The following was posted by one of the candidates for LNC chair, George Phillies, in IPR comments on a thread of questions for another candidate for LNC chair, Wayne Root:
Questions for Wayne Root from Chuck Moulton
Mr. Root has not yet sent a response, although we would still welcome one.
We would also welcome additional questions readers may have specifically for Dr. Phillies and other individual candidates for LNC chair. We’ll do our best to make the candidates aware of the questions and make our readers aware of any responses we receive.
-p
A few answers.
1. As Chair, to what extent would you rely on counsel from Aaron Starr for administrative decisions of party business (staffing, executive decisions, dealing with LNC business, etc.)?
I of course welcome the input of all of our party’s members. After All, Step Zero of The New Path for the LP is ‘Listen to the Membership’. However, as Chair, I am the CEO and have shared governance with the National Committee as described in the Bylaws. You will notice that New Path recruited several MBA’s, notably Treasurer candidate James Oaksun and Secretary candidate Rob Power, so CPA-influenced bean counting will be replaced with MBA-influenced leadership.
2. During media appearances where you will be referred to as Chair of the Libertarian Party, will you be taking the positions listed in the LP platform or your own positions? If the latter, will you make clear to the audience where the Libertarian Party platform differs?
When I’m appearing as Chair, that being all the time for the next two years, I will be advancing our Party’s platform. Like every other officer, I will be elected to represent our party, our party has chosen its stands, and those are the stands I will be advocating. I intend to be mindful of the wise advice Michael Cloud gave several years ago at LPMA and LPNH state conventions: Talk to people about issues they care about. Lure them in, don’t frighten them.
3. Some have described you as the Sarah Palin of the LP in that you are great at delivering talking points, but when conversations get more substantive you sometimes do not have the deeper insights that come from scholarly study of issues (in stark contrast to Ron Paul, for example). As valedictorian of your high school class and an ivy league graduate, clearly you have the capacity to learn and convey such information. If elected Chair, will you correct this deficiency by getting in depth briefings from Cato scholars on issues of the day and teach yourself the principles and applications of free-market (Austrian) economics by studying Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard?
This question is a bit more appropriate for other people. Most of them are Republicans. So far as I can tell, Sarah Palin is a dimwit who thinks abstinence is an effective teenage birth control method, evolution is wrong, and the earth is getting colder. Palin fits in just fine in her political party, the Republican Party of Belligerent Ignorance. There are plenty of intelligent Republicans who would fit well in our party, especially after they came over to our position as social progressives, but those are a different group of people.
4. When you are acting in your personal or business capacity rather than your LP Chair capacity, what steps will you take to separate your pitches as a client for corporations from the Libertarian Party label? In other words, can you be counted on not to be referred to as the 2008 LP Vice-Presidential candidate or the LP Chair when you are producing Internet videos selling products unrelated to the LP?
I’m a college professor. My employer views involvement in civic and political activism as a positive aspect of my life. My biographies in my books, eight and counting, do sometimes mention my connections with the Libertarian Party. I give us free advertising. However, my statistical mechanics and game design books are sold on their merits in their fields.
5. Why wouldn’t it be a conflict of interest for the person elected Chair in 2010 to run for President in 2012 — even if a “leave of absence” were taken? I believe that Barr’s leave of absence as a LNC member to run for President would be fundamentally different from the Chairman and CEO of the LP taking a leave of office to run for President… why am I wrong?
I am *not* running for President in 2012. Period. Full Stop. There would be overwhelming problems with the chair running for our Presidential nomination, not only with respect to fairness issues but with respect to discharging the responsibilities of the office, and I write as a former candidate for our Presidential nomination. How can someone running for President possibly devote enough time to his prior commitment as Chair, especially in a recovery period like the one we’re in now? As far as taking a leave of absence from duties as Chair in order to run for President, that seems rather self-serving. Having said that, if one of our Presidential candidates has promised that he will run for Chair, I will respect a man who keeps his promises, but I trust our delegates will do the right thing.
6. Why should someone who has never served on the LNC be elected Chair of the LNC?
Because we’ve been trying the opposite for the last decade. Under that opposite strategy we’ve lost 60% of our membership and 75% of our real-dollar income.
7. Why is reaching out only to conservatives a good strategy when Ron Paul made his mark and raised much of his money through his opposition to the Iraq war? Given that many college students lean liberal and the young are the future of the LP and the country, why is[n’t] outreach to young liberals with free time to volunteer and potential to be lifelong LP supporters more important than outreach to old conservatives with lots of money to donate?
Reaching out to Republican conservatives is a lousy strategy. You notice Ron Paul didn’t do that. We need to reach out to people who are open to the Libertarian message. There are vast numbers of those people, they have been located with scientific polling, and the soon to be released New Path for Libertarian Revival will tell you who they are.
8. Will you be appearing on MSNBC and CNN, or just Fox News? Will you be able to effectively highlight the Libertarian Party’s liberal positions (anti-war, pro-LGBT rights, etc.) to the appropriate demographics?
I’m here to build our party, not stroke my ego. My target is getting our *candidates* on news programs. When I appear, I will present the Libertarian message per our platform as a representative of our party, not as a means of campaigning for President later. You may rest assured that our new outreach efforts will be targetting plausible recruits to our party, these being people who tend to be young, entrepreneurial, socially progressive, fiscally prudent, and opposed to Federal foreign intervention and fiscal profligacy.
9. Will you be firing Wes Benedict as Executive Director if elected Chair? If so, with whom will you replace him?
Based on what I currently know, I have absolutely no cause or reason to fire Wes, who appears to have made significant steps toward fixing our party. If Wes were to choose to leave, which I would regret, the New Path team would handle his core responsibilities while we found a replacement.
10. (Religion) As I have said on several prior occasions, I make a point of not discussing my personal religious beliefs. With respect to our country, the upper house of the Federal Legislature is called the Senate, because American law is founded on Graeco-Roman political thought.
11. “Why did the LP grow from zero to 10,000 members in its first twenty years and essentially stagnate in the next twenty? And what, specifically, are you and your team going to do to start growing it again?”
We grew from zero to 33,000 members in not quite thirty years, and then spent the next decade marching backward. We want to put the party back on the growth track it left in 1998-2000. Our plan to do this will appear soon on NewPathForTheLP.org. Remember, it’s a real plan, something we modify and improve as we see which parts of it work better.
bh: Hardcore libertarians are supposed to believe that the only preferences that count are those that are revealed by one’s actions.
me: I’m not exactly sure what “hardcore” is, but preferences AND CIRCUMSTANCES change over time. And I’m not sure what you mean by “count,” since not all of us are keeping score…I’m surely not.
Preferences may or may not be revealed by action, since intention is a non-material matter. People often act impulsively, so I’d certainly not want to assume that preferences necessarily reveal intention, in the moment or over the long term.
Yes, actions do tend to speak louder than words, since action can be seen in three dimensions, while words are only heard or read. I suspect most would report that their actions are more filtered than thoughts, so they may indicate a better sense of one’s right-minded intention, but it’s hardly a perfect proxy.
“I’ve never heard that Root used to attend GOP events or fundraisers.”
Then you weren’t paying attention in 2007-2008 when he bragged about attending Bush White House events and posted pictures of himself with Karl Rove, et. al.
Hardcore libertarians are supposed to believe that the only preferences that count are those that are revealed by one’s actions.
I agree. Root’s actions of giving $1,000 to Lieberman and only $200 to Kennedy reveal a preference that counts.
In calculating “degree of support”, we shouldn’t omit Root’s own out-of-pocket travel/lodging expenses as he travels the nation to LP events. I’ve never heard that Root used to attend GOP events or fundraisers.
I don’t worry about what secret reservations about libertarianism Root might have that only a mind-reader might detect. Hardcore libertarians are supposed to believe that the only preferences that count are those that are revealed by one’s actions.
Nor do I worry about Root using/exploiting the LP. As a libertarian, I believe that voluntary cooperation is positive-sum. I leave it to the Marxists to claim that any benefit to one transactor is proof that the other transactor is being exploited.
What I find interesting about it is that Root gives $2,500 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2004, but only gives $1,000 to the LNC in 2007 and $213 to the Nevada LP in 2009.
It is the degree of support that makes it interesting. Also, Root gives $1,000-2000 to Lieberman, Ensign and Weller, but only $200 to Joseph Kennedy. Note that Schiff, a libertarian leaning Republican gets $500. Does Root use a sliding scale where the less statist a candidate is, the less the contribution is?
Even if I buy that Root has evolved, using his contributions as a quantitative measure of support, I wonder what his degree of support for libertarianism actually is.
Root’s penchant for hyperbole and being careless with facts makes it even less clear what Root’s agenda is. Every savvy consumer knows that it is buyer beware when it comes to super-salesmen – you can’t take much of what they say at face value.
@27, what’s interesting about that? It’s no secret that Root was a pro-war Republican in 2006 and earlier.
The donations you list since 2007 are to Libertarians and one libertarian Republican (Schiff).
What am I missing?
Root Quote,
While the “Root quote” is funny, it was very obviously a typo, one slip in a frenzy of posting.
Worth having some fun with (and I did so myself), and hell, maybe even a Freudian slip, but it’s not like he got busted breaking into the Watergate or something.
Root’s political donations from opensecrets.org are interesting:
2/12/04 $500 National Republican Congressional Cmte
7/7/04 $2,500 National Republican Senatorial Cmte
6/22/06 $2,000 Weller, Jerry (R)
10/6/06 $1,000 Lieberman, Joe (I)
10/17/06 $1,000 Ensign, John (R)
1/30/07 $1,000 Libertarian National Cmte
1/18/09 $213 Libertarian Party of Nevada
7/14/09 $500 Schiff, Peter (R)
12/25/09 $200 Kennedy, Joseph L (I)
Wayne will recruit LP Members from any receptive audience.
I’m wondering when Wayne will start recruiting these LP members. He’s been on the road promoting his book since last summer and there hasn’t been any explosion of new members, has there?
If he is recruiting new members, what sort of members are they? Are they Savage Nation listeners who think Mexicans are destroying out culture? Are they Zionist extremists that think we must nuke Iran immediately? Are they tea baggers who think America should maintain a military empire? Are they big government Republicans who want more and more tax cuts with no corresponding spending cuts? Are they Joe Lieberman Democrats?
Facebook. David Nolan’s wall. Apparently yesterday at 10:22 pm, although I’m not sure how FB handles time zones. I’m in the west coast so adjust your watch accordingly.
Told ya so, told ya so!
And Doctor Ronald Paul, MD, is an anti abortionist medical practitioner ………..
And Doctor George Phillips, PhD, claims that the Libs are the only 21st Century Peace party ………
And California LP agent provocateur Bruce Cohen claims that he and other libertarians are NOT open borders ………….
Unity, consistency, logic ?????????
Root quote – when and where?
“The key John is…I get on TV and radio again and again. And I get asked back every week by hosts all across the country. Last I checked thats a great achievement…and a very positive step for GOP”
Made just a few days ago.
Paulie,
Good enough. I’m going to paste URLs rather than linking, so that spam traps don’t bust them.
Here’s the Form 15 filed on 10/28/09 by W Technologies:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/924396/000144586609000141/form15-2g.htm
Here’s the evidence substantiating Root’s endorsement of McCain-Lieberman, and embedded video of him denying it later:
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/04/those-who-try-to-rewrite-history.html
As far as the Better Business Bureau matter is concerned, that’s problematic for the following reasons:
1) The venue where Root’s rebuttal and my dismantling of his rebuttal, Third Party Watch, no longer exists (thirdpartywatch.com redirects to a link farm.
2) The owners of Third Party Watch set their robots.txt file to keep archive.org’s “Wayback Machine” from keeping an archive of the site.
3) The Better Business Bureau maintains records on a rolling basis. Even if Winning Edge was still a BBB member (it isn’t, and is listed at the BBB as out of business), the data would vary from that I initially analyzed. Here’s where that data used to be:
http://www.vegasbbb.org/bbb_rated_acc_rpt.asp?bbbid=63664&tr=NR&lg=NR&ex=3
The original piece in which I mentioned his Better Business Bureau record is here:
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/02/down-and-dirty-on-wayne-root.html
But the more in-depth analysis took place in comments at Third Party Watch, and basically either people remember it and/or believe me, or they don’t.
In comments on my original article as re-posted at TPW, I compared his BBB ratings with other handicappers’ (he didn’t fare well) and other tele-marketing/infomercial type business (he didn’t fare well there, either).
In his rebuttal, he rattled off a list of companies (including, IIRC, Microsoft and Mercedes) as companies which would surely have more complaints pro rata than he did. So, I ran their records and discusssed them in THOSE comments. In actuality, not only did his company have more complaints per customer than the companies he mentioned, it had more complaints, period, despite his business’s much smaller size. It also had a much higher percentage of unresolved complaints.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
@18 I couldn’t agree more. Sniping at particular candidates because you do not like them is not informative, and makes the sniper look petty.
And somewhat off topic, I found this article on the differences between conservatives and libertarians, from a conservative’s perspective, to be interesting reading:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/201004219682/editorial/beck-should-probe-the-progressive-libertarians.html
It didn’t have much of an alt-party angle, although it did mention the LP’s 1980 VP candidate (without so identifying him).
Entertaining reading….not sure if the alt-party connection is strong enough to post it as an article here.
Tom, I know you’ve supplied the links elsewhere, but if you are going to make a coherent case it would help if you included them along with your questions. You say Wayne endorsed McCain-Lieberman. He says he only predicted that they would win for the GOP if nominated. An accusation of lying should include a link that proves that Wayne’s version of what he said was not true.
Links to the BBB complaints and SEC filings would help, as well.
I vaguely recall Wayne addressing those issues, also. Very vaguely. It may have been on TPW (RIP).
Paulie,
Hey, if you want questions for Root, I’ll offer some questions for Root.
1) Why did you endorse a John McCain-Joe Lieberman 2008 presidential ticket in 2006?
2) Why did you subsequently lie to a Libertarian Party audience in Illinois when asked about your McCain-Lieberman endorsement?
3) Given that you’ve lied to your fellow Libertarians in the past, is there reason we should believe that you’re not lying to them now?
4) Given that you’ve lied to your fellow Libertarians in the past, is there any reason we should believe that you won’t lie to us in the future?
5) Why has the company of which you are CEO (Winning Edge, now known as W Technologies), historically had a higher rate of Better Business Bureau complaints per customer, and a higher rate of such complaints unresolved to the satisfaction of either the BBB or the customer, than other enterprises which you specified for purposes of comparison?
6) At the end of your tenure as CEO of the Libertarian Party, can we expect similar results to those you produced as CEO of W Technologies (an accumulated deficit — according to the firm’s SEC “termination of securities” filing of 10/28/09 — of more than $29 million, nearly a million dollars in negative stockholder equity, and cessation of operations)?
W. A. R. ……. I speak as a Jew turned evangelical Christian in a voice that reassures the large majority of voters that they can and should be comfortable with the LP ………….
Lake: [as a non Lib with lots of liberty stripes, and some one whom has never liked W. A. R. I am very uncomfortable the anti libertarian stance of Root! Protect my spirituality by keeping religion out of secular politics!]
Sorry if put Mr. Moulton on the spot.
I wanted tough questions for Root, and there they were, and from a name that carries some weight.
I can post “Chuck Moulton’s revised and extended questions for Wayne Root,” too.
Just as Brian could post “Even more questions for Ernie Hancock” if the mood strikes him.
I’m trying to balance what Brian is doing as best I can. I acknowledge that I am not doing as good a job at it as Brian. I asked Tom, and Tom said no. Or at least not now. So, my apologies to anyone and everyone if it is not coming across as well as it should.
Brian Holtz wrote (@8):
The typical member who is familiar with antics on the LNC cares very much what sort of advice a LNC Chair will be taking.
Brian Holtz wrote (@8):
Rude but true. Some of Root’s radio appearances have taken embarrassing turns when the host gets more in depth. It’s very rare, but it happens.
Brian Holtz wrote (@8):
Yep, that was very rude. Probably out of line. It was my initial reaction to Root’s answers to your questions when he wrote the paragraph quoted below, which touts his conversion and implies only Christian libertarians can win elections. As an atheist myself, I was offended and probably overreacted.
If I had any idea that comment of mine with questions for Root would be reposted several times as IPR articles and scrutinized with a magnifying glass, I would have spent more than 15 minutes writing it, I would have slept on it giving 24 hours of contemplation before posting, and I would have phrased things more politely.
Wayne Root wrote (in 10 Questions For Libertarian Party Chair Candidate Wayne Root):
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/10-questions-for-root/
Fair enough, but I think Chuck is correct that your questions for Hancock were tougher than your questions for Root, and he does raise concerns many readers have expressed with Root, which you did not cover.
I am not trying to make the list of questions perfect.
If Wayne chooses to answer any of them, he is free to ignore others, or to criticize the questions themselves.
The answer can be anything he wants.
Or nothing.
Got even tougher questions for Hancock? The floor is open.
Good!
Ernie can get media. Ernie does get media. It would be good if Ernie was more specific about what all he has done as far as that goes rather than refer to it in passing.
John Jay, I’m pretty sure, gets local media in his race for Congress. I’m pretty sure Phillies has said his goal as chair would be to get media for LP candidates, not for himself. Hinkle may feel the same way, although I think he can do media at least about as well and frequently as Bill Redpath has, and Wayne Root can still get media if he is not the LNC chair.
Whose marching orders?
I get no marching orders, and I’m not complaining.
I’m just trying to do my best to make sure all the candidates get tough questions.
I’m sure it can be done better. But perfection is not available.
Hancock is getting some sunshine. I want it to cover the entire podium. That is all.
Please contribute questions for any and all of the candidates.
Chuck already said he doesn’t have time to do it right now. Of course, he can do it later, or you or anyone else can do so now. Let ’em fly.
Phillies is addressing them because he relishes the opportunity to make his views known. It’s a story because A) he is a candidate for chair and B) just as an extra way to try to get Wayne to maybe see if he can find a few minutes to answer as well.
I agree and that is why I said in this very post “We would also welcome additional questions readers may have specifically for Dr. Phillies and other individual candidates for LNC chair. We’ll do our best to make the candidates aware of the questions and make our readers aware of any responses we receive. ”
That means everyone, not just Chuck.
Got questions for Phillies? Hinkle? Myers?
Post them here.
Maybe we’ll get responses.
Maybe not.
We’ll try, and we’ll let you know what happens.
Wonderful to see Bruce get worked up 🙂
More than you may surmise from the number of regular commenters.
Many people read the posts but not the comments.
Others read both, but don’t comment themselves.
Happens all the time.
Make of this what you will.
I imagine he’ll be kinda busy there. And memorizing question lists, much less getting a response to all of them and having time to distribute it to the other delegates, seems like a bit of a tall order.
I don’t necessarily think Wayne is avoiding Chuck’s questions, any more than I think Ernie is necessarily avoiding Brian’s questions.
I acknowledge both men are busy. I acknowledge that major media are a higher priority than IPR. Never claimed otherwise.
Yeah, they’ll give us mic time in front of the entire convention to ask Wayne all these questions without interruption. And there will be plenty of time for delegates to assess and discuss the answers before they vote.
This isn’t the best part of your argument. Attacking the actual questions — rather than the fat that questions are being asked — is a stronger part.
Yeah, I get it, he’s busy. Not disputing that.
And yet it was not too long ago that he was quoted here making a point about how he answers all his correspondence.
He chose to run for chair. Part of that is addressing the concerns of delegates. Many delegates have concerns Chuck expresses here, or similar ones. Is it as important to address those as it is to get on FOX news again? In the overall scheme of things, no. In the matter of running for chair, maybe it is. We’ll see.
Ask him what myself? Whether we are as important as FOX News, or these questions?
If the latter, well, I did. Forwarded to him 10 days before they were first posted as an IPR post here.
If the former, see above.
Ah, finally, we are done with the preliminaries. Let’s get into the main event.
Whether Bruce wants to acknowledge it or not, “advice from Aaron Starr” has a policy-related meaning to those who are or have been on the LNC in recent years, and/or follow its activities closely. By the way, I think Karen would be better for the squad. Especially in assless chaps.
OK, excellent! Some of us were kinda wondering about that answer in Austin that we should really go after the right and ignore the left. And some other things along those lines. Sounds like Wayne is considering the response to that, and responding to some degree.
For example, in his 500 words in LP News
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/wayne-root-submits-to-lp-news-his-reasons-for-running-for-libertarian-national-committee-chair/
he/Rutherford says “We have come together to move the entire party forward. We unite Right with Left ? pair Marketing with Administration ? combine Real Life with Philosophy ? and temper Action with Discipline.”
Very good, and it addresses the concerns many of us have, but understandably, it’s a 500 word limit and there is much to say. So, further reconciliation of this with the answer given in Austin would be good.
The plus here is that Root responds to feedback/pressure. And evolves. Good. So, feedback gets results. It’s a good thing.
If Root becomes chair, we want him to be the best chair he can be.
And as such, I want him to know what some of our concerns are, even if he doesn’t have time to respond. Maybe think about them and adjust his approach a bit, as he may have done in the short span between Austin and submitting the 500 words to LP News, if both are to be believed. And other times.
The answers are allowed to express disagreement with any assumptions in the questions, much as Ernie would be free to do if he were to answer Brian’s questions.
Should Wayne want to make time to do so. Either way is fine.
Organizing and motivating volunteers? Party branding?
As one of the comments notes on the 500 words post “What I don?t see here is a lot of infrastructure development, federal lobbying, ballot access support, cost management, or state affiliate support. ” Granted, it was only 500 words and there is only so much you can address with such a limit, but here is our opportunity to get additional questions, and, dare we hope, answers?
I repeat: My questions for both Root and Hancock were chosen to address specific concerns that I think many readers would share about their respective candidacies. I of course cherry-picked the facts — objective, documentable facts — that I asked them about. As a fellow libertarian, I agree with the vast majority of what I’ve read and heard from Root and Hancock in the dozens of hours I’ve spent reviewing their media record. All my questions were aimed at highlighting or correcting their possible deviations from what I think a typical big-tent LP member supports.
I don’t think that a typical big-tent LP member cares one iota about how much advice Root would seek from Aaron Starr. And it’s simply rude to declare an LP leader to be “deficient” in his “scholarly study” of the questioner’s favorite school of libertarianism, or to suggest that his religious convictions might not be sincere.
None of my questions for Hancock smuggled in assumptions about facts not in evidence as this question does: “What other changes in your religion and/or ideology would you be willing to make to become more electable?”
News flash!!
Since Chuck wrote those questions…
Wayne has appeared on four left-leaning media shows.
That’s right, FOUR of ’em.
Does Wayne Root want to proseletize to the left?
Let me count the ways:
CNN – Larry King Live
MSNBC – David Shuster
The Thom Hartman Show
And Tuesday – The Young Turks on XM Yeah, the total leftified show formerly on Air America.
Ohm and by the way:
While Wayne was appeariung onfour left-leaning media shows…
How many left, or any for that matter, shows were inviting any of Wayne’s LP Chair opponents on? How come Ernie can’t get on TV? What about John Jay, George Phillies, Mark Hinkle?
Wayne reaches millions while other complain.
Complain about Wayne.
Their new marching orders.
@4 Could you phrase the last paragraph in the form of a question (or several questions)?
@2 Excellent points all!
Bruce Cohen wrote:
They are biased and they are hardball questions. But they also touch on many of the concerns his detractors for the chair race have. If he can address them well, I think he’ll earn some votes.
To provide a little context: The original point was that Brian Holtz asked a bunch of questions to Ernie Hancock and a bunch of questions to Wayne Root. The Hancock questions were penetrating, on point, hardball questions. The Root questions were not… he was pulling his punches in my opinion. So I came up with a few hardball questions for Root off the cuff in the spirit of Holtz’s questions for Hancock.
I have no idea why Phillies is answering them or why that’s a story. Hardball questions for Phillies would look very different. I don’t have time to come up with them now, but I would focus on 1) documented lies Phillies has uttered in the past, 2) the logical disconnect between Phillies touting the LP growth of Project Archimedes and subsequent membership decline compared with his contemporaneous vocal opposition to Project Archimedes including a book he wrote on the subject, 3) ways Phillies has refused to support the LP (taken his ball and gone home) such as lack of support for the Barr campaign and leaving his name on the ballot in New Hampshire, and 4) the logical disconnect between his vocal opposition to Ron Paul and his claims he can bring Ron Paul supporters into the LP.
Bruce Cohen: “Based on that, why would Wayne answer such a juvenile, biased and insulting list of silly questions, anyway?”
They’re hardball questions, raising concerns that many Libertarians have about Root.
The sort of hardball questions that the pro-war, pro-Root, Brian Holtz, likes to ask Hancock.
I know you pro-war Root lapdogs like to reserve tough questions only for Root’s opponents, and only toss softballs to the pro-war Root. But some of us like to some hardballs tossed to Root.
Cohen: [Root’s] busy promoting the Libertarian Party.
Root’s not promoting the LP. He’s promoting his media punditry career — and his ego.
I think because he’s busy promoting the Libertarian Party. How many people are going to the Convention that are reading this? Those of you that think Wayne Root is scared of, or avoiding Chuck’s questions will have a free crack at the man in Saint Louis.
There will be only a few folks there, so you should be able to print out this list and ask him yourself.
Betcha there just maybe might possibly be a debate, too.
And maybe kinda sorta they might take questions from the audience.
I do know the man has at least one business and one radio show and is on the news all over the place and travels almost every day.
I’m kinda sorta guessing that IPR is not going to come ahead of Fox News when he’s allocating his time every day.
Ask him yourself.
Although, the list does seem kind of silly to me.
Will you take advice from Aaron?
What kind of childishness is that?
Is this a personality contest?
Do you think Sue or Karen would be better for the cheerleader squad?
You might as well ask him another ‘assless chaps’ question.
I’m dissapointed that such a well educated and articulate man as Chuck Moulton couldn’t come up with a better and more serious list of questions.
Wayne will appear on CNN or MSNBC any time he can. And has.
Wayne will recruit LP Members from any receptive audience.
Implying that Wayne is somehow not going to go after the MSNBC audience is a subtle and hidden smear.
The list of questions is more of a policy statement and an admission of bias by the writer, than of it’s target.
I’ve seen serious Candidate Questionnaires before.
This is not one.
Based on that, why would Wayne answer such a juvenile, biased and insulting list of silly questions, anyway?
Are you friends with Aaron?
Because if you are, I won’t like you.
Do you prefer French Fries or Onion Rings?
Relevance, people!
Who will organize a better overall effort and result in getting:
1) Earned Media
2) Recruiting new Members
3) Fundraising
4) Representing the Membership
5) Manging the Office, Staff, Fundraising, Website, Direct Mail, Fullfillment and Events?
Not some silliness about what ‘faction’ you are in.
Puhleeze.
Gag me with a spoon.
I’m wondering if Root hasn’t answered these questions because he doesn’t understand the questions. Maybe he thinks they are trick questions.