Three Hits and a Miss

The Libertarian Party debate elevates Barr, Kubby, and Root, while Ruwart underperforms

(Page 2 of 2)

"Give it up!" said the band's bassist when Starchild temporarily shimmied offstage. "Give it up for Austin Powers!" Hey, these people are used to being misunderstood.

David Weigel is an associate editor of reason. Read his first two dispatches from the LP convention here and here.

Bonus video: On Tuesday, May 20, reason hosted a debate about "The Future of Libertarian Politics" featuring LP presidential hopefuls Wayne Allyn Root, Mike Gravel, and Bob Barr (Mary Ruwart was invited but unable to attend). Video excerpts of the conversation are below (approximately 10 minutes long). For more information, go to reason.tv.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Eric Dondero||

    If what you say in your blogging David is accurate, that the first ballot may end up going to a three-way tie for Barr, Ruwart and Root, that is a huge win for the Pro-Defense Libertarian side. And a huge loss for the Anarchist leftwingers.

    Naturally, Barr supporters will go to Root, and vice versa Root supports would go to Barr, to help stop leftwinger Ruwart.

  • ||

    I really don't get the people who say Root did well in the debate last night.

  • ||

    Weigel, was that Neal Stephenson as in the Baroque Cycle, etc, Neal Stephenson, humming the Imperial March?

  • Eric Dondero||

    Root did well cause he expressed great enthusiasm and he's very telegenic in contrast to policy wankers.

  • Greg N.||

    1. Think about the maniac in the "V for Vendetta" mask.

    2. Think about the two nimrods counting the delegates at the laptop computer.

    3. Even I don't think the LP is dumb enough to nominate Ruwart. But I wouldn't put it past them.

    4. Barr/Kubby would be a tolerable ticket.

  • effay||

    Telegenic? STOP YELLING WAYNE!!! MY EARS HURT!!

  • Colin||

    Running out of paper?

  • Colin||

    Is every state gonna give a long speech before voting?

  • effay||

    Gotta cut costs somehow Colin.

  • jtuf||

    New Jersey just casted its votes for the first round of voting. The vast majority went to Root. I have a hunch that which ever way New Jersey goes, the rest of the convention will follow.

  • Greg N.||

    This thing is embarrassing, as expected. What's the over/under on the number of wacky, joke delegates?

    And sweet Jesus, I think Ruwart's in the lead.

    Nice job, Oklahoma lady. Setting the standard.

  • jtuf||

    Utah's speach is great.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Hands up, everyone who is surprised that the LP is continuing its death spiral into irrelevancy?

  • ||

    Barr and Ruwart for a tie! 153-152

  • Franklin Harris||

    Wow. Barr surges at the end to take the lead, one vote ahead of Ruwart.

    Barr 25%
    Ruwart 25%
    Root 20%

  • Eric Dondero||

    This is super cool Franklin. My heart is beating 100 taps a minute.

    Doesn't get any better than this.

    Great show for the National C-SPAN audience Libertarian Party.

    And Pro-Defense Libertarians Root and Barr are in a great position to win!!

  • Dormouse||

    I also would like to know if that was THE Neal Stephenson.

  • Franklin Harris||

    And Pro-Defense Libertarians Root and Barr are in a great position to win!!



    You are aware that neither of them support staying in Iraq.

  • Greg N.||

    I don't understand why Christine Smith didn't get more votes. She's so reasonable!

  • Franklin Harris||

    And she's still ranting and raving on C-Span.

  • Greg N.||

    I hate people who say "libuhtarian". It's irked me for over a decade now.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Franklin, you are aware that neither Barr nor Root blamed the United States for the attacks of 9/11 as your hero Ron Paul did, right?

  • ||

    Dondero, a question is on the floor: you are aware that your "Pro-Defense" Libertarians are both in favor of Iraq withdrawal?

    Does that piss you off? I think we can safely say that, with all of the major candidates opposing the war, that opposition to the continued occupation is the litmus test for libertarianism.

  • Greg N.||

    No one take the Dondero bait. Let's keep the focus where it should be: mocking the LP convention.

  • ||

    ... opposition to the continued occupation is the litmus test for libertarianism

    No, that's the litmus tense for sanity.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Let's keep the focus where it should be: mocking the LP convention.



    But the convention might actually do the right thing and nominate only its third serious candidate ever (not to say that some of the others weren't nice people). That takes all the fun out of mocking it.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Noone take the Greg B. bait. Let's focus on the convention.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Yes, Franklin, I agree. Looks good for Barr.

    Boy the Ron Paul people and the Lew Rockwell-heads are going to be pissed.

    YES!

  • Greg N.||

    Believe me, I hope they do nominate Barr (as much as I dislike him for any number of reasons). But even if they stumble across the "right" nomination in the end, it's still like watching a train wreck.

    I mean, think about that guy from West Virginia with his "point of information." That's the whole convention!

    Wait: I just lost my respect for Kubby.

  • Greg N.||

    Put a jacket on, Joe. And the flag tie? Come on.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Boy the Ron Paul people and the Lew Rockwell-heads are going to be pissed.



    You do know that a lot of the Rockwell people are favorably inclined toward Barr, right?

  • Joey Panto||

    Kubby eliminated on 2nd Ballot, then he endorses Ruwart. 3rd ballot underway.

    Last night's debate audio available on joeypanto.com

  • Franklin Harris||

    Ballot 3: Barr and Ruwart tied again. This is going to drag on until Root gets dropped.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Or until Ruwart people get desperate enough to throw in with Root just to stop Barr.

  • Joey Panto||

    Root is running around scrounging up ballot paper...chairman just announced that some states haven't picked up their paperwork....the next thing will be hanging chads...why are we using ancient technology for this process?

  • Eric Dondero||

    Franklin, is that why LRC slammed Barr the other day? That's kind of strange. You say they're backing him, but they put up hit pieces on the LRC site about him?

    Confused??

  • ||

    But the convention might actually do the right thing and nominate only its third serious candidate ever (not to say that some of the others weren't nice people).

    Clark 1980(?)
    Paul 1988(?)

  • Joey Panto||

    4th ballot: Ruwart and Barr tie again, Gravel dropped. Only if 53 of 78 Gravel voters go for Root can he survive.

  • Rodrique Egenberger||

    Bob Barr doesn't remotely resemble a libertarian.

  • ||

    Eric Dondero,

    Haven't you been in politics too long and too deeply to repeat shallow nonsense that we should only expect from people who don't read or pay attention.

    I really don't like the way you try to paint other people in LP as Left Winger or Pro-Defense. It's inaccurate. All you seem to want is your ideal Republican candidate under a Libertarian label.

  • Eric Dondero||

    John V, it's increasinlgy looking like Right Libertarians may prevail.

    Gravel just endorsed Wayne Root on C-SPAN.

    This may doom Ruwart.

    Pro-Defense Libertarianism may be the wave of the future for the libertarian movement for years to come! And we may be forever attached to the Republican Party, if Barr prevails in a few minutes from now.

    Life is good. Or, actually, life will be very, very good in a few minutes.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Clark 1980(?)
    Paul 1988(?)



    Yes. See, I didn't have to name them because they were so obviously the only serious presidential candidates the LP has fielded.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Bob Barr doesn't remotely resemble a libertarian.



    Well, it is true that his skin isn't blue, but nobody's perfect.

  • ||

    It's not about Right or Left.

    The context of stakes you paint is imaginary and your own.

    Personally, I'm not partial to either Barr or Ruwart or Root.

    None support your foreign policy and all are far closer to mine. But all are pretty much in line with my views on domestic policy. I'm fine with any of them.

  • More Libertarian Than Dondero||

    If there is one thing we don't need it's for the LP to become GOP Jr. Having Barr as the candidate would be the worst piece of stunt nomination since the NY LP ran Howard Stern for governor.

  • Nash||

    "Yes, Franklin, I agree. Looks good for Barr.

    Boy the Ron Paul people and the Lew Rockwell-heads are going to be pissed."

    Why am I supposed to be pissed again? Who was I supposed to want to win the nomination? Bob Barr's voting record isn't perfect but he's still better than McMurder or Obama. So why am I upset again?

  • Joey Panto||

    5th ballot: Root eliminated, endorses Barr and wants to be his running mate.

  • ||

    Psst Nash,

    whispering

    According to Dondero, you're supposed to not like Barr at all because he's "Pro-Defense"...whatever that means.

    Little does Dondero seem to know is that the libertarians he's mocking are going to mostly get what they want in terms of major positions while he is NOT.

  • Jorgen||

    I was down with Barr until I read his little piece on immigration where he talks about terrorists, criminals and welfare fobs spreading disease through this country, without even bothering to mention the folks who show up because would like to work for more than $4 a day, and who happen to make up the vast majority of those coming over the border.

  • Rodrique Egenberger||

    He's been a prominent drug warrior, authors Defense of Marriage, and apparently wanted to ban Wicca in the military? He's done some things right, but in many respects he's no better than the big two party's candidates and in some cases worse. I can't with good conscience give him a vote.

  • ||

    Well, the fix is in. Looks like it will be Barr-Root. Probably that way from the start.

  • Jorgen||

    Any willingness to vote Barr disappears if he puts Root on the ticket; that guy is phenomenally obnoxious.

  • ||

    Rodrique,

    Considering the choices, any, including Barr are still better overall than Obama or McCain. The last choice is to abstain.

    And for what it's worth, Barr has renounced a lot of those so-con things he did. Again, for what it's worth.

  • ||

    Jorgen,

    Indeed. Root needs some Prozac.

  • Franklin Harris||

    And Barr wins it with 54% of the convention vote.

  • Greg N.||

    Someone mark this date down. The LP actually nominated someone who isn't a complete wacko. I'm stunned the Guy Fawkes loser didn't sneak his way onto the ticket, but hey, nice job, LP.

  • ||

    Well, if LP makes it into my state ballot, I'll cast a vote for Barr as a big fat middle finger to the others.

  • Rodrique Egenberger||

    John V,

    You may be right that he's better than the other two overall, but that's hardly saying much.

    I can't get into Barr's head, but I simply don't know if I can believe his renunciations. I've admitted that I was wrong about something before, but he's been wrong about a LOT of things. If I do end up voting for him, I'll have to be on several drugs that he's helped prohibit.

  • ||

    hmmm.

    Ruwart did not give even one kind word to Barr.

    Not kind.

  • Kolohe||

    Ok this makes sense, there were at least 16 missing people in the final round if there were only 4 NOTA votes

  • Orange Line Special||

    I hope my last minute support for Link/Smith didn't doom those candidates.

    Meanwhile, here's my reaction to the nomination. Even Weigel - in a rare moment of clarity - made similar points.

  • ||

    The Libertarian Party got suckered. Bob Barr is a corrupt opportunist: http://www.ajc.com/search... He just found religion a couple years ago after he tried to run for Congress again, but not in his own district and instead against John Linder. Linder handed him his ass on a plate. Now, after a career as a statist, homophobic drug warrior he's suddenly a Libertarian. What a pity that the "Party of Principle" has forgotten all its principles.

    I have voted for the Libertarian candidate for president in every election since 1980. Guess I won't be voting for president this year.

  • ||

    Here's the link that I meant to include: For Barr's PAC, 'it costs money to raise money'

  • ||

    What a pity that the "Party of Principle" has forgotten all its principles.

    Judges?

  • jtuf||

    With Barr on the top of the LP ticket, I'll be scrutinizing each candidate carefully.

  • ||

    This will be the first year I don't vote libertarian.

    If I wanted a gay bashing, woman hating, drug war junkie, I'd have stayed with the GOP.

    Siding with conservatives at this point in time is suicide for the future of the LP. If they wanted the LP to remain intellectually relevant, they'd have picked Ruwart or Gravel.

    Instead, this party is destined to become the hideout for dying conservatives. I want off.

  • Icl||

    Trevor,

    I agree with your sentiments. This is a sad day for Libertarians. I did not leave the Libertarian Party. Libertarian Party left me.
    I am voting for Obama in November.

  • DW||

    Icl -- have fun voting for a socialist.

  • DW||

    And good riddance.

  • Curious Hussein George||

    I am voting for Obama in November.

    Barr isn't perfect so you will vote for a collectivist who holds NO libertarian positions at all? Not very ideologically committed are you?

  • ||

    This whole page, comments and all makes LP unattractive, and offensive to me.
    I want Ron Paul libertarianism. (little L)

  • DW||

    Curious George, you're forgetting that Obama holds the most important libertarian position of all: he believes women should be able to freely and easily murder their unborn babies.

  • ||

    I don't trust Barr any farther than I could throw him. Still, he has learned to talk the talk. I'll vote for him.

    Kubby was awesome as usual. If he wasn't dying I think he'd have been the best LP candidate ever.

    Ruwart disappointed.

    BUT the WTF is up with the props to Root. That dick sounds like he's selling used cars. I wouldn't buy laundry detergent from that yutz how in the hell does he get anyone to take him seriously.

  • Curious Hussein George||

    DW,

    Where have you been? The most important libertarian issue is State sanction of gay marriage, but not polygamy!, or anything else sick and twisted and unclean, just breeder and gay marriage.

  • ||

    I am jaded all this shit seems to sound the same, blah, blah, put out or get out!

  • DW||

    Well, I thought that was the second most important libertarian issue, tied with legalized all drugs including heroin and meth. Sometimes I get the impression cutting government spending, stopping our current destructive foreign policy and other such issues are at the bottom of that list.

  • ||

    The LP: Tax breaks for married gays, but not for singles!

  • ||

    DW,
    Legalizing all drugs will go farther towards cutting government spending and stopping our destructive foreign policy than anything else.

  • DW||

    Uh, no it won't.

  • Quigby||

    If the LP wasn't such a pathetic joke this would mean something. They've sold out for an extra 0.5% of the vote and 30 seconds on CNN.

  • ||

    Legalizing all drugs will go farther towards cutting government spending and stopping our destructive foreign policy than anything else.

    ????

  • tarran||

    I'm baffled why anybody thinks Barr is sane.

    He supports the war on drugs. He continues to want to intervene in Colombia and destablize it. he thinks the government should be regulating marriage although granted he know thinks it should be done by state governments rather than the Feds.

    In short, he suffers from the same malignant narcissism that all politicians suffer from. Oh well, I hadn't planned on voting Libertarian this year, and it looks like I still won't be voting for them.

  • Trevor||

    Is there an alternative party or candidate for libertarians who don't support Barr?

  • tarran||

    NOTA, baby, NOTA.

    Write in "None of the Above" on your ballot. You don't have to bend your knee to some insane person who likes to push people around. ;)

  • Rotter||

    Is there an alternative party or candidate for libertarians who don't support Barr?

    Vote Dem or Repub or for anyone but Barr. Minimize his share of the vote so the LP isn't rewarded for this sick act of prostitution.

    Thanks to the LP, for the first time in decades I really would be wasting my vote by going for their candidate.

  • ||

    Well.... Barr has name recognition. If you believe him on his turnaround on the "drug war" and his agreement to return to the states a number of issues that he's anti-liberty on, at least he's saying the right things. I have a feeling that this could be a record year for votes for an LP candidate. I certainly don't think he's a libertarian; but he's closer than any of the Big 3 who keep getting all the airplay.

    I'll support him... not as enthusiastically as some previous candidates - but can you really support any of the alternatives!?!

  • ||

    Vote Dem or Repub or for anyone but Barr. Minimize his share of the vote so the LP isn't rewarded for this sick act of prostitution.

    oh yes, this makes sense. we have to defeat the libertarians in order to save them!

    there is something fundamentally wrong with you. please seek help.

  • ||

    Write in "None of the Above" on your ballot. You don't have to bend your knee to some insane person who likes to push people around. ;)

    more productive thinking coming from the anarchists, I see.

  • Rotter||

    we have to defeat the libertarians in order to save them!

    The LP is going to be defeated anyway; but for the first time I can think of it won't be a defeat with honor. I know I won't vote for someone I despise just because a few party hacks at a convention wanted to see their party mentioned on CNN.


  • ||

    The LP is going to be defeated anyway; but for the first time I can think of it won't be a defeat with honor. I know I won't vote for someone I despise just because a few party hacks at a convention wanted to see their party mentioned on CNN.

    well, bye then!

    I'm stunned that we've got a bunch of purity advocates talking about voting for and supporting (I've seen all of these since the Barr nom): McCain, Obama, Baldwin and the Green Party.

    The "pure" faction is a group of narcissistic whiners and mental midgets: you don't get your way and you throw shit fits and expect everyone to pander to you.

  • ||

    This idiot wants to start a Libertarians for McKinney/Nader group.(!)

    All the purists have done is scream that "we" have to convince them, but it's obvious they've made up their minds already.

  • ||

    Yeesh. I'm glad I still haven't joined the LP. Not necessarily because of the Barr nomination, but mostly because of all these drama queens having conniption fits 'cause of his nomination. Looks like I'm going to be independent until the day I dizz-I.

  • DS||

    I have been a libertarian for a long time, but I have had very little knowledge of the LP until recently. After watching a couple days of this stuff on display I have become aware of a few things:

    - I didn't know there was even a such thing as a "left-libertarian" whatever the crap that is. To me that's kind of like a carno-vegetarian - it's a contradiction in terms. Are these people just socialists who want gay rights, legalized drugs and no wars? Do they think that free-market capitalism is evil and it's OK for the government to confiscate your money and regulate you for "social justice" as long as they don't use it to throw you in jail for drugs or being gay or start wars?

    I just don't get this one at all. Of the candiatates that seem to be leftists - Ruwart, Phillies and maybe Kubby - a Kubby nominator talked about a return to the Gold Standard, other than that none of them seemed to question the size and power of the government at all other than on those very narrow issues. I didn't hear the words free-market capitalism at all, much less any sort of endorsement of it. This group seems to me like extremists Democrats looking for a protest vote, not a true

    Why don't these people just vote for Obama? I really can't see what they would find so appalling about the Democratic party unless I'm missing something.

    - Come to think of it, I really didn't see any candidate talk about the desireability of laissez-faire, free-market capitalism, significantly shrinking the size of the federal government, about taxes being way too high or that 90% of what the Federal Government does is unconstitutional - not just very narrow issues likes drugs and gay rights but the very fundmental assumptions of the welfare/warfare state.

    As a Ron Paul supporter the LP certainly doesn't provide anybody that matches him, not even close, and if Ruwart were the nominee I certainly wouldn't have seen any reason to vote for her as anything other than a protest vote against the Republicrats. Barr is the closest thing to Ron Paul but he has a long way to go - but at least he seems to be going in that direction. I can identify with him because he seems to have taken the same path to libertarianism that I did - disaffected Reagan-Republican who took laissez-faire, free-market capitalism to it's logical result.

    Again, maybe I'm missing something.

  • M. Simon||

    opposition to the continued occupation is the litmus test for libertarianism

    Real Libertarians™ need to keep up. We are currently in Iraqi at the invitation of the elected Iraqi government.

    Of course if you have some kind of agenda (i.e. not supporting self government in the ME) occupation sounds better. But you know, it is a lie. And to think that I once thought Libertarians favored honesty.

    Jefferson to Adams in a July 11, 1786, letter: "I acknolege I very early thought it would be best to effect a peace thro' the medium of war."

  • M. Simon||

    Instead, this party is destined to become the hideout for dying conservatives.

    The Party was a spin off from the Republican Party. Where have you been all your life?

    The Real Libertarians™ don't even know the history of their own party. What a fookin bunch of tools.

    Barr leading the party is a return to the party roots. Get over it.

  • ||

    Barr leading the party is a return to the party roots. Get over it.

    The Republican party in 1971 -- before the Southern Strategy came into full bloom -- was very, very different from what it is now. Hell, the party now is very different from what it was in 2000.

  • ||

    DS,

    Ruwart did mention support for gun rights and privatization of as many things as possible, so she seems like a fairly doctrinaire libertarian who wouldn't be completely pleased by Obama. I think the "left" part of left-libertarian is only a matter of emphasis. It's sort of like the cosmo/paleo thing, where you have two groups that are almost entirely in agreement on actual political issues, but don't get along because of cultural differences.

    However, her pandering to conspiracy theorists and advocacy of "compassionate libertarianism" turned me off of her. And, while she railed against Barr even after he renounced his views on Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the drug war, she herself hasn't explained what the fuck she was talking about in that statement in favor of legalizing kiddie porn.

  • John Markley||

    DS,

    I didn't know there was even a such thing as a "left-libertarian" whatever the crap that is. To me that's kind of like a carno-vegetarian - it's a contradiction in terms. Are these people just socialists who want gay rights, legalized drugs and no wars? Do they think that free-market capitalism is evil and it's OK for the government to confiscate your money and regulate you for "social justice" as long as they don't use it to throw you in jail for drugs or being gay or start wars?

    No. Not even remotely close. In its most common usage- and the only definition I've seen used by those who self-apply the term- it refers to libertarians who have a strong interest in stereotypically leftist concerns like feminism, the plight of minorities, or corporate misbehavior, though they favor libertarian rather than statist responses to these issues. I don't agree with them on everything, but they're hardly crypto-statists. (And I must say, I find the accusation darkly amusing coming from someone so favorable to Barr.) I agree that the term is confusing (one reason I don't like it), but it never hurts to spend ninety seconds on Google before you go on a tirade over a term you've misunderstood.

  • ||

    Weigel should get a fiction writing award for his reporting on the convention. I was there and watched the same convention. His reporting has been consistently biased, distorted and inventive.

    I previously assumed his reporting was accurate. But as I've read this series of reports I realized he is actually rather crappy as a journalist. He often was no where to be seen yet he reports on what allegedly went on.

    Come on Reason. You guys can find someone who is more accurate and less biased. Maybe you could have found someone who was actually at the entire convention. Weigel spent a lot of his time sitting in the snack area while events were taking place inside. And incidents he reports here, that I witnessed, are not accurately portrayed and his quotes should be taken with a grain of salt.

  • ||

    I must protest Mr. Weigel's misleading and inaccurate report. Weigel is aware that I was working in the Laissez Faire booth but he is wrong to imply that any of the scene he described (inaccurately I believe) took place there. First, let me clarify what I did say.

    I did say that I thought the Barr gang should go back to the GOP. I still think so. I do not think that I called them traitors of any kind especially not traitors to libertarianism. I did not perceive them as traitors to libertarianism because I do not perceive them as libertarians. Considering the loud noise from the Barr people and they way they intentionally disrupted another event I would be hard pressed to pick out singular comments from the large crowd of people. So perhaps Mr. Weigel heard someone use the term attributed to me by him, but I don't remember saying that. Nor can I see why I would call them traitors for the reasons stated.

    In addition I think Mr. Weigel, perhaps inadvertantly, distorts some facts. He seems to imply that the incident took place while I was working the LFB table. I was not at the booth when that took place. And he gives a false view of the incident -- but then I think he has given a false view of the convention in general.

    I was not at the LFB table at that time. I was walking down the hall between the main convention room with the various booths to the right of me. I was walking in the direction of the LFB table but I was not at it. As I was about 10 to 15 feet from the table I am suddenly passed by Barr and his group of dour looking supporters as they headed to the convention room to disrupt proceedings -- I believe to disrupt Mary Ruwart in particular. So I was not working the LFB table when this took place.

    Someone did yell "Look, they're leaving the convention" as Barr and his mob marched down the hall (which was also toward the exit by the way). And I did applaud the remark because it was rather funny. Applause are applause and I'm not blessed with Mr. Weigel's psychic abilities to determine whether they are sarcastic applause or not. But it was funny and I thought the clever response by this unknown individual deserved to be applauded just because it was so clever.

    I've not been impressed by Mr. Weigel's "reporting" from the start but didn't know of this remark by him until someone pointed it out to me. But I do not believe it accurate. At best I would say it is misleading. But then much of his Mr. Weigel's reports here simply don't match with my experiences at the convention. But then I tended to be present from 7 am to 9 pm each day and Mr. Weigel seemed to make only periodic visits. While there were dozens of people I saw multiple times per day (my location at the LFB booth gave me clear view of all the doors to the convention center) I can't remembeer seeing Mr. Weigel more than about four times over the whole period.

    It would have helped had Mr. Weigel checked with me before reporting his "facts".

  • Thomas L. Knapp||

    David,

    You write: "Ruwart's decision [to help Steve Kubby get in the debate] is harder to game out at the moment."

    That's because there was no real "gaming" involved, unless one considers the desire to be inclusive a matter of "gaming."

    Strategically, the candidates other than Barr and Root did seem to feel that having more voices in the debate would minimize the effect of a "Barr steamroller." But that was only part of it.

    The fact is that when Ruwart considered running, Kubby called to encourage her. He gave me permission to work with her campaign as well as his own without thinking twice about it. They supported each other, and not just from strategic considerations. They genuinely admire each other and wish each other well. They both felt that having both of them in the race was a good thing for the party, win or lose.

    One more thing: In another article, you quote me as saying that I raised money for travel but that Kubby couldn't travel. I don't recall saying that, and I certainly didn't mean it if I did (perhaps the bourbon was slurring my words?). I TRIED to raise money for travel, and Steve traveled whenever the money was there and often when it wasn't. It usually wasn't.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement