Interview: Reform Party Secretary explains why Rocky De La Fuente was chosen as the party’s nominee

Roque_De_La_Fuente

Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente

Originally published at American Third Party Report:

Exclusive, follow-up interview for American Third Party Report with Nicholas Hensley (earlier today, the Reform Party announced Roque De La Fuente as its presidential nominee):

In early July Reform Party Secretary Nicholas Hensley sat down for an interview with American Third Party Report. At the time, the Reform Party was preparing for its 2016 convention in Bohemia, New York. Since the convention concluded, Mr. Hensley has agreed to answer several follow up questions by email.

Question: The Reform Party chose Roque de la Fuente as its presidential candidate. Can you tell us why that decision was made, and how it came to be?

Answer: Turn out for minor party conventions are motivated by two factors. The first factor is a competitive presidential nomination. Up until two or three weeks before the convention, we had two candidates. We were sure of the final outcome.

The second factor is internal contention over office elections, platform planks, and bylaws. We knew how those votes were going to fall, and no one wished to contest the likely outcomes. These factors created a foreseeable low turnout convention.

About two or three weeks before the election, in a three day time span, Roque de la Fuente and Darcy Richardson announced their intentions to run. I wish those announcements happened six months ago, so we had more time to vet the campaigns, and learn more about them.

Both of the candidates were formidable, and both had great things going for them. This means we had to weigh the pro’s and con’s of the four candidates. Look at numerous factors, and figure out which candidate was the best fit.

Darcy Richardson and Ken Cross were the two safe choices. Both of them were going to have little exposure, run on the pre-existing Reform Party lines, and circle the wagons. We knew them as people, and understood the risks surrounding them.  These were two “defensive investments”.

Both Lynn Kahn and Roque de la Fuente came with more risk. They were both new to the Reform Party, but were qualifying on more ballots. This created a risk versus reward scenario, and we had to weigh those measures. Due to these unknown risks and rewards, specifically on Roque de la Fuente’s side, we needed more time for research.

Of course Roque de la Fuente won out. Roque and the Reform Party were in agreement on ninety percent of the platform issues. Roque had deeper pockets and better fundraising abilities. He had more exposure, and he was able to assemble over twenty ballot lines. He also had a campaign staff, and better organizational structure. All of these were factors in the decision.

Q: Where does the Reform Party go from here?

A: The Reform Party is hitting the campaign trail. The most important goal in any election is to talk to as many people as we can, and recruit more members. To do that, we need to quickly assemble ground teams to conduct outreach, and connect with voters at the grassroots level. We need to talk to as many people as we can, shake as many hands as we can, purchase advertising, engage local media, fundraise and distribute content. Our campaign is going to be basic retail politics 101.

Q: What does the Reform Party hope to accomplish in this election?

A: The primary goal of any presidential campaign is to win the Whitehouse. Realistically, if we cannot win, then we need to use the campaign to sure up the party. We need to use the campaign as a vehicle to spread the Reform Party message, engage with voters, and recruit new membership. Success for this campaign will hinge on how well it benefits the organization, and the long term impact on the party.

Q: Realistically how competitive will the Reform Party be against Trump and Hillary?

A: The Reform Party is one of only a few national parties that is recognized by the FEC, and eligible for matching funds. Theoretically, if we can get our fundraising network to produce, there is a chance we receive matching funds and that would open the door for a Reform Party victory. If we can get our matching funds back, the Reform Party could stand up to the Democrats and Republicans, so members please donate.

Q: Why should Americans vote for Roque de la Fuente?

A: Roque de la Fuente is a political newcomer. Unlike veteran politicians, he is not bought and paid for by the special interests. He is free to make up his own mind, and support reforms without worrying about being ousted by the moneyed interests that buy politicians their offices.

As a third party candidate, Roque de la Fuente understands that the electoral system is stacked against non-establishment contenders. With a seat at the table, Roque will champion reforms to open the ballot, champion campaign finance reform, end gerrymandering and stop the practices that stack elections towards the establishment. At the same time, he will take away the special privileges establishment politicians gave themselves.

As an entrepreneur he has succeeded through hard work and determination. He faced the challenges that many business owners face, and understands what it’s like to compete in the international market and the barriers that hinder competition. At the same time, his success taught him how to read the market and adapt to changes in the economic climate.

Roque de la Fuente will stand up to middle and working class Americans. Due to his years in business, he understands how trade deals and other factors have hindered the manufacturing base in American, and how to bring industrial jobs back to the United States from overseas. He understands that rebuilding America’s industry, and how bringing back higher paying industrial jobs, is the first step towards rebuilding wealth equality across the country.

47 thoughts on “Interview: Reform Party Secretary explains why Rocky De La Fuente was chosen as the party’s nominee

  1. langa

    Looks like the RP is continuing its series of “one night stand” presidential nominations. I highly doubt De La Fuente will have much use for the Party past this election, especially once he sees the paltry vote total his millions will buy him. Too bad. I would have enjoyed seeing what Darcy Richardson and Thomas Kanpp could have done with the RP line.

  2. Thomas Knapp

    Thanks, langa.

    My toes are still tapping. Darcy ran because he was asked to, and I ran because Darcy asked me to.

    I considered it highly unlikely that we would be the nominees and wasn’t too worried about it until the Party’s convention delegates pulled that weird stunt where they just decided to wait an extra nine days, during the last 100 days of the election cycle, to make their decision.

    THAT is when I got interested, and frankly a little peeved. So I went out and reached more than 1.2 million people about Darcy’s campaign for less than $50 just to demonstrate to the Reform Party that that it could be done.

    When the NEXT deadline came for announcing a decision and it didn’t happen, my interest began to transmute into relief that I was almost certainly not going to have to spend the next three months trying to rebuild a party that’s obviously not even a little bit interested in rebuilding. That relief was complete by the time, nearly a day after the SECOND deadline, I learned that Mr. Fuente had been selected.

    I wish Mr. Fuente and his running mate the best of luck,

  3. robert capozzi

    tk, I applaud your magnanimity.

    Are you wishing the J/W ticket the best of luck as well?

  4. Thomas Knapp

    Robert,

    Sort of.

    I’ve actually been thinking over the last day or so that I might even end up voting for Johnson if the LNC does the right thing — and scores a gigantic public relations coup — by removing Weld from the ticket.

    Here’s the difference between Fuente/? and Johnson/Weld:

    Fuente/? will have almost no effect on the future prospects of the Libertarian Party, and what effect they do have will be positive (another four years of the Reform Party not having its sh*t together means another four years in which the LP doesn’t have to worry about competition from that quarter).

    Johnson/Weld have already had, and will continue to have, a significant effect on the future prospects of the Libertarian Party.

    Therefore I’m not going to be quite as free and easy with my well-wishing. But there’s certainly time to turn this thing around and possibly make the Johnson campaign into at least a mild positive for the future of the LP.

  5. robert capozzi

    tk: if the LNC does the right thing — and scores a gigantic public relations coup — by removing Weld from the ticket.

    me: Coup? In what sense?

    NAPsters might applaud this, as vindication of some sort.

    But I would say that as much as 40% of the reason TeamGuv has gotten as much traction as it has is because of WW. He lends gravitas and credibility, directly and indirectly.

    If the Politburo removes him, walk us through how that’s a positive? Who would they tap?

  6. Thomas Knapp

    “If the Politburo removes him, walk us through how that’s a positive? Who would they tap?”

    The millions of American gun owners the LP has been courting for nearly 50 years, who in this year of all years might FINALLY be inclined to vote Libertarian — after decades of saying “yeah, they’re the most pro-gun-rights party, but they can’t WIN” — if William Weld wasn’t out there babbling at every opportunity about his opposition to gun rights and to due process for gun owners, while also displaying possibly the most astounding level of technical incompetence in talking about his subject that I’ve ever seen from anyone older than three.

    The eyes of voters are on the LP’s presidential ticket more than ever before. And ESPECIALLY more so on the VP candidate than ever before. In past years, even if the presidential candidate built a little bit of name recognition, 99.x% of Americans couldn’t have named the VP candidate … in most cases, thank God. This year, it’s likely that at least 10-15% as many Americans know Weld is our VP candidate as know Johnson is our presidential candidate. And a lot of Americans know Johnson is our candidate.

    If the LNC actually removed Weld for running balls-out, 180 degrees against the Libertarian Party’s platform on a key issue where neither major party candidate is very good this year and where the LP’s presidential candidate is viable, it would get:

    1) Attention from voters; and

    2) Positive attention from 100 million plus gun owners, many of who vote, and quite a few of who give VERY heavy weight to that particular issue when voting.

    As far as credibility and gravitas are concerned, I’ve seen three things from Weld since the nomination:

    1) Bizarre anti-gun-rights, anti-due-process rights, pro-militarism, etc. jabberwocky;
    2) Promises that his vaunted fundraising prowess will eventuate Real Soon Now; and
    3) Excuses as to why it hasn’t yet.

    When it comes to credibility and gravitas, William Weld makes 2004 Libertarian VP nominee Richard Campagna — who also boasted of big money that never came in, and who also babbled weird shit (he claimed Gandhi had endorsed him) — look like George Fucking Washington.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    TK, it is not impossible that removing WW for plumbline violations might play positively, but my guess is even the Poli-buro won’t see it that way. GJ most likely won’t, either.

    I note that not all gun owners take extremist positions on guns, as most NAPSTERS do. WW, and GJ for that matter, have several positions that violate the letter and spirit of the LP’s platform, especially if read from a NAP context.

    A move to remove either or both candidates would either fail, or cause the other to resign.

    If the LNC wants, it should comment on DJT’s 2A statement yesterday about HRC. Condemn DJT for be-smirchng law abiding gun owners for even hinting at assassination.

    There they could also reiterate the platform on gun rights and, if necessary, murder incitement.

  8. Thomas Knapp

    “it is not impossible that removing WW for plumbline violations might play positively”

    Different subject, in which I’m completely disinterested.

    Weld’s statements on guns aren’t “plumbline violations,” they are fascist poppycock, not only in complete and unambiguous contradiction to the party’s platform but also so far outside American mainstream opinion as to be severely damaging to any party which harbors a candidate supporting their content.

    Usually I can find someone to defend anything that comes of out Johnson’s or Weld’s yaps. If Johnson got caught kicking an unconscious black lesbian in the head in an alley after stealing her purse, Anthony Dlugos and Andy Craig would be on scene in moments to explain why there was nothing to see there.

    I have yet to run into a single person, in the party or out, who has heard or read Weld’s statements on guns and has had anything to say about them that didn’t include the word “idiot.”

  9. langa

    If the LNC wants, it should comment on DJT’s 2A statement yesterday about HRC. Condemn DJT for be-smirchng law abiding gun owners for even hinting at assassination.

    Of course, Hillary herself has done a lot more than hint at assassinations. She has openly called for them, and then cheered when such killings have been carried out. But of course, she’s a “noble public servant” and “a good kid” according to the LP ticket. I suppose that gives them “gravitas” and “credibility.”

  10. Joshua K.

    What was Bill Weld saying about gun rights *before* he received the LP nomination for VP? Was he saying the same kinds of things before? (This is a genuine question.)

  11. Thomas Knapp

    Joshua,

    It’s a good question.

    As governor of Massachusetts, he was anti-gun and pushed for and signed an “assault weapons ban” bill.

    When he was announced as Johnson’s running mate, that was one of the first things he was asked about, and he said that he had re-thought the issue since then and had changed and was on board with the LP on guns.

    Then he went on CNN the next day and said he still thought exactly the same thing he thought back then and that he supported regulation of guns.

    Then he came to the national convention and assured us that he really was a Libertarian now — he’d actually read the platform even!

    Then as soon as he was nominated he went right back out and started talking authoritarian nonsense about guns again.

    That’s really on us, not on him. We knew he was a lying sack of shit long before he ran for our VP nomination. We had watched him lie to and screw over the New York LP in 2006.

    But Gary whined and moaned and pleaded and rolled around on the floor threatening to hold his breath until he turned blue, and finally 50.5% of the delegates gave him what he wanted, which was Weld.

    Our fault, not Weld’s. But it’s a mistake the LNC can correct.

  12. robert capozzi

    tk, the terms “idiot” and “William Weld” don’t associate with me. I actually sat down with him some years ago for an hour, and that experience — plus all I’ve read and seen of him — suggest quite the opposite. He’s an extraordinary intellect.

    Does he take positions I disagree with? Yup.

    Is he perhaps not up on firearms technical specs? Possibly, but I’m the wrong person to ask, since I’ve never fired one (though I did own one for many years).

    Does he take an extreme interpretation of 2A? I’ll take your word for it that he doesn’t.

    Is he a lessarchist? I’d say most assuredly.

    I hope your second call to fire one or both of the nominees fails. If you are successful, that’s OK, I just won’t vote, saving an hour of my day in November.

  13. robert capozzi

    L: Hillary herself has done a lot more than hint at assassinations. She has openly called for them, and then cheered when such killings have been carried out.

    me: I think you’ve not included the punchline. Are you saying that DJT’s hint at assassinating HRC is justified?

    Or, perhaps, are you suggesting the LNC take her to task AS WELL as taking DJT to task.

    I’m not sure which assassinations you are referring to…did she call for taking out Mitch McConnell? Paul Ryan? Or, maybe, Osama and Gaddafi?

  14. Thomas Knapp

    “I hope your second call to fire one or both of the nominees fails.”

    I guess if I make a second call to fire one or both of the nominees, we’ll see if it fails. This is the first.

  15. robert capozzi

    tk, sorry, my bad. I could have sworn you suggested a similar thing a few weeks ago, and that NS said it was not on the agenda.

  16. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    A few weeks ago I asked if the LNC intended to act. That is exactly what I did and that is all that I did.

    Asking you if you plan to go out for ice cream is not calling for you to go out for ice cream.

    In this particular case, I could plausibly be construed as “calling for” the removal of Weld since I’ve said that removing him might modify my own actions in a way favorable to the LP. But one vote is pretty small beans, and I don’t have any plans to e.g. start a petition or anything like that. I was just offering unsolicited — but very, very good — advice.

  17. Be Rational

    Removing Weld from the ticket would quite possibly bring the resignation of Johnson as well.

    It would be a fun experiment in an alternate universe. The result I would expect would be ridicule, a rapid mass exodus of membership back to 1974 levels and the decline over the next two cycles of the LP down to the current size and status of the Prohibition Party.

  18. robert capozzi

    tk, thanks for clarifying.

    You are an excellent politician! 😉 Your explanation rivals for me Clinton’s “what your definition of is is?” Which, btw, from where I sit a very valid question!!!

    Your “asked if” inquiry feels a bit passive-aggressive to me, though, particularly given your general tendency toward steely-eyed straightforwardness.

  19. robert capozzi

    BR, if I understand NAPsterism, while MORE NAPsters is preferable to less, the main thing is maintaining consistency in applying the NAP to all things. An LP of 1000 committed NAPster cadre is better than 100 million namby-pamby, pusillanimous lessarchists.

  20. George Dance

    I really don’t know if the LNC has authority to remove either of the elected candidates. I vaguely remember the brouhaha when Bob Barr suggested replacing Wayne Root with Ron Paul as his running mate (with Root’s agreement). A petition was immediately drawn up charging Barr with violating the LP Constitution and Bylaws, on the grounds that they give the LNC no such authority to remove an elected candidate. (OTOH, the remedy the petitioners proposed was to have the LNC drop Barr from the ticket; go figure!)

  21. Thomas Knapp

    George,

    “I really don’t know if the LNC has authority to remove either of the elected candidates”

    The bylaws specifically empower the LNC to remove either or both candidates. IIRC, the required vote for removal is 3/4 of the entire LNC.

    “Your ‘asked if’ inquiry feels a bit passive-aggressive to me, though, particularly given your general tendency toward steely-eyed straightforwardness.”

    To the extent that the latter tendency exists, “asked if” was an expression of it.

    If my goal had been to get the LNC to remove Johnson, I would have just said so, while publicly trying to rally support in the party for that measure and privately lobbying LNC members to vote for removal.

    My goal in asking a question was to get an answer to the question, nothing more, nothing less. And once I got an answer, I moved on to other things.

  22. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    TK, it is not impossible that removing WW for plumbline violations might play positively,

    You do great damage to your credibility when you continuously engage is doublespeak like that. The readers here are smart enough to see through your manipulative linguistic gymnastics. I — and others I’m sure — pay less attention to your other comments when we see self-serving lies in this comment.

    There is a mountain of difference between a “plumbline violation” and saying something authoritarian — the exact opposite of libertarian under any conceivable definition from anarcho-capitalist to lessarchist to moderate. Stop portraying the latter as the former.

    I hope eventually you will use words like the rest of the world uses them rather than creating your own linguistic bubble and trying to impose it on the rest of the world. It’s quite childish.

  23. robert capozzi

    cm: There is a mountain of difference between a “plumbline violation” and saying something authoritarian — the exact opposite of libertarian under any conceivable definition from anarcho-capitalist to lessarchist to moderate. Stop portraying the latter as the former.

    me: Thanks for the feedback. Actually, my perspective is more subtle than it appears to come across. I look at the totality of a candidate’s positions, and I determine whether someone is supportable or not, an almost entirely subjective/intuitive process. I am willing to overlook individual issues where I believe the candidate is pointing in a harmful direction. There may be some issues where I MIGHT oppose or not support a candidate if I find the issue pronouncedly wrong-minded. GJ’s burqa ban was such an issue, which he thankfully quickly walked back.

    From what I’ve seen from WW on firearms, nothing that he says especially troubles me. As I’ve suggested previously, I am open to banning certain weapons as being unprotected by 2A. And I take what I think is both unique and workable framework for the bearing of arms in public places.

    For TK, perhaps WW’s positions on firearms is like burqa bans were for me. But, as you know, I generally find that deontological NAPsterism lends itself to hairtrigger disqualification based on Rothbardian KL (Korrect Line)/Blockian plumbline reasoning. I submit the approach does not work, and easily descends into a circular firing squad.

    Part of me WANTS TK to be successful, as I believe the Founders of the LP so thoroughly booby-trapped the party that it is almost entirely useless as a political vehicle. OTOH, J/W are doing — overall — a great job promoting lessarchism, so I’d hate to see that effort derailed. In fact, I just donated to the effort, which is saying A LOT, since I almost never donate to political causes.

    Of course, had GJ stuck with the burqa ban and still got the nomination, I’d just sit the vote out. TK takes things further, agitating now for WW’s firing from the ticket.

    I have tremendous respect for TK, but I find this move very puzzling and destructive. Then again, he was until recently a candidate for the Reform Party’s VP slot, so to put it kindly, he’s by all indications a high-beta activist.

  24. robert capozzi

    tk, you are welcome.

    I’m definitely with you on the no-fly/due process issue. Wrong-minded of WW, I dare say.

    I really have no position on which weapons should have 2A protections. I am OK with banning machine guns and WMD is about as far as I go until I research the matter further, if I ever feel the need to do so. By all indications, “assault weapons” are in a machine-gun direction, so I am not uneasy with WW’s position here.

    Still, even the no-fly call is not a non-starter for me.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    “By all indications, ‘assault weapons’ are in a machine-gun direction, so I am not uneasy with WW’s position here.”

    As no less a personage than Gary Johnson pointed out on CNN last week, what gun-grabbers and gun-hating media refer to as “assault weapons” are semi-automatic rifles of a variety that have been around for 120-odd years, of which 30 million or so are already in Americans’ hands, he ones called “assault weapons” being the ones that look mean and scary and military. They’re used in something like 1/2 of 1 percent of crimes in which guns of any type are used.

    Aside from being thoroughly authoritarian on gun issues, Weld is also dumb as a sack of hammers on guns.

  26. George Dance

    TK: “The bylaws specifically empower the LNC to remove either or both candidates. IIRC, the required vote for removal is 3/4 of the entire LNC.”

    Yes, following your reply I read that (Article 14.5). What they have no authority to do is put a substitute on the ticket.

    (Skip the rest; Tom wasn’t replying to me, as I didn’t write any of it.)

  27. George Phillies

    “… if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon
    Read more at http://thegarrisoncenter.org/archives/7078#mQDxYFvQ1fCa6AlI.99…”

    Unnh, there is a grammar problem there, but my understanding on removing the (firing) pin form a real assault rifle, the M16A1 on which I was extensively trained at some of your expense, is that if you do so it will not fire at all, let alone automatically.

  28. robert capozzi

    tk: Aside from being thoroughly authoritarian on gun issues,

    me: I see it differently. In the range of views on gun rights, I am sure there are far more authoritarian pols and citizens in the Public Square than WW. “Thoroughly” feels highly overstated to me.

    Back in the day, Rothbardians might say WW is “leaky” on the gun issue. He certainly does not hold high the banner. My guess is that GJ doesn’t hold it as high as some might prefer.

    J/W are positioning themselves as moderate centrists, which I think is sound strategy. If they were NAP-compliant, I don’t believe they would be getting 1/8th the play they are getting.

    They are also taking several non-starter positions for some…it’s very difficult not to. They are both pro-choice, for ex., although GJ at least is moderate about it. Politics involves some triangulation.

    NAP derivations might be interesting, but it is not politics, it’s political philosophizing.

  29. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    You can try to make it into “NAP” and “plumbline deviations” all you want. Nobody is buying that garbage. Weld isn’t being moderate or centrist on the issue, he’s being a tinhorn fascist scumbag on the issue. And he isn’t deviating from the platform by a comma, he is running 180 degrees against it.

  30. Robert Capozzi

    Tk, no one?

    On one issue where you don’t dispute that there are those with positions more at odds with the LP’s platform.

  31. Amused

    I look forward to the third LP-isn’t-good-enough Thomas Knapp candidacy for Vice President. Can we expect that in 2020, or we will have to wait another eight years again?

  32. robert capozzi

    tk, you said that “Nobody is buying that garbage.” Seems overstated to me. I’m pretty sure someone might agree with me, yes? WW probably does, for example.

    You want to fire WW because he has made A statement on ONE ISSUE that appears to contradict the LP’s platform, which, to be clear, I consider to be a very poor yardstick.

    If so, where is your sense of proportion? Or do you not have a sense of proportion? Do you believe that any directional violation of the platform’s stance should be grounds for dismissal as a candidate of the LP?

  33. Thomas Knapp

    “You want to fire WW”

    Yep.

    “because he has made A statement”

    Nope. Multiple statements.

    “on ONE ISSUE”

    Nope. Multiple issues.

    “that appears to contradict the LP’s platform”

    Certain assumptions are obviously called for. In this case, the assumption is that the platform is written in English rather than, say, Urdu. If that assumption is true then there’s no “appears” about it.

    “which, to be clear, I consider to be a very poor yardstick.”

    The Libertarian Party apparently doesn’t consider it to be a very poor yardstick or it wouldn’t have adopted it.

  34. robert capozzi

    tk, consider the possibility that there IS NO LP. Instead, there are Ls who attend the convention and there are probably most of those attendees who are not happy with the party Platform, but they accept it for the time being.

    It’s kinda like the crazy Uncle in the attic. We love our crazy Uncle, but we’re not so happy with his craziness, and we’re not so happy that he lives in the attic, but he is family, so we….deal.

  35. robert capozzi

    tk, it would be helpful if you could share your basis for firing a candidate. You may well not have one, I so stipulate.

    One issue? Five issues? The sense of how much the candidate espouses a position that is codified in the platform?

    What’s the TK scoring system?

  36. Thomas Knapp

    RC,

    There is no “scoring system.”

    Either at least one LNC member believes that the candidate should be suspended strongly enough to so move, and another strongly enough to second, or not.

    Either 3/4 of the Libertarian National Committee believes that the candidate should be suspended strongly enough to vote in favor of the motion, or not.

    One obvious reason to suspend a candidate is a belief that the candidate’s campaign is not being “conducted in accordance with the Platform of the Party” as is the bylaws baseline for requiring the LNC to support the campaign.

    Another might be some criminal act or act of perceived moral turpitude on the candidate’s part. The bar on that seems to historically be pretty high:

    [Andre] Marrou had most of his campaign staff resign during the summer of 1992. Many of them sought to have the Libertarian Party strip him of the nomination because he had unpaid child support, had an arrest warrant in Massachusetts for an outstanding contempt of court charge, claimed to have been married twice when it was in fact four times, was being investigated for campaign improprieties from his time in Alaska, that he was running up unpaid credit card bills in a campaign PAC’s name without their approval, and that he was habitually months late in making his house payments. The national committee decided to take no action for fear it could call attention to these issues.

    But then, things have change a bit since 1992. Back then, the sum total I saw about Marrou’s campaign was a story of a few column inches in my local newspaper mentioning that he was coming through town and thought everyone should pay for their own damn health insurance. Today, anyone can find that kind of stuff out about a candidate by typing his or her name into Google. So perhaps that should be considered vis a vis making such decisions (in both directions — how much more does that stuff hurt the party, but how much more is everyone likely to have some dirt turn up?).

    Why do I personally believe that Weld should be removed as the LP’s vice-presidential candidate? Because he’s a vocally authoritarian douchenozzle who damages the LP’s brand and makes us look like a bunch of dumbshit crapweasels every time he opens his piehole. But I assume that the bill of particulars in any LNC action on the issue will be phrased somewhat differently.

  37. langa

    Are you saying that DJT’s hint at assassinating HRC is justified?

    Nope. I’m saying two things: First, it would be incredibly hypocritical for the LP to criticize Trump for “hinting” at assassinations, when its own presidential ticket has lavishly praised a woman who has gone much further than merely “hinting” at such things. Second, Trump’s “hinting” aside, lavishing praise upon a woman with so much blood on her hands demolishes any “gravitas” or “credibility” J/W might have.

  38. langa

    I’m not sure which assassinations you are referring to…

    Even you’re not that daft. Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam, OBL, to name a few. And, of course, don’t forget her support of targeted drone strikes, which are nothing if not assassinations. They don’t call her “Killary” for nothing. The woman’s put out more hits than Al Capone.

  39. langa

    Removing Weld from the ticket would quite possibly bring the resignation of Johnson as well.

    Two birds with one stone…

  40. robert capozzi

    L: First, it would be incredibly hypocritical for the LP to criticize Trump for “hinting” at assassinations, when its own presidential ticket has lavishly praised a woman who has gone much further than merely “hinting” at such things. Second, Trump’s “hinting” aside, lavishing praise upon a woman with so much blood on her hands demolishes any “gravitas” or “credibility” J/W might have.

    me: You certainly have a very unique perspective, connecting dots and making associations that few would arrive at.

    I would think most would say that hinting at assassinating one’s opponent is far different than the taking out of OBL, Saddam, Assad, and Gaddafi. These attempts were clearly not HRC’s sole responsibility.

    J/W’s praise for HRC was far outside the context of assassinations/military actions in far off places. Rather, it was positioning.

    You make the associations you do, and the ticket rises or falls in your mind as it will. However, you might find that considering other people’s perspectives might give you more insight into the current state of affairs. J/W — from most people’s perspectives — have tremendous gravitas and credibility. If GJ had WW’s communications skills, I suspect this ticket would be getting Perot-level support.

  41. Thomas Knapp

    This is probably the first time I have had ANYTHING positive to say about Trump’s candidacy, but here goes:

    There was no “hinting about assassination.” He was clearly referring to the NRA’s ability to lobby against confirmation of anti-gun Supreme Court justices and it takes a lot of wasted energy to turn it into anything else — especially since the guy says so many godawful stupid and evil things that there’s no need to.

    As best I can tell, the entire purpose (and partial effect) of the public moaning over it is to distract attention from the latest batch of emails outing some of the corrupt relationships between the office of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and donors to her family’s foundation.

Leave a Reply

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