IPR Exclusive: Gary Johnson to Announce Libertarian Switch Tomorrow

UPDATE: Johnson has told a reporter that this is something he’s looking at and that he will be in New York tomorrow to do “as many media appearances as they can wind me up and send me in that direction.” But he said he wasn’t announcing the switch tomorrow.

Stephen Gordon, who identifies himself as the Southern Regional Director of the Gary Johnson 2012 campaign, told me:

“I personally spoke with Governor Johnson a couple of days ago and outlined many of the pros and cons of running for the LP’s presidential nomination. It’s my opinion that certain senior leaders within the GOP have intentionally thrown as many roadblocks as possible into the governor’s path and that the Libertarian Party will be a much more welcoming home to someone of his true small-government ideology and proven track record.”

Gordon added that as of their last conversation the Governor was not yet decided but was strongly considering the idea.

 

 

Numerous sources have reported to IPR that former two term Governor and Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson is going to announce his switch to the Libertarian Party race tomorrow. Rumors have been swirling for weeks now that former Governor Johnson was going to run third party or become a member of the Libertarian Party, but now the rumor has been confirmed with a number of insiders.

In 2000, Governor Gary Johnson rebuffed efforts to recruit him into the Libertarian Party, stating: “I do consider it very flattering. But I’m a Republican, and I’m not going to run for President”.

 

280 thoughts on “IPR Exclusive: Gary Johnson to Announce Libertarian Switch Tomorrow

  1. RedPhillips

    I think it may unless Johnson is able to bring a lot of his own people to the convention. I don’t think LP regulars will be in much of a mood for another interloper of questionable libertarian credentials.

    Could some LP veterans answer me this? Do most states normally fill their allotted delegate counts? Are delegate slots generally competitive? Would it be easy for LP newbies who are Johnson supporters to get delegates slots? I’m sure a lot of this depends on the state.

  2. Trent Hill Post author

    Update: I’m hearing now that he has told a reporter that he’s not switching tomorrow. Need to sort this out.

  3. Pingback: Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Independent Political Report Says Gary Johnson Will Formally Declare for Libertarian Nomination on December 15

  4. Jimmy Clifton

    At least Johnson isn’t a “kook” like so many third party nominees. He could bring credibility to the Party and be the best candidate can Ed Clark in 1980. I still wish I’d voted Clark instead of Anderson then.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    @3,

    “Do most states normally fill their allotted delegate counts?”

    I’m not sure about “most” states. Many do not. It’s also somewhat related to where the convention is held at. If it’s far away from the states with bigger delegations, those delegations are likely to have more unfilled vacancies.

    “Are delegate slots generally competitive?”

    Usually, no. States with significant delegate allocations are usually beating the bushes to find people who are willing to travel somewhere far away and stay in an expensive hotel — both at their own expense — for the privilege of sitting in meetings through what’s usually a holiday weekend.

    “Would it be easy for LP newbies who are Johnson supporters to get delegates slots?”

    For their own state delegations, there may be rules requiring party membership some set time in advance to be qualified as a delegate. Or their state convention may just decide not to hand out slots to faces they’ve never seen before.

    But some state parties and/or state party officials have been known to make their delegate slots open, either on a general basis or to people who support their preferred candidates.

    “I’m sure a lot of this depends on the state.”

    Yes, it varies from state to state — and even if the state delegations are willing to be “packed,” the candidate and his campaign generally have to do the work of identifying warm supportive bodies and get them to the convention.

    There’s always talk of “packing,” but the only time I’ve seen it successfully done on a significant scale was in 2002 for the national chair race — and that ended up backfiring big-time.

  6. Pingback: Gary Johnson to Run for Libertarian Presidential Nomination (Maybe?) | Conservative Heritage Times

  7. RedPhillips

    “It’s my opinion that certain senior leaders within the GOP have intentionally thrown as many roadblocks as possible into the governor’s path”

    I would like specifics on this. As I said in the post linked above:

    I’m not crazy about people who perform poorly in a major party primary jumping ship and seeking the nomination of a minor party, especially in the same race for the same office. Unless the person is obviously done wrong by the major party in which case seeking a minor party nomination could have a righteous feel about it, it comes off as sour grapes and gives off a petty “I’ll show you” vibe. It also potentially gives off a whiney needy vibe. Like the candidate is desperately seeking someone, anyone to love him. (See Bob Smith.)

    Johnson, as a two term governer of a state, potentially has some room to complain about being ignored, not being invited to debates, etc. But I think those were reflective of his poll numbers and the fact that he really doesn’t have a base within the GOP. He may have a general election base, but he doesn’t have a GOP primary base. I don’t get the sense that there has been an organized campaign to marginalize him because he never had enough support for there to need to be one.

  8. Mario Conde

    Bob Barr was a hypocrite to the LP. He has endorsed the worst politician (The Grinch) in the history of mankind. Barr was an obscure candidate that didn’t play with voters or the mainstream media.

    Johnson will be different and BETTER. He is a true LIBERTARIAN. LP members will not agree with every single one of his positions but he will bring credibility and brand equity to our party. In the case Ron Paul would have won the nomination of the GOP, he could have been the VP candidate. The Libertarian message should be heard louud an clear and he is the man to take the message to a new level.

    I welcome Gary Johnson to the Libertarian Party. He has my endorsement (unless Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination).

  9. Trent Hill Post author

    Red-Im not so sure. I think the Reform people will be all over him from the very beginning.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    Red @ 11,

    Short answer: Yes.

    Longer answer:

    A plurality of Libertarian national convention delegates always fall for the “famous person who will take us to the big leagues” schtick from the very beginning.

    The candidate doesn’t even have to actually be famous. He just has to act famous and either assure, or get other people to assure, Libertarians that he’s famous, to almost instantly be in double-digit support, with people running around screaming “WE’VE FINALLY MADE IT! THIS IS TEH FER SURE!!!! NEXT POTUS!”

    As we saw in 2008, support tends to gravitate toward the allegedly famous candidates as the ones who aren’t pretending to be famous eliminate each other. If Barr and Root hadn’t both been running, it would have gone fewer ballots before one of them won.

    Johnson might not be able to win on the first ballot, but unless another “famous” entrant jumped in, he’d pick up more support from each elimination than any of the “non-famous” candidates would, eventually getting his majority.

    At least that’s what the history says.

  11. Dr. Tom Stevens

    I would consider endorsing Gary Johnson for the LP Presidential Nomination over the other announced candidates. As a two-term Governor, he brings leadership experience to the race.

    I know many still consider Carl Person to be “the cats meow!” but I doubt he will have the support at the convention to come away with the nomination.

  12. Kevin Knedler

    ? Rules on how a state selects its delegates?
    They all vary.
    Ohio LP has a clear process and set of rules.
    http://www.lpo.org
    Look to left menu bar and “about the LPO”
    THen click on “LPO bylaws” . It’s all there.
    We set it up so LP members (both state registered voters and national pledge signers) can participate.

  13. RedPhillips

    Dr. Stevens, I have never been very persuaded by the “experience” or “qualification” argument for third party presidential candidates because they aren’t going to win (barring some sort of political cataclysm) and it is near delusional to think they might. So why does he need leadership or experience since he isn’t going to be leading anything unless it is leadership and experience running a campaign and being a candidate we are talking about (not an insignificant factor I admit)? Better that the person has high name recognition and be an articulate spokesman for the party and its ideas. This isn’t aimed at Dr. Stevens, it is more of a general comment.

  14. Mario Conde

    @14 Trent, I think maybe Root will run for VP nomination again if Gary gets to be the candidate. Looking at Johnson’s website, he is with the Poker Alliance which is Root’s base.

    Love him or hate him, WAR has attracted a lot of media apperances over the last 3 years and it would be logical to have him and Gary as the LP ticket for 2012. I would be open to see a Johnson/Root ticket for next year.

  15. Pingback: Johnson to Switch to Libertarians | Hotspyer – Breaking News from around the web

  16. RedPhillips

    “…always fall for the “famous person who will take us to the big leagues” schtick from the very beginning. The candidate doesn’t even have to actually be famous. He just has to act famous…”

    Tom, I think this demonstrates how truly small the third party wasteland really is. I see the same dynamic in the CP. It is easy to be a big fish in a small sea. I also think this explains why so many former major party third party candidates end up back in the major party they came from. It is not easy on the ego to go from being a somebody in a big sea to instant insignificance outside of your small sea. (See Bob Barr, Bob Smith, Pat Buchanan, etc. etc. etc.) This isn’t necessarily a criticism of these folks. It is more an observation.

  17. Pingback: Gary Johnson Likely To Switch To Libertarian Party « Alan Colmes' Liberaland

  18. Nicholas Sarwark

    Well, the NH primaries are on 1/10/12, which is less than a month (full of holidays) away. What’s the edge in dropping out before any votes? Especially after he raised money on the promise to contest NH?

  19. George Phillies

    @26 He, like, spent almost all the money. And his campaign is way deep in debt, which gives him a good reason for running (L). He can keep raising money and use it to pay off his old debt from his (R) campaign.

  20. Carl

    Johnson is the ideal LP candidate. If the LP were to nothing other than get Johnson or someone of his caliber on the ballot in those years were both the D and R candidates are bad, then the LP is worth all the efforts spent — even with a politically suicidal platform and growth-stunting membership oath.

    Johnson is one of the sanest candidates running. However, he is pro-choice, pro open borders and unmarried. He thus has next to no chance to get the RP nomination. On the other hand, he is thoughtful, experienced, and the press likes him. He has the potential to be a better general election candidate than the Republican offering. (Though it would help enormously if someone would coach him in keeping his head movements down while on camera.)

    Ideologically I am closer to Paul than Johnson. But Paul is so idealistic that I would prefer someone more pragmatic and with more executive experience. Johnson thus makes me more comfortable, and I am by no means alone. Many in the media are pushing Johnson the same way they are pushing Huntsman.

  21. RedPhillips

    “I know many still consider Carl Person to be “the cat’s meow!””

    Since I was unfamiliar with the controversy in the thread above, I’m just now getting this. Very low class Dr. Tom.

  22. Nicholas Sarwark

    George: Do you have a link to the latest filings from the Johnson campaign to support that, or are you going on hearsay? Last filing I paid any attention to, the campaign was still cash positive, though only by about $100K.

    Carl: Are you still out of the LP due to your overly restrictive (IMHO) reading of the pledge? Are you (or your fellow travelers in the platform fights) coming back if Johnson gets the nod?

  23. Carol Moore

    I assume he will get with the program Non-Intervention wise? And NOT be biased in criticizing some countries human rights and private property abuses but not others??

  24. Gene Berkman

    Red @ # 19 – “I have never been very persuaded by the “experience” or “qualification” argument for third party presidential candidates because they aren’t going to win…”

    Couple of points in response to that.

    Yes we know the third party candidate is not going to be elected President. Since 1856 every President has been elected as a Democrat or Republican. (That might explain the mess we’re in ). Hundreds of third party & independent candidates have been elected to Congress and state legislatures in that time (Wikipedia has a list).

    But if you run for office and say you are not going to win, alot of potential supporters ignore you and the media ignores you.

    If you campaign, you will be asked “What will you do if elected?” and if you have too little experience, and blow this question, you will reduce your potential support to extreme ideologues, alienated protest voters, and perhaps your doting relatives.

    Bob Barr was a poor candidate, but every candidate running against him lacked credentials that would cause anyone outside a narrow group of very committed LP loyalists to completely ignore the campaign.

    Third parties nominated major party defectors who have held office not because it is a quick road to the big time, but in order to stave off complete disintegration of the party.

  25. Pingback: Gary Johnson to leave GOP race, run as Libertarian | Robert Butler

  26. Robert Capozzi

    28 cm: Many in the media are pushing Johnson the same way they are pushing Huntsman.

    me: Huntsman I see. GJ, not so much. Aside from the Judge, his media has been minimal, or perhaps I just missed it. He got a nice bump from the shovel-ready quip, and then fell off the radar.

    I wish it were so. GJ would be a great nominee, based on what I know. Still hoping for Paul/Johnson, although I see the Right Wing Noise Machine is starting to rev up the NewsletterGate issue. I trust RP handles it better this time….

  27. Gary Odom

    Rumors have Johnson selecting Gene Berkman to be his running mate…course it’s a rumor I just started. I’ll be by to say hi and maybe buy a book next week, Gene. It’s starting to get cold back here.

    Happy Holidays to all my friends in the Libertarian Party!

  28. RedPhillips

    Gene, I know the candidate can’t say he isn’t going to win. He has to at least maintain the pretense that he is in it to win. I’m thinking more about potential delegates and supporters.

    I don’t agree that a third party has to nominate a “credible” candidate to keep from disintegrating. The LP didn’t disintegrate after it nominated Badnarik. The CP didn’t disintegrate after it nominated Peroutka. Nothing against both men, both of whom I like and respect, it’s just that they are examples of the parties nominating party people instead of celebrities. The vote totals really didn’t change all that much and the parties went on.

  29. ATBAFT

    So, if one were considering running for congress or state senate or even town council, who would you rather have sweep into town to stand by you: Gary Johnson, Carl Person, Lee Wrights, Jim Libertarian Burns? Which one will most impress the media and will lead to more media coverage of your campaign? Which will be the least embarrassment to you as you espouse libertarian principles to non-libertarian voters? Which one is more likely to lead to growth in your local organization?

  30. Gene Berkman

    @ 36 – Lincoln was elected as a Republican in 1860 (or by the electoral college in 1861 if that is what you meant.)

    In 1864 he was still a Republican, but ran for re-election with Dem. Senator Andrew Johnson for V-P on the “Union Party” ticket. The Union Party was not a new party but a coalition of the Republican Party with Democrats who were loyal to the Union and favored victory over secessionist elements.

    I don’t think the 1864 election provides an exception to my contention that every President since 1856 has been a Democrat or a Republican.

  31. Gene Berkman

    Carol @ 31 – Gary Johnson opposed the Iraq War and calls for bringing the troops home from Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is a practical non-interventionist who presents his argument in practical terms.

    Some in the Rockwell crowd have critized Johnson for holding out the possibility that some humanitarian intervention may be justified, as if Mr Johnson actually does support intervention somewhere. But arguing against intervention in practical terms – rather than ideological is probably more persuasive with many people.

  32. Pingback: Ron Paul: I’m not sure I’ll hold up during a long primary « Hot Air

  33. Andy

    Uuuuggggggggg! I’m really not wild about Gary “I support the Fair Tax” Johnson as the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate.

    I suspect that a lot of Libertarians are going to drink the Gary Johnson “Kool Aid” just like they did with Bob Barr in the last election. If this happens I hope that Johnson doesn’t turn out to be as bad a candidate for the LP as Barr was.

  34. Andy

    “ATBAFT // Dec 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    So, if one were considering running for congress or state senate or even town council, who would you rather have sweep into town to stand by you: Gary Johnson, Carl Person, Lee Wrights, Jim Libertarian Burns?”

    None of the above.

  35. Pingback: Possible third party end around - INGunOwners

  36. Pingback: Gary Johnson Preparing to Bolt from the G.O.P. and Seek the Libertarian Presidential Nomination « White House 2012

  37. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “A plurality of Libertarian national convention delegates always fall for the “famous person who will take us to the big leagues” schtick from the very beginning.

    The candidate doesn’t even have to actually be famous. He just has to act famous and either assure, or get other people to assure, Libertarians that he’s famous, to almost instantly be in double-digit support, with people running around screaming “WE’VE FINALLY MADE IT! THIS IS TEH FER SURE!!!! NEXT POTUS!”

    As we saw in 2008, support tends to gravitate toward the allegedly famous candidates as the ones who aren’t pretending to be famous eliminate each other”

    I think that a lot of Libertarians are overestimating Gary Johnson’s fame. Gary Johnson was Governor of a low population state and he hasn’t held off in 8 years. Gary Johnson has been mostly out of the public eye for most of those 8 years. Sure, he’s been running for President in the Republican Primary but his campaign has received very little support. Heck, most Republicans don’t even know who he is.

  38. signalfire

    I’ve been following Gary Johnson for about a year now, since I accidentally saw him on a news program. He’s very impressive; not ‘presidential’ in the Romney/Clark Kent/Ken Doll image, but very quirky and believable. The guy is real, not coached, and projects absolute honesty.

    When you add in his socially liberal/ fiscally conservative stance, and his refusal to either bad mouth his opponents or invoke god or religion in his discussions, he becomes a true crossover voter. I’m a political liberal/independent who voted for Obama as a protest against McCain and his Arm Candy Moose Killer; I did not get what I wanted and feel that Obama is too entrenched in corporate and banking industry ties to be free to act as strongly as the situation requires. He’s also seriously undergunned in the experience department.

    I will vote for Gary Johnson no matter what party he’s in, but he’s right, he has been completely shut out of participation in the first six months of Republican campaigning; his name often was not even included in polls at all as an option, which affected his fundraising and name awareness, which further diminished his ability to even get in the polls…. He’s right to leave, the Republicans don’t deserve him. I hope the Libertarian party welcomes him with open arms; in what other disastrous situation, candidate-wise, on both sides, do you think your party will have a chance?

  39. JT

    I agree with some of what Gene Berkman says in post 32. I want to add a couple of points.

    Gene: “But if you run for office and say you are not going to win, alot of potential supporters ignore you and the media ignores you.”

    I agree that the candidate shouldn’t say he or she won’t win. But on the flip side, if someone running for President as an alternative party candidate says there’s a very good chance of winning, then that person seems mentally disturbed.

    I personally like Harry Browne’s approach when he was asked while campaigning whether he thought he could win. He said it’s possible though unlikely. But then he added that by voting Libertarian you can still clearly send the message that you want much less government, and if enough other people vote Libertarian, it will make the national media take the party seriously. Then many more people will view the LP as a legitimate, worthwhile alternative to the status quo.

    Gene: “Third parties nominated major party defectors who have held office not because it is a quick road to the big time, but in order to stave off complete disintegration of the party.”

    I don’t think the party would otherwise be in danger of “disintegration.” I suspect that, like me, many Libertarians want someone as the top candidate in all 50 states (or close to that) who has achieved more than the typical person. Not just an average Joe or Jane who’s a doctrinaire libertarian.

  40. Andy

    “I don’t think the party would otherwise be in danger of ‘disintegration.’ I suspect that, like me, many Libertarians want someone as the top candidate in all 50 states (or close to that) who has achieved more than the typical person. Not just an average Joe or Jane who’s a doctrinaire libertarian.”

    I want a candidate who is the best salesman for libertarianism. The candidate has to actually understand libertarianism before they can effectively sell it, and I think that Johnson is lacking in the area of understanding.

    The Libertarian Party needs a hardcore freedom fighter that can effectively sell the message and inspire other people to become hardcore freedom fighters.

  41. johncjackson

    Watchout. Somehow Stephen Gordon is going to end up running IPR and it will become a PR site for Gary Johnson.

  42. Gene Berkman

    I agree with JT that Harry Browne handled the issue of “electability” a little better than most.

    I saw Harry Browne more than once mention the London bookmakers putting his odds of winning at 200 to 1 against. He would then say “See I have a 1 in 200 chance of being elected.”

  43. bruuno

    Andy@48-
    I think you are right that his ‘fame’ may be a little overblown but he is still significantly better known than all the other LP Presidential candidates combined.

  44. Gene Berkman

    Andy @ 48 says “I think that a lot of Libertarians are overestimating Gary Johnson’s fame.”

    True enough. But Ron Paul was much more obscure before he began running in 2008 than he is now. Jon Huntsman was much more obscure before he began his campaign than he is now. etc.

    Gary Johnson is actually very well known among people actively promoting legalization of marijuana. He has been publicized in High Times and in local medical marijuana publications in California. And his role in the campaign for Prop 19 to legalize marijuana in California in 2010 was widely publicized and even mentioned in the Los Angeles Times.

  45. Robert Capozzi

    Funny, I’ve not seen anyone claim GJ is famous. Rather, one of the strongest arguments for GJ is that he’s credible, which increases the chances that he could become somewhat of a national figure.

    And, yes, Browne’s answer on electability sounds well-crafted, because it’s true.

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    bruuno@56,

    Yes, Johnson is better known than the other candidates.

    And that is not a bad selling point.

    The problem is that there’s a dynamic in the LP — often intentionally fueled by promoters — that tends to produce an unrealistic perception of how well-known the candidate is, and what results the candidate is likely to achieve.

    I like to think that the response to Russ Verney’s claim from the stage in 2008 that the Barr campaign would raise $40 million and win the election was eyes-open rah-rah, not naive true belief … but I think there was some of the latter.

    Contra the portrayals of the Browne campaign above, in late 1995 and early 1996 the message was very much that Browne had a real shot at winning — by convention time, he dialed back expectations to getting 10%, which was still 20+ times the actual performance.

    I was just coming into the LP at that time. I met other people who were coming into the LP — motivated, energized, and convinced that they were volunteers for a campaign that was going to put Harry Browne in office. By 1997, I wasn’t seeing those people any more. Their expectations were dashed and they felt like they had been led on.

    There’s a fine line between running as if you could win, and unreasonably raising expectations that you can win.

    A good candidate will talk well about what he’d do if he won, and when asked if he can win, offer something like “I’m not unrealistic — but hey, that’s up to the voters.”

    A good campaign will take care not to get wild and crazy with predictions, but instead promise things that it can plausibly deliver, and then do its damnedest to deliver them, so that the party comes out of the election stronger and more energized rather than drained and disillusioned.

  47. Robert Capozzi

    59 tk, interesting datapoint about Browne. Is 51 JT incorrect, or is his report from a different time period?

    I can see why “promoters” would overpromise, but I’d suggest they stop. The better rule of thumb is to be at once aspirational yet to underpromise and over deliver.

    That involves the art of qualification, something that I observe is often alien to absolutist thinkers.

  48. Ayn R. Key

    I think Johnson should not jump ship.

    He does have room to complain about how the press is treating him, plus he is competing for the same slice of votes as Ron Paul. That pretty much doomed his campaign, although I think he’s in an excellent position within the GOP so that if Paul wins then Johnson will at least get a cabinet position, and maybe VP.

    The debate he was invited to, his only question was to see if he would attack Paul, and he refused to take the bait and instead complimented him. The press didn’t like that and lost all interest in him.

    What I would like to see for Johnson is something completely different. Supposing Paul loses this time around, he is retiring. If Johnson sticks it out just a little longer in the GOP before withdrawing (NOT switching parties) then he can position himself to pick up the mantle that Paul would be dropping.

    The end result would be all the energy and attention that Paul is getting would be going towards a Johnson-2016. Paul demonstrated that they can only ignore you to a certain extent. Johnson should follow in that path.

  49. Robert Capozzi

    61 ayn, I might agree with your counsel, except for one little wrinkle: Rand Paul. GJ plays to a hipper, less paleo crowd than the Pauls do would be my guess.

  50. Losty

    Thomas,

    Do any states allow Delegates to be seated outside the “home” state, and not require pledge signing?

  51. Michael H. Wilson

    At this stage of the game it is foolish to make comments suggesting that a Libertarian presidential candidate will win. But I don’t think it is foolish to say “we may not get the largest number of votes, but every time we run we win, because we would be real losers if we didn’t stand up for what we believe”.

  52. bruuno

    Mr.Knapp@59
    Thanks for the info. I am not an LP member myself, just an interested observer who occasionally votes LP if I don’t like the Dem candidate. I didn’t realize how delusional some of these folks could be. Verney really surprises me because he is/was a seasoned vet.
    I think Johnson could do quite well for the LP, but by that I mean a 2%-5% total in the general, which lets face it, would be a huge improvement and at least get them some much needed PR (and probably money). He has the added benefit of being attractive to ‘liberals’ as well which Barr certainly did not. Assuming the LP doesn’t have the same problems the Green Party did after 2000 it would be a very positive result and significantly help with Party growth long term.

  53. just saying

    @14 Knapp I think (and hope) you overestimating the relative importance of “fame” vs “a competent resume” to LNC delegates.

    It is true that as a Governor, Gary Johnson is more “famous” than those whose primary source of fame is exposure via comments on IPR.

    But is also true that as a Governor, Johnson’s resume indicates a more competent resume for the Presidency than someone whose chief qualification is the ideological purity of his IPR comments.

  54. Thomas L. Knapp

    Losty @ 63,

    A number of states allow out-of-staters to be delegates, although their conditions vary (I was a Washington delegate in 2010).

    I’m not sure which state LPs do or do not require the anarchist LNC oath for state membership.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@60,

    “Is 51 JT incorrect, or is his report from a different time period?”

    My guess he’s either reporting on the post-convention 1996 campaign, or on the 2000 campaign. The “we can win this thing” talk was over by the 1996 convention, when polling showed Browne in low single digits.

    Either at or shortly before the 1996 convention, Browne referred aspirationally to 10% as a number that would move the LP into major party territory. After that, he tended to stake out goals pertaining to building party membership, etc.

  56. johncjackson

    Ron Paul isn’t going to win anything, and if he did I can’t see him picking Johnson as a running mate or anything else. They are philosophically very different , though similar enough politically that the pick would make no sense. There are reasons John McCain didn’t pick.. oh.. Phil Gramm and Obama didn’t pick Harold Ford Jr to be running mates.

    Plus, based on candidate profiles I have read of Johnson, it was implied that he wanted to be this year’s Ron Paul and was hoping Paul wouldn’t run. Ron Paul running ruined his plans, and Ron Paul was never going out of his way to help Johnson out.

  57. John Jay Myers

    Please explain how you believe Ron Paul and Gary Johnson to be so dissimilar, and keep in mind, dissimilar in such a way that they couldn’t be libertarian candidates?
    I think there is enough cross over for them to be considered a Libertarian dream ticket, and I fail to see anything extreme about eithers views, they disagree on abortion, and Gary needs to stop being so wishy washy on foreign policy. That’s about it.

    If Gary doesn’t get his foreign policy straight I couldn’t vote for him even as VP. The LP needs a mouth piece against our foreign occupations.

    All of our taxes goes to either banks or wars. Enough.

  58. Rich Vanier

    Gary Johnson is going to run for the LP nomination. If I were Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, I would be really worried about this turn of events.

    There are many Democrats that are dissatisfied with the Obama and his Statist agenda. Most of of these disaffected Democrats would NEVER vote for a Republican. But they would consider voting for a Pro Marijuana, Pro Choice, Anti War Gary Johnson.

    Many Republicans are dissatisfied with the choice of Big Government Gingrich and even Bigger Government Romney. They want a President that will cut the size of The Federal Government and balance The Federal Government budget.

    I am excited about the fact there will be a Libertarian Candidate for President that will have a track record as governing as a Libertarian and does not need to apologize for his past legislation. I can’t wait to cast my vote at The LNC Convention in Las Vegas for Governor Gary Johnson.

  59. Eric Stratton

    If I were Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney, I would be really worried about this turn of events.

    If I was them I would be about as afraid of Johnson as McCain should have been of Bob Barr, since Johnson will almost certainly come on with about the same numbers as Barr did.

  60. Lawrence Kroger

    Johnson/Root 2012 will probably be an almost exact replay of Barr/Root 2008.

    Wrights will stand in for Ruwart at the convention.

  61. JT

    Capozzi: “Is 51 JT incorrect, or is his report from a different time period?”

    Knapp: “My guess he’s either reporting on the post-convention 1996 campaign, or on the 2000 campaign. The “we can win this thing” talk was over by the 1996 convention, when polling showed Browne in low single digits.”

    Yes, I was talking about his second campaign, after Browne already had experience running the first time. I never said that was *always* his approach. He did indeed have a highly unrealistic expectation in 1996.

  62. George Phillies

    The Johnson Campaign

    Cash on Hand: $ 10, 882
    Current debts: $240, 066

    Debts are divided between what appear to be two campaign consultants and a fundraiser.

    There appears to be no hint that this guy can run a campaign on a Libertarian financial scale, not to mention his finances at the start are about the same as Barr’s were at the finish.

  63. Here's a radical idea

    @ # 63
    Watch what you wish for.
    You start letting in people that don’t sign the pledge. You start letting in people that are registered R’s or D’s (some states have voter registration), you will see a state potentially be overrun by outsiders that have other motives.
    Each state best have some solid rules in place for delegates.

  64. Here's a radical idea

    @ # 39
    Answer is easy.

    Put Gary Johnson up on the stage. At least some people outside of the LP have heard of him.

    Can you imagine some of those other guys?

    Reaching out to the large masses of the population that isn’t libertarian, will be needed if an LP candidate wants to get elected.

  65. JT

    Andy: “I want a candidate who is the best salesman for libertarianism. The candidate has to actually understand libertarianism before they can effectively sell it, and I think that Johnson is lacking in the area of understanding.”

    I get what you’re saying here, Andy. But if I had a choice of Gary Johnson (or someone else like him) vs. someone who agrees completely with the LP Platform but hasn’t achieved anything professionally beyond holding an average job, then unless the latter is a spectacular orator with a large inheritance that he’s willing to finance his campaign with, I’ll take door #1.

  66. Thomas L. Knapp

    ES@75,

    “If I was them I would be about as afraid of Johnson as McCain should have been of Bob Barr, since Johnson will almost certainly come on with about the same numbers as Barr did.”

    Optimistically speaking, I could see Johnson getting more into the Ed Clark range, and possibly seriously contesting New Mexico and racking up much bigger than usual for the LP totals in other western and southwestern states.

    I’m trying to be optimistic, not crazy, but I think the possibility is there, especially if the election is a blowout landslide for Obama, as will almost certainly be the case if Romney gets the GOP nod, minimizing “wasted vote” fears (Gingrich might shave it a little closer).

  67. Andy

    “bruuno // Dec 14, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Andy@48-
    I think you are right that his ‘fame’ may be a little overblown but he is still significantly better known than all the other LP Presidential candidates combined.”

    This doesn’t say a whole hell of a lot.

  68. Andy

    Harry Browne was the best Libertarian Party candidate for President since I’ve been in the party which has been since 1996. There’s nobody running for the LP nomination today who even comes close to being as good a candidate as Harry Browne was, and this includes Gary Johnson if he jumps in the race for the LP nomination.

    I sure do wish that there was somebody who was as good as Harry Browne running for the LP Presidential nomination today.

  69. Andy

    “I like to think that the response to Russ Verney’s claim from the stage in 2008 that the Barr campaign would raise $40 million and win the election was eyes-open rah-rah, not naive true belief … but I think there was some of the latter.”

    I was at the LP National Convention in Denver when Russ Verney made this claim and I knew that it was bullshit the moment that it was said. I was astonished that there were so many LP members who bought into that line of bullshit. I predicted that the Barr campaign wouldn’t raise anything close to that amount of money and I was right.

  70. Andy

    Gene Berkman said: “True enough. But Ron Paul was much more obscure before he began running in 2008 than he is now.”

    Ron Paul was also a multi-term sitting member of the US House who had run for President as an LP candidate in 1988 and who had a large cult following. You can’t compare this to Gary Johnson who has been out of office and mostly out of the public eye for 8 years and who has never run for President before this and who doesn’t have anywhere near the cult following that Ron Paul had.

    I know who Ron Paul is and I know who Gary Johnson is, and Gary Johnson is no Ron Paul.

  71. Peter Orvetti

    I am still not sure why Johnson is not taking a look at Americans Elect. Granted, his views are not the comforting centrism that group seems interested in, but it would be worth a shot and would not preclude him from seeking the LP nomination at the same time.

  72. Mike Seebeck

    Geez Louise, not ANOTHER Magic Bullet Candidate?

    Hasn’t the LP membership learned anything from the Barr fiasco?

    Johnson isn’t even truly libertarian on things that matter (Gitmo, Israel aid/all foreign aid, taxes).

    If the LP wants a real Presidential candidate who will actually work to grow the LP into something useful (in spite of the lousy national leadership), then the delegates need to nominate a real L/libertarian, not another poseur.

  73. just saying

    @71 – The Root example proves true for a significant minority of voters. But it is also worth noting Root did not win the P nomination. The only reason Root won the VP nomination is because he agreed to an endorsement-swap deal with Barr after Ruwart had already turned her nose at Barr.

    @76 — Here’s hoping the “purity faction” leader in 2012 (Wrights?) won’t make the same mistake Ruwart did. A pragmatic-purity alliance against the Root faction is vital to the health of the party.

  74. George Phillies

    @84 Harry Browne ran a much more financially efficient campaign than Barr did or Johnson is likely to. It made a difference. Johnson is already on record as to his campaign scheme and how he will blow, err, spend his hard earned million-minus. Readers not familiar with my book on Browne’s campaign have no idea how devastating that praise is.

    @88 Not yet, it seems.

    However, I am lining up the list of the Barr-fer’s so that people can be reminded of their sage political judgement. This starts with the ‘preys on teeny-bopper staffer’ employer.

    Does Johnson support foreign aid to the Middle East?

  75. George Phillies

    “Stephen Gordon, who identifies himself as the Southern Regional Director of the Gary Johnson 2012 campaign, told me:”

    For those of you who have forgotten, Gordon is one of the jackasses who gave us Barr in 2008.

  76. Andy

    George Phillies said: “However, I am lining up the list of the Barr-fer’s so that people can be reminded of their sage political judgement. This starts with the ‘preys on teeny-bopper staffer’ employer.”

    Can you post a list of these individuals? I’m curious to see it and I imagine that others are as well.

  77. Steve LaBianca

    Carl (Milsted, I’m sure) said, “But Paul is so idealistic that I would prefer someone more pragmatic . . .”

    Huh, I guess Ron Paul is only talking theoretically or idealistically when he speaks of the Federal Reserve, the foreign wars and tax/regulatory burden bankrupting the American people, huh?

  78. Michael H. Wilson

    re #79 “Watch what you wish for.
    You start letting in people that don’t sign the pledge. You start letting in people that are registered R’s or D’s (some states have voter registration), you will see a state potentially be overrun by outsiders that have other motives.”

    That has all ready happened.

  79. Steve LaBianca

    Gary Johnson is a nice enough fellow, hardly much better than Barr or W.A.R. though, from a libertarian perspective. There is TILL this pervasive idea that third party candidates are ever going to win, especially when we’re talking about higher level state and ALL federal positions!

    Johnson bring nothing to the LP’s table . . he isn’t a philosophically consistent libertarian, he isn;t going to win, and he mostly eschews principle for cost/benefit considerations. Hardly a boon for non-winning third party politics.

  80. Mario Conde

    I agree with Steve LaBianca but I don’t think any politician is “Philosophically consistent” with his or her party. There needs to be a balance to get all kinds of voters regardless of their political affiliation.

  81. Steven R Linnabary

    While I welcome Gary Johnson into the LP, I am not delusional enough to believe he will propel the LP into double digits or even a tenth of that.

    He will NOT win, or even come close. And that is not even the purpose of the LP POTUS nomination.

    The purpose of the LP POTUS nomination is to be a walking advertisement for down ticket races where we MIGHT win. In this area, Barr did not help the LP. He wasn’t the embarrassment I feared he would be, but he didn’t help the LP.

    I am hopeful that Johnson might help the LP and not prove to be an embarrassment. But his views on Gitmo, our many wars and his Fairy Tax proposal lead me to believe down ticket candidates will be spending too much time with damage control.

    PEACE

  82. Raider Duck

    The fact is that the LP still hasn’t found anyone to replace Harry Browne, who last ran over a decade ago and is now almost six years in his grave.

    Bednarik? Nice guy, pure of heart, but not the greatest campaigner.

    Barr? Bah. I’m sorry I ever voted for him. Should’ve voted for that BTP guy instead (he was an official write-in Candidate here in AZ)

    Root? A Republican, pure and simple.

    Might Johnson be that guy? He’s better than anyone else currently running. Why not?

    Also, I find it interesting that the people who hated Browne back in 2000 (I’m looking at you, Jacob Hornberger and L. Neil Smith) and talked about how they could campaign SO MUCH BETTER than Browne for SO MUCH LESS MONEY kind of disappeared from the scene once Browne did. Instead, they write books that almost nobody buys and run websites that almost nobody visits.

    Then again, Browne’s hand-picked successors didn’t even do that well. Are Gary Nolan, Michael Cloud and Carla Howell still alive? This isn’t a rhetorical question, either. I honestly don’t know if any of them still exists.

  83. Trent Hill Post author

    I can only see Johnson getting above 2% in New Mexico, his home state. I can see him scoring over 1% in many states where Ron Paul support was strong assuming Paul doesnt win the nomination.

  84. Trent Hill Post author

    Carla Howell was just made national director, or some such thing.

    Gary Nolan is not alive.

  85. Steven Druckenmiller

    Uh, Trent? Do you have a link to Gary Nolan’s obit or something? Last I checked, the guy is alive.

  86. Pingback: Report: Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM) May Announce Switch to Libertarian Party | FavStocks

  87. Peter Orvetti

    I think Ron Paul is very unlikely to make an independent or third-party run simply because of the difficulties that would pose for his son, both in the Senate and in his own future presidential ambitions.

  88. Trent Hill Post author

    Whoops. Sorry.

    Yes–I think Peter is probably right. It would also put whatever successor-candidate that ran for his House position in a tough spot.

  89. Robert Capozzi

    82 tk: I’m trying to be optimistic, not crazy, but I think the possibility is there, especially if the election is a blowout landslide for Obama, as will almost certainly be the case if Romney gets the GOP nod, minimizing “wasted vote” fears (Gingrich might shave it a little closer).

    me: Agree on GJ, but you seem to believe that BHO wins a landslide no matter what. Remind us again why you think that. If ya have the chance, why do you think NG does slightly better than MR? NG better at energizing the base?

    I’d say a GJ campaign shouldn’t necessarily focus on the SW states. Why not focus on deep blue states/high pop states where the wasted vote factor is lowest?

  90. Trent Hill Post author

    TK’s theory is shot because it’s going to be close. Close vote syndrome will set in and Johnson will struggle everywhere.

    If Obama were to win in a landslide though, certainly I can see Johnson hitting 2-5% in some places.

  91. Peter Orvetti

    For the record, Jackson Browne is also still alive, as is Roseanne Barr.

    Stephen Root continues his successful career as a character actor. Laurence Olivier is dead.

    Thurston Howell, Blossom Russo, and Pete Hornberger are fictional characters.

    And, um, there’s no one else named Badnarik.

  92. Robert Capozzi

    91 gp: Gordon is one of the jackasses who gave us Barr in 2008.

    me: I sense a book coming, in which rips to shreds each and every person who ever disagreed with him.

    Somehow, he seems to miss that he has developed a reputation as a “trouble maker.” Or, perhaps, he knows it, but cannot resist repeating his compulsion.

    That, or he is a saint, beckoning the LM to the Promised Land! ;-)

  93. Pingback: IPR Exclusive: Gary Johnson to Announce Libertarian Switch Tomorrow | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  94. Pingback: Independent Political Report Says Gary Johnson Will Formally Declare for Libertarian Nomination on December 15 | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  95. Sane LP member

    @ 99
    If a LP POTUS candidate isn’t going to win, that is more reason for Mr. Johnson to run. This country has to quit voting for the D’s or R’s who have ruined the USA. Otherwise, we might as well just head for the furnaces or the woods. Downticket candidates DO need somebody that can articulate a message and not be embarrassed. Especially serioius candidates that might have a shot at winning. Exhibit A is over in Indiana. There candidates in general are serious. Let’s not embarrass them.

  96. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@109,

    “you seem to believe that BHO wins a landslide no matter what.”

    No, I believe that unless there’s some extreme, unpredictable change in conditions to affect the race, Obama wins comfortably versus anyone likely Republican opponent and by a landslide versus Romney.

    “Remind us again why you think that. ”

    Romney can’t get an edge on Obama on the foreign policy hawk side (Obama surged Afghanistan, killed bin Laden, and brought Iraq to an end per Bush’s SOFA treaty), on the healthcare side (Obama may be the putative father of ObamaCare, but the baby definitely has Romney’s eyes), on the bailout side (Romney was for TARP), etc. They’re just too much alike.

    Another big difference is that Obama is the incumbent, with a full year head start campaigning against the Republicans while they’re still busy campaigning against each other.

    “If ya have the chance, why do you think NG does slightly better than MR? NG better at energizing the base?”

    Yes, both in general and particularly in the south. Romney would likely carry at most three southern states. Gingrich might be able to carry four or five.

  97. Lawrence Kroger

    Optimistically speaking, I could see Johnson getting more into the Ed Clark range, and possibly seriously contesting New Mexico and racking up much bigger than usual for the LP totals in other western and southwestern states.

    I’m trying to be optimistic, not crazy, but I think the possibility is there, especially if the election is a blowout landslide for Obama, as will almost certainly be the case if Romney gets the GOP nod, minimizing “wasted vote” fears (Gingrich might shave it a little closer).

    That’s somewhat plausible. I could see a slight chance of that with Barr at the outset as well.

    The smart money, however, is still on zero point four plus or minus zero point one percent….just like in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. The LP seems to have settled into a pattern, and if neither Ron Paul nor Bob Barr could change that pattern, why would a guy who was a governor of a small state ten years ago who managed about 1% in the Republican polls and has very little national name recognition?

  98. George Phillies

    “This country has to quit voting for the D’s or R’s”

    And running a Republican warmonger — but I repeat myself — is supposed to get across the ‘stop voting R’ meme HOW?

    I believe you miss-spelled part of your hanger. That first word, for all that you are doubtless in other respects a nice person, is spelled

    D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-R-Y .

  99. Donald Schoenstein

    Can you post a list of these individuals? I’m curious to see it and I imagine that others are as well.

    He’s making a list, he’s checking it twice…he’s gonna find out if you’re naughty or nice…

    Phillies, is coming to Vegas…

  100. Donald Schoenstein

    Are Gary Nolan, Michael Cloud and Carla Howell still alive?

    All three are alive and well. Howell will be the new LP national executive director, after a stint as a Massachusetts ballot initiative organizer and Tea Party activist. She broke up her personal relationship with Cloud, who moved back to Arizona and is working as an author, fundraiser and motivational speaker. As of a couple of years ago at least they still had a professional relationship. Look for Cloud to be back in a fundraising capacity with LP national, possibly next year.

    According to wikipedia

    Gary Nolan hosted a radio show called The Drive with Gary Nolan in the afternoons on Columbia, Missouri, talk radio station KSSZ “The Eagle 93.9″. In February 2010 he began hosting WXTL’s “Big Talker” 105.9 in Syracuse, New York, between 4 and 7pm.[8] Nolan left WXTL in April 2011 to return to KSSZ “The Eagle 93.9″ to begin a nationally syndicated program.

  101. Robert Hoover

    For the preyer, see wikipedia. I imagine the January issue of Liberty for America will have coverage. For donors pre-nomination see FEC.gov.

    Phillies is ever cryptic, like the sphinx he is.

    I am guessing that he is referring to Sean Haugh’s published allegation that M Carling engaged in sexual harassment at the Watergate and that Bill Redpath covered it up?

  102. Trent Hill Post author

    “That first word, for all that you are doubtless in other respects a nice person, is spelled

    D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-R-Y .”

    I have always hated that psuedo-word. Delusional. That’s the form.

  103. Robert Capozzi

    120 gp: And running a Republican warmonger — but I repeat myself — is supposed to get across the ‘stop voting R’ meme HOW?

    me: Let’s break down your flawed premises. If GJ becomes a L, he’d no longer be a R. If you choose to label GJ as a “warmonger,” I’d suggest you are not paying attention. Everything I’ve seen from GJ suggests that his strong lean is toward an anti-war stance.

    Now, whether theoretically GJ as LP nominee can achieve the goal of “stop voting R,” I am personally doubtful of that. Whether he can contribute to that long-term goal, I’m hopeful.

    An LP ticket of Paul/Johnson would make me a bit more hopeful.

    Expecting instant results would be delusional, agreed.

  104. Rob

    So….IPR ran a major story based on “numerous sources,” got a lot of hits….and the story was totally wrong.

  105. Robert Capozzi

    128 gp, gee, I thought Root competed with Barr for the nomination. Are you suggesting that there was some sort of pre-convention conspiracy?

  106. George Phillies

    130 I realize that you regularly lose duels of wit with you pop toaster, but how is it that you don’t very, very vaguely remember Root trading his endorsement (after he lost) for the Vice Presidential nomination.

  107. George Phillies

    @121 It will be revealed. And in the hands of every delegate.

    Along with the perhaps-treasurer candidate who in 2004 asked me to defraud the anonymous lead financial supporter of my 527 organization.

  108. Robert Capozzi

    fyi:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/14/gary-johnson-discusses-what-hypothetical-third-party-run-would-look-like/

    Sounds pretty derned anti-war to me. Aside from the already picked-over FAIR Tax (I think) mistake, my red flag issue is associating with Roger Stone. Stone may be a knowledgeable operative, but I recall some dirty tricks in NY that — if he was behind them — give me pause. GJ seems above dirty-tricks, and using them can only backfire for a LP candidate…

  109. Robert Capozzi

    131 gp, “pop toaster”! Hah! Original!

    No, I don’t do the win/lose thing. I share ideas, with maximal civility. You might give it a try! It makes life a LOT more pleasant, rather than being at perpetual war with colleagues.

    But, yes, I do recall that Root was Barr’s running mate. As you seem to be initiating yet another of your witch hunts, it appears you are casting the net of “guilt” quite widely. Where it stops, we will find out. Perhaps you’ll publish your “enemies list” of anyone who voted for Barr or contributed to his campaign.

    I thought MAians got over the whole witch-hunt thing centuries ago…. ;-)

  110. Carl

    @Nick, I left the party because the pledge was affirmed. I won’t be coming back even if the pledge is removed because I have moved to the Upper Left (on the Milsted Chart) and I don’t think the LP will go there. Nothing like leaving an echo chamber to get one to rethink some premises.

    Time/finances permitting, I would support a Gary Johnson for President campaign, however. (Unless Paul wins the RP nod.) The likely Republican winners appear as bad as Obama. The prospect of Newt Gingrich as President is nearly as scary as R. Lee Wrights as President.

  111. Nicholas Sarwark

    No, I don’t do the win/lose thing. I share ideas, with maximal civility. You might give it a try! It makes life a LOT more pleasant, rather than being at perpetual war with colleagues.

    I guess this is a personal maximum, which for your interactions with George approaches zero. I have never seen a comment thread with both of you in it that you have not sniped at him about his FEC complaint.

    You have a habit of assuming the best of “not George” and assuming the worst of George on any debatable point.

    I understand that George can be a Jonah, tends to be snarky, and throws way too much vitriol at anyone now or previously associated with the Republican party. But it’s up to you whether you take that bait.

  112. Donald Schoenstein

    Along with the perhaps-treasurer candidate who in 2004 asked me to defraud the anonymous lead financial supporter of my 527 organization.

    This person has announced he will not run for chair or treasurer in 2012.

  113. Pingback: Gary Johnson Running for Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee and I Don’t Blame Him at A Geek With Guns

  114. Robert Capozzi

    136 ns, I’ve certainly not brought up the FEC matter many times, so you either miss many of my posts (likely) or are not paying attention.

    Perhaps we have a different view of “civility.” Civil people need not cotton bullies. Civil discourse requires bullies being called out. Phillies is a bully. He is now agitating for purging those who supported Barr, and seems to have some bizarre standard for those he thinks should be purged. You may minimize that dysfunctional behavior. I DO NOT! Clear?

    That he wants to purge Barr supporters when he himself attacked the LNC and the party is a profound hypocrisy, IMO. Somehow, despite his obvious intelligence, he doesn’t get that.

    Now he seems to be lining up another prosecution, this one on Gary Johnson. And, of course, he attacks Ron Paul on a regular basis.

    You, Nick, can look away from that behavior, but I suggest that doing so enables such behavior. Defending or minimizing such behavior does not advance liberty, it, in my view, retards it.

    Peace.

  115. Robert Capozzi

    143 ns, are you KIDDING ME, Counselor? Of course I bring it up a lot. I post a lot. Phillies posts a lot. Phillies bullies a lot. There is no base here to make a comparison. Please don’t insult the reader’s intelligence and basic math skills!

    Am I to assume that you believe a) Phillies is NOT a bully; b) that bullies should not be challenged; c) some other rationalization?

  116. Robert Capozzi

    141 tk: I’m not sure which would be worse — having Stone working against you, or having Stone working for you.

    me: Fair point. I’ve not done much research on Stone, so I don’t have a firm view, but the outlines of my my understanding of how he operates, I’d be more concerned about having him on the team than not. If he’s a toxic personality prone to dirty tricks as is my concern, campaign managers/strategists can do things that hurt the candidate. Just ask Carl Person! GJ is not going to win, anyway, so I advocate a high-road candidacy. Dirty tricks may seem to work, but the blowback is a bitch.

  117. Robert Capozzi

    146 tk: …are mutually exclusive claims.

    me: Hmm, really? If, for illustrative purposes, I bring the Ill-Advised Narc Event up 50% of the time and don’t 50% of the time, both statements would be…hmm…true, yes?

    What am I missing, Brother?

  118. Michael H. Wilson

    Robert, Phillies is capable of defending himself, but I don’t get the impression he bullies anyone. He does have a pretty high standard for those in management which I happen to agree is needed in the LP. For too long sloppy work has been acceptable to some of those in high places.

  119. Robert Capozzi

    148 mhw, I respect your impression.

    I call this bullying: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/12/bob-barr-endorsed-newt-gingrich/#comment-720705

    To me, that sort of thing is utterly unwarranted, divisive and completely counterproductive.

    I’d also recommend GP’s reactions to those who disagree with him on the man-made global climate change, which you could look up if you don’t recall his propensity for dissing others.

    Or scroll up to 131. I’ve not heard such childishness since maybe third grade. But I do thank him for a good laugh. ;-)

    How such things are “high standards” I just don’t get, but OK, perception is a truly individualized thing. It really is all good in the end.

  120. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@!146

    “I’ve not done much research on Stone”

    Well, let’s see — he started his professional political career with Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP). And it just went downhill from there.

  121. George Phillies

    @149 Global climate change deniers?

    Nonsense. I give them the same respect I give Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, NeoNazis, and pedophilia legalization advocates.

    That may be unfair to the Flat-Earthers.

  122. ATBAFT

    The LP is a political party. If that disturbs you, then join Cato or Advocates or the libertarian supper club. That said, if Gary Johnson comes to the LP and seeks the nomination, and the delegates turn him down, then it will be quite obvious that the LP is not serious about being a political party and, I predict, it will suffer a severe outflow of members, quickly becoming even more irrelevant than it appears to be today.

  123. JT

    Phillies: “@149 Global climate change deniers?”

    He said those who disagree with you on “man-made climate change.” Not the same thing.

  124. George Phillies

    OK,
    @153. Distinction without difference. However:

    “man-made climate change deniers?

    Nonsense. I give them the same respect I give Holocaust deniers, Global climate change deniers, flat-earthers, NeoNazis, and pedophilia legalization advocates.

    Do you feel better now?

  125. Dave

    Here’s something interesting from PPP’s twitter:

    ppppolls PublicPolicyPolling
    Gary Johnson polls at 23% in New Mexico as a Libertarian against Obama and Romney

    ppppolls PublicPolicyPolling
    Johnson actually wins the independent vote in that 3 way in New Mexico between him, Obama, and Romney

    So he’d probably do well(though likely not that well) in New Mexico at least.

  126. JT

    Phillies: “@153. Distinction without difference.”

    There’s obviously a difference between people who say there’s been no global warming over decades, and those who say there has but the science doesn’t demonstrate that it’s the result of human activity or that it portends a catastrophe for life on Earth.

    Phillies: “Do you feel better now?”

    That you say the latter are due the same respect as Nazis and pedophiles? Yes, because it shows that you’re mentally off. Or, as you say, readers will note that you’re mentally off.

  127. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dave @ 155,

    Interesting polling data.

    If Johnson runs as a Libertarian, and if he makes New Mexico a focus of his campaign, and if he remains popular there, and if he plays it right, he might have an interesting impact.

    The impact I’m thinking of is along the lines of convincing a state to make an example of itself.

    That is, campaigning specifically on the premise “don’t worry about the national outcome. Let New Mexico be the early adopter, the canary in the coal mine, the first state to stand up and say ‘if the two major parties don’t offer us what we want, we’ll pick something else, electoral college outcome and lesser evil blackmail be damned.'”

  128. Robert Capozzi

    Yes, that’s VERY interesting, indeed. GJ in NM, that is. Not sure voters think in these terms, but 5 electoral votes is 1% of the total, really unlikely to make a difference.

    Winning the independent vote would also be very encouraging.

  129. George Phillies

    @156 There are people who say there is no global warming, and people who say the science does not demonstrated that the climate change is man made, and they are equally wrong.

    For those of you who are young and live near shorelines and within 20 or 30 feet of sea level, they are also equally dangerous to you and your property.

  130. Robert Capozzi

    jt 153 and 156, in my particular case, I find the issue of man-made global climate change to have far too many variables to take a position on the matter. I think I’ve shared this with GP, and he’s not savaged me previously. Now, however, he seems to have gone entirely off the ledge, claiming that those who don’t agree with him = deniers = “Holocaust deniers, Global climate change deniers, flat-earthers, NeoNazis, and pedophilia legalization advocates.”

    Maybe he’s kidding. I hope so.

    If there’s no ability to discern the difference between a neoNazi and someone who’s merely skeptical of his view of a highly complex, global physical phenomenon measured over time…well, I’m not sure how to characterize that. Your “mentally off” strikes me as uncivil. “Potentially judgment challenged” might work. It seems self-evident to me that these are quite different sorts of issues that cannot be equilibrated….

  131. NewFederalist

    LG- The major difference that I see is that Johnson is far more of a libertarian than Barr ever was.

  132. Robert Capozzi

    161 lg, this is a marathon, not a sprint. Barr was a hastily executed candidate, but OTOH, if GJ is our candidate and he takes it to the next level (say 1MM, competitive in NM), Barr could be viewed as a building block. GJ can learn from Barr’s mistakes, as can the party.

    This is an experiment. Not all experiments work out the first time. Most don’t, actually.

  133. George Phillies

    @161 A Presidential candidate who three years later became a Republican again and endorsed one of their worthless candidates, having in the meantime raised close to 1.5 million post-convention on our Presidential campaign and spending almost none of it on publicity.

  134. just saying

    GP’s advocacy of the genocidal global-warming lie puts him squarely outside the Libertarian mainstream. Perhaps he’d be more comfortable in the Huntsmann or Obama campaigns.

  135. Robert Capozzi

    164 gp: …spending almost none of it on publicity.

    me: Absurd. PR may not have a line item like, say, “Limos,” but the Barr campaign was all about getting the man on TV, which they did a great job of. Prepping the candidate takes work, person hours.

    Did Varney miscalculate, over-obligate on staffing on the front end? Did they waste too many person hours on ballot access? Were there other dysfunctions? Undoubtedly. The campaign was hastily done, slapped together, with few resources. Once a path is set, it’s very difficult to make adjustments. They took their best shot.

    Monday morning quarterbacks are always “right.” ;-)

  136. RedPhillips

    I don’t think Phillies is a bully. I think he is a priss. He wants the LP to be nice and blue so it doesn’t embarrass him with the Professors who Teach in Massachusetts crowd. They sit around talking bad about Red Staters the same way the rest of us talk about football. He believes having former Republicans (only grubby Red State people vote for them) who led the Impeachment of Clinton, etc. associated with his party taints it and him by association.

    I don’t care how smart Phillies is, saying that denying global temperature increases and denying that we know for certain that man is the cause is the same thing and throwing in Holocaust references is not speaking from his rational intellect. He is speaking from his emotions. It isn’t about the state of the science. It is because he thinks AGW skeptics are icky.

  137. Robert Capozzi

    170 gp, actually, I don’t recall that at all. Unless you had access to Barr 08’s GL, you couldn’t track expenditures “as he spent.” Instead, you read raw FEC reports and attempted to interpret them.

    I pretty distinctly recall you flipping out about the line-item of “limos,” which I challenged you on, wondering what that was. You never responded, probably because you didn’t know if that meant cabs and car services (glorified cabs) from the airport.

    My sense in Red is correct: These appear to largely emotional outbursts, not reasoned concerns. Of course, we can’t read his mind about what constitutes “icky” or not. ;-)

    But, yes, all things considered, you’re probably correct: the Barr campaign probably was overstaffed. Staff is required to run a campaign and to fundraise to run the campaign, and so on. Thinking that they would raise more funds, they overshot the fixed costs and fell short of the variable expenditures.

    This happens all the time in politics. It happened to McCain in 08, for ex., but he recovered (in an operational sense).

    The healthy thing is to LEARN from the experience. Or we can conduct witch-hunt purges, which appears to be your chosen path.

  138. JT

    Phillies: “There are people who say there is no global warming, and people who say the science does not demonstrated that the climate change is man made, and they are equally wrong.”

    Even if that were true (and it’s not), that doesn’t equal that there’s no difference between the two views. Readers of English can see a difference easily.

    Capozzi: “Your “mentally off” strikes me as uncivil. “Potentially judgment challenged” might work.”

    Potentially judgment challenged? I’m sorry, but I don’t cloak my perceptions in euphemisms that pretend to be more “civil.” I didn’t say “fucking crazy” though.

    And Phillies doesn’t kid. He just pontificates and condemns.

  139. Robert Capozzi

    171 tk, I wasn’t comparing BB to HB per se. I’d like to get more granular gross-impressions data and I’d probably want to get qualitative focus group to do a more meaningful comparison.

    Suffice it to say that Barr got “a lot” of media, and did so on short notice. Qualitatively, I thought he came across credibly, although he stumbled on things like DOMA.

    I wasn’t paying attention in the Browne years. Perhaps I need to read ALL of GP’s book on that era to get a fuller understanding of what motivates his serial vendettas….

  140. Robert Capozzi

    173 jt: I’m sorry, but I don’t cloak my perceptions in euphemisms that pretend to be more “civil.”

    me: I hear that. But, as a perennial skeptic, it could be that you and I are completely incorrect about GP and his witch hunts and fulminating condemnations. He may be Lao Tsu reincarnated, or perhaps Moses coming down from the mountain, and my challenges to his divisive, bullying behavior are utterly wrong-minded. I doubt it, but anything’s possible….

  141. Jeremy C. Young

    I think Red’s comment @169 is interesting. I really don’t see the connection between believing in science and thinking people who don’t believe in science are “icky.” Nor do I think believing in science is a clear red state/blue state divide, any more than I’d expect most MA professors to agree with Phillies on Libertarianism.

    I actually think it is very simple. You either believe in the process of systematic research and its results, or you don’t. If you believe in that process, you accept the Holocaust, the round earth, climate change, and man-made climate change as facts. If you don’t believe in that process, you are free to mix and match as you choose. That’s not a red state/blue state thing at all, it’s a simple choice that anyone can make as he or she desires.

    Robert @142, I think the problem is that you’re conflating the LNC with the Libertarian Party. Phillies attacked the LNC for the same reason he attacks Barr supporters: he thinks they are working to undermine the party. I happen to agree with him. There’s nothing inconsistent about those positions.

    And it has nothing to do with bullying. Bullies, by definition, are people who hold power using that power to exploit and mistreat weaker people. By that definition, the LNC are the bullies, and Phillies is the defender of the victims. Pity the victims seem so ungrateful for his defense.

  142. Robert Capozzi

    176 jcy: Bullies, by definition, are people who hold power using that power to exploit and mistreat weaker people.

    me: Nope, not the def. “A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.”

  143. Jeremy C. Young

    Robert @176, I’m not seeing the distinction. Being a state delegate and criticizing the LNC, or being a relatively unpopular member of a party and criticizing more popular members of the party — both descriptions of Phillies — does not by definition involve being cruel to “smaller or weaker people.” Those people are strong and powerful compared to Phillies; that’s why I tend to side with him and not with them. If he were calling in the FEC to investigate one of his students, then I’d feel differently.

  144. RedPhillips

    Jeremy @176, with all due respect your answer on global warming illustrates the problem. AGW believers just assert the truth of their belief, but assertions, no matter how adamant, don’t make something so. So if you “believe in the process of systematic research and its results” then you must accept AGW? That simply is not true and that sort of obnoxious certainty hurts, it doesn’t help, your case. The science is not that clear and foot stomping that it is doesn’t make it so and pisses people off.

    I have said that AGW isn’t either true or false based on the policy implications. It is or isn’t (or may be) based on the science. I am not an expert on climate science, but I do know something about the scientific process, and I do know something about the state of the science of this issue because it has been played out in the political arena. The science simply isn’t settled. Your and Phillies’ insistence that it is harms your cause because it irritates those who know better and makes them dig in their heels.

  145. George Phillies

    The science is rather completely settled. Conservative denial is actually politically positive, because it tends to convince voters that conservatives are out of touch with reality.

    Well, that’s more polite that the vernacular for ‘severe rectal-cranial inversion’.

    With respect to warming denial, birtherism, trutherism, and holocaust denial all being peas in a pod, the the likeness is overwhelming: You have a group of people who agree to accept only a certain set of alleged facts, and ignore that huge reality that does not agree with their facts.

    There are a few bits that are red state/blue state, in that the same patterns of thought appear in some religious groups that purport to be following thousands of years of tradition but have beliefs that certainly did not exist even two centuries ago, and that demand literal-minded blind acceptance while ignoring everything that contradicts their beliefs, e..g, the observations of 1900 years of theological studies of the same holy books.

  146. RedPhillips

    “The science is rather completely settled.”

    So says George Phillies, so must it be. (Rolls eyes.)

    No it isn’t, and it is either delusional or demagogic to say it is. The science is self-evidently not settled. If it was everyone wouldn’t be arguing about it. Everyone is not arguing about the roundness of the earth. Keep digging.

  147. Jeremy C. Young

    Red, I’m just not seeing why the science isn’t settled (or as settled as science can be, given that science is in the business of disproving rather than proving). The fact that “everyone” is arguing about it doesn’t seem relevant to me, since not everyone (i.e., neither you nor I) understands the issues involved. What matters is whether the scientists are arguing about it, or whether they consider it settled.

    My understanding of how science works is: scientists engage in a rigorous process of peer review, questioning everything among themselves; non-scientists take scientists’ interpretations as fact and determine policy based on those interpretations. What I tend to see is a lot of non-scientists arguing about what scientists’ interpretations are. I don’t think that helps. Are you seeing huge numbers of reputable climate scientists arguing against man-made climate change? I’m not. Then what makes the science “not settled”?

  148. Robert Capozzi

    181 rp: So says George Phillies, so must it be. (Rolls eyes.)

    me: And that approach by GP IS bullying, as I see it.

    I’m not a scientist, but I would love for a “scientist” to explain how there can be such a thing as “settled science.” My understanding of the history of science is that science is perpetually up-ending itself. Flat earthism, for ex., WAS the “settled science” until it wasn’t. Indeed, perceptually, the earth certainly appears more or less flat to the naked eye.

    Keynesian economics is settled science for some, too. Does that mean that anyone who challenges THAT “settled science” is somehow equal to a NeoNazi?

    So, in this case, AGW theory might actually be happening. Perhaps the data manipulation that’s been uncovered doesn’t negate the overall theory. Maybe the floods will come. OTOH, maybe they would have come anyway, as the earth’s apparently had polar shifts in the past, well before increased industrial carbon emissions.

    It’s bullying to say we must have Kyoto, too.

    One would think that bullying in any form is a red flag for political Ls. It is for me.

  149. George Phillies

    Your impression about how science advances is entirely in error.

    Your claim that there has been data manipulation is representative of debating techniques of the deniers. The extremely thorough analysis by the Telegram of the emails the originally announced demonstred that the data manipulation had been of the leaked email quotes by the local deniers.

    The recent and enormously thorough reanalysis of the UK data, and the independent sets of historical records piled up by several American groups, found that the “manipulated” UK data set gives the lowest of the estimates of recent warming.

    Flat earthism has been believed by no educated people in the Western World in the past 2500 years.

    It is possible to work through the historical opinions of people who expressed an opiion on this.

    The contrary opinion goes back to a false-to=-fact representation of the disagreement between Columbus and his critics in the Spanish Court, who did not think he would sail off the edge. That representation was an anti-Catholic libel from an American character, who believed the earth was round. The critics were (correctly) convinced that Columbus was miscalculating the radius of the earth, so that he would run out of supplies before he reached Asia.

    Flat earthism was then revived by people much like the modern climate deniers.

  150. JT

    Jeremy: “What matters is whether the scientists are arguing about it, or whether they consider it settled.”

    There are more scientists who endorse the AGW theory than those who don’t. Of course, truth isn’t determined by the number of people–even among experts in a particular field–who endorse a particular position. That’s an entirely subjective notion. Historically, conventional scientific wisdom has sometimes been up-ended. And just as in any academic field, there are climate scientists who have a political agenda and want a more activist government.

    Just some (not all) of the climate experts who don’t agree with the majority view can be found here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    In addition, here’s a published article based on a lot of scientific data that doesn’t accord with the mainstream view:
    http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf

    I don’t want to argue much about AGW here. But contra Phillies–whom I think is as left a libertarian as can be–there’s solid evidence and expert arguments to doubt the majority view on this issue.

  151. Robert Capozzi

    178 jcy, it’s settled grammar ;-) that the “comma especially” are not core to the sentence. The core meaning of BULLY is habitually cruel and overbearing.

  152. RedPhillips

    “Red, I’m just not seeing why the science isn’t settled”

    Jeremy, you need to get out of the echo chamber and join the rest of us in the real world. The ClimateGate e-mails prove, despite Phillies objections, that many of the top scientists involved are not neutral dispassionate observers but are agenda driven advocates. They did admit to data manipulation, and the entire project of estimating past climate is by its very nature speculative to begin with and necessarily introduces uncertainty to the equation. What Phillies did not address is the admission that they were actively seeking to keep skeptics out of the peer reviewed literature. Then they turn around and wave peer review as the standard. Well how convenient. The climate peer reviewed literature is a closed shop, both by intention and by attrition. There is no glory or money in being a skeptic and there is open hostility so who wants to put up with that? You end up with a self fulfilling echo chamber. (Kinda like libertarians who only talk to other libertarians.)

    So it is no wonder that a lot of the skepticism (or popularization of the skepticism is more accurate) comes from lay or non-expert sources. But one does not have to be an expert on the technical minutia of the subject matter (I’m not and as far as I know Phillies, a physicist, isn’t either.) to understand the broad issues involved and that uncertainty exists.

  153. RedPhillips

    Jeremy, to illustrate the above, notice that the article JT linked to was published in the Journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. I am somewhat familiar with that journal. I once published a book review there. AAPS is a libertarianish organization (contra the AMA) and their journal often publishes stuff that is contrarian. So why did the authors have to go to a medical journal that is known to be open to contrarian opinion? It is of course possible that the article (I haven’t read it) is flawed and failed the peer review process of more subject matter appropriate journals, but it is also possible that it was shut out by those journals and had to go a different route. I am simple not willing to accept on faith the integrity of the peer review process on such a hot button political issue. To do so is, I think, naive.

  154. RedPhillips

    Also notice that the wikipedia entry JT linked to begins with all sorts of warnings. May not meet quality standards. May not be balanced. Neutrality is disputed. Blah blah blah. And it is just a list of climate skeptics. Unless the people listed aren’t really sketics or their view were misrepresented, what is the problem with just listing skeptics? Good grief! This should be a red flag to everyone of how much this issue is clouded by emotion. You clearly have a bunch of self-appointed wiki cops patrolling around trying to stamp out dissenting opinion. This doesn’t alarm you? This doesn’t make up wonder? What are they so affraid of? Why the attempts to silence?

  155. Robert Capozzi

    185 gp, in my experience, bullies (who are generally cowards) employ this sort of tactic. When they are being called out as bullies, they panic, and start throwing out diversionary tangents that have almost nothing to do with the matter at hand.

    All I’d said was “Flat earthism, for ex., WAS the “settled science” until it wasn’t.” The Learned Professor then goes into tangent, never addressing the main point: Science builds on a knowledge base, but then a breakthrough comes along unsettling the “settled” science.

  156. Pingback:   Gary Johnson to Flip Libertarian? by Macsmind

  157. Jeremy C. Young

    A bunch of stuff to respond to here.

    Red @192, I don';t think it’s hard to understand what those of us on the manmade-climate-change side are “so afraid of”. If we are correct, we have at most a few years to stave off a catastrophe that will leave millions dead and the planet irreparably harmed. That’s a pretty terrifying outcome, and it’s natural that we would want to do everything we can to stave it off. Of course, if you’re right, there’s nothing to worry about, but you can’t blame us for feeling a sense of urgency and terror given what we believe.

    On the Climategate e-mails, what you describe isn’t an attempt to subvert the process of peer review, it IS the process of peer review. Most peer review takes place before an article reaches publication (it only happens afterwards if there’s been a mistake in the peer review). So if scientists are given a paper to review pre-publication, and they think its science or its conclusions are in error, it’s their job to try to keep it from being published. Where they erred is in gabbing about it to their colleagues while they were in the process of reviewing it; you’re supposed to trust that your colleagues will make the right decision without trying to influence them. But I see it as sloppiness rather than as malpractice.

    If you don’t trust peer review on political hot-button issues, than what do you trust to adjudicate them? The political process? A referendum? Experts are flawed, but I’d rather trust them than any other group of people, so long as trusting is necessary. This may be a basic value difference between us, which is fine (and which stems from our different political leanings).

    Robert @193, it does and it doesn’t. What you’re referring to is called a “paradigm shift.” It’s true that new models of phenomena replace old models. However, that doesn’t mean the old models are wrong; it means they are less precise and have less predictive value than the newer models.

    Take, for instance, the discredited scientific worldview of Aristotle, which was “settled science” for 1500 years. The thing about Aristotle’s model is that it was actually very good. It was able to predict the outcome of 99%, maybe more, of the outcomes of things humans did in the normal course of their lives. It even explained some more complicated phenomena, such as why air rises when you heat it (according to Aristotle, because the element of fire is lighter than air). It had a couple of obvious flaws — Aristotle couldn’t explain why arrows didn’t fall to earth faster than they did, and his theory of light could be disproved simply by looking at a stuccoed wall — but by and large, it was a useful model with predictive value.

    Now let’s consider the model that replaced Aristotelian physics — Newtonian physics. Newton’s theories are mostly discredited today, having been replaced by relativistic and quantum theories. But their predictive value is even better than Aristotle’s theories. Any normal activities conducted by humans, period, can be explained by the Newtonian model. In order to disprove it, you have to do thought experiments about things that people couldn’t actually do, or run atoms through particle accelerators to observe quantum effects. Newton is “wrong,” but that doesn’t mean his theories don’t explain the world we live in to a high degree of accuracy.

    Bringing this back to climate models, the question we should be asking isn’t “is this right?” but “does this tell us what’s going to happen?” So far, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that our current climate models have a high degree of predictive value, and that projections of a climate apocalypse are likely accurate. The fact that those models might someday be replaced by better models doesn’t have anything to do with whether their predictions are accurate.

  158. Marc Montoni

    @197, you have an extremely flawed view of the peer-review process, Jeremy.

    The peer-review process is supposed to detect errors in relevant facts; as well as detect non-reproducibility.

    The problem with the government-funded ClimateGate scientists in the US, UK, and other nations, was that they repeatedly refused to release the data they used to create their theories and models — so that the rest of the world could reproduce their results. The fact that these crooks were allowed to get away with it, and continue doing their rent-seeking on the taxpayer dime, was **in itself** a failure of the peer-review process.

    But they also compounded their outrageous behavior by attempting to shut out contrarian views from even having a shot at the peer-review process.

    One of the many things that should outrage any *real* libertarian is the warmists’ refusal to supply the data they collect in their taxpayer-financed jobs. Just one very recent example of the warmists’ “cake for me but not for thee who pays for it” is the IPCC claiming to be exempt from FOIA.

    I am sorry, but if taxpayers are paying for “research”, all of the data collected should be accessible to the taxpayer.

    Were you aware that another block of incriminating emails has been leaked?

    How do you feel about the fact that a blogger was recently raided apparently at the behest of the US Justice Department for breaking the story about additional recently-released emails (dubbed “ClimateGate II”) that should be accessible to taxpaying citizens anyway?

    The fact is that the AGGCC (Anthropogenerated Global Climate Change) “theory” has, for all intents and purposes — become widely regarded as a massive fraud designed by the power elite to bilk taxpayers, siphon off corporate revenues (remember that corporations don’t actually pay those costs — increased costs to do business are simply passed on to YOU, the end user), and create excuses for another round of growing leviathan government.

    “Global warming” is just another episode of modern-day witch doctors in suits telling the rest of us the sky is falling. It is truly sad to see Phillies swallow such blatant lies from the irretrievably corrupt stew of government-supported academia.

  159. Andy

    “Trent Hill // Dec 15, 2011 at 2:11 am

    Carla Howell was just made national director, or some such thing.”

    Carla Howell ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2010 and she also lead efforts to place 3 state wide ballot initiatives on the ballot in Massachusetts.

    End the State Income Tax in 2002

    End the State Income Tax in 2008

    Reduce the State Sales Tax in 2010

    Unfortuanately none of these initaitives passed (although the 2002 effort came close), but just qualifying these issues for the ballot and creating a public debate on these issues was a big accomplishment.

  160. Marc Montoni

    Those who want a “known” or “celebrity” candidate and who can’t see past the stars in their eyes are all forgetting one thing: Our presidential candidate is not going to magically get a plurality on Election Day 2012. Ain’t gonna happen.

    If Gary Johnson or God’s Gift to the LP is nominated, the best we can hope for is a half-million votes. If a more consistent libertarian such as Lee Wrights or Roger Gary is the nominee, yeah, maybe we’ll see 50k to 100k fewer votes.

    But in the grand scheme of things, would that kind of difference matter?

    If some ‘superstar’ is our candidate and gets lots of media and raises a few bucks, but the LP has continued shrinking in size, what will we have won?

    If we get fewer votes with a non-celeb candidate, but he manages to drive new prospects to the LP’s phone or website, and a couple of thousand join and thus provide next year’s donors and candidates, wouldn’t that be better than the alternative?

    The LP presidential nomination should not be viewed as a self-promotion tour. Given that our candidate will NOT win in terms of votes, then we should be using the campaign as a recruiting tool — a vehicle to bring more libertarians into the LP. Period. There is no other more important purpose for having a presidential campaign. All of the activities surrounding a presidential campaign are opportunities to show people we take libertarian ideas seriously and that if they do also, they should join us and help.

    To Hell with personality cults. I want to see new recruits brought to the door of the LP by presidential candidates. Personally, I take the pre-nomination season as the candidates’ “interview” in front of me. The ones who I see bringing in hundreds or thousands of new names every time they open their mouth on TV or radio will be the “serious” candidates in my opinion — and they will have earned my vote at convention time. The ones who don’t — I think of as jokes.

    There is one “prominent” candidate who has been heavily touted by much of the current leadership of the LP. However, I am the primary contact person for new inquiries for Virginia, and in my occasional correspondence or phone conversations with our new inquiries, I can relate the fact that NONE have cited that particular candidate as their inspiration for contacting us. Which begs the question — given that part of his cachet is the fact that he’s gotten thousands of media hits — but if he’s getting so much media, why aren’t our phones ringing off the hook?

    Besides the anecdotal, since the LP’s membership numbers have been on a downward slide for some time, I have yet to see any indication whatsoever that this candidate has brought in any substantial number of new members.

    In contrast, every time Harry Browne appeared on TV or radio, calls and emails would start rolling in. There were literally thousands of people brought into the LP by Harry Browne. Andre Marrou was also very good at generating large numbers of new contacts — I was the guy who followed-up most of the requests for information in 1992.

    Both Marrou and Browne bucked the conventional lamestreamer wisdom, also: they didn’t tiptoe around issues the lamestreamers want us all to remain silent about, such as abolishing taxes, abolishing Prohibition, abolishing government schools, and so on.

    So, yes, ATBAFT is correct: LP presidential candidates should be promoting **the LP’s** positions — not their own.

    I’m not interested in personality cults. I’m interested in getting good, solid, bold, libertarian ideas injected into the political debate — the ONLY kind of marketing that will excite and inspire many of the millions of people who are already basically libertarian, to join us.

    I definitely want to hear more about Johnson. Maybe his treatment by the Republican establishment has shown him that one need not softpedal our ideas, or temper them with gimmicks like national sales taxes. Maybe his experience has radicalized him enough for me to be sanguine with him as our choice.

    Time will tell.

  161. Marc Montoni

    Robert Hoover @ 123 said:

    I am guessing that he is referring to Sean Haugh’s published allegation that M Carling engaged in sexual harassment at the Watergate and that Bill Redpath covered it up?

    1) For those who aren’t aware, the alleged “victim” said it wasn’t harassment at all. There was no complaint; the alleged victim said so, in writing. The “victim” sent a message to the LNC and other interested members, and not only categorically dismissed the allegation, but went on to describe many unfortunate behaviors and activities on the part of the original source of the sexual harassment rumors. Many of those activities, if true, could easily be construed as outright fraud.

    I don’t particularly care for the trail of baggage Carling creates for himself at too many opportunities; but I dislike politically-correct laws and mores even less. There are plenty of things Carling is responsible for; we needn’t accuse him of things he didn’t do.

    2) Ditto regarding Redpath. One cannot cover up something that simply didn’t happen.

    3) Real libertarians don’t invoke harassment laws and want them repealed. And not just because of the utterly idiotic lengths to which they have been extended.

    4) I don’t have any sympathy for the “victim” anyway, as individual was later found to have … not taken the LPHQ job very seriously. To put it generously.

    Sean Haugh stated that there was more than one ‘complainant'; however, I have never seen anything to verify this.

    Despite the fact that Mr Haugh is often a legend in his own mind, I have to agree with him that Carling’s behavior during that period was ungentlemanly enough that Redpath should have steered clear of him. Instead, he rewarded Carling with appointment as LNC’s Parliamentarian.

  162. Steven R Linnabary

    About nine years ago I moved to a new neighborhood. As part of the moving process, I looked for a new neighborhood bar. About the 5th or 6th bar I went to, I found folks at the end of the bar talking politics…about the ’04 LP convention, as a matter of fact!

    It surprised me, these folks knew who our state officers were, and were knowledgeable (they were all dismissive of our state and local officers). But I had never met any of them beforehand.

    These folks were mostly excited about Badnarik, but some preferred Russo.

    In ’08, not one of them cared for Barr, nearly all voted for Obama.

    The LPO office is directly across the street from this bar. I wanted Barr to visit, and light a cigar for TV camera’s (OH had just outlawed smoking in bars)…but the rest of the LPO leadership didn’t want Barr going into a dive pool hall/bar.

    PEACE

  163. Jeremy C. Young

    Marc @200, this is probably the moment to reiterate that I’m not a Libertarian, so you’ll want to adjust your expectations accordingly. I’m probably closer to an old-style Teddy Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson Progressive than anything you’d find in a major party today.

    I wholeheartedly agree that scientists shouldn’t be hiding their research from taxpayers or anyone else. Do you have any evidence they did that? I didn’t notice any in the links you provided, but I’d certainly be open to that charge, and would agree with you if it is proven.

    As far as ClimateGate, I do know about the second e-mail dump. Here’s why I’m not particularly concerned about ClimateGate: first, I think the e-mails show scientists being gossipy and using their government e-mail accounts improperly, not actually fabricating evidence. Second and more importantly, even if the e-mails did show them fabricating evidence, it wouldn’t mean much in the scheme of things, because they are just one lab and there are many other labs around the world coming up with similar data. To make a comparison with my own profession, when a historian is found to have falsified evidence (and it does happen, unfortunately), that makes me reject that historian’s work in its entirety, and question any work that was based on the work of the falsifier. But it doesn’t make me wonder whether George Washington was a real person, or whether World War II happened, because the evidence for those things is massive and overwhelming and doesn’t rest on the work of one person. In order to disprove AGGCC, you’d have to prove that every climatography lab in the world was engaged in a massive conspiracy to commit fraud; I don’t see any evidence for that in the e-mails.

    I do believe that scientists and researchers should be exempt from FOIA as far as their e-mails accounts are concerned. There are serious issues of academic freedom there. Because they are paid by the government does not make them government employees in the political sense; they are paid to do independent work and not be hampered by people conducting witch hunts through their e-mails. Again, though, I feel differently about their data.

    Finally, I should point out that nothing would please me more than to discover global warming was all a great big hoax and that we could continue burning carbon as much as we wanted without fear that we were responsible for the deaths of millions and the devastation of our planet. Seriously, I would be ecstatic if I woke up to news stories saying that all the world’s climatologists were involved in a massive conspiracy to make up climate change. I would throw a big party to celebrate and y’all’d be invited (yes, even Wayne Root). I don’t believe in climate change because I want to believe in it; I believe in climate change because I think not believing in it makes no sense.

  164. Robert Capozzi

    197 jcy, yes, paradigm shift is the term used in some circles.

    But then you say: “So far, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that our current climate models have a high degree of predictive value, and that projections of a climate apocalypse are likely accurate.”

    Me: Really? Stand back and look at that. The current model has predicted minor perturbations, therefore it’s longer term projections of apocalypse are also likely accurate. I say again, Really? Look at it again.

    How’s this: I predict that all NFL games for the rest of the season will be settled by less than 50 points. I predict that in 10 years a game will be settled by more than 100 points.

    If my prediction for the rest of the season is correct, would you invest in my 10-year prediction?

    203 MM, again, it depends on how you look at the significance of numbers. LP membership numbers are and always have been small — in the tens of thousands. Deviations in a small base are especially prone to poor analysis since the changes are insignificant and subject to many variables.

    Who our candidate is and the messaging they put forth, I submit, is a matter of branding, not direct-response advertising. Branding is much more difficult to correlate with sales results.

  165. George Phillies

    First, thanks for your interesting comments on where we are not getting our members.

    Out of curiosity, with respect to things that have happened recently or are likely to repeat*, what things that a state party can make happen *are* effective at recruiting members, at least in your state?

    *The annual re-legalization festival is likely to repeat. The parade in honor of the 1776 bicentennial was a one-shot.

    “The problem with the government-funded ClimateGate scientists in the US, UK, and other nations, was that they repeatedly refused to release the data they used to create their theories and models — so that the rest of the world could reproduce their results. The fact that these crooks were allowed to get away with it, and continue doing their rent-seeking on the taxpayer dime, was **in itself** a failure of the peer-review process.”

    ‘release their data’ has nothing to do with peer review. Who supports you has nothing to do with peer review. Whether the money was spent honestly’ has nothing to do with peer review.

    Now, refusing to supply supporting data to someone doing peer review, if it was requested, would have something to do with peer review.

    Readers may recall a case precisely like this, in which the fellow was claiming that firearms ownership was almost unknown in the colonial period, and was unable to produce the core measurements that matched his results. There was in the end a conclusion drawn that the results he claimed were in error.

    In fact, there was recently a very large study done — with leadership from a skeptic — which assembled all of the measurements that could be found that anyone had collected, including digitizing hand records from centuries ago. on temperatures. That included the the results from the three large databases around the world, which were entirely available. Another similar study had no difficulty going in to one of the North American data bases of temperatures from around the world, and asking what would happen if you omitted thermometers likely to be affected by local heat islands — the apparent temperature increase got larger.

    @204 I was not referring to Mr Carling.

  166. RedPhillips

    “with leadership from a skeptic”

    His skeptic credentials are much in question, and it looks like attempts to play him up as a skeptic were a ploy for effect. So let me ask you, who uses a gimmick to make their findings sound more exciting, dispassionate scientists or advocates for a cause?

  167. George Phillies

    @201

    “…ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2010 …”

    The LP did not run a candidate for Governor here in 2010. None of the limited number of local members who could cover the needed $20-25,000 were on the ballot.

  168. Michael H. Wilson

    Allow me to add to the comments Marc has made at 203.

    This movement is about ideas. We cannot expect people to understand those ideas unless we promote them. If you go to the LP web site the issues section where one would expect to see information on those ideas is behind a page or two and seriously out of date.

    I will bet money that most visitors to the web site do not go there to join the party or donate money. They want to see what we think about a particular issue. Until we get that through the thick heads on the LNC the web site is, for the most part, wasted money.

  169. JT

    Jeremy: “So far, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that our current climate models have a high degree of predictive value, and that projections of a climate apocalypse are likely accurate.”

    The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that projections of a climate apocalypse are likely accurate?? This claim is so divorced from reality that any further discussion about this issue is worthless, IMO. Many scientists who do in fact subscribe to the AGW theory don’t even believe that.

    Jeremy: “Marc @200, this is probably the moment to reiterate that I’m not a Libertarian, so you’ll want to adjust your expectations accordingly. I’m probably closer to an old-style Teddy Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson Progressive than anything you’d find in a major party today.”

    Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were two of the most authoritarian Presidents of the 20th century. Both loved the idea of a tremendous centralization of power in the federal government (a lot of it in the executive branch, of course) at the expense of individual freedom. So yes, there should be no confusion between you and anyone who could possibly say he or she is a libertarian.

  170. JT

    Good post at 203, Marc. Two points:

    1) I’m not willing to concede that anyone who runs for President as a Libertarian MUST only get half a million votes. A couple million votes is doable, IMO, for a candidate who millions of people take seriously under the right political conditions (including the perceived state of the economy, whom the two old parties nominate, etc.). Would a couple million votes be Earth-shattering? Of course not. Would it make the mainstream media pay more attention to the LP–as opposed to dismissing it as entirely irrelevant–and help mitigate against Wasted Vote Syndrome? Maybe. Harry Browne definitely thought so.

    2) I don’t see why it’s a foregone conclusion that Lee Wrights or Roger Gary would bring more people in to the LP as the Libertarian nominee. I don’t think that necessarily hinges on whether the nominee embraces the entirety of the LP Platform or not. There are other factors at play.

  171. George Phillies

    I think it is a foregone conclusion that a Presidential candidate who puts our party name and contact info front and center will do more to build our party than someone who is on the radio all the time and fails to mention the party.

    I am much less concerned with whether the candidate builds volunteers, donors, and income for the national party or for state parties.

  172. Jill Pyeatt

    George, I agree with your comment at 214 with the exception that I’d prefer the candidate doesn’t mention our party if he’s espousing ideas that aren’t consistent with Libertarian principles.

  173. Matt Cholko

    I like Gary Johnson, and I don’t care much for any of the announced candidates for our nomination. However, his promotion of the (un)Fair Tax makes it difficult for me to support him. I sincerely hope that he’ll get rid of that crap as he makes the shift to the LP.

    I do see some benefits to having a candidate for president that the average voter and/or the MSM is likely to consider “qualified” for the job. Gary Johnson may well fit the bill. However, if that person isn’t a principled libertarian, and therefore promotes views/positions that are contrary to libertarianism, any gains in terms of media exposure or a perception of legitimacy for our party are actually BAD for us and the liberty movement. We are HURT by media exposure that shows Libertarians and the LP to be something other than actual libertarians.

  174. Robert Capozzi

    217 mc, I hear that. Not a FAIR tax person either. However, I’d suggest that GJ’s fiscal mix is (more than) acceptable for me, and possibly most Ls. He calls first for a 47% cut in spending. Assume he won’t walk back (at least some) from the FAIR Tax, we’d need to look at his specific variant of a FAIR Tax.

    The question I’d ask is: If those 2 initiatives passed, would they TOGETHER advance liberty or not? I’d say they do. Even a revenue neutral FAIR Tax with a huge cut in spending frees up the economy massively, and that’s good for liberty.

    We I advising GJ, I would suggest he add a flat tax option to soften his FAIR Tax (I’d say) error. This would distance him from his current FAIR Tax advocate positioning. I’d say he’s too invested in the FAIR Tax to drop it completely in 2012.

  175. Jeremy C. Young

    Robert @207, you’re underestimating the level of granularity of the predictions. The model hasn’t predicted “minor perturbations,” it’s predicted a specific pattern of minor perturbations that has been borne out in detail by observed events. As to your NFL example, I’d be a lot more likely to believe your remote prediction if it was based on scientific evidence that was connected to the earlier minor fluctuations, than if you just made it up in your head. This is the key here: the scientists have not just made this up in their heads. They have developed the theory out of a great variety of observed data, or I suppose you could argue instead that they fabricated the whole thing in a giant conspiracy. That’s possible, though I think unlikely, but do you really think they just made up their claim on a whim because it sounded pretty? Is that really how you think science works? I’m concerned about motive here. I’ve heard Marc suggest research funding as a motive, which I suppose is possible, but gosh, they’d have to be really reprehensible to spin apocalyptic visions just so they can keep their government jobs. Other than that, I’ve got nothing.

    JT @213, right, I’m a proud statist. My only disagreement with the current Green Party is that I don’t think they’re willing enough to use state power in foreign policy. I’ve made that clear from the outset. I think you guys are interesting to talk to, but I don’t agree with you on the fundamentals. We can talk about that if you like, but we won’t reach agreement because the differences are on basic value judgments for both of us. Doesn’t bother me if it doesn’t bother you; we agree strongly on the need for more third parties and more voices in politics.

  176. Robert Capozzi

    220 jcy: it’s predicted a specific pattern of minor perturbations that has been borne out in detail by observed events. …This is the key here: the scientists have not just made this up in their heads. They have developed the theory out of a great variety of observed data, or I suppose you could argue instead that they fabricated the whole thing in a giant conspiracy.

    me: Right, let’s stipulate that the track record and methodology are INCREDIBLY effective. We’re still talking about minor perturbations. Extrapolating out and predicting a break seems grandiose on its face. On its face, big shock reactions require even more variables to line up just so, making the degree of difficulty far more pronounced.

    As for the motives of the climatologists, I can’t say. I don’t read minds…wish I could.

    I am in no camp re: AGW. The “alarmist” camp may well have nailed it. The “deniers” may be spot on. For the life of me, I can’t see how anyone could put that much credibility in any theory with that many variables and no ability to replicate results, other than with computer models, though.

  177. Jeremy C. Young

    Robert @221, I have trouble seeing it as anything other than a binary. If there’s even a chance that this apocalypse could happen and that we could stave it off, I think we’re honor bound to do what we can to stop it. The burden of certainty is on the other side: if you’re unsure, best to play it safe and avoid the apocalypse.

  178. Michael H. Wilson

    George Phillies @ 214 says; “I think it is a foregone conclusion that a Presidential candidate who puts our party name and contact info front and center will do more to build our party than someone who is on the radio all the time and fails to mention the party.”

    Yup! Someone shows some common sense. Damn! A rare event.

  179. Robert Capozzi

    222 JCY, your approach makes a lot of sense. However, it’s a world full of potential apocalypses…nuclear, climate, hunger, chem trails, diseases, shadowy conspiracies. Governments of individual nations are generally poor solvers of problems, and often make the problems worse. Governments acting in tandem compound the propensity for dysfunction.

    My take is everything somehow or other works out.

  180. Marc Montoni

    Jeremy @ 206, yes I was aware that you identify yourself as a progressive (I must confess however that I believe that name is dishonest as a descriptor).

    I wholeheartedly agree that scientists shouldn’t be hiding their research from taxpayers or anyone else. Do you have any evidence they did that? I didn’t notice any in the links you provided, but I’d certainly be open to that charge, and would agree with you if it is proven.

    Well, I don’t want to get into a big row over semantics, but I noticed you say “hiding their research” when I actually said “they repeatedly refused to release the data they used to create their theories and models”. In other words, the underlying data they used in their calculations.

    In order to disprove AGGCC, you’d have to prove that every climatography lab in the world was engaged in a massive conspiracy to commit fraud; I don’t see any evidence for that in the e-mails.

    Three answers to that statement.

    1) Here’s the main rub: I don’t have to disprove AGGCC. Since I am a net taxpayer, and since the bill for all of the many 1) implemented, 2) soon-to-be-implemented, and 3) proposed mitigation schemes are ultimately going to be paid for by *me*, it is the supporters of any of those three who must prove their claims to me.

    2) Besides, it isn’t really fair to force others to prove a negative. I could ask *you* to prove *when* you stopped beating your wife, for instance; and it would be just as unfair.

    3) It is entirely unnecessary to prove a vast conspiracy was intelligently set up, managed, and carried out. One must only understand that people in groups almost never work against their own self-interest. Yes, there may be a whistleblower or three in any corrupt organization, but by and large, the majority of the participants are going to rent-seek as much as they are able. I never try to explain with an intelligent conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by plain old incompetence or greed (which is why I don’t give a damn about the Rothschilds or Bilderburgers).

    In any case, any time someone is calling for some massive new government “solution”, the first thing I do is to look for rent-seeking individuals. If a new highway is going to get built, for instance, that represents millions of dollars in revenue to the company that wins the contract. However, that same spending spread out over five million taxpayers in the state might add up to a couple of dollars each. The property owners, the contractor, the contractor’s employees, the local politician, all have a big incentive to hit the streets for the new highway. Five million taxpayers losing another $2 each, however, cannot justify taking a day off from feeding their kids to fight it.

    Similarly, alarmist scientists get grant money, and piles of it. The supply of money from the evil energy industry pales in comparison to the wad of bills governments at all levels shovel into grants and research projects. A lot more than what is reported directly in government budgets is hidden in public educational spending.

    If researchers were getting their money from voluntary sources — say, NGO’s supported by donations, or companies that earned their money fair and square, I wouldn’t care.

    But the alarmist industry gets most of its money by pilfering it from my pocket using the state as his stooge.

    If academics don’t want me to see what they’re doing, then they should get into honest work and stop taking my money.

    Seriously, I would be ecstatic if I woke up to news stories saying that all the world’s climatologists were involved in a massive conspiracy to make up climate change.

    You only say that because you know that science doesn’t shift like that. Arrests for frauds and hoaxes just don’t happen (although they probably should). Science instead simply shifts because scientists quietly change their conclusions over the years. Like all people who are wrong, they don’t hol,d a press conference — they just change their tune.

    This is what happened with the “man is causing a new ice age — glaciation at 11!” ‘consensus’ that held sway until the late seventies.

  181. Robert Capozzi

    222 jcy, more, MM brings up an excellent point. Within my lifetime, the “settled science” was Ice Age a-comin’. Then, a few decades later, AGW was settled.

    But, OK, let’s say they were wrong then, but correct now. However, let’s say a major volcanic eruption happens soon. Or, let’s say India and Pakistan lob some nukes at one another. Or a major earthquake shifts aspects of the Earth.

    The climatologists rerun their models after the event and yet ANOTHER prediction is made.

    What seemed prudent to avoid climate apocalypse no longer is. Agree?

    What I find offensive is the Chicken Little as Bully aspect of “the scientists” and the “Al Gore-saviors of the world” dismissing anyone who doesn’t go along with their hysterical bullying…anyone who doesn’t buy into their diagnosis and solution are somehow “lesser” people. Trust us. We’re the smart ones.

    The track record for the “smart ones” selling us their groupthink grandiosities has been poor.

    Wisdom trumps “smart” all day long. Personally, I will bet all day long against the wisdom of bullies. Anyone who sets out on his or her day with disrespect for others is immediately in a wrong-minded place, in my experience. The attempt to compartmentalize their hatred from their intellectual pursuits inevitably fails.

  182. Marc Montoni

    George Phillies @ 208 asked:

    Out of curiosity, with respect to things that have happened recently or are likely to repeat*, what things that a state party can make happen *are* effective at recruiting members, at least in your state?

    So far I have not seen an activity that generates wholesale numbers of new members at the state level. Wholesale recruitment (million-piece outreach mailings, TV ads, etc) is, for the time being, a national task.

    Until we grow much larger and figure out prospecting economies of scale, state and local party building is all about retail recruitment.

    The most direct way of building membership is to personally invite people to join while they’re sitting there listening to the evening’s speaker at your local meetings. At the peak of the Patrick Henry Supper Club in Richmond, in May 1999, I was leaving just about every meeting with a dozen or more new or renewal membership forms in my pocket. I have direct personal knowledge that membership recruitment can be done by any LP member, by doing nothing more than bringing a few pens and membership forms to local meetings. If every LP member would sign upo just one other person, the LP would immediately double in size. I’m only one person. Every state with active local groups should be pushing really hard to recruit and train a volunteer “Membership Director” for each local.

    And if you’re trying to sell state memberships only, you’re not accomplishing much. Membership in one level of the LP tends to reinforce membership in the others.

  183. Marc Montoni

    Red Phillips @ 209 answered Phillies:

    His skeptic credentials are much in question, and it looks like attempts to play him up as a skeptic were a ploy for effect.

    Red is correct. Phillies speaks of physicist Richard Muller of Berkley, who back in October defrauded the Washington Post into believing he was a “former skeptic” when in fact he has been an advocate of the AGGGC theory since the 80’s.

  184. George Phillies

    @226

    “The settled science was an incoming ice age.”

    This claim is a right wing fabrication. You see, someone actually went back and counted all the scientific papers. The general agreement even 30 or 40 years ago was for global warming. Claims to the contrary are, well, conservatives live in their own dream world, complete with dinosaurs and human beings being contemporaneous, six mile high flooding from the oceans, an absence of directly observable evolution, et very tedious cetera.

    We have to live with the fact that our country is full of conservatives like this, but recognize that they are endangering the future of our country and most of its great cities. Well, they are no worse than the urban renewers who Jacobs, etc., discredited.

    There were people who calculated specific effects, e.g., volcanic eruptions, aerosols, that push in the other direction as specific effects. There were the people who sorted out the El Nino and La Nina effects.

    Models with random volcanoes — don’t know 20 years in advance when there are large explosive eruptions — are run, showing the size and duration (short) of their effects. However, it is possible to sort out those short term effects from the long term trend, and people have done so, as witness

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/13/388527/deniers-study-true-global-warming-signal-rate-of-manmade-warming/

    “….Personally, I will bet all day against…” A man who bets against himself deserves at least a little respect, and that is what you are doing.

  185. Marc Montoni

    JT said:

    1) I’m not willing to concede that anyone who runs for President as a Libertarian MUST only get half a million votes. A couple million votes is doable, IMO, for a candidate who millions of people take seriously under the right political conditions (including the perceived state of the economy, whom the two old parties nominate, etc.). Would a couple million votes be Earth-shattering? Of course not. Would it make the mainstream media pay more attention to the LP–as opposed to dismissing it as entirely irrelevant–and help mitigate against Wasted Vote Syndrome? Maybe. Harry Browne definitely thought so.

    JT I am certainly not saying I wouldn’t say “see ya” to my cute little kids and head out for a week-long bender if the L prez candidate got 1.2 million votes. However, I have been in this since 1980 and every time at the convention, Libertarians mill about over the fact that “this or that candidate might get ____ votes”. I’ve learned not to care too much about vote totals; I care more about how well it prepares for the next election. In my book, “preparing for the next election” means “mustering more troops”. Which is why I focus on membership recruitment in my own personal efforts.

    Until we’re much bigger than we are, the LP simply can’t compete with the Calcified Two on the sheer ability to wear out shoe leather.

    2) I don’t see why it’s a foregone conclusion that Lee Wrights or Roger Gary would bring more people in to the LP as the Libertarian nominee.

    While I would support either of those two guys over God’s Gift the the LP; I have no illusions about either one’s ability to bring in new members. So far, they don’t seem to be making any recruitment headway.

    I don’t think that necessarily hinges on whether the nominee embraces the entirety of the LP Platform or not. There are other factors at play.

    All I can say is that adherence to a consistent vision of libertarianism is my primary concern. My secondary concern is how well the candidate plays in public. If a 95%er effectively presents libertarian ideas without deviations in areas of intense concern, vs a 100%er who doesn’t present well (can’t speak, doesn’t dress well when speaking before the public, etc), I’d probably pull the lever for the 95%er.

    If that good presenter is only a 70%er, I guess I’ll take the blue pill and vote for the 100%er. I’d rather support a correct message than put forth a candidate who will give voters entirely wrong ideas about libertarianism.

    Fortunately that sort of choice hasn’t really appeared at LP nominations yet. I considered Barr to be at best about a 60%er. Fortunately his main opponent – Mary Ruwart — was every bit a 100%er, but she could also present our ideas very well. I’ve listened to her in radio interviews and the like, and she is very good at explaining our ideas.

  186. He's in

    Word is that December 28 is the date that Mr. Johnson announces. State parties may be seeing some new folks coming to their events. Hope you have processes in place to handle this, including who can vote at your meetings, requirements to be in state delegations at national conventions, etc.

  187. Marc Montoni

    “The settled science was an incoming ice age.”

    This claim is a right wing fabrication. You see, someone actually went back and counted all the scientific papers. The general agreement even 30 or 40 years ago was for global warming.

    Einstein was a minority, as were Aristarchus, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin etc etc. Hell, Phillies self-identifies as a libertarian (although he has a surplus of off-the-reservation wanderings that suggest the label doesn’t really fit him), and last time I checked, libertarians were very clearly a minority. Does that mean that Phillies’ minority views are automatically incorrect?

    ‘Consensus’ has only become a buzzphrase since the beginnings of the Anthropogenerated Global Climate Change (henceforth “AGGCC“) alarmism industry. ‘Consensus’ is not necessarily correct, nor is having one (much less purporting to have one) necessarily a virtue.

    Claims to the contrary are, well, conservatives live in their own dream world, complete with dinosaurs and human beings being contemporaneous, six mile high flooding from the oceans, an absence of directly observable evolution, et very tedious cetera… We have to live with the fact that our country is full of conservatives like this, but recognize that they are endangering the future of our country and most of its great cities. Well, they are no worse than the urban renewers who Jacobs, etc., discredited.

    George, do you ever actually check your facts?

    You’re likely speaking of the article by Peterson, Connolly, and Fleck. Google Scholar is your friend, George. Remember that it’s easy to miss what you’re not looking for. It’s even easier to miss what you’re trying desperately to avoid looking for.

    Just in my amateur, shoulda-been-a-high-school dropout hands, the first page of Google Scholar results on the requested topic showed me at least one paper the PCF study missed: “Return of the ice age and drought in peninsular Florida?”, Joseph M. Moran. Geology 3 (12): 695-696 (1975). PCF would likely respond they looked in climate journals, not geology journals — which is ironic considering the geological effects of ice sheets.

    Another scientist I found who was predicting ice age was Dr Clifford Miller, shown in this Leonard Nimoy-hosted special in the seventies.

    I’m sure a serious search by those with access to collections of science journals — there are thousands of them — could turn up thousands of articles from the 60’s and 70’s. Google Scholar isn’t omniscient.

    Phillies might also consider that the majority of the public is now skeptical of AGGCC theory — but not because they are reading skeptic arguments. It is because for the past several decades they have been carpet-bombed with ridiculously over-the-top weather predictions which always turn out to be wrong. The public mind has changed because they have seen the climate alarm industry fail to get it right so consistently; backed up by the revelations of fraud and conspiracy in the ClimateGate I and II emails.

    The only real issue that separates alarmists from skeptics is m.o.n.e.y.

    Al Gore, for instance, made a billion or two churning out alarmist propaganda. Alarmist scientists have a huge incentive to keep their bed feathered; if they don’t ‘prove’ warming, they won’t be in line for the billions of dollars in taxpayer money that governments have washed onto the deck. Then we get to the issue of carbon taxes, credits and trading — schemes that only enrich politicians’ and bureaucrats’ stockbroker friends who are screeching to get in on a commodity that doesn’t exist, has no established value and which enriches both the buyer and seller; and which, if implemented as desired, will result in trillions of today’s dollars trading around.

    In contrast, skeptics get none of that windfall. There are few jobs for skeptics, because only governments can fund ten or twenty billion dollars in science grant handouts without batting an eyelash.

    So in essence, anytime one hears the phrase “Global Warming” or “climate change” etc, all one needs do to understand it, is to repeat the phrase: “Power & Money”.

    Politicians – Power & Control
    GW Scientists – Guaranteed Job, Funding, & new “Toys”
    Private parties – Money, Profits, & more Money

    Both AGGCC now and global cooling in the 1970s were widespread scientific opinions blown out of proportion by the media, vested interests, and activists. The level of scientific proof was about the same: none. The big difference is in the scale of the social movement and political buy-in that has built up around AGGCC in the 30 years since it started.

    Perhaps Phillies’ youthful years were clouded by the ingestion of somethingorother; but I actually remember my youth, and I remember very well reading many articles about the coming ice age. Warmist alarmism didn’t surface as “news” until the mid-eighties.

    By the way, George, every time you equate libertarian skepticism with conservatism, and go on to describe conservatism in the manner you do, it merely means you’re channeling your inner socialist. Using the derogatory language of hard-left corn-fed liberal hippies who describe conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else they don’t like as knuckle-dragging morons straight out of a cave, is not helping your argument.

    Alarmists don’t want their underlying data release because doing so would reveal the true depths of the scientific fraud going on. NOAA/NCDC temperature records, for example, have been selectively manipulated by omitting data from weather stations located in colder locations (high altitudes and closer to the poles) vs. those Weather Stations in warmer locations. This is going on right up to the present day, too. There were 367 missing 2009 temperature data entries into the 2010 Weather Station temperature database). Why doesn’t anyone ever get fired for these sorts of professional lapses?

    The global warming “Scare” really burst into the public consciousness in about 1991-1992 — which happened to coincide with the deactivation of dozens of stations in the Soviet Union (most in Siberia). It wasn’t until several years later that skeptics began to fact-check the alarmists on surface stations and began documenting their problems. This is why release of all underlying data is an absolute must.

  188. George Phillies

    No, I am talking about real articles in scientific journals and similar sources, not a popular newspaper.

    Every so often, we get a graduate student who thinks they have done a literature search because they have used google. Google is better then it used to be, but ‘I researched it in google’ for a grad student is somewhat similar to ‘I am totally clueless’.

    “Einstein was a minority, as were Aristarchus, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin etc etc.”

    This is one of the classic signposts that you are dealing with a crackpot, namely the advance claims that ‘X was a minority…”

    In fact Einstein’s classic papers of special relativity, the photoelectric effect, and diffusion were essentially never viewed as minority opinions to be rejected or disproven, except of course by neoNazis offended by non-Aryan physics. There were people who did not understand them immediately and people who wanted strong evidence that Einstein was right.
    Ditto Dalton and the law of combining proportions, which had the serious problem that it did not agree with a lot of correct experiments. It took a while to understand the difference between solid solutions and compounds.

    The bulk opinion in the 1970s was in favor of global warming, tools of the corrupt oil interests notwithstanding. The assembled data is actually available on the internet at this point.

    The Libertarian Party would be well advised to send on their way the deniers, truthers, biorthers, new earthers, et tedious cetera, unless we want to end up rejected by the great bulk of the American people who already have their facts straight.

  189. Robert Capozzi

    229 gp: This claim [of a coming ice age] is a right wing fabrication. You see, someone actually went back and counted all the scientific papers.

    me: MM’s addressed this. I’m sure of few things, but I distinctly recall that the next Ice Age was taught in my Long Island, NY government schools in the 60s and 70s. Many, many others recall this, too. How this leaked into the common knowledge base…dunno. I guess it’s possible that what you consider to be “scientific papers” and what science is taught in schools could differ.

    Consistent with a pattern of bullying, GP may be unwilling to admit that we are bombarded with science telling us things that turn out false. Weather forecasts, what foods and drinks are healthy or not, the list is long.

    Perhaps there is an element of faith in science…that the last finding to meet certain criteria are the Absolute Truth. Those in the faith defend the faith blindly. When the College of (Science) Cardinals changes the faith (no longer a sin to eat meat on Fridays), the Anointed Scientists dismiss and deflect any questions of fallability and/or hypocrisy.

    gp: There were people who calculated specific effects, e.g., volcanic eruptions, aerosols, that push in the other direction as specific effects. There were the people who sorted out the El Nino and La Nina effects.

    me: Yes, many video games have that feature, too.

    gp: “….Personally, I will bet all day against…” A man who bets against himself deserves at least a little respect, and that is what you are doing.

    me: Classic! You truncated my statement 229 to take out the money phrase: “Personally I will bet all day against the wisdom of bullies.” IOW, bullies – like yourself- may well know a particular subject matter. You know, for ex., how to file a complaint with the FEC. I respect that you have that skill that I do not. I DO, of course, question the WISDOM of the circumstances when you exercised that skill. A eugenicist knows the human body better than I, too, but I have the audacity to question to wisdom of practicing eugenics!

  190. Robert Capozzi

    229 gp, more:

    I attempted to read your linked Think Progress article. I found this the money sentence: “Their influence was estimated by multiple regression. ”

    OK. Regressions are run ALL THE TIME in economics, and they are generally incorrect. Regressions are run in meteorology and it leads to incorrect conclusions all the time.

    If that’s the best tool to guess…grand. It may well be more and more sophisticated…whether they get more accurate…who knows?

    Might well be that excess CO2 > increased temps. Might well be that that might > climate change. Might well be that that climate change could be catastrophic.

    If these are best guesses, however, it’s an EMOTIONAL, not a RATIONAL, reaction to say that someone who does NOT buy these best guesses as fact is somehow in denial of truth, since guesses are not truth. Being skeptical of best guesses sounds perfectly wise.

    If not, why not?

  191. George Phillies

    @235 You are right about economics. However, the global warming models are based not on regression models but on thermodynamics, which Einstein described as the most certainly accurate of all sciences, and one radiative and other transports, which are quite well understood.

    There are points that are less well understood, namely ice flow in large systems, which have rather consistently underestimated the rate of Antarctic ice loss.

    There is an interest in comparing the models with history. A model that predicts that London of 1000AD had a tropical climate clearly has errors. The models do extremely well when tested against the past. That is a test of the calculation. Life becomes more interesting if you go extremely far back, because the mountain ranges were entirely different, and mountain ranges can matter.

  192. Gary Johnson

    Yes, Wayne Root’s candidate for President is calling LNC members asking for their support.

    One might suggest that Johnson is not closely familiar with our party.

  193. Tom Blanton

    C’mon people, everyone knows the climate change crisis is caused by man. Once everyone is on board with this concept, then the magic powers of government can kick in and solve the crisis.

    Until everyone is a true believer, the planet will just continue to heat up. Obviously human behavior can’t solve the problem – even though it is causing it. Only through the miracle of politics can this problem vanish.

    But, before the enlightened high priests of centralized global planning can begin their secret rituals that will save us, you must have faith and believe.

  194. Thomas L. Knapp

    TB@239,

    Well, see, that’s kind of the problem.

    The libertarian movement is supposed to suggest non-state solutions to problems.

    But you can’t credibly suggest any kind of solution to a problem if you’re jumping up and down with your fingers in the ears screaming “it’s not a problem because I don’t waaaaaaaaaaaaant it to be a problem! Make those mean old scientists stops throwing inconveniences in front of my ideology!”

  195. JT

    Jeremy: “T @213, right, I’m a proud statist. My only disagreement with the current Green Party is that I don’t think they’re willing enough to use state power in foreign policy. I’ve made that clear from the outset.”

    Well, I knew you weren’t a libertarian, which you’ve always been open and honest about. I didn’t realize you were an authoritarian in the vein of people like Roosevelt and Wilson. “Statist” doesn’t do that justice.

    Jeremy: “I think you guys are interesting to talk to, but I don’t agree with you on the fundamentals. We can talk about that if you like, but we won’t reach agreement because the differences are on basic value judgments for both of us.”

    I agree.

    Jeremy: “Doesn’t bother me if it doesn’t bother you; we agree strongly on the need for more third parties and more voices in politics.”

    Doesn’t really bother me, but I don’t think we agree on the latter either. I personally don’t care about having more parties in politics in itself; I care about freedom and the LP. Now, if it helps Libertarians to join forces with Greens or whomever in some limited way or other to achieve a common goal, I’m cool with it. But that doesn’t mean I think “the more the merrier.” If all other alternative parties whose voices are calling for more national government authority disbanded tomorrow, I wouldn’t blink an eye.

    Montoni: “All I can say is that adherence to a consistent vision of libertarianism is my primary concern. My secondary concern is how well the candidate plays in public.”

    Fair enough, Marc. I think it’s embarrassing to nominate someone for the highest political office in the United States who has no professional distinction whatsoever, even if that person is the most consistent libertarian alive. I’d rather the LP nominate a candidate who favors greatly downsizing the federal government economically, socially, and militarily; is polished/articulate; has an active organization in place prior to the convention; has raised real money prior to the convention; and has had some admirable professional distinction.

    Montoni: “Fortunately his main opponent – Mary Ruwart — was every bit a 100%er, but she could also present our ideas very well. I’ve listened to her in radio interviews and the like, and she is very good at explaining our ideas.”

    I’m not attacking Ruwart here, but why was she so bad during the convention debate? I hope you don’t consider that performance to be very good. I was shocked at how poorly she answered the questions given her reputation as a polished libertarian communicator.

  196. JT

    Knapp: “But you can’t credibly suggest any kind of solution to a problem if you’re jumping up and down with your fingers in the ears screaming “it’s not a problem because I don’t waaaaaaaaaaaaant it to be a problem! Make those mean old scientists stops throwing inconveniences in front of my ideology!””

    I haven’t seen anyone do that on this thread. I know I didn’t. I point to scientific evidence and research, albeit not the conventional wisdom. Based on that, I believe that there’s slight warming, but only speculation between that warming and human action and no reason to fear an impending global catastrophe.

  197. Kleptocracy And You

    I have actually lived long enough to see “them” attempting to TAX one of the last FREE things we possess, the air we breathe!

    “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

    More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore

    It IS time to get serious about telling the TRUTH! This hatched (FRAUD) plan is scary stuff if you pay close attention to what they say. Yes, to what THEY say! To paraphrase Reagan: Some of these (elitist environmental) KOOKS would have you and YOUR family die shivering in the dark !

    “… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the New World Order and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” – H. G. Wells

    “The threat of environmental crisis is the ‘international disaster key’ to unlock the New World Order.” – Mikhail Gorbachev

    “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports

    “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” – Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

    “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

    “Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.” – Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

    “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

    Environmentalists Pick Up Where Communists Left Off: http://townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/2008/05/31/environmentalists_pick_up_where_communists_left_off

    The Global Warming Lie: http://sunset2008.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-in-perspective.html

    Dangerous KOOKS indeed !!! None of them worked in the fields from daylight to dark to survive and feed their children, yet that is what they call for in so many ways (an end to modern society, ALL industrialized civilizations to collapse! What is happening now?). That is a hard life, for the ones even “allowed” to reproduce. (Please reread their quotes if you misunderstand my points)

    They learn the art of lying to change policy and INCREASE “their” taxpayer funded grant money$ ?

    “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” – Adolph Hitler

    I’m glad to see some older readers remember “they” were attempting to have us believe a new ICE AGE was coming back in the 1970s. Socialist BULL then as it is now!

    Wake up friends, when they come to your door for non-compliance it will be TOO LATE …

    *^* To get back to the subject presented before it was HYJACKED, I’m still not drinking the GJ Kool-aid ! (A nice guy,but) Not much money or media, HOW does he cause a LP “break though” ??? A “draft” Ron Paul move would be taking advantage of over $50 million (+) in money and even more in media coverage over the latest two POTUS cycles, a much more intelligent move methinks……..

    After all BOTH are “flawed” Ls so everyone of us must hold our noses at different places in their platforms. Beginning to come around to a Paul/Johnson Ticket and actually make “them (the overpaid lazy lackey MIC controlled media)” SQUIRM for a few months. They are so worried now they have begun to call poor ol Dr. Paul names and have Hannity referring back to the racists newsletters while they bow to “MR.SPEAKER”*! ………….

    *Anyone out of office is former so in so, NO LONGER Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ambassador , etc. yet the media use these terms so the masses will continue to reverence gov’t and these lying, thieving whore hoppers who the majority of us have never nor would we ever vote for any office or position ! (Leroy Newton Gingrich doesn’t deserve to be your potus-people)

  198. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT@243,

    “point to scientific evidence and research”

    A list of scientists who disagree with AGW theory is not “scientific evidence and research.”

    I suppose a journal article which explicitly states that man is at least partially responsible for increasing CO2 levels and that those levels are in turn associated with a warming trend, but that that trend is good, might be considered “scientific evidence and research,” but saying that conclusion X is a good thing rather than a bad thing is not the same as disputing the veracity of conclusion X.

  199. matt cholko

    I’m hoping that whatever is causing the “global warming” picks up the pace. The sooner those damn polar ice caps melt the sooner Fairfax County, VA becomes a beach town.

  200. Thomas L. Knapp

    addendum@245,

    Also, JT, I wasn’t addressing anyone and everyone who might be an actual skeptic.

    I was addressing what seems to be a widespread attitude on the right, including among right-libertarians, that if the science isn’t facially convenient to their agenda, it is the science, and not their agenda, which must be re-examined.

    Personally I believe that it is the task of any ideology to offer solutions to problems, not try to wish problems away.

  201. Tom Blanton

    The libertarian movement is supposed to suggest non-state solutions to problems.

    Well, that’s kind of my point. Not only has there been no real non-state solutions, I haven’t seen any credible state solutions either. The solutions offered by the hardcore climate change activists are all rather vague.

    The idea that the government should have a war on climate change is simply a bad idea. It would likely bankrupt us and accelerate global warming at the same time.

    Doomsday predictions and snarky comments made to global warming skeptics doesn’t really begin to address what should be done. The standard bromide of advocating investment in alternative energy is somewhat of a non-starter – especially after the Solyndra situation.

    So, what can I do right now to save the world? Quit driving altogether? Have my electricity cut off? Quit exhaling?

  202. Michael H. Wilson

    Instead of arguing if AGW is real or not why not suggest some ideas that might mitigate the problem? That might get the libertarian movement some good will and people might just take us seriously.

  203. Thomas L. Knapp

    @248,

    “So, what can I do right now to save the world? Quit driving altogether? Have my electricity cut off? Quit exhaling?”

    Why immediately jump to the conclusion that you have to make extreme changes?

    Using less electricity (perhaps by switching to CFL bulbs, or just paying attention and shutting off the fucking light when a room isn’t in use) means you’re putting less CO2 in the air AND IT SAVES YOU MONEY.

    Ditto for spending an extra minute or two a week planning your car travels and reducing the number of trips you have to make to get the same thing done. You pour less crap into the atmosphere and YOU SPEND LESS ON GAS.

    That stuff may not be the whole ball of wax, but it’s a start anyway. And not only is it not an extreme sacrifice, it saves you time and money.

  204. Tom Blanton

    Hey, I’ve done my part then. I switched to all CFL bulbs 3 years ago and I drive less than 5,000 miles per year. Plus I keep my heat down in the 60s.

    Apparently, all of this has had no effect on global warming though.

    My carbon footprint is pretty small.

  205. Jeremy C. Young

    JT@242, I’d rather have the LP as my main political opponent than have the GOP, even though I agree with the GOP on more issues. I feel that way because the LP is honest and has an ideologically consistent worldview, and a choice between them and me is a real, honest choice with clear differences, not a vote for one of two sets of corporate tools. I’d be deeply disappointed to lose an election to the LP, but I would consider it a fair fight and an honorable loss, not an intolerable theft of the democratic process like virtually all real elections in this country.

  206. Jeremy C. Young

    George @237, I’d be a bit wary of calling Johnson “Wayne Root’s candidate for President” just because Wayne is trying to recruit him. We can’t be certain that Johnson is in any way on board with Wayne’s views just because he had lunch with the man.

    That would be a bit like calling Lee Wrights a big-government statist just because I like him and think the LP should nominate him. I suspect Wrights would thank me for my support and point out that he disagrees with virtually all of my positions.

  207. Jeremy C. Young

    Marc @225, a few things. First, I identify as a big-P Progressive simply to clarify the historical movement with which I most closely identify my politics. I actually don’t particularly care about the label itself; it’s just a shorthand to describe my beliefs.

    Second, I didn’t mean to argue about semantics. I do agree with you that those labs should publish their raw data as well as their analyses of that data. If they’re not doing so, I would like to see 1) proof that they’re not doing so, and 2) their explanation for not doing so.

    Third, the only thing I have to say about your explanation of motive is that if you are right, climatologists are the most reprehensive people on the planet to scare the entire world just because they want more research funding. I personally don’t believe that’s the case, but I am of course open to persuasion by evidence. I consider the ClimateGate e-mails a tiny sliver of evidence, but only a minuscule portion of what would be needed for me to believe such a thing about an entire profession of scientists. I do believe there are ethical limits many people will follow that spell out how far they are willing to go for personal gain. In my judgment, job security and good research funding aren’t sufficient motivations to pull off a hoax of this magnitude. It’s different in business, where people can gain multi-billion-dollar payouts for much smaller fabrictions (affecting merely hundreds or thousands of people, not the entire world). I guess that’s how I make that judgment.

  208. Jeremy C. Young

    Robert @226: “What I find offensive is the Chicken Little as Bully aspect of “the scientists” and the “Al Gore-saviors of the world” dismissing anyone who doesn’t go along with their hysterical bullying…anyone who doesn’t buy into their diagnosis and solution are somehow “lesser” people.”

    Me: I think that argument goes something like this:

    Scientist: I’ve just spent five years learning how to interpret this data. Now I’ve looked at it and I realize it’s really scary and we need to prevent climate change, fast.

    Layman: Well, I just read this article on the internet/read a scientific paper/looked at the data, and I think you’re wrong. My opinion is as valid as yours.

    Scientist: You dumbass.

    In that situation, I think the scientist is wrong to say the equivalent of “You dumbass,” because the fact that the scientist is qualified to interpret the data doesn’t mean he’s interpreting it correctly (and because “You dumbass” is a rude and unproductive thing to say). But I also think the layman is wrong to discount the importance of the scientist’s training in interpreting the data. Just because the layman is smart and has access to the data doesn’t mean he has sufficient context or training with which to properly interpret it. The scientist’s interpretation may not be right, but the layman almost certainly doesn’t have the expert training to tell the difference.

    This, I think, is the aspect of science that makes many of us uncomfortable. Realistically, science is a field in which most of us have to sit on the sidelines and watch the battle play out within the confines of the expert community, because, no matter how smart or literate or thoughtful we are, we just don’t know how to interpret the data. This is a sort of discomfort we simply need to learn to live with, or else we need to invest the years of study needed to become scientific experts ourselves. For their part, scientists need to be more patient with the frustration of laypeople who can’t see why their intelligence and aptitude doesn’t qualify them to understand the data properly.

  209. Robert Capozzi

    236 gp: The models do extremely well when tested against the past.

    me: Thank you. Back-testing is used in the securities markets, too. The pros used them for awhile. In my experience with a start-up hedge fund, we tried to market our fund to funds of funds, but they would not look at the back testing. Too unreliable. Too many variables.

    Might back testing be more reliable in matters of thermodynamics? My guess is yes, in part because — again my guess — human action has more variables than the the Earth. Is AGW 100% accurate in its predictions? My guess is no.

    241 tk: But you can’t credibly suggest any kind of solution to a problem if you’re jumping up and down with your fingers in the ears screaming “it’s not a problem because I don’t waaaaaaaaaaaaant it to be a problem! Make those mean old scientists stops throwing inconveniences in front of my ideology!”

    me: Great point. That’s definitely not productive, near as I can tell. And I agree with GP’s thread that taking this position makes Ls sound like conservatives, as it’s the Limbaugh analysis. Ls have a tradition of being attracted to the extreme position and taking that position with a certain (being kind) passion. Do a simplistic syllogism, then hold high the banner. We see that on the abortion issue even more clearly…fetus is parasite, therefore late-term abortions > aOK.

    This desire to take firm, stark, “principled” stances also has an appeal, particularly in the context of American politics as currently practiced, where the Rs and Ds seem to have no real True Norths, no code other than “raise money, get elected.” But my contention is that Ls have generally overcompensated.

    257 jcy: In that situation, I think the scientist is wrong to say the equivalent of “You dumbass,” because the fact that the scientist is qualified to interpret the data doesn’t mean he’s interpreting it correctly (and because “You dumbass” is a rude and unproductive thing to say). But I also think the layman is wrong to discount the importance of the scientist’s training in interpreting the data.

    me: Brother Young, thank you for being here. I appreciate your insights and how you put them. Hanging with Ls as a non-L can be challenging, I’m sure.

    In my particular case, I don’t discount the scientist’s training at all. I note that not all pedigreed scientists buy into with the conventional, settled science, at least not 100%. Intuitively, spewing stuff into the atmosphere seems like a bad idea, especially in large quantities. Practically, ending all machines that spew seems impossible and contra-indicated.

    That’s the starting frame. Will New York be the next Atlantis in 30 years? Maybe. Sounds like something to avert, if possible….

  210. Marc Montoni

    Unplug the computer.

    Ah, common sense distilled to its essence.

    Except, Michael, that doesn’t count. You see, then the envirowhackos couldn’t participate and tell everyone *else* how evil they are.

  211. Thomas L. Knapp

    @252

    “Unplug the computer.”

    Like I said, why does everything have to be extreme?

    Back when, I paid attention to my computer’s settings, ran a timer for a few days to figure out the average of when “I’m getting up for a minute” turned in to “I’m not coming back for awhile, and set the thing to idle down, turn off display and spin down hard drives.

    Then the last time I needed a new machine, I went looking for a good deal on a used Mac Mini, which uses about 1/4th the electricity of a typical Windoze PC in both idle and working modes.

    Absent libertarian non-state/smaller-state proposals for protecting the environment, one thing libertarians can do is do the right things and encourage others to as well.

    And, as Marc points out, one very good non-state/smaller-state proposal for protecting the environment is to fight against subsidies for polluting energy — we’re supposedly against subsidies in general, so that’s not even a modification of position.

    If Americans had to pay the full price of their gasoline at the pump instead of much of it being hidden in tax policy, externalities, etc., they’d be looking for alternatives most ricky-tick.

  212. Michael H. Wilson

    Unplug the computer. That one was good for a chuckle.

    Hell I’ve been trying to get the LP to suggest we open the urban transit market to competition. That might just do a lot, but nooooo! The issues section of the web site is so last century and Wayne is set to lead us to the promised land.

    Okay everyone single file behind Wayne. Asshole to elbow and no farting as I was told in boot.

  213. JT

    Knapp: “A list of scientists who disagree with AGW theory is not “scientific evidence and research.””

    Obviously. That was a response to Jeremy addressing the widely believed unanimity in the scientific community on the issue. It showed just some of the very accomplished climate researchers who don’t buy into it.

    Knapp: “I suppose a journal article which explicitly states that man is at least partially responsible for increasing CO2 levels and that those levels are in turn associated with a warming trend, but that that trend is good, might be considered “scientific evidence and research,” but saying that conclusion X is a good thing rather than a bad thing is not the same as disputing the veracity of conclusion X.”

    Read closer, Tom: “During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO has increased by 22%. Much of thatCO increase is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy. Figures 2, 3, 11, 12, and 13 show, however, that human use of hydrocarbons has not caused the
    observed increases in temperature.”

    And further: “Hydrocarbon use and atmosphericCO do not correlate with the
    observed temperatures. Solar activity correlates quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves
    non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use is not measurably warming the earth. Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar warming and cooling of the Earth. The
    experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only phenomenon responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human hydrocarbon use is not
    among those phenomena.”

    There are other articles I could point to as well. I didn’t feel the need to search for them on the Internet and link to them. I anyone who’d weigh in on this issue would know they exist.

    Knapp: “Personally I believe that it is the task of any ideology to offer solutions to problems, not try to wish problems away.”

    And that assumes there IS a problem, which is what I and others are disputing–and not based on a wish.

  214. JT

    Sorry for the formatting issue in the second quoted paragraph. That should read:

    And further: “Hydrocarbon use and atmosphericCO do not correlate with the observed temperatures. Solar activity correlates quite well. Correlation does not prove causality, but non-correlation proves non-causality. Human hydrocarbon use is not measurably warming the earth. Moreover, there is a robust theoretical and empirical model for solar warming and cooling of the Earth. The experimental data do not prove that solar activity is the only phenomenon responsible for substantial Earth temperature fluctuations, but they do show that human hydrocarbon use is not among those phenomena.”

  215. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT@262,

    If the authors of the paper can’t keep their claims straight and non-contradictory, that’s their problem, not ours. You cherry-picked your favorite parts, I cherry-picked mine. Everybody wins, woo-hoo.

    “And that assumes there IS a problem, which is what I and others are disputing–and not based on a wish.”

    If X% of voters believe that problem Y exists, you offer solutions to problem Y WHETHER IT EXISTS OR NOT, if you want their votes.

    So, do you want to whine that those voters are asking you to solve a problem you don’t want to solve, or do you want to solve the fucking problem?

  216. George Phillies

    “Consensus” is not “unanimity”. No one other than global warming deniers has proposed that there is unanimity in the scientific community over global warming.

    However, someone did do a study of the top 100 people in the field, finding 97% agreement.

  217. JT

    Knapp: “If the authors of the paper can’t keep their claims straight and non-contradictory, that’s their problem, not ours. You cherry-picked your favorite parts, I cherry-picked mine. Everybody wins, woo-hoo.”

    WHAT contradictory claims?? Their claims are three-fold: 1) human hydrocarbon use has led to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 2) such carbon dioxide isn’t a causal factor for the relatively slight temperature increase (solar activity is, though it’s not the only factor), and 3) the increase in carbon dioxide is good for life on Earth, not bad. Those non-contradictory claims are backed up by DATA, not “I don’t Waaaant it to be a problem!”

    Knapp: “So, do you want to whine that those voters are asking you to solve a problem you don’t want to solve, or do you want to solve the fucking problem?”

    I’m don’t want to whine about anything. But I really can’t solve a fucking “problem” that doesn’t even exist in reality, no matter who thinks it does. I can’t solve the problem of purple monsters under people’s beds either. There has to BE A PROBLEM first for someone to SOLVE it.

  218. Jeremy C. Young

    Robert @258, thank you for the kind words. I agree that there are pedigreed scientists (a very few) who disagree with the “settled science.” However, I also don’t think we non-scientists have the training to adjudicate which side is correct, any more than we have the training to interpret the data ourselves. This is why I put such stock in the process of peer review. It is a process designed to allow the scientists to adjudicate their dispute among themselves, using an established framework that allows for an impartial decision.

    Yes, it can be flawed if the peer reviewers are partisans, and ClimateGate suggests that at least a few of them are. I tend to think that a small amount of partisans may introduce a small amount of error, but it would take a massive amount of error to disprove climate change.

  219. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT@267,

    OK, let me phases it as a syllogism.

    If you are a politician or a political party, AND

    A large percentage of voters believe there’s a problem, THEN

    There’s a problem.

    See that little dot at the end there? It’s called a period.

    It can be a problem for them that you solve, or it can be a problem for you because you think successful politics consists of telling voters “fuck what you believe.” But it IS a problem of some sort.

  220. George Phillies

    @269 There are a very substantial number of authors who have come to the opposite conclusion,namely that if you put in CO2, CH4, solar power fluctuations, volcanic eruptions,… you get quite good agreement with AGW. Note in particular that we are at a solar brightness minimum, and we are having the warmest weather — planetary average — in recent history.

  221. Robert Capozzi

    268 jcy: This is why I put such stock in the process of peer review.

    me: Yes, they are the ones to work it out among themselves. However, I do think it’s a mistake to assume that — even in the “hard” sciences — a groupthink mentality can’t corrode the process. Humans have selective perceptions, and sometimes the gang all starts nodding their heads for reasons not entirely conscious to the perceivers.

    So, for me at least, “putting stock” is one thing, complete deferral is another. I don’t assume that AGW is a massive rent-seeking operation as some do. But I don’t assume, either, that at some unconscious level, the climatologist community is not in some form of collective denial. That is also possible.

    When we get the bum’s rush and bullied, my antenna go up. When the prescription involves massive government intervention, my skepticism spikes. What can I say: I’m a L!

  222. JT

    Knapp: “If you are a politician or a political party, AND

    A large percentage of voters believe there’s a problem, THEN

    There’s a problem.”

    Yes, there’s a problem: Many people are being drummed up into hysteria by media outlets and political activists based on pseudo-scientific conclusions over a phenomenon that’s actually non-threatening. It makes no sense to affirm that something IS a threat and therefore a problem that must be solved, when in reality it’s a better for life on Earth. The increased carbon dioxide and slight warming of the Earth (both of which are facts) we’re seeing are good things, not bad ones (that the current warming of the Earth is a good thing, rather than just the increase in carbon dioxide, is another claim made in the article that I didn’t mention). And they certainly can’t be considered indicators of a global catastrophe that requires that we take dramatic steps to reduce them. I don’t think Libertarians should be proposing ways to make something worse.

    Knapp: “See that little dot at the end there? It’s called a period.”

    Why would you imply that I’m a moron? Do you want me to sarcastically snipe at you? I was born and raised in NY and I’m pretty good at it. I’d rather not disrespect you like that though.

    What are the contradictory claims in that paper, btw?

  223. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT@270,

    OK, Phillies so has hit you with the science and I’ve hit you with the realpolitick, and neither one is sufficient to dislodge you from your religious faith. I’m okay with that. Enjoy it in good health!

  224. Marc Montoni

    Jeremy Young @ 268 said:

    However, I also don’t think we non-scientists have the training to adjudicate which side is correct, any more than we have the training to interpret the data ourselves.

    I would agree that scientists have the right to impute their intellectual superiority over me on any subjects they wish.

    However, if they use their position as members of the necromantic, alchemistic, witch-doctor elite — complete with their mystic runes (degrees) stamped by the government’s secret brotherhood of higher education — to propose raiding my pocket, then they deserve all of the “respect” one might give a common theif.

    I understand where you’re coming from, Jeremy. And I really appreciate the respectful way you’ve approached this discussion. It’s refreshing to see that people can disagree on such terms.

  225. Marc Montoni

    Phillies @ 233:

    Alarmists have a responsibility to lead by example.

    If Phillies wants to sit behind his plugged-in computer and network, and fashion witty insults as to others’ status as energy dinosaurs and tools of the oil companies while his desk is lit and his heat comes in courtesy of hydrocarbons hidden somewhere behind his wall, that’s fine.

    However the only way I’m ever going to be “convinced” by any envirowhackjobs is if they collectively figure out ways to spew their particular particulate while being extremely green in doing so. When Mr Enviro powers his house with photovoltaics, and gets his hot water by Sol, and runs his car on algae-based biodiesel, well, I’ll have more to listen to him about.

    I’m all for reducing my own carbon footprint. In the past 18 months I’ll bet I’ve spent more time and money on making our house use less fossil fuel than he has in the last five.

    I’d like to go further. Were I able to convince my other half it wouldn’t feel like a cave, I’d have a net energy producing, underground, solar-powered and heated home on a south-facing hillside.

    In my past is a diesel pickup I normally fed with biodiesel (no biodeisel available in my current locale). I have owned small, cheap, and OLD cars as long as I’ve been driving. Not because I can’t afford new (we do keep a newer family minivan in the stable for family rides), but just because I happen to enjoy driving the many point-and-squirt rather tiny cars I have owned (several 1979 AMC Spirits – about 28 mpg avg; a 91 CRX HF – about 50 mpg; several 1980 Ford Fiestas – about 30 mpg avg; a 1990 Ford Escort – about 30 mpg avg) throughout my 33 years of driving.

    Yes, I am a car collector and have a collection of older large cars, such as a 1971 Ambassador, a 1977 AMC Matador and a 68 AMX. However, they are driven only rarely and are in very good tune, so their carbon footprint is almost nonexistent by default.

    In any case, I suspect my carbon footprint for most of my life has been habitually smaller than most. For the most part intentionally so. Especially compared to those who buy a new car every two to four years or so. The most environmentally-friendly thing to drive is an older car, until it’s so completely worn out and that is just won’t move any more.

    Point is that there are those who, like Gore, talk environazi but live in ivory towers and presume to tell others how evil they are for using energy. And then there are those of us who work in the real world, have kids to feed, and prefer to spend less on fancy new technology — even if doing things the “old” way costs us a few pennies extra per month for the moment.

    Like I said, alarmists have a responsibility to lead by example.

  226. Marc Montoni

    JT @ 272 said:

    Why would you imply that I’m a moron? Do you want me to sarcastically snipe at you? I was born and raised in NY and I’m pretty good at it. I’d rather not disrespect you like that though.

    JT, don’t take it personally. Knapp often descends to that, eventually.

    Although I agree with him in many areas, I also differ with him on a couple of things, such as the “Northern Elite War Against Self-Determination and to Preserve The South as The North’s Tax Cash Cow”, as well as some internal LP history.

    Although I haven’t been scoring it on a sheet, he has ended a discussion with me more than once by saying something along the lines of “You’re either ignorant or lying.”

    Knapp normally argues well up until that point; the rhetorical equivalent of “You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny, and I’m taking my fookin’ marbles and going home.”

    Once he works himself into that lather, further discussion is rather pointless.

  227. Thomas L. Knapp

    Marc,

    Often? Really?

    If so, I apologize.

    I’m not sure we disagree much on the war of 1861-85. The closest thing I have to a conclusive opinion on it would be something like “both sides were very, very wrong on a number of things, and it was a horrifying exercise in all respects, the amazing and heroic deeds of some in its pursuit notwithstanding.”

    With respect to AGW, I’m reasonably convinced on the side of the alleged “consensus,” but don’t consider Phillies’s pronouncements on the subject particularly less pompous than those of the people who run around claiming it’s all a conspiracy Al Gore dreamed up.

    To me the object is to offer libertarian solutions to problems that people consider important. Trying to convince them that they’re crazy and that their problem isn’t real just doesn’t seem like the best approach, especially when the evidence for that proposition is at best no more an open-and-shut case than the evidence that the alleged problem is real.

  228. Jeremy C. Young

    Marc @274, not a problem. I enjoy sparring amicably with people who have consistent guiding principles. It’s the corporate tools like Mitt Romney (and, sadly, Barack Obama) who make me want to scream at the screen.

  229. Pingback: Gary Johnson Drops GOP Bid to run as Libertarian

  230. Pingback: Gary Johnson Drops GOP Bid to run as Libertarian | Iron Mill News Service

Leave a Reply