Barr on C-Span’s Washington Journal

Former Congressman Bob Barr discusses his presidential exploratory committee and takes questions from callers. Also, by a significant level of reader requests, BobBarrForums.com is now online.

121 Responses to “Barr on C-Span’s Washington Journal”

  1. Yank Says:

    Did he mention Kim Kardashian?

  2. TAO Says:

    “Did he mention Kim Kardashian?”

    Hilarious

  3. Jeff Wartman Says:

    I’m shocked at the level of media coverage he’s getting…this could be a very, very good thing for Libertarians.

  4. Tom Says:

    Jeff
    Don’t forget Root is getting more than his “fair” share of media for the LP too.

    Yank how old are you? 10? 14?

  5. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Yank,

    Root is great on media coverage, but not close to what Barr has gotten in the last week.

  6. Sivarticus Says:

    Root’s media coverage is B grade. Gambling shows, sports garbage, small local TV stations…nothing to be proud of, though it does fit his unpolished used car salesman like demeanor. Only Barr is gaining talks with the big guys: Cavuto, Washington Journal, and more. I dare say Barr is already on the cusp of exceeding Nader’s tiny spat of media attention this year. Barr is a fresh and potentially dangerous third party candidate for McCain, the sort of thing the media loves, while Nader is old news and not really threatening to Obama.

  7. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jeff Wartman, While Ron Paul was raking in Millions, & Meet-ups, campaign assistance, etc. I was getting nowhere. I thought it was me. Come to find out ALL the Real Libertarian candidates were doing poorly except the few who donated to themselves or loaned. Now Bob Barr (& Root) is getting a lot of media. Yet HIS MoneyMeter is slow as molasses in winter. So, what’s the problem? I think libs threw it all at RP/RP & have donor fatigue. Plus Barr’s message has it’s libertarian support problems. We KNOW what libertarian support problems MY message has. Losertarians=losers.

  8. Robert Milnes Says:

    The proof of this is the Kubby campaign.

  9. Robert Milnes Says:

    Sivarticus, Barr=elect the dem.

  10. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Robert,

    How can you call libertarians losers when you have yet to claim ONE person in the party who actually supports your candidacy?

  11. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    There is a bug in this system. I posted something, but it didn’t take.

    Then when I click a second time, this blog tells me I “already said that” and won’t post it again. Although it’s not there at all.

    This bug has cropped up before.

  12. Brent Burk Says:

    I think he can polish the way he says things to gain more support, but that’s just me.

  13. Eric Dondero Says:

    This is now officially a Bob Barr versus Wayne Root race for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination.

    (With maybe Mike Gravel for VP?)

    All the others at this point are also - rans. I like Mike Jingozian, and George Phillies is a decent guy personally. But them, and Kubby, Ruwart, certainly Dave Hollist, Imperato, and the like ought to seriously consider dropping out.

  14. Jeff Wartman Says:

    This is now officially a Bob Barr versus Wayne Root race for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination.

    (With maybe Mike Gravel for VP?)

    All the others at this point are also - rans. I like Mike Jingozian, and George Phillies is a decent guy personally. But them, and Kubby, Ruwart, certainly Dave Hollist, Imperato, and the like ought to seriously consider dropping out.

    I don’t agree with Eric very often, but I’m starting to think you may be right.

  15. Eric Dondero Says:

    Root was on CSNBC - Europe two days ago. I’d hardly call that “Grade B” media.

    Plus he was on Fox Sports a few weeks ago. May not be huge with Geeky non-sports loving Libertarians, but for real Americans, just like NASCAR, Fox Sports (and ESPN) is all tht matters.

  16. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Jeff, aren’t we supposed to be getting together for beers this weekend here in Houston?

    Call me ASAP 832-896-9505. I’m free all weekend. Can bring the wife along if we meet tomorrow.

    Sugarland/West Hwy. 59 Sam’s Boat, right?

  17. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Eric,

    I’ll be arriving in Houston tomorrow night. Let me know.

  18. Mike Gillis Says:

    I wouldn’t call Nader’s coverage a “tiny spat”, considering all major national news media has devoted attention to his candidacy, as he’s appeared on or gotten coverage on Meet the Press, Anderson Cooper, Lou Dobbs, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Tucker Carlson, the San Fransisco Chronicle, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, USA Today, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe…etc. multiple times.

    Not to mention countless local papers and affiliate of the national networks.

    Thus far, he’s gotten more press than any announced or potential third party candidate for president that isn’t Michael Bloomberg.

    And only Bob Barr’s announcement is getting the same sort of press on that level, but as of yet, has not surpassed him in the media coverage.

  19. Sivarticus Says:

    Mike,

    I’ve called Nader’s attention a spat because it seems like it rapidly dropped off a week or two after Nader made his announcement and VP selection. Though it’s true that time will tell if the same happens with Barr, since he only announced last week.

  20. Stefan Says:

    Barr and Gravel make a much more professional impression than Root. Not much TV interviews with Ruwart of Kubby yet. Barr makes a very solid, strong, thoughtful, balanced and diplomatic impression. In a theoretical match-up between Barr and Root, Barr has IMHO the ability to get substantial more votes than Root. If there is a TV debate with the candidates of the so called main parrties, I am not so sure how Root would be able to debate about a wide spectrum of the issues, while Barr would be able to tackle all main issues forcefully. If McCain is to be the GOP nominee, there is a huge field of fiscal and social conservatives available, plus Independents and anti-war Democrats that would be disgruntled with their party nominee. Social conservatives would not vote for Root, while they definitely will consider Barr (whi is a member of the ACU and a 98% rating), who is also a member of the NRA. With his ACLU connections and remake as civil liberties (he has always been libertarian leaning, although not as libertarian in the past than during the past few years) and privacy patron, Barr also potential on social moderates and even social liberals (although they may not agree with him on everything).

    In 2004 the GOP won mainly due to the Catholic vote, which is pro-life. They are probably anti-war also, but were torn between pro-life and anti-war. John Hagee and Rick Parsley’s endorsements of McCain, which he actively sought, will DEFINITELY hurt him, also among Evangelicals and Protestants, and in barr they have a candidate that is both pro-life and anti-war, thus perfect for them.

  21. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jeff Wartman, I thought your guy is Prof. Phillies. Are you giving up on him?

  22. Robert Milnes Says:

    Jeff Wartman, what you said. I rest my case.

  23. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “This is now officially a Bob Barr versus Wayne Root race for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination.”

    I’ll try again, Eric—a steak dinner says that not only will Root not be the presidential nominee, he won’t be on the ticket at all, regardless of what happens with Barr.

    Will you put your money where your mouth is, or are you still all guff?

  24. Wes Benedict Says:

    I think Barr was fine in this segment (only got the first several minutes to work).

  25. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Jeff Wartman, I thought your guy is Prof. Phillies. Are you giving up on him?

    No. I will continue to help George until the last ballot.

    But you cannot ignore the media coverage Barr is getting. It’s crazy-awesome.

  26. Haigh Says:

    Can we get a debate between Barr and Root on YouTube?

    Maybe it could be a series organized by topic.

    If some clips of congressional hearings on monetary policy or Iraq could be included along with humor and some sparks it could go viral.

    The candidates could make their jokes at the expense of the Repubs and Democrats.

  27. Brent Burk Says:

    Eric Dondero,

    What is with your arrogant and cocky demeanor? For those not interested in sports you call them geeks and “real men”, tough men, no girly men, watch sports. Seems collectivist, but maybe it’s just southern charm.

  28. Tom Says:

    Barr just puts me to sleep. And he ducks the drug war issue altogether. He also supports the Fair Tax which is a no no with most libs. I stopped listening after he said that. Keeping us in the news is a goog thing.

    Still, this is shaping up as a Root vs. Barr convention. But what happens if Barr doesn’t run after all? That is still a big possibiltiy. Also, agree with the earlier statement about donor fatique. Paul took a lot out of our party and they may feel burned in that it didn’t make a difference. Sadly.
    Given Barr’s money meter not breaking records will he run?

    I’d like to see a Barr Root debate. That would give us a real chance to measure the trade offs.

  29. Laura Says:

    Tom,

    I thought Barr was interesting to listen to. I was impressed with how he handled the Independent from Tennessee. He turned, what I thought was a negative comment, into a positive.

    BTW, is it true that there are only 250,000 members in the LP? Awful low isn’t it? Why aren’t there more members?

  30. Mike Gillis Says:

    Brent: Eric Dondero,

    “What is with your arrogant and cocky demeanor? For those not interested in sports you call them geeks and “real men”, tough men, no girly men, watch sports. Seems collectivist, but maybe it’s just southern charm.”

    Be careful, Brent. He’ll kick sand in your face and crush a beer can on his head.

    NEEERRDDSS!!

  31. Eric Dondero Says:

    Jeff, you want to plan for Monday evening?

    You do know that Bruce Springsteen is playing downtown Houston at the Toyota Ctr. Monday night. Been thinking of going? You have any interest in joining me? I heard tickets still left.

    I know way off topic. Let’s move this to private email. [email protected]

  32. Eric Dondero Says:

    Brent Burk,

    What’s up with my cocky demeanor? I don’t know. Maybe you should come here to Houston, so I can show you how cocky I can get to your face.

    Guess it’s my proud status as a Veteran of the United States Military. Something I dare say, you have no bragging rights on.

  33. Eric Dondero Says:

    Thomas, I won’t take that bet. Root could very well lose this thing. But he’ll only lose it to one other candidate - former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr.

    I’m liking Barr more and more. I’d support Wayne to the very last ballot if I was a delegate. But Barr would absolutely be my second choice. He’s not quite Pro-Defense. But close enough.

  34. G.E. Says:

    You people who think it’s a Root vs. Barr convention are idiots and obviously don’t understand how the nomination is granted. You don’t sum up Grade-A or Grade-B media coverage—you have to win over the LIBERTARIAN delegates. Neither of these non-libertarians will be able to do it. Mary Ruwart will walk away with the nomination, easily.

  35. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Yes, Obama is the only candidate who can unite the two greatest world systems idiologies, Catholicism and Trotskyism. Bob Barr is the great spoiler vote, just like Ross Perot, that will get Obama into the White House, just like Nader, the great treasonous fascist criminal, was for Bush. All Third Party movements are pointless in America, as Ron Paul has learned, without the introduction of proportional representation. This is only a semi-democracy, we do have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and anyone who doesn’t agree is a political baby.

    Praise Jesus!
    Praise Trotsky!
    Praise Obama!

  36. Stefan Says:

    Thomas: agree with you re. Dondero. I see his private email is not so private anymore, more personal one now. IHMO it will be between Barr, Gravel and Ruwart and perhaps Kubby and Phillies. Many people will see through Root over time as being a political lightweight.

  37. Jeff Wartman Says:

    You people who think it’s a Root vs. Barr convention are idiots and obviously don’t understand how the nomination is granted. You don’t sum up Grade-A or Grade-B media coverage—you have to win over the LIBERTARIAN delegates. Neither of these non-libertarians will be able to do it. Mary Ruwart will walk away with the nomination, easily.

    Bookmark this comment.

    While the nomination is still wide open, to say Ruwart will win easily is ignorant of the party as a whole. You have to win over Libertarian delegates, and at this point, you really don’t understand the popularity of some of the right-leaning candidates.

    Also, it won’t come down to Barr v. Root. It will come down to the right-leaning candidate vs. the left-leaning candidate. After the first couple ballots, you will see one from the right-leaning camp and one from the left. Who wins in the end depends on who is better at political maneuvering on the convention floor. It very well may come down to Barr v. Ruwart. There is no crystal ball for that match-up.

  38. G.E Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    And by Wartman’s definition, apparently the “big government” “libertarians”—i.e. Root and Bar—are “right” libertarians, while the REAL libertarians (Ruwart, Kubby, and Smith) are “left,” and yet other phony libertarians (Phillies) is left, too, right? I’m confused.

    It will come down to a real libertarian vs. a phony one, and the real one will win. Bookmark the comment. How do you want to define “easily”? I don’t care how many ballots it takes. In the end, it will be Ruwart. Whether it takes 3 ballots or 300 doesn’t matter.

  39. Jeff Wartman Says:

    How do you want to define “easily”? I don’t care how many ballots it takes. In the end, it will be Ruwart. Whether it takes 3 ballots or 300 doesn’t matter.

    It certainly matters if you want to use the word “easily”

    It comes down to which factions of the party become allies as the ballot increasing. That’s the way it’s worked in this party for a while, with a few exceptions (Browne).

  40. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    In 2004, Aaron Russo had far and away the most and biggest media and name recognition leading up to the convention. Gary Nolan came in a distant second, and Michael Badnarik an even more distant third.

    Anyone remember who won that nomination?

    I agree with Jeff that Ruwart will not “walk away” with the nomination, but at this point I don’t see anyone doing so.

    My belief—but yes, I have been wrong before—is that Root is simply not in the running. That’s not so much because he’s a poor candidate (although I think he is) as because he’s been outflanked on both ends of the “what do we want in a candidate?” question—he can’t compete with Barr or Gravel for the “pragmatic” vote, and he can’t compete with Ruwart or Kubby for the “ideological” vote.

    Even if Barr doesn’t throw in all the way, I don’t see how Root can save his candidacy. He’s already desperate—telling bizarre lies in answer to difficult questions, and apparently planning a last-ditch Tax Day offensive to try to get his mo back—and desperate won’t get the job done.

  41. Yank Says:

    I bet a snake dinner that one of you, probably Erc Dndr, since he admits to urges, will probably yank off to Kim Kardashian and not Wayne Allyn Root.

  42. Eric Dondero Says:

    Very simplistic post by Tom Knapp. And very wrong.

    Putting Mike Gravel and Bob Barr in the same “pragmatic” category is laughable. They are from two entirely different sides of the Libertarian Quadrant.

    Barr is a moderately Pro-Defense, conservative leaning Republican-type Libertarian. Gravel, nice guy that he is, comes from the left-libertarian, stridently anti-War side.

    That’s why they would actually make a strong ticket.

    Ruwart’s constituency is limited to really old divorced pot-bellied balding Libertarian guys. They like Mary cause she reminds them of the wife they were never good enough to get. There’s still a few of these guys hanging around the LP. But not nearly enough to overcome the Barr/Root/Gravel onslaught.

  43. Eric Dondero Says:

    If Mary Ruwart will “walk away with the nomination” as GE says, than why did she poll so poorly among hardcore LPers in Stephen Gordon’s Libertarian Lists Survey? And that was even Pre-Bob Barr announcement.

    Quick. Anyone. Has Mary Ruwart won anything so far? A straw poll? An on-line poll?

    Root has won primaries, straw polls, on-line polls. And even among the hardline LP set.

    He just got endorsed by both the Chicago Libertarian Party Chairman and the Kansas LP Vice-Chair. Does Ruwart have any such endorsements to speak of?

  44. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Eric,

    Actually, Root has yet to win a primary. He came in second in Missouri, second in Arizona, and third in California.

    As far as “pragmatism” is concerned, you’re missing the entire point. “Pragmatism” isn’t about ideology, so it’s irrelevant that Gravel is in the left-libertarian quadrant and Barr is in the conservative quadrant. “Pragmatism” is about media access, name recognition, etc.—and Barr and Gravel are in a league apart from the other candidates, Root included, on those criteria.

    Ideologically, Barr, Gravel and Root are all very different, but they have one thing in common—difficulty appealing to the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party.

    Barr, and to a slightly lesser extent (owing to the unnatural, but hopefully coming to an end, “right” tilt of the LP) Gravel might reasonably hope to make up ground for that ideological problem by appealing to pragmatism. Root is shit out of luck on both angles, though.

  45. Yank Says:

    Ruwart’s constituency is limited to really old divorced pot-bellied balding Libertarian guys. They like Mary cause she reminds them of the wife they were never good enough to get.

    Truth but is she hotter than Kim Kardashian?

  46. Yank Says:

    Barr would have sex with Kim Kardashian. She is the hottest woman alive. She is so hot she would burn down Adam’s Mark with her ass. She is hotter than the fair tax on Boortz’s booty. She is woman. She’s Kim Kardashian. She will smoke them all in Denver.

  47. Wes Benedict Says:

    Dondero says:

    Ruwart’s constituency is limited to really old divorced pot-bellied balding Libertarian guys. They like Mary cause she reminds them of the wife they were never good enough to get. There’s still a few of these guys hanging around the LP. But not nearly enough to overcome the Barr/Root/Gravel onslaught.

    Eric,

    I am NOT divorced and have NEVER been divorced!

  48. Yank Says:

    Barr loves the tit, so Kim’s it. She’s got ‘em but she’s got ass too. The lp has picky assmen in high places except for Chk Mltn who would fuck a mail slot if he thought his dick would fit.

    The libertarian party is 76% assmen.

  49. Wes Benedict Says:

    [email protected] says:

    Even if Barr doesn’t throw in all the way, I don’t see how Root can save his candidacy. He’s already desperate—telling bizarre lies in answer to difficult questions, and apparently planning a last-ditch Tax Day offensive to try to get his mo back—and desperate won’t get the job done.

    Wes says:

    Tom, I watched Root’s performance in Chicago, the one you referenced above, and I thought he did great. Hopefully he will be asked about McCain on TV often. Controversy is great and will give the media an excuse to put him on.

    Of course Barr has plenty of ‘splaining to do, too, which should be good controversy to keep the media interested.

    As some have suggested above, Libertarians very well may nominate Ruwart, and I might be one of those voting for her.

    I’ll be watching Ruwart, Root, and Barr real closely from now until the convention to make up my mind. And if all three of them improve as a result of the competitiveness of this race, that’s a win-win-win.

  50. Yank Says:

    Kim Kardashian is divorced from husband, R&B producer, Damon Thomas. Root is still married but who knows what might happen if he gets on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” Barr’s divorced twice. Gravel once.
    Smith has never been married but that’s because she was in Playboy like Kim.

  51. Yank Says:

    Let’s endorse Kim Kardashian’s ass and see who takes it in Denver. Takes that ass with both hands. Stick a flag in that ass and salute. Let Wayne Allyn Root take those odds on that ass.

  52. Yank Says:

    Wayne Allyn Root says “Without me in the race, Kim Kardashian’s ass is the odds on favorite at 3 to 1.” Any takers? Anyone going to take that ass?

  53. Yank Says:

    Asshounds on the lnc talked about in a behind closed doors session about putting Kim Kardashian’s ass as a line item in the budget. It was going under ass access but ballot access won out.

    Rdpth is an assman but he’s got his priorities.

  54. Yank Says:

    And by behind closed doors, talking backdoor. Back door session on Kim Kardashian’s ass. George Phillies doesn’t know where it’s at.

  55. Steve LaBianca Says:

    No question, Bob Barr is slick. However, before we “anoint” former congressman Barr as the standard bearer for the LP by nominating him for the presidency here are a few things to consider:

    1-Is the overriding position of federalism which Barr is posturing himself with, the message which Libertarians want to send? Is this really a federal vs. state government issue? Or, is a Libertarian presidential campaign more, or something else than simply “federalism”?

    2-Though consequentialist libertarian positions are very important, is Barr prepared to properly defend, the libertarian fundamental viewpoint (beyond his packaged “libertarians want to maximize liberty”) that the individual is sovereign, initiation of force, especially from government should be forbidden and is counter to the fundamental right to liberty, and the government, by right and responsibility should not seek to police and adjudicate all disputes in the world?

    In essence, though congressman Barr has enjoyed some amount of time in the spotlight, can he hold under pressure to be “libertarian” when the questions get tougher? I know that Mary Ruwart can, because she lives and breathes a life and personal philosophy of libertarianism. She cannot be tripped up. Can the same be said for Barr? Hopefully, we will see.

    Good segment though, as he is helping the libertarian cause (I commend him for that) . . . so far.

  56. Robert Capozzi Says:

    more confirmation from what I could see.

    Barr/Gravel => next level.

    Other choices => Badnarik +/-.

    You decide.

  57. NewFederalist Says:

    Yank… well just what can one say? :)

  58. Mark Landon Says:

    The very notion that a huckster like Root could run in the same league as a Harry Browne or even a John Hospers is nonsense. I have complied a list of Root’s Republican statements he has made since becoming a Libertarian in 1999 at my website.

  59. Mr. Anon Says:

    Has Bob Barr mentioned his votes for the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind yet?

  60. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Again, this is going to come down to what the delegates want. There are at least (in my estimation) 250+ delegates who will vote for Ruwart all the way, and when people start dropping off in subsequent ballots, the last one standing will likely be Barr or Ruwart. W.A.R. will not survive more than 3 ballots (if that). If this scenario is correct, it will come down to whether or not the perception of # of votes is the most important result regardless, or the # of votes for a “true” libertarian” candidate is the best outcome. I know where I stand . . . watered down libertarianism is a short term vote getting ploy. I do hope that Barr considers instead, a run in 2012. this will give him time to “digest” and embrace libertarianism more fully.

  61. Andrew Murphy Says:

    Anon, I don’t like Bob Barr but he has addressed the Patriot Act issue, he claims he was wrong. However your right on the other point, he has not mention the No Child vote nor has he explained his 100 percent voting approval record with the Christian Coalition(CC) while in Congress. Among other things it would be almost impossible to get that kind of approval rating from the CC unless one is very pro-Israel. I say that because most Ron Paul supporters are very critical of aid to Israel and the influence of the Religious Right’s sway on that issue in Washington. It is interesting that the Paulites have not demanded Barr to explain this. Probably because they will not like the answer and they are too busy claiming Barr is the continuation of Ron Paul(mostly by projection on their part)

  62. David F. Nolan Says:

    OK, folks, at this point ANY prediction of who will win the LP nomination is simply speculation. The nominee will be chosen by 800-1.000 delegates in Denver, and not by the 23 people who post on this blog.

    My take is that Root and Barr will slug it out for the “right leaning” support, and I would not bet heavily who’s gonna win. Barr has better credentials, but a lot of baggage: Fair Tax, Drug War, Barr Amendment, DOMA, and various past personal transgressions. Root comes across too much like a huckster, and can’t seem to get past his neocon obsession with “Islamo Fascism.” So it could go either way.

    And whichever of them triumphs in the preliminary bout will have to take on a consistently libertarian opponent (probably Ruwart or Kubby) for the nomination on the final ballot.

    That’s my best guess as of 4/12/2008. Pure speculation, just like all the previous comments.

  63. Andrew Murphy Says:

    David Nolan, just for the record, Islamofascism is not a neoconservative term. It was first used by Dr. Mailse Rutlven in the British newspaper, The Independent in 1990. Rutlven is a professor Islamic studies at the University of Aberden. He is politically on the Left in Britain

  64. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I said “it will come down to whether or not the perception of # of votes is the most important result regardless, or the # of votes for a “true” Ilibertarian” candidate is the best outcome.”

    Robert Capozzi Says:
    April 12th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    Barr/Gravel => next level.

    It seems obviousl that Mr. Capozzi thinks the “next level is “# of votes regardless”. This is the belief that votes is all that matters, because the one with the most votes gets to “rule”. Would Barr or Gravel be better than Hillobama or Mc”war”ain as president? Obviously, yes. However, even if Barr or Gravel, as our nominee could garner 1 to 2 million votes, does this even give the LP a seat at the table? Hardly. 5% to 15% for Ron Paul left him out in the cold. Such a vote count will only serve to make LPers feel better about finally breaking the 1 million vote “ceiling”.

    I believe that our best strategy is still (though most people are impatient for this) running the best “Libertarian” candidate while we nurture and cultivate the libertarian seeds to take root. It is still going to take time . . . accept that, and we’ll be able to put our best foot forward - Mary Ruwart.

  65. bump Says:

    Barr really voted for No Child Left Behind? If so it definitely goes against the Federalism he has been talking up lately. I am having 2nd thoughts about wanting him to get the nomination.

  66. G.E. Says:

    Jeff - My definition of “easily” is that it’s a sure thing. But it won’t take too many ballots. If more than 50% of the delegates are willing to nominate a newcoming non-libertarian, then there is no point in the party existing. There is a hoopla over restoring the old platform and the non-libertarian Reform Caucus has pretty much ceased to exist. Do you really think these people who want to restore the platform are going to nominate someone who doesn’t remotely endorse the platform; not even the statement of principles? No way.

    Tom - Are you suggesting she will be carried away with the nomination? Will she ride a segue? I see her walking away with it.

  67. G.E. Says:

    Politically on the “left” in Brittain, like the Labor Party? Like the neocons aren’t on the Left here in the U.S.? Come on!

  68. Andrew Murphy Says:

    G.E., I should have said that the professor is a secularist. I am not sure which party he belongs to in the UK. Not sure if he is political, the Independent is not a Labour or Tory paper, last time I was in the UK they were editorially sympathic to the LIberal Democrats who have been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

  69. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Thomas L. Knapp Says:
    April 12th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    Root’s”already desperate—telling bizarre lies in answer to difficult questions,”

    . . . gee I remember posting, on this very website that Root lied about winning all the categories in the Libertarian Lists survey, an obvious untrue statement, but is a lie because Root is no dummy . . . he knows what he is saying and doing and this was no “he misspoke” gafffe like McCain is known to do. Couple that with his conversions, his back and forth stance on Iraq and war on terrorism, and the person that is Wayne Allyn Root becomes clear.

    No, W.A.R. is not to be trusted . . . he will say anything to get what he wants. The fact that he wants government to be minimized in many areas is all good, but lying in not going to wash with Libertarians.

  70. Mike Gillis Says:

    My prediction is that the nomination will come down to Root vs. “Not Root” - which is very likely to be Bob Barr.

    I imagine as more classically libertarian and left-libertarian candidates are eliminated, that alot of folks will generally align themselves behind the candidate in the final round that isn’t Root.

    I predict that this will be Bob Barr and that Barr will hold a growing lead in each round of voting, as many supporters of eliminated or withdrawn candidates will largely side against Root.

  71. Andrew Murphy Says:

    Steve, So Bob Barr is a not a liar?? The same man who was militantly pro-life in Congress but in his first divorce, his 1st wife alledged in a affidavit that he pressured her to get an abortion in 1983. To me this is far worse then political position Root has re-positioned himself on(No I am not a Root supporter….FYI

  72. Steve LaBianca Says:
    1. Mark Landon Says:
      April 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    The very notion that a huckster like Root could run in the same league as a Harry Browne or even a John Hospers is nonsense. I have complied a list of Root’s Republican statements he has made since becoming a Libertarian in 1999 at my website.

    I was not aware that W.A.R. became “a Libertarian in 1999”. He joined the LP, to my knowledge last year. True enough, Root is not in Harry Browne’s league . . . few people are. Now Mary Ruwart . . . possibly.

  73. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Andrew Murphy Says:
    April 12th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    Steve, So Bob Barr is a not a liar??

    Frankly, Andrew, I don’t know. Some would say that Barr’s “conversion” is disingenuous. Some have said that Barr’s staunch drug warrior status in congress disqualifies him to be a libertarian. For me, the jury is still out on Barr. However, I am not going to make a judgment on an affidavit from his first wife. Such stories, however when they become commonplace do seem to shed light on the man’s character. But I will withhold personal judgment for now.

  74. Yank Says:

    What is Mary Ruwart’s ass like?

  75. Andrew Murphy Says:

    The abortion allegation gets down to public policy. Barr was a hardcore pro-lifer in Congress.

  76. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Laura Says:
    April 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    BTW, is it true that there are only 250,000 members in the LP? Awful low isn’t it? Why aren’t there more members?

    Actually Laura, there are quite a few less than that. Though I am not privy to the LP membership rolls, my guess is that there are about 14 to 18 thousand or so LP members. What you are referring to is the number of “registered” Libertarians in the country. Remember, only a handful of states allow voters to register for parties other than Democrat or Republican. I think that the figure of 250,000 registered Libertarians in the country is reasonably accurate. Now how many WOULD register Libertarian if the state they register in allowed it is another question. My guess is it would be about 1/2 million.

  77. Mike Gillis Says:

    To put it into context, Barr’s conversion on issues happened gradually over a number of years, where he actively lobbied against his previous positions and before he’d decided to run for president.

    Root began campaigning with non-libertarian, interventionist, pro-war positions on a number of issues and changed virtually overnight on them after he’d already been running for president and saw the resistance the positions had with the Libertarian base.

    Barr’s conversions could indeed be self-serving, but they seem far more legitimate and believeable than Root’s, which just reek of Romney-esque opportunism.

  78. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Mike Gillis, what you said was well put. I said that for me, the jury was still out on Barr. With W.A.R. however, I am convinced that he is nothing more than a war-mongering Republican, with (at best) some libertarian leanings. W.A.R. is smart though, and knows how to talk his way out of things with reasonable success. I, however, do not trust him. I trust him like I do the proverbial new-car salesman. Smooth talk with little substance (which is what W.A.R. is) is not what I want, and I hope that most of the delegates in Denver see it the same way.

  79. Fred C. Says:

    Andrew, you’re getting to public policy based on something that allegedly occured years before he took the position he’s known for, and coming from a presumably disgruntled ex, filtered through Larry Flynt’s untransparent save-Bill-by-tearing-down-his-opponents campaign, and now so tattered by the rumor-mill that we can’t even get the allegation straight.

  80. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Oops, I meant “used-car salesman”. though I’m not sure how much difference there is!

  81. Andrew Murphy Says:

    Steve, the probelm with most car lots are the customers. They walk into a car dealership without knowing their credit score and tell the salemen, “I want that car and I don’t want to pay more then $xxx per month”. It is a license to get the shaft.

  82. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Mike Gillis, BTW what is the “voternader.org interest for you? Ralph Nader has limited appeal (but not NO appeal) to libertarians. Are you a libertarian, or something else, or you just don’t like or use labels?

  83. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Andrew Murphy Says:
    April 12th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Steve, the probelm with most car lots are the customers.

    Well, then the LP Denver convention should do their homework and not get shafted by supporting W.A.R. He is trying to sell us warmongering, libertarian lite,Republicanism in Libertarian clothing. Come on delegates, look closely and you shall see the truth about W.A.R.

  84. Andrew Murphy Says:

    Steve, don’t tell Justin Raimondo that Nader is not a libertarian. Remember he was the ringleader in 2004 for libertarians to vote for Nader. I still get a good laugh out of that. I wonder why since Nader is running again, why Raimondo is not backing him again?

  85. Wes Benedict Says:

    Looks like there’s going to be a LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RUMBLE IN THE MILE HIGH CONCRETE JUNGLE!

  86. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I support Nader in his view of war, drug policy and maybe his distrust of corporations. However, my distrust of corporations is essentially because governments “create” them, then grant them the privilege of limited liability, and corporate lobbyists get them additional special favors from government. Ralph Nader has trouble understanding the nature of the relationship between corporations and government. He wants to give government MORE power to control corporations, when he doesn’t realize that the corporation is a legal entity created through state and federal law in the first place. That’s good Ralph, make the legal maze even more convoluted! That way, do gooders like you and your “Public Citizen” can ride in on the White Horse to save us all from the greedy capitalists!

    I was not aware that Justin Raimondo was on Nader’s bandwagon in 2004. Andrew, do you have evidence of this?

  87. Dave Williams Says:
    1. Yank Says:
      April 12th, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    What is Mary Ruwart’s ass like?

    hahahahaa

  88. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “Barr really voted for No Child Left Behind? If so it definitely goes against the Federalism he has been talking up lately.”

    Actually, education still seems to be an exception to Barr’s “federalism” mantra—he made it clear as late as last October that he thinks education should remain a federal issue (or at least that he thinks that presidential candidates should be debating the policies of the Portland, Oregon school district).

  89. Brent Burk Says:

    Eric Dondero,

    Once again, your good ol’ southern charm. You talk big for such petty arguments, shall I drive from my home in San Antonio to Houston and get in your face? I wonder what you would do.

    And being in the military has nothing to do with being an ass. The two do not go hand-in-hand so please do not shame our military servicemen and women. As for me being in the military, well good chap you are right! I am a student - though my father is in the military, as were my two grandfathers. I have lived in North Dakota, Illinois (twice, actually), Okinawa, Maryland, Texas and California coming up this summer thanks to the good ol’ military. And as for my dad and granddads, they all have a level of respect for their fellow man that you certainly do not have.

    And, I have a question, since my father is in the military and he believes we should get out of Iraq, is he a girlyman? I mean, he likes sports, surely he can’t be! But he is, in your words, a leftest defeatist. No matter if he is a conservative, getting out of the middle east is unacceptable talk among military men. There goes free speech!

  90. Andrew Murphy Says:

    Steve, read his article “Old Right Nader” from 2004 published in Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine. Just do a Google search for Old Right Nader, and it should come right up

  91. Dave Williams Says:

    A few weeks ago I believe S.G. posted a thread asking everyones opinions about what the LP needed to do to move forward. Here’s part of my response…

    “The LP should spend time & money contrasting their differences with the other parties using all available media outlets. I watched Nader on C-SPAN the other night…I watch C-SPAN often…I don’t recall seeing anyone calling themselves a ‘Libertarian’ on…ever.”

    Barr on C-SPAN saying what he said in the first few minutes alone is a good thing for the LP. Everyone here knows I’m a WAR supporter, Barr is my second choice, Ruwart is third. Hell, I will vote for the LP nominee, whomever it may be (even Knapps boy).

    Many here at TPW seem to be missing the point. People make mistakes, and in hindsight they see the light, and they correct themselves. That’s just part of life, success can only come from mistakes. And champions do not dwell on mistakes, champions learn from their mistakes. Not everyone can be perfect like some of you LP purists…lol…so lighten the fuck up…

  92. Dave Williams Says:

    “Hell, I will vote for the LP nominee, whomever it may be (even Knapps boy).”

    Correction: I will not vote for Gravel.

  93. Yank Says:

    Will you vote for Kim Kardashian?

  94. Dave Williams Says:

    Dude,

    I’d eat the corn outta her shit…hahahhaa

  95. Stefan Says:

    Andrew Murphy: just for the record, it seems like the origin of the nonsensical word “Islamofascism” goes potentially back much further than you seem to believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism
    David Nolan is 100% correct in saying that the word is predominantly used by neocons. iin the US. He did not made any statement about the origin of the word. His analysis with everything (most in any case) is absolutely spot on IMHO. FYI: All/most libertarians are for stopping international financial aid to other countries, including your buddy Eric. This would be one way to return to the vision and policy of the founding fathers (no entangling alliances) and would also help significantly to not only help reducing the record 9T deficit, but also help to reduce antaganism from the ME countries especially towards the USA, leading to a safer US. Also: you do not have to give a country money in order to be “pro” the country. Israel is a first world country, and the country is frankly one of the last countries in the world that need financial aid!

  96. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Steve LaBianca: It seems obviousl that Mr. Capozzi thinks the “next level is “# of votes regardless”.

    Me: A higher vote total would be helpful, but, no Steve, there are other qualitative considerations. From what I’ve seen, Barr is FAR more credible and articulate than the rest of the field. That means he will get more coverage and be able to communicate with the general public far more effectively than the current field, previous L candidates, or even Paul.

    SL: Hardly. 5% to 15% for Ron Paul left him out in the cold. Such a vote count will only serve to make LPers feel better about finally breaking the 1 million vote “ceiling”.

    Me: Barr/Gravel isn’t a silver bullet. He won’t win, barring a miracle. By way of analogy, the LP is a double-A farm team in the world of politics. Barr/Gravel offers the LP a chance to move up to the triple A.

    If you wish to hold high the nonarchist banner, then I suggest Hogarth/Nolan. If you’re satisfied with 15K members, 300K votes, etc., while the State continues to grow, then Hogarth/Nolan makes perfect sense.

    I’m not satisfied with that, and I don’t believe that’s the best strategy for rolling back the State. I believe that the LP stands a chance at becoming relevant and influential in the Big Leagues in the next 10 years or so.

  97. Andrew Murphy Says:

    stefan,

    That link also states that the term also came about from Khalid Durán, another Islamic scholar. It is interesting that the phrase has it’s origions with two Islamic scholars, that should tell you something.

    To an extent your correct, I will be the first one to criticize the shame things the USA did during the Cold War. However, in the end, I prefer an America that replaces a Saddam Huessin then an America that coddles and financial supports him(like we did from 1979-1991)

  98. Eric Dondero Says:

    David Nolan condescendingly says that the LP Presidential Nominee will be chosen by the 800 to 1,000 delegates to the Convention “not by the 23 people who post on this Blog.”

    A look at the Site Meter for ThirdPartyWatch.com, which anyone can check, shows 700 to 800 average Unique Visitors to this site on a daily basis. That’s a pretty substantial number for a libertarian blog. Not Reason.com. But certainly not an obscure Blog that has little influence where only “23 people” participate.

  99. Eric Dondero Says:

    If Nolan is correct, and Wayne Root doesn’t have any grassroots support among regular Libertarian Party members, I wonder how it is he explains Root’s recent endorsements from the Chairman of the Chicago Libertarian Party, and the Vice-Chair of the Kansas LP?

    I’m not seeing any of the other LP contenders racking up such grassroots LP endorsements? Where’s Mary Ruwart’s List? Steve Kubby? We know Tom Knapp is supporting Kubby. But is there anybody else in LP ranks that have come forward to endorse him?

    Not that I’ve seen.

    And even if they have, it’s a testemonial to how pathetic his campaign is being run. He can’t even get out a press release like Root does on a regular basis, touting such endorsements?

    Ask yourself this question. Now that we’ve witnessed how the variouos Presidential campaigns have been run these past few months, who has the better campaign team and organization and skills?

    Steve Kubby, with his horribly produced videos, and lack of press releases, or Wayne Root who has been all over the media these past few weeks, and knows how to get a press release out and produce videos.

  100. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Bob,

    It’s rather below you to keep dragging the “if it isn’t Barr, it’s an anarchy next week ticket” canard across the screen. You’re obviously aware that it is a canard, or else you’d name the real candidates you’re trying to peg as “nonarchist” instead of substituting for them with the names of non-candidates.

    “Barr is FAR more credible and articulate than the rest of the field.”

    Credible with whom? And articulate in delivering what message?

    “That means he will get more coverage and be able to communicate with the general public far more effectively than the current field, previous L candidates, or even Paul.”

    And precisely WHAT would he communicate TO the general public?

    Form is great—but it’s supposed to follow function.

  101. Stefan Says:

    Mary Ruwart’s list of endorsements so far: http://www.votemary2008.com/endorsements
    Certain people seem to be blinded by their negative prejudgement, making them lazy to even look at the website of the candidate before making comments.

    Of course the LP’s candidate will only be chosen at the LNC convention, just as
    certain other parties only have presumtive nominees and the election will only happen during the conventions, and untill such time a lot can still happen.

  102. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    So Dondero, the Chicago LP Chair endorsed Root?

    I know several Los Angeles County LP officers who don’t like Root, myself included. None has made “official” endorsements, for or against, because, I gather, they think it’s inappropriate.

    If you’re curious, I’m Vice Chair of the Westside/L.A. LP, and Director of Communications (and former Vice Chair) of the L.A. County LP. I haven’t made any “official” endorsements either, though I’ve made clear where my sentiments lie.

    So there’s some “grassroots” opposition to Root here in Los Angeles.

  103. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Mr. Capozzi:

    I don’t doubt that you believe that “other qualitative considerations” are important. My question though, in advancing liberty via the LP, where do you ordinally rank such qualitative considerations with the purely quantitative measurement of votes? Obviously, I don’t mean that you’d welcome John McCain as the LP nominee to just get votes “regardless”. I am sure that you do put some value on an LP candidate passing some sort of “smell” test before you would say you support that candidate. I just think that your threshold for accepting a candidate based upon some “purity test” is way lower than mine.

    Folks who are active in the LRC, like yourself Mr. Capozzi, tend to want to not be so forthcoming about the fundamental basis which makes libertarianism what it is (unique), and to many people, difficult to understand.

    This lack of understanding is addressed by the LRC supporters as essentially, we need to “dumb down the libertarian message so the average voter can understand it and support it”. Yes, that IS a strategy . . . a different strategy than hasn’t been tried to any great extent before. I believe however, that it won’t work to advance liberty. It WILL probably get us a few more votes. Can Barr or Gravel or someone with higher name recognition greater than say 10% get 1 to 2 million votes? It’s possible, maybe even likely. In my view, the tradeoff to get that level of voter support at the polls on election day is a bad tradeoff, with a candidate like Barr or Gravel. If a Harry Browne in past years, or Mary Ruwart this year had or can get that many votes, I would say BRAVO because those voters would have actually voted for a genuine libertarian message. With Barr, they would likely be voting for “federalism”, not a bad thing, but not necessarily libertarian, and with Gravel, since there are strong elements of “direct democracy” and more government control of health care, something else, but certainly not libertarianism. These candidates in my assessment would pass the “smell” test for you. They don’t for me, though Barr may come around at some point. He’s not there now, though.

    Please don’t get me wrong. I am a firm believer that doing the same thing over and over expecting a different “result is the definition of insanity. However, as Tom Knapp has suggested, catering to the “conservative” side of libertarianism could easily be classified as “insanity”. The rise of the Constitution Party is indicative that it meets such disenchanted voters needs better than the LP does.

    We all want the LP to succeed. I just disagree that the strategy which will advance liberty through the LP, advocated by the LRC will do little in actually advancing liberty. It will likely get some more votes, and it may even convert a few “libertarian lite” voters to become more fundamentally libertarian in their outlook. But the “libertarian lite” strategy is not differentiated enough from the major parties (Republican especially) that it will lure many people over, when such people have the chance to “vote for someone who actually has a chance of winning”, in their mind.

    No, the best strategy is still, IMHO to do a better job at educating, including LIBERTARIANS in the LP, and using the best persuasive techniques (Michael Cloud’s for one) and wait for the seedling to take root and grow into strong fundamentally sound libertarian supporters. This takes even more patience. Patience which I believe that many LRC supporters don’t have.

    The Republicans and Democrats are becoming ever more statist. I don’t think the LP should move in the same direction just because they are. I am much more comfortable with the LP as the “vanguard” party, than one which is “dumbed down” to meet the ignorant voters. Ignorance = “needs educating”. That’s a large part of my “strategy”.

  104. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Steve,

    You write:

    “However, as Tom Knapp has suggested, catering to the ‘conservative’ side of libertarianism could easily be classified as ‘insanity.’”

    I’m not that worried about catering to “the conservative side of libertarianism,” although I think we’d do better to restore some balance in that respect. As a party at the presidential level, we have catered pretty much exclusively to the “conservative side of libertarianism” since 1988, and we’ve pretty much taken that as far as it’s possible to go. It’s time to reach out more forcefully to the left constituencies that we’ve been neglecting since 1980.

    What worries me is that we’re now edging over into catering to “the kinda sorta maybe a little bit libertarian side of conservatism,” not “the conservative side of libertarianism.”

    I don’t mind being a member of a libertarian party that reaches out to conservatives. I have no interest in being a member of a conservative party.

  105. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Tom,

    After I wrote that, I realized that it could me misunderstood as, you Tom, are saying it is “insanity”. I meant to say that you believed that we are working (catering) to the conservative side, and neglecting the other sides. I am the one who is classifying this as “insanity”. Sorry for the mischaracterization.

  106. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Steve,

    I subscribe to the definition of “insanity” that goes “doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results.” In that respect, your characterization of my opinion is not inaccurate.

    The LP has arguably leaned anywhere from “right” to “hard right” in its presidential nomination for each of the last five election cycles—and in none of those five cycles has it come close to matching the performance of its “left” presidential campaign in 1980.

    Yes, there are other factors (including money) that have explanatory value, but it’s worth considering the possibility that Clark’s “left” orientation played at least some part in his performance.

  107. dodsworth Says:

    I was supportive of Barr but his recents comment on “narco-terrorism” in Latin America and support for war on drugs at the state level have pushed me into the anti-Barr camp. I am all for states rights but the LP simply cannot nominate a candidate who openly state laws for drug prohibition. In doing so, the LP would completely any claim to our party being the party of freedom. On the other hand, it also can’t nominate a simplistic pro-war candidate like Root. A real dilemma.

  108. David F. Nolan Says:

    Dondero, I did not say that Root lacks grassroots support. On the contrary, I said I thought that he and Barr would compete for the “right-leaning” delegates, with the victor facing off against Ruwart or Kubby. Get your facts straight!

  109. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “A look at the Site Meter for ThirdPartyWatch.com, which anyone can check, shows 700 to 800 average Unique Visitors to this site on a daily basis.”

    Sitemeter currently shows an average of 2,224 visits per day for an average of 6,641 pages views per day. Internal metering (the stuff one can access through CPanel) is higher, because of the way that Sitemeter is set up.

  110. Steve LaBianca Says:

    dodsworth Says:
    April 13th, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    I was supportive of Barr but his recents comment on “narco-terrorism” in Latin America and support for war on drugs at the state level have pushed me into the anti-Barr camp. I am all for states rights but the LP simply cannot nominate a candidate who openly state laws for drug prohibition. In doing so, the LP would completely any claim to our party being the party of freedom. On the other hand, it also can’t nominate a simplistic pro-war candidate like Root. A real dilemma.

    dodsworth, I have two comments . . . first, I said in a previous post that Barr’s “federalism” theme is not a bad thing (I am for local control, the most local being the individual), but not necessarily libertarian (in Barr’s case, a few of his positions are NOT libertarian, even though he is for federalism) . . .

    and second, if you are looking for a “real” libertarian candidate, Mary Ruwart is the one (Kubby was the one, but has faded since Ruwart’s entrance into the contest) to support. She is Libertarian on EVERYTHING!

    Check out www.votemary.com and her personal site www.ruwart.com to learn more, if you feel so motivated.

    OK maybe a third comment . . . W.A.R. is a warmonger. He has tried to soften his stand on Iraq, war on terrorism etc. because he wasn’t playing well with Libertarians. So he changes his message. He is not real, and he lies. Mary Ruwart is THE REAL DEAL! Go back through history and check out her views for the last 20, even 25 years. THE REAL DEAL, no question!

  111. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Sorry that should be www.votemary2008.com. Sorry for the error

  112. Dave Williams Says:

    Welcome 2,224 Internet Surfers!

    I’m a Wayne Allyn Root supporter for POTUS. Anyone surfing this site who is unfamiliar with WAR and who would like to know more about him can go to his website at www.rootforamerica.com

    I’d highly recommend watching the 5 part video of WAR speaking at the CLC conference. I’d also recommend that you ignore the biased crap being spewed by certain anti-Root posters on this site who are clearly deranged.

    Have a great day!

  113. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Knappster and Steve L:

    Sure it’s canard…Hogarth/Nolan haven’t announced, after all. It IS the nonarchist dream ticket, though, no?

    The idea of Barr/Gravel addresses most of your and my concerns, but not all of them, as I see it.

    Both flunk the purity test, but in different ways. I happen to think they’re both pretty OK, they ain’t Jesus/Buddha. Both are dead and unavalable.

    They are actors auditioning for a part. For this particular stage,we probably can’t do better, all things considered.

  114. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Robert Capozzi Says:
    April 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    Knappster and Steve L:

    Sure it’s canard…Hogarth/Nolan haven’t announced, after all. It IS the nonarchist dream ticket, though, no?

    The idea of Barr/Gravel addresses most of your and my concerns, but not all of them, as I see it.

    I’ve never met Susan Hogarth, though I have corresponded with her. I’ve met David Nolan twice, but don’t think he is an anarchist. Susan is. No, not a dream ticket.

    Barr/Gravel addresses most of my concerns? Now I’m confused, but that was your intention, wasn’t it? As Michael Cloud so succinctly put it, getting your “opposition” confused and off guard has a great disarming effect. Sorry, Bob, it doesn’t work with me.

    Maybe Barr/Gravel is the LRC’s dream ticket, but it sure ain’t mine.

  115. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Robert Capozzi,

    You should know by now that what seemingly is, really isn’t. In 2004, with both Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo battling it out, almost literally I might add, who snuck in to take the nomination? Well, you know the story, but unless the LRC has a whole lot of influence, this nominating convention is likely to go the same way. Badnarik, viewed as the “purist”, Nolan, viewed as the best rehearsed, and Russo, viewed as the best media grabber, who do you think has the inside shot? Justin Raimondo commented that by not nominating Russo, the LP shot itself in the foot. I imagine that’s what you’ll think if the LP doesn’t nominate Barr/Gravel.

    Like I say, unless this nominating convention has a whole different makeup from last nominating convention . . .

    And I’m sure that you’ll comment (and if not comment, you’ll think) “look where nominating Badnarik got the LP”. Actually 399K votes wasn’t all that bad, considering that Ralph Nader only got 500k+. RALPH NADER! Everybody knows who Ralph Nader is. Nader got 2.5 million voters 4 years earlier! I think Michael Badnarik took a bad rap for the vote total. Russo might have been lucky to get 500k himself. The LP shot itself in the foot my A*S!

  116. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Steve L.,

    The LRC doesn’t endorse candidates, Steve. I have not endorsed Barr/Gravel, but I’m intrigued by the idea. But if you don’t see that Barr and Gravel are orders of magnitude different than Russo and Nolan, then there’s really nothing for us to discuss.

    Good luck with your approach.

  117. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Steve,

    As far as I could tell, there wasn’t a “purist” in the 2004 race.

    Nolan was probably the closest, if for no other reason than that he had advisors who helped him tailor his talking points to the LP line quite well.

    Russo and Badnarik were both eccentric constitutionalists with strong libertarian streaks, but neither one of them was a “purist” by any stretch of the imagination.

    The 2004 nomination was decided on the basis of personality and internal party politics, not ideology.

  118. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Sure it’s canard … Hogarth/Nolan haven’t announced, after all. It IS the nonarchist dream ticket, though, no?”

    I’d have to think about that one, because I consider a “nonarchist ticket” a contradiction in terms and an improper use of the political process.

    “The idea of Barr/Gravel addresses most of your and my concerns, but not all of them, as I see it.”

    I had hope that a Barr candidacy would address my main concern. So far, it hasn’t.

    My main concern is that the Libertarian Party field a “lessarchist” candidate. I define a “lessarchist” candidate as one who vocally supports smaller government, period—not with exceptions, reservations or evasions. So far, Barr seems to be nothing but exceptions, reservations and evasions.

    Give me a selection of “lessarchist” candidates, and I’ll choose from among them on some subjective formula that takes into account how “lessarchist” each one is (and whether or not I believe that “lessarchy” is sincere or merely opportunistic), combined with that candidate’s ability to reach the voting public and gain its support. But the latter is useless without the former.

    I’ve said a lot less about Gravel than about Barr, and I guess that does beg an explanation.

    I don’t support Gravel, but I’ve seen no need to go after him, either—he’s definitely got an uphill fight for the nomination, whereas a week ago most Libertarians seemed to assume that the nomination was Barr’s for the asking.

    Furthermore, Gravel excels Barr in two respects.

    - Gravel has some very real libertarian accomplishments in office to brag on—the draft filibuster, the Pentagon Papers, etc. Barr’s record in Congress tended more toward the authoritarian.
    - To the extent that Gravel is not libertarian, he wears his positions openly and honestly on his sleeve. I can respect that, and Libertarians don’t have to wonder if he means what he says. If he was just telling us what he thinks we want to hear, he’d do what Barr is doing—go non-specific, obfuscate, distract, etc.

    If Barr and Gravel met qualification #1 (being thoroughgoing “lessarchists”), I’d support one or both of them enthusiastically for the nomination, because they’re obviously our best bets on qualification #2 (practical candidate attractiveness considerations like media access, name recognition, etc.).

    However, they don’t seem to meet qualification #1, so qualification #2 is stillborn. That’s my opinion. It may change on the basis of new evidence.

  119. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Bob C.

    Even if the LRC as an organization doesn’t “endorse”, my point was that LRC members and sympathizers would endorse Barr/Gravel, or some combination of either of them.

    As far as approach goes, the LRC approach will fail. It’s “approach” is trying to fix what isn’t broken. The strategy is either broken or lacking. The principles are fine, and should be embraced wholly. Wholesale platform change isn’t the answer either . . . the principles documents (platform) need some trimming for clarity and redundancy, but that was all that was needed in ‘06, and returning to ‘04 is a viable option now. The Alicia Mattson led rewrite of the platform is not.

  120. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Mr. Knapp,

    Badnarik’s specific political stance is constitutionalism, but so was Harry Browne’s. Their libertarianism was quite clearly pure or nearly so, in my estimation. Sure Browne make a few mistakes toying with the idea of a sales or VAT replacement tax for the income tax, etc, but by and large, these candidates were viewed as holding strong to libertarian principles.

    True, Gary Nolan was being coached by several people, but came across as too rehearsed, too canned; again IMHO.

  121. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Steve,

    You write:

    “Badnarik’s specific political stance is constitutionalism, but so was Harry Browne’s.”

    Actually, Browne was an anarchist who made the appropriate nods toward constitutionalism, while my impression was that Badnarik was a constitutionalist who made the appropriate nods toward the ultra-minarchist/anarchist strains of libertarianism.

Leave a Reply