Libertarian vs. Socialist on Russia Today; Root says he plans on running for President in 2012

H/T “Anonymous Rabble-Rouser” in IPR comments on a previous post:

Michael Prysner of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and Wayne Root of the Libertarian Party debate socialism vs. capitalism in this clip from Russia Today:

Also of interest to our Libertarian readers and some others, at the 6:10 mark in the clip Wayne Root says he is running for President in 2012.

Back in April, Wayne Root said the following while running for LNC national chair:

BRIAN HOLTZ: You’ve said that your latest plan is to not seek the LP presidential nomination for 2012 because the LP isn’t ready. Are there any concrete metrics that you would use to decide when the LP is ready?

WAYNE ROOT: If the Citizen Revolution really catches fire in the 2012 cycle, and the LP is unified and organized enough to lead it and leverage it, then we could see LP voter registration and sustaining membership increase dramatically, and 50-state ballot access would be within reach. That would be one way to know that the LP is ready for the kind of presidential race I want the LP to run. More likely is that I can lead this party to minor victories on the local and state level, and major improvements in a variety of metrics: fundraising, candidate training, media appearances, brand recognition, ballot access, excitement from college students, etc. If I can help to achieve this kind of slow but steady success for the next 4 to 6 years, this might just provide the perfect window of opportunity for me to run as President in 2016. Until then, I’m thrilled and focused on being the CEO.

And in February, Mr. Root is quoted as saying:

“People ask me: ‘You’re running for national Chair, will you run for President in 2012?’ Let me give you an honest answer: I think this party right now is too disorganized to ever do well in a presidential election. And I don’t think, until I can get elected chairman and build it and organize it and be CEO of this party for a few years, I don’t think it’s worth it running for president, or senator, or anything else — you’ll get 1% of the vote. I want to seriously run for president, after I’ve been national Chair, in 2016, after I’ve built this party, and we really are structured and organized, and I have a chance to actually get 5, 10, 15 million votes. And if luck happens, and we catch fire, and we catch lightning in a bottle, and maybe even win. That’s my current game plan.”

The youtube description of the clip is “At a time when the economy is still insecure, why is there an endless debate over capitalism versus socialism and which financial system actually works? A heated debate between Wayne Allyn Root a 2012 Libertarian candidate for president and Michael Prysner a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation takes place as both present their reason socialism or capitalism is the best choice. Michael Prysner points out that a single president is not the problem, it is the system”

81 thoughts on “Libertarian vs. Socialist on Russia Today; Root says he plans on running for President in 2012

  1. Robert Milnes

    Of course WAR is running. Somebody has put a lot of investment in him. To disrupt the LP. Prevent someone who might make a difference from getting the nomination. To divert LP wherewithall to the GOP. To get the convention in Vegas.
    Somebody=? GOP, USgovt., FBI. HSA, NSA, various rightist rogue groups etc.
    WR is simply not good enough to do what is is doing by himself.IMO.
    Taking over LNCC is ingenious
    ETC.
    When is there going to be a purge?

  2. Robert Milnes

    You people have the nerve to call yourselves radicals?
    Lose the elections in November, radicals.
    Lose radically.
    Lose all of them.
    By a LOT!
    Now THAT is radical!

  3. Thomas L. Knapp

    On the one hand, I’d probably be willing to wager money on Root seeking the LP’s 2012 presidential nomination.

    On the other hand, him saying that he plans to run is not really an indication that he actually plans to run. It’s just an indication that he believes saying he plans to run will benefit him in some way.

  4. paulie Post author

    him saying that he plans to run is not really an indication that he actually plans to run

    Maybe I shouldn’t, but I’ll take his word when he says he is or is not running… just as I took yours when you said you were running as well as when you said you were no longer running, etc.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    Adrian,

    Unless you think that 2016 is two years from now and that Barack Obama will be a candidate then (I suppose that’s possible, if he lost in 2012 and then tried to make a comeback), no, the headline is correct.

  6. Be Rational

    There is a little wiggle room here. Root said that he “plans” to run in 2012, but that is not the same as announcing that he “is” running, and is not the same as an official announcement where he would declare that he “is a candidate for the nomination of the Libertarian Party for the office of President of the United States.”

    So, it is what it is. It seems a clear statement of Root’s future intent, at the present time.

  7. paulie Post author

    Root said that he “plans” to run in 2012, but that is not the same as announcing that he “is” running

    Fair point. I’ll fix the headline.

  8. paulie Post author

    Unless you think that 2016 is two years from now and that Barack Obama will be a candidate then (I suppose that’s possible, if he lost in 2012 and then tried to make a comeback), no, the headline is correct.

    No, he actually says 2012, listen to the clip.

    But I did make a minor change to the headline as per BR @11.

  9. Aaron Starr

    Yes, this is Wayne’s standard teasing approach with the media.

    You’ll notice it is quite different than high-profile Republicans who tease the media by more vigorously denying they are running.

    His approach appears to work. I’m amazed at how often Wayne Root gets media exposure and repeat invitations.

    People know that I know Wayne Root very well. I don’t believe he has any idea whether he is going to run.

    By the way, A+ grade to Be Rational for figuring out the nuance in Wayne’s language.

  10. Anonymous Rabble-Rouser

    Nuance in language = weasel words.

    Tutti Frutti Rooti did the same thing for months when running for LNC Chair, until he got outed.

    His ego won’t let him announce plans to run and then not do it.

  11. Robert Milnes

    @15, agreed.
    You won’t see me being coy or evasive.
    Is that what you want in a nominee or President? Tease? Playing? etc.
    I’m not playing.
    Presently I’m researching diseases & the most effective treatment/preventions. Worldwide. I am developing my own plans to be presented to a blue ribbon panel for their evaluation & recommendations. If they do not recommend my plan or reject parts, fine. I have little ego. I want action. Effective action.
    I bet all of you have ideas, plans, hopes & dreams. Very little of that is possible if you lose the elections to the reactionaries.
    So if I seem upset by the imminent losses in the coming elections, that is one reason.

  12. Robert Milnes

    A purge would be simple.
    A resolution, bylaw, consensus, etc such that only a genuine libertarian may be an LP party official or candidate. To be determined by a Peer Review Group.
    Anyone may be a party member or volunteer or donor. etc.
    This seems reasonable & do-able.
    Could you imagine a republican party candidate or party official who was not a republican?
    Or democrat? Or even Green?
    How is it that various rightists get away with this?

  13. Be Rational

    “Nuance” in language is employed by those sophisticated enough to discern and express distinct but minute variations in meaning that is lost on those too pedestrian to comprehend.

  14. Robert Capozzi

    arr: Nuance in language = weasel words.

    me: Nuance in language = realism. The English language (and probably all language) is laden with nuance. Words change meaning over time; words have multiple meanings; words are symbols of symbols.

    As soon as one gets this, one can more effectively communicate ideas.

  15. George Phillies

    @9 A person who can’t make up his mind is incapable of leading competently.

    On the other hand, we will get to see Root’s leadership demonstrated because he is now chair of the LNCC, a body that in most respects is legally equal to the LNC in its ability to advance the party.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    gp: A person who can’t make up his mind is incapable of leading competently.

    me: Sorta agree. A person who doesn’t make up his or her mind IS making up his or her mind, though. Ambivalence and temporizing are choices, too.

    On the other extreme, a person who acts precipitously and with scant information is also a poor leader, generally.

    IMO, the most effective leaders are the ones who ask the more insightful questions, and do so with patience and equanimity — neutrality, even. The least effective leaders are the ones who phone decisions in based on their constructs and dogmas.

    And, yes, the LNCC has great potential. It can raise and distribute money without the administrative burdens and (sometimes bizarre) foundational documents that weigh down the LNC.

  17. Drunkenatheist

    This piece has an incorrect title. It really ought to read:

    “Libertarian” vs. Socialist on Russia Today; Root says he plans on running for President in 2012.

    Alternately, I’m okay with:

    Fauxbertarian vs. Socialist on Russia Today; Root says he plans on running for President in 2012

    Just sayin’.

  18. Ayn R. Key

    Maybe Root’s two statements don’t actually contradict each other. Maybe he does plan to seek the presidential nomination, but not the LP presidential nomination. Maybe he’s realized that he really is ready for the big time and is going to seek the GOP nomination.

  19. paulie Post author

    Drunkenatheist, just in case you are serious:

    If I was to pass judgment on who is a real libertarian in post titles and who isn’t, that would be far too biased for IPR headlines.

    Wayne Root is an elected member of the LNC, chair of the LNCC, and 2008 VP candidate chosen by Libertarian delegates in convention. He is, objectively, a Libertarian with a big L. Whether you, or anyone else, think he, or anyone else, is a real libertarian or not is a matter for the comment section.

    Granted, I would have preferred they has someone who gave some different answers to represent the Libertarians. But the fact is that Wayne got himself booked on that show, and none of those other people did. Myself included. That makes him a more “real” Libertarian than me, you (if you are a Libertarian), or anyone else to most of the people that watched that show, since the rest of us don’t exist at all as far as they know.

  20. paulie Post author

    George,

    I’m not interested in being “that guy” for a variety of reasons. I have offered numerous times to help the many Libertarians that I agree with more than I agree with Wayne if they want to go for it, and no one has stepped up to nearly that degree.

    The sad thing is that you are correct. It’s not that difficult. I can even get a lot done without a paid publicist, and with a cheap suit. The problem is a lack of Libertarians willing to make the effort.

    So, when armchair quarterbacks criticize Wayne, I have to temper the criticism with that observation. Just to be fair.

  21. libertariangirl

    George Phillies // Oct 17, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Paulie,

    Try spending three G’s a year on a publicist and a good suit.

    See how many invites you get.

    It will work.

    George

    me_ and the problem is ?? I remember someone saying negatively sometime ago ” he only got that show because he called over and over”

  22. libertariangirl

    OOPS PT 2 – and THATS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD ALL BE DOING, WHY IS IT A BAD THING HE IS AN EXELLENT SELF PROMOTER , IF ALL IT TAKES IS A LITTLE MONEY AND A GOOD SUIT THEN WHY THE FUCK ARENT A WHOLE LOT OF US ON TV ( AND YES I AM YELLING_)

    AND YOU IN PARTICULAR GEORGE , YOU SURE AINT NO POVERTARIAN AND YOU HAVE VERY NICE SUITS …

  23. Robert Capozzi

    gp, it takes a WHOLE lot more than 3Gs and a nice suit to be a go-to media guest. One needs to perform and entertain in an articulate, credible fashion. Some pols have armies of media consultants, spending many times more than 3Gs. And, yes, some of them use car services to get to the studio.

    Doing politics costs money. Fixating on nickels and dimes misses the forest for the trees.

  24. Rob

    I think he’ll do better than Bergland and Marrou but worse than Browne. 0.4% of the vote if he is lucky.

  25. paulie Post author

    Wayne Root & Michael Prysner both continue to perpetuate the false left-right paradigm.

    For the most part, yes, but then that is what the program was geared for, and if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have been on there (or, at least, wouldn’t get invited back).

    There was at least one part where they got past that, though, when they agreed about the bank bailouts and government crony capitalism. I wish that territory had been explored more.

  26. Kimberly Wilder

    Is there anyone else clamoring to run for President on the Libertarian line in 2012? Just curious.

    (It seems like people are overlooking Wayne Root’s apparent point that he thinks that either the party will be ready, or the party won’t be ready, to have ANY candidate in 2012. And, if they seem ready to have a candidate, he wants to be that candidate…???)

  27. paulie Post author

    Is there anyone else clamoring to run for President on the Libertarian line in 2012? Just curious.

    Here’s what I know.

    Candidates that might conceivably have a chance:

    R. Lee Wrights is in the “exploratory” stage, unless there was an announcement I missed.

    Some people want John Jay Myers to run, but I don’t know of him expressing any interest (or shutting it down).

    Angela Keaton claimed she was going to run, but I’m pretty sure she was joking.

    Michael Jingozian indicated a likely interest in another run right after the 2008 convention, but hasn’t said a word about it since that I know of.

    Candidates that probably don’t have a chance:

    Robert Milnes and Joy Waymire.

    Former candidates: Tom Knapp has withdrawn from the race, and he says he’s in recovery from voting and electoral politics altogether. He still participates at IPR regularly, and has left the LP before and come back, so there’s always a chance he’ll have a relapse. After all, it’s a frequent part of recovery :-0

    I wouldn’t take the current list of candidates as too definitive, though. As I said in another thread:


    At this point in 2006, the only candidates in the race that I remember were Kubby and Phillies, neither of which ended up among the top four contenders in Denver. At this point in 2002, Badnarik may or may not have been running, but if he was, he was certainly not a top contender. And at this point in 1998, I’m not sure whether Browne was officially running again or not, but at some point between 1996 and 2000 he said he would only consider running again if the party grew to at least 200,000 or 250,000 dues paying members.

    In 1983, people thought they knew who the nominee would be, until he withdrew right before the convention. In 2008, Barr did not announce he was running until about a week before the convention, and didn’t even announce he might run until a couple of months earlier. Ruwart and Gravel were also late entries.

    In 2004, Badnarik went into the convention in distant third place. Before his first run for the presidency, Harry Browne spent decades not voting and advocating others do the same.

    So, if history is any guide, there’s a very good chance that we have no idea who some of the top contenders, or the eventual nominee, will be at this point.

  28. Robert Milnes

    Robert Capozzi @20, come on, quit being cute. Nuance depends on the motivation. If you are using nuance to tease or trick, or be evasive, double entendre etc then you are not being sophisticated in your use of language. You are being a weasel.

  29. Robert Milnes

    The reactionaries have made the moralistic decision to outlaw human cloning. Why?
    Theoretically it should be possible to dramatically lengthen human life expectancy by cloning. an anencephalitic clone could be used for a “head transplant”. As I noted in earlier writings a head transplant should be little more complex than a hand transplant. The idea is that a diseased or traumatized or aged body could be replaced indefinitely. Yet this entire line of treatment/surgery is forbidden. Why?
    I propose experimenting with lower animals such as cats where cloning is already done. Just to verify it is possible.
    In the meantime all that is needed is further improvement in damaged nerve function healing & restoration. & microsurgery. No auto immune problems should be involved.
    & incidentally I would pursue a vaccination for herpes 1 in humans, as there is one for cats. What is that?

  30. Hmmm ...

    ‘As I noted in earlier writings a head transplant should be little more complex than a hand transplant. The idea is that a diseased or traumatized head could be replaced indefinitely. Yet this entire line of treatment/surgery is forbidden. Why?’ – Robert Milnes

    Yes … we feel your pain …

  31. paulie Post author

    And while we are at it, this may be Deborah Knapp’s themesong (look up “deborah knapp” “robert milnes” if you don’t know who she is and want to know, lol)

  32. Robert Milnes

    Once again know it all except he doesn’t know it all paulie’s political correctness is lame. I was not charged with stalking. Yet paulie’s continuing to say that and other incorrect things over the past several years could be construed as cyberbullying. Except for me continuing to defend myself, little thanks to IPR/TPW commenters. With the notable exception of Catholic Trotskyist. Historically anyone who trhinks differently, whether correct or incorrect or sane or insane, is presecuted, bullied, ridiculed etc. So, just because pauliue ridicules me, does not mean necessarily PLAS doesn’t have merit, or will not work. Or a head transplant. Quite the contrary I-I-say.
    So go ahead lemming losers, follow loser paulie & other radical failures-& lose. Or follow rightists like Root & Ron Paul & lose. Even worse than lose. CONTRIBUTE 35 million to your ENEMIES. LOL! Assholes!

  33. paulie Post author

    paulie’s political correctness

    What? What “political correctness”?

    I was not charged with stalking.

    You showed highly inappropriate interest in Ms. Knapp, and did some time for it.

    could be construed as cyberbullying.

    Well, maybe, but then so could you constantly making fun of my weight, calling me a loser and a failure, etc, etc, etc. See how that cuts both ways?

    Or, for that matter, your constant stream of disruptive comments could be considered cyberbullying of pretty much everyone here, or, at best, as comic relief…but the joke is not very funny, and really old by now.

    If you’re going to insert your presence into the comment threads here constantly, and take shots at people, you’re going to get some shots back. That’s not “cyberbullying.”

    Historically anyone who trhinks differently, whether correct or incorrect or sane or insane, is presecuted, bullied, ridiculed etc.

    Is it comfortable up there on your cross, are you getting a nice breeze? LOL.

    So, just because paulie ridicules me, does not mean necessarily PLAS doesn’t have merit, or will not work.

    No, it’s the other way around: it doesn’t have any merit, so lots of people ridicule it. Humoring you by explaining why it doesn’t have any merit has been done to death, and you keep right on going, so what’s left to do? I mostly just try to ignore it, but I should really do a better job of that.

    Or a head transplant.

    Not even a head transplant would help you. You’d have to have both a head transplant AND a body transplant for it to do you any good.

    Quite the contrary I-I-say.

    It doesn’t matter what you say.

    So go ahead lemming losers, follow loser paulie & other radical failures-& lose. [..] Assholes!

    Cyberbully! Cyberbully! I’m going to run and tell the cyberteacher! Waaaaaah….

    Sorry, I really shouldn’t be so annoyed with a mental impatient :-)

  34. AroundtheblockAFT

    Root for Prez is as inevitable as was Hillary for Prez. But Hillary’s opposition, rather early on, coalesced around the articulate and presentable Obama. So those opposed to Root had better find one articulate and presentable candidate to rally around now or the Root machine will control the convention and win by dividing and conquering the opposition. Who knows, maybe Root should be given the chance to see if a right-leaning LP candidate makes any big progress toward cracking the 1% barrier? If he does, then that shows a path for the LP to get off the treadmill. The downside is if he doesn’t then
    there is something terribly wrong with the LP model and we should be prepared to continue – if we continue at all – as an itch on the elephant/donkey’s hide.

  35. paulie Post author

    So those opposed to Root had better find one articulate and presentable candidate to rally around now or the Root machine will control the convention and win by dividing and conquering the opposition.

    I don’t see it that way. Since we have multiple rounds of voting, opposition can coalesce on succeeding ballots. But, it’s true that we should find one or more presentable and articulate candidates. I think John Jay Myers shows the most early promise, if he wants to do it, but others may emerge.

    Who knows, maybe Root should be given the chance to see if a right-leaning LP candidate makes any big progress toward cracking the 1% barrier?

    That experiment has already been tried several times, including with Bob Barr. How about we try something different and nominate a ticket that is also willing to and capable of talking to the left in terms they understand, for a change?

    If he does, then that shows a path for the LP to get off the treadmill.

    I don’t think cracking 1% is a goal that justifies changing what we stand for.

    Yes, Ronald Reagan got much more than 1% of the vote, and Sarah Palin can get a lot more than 1% of the vote for president…but running as Reagan/Palin clones pretty much takes away the reason why the LP should exist at all (to eventually hopefully move policy in a libertarian direction).

    If we succeed in getting lots of votes, but it only serves to move government in the direction of getting bigger, we are worse than useless. And the nature of government is such that if you advocate making government smaller on 9 out of 10 issues, you are more likely to get your way on the one issue where you want to make government bigger – say, immigration control – and have no success on the other nine.

    if he doesn’t then there is something terribly wrong with the LP model

    I don’t see it that way. Most of the LP’s presidential tickets have been right-leaning…I’d have a hard time describing Bob Barr as left-leaning, for instance, but how many have been left-leaning or youth-oriented?

  36. Robert Capozzi

    pc: If we succeed in getting lots of votes, but it only serves to move government in the direction of getting bigger, we are worse than useless.

    me: Huh? Explain this. If the LP fields a “right-wing” L candidate and he gets 2% of the vote vs. the LP fielding a “left wing” L candidate who gets 0.5% of the vote, how does either scenario “serve” anything? After election day, both campaigns have NOTHING to do with government policy, which is controlled by a combination of Rs and Ds. Ls don’t have a seat at the table, and cannot held responsible for ongoing or new government policy, yes?

    Ideas can only have consequences if they are implemented. Otherwise, they are just ideas, dormant and inconsequential.

  37. Clones Are People Too

    As I noted in earlier writings a head transplant should be little more complex than a hand transplant. The idea is that a diseased or traumatized or aged body could be replaced indefinitely. Yet this entire line of treatment/surgery is forbidden. Why?

    Theoretically, a cloned body would be his/her own person, with his/her own natural rights, including the right to life.

    By what right would you cannibalize a cloned person’s body?

  38. Milnes/Waymire 2012 Steamroller

    Milnes: “Joy Waymire is a little quirky, but if she stepped up to the plate as vp on my fusion ticket, there is your next VPOTUS.”

    Milnes/Waymire 2012.

    Now there’s an Unbeatable Electoral Steamroller that will effortlessly roll right over Obama, Clinton, Palin, and any other potential presidential candidate.

    No wonder the FBI/NSA/CIA/MI-6/Mossad/Illuminati/United Nations/Gray Alien/Reptilian Alien cabal are pulling out all stops to sabotage a potential GP/LP/Native American/Bull Moose Party coalition that might form around Milnes/Waymire.

  39. paulie Post author

    If the LP fields a “right-wing” L candidate and he gets 2% of the vote vs. the LP fielding a “left wing” L candidate who gets 0.5% of the vote, how does either scenario “serve” anything?

    Presumably, 2% put the LP on the path to getting larger percentages later. Also, the larger the percentage of the vote, the greater the incentive for Democrats and Republicans to adopt some of our ideas so as to win back some votes. Since it doesn’t take a large percentage to swing some elections, it doesn’t take a huge percentage of the vote to have this effect – see the Socialist Party in the early 20th century for example.

    Or the Prohibition Party, for that matter.

  40. Observation

    Since Joy Waymire considers herself God’s salvation for the world (or something mysterious in that category), she’s beyond quirky. I don’t think she’s suitable to be a candidate representing us.

  41. AroundtheblockAFT

    Paulie, if a Root campaign for pres is no worse or better than Barr in appealing to the right, then fine let’s try a left appealing candidate – Kubby, Ruwart, whomever. But if a left appeal does no better than a right appeal – <1% – then can we agree the LP political model is broken and, as Mr. Capozzi notes, inconsequential? If so, where does the LP go from there?

    Re your idea that many candidates for prez can be sorted out in coalitions after each vote at NatCon – don't you think it possible Ruwart would have prevailed over Barr had she been the coalition candidate at Round One?

  42. paulie Post author

    Since Joy Waymire considers herself God’s salvation for the world

    So do a lot of politicians. W and Obama, for example.

  43. Robert Milnes

    I bet a LOT more people would vote for Milnes/Wymire than Barr/Root or Root/anybody.
    Ah, but there we go again. Nobody will try that so we’ll never know.
    & nobody is trying PLAS so we’ll never know.
    The know-it-alls ASSUME, therefore they make as ASS out of U and ME.

  44. Robert Milnes

    ATBAFT, yes, if the radicals had any kind of political spohistication, a LOT of scenarios were possible in 2008.
    Mary could’ve beat Root. Mary could have dropped out & endorsed Gravel in exchange for vp. etc.
    But the radicals are losers.
    A radical ticket will lose too.
    But a fusion ticket will win.
    Gravel/Ruwart could have won.
    A Milnes/Waymire ticket would be a fusion ticket.

  45. paulie Post author

    But if a left appeal does no better than a right appeal – <1% – then can we agree the LP political model is broken and, as Mr. Capozzi notes, inconsequential?

    Not necessarily. It could mean any number of things, or combination thereof, including but not limited to:

    -The timing might be wrong.

    -Candidate and/or campaign team sucks.

    -Very close D/R-oid election, and/or perhaps other similar alternative choice on the same ballot (Jesse Ventura or Ron Paul as independents, among other possibilities).

    More important than what percentage the candidate gets is to what extent is their race used to build the party: do they campaign with down-ticket candidates? Share their list with LPHQ and/or state and local parties? Plant seeds that bear fruit years or even decades later?

    There’s a very good chance that a left appeal would take more than one cycle to start showing results.

    As for “broken and inconsequential”…the benefits may well be second-, third-, etc. order ripple effects, so I would assume no such thing.

    If so, where does the LP go from there?

    Hopefully, keep on trucking. The effect we have is certainly smaller than we would like, but it exists. Our time may or may not be better spent doing something else, but I am not sure whether it is even possible to know the answer to that. All I can say is that it takes a variety of tactics to add up to a successful movement; see the socialists circa 100 years ago.

    Re your idea that many candidates for prez can be sorted out in coalitions after each vote at NatCon – don’t you think it possible Ruwart would have prevailed over Barr had she been the coalition candidate at Round One?

    No. Too many delegates for Barr and Root combined, as well as others that would not necessarily prefer Ruwart over Barr, including Phillies and Gravel and many (probably most) of their delegates.

    Which “coalition candidate” would she have been? Phillies didn’t see either Ruwart or Barr as acceptable choices. Gravel apparently actually preferred Barr over Ruwart, if anything. I don’t know who Jingozian preferred between the two, but he endorsed Gravel, and Gravel apparently thought Ruwart would be, if anything, worse than Root or Barr.

    Christine Smith had some weird competitive issues with other women, and didn’t have a lot of delegates anyway.

    Kubby is the only other candidate that clearly preferred Ruwart over Barr. Would Ruwart have done better if Kubby didn’t run? No, she ended up getting those votes anyway, as well as whichever delegates for other candidates found her to be less bad than Barr.

    I don’t understand how you think she would have picked up additional votes if other candidates had not been in the race, since those votes became available anyway after those candidates were eliminated.

  46. Robert Capozzi

    pc: Presumably, 2% put the LP on the path to getting larger percentages later. Also, the larger the percentage of the vote, the greater the incentive for Democrats and Republicans to adopt some of our ideas so as to win back some votes.

    me: Maybe, maybe not. We might field a really good candidate and the Rs and Ds really poor ones, so we might get an abherrational 2% in one cycle, then 0.5% the next.

    Of course we DO want the Rs and Ds to co-opt our ideas! Yes, if a Root is “good” on 9/10 issues, I’d hope the issues co-opted would be from the 90% segment, not the 10% one.

    Let’s not be control freaks. Ls sometimes disagree. Some Ls advocate things other Ls don’t. It strikes me as healthier and more productive to do the best we can and let the chips fall where they may.

    If Root isn’t an open borders guy and you are, I seriously doubt Root’s non-open-borders position is going to be SO influential, anyway. Lots of Rs (and Ds) are already for some border control. (As am I, btw.)

    You’re starting to sound paranoid, Paulie.

    “Lay back, enjoy the show.” – S. Crow

  47. paulie Post author

    Maybe, maybe not. We might field a really good candidate and the Rs and Ds really poor ones, so we might get an abherrational 2% in one cycle, then 0.5% the next.

    Even an “aberrational” 2% will make Democrats and Republicans sit up and take notice, since it would be a departure from the usual 0.4 +/- 0.1%. If it starts becoming part of a pattern, even more so.

    Of course we DO want the Rs and Ds to co-opt our ideas! Yes, if a Root is “good” on 9/10 issues, I’d hope the issues co-opted would be from the 90% segment, not the 10% one.

    Unfortunately, that’s not the way it works. Government is like a living thing – it “likes” to grow. So, it’s a lot easier to “convince” the parties in power to expand their power than it is to contract it. That’s why, even if more, harder and deeper border control is the only one bad point out of ten that a candidate emphasizes, it’s the one he is most likely to see success with.

    Let’s not be control freaks.

    I’m not trying to be a control freak.

    I seriously doubt Root’s non-open-borders position is going to be SO influential, anyway. Lots of Rs (and Ds) are already for some border control.

    If he makes that an important issue in his campaign, and does better than the average LP candidate, it could be the excuse to set off a really damaging round of migrant-bashing. Although, at this point I’m more concerned with a likely Tancredo presidential race in this regard, especially if he is the sitting Governor of Colorado. But no, Root adding his voice to Tancredo’s on this is certainly not a good thing either.

    And, while Root is not a supporter of the “Fair Tax” last time I checked, some other LP candidate who makes a big issue of that and does better than average might be the spur it takes to pass a mutant version of this harmful legislation, which would be our one “big accomplishment.”

    Maybe some Libertarian Candidate (“X”) will make banning mosques in the US a campaign issue, get 5% of the vote for President of the US, and the D/R-oids will actually do it so that the next Libertarian doesn’t get 10%. How about that for an accomplishment to really make us proud? Bear in mind “Candidate X” here is not meant to be anyone we are thinking of right now.

    Could the LP actually serve as the catalyst for making things worse? We can’t rule out the possibility.

    You’re starting to sound paranoid, Paulie.

    Not too paranoid. I think things will eventually work out for the good. But they are likely to get worse – possibly much worse – first.

  48. Robert Capozzi

    pc, yes, we can’t rule out ANY possibility. But your paranoia is built, IMO, on a series of highly speculative ifs.

    IF your position on X is correct. And IF we nominate an L candidate who holds a different position on X. And IF the L candidate heavily promotes that deviationist (from Paulie’s perspective) position. And IF the L candidate does significantly better than past L candidates. And IF he/she does SO much better that the Rs and Ds adjust their position substantially in reaction to the perceived popularity of the L candidate BECAUSE OF his/her deviationist position. THEN, the L candidate could be said to being consequential and anti-liberty (from your perspective).

    It is a risk. Say, for ex., Paul 88 or Barr 08 did FAR better than they did, and they did so because of their pro-life views. In fact, they did SO well that the Rs and Ds adjusted their views on the subject, leading to, say, more restrictive abortion laws. This is not impossible to consider, but highly, highly, highly unlikely, IMO.

    My observation is that public opinion doesn’t permanently sway that way. Yes, occasionally, there are blips of issues. The Red Menace and the threat of “Islamofascism,” for ex., triggered phobia in larger segments of the population. After a while, the phobia abates. There are still Islamophobes, but my sense is that it’s not as pronounced as it was in 03, when majorities supported the Iraq War, for ex. Cooler heads start to prevail, and the war became less popular, then unpopular. And, yes, Cordoba House reminds us that the Islamophobia is not dead, and can be used to manipulate.

    Instead, public opinion waxes and wanes, ebbs and flows.

    Demonization is the oldest trick in the book. And, unfortunately, it still works.

    I don’t happen to believe that we can be successful using counter-demonization tactics, as Rothbard employed. Instead, I suggest we have a more aspirational, transcendant message, e.g., Gandhi, King and King. Why not try rising up out of the muck, rather than sling mud?

  49. paulie Post author

    Let’s trace this back.

    ATBAFT: Who knows, maybe Root should be given the chance to see if a right-leaning LP candidate makes any big progress toward cracking the 1% barrier? If he does, then that shows a path for the LP to get off the treadmill.

    I just pointed out where that kind of thinking can lead us astray.

    If we break the 1% barrier by having a candidate advocating, say, a massive crackdown on immigrants, and the Republicans feel a need to win back voters from their right flank who may defect to such a party/candidate so that they don’t lose to the Democrats, yes, “we” could be the catalyst for a change for the worse. Even if that same candidate has a bunch of other good positions, which they are far more likely to ignore, because they don’t give more power to politicians or more jobs to government employees. It’s a self-interest thing…

    I can really see this possibly happening with the “fair tax,” though perhaps not with Root, unless he changes his mind and starts pushing it.

    Instead, I suggest we have a more aspirational, transcendant message, e.g., Gandhi, King

    I agree with that.

    As for “using counter-demonization tactics,” I try to avoid those. I’ve defended Wayne Root, for example, including in this very thread, when I think he is unfairly attacked.

  50. Robert Milnes

    Clones are people too @51, no, I do not think clones would be their own person. They would be an extension of the person’s DNA.
    Only if they were allowed to grow with their own brain would they become their own person. Hence I referred to an anencephalitic clone.
    People have got to have the right to their own DNA. There would be no issue if there was only one organ involved e.g. in vitro skin growth, liver transplants etc. As soon as you use the DNA to make an individual brain, you create a new person. So, if that is avoided, the rest of the body is the property of the individual. IMO.

  51. Robert Capozzi

    pc: If we break the 1% barrier by having a candidate advocating, say, a massive crackdown on immigrants, and the Republicans feel a need to win back voters from their right flank who may defect to such a party/candidate so that they don’t lose to the Democrats, yes, “we” could be the catalyst for a change for the worse.

    me: Yes, but again a MASSIVE “if,” since our candidates — while not often open-borders supporters — don’t make immigration a keystone issue. If a candidate goes VERY rogue and becomes a militant anti-immigrant, the LNC could disavow them.

  52. paulie Post author

    Robert, case in point:

    Kathie Glass Prepares Letter to Read to Gov. Perry at Statewide Televised Debate

    Houston, Texas, October 18, 2010: Kathie Glass, the Libertarian candidate for Texas governor, is preparing for the gubernatorial debate that will be televised on most PBS stations around the state on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. The event will be broadcast from the KRLU studio in Austin, Texas. “All candidates with the guts to show up will be there,” Kathie Glass said. “Predictably, incumbent governor Rick Perry refuses to appear.”

    Ms. Glass will stress the need for border security, state sovereignty against unconstitutional federal acts, drastically lower taxes and spending, and an end to eminent domain abuses like the Trans Texas Corridor. She is preparing a “strongly worded letter” reminding Gov. Perry of his duty as Commander-in-Chief of the Texas military forces to use our Texas State Guard to enforce Texas state law against trespass and other crimes and repel the invasions going on down at the border. Ms. Glass intends to hand deliver the letter to Gov. Perry if he shows up or share its contents during the debate.

    Toward liberty,

    The Kathie Glass campaign

  53. Robert Milnes

    Come on, paulie. This is libertarian politics 101.
    In 2008, Ron Paul got @35 million in contributions.
    Much of that came from libertarians.
    The LP & libertarian candidates have limited resources for the most part.
    The Pauls are Republican party members/candidates.
    The Pauls are counterrevolutionaries.
    The LP is ideally revolutionary.
    Ron Paul will almost certainly run again in 2012.
    It would be prudent for libertarians to public delare opposition to The Pauls.
    I have done this many times.

  54. Let's get some answers

    Since Root has decided to run, does nobody find it prudent it hold his feet to the fire in terms of his social views? While I agree that economic and policy views are more important, doesn’t anyone think it’s necessary to finally get some answers out of this guy to see if his views are really compatible with that of a Libertarians? While I’ve heard him sidestep some questions by simply saying “those should be left to the states” without any personal stamp on his answers, I for one, want to hear HIS views, from him.

  55. Robert Capozzi

    paulie, the term “invasion” is a bit over the top, but as a border state, it’s prudent for the state to check foreign nationals entering.

    I don’t especially find these words troubling coming from a L candidate. More to the point, I SERIOUSLY doubt that the R/Ds are going to moved on the issue IF Glass does exceedingly well. Border control is not an issue that Ls are going to make others co-opt, since the Rs esp. have already got lots of interest groups looking to tighten border control.

  56. paulie Post author

    does nobody find it prudent it hold his feet to the fire in terms of his social views?

    A bit of etymological trivia from http://www.english-for-students.com/Hold-Your-Feet.html


    Hold Your Feet to The Fire : Phrases

    Meaning:

    To hold one accountable for a commitment, make good on a promise.

    Example:

    You made a fair bet with me on the Superbowl and I am going to hold your feet to the fire for payment.

    Origin:

    Pertains to torture used during the Crusades. As a method for extracting confession for heresy, non-believers were positioned in a manner that allowed the inquisitor to apply flames to the feet of the accused. This was done until the accused confessed or died.

    As ridiculous as that method of obtaining a confession seems by today’s standards, consider a modern parallel – plea bargaining. The accused is offered the choice between a reduced sentence in exchange for a confession, or prosecution with the risk of more severe penalty (possibly death).

  57. paulie Post author

    Robert,

    I SERIOUSLY doubt that the R/Ds are going to moved on the issue IF Glass does exceedingly well. Border control is not an issue that Ls are going to make others co-opt, since the Rs esp. have already got lots of interest groups looking to tighten border control.

    Those other groups don’t have a spot on the Texas ballot. If a Libertarian makes this a top issue – as seems to be the case here – and if it causes Republicans to lose votes on their right flank to the extent that they start losing to Democrats – then yes, the LP could be to blame for changing policy for the worse.

    That’s just one example of where this could go.

  58. paulie Post author

    the term “invasion” is a bit over the top, but as a border state, it’s prudent for the state to check foreign nationals entering.

    The Texas State Guard is a military operation:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard

    The Texas State Guard (TXSG) is one of three branches of the military forces of Texas, reporting to the Adjutant General, and under the command of the Governor. The other branches of the State Military Forces of Texas are the Texas Army National Guard, and the Texas Air National Guard.

  59. Robert Capozzi

    pc, yep, politics involves risk. Volunteer politics is in some ways MORE risky, as loose cannons have nothing to lose by making over-the-top statements.

    An abolitionist L running for Congress has stated that there’s a right to private nukes. That’s a risky statement on a lot of levels, although I’m reasonably confident that the Rs and Ds won’t co-opt that “issue.”

    As a party, we’re taking our best shot at instituting liberty. Sometimes, some of us will disgree with what “liberty” is, and what are steps toward or away from liberty. Sometimes, the disagreement will be so large that we withdraw our support of our fellow Ls.

    Hold ‘em; fold ‘em; walk away; run. Them’s the options as individual Ls. If you want to walk away from Glass, do so. You might even encourage other Ls to do the same.

    Generally, I’d say we Ls are SO far below the radar that my propensity to “hold” is very strong, even though I find Glass’s statement at least mildly wrong-headed. If the glorious day comes when we actually get on the radar screen, we can have another conversation.

    If Dondero-ism OR Rothbardian-ism were somehow to become the prevailing L message, I’d probably walk away. In the meantime, the clowns are too the left of me, jokers to the right… ;-)

  60. Why Root Avoids the Issues...

    While I’ve heard [Root] sidestep some questions by simply saying “those should be left to the states” without any personal stamp on his answers

    Root sidesteps issues because he wants to sell books to right-wing/Tea Party homophobes and war-mongers.

    But Root also wants lots of cool LP titles, so he can market himself as an “official” LP spokesperson on TV. Root needs this “official” LP status to differentiate himself from all the other Rush-wannabe blowhards.

    Root is marketing himself to two different customer bases: right-wingers and libertarians. So he focuses on issues that appeal to both, while avoiding issues that may compel him to pick sides and lose one of his customer bases.

    Root’s side-stepping of issues only shows what an empty suit he is.

    Of course, now Aaron Starr might pop in to point to some obscure (and vaguely phrased) passage buried in Root’s book, that kinda, sorta sounds libertarian on a social issue or foreign policy.

    Buried (and vaguely phrased) so it will hopefully placate libertarians, without being noticed by, and offending, Root’s right-wing customer base.

  61. Robert Capozzi

    why, yes, well it’s been said that disturbing a sleepwalker can be dangerous. Waking them in a more gentle (inoffensive) manner is generally indicated.

  62. paulie Post author

    Regarding left and right appeal issues, as discussed in several comment above, I found this interesting

    Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, ABCT Mentioned in Unlikely Place

    Posted by Lew Rockwell


    Writes Robert Lallier:

    You won’t believe it unless you see it for yourself. I still have a bruise on the bottom of my jaw. Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard were not only mentioned, they, and the Austrian School were actually given a fair hearing with an absolute minimum of ill-justified opprobrium and smearing. The web site where this happened is the real shocker: it was the Daily Kos were this happened. The Daily Kos?! The Daily Socialist Kos?! Somebody favorably reviewed the Econ-Stories video “The Boom and the Bust,” and went on to provide an honest, layman’s blow-by-blow, explanation of the lyrics! Pinch me. I must be dreaming. I’m stunned. It must be a sign of the apocalypse. They must have been hacked by militant anarcho-capitalists with a sense of humor.

    The DailyKos story is at
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/1/8929/21462

    Highly worth checking out….

    Here’s the video, which is accompanied by a rather lengthy explanation:

Leave a Reply