Kubby on economic stimulus

Full transcript at the Kubby campaign web site.

52 Responses to “Kubby on economic stimulus”

  1. Eric Dondero Says:

    Tom, what is wrong with you guys? This is a horribly produced video. You can do a lot better than this.

    Firstly, his voice sounds like crap. What’s he still got the flu? And why is he talking so slow? Also, he sounds like he’s reading from a script. And the sound quality is poor - like he’s in an echo chamber.

    The opening is okay. Like the Rascals - good pick for background music.

    But the photos of Kubby don’t put him in a good light.

    And there’s no action. Just stills.

    Rachet up will ya guys. If, Kubby ends up being the nominee, stuff like this will make the entire libertarian movement look very unprofessional and completely amateurish.

    (This is not meant to be mean-spirited, but rather constructive. Knowing you and your skills, you can do a lot better than this.)

  2. Nigel Watt Says:

    On the general LP presidential nomination topic, I’m looking and Jingozian’s stuff and liking it. Can anybody share some concerns about the guy?

  3. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    You write:

    “What is wrong with you guys?”

    TPW’s brief is to report on third party stuff. Kubby’s campaign is third party stuff. I’m reporting on it, because I blog for TPW. TPW did not produce the video, nor did I.

  4. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, I have to agree with Eric. The same for the video of the LPNJ/LPPA/LPWV from Saturday. I was there & disappointed you & your guy (Kubby) were not there. & I’ve been waiting for TPW to report on it. http://njlp.org/content/view/111/1 This was my first conference & I’m no expert. Constructive criticism. The video stops & the audio is bad. But not toooooo bad. & I admit I didn’t realize how soft spoken I am. I do not think it is my player but it could be. In stark contrast to W.A.R. & Prof. Phillies. Quite loud & animated & many good soundbites. Show your guy this vid, Tom.

  5. Robert Milnes Says:

    Nigel, check out the vid. Jingo was there. What about concerns about you? You liked Kubby, then RP/RP. Now Jingo? Just youttful impetuousness?

  6. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    You write:

    “Tom, I have to agree with Eric.”

    About what? As previously stated, I didn’t produce the video—I just reported it for TPW.

    As far as your “disappointment” that I did not attend the PA/NJ/WV convention, well, I’m not a candidate for the presidency or the vice-presidency, nor am I a candidate for an officer or at-large position on the Libertarian National Committee, nor am I from Pennsylvania, New Jersey or West Virginia, nor was I an invited or schedule speaker at that convention. Why would I have been there? I love attending LP events, but that one was a long way away I had other things to do.

  7. [email protected] obal.net Says:

    With ’ friends’ like Tom Knapp, Steve Kubby needs all the help he can get?

  8. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    I don’t claim to be an “objective” reporter (my support for Steve Kubby’s candidacy is a matter of public record), but I’ll say it once again: I didn’t produce the video, I’m just making TPW readers aware of it. I can’t address sound quality issues with the video, etc., because my sound card is screwed up and I can’t hear it. I have a limited role in this particular campaign operation, and I’m not going to pretend to knowledge that I don’t have.

    I do tend to discount campaign pointers from one guy who supports a candidate who looks and acts like what you’d get if you smashed Ron Popeil, Joe Isuzu and Liberace together in a particle accelerator, and another guy whose idea of “campaigning” is hyping eugenics and Theodore Roosevelt in blog comments. Input from the voice of Citizens for a Better Veterans Home completes the “we don’t know squat about how this stuff works, but we’ll be glad to tell you anyway” trifecta.

  9. Eric Dondero Says:

    Well, there you go. That explains it all! Tom didn’t produce this piece of crap campaign video.

    Tom, if your guy is going to have ANY chance of winning this nomination you better take a much larger role in the campaign.

    Come to think of it, just dump Kubby and run your own damn self.

    You are a 20-year Federal Appointee to the Selective Service Commission. You are an ex-Marine. You are FAR MORE QUALIFIED to run, and I’d mention much more popular, than Steve Kubby.

    Plus, you’re from the middle of the country - Missouri.

    Throw your wife on the ticket - a former elected official herself. And that would be a great schtick! Husband/Wife run for Pres/VP.

    Kubby is losing all over the place. I’m downgrading him to 2nd tier. He’s no longer up there with Root, Jingo, and even Phillies.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    Right now, Kubby isn’t in the top tier of announced LP candidates—he is the top tier of announced LP candidates. If the convention was held tomorrow, he’d win the nomination on probably the third or fourth ballot. I’d like to get him into first-ballot win status, but I’ll settle for any win we can get.

    Look at the polling numbers. Root is moderately ahead among self-identified delegates and barely ahead (within the margin of error) among party members, but he’s got as much support as he’s going to get. Nobody who doesn’t support him now is going to start supporting him … especially as more unflattering information emerges. And it will.

    As far as any comparison of myself to Kubby goes, don’t be silly—I have less political experience than Kubby, less political success to show for that experience than Kubby, less name recognition in or out of the party than Kubby, and lower positives and higher negatives within the party than Kubby. The same is true of all the other declared candidates.

  11. Eric Dondero Says:

    You guys want to see the dorkiest video produced yet for this Presidential campaign? A spoof of Hillary:


  12. NewFederalist Says:

    Eric- I am shocked Tom did not correct you… there are no EX-Marines only FORMER Marines! Get it right!

  13. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    Actually, once a Marine ALWAYS a Marine. However, since Eric appears to be ineducable (I suspect he spent too much time hiding in the whiskey locker with the paint thinner back in his swabbie days), I usually only bother correcting his errors which are of immediate political importance.

    Tom Knapp

  14. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, Is this T h i r d P a r t y W a t c h? Which third party or independent in the past 100 years was BY FAR the most successful? The Progressive Bull Moose Party started by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. 27% second place. Don’t you think TR is worthy of a watch/look see or two here? Am I right or am I right?

  15. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, once again I agree with your nemesis Eric.

  16. Nigel Watt Says:

    Nigel, check out the vid. Jingo was there. What about concerns about you? You liked Kubby, then RP/RP. Now Jingo? Just youttful impetuousness?

    Never liked Kubby - considered him to possibly the best of what is available, though I don’t think he’s at all a good candidate.

    Also, you should use spell check.

  17. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ouch! Yes, I got that wrong. Sorry. I always friggin’ get that wrong. Cause it’s so common for me to say, “I’m ex-Navy.” But I know, I know, you’re not supposed to say “ex-Marine.”

    Once again, apologies to my friend Tom, and other MARINES FOR LIFE.

  18. Eric Dondero Says:

    I am getting very early reports out of Pennsylvania, that Wayne Root did rather well with the delegates, though no straw polls were taken.

    Again, I caution, very early reports, and not confirmed. But if true, that means he’s doing quite well nationwide.

  19. Eric Dondero Says:

    And this just breaking out of Alaska…

    The Republican Party of Alaska has officially come out for legalization of industrial hemp at their State GOP Convention this weekend.


  20. Trent Hill Says:

    HAHA, Eric—that is largely because of the successes of Ron Paul delegates on the statewide level. In only Alaska and Montana did they succeed in getting anywhere with state delegates and in both places they have been urged to push new platform suggestions. Congrats Eric—the movement you opposed is achieving your ends (except the rabidly pro-war crap).

  21. Robert Milnes Says:

    Nigel Watt, Are you referring to my spelling of the word “youthful” as “youttful? Gotcha! I deliberately spelled it that way. Youtts. Just poking a little fun, young man, I mean youtt!

  22. Robert Milnes Says:

    Eric, if there were no straw polls taken, how can we objectively evaluate whether Root “...did rather well with the delegates…”? Sounds more like somebody’s preliminary spin.

  23. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, are you researching any better third party performance than 27% second place in the past 100 years or are you trying to ignore me & hope I & that fact will go away? Now, I figure we can get the 6% of Debs the socialist. & we can get another 5% from the dem winner Wilson making 38, 37,23 close victory. A close 3 party race would be 34, 33, 33. We can also hope for a fourth significant-probably independent-a centrist, to take dem & rep votes. & hope that Ron Paul does not go indy or ruin everything by getting the LP nomination & Nader & the Green do not do well. I’ve called for the Green to endorse the LP ticket. The CP candidate might take some LP votes, but also some GOP votes so that would be a wash. So, that’s how the LP COULD win. What say you to THAT?

  24. Eric Dondero Says:

    Umm Trent, I don’t recall Ron Paul talking about legalizing marijuana during his Presidential campaign. In fact, I don’t believe it ever even came up. And he did not campaign in Alaska, at all. He sent his son up there. But Ron Paul never set foot in the State.

    That’s a pretty damned insulting thing you say towards Alaska Republicans. You don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. Instead you so quickly assume, “Oh, it’s not that the GOP up there leans libertarian, but rather they must be following Ron Paul’s lead.”

    Trent, don’t you think there were plenty of libertarians in the GOP, particularly the Alaska GOP before Ron Paul ever came along?

  25. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    March 17th, 2008 at 5:27 am
    Umm Trent, I don’t recall Ron Paul talking about legalizing marijuana during his Presidential campaign.”

    He mentioned it a few times although he obviously did not make it a big part of his campaign.

  26. Paulie Says:

    Actually he did make ending the war on drugs (not just marijuana) a big part of his campaign - when he was responding to racism charges.

    He should have made it a much beigger part of his campaign much earlier.

    I noticed nobody attacked him on the drug policy reform issue.

  27. Eric Dondero Says:

    A sure sign the Republican Party is getting more open to the legalization argument.

    Let’s recall that 1 year ago a North Dakota Republican legislator introduced a bill in the legislature to legalize industrial hemp. It got most of the support from the GOP, but failed cause the Dems opposed it.

    Now this from Alaska.

    I’d say those Libertarians who say Republicans are “fanatic Drug Warriors” are now on shaky ground. You can say “some Republicans,” but now you’ve got to add, and “others favor legalization.”

  28. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    “Tom, are you researching any better third party performance than 27% second place in the past 100 years or are you trying to ignore me & hope I & that fact will go away?”

    If I wanted to ignore you, I wouldn’t have to “try” to do it.

    “Now, I figure we can get the 6% of Debs the socialist. & we can get another 5% from the dem winner Wilson making 38, 37,23 close victory.”

    I’m not sure who this “we” is you’re talking about, but the first thing to remember is that it’s highly unlikely that many, if any, of the voters you’re talking about “getting” are even still alive, let alone of the same political mindset that they were 96 years ago.

    “So, that’s how the LP COULD win. What say you to THAT?”

    I say that none of our actual or likely candidates are former major party presidents who remain wildly popular with the public. The absolute closest thing to that we have in the LP would be Ron Paul or Bob Barr, both of who are at least sitting or former major party congresscritters, and I seem to recall that you discount them as candidates for your “strategy.”

  29. Paulie Says:

    I say that none of our actual or likely candidates are former major party presidents who remain wildly popular with the public.

    Former major party presidents.

    Bill Clinton - constitutionally disqualified. Otherwise he may have divorced his wife and run against her.

    Bush Sr. - not wildly popular.

    That leaves Jimmy Carter. Has Mr. Gordon been on the phone with him yet to try to recruit him?

  30. Richie Says:

    Umm… Eric… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk

  31. Roscoe Says:

    Nine presidential candidates showed up for the Penna. New Jersey convention. Why five or six of them were there is a real mystery.
    The “buzz” was Root is the most articulate and makes best claims for being able to get coverage, work his databases, etc. Seems to be liked by those who realize purist candidates aren’t going to resonate with voters.
    Chrissy Smith irritatingly talks a mile a minute, seems well-liked by the purist types. Phillies is professorial, looks like the Uncle who shows up on Thanksgiving and manages to ruin dinner with his political opinions, has best claims to have already built a campaign structure that can hit the ground running. Jackson, Jingo, Imperato harken back to a small struggling LP and would get the usual 350,000 votes. The guy from Camden was there because it was a short drive and he had a Saturday to waste. James Libertarian Burns, interesting guy to have a beer with but will be lucky to get a delegate vote in Denver. Kubby not there.
    Who else is running? NOTA could win this thing yet, and that might not be a bad idea!

  32. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Robert Milnes: “are you trying to ignore me & hope I & that fact will go away?”

    Sort of like you’ve ignored my points about your ridiculous attempts to replay 1912 in 2008?

    When Ted Roosevelt ran in 1912, the US was an entirely different nation from 2008, in terms of both demographics and issues. The US was still a majority rural, devoutly Protestant nation (just for starters). It wasn’t until the 1920 census that over 50% of the US population lived in cities or suburbs.

    Devoutly Protestant farmers and ranchers were the majority of 1912’s voters. An entirely different voting pool from 2008’s multicultural America, a nation full of irreligious people and one-parent families. Not saying it’s better or worse, just a very different nation.

    And Ted Roosevelt was no “progressive” by 2008 terms. Here’s one Teddy quote:

    “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”

    Ted Roosevelt was a racist. He was also a jingoistic believer in “gunboat diplomacy.”

    Do you want a pro-racist, pro-imperialist “Progressive-Libertarian Alliance?” If not, then your 1912 reference is irrelevant, because that 27% of the vote was for a man who advocated racism-imperialism.

    Buy a clue, Robert. The 1912 “Progressive Party” has nothing to do with today’s realities, or with today’s progressives. Your analogy fails.

    Now, you can ignore my points if you like. But them at least stop whining about other people ignoring you.

  33. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, Yes, I admit I at least tried to ignore you. Because your criticism is well, lame. OF COURSE the U.S. is a significantly different country 100 years later. But the progressives being the single available voting block to libertarians still holds & you do not concede that. & exactly duplicating what TR did is problematic in that he WAS a previous president but only was elected to one, having been president by being vp upon president McKinley’s assasination. He split from the GOP & formed the progressive party. My working hypothesis is that over the decades the progressive party failed but the LP split off from the GOP-the LP being PART of the progressive party constituency. The other part-the GP then formed. So instead of the progressive party now we have the LP & the GP. As far as racism & gunboat diplomacy, things have changed. Many things that were done or believed then have changed. But the basic thing I’m pushing is that progressivism is a viable block of voters available to the LP in order to win elections. That has not changed.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    You write that the “buzz” on Root incudes “[s]eems to be liked by those who realize purist candidates aren’t going to resonate with voters.”

    There may or may not be merit to the claim that “purist” positions don’t resonate with voters as well as “pragmatist” positions. However, Root is an extremely poor test case for that proposition.

    Root’s is far from a “pragmatic” candidate. In order to believe that he’s the best representative for the LP, you have to be the kind of person who’s perpetually optimistic about winning the rigged games at the carnival.

    Some of his policy positions are at best incoherent—in less than a year, he’s held no fewer than three mutually exclusive positions on foreign policy.

    His party balance-of-power pitch self-defeating—he proposes to run for disgruntled GOP votes against John McCain, whose candidacy he endorsed only a little more than a year ago.

    And his latest constituency pitch is just plain bizarre—over the past few months he’s performed a self-characterization climbdown from “mogul” to “small businessman” and touted himself as the candidate who can “get the small business vote” (if there is such a thing) ... but as a businessman, he resembles some kind of mutant crossbreed of Gordon Gekko and Moses Pray. That’s not a very pragmatic image for someone who’s seeking the nuclear football and executive charge of a $2.x trillion budget.

  35. Robert Milnes Says:

    Roscoe, it sounds like you were there. Interesting that you didn’t say anything about what the man from Camden said.

  36. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, Roscoe is accurate in stating that purist positions are not going to resonate with voters. At least not enough to shake them from clinging to their ultimate vote for the dem or rep. & your guy is a purist. (I think so but I need not bother to invite you to correct me here if I’m mistaken.)BUT the pragmatist positions COULD resonate with progressive voters & that’s ALL we need to win.

  37. Roscoe Says:

    I was there and he made so little impression I never sought him out to speak with him, nor can I even remember his name. He may have said the most profound things in the world but voters look at the messenger as well as the message. Perhaps some of his supporters will post here with reasons why I, and other delegates, should take a serious look at him.

  38. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    The whole point of “pragmatist” positions is that they do resonate with voters (that’s what’s “pragmatic” about them).

    There are, however, some problems with “pragmatic” positions.

    1) Most Libertarians aren’t just here to win. They’re here to win something, that something being the implementation of their positions into public policy. Changing positions just to win would be silly, because then winning would not yield the desired prize.

    2) Having “pragmatic” positions that “could” resonate with voters is not, by a damn sight, ALL we need to win, even if we reduce winning to a valueless sports metaphor in which victory itself, rather than the desired fruits of victory, is the standard. For one thing, the most “pragmatic” positions in the world will not replace the money required to make a dent in the vote. I’ll be surprised if any campaign with less than $10 million in play gets past the 2% post this year. The big guys will likely spend in the neighborhood of $500 million each. Positions, however “pragmatic,” are necessary, but not sufficient.

  39. Paulie Says:

    Roscoe, I send an acquintance of a friend to distribute Kubby literature that I printed up at my own expense some months ago while I was in New England. Did it get distributed?

    My friend is now in PA but chose not to go to the convention. However he knows a local Libertarian whol I do not know, who picked up the literature and said he would get it out to the people.

  40. Paulie Says:


    I now watched the video.

    Steve’s performance is uneven. At times he does a very good job speaking and at other times he reverts to the weird thing he has been doing lately of speaking too slowly, putting emphasis on the wrong words and sylllables, etc.

    I have absolutely no explanation for why that is happening and I am worried about Steve personally as a human being - politics be damned. He never used to do this. Not even last year. I talked to Angela last night and she had the same impression. He certainly was not doing this in 1998 or 2000.

    On the plus side with the multiple re-recordings, he did get much better as he went and the parts where he nails it are more frequent, the weird ones less so.

    The video part is indeed amateurish. People don’t know that Steve ended up doing it himself because he got tired of the repeated delays on the professional product out of SF. I think he did an awesome job given the tools he had to work with.

    That’s a very honest assessment of both the good and bad. I liked the speech itself. It can be perfected on the stump over time. As can the video.

    It’s as if some evil magician has sucked public speaking ability out of him
    and awarded more and more of it to George Phillies and, some people now say (haven’t heard it myself yet), also Christine Smith. Isd there a voodoo doctor in the house?

  41. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, one of the questions asked at the convention was whether the candidate would accept matching funds. Since I am a pragmatist I raised my hand. I think I was the only one but I’m not sure. The video could be checked. That is somewhere around $80mil, isn’t it. PLUS about 40mil progressive voters could contribute to the LP.

  42. Steve Kubby Says:

    Pauli, I just spoke to Richard Cowan and read him your comments. He and I do a radio show every Monday, so he has first hand knowledge about my speaking ability, especially over the past few months. Dick replied that here is a big difference between me speaking and me reading a script. Dick said that I still need work on my script reading. However, if you listen to our radio show on Blogtalk Radio, you’ll hear that my public speaking is as good as ever.

  43. Paulie Says:

    Steve, it’s either Paul or Paulie, not Pauli. The i and the e are a package deal.

    As you know I have listened to the show many times, and have been on it many times as well. Yes, you do somewhat better on the show than you do in reading a speech. Perhaps than what you have to do is memorize the speech and become confident with it. I can’t say.

    I know you had the flu in Vegas and San Diego (and I have had something similar the past three weeks, and will probably finally break down and go to the emergency room today), but you were doing a lot of the same things from the stage. I really hate to sound harsh, I am still supporting you, although I will have a tough choice if Mary Ruwart is in the race.

    Many, many, many people have told me you don’t sound good at many times on the blogtalk radio show. They say you often speak too slowly and lack sufficient energy, among other things.

    Please don’t shoot the messenger.

  44. Roscoe Says:

    Paulie, there was Kubby literature at every seat during the debate.

  45. Roscoe Says:

    Mr. Milnes, I see that you are the man from Camden. After looking at your presidential website, I am sorry I didn’t chat you up. I particulary am interested in your proposal to have African Americans be paid to emigrate so that America can begin to balance the population between Caucasians and Native Americans. Will Russell Means be your running mate?

  46. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Thanks for finally addressing some of my points, Robert.

    Now maybe you can address another one that you’d previously ignored.

    Robert Milnes: “over the decades the progressive party failed but the LP split off from the GOP-the LP being PART of the progressive party constituency. The other part-the GP then formed. So instead of the progressive party now we have the LP & the GP.”

    What I’d asked you previously was this: Why do you imagine that a GP/LP “progressive alliance” would sweep you into the White House, when, if you combine the vote totals of the LP and GP in even their best years, you’d still only have a few percentage points—well short of the Demopublican totals.

  47. miche Says:

    Youtt is Milnes as Pesci. Very cute, actually.

  48. Brian Holtz Says:

    After having listened to 10+ hours of Steve on web radio shows, I agree that he is a far better—perhaps the best in the current field—when speaking extemporaneously rather than from a script. I told Tom this after Steve’s state of the union video, which apparently was Steve’s first time with a teleprompter. Since speaking from a script tends to make most of us flatten our emotional affect, I find it helps to try to force oneself to emote more and even ham it up a little, just to get back to normal.

    Note that this script said: “Just paying the interest on the government’s staggering debt consumes all the money the government collects from income taxes.” Interest on the federal debt is about $260B/yr, but the federal income tax takes $1.25T/yr. State and local government debt was $1.85T in 2005, so I don’t see a way to salvage this quote. This, and the talk of debt repudiation, makes me pretty sure that Kubby-endorsing economist Joe Cobb didn’t review the script.

  49. Steve Kubby Says:

    Congratulations to Brian Holtz for actually listening to the speech and picking up on our claim that the “Just paying the interest on the government’s staggering debt consumes all the money the government collects from income taxes.”

    That claim is based upon the Grace Report by the Reagan Administration which found:


    * One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and
    inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
    * Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from
    others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to
    tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers,
    promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be
    * With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or
    not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by
    interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions
    to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax
    revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which
    taxpayers expect from their Government.

    Based upon this report, it is clear that none of the money collected from income taxes actually go to providing any the services “which taxpayers expect from their Government.” Instead the money goes to pay the interest on the national debt, and to paying off or servicing th debt on other failed government programs they label as entitlements.

    Of course, anyone could argue that although entitlements and transfer payments are definitely not payments for real services, entitlements and transfers are also definitely not the same thing as interest on debt. They may create more debt, and that would bring interest payments in the future, but debt is something entirely different.

    However, our view is that although debt is honorable in a libertarian universe, since it is contractual and voluntary., transfers are not honorable, since they are Robin Hood “taking from the rich and giving to the poor.” Unfortunately, they are the soft spot in the minds of those not well indoctrinated in the non-aggression principle, since “grandma NEEDS her Social Security check.” (I use the word “need” with the same contempt that Ayn Rand assigned to it - someone else’s “need” is not a claim on my or your life; “need” does not create any Human Rights.

    Thus, “need” is not a justification for incurring additional debt and all such transfer payments, because they are not real services, must be viewed as just another form of the national debt.

  50. Robert Milnes Says:

    Miche, you think I’m as cute as Pesci! Wow!....oh.

  51. Robert Milnes Says:

    Steve, oh, excuse me for interrupting your discussion with Brian.

  52. Robert Milnes Says:

    Brian, come on, it’s your turn. Steve has just taken grandma’s social security check & thrown her under a bus. Don’t you have any rebuttal to that?

Leave a Reply