Third Parties

Roseanne Barr Is Still Running for President

The Peace and Freedom Party nominates a former sitcom star.

|

Co-star John Goodman is not running, but his character from BARTON FINK is rumored to be in the race.
ABC

When former sitcom star Roseanne "Bob" Barr was seeking the Green Party's presidential nomination, she said she would "run until the convention in July in Baltimore—I fully expect Jill Stein 2b the nominee & I will support her, but til then-I'll serve." Stein duly got the Greens' nod, but Barr evidently had some second thoughts: This weekend Roseanne and running mate Cindy Sheehan accepted the nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party (PFP), a leftist outfit whose past candidates include Eldridge Cleaver and Leonard Peltier.

Historical trivia: For a brief period in the 1970s, libertarians took over the California PFP. And in the New York branch of the party, there was a bizarre libertarian/Maoist alliance-of-convenience, which Murray Rothbard described in his book The Betrayal of the American Right:

The opposition within PFP was indeed being run by the Maoist Progressive Labor Party (PL), who…were using the West Side Club to recruit candidate-members into PL….The alliance between PL and us libertarians was highly useful to both sides….What PL got out of it was a cover for their recruiting, since no one could of course call us vehement antisocialists tools of Progressive Labor. What we got out of it was PL's firm support for an ideological platform—adopted by our joint caucus—that was probably the most libertarian of any party since the days of Cleveland Democracy. The PL people were pleasantly "straight" and nondruggie, although quite robotic, resembling left-wing Randians.

Mr. Antimonopoly Coalition

The great exception was the delightful Jake Rosen, the absolute head of PL's fraction in the PFP. Rosen—bright, joyous, witty, and decidedly nonrobotic—knew the score. One of my fondest memories of life in the PFP was of Jake Rosen trying to justify our laissez-faire platform to his Maoist dunderheads:

"Hey, Jake, what does this mean: absolute freedom of trade and opposition to all government restrictions?"

"Er, that's the 'antimonopoly coalition'."

"Oh, yeah."

Jake, with more sincerity, joined us in opposing guaranteed annual income plans; he considered them bourgeois and "reactionary." About the only thing Jake balked at was our proposal that our caucus come out for immediate abolition of rent control.

"Hey, fellas, look, I'd love to do it, but we have commitments to tenant groups."

Graciously, we let him off the hook.

With his personality, I didn't think Jake would last in PL. In addition he had already implicitly rebelled against party discipline. An obviously bright guy, Jake had accepted PL's orders to be "working class" and became a construction worker; but he stubbornly failed to obey orders and move from the hip, cosmopolitan West Side of Manhattan to Queens. ("Jake, no construction worker lives on the West Side.") Indeed, a year or so after the breakup of the [New York] PFP, Jake left or was expelled from PL, and immediately went upwardly mobile, moving to Chicago and becoming a successful commodity broker.

Advertisement

NEXT: At Least Six Dead in Sikh Temple Shooting

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

  1. The PL people were pleasantly “straight” and nondruggie, although quite robotic, resembling left-wing Randians.

    ZING!

  2. That was close. From the title I was afraid Walker actually put up a whole post about Roseanne Barr running for president. I was this close to cancelling my subscription.

    Over Pine Ridge to Wounded Knee
    There’s blood on the ground as far as you see

    1. Your blog subscription?

      1. His AOL subscription.

    2. Crazy life.

  3. “Jake, no construction worker lives on the West Side.”

    “But, Leonid, what happens if the Communists come back to power’?

  4. Isn’t it bd enough that we had to live through that abuse the first time? Why do you have to post that picture and remind us of the trauma?

  5. Hey remember when the libtards called her “Mother” Sheehan and pretended they gave a crap about her mental well-being?

    1. Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan on the same ticket? That ought to put a serious dent in to Obama’s support.

      1. Yep, the imbecile vote is wrapped up.

  6. These are the sacrifices that represent the Olympic spirt:

    The Chinese diver became the source of debate around the London Olympics when it was reported her parents concealed the death of her grandparents for a year so they would not distract from her training. For the same reason, her mother’s long-term battle with cancer was also kept secret.

    Wu, 26, won her second gold medal at the London Olympics on Sunday, when she routed the field in the women’s three-metre springboard final. Afterward, she was asked whether she thought the success in the pool justified the apparent sacrifices her family has made.

    “Well, first of all, I haven’t died,” she said, though a translator. “You know?”

    There was laughter in the room.

    http://sports.nationalpost.com…..s-unusual/

  7. the Maoist Progressive Labor Party

    Why the fuck would you add “Maoist” to your title?

    1. Same reason you would add a “Che” T-shirt to your wardrobe.

      1. Still doesn’t make sense.

        There is no Cheist Progressive Party.

        If anything they might call themselves Marxist.

        Why the hell pick Mao or any one figure for that matter.

        Is Mao particularly different then other communist philosophies? And they were American communists…isn’t it logical to assume that Mao’s Little Red Book (presumably containing the difference between Mao and other communists) might not be very helpful in reaching goals in a developed nation such as the United States?

        What did they think they could rise an American Red army and gambol around the countryside like Moa did in China?

        Anyway maybe I am expecting too much…it sound like this particular group of geniuses let libertarians write their political platform, and after their group fell apart their leader became a commodities trader.

        1. I’m using broad strokes here, but it goes something like this:

          Marx: Plain vanilla “workers of the world unite.”

          Lenin: The workers are too busy working to unite. The proletariat need a vanguard — smart guys like me — to lead them.

          Stalin: Before the workers of the whole world can unite, the workers in the USSR need to establish “socialism in one country” (with me in charge) so it can be a strong home base for the rest of the workers.

          Mao: It’s more important to get the third-world peasants to unite than the first-world workers, because there are a lot more of them. Also, I’m the leader of the third-world country with the most peasants, all of them can related better to me, so I should be in charge now that Stalin is dead.

        2. Also, Mao places more emphasis on guerrilla warfare than his predecessors do. I wouldn’t say he’s more or less violent than Lenin, just that he devotes more writing to the practical aspects of carrying out the violence. Essentially, he takes “Communist Manifesto” and blends in a lot of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War.”

        3. What did they think

          Please. You are giving these people WAAAAY to much credit. They don’t think, they emote.

        4. Still doesn’t make sense.
          There is no Cheist Progressive Party.

          Go back to your first sentence.

          Do you think all the Che T-shirt dicks have the vaguest idea what Che was all about? It’s about being “cool”and “authentic”; sense doesn’t play a role.

    2. Why the fuck would you add “Maoist” to your title?

      It wasn’t part of the title — “Maoist” is Rothbard’s description of the party. It just looks like part of the title since “Mao” has to be capitalized.

      1. Damn you Rothbard!!!!!

    3. That’s a description, not part of the title. AFAIK there was never a MPLP, just the PLP, and they are Maoist.

  8. Curiosit landed, Barr wasn’t on it.

    1. the y didnt make it either

      1. The Y was busy killing the cat.

    2. Curiosity didn’t do that.

  9. Thanks for the link to the essay on mises.org, which underscores quite nicely why I absolutely cannot stand Rothbard: first there’s “Another point that cheered Leonard and myself was that here at last was not a namby-pamby ‘peace’ group like SANE, which always carefully balanced its criticism of the United States and of Russia, and which also took pains to exclude ‘undesirables’ from antiwar activity; here was a truly antiwar movement which zeroed in on the evils of American war making”, plus his description of US participation of the war in Vietnam as “aggressive.” Aggressive? I must have missed the part where we were helping South Vietnam invade and take over the North.

    Basically, Rothbard and his heirs will join hands with *anyone* who agrees with their ridiculously-warped view of US foreign policy.

    1. I think he’s referring to the tactics used on the ground, not the overall arc of the war.

      1. If that’s the case, I’m being “aggressive” if I shoot a burglar breaking into my house.

        1. No, you’re being aggressive when you see a burglar in a house that belongs to someone you know and start napalming the whole neighborhood.

          1. That would be “excessive” not “aggressive”, unless you’re using it in the sense of “taking the initiative.” The aggressor is the party that has started things.

            1. It would be aggressive to the other houses in the neighborhood.

              1. That’s not the way “aggressive” is generally used. In any case, your analogy doesn’t apply to Rothbard’s usage.

    2. I must have missed the part where we were helping South Vietnam invade and take over the North.

      The North was not attacking the South?

      Then what was that whole thing about ho chi minh trail?

      Shouldn’t the antiwar protesters also be protesting that?

      1. Shouldn’t the antiwar protesters also be protesting that?

        LOL Yeah right.

    3. Yup. Rothbard was a piece of shit who used Libertarianism as a vehicle for his hatred of the American foreign policy. His influence is the biggest reason why people don’t take Libertarianism seriously. Take away Rothbard and his influence and Ron Paul is probably the nominee right now.

      1. Take away Rothbard and Ron Paul might have never become a libertarian.

      2. Most people don’t even know who Rothbard was

  10. lol, you are kidding right? Seriously? lol.

    http://www.Ano-Web.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.