Root: The Lynching of Rush Limbaugh over S&H (Sex & Handouts)

Former LP Vice Presidential nominee Wayne Allyn Root, writing at The Blaze, penned the following editorial:

_____________

The Lynching of Rush Limbaugh over S&H (Sex & Handouts)
By Wayne Allyn Root

The progressive left’s lynching of Rush Limbaugh reminds me of why conservative talk radio is successful and leftists can never duplicate that success.

For years liberals have tried to compete with conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, to no avail. Why is liberal talk radio an abysmal failure? Simple…talk radio is all about going to and from…WORK. People listen to talk radio in their cars during morning or afternoon drive time, to and from work. The magic ingredient leftists and progressives don’t understand is you have to appeal to people who work.

Who drives to and from work? Taxpayers! Taxpayers working to put food on the table, pay a mortgage, raise a family, and yes, pay the damn taxes. And, the vast majority of taxpayers are fiscal conservatives angry at the way government spends and squanders the tax dollars they have worked so hard to earn. That makes them fans of conservative talk radio hosts like Rush.

On the other hand, many (but not all) people sitting at home during commuter drive time are waiting for their welfare, food stamps, aid to dependent children, and other government entitlements to be delivered to them. Others, whose unemployment is running out, are plotting how to qualify for disability. These people tend to vote Democrat to keep that “Obama Money” coming their way. They are not the typical conservative talk radio listeners.

That explains why Rush Limbaugh is under assault for calling a female law student who had the audacity to demand the most insulting entitlement yet- free contraception- a bad word. Was it a bad choice of words? Yes. Rush should have just called her a “sexual freeloader.” She can have all the sex she wants…but she has no right to ask taxpayers to pay for it. That’s the only issue here. She wants S&H- “sex and handouts.” …

_______________________

For the rest, click here.

190 thoughts on “Root: The Lynching of Rush Limbaugh over S&H (Sex & Handouts)

  1. Jeremy C. Young Post author

    Now that we’re in the comments, let’s talk about what a vile, hateful piece of shit this is, and why self-respecting Libertarians should boot this assclown from the party.

    Let’s leave aside the shameful baiting of low-income families as “waiting for their…government entitlements to be delivered to them.” That’s par for the course from a libertarian point of view, though it’s good to see Root taking it to its thoroughly hateful extreme. Let’s instead focus on his hatred of women:

    That explains why Rush Limbaugh is under assault for calling a female law student who had the audacity to demand the most insulting entitlement yet- free contraception- a bad word. Was it a bad choice of words? Yes. Rush should have just called her a “sexual freeloader.” She can have all the sex she wants…but she has no right to ask taxpayers to pay for it. That’s the only issue here. She wants S&H- “sex and handouts.”

    Let’s look at that again, folks. Sandra Fluke told a story about a woman who took contraception for a medical condition. A MEDICAL CONDITION. Rush doesn’t just want to slut-shame her, he wants to slut-shame her for calling for medical care for women. Also: medical coverage from insurance companies, you freaking numbskull. Not from the government, but from the same people who give you free Viagra so you can get your rocks off on the insurance companies’ dole. Finally, contraception is a human right. Not free payment for sluts and whores, a human right for all women.

    I’ve read a lot of stuff on this site, by Mr. Root and others. Nothing I’ve seen here has enraged me the way this piece has. Rick Freaking Santorum has the good grace not to defend Rush on this one, but a freaking Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee does it anyway? This should be the last stand for Root among Libertarians; he should be booted from party functions and asked to stop using his party credentials as part of his byline. The fact that that won’t happen makes me pretty damn sick of Libertarianism in general and Libertarians in particular.

  2. Root Disgraces Party

    Well, Wayne does make clear why the Republican party is shedding female voters like a maple tree shedding leaves in late fall. This is a huge opportunity for all Americans.

    What Republican bigot hate radio is seeing is real libertarianism in action.

    You remember all those claims that absent government intervention public pressure would have suppressed segregation?

    The hypothesized line was: “Sell to everyone, or we’ll withhold our spending from your stores.”

    Well, here it is! *Libertarianism in action!*

    The message: Stop supporting conservative hatemongers — but I repeat myself — or you won’t be doing it with my dollars.

    Decent Americans are not using force. Decent Americans are not using fraud. Decent Americans are using the power of personal persuasion based on their pocketbooks.

    And their message is: If you advertise on right wing hate radio, you will do it with someone else’s money, because you are not getting mine!

    Decent Americans are using their voices in support of a Libertarian Party platform plank:

    We reject bigotry!

    In particular, decent Americans are using libertarian thinking — voluntary individual choice — to advance against Republican Far Right hatemongering, lying, conspiracy ranting, not to mention mysogynistical smearing of hard-working young women.

    Thanks to satellite radio and internet, Mr Limbaugh and his crackpot allies will still be able to reach all Americans. They just won’t be paid $50 million a year to do so.

    …George Phillies

  3. Steven Wilson

    The LP won’t get rid of him until he has used them to his own end. Mr Vegas is King remember. It is his party. He now controls Nevada. He now controls the LNC through the LNCC. No one admits it here because they think it is a moment in time.

    You must remember his agenda. He wants the world and he wants it in a few years.

    Don’t be mad at Veruca Root. You wouldn’t like it when he is angry.

    Veruca Root like Rush. Pretty girl.

  4. John Jay Myers

    Wayne just has a hard time understanding that there are better ways to approach these issues then from hate speech.

    Unfortunately the Libertarian Party gets hit every time he speaks, Wayne is a sensationalist, not really a thinker, it’s unfortunate.

    It would be nice if he used his pull (what little there is) to try to advance libertarian ideas without making us look like douche bags.

    And there are obviously better ways to do that than this.

  5. Wes Wagner

    There… are… just… so… many… things… wrong…

    don’t… know… where to… start.

  6. Robert Capozzi

    wr: She can have all the sex she wants…but she has no right to ask taxpayers to pay for it. That’s the only issue here. She wants S&H- “sex and handouts.” …

    me: This is really embarrassing, perhaps Root’s jump the shark moment…

  7. Michael H. Wilson

    Root’s use of the term lynch to describe the criticism is a disgrace and an insult to all those who have actually been lynched.

    It is a insult and a disgrace to talk as if lynching was something that really was of little harm when it is a homicide carried out without a trial.

    Lynching is not a conversation nor an argument. It is murder plain and simple. Root disrespect for those who have died in this manner is appalling.

  8. Trent Hill

    “Let’s leave aside the shameful baiting of low-income families as “waiting for their…government entitlements to be delivered to them.” That’s par for the course from a libertarian point of view”

    I think that’s unfair, not to Root, but to the libertarian point of view, which has sometimes been accused of this, but which is often thoughtfully articulated as to highlight how libertarianism will help the poorest of families.

  9. RedPhillips

    “Finally, contraception is a human right … a human right for all women.”

    Good grief! That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read. Was it a human right say 10,000 years ago? How about 2000 years ago? Do you realize that “the pill” was first approved by the FDA in 1960?

    The issue here is whether the government can FORCE Christian and other organizations and employers to provide insurance that covers contraception AGAINST their conscience. This should be a no-brainer for any libertarian. If this ruling stands then Christian organizations should DEFY the law.

  10. David Colborne

    On the one hand, I’m not a fan of telling insurance companies what to do, especially when it comes to oral contraceptives. Seriously, most of them are fairly affordable over the counter, so this should really be a non-issue. On the other hand, it strikes me as nothing short of amazing that we have an entire generation of men running the conservative movement that have no idea how oral contraceptives work.

    If you’re a woman, it doesn’t matter if you’re having sex – the amount of oral contraceptive you would take would be the same. You take one pill a day three weeks per month, then for one week you take some sugar pills to keep the pill-taking habit going. You could have sex three times a day, three times a year, or never – your dosage remains the same. It’s not complicated, which is why it’s so popular.

    Furthermore, we’re apparently dealing with a generation of men that haven’t watched a single oral contraceptive commercial and thus don’t realize that oral contraceptives, being hormone adjusters and all, are also frequently used to treat severe PMS and other menstruation-related issues. In fact, how well they do that is the only differentiating factor between them, which is why Yaz and the like advertise on the basis of that – all oral contraceptives prevent pregnancy. That problem was solved over 40 years ago.

    In short, what makes Rush calling that woman a slut so morally wrong isn’t just that it’s hateful speech designed solely to de-legitimize and shut down her argument. It’s that he called her that from a position of extreme personal and medical ignorance.

  11. Carol Moore

    Just to throw in a female point of view. Rush and Root are women hating asses. But let’s not forget the liberal talk show hosts who called right wing women (who I also find obnoxious) sexist words like C#NT and other things. (Fox did an expose today.) I agree that liberals yelling about Rush (and hopefully ignoring Root) are hypocrits for not going after them. Liberal women who let them get away with are doing themselves no favors.

  12. Michael H. Wilson

    I just watched a 5 minute and 28 second video of Fluke’s testimony and nowhere did I get the impression she was asking for contraceptives so she could have sex. She was speaking about a group of people who happen to be women and used the word “we” to do so in her testimony.

    While I disagree with insurance mandates Root could have easily pointed out that there are a number of ways to lower the cost of contraceptives, but he made a decision not to research the issue or apparently look at the testimony.

  13. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 9 Brian I don’t think I have said taxes are slavery so who is this we you speak of white man?

    Are you into group guilt again?

  14. matt cholko

    David, you make a good point about a common problem. There many people in positions of influence (celebrities, politicians, religious leaders) who are simply out of touch with the world at large. Some don’t understand simple science, others don’t understand basic business principles, and tons of them just don’t understand how “normal” people live. The fact that a person over the age of 20 and under the age of 70 or so (male or female makes no difference) doesn’t understand how birth control pills are used is just another example of this.

  15. rloy

    “Conservatives have not tried to destroy HBO host and big-time Obama donor Bill Maher, who uses much more vile language to describe women- in particular, Sarah Palin. ”

    You’re joking, right? Conservatives have quickly turned the entire controversy into one about Bill Maher.

    A few points:

    1) Bill Maher is a *comedian* on HBO, and never once claimed his jokes were in good taste. Offended? Then don’t watch him. But Limpballs is not a comedian doing stand-up. He is the face of the Republican Party, and is on the public airwaves.

    2) I thought conservatives were all about being “tough” and “politically incorrect.” Why do they cower and cry when Maher tells his jokes? Poor babies.

    3) Sarah Palin is a millionaire PUBLIC figure who ran for Vice President of the United States, and regularly injects her bile into the public arena. Sandra Fluke is (or was) a private citizen.

    False equivalency, as usual.

  16. Alan Pyeatt

    I want to publicly state that self-appointed “Libertarian” spokesman Wayne Allyn Root does not speak for this Libertarian.

    As Wes noted, there is just too much wrong here to go into it in detail. I would like to make two points, however.

    1. For someone who claims to follow an individualist political philosophy, WAR sure does paint a lot of people with the same broad brush.

    2. He sure complains a lot for someone who claims that people working as hard as he is are too busy to complain.

    Is this the “Big Tent” Libertarianism we can expect from WAR? I guess his tent’s big enough for a hypocrite who argues in favor of the drug war while illegally taking prescription drugs, but not big enough for out-of-work Libertarians.

    Way to win friends and influence people, Wayne. You’re really reeling them in.

  17. rloy

    “But let’s not forget the liberal talk show hosts who called right wing women (who I also find obnoxious) sexist words like C#NT and other things. (Fox did an expose today.)”

    You fail to mention that Maher used that word during a stand-up comedy routine. One that was not even televised, for cryin’ out loud.

    I won’t claim it isn’t offensive, but compared to other comedians (ever heard of Bob Saget?), Maher is downright G-rated. Is this the right’s next project–making sure comedians don’t tell naughty jokes?

  18. Jeremy C. Young Post author

    Okay, coming back a bit less angry, and more rational.

    Trent @10, you’re right, that was a cheap shot, and I withdraw it with apology.

    Red @11, keep in mind that I said “human right,” not “natural right” (an entirely different doctrine). Human rights are determined jointly by society, not by natural forces. My sense is that they have a place in my philosophy, but not in yours — which is fine.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Use of contraception at one’s own discretion and expense is certainly a human right.

    Forcing others to provide it to you isn’t any kind of “right” at all.

    If the pharma assembly line worker decides he doesn’t want to come to work and make pills for you any more, are you going to go roust him out of his home at gunpoint and chain him to his workstation?

    That’s the bottom of the slippery slope you’re starting down when you demand that insurers be “required” to cover it, pharmacists “required” to dispense it, etc., because you have a “right” to it.

    I do wish that Limbaugh and Root had been able to find a way to make that argument without making themselves and everyone associated with them look like douchebag retard assholes, though.

  20. Thane Eichenauer

    JJM@4
    Does Root’s article really qualify as hate speech?

    News media and radio shows that appeal to the stereotypical Republican crowd find it easier to accuse the left of promoting free sex (mandated and taxpayer subsidized) than to focus on the issue of government mandates (probably because Republicans gave up the issue years ago).

    In any case I look forward to reading a non-Root libertarian column on the topic of government health care mandates in The Blaze when someone writes one and persuades The Blaze to publish it. BTW, Is there one that is already written that somebody here could point to?

    I read all of Root’s article. Apart from the provocative title and a single paragraph 80% of the article is about contrasting the productive sector of society and the unproductive sector of society.

  21. Julie Harmon

    Thomas, Does your insurance cover you for things like uncontolled bleeding? How about hernia’s? Cancer? Growths on your internal organs? Testosterone shots if there is something wrong with it? Of course it does. You are male. Why should a female be denied medicine for those things when men can get them without question? Talk about gender discrimination!

  22. David Colborne

    @24: Though I agree with you on not forcing pharmacists to dispense birth control pills, I do think that laws protecting pharmacists from getting fired for refusing to dispense medication are also immoral. If you don’t want to do your job for whatever reason, knock yourself out, but that doesn’t mean the rest of society should legally pat you on the head and call you a good, courageous Christian for it.

    I suspect we’re both in agreement on that one, though.

    Personally, I think this op-ed is a fantastic example of Wayne playing a little too well to his audience. He’s writing for “The Blaze”, after all – ideologically, it’s somewhere between WorldNetDaily and Fox News. So, if he wants to continue to get published there, he’s going to have to toe the party line. I just sometimes wish he wasn’t so damned enthusiastic about it.

  23. David Colborne

    @25: The problem here is the “productive vs. unproductive” dichotomy is a false one. The truth is there’s quite a few working people on various forms of public assistance right now, and there have been for a couple generations now. Many of the people that work at large retail (not just Walmart) put in 30 hours a week (just under full time so they’re not legally required to receive certain benefits) at either minimum wage or just over it, then go to their second jobs. They’re plenty productive and work hard, but, using the false dichotomy pushed by the far-right, they’re lumped in the “unproductive” class because we as a society would rather pay more in taxes and lecture the poor about sub-optimal life choices while “giving” them food and medicine instead of letting the free market price labor’s need for survival into their wages.

  24. Jill Pyeatt

    I’m so glad most people were as disgusted by this article as I was. When I read it earlier today, I was so stunned by what Wayne said that I couldn’t even react. I couldn’t even post the article myself, lest someone doing a google search of me would pick up this article. This is the best example yet of how Root is destroying the Libertarian brand.

    I don’t even know where to start, there’s so much to say against this. Of course I don’t believe employers or the government should be obligated to pay for anyone’s contraceptives, but, jeez, this was a young woman speaking. I’m of the opinion that many college age students are still idealistic and and rather socialist in their views. There head tells them that we shouldn’t have poor people and that those with more should help those that don’t. They’re not paying taxes yet, and they don’t know very many people who are living off the entitlements available. My goodness, give her a break. She didn’t have parents like Wayne and Deborah to teach her about what the world is really like. She’ll learn soon enough.

    What Rush said was despicable, and, in my view, totally indefensible. So what if Bill Maher said something worse? My parents taught me that “two wrongs don’t make a right”…so Rush thinks he can say hateful, totally inappropriate things because others do? Wow. No more comment is necessary from me about that.

    What I found most upsetting in this article is the huge brush with which he paints all liberals. He makes it sound like nobody who is liberal, or progressive, works at all. On the other hand, every single conservative works hard every day. What is Wayne drinking??? This is absurd and downright untrue. Not only does it make Wayne look like he has the brain of a pea, it makes him look mean and hateful. How DARE he destroy true Libertarian ideals with this crap!

    I also have a question. In Los Angeles County, most of the Jewish people I know are liberal. I can’t think of any of my Jewish friends who don’t work just as hard as I do. I know Wayne loves Jewish people, so how does he reconcile that with the comments that say all liberals are lazy (not his words exactly, but that’s how I understood what he said)? Why do we let him get away with his arrogant, often non-Libertarian articles?

    If we don’t reign in that creep, Wayne will destroy the Libertarian brand.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    Julie @26,

    Why are you so sure that I even have insurance?

    (I do, but I’m not sure exactly what it covers — it’s a high-deductible “catastrophic stuff only” plan that doesn’t cover prescriptions of any sort, or get you into a doctor with just a co-pay, etc. I’ll be dropping even that policy the day the “individual mandate” goes into effect).

    I’m in favor of people buying the insurance that they want (if any), with their own money, covering whatever they and the insurer work out.

    I’m not sure why you think absence of a coercive requirement that insurers cover contraception for women of childbearing age is “gender discrimination,” since such mandates harm other people without regard to gender.

    The 65-year-old woman who’s past child-bearing age, or the 30-year-old woman who’s had a tubal ligation, both get to pay for contraception in their premiums every month, even though they’ll never need it, because Catherine Sebelius and Barack Obama have decided that they should have it.

    Fuck that noise.

  26. Carissa Pillow

    So, Rush Limbaugh’s comments were disgusting. I am glad to see all of his advertisers yanking their ads from his show in response to his use of sexual slurs against a woman. This was irresponsible behavior on a level that I hope to never hear again in radio media.

    Wayne Allen Root, a Registered Libertarian, drew some drastic conclusions that I don’t agree with at all. Nevertheless, his ideas were very Libertarian in concept. The idea that a private insurance company should be mandated by legislation to provide birth control seems at first blush to be ANTI- LIBERTARIAN. I am a consumer of birth control pills for the use of regulating female cyclical changes. If my insurance company refused to pay for the medication that I use the most, I would switch to an insurance company that paid for my medications. That is known as free market. Furthermore, I don’t think this is an issue that needs to be legislated. This decision should be between a woman and her PHYSICIAN. It is an issue of MEDICAL CARE. It would be super, if the physicians in the American medical system were left to the good work of prescribing medical treatments. It would be equally super if legislators would stick to the business of legislating; and if verbose, noisy, pain pill addicted radio commentators would stick to the business of nonsense. My twenty five cents. (Twenty three cents extra to account for inflation)

  27. Thane Eichenauer

    JP@29
    “I’m so glad most people were as disgusted by this article as I was.” Just because 20 people found Root’s article objectionable doesn’t mean that there weren’t 40 people who nodded their head in agreement to the points Root made (even though some people think that Root is incorrect in this case about what the female law student said).
    “My goodness, give her a break.” That sentiment certainly doesn’t fly with me. She showed up in front of TV cameras. Any adult who volunteers to talk front of a camera doesn’t deserve any slack if that adult makes a case that could be taken to be advocacy of big government.
    “How DARE he destroy true Libertarian ideals with this crap!” If one were worried about the Libertarian brand I would encourage critics of Root’s article to register at TheBlaze and put forth a calm and reasoned comment as to each and every non-Libertarian point he makes. So far the number of comments is at… zero.

  28. paulie

    I have way too many responses to the article and comments already posted, so I’ll defer them til later.

    As a counterpoint to Wayne’s article, I hope one of our other IPR writers (I’m still on self-imposed break from posting articles) also posts this recent press release from LPHQ as an article to IPR:

    For Immediate Release
    Monday, March 12, 2012

    If We Want Better Health Insurance For All, Why Are We Making It Illegal?

    LP Chair: If We Want Better Health Insurance For All, Why Are We Making It Illegal?

    WASHINGTON — Libertarian National Committee Chair, Mark Hinkle, released the following statement today:

    “While President Obama and the Republicans in Congress spend time debating whether religious groups must provide their employees free contraceptives, a far more fundamental issue is being ignored: if we want better health insurance for all, why are we making it illegal?

    “ObamaCare, known in Massachusetts as RomneyCare, effectively outlaws true health insurance. Insurance, if you think about it, should exist to protect you against catastrophic expenditures. For example, car insurance doesn’t cover the cost of gas and oil, as it would be outrageously expensive due to the incentive for increased driving. Similarly, health insurance should not cover ordinary and predictable costs, yet remains outrageously expensive because it does.

    “Then why do consumers continue to buy overpriced insurance that covers predictable costs? Government. First, the senseless connection of health insurance to employment is the result of a system that taxes cash wages but not health benefits, punishing employees who would rather have higher cash wages while making their own personal choice of health coverage. Second, special interests in every state have lobbied legislators to mandate coverage for their particular product or service. Finally, regulation not only drives up the cost of healthcare, but also restricts entry into the field, leading to even higher prices.

    “The result is this: if you want inexpensive health insurance, but don’t want coverage for alcoholism, weight loss programs and baldness treatments, and would prefer a deductible based on your personal finances: TOUGH. Even if you’re not stuck with your employer’s choices, the type of individually tailored coverage you want is illegal.

    “Instead of ObamaRomneyCare, we need to decriminalize good health insurance. Eliminate the coverage mandates, the laws against purchasing health insurance across state lines, and the unfavorable tax treatment of personal insurance policies. Remove the regulations that block entry of new insurers, including charitable organizations which could provide catastrophic protection for the poor and the club-based insurance policies that were once popular before the insurance industry and American Medical Association both pushed to make them illegal.

    “As for contraception? Women shouldn’t need a permission slip from their doctor to have safe sex. Removing the prescription requirement would massively reduce the cost of contraceptives, making it far more affordable. In turn, this would ease the burden on groups such as Planned Parenthood that have long provided free contraceptives to those in need.”

  29. Robert Capozzi

    Like I said, embarrassing. Heck, even Limbaugh sees that what he said is out of bounds. Root apparently somehow doesn’t.

    Wow.

    Giving energy to this issue being about how much sex Fluke wants to have is like purposely driving one’s car into a roadside wreck.

    This issue is about the mandate. That’s it. That may not be provocative enough for Root, but if so, leave it alone!

    We have the GOP imploding over childish sexuality views. The LP should be the adults in the room….

  30. Root Disgraces Party

    The ‘Republican work, Democrats’ do not’ is also lying bullbleep.

    There are excellent reasons why the Democratic party has long been the party of working men and women of all races, and it involves protecting working people. Whether there were other ways to do the protections is another question, but health and safety regulations, workers compensation, Social Security, etc etc etc are the Democratic Party’s selling point, and they sold really well.

    This defense of ultraright psychopathy qualifies as ‘Back up the ship and ram her again! I’ll teach that iceberg not to block the path of the Titanic!’

    Like the hot babe who appeared at a recent state convention to draw the attention of male reporters…You know, there are reasons why our party draws so few women, and putting male chauvinist dogs in positions of authority is one of them.

  31. Paulie

    I’ll also add this, since I have already said it in two other threads, for those who are reading this thread but not the others (slightly rewritten this time):

    Limbaugh spent days on end repeatedly trashing Ms. Fluke with offensive language, statements and insinuations on his nationally broadcast program for the “crime” of testifying to Congress about her experience and that of other Georgetown graduate teaching assistants.

    The incredibly imbecilic (or disingenuous – take your pick) Limbaugh apparently does not realize that the number of birth control pills used is not a function of how much sex someone has – they are taken once a day if a woman might have sex as a precaution in order to maintain a steady level in the bloodstream.

    Even some women who plan on having no consenting sex that could result in pregnancy at all take birth control pills as a precaution against unwanted pregnancy in case they get raped, or for other medical reasons as mentioned by David Colborne above and by Ms. Fluke in her testimony.

    Limbaugh also demanded that Ms. Fluke and her friends post sex tapes online for him and his audience to jerk off to as a condition of the young women receiving health insurance coverage for birth control from their tax exempt, tax money receiving, private sector employer.

    He said her parents, who she has revealed are actually conservatives, should be ashamed of her for being a “slut” and a “prostitute” and repeated it numerous times over several days to an audience of millions, likely including many of her parents’ friends and perhaps her parents themselves. `

    Even for those who believe that religious institutions or other employers who have moral objections to birth control should not be forced by government to include it as a part of medical insurance they pay for should nevertheless agree that Limbaugh’s continuous barrage of hate speech and public ridicule against Ms. Fluke is reprehensible, and that his weak apology for just two of the many words he spewed about her is wholly inadequate.

  32. RedPhillips

    “Human rights are determined jointly by society, not by natural forces.”

    Jeremy, I understand your distinction between natural and human rights, but I wasn’t sure you were making it. Huge portions of the earth’s population do not agree with contraception. Another huge portion would not agree that it is a right others are obligated to pay for. There is no where close to a consensus on this.

    The “right” to contraception is essentially a right to have consequence free recreational sex. So recreational sex is a human right?

  33. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    The ‘Republican work, Democrats’ do not’ is also lying bullbleep.

    Root neither knows nor cares about libertarianism or its promotion. He doesn’t even care about the accuracy of his statements.

    Root’s primary concern is spewing what his Customer Base wants to hear.

    Root is a huckster, a showman, a snail oil salesman. And like all good hucksters, he has a cunning sixth sense for what the rubes in the tent want to hear. And he obliges them.

    Root’s Primary Target Audience is the Far Right/Dittohead/Tea Party/Fox News crowd because it’s a bigger market than the libertarian crowd.

    He’ll try to profit from both markets, but when he must take sides (i.e., focus his sales pitch), he’ll side with the bigger Customer Base/Target Audience — the Far Right.

  34. Carol Moore

    Bill Maher is a comedian? I always thought he was John Stewart’s clone with some big public tv show. He wasn’t the only example but it was Fox News so I was only 1/3 paying attention…

  35. Carol Moore

    Jill Pyeatt @29:”I know Wayne loves Jewish people,” In 2003 Wayne wrote at NewsMax that he WAS a “Jewish American”. In 2009 he told FOX News and in 2010 he told this publication that he was a “Born again christian.” So I don’t know if converted or if he tells different people different things. Knowing Wayne as we do, I wouldn’t be surprised if the was born again into getting a wider audience for his drive to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES…

  36. Starchild

    Red @38 – Between two or more legally independent people who want to engage in it, yes, recreational sex is definitely a human right. Forcing others to pay for it is not a human right, but I think we’ve already established that.

    Let me assure you however that I am against consequence-free recreational sex. I have no wish to give up the warm, post-coital fuzzy feelings I get as a consequence of having intercourse, nor would I want to forego the health benefits of an active sex life.

  37. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Knowing Wayne as we do, I wouldn’t be surprised if the was born again into getting a wider audience for his drive to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES…

    Root’s too smart to think he’ll ever be president. He only says he’ll win the presidency as a Libertarian because he knows that’s what lots of Libertarian rubes want to hear. They dream about a Libertarian president, and Root sells the dream.

    Root spews his nonsense, then counts the money he fleeced off of his idiot audience.

  38. Jeremy C. Young

    Red @38, I disagree with you on which side holds the burden of consequences. I would say that, on the one hand, there is no such thing as consequence-free sex; there are always emotional consequences, there’s always a risk of pregnancy or STDs, etc. My position suggests that having some control over those consequences is a human right, while your position suggests that the amount of control you have over the consequences is determined by your ability to pay. I think that’s wrong, and I also think it’s wrong to try to ramp up the consequences, or to deny women access to their control, in order to cut down recreational sex (even if it would work, which it doesn’t).

    Tom @24, I wouldn’t be against forcing the pharmacist to fill legally-mandated prescriptions — or suggesting that he get a different line of work if his personal beliefs preclude him from doing his job.

  39. Starchild

    Matt @18 – Taxation isn’t human chattel/plantation slavery, but broadly speaking it is a form of slavery when one is talking about forcibly taking money from people that they have earned, doing it recurrently over a period of time, and subjecting them to this robbery as a condition of being able to work.

  40. Darryl W. Perry

    “The Tale of the Slave”
    from Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, pp. 290-292.

    Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you.

    1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
    2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
    3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
    4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
    5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
    6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.

    Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also.

    7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
    8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
    9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.

    The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?

  41. Carol Moore

    Root’s Teeth Are Awesome @44: Well, one would think that someone who has been labeled as related to a Ponzi scheme by Norway would be smart enough to think he can NOT be president. But then you’d think he’s smart enough not support floor fees at an televised LNC meeting by saying they lead to HIGH QUALITY libertarians predominating at a convention. Maybe he DOES have silly dumb rabbit teeth!!!

  42. JT

    Red: “Jeremy, I understand your distinction between natural and human rights, but I wasn’t sure you were making it.”

    Well I don’t. Rights are rights. There are no “rights” of some people that are at odds with the rights of other people; everyone has the same rights. Whether or not any individual or group of individuals, no matter how large, recognizes the rights of every human being is another issue.

    Red: “So recreational sex is a human right?”

    Of course it is, if the parties to it consent. You have a right to decide what you do with your own body, whether or not other people agree with it.

  43. Starchild

    Darryl @47 – Thank you for that! Your excerpt from Robert Nozick increases my desire to read “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”, which I have always heard good things about.

    In the interests of intellectual honesty however, I do wish however to modify somewhat my statement @46 about taxation being a form of slavery.

    On further reflection, I would say that coercive taxation is only a form of slavery in cases where the taxpayer has either worked for the money that is being taken, or will work in order to make up for the money that has been taken, because in those cases the taxpayer is essentially being compelled to work for someone else against his or her will.

    In cases where work does not enter into the equation, I would say that coercive taxation is “merely” robbery (in cases where the taxpayer is aware of the taking and would presumably resist it if he or she could do so without fear of incurring consequences worse than being forced to part with the money) or theft (in cases where the taxpayer is unaware of the taking, e.g. government-created inflation in the case of the many who do not understand how it reduces the value of their money).

  44. Wayne Root

    “I read all of Root’s article. Apart from the provocative title and a single paragraph 80% of the article is about contrasting the productive sector of society and the unproductive sector of society.”

    Correct. Folks…you have an agenda. You jump to ridiculous conclusions because you dislike conservatives…or Rush…or me…or all 3.

    I have an agenda. Expanding the LP big tent… and limiting the size, scope and power of government. This commentary is NOT about women’s rights. It isn’t even about Rush Limbaugh.

    I did not defend Rush’s entire life’s work. I defended one argument Rush made against a woman demanding government intervention in the economy.

    This article was about pointing out that it isn’t government’s job to pay for your choices in life. If contraception is covered and viagra is covered, all of us pay. There are no free rides (excuse the pun). Your price for health insurance goes up dramatically because she demands her choices in life are covered.

    Simple argument. Government gets involved, your prices go up, your freedoms are violated.

    That law student is free to have all the sex she wants, she just has to pay for it herself. Thats all this commentary was about.

    My views are as Libertarian as they get. This woman has fooled you if you’d see it in any other way.

    Her argument (and demand)…”I want, I want, I want” is symbolic of everything Libertarians despise.

    She wants others to pay her bills…others to pay for her choices…others to FORCE private industry to pay her bills…government to intervene to police the health care market…and she also…as a bonus…wants government to FORCE religious institutions to violate their own beliefs, morality and code of ethics to provide her with free contraception.

    This is repugnant. Her choice to have sex or not…is fine. That is her choice.

    Who she has sex with is fine- that is her choice. But who pays for it? That becomes a Libertarian issue.

    There are actually several Libertarian issues here…

    #1) Government forcing private industry to provide a product. Unconstitutional.

    #2) Government forcing private industry to not charge for that product. Even worse. Unconstitutional.

    #3) Government forcing private religious institutions to violate their own beliefs. Unconstitutional in a nation where church and state is separate. You cannot order churches or church-owned hospitals to provide birth control for sex. Period.

    Then for fun…lets throw in a ACLU issue that leftists choose to ignore if it happens to involve conservatives like Rush. It’s a little issue called free speech.

    Libertarians should be arguing that Rush has every right to say whatever he wants…so does Bill Maher…so does the liberal radio host who said such disgusting, revolting things about religious people in the Midwest killed by tornados.

    This is all about freedom, free speech, and free markets.

    By the way, so is protest that leads to sponsors canceling Rush’s show. It’s a free world. I’m merely pointing out that those leading the protest are doing it to intimidate ANYONE that stands for smaller government…that won’t give them free stuff of all kinds…anyone that says “NO’ to anything they deem “essential.” Sorry folks, first they’re coming for Rush…then you and me. They hate Libertarians…we’re just not important enough for them to pay attention to…yet.

    Thats all my commentary was about. The left is losing the economic battle. Obama is behind in the polls. His goal is put out a distraction. This is that distraction. He wants to get the topic off unemployment, gas prices and The Fed.

    It isn’t working. Romney is leading by 2 to 5 points in every recent poll…after 2 weeks of the media trying to destroy Rush for these remarks…and tie the GOP Presidential candidate to these remarks. Quite remarkable it did not work. GOP poll numbers went UP.

    I guess the public isn’t as dumb as Obama thought.

    It’s too bad Gary Johnson and the LP aren’t the ones taking advantage of this…and leading in the Presidential race. I wish it would be so!

    But in the end the polls moving dramatically in GOP’s favor over past 2 weeks…despite these remarks by Rush proves my contention…

    Most Americans see the distraction.

    *Most Americans don’t want government to pay for contraception. Where does it end? This is a line in the sand.

    *Most Americans are religious and see the violation of religion by government.

    *Most Americans celebrate capitalism and see that this is interference by government in the private sector.

    *Most importantly, most Americans don’t think this issue is important compared to the economy, when economy is in free fall and gas prices are rising dramatically.

    In he end it perfectly proves my point that the LP should be focused on the fiscal issues that people care about right now. We are battling for our economic lives. Everything LP says must be tied to painting the picture of how bigger government and government intervention makes things worse…makes things more expensive…makes your life worse…violates your rights.

    This law student wants bigger government. Period. Thats all this is about.

    By the way…this is one of my more popular articles ever… based on the overwhelming number of supportive emails I’ve gotten from fans and strangers…based on media response (media appearances booked)…and based on my adding overnight 3 more popular web sites that reach millions who all now want my commentaries.

    Best,

    Wayne

  45. Tom Blanton

    This piece of work from the dynamic libertarian thinker Wayne Root is tailored to appeal to the Glenn Beck audience, as The Blaze is part of Beck’s empire.

    As we know from the erudite arguments from libertarian genius Brian Holtz, Glenn Beck is a libertarian. I recall that Holtz took the Holtz Libertarian Quiz for Beck and proved that Beck is in fact a libertarian.

    Those here that think Root is actually a right-wing hack are mistaken. He is certainly a libertarian – just like Reagan, Glenn Beck and other radio shills, like Neal Boortz. In addition, Root is part of the 1%, like the wonderful Koch brothers who spend millions supporting GOP candidates that favor tax cuts – a libertarian issue!

    I hate to quibble with the great Reagan-Libertarian Wayne Root, but Rush Limbaugh airs not during drive-time. His show airs in the middle of the day when hard-working Americans that play by the rules are working hard to pay taxes. Of course, they may be pretending to work while they listen to Limbaugh’s Advanced Conservative Studies Program.

    More than likely, his listeners are unemployed security guards getting unemployment checks as they pretend to look for work, or former side-show freaks who get disability checks for alcoholism related mental illness, or veterans suffering from PTSD after defending our freedoms from Islamofascists who listen to Rush as they wait for their check from the VA.

    No doubt, many retired persons listen to Rush in a stupor induced by drugs paid for by medicare as their unemployed toothless meth addicted children squander the monthly social security check on crank.

  46. Dan Ciammaichella

    Once again Root shows that he’s more wing nut than Libertarian. To be successful, talk radio must exploit people’s fear and ignorance, which is a wing nut core competency. Go back to screaming about the President’s birth certificate or one of your wacky Alex Jones conspiracy theories, Root. I’m sure the sheeple eat that crap up, while the rest of us listen to some nice music during our drive to/from work. If you had a real job, you’d understand why…it goes to that whole productivity thing that I’m sure you’ve heard about but never actually tried.

  47. Jill Pyeatt

    Wayne @ 52: “By the way…this is one of my more popular articles ever… based on the overwhelming number of supportive emails I’ve gotten from fans and strangers…based on media response (media appearances booked)…and based on my adding overnight 3 more popular web sites that reach millions who all now want my commentaries.”

    He ALWAYS says this when someone criticizes his articles. LOL

    I do agree with the fact that this article is partly about free speech. Ms. Fluke, Rush, Bill Maher and even Wayne Root: all of them have the right to say what they wish.

    This does not remove the fact that there will be consequences for that free speech.

  48. Tom Blanton

    Root writes:

    She can have all the sex she wants…but she has no right to ask taxpayers to pay for it.

    That’s absolutely right. No American has a right to even ask taxpayers to pay for something. Only Bibi Netanyahu has the right to ask American taxpayers to pay for him to fuck Palestinians.

    Right, Root?

  49. Darryl W. Perry

    WAR (in article)“She can have all the sex she wants…but she has no right to ask taxpayers to pay for it. That’s the only issue here.”

    WAR (in comments) “Then for fun…lets throw in a ACLU issue that leftists choose to ignore if it happens to involve conservatives like Rush. It’s a little issue called free speech.”

    So, which is it: is the ONLY issue ABOUT someone testifying before Congress asking for an insurance mandate to cover birth control (which may be needed for other medical purposes) [I oppose all government mandates] or is the issue free speech [which I support]?

  50. Mark Hilgenberg

    Why is Root’s goal to help the GOP? Do we really need to get caught up in personality politics?

    We can side with either team in support of issues but aligning ourselves with one side or the other in emotion wars, is foolish and counterproductive.

    I have used this issue to show the difference between the left/right and libertarians. Thanks for helping Wayne (not!)

  51. NewFederalist

    Hey… at least he had the guts to show up and attempt to defend himself. I don’t agree with him but I will give him credit for answering the criticism (or at least thinking he has).

  52. Wayne Root

    @59

    Mark. I jump back and forth to support whatever side is right about a particular issue- as long as my view is about making government smaller, I’m doing good things for the LP.

    And on dozens of radio interviews about this topic, I’ve pointed out at the end…

    “Conservatives sometimes seem to be against sex…Democrats want you to have lots of sex, but expect me to pay for it…Libertarians have no problem weigh sex…do whatever you want in your bedroom…just don’t ask me to pay for it.”

    That’s my grand finale to every interview.

    If you still don’t get it, my job is to win over conservative talk radio listeners that a Libertarian is a good guy and ally…and then after I’ve done that…slowly, subtly move them closer to LP views.

    And I’m doing it.

    Sorry I’m not radical, extreme, mean, in your face to others- who would then run away in fear with their hands over their ears. My style actually works, makes friends, builds alliances. And obviously is a hit with the media too.

    As Charlie Sheen would say, I’m winning.”

    Wayne

  53. Starchild

    Given the general vacuousness of the opinions expressed in W.A.R.’s article it scarcely seems worth mentioning yet another way in which he is factually out to lunch, but somebody should probably tell him that Rush Limbaugh’s radio program typically airs not during morning drive time, but from 9am to noon.

    So much for the bizarre theory that conservative talk show hosts like Limbaugh succeed because conservatives listen to right-wing talk radio driving to and from work, while liberals just sit at home on the couch during the day and watch TV.

  54. Starchild

    Red @58 – Are you trying to ignore the positive consequences of recreational sex and focus only on the potential negative consequences?

  55. Wayne Root

    Guys and gals,

    FYI…

    In past 60 minutes, I was booked for 15 radio shows and a Skype interview on Canadian national television.

    16 media requests in an hour.

    16.

    The radio includes 3 national shows.

    Paulie, you mentioned that the media should pay attention to a national LP press release/commentary.

    I wonder…did that attract 16 interviews- including 3 on national U.S. radio…and 1 on Canadian national TV?

    Does national LP attract 16 major media interviews in a month? In a quarter? In a year? Let alone an hour.

    If not, why not?

    The answer is that I know how to write headlines that appeal to the media. And angles on my commentaries are designed to attract media.

    How would I know? I was a CNBC anchorman and host of 5 shows by age 27.

    Today I’m a producer of the #1 show on Travel Channel.

    I write commentaries that reach tens of millions of readers at all the top conservative sites.

    Obviously I understand the art of writing things that get people’s attention.

    The critics at IPR need to wake up, stop criticizing, and start learning from my success.

    You cannot argue with fantastic results.

    Best,
    Wayne

  56. Michael H. Wilson

    I suggest that a bit of research might be helpful. Here is an article from John Hopkins Univ. http://www.jhunewsletter.com/2.8128/birth-control-use-at-jhu-down-after-price-rises-1.1133009#.T2DbjPmjJJ4 about the cost of birth control pills. In the article it is mentioned that drug companies are prohibited from birth control pills at a discount to college health centers. “…with the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act. The legislation included a provision that prevents drug manufacturers from providing birth control to health centers at discounted prices.”
    We may wish to ask what is there to this story that is not being fully shared. Maybe there is something that Libertarians can use to the LP advantage. Meanwhile I have to take out the trash.

  57. Michael H. Wilson

    Oops! I left the word dispensing out of the above. A six pack of self esteem to the first person to figure out where.

  58. Mark Hilgenberg

    Wayne,
    I appreciate your feedback but as you have said, you don’t know how to communicate with the left. Unfortunately I feel that most independents to moderate Democrats communicate in a way which sounds “left”. If we ever want a chance at persuading the masses we need to learn how to appeal to the masses.

    I think we can do that by contrasting our party with that of the personality driven partisan debates. Getting to the heart of the issue, which is allowing entities, be they insurance companies or government, is a losing proposition. Both will look to restrict our choices, not expand them.

    Picking a false choice (government controlled insurance vs. government mandates), does nothing to promote true individual liberty.

    I am far from radical in my rhetoric, extreme or mean, I have preached for years against the rhetoric of division. I am sorry to say but I don’t see your way as building alliances, I see it as building one sided divisions. I don’t promote division, I promote inclusion and it rarely involves demonizing well meaning people on either side.

    You may be winning but liberty is losing, very quickly I might add, maybe it is time to try inclusiveness into the mix? I would be more than happy to send you some of my examples.

    Mark

  59. Brian Holtz

    @53 I recall that Holtz took the Holtz Libertarian Quiz for Beck and proved that Beck is in fact a libertarian

    You recall incorrectly. What I actually wrote was:

    “I’ve offered a lengthy quote above from Beck that is prima facie libertarian. If people have contrary data on Beck’s views, I’m happy to evaluate it. Until I see more data, I’m guessing that Beck is about a 65/85. That’s not quite in my comfort zone for an LP nominee, and if Tom’s right that Beck is 55/75, then that answers Blanton’s question about why he isn’t interchangeable with Root.”

    For more on Beck, see http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2009/09/against-glenn-beck-for-lp-president.html

  60. Mark Hilgenberg

    Wayne,

    I do know that you know how to generate media interest. My question is, are they interested because you are continuing to perpetuate the myth that we are just “Ultra Conservatives” and the media is more than happy to help label us that way and keep us irrelevant?

    Or are they truly interested in you because you are countering the media and government created left/right divide?

    Mark

  61. Wes Wagner

    WR @64

    You can if they are the wrong results. I would thoroughly godwin this thread as an example, but I won’t.

  62. Jill Pyeatt

    WR @ 64: Yes, I know you’re in the media often. I wonder how you’re really convincing all those rightists that the Libertarian Party is the answer, when you often don’t mention the party at all.

    In the case of this article, I’d like to thank you very, very much for NOT mentioning the word “Libertarian”.

  63. Wayne Root

    @69

    You miss my intent Mark.

    My goals are:

    Expressing my limited government beliefs.

    Making it cool to believe in smaller government.

    Educating people and entertaining them to celebrate capitalism and smaller govt.

    And electing people who move the ball down the field towards smaller govt.

    Even if its only slightly smaller.

    On this IPR site everyone is just too interested in perfection…in scoring TD’s from the opposite end of field…throwing 90 yard hail mary passes that have no chance at being successful.

    Scaring the fans away by losing 49-0 each week.

    Thats not how you build a winning football team…or a winning political party.

    Gotta moderate, win majorities, and win elections.

    People won’t come to your events unless you prove you can win a few.

    I pass for 5 yards…run for 4 yards…then run up the middle for a first down.

    It works like magic.

    I have no ulterior agenda.

    Making incremental progress and winning a few races is my agenda.

    Making the face of smaller government a winner in minds of the majority of voters.

    Always on the side of lower taxes…so we all keep more of our own money.

    Thats it.

    I wish I could explain to all of you what vast majority of masses thinks of your comments.

    They do NOT even understand what you’re talking about. “Corporatist. right vs left paradigm.”

    People on this site speak in a language not understood by mainstream voters who are too busy earning a living to learn a new language.

    We have to simplify our message and put it in a language they already understand. That’s winning politics.

    Few outside of MIT has a clue what any of you on IPR are talking about. You’ve lost the battle before it begins.

    I’m winning. You’re intellectuals turning off 90% of voters.

    Might be time to listen to me and learn.

    It’s about entertainment, infotainment, and making voters like the messenger.

    Thats what matters in politics.

    And you cannot please everyone.

    I try to only please people that want smaller government. That’s LP’s only chance to win elections.

    Conservatives, Tea Partiers, Christians, small business owners are our prime audience that believes at least somewhat in smaller government…or thinks they do…or is open to hearing about the idea.

    Yes, many in that group like military, wars and Social Security. That’s life. It’s the only place to start.

    And yes some on left agree on war on drugs, or marijuana, or online poker. A few social issues. But for the most part…they love big government. They want BIGGER govt, not smaller. Obama is too moderate for most on left. Amazing! Sorry, but you can’t start there.

    I start with smaller govt. Whoever wants to listen is welcome. And guess who it is? Conservatives, Tea Partiers, Christians, small biz owners.

    Small govt is common ground with that audience.

    That is the audience for smaller govt.

    And after I make friends, I will teach them to be more Libertarian on other issues. Like getting out of Afghanistan. Easy to get there.

    But try to convince a liberal to vote for reforming welfare and limiting food stamps. Sorry but if their mindset is free contraception for all, the battle is over. Ignore them.

    If they want free contraception, their next demand is free chicken McNuggets. And soon it’s everything from cradle to grave.

    We need to stand and fight the “free mentality.” Nothing is free…America is bankrupt. This will destroy economy…and your kids’ lives down the road. That’s my message. Simple.

    I’ve got interviews to do. Done for the day.

    Wayne

  64. Michael H. Wilson

    Maybe there is more to this story but apparently the Congress caused much of the problem in the first place when it interfered with an arrangement whereby drug companies provided birth control pills at a discount to college students. So the government violated the property rights of the drug companies now this student is getting verbally abused by Rush and Wayne comes to Rush’s defense. Sounds like a typical Rube Goldberg situation and if you don’t know who Goldberg is google his name. Here is more.

    “The change is due to a provision in a federal law that ended a practice by which drug manufacturers provided prescription contraception to the health centers at deeply discounted rates. The centers then passed along the savings to students and others.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/22/health/22contraceptives.html?pagewanted=all

  65. Mark Hilgenberg

    Wayne,

    I could use a laundry list of how Tea O Cons use our rhetoric, yet list the big government things they want also. Both sides do that but aligning with the devoted followers (talk radio, Cable News) is not the same as outreaching to the average person. You are preaching to those who want to repeat talking points, not think about creating a better society.

    ?But try to convince a liberal to vote for reforming welfare and limiting food stamps. Sorry but if their mindset is free contraception for all, the battle is over. Ignore them.?

    I am glad I wasn?t ignored, considering you are describing exactly where I came from. Arguing the typical right wing ?get a job hippie? won?t win them over, no. So if that is your only talking point, yes, please ignore them.

    Unfortunately most libertarians on the right don?t just ignore them, they line up with the right to demonize and drive them away. Overcoming their zeal to HELP OTHERS (welfare) is not insurmountable; they just need to hear a THIRD option, not a conservative talking point masked as liberty.

    The goal of the left is simple, care about others. Unfortunately the goal of many on the right is, leave me alone, or very ME not WE centered. Even if not said directly, the rhetoric sounds the same. What we Libertarians SAY and what the average person HEARS are often very different. BY linking our talking points to the right, they will always look to the ?caring? liberals.

    People don?t care how much you know, until they know how much you care.

    Good luck on the interviews.

    Mark

  66. JT

    Wayne, you forgot about the goal of giving people the impression that a libertarian is just a type of conservative and the polar opposite of a liberal. You might believe this, but the vast majority of libertarians don’t.

    As just one of many, many examples, take this sentence in your column: “But it all starts and ends with the difference between conservatives and leftists. We’re too busy working and paying taxes to waste our valuable time protesting and complaining about Bill Maher.”

    Keep identifying yourself as a conservative, Wayne, and you’ll never win the Libertarian nomination for President.

  67. Eric Sundwall

    Well Wayne’s not coming back and I just got here, damn . . .

    To say that Sandra Fluke just wants S&H (sex and handouts) is never going to make Libertarians seem cool. It makes them seem obnoxious and hateful.

    Even if the libertarian principle is sound as stated apart from the incendiary blather of Root or Limbaugh, the perception is devastating.

    Wayne hears the cheers of millions in his mind and only continues to perpetuate his own micro-myth.

    Third parties are vehicles of protest in a winner take all system. Participants can soundly stand their ground without the earnest hope of electoral victory.

    Most of the Limbaugh listeners that I know are on Social Security and can sit around after lunch and listen to him, self sure that their own entitlement is well earned.

  68. Hey Wayne

    Hey Wayne if you cared so much about libertarians, why not offer them heavily discounted or free sports betting picks.

    The money that they make could be used to build the party

  69. Thane Eichenauer

    While I generally prefer commenting here at IPR than elsewhere I would like to point out that there is a total of ***one*** comment on Root’s article at The Blaze. Alexa.com notes that the traffic rank of TheBlaze.com is 310 compared to IndependentPoliticalReport.com at 2,034.

    As for Glenn Beck being a libertarian I have two quick questions that I always apply when it comes to people who are accused of being libertarian, 1) Does that person publicly support the immediate full legalization of marijuana? 2) Does that person publicly support the immediate withdrawl of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? As best I can tell from listening to Glenn Beck on occasion and reading Beck’s book “Arguing with Idiots” the answer to both of the above questions is at best a resounding silence. Until I hear or read Beck advocate for one or both of the above issues he is just another pundit with a penchant for free enterprise (so long as it doesn’t involve commerce in illegal plants and chemicals).

  70. Steven Wilson

    I have heard Glenn Beck speak of his drug use as a serious problem. He has mentioned that drugs made him lazy and lethargic. He wants people to be active I guess.

    I have never heard him state that legal pot was one thing over the other.

  71. Robert Capozzi

    72 wr: On this IPR site everyone is just too interested in perfection…in scoring TD’s from the opposite end of field…throwing 90 yard hail mary passes that have no chance at being successful.

    me: Everyone? Red flag on the absolutism. I don’t know how one would measure such a thing, but as a frequent IPR commenter, I am probably more moderate than Root is on most issues.

    wr: Gotta moderate, win majorities, and win elections.

    me: Right. I agree. Taking the Limbaugh position and rhetoric is not moderate. It’s not popular. And it won’t win m/any elections, in my judgment.

    It’s in bounds to say that Fluke’s view on the mandate applying to the Pill is wrong headed. Making it about her personal sex life and calling her false names is unacceptably gutter and crude.

    wr: I wish I could explain to all of you what vast majority of masses thinks of your comments.

    me: I’d say it’s highly likely the masses also found Limbaugh’s characterization of Fluke as out of bounds. Limbaugh does, too! Calling her a “sexual freeloader” when the debate has moved on sounds profoundly tin-eared to me.

  72. Ted Brown

    Paulie@34: Thank you for posting Mark Hinkle’s LNC press release on the subject. That is precisely the view that we should be providing to the public. We need to show what the Libertarian Alternative is.

    Wayne Root @64: I am very pleased by the number of media interviews that Wayne manages to get. It would be excellent if he would present the views in the LNC press release (in this case) and in the LP platform (in other cases). He is an excellent salesman and could sell pure radical libertarian views if he tried to.

    BTW, I don’t usually listen to Rush, but I happened to tune in while I was driving to a far away appointment — and I heard his show about Sandra Fluke. At first I chuckled a bit, but then he just kept going on and on — and after a commercial break — kept going on and on and on — and I thought that he was kind of losing it. One thing I think he is correct about is that birth control doesn’t cost nearly as much as Ms. Fluke told the congressional committee.

  73. Jeremy C. Young Post author

    Robert @82 said:

    It’s in bounds to say that Fluke’s view on the mandate applying to the Pill is wrong headed. Making it about her personal sex life and calling her false names is unacceptably gutter and crude.

    Robert, I could kiss you for how you put that (but I won’t!). Absolutely perfect.

  74. Erik Viker

    Wayne Allyn Root is a living example of how the old adage “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” is patently false.

  75. Dan Akroyd

    Wayne, you ignorant slut!

    Limbaugh is not on at drive-time in a LOT of markets. In fact, his general time slot is usually between 9AM and 3PM, depending on the market and radio delay. Most AM drive-time shows are local news, weather, and traffic before that, and the PM shows are usually local stuff as well, with some smaller stations airing the JV right-wing airheads, or sports talk, or in some cases, sports.

    IOW, Wayne’s premise in the first place, like practically everything else he spouts about, is utter nonsense.

    Why does the LP keep putting this glorified loser into leadership? He’s a complete idiot!

  76. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Why does the LP keep putting this glorified loser into leadership?

    Because Root hired himself a publicist who gets him onto lots of (mostly minor) radio and cable TV shows.

    This has convinced some LP rubes that Root is massively famous, hugely respected, and vastly influential.

    Whereas it’s more likely that most folk who see Root on TV regard him as a clown to be laughed at.

  77. Tom Blanton

    Meanwhile, the malignant cancer that is slowly killing the LP continues to spread and the LP members who become orgasmic upon hearing right-wing pundits utter the word “libertarian” on the radio and TV keep feeding the cancer.

    Not that it really matters anymore – that is unless you’re trying to make a buck off of “libertarians.”

  78. Tom Blanton

    I’m the winner, here!

    @ 66 Michael writes:

    Oops! I left the word dispensing out of the above. A six pack of self esteem to the first person to figure out where.

    I figured it out!

    In the article it is mentioned that drug companies are prohibited from DISPENSING birth control pills at a discount to college health centers. “…with the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act.

    See #65 to read the article.

    I donate the six-pack of self-esteem to Wayne Root as he probably lacks self-esteem judging by the way he continuously attempts to glorify himself to others.

    Wayne Root would never write about the government making it more expensive to acquire a product. That’s because Big Pharma and Big Religion, who probably pushed for this, are allied with the “conservatives” that Root writes for.

    According to Root @ #64:

    I write commentaries that reach tens of millions of readers at all the top conservative sites.

    He writes the words that the right-wingers read, but only after someone else has written them.

  79. Starchild

    Ted Brown @84 writes:

    “(W.A.R.) is an excellent salesman and could sell pure radical libertarian views if he tried to.”

    Shame on you Ted, for not paying proper attention to the ideas sermons of this great libertarian thinker. He’s repeatedly tried to get it into our thick heads that the key to success in politics is to sell an idea only after it has become popular.

  80. Kimberly Wilder

    To David Colborne at 13:

    Wow! Thank you very much for your comments, and your support of a woman’s point of view.

    What Rush said is so ugly and shocking, one forgets to untangle all the layers of ignorance and idiocy of it.

    Thanks for explaining some of the plain and simple facts.

  81. Jill Pyeatt

    Perhaps I didn’t say strongly enough how reprehensible and embarrassing for the LP this article of Root’s is. We are truly in danger of him destroying our brand, if he hasn’t already.

  82. Wassily T. Fedorow

    Let’s not overdramatize. There is still plenty of time to brand libertarianism in an entirely different way, but only if people who want to do so make a serious effort to actually do that rather than just complain about Root. He is what he is and he isn’t going away.

  83. Kimberly Wilder

    If Root wins because he gets attention, then maybe someone needs to do something to brand him with negative attention? I would say a satire or youtube that mocks him. Or, a nickname that underscores that he is a “fake” Libertarian, or dimestore Libertarian. Maybe someone should do a youtube about Rush and Wayne having lunch together???

  84. Wayne Root

    I wonder if the critics on this site realize you are so far off on this one…you’ve lost sight of the meaning of the word Libertarian.

    Do you happen to know nationally syndicated radio host Alan Nathan? His show has been nationally syndicated for 14 years. Hundreds of markets.

    He is fantastic. He is the very definition of Libertarian. He says “he is afraid of Democrats violating his economic rights…he wants Republicans out of his bedroom.” He is a strict Constitutionalist. He is a fighter for civil rights. Sound like a Libertarian to you? Can’t get much closer than that on every issue.

    Yet on today’s show …with me as his guest…he went on a rant of epic proportions criticizing Sandra Fluke, Obama, and all the Rush haters for creating a massive distraction, so Obama is not held responsible for this economic disaster he has created.

    Funny…he sounded just like me.

    But wait it gets better. He ranted that he is a social LIBERAL…for women’s rights, pro choice, pro contraception, pro gay marriage. A lifetime fighting for women’s rights. But he said this controversy has nothing to do with women’s rights. Nothing. He said and I quote, “This isn’t about Ms. Fluke’s rights to have sex…or use contraception…or make choices. She already has the freedom to do all that. This is about her lifestyle choices infringing on my rights. She wants me to pay for her choices. She wants government to intervene to pay her bills…to support her lifestyle. She wants government to violate the rights of churches and religious institutions to support her choices…all of which is unconstitutional. This is so outrageous and this spectacle is nothing but a distraction by Obama to get the conversation off this economic disaster.”

    Well funny how this is exactly what I’ve said in 22 radio interviews in the past 72 hours. And funny how thats exactly what I said in my commentary.

    So next time you criticize me for defending the Constitution…and fighting against big government…

    Realize your arguments are anything but Libertarian.

    If you don’t believe me…ask Alan Nathan. He is fantastic. He hates both parties. He is on the right side of economic and social issues. He fights for women’s rights.

    And we had a 15 minute loveliest on the air today. We were in lockstep on every facet of this issue. It’s all much ado about nothing. Women’s rights are not in question. No one is taking away contraception…or abortion…or anything else.

    This is progressives trying to make government bigger…and violate private sector rights…and violate the separation of church and state…and violate the Constitution…and hide it all behind women’s rights.

    And wrap it all into a vicious hate-fest towards Rush Limbaugh…for using the exact word “slut” used by David Letterman to describe Sarah Palin…used by California Gov Jerry Brown to describe his female GOP opponent…used by MSNBC host Ed Shultz to describe talk host Laura Ingraham…and far far worse was used by Bill Maher to describe women on multiple occasions.

    So where was your anger and bile then? Funny no women’s groups said a word in any of those cases. And it didn’t make national news.

    The issue is big government…and Sandra Fluke represents it in a big way.

    And I fought to stop her. Because as a Libertarian, I fight all attempts to make government bigger…that are hidden or masquerading as other issues…or used as a distraction.

    Best,
    Wayne

  85. Jill Pyeatt

    WR @ 100: I agree the brouhaha isn’t about women’s rights. I never said it was. I’ve always started my discussion of the topic that of course I don’t think it is the government’s or employers’ job to supply contraceptives (or health insurance, for that matter). It was about Rush calling the woman he disagreed with awful names. He continued for days. Just because Bill Maher also says awful things doesn’t make it right for Rush to do so. It just made Rush look mean and hateful. And, when you support him, how do you suppose that makes you look, Wayne? THAT’S what this is about.

    I also don’t think this is a conservative/leftist thing. To me, the brouhaha has always been about human courtesy. Yet, you decided to use the situatioan as another opportunity to bash the left. This does NOT reflect well on the Libertarian party.

    I do agree with you, however, that it is a ridiculous distraction. The event should have gone away in days.

  86. Eric Sundwall

    If it is a distraction, why produce a piece on Blaze or go on the Nathan Alan show and feed it fuel?

    Vilifying a political opponent (which she isn’t really) with crude accusations is crass buffoonery.

    Pointing to the ‘other side’ and saying they do it too is immature at best.

    Man up Wayne, admit this wild little tantrum for Rush smacks of clumsy opportunism and stop hiding behind the b-list invites . . .

    And yes, I could pick up the phone and get on some show in the NY media market . . . but I only do that if I’m running for something or helping a candidate.

    yeah it’s Alan Nathan . . . what evs

    gotta go catch up on season 2 of Archer now

  87. Mark Hilgenberg

    Wayne,

    Just as I did not engage in the rhetoric battle regarding the personality of politics issues on the left, I don’t align with one side when the right does it.

    Doing so does nothing to help liberty, it only promotes a false (we are really conservatives) image.

    Our membership and registration numbers have tanked over the last 12 year, I would not be bragging about guys like Nathan promoting the conservative/Libertarian alliance obviously it isn’t working.

    Liberty is already tainted with the false cold hearted, bigoted image of the right, why reinforce it by kissing up to Rush?

  88. Robert Capozzi

    wr: Nathan said: “This isn’t about Ms. Fluke’s rights to have sex…or use contraception…or make choices. She already has the freedom to do all that. This is about her lifestyle choices infringing on my rights. She wants me to pay for her choices. She wants government to intervene to pay her bills…to support her lifestyle. She wants government to violate the rights of churches and religious institutions to support her choices…all of which is unconstitutional. This is so outrageous and this spectacle is nothing but a distraction by Obama to get the conversation off this economic disaster.”

    Well funny how this is exactly what I’ve [WR] said…

    me: Let me try this again, because you don’t seem to be getting the point. Making it about Fluke’s personal sex life is repugnant. Nathan did it. You did it here: “”Rush should have just called her a “sexual freeloader.” She can have all the sex she wants…but she has no right to ask taxpayers to pay for it. That’s the only issue here. She wants S&H- “sex and handouts.””

    It’s most certainly NOT about Fluke wanting to have “all the sex she wants.” And it’s not about taxpayers, by and large. It IS about government mandates, which you, I and virtually all Ls would agree.

    If you advocate — as you do — lower taxes, do you do it only because you personally want to pay less taxes or because you think most everyone would be better off with lower taxes and less government? Don’t you find it childish when a liberal accuses you of wanting lower taxes because you’re greedy?

    If so, why on Earth would you play their childish game?

  89. Wayne Root

    Robert,

    Lets call it a day.

    I’m against big government.

    I’m against my taxes paying for the choices of others.

    I want all of us to keep more of their own money.

    Sandra Fluke is a liberal Democrat flunkie for big government. She wants to infringe on the rights of private sector business owners like me…she does it thru force…lawsuits and demands for government mandates.

    Separate from all that…I’m a media personality. A Libertarian media personality. I understand exactly what angles to take to attract more media…which benefits the Libertarian cause.

    My commentary was wildly successful.

    In 22 interviews there wasn’t one host or caller who disagreed.

    Not one.

    The crowd at IPR is in a different world.

    One that attracts no media interest and no majority support on most issues. Which is why the LP has been losing badly for 40 years.

    This is Groundhog Day. You can’t even see the truth. The views expressed on this site are not working. You aren’t selling anyone. You aren’t influencing anyone. You aren’t making friends and expanding the tent.

    Groundhog Day.

    Check out Rasmussen or Zogby or any number of pollsters. My views are in the majority of Americans on almost every issue. I carve out a smaller government popular pragmatic view…and it meets popular appeal.

    On thousands of media appearances and interviews my views get the support of conservatives, Tea Partiers, right center independents, taxpayers and small business owners.

    Thats a winning coalition.

    Thats who I appeal to proudly.

    God Bless and goodnight,

    Wayne

    P.S. The worst I do is tell IPR critics your views are out of fashion and unpopular and don’t sell.

    But go back and look at the chain of responses from IPR readers.

    Nasty, vicious, over-the-top venomous. Embarrassing. You win over no one with these heinous and often libelous comments. No one.

    Not you Robert. You are sane and moderate and usually fair.

    But please re-read the disgusting, revolting comments aimed at someone trying to have a conversation with all of you. So why try? I’m done.

  90. George Phillies

    This is about a glorious triumph of libertarian thinking in action.

    More than 150 advertisers have withdrawn their support from Limbaugh and his hatemongering and slandering. There was no violence. There was no fraud. There were fine Americans voting with their pocketbooks against conservative hate radio.

    Real libertarians cheer on the organizers of the Limbaugh boycott, because those organizers have proven that libertarianism can work in action.

  91. Gene Berkman

    GP @ #107 – right on!

    I saw lefty Michelle Goldberg on MSNBC a couple nights ago, and she opposed asking the FCC to take Rush off the air. She said the free market is working fine in this case.

  92. Tom Blanton

    The Wayne writes:

    In 22 interviews there wasn’t one host or caller who disagreed.

    Not one.

    The crowd at IPR is in a different world.

    Get a clue, Root. You regurgitate right-wing talking points on right-wing radio or at The Blaze or NewsMax and the right-wingers slurp it up because they are hearing the same talking points the right-wing echo chamber has fed them. They lick it up like Pavlov’s dogs licking up their own vomit.

    But, how astute of The Wayne to observe the crowd at IPR lives in a different world. That would be a world apart from The Blaze, NewsMax and right-wing talk radio shows. A world that sees a difference between third rate right-wing demagoguery and libertarian principles. A world inhabited by libertarians as opposed to cultish followers of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

  93. Andy

    “Sandra Fluke is a liberal Democrat flunkie for big government.”

    And Rush Limbaugh is a conservative Republican for big government.

  94. Thane Eichenauer

    Wassily T. Fedorow@98
    “He is what he is and he isn’t going away.”
    Dare I say it.. “Ditto”

    Wayne Root himself says that he welcomes competition. I look forward to seeing another Libertarian on TV and on TheBlaze.com whose name isn’t Root just for variety if nothing else.

  95. Paulie

    @109 So TB, are we in as many college and free weekly papers as we could or should be? As many farmers markets, art walks and bohemian/hipster downtown streets with lots of foot traffic? As many Occupy events, marijuana/hemp rallies, immigration rights marches, gay pride days, and so on?

    Are we tabling at every college we could be at? Are we at citizenship swearing in events as much as we should be? Going door to door in the hood, the barrio, the rez, college areas, artist districts, etc., nearly as much as we should? I know some of that does happen, but are we maximizing our efforts in reaching these folks? A few of us maybe, but how many could do a lot more?

    Yes, Wayne reaches a certain audience. There are many other audiences we should reach.

    If you scroll up you can see Wayne and I disagree with each other strongly on this particular topic. But so what?

    He’s doing what he’s doing. There are many other things we can do, many different audiences we can reach. I’ve found a receptive audience when I have made an effort. Many other people have told me they have as well. Ron Paul is reaching many of the people I talk about, despite, not because, he is more conservative than us on some key social issues.

    Many of them used to be Greens, or Democrats, or Socialists, or apathetic cynical non-voters.

    So what we need is some people to reach these folks much as Wayne reaches his crowd. Maybe one person who is really good at what he or she does. Maybe a lot of people pooling our efforts.

    Where Wayne agrees with us, work with him, and yes there is a lot we agree on even though there are things like this where we don’t. Where we disagree, let’s make every effort to let non-libertarians or not-yet-libertarians know that many libertarians don’t support the Limbaugh view on this. Let’s make sure that lots and lots of them know that many of us are on their side and not the opposite side on many such issues.

    I have a lot of comments I could make to express my disagreement with Wayne on this article in great detail, yet for some reason I don’t think that’s the best thing I can do with that same amount of time.

    He’s going to keep doing what he does no matter what we say. I hope more of us do more to put forward other visions of libertarianism to other audiences.

  96. Wayne Root

    Paulie,

    We may disagree on a few issues…but you “get it.”

    It’s pretty obvious what I’ve built with 4000 media interviews in the past 4 years. It is obvious to one of the top political strategists for multiple Presidents of U.S. Here is what Roger Stone said about my political future a few days ago:

    http://stonezone.com/article.php?id=482

  97. Wayne Root

    @106 Mark,

    I have limited time to respond to every post…but I read every post…and took special interest in yours.

    Thank you for keeping the dialogue civil.

    Wayne

  98. Wayne Root

    By the way…one issue that needs to be addressed if LP ever wants to become big time party…

    I thought Libertarians didn’t like the politicians who literally kiss up to every group.

    Shouldn’t LP value a politician who actually says exactly what’s on his mind? I never hold back. I give the raw truth. Let the chips fall where they may.

    So many TV and radio hosts say on the air that “Wayne Root can always be counted on to tell it as he sees it. No B.S. from WAR. That makes him our favorite guest of all-time.”

    You mean that is not appealing to Libertarians?

    Funny but from my media appearances, I can tell you its appealing to everyone. It is refreshing. I don’t say nice things and lie to gain votes. If I think Sandra Fluke is a fraud, I say it. If I think she’s a “sexual freeloader” I say it. I am real. I don’t kiss up to women’s gropups or any other group. If you’re asking for bigger government…if you’re trying to steal our money…if you are an idiot…I say it on national TV or radio.

    That is so rare…it will get someone elected to President or U.S. Senate someday.

    What I said about Ms. Fluke is what I believe. I don’t change it to make IPR critics or politically correct idiots happy. I don’t change my views to attract Bill Maher. He’s an Obama lackey. I don’t care what he thinks.

    I care what people that want smaller government think. That’s my audience.

    Paulie…I know you understand this about me. If I think something is bad for America…but I’ll lose the votes of some group by saying it…

    I say it anyway.

    If any of you think I’d go easy on Sandra Fluke because she’s a woman or law student…you are playing same game as GOP and Democrats.

    I believe America wants a straight talker.

    P.S. All the polls I’ve seen show Obama has dropped 9 points since this controversy started. It looks like no one fell for the distraction. Because gas prices matter to female voters more than contraception.

    Wayne

  99. Jill Pyeatt

    WR @ 115: ” Because gas prices matter to female voters more than contraception.”

    That’s one hell of a statement from a rich white male.

  100. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Root: Alan Nathan. He is fantastic. He hates both parties. He is on the right side of economic and social issues.

    What about foreign policy? Does he oppose the Military – National Security – Industrial Complex?

    Does he call for the immediate end of all foreign aid — including to our so-called “Greatest Friend and Ally and Only Democracy in the Middle East”?

    Root: I’m against big government.

    Are you really?

    Are you against Big Military? Big National Security?

    If not, then you’re not against Big Government.

    I oppose entitlements — but I’d rather have entitlements than a military/police state. I think any libertarian would, if forced to make that choice.

  101. Thane Eichenauer

    For all that Wayne Root said up until the P.S. in 115 I say, “I agree”.
    As far as the P.S. goes he has a weak point as he doesn’t identify that the polling stats that he viewed were specific to female voters.
    As far as Jill Pyeatt at 116 I would say she would have a stronger point if she had claimed Root’s statement was correct or incorrect, biased or unbiased. Should he have stopped typing short of his PS because he is rich, because he is white or because he is male or because he was wrong?

  102. Jill Pyeatt

    TE @ 118: My point is that Wayne is making a huge, broad statement about millions of women. Since he is a rich white male, it’s nervy of him to speak for them. I could have done without the rich and white, and just said “male” I suppose. One of my problems with this whole thread is that he makes broad statements about liberals, as if they’re all alike, or all think the same way. That’s ridiculous, unfair, and bigoted, in my view.

    There has been not one day since I was old enough to know about sex where I thought the price of gas was more important than contraceptives. I’m long past child-bearing age, but I have nieces and nephews and friends with children, and I know that one unintended pregnancy can change their life. I can’t imagine a scenario where an expensive gallon of gas would be that life-altering.

    Frankly, most rich white males I know would understand that.

  103. Andy

    Rush Limbaugh is just as toxic to liberty as many Democrats are.

    I used to listen to his show years ago. I never fully agreed with him, and I always thought he was a hypocrite, but at the time I thought his show was entertaining. After I discovered Harry Browne and the Libertarian Party in 1996 it wasn’t long before I couldn’t stomach listening to Limbaugh anymore.

  104. John Jay Myers

    Unfortunately Wayne doesn’t understand that it is the tone of his message and the way that he delivers it that keep Libertarians praying that he will stop getting media appearances, I am pretty sure the comments on this thread should emphasize that to him.

    But instead of trying to understand how bad he comes off, he insists he was right, by in fact making less potent comments in the comments section.

    How about starting off your articles without sounding like yourself, and work from there.

    If this is an example of how you sound in the media, I speak for 90% of Libertarians that we would like you to stop “representing” us.

  105. Jill Pyeatt

    JJM @ 121: Wayne sure as heck doesn’t represent me, although I’m one of those “small-business owner, Christian grandmothers” he keeps saying agree with him.

  106. Jill Pyeatt

    It would certainly work better if Wayne actually answered some of the questions people ask of him, and actually conversed without reverting to his usual talking points. That just seems to make commenters here on IPR angrier.

  107. Alan Pyeatt

    WAR @ 100: “And wrap it all into a vicious hate-fest towards Rush Limbaugh…for using the exact word “slut” used by David Letterman to describe Sarah Palin…used by California Gov Jerry Brown to describe his female GOP opponent…”

    Me: I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but somebody needs to do some checking here: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meg-whitman-called-whore-jerry-brown-phone-message/story?id=11833112#.T2QkA_WyHxE. Please note that whoever called Meg Whitman a whore, it occurred in a campaign meeting, and was never intended to get beyond the team. It was NOT intentionally broadcast over the air, and there was speculation that Brown had been sabotaged by a mole from Whitman’s campaign.

    WAR @ 100: “So next time you criticize me for defending the Constitution…and fighting against big government…

    Realize your arguments are anything but Libertarian.”

    Me: Apparently, I missed this. Maybe someone can point it out for me.

    WAR @ 104: “Nasty, vicious, over-the-top venomous. Embarrassing. You win over no one with these heinous and often libelous comments. No one.”

    Me: Wait, I’m confused. Are we talking about Root’s critics, or the original article? I must admit, I find the attempt to implement a “Big Tent” strategy by insulting half of America rather… novel. I also find it strange that the Big Tent has only one entrance. (Guess what? It’s not on the left!)

    I could go on, but what’s the point? If we allow ourselves to be thrown off course by this kind of pandering – whether intentional, as MH @ 83 seems to suggest, or not – then we’re not really the Party of Principal after all, are we?

    The litmus test will be how we react to the influx of people who appear to be joining the LP to ensure a Gary Johnson nomination. (See the California state convention, for example.) If these people are really libertarians, or if we can convert them to libertarians fast enough, then we might grow into a force to be reckoned with. OTOH, if they’re just a bunch of warmongering Republican-lites, then as a principled defender of freedom, we’re probably done for.

    The National Convention should go a long way toward answering that question, one way or the other.

  108. Thane Eichenauer

    JP@119
    “My point is that Wayne is making a huge, broad statement about millions of women.”
    I assumed he was making a statement based on the polling information he referred to.

    JJM@121
    Root’s responses make it clear that he believes commenters at IPR are not representative of America at large. I think he is correct. I would not presume to think that IPR commenters are even representative of Libertarian Party members though I will disclaim that… Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong*.

    “I speak for 90% of Libertarians that we would like you to stop “representing” us.”

    In all sincerity and in a hopefully respectful tone (but with an inevitable undertone of near silent mirth) may I suggest that I would love to see LP.org post a poll on Wayne Root’s job performance…
    Which of the following would you say best represents Wayne Root’s performance in the media:
    ( ) Great job
    ( ) Fair job
    ( ) Awful job
    ( ) Root’s teeth are awesome

    * Repeated from Dennis Miller

  109. Robert Capozzi

    115 wr: I thought Libertarians didn’t like the politicians who literally kiss up to every group. Shouldn’t LP value a politician who actually says exactly what’s on his mind? I never hold back. I give the raw truth. Let the chips fall where they may.

    me: This is an excellent point. Some Ls do like exponents of liberty who shoot from the hip, who say outrageous things.

    Myself, no. In the public square, first I prefer to see people speaking their best approximation of the truth. Then I prefer to see respect and civility.

    While I don’t consider myself to be Christian, I am a big believer in Christian ethics, esp. the Golden Rule and love your “enemy.”

    Bombastically and falsely attacking the Left or the Right might feel good. It might be provocative theater.

    Continuing the tradition of Rand and Rothbard — neither practitioners of Christian ethics, near as I can tell — may be the single largest obstacle to the advancement of liberty through a LP. (Close second to the SoP.)

    It is both untrue and disrespectful to say that Fluke is personally seeking a handout for her sex life.

  110. Robert Capozzi

    more….

    Despite my critique on this thread, and despite my misgivings about Roger Stone, I do like the idea of your being the first L senator from NV.

  111. Robert Capozzi

    still more….

    Ack, I contradict myself! Clarifying, my misgivings are not with Roger Stone as a brother, but rather some of the behavior he reportedly engages in, e.g., dirty tricks.

  112. Eric Sundwall

    New York Post columnist Fred Dicker has permanently banned Roger Stone from his syndicated radio show in NY.

    This as a result of Stone’s vile attack on one of our candidates during the 2010 cycle.

    The libertarians currently shacking up with this GOP reject ought to do some serious soul searching about their motivations and intentions for involvement. He seems to be parroting the 5% / 90 million farce too.

    Getting a high five or kudos from Stone is like saying Rasputin was good for the Romanovs.

  113. Wayne Root

    Jill,

    The reason I said that the price of gas is more important to women (and men) than contraception…is not because contraception isn’t important…it’s because it’s settled. It’s not an issue. It’s not in danger. The freedom exists in America for women to choose any form of birth control they want.

    Gas prices on the other hand are not settled. They are bankrupting many a family. They are hurting every American at the pocketbook, by causing large increases in inflation, and eating away at consumer disposable income.

    Gas prices are a huge Top 5 issue for every American.

    So are jobs.

    So is the economy.

    So is taxes.

    Abortion and contraception are not in the top 1000 for smart people who are not easily distracted…because they are not being challenged. Abortion is legal and contraception is not under attack by anyone…

    Except leftist Democrat strategists trying to convince women that they are under attack…so they forget how bad the economy is…and how high gas is.

    On the other hand…the LP argument has to always be…government has no right to use my tax dollars to pay for people’s personal choices- whether they be contraceptives or abortion.

    Last I checked the LP stands for no public funding of abortion. As do I.

    Wayne

  114. LibertarianGirl

    WAR_Shouldn’t LP value a politician who actually says exactly what’s on his mind? I never hold back. I give the raw truth. Let the chips fall where they may

    me_ then why do you say you support ending the drug war but would never say it on t.v??you DO NOT give the whole raw truth when it comes to the LP platform in your media , theres a whole lotta truth you’d rather not talk about at all..just sayin…

  115. Wayne Root

    @131 Debra,

    Good morning. NOT true.

    Do you listen to my 1000+ media interviews per year? So how do you know what I say?

    I’ve said hundreds of times that medical marijuana should be legalized. And that hundreds of thousands of people are being jailed…ruining their lives…and costing taxpayers billions…for victimless crimes that should be treated with rehab, not jail.

    Thats what I believe…thats what I say.

    I have said hundreds of times that Nevada has legalized “sins” like gaming and brothels…and thats why my taxes are low. Because of the taxes willingly paid by gamblers. America should follow that model by legalizing and taxing online gaming and medical marijuana.

    And for those LP purists that don’t like the idea of taxing marijuana…wake up and join the real world. America is bankrupt and desperately needs new revenue streams. So this Great Depression II can be seen by smart people as an opportunity. Right now governments need money. Right now New Jersey has legalized online gaming, poker and sports gambling- for first time in history. Not because they like it…because politicians desperately need the money.

    This is your opportunity to legalize medical marijuana. You have maybe a 5 year window. Would I like everything in life to be free from government taxes. YES! But the reality is…just like with gambling…you can get your pleasure/entertainment/”sin” legalized only by offering to tax it.

    Gambling is heavily taxed and regulated in Nevada. Yet that doesn’t stop one person that enjoys gambling from participating. All I care about is that I’m allowed to bet on football and March Madness 5 minutes from my home. I don’t notice or care about the taxes or regulations the casinos have to abide by.

    Everyone wins.

    Same thing with medical marijuana.

    So Debra, you are wrong. I fight for legalization of medical marijuana.

    Is it a leading issue. No. One of my careers is gambling/handicapping. Yet I rarely mention online gaming or poker in any interview? Why? Because it is not a big issue for 90% of Americans.

    The issues are jobs, joe and jobs. Economic.

    I am no hypocrite, or online gaming would be my signature issue. Instead I only mention it if asked. It’s not something that appeals to more than a niche audience (maybe 10 to 15 million).

    Jobs and lower taxes appeal to everyone.

    Best,

    Wayne

  116. Jill Pyeatt

    WR @ 130: Thank you for the explanation. In the context of that explanation, I agree with you.

  117. LibertarianGirl

    no i dont listen to every interview but ive heard people ask you the question both on here and in person and you consistently say you believe in ending the drug war but think its not smart to talk about it

    your on the LPNevada excom , do you know why only 1 out of 3 congressional candidates is on the SOS site?? it appears only Silvestri filed…im highly concerned about losing ballot access this year , and if and when it happens I hope youll have some time to put towards getting sigs to get candidates on the ballot again… its gonna be a huge blow to LPNevada…Johnson will have to get 1% , unprecedented…anyways fingers crossd. you all could have just run more candidates , it always worked before….LPNEVADA HAS 1 CANDIDATE …1

  118. Thomas L. Knapp

    Wayne @132,

    You write:

    “America is bankrupt and desperately needs new revenue streams.”

    America is not bankrupt. The US government is bankrupt.

    There’s a HUGE difference there, and one I hope you’ll sink your teeth into in media interviews. The politicians are not America.

  119. Andy

    “im highly concerned about losing ballot access this year , and if and when it happens I hope youll have some time to put towards getting sigs to get candidates on the ballot again… its gonna be a huge blow to LPNevada…”

    It would suck if the Libertarian Party of Nevada lost ballot access, but on the bright side for me it would give me the opportunity to go to Nevada to petition to put the Libertarian Party back on the Nevada ballot.:) The only time I petitioned in Nevada was in 2004 for a marijuana legalization initiative and I’ve been wanting to petition there again ever since but I haven’t done it for one reason or another. I’m not “rooting” (pun not intended) for the LP of Nevada to lose ballot access, but if it happens it happens, and it would give me an excuse to go back and stay there for several weeks, which hopefully would not be during the summer when it is way too hot.:)

  120. Mark Hilgenberg

    @Paulie #112

    Great points! We do need to promote to the other side, this has been my battle cry for years.

    The problem I see is many people try yet they still use conservative sounding talking points and end up just arguing with people.

    Libertarians need to learn how to communicate with the left in a way THEY will understand. Part of that is just stop trying to convince people that the poor are that way because they just don’t work hard enough. That line is BS with our current rigged system. Promote changing the system in a way that will help the poor.

    One thing we are doing in our convention this year is inviting groups to table at our convention who have alternative or “left” focuses, SlutWalkSLC, Anti-War groups, local charities, etc. This way we can promote the compassionate side of liberty to the groups and their members who attend.

    Our speakers lean more to left issues and they are not the typical preaching to the choir types that most LP conventions have. When I am doing outreach to student groups or “left” groups the first thing they say is “I thought Libertarians were all racists and want mega corporations to own the whole country?”

    I fear that it is our constant guilt by association with the right which causes this. We need to tell conservatives we aren’t just Ultra-Conservative and here is a better way and we need to lead the left to a better understanding of what liberty can accomplish.

    It can be done, here is a few of our past successes in CA before the Neo-Con invasion of 02.

    Take Over your local weekly “socialist rag”
    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150186098157699

    What we say, what they hear, what we should say

    http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150182684657699

  121. LibertarianGirl

    its a hail mary -longshot for us to keep ballot access andy , they chose not to go the route that has won it for us the last decade or more and put all the eggs in one basket hopig for a unprecedented 1% with the Pres. Race…had thy just ran some damned county races ,it would have been simple

  122. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Mar 17, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    its a hail mary -longshot for us to keep ballot access andy , they chose not to go the route that has won it for us the last decade or more and put all the eggs in one basket hopig for a unprecedented 1% with the Pres. Race…had thy just ran some damned county races ,it would have been simple.”

    Wow, this sounds like some really bad planning from the people who have been elected to leadership positions in the Libertarian Party of Nevada.

    Oh well, on the bright side maybe it will give me an excuse to be in Nevada for several weeks sometime after the 2012 elect to petition to re-establish ballot status for the LP of Nevada.

  123. Andy

    LibertarianGirl said: “you all could have just run more candidates , it always worked before….LPNEVADA HAS 1 CANDIDATE …1″

    The Libertarian Party of Nevada is only going to have one candidate besides the Presidential candidate. WTF???? I’ve been following this stuff for a long time and I don’t ever recall seeing the LP of Nevada only having one candidate besides the candidate for President. This is pathetic. The Libertarian Party of Nevada must have gone down hill.

  124. Matt Cholko

    Well, I certainly hope that the LP candidate will get 1%, but it seem unlikely.

    LG – What is the “simple” way that you’ve mentioned for the LP to retain ballot access?

  125. Thomas L. Knapp

    GP@138,

    The US government has ~$16 trillion in debt that it will never, under any circumstances, pay off at full value.

    Throwing around terms like “reserve currency” does not change the fact that yes, the US government is bankrupt.

  126. Jim Duensing

    Actually the LPNV has two candidates. Silvestri in Congress 4 and Pojunis in Congress 1.

    In Nevada, the way to keep ballot access is to have at least one candidate for partisan office earn a vote total equal or greater than 1% of the total number of votes cast for US Congress in the state. With 4 Congressional districts an LP Congress candidate would need 4 or 5 % in their race. That hasn’t happened here in this millennium.

    However, countywide partisan offices with Libertarians running routinely get over the threshold, because there are more voters in that race and there are more voters willing to vote LP in smaller races.

    By having only the two Congressional candidates and crossing their fingers that the Great GOP hope for LP President will do what Barr Root could not and what Badnarik did not is asking for failure. This seems to be par for the course for a party which has systematically worked to remove any member that does not want to sit around Silvestri’s kitchen table and listen to him babble endlessly.

    First you purge your affiliates. Then you make membership more expensive – and more pointless. Then you nominate three candidates at an early convention. Then, you make sure only two of them file. RIP LP.

  127. Matt Cholko

    So, presumably, one of those candidates for congress could have run for a lower level office and had a reasonable chance at retaining ballot access for the LPNV? If that’s the case, and it seems that it is, then something is seriously wrong in NV.

  128. Gary Johnson Needs You !

    With NV having one of the highest unemployment rates in America Gary Johnson should easily get over 1% if ONLY the message can be given to the NV people ! (and LP members could hold the negativity to a MINIMUM) The Ds and Rs deserve the VENOM, not this man !

    FACTS are FACTS friends !
    Former two-term Highly Successful Gov. Gary Johnson had a BETTER Jobs Creation performance in office than Romney and Obama combined. There was a 11.6 % increase in private sector jobs (the ones that count) under Gary Johnson’s administration.

    Got Jobs? Johnson, Romney, Obama – http://garyjohnsongrassrootsblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/charles-lupton-created-nice-job-growth.html
    Gary Johnson on jobs:

    > “The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor,”

    > “We are proud of this distinction. We had a 11.6 percent job growth that occurred during our two terms in office. But the headlines that accompanied that report – referring to governors, including me, as ‘job creators’ – were just wrong.”

    > “we kept government in check, the budget balanced, and the path to growth clear of unnecessary regulatory obstacles.”

    > “My priority was to get government out of the way, keep it out of the way, and allow hard-working New Mexicans, entrepreneurs and businesses to fulfill their potential,”

    “Summarizing: Gary doesn’t accept the fallacy that job creation is something that the government can do.” -Rui Nobre Pinheiro

    Gary Johnson says: “I advocate a Dont do Drugs policy. Drugs can be harmful, addictive and destructive to our lives and society. The current war on drugs, however, has not been successful. Crime, economic problems and abuse related to drug usage are still very present. I believe there needs to be a new direction in fighting these problems. I believe that one of the best solutions to help with the many problems caused by drugs is to legalize marijuana. We do not advocate the legalization of any other drugs and believe that harm reduction measures should be implemented.

    Marijuana should be regulated and taxed by the federal government (just like tobacco is currently), which would lead to a lower price for the product and eliminate the criminal element from its distribution, much like the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol many decades back.”

    “Gary Johnson also believes that current drug policies need to be changed. The answer to solving this problem lies in sentencing reform, in supplying treatment on demand, and in honest drug education for our children. I advocate heroin maintenance and other harm reduction measures and believe we should move from a criminal to a medical model of dealing with drug usage. I think that locking up more and more people who are nonviolent drug offenders, people whose real problem is that they are addicted to drugs, is simply a waste of money and human resources and fails to deal with the real problems of abuse. Our goal is to lower the abuse rate in America and we believe a new direction is needed for that to happen.”

    For additional information about the war on drugs in America, you can go to the following Websites:

    The Drug Policy Alliance Network: http://www.drugpolicy.org.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: http://www.leap.cc

    He has been an outspoken advocate for
    efficient government, lower taxes,
    winning the war on drug abuse,
    protection of civil liberties,
    revitalization of the economy
    and promoting entrepreneurship
    and privatization.

  129. Over 1%

    This is the lying nonsense we hard from come of Harry Browne’s supporters through two campaigns — Browne himself was more circumspect –and is as grandiose as the 15 or 30 million dollar campaign promised by Barr’s advocates in 2008.

    You can tell the LYING REPUBLICAN FLIM FLAM ARTISTS by their absurd promises prior to the national convention.
    …George Phillies

  130. Robert Capozzi

    151 gp, could be. If Santorum gets the R nomination, I’d be very disappointed if GJ didn’t get over 1%.

  131. Thomas L. Knapp

    @150,

    “FACTS are FACTS”

    Yes, they are. And the fact is that Johnson’s chances of getting over 1% in Nevada, or anywhere else, are very slim. Not non-existent, just pretty damn small.

    @151,

    “the 15 or 30 million dollar campaign promised by Barr’s advocates”

    The number thrown out by the campaign manager from the convention stage was $40 million.

    Oh, and he was going to win the election, too.

    There is a non-trivial chance that that campaign manager’s lunch before he made those claims was spiked with some kind of chemical optimism booster, though. After all, this was an LP convention.

  132. Steven Wilson

    @151

    Harry Browne inspired people. Aaron Russo inspired people. Bob Barr paid people.

    Browne nor Russo were angels, but the circumstances are different now. A dysfunctional LNC, a shadow LNCC, almost- libertarians at every national post.

    If Gary Johnson can inspire let him. Let his people work for liberty their way.

  133. George Phillies

    Let X inspite people.

    That was an argument for Harry Browne and Bob Barr: He provided inspiration.

    Well, that worked fine until reality set in, and inspiration withdrawal symptoms took place.

    The approach you are advocating has almost destroyed our party.

  134. LibertarianGirl

    I like Gary Johnson..if he wins the nomination , I WILLwork for his campaign , he doesnt make me want to vomit like Barr did…but for now Lee Wrights is the candidate for me

  135. LibertarianGirl

    @146 we always ran races that resided in one county then you only need %’s from that county..its not exactly simple but it worked everytime before. every year we win ballot access with a state senate or state assembly race and with a county recorder race 1time…never have we won with a Congressional race or a Pres race yet LPNevada chose to only run those 2…it appears i was wrong we have 2 candidates both congressional…

  136. LibertarianGirl

    @149 yes…. we have run high profile Congressional races most notably Silvestri and Duensing but that was only when we had a pretty good group of other candidates in those lower lever races…. a better strategy , if only putting up 2 people would have been to put those people in races like state assembly and state senate….and just so its clear , i , tim hagan among others would have run if we thought we stood any chance of getting nominated. There was no doubt amongst anyone that Silvestri and his people would not include or vote for anyone or anything not on his slate…good or bad thats how Silvestri does it

  137. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Mar 18, 2012 at 10:00 am

    I like Gary Johnson..if he wins the nomination , I WILLwork for his campaign , he doesnt make me want to vomit like Barr did…but for now Lee Wrights is the candidate for me.”

    Barf, and barf again.

  138. Andy

    Jim Duensing said: “In Nevada, the way to keep ballot access is to have at least one candidate for partisan office earn a vote total equal or greater than 1% of the total number of votes cast for US Congress in the state. With 4 Congressional districts an LP Congress candidate would need 4 or 5 % in their race. That hasn’t happened here in this millennium.

    However, countywide partisan offices with Libertarians running routinely get over the threshold, because there are more voters in that race and there are more voters willing to vote LP in smaller races.”

    Given these facts, why doesn’t the LP of Nevada have any candidates for countywide partisan office this year? Are the people running the Nevada LP ignorant of this or what?

  139. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Mar 18, 2012 at 10:09 am

    @146 we always ran races that resided in one county then you only need %’s from that county..its not exactly simple but it worked everytime before. every year we win ballot access with a state senate or state assembly race and with a county recorder race 1time…never have we won with a Congressional race or a Pres race yet LPNevada chose to only run those 2…it appears i was wrong we have 2 candidates both congressional…”

    So it looks like the odds are pretty high that the Libertarian Party is going to lose ballot status in Nevada after this election. It looks like I’m going to get the chance to petition for LP ballot access in Nevada in 2013 or 2014. Should be fun.

  140. LibertarianGirl

    Andy @ 160 . to answer your question , No , the leadership in the LPNevada is NOT unaware of this fact. At least not Joe Silvestri and Wayne Root. I dont know the new folk , most of them probably believe as theyve been told and may not have the experience to know what it takes to win ballot access but Im positive Silvestri does .

  141. Alan Pyeatt

    I think Jill made an astute observation the other day that the critical part of our National Convention is NOT the presidential nomination. It’s the LNC election that will make the difference, this time.

    I don’t know much about the situation in Nevada, but if somebody steers the bus off a cliff… You might wonder what their goals really are.

    And to bring this back to the original subject, if we perpetuate the stereotype that leftists have of us, it helps to prevent an alliance of anti-war activists on the left with anti-war activists in the libertarian/conservative group. As long as these two groups can be kept apart, there is very little chance of the anti-war movement succeeding. How much is that worth to a defense contractor?

  142. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Mar 18, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Andy @ 160 . to answer your question , No , the leadership in the LPNevada is NOT unaware of this fact. At least not Joe Silvestri and Wayne Root. I dont know the new folk , most of them probably believe as theyve been told and may not have the experience to know what it takes to win ballot access but Im positive Silvestri does .”

    What in the hell is wrong with these people? Do they want the Libertarian Party to fall off the ballot in Nevada or what?

  143. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Mar 18, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Itll be fun!! You GOTTA bring P with ya tho:)”

    We’ll both be looking forward to it.;)

  144. Alan Pyeatt

    LG, I don’t know yet. I like Mark Hinkle, and I think he’s a great administrator. But sometimes you need a street fighter in politics, and I don’t see that in him. A political party with any chance to be effective eventually comes under attack. Our leadership has to recognize it and respond effectively.

    I don’t know enough about Wagner and Rutherford yet. Wagner seems like a strong libertarian, but I wonder if other delegates may (incorrectly?) have been put off by the Oregon fiasco. A crisis is a good test of a leader, and I like the fact that he acted decisively. So, it would be a shame if some delegates wrote him off just because he was involved in a controversy. OTOH, I want to hear more people’s views before I’m sold on him.

    I’ve heard Rutherford is WAR’s choice. Don’t know if it’s true, but if so, he’s probably not mine.

    I know Jill is trying to get more information out about all 3 candidates, so hopefully we’ll see some articles about them on IPR soon. I would like to make my decision soon, so I can actively support that person.

  145. Darryl W Perry

    Alan – if you (or someone else) can provide me with an email address for the three candidates, I will send them each a questionairre and make the responses public

  146. LibertarianGirl

    I am for Hinkle and heres why . He is not a cult of personality and he is not real loud so he appearsnto not be a street fighter but since Ive been paying attention Ive realized he has pissed off nearly everyone. He is considered to be “in the other faction” by those inclined to factional definitions . My conclusion is that he has no factional loyalties and is willing to vote and follow his conscience REGARDLESS of the popularity it costs him . THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY I LOOK FOR…. aperson who doesnt let loyalty or friendship or retaining power cloud his decisions. I endorse Mark Hinkle for Chair and so would David Nolan

  147. Darryl W. Perry

    I just sent all three of the announced candidates for Chair the following questions:

    Why are you running for LP Chair?

    What are your qualifications?

    Why should someone vote for you?

    Do you support a top-down or bottom-up approach to political activism? How will this affect how you act in your role as Chair?

    Would you be willing to work with other minor parties on press releases and events that promote the general ideas of freedom & liberty?

  148. Steven Wilson

    Who runs the LNC is irrelevant. Since the convention is held in Vegas, it would be more enjoyable to take odds on what and how severely the LNC will screw up.

    I assume another building fund debacle will happen along with a serious Rutherford attack on Georgia.

    There are deals to be made and promises to break.

  149. Steven Wilson

    Georgia still has leadership that believes in individualism. I can’t imagine the LNC will let that remain.

    If I can take anything from Oregon and Nevada, it is not just leadership, but also a change in methodology.

    When Root runs in 20126, he would like a smooth road. Controlling state chairs makes that much easier.

  150. Larry Carter Center

    Wayne Root either lives in California (left coast) to listen for Limboss lies at 9 a.m. driving to work very late or just did not listen to the testimony of Sandra Fluke. His “driving to work” indictment of Libs is incompetent and absurd. Limboss is heard noon to 3 Eastern. Monopoly anti-libertarian Clear Channel radio refuses to let Libs on the air either as hosts or callers. Sandra Fluke clearly testified to medical needs for VULVADYNIA & OVARIAN CYSTS and made zero pleas for sex. It is the fanatical pathological liars like Limboss that daily mis-inform listeners of the facts. True Libertarians would condemn the Vatican for using force of government to keep women from low cost pills for any reason. Fluke may be defending Obombacare, I DO NOT SUPPORT mandatory killer insurance company unlimited price premiums. Health care is a right just as national defense is a right. Not to invade countries for oil or Israeli theocracy, but to defend our borders from dope dealers & pimps & sweat shop dumping of imported goods. Principles in the mouths of liars are weapons to shield exploiters, illegal war profiteers & theocrats. Limboss should be forced into SUBSCRIPTION ONLY Satellite XM with Howard Stern so he can no longer spread his brutal lies against women on publically owned airwaves. Defend the Constitution & take away Limboss FCC license. 843-926-1750 @Greens926_1750 http://www.hireLarryFireBobby.@VoteLarryDis114 Limboss is not a “conservative” he is a felony dope dealer & serial domestic abuser like FtWorthless Newt Gingrich

  151. Larry Carter Center

    I support the Conyers Kucinich bill HR 676 in Congress now ten years with almost 100 co-sponsors when the President took Kucinich inside the “woodshed” of Air Force One & somehow forced him to betray his own bill for the obscene Reid Pelosi bill written by corrupt killer insurance companies NOT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. We can still pass HR 676 Medicaid for all as a civil right to NOT FOR PROFIT health care for anyone who needs it, a voluntary program people vote with their feet to apply. If Insurance companies were NOT KILLING 16 PAID UP policy holders per day denying them life saving care for any policy exclusion, then people won’t apply for Medicaid, they will keep paying their good deal insurance at work or individually….let’s stop all the political propaganda. We are bankrupt over illegal foreign wars for oil & dope profiteers. We are gouged by monopoly Doctors & religious hospitals for health care & insurance companies are in bed with the price gougers. Veterans Hospitals are not cash cows, medical staff & volunteers care for vets @ HUGE COST SAVINGS by competitive public bidding for supplies & sharing doctors with teaching university hospitals. Like the USO & USArmy & military branches, public health is on the same team NOT FOR PROFIT but reasonable salaries & delivered goods at reasonable prices. What price liberty if life saving care is priced out of reach ? http://www.hireLarryFireBobby.com … @VoteLarryDis 843-926-1750 @Greens926_1750

  152. Steven R Linnabary

    Shouldn’t LP value a politician who actually says exactly what’s on his mind? I never hold back. I give the raw truth. Let the chips fall where they may.

    There was a time 25-35 years ago when many LP candidates did this at every opportunity, say inappropriate things just to get attention. To walk into a candidates night at a senior center and loudly demand the end to Social Security and MediCare, or to go to a low income neighborhood and demand the end of welfare, drug laws and prostitution. It became known as “Libertarian Macho Flash”.

    Libertarian Macho Flash never did get us many votes, made us look like asses but did generate some positive stories in LP News and state newsletters (which were far more vibrant).

    Most of us have matured and realized that you can’t say whatever you want, when you want. Not if you are selling an idea. Not if you are serious about the LP.

    If one is serious, they try to sell IDEAS. Libertarian Macho Flash isn’t about selling an idea, it is a form of narcissism.

    PEACE

  153. Robert Capozzi

    186 slr, well stated! It comes full circle. “Macho Flash” used to be associated with “radical” Ls, yet Root says he’s “moderate.”

  154. starchild

    Steven @186 – Setting this up as “Trying to sell ideas” vs. “Say whatever you want when you want” is creating a false dichotomy. But if I have to choose between “Libertarian Macho Flash” and “Un-Libertarian Wimpo Cower”, I choose the former.

    One does not have to buy into the sales/marketing paradigm in order to be “serious”. If anything, the opposite is true. Looking at history, it seems to me that the people who are the most serious about their causes, the people who risk their lives, liberty, and property for those causes, tend not to have much use for things like marketing plans.

  155. Humongous Fungus

    Root’s actually pretty extreme, although he’s “moderate” on some issues by LP standards.

    Limbaugh’s statements about Sandra Fluke were extreme, although not in a libertarian direction.

  156. Humongous Fungus

    Starchild @188

    Good point.

    It’s a balancing act though.

    Too little macho flash – milquetoast and boring.

    Too much – crazy and ridiculous.

    Just right – hard to do, but sweet when it happens.

Leave a Reply