Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Three Hits and a Miss
The Libertarian Party debate elevates Barr, Kubby, and Root, while Ruwart underperforms
The timing was perfect. Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart, a favorite among the Libertarian Party's Radical Caucus, was 15 minutes into a hard-hitting speech and Q&A with delegates at the contested LP convention in Denver, and she'd just finished enumerating what it is she couldn't stomach in a prospective running mate. In short, she couldn't stomach Bob Barr. As if on cue, Barr's twang exploded over a next-door soundsystem.
"All right!" he said, whooping up dozens of his cowboy-hatted delegates. "Are we ready to go?"
Ruwart's face froze into a devious, oh please kind of smile as Barr briefly addressed his throng. Fired up and ready to go, he marched them past the exhibit area and over into the main convention hall to deliver delegate tokens guaranteeing Barr a place in the Saturday night debate and a nominating speech at the Sunday presidential contest. As the procession went past, Neal Stephenson, a supporter of longshot candidate Christine Smith, loudly sang John Williams' "Imperial March," the song playing when Darth Vader enters the room in Star Wars.
Jim Peron, working the Laissez Faire Books table, opted for less subtlety. "Fuckin' traitors!" Peron yelled. "Go back to the GOP!" As Barr's crowd entered the hall, Peron joined in a burst of sarcastic applause and cheers. "Hooray!" yelled a phalanx of delegates. "They're leaving the convention!"
Barr, of course, was not leaving. When the 1 p.m. deadline for the LP debate came, the former Republican congressman delivered 94 tokens to win inclusion. Mary Ruwart and Wayne Allyn Root handed in exactly as many tokens. Barr and Ruwart, though, had both passed a few of their tokens to friends they wanted to see make the debates (in Barr's case it was Mike Gravel; in Ruwart's it was Steve Kubby). Barr's decision, in retrospect, seems like a strategic coup. Ruwart's decision is harder to game out at the moment.
What actually transpired at the "C-SPAN debate" surprised most of the delegates I talked to afterward. With a few exceptions, their reaction was four-fold: Root, brash and funny, looked more than ever like an effective cheerleader for the LP. Kubby, against all odds, stole the show again and again. Ruwart, poised but bland, underperformed the expectations many delegates had for her. And Barr, faced for the first time by his fellow candidates and a puckish moderator, thrived under the pressure.
Every chance Barr got to finesse or apologize for one of his past Republican mistakes−the Defense of Marriage Act, the PATRIOT Act, the drug war−he grabbed with both hands. The only direct hit he sustained came from the audience, after Barr referenced the "tens of thousands" of innocents serving time on drug charges. A voice from the back of the room cried out, "How many did you put in there?" But the debate rolled on.
Barr was able to thrive because of a rule that was little-noticed outside of candidates' headquarters. Personal attacks, which had flown back and forth throughout the week in alternative debates and speeches, were semi-off-limits. If one candidate challenged another by name, the attackee had 30 seconds to respond. So the closest thing to candidate swipes at Barr were the occasional nameless allusions by George Phillies to a political action committee (PAC) that "gives to libertarians," plus Steve Kubby's glancing reference to Barr voting for the PATRIOT Act. If you weren't aware that Barr's PAC spreads cash around to the big two parties, Phillies' attack wilted on arrival.
The by-a-nose frontrunner benefited, too, from the rollicking performance of Kubby. The marijuana activist only made it to the debate with an assist from Mary Ruwart's extra tokens, but had told delegates throughout the day that as long as he could get on stage, he could win the nomination. In fact, he might have done well enough to surge into the top four.
Kubby scored the biggest laughs of the night. After comparing government intervention in the environment to "the fox guarding the chicken coop," he said: "I'm a libertarian! The only way I'd accept that is if the chickens are armed!" And Kubby powerfully reminded delegates why the medical marijuana issue is not some fringe or abstract concern: "I've gone to jail for liberty. I've nearly died for liberty!"
As much as Kubby soared, Ruwart sputtered. All weekend long, she had been the primary beneficiary of a backlash against "Republican converts." But in the debate she mixed rote libertarian answers with over-the-top claims of political power, such as her vital role in "fighting the PATRIOT Act." (Even though Barr voted for the Act in 2001, Ruwart let him pivot to his verifiable claim that he allied himself with civil liberties groups since then to roll the law back.) Again and again, and in a press conference after the debate, she claimed that disappointed Hillary Clinton voters looking for a female candidate would gravitate to her. Leaving aside the fact that Cynthia McKinney might win the Green Party nomination, the Libertarian Party is a terrible place for gender politics. "That's not how we want to appeal to voters," said Virginia delegate Aaron Sime.
Three of the other candidates failed to break out. Phillies appealed to his long-running campaign organization and party credibility, factors that will become irrelevant as soon as the party hands its torch to one of the candidates. Michael Jingozian gave one of his best performances in a year of campaigning, but sounded out of his depth, unfamiliar with the Tragedy of the Commons, musing about electing other third party candidates in addition to Libertarians. Gravel had too many opportunities to share his less libertarian views, compensating a few times by repeating his mantra: "Freedom, freedom, freedom!" ("He's not all the way there yet," went a common post-debate refrain.)
It was Wayne Allyn Root who most complicated Barr's plans. Root's vein-throbbing, high-decibel TV-pitchman's answers divided the crowd, but by far the larger segment thought he stood out in a party that has opted for drab candidates since anyone can remember. Not since Ron Paul shouted down meatheads on the Morton Downey Jr. Show has an LP candidate radiated such energy. After the debate, in a sprawling hospitality suite stuffed with free drinks and troughs of Italian food, Root complained that it was agonizing to sit down for two whole hours. "I'm a prize fighter!" he said. "I need to move around!" Manny Klausner, a longtime Reason Foundation trustee and former reason editor who is giving Root's nominating speech, thought that his candidate won the test of delegates imagining their candidate making the Libertarian case on TV. "You don't want a lecturer doing that job," Klausner said. "You need a cheerleader."
As the campaigns scattered to talk and party with delegates, the conventional wisdom calcified. Barr staff, who have never expected to win on the first ballot, worried about surviving a three-way race between still-beloved Ruwart and stronger-than-ever Root. Kubby supporters started dreaming of a longshot win. Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan, who has been supporting Kubby, was seen in the hospitality suites saying that Kubby and Root were on the rise. Michael Cloud, the long-time activist who's still controversial for his role in the Harry Browne campaigns, rushed to Barr's suite to give him advice on floor management ... then teleported to Root's suite to check out the other star.
Ruwart's supporters, as they had the night before, waved off the expensive suites and gathered in The Supreme Court, a hotel bar with a live funk band. "Look, she's not a thrilling candidate," said a California delegate. "She's a candidate who won't make us look bad or drive us even further to the right." And that's the paramount concern for Ruwart backers, many of whom wear buttons with Barr's named crossed out. They know what "pragmatic" party leaders want. They've watched the party platform continue to shrink in length and boldness. They saw party Treasurer Aaron Starr and some Ohio delegates turning red as Starchild, the mono-named concubine for California, gave media interviews in a tie-dyed unitard and floppy psychedelic top hat festooned with a feather boa. Late at night, free from the party's schoolmarms, Starchild took boozy snapshots with giggly girls in cocktail dresses, and bumped and grinded with hotel guests.
"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.
Eric Dondero|5.25.08 @ 2:08PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Weigel, was that Neal Stephenson as in the Baroque Cycle, etc, Neal Stephenson, humming the Imperial March?
Eric Dondero|5.25.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Root did well cause he expressed great enthusiasm and he's very telegenic in contrast to policy wankers.
Greg N.|5.25.08 @ 2:30PM|#
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.
jtuf|5.25.08 @ 2:39PM|#
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.|5.25.08 @ 2:42PM|#
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.
Franklin Harris|5.25.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Hands up, everyone who is surprised that the LP is continuing its death spiral into irrelevancy?
Franklin Harris|5.25.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Wow. Barr surges at the end to take the lead, one vote ahead of
Ruwart.
Barr 25%
Ruwart 25%
Root 20%
Eric Dondero|5.25.08 @ 3:17PM|#
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!!
Franklin Harris|5.25.08 @ 3:20PM|#
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.|5.25.08 @ 3:22PM|#
I don't understand why Christine Smith didn't get more votes. She's so reasonable!
Greg N.|5.25.08 @ 3:24PM|#
I hate people who say "libuhtarian". It's irked me for over a decade now.
Eric Dondero|5.25.08 @ 3:33PM|#
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?
|5.25.08 @ 3:33PM|#
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.|5.25.08 @ 3:36PM|#
No one take the Dondero bait. Let's keep the focus where it should be: mocking the LP convention.
|5.25.08 @ 3:40PM|#
... opposition to the continued occupation is the litmus
test for libertarianism
No, that's the litmus tense for sanity.
Franklin Harris|5.25.08 @ 3:41PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 3:49PM|#
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.|5.25.08 @ 3:50PM|#
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.
Franklin Harris|5.25.08 @ 3:57PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Kubby eliminated on 2nd Ballot, then he endorses Ruwart. 3rd
ballot underway.
Last night's debate audio available on joeypanto.com
Franklin Harris|5.25.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Ballot 3: Barr and Ruwart tied again. This is going to drag on until Root gets dropped.
Franklin Harris|5.25.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Or until Ruwart people get desperate enough to throw in with Root just to stop Barr.
Joey Panto|5.25.08 @ 4:23PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 4:27PM|#
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??
|5.25.08 @ 4:30PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 4:40PM|#
4th ballot: Ruwart and Barr tie again, Gravel dropped. Only if 53 of 78 Gravel voters go for Root can he survive.
|5.25.08 @ 4:41PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 4:49PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 4:55PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Bob Barr doesn't remotely resemble a libertarian.
Well, it is true that his skin isn't blue, but nobody's
perfect.
|5.25.08 @ 4:56PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 4:57PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 5:01PM|#
"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|5.25.08 @ 5:05PM|#
5th ballot: Root eliminated, endorses Barr and wants to be his running mate.
|5.25.08 @ 5:06PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 5:09PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 5:11PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Well, the fix is in. Looks like it will be Barr-Root. Probably that way from the start.
Jorgen|5.25.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Any willingness to vote Barr disappears if he puts Root on the ticket; that guy is phenomenally obnoxious.
|5.25.08 @ 5:29PM|#
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.
Greg N.|5.25.08 @ 5:36PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 5:37PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 5:39PM|#
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.
Kolohe|5.25.08 @ 5:54PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 5:56PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 5:58PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 6:04PM|#
Here's the link that I meant to include: For Barr's PAC, 'it costs money to raise money'
|5.25.08 @ 6:09PM|#
What a pity that the "Party of Principle" has forgotten all its principles.
Judges?
jtuf|5.25.08 @ 6:35PM|#
With Barr on the top of the LP ticket, I'll be scrutinizing each candidate carefully.
|5.25.08 @ 6:37PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 6:50PM|#
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.
Curious Hussein George|5.25.08 @ 7:02PM|#
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?
|5.25.08 @ 7:04PM|#
This whole page, comments and all makes LP unattractive, and
offensive to me.
I want Ron Paul libertarianism. (little L)
DW|5.25.08 @ 7:05PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 7:10PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 7:11PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 7:13PM|#
I am jaded all this shit seems to sound the same, blah, blah, put out or get out!
DW|5.25.08 @ 7:14PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 7:30PM|#
DW,
Legalizing all drugs will go farther towards cutting government
spending and stopping our destructive foreign policy than anything
else.
Quigby|5.25.08 @ 7:46PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 8:12PM|#
Legalizing all drugs will go farther towards cutting
government spending and stopping our destructive foreign policy
than anything else.
????
tarran|5.25.08 @ 8:47PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 9:20PM|#
Is there an alternative party or candidate for libertarians who don't support Barr?
tarran|5.25.08 @ 9:34PM|#
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|5.25.08 @ 9:34PM|#
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.
|5.25.08 @ 11:19PM|#
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!?!
|5.26.08 @ 12:13AM|#
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.
|5.26.08 @ 12:14AM|#
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|5.26.08 @ 12:26AM|#
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.
|5.26.08 @ 12:56AM|#
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.
|5.26.08 @ 12:58AM|#
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.
|5.26.08 @ 5:08AM|#
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|5.26.08 @ 9:40AM|#
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|5.26.08 @ 11:54AM|#
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|5.26.08 @ 12:06PM|#
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.
|5.26.08 @ 12:28PM|#
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.
|5.26.08 @ 12:33PM|#
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|5.26.08 @ 5:24PM|#
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.
|5.27.08 @ 2:32AM|#
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.
|5.27.08 @ 3:29AM|#
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|5.28.08 @ 9:10AM|#
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.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by David Weigel
- Czar Wars, David Weigel, January 27, 2009
- How Big Is Small?, David Weigel, January 27, 2009
- Where Did It All Go Wrong?, David Weigel, January 7, 2009
Related Articles (Third Parties, Libertarian History/Philosophy)
- Bernanke’s Philosopher, Penn Bullock, November 17, 2009
- Will Everyone Please Stop Freaking Out Over Ayn Rand?!?, Peter Bagge, November 10, 2009
- She’s Back!, Brian Doherty, November 9, 2009
- What's Wrong With Ayn Rand?, Shikha Dalmia, November 6, 2009
- Fed Up, Brian Doherty, October 27, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245