Wayne Root, former Libertarian Party Vice Presidential Candidate and Current Member of the LP's National Committee: "It's Gotta Be Romney, There is No Choice"

Wayne Root, who ran as Bob Barr's VP candidiate with the Libertarian Party in 2008, currently a member of the

 Libertarian National Committee that runs the Party, exhibits a lack of dedication to the LP by saying this on a Bill Cunningham podcast, right in the first couple of minutes:

I think the important thing now is to make sure Obama is not elected,and that means in my mind, I would love for a libertarian like Gary Johnson the two term governor of New Mexico would actually get elected President, but I think we all know that's not going to happen so therefore it's got to be Romney there is no choice.

Root tried to defend himself in this Independent Political Report comment thread:

I said in a perfect world I'd like to see Gary Johnson elected President, he'd be the best choice out there…I also said several times on the call that Mitt Romney is a big spending, big government Northeast liberal…that he will make very little difference because of this…

And that the difference between Obama and Romney…

Is that Romney will slow down our path off a cliff just a bit…and Obama will take us off the cliff in a matter of minutes.

But neither is good enough to save USA from long decline towards mediocrity.

And that Romney's victory will most probably prove that neither party can change our problems enough to save the economy…so hopefully it will lead to a serious Libertarian third party threat in 2016…of which I plan to be the Presidential candidate.

It's true, he did say the above. But before saying all that, he said that "it's got to be Romney, there is no choice." 

That quote is accurate, and is clearly an LP official telling the world it has no choice but to vote for a GOP candidate--even if he goes on to say that GOP candidate is highly flawed.

The great advantage of telling the world there is no point in voting for his own party's candidate in 2012? It leaves the possibility of voting for his party's candidate in 2016--when Root predicts it will be him. I daresay this statement makes that far less likely.

Reason on the Libertarian Party.

Comments

[Evil Otto]

While I obviously share Root's sentiment, this is very bad for him to say. I don't expect him to remain in his LP post for very long.

But Gary Johnson is a joke (and may not be the LP nominee anyway).

[darius404]

Gary Johnson isn't a joke. If you mean he isn't likely to get elected, that applies to a whole SLEW of libertarian-minded people. If you mean JUST Gary Johnson, you're off your rocker.

[yonemoto]

gary johnson just wants to get high, or so an insider tells me.

OT: Did anyone hear stossel on Kennedy's show and think that he was stoned out of his mind?

[Bill]

Gary Johnson is probably more unelectable than Ron Paul in a national election. This is based on the limited number of time I have seen him on TV. He just seems to lack charisma and that makes anyone damn hard to elect. People will vote for charisma and sound bites over substance. You need to have all three to get elected as a true limited gov't candidate.

[Sevo]

"But Gary Johnson is a joke"
Care to expand on that?

[Warty]

It's Tulpa, dude. Why would you want to hear more from him?

[Sevo]

Oops. I should have known.

[Warty]

Vermin shit.

[SIV]

Gary Johnson is a bad candidate.I don't mean "the issues" he is just a lousy, terrible politician. He is a poor fit for the LP too. Hell, Chuck Baldwin is more libertarian than Gary Johnson.

That said, if he gets the LP nom I'll probably vote for him unless there is a mor appealing candidate on the GA ballot.

[Groovus Maximus]

I disagree. Johnson was an effective Gov. of NM, and got quite a few things accomplished of the positive favorable outcome, fiscally sound variety, something a "lousy, terrible politican" would be unable to do.

That said, as a national candidate, not so much. He doesn't inspire visceral confidence for someone on the national stage, and his mannerisms hurt from a first impression POV. I was listening, a few months back, to Larry Kudlow and he was a guest and had the chance to expand on his economic ideas and shined. When he started with the nebulous, vague politician parsing on other issues, social (I consider health care a social issue, since so many consider it a "right") that's when he started to flounder, like he didn't want to make a mistake and turn people off. When you say "I support the right to choose," be specific about what one is choosing, be it health care, social issuey stuff, or other areas of civil liberties.

Just my 2 ducats.

[Sevo]

SIV|4.6.12 @ 9:15PM|#
"Gary Johnson is a bad candidate.I don't mean "the issues" he is just a lousy, terrible politician."

What mean?

[SIV]

Look at his recent Presidential "run"
(If you can call it that)

You can't blame his poor performance on the media.

Oh, and that "fair tax" shit.

[yonemoto]

even 9-9-9 is more appealing than 'fair tax'.

[yonemoto]

(actually I liked 9-9-9 a whole lot, especially if the national sales tax only applied to strictly interstate transactions)

[robc]

Bad politicians are notorious for winning two terms as governor.

WTF?

He has shown via those 2 elections his strength as a politician.

[Proprietist]

You can blame his poor run on being in the same limited pool as Ron Paul, and being even further in a libertarian direction on many issues than Paul. That just means he has as much appeal to the Left as to the Right.

And Fair Tax would be better than the system as a whole it intends on replacing.

[deified]

He kicked teh ass on Colbert the other night.

[Anacreon]

There will never, ever be a President named Root. Too easy to say "I've got your Root right here," "suck my root," etc.

[protefeed]

Just like there weren't TWO Presidents named "Johnson"?

[DesigNate]

Or two named "Bush".

[Phileleutheria]

I can't take seriously conservatarians who think that Romney will be better than Obama. For every civil liberties violation Obama has wrought upon us, Romney promises to do so twofold, and his party, the most anti-liberty party in the country, will go along with everything he wishes. He has publicly stated that he is in favor of torture, opposed to any steps towards ending the war of terror or the drug war, anti immigrant, anti gay...take your pick. On every one of these issues he is worse than Obama and on economic issues he is nearly in lockstep with him, although he will probably spend even more than Obama on our ever expanding empire budget and military adventurism. He wants to pick a fight with Iran, and Russia, and China. As much as I dislike our current Democratic party, the Republicans currently in charge truly scare me. They will bring this country to a Roman Empire-like end if left to their own devices. Any "libertarian" who supports these heinous idiots deserves to be drummed out of a party of serious people. I say vote libertarian or not at all.

[Bill]

But Romney never means anything he says. He will change his mind 5 minutes after he's elected.

[Proprietist]

Yes, I shall place my entire basis for hope on Romney's complete lack of principle and hope that despite not having any backbone or track record of libertarian, he's really a closet libertarian in a trojan horse of an archetypal politician.

[Mr. Soul]

isnt that good? If Romeny over-reaches the people can send him a Congress in 2014 that reigns him in. If Barak would flip-flop like Clinton did, he's be sitting pretty instead of done.

[darius404]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, even though this isn't Bob Barr himself: Shikha Dalmia was right. Barr AND his vice-presidential candidate just aren't much good at being libertarians.

[Alan]

Yes, 2008 was a bad year for the Libertarian ticket. Johnson beats Barr or Root by a mile.

[FreeLibertine]

Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich a few months ago. Now Wayne Root says vote for Romney.

The 2008 Barr/Root ticket was a big mistake for the LP.

[Killazontherun]

We should adjust the twenty second amendment to limit the number of terms to one. I can't imagine not being tired of any one in the office after one term; Obama, of course, totally sick of that fucker.

[Bernieyeball]

Why don't you amend the Constitution to allow only Libertarian Party candidates for the Executive and no term limits!

[darius404]

No silly, we don't want Obama to run on a libertarian ticket. Reality would crack and you would be able to see the even MORE hideous color reality had before.

[Mr. FIFY]

That's not the point at all, Bern. Don't be stoopid.

[Bernieyeball]

Term limits are stupid!

[Francisco d Anconia]

Term limits are the answer.

[Night Elf Mohawk]

How do (a) telling someone he can't run, and (b) telling someone he can't vote to elect whomever he chooses reconcile with libertarianism?

[robc]

How are they not?

Libertarianism doesnt really say much about structural governing issues.

I think random draw for politicians would be a great way to choose them. I dont think that idea is particularly libertarian nor anti-libertarian.

And it effectively term limits everyone to one term (the odds of getting drawn twice are tiny).

[Francisco d Anconia]

How do (a) telling someone he can't run, and (b) telling someone he can't vote to elect whomever he chooses reconcile with libertarianism?

Limiting government is extremely libertarian.

95% (my estimate) of government corruption stems from the need/desire to get re-elected. Take away the this requirement and there is no need to buy and sell votes. Backroom deals go away as they've been dis disincentivized.

[Bernieyeball]

Term limits are a restriction on the political freedom I have to vote for an incumbent officeholder if I so choose. Advocates of term limits on US Senators and Representatives seem to think that they should tell electors in 49 other states who they can not vote for.
Term limits also provide for "Lame Duck" incumbents who do not have to answer to their constituents for ANYTHING!

[Francisco d Anconia]

This is America, my friend. You can vote for anyone you choose. If he ain't on the ballot, you can write him in. I've done it many times.

[Bernieyeball]

If all the registered voters in the USA had written in Ronald Reagan in the 1988 election he could not have served because of the Constitutional term limits set forth in the USCon.
There was talk about trying to remove the restriction so RR could run and serve another term if reelected but the limit still stands.

[DesigNate]

I get it, your guy isn't a crook, it's everyone elses officeholder who sucks.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the reason for the state of our Republic.

[Bernieyeball]

I'm certain you are not attributing to me words I have not said.
Why don't you let us all know who you are trashing.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Term limits also provide for "Lame Duck" incumbents who do not have to answer to their constituents for ANYTHING!

I completely agree. That's why in my amendment I'd limit each elected official to ONE term (I'll argue about the lengths of those terms later) BUT ensure a vote of confidence every year for the length of said term, requiring 2/3 of the voters to unseat him.

This way he's only running against his own record.

[Bernieyeball]

We already have elections every two years for members of the US House of Representatives so you are going to have these "elections of confidence" in the off years thus adding to the expense of local governments to hold these votes.
Are you planning on annual "confidence polls" for the US Senate as well? More cost to the taxpayer.
When 2/3 of the voters remove a sitting congressman will the seat remain vacant till the next election cycle or is there an immediate "Special Election" (mo money!) involving two or more candidates to fill the vacancy?

[Francisco d Anconia]

So make them every two years during the State's primary. Yes, Senators too. No, not vacant. If unseated they are replaced in the general.

You're heart really isn't in this, is it?

Cost? Compared to what these assholes cost us every year in new regulation and by interfering in the market buying votes? Dear Zod man, its twice the bargain at 1/10 the price.

[Bernieyeball]

My heart is a muscle and it pumps blood. I do not want it to be doing anything else. This is basic human anatomy.
The questions about your annual vote of confidence were not formulated in my heart. So you are correct when you say my heart is not in this. I wouldn't want it to be.
"So make them every two years during the State's primary."
You have backed off the idea of an annual "vote of confidence". Now you want these referendums to be held in concert with state primaries (and caucuses?)
If we used this schedule in 2012 and a US House incumbent from Iowa loses office in your "vote of confidence" on the date of the Iowa Caucus that seat would be vacant for almost a year when the new representative is sworn in the following January.
The North Dakota Legislative District Democratic Party Caucus is Tuesday June 5 2012. The North Dakota Republican Caucus was March 6. On which date will you hold the vote of confidence?
Apparently you want to create all this by Constitutional Amendment. I would like to read your proposed amendment.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Dude, for as poorly as your brain works, you might want to think about making decisions with your heart. 😉 I keed! I keed! (And I was trying to keep the debate light by stating your heart wasn't in it...I'm aware of where thought originates.)

I said earlier, I'd adjust the term length as well. Slightly longer terms would would negate the argument of, "They just figure out how the system works and their term is up". I'd say 4 years for a Rep and 9 years for a Sen.

State could decide to move their primary/caucus date to accommodate as they see fit and they would have the option of allowing him to sit as a lame duck or unseating him immediately. (Continued)

[Francisco d Anconia]

How often do you think you could get 2/3 of the voters to agree on anything? He would need to be egregious, in which case you would, as a state or district, probably be better off having no representation for a few months rather than let such a buffoon continue.

[Francisco d Anconia]

And now that White Indian is defeated, can we please get rid of the 900 character limit?

[Bernieyeball]

I would like to read your proposed amendment to the US Constitution.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Okay, without going into all the parts to be modified/repealed.

All Congressmen are limited to a single term in a given office (4 years for Representatives, 9 years for Senators). To ensure loyalty to constituency, a vote of confidence will be held every two years (as a minimum). 2/3 of the voting public of a given state is required to unseat a Congressmen prematurely. Particulars and timing of process (vote of confidence) to be determined on a state by state basis.

And you could talk me into doing something similar for the office of the President (6 year single term).

[Bernieyeball]

US Con Amendment V:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;.."

Which method of Amending the US Constitution do you want to use to make these changes?

[Francisco d Anconia]

The States would need to do it independent of Congress. You could never get these assholes to limit their own power.

And I'd love to watch it happen. Can you imagine the States calling for a convention to impose term limits on Congress. That's one shit storm I'd pay to watch.

[Francisco d Anconia]

*?

[Bernieyeball]

So you are going to get 33 States to call a convention to impose term limits on congress. Wouldn't this reduce the influence the States have in Washington? Which 33 States are going to do this? What is to stop delegates from proposing other Amendments? Maybe some States will want to propose that Spanish be deemed the official language of Estados Unidos de Am?rica! Others might want to change the second Amendment to read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people enlisted in the Armed Forces to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Francisco d Anconia]

Are you implying that because it's never been don that it can't be done?

Why would it diminish State influence in Washington? They'd have the option to call him back at any time. For the love of Zod, we haven't had a federal budget in what, 3 years? There is no control over these idiots now as it is.

You could organize it such that the only topic under discussion will be term limits. As far as I know, nothing prohibits this. Could have a set of bylaws drawn up in advance, stipulating the agenda.

What's Congress's approval rating right now? 10% ish? I can't think of a better time.

It's not like the Constitution has never been amended before.

[Francisco d Anconia]

*done

Damn proof reading, how does it work?

[Bernieyeball]

As we all know the Constitution has been amended. As far as I know there has never been a Convention under the current Constitution.
I am not implying anything. I am asking reasonable questions about your idea.
States that have congressmen who sit as Chairs of committees who are reelected without limit would lose their influence.
Under your limits Ron Paul would have served in the US House 1976-1980. And he would be gone. Had he won his bid for US Senate in 1984 he would be gone by 1993.
With the election of the 112th Congress, and a resulting GOP majority Paul became the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology starting in January 2011. Under your term limits he would not have that chair. Maybe the voters in his home district in Texas would be ok with that. I don't know.

[Francisco d Anconia]

It would change politics as we know it. We would again have citizen legislatures rather than career politicians.

My opinion:

RP is a one off. He is the exception to the rule. Sure, this would have prevented him from being reelected and that would have been a bad thing. HOWEVER, it would have also prevented THOUSANDS of shit bags from being reelected too (not to say they wouldn't have been replaced by shit bags). A fair trade?

Anyway, there would be unintended consequences, always is. But I think it would reduce the corruption and lies inherent in a system where the primary motivation is to obtain and retain power.

My .02

[Bernieyeball]

Sure would like to see your list of 33 State Legislatures that will be calling for a Constitutional Convention.
You have stated that the voters in the several States have sent "assholes, buffoons and shitbags" to represent them in the US Congress. Apparently these same voters send nothing but honest folk and Ron Paul style "one off" candidates to their State Assemblies who can be trusted to call this Convention and properly limit its scope.
By the way why hasn't Congressman Paul of Texas lobbied the Texas State Legislature to call for a Constitutional Convention?

[BakedPenguin]

Because there's no right to give away other people's money?

[Killazontherun]

Term limits are at least part of the answer. If the limit on terms of service were reduced to zero because we replaced our republic with an anarco-capitalist company town that stretched from the Carolinas to California that would be the opposite of stupid, that would be the finalist greatest solution of all.

And for the Team Blueys, don't pretend that the eight years of W Bush were not excruciating for you. It was your own personal Idaho. Worse than Idaho, it was your own personal Vietnam quagmire. Now, think of those of us who hate both of those misbegotten motherfuckers. Twelve fucking years into shit stain presidencies is enough.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Nah, keep it at two terms. One in office, one in jail (or indefinite detention, whichever legal standard the ex-POTUS is given by his or her successor).

[Mr. Soul]

LoL - I thought you said 20 second amendment limiting terms to 20 seconds.

[Mad Scientist]

As awful as Obama is, how in the hell does he think Romney will be any different?

[Sevo]

Well,
Bush = 4 letters
Obama = 5 letters
Romney = 6 letters
See? Big difference!

[Mike Laursen]

Is Mitt's first name Mitt or is it actually a six letter name?

[RobSmalls]

It's Willard.

[Mike Laursen]

Well, that doesn't fit my hypothesis.

[shamalam]

Maybe it's spelled with one "L"? He was born in Mexico, right?

[Anacreon]

Kaffee Mitt Milch.

[fursa]

At most energy and education policy, but I don't even trust him so it's pointless to vote for him because of those.

[Apatheist ?_??]

Don't let the good be the enemy of the shitty.

[CrayB]

This guy has always creeped me out.

[Karl Hungus]

If Root can't see that Obama and Romney are functionally indistinguishabe from one another, then he has no idea what it means to be a libertarian (or a Libertarian).

[Gojira]

It's things like this that give Tony credibility when he calls libertarians GOP useful idiots. When an official of the party is openly a GOP shill, it's a hard charge to refute.

[Karl Hungus]

Shit like this is why the distinction between big 'L' and small 'l' libertarians is very important. Being beholden to a party, and thus to the acquisition of elected office, Libertarians are first and foremost political creatures.

Not that Tony would comprehend the difference.

[Episiarch]

Unfortunately, Jimbo, there are plenty of self-proclaimed libertarians who still have some sort of affinity for the GOP. Some of them do it reflexively from old habit, some of them because they somehow believe the token small-government stuff the GOP spews even if it never acts on it and some, like Professor Pomeranian, do it because they just hate the Democrats and that makes them on TEAM RED by default.

[Groovus Maximus]

Some of them do it reflexively from old habit

I would say a good number of them do. I do from time to time.

some of them because they somehow believe the token small-government stuff the GOP spews even if it never acts on it

This would be the majority.

some, like Professor Pomeranian, do it because they just hate the Democrats and that makes them on TEAM RED by default.

Very few. The only reason they are mad at Dems is the gimme gimmes and the Dem slant on social issues isn't gushing out as quickly as hoped. I believe these folks tend to be called "Liberaltarians."

For supporters like Tulpa, it's a cut nose/ruin face situation, yet feel they have nowhere to turn.

[Robert]

"The Dem slant on social issues" just isn't anything close to libertarian. It's not a problem of its not gushing out quickly enough. Democrats do oppose Republicans on social issues, but not in a libertarian way. "Social issues" aren't on a single scale that runs from libertarian to authoritarian.

On social issues, although it's "liberals" vs. "conservatives", it's libertarians vs. the world.

[Warty]

I will confess that I have somewhat more hatred for TEAM BLUE than for TEAM RED. I think it's because I like guns so much.

[Episiarch]

I like to granularize my hatred for the two TEAMS into different issues. That way I can hate one more than the other many different ways. You should try it, rather than just generalizing your hatred like a chump. Idiot.

[Pham Nuwen]

I like to believe that my hatred of other people's political viewpoints is a bottomless well. From which I can dispense vitriol indiscriminately and equally among all concerned parties.

Never underestimate me again or I'll go all "Fist of the North Star" on your ass.

[BakedPenguin]

You like to granularize a lot of things, Epi. As for me, my hate ebbs and flows with whomever is in power. Those who have political power, and use it, are my enemies.

[Karl Hungus]

I'd like to say that Team Red gets props for being better on guns, but then they go and give us stuff like war and the TSA. But Team Blue comes in and not only continues these abominations, but actually expands on them.

I'm really starting to think it's nothing more than a tag-team effort and that they're actually in very close collusion.

[Groovus Maximus]

I'm really starting to think it's nothing more than a tag-team effort and that they're actually in very close collusion.

You win a kewpie doll.

[SIV]

The GOP is much better on Nanny-state/public health issues and they appoint marginally better Judges.

The first thing Obama did in office was to sign a huge tobacco tax increase that Bush had vetoed.

The only positive thing Obama has done was to get rid of that horse-slaughter ban.

Democrats and Republicans are terrible on almost everything but I can't think of something where Dems are "better".

The few libertarian-leaning pols are all GOP.

[Karl Hungus]

The GOP is much better on Nanny-state/public health issues and they appoint marginally better Judges.

You do have a point there. It's the GOP's appointees that are likely going to slap down Obamacare.

[Sevo]

"You do have a point there. It's the GOP's appointees that are likely going to slap down Obamacare."

Are the GOP appointees in MA doing the same with Romneycare?

[Karl Hungus]

Are the GOP appointees in MA doing the same with Romneycare?

I'm guessing that there aren't too many GOP appointees in MA. I honestly don't know. I'm also gonna guess that if there are, they'd be OK with Romneycare.

[Robert]

Of course they'd be dealing with the Mass. constitution, not the US's, and I don't think there's anything against it in the Mass. const.

[Proprietist]

Telling people who it's not ok to marry to, or what things they can or cannot put into their body, or what language they must speak, or where they can or can't work and live based on an arbitrary line in the ground all sounds pretty "nanny state" to me. In a big government spoils system with absolute power, both parties will be corrupt and fundamentally unlibertarian, and debating which is better is like figuring out whether you prefer sticking needles in your eyeballs or Chinese genital torture.

[RyanXXX]

GOP=appointed Judges usually vote to give cops the right to basically rape ordinary citizens too. Even the judges from both sides are equally terrible

[RyanXXX]

"GOP-appointed" i mean

[Randian]

Rape?

Care to back that up?

[SIV]

He probably thinks Dems are "better on drugs and civil liberties" too.

[RyanXXX]

I was being allegorical, Randian. "Conservative" justices like Scalia and Alito favor extreme police power, while "Liberal" ones favor extreme economic power.

It was in response to a poster above who said that the GOP nominates better SCOTUS judges

[Cytotoxic]

You were being silly. GOP SCOTUS noms are imperfect and indisputably better than Dem noms.

[Randian]

The important thing to remember is not that Scalia favors extreme police power, but that he does not think the Federal Government and its Federal Constitution should, more often than not, control the state's general police powers. It's an important distinction: when Scalia "approves" an action a State takes, he is limiting the Federal Government's power. When the Liberal Justices approve something Congress does, they are enlarging the Federal Government.

[T o n y]

Suggesting that federal government power and freedom are not necessarily in contradiction.

Government can now strip search you for practically nothing. That, to me, is more of an individual liberty issue than whether billionaires pay Clinton-era taxes.

And god forbid we have universal healthcare like every other industrialized society on earth. Government literally being up your ass is a worthy trade-off for preventing that horror.

[Francisco d Anconia]

$

[T o n y]

Dollars are federal government printed tokens of imaginary worth. You might as well worship a crucifix. At least its symbolism is merely horrific, not crass like the object of Rand's cult. I get it, you're special. Ms. Rand told you so. At least earn your dollars the way you're supposed to, such as by doing something useful. Your little cult has been embraced by the real money in this country, not surprisingly, even if making money from money isn't exactly the engine of entrepreneurship your cult edicts envision.

[Francisco d Anconia]

I'll make an exception in your case Tony, and explain.

You see, you are obviously either a spoofer or too fucking stupid to live. You won't legitimately debate and therefore aren't worth me wasting my time on. This is the last time I will ever engage you with any more than your idiocy deserves. Your "opinions" aren't worth more than two keystrokes and two mouse clicks. And that's being EXTREMELY generous. So, in honor of my moniker, I have chosen the following symbol as a standard response to your idiocy. From now on:

$ = FUCK OFF TONY

$

[robc]

"Conservative" justices like Scalia and Alito favor extreme police power

Except on procedural prosecutorial issues (which I consider part of the police pwoer) in which Scalia and Ginsburg tag team, generally against everyone else.

If we could get Scalia to hold the cops to the same high standard he holds prosecutors, things would be much better.

[Phileleutheria]

I'd say the Republicans' support of gun rights is their sole positive quality. I hate just about everything else that comes out of the know-nothing party. I suppose my hatred of them often stems from my love of science, and the fact that the party is loaded with creationist idiots. It is just oozing with good old xtian authoritarianism in general as well. I could never stomach voting for a mainstream Republican.

[Robert]

And probably a good many libertarians like the GOP because they noticed the same thing Don Ernsberger revealed in a pretty thorough study: that GOP politicians are faaaarrrr better than Democrats on any issue where there are differences between them -- and there are a good many of important ones. You can't accuse Ernsberger with a straight face of partisanship. He said the results surprised him, that he hadn't expected the Republicans to show advantages across the board, that he thought they'd at least fall down compared to Democrats on social issues. It's simply the truth.

[Joe M]

Are you fucking kidding me? He's obviously doing everything he can (admittedly not very much) to sabotage Johnson's nascent candidacy. He's pissed because he thought he was gonna be the LP candidate this time.

[Pro Libertate]

Bye, Wayne, thanks for playing. Please collect your consolation prize, the home version of The Road to Serfdom game.

[Wilt Chamberlain]

I thought the official game of libertarians was monopoly?

[Robert]

Gonna give pro volleyball another go? Timing may be better now.

[Adamson]

To me, there's no difference between Barr promoting Romney as the only choice, and all the state and local LP officials around the country volunteering and campaigning for Ron Paul.

Romney and Paul are both running for the nomination of another party, and both are taking away from the LP (especially if Rep. Paul decides to run as an "independent" candidate this fall).

[Adamson]

Sorry, I meant Root. (They're two peas in a pod in my book)

[RyanXXX]

Yea, and Romney and Paul are both equally committed to libertarian principles, right?

Pffffft

[Cytotoxic]

both are taking away from the LP

So...Romney does deserve some credit, even if just a little bit.

[robc]

Paul is a lifetime member of the LP, Romney isnt.

Big difference.

[Adamson]

But he's not running for the nomination of the Libertarian Party.

Who cares if he sent in money umpteen years ago for a lifetime membership - he's running for the nomination of *another* party.

[robc]

I do. It distinguishes the two. They arent two peas in a pod.

[Jeff P.]

So, have any steps been taken by the LP to oust this gut from his post?

What am I saying, it's a holiday weekend, of course not.

[Mike Laursen]

Maybe. Maybe not. Only thing certain is a year or two of accusation emails and committee meetings.

[plu1959]

Nobamomney!

[Scotch Man]

If Romney picks a plausible VP candidate, I could be persuaded to vote for him but I have this horrible feeling he Santorums up his ticket with a theocrat and in that event, I'd roll the dice with four more years and vote my conscience (Johnson).

[trickamsterdam]

@Scotch Man: Romney won't pick Santorum as VP (IMO). Maybe if Santorum had won OH or Wisconsin...but he doesn't need him anymore. He'll just ignore Santo from now on, esp after PA (whatever the result there).

I would vote for Romney if he nominated a real agent of change like J. DeMint or Rand Paul as VP...possibly if he nominated a quasi-change agent like P. Ryan or Rubio.

Romney however for all his intelligence is too unoriginal in his thinking and also to petty to share the spotlight. Expect him to scrape the bottom of the barrel for someone like e.g. John Kyl.

[General Butt Naked]

I don't know. Taking Rand Paul out of the senate and into the vice presidency seems more like a declawing than a promotion.

If Romney were to win, Rand Paul would do well to spend the next 4 years in the senate being the left-wing republican president's biggest critic. Paul could attack from the right on fiscal issues and from the left on civil liberties issues thereby setting himself up for a '16 run.

[trickamsterdam]

Not bad points at all except my thinking is:

1. In both Parties but especially the GOP the VP is the "heir apparent" w/ great advantages. Rand will never get a better chance than if he runs as a sitting VP.

2. Most of what I was saying was about Romney...not Rand or the others. It would show me that Romney was able to think outside the box and valued the Base. That would also make me think he's electable (I give him no better than a 40% chance against Obama now and a lot of that is his inability to unite the Base and his poor understanding of how big an underdog to Obama he really is i.e. his poor understanding of strategy). This flaw of how weak a candidate his is is also shared by his supporters (e.g. Coulter).

3. I don't think Romney is going to win anyway...I just think unless things change in some dynamic way (e.g. war in the Middle East blamed on Obama) Obama is too strong. So Rand (or one of the others) could stay where they were but would have increased their profile Sarah Palin style.

4. I wouldn't mind the GOP providing me w/ a reason to vote for this walking wooden indian (Romney) instead of doing a protest vote. But I don't expect one. Like I said I predict someone totally bland e.g. Jon Kyl.

PS - I'm OK w/ a protest vote though. Get G. Johnson over 5% and I think American Politics are changed going forward. That's worth something real.

[General Butt Naked]

I guess one's level of optimism plays into this as well. I think that the next four years and the next presidential election are going to be marked by so much monumental failure due to incompetence that having one's name attached to any of it will be a huge liability. That was why I argued that Paul's best chance comes from being an above the fray critic of the nonsense that will inevitably befall us in the next 50 months.

Not that any of this will affect my vote. I'll vote for GJ if he gets the L party nod, Ron Paul if he does a third party mindfuck, or abstain to get drunk and weep otherwise.

[trickamsterdam]

@Gen B.N.:

If G. Johnson doesn't get the L Party nod I'll vote for Obama. I'm not kidding.

I'm OK w/ sending two messages to two Parties at the same time.

A minor and a major.

G. Johnson is the best they've had. If he's not good enough for them than maybe we just need a flat-out liberal. I'm serious.

PS - If Romney had the go-for-broke-audacity to nominate Rand as VP that would indicate to me he'd also be ready to solve some of the nation's problems.

But he has other goals:

1. To fly around of AirForce One

2. To juggle the books and policy until unemployment gets under 7%

3. To be re-elected so he can do the exact same things in the second term which is nothing.

For me G. Johnson is a protest vote (as superior as his record is to Romney) but if you're at the point where the R Party (and I assume D Party) is no longer on your radar I may be there too sooner rather than later. I grow weary of the Hunt.

[Fatty Bolger]

I think a president who did nothing would be pretty popular around here.

[trickamsterdam]

@Fatty Bolger:

"I think a president who did nothing would be pretty popular around here."

I don't agree. I think people around here are smarter than that.

You can't "do nothing" when the costs of Government automatically go up. This is 2012 not 1912.

You should know that..."Fatty". 😉

[David E. Gallaher]

Being a librarian means you are a part of the "establishment body," even if you are the asshole. The establishment is nothing if not "practical."
So, as a peaceful anarchist, I'd just like to say, if it's "gotta be Romney," then it's rot to be hominy. Or something like that.

[Gojira]

I wouldn't bad-mouth hominey by comparing it with Romney.

[Groovus Maximus]

I despise Romney, and would have no qualms pushing him down a flight of stairs. His countenance is sorely lacking a perfectly good faceplant at high velocity.

And it has to do with his policy stances; LDS, I could care less.

[darius404]

Aw, so you DO care.

[Jeff P.]

I move that the phrase "even if you are an asshole" be added at the end of the First and Second amendments for clarity's sake.

[Gojira]

It was in the original text, but got scratched out in the final deliberations. I'm sure it had something to do with slavery.

[Groovus Maximus]

Nope, it had to do with the patriarchy. Also, I have it on good authority that Alexander Hamilton was frequently referred to as "Asshole" and had it stricken in the final (unamended) draft.

[Episiarch]

Librarians are part of the establishment? Someone tell NutraSweet, he'll be thrilled.

[Groovus Maximus]

You beat me to it, twinkle fingers.

[Episiarch]

I do have magic hands.

[Groovus Maximus]

Heh, you really are soaking in it.

[Episiarch]

Palmolive jokes? Really? Are you high on your own supply, doc?

[Groovus Maximus]

I was feeling sentimental and whimsical. Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

[Randian]

Ladies, ladies, please! You're both...extremely homosexual. NTTAWWT.

[Brian from Texas]

My respect for Root just dropped considerably seeong as how he's hopped on the 'Anybody but Obama!' bandwagon. I'd rather see Obama get reelected and keep my self-respect by voting for someone I actually admire, like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, no matter what their odds of actually winning.

[shamalam]

Amen. Me too.

If the Republicans get kicked to the curb because they disrespect Libertarian issues, then fuck 'em.

[darius404]

Now normally I'm all for ideas having sex, but I think we can do without that one.

[Fluffy]

Somebody had respect for Root?

[Kaptious Kristen]

Yeah - WTF is that about? Someone with respect for WAR should immediately be "volunteered" for a NIMH study.

[johnd2]

The US two party system is too entrenched for even a great candidate like Gary Johnson to win. That requires an electoral reform such as national approval voting. Libertarians would be wise to spend some of their thunder on that issue.

As for Root, his analysis is correct. But as a member of the Libertarian Nat comittee, he should resign because that attitude will kill the party.

[Stilgar]

The faster off the cliff we go the sooner the coming of Son of Paul

[np]

OT:
cuz obviously, you can't have too many laws.
Recently the Senate passed S. 1813 (Yay TeamBLUE) and now this H.R. 4204 from the House (Yay TeamRED):
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/warning-exposure-video-game-labeling-laws-may-be-hazardous-freedom-speech

But under the proposed law, a label that says "WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior" would be a required addition for all games

.
.. some sanity for relief:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs_lb7-Mil8#t=6m30s

.. across the nation there were 40,000 new laws passed -- I'd like to be the first president to repeal 40,000 laws

[Mike Laursen]

Did we need further confirmation that Root is a douche.

[Mike Laursen]

W.A.R., what is he good for?!

[AlmightyJB]

Clever:)

[WWNGD?]

It is good for making GWAR. Without WAR, you can't have GWAR.

[trickamsterdam]

Voting for a third Party is only pointless if you care if Romney wins. I don't.

Actually this may be the first time since 1992 where the a third Party has a legitimate chance. Johnson has a far better record than Romney.

And the MSM will help him thinking they are helping Obama. So he might not hurt for publicity. Perhaps he could deny both Obama and Romney 270 and it would be thrown to the House w/ Johnson as he compromise candidate.

Probably only a 2% chance of that...but that's 200% better chance than the Libertarian in a normal year.

The arguments to vote for Romney are poorly thought out. It'll always be "the most important election of our lifetimes" (why wasn't 2008, why won't 2016 be?) and the R will always be more to the Right than the D.

The point is these people clearly didn't learn the lessons of 2010 and have had no shame in openly saying "they'll be there in the end no matter who the R is because they hate Obama".

They have to be taught that's not true. And now. It does matter who is there at the end.

Romney's unelectable anyway so that's another reason it's the perfect time for a protest vote.

Has anyone seen his poll numbers in Swing States v Obama? I doubt this damaged and bankrupt creature is even w/in the margin of error of Obama from anytime from early October on.

Let's get the G. Johnson over 5% in November. After a L candidate for POTUS gets 5% nothing will ever, ever be the same again.

[Sevo]

OT, but oh, so relevant:
"VIDEO: Rapping Federal Worker Adds To Evidence Of Waste And Excess"
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw.....and-excess
He seems to think it's quite humorous.

[SIV]

"it's got to be Romney, there is no choice."

This is why H&R needs Smilies.
I want to post the rofl with the Smiley pounding his fist as he rolls and laughs.

C'mon, if we have to register give us Smileys!

[Cytotoxic]

Ugh please no.

[Eduard van Haalen]

C'mon it will be fun 🙂

Don't be such a killjoy 🙁

[Eduard van Haalen]

"so hopefully it will lead to a serious Libertarian third party threat in 2016?of which I plan to be the Presidential candidate."

He goes from faux-pragmatism to downright delusional.

[Eduard van Haalen]

If there's a 3rd party candidate in 2016, I'm guessing it will be a "populist," if you know what I mean.

[DanD]

Alt text:
Gold, Jerry!

[Douglas Fletcher]

Just a chance he might be right on this, and all of you are wrong.

The Libertarian Party is shuck anyway. Bob Barr? Are you kidding me?

[Sevo]

"and all of you are wrong."
Wrong about what?

[Mike Laursen]

Never said he was wrong. The point is he is a member of the executive committee. He's supposed to promote the home team.

[Sevo]

Mike,
That question was directed at DF; he made the claim that "all of you are wrong."
Again, wrong about what?

[np]

Bob Barr completely lost any shred of libertarian cred he had left when he endorsed Gingrich early on. But the party itself lost it already in 2008, when they selected him over Mary Ruwart (who was clearly like 100x more libertarian)

[Sevo]

"But the party itself lost it already in 2008, when they selected him over Mary Ruwart (who was clearly like 100x more libertarian)"
'Bout the time the LP lost my contributions.
Yes, he had a "name". No, he didn't represent libertarianism, and the name got him and the party nothing.

[wef]

Wayne Root's blather is an example of one more sort-of libertarian to fall for go-along-to-get-along-ism. Yet another reason to insist that the republican party is simply a delusion, a mockery and a snare. Only high-IQ fools put their faith in the repubes. This romney bs is yet another, once-again, ho-hom-we've-seen-this-before, little dance of the good-cop-bad-cop routine.

The republican party must be destroyed.

[Sevo]

"The republican party must be destroyed."
And the Democrat party?

[Mr. FIFY]

He IS a Democrat, Sevo.

[Sevo]

So of course, the Democrat party must be maintained!
Got it; wef's an asshole.

[Brutus]

The republican party must be destroyed.

The Republican Party must be **taken over** by libertarians, just like the Democrats were taken over by the socialists and communists. It's ripe for it, but we have to sully our hands with the quotidian work of retail politics at the local and state level first. Are we willing, or are we a debating club in real life?

[Cytotoxic]

This. Follow Paul on a long march through the GOP.

[trickamsterdam]

@wef: "The republican party must be destroyed."

Say it this way to be cooler:
"Res Publica Vestrum Delenda Est"*

*How I butchered Latin there I wouldn't understand even if it was spoon-fed to me by a Professor of Classics at a community college

On another site I did once as a habit end most of my posts w/ "[candidate's name] delenda est" but then realized some SS Agent who was bad at Latin (even worse than me) and had never heard of Cato or Carthage might think I was implying something I wasn't.

Hint: The candidate I was talking about wasn't Obama.

[Coeus]

Fuck this guy with a baseball bat wrapped in rusty barbed wire, while Santorum watches and flogs the dolphin.

[trickamsterdam]

@Coeus: "Fuck this guy with a baseball bat wrapped in rusty barbed wire, while Santorum watches and flogs the dolphin."

It's good to be on a site where people finally talk like this again. I feel at home.

Not sure who you were talking about or what it has to do w/ Santorum (I get "the dolphin" is a penis) but I still feel at home. lol.

[np]

I wonder if there's a democrat who could do the equivalent of what Ron Paul has done, essentially a libertarian in disguise. They would have history on their side too. When it was Democratic-Republican (Jeffersonian) vs Federalists (Hamiltonian), then to the Democratic party before Woodrow Wilson. Basically restore the term "liberal" to its original meaning.

I bring this up because the LP used to be the party of principle and ideas, from Rothbard's days--whose radicalism got him kicked out of Cato (he was a founder and the one who came up with the name as well)--to Mary Ruwart (never expected such a hardcore near-ancap in a touchy-feely package), since it was really all they had. Not that it's a bad thing because at least it afforded them some small opportunity to participate politically and use that platform to spread some message.

But really if it's just the small-libertarian that carries the mantle for principle and ideas, then the political work would have to be done "from the inside" of both parties, similar to the kind of consistent agitation Ron and Rand have done (while trying to gain support for and explain the reasons behind their positions)

[Sevo]

"similar to the kind of consistent agitation Ron and Rand have done"

Don't see anyone in the blue party even hinting at that sort of direction.
Be nice if there was, but I don't see it.

[DK]

Dennis Kucinich is about as close as you're going to get. Good on civil liberties, horrible on fiscal issues. And, of course, the Democrats re-district him out of his House seat.

[SIV]

I wonder if there's a democrat who could do the equivalent of what Ron Paul has done, essentially a libertarian in disguise.

Where's the rofl Smiley when I need one?

The last libertarian-leaning Democrat was the late Larry McDonald. He led the JBS too.

[Proprietist]

Nothing's stopping a "Ron Paul Democrat" from running. Working within a two party system, a libertarian wanting to run for office should register as the party that typically wins that district and cater to that party's better impulses as a socially liberal fiscal conservative. If there was a small-l libertarian in every primary challenging the incumbent, we'd likely win a few and then be the majority party in that district. Even better would be to have a libertarian candidate in both parties' primaries.

All libertarians need is enough votes to be the kingmaker by preventing either the liberal or conservative bloc from full control without their support. Then, swing every vote in a libertarian direction.

[WarrenT]

It is impossible for me to imagine an scenario where I talk ideological direction form Wayne Root.

Root, by the way, is old-timey slang for penis.

[WarrenT]

That would be take and from

[fursa]

Saying "Romney is the only way" is tantamount to "Obama is the only way." Go away Root.

[Cytotoxic]

Obama is bad enough I'd take any replacement except the ones on offer. If Romney were to show a serious commitment to fiscal reform-even based on soulless technocratism-I would root for him. But he doesn't. I need SOMETHING to go on.

Root's being kind of a douche, but really can you blame him for being indifferent to the LP? The LP is worse than a waste of space. It needs to be destroyed so libertarians can all invade the GOP and lay waste to the modern conservative movement, which both are just about ripe for. Yes, the GOP is going to be your home-that doesn't mean you have to always live in it. If the candidate sucks then just don't vote for him.

[Randian]

First of all, if Root is "indifferent" to the LP, he should quit being on its National Board. If I were indifferent to Coke, I don't think I'd be asked down to Atlanta anytime soon.

Second, no, the GOP is not our "home". Well, it is to Objectivist hawks who like to think about killing barbarians, but for the more thoughtful amongst us, I have no interest in a pro-torture, pro-war, pro-mystic Party, and frankly neither should you.

[Cytotoxic]

Fair enough about Root. I just think the LP's national board should all quit.

I'm interested in a turning the shitty party you just described into a party that caters and promotes libertarian values. I am not interested in perfect. Well I am but I know I'm not going to get it. And now that you mention yeah I'd like a party that dispenses both with the NeoCon foreign policy diarhea and the quasi-pacifist silliness of the noninterventionists. The toeholds are there and the goal is pretty open.

[Mike Laursen]

Never understood why the national LP is anything more than a post office box. The LP presidential race is always an energy and money sapping fiasco, while state and local parties could do more interesting, more grassroots projects without interference from the central planning committee.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Mike, Ballot access laws often demand that parties run national candidates. While the LP does run Senatorial and House candidates, and they actually tend to pull vote percentages that qualify the LP for a given State's ballot, they also don't get the publicity that even a fairly-well ignored LP Presidential candidate does every four years. The best of both worlds is to have the national Presidential candidate travel to all states where the LP is running other federal candidates, and help them campaign, drawing media attention and then promoting the local candidates. I agree with you that a Presidential campaign is a waste unless this kind of national-state coordination occurs.

[Sevo]

"I have no interest in a pro-torture, pro-war, pro-mystic Party"
Agreed. If the Greens put out a candidate that was in some way libertarian, that candidate is worth a look, minus *any* allegiance to the Greens.

[db]

Wayne Allen Root vs. Libertarian Party:

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpima.....46.gif?v=1

[db]

On second thought this is a pretty good representation of most libertarian-on-libertarian infighting.

[Rob Power]

Did you see Root on the Daily Show on March 8? I immediately suggested to the Johnson campaign that they take Root's endorsement off their website. Maybe this will finally get them to do it. Root is a liability to anyone or any organization that he associates with. Unfortunately, the LNCC is an unelected and unaccountable body, so he'll likely retain control of it.

[Mike Laursen]

Don't disagree with anything you wrote but what's the part about the LNCC not being elected? Aren't they?

[T o n y]

The Ryan budget, which Romney fully embraced, is a brazenly kleptocratic farce. Pragmatic support for the GOP by libertarians makes perfect sense, if libertarians are motivated by the same thing the GOP is: an overwhelming obsession with the possibility of poor people getting something they don't deserve.

What the flying fuck do you expect from a Republican administration now that the Republican party would find George W. Bush too liberal? How may people have to be tortured before your total fixation on poor people getting too many goodies is overcome?

To the extent that your primary concern is rectifying the injustice of the wealthy not having enough money and the poor having too much, you might as well be them.

[trickamsterdam]

@ T o n y:

What about if we take down Romney for you? That's not enough for you liberals?

I can't say you liberals couldn't take him down alone because he's a guy in a Chewbacca costume w/ the hind parts patch cut out.

He's waiting for "surprise sex" from Obama in the first debate...he probably won't be disappointed and it will likely be rough...I just hope Obama doesn't wear his Obi-Wan Kenobi costume while doing it.

If so I would fear for the tradition of our Republic.

[T o n y]

My inability to understand you is totally my fault. It's way too late on a Friday for me to be this sober.

[trickamsterdam]

@T o n y: "My inability to understand you is totally my fault. It's way too late on a Friday for me to be this sober."

Your reply indicates there may be some hope for you. 🙂

Plus: I can assure you I'm not sober. So there may also be some hope for me.

Basically though: I'm going to help take down Romney and since I'm in a Swing State and pretty politically active and usually give a fair amount of money...it's going to help as much as any person who can't fund a SuperPac.

So I don't need to be told by you that I don't care about the poor.

There are two ultimate domestic issues: the Deficit crisis and the HealthCare crisis.

Both Parties fail at both. But only Romney fails at both so badly lol.

[T o n y]

Thurston Howell in magic underpants is irrelevant. He brings the party with him, and not in a good way.

The deficit crisis is mostly imaginary, a convenient excuse for looting from the poor to give to the rich. It won't be solved while the country remains one worth living in without putting other priorities necessarily first, namely downward redistribution of wealth.

[Francisco d Anconia]

$

[T o n y]

Read another book for Christ's sake!

[trickamsterdam]

@ T o n y: "Thurston Howell in magic underpants is irrelevant. He brings the party with him, and not in a good way."

OK, Tony, you were lying you really aren't sober are you?*

*actually to be accurate you just said "this sober"

PS - The deficit crisis is not imaginary and when it hits will hit the ones w/out money first. Check Europe. And forget the "your grandchildren" nonsense. It's not just people after you're dead. Ten-Twenty years...plan on living that long?

No you don't cuz now you're not sober enough on a Friday night either...lol. Good-luck liberal.

[Randian]

The Ryan budget raises the debt and deficit.

As usual, Tony, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[T o n y]

Not if all its imaginary fudged numbers are true. You can balance the budget by soaking the poor and elderly enough, even while continuing to lavish the war machine. The beauty is by making social programs fit arbitrary draconian projections you can force them to be destroyed without having to tell your constituents you're just doing it because you think stealing from them to give to billionaires is the moral thing to do. We can't have them thinking you're fucking crazy.

[Cytotoxic]

Shorter Tony: I stupid asshole; here me roar!

[Francisco d Anconia]

$

[Randian]

Tony, you are still wrong:

Source.

The plain fact is that the Ryan Budget calls for increases in Debt and Deficit for the next 18 years. How is that "draconian"?

Short answer: $

[BoscoH]

Wait. This guy is an LP candidate? I thought he was just some spammer trying to sell me gambling advice every 5 hours. Who knew!!

[Suellington]

WAR is an ejit. The interview that Welch had with him confirms this fact. Johnson or Paul are the only votes that anyone who values libertarian principles would vote. Or none of the above, of course.

[Nemo]

Nearly 150 comments without a single appearance from Root's resident Blowjob Queen (Ericay Onderoday)? Did he pass out from hate-masturbation over Muslims and "left-libertarians"?

[MorinJulio]

my classmate's half-sister brought home $12250 a month ago. she works on the computer and moved in a $571900 home. All she did was get blessed and make use of the instructions laid out on this link (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/fiqin

[db]

Did she see Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night?

[squarooticus]

Can we please forget that the Libertarian Party exists already? It's been more than a joke for at least the last half of its existence: it is now demonstrably counterproductive by including among its committee a douchebag from the previous presidential ticket who somehow is blind to the fact that Romney and Obama are Jack Johnson and John Jackson in real life: two technocrats without any real vision or principles beyond "I want to control the levers of state."

Fuck the LP. They can go to hell. The sooner libertarians all lose hope that any change will come from within the system, the better.

[Alice Bowie]

I would vote for Gary Johnson. For the most part, I support him. To me, he's like a progressive-leaning libertarian.

He has a great track record in New Mexico. He was able to eliminate waste without increasing unemployment or destroying safety nets.

I hope the libertarian party doesn't go away. Non-religious war-mongering republicans (like what I was before) would flock to the Libertarian Party.

With the success Ron Paul's had, why not?

Today, the republican party is pretty much Anti-Women's issues, Anti-Black, Anti-Gay, Anti-Drugs, Anti-Compassion of any type for the sick and the poor, Anti-Hispanic, anti-Immigration. It is only a question of time until the REPUBLICANS fall apart. This is why they are so aggressive against latino immigrants (legal and illegal).

I hope the Libertarian parties stays alive.

[Groovus Maximus]

Ah, one of those "Liberaltarians" I was referencing, Robert! Mr. Alice Bowie, meet Exhibit "A".

[Alice Bowie]

Groovus, I'm gonna start the Liberaltarian Party.

I'm coming out of the closet today...and declaring myself what you just declared me.

The fact is that Mitt Romney said that "if you don't like the fact that America is the world police then I (Mitt) am not your president."

And, he is not my President.

I'd rather deal with high taxes and god forbidden safety nets than War, police state, etc. etc.etc.

[Groovus Maximus]

Good, you pay for it then, and leave me out of your Platonic, centrally planned economic schemes, TYVM. My skills are mine, not yours. How you mistook me for a ROMNIAC is anyone's guess.

[Alice Bowie]

Yes. Me, and the likes of me, will make you pay for it.

[Groovus Maximus]

Like hell you will.

[Alice Bowie]

BTW, you and I are paying for something. No matter what.

What we all disagree on is what the money goes for.

[CuriousGeorge]

And that is the whole problem with goverment programs.

[Groovus Maximus]

And, he is not my President.

That's because he's a candidate, and not even a formal nominee yet, doofus.

[Alice Bowie]

You didn't understand what I said.

Romney made that statement.

[Groovus Maximus]

Self-Unaware troll is Self-Unaware.

[trickamsterdam]

@ Groovus Maximus: I think it might be more of a problem w/ your reading comprehension.

Romney said it she quoted Romney. It's Romney who's already imagining himself as not only nominee but President.

He also said this (I paraphrase) "If you want someone to give you free stuff you've already got that guy".

This brute (Romney) is such a fuckhead he doesn't even understand that part of him selling conservatism is to explain it ISN'T "free".

It raises the deficit which eventually the poor will pay for as well as the rich...but he says everything Obama gives is "free". Fool.

Romney is a failed one-term governor (33% approval rating in MA) who is also a failed career politician (trying and mostly failing to run for pub office for 20 years).

He wins by out-spending his opponents 10-1 and being coddled by the conservative part of the MSM.

This poor creature that's bought this nomination won't even be w/in the margin of error of Obama in any poll past early Oct.

[BakedPenguin]

If the Republicans were at all serious about smaller government, they would embrace libertarians and use them as the "bad cops" in their budget fights with Dems. They would get budgets from Paul or Amash, and then when the Dems inevitably filled the air with their petulant whining about 2004 levels of spending being armageddon, the Reps could come back with a "reasonable" budget by Ryan or someone. They don't, because they do not want smaller government.

Shorter: fuck off, Root. Go back to the GOP.

[Cytotoxic]

There's a second possibility which is that the GOP is just stupid. And a third possibility which is 'both'.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Root wants us to root for the GOP? I say root out Root. Pull him out of the LP by the roots. Point him toward the fastest root out of town. Why the rooting hell did we ever care what he said, anyway? Loser rhetoric like that is the root of our problem! (Well, some of us never did care about Root, I must admit.)

Even if Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination, even if Gary Johnson does get the LP nod but "can't win," and even if Obama is re-elected, it is NOT GOOD ENOUGH to simply slow our progress toward the cliff, as Root prescribes in recommending Romney. We're going to go off the cliff ANYWAY, whether Obama or Romney wins: What great plan does Root have to get us well away from the cliff with the trifling amount of time a Romney victory might buy? (And I emphasize "might"; If Romney gets us in another war, with Iran or anyone else, I think that could easily be it for the U.S.A.) A few extra months or years before we fall over the cliff will only make the fall (and subsequent impact) all the worse. Root is recommending denial of our situation and cowardice in dealing with it.

(continued in reply post)

[James Anderson Merritt]

(continued from previous post)

What we must do is demonstrate a complete rejection of the Dem-GOP Monoparty, and not just via a "not going to vote" protest, and not via the usual third-party protest votes, but by millions voting affirmatively for something and someone they WANT -- or at least for a proxy for "none of the above." Whoever wins this year, they need to know that they do NOT have a mandate for government as usual. The more people who vote for a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson, the more the winner (if not either of those two) will perceive an ANTI-mandate, and the more the ruling monoparty will feel a long overdue 10.0 political earthquake. Now is not the time merely to switch drivers: If the two-party bus breaks down, it can't roll us closer to the cliff. That's what must happen in November. I realize that recent history suggests such a breakdown is a long-shot outcome. But it's the one we need.

[Tully]

Nice to see that Root hasn't lost that megalomaniacal charlatan edge.

[LambMaritza]

my classmate's aunt brought in $17375 the previous week. she been making cash on the internet and got a $486100 house. All she did was get lucky and put in action the guide exposed on this web site (Click on menu Home more information) http://goo.gl/h4Ott

[Cytotoxic]

The liberal media loves Ron Paul and will also love Gary

You get the Laugh of the Day Award for your excellent Liberaltarian fantasy-absurdism.

[Robert]

But as Mort Sahl pointed out long ago, there are no liberals any more, only social democrats.