I sat in on our live chatroom during the LP debate tonight and it was interesting to see the reactions people were having. What follows is a mixture of my own impressions mixed with those of the rest of the folks in the room.
Bob Barr appeared to come out alright, no major mistakes. But not a home run either. I heard someone say that he essentially did what he had to do, which was survive the debate without falling off the stage. Saying he’d appoint Jim Gray to the Supreme Court was a nice plus for him… and a good pander to the California delegation. One chatter clearly hated Barr no matter what and began talking about leaving the party if he’s nominated.
Waye Allyn Root really surprised me tonight. His energy and delivery were excellent and it’d be easy to see him as a great VP candidate who could go out and do media interviews, etc. Someone in the chat said he reminded them of an infomercial pitch-man like Billy Mays. Another person said he thought Root was reading directly from a Harry Browne book on some of his answers. Either way, I think he came out of the debate looking pretty good. If I was a delegate, I might even consider voting for him. After all, an effective pitch-man is not a bad person to choose as a candidate. Politicians are largely just salesmen of ideas.
Mary Ruwart was a slight disappointment in my opinion. I’d heard what a great speaker she was, but it didn’t come across on television. Most everyone in the chatroom said the same. One person suggested that she sounded like she was reading a children’s book to 1st graders.
George Phillies seemed like he was shouting sometimes. Some of the comments in the chat were pretty mean, but you can see where they might be coming from. He didn’t “pull a Badnarik” as I described it… which is to say he didn’t present himself as a particularly strong debater who could serve the role of a compromise candidate. But he got in some good jabs, particularly towards the end.
Steve Kubby got a lot of positive comments. I wasn’t overly impressed personally, but I think he was winning over some people. Particularly since he’s going after the same people as Ruwart and she was a bit on the weak side in this debate. He had microphone problems towards the beginning.
Michael Jingozian was decent for a guy most people have never really heard of or taken all that seriously. Felt like he’s trying to raise his profile in the party for a later run or something along those lines. He kept repeating “Vote Libertarian” over and over again.
Mike Gravel was Mike Gravel. His answers were pretty Libertarian in content, but it’s hard to seperate him from the guy who’s been campaigning for President for 2 years as a liberal Democrat. One chatter said that they would have voted for Gravel if the only thing they knew about him was what they saw in the debate. He may have picked up some support, it’s hard to say without knowing what went on after the debate ended and the parties began.
Hopefully some of the delegates can chime in and let us know how things are breaking down for tomorrow.
I think the impressions of the debate are pretty spot on. I wonder how the television view compared with the live.
It seems Gravel must have put a spell on me.
Very impressed that he cares so much about the platform and deliberations, supports the platform after reading it 3 times.
And I understand he said again today that his political home will always be the LP.
If only he had joined sooner . . .
Am impressed that Barr and Gravel can work together in the LP.
The by-lines are on the front page. I wrote this.
Again I repectfully ask for a byline. Who wrote this ? thx
Some candidates shared tokens to increase participation.
Bob Barr gave enough tokens to Mike Gravel to get him into the debate. Mary Ruwart gave her extras to Steve Kubby. Jim Burns (who didn’t get enough to participate) gave his tokens to Christine Smith, who qualified for the nomination speech Sunday by getting 30 tokens.
I just saw on C-SPAN that they will have an interview with the LP nominee tomorrow morning at 9:30am (EST).
Got to see a bit over half of the presidential debate last night. My impressions:
Bob Barr: He has drunk the LP Kool Aid, or is at least doing a good job pretending he has. I had hoped for a bit more nuance from someone who has actually served in Congress. Maybe he will display nuance for the public if he gets the nod. On the up side, his calm delivery radiated sanity. Then again, it seemed to radiate boredom to the delegates.
Mike Gravel: Displayed independent thought. Did not drink the Kool Aid. Unfortunately, he deviates from the LP line in just those areas I agree with the LP the most: public education and national healthcare.
Mary Ruwart: Amazingly well controlled delivery. Some will be fooled into thinking she is a wonk, the way she deftly blended data-based and a priori arguments. Anyone who reads her transcripts, however, will think otherwise. Her logic was on the order of: “Many sheriffs in the South are as corrupt as Roscoe P. Coltrane. Therefore, the office of sheriff should be abolished.â€
Mike Jingozian: Biggest surprise of the night. Nice delivery and radiated competence. He made a show of drinking the Kool Aid but also made it clear that he would prioritize issues in the general election.
Steve Kubby: His meds were showing. Had the least control over his mouth.
George Phillies: Dr. Evil presents his evil plan to depopulate America. “We will convert younger females into lesbians and place abortion clinics in every school district. Bluhahahahahahaha!†Actually, his delivery has improved greatly over the years, and at times he deviates from the party line in the direction of reasonableness. But his determination to offend Christians and conservatives is what stands out.
Wayne Root: Thought he was on sports center. Looked almost as out of place at a political convention as Starchild. Excited, but not exciting. His pitch to the rich is the opposite direction that the LP should go if it wants to get real votes. Biggest disappointment.
All in all, the field was much stronger than in 2004. Were I still an LP member, I’d be excited. But happily, I am not.
He said he is not a libertarian more than once.
P.O., yes, I just saw Viguerie on CSPAN this morning.
I have known George Phillies for many years. When I heard he was running for President, my first thought was that he was the wrong candidate. He has played an important role in factional battles within the LP, and was always a thorn in the side of the faction of the LP that dominated in the Browne years. While I was, more or less, on Phillies side during those conflicts, he is too controversial of a figure to reunite the LP.
When Ron Paul decided to run last year, and, especially, when he had a good bit of success, it became my opinion that the key goal of the LP for this campaign should be to gather up as much of his support as possible, to whatever degree is possible. (Only votes this time from people who will work in the Republican Party up to new, devoted activists.)
Phillies is the worst candidate for this. He has long been a critic of Ron Paul. He is one of the most _partisan_ Libertarians around. Just last night, his “racist states rights” remarks were almost strong enough to be an attack on Paul.
Paul, of course, is supporting a variety of Ron Paul Republicans in November. This is the time for Libertarians to point out that Paul, like us, is a libertarian, and that we should be supporting libertarians on a nonpartisan basis.
Phillies is the wrong man for that message.
Now I know….
Ruwart answered the question regarding the Tragedy of the Commons by explaining how the problem of pollution would be solved in a libertarian society. I find that very irritating. I don’t want any candidate for public office to preach about the nature of libertopia.
She went on to say in passing that “in a libertarian society were all roads are private.” I could this as a gaff. The complete privatization of roads sounds crazy. To just mention it it passing like it is no big deal, shows very poor judgement.
Don’t get me wrong. I saw a presentation by Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation about how building new private toll roads can solve traffic problems–with plenty of examples from around the world. It was very credible. But he
wasn’t proposing that all existing roads be privatized. And, more importantly, he didn’t just mention it off the cuff.
In answering a question about who she would appoint to the Supreme Court, Ruwart gave a little lecture about how libertarians are opposed to the initiation of force. I don’t want a Presidential candidate who will try to teach about what libertarians believe… especially when it is one variant of libertarianism.
Anyway, I want a candidate to explain what he or she will do in office. I want a candidate who will say what he or she believes.
I believe this. This needs to be done. (Sometimes it is a bit grating to hear a long
shot candidate talk about what they will do
win elected. Still, I want to hear what they
believe should be done if they were elected.)
Anyway, Ruwart showed herself to be a retread
of Bergland 1984.
With her focus on a “libertarian society,” and about how libertarians oppose all initiation of force, you can see you she can get into trouble with issues like child pornography.
In my opinion, Ruwart’s special skill is in dressing up Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism in
language that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists
believe will appeal to liberals. I am doubtful
that there are many who will actually find it
appealing.
I’m a Ruwart supporter. However if I had to pick a winner of the debate, I would say either Kubby or Root. Both performed very well.
I’ve been tempted to “leave the party” a lot this year (I did step down from our local Executive Committee) due to a lot of bullsh…
However…
I’ve decided to stay and fight for the future of our party. I ask that anyone who is thinking of leaving should Bob Barr win, re-consider. You leave the party or the movement, “they” win. Don’t give “them” that satisfaction.