LP presidential candidates in the news

Here are some recent news stories about Libertarian presidential hopefuls that weren’t generated by Third Party Watch. I’m mixing some news and some opinion in this article.


Bob Barr at Newsmax:

Best quote: “Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr is seen as the Libertarian Party’s most likely presidential candidate — and he could wind up torpedoing John McCain’s White House hopes.”

Worst quote: “Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr is seen as the Libertarian Party’s most likely presidential candidate — and he could wind up torpedoing John McCain’s White House hopes.”

I personally have great distaste for spoiler arguments. If McCain doesn’t want his campaign torpedoed, he could start by reading and then adhering to the Constitution.

Nolan Chart on Mary Ruwart and Christine Smith:

Best quote: “I think this is the year the Libertarian Party ought to take the lead and nominate a woman to head the ticket. Two women have announced their candidacy for the Libertarian nomination. They are, in my personal opinion, the best two candidates in the race. I don’t think any libertarian can say of either of them ‘Not this woman’. ”

Bad quote: “She does not have Dr. Ruwart’s long record of service to the Libertarian Party, but she began her campaign for President earlier this year and has had great success.”

By what standard is “great success” measured?

Worse quote: “As an ideal, I would personally like to see both these candidates on the Libertarian Party national ticket this year, in either order. But the Party’s rules, for what seem to me good reasons, do not permit this.”

The writer should have some basic clue about what LP convention rules are before writing about them.

Desert Dispatch on Bob Barr:

Best quote: “After eight long years of the Bush Administration many conservatives and others are angry and even bitter about the direction the country is going, and if Bob Barr gets the Libertarian Party’s nomination, many on the ‘right’ will have the option of casting their votes for a candidate who supports traditional conservative values.”

Worst quote: “And with polls indicating that Barr is considered the frontrunner in a field that numbers about 10, and the candidate most likely to claim the Libertarian nomination next month at the convention in Denver, the Republicans may be faced with their own version of the Nader effect.”

Note: I’m the only one of whom I’m aware I know producing such polls, and the number of candidates is significantly higher than 10.

American Public Media on Mike Gravel (Mary Ruwart gets a bit part in this one):

Great quote: “And so the Democrats get into cahoots with General Electric and they cut me out of the debates,” he explains, remembering the campaign. “And the rest of the networks followed suit—and so I might as well just leave the party and go where I belong.”

Debatable quote: “Replacing a tax is not palatable to most Libertarians,” says Libertarian presidential candidate Mary Ruwart. She’s one of Gravel’s rivals for the nomination. She’s met Gravel, likes him, she just doesn’t think he’s a Libertarian.”

Ruwart may be correct in her former statement, but some people aren’t going to agree with the small-tentism of her latter statement.

Optimistic or delusional (you decide) quote about his ability to win the presidential election: “’Wait a second, where do you come off saying that?’ Gravel asks. ‘’Please. Why would you say that? If you’re an observer of politics—as I have been since I was 15—anything is possible in politics. So let’s not start by saying they won’t have it. I think I’ve got a good chance.’”

Townhall on Barr, Gravel and Kubby (with a bit part):

Good quote: “Both Barr and Gravel have served at high levels in American government, as major-party players. Both have joined the Libertarian Party. Both want to . . . make a statement.

I’ll let them make their own statements. I won’t interpret them for you at length. I will say that I know them both — Gravel fairly well — and like them. Barr seems to be a serious man; Gravel is seriously amusing.”

Not-so-good quote: “If you find this sort of thinking appalling, then you won’t be voting for Gravel or Barr — or Steve Kubby, the medical marijuana activist and LP insider out front in the race — when you go to the polls this November.”

Kubby is a nice guy and all, but I’d be very hesitant to qualify him as “out front in the race.”

Nolan Chart on Mary Ruwart:

I’d provide a direct link, but the article disappeared as soon as the Google News alert popped up.

Here’s one reference to the posting, though:

Ron Paul Supports Mary Ruwart for President
Nolan Chart LLC, VA - 15 hours ago
If the R3volution is to continue and liberty is the win,we need to unite behind the best candidate. by Fred “Ron Paul Supports Presidential Candidate Mary …

which leads to this 404 error page:

The page you have requested does not appear to reside on this website anymore. There are two possible reasons for this:
   1. It's possible that this article was removed
        by the columnist who wrote it.
   2. It's possible that it was removed by
        management for violation of our terms of use.
We apologize for any inconvenience

Being as the article was removed from the site, I can’t say where the blame lies on this one. It’s probably some error on the part of the good folks at Nolan Chart, because it’s hard to imagine Dr. Ruwart making some claim about or implying a currently non-existent endorsement.

The Online Wire on Wayne Allyn Root:

Could be a great one or a bad one, depending on one’s perspective: ‘Wayne Allyn Root, Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination has taken the tax issue above and beyond any other presidential candidate announcing his proposal to eliminate the income tax and all other sources of federal tax revenues, including payroll taxes, excise taxes and import duties.

‘Root explains that all Federal taxes would be replaced with only one tax: a tax on each state in proportion to its population, with each state deciding for itself how to raise its share of the money.

‘With no other source of revenue to the U.S. Government, the balance of power would be forever dramatically reversed back to the states (just as our Founding Fathers envisioned).’ Root says.”

Bob Barr (with Root playing a bit part) at Thoughts on Freedom:

Controversial quote: “While I still feel that John McCain is the best man to lead America, a strong showing by Bob would make a difference. I previously said this about Ron Paul however he was too eccentric to be taken seriously. Bob Barr is a mainstream libertarian and should be able to make a good showing.”

Bob Barr at Politico:

Good quote: “The Republicans’ other concern: A potential Libertarian Party candidacy by former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr.

‘You gotta worry about Barr,’ said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.). ”

Not so good quote: “[Grover] Norquist said that Barr would likely draw only a ‘small number’ of votes. But in ‘big elections, in close elections, small numbers matter,’ he said.”

Interesting Barr line: “For his part, Barr has all but announced that he’s running. He told Politico that he is ‘very actively considering that option’ and will decide in the coming weeks. When told that many in the conservative movement believe he will run, Barr replied coyly. ‘They are obviously very smart people you are talking with.’”

Perplexing quote: “RNC Deputy Chairman Frank Donatelli recently attended one of Norquist’s weekly Wednesday meetings to urge conservatives to ‘do everything they could to help the Republican nominee.’”

No matter how one may feel about conservatism, neither the RNC nor McCain have any reasonable claim to the use of that word anymore. I’ve been to plenty of Grover’s Wednesday meetings and they are predominantly filled with fiscal conservatives. By November, we’ll see just how many will flush their souls and principles down the toilet by supporting McCain and how many will choose the principled fork in the road by casting a vote for someone other than McCain.

61 Responses to “LP presidential candidates in the news”

  1. Jayhawk Mike Says:

    Stephen Gordon is showing his bias once again like he does about 9/11. He suggested that Babarr gets more media by putting his name at the top and bottom of the list and by saying that Steve Kubby and Wayne Root (I hate WAR too) played bit parts in those articles.

    Same thing for saying Cristine Smith isn’t a front runner. Stephen Gordon thinks that if he says that enough times, people will start to believe it.

    He’s super full of shit about the Ron Paul endorsement of Mary Ruwart. He was at the Heartland lp convention when Mary said that Ron Paul had endorsed her because he endorsed her New York Times bestselling book. Everybody knows that neither Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart tells lies.

    Third Party Watch is just a shill site being paid for by the neocons who ruin/run the Libertarian Party.

  2. Alex Peak Says:

    Third party candidates actually end up getting more people to vote Dem/Rep than otherwise would. People see the third party candidate, worry that he/she will spoil the race for the Establishment candidate, and decide to go out and vote for the Establishment candidate. So Barr’s entry into the race might actually help McCain beat Obama.

    The only success I’ve seen from Smith is her ability to get people to support her enough so as to donate to the party for ballot access.

    I don’t see anything small-tentist about pointing out that Gravel is a classical liberal with libertarian leanings, but not actually a libertarian.

    Gravel is being optomistic. He definitely has libertarian tendencies, and my libertarian friends do respect him, as do I. But he will definitely not get the nomination. Barry Hess doesn’t even have a website (unfortunately!), and I would say his chances are higher than Gravel’s.

    I would put Kubby in the second tier of candidates. Prior to Ruwart and Barr, I would have put hin in the top tier.

    It would definitely rock if he did endorse her. But he’s still trying to get delegates for his campaign, so I doubt he’ll be endorsing anyone any time soon.

    Wow, Root’s position on taxes is a great jump in the right direction! I’m impressed.

    I’m seriously starting to feel uncomfortable about Barr, from what he said in the campaign letter he sent out. I should explain this in more detail when I find the time.

    Alex

  3. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Jayhawk Mike Says:
    April 21st, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    (About Stephen Gordon)
    He’s super full of s**t about the Ron Paul endorsement of Mary Ruwart.

    Though I disagree with Mr. Gordon on his “choice” for the LP nomination, I don’t think he is a liar, so I would need to see evidence of this.

    and;

    Everybody knows that neither Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart tells lies.

    Mary has never to my knowledge said that Ron Paul has endorsed HER CANDIDACY for the LP presidential nomination. It IS true that Ron Paul endorsed her book, and endorsed her with a letter to GWB for FDA Commissioner, however.

    Also the Nolan chart website article referenced above is wrong about Mary Ruwart: “She began her campaign for President just last month after urging from her friends. Her first appearance as a candidate was at the LP’s Heartland Conference where she participated in the candidates’ debate”.

    Wrong, Mary first went to the LPVa hospitality gathering on March 28th, then she had an info table and gave two short speeches at the LP of Florida’s convention on March 29th. These two events were both before the Libertarian Heartland Conference, April 5th & 6th. The article also touted Christine’ Smith’s speaking ability as “She is also an outstanding public speaker.” Most people I’ve spoken with find her speaking style as angry, almost too forceful. I don’t question her dedication to libertarian principles however. She ought to hone her skills and run again in 2012.

  4. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Alex,

    I’d be interested in Barr’s campaign letter and your thoughts. Let me know.

    Mike,

    Christine has never been a frontrunner. She’s a newcomer to the party, a newcomer to libertarianism and a terrible speaker. She could have a great future in the party and I’m very much looking forward to seeing what she can accomplish. But, by her own admission, does not have a record of any libertarian activism (not that activism should be a litmus test, I’m just saying). Barr is a former Congressman who brings a lot of visibility to the party but unfortunately has been frustratingly vague on policy proposals.

  5. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    And this from the Columbus Dispatch a couple days ago:

    http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/04/19/t
    hird.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

    PEACE
    Steve

  6. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Alex Peak says, regarding W.A.R. and taxes “Wow, Root’s position on taxes is a great jump in the right direction! I’m impressed.”

    My take on this is W.A.R. has money and is paying for top notch handlers; and they are doing a great job of knowing how to do damage control on a failing candidacy . . . thus a tax proposal that has nothing in it for Libertarians to oppose. Some folks are going WAY overboard on how good it is IMHO.

    The problem potentially with his proposal is that unless you amend the constitution to prohibit EVERY other type of indirect tax at the federal level, the federal gov’t will likely end up levying all of them! BTW, indirect taxes which are excises, duties imposts, etc are perfectly lawful for the U.S. government to impose-See Article 1 section 8.

    Regarding Barr, I have my problems with his stand on many issues. . . many which he had held while in congress and is now trying to run away from. How genuine IS HIS conversion, much the same question as is relevant to ask about W.A.R.

  7. Joseph Marzullo Says:

    Alex Peak: what’s the difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism? Mary Ruwart will just stupid out there if she opposes all taxation. Do we want to move this party forward, or not?

  8. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “Everybody knows that neither Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart tells lies.”

    On the contrary. Ron Paul lied in 1996 when he admitted authorship of his newsletter’s racist and homophobic content and defended that content, or else he lied in 2007 when he denied authorship of, and denounced, the same content. Either way, there’s no getting around the fact that he’s a liar.

  9. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Marzullo:

    This is obviously up to debate, but I tend to view the distinction in the following manner:

    Libertarianism and classical liberalism, I would argue, overlap like a Venn diagramme. Libertarianism itself ranges from outright market anarchism to what we call minarchism. All minarchists are classical liberals, but not all classical liberals are minarchists.

    Why are not all classical liberals libertarians? Because not all classical liberals opposed slavery. Yet all libertarians, I would argue, oppose classical slavery.

    It is for this reason that I consider Walter Block, who considers himself a libertarian anarchist, neither a libertarian nor an anarchist. Because he believes that voluntary slavery contracts would be enforceable in a free society, I feel compelled to place him in the classical liberal section of the Venn diagramme that does not overlap with libertarianism. (I developed a detailed explanation for why libertarianism cannot condone voluntary slavery, but I have not yet had the opportunity to formulate it into essay form. The classical argument against voluntary slavery is provided by Murray Rothbard, who claims very simply that because one’s will and body are not alienable property, they are not things over which one’s control can be contracted away.)

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

  10. dodsworth Says:

    Ron Paul “lied” in 1996 out of a misguided feeling of obligation to take responsilbity for a newsletter released under his name. Politicians lie all the time but that one is relatively minor in comparison to the rest.

  11. Dave Williams Says:

    “I’ve been to plenty of Grover’s Wednesday meetings and they are predominantly filled with fiscal conservatives”

    Yes, from both major parties. Middle America, a coup may be fast approaching.

  12. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Dave, I don’t ever remember seeing a Democrat at Grover’s meeting. I’m sure that there must have been one or two, but I wasn’t there that day.

    A few Libertarians, but mostly Republican. Have you ever been at one of his meetings?

  13. Dave Williams Says:

    S.G.
    No, I’m not a DC ‘playa’, but I do follow his important work.

    http://www.atr.org/

    I caught his book release “Leave Us Alone” just last month on C-SPAN (of course, that’s not a regular Wed meet). A dem was there (at least he identified himself as one).

  14. Dave Williams Says:

    G.N. describing the LUAC;

    “My ideal citizen is the self-employed, homeschooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed-carry permit. Because that person doesn’t need the goddamn government for anything.”

    Awesome.

  15. Clean Belushi Says:

    Best quote: “After eight long years of the Bush Administration many conservatives and others are angry and even bitter about the direction the country is going, and if Bob Barr gets the Libertarian Party’s nomination, many on the ‘right’ will have the option of casting their votes for a candidate who supports traditional conservative values.”

    There is a party which exists for that purpose called the Constitution Party. The Libertarian Party should not become a vehicle for bitter traditional values conservatives.

  16. Clean Belushi Says:

    “I think this is the year the Libertarian Party ought to take the lead and nominate a woman to head the ticket. Two women have announced their candidacy for the Libertarian nomination. They are, in my personal opinion, the best two candidates in the race. I don’t think any libertarian can say of either of them ‘Not this woman’. ”

    Au contraire. I can say that easily about Christine Smith, and meeting her only confirmed my opinion. On the other hand, the author is correct both about Mary Ruwart and the general sentiment that it would be good to have some diversity on the ticket.

  17. Clean Belushi Says:

    Kubby is a nice guy and all, but I’d be very hesitant to qualify him as “out front in the race.”

    Unfortunately, right now, you are correct. Tom Knapp thinks this is just because Paul Jacob has not been following the LP race closely and is going by outdated information, but it may also have something to do with him having been on a different faction back when he was an LP insider in the 1980s.

  18. Dirty Belushi Says:

    Root “While I still feel that John McCain is the best man to lead America, ”

    WTF? Every time I start thinking Root is ready to represent libertarianism, he pops up with something like this, or Islamo-fascist “conservative porn” on Glenn Beck.

  19. Dirty Belushi Says:

    Never mind. SNAFU. That wasn’t Root after all.

  20. Clean Belushi Says:

    Stephen Gordon is showing his bias once again like he does about 9/11. He suggested that Babarr gets more media by putting his name at the top and bottom of the list and by saying that Steve Kubby and Wayne Root (I hate WAR too) played bit parts in those articles.

    Um, they did. And I’m a Kubby/Ruwart supporter.


    Same thing for saying Cristine Smith isn’t a front runner. Stephen Gordon thinks that if he says that enough times, people will start to believe it.

    He happens to be correct.


    He’s super full of shit about the Ron Paul endorsement of Mary Ruwart. He was at the Heartland lp convention when Mary said that Ron Paul had endorsed her because he endorsed her New York Times bestselling book. Everybody knows that neither Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart tells lies.

    Endorsing her book and endorsing her for president are two different things. Maybe he will, but he certainly has not yet, and I would be very surprised to see it happen before September.


    Third Party Watch is just a shill site being paid for by the neocons who ruin/run the Libertarian Party.

    Start your own. Or publicize it better if you already have.

  21. Clean Belushi Says:

    The article also touted Christine’ Smith’s speaking ability as “She is also an outstanding public speaker.” Most people I’ve spoken with find her speaking style as angry, almost too forceful. I don’t question her dedication to libertarian principles however. She ought to hone her skills and run again in 2012.

    I agree.

  22. Clean Belushi Says:

    Alex,

    I’d be interested in Barr’s campaign letter and your thoughts. Let me know.

    Me 2.

  23. Clean Belushi Says:

    Christine has never been a frontrunner. She’s a newcomer to the party, a newcomer to libertarianism and a terrible speaker. She could have a great future in the party and I’m very much looking forward to seeing what she can accomplish. But, by her own admission, does not have a record of any libertarian activism (not that activism should be a litmus test, I’m just saying). Barr is a former Congressman who brings a lot of visibility to the party but unfortunately has been frustratingly vague on policy proposals.

    Correct..

  24. Clean Belushi Says:

    How genuine IS HIS conversion, much the same question as is relevant to ask about W.A.R.

    Yep. I’ll try to listen to Doug Craig’s interview when I am on a sound-capable computer as well as do one myself.

  25. Clean Belushi Says:

    what’s the difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism?

    Libertarianism is based on the non-initiation of force principle. Classical liberalism tends in that direction, but has no such principle.


    Mary Ruwart will just (sound) stupid out there if she opposes all taxation.

    To some people. But Ron Paul advocates repealing taxes without replacing them and so did Harry Browne.


    Do we want to move this party forward, or not?

    To advocating taxes? No. Try another party for that. Please.

  26. Eric Dondero Says:

    No Stephen, if McCain doesn’t want his candidacy “torpedoed” by Bob Barr he should start by simply reaching out to the libertarian movement. He already is a Constitutionalist. It’s his snubbing of libertarians, the Libertarian Party, Republican Liberty Caucus, ect… that’s the problem.

    Why not a McCain visit to Cato and a meeting with Ed Crane? Why not McCain chummying up to Club for Growth? Why not an exclusive McCain interview granted to Reason Magazine? Why not a McCain appearance on “Libertarian Politics Live.”

    I don’t have a problem with McCain’s stances on the issues, mostly. The problem is he has dissed us libertarians.

  27. Clark Says:

    ...ah yes..Grover Norquist and “fiscal conservatives”...working their popcorn chutes about illion$ whilst worse than ignorant of the nature, origin of even one!..for years now..

    ...as an aside my poor state had it’s “LP convention” recently..i surely wanted to go..until i found the roster of speakers lined up by the apparent goddamned LP phonies, fools, etc. in my state..

    ...NEARLY EVERY STINKING ONE OF THESE SPEAKERS SELF-IDENTIFIES AS A STINKING “CONSERVATIVE!”..

    ..WHICH BEGS, “WHY WOULD A THOUGHTFUL, TRUE, LIBERTARIAN WANT TO WASTE A BEAUTIFUL DAY LISTENING TO A BUNCH OF STINKING “CONSERVATIVE” REPUBLICAN/REPUBLICRAT WINDBAGS PARROT THE SAME OLD, TIRED, THIN, BITTER GRUEL?

    ..as another aside..for you “conservative” cretins out there:

    ...my dictionary (not your stinking Ruse Limbaugh) defines ‘conservative’ as ‘tending to favor existing institutions’..’opposed to change’..

    ...yet your heroes appear to bitch nearly all the time about ‘the way things are’..

    ...in other words, you fools appear to bitch “about the way things are” while opposing any change..

    ..it would seem you “conservative” fools will forever have something about which to bitch…. ;o)

  28. daffy Says:

    Steven Gordon should change the name of this site to bob barr watch. It seems that this site is the defacto message board of the barr campaign. Bob Barr is only candidate getting positive press here. Gordon has turned into a shifty one trick pony.

  29. Roscoe Says:

    Dondero is right about McCain reaching out. I was dissed at the polls this morning by the GOP committeeman - who noticed my RP button - as a “renegade.” If libertarians- the Rodney Dangerfields of the Party - are being kicked out of the GOP tent, then let’s spoil the McCain inauguration.

  30. Steve LaBianca Says:
    1. Joseph Marzullo Says:
      April 21st, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Mary Ruwart will just stupid out there if she opposes all taxation. Do we want to move this party forward, or not?

    Let’s see, the non initiation of force principle is the defining principle of the libertarian political philosophy. If anyone can disprove that taxation is “initiation of force”, then I’ll “eat my hat”.

    So, Mr. Marzullo, if opposition to all taxes is stupid, then you are saying that libertarianism is “stupid” by definition. Thus you wouldn’t be libertarian . . . pretty simple, huh?

    Now, if you want to talk about “strategy”, and that ALL taxation isn’t going to be abolished in one week, we can talk about a STRATEGY which fits this mold of reducing taxation with the GOAL of eliminating all taxes (coercion). But make no mistake about; opposing ALL taxation IS Libertarian.

  31. Brian Miller Says:

    Ron Paul “lied” in 1996 out of a misguided feeling of obligation to take responsilbity for a newsletter released under his name.

    LOL! How “noble” of him.

    Too bad he never apologized to the various groups he pigeonholed into his far-right rants that he either lied about not writing or lied about writing, depending on when one thinks he was actually lying about it.

  32. Steve Dasbach Says:

    While Root isn’t my first (or even second) choice for the nomination, he’s got a good interim proposal on taxes. Put that into effect and instead of 50 governors and state legislatures coming to Washington with a tin cup begging for money, you’ll see 50 governors and state legislators all pressuring Congress to cut spending.

    As long as government exercises power, that power should be as decentralized as possible. Root’s proposal would be a good first step in that direction—much better IMHO than replacing the income tax with a sales tax (e.g. Fair Tax).

  33. Trent Hill Says:

    “No Stephen, if McCain doesn’t want his candidacy “torpedoed” by Bob Barr he should start by simply reaching out to the libertarian movement. He already is a Constitutionalist. It’s his snubbing of libertarians, the Libertarian Party, Republican Liberty Caucus, ect… that’s the problem.”

    AHAHAHA. Constitutionalist! AHAHAHAHAH. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAA.

    Eric—your great. I was having such a shitty day before you said that…

    Whew…hilarious.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    That’s what it always comes back to for Eric—not the issues, not even whether it’s possible to actually get something perhaps imperfect but worthwhile done, but who’s hanging out with whom, who said what about whom, whether or not a candidate looks like he might appoint a cabinet official who once happened to drive past a building in which the local LP had recently met.

    At present, the most corrupt administration since Grant’s, the least legitimate since Hayes’s, and the most stupidly and ineffectually warlike since at least LBJ’s and more likely Teddy Roosevelt’s, sits in the White House … but since a former Colorado LP chair got appointed to handle the duty of carrying brown bags of cash back and forth between Jack Abramoff and the Oval Office, that makes said administration “libertarian.”

  35. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Steve Dasbach Says:
    April 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 am

    “While Root isn’t my first (or even second) choice for the nomination, he’s got a good interim proposal on taxes.”

    I agree it is an OK proposal, but just like the (un)Fair Tax, it is a NEW, or at least untapped “tax well” at this point, and just like the (un)Fair Tax, it is very likely to supplement the existing taxes (indirect-excise, duties, imposts, etc) which if not by constitutional amendment, eliminated, is likely to bring the level of taxation to that which rivals current levels.

    Additionally, and I plead ignorance on this with this plan, but what role do the states have in determining the LEVEL of their tax payment to the federal government? That is, can the feds just spend say $3.1 trillion unilaterally, and then present a bill to say, Virginia for its proportion of (somewhere around) $68 billion? Or do the ‘states” have to just rely on their “representatives” to curb spending? If that is the case, then the 19th(? 18th maybe) amendment (popular election of Senators) would need to be repealed as well. I would also like to see the House representation brought back to the representation level at the time of the founding. Today there are nearly 700,000 people per House member. What was it, 30,000 in 1789? Didn’t a constitutional amendment “freeze” the number of House districts?

    If this is the case, then it isn’t much better than what we have now. The issue (with regard to government specifically), fundamentally is SPENDING, and taxes is the vehicle to fund government spending. If someone has specifics about this, I am all ears.

    BTW, the fact that spending is the fundamental government issue, ZERO taxation would still be a fundamental “libertarian” position, as it would likely force the federal government to collapse or at least be a shell of its former “self” (not a bad thing IMHO!).

    (I also don’t believe that a fundamental funding mechanism of the U.S. gov’t since it’s constitutional inception, indirect taxes will EVER be eliminated until voters widely accept that the fed gov’t shouldn’t tax, period)

  36. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I said,

    “I would also like to see the House representation brought back to the representation level at the time of the founding. Today there are nearly 700,000 people per House member. What was it, 30,000 in 1789? Didn’t a constitutional amendment “freeze” the number of House districts?”

    That would amount to a house of 10,000 members. I’d tend to believe that it would be very tougher to get “consensus” on a lot of things with that many members. This is not to say that more representatives becomes closer to the constituents as well. Excellent (interim) idea, Mr. LaBianca if I say so myself!

  37. Steve LaBianca Says:

    “very tougher” . . . LOL; how about very tough or much tougher. Sorry.

  38. Eric Rowe Says:

    Dondero,
    Could you explain why you call McCain a “constitutionalist?” Does he oppose the existence of federal programs that the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government (per the 10th amendment)? If, which ones does he want to get rid of? I haven’t heard him name any. And didn’t he defend McCain-Feingold by saying that it’s worth it to limit freedom of political speech to “clean up” politics? From everything I can tell he’s a typical liberal Republican who sees the Constitution as a barrier to his goals that he needs to get around not by amending it, but by twisting it, hunting down legal loopholes, ignoring it, or outright opposing it. I’m inclined to laugh along with Trent. But I have to assume you must have had some kind of reason for using that label. What is it?

  39. Steve LaBianca Says:

    How about the constitutionality of undeclared wars? Does McCain’s “constitutionalism” make him rescind his support for the Iraq war, because it wasn’t constitutionally authorized?

  40. Ruwarchy! Says:

    10 Reasons The Libertarian Party Needs Mary Ruwart because:

    1)She’s an anarchist, not a statist like most of the LP presidential candidates.
    2)She’s not afraid to associate with people who don’t believe the government version of 9/11.
    3)She believes all drugs should be decriminalized, not just medical marijuana.
    4)She believes all taxes are theft. She would eliminate them all so we would no longer have to pay for forceful government at any level.
    5)She has never been one of the jack-booted thugs who joined the military or the CIA.
    6)She’s a Washington outsider and would never be a Washington insider.
    7)She’s been endorsed by Susan Hogarth and Melinda Pillsbury Foster.
    8)Mary was never a neo-con Republican.
    9)She has been endorsed by Ron Paul.
    10)Mary has called all Republicans and Democrats immoral. She won’t cater to them, but only work with real Libertarians.

    13 Reasons Liberty Lovers needs Mary Ruwart because:

    1)She can explain to Americans why we should repeal all drug laws. Only Mary is a skilled enough communicator to overcome arguments about having laws that prevent children from being able to legally purchase the drug of their choice.
    2)She’s the only one who can explain why we need to get rid of all age of consent laws. Imagine Mary on Sean Hannity being able to explain the true libertarian position on issues like this.
    3)America needs to know that we need to leave Iraq as quickly as possible, leaving all of our equipment behind. This way, they can sell the food and equipment to help rebuild what we broke.
    4)Mary is the only LP presidential candidate who can appeal to the left and the middle. She will get more media because of her pure views than any of the other candidates.
    5)She would renege on payments of the national debt. This shouldn’t come out of our pockets, but we should make the Congressmen and Presidents who voted for our debt pay it out of their own pockets.
    6)Mary would eliminate tyrannical police departments and replace them with private police forces.
    7)With Mary, the colonization of space would be handled by the free market.
    8)Mary is for peace. Most of the other candidates are for war.
    9)Mary would allow for children to enter the work force again so America could start a new free market revolution which will exceed the greatness of the Industrial Revolution.
    10)Mary would require that all criminals pay restitution, even murderers. This way, we can empty our prisons.
    11) Mary has never been on the NRA board because she believes in the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms applies to machine guns, tanks, hand grenades, artillery. Mary says a Libertarian Court would be able to stop people from having atomic bombs in their basement.
    12)Mary would have no border checks so we could fight terrorists on our private property with our private weapons.
    13)Mary would make sure that all roads are privately owned. None of the other statist presidential candidates would do that.

    Find out more at Ruwarchy.com!!

  41. DebbieKat Says:

    @Ruwarchy! - Wow. Why is child labor a good thing? Shouldn’t they be getting an education at that age?

  42. Ruwarchy! Says:

    Children shouldn’t be forced into government schools. Compulsory education laws are slavery.

    Children used to be free to work in the fields and factories. Today, they could work at fast food counters and factories and reduce the cost of labor.

    Everybody doesn’t need to go to college.

    Mary Ruwart would fix all of this.

  43. DebbieKat Says:

    No, everyone doesn’t need to go to college, but using children as cheap labor isn’t in their best interest. I’m not saying we should force kids to go to government schools, but I think child labor is wrong. It’s exploitative.

  44. Dave Williams Says:

    Unlike Binaca (Ruwarchy) & Krapp (Clean/Dirty Belushi & a whole bunch mo), I do not feel the need to hide behind an alias. I’ll just lay out what came to my mind…

    Reasons the LP needs/does not need Mary Ruwart:

    1)She’s a hot assed lesbian anarchist, not a statist like most of the LP presidential candidates, and she’ll go down on Kim Kardashian.

    2)She’s not afraid to slob the cocks of wacko’s like Binaca who don’t believe the government version of 9/11.

    3)She believes all taxes are theft, and would much rather voluntarily give up the ass in payment.

    4)She has never been one of the jack-booted thugs who joined the military or the CIA, but she did sleep at a ‘Holiday Inn Express’ once. So she can handle the 0300 hour red phone call buddy…

    5)She’s been endorsed by Susan Hogarth and Melinda Pillsbury Foster. Big fucking deal, would they go down on Kim Kardashian?

    6)Mary was never a neo-con Republican, but she’s been endorsed by Ron Paul, a known bigot and extreme pro-lifer.

    7)Mary has called all Republicans and Democrats immoral. She won’t cater to them, but only work with real Libertarians, that’s why she’ll only get 400k votes for POTUS perpetually.

    Rebuttal to ‘Reasons liberty lovers need Mary Ruwart’:

    America needs to know that we need to leave Iraq as quickly as possible, leaving all of our equipment behind. This way, they can sell the food and equipment to help rebuild what we broke. (LOL)

    Mary is the only LP presidential candidate who can appeal to the left and the middle. She will get more media because of her pure views than any of the other candidates. (HOW DELUSIONAL CAN YOU GET?)

    She would renege on payments of the national debt. This shouldn’t come out of our pockets, but we should make the Congressmen and Presidents who voted for our debt pay it out of their own pockets. (APPARENTLY, PRETTY GODDAMNED DELUSIONAL!)

    Mary is for peace. Most of the other candidates are for war. (THAT’S BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT!)

    Mary would allow for children to enter the work force again so America could start a new free market revolution which will exceed the greatness of the Industrial Revolution. (YEAH, THE GREATNESS OF “SWEAT SHOPS ‘R’ US”.)

    The right to keep and bear arms applies to machine guns, tanks, hand grenades, artillery. (THAT’S JUST WHAT WE NEED, NEIGHBORS WITH ARTILLERY MOUNTED IN THE BACKYARD…JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!)

    Mary would have no border checks so we could fight terrorists on our private property with our private weapons. (THIS IS THE DUMBEST FUCKING THING I’VE EVER HEARD. IMAGINE THE SHEAR BLISS OF ARRIVING HOME FROM WORK AND HAVING TO FIGHT TERRORISTS ON YOUR FRONT LAWN BEFORE EATING DINNER.)

    Mary would make sure that all roads are privately owned. None of the other statist presidential candidates would do that. (EVER BEEN TO THE P.I. FUCKWAD? VEHICLE MOUNTED ARMED GANGS [PRIVATE POLICE, I’M SORRY] DRIVING THE ROADS COLLECTING ‘TOLLS’ AT GUNPOINT…HOLY CRAP!)

  45. DebbieKat Says:

    I’d also add that kids are already allowed to work once they are 16 in limited fashion and as of 18 can work all they want. Under the age of 16, kids aren’t in college yet… They are getting a BASIC education. Even if they were to be home-schooled, I think that is a better pursuit than having them out in the fields just because it’s cheap. Under libertarian philosophy, don’t they have rights to get an education? And, if not, why should they be paid less than someone else for doing the same job?

  46. Ruwarchy! Says:

    DebbieKat, In a Libertarian society like Mary and I envision, children would be free to work in any factory they want. Children are cheap labor, that is a fact and good for the free market.

    They would be free from the military draft, they would be free from Drug Warriors, they would be free to have sex for either fun or money as long as they are old enough to understand the consequences.

    If they aren’t old enough, it is their parent’s decision. I think the solution is emancipation. As soon as a kid becomes emancipated from his parents, he should be able to do whatever he wants.

  47. Ruwarchy! Says:

    I forgot, if Mary was president, the terrible raid that happened in Texas wouldn’t have happened, because Mary believes in clans, too.

    Link to Families Become Clans in a Free Society by Mary Ruwart: http://libertariannation.org/a/f43r1.html

  48. DebbieKat Says:

    So, even though those kids are abused and forced into marriages they don’t want to be in, you are supportive of that?

  49. Ruwarchy! Says:

    Mary Ruwart on forced child labor:

    “Before the Industrial Revolution, we created far less wealth per hour than we do today. Consequently, life was dangerous and hard, whether in the coal mines or on the farms. Children worked in both places—or went hungry.

    “The Industrial Revolution made wealth creation more efficient in free market nations. Eventually, children were able to go to school instead of work, since their parents could more easily support them.

    “Nations without free markets became the “Third World.” Children living in these countries today often have the same choice our great-great grandparents did: work or starve. Even when outlawed, child labor still continues there because it’s a necessity for survival.

    “The free market and the Industrial Revolution made childhood, as we know it today, possible. It will do so for the rest of the world, too, if adopted.”

  50. Ruwarchy! Says:

    DebbieKat:

    Those children live in a voluntary anarchist society.

    Ruwarchy rocks!

  51. DebbieKat Says:

    Voluntary for the parents. Not for the children. A former member of the polygamist sect has stated that the children were abused. She watched it herself. Just because the children are brow-beaten into thinking this is what their lives should be like to the point where they comply, doesn’t make it any less abusive. How are the kids voluntarily part of this? 13 year olds that already have babies? That’s just not right. Sorry.

  52. Ruwarchy! Says:

    “Age-of-consent laws are those which say that if you are under a certain age, then what you say doesn’t matter. We believe young people would be much better protected by laws—and social attitudes—that take their opinions, feelings and decisions into consideration. We have never proposed specific laws, but in general we advocate changes in society and the law to include greater respect and consideration for children and youth—not merely in the abstract, but in each individual case. We reject the cookie-cutter approach often used by authorities, moralists, and legislators who presume to know what someone wants without asking them, and who claim to know what is best for every person without having met them. Individualism—the belief that each person is important and deserving of respect—is one of the core founding values of North American society. We advocate for a society that lives up to this ideal, as it applies to people of all ages.”

    “Ageism refers to age-based discrimination, and includes the tendency to discount and devalue the feelings and opinions of children and youth. This tendency pervades our society and has implications in every area of a young person’s daily life: at home, at work, while shopping, hanging out with friends or going places, and especially at school. It has the socially corrosive—and costly—effect of breeding fear and distrust between the generations and isolating them from each other.”

    “Opposing age-of-consent laws is not our only focus; it is one part of our broader criticism of North American social and legal practices. We believe that these laws do great harm to people and relationships that do not deserve to feel the crushing weight of the heavy hand of the law. Just as important, age-of-consent laws do not adequately protect young people. They have often been applied arbitrarily and unjustly, and have long been used to terrorize gay males. Gay youth in particular have been targets of extreme persecution through the selective application of age-of-consent laws.”

  53. Ruwarchy! Says:

    That last quote came from NAMBLA, not Mary Ruwart—but it is what good anarchists believe. Age laws are government force and they are arbitrary in nature.

    A nation with no laws would have no age of sex laws. Go Ruwarchy!

  54. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    I completely agree with Debbie Kat. Stephen Gordon is doing a great job with this site, and I am very grateful for his open posting policy. Eric Dondero has a good idea about the “lesser of two evils” strategy, understanding that John McCain needs to move more towards the libertarians. At the same time, Obama needs to cater more towards the socialists and the Christian Left. Fortunately, that is exactly what is happening, thanks to Hillary and McCain who allowed him to explain his association with the great Revolutioanry General Jeremiah Wright. Finally, in retaliation against Ruwarchy’s anti-statist message, I will repost my recent message about the Fringe Alliance Strategy.

    Sadly, Robert Milnes’s progressive alliance strategy won’t work, but I have developed a much better strategy based on an alliance between the Green, libertarian
    and constitution parties, the various socialist movements and centrist independents, Kucinich Democrats, Ron Paul Republicans, and other smaller groups such as fascists, feudalists, monarchists and syndicalists, to initiate the following goals.

    1. The electoral college is abolished.
    2. The presidential election uses a national Majority Runoff system. This will change us from a republic to a democracy.
    3. Congress is elected through proportional representation.

    Third parties should spend most of their energies pushing for these constitutional amendments, using graphic protests in public locations. Otherwise, the
    efforts of all of them are doomed to do nothing more than push the major parties slightly in one direction, and ruin the chances of the parties that their
    candidates are most closely aligned with, while gaining such small failing numbers for themselves. The people who visit this site are by definitions on
    the fringes of society. It is important for the fringe to get together. This strategy is gaining the support of many political scientists across the nation,
    and I will continue to post it several times a week here until it is adopted. Fortunately, we have the Obama Revolution to save our country for now.
    The revolution will be televised.
    Glory to God in the highest and peace to God’s people on Earth.
    Please pray for Fernando Lugo, please pray for the pope and please pray for Barack Obama. Amen.

  55. Steve Newton Says:

    Please note that there are a lot of Libertarians completely opposed to Bob Barr or Mike Gravel poaching their way into the LP nomination:

    http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/04/sorry-bob-and-mike-but-not-in-my.html

  56. Alex Peak Says:

    This person posting as “Ruwarchy” is rather immature. When he/she is ready to grow up, I’ll be happy to discuss with you why you don’t like Dr. Ruwart’s candidacy in a civil and respectable manner. In the mean-time, all this “Ruwarchy” person is doing is embarrassing the libertarian movement by making it appear petty and childish to all readers of this site. I’d rather vote for Obama or McCain than have this sort of immaturity embraced by the libertarian movement or its members, for surely this sort of conduct will only drive otherwise-good people away. In short, I invite this person to grow up.

    For the record, no anarchist I know wants a country with “no laws.” Rather, they simply want the state to follow the law, and contend that any state that does follow the law would cease to be a state.

    Since I noticed while skimming that children were brought up, I feel it is worth mentioning that I remember being ten years old and extremely upset that the statutory law prevented me from selling my labour on the market. I had to wait four long years before I was able to engage in this basic human right. I dream of a future where children are not subjected to state-mandated work-denial.

    Yours,
    Alex

  57. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Here’s something I wrote a few years ago that just popped up in a web search… I think it’s still pretty relevant.

    Simply Red and Midnight Blue
    by Peter Orvetti

    We in the Libertarian Party face the “wasted vote” argument quite often. It is time to turn it on its head, and to remind sympathetic voters that in many cases, voting for a major party candidate is wasting a vote.

    In most elections, the outcome is pretty much known in advance. This isn’t just true in the Red State/Blue State presidential split, but in Senate, House, gubernatorial, and local elections as well. In such “foregone conclusion” contests, it is wiser to use one’s vote to send a message than to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

    I live in Washington, D.C., and in 2004, I strongly preferred one major party presidential candidate over the other. But did that make any difference? My vote might have altered whether Kerry with 89% or 90%. Big deal. By voting Libertarian, I had the chance to register a message.

    New York has had fusion voting for decades, allowing voters to pick a candidate while also making a statement—“I am voting for this guy on the Conservative line to remind him to stick to conservative principles”, for example. Most places do not have fusion voting, but since the results are known in advance anyway, why not take a stand? A left-leaning libertarian in Massachusetts (or Utah), and a right-leaning libertarian in Idaho (or Vermont) could say more by voting LP than by voting Democratic or Republican.

    In California in 2004, Libertarian Jim Gray received more than 216,000 votes for U.S. Senate, a race incumbent Barbara Boxer won with 58% of the vote. But Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik got just over 46,000 votes in that same state, though Kerry beat Bush by more than one million. That means there were 170,000 Gray voters who could have voted for Badnarik without having any impact on the electoral vote allocation. And how many more libertarian-minded Kerry and Bush voters “wasted their votes” by making Kerry’s margin one vote larger or smaller?

    We need to convince folks in the deep red and deep blue states that, far from being a wasted vote, a Libertarian vote often makes the most sense.

  58. Clark Says:

    ..while you’re dreaming about stinking Republicrat politicians ‘doing something good/helpful/etc..so will i..

    ..how about establishing the ability to cast a “negative vote?”...i.e. today people are herded into casting a ‘positive vote,’ thusly “affirming” one or the other of (usually) several goddamned fool $50 haircuts on $5 heads..

    ...when, in reality, it seems many/most decent/knowledgeable people who vote are casting a “positive vote” for the goddamned Republicrat chowderhead they find merely the least disgusting of the disgusting bowl-floaters the Republicrats have shat upon us again..and again….and again..

    ...so why not allow people the option to either ‘vote/”voice” positively’—adding one ‘vote’—for any politician or ‘vote negatively’—subtracting a vote—from the worst of the worst richardheads, assorted scumbags, etc. with which these stinking Republicrats usually plaque the ballot? ..

    ..this way, too, maybe these stinking Republicrat politicians will understand that very few decent people truly like them/their stinking ideas..

    ...this way, it might actually be worth voting in Republicrat elections!.....

    (worse than child-like, these Republicrats!) ;o)

  59. Steve LaBianca Says:

    DebbieKat, Ruwarchy! is simply a troll. Ignore it.

  60. Peter Orvetti Says:

    To me, Christine Smith’s campaign for the ‘08 nomination is similar to Mary Ruwart’s last-minute run for the ‘84 nomination—an appealing newcomer, but why her now? Smith may be a more attractive candidate a few cycles down the road.

  61. DebbieKat Says:

    @Steve LaBianca - So I gathered. Just wondering how one comes to such a twisted viewpoint and think it’s rational. :-)

Leave a Reply