Outright Libertarians Executive Committee Comments on Bob Barr’s Declaration of Candidacy for the Libertarian Nomination

From Outright Libertarians:

This Monday, former Congressman (and recent LNC committee member) Bob Barr announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Nomination for President of the United States.

Many of you are wondering where Outright Libertarians stands on this recent development, and the short answer is this: our position has not changed.

We continue to strongly support Dr. George Phillies as our endorsed candidate. Dr. Phillies has shown the courage, character and commitment that Outright’s membership seeks in a presidential nominee. A longtime Libertarian activist and longtime supporter of equality under the law for all people (including LGBT Americans), Dr. Phillies has established an enviable record of achievement in the fight for liberty.

His platform includes uncompromising support for the rights of LGBT Americans in military service, marriage, immigration, adoption, and tax treatment. He has been an implacable foe of the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s anti-gay recruitment policy since their inception. Most importantly, he has led important initiatives to fight for us everyday, while bringing the message of the Libertarian Party to LGBT people. We can think of no finer candidate, and are proud to reinforce our support for Dr. Phillies’ candidacy.

Regarding Mr. Barr, we find that though he has shown some welcome evolution on the issues, he has a record that remains notably different from the other Libertarians in the race. Mr. Barr has not completed Outright’s Candidate Survey, but is “on the record” regarding two issues key within the LGBT Libertarian community and the broader LGBT electoral base.

First, while we applaud the former Congressman’s repudiation of the anti-gay military policy that he drafted for the Wall Street Journal, and the evolution that this represents for Mr. Barr, his opinion on this issue simply moved into the Libertarian mainstream—rather than pushing the debate forward. Every Libertarian candidate who has answered our survey—plus Dr. Mary Ruwart (who has not yet answered our survey but is “on the record” on this issue)—shares that view.

On the Defense of Marriage Act—an odious law that Bob Barr co-sponsored as a Congressman—his evolution has been far slower. We have discussed the law with him a number of times, and recently he has telegraphed support for repealing the half of the law that creates a federal definition of marriage. However, he has not consistently campaigned on this point, and seems reluctant to speak of it. (An example of this reluctance may be heard at approximately 16:30 in this linked Atlanta radio interview with Mr. Barr: http://media.podcastingmanager.com/81570-71406/Media/CFL-20080420-S3-S4.mp3 )

In contrast, Democratic nomination candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has adopted a similar position, yet appears more willing to campaign upon it. Barack Obama has declared that he would repeal the law altogether.

Every Libertarian candidate who has completed our survey, as well as Dr. Ruwart, goes a major step further by calling for repeal of the law.

We believe that the difference between the Democratic and the Libertarian commitments on this issue is that while the two Democrats talk about doing something (despite a multi-year do-nothing record as Senators), Libertarians will fight from day one for us. We are not yet convinced that Mr. Barr would fight vigorously to promote his reluctantly-expressed position, a problem given that his position is the most statist of the serious Libertarian candidates in this race.

We welcome Bob Barr’s engagement with the Libertarian Party, and are always delighted to welcome new Libertarians into the movement. We look forward to continuing to work with him as an LNC member or in any other role he takes within our Party. However, we must hold our presidential candidates to the highest possible standards, for the benefit of both our Party and LGBT Americans. In this regard, we believe that Bob Barr has quite a bit of work to do in order to enter the mainstream on LGBT issues in comparison to the other declared Libertarian candidates in this race. Just as many of us did when we first joined the LP, he needs to “steep in the brine of Liberty” for a while longer before running for nomination as our Party’s standard-bearer.

Further, we note that regardless of who is nominated, the Libertarian Party will perform an invaluable service to the queer community in this election cycle—even if the delegates ignore Outright’s endorsement of George Phillies and instead choose Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party’s nominee, the silver lining for the LGBT community will be that a Barr candidacy will almost certainly spoil any possible victory by John McCain.

In summary, recent news has only reinforced our commitment to Dr. George Phillies, and we encourage Outright members and supporters—as well as all Libertarian Party convention delegates—to support his candidacy in Denver with their votes, their ideas, and every other resource at their disposal.

88 Responses to “Outright Libertarians Executive Committee Comments on Bob Barr’s Declaration of Candidacy for the Libertarian Nomination”

  1. svf Says:

    If the delegates end up nominating Phillies instead of Barr, I’m out of the LP. I’m sure I’m not alone, either.

    This absurd infighting and “purity testing” has to end.
    —member since 1996, LP convention delegate in 2000, wish I were a delegate in 2008.

  2. Brian Miller Says:

    This absurd infighting and “purity testing” has to end.

    Isn’t it “infighting and purity testing” to demand that people either choose your candidate or you quit?

    Well, maybe not. But it doesn’t strike me as the hallmark of a big-tent party. We don’t believe that our members’ concerns about these issues have been sufficiently addressed by Mr. Barr, and express our concerns about this situation not only out of concern for our members, but also the Libertarian Party.

    If Mr. Barr is the LP nominee with his present position on these issues, it will mean that for the first time in history, the Libertarian Party will not be competitive on LGBT issues. That’s a serious problem that deserves a considered and thoughtful view and debate in the party—not a “my way or the highway” approach.

  3. svf Says:

    so getting 0.5% of the vote again is preferrable to a candidate with a “leave it to the states” approach to “LGBT issues”...? I assume you would object to Ron Paul as the nominee also (if he were to take the LP up on it’s offer of the nomination on a silver platter…)

  4. Jake Porter Says:

    (if he were to take the LP up on it’s offer of the nomination on a silver platter…)

    Who from the LP made this offer?

  5. Brian Miller Says:

    so getting 0.5% of the vote again is preferrable to a candidate with a “leave it to the states” approach to “LGBT issues”

    That’s a false dichotomy. One is not dependent upon the other.

    I assume you would object to Ron Paul as the nominee also (if he were to take the LP up on it’s offer of the nomination on a silver platter…)

    Speaking personally, I am a critic of Ron Paul’s position on these issues, yes. OL doesn’t have a formal position on the Paul candidacy.

    Speaking for both myself and Outright, I can tell you that as an LGBT lobby, we oppose efforts that would result in the preservation or increase of big-government mistreatment of gay people.

    Just as a pro-tax-reduction lobby in the LP would raise concerns about a candidate who advocated income tax increases, and as a pro-free-speech lobby would raise concerns about a candidate who advocates the implementation of hate speech laws, Outright raises concerns about candidates whose positions on LGBT issues aren’t evolved.

    Outright Libertarians doesn’t believe that the Libertarian Party can grow by closing the door on such a significant part of the population and their friends, families and supporters. Without significant evolution on these issues, we are concerned that the Barr candidacy would do just that.

  6. svf Says:

    so, you didn’t get that letter from National HQ asking us to sign a petition begging him to be the LP nominee? maybe it was actually to be a candidate for the nomination, but the message was pretty clear… and for good reason.

  7. Brian Miller Says:

    you didn’t get that letter from National HQ asking us to sign a petition begging him to be the LP nominee

    When was such a letter issued?

    I do recall a statement by the LNC inviting Ron Paul to run in the nomination battle. I do not recall an effort by the executive staff or LNC to use LP resources to advocate on behalf of Ron Paul as the LP nominee and for good reason—it would be a violation of both the party bylaws and federal election law.

  8. The Dylan Says:

    I fall right at the top of the Nolan Chart but I have to say I like Bob Barr. I am seeing in his opposition the kind of infighting that may forever keep this party small. I blame the reform crowd for abandoning the party in ‘84 when we nominated David Bergland, a “purist”. And, now it seems much of the radical crowd is prepared to shed their Libertarian membership if we nominate a more moderate candidate.

    We need all individuals interested in changing the direction of this country to work together. I will support the Libertarian nominee if he or she will give me more freedom and less government. That is the litmus test. Think about it. If the Republicans believed half of what they said, there would be no need for a Libertarian Party and if the GOP had the fortitude to nominate Ron Paul this year, we would not need a presidential candidate to challenge him.

    So, let Bob Barr compete for the nomination. I would not suggest that he enter the race unscrutinized. Certainly, he should be probed and prodded for direct answers to the satisfaction of the national delegation. But at the end of the day, he may be our best choice and I hope the rest of our party can see that.

    If you cannot tolerate having Bob Barr on the national ticket, don’t be discouraged. Why all the fuss over the presidency anyway? Victory in this race is well out of our reach. We should not choose our party allegiance on presidential politics alone, when our votes for state legislature, sheriff, and Congress have so much more value.

  9. Susan Hogarth Says:

    And, now it seems much of the radical crowd is prepared to shed their Libertarian membership if we nominate a more moderate candidate.

    I ain’t walking! I invite others - radicals and whatevers alike - to join me in this pledge.

    :)

  10. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Brian,

    Earlier this year—I think it was in February—an LP fundraiser went out over Shane Corey’s signature, purporting to be a “petition to Ron Paul.” I don’t recall whether that petition was specific to asking him to seek the LP’s presidential nomination, but it was definitely a Ron Paul puff piece. The idea was that you’d sign it and send it back in (with a check for the LP, of course). It was a gross misappropriation of party funds for the purpose of either promoting a Republican presidential candidate or soliciting the entry of a candidate into the LP’s presidential race.

    Anyway, svf wrote:

    “so getting 0.5% of the vote again is preferrable to a candidate with a ‘leave it to the states’ approach to “LGBT issues”...? I assume you would object to Ron Paul as the nominee also (if he were to take the LP up on it’s offer of the nomination on a silver platter…)”

    Outright’s executive board—as opposed to its actual membership—were quite clear about their problems with Paul’s positions on LGBT issues, in the context of condemning LP candidates who endorsed Paul.

    As a matter of fact, that was the trump card for the Outright executive board’s—as opposed to the actual membership’s—decision to endorse Phillies despite the fact that at least two candidates (Kubby and Smith) had identical Outright survey responses, and that at least one (Kubby) had a clearly superior record of ACTUALLY FIGHTING for the rights of LGBT people.

  11. svf Says:

    Ok, I ain’t walking either, just blowing off steam… (unless Hollist gets the nomination, that is…)

    but with Barr we have the first opportunity in a long damn time (maybe ever) for a viable NATIONAL presidential campaign… we would be foolish to let this pass us by because he “isn’t libertarian enough”.

  12. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    Look, all the candidates have flaws. It’s just for that the Pagan and GLBT communities the Barr candidacy is especially nerve-wracking because we just are not sure what his current stances are. And GLBT/Outright and Pago-libertarians are two BIG constituencies in the LP. While I would not leave over a Barr run, I sure won’t get very excited.

    Plus we have at least one other candidate who is national material (Gravel, even if he worries me for other reasons) and who knows about Ventura? (May we find out tomorrow)

  13. Roscoe Says:

    Let each state party choose whomever it pleases to run for President in its state. Then we’ll see which experimental candidate does the best, and we can apply the lessons to 2012. It is not like we are going to win in 2008 and the unusualness might attract some media attention.

  14. Susan Hogarth Says:

    but with Barr we have the first opportunity in a long damn time (maybe ever) for a viable NATIONAL presidential campaign…

    When you get back from lala land, let me know.

    Barr has none of the positives of Ron Paul (consistent message, funky-cool geekishness, earnestness, amazing mind…) and all of the negatives (for vote-getting) that come with a third-party run. Oh, and he has a horrid antilibertarian record. And he can’t give a straightforward answer to a simple question like “Do you support legalization of marijuana?” And he has a record of serious conflict of interest issues.

    Other than those things, I guess I agree with you that he’s a foolish opportunity to pass up.

  15. The Democratic Republican Says:

    We know radicals won’t walk. Fundamentalists are like cockroaches: they’ll make a stink, be inflexible and unreasonable, and will be the last ones sitting at a table that no one else wants to sit at.

  16. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Let each state party choose whomever it pleases to run for President in its state. Then we’ll see which experimental candidate does the best, and we can apply the lessons to 2012. It is not like we are going to win in 2008 and the unusualness might attract some media attention.

    Interesting idea.

    Never happen, but interesting.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    I ain’t walking, either.

    As far as a “viable NATIONAL presidential campaign,” I don’t see that Barr is likely to put together any such thing. I’ll be surprised if (assuming he’s nominated, which I consider not nearly as likely as some believe) he raises the money that Ed Clark had courtesy of a well-heeled VP candidate in 1980 ($10 million in 2007 dollars), or that he’ll get a similar share of the overall media pie (which is much bigger than it was back then).

    It’s just possible that, if nominated, Barr will be able to pull a flash-in-the-pan performance of a few million votes—but after that comes the letdown. Those voters will be disgruntled Republicans who are casting a protest vote against John McCain and who will return to the GOP immediately after. They won’t be voting for down-ticket LP candidates. They won’t be voting LP in 2010 or 2012. They won’t be signing up to organize their precincts for the LP. It will just be a one-off “look at me, I’m not John McCain” thing, and then we get to spend even more time trying to convince people we’re a real alternative, not just the GOP’s bitch.

  18. Susan Hogarth Says:

    It’s just possible that, if nominated, Barr will be able to pull a flash-in-the-pan performance of a few million votes…

    I’ll bet not. But I doubt it will even come to that, as I don’t see him winning the nom.

  19. Susan Hogarth Says:

    They won’t be voting for down-ticket LP candidates.

    Why should they? Barr’s website doesn’t even mention the LP, and I can’t recall him mentioning it in his ‘online announcement’ A NC libertarian posted this to our state discussion list on Monday:

    Bob Barr just finished a ten-minute interview on WBT. The host, Keith Larson, was gushing with praise. Barr said some good things, though vague, about shrinking government and ending overseas adventurism. By
    “vague”, I am not criticizing. With only ten minutes, he didn’t have much opportunity for specifics.

    However, he did make ONE specific that really bothered me. He said that Republicans should support him because his candidacy will bring out voters who are dejected by McCain, and will now vote for Republican candidates down ballot. No mention of Libertarian candidates down ballot. A recurring theme with him.

    That already cost him one potential convention-going supporter from North Carolina.

  20. Brian Holtz Says:

    I agree with Brian Miller that we “must hold our presidential candidates to the highest possible standards”—especially when they themselves (unlike Barr) claim to be an authority on the LP’s standards.

    These questions for Barr on gay rights are entirely legitimate, and are not at all “purity testing”. Gay rights is a mainstream issue, and that’s why I worked to get a strong gay rights plank in the Platform Committee’s draft. I’ve argued to PlatCom that, in constrast to our core ~13-20% constituency of liberty-increasers, gay rights resonate with a minimum of 35% of voters (gay marriage) up through 53% (civil unions) to a whopping 78% (open gay service in the military). Exit polls in 2004 showed that 28 million Bush voters support either gay marriage or civil unions.

    And I don’t think Outright Chair Rob Power will mind me quoting his argument that history is on our side on this issue: “In December 2003, a CNN/Gallop Poll found that 78% of Americans believe gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. 91% of young people ages 18 - 29 believe the ban should be lifted. Public opinion polls indicate a majority of Americans favor allowing gays to serve in uniform. A Fox News poll conducted in August 2003 shows that 64 percent of Americans now favor allowing gays to serve openly in the military, up from 56 percent in a similar poll taken in 2001.”

    The PlatCom gay rights plank says:

    Sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity should have no discriminatory impact on the treatment of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, adoption, immigration, or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships.

    I submitted our plank to the eQualityGiving gay rights group that will be grading all the parties’ platforms. They gave our plank the best score an LP platform can hope for (since we don’t support laws against private discrimination, so-called “hate” crimes, etc.).

  21. Teddy Says:

    I see our best bet this year is a Bob Barr/Daniel Williams ticket. In these comments I notice that when any candidate is mentioned, that all you here is (im leaving the party if so and so is nominated). I myself will support whomever is nominated. To those who leave I hope you find the party and the candidate that agrees with everything you want. good luck.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Teddy,

    You write:

    “I see our best bet this year is a Bob Barr/Daniel Williams ticket.”

    You should probably visit an optometrist, then ;-)

    As far as the rest of it goes, I suppose it’s possible that someone has played the “I’m leaving if …” card in comments here on TPW, but to be honest I don’t remember who or why.

  23. Gene Trosper Says:

    As like Teddy, I will also vote for whomever the nominee is. I believe all candidates are genuinely good people.

    Honestly, I don’t view things from the “gay rights” prisim. I look at it through a “human liberty” prism. Should the LP have a “gay rights” plank? I don’t think so. We’re talking about HUMAN sexuality here and I see no reason to differentiate so-called “gay sex” or “kinky sex” from straightlaced, “vanilla sex”.

    If the planks says “Sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity should have no discriminatory impact on the treatment of individuals by government…”, then really, the LP should not differentiate human sexuality simply to act as an influence on the wider policy debate. If we can show we treat EVEYONE the same and not feel the need to place tags on things such as sexual orientation, it will demonstrate just how unbiased and non-discriminatory we are.

  24. Gene Trosper Says:

    I played the “I’m leaving” card before. It really doesn’t do any good for the organization.

    The only positive outcome of my having at one point left the LP was my being able to regain my personal life again without having the yoke of “responsibility” around my neck. I grew to hate having to watch my tongue! Threatening to leave is only a reaction to severe frustration. At that time, I was severely frustrated by the actions of the California LP “leadership” at that time.

  25. Brian Holtz Says:

    Gene, I confess, the actual name of the plank is “Personal Relationships”. The plank’s language would apply just as well to straight people in a gay-dominated culture as it does to gay people in our straight-dominated culture. For the whole draft, see
    http://libertarianmajority.net/pure-principles-platform

  26. jonathan Says:

    I’m with SVF the “purity testing” is ridiculous. If the Libertarian Party’s tent is not big enough to hold different points of views while holding the basic principles , it will never grow and be a factro. Look how many different points of views on various issues there are within the Republican Party or for that matter in the Democratic Party. But you also must understand that a few bloggers in this site does not reflect the truth on whom the nominee will be for the Libertarian Party. These bloggers are in the camp of Phillies and are campaigning which is theri right. Ofcourse Bob Barr will be the nominee, it is not even a close call.

  27. Gene Trosper Says:

    Thank you, Brian!

    Libertarianism is about individualism. If we fall into the trap of labelling people (thus taking away their individuality) then we will just as easily fall into the trap of discriminating against others based upon those labels.

  28. Kenny Says:

    My reaction to this piece is “So what?” These “Outright Libertarians” put their own narrow interests before liberty. They should change their name to “Outright Liberals”.

  29. Hugh Jass Says:

    ‘Gay rights’ is a collectivist concept. Libertarians should be supporting individual rights, not ‘gay rights’ or ‘straight rights’. As for me, I will be voting for the most libertarian candidate in November. Whether that is Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart, or Chuck Baldwin will be decided by the convention.

  30. Rob Power Says:

    “and that at least one (Kubby) had a clearly superior record of ACTUALLY FIGHTING for the rights of LGBT people.”

    Care to back that up, Tom?

    George actively donated his time and resources to support Outright when we were working for marriage equality in Massachusetts.

    The only tangible support I’ve ever heard about from Steve on LGBT issues was that he worked on medical marijuana legalization, which is a laudable issue itself. But just because this helped some gay men with AIDS does not make it a “right of LGBT people” any more than a Republican’s capital gains tax cut that some gay people benefit from makes the Republicans supportive of LGBT rights. (Log Cabin tries to make this argument all the time, and they get laughed out of the room.)

    Now, if marijuana had been legal for straight people but illegal for gay people, and Steve had fought THAT battle on our behalf, then you’d have a point. But he fought for legalizing MMJ for all people—no “queer points” for that, though he does get plenty of general libertarian points for it.

    I’ve said this every time the Kubby/MMJ/AIDS/LGBT link has been broguht up, but I’ll say it again—AIDS is not a gay disease! That Kubby’s support of medical marijuana legalization keeps being touted as a record of “fighting for LGBT rights” is, frankly, insulting. Stop saying it. It’s such an ignorant statement that it makes Steve look less LGBT friendly than we all know he really is.

    Steve’s a great Libertarian, a great person, a great advocate for his issue, but on the issue of ending legalized discrimination against LGBT people, his record doesn’t come close to George’s. That doesn’t make Steve anti-gay one tiny bit. I support the Second Amendment, but I don’t volunteer my time or resources to defend it. For this reason, it would be unreasonable for me to expect the endorsement of a Libertarian gun-rights group over another Libertarian who had actually put his or her time and resources into helping the gun-rights movement. That doesn’t mean I’m a gun-grabber myself. It just means that I don’t get the gun lobby endorsement.

    Not getting Outright’s endorsement doesn’t make Steve anti-gay—it just means someone worked harder on our issues. And that person is George Phillies. See this photo from 2005, a full year before George even declared his run for our Presidential nomination:

    http://www.outrightusa.org/minishowcase/galleries/Boston%20Pride%202005/IMG_6126.JPG

    Steve has been busy fighting another important battle in the Libertarian movement. And that’s fine. But can you imagine a Libertarian MMJ caucus endorsing George over Steve? That’s how ridiculous it would be for Outright to endorse Steve over George.

    Stop taking it so personally, Tom. It’s not helping your candidate.

  31. Sivarticus Says:

    Barr really is the obvious choice for the LP in terms of total votes and growing the party above the usual 300,000-500,000 showing. I hope they don’t make a twisted version of the Green Party’s error in 2004. They foolishly ran a purist nobody for President and pulled sixth place, with longterm deterioration over the years (not to mention entry of nuts as their standard bearers like Cynthia McKinney).

    Yeah, the non-Dem left was doomed in 2004 due to anti-Bush hysteria, but it’s hard to argue that the refusal to endorse Nader again was a bad move. The Libertarians need a high profile figure this year. Both they and the Constitution Party stand on the cusp of being able to profit enormously from the emerging spurred by Ron Paul. Barr is also a Paul ally, and provides RP one last avenue for a third party run after the GOP Convention. On the extremely unlikely chance that he would want to do it, Barr could step down into the Vice Presidential role and Ron Paul could take the top of the ticket.

  32. Brian Holtz Says:

    Wow! I need to volunteer for some Outright booth time…

  33. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Rob,

    You write:

    “Care to back that up, Tom?”

    I’m not sure why I would need to back it up to you personally, because you already know it—you got a pre-release look at, and a request for editorial advice on, Kubby’s open letter urging Governor Schwarzenegger to sign AB43 and end marriage apartheid in California.

    “George actively donated his time and resources to support Outright when we were working for marriage equality in Massachusetts.”

    The last time George ran for office, my recollection is that he campaigned on an agenda of a kinder, gentler marriage apartheid—“civil unions.”

    “The only tangible support I’ve ever heard about from Steve on LGBT issues was that he worked on medical marijuana legalization, which is a laudable issue itself. But just because this helped some gay men with AIDS does not make it a ‘right of LGBT people’”

    What, LGBT people have some separate and mutually exclusive set of rights from other kinds of people? When you fight for one person’s rights, you’re fighting for everyone’s rights.

    Steve fought successfully for the rights of all people, including LGBT people, to use the medicine they need for any ailment they have—while George is fighting—ineffectually and in the form of bringing coals to Newcastle, yes, but fighting nonetheless—against the rights of all people, including LGBT people, to cross imaginary lines on the ground without some bureaucrat’s or labor union’s permission.

    Outright’s executive board is fully within its rights to endorse any candidate it likes. And it’s fully within my rights to believe that the choice Outright’s executive board made was a betrayal of the interests of Outright’s membership, of the LP and of the LGBT community, and to say so. Nothing “personal” about it.

  34. timothy west Says:

    barr just got 4 segments on glenn beck, at least 25 minutes of prime cable air time. Over the last 2 days I count about an hour and 30 of Barr on national cable talking head programs. badnarik got 5 minutes on MSNBC once.

    “I played the “I’m leaving” card before. It really doesn’t do any good for the organization.”

    yeah, but it can do a great deal of good for you personally not having to deal with fanatics with screws loose very day. What my leaving and renouncing the repugnant oath cost the LP was 300 bucks a year yearly pledge, donations to LP candidates and state petition drives, and a chance to rebuild the LPWV to get another state party back.

    I can’t ever come back now that I know what the oath REALLY means, and I support the concept of the enforcement of law. Which means I’m not a real libertarian, and neither is Bob Barr.

  35. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Gene has it right. It is about individual rights.

    That being said, I’m still waiting for Barr to answer ANY question directly, instead of engaging in majorpartyspeak and dodging around the issue, whatever that issue is.

  36. disinter Says:

    Many of you are wondering where Outright Libertarians stands on this recent development,

    Actually I don’t think anyone gives a shit where the Outright Liber-Nazi circle jerk stands on anything, much less Bob Barr.

  37. disinter Says:

    If the delegates end up nominating Phillies instead of Barr, I’m out of the LP. I’m sure I’m not alone, either.

    This absurd infighting and “purity testing” has to end.

    Umm, retard, neither Barr nor Phillies is a real (pure) Libertarian.

  38. disinter Says:

    My reaction to this piece is “So what?” These “Outright Libertarians” put their own narrow interests before liberty. They should change their name to “Outright Liberals”.

    Exactly.

  39. disinter Says:

    ‘Gay rights’ is a collectivist concept.

    Bingo!

  40. Gray T. Britton Says:

    To Susan Hogarth:

    You are running for the Libertarian National Committee and you constantly bash Bob Barr, which is your prerogative for being evasive on the issues. I have some questions for you. Will you be evasive?

    1) You condemn, Mr. Barr’s stance on the marijuana issue. You are obviously pro-drug legalization, do you smoke marijuana, eat marijuana, make marijuana tea or use marijuana in any other form for recreational or medicinal purposes?

    2) Please tell us, are you a lesbian or your sexual affiliation.

    3) What type of pornography do you prefer and do you like sex toys?

  41. disinter Says:

    the choice Outright’s executive board made was a betrayal of the interests of Outright’s membership, of the LP and of the LGBT community

    Very true.

  42. disinter Says:

    If the LP nominates Barr or Phillies, this gay voter will be writing in Ron Paul

  43. Jonathan Says:

    too bad Ron Paul is not a write in candidate . wow this web site gives bloggers a bad name

  44. dj28 Says:

    I’m leaving if milnes isn’t our guy!

  45. disinter Says:

    too bad Ron Paul is not a write in candidate

    He is, you just write him in.

  46. kombayn Says:

    Barr/Root ‘08 - True Libertarians for President!

  47. brent burk Says:

    Do Libertarians not believe in federalism?

  48. darolew Says:

    The LP is the party of individual rights, something everyone, gay or straight, black or white, and everything in between should be able to appreciate. If Bob Barr doesn’t support individual rights, then we have a problem. If Barr doesn’t support “gay rights”, well, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

  49. darolew Says:

    “Do Libertarians not believe in federalism?”
    Some do, though the party has roots in the anti-federalist ideology.

  50. Steve Newton Says:

    ‘Gay rights’ is a collectivist concept. Libertarians should be supporting individual rights, not ‘gay rights’ or ‘straight rights’.

    Gay rights, like the rights of gun owners, or the rights of property owners are the rights of individuals, that’s true. But it is the State that decides to attack the rights of people it defines as a collective class. The State doesn’t decide that John and Joe in particular can’t get married; the State decides that the definition of marriage shall exclude all male-male or female-female partnerships. Likewise, the State decides to create a class of people that might be called “all those people who desire to own automatic weapons.”

    Individual citizens group together with others whose individual rights have been denied or abridged by the State in a collective class that the State, not those individuals has created.

    Admitting that there are gays (like gun owners, like cyclists who don’t want to wear helmets) who do value collectivist rights over individual rights, I don’t think you’ve made such a case against Outright Libertarians.

  51. Jared Callanan Says:

    I consider myself a carbon copy of Ron Paul on the issues. I have been a registered Republican my whole life. I have always thought that the Libertarian Party would be a better home for myself based on platform but I have never made the switch because I think the people who run your party are those who hold it down. Lets be honest, if you continue to select candidates like Browne and Badnarik, you will never grow any larger in fact I think one could argue your party will be non-existant in a few cycles if you continue to nominate novice candidates like those mentioned.

    To make the party stronger and to make it a serious threat to the two party system, you need to nominate candidates who can bring attention and a good showing to the party. Who cares if half the people who might vote for Barr are just protest votes? It gives us a strong showing, and media coverage which will help the party grow. Why is that hard for people to understand?

  52. redfish Says:

    steve,

    I can only guess what you mean by gay rights; but there would be a difference between allowing gay adoption, and forcing adoption agencies to practice it; and a difference between removing the institution of marriage from the state and adding gay relationships to the institution.

    I personally don’t agree with expelling gays from the military for being open; but I see it as an issue for commanders to handle—-for the same reason we have men and women in different barracks. If we rethink the logic about gays in the military we also have to rethink the logic of gender segregation.

    Because sexuality is about relationships as much as its about the individual, people are bound to come at it from different perspectives. Conservatives who look at the issue of marriage typically do not think of it as about individuals, but about a social need—and go back to why marriage became instituted. Liberals tend to take the opposite perspective.

    Also, I don’t know why you’re framing gun rights in that perspective; I don’t believe gun rights are about individuals , but a social protection against the creation of a tyrannical government.

  53. Clark Says:

    TIM WEST CHEERLEADS: “barr just got 4 segments on glenn beck, at least 25 minutes of prime cable air time. Over the last 2 days I count about an hour and 30 of Barr on national cable talking head programs. badnarik got 5 minutes on MSNBC once.” (END)

    ..glenn beck is yet another fucking republican radio idiot..like bob barf..

    ..WEST, your peckerhead bob barf besmirched libertarianism for 4 segments on the stinking beck show!.. (btw. you could adequately replace every one of these republican pieces of shit with a parrot trained to squawk either, “Democrat/liberal bad, Republican/conservative good” or “Democrat bad, Republican not as bad”..’glen beck wanna cracker?’) ;o)

    ...(in case you know-little republicrats haven’t figured it out yet: ‘the M$M microphone’ is RARELY given to a decent, knowledgeable person..so yes, your cruds, bob barf, wayne rot, etcetercrats, will tend to get lots more ‘MSM mike time’ than a decent sort like badnarik..)

    (fellow monetary realists,—if there are any others out there—talking ‘politics’ with republicrat monetary ignoramusses is LARGELY a waste of time…as politics tends to boil down to “money”..and these shit-heads have not a clue as to even the basic$!) ;o)

  54. Paul Farris Says:

    Damn, this is so much the year for a Ron Paul-Bob Barr LP ticket. You got a GOP in free fall over John McShame and its gonna get deliciously worse. You’be got what Savage calls, the ‘borders, culture, language’ conservatives with know where to go. Paul’s got thousands of volunteers ready to hit the ground campaigning as soon as he gives the go code. He’s sitting on $5 mil that could grow by a factor of 20 and even potentially out fund-raise McShame. He’s a shoo-in for a place at the debate table come October for the world televised national debates. He’s got a NYT/Amazon best-selling book. He’s a lifetime member of the LP. I can’t really figure out why he wont run and seek the LP nomination. I mean he’s not gonna be given no damn prime-time gig at the GOP convention in St. Paul. Who twisted his arm to get in back in early 2007? We need to know that, since we have about 150 hours to get to Paul and convince him now is the time to run LP? There’s a lot of brain power here, well somewhere. How do we make it happen?

  55. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “You’be got what Savage calls, the ‘borders, culture, language’ conservatives with know where to go.”

    They can go somewhere that functions in line with their ideas. North Korea? Maybe Burma.

  56. Brian Miller Says:

    ‘Gay rights’ is a collectivist concept.

    Steve Newton explained rather well why this is nonsense.

    I’d only add that the declaration that “gay rights is a collectivist concept” is as absurd as arguing that “gun owner rights is a collectivist concept” or “taxpayer rights is a collectivist concept” or “free speech rights are a collectivist concept.”

    All those concepts apply to a group of people, but it doesn’t make them “collective”—it simply means that a significant group of people have individual rights that are often denied to them by dint of being a member of that group.

    It’s government that classifies them into the group and then denies them their individual rights as a result of them being in that group. Repudiating that attack by government is the ultimate defense of individual rights.

  57. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Knappster,

    Here’s one way to look at it:

    Ron Paul attracted libertarians AND hard rightists (remember NewsletterGate).

    Kubby might attract libertarians AND marijuana activists.

    Phillies might attract libertarians AND the LGBT community.

    Ruwart might attract libertarians AND New Agers.

    Root might attract libertarians and gamblers.

    It’s all good, for these ancillary groups help our cause. Getting more votes helps our cause IF the numbers start to get semi-significant. Which candidate is likely to help our cause the most?

    It’s also true that if the candidate careens away from the position(s) we value “too far,” the candidate could be a net minus. Rothbard thought that was the case when Ed Clark described himself as a “low tax liberal.” On this, I happen to disagree with Rothbard…”low tax liberal” was a pretty good term, at least for those times.

    Getting Savage-type voters is a two-edged sword, though, to be sure. However, getting Savage-type voters as a protest vehicle for them while it lifts the LP candidate from, say, 1.5 to 2 million votes might be a risk worth taking.

    So many considerations. So little time. And no crystal ball!

    That’s life.

  58. Stefan Says:

    Robert: some socalled “hard rightists” are attracted to the LP since a lot longer, as the Lp wants to stop foreign intervention/aid to other countries (including Israel), the call for ending the IRS and the Federal Reserve (which they see as Jewish dominated institutions) etc. Of course Paul’s reasons to call for an ending are very different than the hard righists. It is NOTHING to do with the newsletter that were publish in Paul’s name and became know to the public only in early January to most. In fact there are also hard rightists that are for the war in Iraq, and receiving US military training and spray paint swastikas in Baghdad. When they found out Paul has influence from prominents Jews like Von Mises, Rothbard, Goldwater, Von Hayek, Friedman and were endorssed by Jews like Aaron Russo and many others, they stopped supporting him and grew sceptical. How many hard rightists are there in any case? If Paul’s support would have been from primarily them as well as form segregrationists, we would have fared much better in the SOuth. In fact he fared the best in the primaries/caucuses in the West and North.

    Paul’s support came from a wide variety of people: traditional Refpublicans (that voted for Bush once or twice), some hardcore right (very much overestimated), many libertarians, a number of Independents (more than McCain) as well as Democrats and also Greens (some even registered Republican in order to vote for him!).

    If you want to speculate, Barr may attract a decent amount of Ron Paul supporters, as well as some of those that voted for Romney, Huckabee, Thomson etc. plus some Independents and Democrats, while Ruwart (in a Barr-Ruwart ) would attract many women, minorities as well as Greens and some Democrats.

    Personal appeal/perception plays a role, not only the policy. Therefore I think a Barr-Ruwart ticket would be very good. It would mean a ticket both pro-life and pro-choice, both more moderate and more radical Libertarians can live with and be excited about (eventually) and with a wide/strong appeal to new voters.

  59. Stefan Says:

    disinter: I heard in certain states a write-in campaign is not even alllowed, and it would not help anything. Would you be able to live with a Barr-Ruwart, Barr-Gravel ticket, for instance? (Interesting that you reject Phillies who has been endorsed. He was quite critical of Paul. Justin R, who is also gay, has written good things about Barr (with some criticim ont he drug war/Colombia issue) and would vote for him, I think.

  60. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Getting Savage-type voters is a two-edged sword, though, to be sure. However, getting Savage-type voters as a protest vehicle for them while it lifts the LP candidate from, say, 1.5 to 2 million votes might be a risk worth taking.”

    I keep seeing this argument about vote numbers, and it keeps making less and less sense to me. I mean sure, “more votes is better” in the round, but …

    Even running the same candidate more than one time in a row does not ever seem to have turned a “quick and dirty vote pickup” into an enduring, effective political movement.

    Ross Perot got 19% in 1992—then 8% in 1996—and then the Reform Party went in the crapper.

    Ralph Nader got 2.9 million votes in 2000, and then fell to less than 500k in 2004. His campaigns seem to have accomplished little except possibly to lend some extra faux credibilit to, and maybe increase the rakeoffs on, his other scams (PIRG, etc.).

    If the LP can go back up from ~400k votes to 1 million plus, or even 2 or 3 million … SO WHAT, unless those votes represent something of general benefit to the party as an organization, to the party’s policy stands, to SOMETHING?

    Picking up X “Michael Savage votes” would prove nothing except that the LP was able to sucker X mutant atavistic morons into believing that we are the klan with better fashion sense. Why the hell would we be interested in proving that, and how would it advance the party in 2010, 2012 and beyond?

  61. Paul K. Says:

    I remember the debacle in NY at the ‘83 convention. Ravenal was not a ball of fire, or utterly, totally pure in the parsed Rothbardian sense, while Bergland was touted as the purest of the pure. See how that worked out: Drove all the money from the LP and cut membership and vote totals in half. While this is a different situation, if the LP consistantly refuses to take advantage of opportunity based on ideological quibbles it becomes a waste of time.

    Is Bob Barr the complete answer, probably not. I have some concerns as well - CIA backround (as Murrey once said about Ravenal, if he’s nominated we’ll have to put ourselves on the Conspiracy chart), Gay marriage and his role in Clinton’s impeachment to name a few. That’s a lot of bad kharma to work off.

    I say however, we should take him at his word and take advantage of the opportunity created by Ron Paul in this election cycle. While I respect Mary Ruwart (who was double-crossed BTW by Bergland in ‘83) and have no strong opinions about the other candidates the reality is they will be obscure and ignored by both the media and the electorate.

    Regards. PK

  62. Rob Power Says:

    For redfish and others who seem genuinely concerned that Outright Libertarians may be your typical “gay rights” group, I invite you to check out our website: http://www.OutrightUSA.org and read through our pages.

    After doing so, you’ll see that we don’t support regulations on private businesses or organizations, and we also tend to avoid the “gay rights” shorthand whenever possible, instead being more specific that we support “equal rights under the law for LGBT people” which, I hope, is something no Libertarian would oppose.

    For the record, I was not the first on this thread to use the “gay rights” shorthand which admittedly sounds rather collectivist. Rather, it was Tom Knapp who wrote:

    “and that at least one (Kubby) had a clearly superior record of ACTUALLY FIGHTING for the rights of LGBT people.”

    And I was merely re-using his language to rebut his point. Outright is by no means your typical collectivist “gay rights” organization. And we’re frankly too busy dealing with attacks from the “gay left” about our opposition to employment nondiscrimination and “hate crime” laws to waste time defending ourselves from people in Libertarian land. We simply have to assume that such attacks are coming not from Libertarians but rather from Republicans who actually DO oppose “equal rights under the law for LGBT people” and, as such, we have to ignore them.

    Hope that explains things better.

  63. Balph Says:

    svf Says:

    “Ok, I ain’t walking either, just blowing off steam… (unless Hollist gets the nomination, that is…)”

    Upon reflection, Hollist is more sane than Ruwart and the whole Lew Rockwell crowd—maybe even Ron Paul. Hollist has a plan to actually fund core government services.

    Go figure.

  64. Viverrid Says:

    Just an idea:

    Ever heard the phrase “Know thine enemy?” Has anyone considered that Bob Barr’s background and familiarity with our current political system might be a good thing if our ultimate goal is to change it? Who better to bring about the change L(l)ibertarians want than someone who has an intimate knowledge of how to do that?

  65. svf Says:

    I think a Barr-Ruwart ticket would be very good. It would mean a ticket both pro-life and pro-choice, both more moderate and more radical Libertarians can live with and be excited about (eventually) and with a wide/strong appeal to new voters.

    Ruwart will attract people that have been voting LP for years … and nobody else whatsoever.

    She’s beloved within the LP, but she’s a nobody outside of it, with no elected office experience and a professorial, soft-spoken manner. Also, for the disgruntled conservative voters who may be attracted to Barr, if they bother to look into Ruwart’s positions they will probably be too “extreme” libertarian and perhaps a “deal breaker”.

    The point is, Barr seems to want to run an agressive, no-holds-barred (pardon the pun), national, “in it to win it” campaign. Which is exciting as hell…! So we can’t have a no-name in the VP slot dragging down the ticket or having no benefit. One of the things that hurt Perot’s credibility was his choice of the stammering, barely-coherent Admiral Stockdale as a running mate.

    We need someone who is at least Barr’s equal in national profile who can share the spotlight, not hover in the shadows. Someone who can raise money, do the talk show circuit 24/7, muscle into the VP debate and kick Huck-Mitt-Edwards-Hill’s asses. In order to overcome all the obstacles to a third-party run, the VP spot needs to be exploited for maximum impact, not given to a token LP fave to appease a tiny but vocal minority within a minority.

    Ron Paul would be fine… but he’s not interested. None of the other LP pres (and certainly not VP) candidates fit the bill… (Gravel is closest, but too many mismatches on issues and his ego is too big to take the #2 spot anyway…)

    So… the way I see it, Barr needs to hand-pick his running mate before the convention and get him to officially “run” for the VP nomination. He has exactly one week…. SHIT!

  66. Susan Hogarth Says:
    1. Gray T. Britton Says:
      May 14th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    To Susan Hogarth:

    You are running for the Libertarian National Committee and you constantly bash Bob Barr, which is your prerogative for being evasive on the issues. I have some questions for you. Will you be evasive?

    1) You condemn, Mr. Barr’s stance on the marijuana issue. You are obviously pro-drug legalization, do you smoke marijuana, eat marijuana, make marijuana tea or use marijuana in any other form for recreational or medicinal purposes?

    2) Please tell us, are you a lesbian or your sexual affiliation.

    3) What type of pornography do you prefer and do you like sex toys?

    Please, get a dictionary.

    1) No.

    2) heterosexual

    3) Have you stopped beating your wife lately? and no.

    See how easy that is? Why can’t Barr do the same thing and answer a simple yes/no question with a simple yes or a simple no.

    Oh, and you are rude and need to learn some manners.

  67. Brian Miller Says:

    I’m late to the game here, but I have to say I don’t see how Susan’s sexual practices or recreational activities are germane to a discussion about her LNC candidacy.

    Let’s leave McCarthyism in the GOP where it belongs, please.

  68. timothy west Says:

    Clark:

    you’re the kinda nuts I was referring to. You nut.

    My point was/is that Barr gets media coverage most LP POTUS candidates cant get, because he’s not immediately written off as a freakish nobody by the MSM. Barr also got coverage elsewhere.

    he knows how the system works, which means he will be more effective in reducing it. He proposed immediate 10% spending cuts of any Federal agency under the control of he executive branch ( him, which he could do by simple executive order ) and a spending freeze else where as a first step to reducing the cost of government.

    Most libertarians dont even know how our current system works in the first place. if they dont know how it functions, they cant know how to reduce it in any manner that the media wont take as fantasyland.

    NUT. and FUCK YOU to boot. Bye bye, until the next time I have something to say.

  69. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Brian charges to my defense with:

    I’m late to the game here, but I have to say I don’t see how Susan’s sexual practices or recreational activities are germane to a discussion about her LNC candidacy.

    Of course they aren’t,and it’s kind of you to point that out. I chose to answer as a demonstration of how easy it is to answer a simple question. Apparently this is a skill which eludes Mr. Barr. I am afraid that being in Congress taught him some bad habits; elusiveness and prevarication among them.

  70. redfish Says:

    Rob,

    Thats good, because those positions are more libertarian.

    Like I’ve made clear here though, I’m not libertarian, I just hope some gay rights activists recognize that not all disagreement on this issue is hating on gays, its just disagreement. People who are Republican, for instance, may disagree with different gay rights programmes, but don’t necessarily have irrational positions.

    The Defense of Marriage Act, which Bob Barr helped pass, was to make sure that a decision in one state wouldn’t force changes in every other state. I’m sure Bob Barr, as a Republican, was also against the idea that the courts could make this decision.

    In that way, I don’t see that an intellectually honest gay community would hold that against Barr; though I don’t know the rest of his history on this issue. And in any case, I understand the politics about it.

  71. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Knappster,

    Politics is in large measure about positioning and strategy. I don’t favor picking up quick and dirty votes.

    For illustrative purposes, consider this:

    There are, say:

    1) 1/2 million LP-only voters
    2) 1 million libertarians and leaners who would vote LP IF the candidate was “credible.”
    3) 1/2 million voters who might vote LP as a protest vehicle, IF the LP candidate was credible and agreed with them to some extent on some of their major issues.

    Most L candidates have pretty much only gotten the first half million. The Clark campaign found some of Group 2.

    My assessment is that most of the field can count on Group 1. Barr, Gravel and Root might garner some or all of Group 2. Barr, Gravel and MAYBE Root can get some of Group 3, although different constituencies.

    If our nominee can get those voters, while articulating a differentiated message that is libertarian, that seems worthwhile to me. If they pander to Group 3, I agree that that’s probably NOT worthwhile.

    If our nominee makes a big splash in both the vote totals and in the public square, that sets us up for more growth in the next cycle.

    But there are no guarantees.

  72. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Clarifying:

    I don’t favor the FOCUS of our candidate to be picking up the quick and dirty votes. I view that as icing on the cake.

  73. Gray T. Britton Says:

    Ms. Hogarth:

    That simple three question exercise yielded the result I hoped for…you found it to be rude. Oddly, enough I intended it to be so!

    Much as I find you to be in many of your comments here on TPW. I hope that you will be ready for 300 placards and t-shirts that are already sitting in Denver that say Ban Hogarth.

    You will not make your election to the LNC.

  74. Brian Miller Says:

    NUT. and FUCK YOU to boot.

    And this is the new way to attract voters and enact real change too, I suppose?

  75. TedB Says:

    I’m delighted to have a decent alternative to McCain who I was going to hold my nose and vote for. Barr’s got my vote now.

  76. Angela Keaton Says:

    Ah…Mr. Britton,

    There will be radicals on the LNC regardless of your efforts. You have a choice however. You can sensibly choose Miss Hogarth, a married white (probably WASP) non drug using heterosexual or you will forever be blessed with my butch bisexual half Jewish mix raced rump.

    Take your pick.

    Angela Keaton Doherty, Anarcho-capitalist, paleo-cunt

  77. Angela Keaton Says:

    Susan,

    I’m jealous. I’m going to get Aaron Starr to pay for 300 Ban Keaton shirts. You will not take my crown as Anarchist Bitch.

    The Keaton

  78. Michael Seebeck Says:

    “The point is, Barr seems to want to run an agressive, no-holds-barred (pardon the pun), national, “in it to win it” campaign. ”

    Then why can’t he give a straight answer to a question?

  79. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Angela, Susan, please! There’s plenty of room for both of you to tag team on the Anarchist Bitch title! Besides, we need all the women in the LNC we can get! :D

    Besides, if I see a “Ban” anybody T-shirt at the convention, I’ll use it to check the oil and other fluids on my rental car, then toss it out. The only exception is a Ban Dondero shirt, and that I might turn into a flag.

    And if you feel the urge to catfight it out, make it a fundraiser! :D

    Team Seebeck, Male 2/5

  80. Michael Seebeck Says:

    BTW, Angela, can I have what you’re having? Whatever it is, I wanna have that much fun too! :D

  81. Hugh Jass Says:

    “‘Gay rights’ is a collectivist concept.

    Steve Newton explained rather well why this is nonsense.

    I’d only add that the declaration that “gay rights is a collectivist concept” is as absurd as arguing that “gun owner rights is a collectivist concept” or “taxpayer rights is a collectivist concept” or “free speech rights are a collectivist concept.”

    All those concepts apply to a group of people, but it doesn’t make them “collective”—it simply means that a significant group of people have individual rights that are often denied to them by dint of being a member of that group.

    It’s government that classifies them into the group and then denies them their individual rights as a result of them being in that group. Repudiating that attack by government is the ultimate defense of individual rights.”

    There are several flaws in this:
    1. As you gays point out so often, homsexuality isn’t a choice. Owning a gun is.
    2. If you are truly defending the rights of gay people, rather than collectivist ‘gay rights’, then you have endorsed Kubby, who actually worked for the rights of both gays and straights to smoke medicinal marijuana, rather than Phillies, who simply champions letting gays have a share at the federal trough with hate crime laws, discrimination laws, federal interference in adoption and marriage, etc.
    3. If you truly champion the rights of gay people, then you would be fighting to keep the government out of the workplace, marriage, and adoption, rather than expanding it to create thought crimes.

  82. disinter Says:

    rather than Phillies, who simply champions letting gays have a share at the federal trough with hate crime laws, discrimination laws, federal interference in adoption and marriage, etc.

    This would be the “equality” the Outright Liber-Nazis cry about all the time…

    If you truly champion the rights of gay people, then you would be fighting to keep the government out of the workplace, marriage, and adoption, rather than expanding it to create thought crimes.

    That is just it. The Outright Liber-Nazis don’t actually champion the rights of gay people.

  83. Angela Keaton Says:

    BTW, Angela, can I have what you’re having? Whatever it is, I wanna have that much fun too!

    Please, you’d end up with a stomach pump if you tried to keep up with me.

  84. Susan Hogarth - vodka drinker Says:

    I’m jealous. I’m going to get Aaron Starr to pay for 300 Ban Keaton shirts. You will not take my crown as Anarchist Bitch.

    Flattery will get you … everywhere.

  85. Susan Hogarth - vodka drinker Says:

    I hope that you will be ready for 300 placards and t-shirts that are already sitting in Denver that say Ban Hogarth.

    Wow, I was reading backwards and though Keaton was joking. Seriously? How cool!

    Could you also do one that says ‘Ban Radicals’? ‘Cause our propaganda budget is pretty marginal.

    You will not make your election to the LNC.

    Not your choice or mine, bub. That’s up to the delegates.

    Angela says:

    There will be radicals on the LNC regardless of your efforts. You have a choice however. You can sensibly choose Miss Hogarth, a married white (probably WASP) non drug using heterosexual or you will forever be blessed with my butch bisexual half Jewish mix raced rump.

    Take your pick.

    (1) Of course there will be radicals on the LNC. (LNC = Libertarians Not Conservatives)

    (2) Choice: to quote my husband: Not one or the other, but both!

    (3) married, check; white, check; WASP, by birth but actually WASA; non-drug-using, check (excluding caffeine, natch); heteo, check (for now).

  86. Clark Says:

    Brian Miller Says: May 15th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
    ‘NUT. and FUCK YOU to boot.’ [tim wet]

    And this is the new way to attract voters and enact real change too, I suppose? (END)

    ...brian, this could be pent-up rage at me for having exposed him as a monetary dildon/republicrat over at ?’the official site of the LNC’..

    ...he appears a little ‘we$t around the ears’..hopefully, he doesn’t besmirch ‘libertarianism’ any more! (i sense he’s one of those kneel boor ‘libertarians’..i.e. a stooooooooooopid republican with a tax gripe!) ;o)

    ...and i love being called a ‘radical’ by goddamned fool republicrat leaf-flailers…’rad’ish, root, fundamental..sound!..

  87. Clark Says:

    ...btw, i certainly hope you decent libertarians have a good time and get good and liquored-up and rowdy in denver..i’ll be watching ?c-span on the propaganda portal…

    ...one favor from you denverites…will someone please, at least, LOUDLY boo bobo barf, wayne rot, etcetercrats for me?...i’ll be booing them in my den…(hopefully sipping a cool IPA beer and stuffing my nacho-chip chute with home-made salsa…the best on the planet, btw!)..

    ...btw, ?i hear justin raimondo is on live public radio today at noon-ish..good writer, but, it seems, a weird shill for the likes of republican dissembler and sphincter-hole pat buchanan..and others..

  88. Angela Keaton Says:

    Susan,

    The key to my win in Portland was staying out of the sun all summer and getting up an hour and half early to straighten my hair. I also grabbed a lot of Reform ass to employ a Yankism. Until Rick McGinnis told me not to feel up the delegates so much…something about a NAP whatever that is.

    People are so uptight.

    The Keaton

Leave a Reply