How They Can Win The Libertarian Nomination

by David Nolan

Here, for everyone’s amusement, are plausible (OK, semi-plausible) scenarios outlining how each of the six leading contenders COULD win the LP nomination for President at the upcoming national convention in Denver. Some, obviously, are more plausible than others. Consider this speculative fiction, nothing more.

BOB BARR - Announces on May 12 that he’s really in the race. Takes fairly hard-line Libertarian stands on the issues, apologizes for past misdeeds. Receives significant coverage as a result. Places first on the first ballot with nearly 30% of the vote, crushing Wayne Root, who runs third, close behind Ruwart. Nearly half of Root’s supporters migrate to Barr on the second ballot, along with a smattering of others, bringing Barr’s total to more than 40%. Barr announces his preferred running mate: Steve Kubby. Explains that this will show the world that he is now sincerely opposed to the War on Drugs. Wins narrowly on third ballot.

MARY RUWART - Emerges on the first ballot as the preferred candidate of the “hard line” Libertarians, running a close second to Barr. Fourth-place finisher Steve Kubby announces he is withdrawing and urges his supporters to switch to Ruwart. Both Barr and Ruwart gain support on the second ballot, running virtually tied at 1/3 of the votes each. The third ballot fails to decide the contest, with Barr and Ruwart now each above 40% as Root’s support collapses, going mostly to Barr, and Gravel’s former supporters going for Ruwart. On the fourth ballot, Ruwart narrowly squeaks past 50% to win the nomination.

WAYNE ROOT - Barr announces on May 12 that he is NOT entering the race, leaving Root as the sole “right wing” contender. Root places first on the first ballot, names Phillies as his preferred running mate. Receives 44% on the second ballot, ten points ahead of Ruwart. The contest tightens on the third ballot, with Root and Ruwart virtually tied. Last-minute innuendo against Ruwart is successful, and Root narrowly squeaks past 50% to win the nomination.

KUBBY - Gives a stellar performance in the C-SPAN Presidential debate, and places a strong fourth on the first ballot. Nobody gets more than 25%. Barr and Root continue to struggle for majority support from the “right wing” faction, Gravel drops out and endorses Kubby, who narrowly surpasses Ruwart to finish third on the second ballot. The “hard line libertarians” coalesce behind Kubby on the third ballot, vaulting him past Barr and Root, who continue to split the “right wing” vote. Kubby narrowly squeaks past 50% to win the nomination on the fourth ballot.

PHILLIES - Polls 11% for a fifth-place finish on the first ballot, and slowly gains ground on subsequent ballots. Is up to 18% on the third ballot, putting him a distant third to Barr (or Root) and Ruwart. Votes remain unchanged on the fourth ballot, with NOTA preventing anyone from obtaining a majority. Bitter division between Barr/Root supporters and Ruwart/Kubby supporters produces a deadlock that results in a Phillies win on the fifth or sixth ballot.

GRAVEL - Drops his support for the FAIR tax and shows surprising strength on the first ballot, running close behind third-place Ruwart. On subsequent ballots he builds a coalition of delegates for whom opposition to overseas adventurism, civil liberties, and drug decriminalization are key issues. A surprising number of delegates see Ruwart as tarnished by the accusations against her, while Kubby is seen as one-issue candidate, so most of their support migrates to Gravel on the second and third ballots. He also picks up support from Barr voters who believe that Gravel’s credentials match or beat Barr’s, and will result in high media coverage. Wins by narrow majority on fourth or fifth ballot.

I re-emphasize: this is FICTION. Have at it!

David F. Nolan, known as “The Nolan” to his many friends and admirers, is one of the founders of the Libertarian Party. He also created the political mapping system known as the Nolan Chart, and is rumored to have invented the Internet.

116 Responses to “How They Can Win The Libertarian Nomination”

  1. Jerry Baner Says:

    I wish David Nolan would just fade, fade away.

  2. Mike Theodore Says:

    I was going to do something like this, but on video. Not as credible a source as David Nolan, but an outlook. I had the whole thing on video, an hour long, just to learn that the software didn’t work on my computer.

    To Nolan: I liked it. Seems like a good outlook.

  3. Raoul Duke Says:

    Noshit.

    David Nolan is struggling to remain significant in an organization that has long forgotten him, and for good reason. His performance and viewpoints expressed on this site show less of practicality for moving the party forward, and more of a reluctance to let the party grow—which he knows will reduce his prominence. Requiring that two presidential contenders give him a private performance says a lot about himself and how he still views his role in the party.

    Thanks Nolan for all the work you’ve put into the party, but I’m sorry, the train has left the station with you on the platform.

  4. Jerry Baner Says:

    David Nolan has the opportunity to dissolve with dignity, but he refuses to.

  5. Austin Cassidy Says:

    You forgot the seventh scenario. The Pope makes a surprise landing in Denver and crowns Imperato as the nominee.

  6. silver Republican Says:

    Whether or not you like Nolan, this is still interesting, though very hypothetical annalysis

  7. Jerry Baner Says:

    Then Imperato challenges Gravel to a rap-off. Gravel wins, of course, but then he has a heart attack. Imperato gets the nod.

  8. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    David, throw in how you think a Ventura scenario would happen (this could be hilarious)

  9. Alex Peak Says:

    Is there no chance for Smith? Am I the only person left who sees her as still viable? She could get the women vote if Ruwart seems tarnished; and if Kubby seems like a one-issue candidate, Smith is really the only place for the radicals to go.

    Also, you’re ignoring Hess. Although, for him to get anywhere, step one must be getting himself a website.

    If Barr disavows the entire war on drugs and the FairTax, he will hands-down get the nomination, methinks.

    Finally, the Peak Chart is better than the Nolan Chart. :p :)

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  10. susan santarini Says:

    Ann Coulter once told me that Libertarian men “usually live with their mother and watch Star Trek re-runs.”

    Judging from the inane comments by Jerry Baner and Raoul Duke, I can believe it. Talk about Losertarians. Wow, these guys’ heads must hurt when they have to read something like what Nolan wrote and actually are forced to THINK. Obviously, they have penile erection issues and need to puff themselves up by whining about others. Seriously, these guys need to stop watching so many Star Trek re-runs and go out and get a life!

  11. Jerry Baner Says:

    Susan,

    I make 7 digits. I’m also an idiot, but at least I admit it. Don’t have to be smart to be business smart, just ask Wayne Allen Root or Mike Jingozian, or hell, Daniel Impewacko.

    Seems like you need to “puff yourself up by whining about others.”

    Hypocrit.

  12. susan santarini Says:

    Is there no chance for Smith? Am I the only person left who sees her as still viable? She could get the women vote if Ruwart seems tarnished; and if Kubby seems like a one-issue candidate, Smith is really the only place for the radicals to go.

    Alex, stop thinking with your dick and realize what a fraud Smith is. Everything about her is a fraud, Worst of all, she defended Shane Corey, when he called for greater cooperation with the FBI.

    Go take a cold shower and forget her.

  13. Richard Winger Says:

    I enjoyed David Nolan’s piece. It’s fun. It has overtones of actual major party presidential convention shenanigans from the past.

  14. susan santarini Says:

    Touchy little thing, aren’t we Jerry Baner? You love to dish it out, but you’re just like my wimpy girlfriends when someone picks on YOU!

  15. Craig Says:

    Okay, I love Star Trek re-runs (who doesn’t?), but I left home when I was 18 and I earn about twice the national average.

    Here’s the scenario for an Imperato victory:

    He makes two announcements just prior to the debate:

    1. He really is a near-billionaire, and he’s just donated $250 million to his own campaign.

    2. He announces that, if elected, he will resign and his VP will become President. VP debate gains 7 or 8 new participants, the former presidential contenders.

  16. Jerry Baner Says:

    Right. That’s the poor upbringing in me.

    I happen to watch Star Trek, and M*A*S*H. I also get turned on by hating on David Nolan. I’m quite the freak.

  17. Gordon is a Dick Says:

    Gordon, you fucking puke, when is your fucking candidate going to announce you fucking fuck fuck?

  18. G.E. Says:

    Austin said: “You forgot the seventh scenario. The Pope makes a surprise landing in Denver and crowns Imperato as the nominee.”

    LOL!

  19. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    Let’s see.

    Ventura walks in to the Convention wearing three feather boas. He takes out Jingozian and Imperato with a double clothesline just to get them out of the way. He then gags Root with a bright pink boa, scares Phillies at the mere sight of him with boas flying, takes another neon green boa and gags Smith in that red dress of hers. He manages to out-rap Gravel and then takes on Ruwart in a cross-gender match. He finishes with tripping Barr on a jet black boa. He then smokes Kubby under the table until all Kubby wants to do is become a Deadhead.

    Okay just having a little fun there. I don’t want any of that to actually happen obviously.

    Really? Have him walk into the Convention, publically register as a Member and sign the Pledge so no one is in doubt. Then he gives a speech to leave no doubt, using his Wrestling-days mic skills. (he’s got that presence) On the first ballot he out-does either Barr or Gravel and just keeps climbing. Ruwart, Phillies or some other Principled member then gets voted in as veep to back him up and get him grounded in the philosophy.

  20. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    I like David Nolan. But David, you forgot the most plausible scenario, that there will be a strong movement at the convention to endorse the Obama Revolution and the Fringe Alliance Strategy.

    GOD BLESS SHANE CORY, GOD BLESS THE POPE, GOD BLESS BARACK OBAMA.

  21. RagsterLives Says:

    Thanks for the piece David. It was fun to read. Jerry and Raoul need to get a life. David is still the MAN. Knows how to enjoy the politics of the party he started. Thanks David

  22. G.E. Says:

    If Ventura repudiated his past support for campaign-finance restrictions and torture, pledged his opposition to federal involvement in education, and declared his support for free trade and honest money, I would back him.

    Alex - Smith crashed any chances of getting the nomination when she endorsed Shane Cory and his extra-constitutional press release.

  23. Gordon is a Dick Says:

    The Nolan, what about the scenario where I rip off Cunt Smith’s legs and beat Barr over the face with it?

  24. Jerry Baner Says:

    There’s absolutely no reason to be an asshole to Steve Gordon. His employer may be a douche-bag, but Gordon is a solid Libertarian of notable intelligence.

  25. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Some are taking this thread WAY too seriously!

    How about we just do a steel cage Jello Battle Royal and be done with it?

    Or a full-contact chess tournament?

    Or a karoke-off?

    LOL!

  26. Stefan Says:

    May Ruwart had a very good radio interview: http://antiwar.com/radio/
    Anyone should be quite impressed.

  27. David F. Nolan Says:

    Note to Alex Peak: Barry Hess has withdrawn from the race.

    And who the hell is Jerry Baner?

  28. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Gravel on Fox:

    NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: To the campaign trail—a major new political alliance forming at this hour, and it could shake up the presidential race. Check this out.(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    MIKE GRAVEL, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (singing): I`m not a YouTube celebrity.

    AMBER LEE ETTINGER, OBAMA GIRL (singing): Do you even sing R B?

    GRAVEL (singing): I`m seeking the presidency.

    You should drop your crush on Obama. You got to know that you`re off the chain.

    ETTINGER (singing): And, so, you want me on your campaign.

    GRAVEL (singing): I have 62 years in this political game.

    ETTINGER (singing): Well, I dig all that line, but I have got a crush on Obama (INAUDIBLE) is incredibly high.

    GRAVEL (singing): People read my blogs a lot.

    ETTINGER (singing): Six feet two from Alaska, I could give that a shot. I will see what I can do. But should I drop my crush on Obama?

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    CAVUTO: All right, you have seen the video.

    But, in a FOX exclusive—we need to do that—the only place you can see them together, here on this show.

    With me now, Libertarian presidential candidate Mike Gravel and Amber Lee Ettinger, who has become like a rock star. You know her, of course, as the Obama Girl.

    Why did you do this?

    ETTINGER: Well, the opportunity arose. And I jumped on it. I met Senator Gravel in South Carolina. And I thought he was awesome. He had such a great sense of humor. So, we just had the best time doing this.

    CAVUTO: All right, so you did this not—it was a lark, or do you really think he should be the next president?

    ETTINGER: We did it for fun. He is such a great sport. No other presidential candidate has willingly learned the Soulja Boy dance with me. So…

    CAVUTO: He was very—by the way, Senator, that was very effective.

    (LAUGHTER)

    CAVUTO: Now, what made you do this, Senator.

    GRAVEL: Well, first off, she`s quite right. I was invited to do it. I only have one criteria, as long as it is dignified and funny.

    And I have got to tell you, Amber was an unbelievable professional. She was just a darling. We spent most of the day shooting this in New York. And I truly, truly enjoyed it.

    (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: Senator, you are getting more buzz on this than you did throughout the whole campaign. And I know—I know pretty well you`re a very funny guy and a very witty guy.

    I think you were always sort of shunted aside in debates. And that was unfair. But you`re getting more buzz on this than anything you have ever done. Is there going to be a sequel?

    GRAVEL: Well, that—it is up to the producers and—who really—who did this. I certainly would hope that we would have a sequel, where Amber would really switch over to me, once I get ahead of Obama in the race…

    CAVUTO: Ah, there you go.

    GRAVEL: ... if I am lucky enough to get—if I am lucky enough to get the nomination from the Libertarian Party. I have got to tell you, anything can happen in this election. The Democrats and Republicans are the ones that brought us to the mess we`re at.

    (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: Well, Senator, I will tell you, I love you dearly. You are not going to be president. You are not going to be president. But here is what makes…

    (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: Love you. Love you. Love you.

    GRAVEL: You and I like each other too much. Don`t say that.

    CAVUTO: But I`m telling you, Senator, here is what I think you will be: a rap artist. Take a look at this, guys at home.

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    (MUSIC)

    GRAVEL: So, are you going to join the Gravel team?

    ETTINGER: I will think about it.

    GRAVEL: Oh. I totally learned that Soulja Boy dance for nothing.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    (LAUGHTER)

    CAVUTO: So, Amber, now, there`s a guy…

    GRAVEL: Well, maybe not for nothing, maybe not for nothing.

    CAVUTO: Not for nothing.

    ETTINGER: Not for nothing.

    CAVUTO: But what did you make of that?

    Now, if he became president, man, he would be a fun and funny president.

    ETTINGER: He broke it down that day.

    CAVUTO: Yes.

    ETTINGER: He did.

    (LAUGHTER)

    CAVUTO: Who you are for in the race?

    ETTINGER: Obama.

    CAVUTO: You are? You`re for Obama?

    ETTINGER: I definitely am.

    CAVUTO: So, did the Obama folks know you were doing this for him?

    ETTINGER: I don`t think so, no.

    CAVUTO: Oh, you never checked with them?

    ETTINGER: I didn`t check. I mean, I don`t really talk to them on a daily basis, let alone ever, so…

    (LAUGHTER)

    CAVUTO: Did you ever hear, by the way, from Michelle Obama?

    ETTINGER: No, never.

    CAVUTO: Because there was talk that she got a little antsy about it.

    ETTINGER: I knew that when at first—the first video came out last year, she had said whoever has a crush on my husband, more power to them.

    CAVUTO: Yes. But it wasn`t like jumping ugly, oh, really, you want to do something for my husband?

    (CROSSTALK)

    ETTINGER: Not that I know of.

    CAVUTO: Really?

    ETTINGER: I will look into that.

    CAVUTO: Because, in politics, that just doesn`t go well.

    CAVUTO: All right, Senator, now you know you are on the radar for a lot of folks. Do you think this helps you get on more ballots?

    GRAVEL: Well, first off, if I get the nomination of the Libertarian Party, which will be decided on the 25th of May, we will be probably in 48 states. So, we will be on the ballots. Well, I will be on enough ballots to win the election.

    CAVUTO: Well, I`m told that`s a lock. I`m told that`s increasingly looking like a lock. And this locked it. This video locked it.

    (LAUGHTER)

    GRAVEL: Thank you very much.

    CAVUTO: You think so? You think he should be on the ballot, he should be a third-party candidate, at least, and give old Barack or whoever a run for their money? ETTINGER: He`s doing a great job.

    CAVUTO: What if he siphoned the vote from Barack, though, and John McCain waltzes in? How would you feel about that?

    ETTINGER: Well, then we will have to see what happens.

    CAVUTO: Oh.

    (CROSSTALK)

    GRAVEL: Neil, one second. What if Barack siphons—Neil, siphons the vote from Barack?

    CAVUTO: Well, very good. Senator, thank you very much.

    GRAVEL: I mean, flip that around any way you want.

    CAVUTO: Best of luck.

  29. Alex Peak Says:

    “Worst of all, she defended Shane Corey, when he called for greater cooperation with the FBI.”

    Everyone’s allowed at least one big mistake. Ron Paul’s is immigration. Hers is the FBI.

    Yours,
    Alex Peak

  30. Stefan Says:

    David,

    I like your very realistic, rational fictional work-out of different scenario’s, which also seems fair towards all candidates.
    Personally, in the case of Barr, I would think if he choses Ruwart over Kubby - or the party choses (she would also earn it if she fares better than Kubby, as it seems) as VP, it would be a better choice. She would not only “represent” the end of the “war on drugs”, but also other “hardcore” libertarian issues better and together they could make a great team and appeal to the widest range. Of all the candidates, I personally think they would (both individually and even better as a team) be able to make the best appeal to Ron Paul supporters, as a basis to work from and go from there to appeal to more.

  31. disinter Says:

    Gravel - not gonna win.
    Kubby - not gonna win, although he is at least a Libertarian.
    Ruwart - True Libertarian, lack of fundraising and media attention are a down-side.
    Root - Statist idiot. Although he would be great for media attention.
    Phillies - Statist (prefers government forced equality). Can’t raise any money except his own. Would not get media coverage.
    Barr - Statist flip-flopper. Could raise money and get media attention though.

    The retard caucus should probably pick Root or Barr.
    Libertarians should probably pick Ruwart.

  32. disinter Says:

    David Nolan is struggling to remain significant in an organization that has long forgotten him, and for good reason.

    I would like to personally thank Mr. Nolan for starting the LP and for all the work he has put into it over the years. I find him very respectable and someone that I admire.

  33. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Former Republican to seek Libertarian presidential nomination

    WASHINGTON (CNN) - Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr will announce Monday that he will run for president as a Libertarian, a source close to the Georgian told CNN.

    Barr will officially declare his candidacy at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington. The four-term congressman left the GOP in 2006, saying that Republicans had “lost their core principles.”

    Barr made a name for himself in Congress for his ardent conservative philosophy and his role in President Clinton’s impeachment. He lost a primary election in 2002.

    Last month, Barr formed a presidential exploratory committee as he weighed a run for the White House. The source said that Barr had been considering a presidential bid “for several months. He currently runs Liberty Strategies, a consulting firm in Atlanta and Washington.

    Barr joins a handful of other candidates seeking the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination including former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year. Libertarians meet in Denver on May 22 for a four day convention where members will choose the party’s presidential nominee.

  34. benedict sux knapp Says:

    sorry all, a bit off topic. but i feel i need to let everyone know something. i’ve been picking aluminum cans out of peoples trash for three weeks just so i can donate the money i earn to mary ruwarts campaign, god bless you mary, and god bless kiddie porn

  35. Stefan Says:

    To Stephen Gordon:
    I have an idea for our man. Can’t you get a Bob Barr girl? Maybe ask Ron Paul girl if she has a contact or friend. Aimee, with the RP song is also quite someone to get. Someone that can really compete with Amber Lee Ettinger in a better class of her own, someone with intelligence as well.

  36. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    I liked it. IMHO, the best was the Gravel scenario. If he’d drop the stupid support for the Fairy Tax and a couple other issues, he’d be my choice.

    He would get more votes than any other LP POTUS candidate. He might even get more votes than the last US Senator to run 3rd party, Eugene McCarthy in’76.

    PEACE
    Steve

  37. Eric Dondero Says:

    Funny how David Nolan calls Wayne Root the “Right-wing candidate.” Root is probably the most Pro-Choice candidate in the race, most known for his syndicated columns in 2005 blasting the Republicans on the Terry Schiavo affair, which catapulted Root into the limelight.

    He’s also Mr. Legalize Gambling.

    Either Pro-Choice, and Pro-Gambling have suddenly become “Right-wing issues,” or Mr. Nolan is completely confused when it comes to the “Nolan Chart.”

  38. Eric Dondero Says:

    Okay, Tom Knapps’ Boston Tea Party was supposed to be the Party for true blue Anarchists. After the 2006 LP National Convention in Portland, the extremists in the Party got pissed because Carl Milsted and other mainstreamers managed to scale back the platform. Knapp, a self-described “Anarcho-Libertarian” stormed out of the Libertarian Party in a very public way, and vowed to form a party that would be bigger, stronger, and “more hardcore” than the LP. He also vowed that the “LP’s days were numbered.”

    The BTP captured some folks’ imagination for a brief period in late 2006. I remember visiting their website a few times. There was a healthy amount of trafic and members to the group.

    Well, for whatever reason the BTP faded away. Perhaps getting Anarchists to agree on anything is akin to the proverbial “herding cats.”

    Fast forward: Knapp slowly but surely finds his way back to the LP. When folks ask him about his prior devotion and dedication to building the BTP as an alternative to the Libertarian Party, he’s elusive, deflects and avoids answering questions about it.

    He alludes that “others” are now working on the party and that he has scaled down his activity with BTP.

    Somewheres along the line Knapp recruits Steve Kubby to run for the LP Presidential nomination.

    Now, we’re hearing of an all-Anarchist ticket of Mary Ruwart/Steve Kubby. All the handiwork of Knapp, no doubt.

    He’s quite skilled. But one suspects LP delegates won’t be so easily fooled. Knapp is hoping that others will just plum forget about his BTP project and his pledge to “put the LP out of business” for its moderation and mainstreaming.

    LP delegates can do some strange things sometimes. But turning the Party into the Anarchist Party (what Knapp had hoped for with the BTP), is not a likely outcome.

    Watch for another public and boisterous “storming out” of the LP post-Convention from Knapp & Crew, if the Anarchist ticket of Ruwart/Kubby doesn’t prevail.

    Perhaps we could even see a re-emergence of the Boston Tea Party?

    You heard it here first.

  39. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Despite my fatalistic, que sera approach, this article seems quite plausible.

  40. Stefan Says:

    Important news on Wayne Allyn Root:

    He profess to bring all the millions of professional gamblers on board for the LP (12million?). Now, we know why he has not managed to raise substantial money from them: he is namely blacklisted as a fraudulent handicapper!

    http://www.handicappingreviews.com/blacklistedsportshandicappers.php

    Surely the LP cannot afford to be connected with people who do not have a sound moral character. The question now remains is, will he pull out of the race for the nomination and VP nomination of the LP?

  41. Stefan Says:

    http://www.handicappingreviews.com/reviewsforhandicappers.php?CapperCode=65

  42. Stefan Says:

    His company website/name: http://www.winningedge.com/

  43. Stefan Says:

    Credit card company is offshore, thus he pays no taxes on his client’s money and probably difficult for them to get money back in case there is a mistake with the credit card processing (e.g. too much money subtracted). You do not have much power with a company in St. Kitts should anything go wrong.

    St. Kitts Company
    Market Engines Inc.
    Amory Building, Suite #4588
    Victoria Road
    Basseterre
    St. Kitts
    East Caribbean

  44. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Dondero:

    “Okay, Tom Knapps’ Boston Tea Party was supposed to be the Party for true blue Anarchists.”

    It was? The platform said nothing about anarchism.

    “Well, for whatever reason the BTP faded away. Perhaps getting Anarchists to agree on anything is akin to the proverbial ‘herding cats.’”

    But,...

    Anarchists in the Boston Tea Party? Mr. Knapp was the only one of whom I was aware.

    I always saw the Boston Tea Party as a vehicle for promoting his belief that we needed a very, very small platform, far tinyer than the 2006 platform.

    “Fast forward: Knapp slowly but surely finds his way back to the LP.”

    Didn’t the Boston Tea Party hold that you could be a mamber of it an of the Libertarian Party simultaneously?

    “Now, we’re hearing of an all-Anarchist ticket of Mary Ruwart/Steve Kubby. All the handiwork of Knapp, no doubt.”

    Steve Kubby is an anarchist? Where, sir, do you find this information? I’ve never seen Kubby promote anarchism. (I seem to also recall you calling Browne an anarchist, despite the fact that Browne campaigned for a small tariff, something anarchists cannot support. So pardon me if I’m wary of the accuracy of your claims when you say that XYZ is an anarchist.)

    “Knapp is hoping that others will just plum forget about his BTP project and his pledge to ‘put the LP out of business’ for its moderation and mainstreaming.”

    The 2006 changes to the platform only accomplished one thing: making us appear like the only thing we care about is drug decriminalisation. I can neither confirm nor deny whether Mr. Knapp actually said anything so foolish as pledging to “put the LP out of business,” but the 2006 platform did not “mainstream” the party.

    Respectfully,
    Alex Peak

  45. Pervy Says:

    Every night I pray to sweat Lord Satan that this scenario happens: the pedophile perv wing of the LP floods the Convention and High Priestess Mary is easily elected on the first ballot. Imagine it fellow pedophiles. Able to walk into the local convenience store and buy child porn on the cheap. No more shady black markets, high prices and fear of conviction.

  46. Steve Perkins Says:

    1) People are taking this thread (indeed, this entire website) WAY too seriously.

    2) I more or less agree with Nolan’s assessments here, although I would have stopped after Root. There is no scenario in which Kubby or Gravel can win. There is, however, an outside chance of George Phillies as “fallback” candidate if Barr and Ruwart completely neutralize each other.

    3) Barr should not “apologize” for anything in his announcement press conference, any more than Ruwart should suddenly apologize for condoning child pornography. Barr has spoken extensively about his votes regarding marriage, drugs, Patriot Act, etc since he got involved with the LP. Some things he regrets, some things were smart moves that libertarians aren’t giving him credit for. Regardless, people who oppose him now aren’t going to support him even if he apologizes/grovels to them, and Barr would just look stupid to everyone else in trying.

    4) Gravel backs the FairTax now? What the hell?

  47. Steve Perkins Says:

    Anarchists in the Boston Tea Party? Mr. Knapp was the only one of whom I was aware.

    I always saw the Boston Tea Party as a vehicle for promoting his belief that we needed a very, very small platform, far tinyer than the 2006 platform.

    Forget the anarchist / non-anarchist distinction… were there any people AT ALL other than Knapp? I remember when he was shilling this to the moon on Hammer of Truth a couple of years ago. As I recall, it was no LRC-style attempt to reform or direct the LP… it was Knapp believing quite sincerely that he was done with the LP for life and launching a political party of his own to succeed it. A couple of other Hammer of Truth commenters “joined” with him out of frustration over the Portland convention.

    However, “joined” does not imply that any two people ever got together at any time for an actual real-world meeting. Knapp’s political party was essentially a blog that he got bored with in a matter of months. He then came tiptoeing back to the LP, shrugging his shoulders and saying “what?”.

    You don’t pull a gun unless you’re really prepared to shoot it. Likewise, you don’t publicly repudiate and abandon a political party unless you mean it… otherwise you look like a goof when you crawl back 12 months later. Lesson to everyone from all factions who are prone to say things like, “If the LP doesn’t do X, I’m leaving!”

  48. Eric Dondero Says:

    That was a very brillant post Steven Perkins. That’s precisely what happened with Tom Knapp. He whipped out his gun, and he didn’t shoot. Then he came tip-toeing back to the LP hoping nobody would notice.

    Now if you ask him about the failed Boston Tea Party, his response is “What?” “What Boston Tea Party….?”

    The BTP, if there ever was one, has morphed into the Mary Ruwart/Steve Kubby campaign.

  49. Eric Dondero Says:

    Mr. Peak, Harry Browne wrote a book all about Anarchism in the early 1970s, became a best-seller in fact, called “How I found Freedom in an Unfree World.” It was all about dropping out of society, living in a shack in the mountains, investing in gold and having your gun ready when the Feds came to take it all away.

    For years after that he advocated Libertarians not being involved in politics at all, and just separating themselves from society.

    He was not only an Anarchist, you could argue, he was Mr. Anarchist.

  50. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey thanks Robert Carpozzi. That was a kind remark about my article.

    So kind, in fact, that I might just run it as an article itself over at Libertarian Republican blog.

  51. Brian Says:

    Steve Perkins: As far as I know, Mike Gravel has always backed the Fair Tax.

  52. Tom Bryant Says:

    What? No scenario to get Robert Milnes and his 40 million supporters the nomination?

    That’s the easiest one.

    1) Milnes goes off his medication
    2) Milnes believes that the LP convention suddenly changes location
    3) The new location is his trailer
    4) The party is in a panic at this last minute change, but Milnes steps in and credentials the five delegates: himself, a stuffed bear, a wind-up ducky, the toaster, and a brick.
    5) Milnes gives a stirring speech that causes the ducky to spin around in ciricles with excitement.
    6) On the first ballot, Milnes recieves two votes (himself and the ducky), Root receives two votes (stuffed bear and brick) and the toaster goes for Kubby. Kubby is eliminated.
    7) Milnes offers the toaster two slices of bread in exchange for his support. Milnes receives three votes and takes the nomination. The stuffed bear and brick storm out of the trailer very upset.
    8) In a surprise move, Cameron Diaz receives all three votes for Vice-President. A move that Milnes hopes will result in a romantic relationship.
    9) Milnes scribbles a press release with red crayon, puts four fox stamps (tax protesters here will understand the significance of the crayons and stamps) in each corner, and mails it to a the 7-11 down the way.
    10) Milnes complains for the next 6 months that the LP Convention in Denver was a sham, and that he is actually the real nomineee.
    11) The wind-up ducky defects and supports the Denver nominee
    12) The stuffed bear union endorses Milnes, along with many household appliances.
    13) Milnes believes his wins the Presidential race in November, because there are more than 40 million appliances and stuffed bears in the US
    14) Milnes is arrested trying to force his way into the White House
    15) The court recommends that he be instituted rather than face prison time
    16) Milnes is forced back on his medication. Believes everything was just a really bad dream.
    17) He sees a wind-up ducky spinning around in circles.
    18) Fade to black.

  53. JT Says:

    Dondero, you obviously never read Harry Browne’s book. At no point did Browne suggest that anyone “separate themselves from society” and live like a hermit. That’s a ridiculous characterization. The main thesis of the book was that individuals often allow themselves to get trapped in a lifestyle based on false beliefs, which makes them unhappy. He then offers a way out of that situation based on his own experience.

    It’s true that Browne wrote that politics was a waste of time. But when he ran for president in 1996, he said that the political scene had changed dramatically since the time the book was published 20 years earlier. Rightly or wrongly, he believed that the public is now more open to libertarian ideas than it was back then. That’s why he thought political campaigning was no longer a futile activity.

  54. jre Says:

    Hopefully all of those Harry Browne anarchists were smart enough to buy their gold in the 3-500.00 range and are looking pretty smart right now.

  55. Liberated Woman Says:

    Loved, loved the Gravel & Obama Girl video. 206,715 hits this morning. Very funny, tender, respectful. I don’t know a single teenager that doesn’t know the Soulja Boy dance, mandatory for jr. high dance.

    (Ron Paul Girl and Aimee would be great too!)

  56. Balph Says:

    We remembers when Tom Knapp was a Democrat and a member of the IWW. Tom Knapp is principled. He would rather be a communist than support a moderate libertarian party.

  57. Ayn R. Key Says:

    Even though the “pragmatists” all support Barr because he’s got the name recognition, none of them support Gravel even though he’s got the name recognition. Perhaps that should be explored.

    Even though I’m a Ruwart supporter, I could find myself supporting Barr under one circumstance - he names Gravel as his running mate.

    As usual, Dondero cannot see issues other than abortion, and therefore thinks that everyone who is pro-choice is by definition small-government. Yet he’s never given me his analysis of pro-choice Hillary Clinton like I’ve asked. She is pro-choice. Does that mean she’s small-government? She’s also pro-war, so by Dondero’s definition she’s a libertarian.

  58. Eric Dondero Says:

    I have posted an article on Tom Knapp and BTP over at Libertarian Republican blog.

  59. Eric Dondero Says:

    JT, in regards to Harry Browne’s comments 20 years later, saying that he now supported political activity after denouncing it for decades, that’s otherwise know as SPIN.

  60. Sean Scallon Says:

    Now this is what a convention is supposed to be like, a deliberative body choosing its presidential candidate, not a four-day taxpayer and corporate funded party.

  61. Eric Dondero Says:

    Alan Key, sorry, I guess I missed your previous inquiries on H. Clinton.

    Yes, Hillary is good on abortion. It is about the only issue in the entire sphere that she is decent on. But remember, she’s only half-good, cause she also supports government funding of abortions.

    Still, I support Hillary Clinton’s position on the issue, more so than John McCain’s. Ironically, Obama is putting out the word that he’s “closetly a pro-lifer.”

    Yuck! That’s the worst of all worlds: A Socialist whose also Pro-Life on Abortion. Nothing could be worse than an Economic AND Social Authoritarian.

    Hillary really is a much better choice than Obama. If someone put a gun to my head and said I had to vote in the Dem primary, I’d vote for Hillary, over the Pro-Choice issue.

  62. NewFederalist Says:

    Tom Bryant- 18) Wakes up in time to begin 2012 campaign!

  63. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Interestingly, if I think Mr. Nolan is listing in generally preferred order, W.A.R. is again listed as third, with Barr 1st, and Mary Ruwart 2nd. This is just like Dave Weigel did in his blog article last week, with the same order of 1, 2 and 3. If my memory servers me, the rest of the candidates are nearly the same as well.

    How is it that W.A.R. still says that he is “the leading contender” for the LP nomination?

  64. brian g Says:

    who cares?

  65. brian g Says:

    oops, that was supposed to follow dondildo’s post.

  66. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Well, after months of saying I wasn’t going…I just registed for the convention. Let the circus begin!

  67. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Stefan Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 7:53 am

    Important news on Wayne Allyn Root:

    He profess to bring all the millions of professional gamblers on board for the LP (12million?). Now, we know why he has not managed to raise substantial money from them: he is namely blacklisted as a fraudulent handicapper!

    I don’t gamble, but I know several people who do so, online. I asked if they knew of W.A.R. None of them had ever heard of him. LOL! So much for delivering the “gaming” vote.

  68. G.E. Says:

    Tom Bryant - Very good Milsian scenario, but I think Christina Applegate would make a better VP for Milnes. Afterall, she did play a newscaster in Anchorman, and Milsian classic.

  69. Red Phillips Says:

    Dondero should form the Death Party. The two planks of their platform could be kill all the babies and kill all the Muslims.

  70. Bill Wood Says:

    Steve, I think David Nolan posted a vote total of straw polls from various LP State Conventions which had Root ahead of everyone else. Root might be using this to claim he is the lead, or it could be the LP webtracker shows him in 1st with donations to that or it might be the amount of news coverage he has received compared to the other Candidates. Christine Smith also claims to be the leader.

  71. Arizona Indie Says:

    Thanks for the insightful analysis, Mr. Nolan. Now if we can just get you to run for office out here in Arizona this year, and statewide in two years.

  72. Yank Says:

    You are all mean. Maybe that’s why we don’t get ass or votes.

  73. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Red, question for ya. You wanna set up a huge police state to spy on Americans in the bedroom? Any women caught taking a morning after pill goes straight to jail for 10 years, huh?

    An Orwellian nightmare of grand proportions.

    And what’s to stop women from fleeing to Mexico or Canada to get their abortions? You wanna cut off the borders too, maybe? Stop women from visiting Mexico or Canada for fear they might be getting an abortion?

    Or, perhaps you wanna pressure Mexico and Canada to outlaw abortions, as well?

    Fat chance. Both countries are solidly Pro-Choice.

    So, there’s no way in hell you Pro-Lifers are ever going to win this battle.

  74. JT Says:

    Steve: “I don’t gamble, but I know several people who do so, online. I asked if they knew of W.A.R. None of them had ever heard of him. LOL! So much for delivering the “gaming” vote.’

    Right. Because “several people who gamble online” have never heard of him, it means he has no clout in the gambling industry at all. I don’t like name calling on blogs, but that’s retarded. Of course, the idea that he’ll get even close to 12 million votes from gamblers is also retarded.

  75. Stefan Says:

    Spot on Red, spot on!

  76. Stefan Says:

    ERIC,
    NO NEED TO SET UP A POLICE STATE, AS IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET UP: Patriot Act
    (written by one of McCain’s favorite “gooks”, Military Commissions Act, Sarbanes-Oxley etc. etc.

  77. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Alex,

    You write:

    “I can neither confirm nor deny whether Mr. Knapp actually said anything so foolish as pledging to ‘put the LP out of business’ ...”

    Nope. Never said any such thing, ever. That’s one of 8 lies, or at least egregiously lazy factual errors (I got tired of typing), that I document in Mr. Dondero’s article as posted at his blog, in the comments.

    I did, in fact, leave the LP for a year. That was before the BTP, and it was not an especially hostile parting. I simply fell victim to the delusion that perhaps it was possible to work more effectively in a “major” party than in the LP for liberty, so I joined the Democratic Freedom Caucus. Having decided that that was a mistake, I undid it and returned to the LP.

    Balph,

    I would still be a member of the IWW, but its bylaws do not permit members to hold internal office in political parties, so I withdrew from the union when I was elected to my state LP’s executive committee. I’m far from the only LP member to ever have a “red card” (the late Bruce Baechler was an activist in both the LP and the IWW). However, the IWW does not require that its members be communists (many of them are various brands of anarchist), and I’m not one. Just as it’s possible to belong to the LP without agreeing to every plank in its platform, it’s possible to belong to a union without agreeing with every point on its agenda. I support unionism, and the IWW was a union I could belong to even though I was not part of a shop collective bargaining unit.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  78. Sean Scallon Says:

    Mr. Rittberg I wish would make up your mind which kind of police state you prefer.

    Is there a “libertarian” police state you would like to explain to us?

  79. Steve LaBianca Says:

    JT Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am

    Steve: “I don’t gamble, but I know several people who do so, online. I asked if they knew of W.A.R. None of them had ever heard of him. LOL! So much for delivering the “gaming” vote.’

    Right. Because “several people who gamble online” have never heard of him, it means he has no clout in the gambling industry at all.

    True enough, “several” people does not make a scientific poll or anything of the sort. However, since NONE of them have ever heard of W.A.R., it does lend credibility to the idea that online gamblers just like online gambling. They don’t pay attention to the “players in the industry. They aren’t collecting “cards” like baseball cards of the players, owners of casinos, handicappers.

    So my point was only that the idea that W.A.R. could “deliver” millions of gamblers to vote for him is tenuous at best. Plus, even IF (and that’s a big IF) W.A.R. could get a lot of gamblers to vote for him, will they stay with the Libertarian Party? Will they be sympathetic to libertarianism? This is another tenuous leap of faith that they would.

  80. Old Whig Says:

    If someone held a gun to my head and told me to vote in the Democrat primary, I would sigh and say, “Just…pull…the trigger.”

    O.W.

  81. Steve Perkins Says:

    Even though the “pragmatists” all support Barr because he’s got the name recognition, none of them support Gravel even though he’s got the name recognition. Perhaps that should be explored.

    I think that Bob Barr is 90-95% libertarian, with 5-10% conservative beliefs. I think that Gravel is 75-80% left-wing, with 20-25% libertarian beliefs (not counting those areas where liberals and libertarians overlap anyway).

    I think that Bob Barr is fairly committed to the LP going forward… he publicly endorsed Badnarik in 2004, has been working with civil liberties organizations for longer than that, and has been on the LNC for a couple of years now. I worry that Gravel is using the LP to keep his name in the news (sorta), had no ties prior to his surprise announcement at a nomination run, and I want to see if he’ll continue to stick around after Denver.

    I’m cautiously optimistic about Gravel’s ties to the LP, and I WOULD like to see more left-wing outreach to counter the perception that the LP is a subset of the GOP. However, the differences between Barr and Gravel go far beyond the simple issue of name recognition. If that were the end-all-be-all, then I’d drop Barr in a heartbeat to chase Jesse Ventura and his 9/11 Troofer crowd.

  82. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Steve Perkins Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    I think that Bob Barr is 90-95% libertarian, with 5-10% conservative beliefs

    I think that that is WAY too high a %age libertarian for Barr. I’d say it is more like 65 - 75%. W.A.R. now I would say that he is . . . hmmm . . . actually I wouldn’t know. It is very difficult to know if he IS libertarian or just is trying to sound libertarian. Now, from what I can tell, his rhetoric sounds about 70-80% libertarian . . . now; it was somewhere about 45-55% when he started out last year.

    Just my opinion.

  83. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Steve-

    I met Senator Gravel for the first time a month ago at the Ohio LP convention. We talked about a number of things.

    He surprised me when without being asked or prompted, he assured me that he was in the LP for the long haul, regardless of whether he received the nomination.

    PEACE
    Steve

  84. Ayn R. Key Says:

    Eric, perhaps you might benefit to discover the common ground between pro-life libertarians and pro-choice libertarians. They do have a common ground, one you do not share (as is the case on most libertarian issues).

    Do you know what that common ground is?

    No?

    It is that abortion isn’t a federal issue at all. Both sides agree Roe v. Wade was wrong because it is a federal decision. The correct outcome would have been for the SCOTUS to say “We listened to both sides of the argument, consulted the constitution, and have come to the conclusion that this is none of our business.”

    I actually got a solidly pro-choice democrat to like Ron Paul even though he is pro-life when I explained what his federalism on this issue meant to her. Obviously you haven’t considered it either, so you can go look the word up. I’ll wait.

    Ok, back now? Good. I pointed out to her that she and I are in California. I pointed out to her that at no point would California ever go pro-life. I pointed out to her that leaving it at the federal level meant that the national policy could become pro-life, and if the justices had stayed true to their party lines it would be that way already. Some of the justices typically considered friendly by the Democrats are actually Republican appointees.

    I pointed out to her that by making it a state issue instead of a federal issue, that actually protected abortion more than it being a federal issue. And I pointed out to her that any libertarian, even a pro-life libertarian, would make it a state issue instead of a federal level. I did admit that a woman in Utah, for example, would find it inconvenient to actually have to travel to California for an abortion, but that’s a lot better than a woman in Utah having to travel to Canada for an abortion.

    Your bogeyman of a pro-life libertarian president wanting to arrest people who have abortions ignores the common ground agreed to by all libertarians (which is why you don’t agree with it). Federal pro-life and federal pro-choice are BOTH wrong.

    It doesn’t surprise me that you don’t get that point. So I’ll allow you some time to read it again.

    Done? Do you understand it yet? No? Read it one more time. I’ll wait.

    Good. Now you see why a pro-life libertarian president will not be a danger to abortion. He’ll make it a state issue. So will a pro-choice libertarian president. Both would make it a state issue. They’d do exactly the same thing.

    So now, your assignment Dondero, is to contemplate which states would be pro-choice and which states would be pro-life if a pro-life libertarian were elected president. No saying “they would all be because that would be federal policy.” There won’t be federal policy. Actually think about which states are more likely to decide for themselves to be pro-choice and which states are more likely to decide for themselves to be pro-life.

    I’ll start you off. California would be pro-choice. Utah would be pro-life.

    Don’t come back until you’ve finished the list.

  85. John David Christensen Says:

    If Mary Ruwart’s candidacy is in fact ‘tainted’, which I rather doubt, than it has been tainted by slanders from the WAR campaign.

  86. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Ayn,

    VERY nice analysis, and Roe v. Wade was indeed a poorly framed decision … but I could make a federal pro-life or pro-choice argument on other constitutional grounds.

    If the fetus is a person, then there’s a constitutionally legitimate federal interest here. Per the 14th Amendment, no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and that amendment gives Congress the responsibility and authority to enforce that dictate. Allowing states to deny a class of persons (the unborn) the equal protection of the laws against homicide would obviously violate the stricture and justify federal intervention.

    On the other hand, if the fetus is not a person, and if procuring optional medical procedures is a “privilege or immunity” as protected by the 14th Amendment, then denying a certain class of women (pregnant women) the right to procure medical procedures which others are free to procure (for example, a dilation and curetage) would likewise be a 14th Amendment violation on the part of the state and the federal government would similarly be justified in intervening against it.

    All that said, leaving it to the states seems like the most reasonable political option, especially if thereafter the pro-lifers took the money they had previously spent lobbying for abortion restrictions and put it into adoption centers, etc., and if the pro-choicers took the money they had previously spent lobbying against abortion restrictions and spent it on projects to transport women who opted for abortion from Salt Lake City to Fresno for the procedure. The debate on whether or not a fetus is a person, and whether or not abortion is a medical procedure or a murder procedure is about as likely to be settled as the debate over infant baptism or the debate over transubstantiation of the host.

  87. JT Says:

    Steven: “He surprised me when without being asked or prompted, he assured me that he was in the LP for the long haul, regardless of whether he received the nomination.”

    Really? He said that without being “asked or prompted”? Wow, it’s almost like Gravel knows that Libertarians are wary about his involvement in the party and think he might bolt indignantly if he’s passed over.

    I bet he does.

  88. Paulie Says:

    Is there no chance for Smith?

    No.


    Am I the only person left who sees her as still viable?

    Quite possibly, or at least close.


    Also, you’re ignoring Hess. Although, for him to get anywhere, step one must be getting himself a website.

    Probably too late.


    Finally, the Peak Chart is better than the Nolan Chart.

    Haven’t seen that yet. Link?

  89. Paulie Says:

    Some are taking this thread WAY too seriously!

    How about we just do a steel cage Jello Battle Royal and be done with it?

    Or a full-contact chess tournament?

    Or a karoke-off?

    LOL!

    I suggest an NCAA tournament style debate, starting with 16 candidates (it may be 32 by convention time) and pairing them off until we are left with the last two.

    How do we pick the seeding?

  90. Ross Says:

    And, once again, before I can even count three useful comments we’ve launched into ad hominem attacks…

    Why would Gravel dropping the Fair Tax give him a much better chance of winning?

  91. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Wow, it’s almost like Gravel knows that Libertarians are wary about his involvement in the party and think he might bolt indignantly if he’s passed over.

    I bet he does.

    Possibly. But he’ll be far slower at it than Root or Imperato.

    PEACE
    Steve

  92. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    Why would Gravel dropping the Fair Tax give him a much better chance of winning?

    Because, IMHO, the Fairy Tax isn’t palatable to most Libertarians.

    PEACE
    Steve

  93. Paulie Says:

    Regardless, people who oppose him now aren’t going to support him even if he apologizes/grovels to them, and Barr would just look stupid to everyone else in trying.

    Try me.

  94. Paulie Says:

    Forget the anarchist / non-anarchist distinction… were there any people AT ALL other than Knapp? I remember when he was shilling this to the moon on Hammer of Truth a couple of years ago. As I recall, it was no LRC-style attempt to reform or direct the LP… it was Knapp believing quite sincerely that he was done with the LP for life and launching a political party of his own to succeed it. A couple of other Hammer of Truth commenters “joined” with him out of frustration over the Portland convention.

    I was a member of BTP. That did not involve renouncing my life membership in the LP. I don’t recall Knapp or anyone else quitting the LP to join the BTP. We had some discussion over whether the BTP would really be a party or an LP caucus.

    BTW, BTP is back, without Knapp. Jim Davidson is running it now.

  95. Paulie Says:

    Tom Bryant Says:
    May 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am

    LOL

  96. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    Well, my hubby is the expert at March-madness-style seeding but—-

    West bracket:
    Root
    Jingozian
    Kubby
    Hollist

    South bracket:
    Ruwart
    Smith
    Burns
    (Williams)

    North bracket:
    Gravel
    Ventura*
    Phillies
    Link

    East bracket:
    Barr
    Imperato
    Milnes
    Finan

  97. Paulie Says:

    I met Senator Gravel for the first time a month ago at the Ohio LP convention. We talked about a number of things.

    I chatted with him at the Connecticut LP convention. He assured me he was the only candidate for the LP nomination who would legalize drugs, and could not remember being on the Steve Kubby show (he was on Apr. 7).

  98. Paulie Says:

    I’ll start you off. California would be pro-choice. Utah would be pro-life.

    Don’t come back until you’ve finished the list.

    How about DC? Congress is their legislature.

  99. Mike Theodore Says:

    “17) He sees a wind-up ducky spinning around in circles.
    18) Fade to black.”

    HAHA! OMG! I just started rolling on the frickin’ ground when I read that part. Jesus! hahahahahha

  100. mdh Says:

    But he neglects the question we were all hoping for an answer to… How does Robert Milnes win?

  101. Paulie Says:

    Robert Milnes has already won. You are just living in a computer-generated image of the time right before his victory.

  102. mdh Says:

    OK. Jim Burns. Go!

  103. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Paulie, if BTP is “back” as you say, then they better fix that shitty website they have. It’s pitiful. Used to be full of activity. Now it’s deader than a cat under an 18-wheeler.

  104. Eric Dondero Says:

    Mr. Keys, I was recruited to the Libertarian Party in 1985, fresh out of the Navy, at a meeting of the National Abortion Rights League in Jacksonville, Florida. I was there to help plan a protest rally against Jerry Falwell who was planning to visit Jax. Nick Dunbar, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Duval County came to the meeting to recruit new members into the LP.

    I remember it clear as day. Nick told me, hey, “We Libertarians are pro-free enterprise like Milton Friedman, and we’re Pro-Choice.” I send, “Great” sign me up.

    It was only years later that I learned there was such a thing as a Pro-Life Libertarian.

    But the point is, either Nick was lying to me, or the LP has changed dramatically over the years.

    I suspect the latter. Cause I can remember great bumper stickers the LP used to produce in the 1980s, “Vote Libertarian: We’re Pro-Choice on Everything.”

    It puzzles me how so many here on this Forum are so concerned about being perceived as “too Republican,” or “too Rightwing,” yet these very same people are the ones, seeking to downplay the LP’s Pro-Choice position.

    Pro-Choice is one way that we can differentiate ourselves from Conservatives.

    Not too mention the opportunities we have to link up with Pro-Choice Repubican groups like Ann Stone and that whole crowd.

  105. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Stefan, I check every night outside my window, but I haven’t seen any Bush/Cheney cronies spying on me, or taking notes on what sexual positions my wife and I use.

    You’d think that under the Patriot Act, they’d at least contract that out to Haliburton or something. In fact, there’s a big Haliburton office here in Houston. But nope. Hadn’t seen any Haliburton flunkies in trenchcoats hanging outside my house late at night.

    Wuz up with dat? cuz? Where dose Haliburton/Bush/Cheyney Patriot Act guys be at??

  106. Paulie Says:

    I don’t know if BTP is doing anything at all on their website. Jim Davidson is going to some conventions, and says he now has several state affiliates. He wants to recruit a presidential candidate who is willing to spend money so the party can get on the ballot in several states. He was under the impression that Alden Link has money and is willing to spend it. He wasn’t too worried about Link’s views.

    There will be a BTP meeting at the LP convention - possibly at or near the end thereof, or shortly after.

  107. Ayn R. Key Says:

    Eric, considering how extensive your knowledge of libertarianism is even today (and your ability to read considering that you have called me Alan and have called me Keys) then the true interpretation is probably that you have moved yet been unaware of it since you never really understood the principles in the first place.

    While a majority of libertarians are pro-choice - I do not deny that pro-life is the minority viewpoint - pro-choice libertarians want choice at the state level. Your position, federal pro-choice, is an anti-libertarian position. Perhaps you never investigated what it means to be a pro-choice libertarian.

    After all, you do not understand the reasoning behind holding either the libertarian pro-choice or the libertarian pro-life positions. There is some deeper philosophical reasoning going on that separates the pro-life libertarian from the pro-life republican and the pro-choice libertarian from the pro-choice democrat. Some of this was touched on by Thomas Knapp when he discussed the issue of fetus personhood … and it went completely over your head.

    It is ironic that you rail against the anarchists within the LP when you are advocating the most anarchist position with regards to abortion - it should be legal because “we’re pro-choice on everything.” Technically taken to the extreme such a sentiment could mean that we are pro-choice on issues such as murder and rape … yet you are backing W.A.R. against Ruwart and he accused her of holding sexually inappropriate ideas in an effort to bolster his failing campaign.

    The libertarian position is to maximize the rights of the individual. The few issues that divide libertarians are those issues where it is unclear how to maximize the rights of the individual. Abortion is one of those, because if a fetus is not a life then pro-life enslaves women … but if a fetus is a life than pro-choice is murder.

    The question is fetus personhood, and it is not a settled issue.

    The other question, one on which pro-life and pro-choice libertarians agree is the constitutional issue. What does the constitution actually say? When I last lectured you on this issue I included a paragraph on how the court should have ruled, and you failed to respond. Did you not understand it? If it’s not authorized by the constitution the federal government has no business taking a side - and that includes both the pro-life and the pro-choice side of the debate. Knapp has found a possible interpretation that could authorize federal jurisdiction, but nowhere in the current decision of Roe v. Wade is there any nod to that possible interpretation. It is bad law.

    Pro-life and pro-choice libertarians (which if put together make all libertarians) agree Roe v. Wade is bad law. Dondero does not agree that it is bad law. Therefore Dondero disagrees with all libertarians.

    Therefore Dondero is supposed to be some sort of libertarian how exactly?

    It’s not about proving we are different from the Republicans in an effort to hook up with the Republicans (?) it is about trying to apply the theory. You may have been good at handing out pamphlets once upon a time, but did you ever consider theory? It’s the basis for the positions you once advocated, and your failure to grasp the theory is the reason you strayed and are now considered a neoconservative.

  108. Steve Dasbach Says:

    Ayn R. Key wrote:

    “Even though the “pragmatists” all support Barr because he’s got the name recognition, none of them support Gravel even though he’s got the name recognition. Perhaps that should be explored.”

    I think this is because Barr has a longer history with the LP. He voted for Badnarik in 2004, then joined the party and has been serving on the LNC. He publicly reversed his positions on the War on Drugs, DOMA, and the Patriot Act long before considering running for the LP nomination.

    Gravel is a lot newer to the LP, and as far as I know, still advocates some form of national health insurance.

    If Gravel makes a similar journey to Barr’s over the next few years (on different issues of course), I could easily see him attracting strong support in 2012. His age might be an issue though.

    If Barr is the nominee, I think someone like Ruwart, Gravel, or Kubby would be a good VP pick to help dispell the myth that the LP is a right-wing party. As Ron Paul and DownsizeDC.org have shown, freedom has broad appeal—left, right, and center.

  109. mdh Says:

    I’ve heard from Gravel that he does not support any sort of nationalized/socialist health care system. I am under the impression that at one time he supported Romneycare (basically forcing everyone to get insured).

    I’ve spoken to him personally a few times though, and he readily admits he doesn’t know everything and wants to learn from us. Maybe he’ll run for LNC at-large and get to know everyone better. That would be nice - I genuinely like the guy, and he’s probably the first person to bring some popular new ideas that aren’t downright stupid to the table in a long time. A number of other LP candidates have endorsed the “National Initiative” that Gravel has spearheaded.

  110. Susan Hogarth Says:

    He publicly reversed his positions on the War on Drugs, DOMA, and the Patriot Act long before considering running for the LP nomination.

    Not true, as far as I can tell (and that’s because it’s awfully hard to pin Barr down on anything).

    When do you think he reversed these positions? I’ve seen him try to explain them away as libertarian, but not to reverse them. He said his vote on the PATRIOT Act was libertarian because it involved a deal getting a sunset provision included for some clauses.

    You might call his position on the WoD ‘reversed’ if his original position was that drugs should be prohibited by the federal government and now he thinks they should be prohibited by the state governments. To me that’s hardly a ‘reversal’.

    He says DOMA was libertarian because it called for getting the federal government out of marriage. As if

    Has he EVER said anywhere that, if he had it to do over again, he would do otherwise on any of these votes?

    Oh, and we shouldn’t forget his support for the anti-flag burning amendment. I wonder if he’s revered his position on at least that one simple stupid bandwagon he jumped on?

  111. Dallas Says:

    If Gravel gets the nomination you might as well put a fork in the LP because it is done. We cannot nominate a pseudo-libertarian who would be more at home in the Green party. It is amazing that someone that advocates for installing a brand new tax on carbon would even be considered for the LP nomination. Not to mention his horrible federal democracy, the NI4D. No to a “fair” tax, no to a carbon tax, no to a federal democracy. To bad Paul would not consider a LP run. Paul/Ruwart, that would be a Libertarian wet dream.

  112. Ross Says:

    The fact remains that Barr voted for the Patriot Act and the War. That means that he was either fooled on both counts, something we don’t need in a presidential candidate, or he went against all libertarian principles to vote for these in order to further his own career, which is something we definitely don’t need!

  113. Dallas Says:

    Barr is a wolf in sheep’s clothing who has done exactly what a good politician does. Infiltrate a party whether or not you agree with it. Then, adopt the party’s platform where it suits you and make sure those are the only questions you address. Bingo, you have credibility. Barr, like Gravel, is a betrayal of what the LP is. I can only hope people do not sacrifice the heart of the party for recognition.

  114. Anal Libertarian Says:

    Something has to change.
    Un-deniable dilemma.
    Bob Barr’s not a burden
    Anyone should bear.

  115. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Dondero writes,

    “Mr. Peak, Harry Browne wrote a book all about Anarchism in the early 1970s, became a best-seller in fact, called ‘How I found Freedom in an Unfree World.’ It was all about dropping out of society, living in a shack in the mountains, investing in gold and having your gun ready when the Feds came to take it all away.

    “For years after that he advocated Libertarians not being involved in politics at all, and just separating themselves from society.

    “He was not only an Anarchist, you could argue, he was Mr. Anarchist.”

    I admit that I haven’t yet read How I Found Freedom, but from what I’m aware of it, it advocated freeing one’s self from various social trappings in which people place themselves. I see nothing inherently anarchistic about this, or about anything else you’ve described in this above quote.

    Simply not taking place in the electoral process does not make one an anarchist. And the fact that Mr. Browne advocated tariffs as a means of raising money for the government during his campaigns seems to indicate that he was not an anarchist. In fact, calling it anarchism seems to constitute spin.

    Sincerely,
    Alex Peak

  116. Alex Peak Says:

    Mr. Perkins:

    Whereas I agree with you that Bob Barr “is fairly committed to the LP going forward” (and would say the same is true of Mr. Gravel), I do not believe either of them could be truthfully described as a libertarian—at least not yet. You say that you think Mr. Barr is 90-95% libertarian; I do not think he’s any more than 70% libertarian.

    Yours,
    Alex Peak

Leave a Reply