Official Bob Barr campaign bloggers will bolt from LP after election

Editor’s Note: Although the letter is co-signed by Mr. Austin Wilkes and Ms. Shana Kluck, Ms.Kluck has expressed her intent to stay in the Libertarian Party. Many of the statements in the letter use the singular “I” pronoun, despite it being signed by two individuals.

In an e-mail message addressed to “Dear Alabama Ron Paul Supporters,” Austin Wilkes, who our source says is “prominent in the Barr campaign,” said he sees himself “reverting back to being a Republican (as opposed to a big-L Libertarian) after this election if Congressman Barr is not electorally successful in November.” According to our source, Mr. Wilkes and co-signer Shana Kluck were among those working the Barr booth at the Denver convention, and do a “big chunk” of the blogging at Bob Barr’s campaign blog.

Mr. Wilkes and Ms. Kluck say they support Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr because he “has essentially the same exact policy goals as Congressman Ron Paul.” They characterize Barr’s positions not as libertarian, but as “conservative libertarian.”

They say that Barr’s campaign will be similar to Dr. Paul’s, but that Barr will make “better political calculations” and “compromises where needed to advance the candidacy.”

Below is the message in full:

Dear Alabama Ron Paul Supporters,

A Message from Ron Paul Meetup Organizer Austin Wilkes, co-signed by Shana Kluck

After 117 days of post-Super-Tuesday consideration I have come to the conclusion that actively supporting the Libertarian Party candidate, Rep. Bob Barr (GA), is currently the best course of action for advancing liberty in our lifetime this election cycle. I still support Dr. Ron Paul for the GOP nomination (though I am realistic in understanding he will not win the nomination), and honestly I see myself as reverting back to being a Republican (as opposed to a big-L Libertarian) after this election if Congressman Barr is not electorally successful in November. If you support Congressman Barr I ask that you join our Birmingham Meetup or our Alabama-Statewide Meetup.

Q: Why do I support Congressman Barr?
A: Because – my friend – Congressman Barr has essentially the same exact policy goals as Congressman Ron Paul while still possessing the characteristics needed to be politically successful in a political system dominated by individuals only seeking money, power, and the status quo. Bob Barr’s current stances are conservative-libertarian. His conversion from big-government Republicanism is sincere. He may not have arrived at his current ideology as quickly as some – but that is no reason to discount him – in fact I believe he is a stronger candidate because of “who he was”. Voters will really begin to question the federal drug war when a former drug warrior comes out and says it has failed. Voters will really begin to question the Patriot Act & Iraq War when someone who supported them comes out and adamantly opposes them. Overall Congressman Bob Barr will be given one of the largest microphones to preach the gospel of liberty this nation has to offer – the Presidential Campaign Trail. I believe he is the best available orator of message that we currently have in the freedom movement.

Q: How will Congressman Barr’s Campaign differ from that of Dr. Paul’s?
A: It will still retain the philosophical core of Ron Paul’s message, while making better political calculations and compromises where needed to advance the candidacy. For example – the issue of donations from white supremacists that plagued the Paul Campaign came up this week in the Barr Campaign. Congressman Barr chose to not accept their donations rather than give a philosophical argument about why he should not return the donation – as Ron Paul did. Point being, Bob Barr knows how to play politics and knows when to stand firm and when to compromise. By doing so Bob Barr will be able to lend political credibility to our ideas and thus create an environment where they can be spread much deeper into mainstream America. Bob Barr’s campaign will also be run by professionals. Ross Perot’s campaign manager is going to be Bob Barr’s campaign manager. Expect 48-51 state ballot access.

Q: Where can I find more information on Bob Barr?
Good Videos:

Bob Barr’s Website:

Q: What can I do to help support Bob Barr’s candidacy?

  1. Sign up at Bobbarr2008.com
  2. Join a Bob Barr Meetup
  3. Fund the Campaign with Donations
  4. Tell Your Friends/Family/Co-workers About Bob

Sincerely – Your Friends,

Austin Wilkes
Shana Kluck

47 thoughts on “Official Bob Barr campaign bloggers will bolt from LP after election

  1. hardymacia

    Some will stay, some will go. Not a big deal and is to be expected.

    This sounds more like a soft sell to small government republicans who might be on the fence about supporting Barr, but if they know they can play in the LP sandbox for a little while, but still have their safely blanket (even though it is made of asbestos) with the GOP, then some of them might find that we are better playmates than the GOP leadership who didn’t play so well with Ron Paul.

    Welcome them warmly. Make them feel at home. Then work on their rough edges when it comes to libertarianism.

  2. Steve Perkins

    Hardymacia is dead-on. The number of Big-L Libertarians is absolutely dwarfed by the number of Small-L Ron Paul devotees who see the LP as an infighting waste of time. It’ll be interesting to see whether the ones who give us a second look on account of Barr will continue holding that opinion or not. Threads like this sure are a big help…

  3. G.E. Post author

    What a joke.

    You claim he’s “building the party” when his own bloggers admit that they have no intention of staying with the party beyond Election Day.

    Of course, I take this as GOOD NEWS.

    The notion that Barr could bring people to libertarianism when he can’t even bring his own campaign employees to it is beyond absurd.

  4. Steve Perkins

    As has already been said… some Ron Paul / Bob Barr types will stick around, and some probably will not. Will the Party grow? We’ll see. However, the anti-Barr, anti-reformer factions are sitting in the backseat right now because they have put forth no plausible alternative that the swing vote buys into.

    The LP has been either declining or treading water since the early-80′s. It has devoted 100 times the amount of energy fighting internally than it has externally. The anti-Barr, anti-reformer strategy for growth and advancement is… “Restore ’04″. Sorry man, but after three decades of stagnation, people are more excited about the possibility of growth rather than the certainty of none.

  5. paulie cannoli

    However, the anti-Barr, anti-reformer factions are sitting in the backseat right now because they have put forth no plausible alternative that the swing vote buys into.

    Doubtful, given how close the convention was.

  6. paulie cannoli

    The LP has been either declining or treading water since the early-80’s.

    As far as I know, membership numbers (including active members) peaked around early 2000.

    What we had in the early 80s was an infusion of money from a single source without much of an independent small donor base (never good for any organization). The single source demanded policy control for its money, as well.

    Given a campaign nationalization law loophole allowing candidates to make unlimited donations to their own campaigns, the Kochs were able to run one of their own for VP, spending a lot of money but no time, and bought some votes as a result.

    There was no long-term building of party infrastucture, activists, local organizations, etc.

    This was before my time, so correct me if my reading of history is incorrect.

  7. G.E. Post author

    Steve – In recruitment emails to Ron Paul supporters, people who worked for Barr’s nomination and continue to blog on the official campaign site are explicitly saying they’re Republicans, not “big-L Libertarians.”

    I don’t think “some will stay, some will go” is an appropriate response. Is Barr not supposed to be trying to build the party? If so, then why are his convention workers and official bloggers openly advertising the fact that they have no intention of sticking around? Do you think that’s effective party building?

    I really wonder what Bob Barr would have to do to inspire the ire of some people. He’s already said that every LP nominee before him was a bad candidate… Now this. Where is the line for you people?

  8. Steve Perkins

    There was nothing “close” about the Bylaws and Platform debates… that was the New England Patriots vs. Podunk County High School. A lot of people have doubts on Barr as a flagbearer, but there’s not much equivocation on where we are with the basic message we want to use in representing ourselves.

  9. paulie cannoli

    If Barr sticks completely to the 2008 platform, I won’t have a problem voting for him. In retrospect, I like it better than the 2006 platform.

  10. paulie cannoli

    There was nothing “close” about the Bylaws and Platform debates

    Actually, there was. We won the afternoon round on bylaws for the most part. As I predicted, radicals were caught napping in the mornings after partying all night. The worn-out look you may have noticed on my face was because I was staying up really late AND getting up really early every day.

    We had a plan to have someone (say, me) go around and wake radicals’ asses up and get them to the floor, but no one ended up supplying me with a list of room numbers. Not even when I pointed out our lack of follow-through on prior plans several days in a row.

    SNAFU, and one I predicted. We need to be more on the ball with this next time.

    Mea culpa on this: I did sleep in one day, not getting to the floor until I got a call at 9 AM, and missed a meeting I had at 8 AM, mostly because of an incident involving a big jug of whiskey in the lobby until 5 AM.

  11. paulie cannoli

    If Barr sticks completely to the 2008 platform, I won’t have a problem voting for him. In retrospect, I like it better than the 2006 platform.

    There’s this, which is interesting:

    “The National Committee shall respect the vote of the delegates at Nominating Conventions and provide full support for all nominees for President and Vice-President as long as their campaigns are conducted in accordance with the Platform of the Party.”

    How exactly is support for a national sales tax and state-level definitions of marriage and state-level prohibition ‘in accordance with the Platform’?


    Susan Hogarth
    http://www.colliething.com

  12. TX

    Funny… it was the sane, moderate voice of Barr that drew me in to the party.

    But it’s the judgmental attitude of people like G.E. that will drive me out.

    Barr can lead the party in becoming an effective, viable political party.

    People like G.E. will keep it a marginalized think-tank, social club.

  13. G.E. Post author

    It’s “judgmental” to think the party’s nominee should try to grow the party?

    It’s “judgmental” to think having staffers say they intend to leave — in recruitment emails, no less — is not a good way to do that?

    Who’s judgmental? It was Barr when he said he was the first “good candidate” to ever run for president under the LP banner. I guess Ron Paul wasn’t a “good candidate” in 1988.

    Facts of this story, no opinion: In recruitment emails to Ron Paul supporters, people who worked for Barr’s nomination and continue to blog on the official campaign site are explicitly saying they’re Republicans, not “big-L Libertarians.”

    Barr backers have a knack for saying anything that doesn’t deify Barr is “negative.” Which is why they ask their followers to Digg only the positive Barr stories. Which is why Barr backer Viguerie bought a Google News site and banned anti-Barr comments and posts.

    Again, where is the line, and how far does Barr have to go before he crosses it?

  14. G.E. Post author

    It’s been requested that I clarify something: Barr said he was the first “good” candidate. That doesn’t necessarily mean all other candidates have been “bad.” They could have been “fair.”

    :(

  15. paulie cannoli

    Which is why Barr backer Viguerie bought a Google News site and banned anti-Barr comments and posts.

    Let’s not exaggerate. Many anti-Barr comments are still being made there.

  16. G.E. Post author

    Now that Stephen Gordon is back as editor.

    But immediately after the sale, negative comments were “held for moderation.”

  17. Gene Trosper

    G.E.: what is your political background? Have you always been a libertarian?

  18. G.E. Post author

    Gene – No I have not. But I was never hired to work for someone who is supposed to build the LP, while simultaneously telling people I would not continue to be in the LP after a certain date and welcoming others temporarily join.

  19. SteveDasbach

    paulie cannoli wrote:

    “If Barr sticks completely to the 2008 platform, I won’t have a problem voting for him. In retrospect, I like it better than the 2006 platform.”

    Both Barr and his campaign manager Russ Verney both stated at the convention that they supported the platform. Verney additionally stated that there was nothing in the platform that the campaign would have to run away from (Barr wasn’t present during that conversation).

  20. Pingback: » Barr just might be my guy in 2008The American Guesser » Blog Archive

  21. SteveDasbach

    G.E. wrote:

    >It’s been requested that I clarify something:
    >Barr said he was the first “good” candidate.
    >That doesn’t necessarily mean all other
    >candidates have been “bad.” They could have
    >been “fair.”

    First, let’s be honest. Barr’s comment was a gaffe. He shouldn’t have said it.

    However, it is technically true. The American people, and especially the MSM, classify a “good candidate” as a current or former governor, Senator, or retired general. The next tier includes Representatives (like Barr or Paul), major CEO’s (Perot), and some celebrities.

    Paul in 1988 was a completely unknown former Representative, while Barr is a nationally known figure, at least by the MSM. None of our other Presidential candidates met the standard of a “good candidate” as defined by the public and the MSM.

    It sucks, but it’s the world we live in.

  22. Shana

    Hmm… I just realized what the title of this article is and realized I really needed to clear some things up.

    Austin wrote this email (notice the singular use of “I” throughout). He was a libertarian-leaning Republican and supported Ron Paul. He became a Libertarian to help Bob Barr. He does not work for Bob. He does not blog for Bob. He did volunteer his time and help run the booth at the convention. He is a friend of Bob’s and will probably be working for Bob in the near future.

    I allowed Austin to sign my name to the email he wrote. I was the field coordinator for AL and the national director for Homeschoolers for Ron Paul, so I’m well known among Paul supporters and having my name on the letter lent credence to his plea. I have never been a Republican, only an independent and a little “l” libertarian, so you see, I can’t revert back to being a Republican, when I wasn’t one in the first place. The “I”s in this letter do not refer to me. Co-signing my name makes that very unclear and I apologize for the confusion. I’m glad I have the chance to clear it up.

    I do blog for Bob on a volunteer basis. It was Bob that drew me into the LP. I am a conservative libertarian so, without him, I don’t know that I would have joined (so here’s at least one person he’s recruited). I also have no intention of leaving the LP after November, as long as the party stays on it’s current path.

    I have a question for G.E. I’m not being a smart-aleck, I truly don’t understand your logic and would like to you explain something.

    You have intimated several times that it’s Bob’s responsibility to “grow the party”. But in your first post, you made it clear that it was “GOOD NEWS” if people like me (little l libertarians who joined the LP to help Barr, and make no mistake, there are a bunch of us) would simply leave the party after November.

    Which is it?

  23. Gene Trosper

    I asked about your LP political background, G.E. because if I’m not mistaken, you ran for Congress as a Democrat and then jumped ship to the Greens as a Congressional candidate that same year (2004), correct? Then you became a Libertarian?

    Just wanted to clear that up.

    Now, back to your article about people bolting from one party to another……

  24. G.E. Post author

    Shana – Fair question.

    Although the singular “I” is used throughout the letter, it is signed by two individuals, you and Mr. Wilkes. It is thereby implicit that statements made apply to you as well as Mr. Wilkes.

    Your question isn’t “smart aleck” at all. It was my comment that was flippant, and I apologize for that.

    But on some level, I stand by the statement. If people have no interest in being libertarian, and want to change the party to “conservative-libertarian,” then yes, I hope they don’t stick around. Libertarianism and conservatism are diametric opposites, not cousins.

    The party pledge requires members to say they don’t support the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. Conservatism is incompatible with this credo, as are Barr’s calls for drug prohibition at the state level, a national sales tax, etc.

    I want the party to grow by people becoming more libertarian. I hope that your exposure to libertarianism through Ron Paul (a true libertarian) and Bob Barr will lead you to true libertarianism, not a conservative variety thereof.

    People who support the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals are not little-l libertarians in my book.

    Thank you for your participation.

  25. G.E. Post author

    Gene – I was 25. I had never been exposed to libertarianism, but I was through my Libertarian opponent, Ken Proctor, and then Mary Ruwart. There is literally no comparison here. My story is one of evolution, like Bob Barr’s. Mr. Wilkes is talking about USING the Libertarian Party, not making a philosophical change.

  26. G.E. Post author

    Gene – I am not criticizing people from moving to the Libertarian Party. That’s great! I think it’s great that Barr has become more libertarian and joined the LP. That’s not at issue.

    The issue is that there are people in the Barr campaign openly advocating that conservatives join the party for the duration of his candidacy, and no longer. Every time you take a jab at me for changing my views since 2004, you are invalidating Barr’s “conversion” as well. You’re being hypocritical, even as you accuse me of hypocrisy!

  27. Jeffersonish

    I hate to see fights over libertarian purism and pragmatism or hardline libertarianism vs. right/conservative leaning libertarianism. Think about your other options people! Frankly I score on the Nolan Chart at the very top and consider some socialist or statist ideals to be things we are “stuck with” until we can make other changes to our system first. And I am whole-heartedly supporting Bob Barr.

    We don’t see eye to eye on a number of issues. Ron Paul is closer to my ideal. However, McCain and Obama and likely whoever the two majors are going to run up the flagpole in 2012 and beyond are MUCH worse options. The thing is, Ron Paul has supporters (even a lot of people who didn’t want to “waste their vote” and therefore voted for one of the other GOP’ers or declined to leave the Democratic Party) and Bob Barr is close enough in idealogy to Ron Paul to attract a lot of those people.

    Mike Schneider on Bloomberg got it right when he said there were a lot of people beginning to take notice of libertarianism. I think people are going to start seeing momentum. As much as I liked the hardcore libertarians like Steve Kubby and Mary Ruwart, I can see that Barr has the best chance of shattering the 1.1 percent LP record for Presidential votes. Of course a win is the goal, but even if we achieve 5% that would be huge in showing a swell of support.

    At that point we would have to work twice as hard to capitalize on it so the next time we achieve double digits. People like Barr, Ruwart, Kubby, Phillies, Nolan, and the increasing number of respected libertarians of all stripes are going to all be needed in that effort. If some people leave because the next candidate isn’t Bob Barr specifically or maybe because they’re pro-life or some such thing, that’s okay, we’ll be pulling in others to take their places.

    And as far as the horrible problem of little “L” libertarians returning to the GOP, just what effect do you think that will have on the GOP besides help form them into a libertarian-leaning conservative party? I was tabling for my local Libertarian Party a while back and someone came up to me and said, “You know what’s gonna happen if the LP ever starts becoming a threat… the other parties are just gonna co-opt your platform.” I replied, “At which point we will have won.” The point isn’t about who embraces liberty as long as it is a LOT of people, especially those in office, no matter what letter is in parentheses before the state they represent.

  28. Steve Perkins

    The party pledge requires members to say they don’t support the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. Conservatism is incompatible with this credo, as are Barr’s calls for drug prohibition at the state level, a national sales tax, etc.

    You’ve been with the LP for less than one campaign cycle, G.E., so I’ll cut you some slack on your historical error here. As none less than Party founder David Nolan has repeated on NUMEROUS occasions, the Pledge is intended to differentiate the LP from terrorist organizations. I know that sounds a little weird, even post-9/11, but go do some reading on the kinds of political and student organizations that were springing up right and left back in 1972… and it makes a little more sense.

    The idea of the pledge being a core “maxim”… from which all libertarian philosophy derives, and which requires one to ultimately become either an anarchist or a “pledge-breaker”… did not come along until years later. The waters have been so muddied at this point, most new members today don’t even know that this “litmus test” thing is a retrofit that wasn’t intended. Of course, don’t take my word for it… shoot an email to Nolan.

    Argue your positions on their merits. Focus on what makes them GOOD, rather than opposing positions BAD. Stop pointing fingers at others and telling them they “don’t belong”, or “aren’t real libertarians”, on account of a pledge you don’t know enough about. Start doing these things, and you guys may find your way back to the driver’s seat again, rather than griping from the back 24/7 about our driving.

  29. Pingback: Third Party Watch » Blog Archive » Barr bloggers will bolt from Libertarian Party after election

  30. José C

    Steve, those that are just in it for this election cycle would you try to convince them to stay in the Libertarian Party?

    This report is sad. It is unfortunate those assisting Bob Barr will leave the movement after the election ends in November. Talk about fair weather friends!

    Bob Barr is our nominee and we should get behind and support the campaign. We should vote for him.

    Having said that I will admit I am not feeling the mo jo.

  31. G.E. Post author

    Steve – The original purpose of the pledge is not as important as what it means to the individuals who agree to it. This reminds me of statist historians’ obsession with the “framers” of the Constitution, when what really matters is the intent of the ratifiers.

    I don’t think it’s appropriate or honorable to pledge something you don’t believe, just to give the impression you’re not a terrorist.

  32. Steve Perkins

    Jose – I am certainly doing my best to make conservative-leaning libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives feel like they can find a home in the LP. Since Denver, I’ve spent more time on other blogs (actually, you know, discussing what’s wrong with the two major parties)… and less time on this blog (near-100% discussion of what’s wrong with my own Party). If I were a newcomer, I’m not exactly sure what my impressions would be right around now.

    G.E. – What on earth are you talking about, with the “framers” vs. the “ratifiers”. The core of the Constitution was ratified almost immediately after it was written, and there’s not any evidence of all the States saying, “We interpret this 180-degrees opposite from what those at the convention have to say about it.” If you interpret the LP pledge as being an axiom which requires all members to be anarchists, then hurray for you and your own personal “ratification” there. However, that is YOUR personal ratification… and is neither mine nor the founders who wrote it… so don’t try to hold it over others’ heads as a litmus test.

  33. G.E. Post author

    Your knowledge of the framing vs. ratification of the Constitution is sorely lacking, Mr. Perkins. The framers were different men with a very different agenda than the people who ratified the Constitution. What’s important is the intent of the ratifiers, not the intent of the framers. Suggested reading: Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. I understand you are a legal scholar, but you might enjoy this different perspective.

    The pledge says what it says. If you interpret it to mean something other than what it literally says, then that’s on you.

    The pledge does not hold one to anarchism. It just opposes coercive taxation. I believe that libertarianism, the philosophy, is limited to those who believe in no government and those who believe in a minimal government extending not beyond the provision of police, national defense, and court services; voluntarily funded by user fees or charity. That does not mean I do not welcome camaraderie with liberty-minded fellows such as you, so don’t twist my words to say that’s what I’m saying.

  34. G.E. Post author

    Steve – Don’t you see the difference between someone like you — a non-”purist” libertarian fighting to expand the LP — and someone who is working for Barr and saying they’re planning on leaving after November.

    You = Working to expand the party

    Them = Not.

  35. paulie cannoli

    Shana is correct. Austin was speaking only for himself when he spoke about planning to leave the LP.

  36. paulie cannoli

    By the way, I notice TPW is linking to some of the news items here now, such as this one.

  37. Peter Orvetti

    It’s funny to think of G.E. as a Green. But I was briefly a member of the Socialist Party in college, so I can’t disagree that people do grow and evolve. That’s one reason I’ve been telling people to be open-minded about Barr.

    At one time or another, I’ve been a member of four political parties — both majors, the LP, and the Socialists. (I have a certain respect for the Socialist Party, which is more practical and less prone to using stilted leftospeak in its public pronouncements than its peers on the far left.) I also supported Perot for about three days in 1992 — but who didn’t?

  38. G.E. Post author

    I added this to the start of the article:

    Editor’s Note: Although the letter is co-signed by Mr. Austin Wilkes and Ms. Shana Kluck, Ms.Kluck has expressed her intent to stay in the Libertarian Party. Many of the statements in the letter use the singular “I” pronoun, despite it being signed by two individuals.

  39. G.E. Post author

    Peter – I was on the radio with ElfNinosMom and Paulie a few days ago, both of whom are former Democrats. Tom Knapp was a Buckleyite conservative and later a Democrat. Most libertarians are former conservatives. Gene and Steve Perkins keep ragging me about being an anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-PATRIOT ACT (and pro-a-lot-0f-bad-things) Green in 2004, but when they do so, they are really just dissing about every libertarian there is, since very few people spring from their mother’s wombs as libertarians.

    I’m not that old. 2004 seems like a LONG time ago to me. In that time, I’ve gone back to and graduated from college, changed careers, started several businesses, and had a child. My life has changed a lot more in non-political areas than it has in political matters.

  40. paulie cannoli

    I also supported Perot for about three days in 1992 — but who didn’t?

    Me, for example.

  41. paulie cannoli

    However, it’s true that I was a Democrat, and may very well have become a Green rather than a Libertarian if they had ballot access in Alabama in 1992.

  42. JA Thomas

    I don’t normally respond to alot of articles but here goes:

    1st. I think most people who identify themselves as libertarian have evolved to their belief; either through a sense of dis-satisfaction with the majors or through a process of thoughtful change.

    2nd I don’t feel that it’s an effective strategy to use our presidential candidate to “educate” the public about libertarianism. He should present libertarian views in a manner in which the “uninformed” libertarian leaning voters can handle.
    3rd. In doing the above, many people who hear his/her views will begin to identify with the LP and a percentage will feel strongly enough to join the LP. A fraction of those who join will be willing to contribute financially. Finally, a fraction of the new financial supporters will contribute significant amounts to the party and its candidates as well as contributing time and resources. Eventually the LP gains credibility with the voters and our candidates are elected.
    That is how a sustainable party is built.

  43. JA Thomas

    The key to the strategy I mention is for our candidate to get exposure. For this reason, Bob Barr was the perfect candidate. He has credentials which are accepted by “MSM” as well as voters. He has received much national exposure and will continue to do so. Philosophically, I differ with Bob on a few key points. However, I am excited about this campaign and what it can mean for the LP.

  44. Pingback: Comedy Central cites IPR in Barr/Paul connection satire

  45. Peter Orvetti

    Paulie,

    Kudos to you for seeing through Perot from the start. Almost everyone I know, of any political persuasion, has told me they briefly backed Perot that first time around (though he only hit 40% in the polls, so obviously not everyone did). It’s like that Simpsons episode: “Someone else! Someone else!” “I’M someone else!” “Hey, he’s right!”

  46. Peter Orvetti

    So how many folks here have small children? I’ll bet the Knapp-Millay kids will grow up to be interesting. My wife and I were discussing what the children of Libertarians should be called. In olden times, the children of leftists were “red-diaper babies.” So I guess LP kids are “no-diaper babies”?

Leave a Reply