
Again, you are using the term differently than most people. Using your definition, if a prosecutor alleges that a group of guys got together and planned a bank robbery, that prosecutor would be offering a “conspiracy theory”, and perhaps that’s true by the dictionary definition, but I don’t think that’s what most people have in mind when they use the term. For example, I haven’t really watched any of Jesse Ventura’s show “Conspiracy Theory”, but I’d be willing to bet that none of the episodes have focused on bank robberies, or other sorts of “everyday” conspiracies.
When I said that I found relatively few conspiracy theories convincing, I wasn’t talking about those types of conspiracy theories, but rather the more popular and controversial ones, such as the ones listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories
And again, I’m not saying I disagree with all of the conspiracy theories listed on that Wikipedia page, but just that I disagree with most of them (or at least, with most of the ones that I know enough about to have formed an opinion).
a: I don’t know anyone who wears a tin foil hat.
me: Nor do I. Yet a web search will yield MANY cites. People’ve done it, especially conspiracy theorists of the “low-quality crap” variety that TK refers to.
As a radical, open-minded L, I would say it’s entirely possible that the guv-mint is bombarding us with invasive radio signals as well as purposely collapsing skyscrapers with jets and chem trails and other things that their Lizard People handlers tell them to. I can’t say I’ve spent much time on these sorts of things, since they are above my paygrade, and IF they are true, I’m in no position to remedy these various conspiratorial situations.
Politically, I don’t see the upside that you do with associating L-ism with these sorts of things. I DO see A LOT of downside. It’s hard enough to offer a new paradigm to the masses, but self-marginalizing oneself makes the task all the more difficult.
Your list of explanations does not describe me, or TK (near as I can tell) for that matter.
You don’t seem to be able to grok that people can sincerely prefer a lessarchist approach and NOT subscribe to your belief in extraordinary (let’s call them) conspiracy theories.
So, try again.
“Robert Capozzi March 23, 2014 at 7:03 am
A, of course there are conspiracies. Of course the government lies and does hurtful things. This is not in dispute.
Adopting specific conspiracy theories about what government does and what the motive was/is is another matter. If one wants to wear a tin-foil hat, that’s up to the individual.
If the next LP national convention is filled with delegates WEARING tin foil hats, that would be at minimum bad PR.”
I don’t know anyone who wears a tin foil hat. The tin foil hat thing is something that was made up by those who are either the ones who engage in conspiracies themselves in government, or ones who are somehow benefitting from those who engage in conspiracies in government, or are people who prefer to be led around by sociopath control freaks rather than having to think for themselves, as a way to demonize those who question what those in government are doing.
This is nothing more than a mindless smear.
“langa March 23, 2014 at 5:49 am
‘There are plenty of valid conspiracy theories that are valid. Do you believe that there are Republicans in Ohio who are currently conspiring to keep Libertarian Party candidates off the ballot?’
I said ‘relatively few’, since I have heard literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of conspiracy theories,”
Relatively few?!?!?! I’d say that there are thousands of conspiracies that are true. A conspiracy is anytime more than one person plans to commit a crime. Politicians and other government officials do this on a regular basis, and the vast majority of the time they get away with it. How many times do one or more cops violate people’s rights, and how many times do they lie about it afterwards? This is something that HAPPENS EVERY DAY across this country.
Conspiracies from government are around us every day. It is no coincidence that the people who have done the most to demonize the terms “conspiracy theorist” are those who are engaging in conspiracies themselves.
Pretty much everyone is technically a “conspiracy theorist,” because pretty much everyone has ideas about how things happened and pretty much everything that happens involves more than one person “conspiring” pursuant to it.
It’s the QUALITY of the “conspiracy theory” that defines plausibility versus tinfoil hattery, usually in terms of the ratio of certainty to evidence.
High certainty (“anyone who doesn’t know 9/11 was an inside job is a FOOL!”) to low evidence (or in that particular example, no evidence at all, ever, in 13 years) is the low-quality crap that people think of when they snort at “conspiracy theorists.”
A, of course there are conspiracies. Of course the government lies and does hurtful things. This is not in dispute.
Adopting specific conspiracy theories about what government does and what the motive was/is is another matter. If one wants to wear a tin-foil hat, that’s up to the individual.
If the next LP national convention is filled with delegates WEARING tin foil hats, that would be at minimum bad PR.
As for RP newsletters, that only a few racist and hater articles doesn’t minimize what was done. It doesn’t explain his coddling of staff, who included such articles… assuming he wasn’t reading things going out under his name. In the big picture, surrounding oneself with haters and then continuing to associate with them (who’ve not taken responsibility) is most unfortunate.
At this stage, the damage was done. RP is increasingly irrelevant. He did, however, provide us with a cautionary tale. Steer clear of haters, wackos, and borderline personalities, especially if you want to engage in politics.
There are plenty of valid conspiracy theories that are valid. Do you believe that there are Republicans in Ohio who are currently conspiring to keep Libertarian Party candidates off the ballot?
I said “relatively few”, since I have heard literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of conspiracy theories, and while there are quite a few of them that seem plausible, there are many more that do not. As for the specific conspiracy that you mention, there’s no doubt that it exists, but I don’t think this is what many people are referring to when they talk about conspiracy theories.
Of course, that’s one problem with these types of discussions. When people talk about “conspiracy theories”, they often have very different things in mind, but they virtually never often any sort of definition of the term, so different people end up talking about different things, which is one reason there’s so much disagreement.
In any case, my basic point was simply that many people seem to assume that when it comes to conspiracy theories, you either believe in all of them, or you believe in in none of them, and that’s obviously a false dichotomy.
“langa March 23, 2014 at 2:16 am
There is a middle ground with regard to conspiracy theories. I do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist, as there are relatively few of them that I believe to be valid, and I rarely spend much time discussing them.”
There are plenty of valid conspiracy theories that are valid. Do you believe that there are Republicans in Ohio who are currently conspiring to keep Libertarian Party candidates off the ballot?
There is a middle ground with regard to conspiracy theories. I do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist, as there are relatively few of them that I believe to be valid, and I rarely spend much time discussing them. However, I am also not automatically “put off” by any talk of conspiracy theories. Rather, I generally listen to them with an open mind, and then make up my own mind, just as I do with any other claim.
As I said before, I find most of the popular ones to be implausible, but there are a few that I accept as valid, and even the ones that I find to be wildly implausible are still a source of amusement. They certainly don’t “put me off” to whatever else the person might have to say. In fact, I tend to agree with Andy that anyone who is automatically offended by any talk of conspiracies is probably a statist who generally dislikes criticism of the government.
Having said all that, I don’t really think that talking about conspiracies should be a major focus of the Libertarian Party (or of libertarians in general). But neither should a person be mocked or ostracized by libertarians just because they happen to believe in conspiracy theories.
For the person who might be surprised that I believe any event might have gone differently than was presented to the American people, I always suggest researching Obama’s fable of killing Osama bin Laden. Research “Osama bin Laden death”, and there are many hits, from many different sources (including Fox News), that ObL died in late 2001. Then, research the way Obama said he was buried: dumped into the ocean, as per tradition. So, desert dwellers have a tradition of burying their dead at sea?? I sure couldn’t find much about that. Then research photos and DNA evidence of the event. What, there aren’t any? And a creepy frosting on the cake is the unfortunate death of many SEALS supposedly involved.
I’ll bet I don’t sound crazy to anyone who has does any research, although I really don’t care if anyone believes me or not. Healthy skeptism I think is appropriate.
It’s beyond me that so many people just accept what our government says as truth. We KNOW Dubya lied about WMD, and we KNOW Obama lied that “you can keep your doctor”. So why do many totally absurd and conflicting details of events become readily accepted by otherwise intelligent people? I just don’t get it.
“Warren Redlich March 22, 2014 at 11:27 pm
Comical that conspiracy theories are dismissed.
There have been actual conspiracies. Operation Gladio, for example. And many others. The Manhattan Project was a massive conspiracy.”
BINGO!
” by their vary nature ”
Should read, “by their very nature…”
Comical that conspiracy theories are dismissed.
There have been actual conspiracies. Operation Gladio, for example. And many others. The Manhattan Project was a massive conspiracy.
Robert Capozzi said: “me: Funny, since many Ls are not conspiracy theorists.”
Many Libertarians and small “l” libertarians are conspiracy theorists, in fact, one could argue that ALL Libertarians/libertarians are conspiracy theorists to one degree or another, because libertarians by their vary nature question authority and do not believe everything that the government tells us to believe.
The problem is that the term “conspiracy theorist” has been given a bad name in the media, so some libertarians run away from the label because they fear looking bad in front of their non-libertarian friends/neighbors/co-workers/family/etc…
Robert Capozzi March 22, 2014 at 9:46 pm said: “Presumably, some of them were readers of Ron Paul’s newsletters in the 90s.”
Did you watch the Ben Swann reports about the Ron Paul newsletters that I posted above? You do realize that the so called “racist” newsletters were on 9 issues of the newsletters, right? Ron Paul put out newsletters for a good 20 years and put out at least 240 issues, and a bunch of people freaked out over a few comments made in 9 issues that Ron Paul did not even write. Once again, the passages in question were written by James B. Powell.
a: Millions of people who would be open to the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message are put off by racism.
me: Agreed. And they are far more numerous than the millions of racists who also like some libertarian ideas. Presumably, some of them were readers of Ron Paul’s newsletters in the 90s. My view is that nothing should be done to reach out to this element. Instead, my counsel is to DISTANCE Ls from them.
a: Millions of people who are already libertarian leaning, or are at least somewhat libertarian leaning, are already skeptical of government and already believe that people within government engage in conspiracies, and they already would like to know the truth about things like the JFK assassination, 9/11, etc…
me: Personally, I have little interest in conspiracies but GREAT interest in truth. Most are. Conspiracy theories, however, are not truth. If conspiracy theorists are L leaning, there seems little incentive to offer them validation for their more crackpot ideas. Unlike racists, my stance with conspiracy theorists is more like benign neglect.
a: The type of people who are put off by talk of government conspiracies and a quest for the truth about what the government is doing are not the type of people who are very likely to ever support Libertarian Party candidates or libertarianism in general,
me: Funny, since many Ls are not conspiracy theorists.
Start over.
“Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party”
I recall the Bill White letter being exposed as a fraud, so I did a search and this came up:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/billwhite.php?q=billwhite.php
Check this out too:
Neo-Nazi rally was organized by FBI informant
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20317
See? The FBI had a plant that organized a Neo-Nazi rally in Florida back in 2007. Still think that it is “crazy” to think that “Vernon” may be a paid government troll, or that the Libertarian Party may contain some people who are really working for the government to make sure that the party does not become too successful? Wake up people.
I think we all know this. Vernon just wants attention.
Vernon says: “So all of that is fully 100% libertarian..”
That is 100 % untrue. Libertarian philosophy applies to all people, not just a few groups chosen by Nazi trolls and other hateful individuals.
”
I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous – and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party”
Much more facts, although through a leftist opinion filter:
http://newsone.com/1748295/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/
This is exactly why the Libertarians need more candidates just like RON PAUL!
“Vernon” = Lying Sack of Shit Troll
Who do you work for? NSA? CIA? FBI? DHS? DOD? The Republican Party? The Democratic Party? Some other group? Or are you just a lone nut with nothing better to do?
Millions of people who are already libertarian leaning, or are at least somewhat libertarian leaning, are already skeptical of government and already believe that we need a government of Whites, by Whites and for Whites… non-Whites and self-hating Whites are not the type of people who are very likely to ever support Libertarian Party candidates or libertarianism in general, they are more likely to be indoctrinated statists who will vote for whomever the Democrat or Green Party leaders tell them to cast their vote, and libertarians are not likely to ever win these people over no matter what they do. People who are proud to be White, on the other hand, are people who are more likely to be won over by libertarians, and therefore are a prime target audience for the libertarian message.
People who are racist tend to be good targets for the libertarian message, because they tend to want freedom for their race/ethnicity which is the only race that has ever supported freedom and many people are aware of this, and the bigger parties are kowtowing to minorities, perverts, political correctness and Zionism. A person could be a racist and still be consistent with libertarian principles as long as they do not initiate the use of force or fraud, or advocate for the initiation of force or fraud, and there are many racists out there who fall into this category.
But since welfare, black on white crime, illegal alien invasion, US wars for Zionism, quotas and forced integration are initiations of force, retaliatory force is fully justified under libertarian concepts. One form that retaliatory force can take is to expel the illegal invaders, ship blacks back to Africa where they were forcibly taken out of and restore them to their ancestral condition that was taken away from them by force, and finish the job that Hitler started with the Zionists. So all of that is fully 100% libertarian.
Ron Paul maybe a bit of a pansy in bowing to the forces of political correctness in public sometimes, but he is a full blown Stormfront style White Nationalist and attends weekly Racialist meetings in the DC area. This is the main reason that he is the most popular libertarian out there, since many Whites realize he is on our side even though he tries to hide it these days.
“Thomas Knapp March 22, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Andy,
I agree that the Badnarik campaign’s one-week targeting of New Mexico had important results, probably including post-election interest in the LP.
It’s been awhile, but it seemed arguable at the time as I recall that the campaign’s decision to dump a large amount of money and time by LP standards (I think it may have been as much as $100k in ad buys and other expenses related to the city-by-city candidate tour) into the state foirced both Bush and Kerry to change their campaign schedules and come to New Mexico. At least the timing made it look that way. There were no campaign events publicly scheduled for Kerry or Bush that week or any other, then Badnarik announced his ads and tour, and within 24-48 hours, Bush and Kerry had announced their visits for that same week.
What the polling told us is that it didn’t change our candidate’s numbers … but that is not everything. The LP’s presidential campaign is not valuable only on the basis of how many votes that candidate gets that one time. It can affect everything from ballot access to voter registrations by party to the strength and activity levels of local party groups.”
Yes, and it really makes one wonder what a decent Libertarian Party candidate could do if they had a much larger campaign budget. So just imagine if instead of spending around $100,000 on the New Mexico ads and tour in 2004, if the Badnarik campaign could have spent $10 million on New Mexico ads and a tour.
I bet that the Badnarik tour and ad blitz of New Mexico did cause the Bush and Kerry campaigns to change their plans and do some extra campaigning in New Mexico. The Democrats and Republicans like to ignore us, but I know damn well that they’ve got people monitoring us to try to prevent us from becoming too successful.
“Robert Capozzi March 22, 2014 at 8:06 am
Andy, did you mean:
Trying to conflate libertarianism and the Libertarian Party with racism[, conspiracy theories, and Trutherism] in order to scare people away from libertarianism and the Libertarian Party is a tactic that is used by government plant sabotage tactic.
? 😉 ”
Nope. Millions of people who would be open to the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message are put off by racism. Millions of people who are already libertarian leaning, or are at least somewhat libertarian leaning, are already skeptical of government and already believe that people within government engage in conspiracies, and they already would like to know the truth about things like the JFK assassination, 9/11, etc… The type of people who are put off by talk of government conspiracies and a quest for the truth about what the government is doing are not the type of people who are very likely to ever support Libertarian Party candidates or libertarianism in general, they are more likely to be indoctrinated statists who will vote for whomever the Democratic or Republican Party leaders tell them to cast their vote, and libertarians are not likely to ever win these people over no matter what they do. People who question government, on the other hand, are people who are more likely to be won over by libertarians, and therefore are a prime target audience for the libertarian message.
People who are racist tend to not be good targets for the libertarian message, because they tend to only want freedom for their race/ethnicity, and a good number of them don’t even really want that. A person could be a racist and still be consistent with libertarian principles as long as they do not initiate the use of force or fraud, or advocate for the initiation of force or fraud, but there are not that many racists out there who fall into this category.
Andy,
I agree that the Badnarik campaign’s one-week targeting of New Mexico had important results, probably including post-election interest in the LP.
It’s been awhile, but it seemed arguable at the time as I recall that the campaign’s decision to dump a large amount of money and time by LP standards (I think it may have been as much as $100k in ad buys and other expenses related to the city-by-city candidate tour) into the state foirced both Bush and Kerry to change their campaign schedules and come to New Mexico. At least the timing made it look that way. There were no campaign events publicly scheduled for Kerry or Bush that week or any other, then Badnarik announced his ads and tour, and within 24-48 hours, Bush and Kerry had announced their visits for that same week.
As I mentioned in my previous comment, Bush also chose that week and that venue to announce a plan to draw down the US military presence in South Korea — I forget whether his plan called for the US to be out of there “by 2010” or “within 10 years” — and that seems like the kind of announcement specifically intended to counter Badnarik’s appeal to non-interventionist Republicans.
Keep in mind that in 2000, Bush lost New Mexico by fewer votes than Harry Browne got. If Bush had won New Mexico in 2000, we would never have had to hear about the goddamn hanging chads in Florida, because that would have been the ball game even if Gore had won Florida. So New Mexico was definitely up in the air, and definitely a sensitive area from the major parties’ standpoint. Our investment there probably forced each of those campaigns to spend many times as much money and time there as they had initially intended.
And, ultimately, the whole thing established data points that had never been established before in an LP presidential campaign. There was real polling (paid for by the campaign, done by Rasmussen) to help establish the effect of at least a short-term commitment of more money and more time in a specific state. If the polling had shown a huge gain for Badnarik from that strategy, we presumably would have raised funds on the premise of either keeping and increasing the gain in New Mexico, or move the same strategy to a second, then third, state to get similar results, etc.
What the polling told us is that it didn’t change our candidate’s numbers … but that is not everything. The LP’s presidential campaign is not valuable only on the basis of how many votes that candidate gets that one time. It can affect everything from ballot access to voter registrations by party to the strength and activity levels of local party groups.
Dave said: ” I recall there was some hope on him getting on O’Reilly and other major media, and that many people thought that would be the breakthrough he needed.”
Michael Badnarik was scheduled to appear on The O’Reilly factor to debate Bill O’Reilly over the USA Patriot Act, but Bill O’Reilly canceled Michael Badnarik’s appearance at the last minute and then his show stopped returning phone calls from the Badnarik campaign after that. O’Reilly was too much of an intellectual coward to debate Badnarik.
Thomas Knapp said: “The Badnarik campaign did not use a “one state strategy,” at least not overall. They did do a one-week TEST in one state (New Mexico), pairing the biggest ad buys they could manage with a tour of the state by the candidate himself.
– The ad buy/tour did not result in any wild vote differential from the rest of the country when November arrived — that 3% evaporated just like it does everywhere for nearly every third party candidate.”
I gathered petition signatures to get the Libertarian Party back on the ballot in New Mexico in 2005. While there, I ran into a surprising number of people who had seen or heard the Michael Badnarik ads in 2004, and they all enthusiastically signed the petition. After asking them to sign the petition, they made comments like, “Isn’t that the party that ran Michael Badnarik for President? I saw/heard his ads and I really like him. Let me sign that thing!”
So the ads and tour of New Mexico may not have resulted in a big spike in the vote total in 2004, but it did have some positive results.
I also saw the Badnarik ad featuring the couple on Fox news. I remember that was the first Libertarian campaign I was interested in. I recall there was some hope on him getting on O’Reilly and other major media, and that many people thought that would be the breakthrough he needed. At least on his campaign’s blog,which I passionately followed.
There was also New Mexico poll by Rasmussen that had him at 5% at one point in the race.
“In March 2001, Paul said he did not write the commentaries, but stopped short of denying authorship in 1996 because his campaign advisers had thought it would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name. In 2011 Paul’s spokesperson Jesse Benton said Paul had ‘taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch’.”
If one thinks about it and is honest, I’d be willing to bet that everyone has or has had friends, family members, co-workers, business associates, fellow political party members, etc…, who have made statements or done things that could be considered to be embarrassing. I know lots of people who have been associated with me in one way or another who have said or done things that I’d prefer to not receive publicity, and I bet that the same goes for everyone else.
Here is one example. I started a Yahoo Group a while ago, and a bunch of people have posted there over the years. I don’t agree with every comment that has been posted, nor do I even read every comment that gets posted. Somebody could go through there, cherry pick a few comments, and then use them to smear me.
Also, somebody can take some remark that one may have made 10 or 20 or 30 or more years ago, and then twist it out of context and use it to smear somebody.
The bottom line is to look at somebody’s record, and Ron Paul’s record is pretty damn good. He’s got the best voting record from a pro-liberty perspective of probably anyone who has ever been in Congress (if there is a Congressman with a more pro-liberty record, I don’t know who it is). Ron Paul had many years to “sell out” to the political establishment, but he never did. Ron Paul could have turned into a monster, like just about every other politician out there, yet he did not. This speaks volumes about the man’s character. It takes an individual with very good character to get into politics, get elected to office, and not let the power go to one’s head and turn into a monster.
Ron Paul is not just a politician, he’s also a pro-liberty activist, and I’d say that he’s the top pro-liberty activist in the country. I can not think of one person who has done more to promote the cause of individual liberty than Ron Paul.
Oh, and here’s something interesting. I’ve done lots of petition signature gathering for the Libertarian Party and pro-liberty causes, and done lots of in person political outreach, and I have run into black people/African Americans, Hispanics, India Indians, Jews, Arabs/Middle Easterners, Asians/Orientals, etc.., who have told me that THEY LIKE RON PAUL. In fact, I just talked to a black guy a few days ago who told me that he’s a Ron Paul supporter. I talked to a black guy in Arkansas last year said that he was disgusted by the way that Ron Paul was treated at the Republican National Convention, and that he thought that the talk about Ron Paul being a racist was just a media smear because people don’t like the fact that he’s talking about ending the Federal Reserve and other pro-freedom issues. I ran into a black guy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania while going to turn in petition signatures to get Ron Paul on the ballot for the PA Republican primaries who came up to me and said that he liked the Ron Paul R3VOLution shirt that I was wearing, and he told me that he liked Ron Paul’s anti-war and pro-civil liberties stances, and that that he’d sign the petition to get him on the ballot in the primaries and vote for him if not for the fact that he was a registered Democrat. I attended a Federal Reserve protest in Los Angeles a few years ago and there was a black woman there who was wearing a Ron Paul for President baseball cap. These are just a few examples, I could go on with more.
Is Ron Paul perfect? Nobody is perfect. If one is looking for somebody who is perfect, I don’t think they will ever find them. Given that nobody is perfect, Ron Paul does a great job promoting the cause of liberty.
Quoth George,
“The Badnarik campaign ran television advertising. They tried the ‘one state’ strategy, based on the ‘the consumer needs to see seven repetitions’ hypothesis developed for selling soap and the ‘dollars per vote’ hypothesis that you can buy an election. Voters are not soap, and the Rmoney campaign for Mitt Romney showed that you cannot buy voters.”
Well, you can buy voters — but the voters you buy are the marginal undecideds who aren’t happy with their choices. Most voters fall into either one of the major party’s “base” groups, which aren’t for sale unless the party gets really off message track, or the “undecided but leaning” category, which isn’t usually wildly open to a third party option.
The Badnarik campaign did not use a “one state strategy,” at least not overall. They did do a one-week TEST in one state (New Mexico), pairing the biggest ad buys they could manage with a tour of the state by the candidate himself. Results:
– The professional polling from before the tour/ad buy had Badnarik at 3%, with most of his votes coming from people who were otherwise leaning Democrat.
– The professional polling from after the tour/ad buy had Badnarik at 3% — but with most of his votes coming out of George W. Bush’s hide. The odd thing about that switch is that to the extent any of the ads concentrated on one major party candidate or the other, they attacked Kerry for being a fake antiwar candidate.
– The ad buy/tour did not result in any wild vote differential from the rest of the country when November arrived — that 3% evaporated just like it does everywhere for nearly every third party candidate.
– On the other hand, New Mexico was a tossup/swing state, but neither Kerry or Bush indicated an intent to campaign there until Badnarik bought ads and announced his tour. Then they both suddenly scheduled New Mexico campaign swings for the same week as Badnarik — and during his New Mexico visit, Bush announced a plan to end the US military presence in South Korea (a plan that never came to fruition, but that can be plausibly construed as a reaction to the possibility of Badnarik costing him the state with a non-interventionist appeal).
“Badnarik had at least one AD on TV. I believe it was funded by Aaron Russo.”
Aaron Russo produced some ads for the Badnarik campaign. He was paid to produce them and was supposed to do a series. But then he and the campaign fell out over content.
Aaron wanted to do more “illegal immigration” scare pieces, the campaign didn’t . He did one that ran in New Mexico and that got very bad feedback from LP members — during that phase of the campaign, it felt like I was spending most of my time as assistant communications director trying to defend Badnarik’s not very good immigration ideas, and Russo was pushing for an even more Know-Nothingish position in advertising.
The campaign canceled future ads from Russo because he was only willing to produce the ads he wanted to make, not the ads the campaign wanted made, and there was a little bit of bad blood over it.
Near the end of the campaign, a fairly well-produced ad of the “couple talking politics over breakfast” type ran on CNN. I don’t remember who made that ad.
All of the above is from imperfect memory, of course.
Phillies said: ” Voters are not soap”.
I love this! I’ll have to tuck this little phrase away for future use.
“Vicki Kirkland March 22, 2014 at 10:47 am
Badnarik had at least one AD on TV. I believe it was funded by Aaron Russo.”
Aaron Russo produced one or more TV ads for the Badnarik campaign, but I’m not sure if he funded them, or was the sole funder of them.
The Michael Badnarik campaign did produce one TV ad before the 2004 National Convention. If featured the game hangman being played, with people guessing letters to fill in a blank space for a word or words, and with each wrong answer another part of a person being hanged was drawn. The blank spaces were supposed to spell Constitution, or The Constitution, or something like that, and at the end of the ad Michael Badnarik came out and said something about Americans not knowing what the Constitution says is leading to them hanging themselves. I’m not sure if they ad ever actually aired on TV or not, but it did get played on a big screen at the 2004 LP National Convention in Atlanta.
Incidentally, Aaron Russo was already running TV and radio ads before and during the 2004 LP National Convention. This is one reason that I supported him for the nomination (I did not attend that convention though, so therefore I did not vote in that convention). I gathered petition signatures in Texas for the Libertarian Party of Texas to regain ballot access for the 2004 election, and I worked in the Austin area the entire time I was there (which was for around the last 2-3 weeks before the deadline). Aaron Russo was actually running radio ads on a local independent radio station in Austin called Radio Free Austin while I was there. So I ran into more people in Austin who knew who Aaron Russo was than who knew who Michael Badnarik was even though Badnarik lived in Austin at the time.
I did actively support Badnarik after he won the nomination.
More: http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d
– In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]
– Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]
– Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” [Roll Call, 7/29/96]
– “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]
The Dallas Morning News — May 22, 1996.
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.
Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character.
“If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” Dr. Paul asked.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
Austin American-Statesman — May 23, 1996
“Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context,” [Paul’s spokesman, Michael] Sullivan said. “It’s like picking up ‘War and Peace’ and reading the fourth paragraph on page 481 and thinking you can understand what’s going on.”
“You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half quotes to impugn his character,” Sullivan said. “His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments.”
Austin American-Statesman — July 25, 1996
Morris distributed Paul’s article to reporters at a Capitol news conference. It was not the first time. Morris has been scrutinizing Paul’s writings and sharing his findings with reporters. In May, he released an article in which Paul described a majority of black men in Washington, D.C., as ”semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
Morris, a Bee Cave lawyer, once again called on Paul to release back copies of the newsletter he has published for more than a decade. Paul, a Surfside obstetrician, has refused.
He said he has written ”thousands of items” during the past 20 years and that releasing these materials would be impractical. Paul said releasing all those writings would be like asking Morris to ”provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career.”
That includes almost all the current state party officers.
I was talking about people attending meetings in Birmingham now. The party was moribund with no meetings until Johnson campaign revitalized us.
“Most of the active members joined because of Johnson”… In1998 there were 362 National party members in Alabama. How many of them are still around?
Robert, the first time around he said that the short quotes were being taken out of context. The next time there was a different statement, iirc that he hadn’t been paying attention to his staff. Knapp’s description appears accurate. I agree with your point about his staff.
The Badnarik campaign ran television advertising. They tried the “one state” strategy, based on the ‘the consumer needs to see seven repetitions’ hypothesis developed for selling soap and the ‘dollars per vote’ hypothesis that you can buy an election. Voters are not soap, and the Rmoney campaign for Mitt Romney showed that you cannot buy voters.
Badnarik had at least one AD on TV. I believe it was funded by Aaron Russo.
tk: Only one of them can be true, and Ron Paul has said two of them, which means he lied AT LEAST once.
me: Perhaps, although not necessarily. It depends on how specific he was in 1996. I don’t recall what he said then, but if he didn’t say, “I wrote all the articles and I stand behind every word I wrote,” then you might be correct. If he made a vague statement about the newsletters and its contents, defending them, then he has at least some plausible deniability.
Don’t get me wrong…I was and am extremely disappointed with the handling of NewletterGate v.1 and 2. I think he was probably mostly asleep at the switch at the time, delegating to staff, some of whom I have every reason to believe were haters. RP’s association with haters, semi-haters, hater enablers, and/or cynical exploiters of haters for profit or fundraising reasons is, best case, his Achilles Heel.
Technically, RP’s responses were poorly executed spin, likely to protect staff and long-time associates, aka, “dogs with fleas.” This stuff is even more damaging to liberty’s prospects than the sand that is NAPsolutism. IMO.
“Ben Swann already debunked this story a while ago, and I posted the video of Ben Swann doing this here a while ago.”
If by “debunked,” you mean “established that Ron Paul may have lied twice rather than once,” you may be right.
In 1996, Paul claimed he wrote the stuff and defended it.
In 2007, Paul claimed an unknown ghost writer wrote the stuff and denounced it.
In 2013, Ben Swann claimed that the stuff was never even claimed as having been written by Ron Paul.
These are three mutually exclusive statements. Only one of them can be true, and Ron Paul has said two of them, which means he lied AT LEAST once.
Andy, did you mean:
Trying to conflate libertarianism and the Libertarian Party with racism[, conspiracy theories, and Trutherism] in order to scare people away from libertarianism and the Libertarian Party is a tactic that is used by government plant sabotage tactic.
? 😉
I mentioned some people I’d really like to see run for President. Add Ben Swann to that list.
Ron Paul put out newsletters for 20 years, and during this time period he put out at least 240 newsletters. How many newsletters have the “racist” passages? 9 ISSUES! Yes, that’s right 9 issues, and they were written by a guy named James B. Powell.
Reality Check: The Truth About the Ron Paul Newsletters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrqI_4c3jMk
Reality Check: Mystery Writer of the Ron Paul ‘racist’ Newsletters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-FTlZHpBWw
“Thomas L. Knapp March 22, 2014 at 3:28 am
Quoth Vernon:
‘And yes, he did write them which he admitted in 1996.’
Yes, he claimed to have written them when he defended them in 1996.
But in 2007 he denied writing them and blamed them on a ghost writer when he denounced them.”
Ben Swann already debunked this story a while ago, and I posted the video of Ben Swann doing this here a while ago. The small handful of issues in question that had the “racist” passages had the name James B. Powell listed as the author of those articles. This information was known by the news outlets who brought up the “racist” newsletters back when Ron Paul’s campaign was heating up in 2007-2008, and they purposely suppressed this information, because they were more interested in creating controversy and smearing Ron Paul than they were in reporting the truth.
Quoth Vernon:
“And yes, he did write them which he admitted in 1996.”
Yes, he claimed to have written them when he defended them in 1996.
But in 2007 he denied writing them and blamed them on a ghost writer when he denounced them.
So all they really tell us about Ron Paul is that he’s a liar.
“Vernon March 21, 2014 at 10:34 pm
RON PAUL was the last pro-White candidate the Libertarians nominated for President. I wonder why? They should do more of that. I love his newsletters and I wish he would stop denying he wrote them to please the Zionists and just say everything in them was 100% true which it was and still is! And yes, he did write them which he admitted in 1996.”
Trying to conflate libertarianism and the Libertarian Party with racism in order to scare people away from libertarianism and the Libertarian Party is a tactic that is used by government plant sabotage tactic.
Does the NSA or the CIA or the DHS or the DOD or whoever it is you are working for allow you to work from home, or do you have to go to an office to post this bullshit?
And fyi, Ben Swann did a report about this a while ago, and exposed that Ron Paul did NOT write the “racist” passages in question, which were only in a small number of the many newsletters published under his name. The person who wrote the passages in question was a guy named James B. Powell.
RON PAUL was the last pro-White candidate the Libertarians nominated for President. I wonder why? They should do more of that. I love his newsletters and I wish he would stop denying he wrote them to please the Zionists and just say everything in them was 100% true which it was and still is! And yes, he did write them which he admitted in 1996.
tk: Apparently the LP’s convention delegations self-select for a high level of gullibility.
me: I see your point. All of them apparently think -as I once did – that there’s a cult of the omnipotent state that needs to be challenged, after all! Talk about gullible! 😉
Wrights or GJ, Ruwart or Barr, all would seem highly gullible to me.
(Some may well overlook that obvious falsehood, though.)
I trust that you don’t believe that all those who happen to disagree with you are “gullible.” Is it possible that they just have different values and assessments than you do?
If he would ditch the Fair Tax garbage, and/or improve a couple of other positions, I may even support him for the nomination.
Yeah. I’d say the nomination is his for the taking.
Hard to imagine a lesser known candidate beating Johnson for the nomination if he runs, but it could happen.
Can we nominate someone who actually represents the liberartian wing of the libertarian party? And not someone who is moderately libertarian or libertarian-ish.
Quot Robert Capozzi:
—-
Do you have reason to believe that majorities of delegates are purposely voting for someone other than the best available option at nomination time? (Of course, some may even regret his/her vote after the fact.)
Are you suggesting there’s some sort of massive conspiracy in which delegates are PURPOSELY choosing the weaker candidate?
—–
Not at all, any more than I think that most of the people who fall for other scams do so intentionally. Apparently the LP’s convention delegations self-select for a high level of gullibility.
Mark Axinn March 21, 2014 at 5:20 pm said: “Leaving aside the advisors and expenditures issues, were the messages of Barr and Johnson similar?”
Barr and Johnson both support the Fair Tax plan.
I’ve got to wonder if there is some kind of outside force that is trying to cram the Fair Tax down the Libertarian Party’s throat, as in some kind of plan by the establishment to get “Libertarian” candidates who will shill for the Fair Tax.
Really, he is nothing like the Republican establishment. I understand he ran as a Republican for the sake of convenience but I believe he was more of a libertarian than anything else all along.
I like GJ’s letter there and his op-ed. Doesn’t sound like a Republican to me…..thank god.
“Bob Barr’s nomination signaled an end to that role. Gary Johnson has continued the campaign to dilute the principled base and neutralize the LPs only competitive advantage, the moral high ground.”
Jim–
Are the two candidates comparable? Leaving aside the advisors and expenditures issues, were the messages of Barr and Johnson similar?
“It was stumbling upon Harry Browne speaking at the LP National Convention in 1996 on C-SPAN that got me to join the Libertarian Party.”
Andy —
I’m glad to hear that since I was a Browne delegate at that convention and have a photo of Harry, his wife, my wife and me taken by a close friend. Unfortunately, two out of five of those people have passed. RIP Harry Browne and Jack Bova.
BTW here is the whole email that led to this article:
Friends,
We who care about liberty often speak about the heavy hand of government — and the need to remove it from our daily lives.
A couple of weeks ago, that heavy hand came down in my own backyard, at the ski area in New Mexico near where I live and where I ski all winter long. On a normal Saturday — with families gathered for a fun day on the mountain and activities such as a cancer benefit taking place, the United States Forest Service showed up at the Taos Valley ski area with four uniformed, armed “law enforcement” agents and a drug-sniffing dog. They proceeded to search the parking lots, “sniff” the cars of guests and employees, and then stop vehicles for such grave offenses as cracked windshields and unbuckled seat belts.
You can read about it here: Taos Ski Valley Drug Sweep.
I am livid. These Federal Agents didn’t just stop by. They traveled 150 miles, along with their drug-sniffing dog, on a Saturday for the express purpose of raiding a family ski area where, trust me, there were no threats to national security. I probably shouldn’t share it, but this clip from an Albuquerque TV newscast will give you an idea of what I think about this kind of government thuggery: “Somebody needs to lose their job.”
And, my op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal about it: Only Threat Was the USFS.
This kind of Big Government abuse happens every day, all across the country. But who in Washington, DC, is demanding that it stop? In reality, no one. Sure, some politicians talk about reining in federal agencies, but it obviously isn’t happening. It isn’t happening because Big Government = Power, and the politicians don’t really want less power; they want more.
I have told you about the Our America Initiative’s effort to break the two-party control of Presidential Debates. This episode, right in my neighborhood, is a perfect example of why the all-important nationally-televised debates must be opened to qualified voices other than just the Republicans and Democrats — both of whom thrive on the power they get from big government.
Until someone who truly believes in liberty and freedom from federal overreach is allowed on the stage, there will be no debate about why armed federal agents need to harass ordinary citizens going about their daily lives. There will be no hard questions about spending thousands of tax dollars on a “sweep” to round up four — yes, four — people for minor drug possession and write a couple of tickets for cracked windshields.
Our America is fighting to put these issues on the debate stage, both in court and at the grassroots. And you can help. Go to Open the Debates today and contribute $10, $50, $100 or more to help pay the legal costs of challenging the private Presidential Debate Commission and to help us mobilize millions of Americans to demand an end to control of the debates by the Republicans and Democrats.
To win this fight in time for the 2016 election, we must act now. We have a good case — and a good argument. We just need the resources to take that case to the courts and to the American people. Your contribution at Open the Debates will make the difference.
I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks!
Gov. Gary Johnson
Honorary Chairman
P.S. Our America’s legal team is working hard right now, and your support is essential!
I am a registered Libertarian today because of Gary Johnson.
There are definitely some and I would say many (relatively out of a small sample). Most of the active LP members around B’ham joined or rejoined because of Johnson, for instance.
“paulie March 21, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Same here. I do, however, run into people who joined because of Gary Johnson quite a bit.”
There may be some, but time will tell how many.
The other names I hear the most frequently (as far as candidates go) are Michael Badnarik, Ed Clark, Andre Marrou, Roger MacBride, and David Bergland.
Same here. I do, however, run into people who joined because of Gary Johnson quite a bit.
“paulie March 21, 2014 at 2:05 pm
LP convention was scheduled long before Porcfest was, so you tell me if it was a coincidence. And Johnson does not seem Republican-lite to me.”
You can call him Republican Lite or Libertarian Lite, but he’s not what I’d call any kind of hardcore Libertarian.
“James Babb March 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm
LP presidential candidates of the past served an important role. Their job was to teach people about libertarianism. Harry Browne was an excellent teacher, because he had extensive product knowledge and great communication skills. He could sell libertarianism, because he WAS a libertarian.”
It was stumbling upon Harry Browne speaking at the LP National Convention in 1996 on C-SPAN that got me to join the Libertarian Party.
I’ve talked to a lot of Libertarians around the country, and one topic that frequently comes up in conversation is, “How did you come to join the Libertarian Party?” The most common answer that I get is that people were inspired to join the LP because of a candidate for President, and the name Harry Browne comes up quite a bit. Harry Browne inspired a lot of people who are still hardcore Libertarian activists today. I’d say that the two names that I hear the most as far as inspiring people to join the Libertarian Party are Harry Browne and Ron Paul (both from his 1988 run and his runs for the Republican nomination in 2008 and 2012). I have yet to encounter one person who said that they were inspired to join the Libertarian Party because of Bob Barr or Wayne Root.
LP convention was scheduled long before Porcfest was, so you tell me if it was a coincidence. And Johnson does not seem Republican-lite to me. His issue mix heavily emphasizes peace and civil liberties issues. He describes himself as a bleeding heart libertarian (see http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/ ).
LP presidential candidates of the past served an important role. Their job was to teach people about libertarianism. Harry Browne was an excellent teacher, because he had extensive product knowledge and great communication skills. He could sell libertarianism, because he WAS a libertarian.
Bob Barr’s nomination signaled an end to that role. Gary Johnson has continued the campaign to dilute the principled base and neutralize the LPs only competitive advantage, the moral high ground. A Republican-lite LP is no threat to the establishment. It’s libertarian philosophy that scares them.
We may have passed a tipping point where real libertarians just laugh at the LP, and the only people who get involved now just want to “play politics” in a smaller pond. Is it a coincidence that the 2014 LP convention was scheduled to compete with the biggest libertarian event of the year?
Does the LP need to define itself apart from CFL/Ron Paul Groups and the Tea Party? Yes. Is Gary Johnson they guy to lead us there? No.
Honestly, we need to end this major emphasis on presidential candidates every four years. If we want stars, we need to grow them ourselves, and then bring them up through the ranks in major campaigns of our own. Not draft them from some other place. We need fighters for liberty against the obvious tyranny that is the federal government, not someone who just wants to scale it back a little. Sure it may not win. But it gets the message out. THAT is the point. WE NEED TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT. We need to show we are willing to nominate REAL candidates that will tear down this tyrannical state that we all claim to hate, that is stealing our money and freedoms, and has crushed the bill of rights, and threw it away like yesterday’s diapers….
THAT will get people motivated, THAT will show people we mean what we preach. That we really are the party of principle.
“isn’t the policy of IPR to not have its contributors post their own articles?”
‘That policy does not apply to the site owner. He can do whatever he wants.’
I mostly stay hands off. Every once in a while something tickles my funny bone, I shoot my mouth off, we have a lively chat, and then I go away again.
I appreciate everyone’s tolerance.
I am speaking from the vantage point of 1988.
We can’t know what Russell Means may have accomplished if he had been the LP presidential candidate in all the years afterwards.
It may have been the spark that would have made the LP much more relevant in politics. I’ve long suspected that a left-leaning libertarian campaign is exactly what we have been missing.
“paulie March 21, 2014 at 10:32 am
The sources on Means never gave me any substance to back that up that I can remember. And I think he could have opened up an even bigger anti-establishment revolution way back then.”
Let’s just say that the LP is better off that he did not get the nomination in 1988.
Look at all of Ron Paul’s accomplishments since then. I really don’t see how anyone could even make a comparison considering that Ron Paul has accomplished so much more. His latest accomplishment is launching a program for home schoolers called The Ron Paul Curriculum ( http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/ ). They are offering grades K-5 for free, and the following grades are available at a low cost. This is a great idea because it will make it easier for more people to break away from the government school system. I wish that something like this had been around when I was a youngster in elementary school.
I really don’t think that you can even compare Russell Means political and movement accomplishments with Ron Paul’s, as Ron Paul comes out way ahead.
The sources on Means never gave me any substance to back that up that I can remember. And I think he could have opened up an even bigger anti-establishment revolution way back then.
paulie March 21, 2014 at 10:23 am said: “Going back further I would say I would have probably been for Dick Boddie in 1992 and Russell Means in 1988,”
From what I’ve heard from several sources, Means would not have been that good of a candidate. Ron Paul was definitely the better choice in 1988, especially considering everything that he has done since then. The fact that Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian Party candidate in 1988 helped fuel the anti-establishment Ron Paul r3VOLution which started in 2007 and is still going today.
That is not correct. We subsequently found an earlier period of dues paying membership in the 1980s. Membership oath pledges don’t expire unless specifically revoked, so he has been a member since the 1980s.
Seems highly unlikely. But it seems likely that delegates often make a mistake.
For myself, I’d say we made the correct presidential nomination choice in 1996, 2000 and 2012 (out of available choices). In 2004 I would have preferred Aaron Russo and in 2008 Kubby followed by Ruwart.
Going back further I would say I would have probably been for Dick Boddie in 1992 and Russell Means in 1988, but I was not an LP member then so I may not have seen their negatives.
“paulie March 21, 2014 at 10:06 am
‘So, tell me — why does it make sense for the Libertarian Party to keep running people who are Republicans right up to the minute they decide to run for the LP’s nomination. In Johnson’s case, in the SAME ELECTION, after his GOP primary campaign cratered?’
By 2016 he will not have had nearly as recent an association with the Republicans. Also, he has been an LP member since the 1980s (defined by signing the membership pledge; his dues stopped shortly before his Republican run in NM).”
I’m pretty sure that Gary Johnson was only a dues paying member of the Libertarian Party for one year before he ran for President, and it was back in the early 1990’s before he ran for Governor of New Mexico as a Republican. He was a dues paying member for that one year and then he let his membership expire and he did not rejoin the LP until 2012.
That policy does not apply to the site owner. He can do whatever he wants.
I certainly don’t.
But Johnson has been an LP member since the 1980s, was called a libertarian even when he was a Republican, and fits in a lot better with LP on issues than he does with Republicans.
By 2016 he will not have had nearly as recent an association with the Republicans. Also, he has been an LP member since the 1980s (defined by signing the membership pledge; his dues stopped shortly before his Republican run in NM).
As far as I know his association with the LP may have been more long standing than his association with Republicans. I would also say he fits in better with us on issues than he does with them.
He could sit out the 2016 election and keep doing what he’s doing now, try another Republican run, or create a new party/run as an independent/run for the new version of AE. None of those are precluded by what he is currently doing. I agree that running again as LP would make the most sense.
tk: I’ve only followed the LP closely since 1996, but during that timeframe the above seems to have been the exception rather than the rule.
me: My point was not to say that SOME may disagree that the nominee chosen is the “best available option.” That is also true. I suspect there’s even a handful who think the candidate whose campaign manager found it wise to make bestiality an issue-of-the-day was the best available option at the time. Unless we’re all hallucinating, few agreed at the time, and I suspect continue to feel that way.
Do you have reason to believe that majorities of delegates are purposely voting for someone other than the best available option at nomination time? (Of course, some may even regret his/her vote after the fact.)
Are you suggesting there’s some sort of massive conspiracy in which delegates are PURPOSELY choosing the weaker candidate?
“With Zen-like clarity, though, the obvious observation is that the LP will nominate the best available option at the time.”
I’ve only followed the LP closely since 1996, but during that timeframe the above seems to have been the exception rather than the rule.
tk: The only time a political party should run a candidate for president who was recently of one of its opponent parties is when that political party is new — e.g. the Republican Party in 1856/1860.
me: Seems to me to be not a bad rule ‘o thumb.
With Zen-like clarity, though, the obvious observation is that the LP will nominate the best available option at the time.
It is what it is; what will be, will be. Why make it complicated?
isn’t the policy of IPR to not have its contributors post their own articles?
——
tk: The last time I recall that a major political party ran someone for the presidency who had previously been associated with another party was 1980 and 1984.
me: Slight of hand analogy. Aside from a few state legislators and “lower,” the LP’s candidates don’t usu. win, so it’s hard to compare it with MAJOR political parties.
——
Except that the same people who spend half their time bellyaching that the LP needs to nominate any Republican retread carpetbagger who wanders in off the street if it wants to be “serious,” spend the other half of their time griping that the LP needs to act like the MAJOR political parties if it wants to be “serious.”
The only time a political party should run a candidate for president who was recently of one of its opponent parties is when that political party is new — e.g. the Republican Party in 1856/1860.
The LP is 40 freaking years old. If it lets its presidential nomination serve as an overflow area for the GOP’s presidential primaries, it’s not “serious,” it’s just sad.
I appreciate Gary Johnson putting up with and still sticking with us. He is my first choice for Libertarian Presidential nominee at this point.
wr: There is zero substance behind the words [Redefining the liberty movement in America.”]
me: Sure, like most slogans. Strikes me that the same could be said of the LP’s Statement of Principles.
wr: What Johnson and his establishment puppet masters really want is to undercut the movement.
me: QUITE a charge. Mens rea requires at least SOME evidence, yes? We’re still waiting.
tk: The last time I recall that a major political party ran someone for the presidency who had previously been associated with another party was 1980 and 1984.
me: Slight of hand analogy. Aside from a few state legislators and “lower,” the LP’s candidates don’t usu. win, so it’s hard to compare it with MAJOR political parties.
tk: why does it make sense for the Libertarian Party to keep running people who are Republicans right up to the minute they decide to run for the LP’s nomination.
me: This would NOT include GJ were he to run in 2016. It does in 2012. Apparently, the convention found him to be the best option.
@CLC: “Rand Paul – Warren Redlich ticket in 2016 is a best case scenario”
As big as my ego is, I’m not so deluded as to think I’m on Rand’s list of potential running mates.
@Jason: There are those who hold out hope that Rand is pretending he’s not libertarian to get votes. And then he will show his libertarian colors once elected.
Maybe a wild hope, but his Senate record has been pretty good.
@Ed that link is behind a subscriber wall.
“Austin Cassidy March 20, 2014 at 9:07 pm
What a load of garbage all around.”
How are any of these criticisms of the Gary Johnson campaign a load of garbage? I gave his campaign credit on several points on another thread, but there were negatives with his campaign as well.
Taxes are a big issue for Libertarians, some would even say the biggest issue because it is taxes that funds all of the insanity from government. Gary Johnson’s tax plan is to take a really horrible tax, the income tax, and replace it with another tax that is just as bad, and maybe even worse, in the so called Fair Tax. I do not think that it is an example of Libertarian extremism to oppose the Fair Tax, because the Fair Tax is not even an incremental step towards more liberty. The Fair Tax is trading one bad system for another one. It is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
So being that taxes are such a big issue for Libertarians, and being that Gary Johnson’s tax plan is no better than the current system, why is it a “load of garbage” that some Libertarians have reservations about him getting the party’s Presidential nomination in 2016?
“No wonder this party has gotten no where in 40 years.”
The last time I recall that a major political party ran someone for the presidency who had previously been associated with another party was 1980 and 1984.
That person was Ronald Reagan — and while it’s true that he was a former Democrat, by the time he ran for president as a Republican he had been associated with the GOP for a long time and had twice been elected to office on its ticket, not on the Democratic ticket.
So, tell me — why does it make sense for the Libertarian Party to keep running people who are Republicans right up to the minute they decide to run for the LP’s nomination. In Johnson’s case, in the SAME ELECTION, after his GOP primary campaign cratered?
Why does entertaining the idea of the Libertarian Party running a Libertarian rather than a Republican make you think of the LP as unrealistic?
Gary Johnson is running for President in 2016.
As a Libertarian and not as anything else.
Why else would be he be doing what he’s doing right now?
Of course he cannot come out with that publicly and simultaneously raise money thru OAI.
This is probably not the site you are looking for!
You attempted to reach dev.nsfwcorp.com, but instead you actually reached a server identifying itself as http://www.nsfwcorp.com. This may be caused by a misconfiguration on the server or by something more serious. An attacker on your network could be trying to get you to visit a fake (and potentially harmful) version of dev.nsfwcorp.com.
You should not proceed, especially if you have never seen this warning before for this site.
God bless you Austin Cassidy. Jesus Christ would be the perfect candidate. Let’s pray he returns so that the LP can nominate him.
What a load of garbage all around. If the ballot access requirements weren’t so steep, I wouldn’t blame him if he ran as an independent next time. No wonder this party has gotten no where in 40 years. Jesus Christ.
I did see it. But he didn’t say he wouldn’t run for Vice President.
Here is an interesting read….
The Gary Johnson Swindle and the Degradation of Third Party Politics
https://dev.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle
I agree with Jason Smith that people criticizing Rand Paul are not just disgruntled Lee Wrights’ supporters. Dr. Paul reminds people as often as he can that he is not a libertarian. He does say some things that I agree with sometimes, but it seems like everytime he does that, he says something neocon like his op-ed about Russia. Also, perhapsCLC missed Warren Redlich on another thread saying he wasn’t interested in running for President.
“Concerned Libertarian Citizen March 20, 2014 at 8:19 pm
My movement endorsed Mitt Romney for reasons aforementioned and posthumously endorsed Jim Burns.”
I didn’t know that you had a movement, unless of course you are talking about the one that comes out of your bowels.
My movement endorsed Mitt Romney for reasons aforementioned and posthumously endorsed Jim Burns.
Austin Cassidy wrote “Never saw a Barr ad. Or a Badnarik ad.”
I remember seeing a Harry Browne ad on TV. That’s how I got connected with the LP.
I liked Johnson better when he was speaking at Liberty events before his candidacy. His “FairTax” advocacy came out right before his Presidential campaign, from what I could tell.
People who would know, have told me that he was unwilling to put in the necessary time for fundraising. I don’t plan on voting for him again at the convention. We tried that already. Time for something new, and more libertarian than our recent track record.
God bless you Jed, but you need to get your facts straight.
Uh…Concerned Libertarian Citizen…are all criticisms of Rand discounted? I happen to think he is a remarkable Republican…but in no way is he a Libertarian. He opposes abortion, gay marriage equality. He supports overseas permanent military bases, and most of all…he endorsed mitt Romney. So…if simple minded Lee Wrights supporters are saying any of that…I guess I am one of them.
Root in 2010 ran for National Chair and was elected to the National Committee. He did not defect to the Republicans until 2012.
Jed Ziggler March 20, 2014 at 7:38 pm said: “but Ron Paul left because the LP pulled the same shit with him in the 80s.”
Ron Paul never completely left the Libertarian Party. He has a Life Membership in the party which he never revoked. He also attended multiple Libertarian Party conventions in the 1990’s and early 2000’s (although I’m not sure if he has attended any since 2006 or 2007).
Rand Paul – Warren Redlich ticket in 2016 is a best case scenario. Unfortunately, the smears on Rand Paul has already begun by simple minded Lee Wrights supporters.
I agree. I will not be an active supporter if he runs as anything other than LP, though.
The fact that Gary Johnson is still WITH the Libertarian Party, unlike Bob Barr & Ron Paul, even when some of its members trash him, speaks volumes about the man.
In fairness, Barr left because he was never a libertarian to begin with, but Ron Paul left because the LP pulled the same shit with him in the 80s. Neither Johnson nor Paul are perfect, and Johnson is no Ron Paul, but both are solid libertarians who are a net plus for the liberty movement, not negatives.
I doubt Chuck can beat Gary, but I would love to see him try. Debating Lee Wrights around the country made Gary a better candidate, which he acknowledged. I think Chuck would serve a similar role very well. I really hope he convinces Gary about the “fair” tax and a number of other issues. I’ll have no problem supporting either of them in the general election, or Darryl Perry should he somehow win (which, however, seems even less likely than Chuck winning the nomination).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCKinNsuYWw
Check out this video of the ATF raiding a gun store in Oceanside, California:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCKinNsuYWw
The reason that I posted it here is because there is a police officer monitoring the situation from the sidewalk as the ATF agents conduct the raid. I don’t know if this is a city cop, or a county cop, but I’d assume that it is an Oceanside city cop. Oceanside is in Orange County, which is where Gary Johnson’s VP running mate, retired judge Jim Gray, is from. Jim Gray wrote some articles which were posted on this site several months ago where he said that Libertarians should admire, respect, and thank the police. These statements made myself and several other Libertarians sick to our stomachs.
Watch the video, and you will see this disgusting anti-American pig of a cop standing guard as the ATF jackbooted thugs violate the 4th and 2nd amendments by breaking into this gun store. The piece of crap with a badge then pesters some real Americans who are video recording this anti-American activity from the ATF goons about jay walking. Can you believe the NERVE of this walking turd with a shiny badge and a blue uniform? This fascist pig ought to immediately be fired and put on trial for collaborating with the gross violations of the Bill Of Rights being committed right in front of him by the ATF agents. Everyone who participated in this raid ought to be sentenced to prison for a long time.
Now I’ve got to ask, is kissing up to police officers a part of redefining the Liberty Movement? If it is, I want no part of it.
I know that I keep harping on the issue of Gray saying that Libertarians should admire, respect, and thank the police, but come on, the situation with the police in this country is so bad that it deserves to be harped on, because any Libertarian who thinks that people should thank the police sounds hopelessly out of touch, or like a person who is not really a libertarian.
Jim Gray seems like a nice fellow, but kissing up to the police like that just rubs me the wrong way.
@Steven: “Johnson couldn?t even win New Mexico, and he was the governor there for eight years.”
It’s not realistic to expect a candidate to win a state, even their home state, unless …
The only way an LP candidate wins any state is if the candidate focuses a lot of energy (and money) on that state. I proposed this as a strategy some time ago. Winning a state is possible and could have serious implications in a presidential race (due to the electoral college).
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/11/2016-and-the-one-state-strategy-a-what-if-scenario/
As I recall, it was not well received. But you can read the comments for yourself.
@Andy: “how about Warren Redlich for President?”
Thanks for the compliment. Not yet. Maybe 2024.
“Was it a perfect campaign? Absolutely not. Was it better than anything the LP has put together in the past 30 years? Absolutely!
In what sense was it “better?”
It seems to me that there’s a baseline that has to be established before any comparisons could be made.
That baseline would be obvious if people were suggesting that the LP should nominate Charles Manson or Pol Pot — “hmm … let’s not nominate a monster, even if it would get us lots of publicity and lots of votes.”
The baseline is less obvious when the candidate might get more publicity and more votes than usual, but just really isn’t very libertarian (advocate of an even worse tax system than the current one, coupled with a universal government welfare entitlement) and doesn’t represent the LP very well on one of its alleged core values, “fiscal responsibility” (runs one campaign into six-figure debt, asks the LP to help him get a welfare check, then runs a SECOND campaign into six-figure debt).
Less obvious, but still there.
Johnson would have been a bad pick even if he’d racked up 10 million votes because his conduct reflects poorly on the LP and his positions don’t match the LP’s. The Republicans could probably get lots of votes by nominating Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, but they wouldn’t do that because she’s not a Republican. The LP wants to be a “real political party.” Real political parties run their own fucking candidates instead of other parties’ retreads.
Convention goers must be a filter to this kind of candidate. Just because someone has money and name recognition doesn’t equate a victory. Johnson couldn’t even win New Mexico, and he was the governor there for eight years.
If the conventions don’t clean them off, then this is the kind of other party reject welcome to the LP candidates we are going to get.
Marijuana reform is happening with a democrat in office. The fair tax is not going to be a big enough selling point any more. Rand Paul is revving up the war machine against Putin and Polls suggest that every Elephant running against Clinton is wasting their time.
I soured on Johnson quickly in 2012. I respected his actions in the state party conventions, but his attempts to water down the Libertarian message of individual sovereignty for the sake of X is deplorable. Regardless of the end players in 2016, convention goers can’t just give in to the flavor of the month.
The only way to modify behavior is to do it. No more theoretical rejects at the conventions.
Are you guys all doing drugs or something?
Redefining the Liberty Movement is the slogan of the OAI — Johnson’s group that seems to be laying the groundwork for a possible 2016 bid. The liberty movement DOES need to be redefined — because right now all it means to most people is Ron Paul and conservative Republican tea partiers. It needs to be redefined as LIBERTARIAN not CONSERVATIVE.
Johnson’s campaign didn’t produce enough? He got more votes than any previous LP nominee. He brought the party more credibility than it’s had in history. He and his running mate spent the last few weeks barnstorming college campuses.
He traveled all over the country with a few assistants setting up and speaking to tiny audiences at event after event… a strategy I hope he redefines for 2016.
Not enough advertising? Well, the campaign had a Super PAC kicking more than a million dollars into national cable television buys. I actually saw Johnson ads on TV. Never saw a Barr ad. Or a Badnarik ad.
The Libertarian Party should PRAY he decides to run again in 2016. Was it a perfect campaign? Absolutely not. Was it better than anything the LP has put together in the past 30 years? Absolutely!
I received a note this week from this group asking if I had interest/suggestions for the honorary board, but I finally decided not to respond. I don’t really have time to keep an eye on what any other organization will do, and I guess I don’t trust this Gary Johnson much. I don’t have tremendously bad feelings about him like I did with Root and Barr, but I hope we have better and new candidates for 2016. I could support Darryl Perry, I think.
Nicholas Sarwark said: “Johnson opponents need to line up someone better, not just throw stones.”
Nicholas is right about this. Those of us who’d like to see an LP candidate for President that is better than Gary Johnson need to recruit somebody, or run ourselves and show the majority of LP delegates that we can run a better campaign.
Off the top of my head, here are 3 people that I’d like to see run for the LP Presidential nomination in 2016:
Andrew Napolitano
Glenn Jacobs (if he can legally run for President; I believe that he was born on a US Air Force base in Spain (his father was in the Air Force))
Chris Rufer
I don’t know if any of these individuals are interested in running for the nomination, but from what I’ve heard, I doubt that they are.
Who else is out there that could run? I’d do it if I were rich. If I had put a bunch of money into Bitcoins back in 2011 when I first heard about it I’d be worth hundreds of millions of dollars right now. I’d make alternative currencies and jury nullification major talking points in my campaign.
I know that there are some kick ass Libertarian Party and small “l” libertarian activists around the country, many of whom are not famous or rich, who have the potential to make good candidates for President. The problem is that none of them are stepping up to run.
Since Warren brought this up by writing this article, this begs the question, how about Warren Redlich for President?
Johnson has a lot of balls. He seems to want to re-define the liberty movement as shills for a new 30% national sales tax. No thanks.
Given his excuse in 2012 of not having enough time when he was asked if he had read various libertarian books, Cato policy papers, and Austrian economics primers, it will be interesting to see if he tries to trot out that song and dance again in 2016 after 3 years of downtime.
If he hasn’t learned anything since 2012, not only will I not support him, but I will VERY actively oppose him. Will he continue to shill for a big new tax? Will he continue to throw donor money away on overpriced consultants instead of running a fiscally disciplined campaign? Will he continue to flounder around in interviews as a repetitive affable jock rather than providing solid, on-point, libertarian solutions to cut government from libertarian think tanks, economics, and the vast libertarian literature? If the answer to any of those questions is “yes”, I will support a strong opposition candidate — or in the absence of one I will seek the Libertarian Party nomination for President myself (I just turned 35). Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Warren Redlich said: “Johnson is plying libertarians with empty words. There is no need to redefine the liberty movement. There is zero substance behind the words.”
I recall Wayne Root making a similar statement about wanting to redefine libertarianism.
“David March 20, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Johnson was certainly more libertarian than Bob Barr.”
Wow, talk about setting the bar (pun intended) really low.
“Joe Wendt March 20, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Anybody But Johnson-Gray for the 2016 Nomination!!! Hopefully, Darryl will win!!”
Darryl Perry seems like a good fellow, but unless he seriously steps up his game, he’s got little to no chance of winning the Libertarian Party nomination for President.
I like Gary Johnson. He was not my first choice for the 2012 nomination, but I was happy to support him once he won. He has some baggage and some negatives, but those were not sufficient to have me withhold my support.
In 2016, if a better candidate for the nomination emerges, I’ll support him or her. If not, and Mr. Johnson seeks the nomination again, I’ll support him.
Politics is not beanbag and it’s the art of the possible, not the perfect. “Anybody but ____” campaigns very seldom work; Johnson opponents need to line up someone better, not just throw stones.
Johnson was certainly more libertarian than Bob Barr. Both were nice guys. Johnson had spoken at our national convention in 2002 I believe and gave a good speech. So do we want voters to notice our candidates and vote or do we want pure Libertarian candidates who get 300,000 votes. The Johnson campaign was at least one campaign where the states had yard signs and bumper stickers, but I wish we had more media advertising, either on radio or maybe cable TV. Cable is much less expensive then over the air broadcast. With our ballot access record we’ll continue to see people look into our ballot line. We must be at 31 states and counting?
The LP and its supporters brought this on themselves. Every single year they leave the door open for carpet baggers. If they change or alter the message so be it. Johnson had issues with his debt from the RP run and the Libertarians let it go. Nobody cared when it was discovered that he spent more money on “labor” rather than message during his campaign. His 1% was expensive and we are still paying for it.
Until integrity is expected by all who attend the convention, candidates like Johnson will make themselves comfortable at our table.
He and Bob Barr are now the standard for the LP. You don’t grow the LP, you use it to your own end. No reason to expect 2016 to be different. The LNC can’t even tell the difference between a office and a building. Neither can the donors.
Cheers.
Anybody But Johnson-Gray for the 2016 Nomination!!! Hopefully, Darryl will win!!