Posted by Donny Ferguson at LP blog:
2008 vice-presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root appeared on the Fox Business Network on Friday with host David Asman to discuss the Bush/Obama bailout craze and the need for free markets, competition, capitalism and tax cuts.
You can check out the interview for yourself here at FoxBusiness.com.
Reposted to IPR by Paulie.
Wow! Thank you very much! I always wanted to write in my site something like that
TK_and that six were “administratively closed,” meaning that they were UNRESOLVED (that’s why the report says that there were 12 claims and that 6 were resolved).
LOL , spin the truth much.
of the 6 administratively closed , the findings were:
5 – BBB determined the company made good faith and reasonable offer to resolve the issues, but the consumer did not accept the offer.
1 – BBB determined that despite the company’s good faith effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.
TK__ That’s a 50% unresolved rate
stop playing tricky debate -semantic games ok? he’s got 100% rating with the BBB and you just cant change that with ridiculous interpretations .
I know you are not that dumb .
additionally the complaints are based on a rolling 36 month , but the grade the BBB assigns takes into account the companys history with the BBB.
Wayne has an A rating so how do you argue against that?
TK__Once again, I challenge you to identify a single _factual claim_ I’ve made about Root which isn’t true
me__ gladly , you claim wayne has a bad rating with the BBB. False –Waynes rating is an A ,
you damn well know that complaints = rating.
everyone isnt going to be totally happy . Thats why we have arbritration , and to fixing what went wrong he is listed at 100 FRIGGIN % . !
stop playin..
#2 false claim – the whole blacklisted thing. so now your saying if someone is blacklisted on a website with no official standing , you take that as gospel?
what about a blog listing top 100 petitioners on a site that keeps track of 3rd party activist-petitioners . what if Paulie and Andy were two blacklisted names , then your saying it must be true and valid?
I already know the answer , you would give it no credence.
I geuss what im asking is what makes this site you refer to as a absolutley credible?
.
What are your standards and criteria when researching different sources as to what are facts and what is opinion ?
libertariangirl,
The BBB maintains its reports on a “rolling” basis; presumably the report you’re citing is not the report for the same period I cited.
However, in the report you cite, you note that 6 of the complaints were resolved in some fashion (to the customer’s satisfaction, to the BBB’s satisfaction, or both), and that six were “administratively closed,” meaning that they were UNRESOLVED (that’s why the report says that there were 12 claims and that 6 were resolved). That’s a 50% unresolved rate. It was worse than the rate for the only other sports handicapper I found with a BBB report, and it was worse than the rate for each and every company Wayne himself claimed would surely have a worse rate than him if someone checked (presumably assuming I WOULDN’T check).
If you go back to the posts at Third Party Watch in which Root and I hashed this out, I meticulously analyzed each and every one of Root’s counterclaims using hard, verifiable, linked data, and established beyond any reasonable doubt that each and every one of those counterclaims was Grade A bullshit.
If you want to defend Root on this or any other issue, feel free to do so. If you think I’m going you’re going to get a defense based on “I want to believe” rather than on the cold, hard facts past me, however, you’re mistaken.
“your good at it but shouldnt it be true?”
Once again, I challenge you to identify a single _factual claim_ I’ve made about Root which isn’t true. When it comes to opinion, I sometimes get heated, and even mean. When it comes to questions of fact, I try to make damn sure I’m right, and if it turns out I’m wrong, I admit it.
With respect to the “scamdicapping” charges I’ve made, I’m going to go back and re-research my claims, just to make absolutely sure I’ve made no unsupportable factual claims. It may take awhile — feel free to get on my ass about it if I haven’t done so by next week some time.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
TK_I did not identify Root as a scamdicapper based on the various “hate on Wayne” posts to that effect. I identified him as a scamdicapper based on, among other things, the fact that he was one of two sports handicappers — out of hundreds rated — who was blacklisted as a scamdicapper by a prominent site devoted to monitoring handicappers.
and this site has authority to blacklist based on?
your saying that because this one ‘prominent’site decided to blacklist him , thats your proof?
there is NOTHING official to that site and in Vegas we actually have a ‘blacklist’ and Wayne isnt on it.
is it possible this independent site disliked him for other reasons ?
anyone can make a ‘blacklist’.
how many other handicap watch sites did you look into to see if it was a common thread?
maybe the 100 or so they listed all paid to get a favorable listing . You just dont know and cant be serious that is your reliable source
The Nevada Gaming Commission is strict , and scary . Did you look to see if they had issues with Root? they are after all , the only official ‘gaming’ oversite group that actually matters.
dont bother , theres nothing there
TK_There are two people in this conversation. One of them is believing what s/he wants to believe because s/he wants to believe it. The other is believing what s/he wants to believe because s/he’s actual researched it. It shouldn’t take two guesses to figure out which one is which.
you need to work on your research or rather at lease improve your scrutiny on what ‘;research’ to actually claim true.
i just blew your BBB argument out of the water with very little research ,
your ‘blacklisted’ argument falls short when omnes realizes the site has no official capacity and means nothing ,
hell there are bloggers here who have been ‘blacklisted ‘ from certain sites , petitioners that have been ‘blacklisted’ from working and I wouldnt bet the black-listees were wrong in any instance.
TK_Maybe instead of whining about it, you should hone your own opposition research skills and start digging through my closet.
I would never do that , actually ive been following your writings for some time and respect you alot . i would never waste my time tearing down someone i veiw as an ally .
TK_If you don’t like the fact that I’m an attack dog who does opposition research and then uses that opposition research against my opposition, well, too bad
yes i know , and your good at it but shouldnt it be true?
besides i think you stand a good shot of beating him just based on your merits and your activism/political resume.
TK self described hit piece __”Except, well, it’s not really much like that. The Las Vegas Better Business Bureau lists 14 complaints versus Root’s company over a period of 36 months, with only five of those complaints resolved to the BBB’s satisfaction and none of them resolved to the customer’s satisfaction. Among the complaints are one for “deceptive sales practices,” two for “unauthorized credit card charges,” and one for “unauthorized bank debits.”
TK_ now-I did not identify Root as having a questionable record of business ethics based on rants from his former customers. I identified him as as having a questionable record of business ethics based on the fact that he had a high rate of unresolved — not just to the customer’s satisfaction, but to the BBB’s — Better Business Bureau complaints involving things like unauthorized credit card charges (the rants, however, did back up that angle). He contested that with hyperbolic claims about how many complaints Microsoft and other companies must get, and I exploded every one of those claims with direct statistical comparisons to the records of the companies he chose for that exercise.
how much do you stand by these claims?
now either you didnt investigate past ‘ he’s had complaints at the BBB’ or you got your info second hand or you know the truth and simply wanted any grain of dirt despite it being true or not.
some simple investigating will see he had 12 complaints , and they were resolved not always to the customes satisfaction but ALWAYS to the BBB voluntary protocol.
heres the list
The 12 complaint(s) closed in the last 36 months was/were closed as:
6 – Resolved
1 – Company resolved the complaint issues. The consumer acknowledged acceptance to the BBB.
5 – Company resolved the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledged acceptance to the BBB.
6 – Administratively Closed
5 – BBB determined the company made good faith and reasonable offer to resolve the issues, but the consumer did not accept the offer.
1 – BBB determined that despite the company’s good faith effort to address complaint issues, the consumer remained dissatisfied.
how mant times does the BBB say ‘in good faith ‘about the company .
additionally they have a rating system a-f based on the following criteria:
BBB assigns ratings by evaluating businesses in the following categories:
BBB experience with the industry in which the business operates
The business’ length of time in operation
Whether BBB has information that the business does not have required competency license(s)
Any known government actions against the business that are related to marketplace activities
Any advertising issues found by BBB
The number of complaints processed by BBB from the business’ customers
The number of complaints processed by BBB from the business’ customers that are of a serious nature
Whether the business has responded to complaints received by BBB
Whether complaints have been resolved in a timely manner or the business has demonstrated it made a good faith effort to resolve them
Business’ overall complaint history with BBB
Whether the business has honored any commitments to BBB to arbitrate or mediate disputes and comply with arbitrator decisions or mediated settlements
Whether BBB has sufficient background information and clear understanding of business
Whether the business is a BBB Accredited Business
Whether BBB Accreditation was revoked because the business failed to comply with agreed BBB standards
Ratings are determined by a proprietary formula that represents BBB’s opinion as to (1) the importance of each category, and (2) the appropriate score given to the business for each category.
BBB assigns grades from A to F with pluses and minuses. A+ is the highest grade and F is the lowest. The grade represents BBB’s degree of confidence that the business is operating in a trustworthy manner and will make a good faith effort to resolve any customer concerns.
waynes company’s grade/rating :
A , as in the better than most .
so when you say :
he had a high rate of unresolved — not just to the customer’s satisfaction, but to the BBB’s —
your wrong or your lying , i think the first.
It comes across that way to a lot of people. I don’t think you mean it as a personal attack (more like contact sports), but that’s just how a lot of people see it.
Better to lay it all out yourself and disarm it. Easier said than done, as I know from personal experience.
libertariangirl,
You write:
“TK__Believe it or not, I happen to like Wayne Root. He’s a nice guy. We’ve had some good correspondence and conversation.
me_ now that is funny Tom not to mention un-true. you have been Roots number 1 attacker for some time .”
And your point is? Liking someone and attacking them are not mutually exclusive propositions.
“you had a short lived truce ( see last paragraph)”
At no time have Wayne and I been less than 100% personally congenial with each other. If you don’t believe me on that, ask him.
“Didnt you have to resign from Kubbys campaign for some remarks you made about Root?”
I resigned as his titular campaign manager, yes. I didn’t resign from his campaign, though. I just took a demotion.
“you give him the benefit of the doubt on nothing. For instance , then and now , you always bring up his gambling business and claim his a dirty business man. .”
Beg to differ. Here’s a recent article where I agreed with him on some things, disagreed with him on others, and mentioned his gambling business not at all.
Feel free to name the factual claim I’ve made that I haven’t provided ample evidence for, or that Wayne has disproven. Take your time. I’ve been waiting for two years for anyone to do that, and nobody has yet.
“every unscrupulous business practice you accuse him of , you got your evidence by googling Root/ scam , and read allegations people were making and decided they were true
you believe them w/o question and circulate it as truth
where was the benefit of the doubt with all that ?”
Bullshit.
I did not identify Root as a scamdicapper based on the various “hate on Wayne” posts to that effect. I identified him as a scamdicapper based on, among other things, the fact that he was one of two sports handicappers — out of hundreds rated — who was blacklisted as a scamdicapper by a prominent site devoted to monitoring handicappers.
I did not identify Root as having a questionable record of business ethics based on rants from his former customers. I identified him as as having a questionable record of business ethics based on the fact that he had a high rate of unresolved — not just to the customer’s satisfaction, but to the BBB’s — Better Business Bureau complaints involving things like unauthorized credit card charges (the rants, however, did back up that angle). He contested that with hyperbolic claims about how many complaints Microsoft and other companies must get, and I exploded every one of those claims with direct statistical comparisons to the records of the companies he chose for that exercise.
I identified him as not being the “business mogul” he initially hyped himself as by examining his company’s’ SEC filings, noting that his company was in default on debts far exceeding its stock value, and noting that the company’s own auditor had called into question the continued viability of the enterprise.
Wayne didn’t change his pitch from “I’m a business mogul” to “I’m a small businessman” because I discovered those things. He changed his tack from “I’m a business mogul” to “I’m a small businessman” because of those things.
I scrutinized his public statements, researched the factual comment of those statements where applicable, and divulged the results. If he’d been the nominee and threatened to actually garner any significant degree of popular support, do you think the mainstream media wouldn’t have done what I did, and then some?
“did you talk to Wayne and ask him if if they were true?”
I corresponded with Wayne extensively on the matter on the accuracy of my claims.
There are two people in this conversation. One of them is believing what s/he wants to believe because s/he wants to believe it. The other is believing what s/he wants to believe because s/he’s actual researched it. It shouldn’t take two guesses to figure out which one is which.
I do like Wayne Root. I’d sit down and have a beer with him any time, if he drank beer. I think he has a lovely family, and I’m sure he loves them very much.
Where we have honest political or ideological disagreements, I’m happy to debate them with him, or discuss them with others, civilly.
When he was the vice-presidential nominee of my party, I accorded him personal respect, welcomed him when he visited my state, and distributed thousands of pieces of literature asking people to vote for him.
If you don’t like the fact that I’m an attack dog who does opposition research and then uses that opposition research against my opposition, well, too bad. That’s who I am, that’s what I do, I’m damn good at it, and I have no apologies to make for that. Maybe instead of whining about it, you should hone your own opposition research skills and start digging through my closet.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
TK__Believe it or not, I happen to like Wayne Root. He’s a nice guy. We’ve had some good correspondence and conversation.
me_ now that is funny Tom not to mention un-true. you have been Roots number 1 attacker for some time . I know because I used to be # 2 and paid great attention to the things you said .
you had a short lived truce ( see last paragraph) then went right back to trashing him at every stop
Didnt you have to resign from Kubbys campaign for some remarks you made about Root?
TK_I’m willing to give Wayne a lot of benefit of doubt ideologically — and that’s nothing new on my part.
me– you give him the benefit of the doubt on nothing. For instance , then and now , you always bring up his gambling business and claim his a dirty business man. .
every unscrupulous business practice you accuse him of , you got your evidence by googling Root/ scam , and read allegations people were making and decided they were true
you believe them w/o question and circulate it as truth
where was the benefit of the doubt with all that ?
did you talk to Wayne and ask him if if they were true?
Did you google Wayne Root great guy or Wayne Root super oddsmaker?
I bet you didnt , you went looking for dirt and found some trash talk , and decided you’d use it.
TK_(diff. thread)”The only time you see Root is after the game when he thinks he has a shot at skimming off some of the payout.”
“Root’s just trying to hog the spotlight — a spotlight that others busted ass and risked neck to get turned on”
ME-those two comments and others you’ve made , make my point about it’s not really his political differences that bother you so bad .
but that you feel he ‘steals’ the thunder of hard-working activists. thats the envy i was referring to.
TK_may 2007-I find myself wanting to bash this guy because of this poorly-written article and because Dondero thinks he’s the Second Coming of Christ, but then again I really ought to give him a chance.
me__ thats the dislike based on association i was talking about. you want to give him a chance but if the evil- Dondero likes him so much , instinctively you want to bash him.
TK_
All that having been said, I don’t think Wayne is a good presidential pick for the LP. If you want to discuss why I think that, instead of this “why don’t you like him?” stuff, we can.
Id like that so long as it doesnt include allegations that cant be proven , like always attacking what he used to do for a living . but what I really want to know is what happened between the time you wrote the post below and now?
TK_”I mean, c’mon … nobody slammed Root the way I did pre-nomination. If he’ll listen to me, he’ll listen to you, too. He’ll just listen better if you’re working with him instead of against him. My experience is that he wants to learn, that he’s willing to listen. I had genuine doubts about his sincerity, but now that he’s our VP nominee I’ve declared tabula rasa — clean slate — on that and will trust him until and unless he gives me reason not to…
,
libertariangirl,
You write:
“Id like to ask Tom , Sipos and other Root detractors is it really Root you don’t like or is it the company you think he keeps.”
Neither.
Believe it or not, I happen to like Wayne Root. He’s a nice guy. We’ve had some good correspondence and conversation.
I even helped him out with one of his position papers last year (at least I assume he considered my advice helpful — he adopted the language I suggested and substituted it for the language I critiqued).
As far as the company he keeps, when I don’t speak with Wayne directly, I usually communicate with him through Bruce Cohen, whom I also get along with (personally, not necessarily on policy). I consider his association with Aaron Starr to likely be opportunistic on Starr’s part … but that’s another topic, really. I frankly doubt that Wayne has any great interest in the LNC faction fighting.
I’m willing to give Wayne a lot of benefit of doubt ideologically — and that’s nothing new on my part.
Back in 2007, I defended him to some degree against the “newcomer” slights by pointing out that he had been publicly supporting libertarian positions on some issues since at least as early as 2003 (in letters to the editor in Vegas newspapers). And if I recall correctly, he identified himself as “libertarian” as far back as 1998 on Bill Maher’s show.
All that having been said, I don’t think Wayne is a good presidential pick for the LP. If you want to discuss why I think that, instead of this “why don’t you like him?” stuff, we can.
Id like to ask Tom , Sipos and other Root detractors is it really Root you don’t like or is it the company you think he keeps. meaning there are some clearly visible factional lines and I feel like some arbritrarily oppose him. Mainly , you all dont like Aaron Starr or the ‘faction’ you veiw him belonging to , and that you disike Wayne based on that
If Steve Kubby had recriuted him or Nolan or someone else , I dont think you all would be so against him.
If that was the case then you would veiw his philisophical differences or lib-un-purity as simply someone who needed to learn more.
Instead , you veiw his differences as some intentional slight to turn our Party into the new GOP.
I was a bleeding heart Dem when I got here , maybe 5% lib
I am more LIbertarian now because some smarter , patient and non-judgemental Libs schooled me .
what if I had been riduculed or told i didnt belong because i had never heard of Ayn Rand and couldnt name even 1 austrian economist?
Wayne is way , way more libertarian than he used to be probably because some other Libs schooled him . but when the rest of us change our veiws its because were learning more but when Wayne does it he still gets slack . He gets accused of now just saying what we want to hear , or flip-flopping etc .
Give the guy a fair friggin shake , he has paid his dues , he is more libertarian than before and he’s out there trying.
I’m unaware of any “invented awards” so far in this campaign, other than possibly Wayne Root’s star on the Vegas Walk of Fame.
I’m guessing that the reference is to Ruwart’s Book of the Year for a book from several years ago, although Ruwart has made no indication of being a 2012 candidate that I know of.
Quoth Mango:
“So the other candidates and their friends stage unscientific internet polls, invent awards for themselves (the Dad in A Christmas Story won a ‘major award’ too), and pretend that it means they’re more popular than Wayne Root.”
The unscientific poll — which is plainly ADVERTISED as unscientific — is not being staged by one of the candidates nor, so far as I can tell, is it being staged on behalf of any of the pollster’s “candidate friends.”
I’m unaware of any “invented awards” so far in this campaign, other than possibly Wayne Root’s star on the Vegas Walk of Fame.
I suppose I could advertise my latest non-invented award (I received a Certificate of Appreciation yesterday for five years of service as one of a handful of Libertarians serving as federal appointees), but I don’t live under the illusion that that award, or anything else, makes me “more popular” than Wayne Root.
I don’t consider Root’s media exposure to be “positive” for the LP, but that’s just my opinion. Campaigns are about conflicting opinions. If they weren’t, there’d be no need for them.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Scott at post # 32:
If a Libertarian appears on an Internet Radio Show with 1000 listeners, or fewer, is that anywhere near equivalent to Wayne Root appearing on Fox News Channel, or even Fox Business Network?
Scott, you are way too generous in your estimation of the listener pool on libertarian Internet radio shows. It’s probably more like 20. Lots of little kids at some point took a tape recorder into their bedrooms and played out their DJ/talkshow fantasies, and the Internet just provides the equivalent role-play fantasy for grown-ups. At least the kids know better than to list it on their resumes as though it had some significance.
Wayne Root, on the other hand, manages get into large-audience, mainstream media. He kicks butt, gets the LP positive media exposure, and does it with a big smile. He’s likeable, personable, comfortable, and he gets invited back.
Root is raising the bar for our other candidates, which is why so many of them are feeling threatened, because they look bad by comparison.
So the other candidates and their friends stage unscientific internet polls, invent awards for themselves (the Dad in A Christmas Story won a “major award” too), and pretend that it means they’re more popular than Wayne Root. Maybe living in denial makes them feel like they’ve accomplished something, but most psychiatrists see that as a condition in need of treatment.
I don’t know of any “LvMI-approved” candidates for the LP’s 2012 nomination. I’m certain I’m not one.
I thought of mentioning that, but I think it was pretty clear the meaning was radical candidate, rather than literally Mises Institute approved.
What do you mean by “official?”
I suspect, “nominated” – the point being that theoretically, you or other people vying for the same nomination could be doing equivalent levels of media as well.
Dr. Lieberman,
You write:
“And Wayne is not currently an official candidate for any office.”
What do you mean by “official?”
Wayne runs a campaign site titled “Wayne Allyn Root’s Presidential Campaign Web Site.”
On that “Presidential Campaign Web Site,” Wayne invites readers to “JOIN THE ROOT REVOLUTION 2012” and describes himself in his own press releases as “2012 Libertarian Presidential hopeful Wayne Allyn Root.”
And in the interview this article covers, Wayne describes himself as “the prohibitive front-runner for the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nomination.”
Front runners are, by definition, runners. Wayne is either a candidate, or he’s falsely portraying himself as one. Which?
“If a Libertarian appears on an Internet Radio Show with 1000 listeners, or fewer, is that anywhere near equivalent to Wayne Root appearing on Fox News Channel, or even Fox Business Network?”
Nope. I don’t recall ever saying it was.
“I am waiting for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate who is ‘LvMI-approved’ to list all of THEIR national TV appearances.”
I don’t know of any “LvMI-approved” candidates for the LP’s 2012 nomination. I’m certain I’m not one.
The closest thing to an “LvMI-approved candidate” I can think of would be a Republican, Ron Paul … and his list of national TV appearances would likely dwarf Wayne’s by an order of magnitude.
If a Libertarian appears on an Internet Radio Show with 1000 listeners, or fewer, is that anywhere near equivalent to Wayne Root appearing on Fox News Channel, or even Fox Business Network?
I’d say it all depends on just who the 1,000 listeners are. Peeple are not fungible 🙂
I am sure that some of the posters to this Web Site would be eager to write an extremely negative article if Ron Paul won the Presidency.
That made me think of something amusing I ran across in the past few days. Burt Blumert has recently passed away (that’s not the amusing part…), and there’s this funny story about him:
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/30/logic/view/index40.html
I prefer the late Burt Blumert’s position, when asked what he’d do if his friend Ron Paul were elected president: “I guess I’d start impeachment proceedings; they all go bad once they go to Washington”.
Wayne does not preach Ludwig-von- Mises-Institute-approved libertarianism. I am waiting for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate who is “LvMI-approved” to list all of THEIR national TV appearances.
Good point. My (previously posted) advice to Tom or any other candidate who wants it:
Get lots of coverage, interviews, LTEs and columns/show – consistently – in alternative weeklies, cable access, and medium-market newspapers, TV and radio.
Parlay that into larger markets and networks.
Bust out tons of youtube clips. If possible, try to make them entertaining.
The tools are pretty good right now if someone wants to use them.
I am sure that some of the posters to this Web Site would be eager to write an extremely negative article if Ron Paul won the Presidency.
I am sure that some of the posters on this website would be eager to write an extremely negative article no matter who won the presidency.
We have a diverse group of people here.
“31 Thomas L. Knapp // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Dr. Lieberman,
I quoted Wayne verbatim from the interview the blog article references, and reacted to what he had said. That’s not “hijacking” anything.
Furthermore, my suggestion that scientific polling would be interesting was in no way a reference to the blog article on the current non-scientific polling.”
*************************************
I am sure that some of the posters to this Web Site would be eager to write an extremely negative article if Ron Paul won the Presidency.
The point is – I bet Wayne Root has made as many national TV network appearances in the last 30 days as our Presidential Nominees have gotten in any average month during their campaigns. And Wayne is not currently an official candidate for any office.
If a Libertarian appears on an Internet Radio Show with 1000 listeners, or fewer, is that anywhere near equivalent to Wayne Root appearing on Fox News Channel, or even Fox Business Network? Wayne Root does not have a legal monopoly, or even a voluntary monopoly, on the “libertarian slot” on national TV shows.
Sure – Wayne does not preach Ludwig-von- Mises-Institute-approved libertarianism. I am waiting for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate who is “LvMI-approved” to list all of THEIR national TV appearances.
Dr. Lieberman,
I quoted Wayne verbatim from the interview the blog article references, and reacted to what he had said. That’s not “hijacking” anything.
Furthermore, my suggestion that scientific polling would be interesting was in no way a reference to the blog article on the current non-scientific polling.
But, since YOU decided to bring that article up, well, THANK YOU for directing everyone’s attention to a non-scientific poll in which I am currently whipping Wayne’s ass in every iteration of the question (field, field minus Ron Paul, Root v. Knapp).
Steven,
Yes, the US is subsidizing the occupation of Palestine — by various parties, including the Israeli state, the Jordanian state, the emergent Arab states in Gaza and the West Bank, etc.
I propose to end the subsidies, not to use the subsidies as leverage to impose the US government’s wishes on the parties receiving the subsidies.
While I very carefully explained that my personal opinion is a personal opinion, not a statement of proposed government policy, I’ll still answer your question:
No, my position is not a variation of “but he started it!” My position is a variation of “I don’t give a fuck who started it, it takes both of you to stop it.”
I hate to disappoint you, but I do not believe that it is proper for a president — or presidential candidate — to insert himself, as a president or presidential candidate, into arguments between other nations.
Well Tom, I think we are in general agreement here. But the US is subsidizing the occupation of Palestine, so it is a relevant issue.
As a private citizen, I’d be inclined to call upon Netanyahu to “tear down this wall” just as soon as Hamas repeals Article 7 of its charter and ends (in substance, not just in form) its own ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestine’s Jewish population.
Isn’t this merely a variation of the playground response “But he started it!”?
I don’t care who started it. I don’t think most Americans care, let alone Libertarians. Most of us just want the rape, slaughter and destruction to end. A rape and slaughter that is the source of much of the animosity that is directed toward the US.
PEACE
I don’t mean to suggest that evil statists have deliberately conspired to corrupt our language to serve their own nefarious ends. That sometimes happens, of course, but it’s not necessary. Rather, a perverse invisible-hand process is at work: the prevailing use of the terms “capitalism” and “socialism” persists because it serves to preserve the statist system of which it is a part. Think of it as spontaneous ordure. (Sorry.)
I love Long. I’ve listened to a few of his lectures on the ‘pod, and he’s one of the few people who can be excitingly calm in lecture style, if you can grok that. And of course he has a nice voice. I could hear him speak when I read that selection.
Mr. Linnabary,
I hate to disappoint you, but I do not believe that it is proper for a president — or presidential candidate — to insert himself, as a president or presidential candidate, into arguments between other nations.
As a private citizen, I’d be inclined to call upon Netanyahu to “tear down this wall” just as soon as Hamas repeals Article 7 of its charter and ends (in substance, not just in form) its own ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestine’s Jewish population.
Did he win your state delegation’s vote?
No.
PEACE
I doubt I can ever support Root for the nomination. Unless he were to make a STRONG statement against the continuing ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
By a strong statement, I mean actually going to the wall and saying “Mr. Netanyahu, tear down this wall!!” I won’t be holding my breath.
Mr. Kubby or Mr. Knapp could also do the same, but the effect would be so much greater with Root making the proclamation. Root has the ability to attract media, and he is Jewish. It would be such a strong statement for the Libertarian Party.
PEACE
Did he win your state delegation’s vote?
Susan’s poll indicates Mary Ruwart would, but it also shows Ruwart handily beating Barr, which didn’t happen, so apparently her poll and the convention are different group samples.
This is nothing new. At the ’87 LPO convention, I took a poll of attendees. Russell Means won overwhelmingly, but lost handily at the Seattle nominating convention.
PEACE
Actually, his interviewer did. He asked him why he was the VP candidate. I think his answer sounded better coming from a candidate than saying “I did run for President, but came in third for the nomination and traded an endorsement for the #2 spot.”
“prohibitive” was indeed overstating the case, esp. when we don’t yet know who some of the other players might be, but the overall answer was a good one.
@ #17 – Scott, Root is the one who opened the subject of the 2012 campaign. Once the horse is out of the barn, there’s no reason not to make him drink!
Regarding the use of the term “capitalism,” see Roderick Long at
http://mises.org/story/2099#6:
http://www.rootforamerica.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry090402-085031
It’s interesting how a competitor for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential Nomination, and several other LP Radicals, feel the need to hijack this blog article right out of the gate
Actually, I was in the admin panel for comments (which lists all replies to all articles in chronological order, rather than the comments on each post separately as you see here), and I didn’t even realize that this was a separate thread.
Our discussions often meander; I don’t think that responding to Tom’s comment about Wayne’s chances constitutes an attack on Wayne, and looking at it that way didn’t occur to me until you mentioned it.
I also don’t consider myself one of Wayne’s detractors.
“2008 vice-presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root appeared on the Fox Business Network on Friday with host David Asman to discuss the Bush/Obama bailout craze and the need for free markets, competition, capitalism and tax cuts.”
************************************
It’s interesting how a competitor for the 2012 Libertarian Presidential Nomination, and several other LP Radicals, feel the need to hijack this blog article right out of the gate, and start discussing a totally different blog article (regarding a poll for the LP Presidential Nomination).
I did not see the Fox Business Network interview, but I did see Mr. Root’s Fox News Channel interview that occured the same day, or at least within a day or two of the FBN interview. Mr. Root did a spectacular job during the FNC interview.
I guess Wayne Root’s detractors have to resort to off-topic blog posts to avoid having to actually criticize the substance of one of Wayne Root’s many national TV appearances.
NOTA’s always an option … and in my opinion it would have been a better option than Barr/Root last year.
Those who support NOTA versus any and all other possible options should organize a campaign and attempt to prevail at the 2012 convention. Those who support NOTA versus certain options might join you at the end if those options are the only alternatives remaining.
Personally, I believe that the presidential campaign can at least theoretically serve the LP’s interests. Also personally, I believe that the Wayne Allyn Root “let’s make the LP into the Ronco of political parties” approach does not serve those interests.
the LP should just put NOTA on the national ticket.
No.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/2000/WasItWorthIt.htm
I don’t think Steve would use Libertarian Lists to popularize an open, non-scientific poll. More likely he’d use it to conduct as scientific a poll as possible … although possibly for a paying customer, which means that the rest of us might not see the complete crosstabs.
Probably correct. He did some preference polls before the nomination, but I don’t know if he had a paying client. Perhaps Barr? In any case, I don’t think he wants to introduce the subject yet. But it probably wouldn’t hurt to ask.
As far as Ruwart beating Barr goes, she beat Barr in the next-to-last ballot at the convention.
That was not head to head.
That trick won’t work twice.
I’m not sure, it might.
I don’t know a single person who supported Ruwart in Denver and regrets doing so. I’ve talked with numerous people who supported Barr in Denver and regret doing so.
That’s a better argument. OK, so Ruwart would be more likely to beat Barr now, although I doubt it would be by anything like a 72.5% – 27.5% margin. But what about Ruwart vs. Root? We don’t know yet.
the party as currently composed won’t nominate him
I’m not so sure of that, nor do I think the shift to the right is over.
In fact, just now I got the first indication of a countervailing trend: see the new story I just posted.
Looks like of those currently seeking the nomination , Wayne would be considered the “Front Runner” by the standards that he was the VP Candidate, more money, larger donor base, more Media coverage, better name recognition. Wayne shouldn’t have used the adjective prohibitive.
*beat
Root lost head-to-head against Kubby also. Maybe Root could be the ShamWow guy head-to-head? If they can’t get Ventura, the LP should just put NOTA on the national ticket.
Paulie,
I don’t think Steve would use Libertarian Lists to popularize an open, non-scientific poll. More likely he’d use it to conduct as scientific a poll as possible … although possibly for a paying customer, which means that the rest of us might not see the complete crosstabs.
As far as Ruwart beating Barr goes, she beat Barr in the next-to-last ballot at the convention. He only beat her on the final ballot with the assistance of Root, and that was with the after-effects of the “Ruwart supports child pornography” hit job still lingering. That trick won’t work twice.
Even if Barr throws in, he’ll a weaker candidate this time around versus any opponent. The “we’ll raise $40 million and win this election” hype won’t play as well the second time … especially when he didn’t come anywhere close to delivering on it the first time.
I don’t know a single person who supported Ruwart in Denver and regrets doing so. I’ve talked with numerous people who supported Barr in Denver and regret doing so. If we replayed that convention right now, she’d whip him like a red-headed stepchild.
Root’s not out of the running. If his new book brings people into the LP, those people will likely be inclined to support him. If it doesn’t, I don’t think he has much of a shot — the party as currently composed won’t nominate him.
All of the above.
Also, Robert Milnes, and apparently Mike Jingozian indicated he will as well (but may or may not have later changed his mind; reports vary).
So who has declared already that they are seeking the nomination? Tom Knapp, Wayne Allyn Root , Angela Keaton (?)
Possible, yes.
But my gut is that the results would be different if the people at the last convention (or those currently most likely to be at the next one) were asked the same questions. Of course, I only have my gut, while you at least have some actual numbers.
I’d be interested to see what would happen if Steve Gordon used LibertarianLists to popularize your polls.
but it also shows Ruwart handily beating Barr, which didn’t happen, so apparently her poll and the convention are different group samples
Well, they are, I’ll bet. But they wouldn’t have to be in order for these results to be germane. Remember, people chose Barr before he had actually *been* an LP candidate. Now he has. It’s just the slightest bit possible that made him -less- popular relative to Ruwart, you know 🙂
I can think of two or three actual or prospective candidates who would likely walk right over Wayne for that title.
Obviously Ron Paul, but the chances of him accepting it are slim to none. Susan’s poll indicates Mary Ruwart would, but it also shows Ruwart handily beating Barr, which didn’t happen, so apparently her poll and the convention are different group samples.
Who else do you see at this time as both likely to seek the nomination and easily beat Root?
Probably way to early to know who the candidates will even be
I meant leading candidates, since we clearly do already have some candidates.
Interesting. In the interview, Root opines that he is “the prohibitive frontrunner” for the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nomination.
Probably way to early to know who the candidates will even be, much less who is a frontrunner. Who could have guessed accurately at this point in 2005? 2001?
Interesting. In the interview, Root opines that he is “the prohibitive frontrunner” for the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nomination.
I’d really like to see some scientific polling on the 2012 race. It’s probably too early to identify anyone as a “prohibitive frontrunner,” but if we have to so identify someone, I can think of two or three actual or prospective candidates who would likely walk right over Wayne for that title.
Oh Lord.
I’d forgotten just how cliche’ he really is.