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
The Making of the Libertarian Nomination: 2008
I've entertained the notion of updating the LP race standings every week until the convention, the way that multiple media orgs and blogs did when covering the Democratic and Republican races. But there doesn't seem to be a lot of fluidity in the race: Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root, and Mary Ruwart are bunched up at the top of the field, with delegates telling me they're swapping between Root and Barr but no one telling me they'd trade Ruwart for one of them.
So, a brief update on the frontrunners. Barr's fundraising has ticked up since he announced his run and got an unprecendented (for an LP candidate) flurry of coverage. Outright Libertarians, a gay rights group within in the party, quickly blasted him for his record on their issue. This is a signal of Barr's punching power at this point in the race: He engenders ire from his enemies like no one else running in the LP. William Hawkins accuses him of "turning against his country."
Wayne Allyn Root is ignoring the Barr media blitz and calling up delegates. Right before John McCain issued a TV ad predicting what the world would be like in 2013, Root did sort of the same thing, e-mailing supporters a future history of the Root campaign and the LP.
Imagine.
The blizzard of media attention after the LP convention is over. Thank you Congressman Bob Barr and Jesse “The Body” Ventura. Media from across the country came to Denver because of you. But what they witnessed was Wayne Allyn Root pulling off the political upset (at least as far as the Washington D.C. press corp. is concerned). A star is born. Now the media will be more interested in the new face of the LP because of who he is…not who he was.The important thing about media isn't getting it- it's what you do with it after you get it. Wayne is a dynamic media personality. He has proven he knows how to get media, and how to use it. He wins over even skeptical and cynical hosts. He gets them to say, “Wow, I could actually vote for you.” If Wayne Allyn Root gets the LP Presidential nomination, we'll have a future. With Wayne there is a huge (and long-term) upside.
It ends on an up note:
On election night 2008, Wayne Allyn Root outperforms the expectations of the political pundits and Beltway insiders, including a very close third place finish in his home state of Nevada... Wayne will build on his close third place finish in Nevada in 2008 to win Nevada as a Libertarian Presidential candidate in 2012.
Giving off the impression that she's back on her heels, Mary Ruwart rolled out a YouTube message to her supporters claiming she's been "smeared, libeled and misquoted" by other candidates.
Some people think being tough is a matter of pointing fingers, getting angry, and in some cases, smearing your opponents... a truly tough person takes responsibility for his or her actions and would never smear an opponent. I think that's why my staff calls me the Velvet Hammer: Soft on the outside, tough on the inside.
On a side note: Alan Keyes has responded to his landslide defeat at the Constitution Party convention by humbly returning to a life of quiet scholarship and intellectual activism. Hah! No, seriously, he's founded his own third (fifth? sixth?) party. His organizers failed to get on the Texas ballot, but the California branch of the Constitution Party is trying to shove him onto that state's ballot.
|5.15.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Media from across the country came to Denver because of you.
But what they witnessed was Wayne Allyn Root pulling off the
political upset (at least as far as the Washington D.C. press corp.
is concerned
OK so far...
Now the media will be more interested in the new face of the LP
because of who he is…not who he was.
Whoops, you lost me with the descent into Wishful Thinking
Land.
The media cares about Barr running in the LP; and the if LP doesn't
run Barr, they will cease to be interested.
That's kinda the point.
BakedPenguin|5.15.08 @ 11:20AM|#
William Hawkins accuses him of "turning against his country."
I don't really trust Barr, and I don't want to like him. However,
if frothy conservative idiots like Hawkins (great name, btw) keep
trying to slag him, I'm probably going to wind up voting for
him.
|5.15.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Yeah, Root's scenerio sounds pretty cheesey to me.
The media cares about Barr running in the LP; and the if LP
doesn't run Barr, they will cease to be interested.
Agreed. Now Barr needs to keep them interested, perhaps by pulling
some stunts.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 11:25AM|#
Barr is your only hope for getting above 1%.
But be warned: Barr will get the Republicans Nadered and you bill
get eight years of Barack Hussein Obama and a Democrat Congress
with liberal judges, tax hikes, soviet-style health care, gun
control, and surrender to terror.
BakedPenguin|5.15.08 @ 11:26AM|#
There's a sidebar ad for "Mark Warner for US Senate". I'm
assuming he's a Libertarian candidate, because he looks
stoned.
Reinmoose - I think his campaign should ask Borat for an
endorsement.
Neil - did you prefer the original Lionel on the Jeffersons, or the
second one?
Neil|5.15.08 @ 11:28AM|#
I don't know, but I do think Obama's wife could have been in a starring role on "Good Times" Baked Penguin.
jmr|5.15.08 @ 11:28AM|#
I wonder why Keyes, who literally defines "no chance," gets so
much less hysterical negative commentary than Ron Paul got? I think
it's antilibertarian media bias and an understanding that Keyes,
unlike Paul, is no real threat to obese government, but I'd be
interested in other theories.
JMR
|5.15.08 @ 11:29AM|#
The more I hear about Keyes, the more I'm convinced that his
real reason for being a perpetual candidate - under whatever label
- is to make
money.
Keyes' 1992 Senate campaign was hurt badly when the press
revealed he was paying himself a huge amount out of campaign funds.
This is technically legal but rare and sleazy. We don't know of any
other candidates for president who have ever paid themselves out of
campaign funds from any campaign they've been in.
Keyes was happy to take $100,000/year as salary from his 1992
Senate campaign, but when it came time to pay that same campaign's
debts, he said: "I personally do not owe the debt that was owed by
the campaign." That was about $45,000, which was unpaid from 1992
through the end of 1996, according to the FEC. Of course, if he
hadn't paid himself so much money, he would have had plenty to pay
off that debt.
Keyes told a reporter that the money will be paid off -- by the
campaign, not by him of course -- but several creditors said Keyes
hadn't communicated with them years later. In 1995-1996, for
example, his 1992 Senate campaign received $34,821 and spent over
$15,000, but he couldn't manage to pay off any of that debt.
Finally, some time during 1997-1998, Keyes paid off most of this
money. The FEC reports show that he spent $49,544 during that time,
and reimbursed $41,094 worth of loans, but somehow he managed to
end up still owing more than $34,000 for his 1992 Senate race at
the end of the reporting period. Presumably he took on new loans to
pay the old ones (though the FEC data doesn't give enough detail to
be sure.)
Incidentally, Keyes still owes over $200,000 on his 1996
presidential campaign as well. At the end of 1996, he owed
$350,000; since then, he has raised over $1,000,000 for a campaign
that is over, but spent even more ($1,099,972) and only reduced his
debt by $150,000.
In 1995, his campaign wrote over $20,000 in bad checks, which his
spokesman blamed on a former campaign aide.
As for the libertarian race, I'm kind of hoping Barr gets the nod
just for the name recognition factor, but it's really not a huge
deal to me. I'll vote for whatever candidate the party nominates,
and that candidate won't win the election anyway. Barr does have
the potential to Nader McCain - a scenario that would give the LP
huge publicity while raising the prospects of our getting the heck
out of Iraq.
|5.15.08 @ 11:33AM|#
BP -
A Borat endorsement would rock.
Are there any libertarian celebrities out there? Maybe they could
do one of those sickening commercials like you see for the RED
campaign or global warming or something, but against government
power.
Taktix®|5.15.08 @ 11:33AM|#
The blizzard of media attention after the LP convention is
over. Thank you Congressman Bob Barr and Jesse "The Body" Ventura.
Media from across the country came to Denver because of you. But
what they witnessed was Wayne Allyn Root pulling off the political
upset (at least as far as the Washington D.C. press corp. is
concerned). A star is born.
Delusional much?
Barr will get the Republicans Nadered and you bill get eight
years of Barack Hussein Obama and a Democrat Congress with liberal
judges, tax hikes, soviet-style health care, gun control, and
surrender to terror.
As if I give a flying fuck if that the GOP will get "Nadered" or
whatever.
With John McCain, we'll get "liberal" (see statist) judges, tax
hikes, soviet-style health care, gun control, but an endless "war
on terror."
Six of one, half a dozen of another.
Neil, no one minds you bringing your rightist views around. I even
agree with you sometimes. However, please stop insulting us all by
assuming we're on Team Red.
There's plenty of Freeper blogs for that brand of stupid...
Neil|5.15.08 @ 11:34AM|#
I'm just warning you what a McCain Presidency could mean to
certain issues libertarians hold dear.
One-party Democrat government will be a nightmare and possibly the
end of the world as we know it.
At least McCain being from another party would slow the growth of
government.
Episiarch|5.15.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Unfortunately, the LP race is like the third stage at Ozzfest or
the lightweight boxing matches before a big heavyweight boxing
matchup; very few people give a shit.
Neil, which Newhart did you prefer; New-York-psychologist or
Vermont-bed-and-breakfaster?
Rimfax|5.15.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Did no one ever tell Ruwart that explaining what it means to be
"tough" is another way of saying, "I'm not really tough."? Also,
did no one ever tell Ruwart that attempting to spread your nickname
yourself is a guarantee that no one will ever use it to refer to
you, except as a term of derision? (Somebody send her the first two
seasons of Red Dwarf.)
Why is it that everything I see and hear of "Three Name" Root
reminds me of a yet-to-be-scripted Will Farrell character? Does the
term "self-caricature" apply?
|5.15.08 @ 11:37AM|#
But be warned: Barr will get the Republicans
Nadered
Two points:
1. So what if he does?
2. Weren't you just on every other thread predicting a landslide
McCain win? ("300 EV LOLZ!!!!!") How could Barr "nader" a landslide
candidate?
|5.15.08 @ 11:41AM|#
Er, warning you what an Obama Presidency would mean,
etc.
Nope - I think you were right when you said "McCain"
BakedPenguin|5.15.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Moose - I've heard Kurt Russell has libertarian views, and IMO,
Snake Plisken could kick Chuck Norris's ass.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, Donna D'Errico
endorsed Ron Paul. Whether she would endorse Barr is an open
question.
Rimfax|5.15.08 @ 11:47AM|#
"Vermont" Newhart was much better in every way: acting, writing, editing, sets, wardrobe, camerawork, sound. The "New York" Newhart was like a sparse comic strip. It really played like it had only one strong talent involved. The "Vermont" Newhart came off more as an ensemble creation, to its benefit.
|5.15.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Now Barr needs to keep them interested, perhaps by pulling
some stunts.
Agreed. I propose he capture ALL the MSM campaign coverage AND
unify his base, by campaigning in drag.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Ayn_Randian, the only time a Democrat candidate can win on the
national level is with a right-wing spoiler.
Remember: Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton-Gore.
Do you really want that to happen again?
|5.15.08 @ 11:49AM|#
I consume way too much media, and I've never heard of self-proclaimed media magnet Wayne Allen Root outside Reason.
svf|5.15.08 @ 11:50AM|#
The blizzard of media attention after the LP convention is
over. Thank you Congressman Bob Barr and Jesse "The Body"
Ventura.
whaaaa? does WARoot know something we don't know... ? is The Body
gonna show up and go for the nomination too? shit, I gotta get to
Denver... !!!
(incidentally, I think a Barr/Ventura ticket could be something to
be reckoned with... *ducks* )
|5.15.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Neil,
Maybe McCain should try to make himself more attractive to
libertarians, if he doesn't want to get Nadered. Party unity is a
two way street, my friends.
|5.15.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Not old enough to remember NY Newhart, but Vermont Newhart was a quality program.
|5.15.08 @ 11:52AM|#
the only time a Democrat candidate can win on the national
level is with a right-wing spoiler.
That's not an answer to the question, dumbass.
No wonder I promised I wasn't going to talk to you any more.
I have to agree with Rimfax's assessment: Newhart was
superior to TBNS in just about every way (and his wife was way
hotter).
|5.15.08 @ 11:53AM|#
If the Republicans didn't want to get "Nadered" by a LP
candidate, they should have taken a few seconds to pay half-assed
lip service to small government at some point over the last 8
years.
Serously, that's all it would have taken. Most people who believe
in small government don't even demand that any steps be towards
that end - vague anti-government rhetoric is all it took to keep
them on the GOP reservation for years.
The GOP made an active and deliberate decision to cede the mantle
of "small-government" politics. They don't have anyone to blame but
themselves.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 11:53AM|#
AR an Obama Presidency means liberal judges, gun control, higher
taxes, more regulation, the return of the "fairness doctrine", and
soviet-style health care.
Is that enough reason to be scared?
|5.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Rimfax,
I have no idea what prompted that. But the Chicago
Bob Newhart show was the zenith of his career and outshined his
later television work in every way.
T|5.15.08 @ 11:57AM|#
,i>Agreed. I propose he capture ALL the MSM campaign coverage
AND unify his base, by campaigning in drag.
That'd be pretty awesome, but only if he doesn't shave the
moustache. Then he'd just be a sell-out attention whoring to win
votes.
Oh, wait...
|5.15.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Neil, we're not going to dialogue any more until you tell me how
you think Barr can "Nader" a candidate that you simultaneously
think is going to sweep the country.
DOES NOT COMPUTE, you chimp.
|5.15.08 @ 11:58AM|#
BP -
I meant relevant celebrities, not the type you'd see on Celebrity
Fit Club or something. I'm guessing it's just too cool to care
about foreign aid and the poor to be a libertarian in Hollywood
these days.
Agreed. I propose he capture ALL the MSM campaign coverage AND
unify his base, by campaigning in drag.
Sweet! I was thinking something more along the lines of the RP
moneybombs, but drag would be awesome.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 11:58AM|#
AR he will sweep the country UNLESS Barr screws him in key
states by being the LP nominee.
If Barr gets it I'm really scared for what it means in the
fall.
|5.15.08 @ 11:59AM|#
"AR an Obama Presidency means liberal judges, gun control,
higher taxes, more regulation, the return of the "fairness
doctrine", and soviet-style health care.
Is that enough reason to be scared?"
I guess that all depends upon how easily scared you are. As we can
see, you're already pissing in your pants.
Rhywun|5.15.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Damn, late to the party again...
PS. 80s Newhart was good but the 70s version was superb.
Episiarch|5.15.08 @ 12:03PM|#
For shame! It was Chicago.
I wanted to see if Neil caught that. Really. I didn't fuck up or
anything. Nope.
|5.15.08 @ 12:03PM|#
AR he will sweep the country UNLESS Barr screws him in key
states by being the LP nominee.
Good. The Republicans can choke on it, for all I care. Your
monstrous betrayal of us small-government types...well, it'd be
karmaic if an R-turned-L sunk it for you.
|5.15.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Also, Neil, if it hadn't been for the USA PATRIOT Act (for which
your party is very responsible) you wouldn't have created
Libertarian Barr in the first place.
Hoisted by your own petard, m'boy.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 12:07PM|#
The PATRIOT Act is one of the biggest reasons George W. Bush has
kept us safe.
Why do you think we haven't been attacked since 9/11?
Can't you give Bush a LITTLE credit for that AR?
|5.15.08 @ 12:08PM|#
"You'll be crying and pining for the Bush years in 2012 if
its Obama AR."
Sounds like you're about to start crying a lot sooner than
that.
Episiarch|5.15.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Neil, which was cooler: Airwolf or Blue
Thunder (TV spinoff, not the movie)?
I'll admit that the whole Ernest Borgnine thing was cool for
Airwolf, but a helicopter taking out fighter jets? Come
on.
|5.15.08 @ 12:10PM|#
I propose he capture ALL the MSM campaign coverage AND unify
his base, by campaigning in drag.
That'd be pretty awesome, but only if he doesn't shave the
moustache. Then he'd just be a sell-out attention whoring to win
votes.
Oh, wait...
Agreed. The mustache is the key to sincerity.
Taktix®|5.15.08 @ 12:13PM|#
AR an Obama Presidency means liberal judges, gun control,
higher taxes, more regulation, the return of the "fairness
doctrine", and soviet-style health care.
Is that enough reason to be scared?
Making decisions based on being scared is what has gotten us into
this mess over the last 8 years...
|5.15.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Neil,
Here is why I think that RINO McCain would be more harmful to
Republicans and to libertarians than Obama would be.
McCain plays along with Democrats more often than not. At least
with Obama as president, there would be a Republican minority in
congress opposing him.
All the judges that McCain appoints would be at least as liberal as
the ones that Obama appoints, and no one would oppose their
nomination. Remember McCain was one of those on the Dems side when
GW was appointing judges.
Obama has a small history of interest in individual liberty. Note
when he got the Chicago police to videotape confessions, when he
got the government openness thing passed, when he voted against
Hillary to let Katrina victims keep their guns.
Yeah I know I got some of the details wrong, but I think I go the
basic idea right.
Elemenope|5.15.08 @ 12:13PM|#
You'll be crying and pining for the Bush years in 2012 if
its Obama AR.
But I thought we'd all be rounded up into death camps run by Muslim
extremists (mostly Obama's old madrassa buddies; he still emails
them, y'know) by 2010...how can we pine if we're dead, Neil?
Because if that's *not* what an Obama presidency would mean, then I
don't foresee many people pining for what we have now. Particularly
the soldiers dying and killing in Iraq. Perhaps that's why Obama
raises more money from military families than McCain. But I'd love
to hear your explanation for that tidbit; the contortions shall be
entertaining.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Elemenope Obama can't keep us safe.
I fear more terrorist attacks, more 9/11s if hes in office because
the Islamofascist enemy will smell weakness.
Taktix®|5.15.08 @ 12:16PM|#
The PATRIOT Act is one of the biggest reasons George W. Bush
has kept us safe.
OK, I'm just going to stop now before I break some component of my
computer.
Neil or whoever the fuck you are, I gave you a chance to stop being
an ass and join the debate.
Go.
Fuck.
Your.
Self.
|5.15.08 @ 12:16PM|#
Didn't watch much of the Chicago Newhart, but I caught a bunch of the Vermont Newhart on TV Land. It was awesome.
|5.15.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Neil:
Why do you think we haven't been attacked since
9/11?
I
already covered why we haven't been attacked since 9/11. Al
Qaeda has had a deliberate strategy of not targeting the U.S.
mainland since that date.
Al Qaeda's strategy is to bleed us dry economically until we can't
sustain our empire and collapse, a la Soviet Union. Further attacks
on the U.S. aren't necessary for that.
Rhywun|5.15.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Why do you think we haven't been attacked since
9/11?
Because 9/11 was the result of spectacular incompetence on our side
and more than a little luck on theirs.
Taktix®|5.15.08 @ 12:19PM|#
P.S. I know Neil is performance art or whatever. I'm just angry
that approx. 40% of the electorate actually believe this
bullshit.
Neil is a symbol of everything wrong with the GOP...
T|5.15.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Agreed. The mustache is the key to sincerity.
Indubitably. It's why Borat worked so well. The sincerity radiating
from Cohen's moustache bamboozled the participants. It's why Thomas
Friedman still has a gig at the NYT. No one can resist the
moustache.
Except my wife, who complains vociferously if I even contemplate
one.
|5.15.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Neil | May 15, 2008, 11:53am | #
AR an Obama Presidency means liberal judges, gun control, higher
taxes, more regulation, the return of the "fairness doctrine", and
soviet-style health care.in would b
I am thinking that is what RINO McCain would bring a lot faster
than Obama.
Obama seems to have a tiny individual liberty streak. McCain has
none.
Is Obama really more liberal than McCain?
I don't think so.
Obama has paid more tribute to Reagan than McCain has so far.
Elemenope|5.15.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Neil, I know it is very, very hard to read to the end of a whole
paragraph, so I will make it simple.
Please explain the following sentence:
Obama raises more money from military families than
McCain.
In fact, Obama is second only to anti-war RON PAUL in fundraising
amongst this group. How odd.
Well, I wait with bated breath.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 12:21PM|#
The Soviet Union collapsed AFTER they withdrew from
Afghanistan.
Then everybody knew the bear had been tamed.
We can't do the same thing they did.
Elemenope|5.15.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Except my wife, who complains vociferously if I even
contemplate one.
I have the very same problem. It's annoying when one does not even
have sovereignty over one's own face, isn't it?
Neil|5.15.08 @ 12:22PM|#
How about white military families Elemenope?
Its probably inflated because there are a lot of AAs in the
military and they, like the ones on the homefront, are very excited
about Obama.
|5.15.08 @ 12:25PM|#
An Obama Presidency means liberal judges, gun control,
higher taxes, more regulation, the return of the "fairness
doctrine", and soviet-style health care.
Credit where it's due. Neil has a good point here. And I'll add
lots more domestic spending. All this stuff will suck.
I won't vote for McCain, mostly cuz of the war and also his plans
for "Cap in trade" laws to address what he claims is the reality
and severity of anthropogenic warming.
So I'll work for the election of small government conservatives for
congress.
|5.15.08 @ 12:27PM|#
"How about white military families Elemenope?"
Heh. It sure didn't take long to draw this cro-magnon out of his
hole.
|5.15.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Neil | May 15, 2008, 12:15pm | #
Elemenope Obama can't keep us safe.
I fear more terrorist attacks, more 9/11s if hes in office because
the Islamofascist enemy will smell weakness.
Neil,
Obama will keep us safe. After he converts Pat Robertson, and Hagee
to Islam by the sword. All the radical islamists will be on our
side.
There will be no danger of another terrorist attack at all.
The only danger will be if you or your kids are picked by a lottery
to do a suicide attack somewhere in Europe or Russia.
But the chances of getting picked out of 300 million are really
small.
Niel, after you are forcibly converted to Islam, or Black
liberation theology Christianity, you will see the light, and
really you will really thank Obama for keeping us safe.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 12:31PM|#
As President Bush said today in Israel, Obama and the Democrats are reminiscient of those that appeased the Nazis in the late 30s.
|5.15.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Neil | May 15, 2008, 12:22pm | #
How about white military families Elemenope?
Its probably inflated because there are a lot of AAs in the
military and they, like the ones on the homefront, are very excited
about Obama.
Most of the military is white and hispanics.
Why are they not donating money?
|5.15.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Neil | May 15, 2008, 12:31pm | #
As President Bush said today in Israel, Obama and the Democrats are
reminiscient of those that appeased the Nazis in the late
30s.
Link plz
|5.15.08 @ 12:35PM|#
As President Bush said today in Israel, Obama and the
Democrats are reminiscient of those that appeased the Nazis in the
late 30s.
President Bush also said today in Israel: "I seem to have drooled
all over myself. Can someone give me a hand?"
|5.15.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Neil:
The Soviet Union collapsed AFTER they withdrew from
Afghanistan.
Then everybody knew the bear had been tamed.
We can't do the same thing they did.
Neil, you seem to believe that you can ignore economics by just
living in denial. Under Bush, the national debt has gone from 5.7
trillion to 9.3 trillion. We've gone from a budget surplus of 236
billion (in Bill Clinton's last year) to a projected 2008 deficit of 396
billion.
You can't pay the bills through sheer willpower.
|5.15.08 @ 12:42PM|#
"Neil" is in top, I say top, form today.
I couldn't agree more. There is no way, even if I cut and pasted
from sites like Red State, that I could convincingly imitate
someone that thick.
Bravo, Neil.
|5.15.08 @ 12:42PM|#
kwais,
McCain does have a good record on total spending voted for:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=116
As I said, I won't vote for him cuz of his position on the war but
if he makes it, I think that there's evidence that the Bush era
spending like a drunken Democrat will get better.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Bramblyspam, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.
As long as we grow our economy and keep the debt low as a % of GDP,
it doesn't matter.
T|5.15.08 @ 12:45PM|#
I have the very same problem. It's annoying when one does
not even have sovereignty over one's own face, isn't it?
I figure it's a fair trade for some other things. Like, I am
forbidden from touching the washer and dryer. I don't even know how
to start the new front-loaders. I'll trade shaving for that any
day.
|5.15.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Neil:
Bramblyspam, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.
As long as we grow our economy and keep the debt low as a % of GDP,
it doesn't matter.
Yes, and housing prices will always rise, too. Right? Right?
|5.15.08 @ 12:52PM|#
As long as we grow our economy and keep the debt low as a %
of GDP, it doesn't matter.
The deficit is 9 trillion dollars, which is 70% of
this year's GDP.
I agree that if we keep the debt low, it's inconsequential or even
a *good* thing, but our deficit is way, way too high. War spending
and the deficit are very much a part of why the dollar is so weak
right now.
You know who learnded me that?:
On April 9, 2007, [Republican Senator George] Voinovich broke
from party lines and stated at a hearing on the war in Iraq: "We've
kind of bankrupted this country [with the war spending]. We're in a
recession...and God knows how long it's going to last."
|5.15.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Minor correction, Randian. Don't confuse the deficit with the
debt, they're two very different things.
Still, 9 trillion is a pretty big number.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 12:58PM|#
The debt and deficit still, adjusted for inflation, are not as
big as a % of the GDP as they were in the early 90s.
Unless you're trying to be the next Ross Perot, its not a
crisis.
|5.15.08 @ 12:59PM|#
How about white military families Elemenope?
Its probably inflated because there are a lot of AAs in the military and they, like the ones on the homefront, are very excited about Obama.
Neil = Hillary operative?
Episiarch|5.15.08 @ 1:04PM|#
There is no way, even if I cut and pasted from sites like
Red State, that I could convincingly imitate someone that
thick.
I don't know. Try it. You might be surprised.
|5.15.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Brambly - good catch. Although one is related to the
other.
Right now, the interest payments on the debt are north of 400
billion tax dollars. The interest payments, not the
principle.
So, who can guess what happens when investors and speculators lost
confidence in the dollar and plow their money into commodities
(like, say, oil)?
|5.15.08 @ 1:12PM|#
The debt and deficit still, adjusted for inflation, are not
as big as a % of the GDP as they were in the early 90s.
The data, for those who care
to look. The debt percentage of GDP has been higher throughout
Bush's entire presidency than it was in 1990. The big difference,
though, is that the economy was (mostly) in good shape during the
Reagan-Clinton presidencies. It's not doing so great right
now.
My comment about housing prices very much applies, but I suppose
you don't have enough economic literacy to understand it.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Bramblyspam until recently the Bush economy
(thanks to the tax cuts) was extremely good.
If we made them permanent, we could have the boom again.
|5.15.08 @ 1:22PM|#
The debt and deficit still, adjusted for inflation, are not
as big as a % of the GDP as they were in the early 90s.
The debt-to-GDP ratio has always been going up, inflation
regardless.
There are some pie-in-the-sky thinkers who think that we can always
grow our economy at a greater rate than the debt increase,
but that's not remotely the point. The tolerance of high debt
allows government to vastly increase spending and there's no reason
to think that government is going to maintain spending levels at or
below their current rate.
So it's not so much "the debt is bad because it's too high" it's
that "the debt is bad because we've got people who say it can never
get too high".
|5.15.08 @ 1:47PM|#
One of the points Ross Perot made was that the US govt is
financing its debt with short term loans. That's fine as long as
the interest it has to pay remains low - but if the lenders see us
as a bad risk and stop lending, we'll have to pay higher interest
rates.
With a 9 trillion dollar debt that needs financing, that very
quickly translates into huge boost in annual deficits - which in
turn makes us a much bigger risk in the eyes of the lenders.
There's a balloon effect going on here, much like there was with
the housing market. There's a fair bit of fudge factor because all
the world's central bankers want to prevent a meltdown in the US
economy, but there were similar interests in keeping housing prices
perpetually rising too.
I don't see the balloon being slowly deflated any time soon, so one
of these years it's bound to pop. When that happens, things will
get very messy indeed.
Don't forget that the Soviet Union collapsed for economic reasons.
Willpower and wishful thinking didn't sustain the Russkies, what
makes you think they'd sustain us?
|5.15.08 @ 1:47PM|#
radical Libertarian here. I want the state to be as minimal as
possible, eliminate taxes, the whole nine yards...but I want Bob
Barr to be nominated. If we want to be seriously considered in the
political arena, we have to be able to enter that arena. With Bob's
media savvy, connections, and being a known entity, he provides
that foot into the door of said arena. No, he's not perfect and I
can accept that. We have to begin somewhere and in my opinion, Bob
Barr is the one to do that.
So lomng as we are heading in the direction of increased liberty
instead of constantly spinning our wheels, I am cool with that.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Are you for letting the Bush tax cuts expire or making them permanent Bramblyspam?
|5.15.08 @ 2:02PM|#
"radical Libertarian here. I want the state to be as minimal
as possible, eliminate taxes, the whole nine yards...but I want Bob
Barr to be nominated. If we want to be seriously considered in the
political arena, we have to be able to enter that arena. With Bob's
media savvy, connections, and being a known entity, he provides
that foot into the door of said arena. No, he's not perfect and I
can accept that. We have to begin somewhere and in my opinion, Bob
Barr is the one to do that."
Agreed. Welcoming politicians/former policians who have left the 2
major parties into the LP is one of the best avenues we have. They
are known commodoties that are much more likely to be taken
seriously.
Also, while Barr did at various times hold pretty awful policy
stances, it's not like he just came to his senses last week. He's
been criticizing the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs (both of
which he once supported) for years, and he served as an LP delegate
in 2006.
Episiarch|5.15.08 @ 2:03PM|#
If I wasn't so busy and I was really in the mood I would write a program that sees posts here and then goes to RedState/etc. and farms for posts that have similar keywords, and then posts them here. Under a simple name, like "Vern" or "Nigel".
Elemenope|5.15.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Is this "Neil" person for real? Methinks there is a troll in
this thread.
You must be new here. Neil is a professional
idiot/troll/performance art piece (depending on who you ask) who
willfully infects *all* threads with his idiocy/troll boogers/art
grant application.
Apparently he also knows how to vote, which is unfortunate. Them's
the breaks, as they say, in a democratic republic.
Neil|5.15.08 @ 2:11PM|#
LOL you guys really think this compares to the Soviet
economy?
The last time I checked I don't have to get up at 6 am to queue up
at the state store for toilet paper and bread.
Bob Goodman|5.15.08 @ 2:21PM|#
The GOP made an active and deliberate decision to cede the mantle of "small-government" politics.
I'm afraid we're about to find out that was a good strategic
decision. We were in better shape when that wasn't so clear. I'm
also afraid the anti-GOP tide we're seeing now would've been even
stronger had they not shed that mantle.
|5.15.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Neil | May 15, 2008, 1:56pm | #
Are you for letting the Bush tax cuts expire or making them
permanent Bramblyspam?
RINO McCain was until he needed republican votes. Will he still be
about tax cuts after he is elected?
Me thinks that the isle hopping maverick will be all about taxes
and other bipartisan stuff.
|5.15.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Neil:
Are you for letting the Bush tax cuts expire or making them
permanent Bramblyspam?
Truth be told, I don't really care. I'm not really that concerned
with the tax side. It's the spending that bothers me.
If spending is under control, then tax breaks (or debt reduction)
will happen easily and painlessly. If spending is out of control,
then the bills will eventually have to be paid one way or another,
regardless of what today's tax structure is.
|5.15.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Sorry if this has already been done to death in other threads, but, as someone who admittedly knows next to nothing about Bob Barr, I want to know what makes him a libertarian. The 'Issues' section of http://www.bobbarr2008.org/ is light on details ... aside from having been a big drug warrior, and a player in the Clinton impeachment circus, what should I know about him? And just how did he go from Drug Free America to a libertarian presidential candidate?
|5.15.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Taxes are always bad. However, bills have to be paid eventually,
one way or another. I focus on spending because in the long run,
spending = taxes. Hence, the best way to minimize taxes in the long
run is by minimizing spending.
Whether we pay today's bills today or tomorrow isn't of central
importance. Just understand that there's a cost to postponing the
bills, and you can't postpone them forever.
I'm sure even you would regard it as insane and unsustainable to
reduce all taxes to zero. Given that we must have taxes, the
question is "what's the optimal tax structure, and how does it
differ from what we have today". Perhaps the optimal tax structure
involves keeping the Bush tax cuts, perhaps not - I really don't
know, and I don't spend my time worrying about it.
|5.15.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Barr is running on real cuts in federal spending, rolling back
the Bush administration's attacks on the U.S. Constitution
(protections for the criminally accused and separation of powers,
and, most importantly, against preventative war and nation
building.
And that is why he is a libertarian. He is emphasizing the key
libertarian issues of the day. The out of control Federal spending
that occured when the Republicans controlled the Congress and the
presidency, the attack on the U.S. Constitution, and the
neoconservative foreign policy.
|5.15.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Rick,
Thanks for the link. That gives me hope. Depending on McCain pics
as a VP, he might even be palatable.
Still because of his gross disregard of the 1st A with the McCain/
Feingold bill, and his opposition to the Bush tax cuts.
I think I will be voting for Barr. (speaking of which, how can I
vote for him in the libertarian primaries? I am in NV)
I wonder who Obama will pick as vp. If he picks someone who is pro
2nd A, and pro tax cuts, Obama might even be palatable.
Huh Neil?
Taktix®|5.15.08 @ 2:48PM|#
And just how did he go from Drug Free America to a
libertarian presidential candidate?
When he became a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project.
His official story is that he saw how Bush used the Patriot Act and
regretted it, but I think it also has to do with getting
gerrymandered out of office.
People would call his conversion opportunistic, but I say "so
what?" What's wrong with taking advantage of an opportunity? And
when was the last time someone looked at the LP as an opportunity,
anyway?
The biggest issue I have was his Defense of Marriage Act bullshit,
but we know he doesn't believe it personally, as he has been
divorced and has been party to an abortion before.
I think the LP should be a place for hypocritical GOP moralists to
"come out of the closet" if you will and be honest about their
indiscretions.
|5.15.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Bramblyspam | May 15, 2008, 2:46pm | #
Taxes are always bad. However, bills have to be paid eventually,
one way or another.
I reject that. Congress critters can't control their checkbooks nor
the checkbooks of the country.
But don't allow them to reach into my wallet when they fuck
up.
They can get their fucking hands off of my wallet, and figure out
how to unfuck their mistakes another way.
|5.15.08 @ 3:16PM|#
I am sympathetic to Barr because I see him as having made the
same journey as me.
I was a social and fiscal conservative. I didn't like dope smokers
and hippies growing up.
Then sometime, probably during the Clinton administration I started
to see law enforcement used to infringe on stuff I liked.
And it started to click somewhere that though I have no use for
drugs myself, the war on drugs is directly responsible for
infringing on what I do with my money, and it is a mother of gun
laws.
Also the patriot act, though on paper might be good. Hey lets allow
the government free hands to go after terrorists, is actually so
wide reaching that in various areas it actually infringes on my own
rights.
I do have a weird fantasy that somewhere deep down inside Bush made
the Patriot Act to turn people against the same rules that were
applied in the drug war. That people will eventually see that the
Patriot Act is a pain the ass for everybody.
But then reality kicks in, and I fear that people get used to
having authority over them and they start to think it is good and
right. Having traveled to most of the Middle East and Europe being
my basis for that fear.
Anyways, I am hoping that Barr has made the same logical journey of
political belief as me.
|5.15.08 @ 3:19PM|#
kwais,
Oh yeah, there's McCain and the 1st A too.
I'll never vote for Obama-way too much big government.
Bob Barr looks good to me too. I don't know about what's happening
with the Libertarian primaries.
|5.15.08 @ 3:34PM|#
kwais:
As a theoretical ideal, I'm all for an anarcholibertarian utopia.
As a practical matter, utopia isn't an option.
The government's bills *will* be paid, one way or another. Even if
the bills are handled by printing money or defaulting on loans, you
will suffer a financial impact, just as surely as if the taxman had
reached directly into your wallet.
I don't like it any more than you do.
Sean Scallon|5.15.08 @ 4:24PM|#
William Hawkins, who used to write for Chronicles, sold out his country when decided that there was more money for being the neocons' trained seal and writing for Front Page Mage than being a patriot.
|5.15.08 @ 4:38PM|#
I'm afraid we're about to find out that was a good strategic
decision. We were in better shape when that wasn't so clear. I'm
also afraid the anti-GOP tide we're seeing now would've been even
stronger had they not shed that mantle.
well...no. See, the GOP jettisoned a crucial part of small
government philosophy (to whit: don't conduct big, expensive,
humanitarian wars). It is the loss of that principle over which
they are taking their current thumping.
boo-friggity-hoo.
Shawn Levasseur|5.15.08 @ 10:26PM|#
All squabbling aside,
I think Reason's given us more LP coverage in the past few weeks
than in the past two decades.
|5.16.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Wayne Root is unelectable. He runs a scam company IMO and as many others who understand his business. If he gets the nomination he'll probably be forced to step down within a week. That would set the party back decades.
Dodge Landesman|5.20.08 @ 3:44PM|#
What about Gravel? He's one of the top with Barr! You guys are hosting a debate between the two! You just hate doing research, don't you?
Michael Micelli|5.22.08 @ 12:56AM|#
Wayne Allyn Root is the right man for the job.
He is a winner and he is 100% Libertarian.
There are millions of pissed off online poker players that will
vote for him. He is capable of getting the message across. You
dummies are responding to an artical that is missing 76% of its
content. If you realy care about the U.S. you would go to his site
rootforamerica.com or my site titlemike.ws
|5.28.08 @ 10:25AM|#
This man is no Libertarian. I'm leaving the party this man disgusts me and I will not be represented by him.
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