Wayne Allyn Root Is Why the Libertarian Party Can't Have Nice Things

Former Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate and current Libertarian National Campaign Committee Chair Wayne Allyn Root is why libertarians can't have nice things. Case in point: Root's latest column at Glenn Beck's The Blaze.

Let me sum it up for you: Mitt Romney should offer to release more tax returns only if Obama will release his college transcripts. This will take the pressure off Romney, and put the scrutiny back on Obama, except that Obama will never release his transcripts because he pretended to be from another country to get loans and then seldom went to classes at Columbia and got poor grades. Wayne Allyn Root knows all this because he also graduated from Columbia in 1983 and doesn't remember seeing any black people "Barry Soetoro."  

This awful, weird, conspiratorial column, just linked by Matt Drudge, will probably be the most widely read thing Root has ever written. Its existence is a tragedy for Libertarians and libertarians.

Root's bio identifies him as "a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee" and "Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee" and the author of a book titled "The Conscience of a Libertarian." You know what that means? It means Wayne Allyn Root is an ambassador for libertarianism, and that his columns are a direct reflection on the Libertarian Party, which has several times elected him to prominent positions despite the fact that he is a glistening PR disaster.   

Then again, nowhere in his piece for The Blaze does Root mention a single Libertarian candidate for office. This is probably a good thing, but also odd, because it's campaign season, and the job of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee is to run Libertarian Party candidates at the local, state, and congressional levels. Mitt Romney is not a candidate for local, state, or congressional office, and he is not a Libertarian (or even a libertarian). 

So why is Wayne Allyn Root giving Romney free campaign advice, when he should be talking to, and about, Libertarian Party candidates? Are the heads of Democratic and Republican organizations writing insane memos telling Gary Johnson how to beat Obama, the bad-grade-getter? Are they telling down-ticket Libertarian Party candidates how to deflect questions about their finances? 

NOPE.  

That Root writes about Romney as if Gary Johnson did not exist is awful. What's worse is that articles like Root's repel the kind of people Johnson needs in November.

As for anyone who's still upset about The Weekly Standard's description of this year's LP convention as a "goat rodeo": Why don't you direct your rage at the clown running the Libertarian National Campaign Committee?

Comments

[Almanian's Evil Twin]

Wow. That is is some Class A "what the FUCK?"

What the FUCK?

This suddenly makes the Olympics seem attractive...

[Ken Shultz]

Mitt Romney should offer to release more tax returns only if Obama will release his college transcripts. This will take the pressure off Romney, and put the scrutiny back on Obama

Actually, no one gives a shit.

Blow hard partisans on the right and left care, but then no one else gives a shit about what blow hard partisans on the right and left care about.

Obama squandered our future paychecks on bailing out Wall Street and bailing out the UAW--but it's what's in his college transcripts that's gonna knock Obama out of office?

[Killazontherun]

Actually, no one gives a shit.

Here is the reason I care. You say in essence, 'let's fight the good fight, based upon ideas and his record as president.' That is commendable. I like that. It speaks well of your motivation and character.

Let's put the horse race aside. As it is not that important given the two people with any chance of winning. Barring something insanely unpredictable occurring, Johnson is not going to be elected president.

Obama, in spite of his horrible record, has a good chance of being your president this time next year. At that point in time, fighting the good honorable fight, based on ideas and his terrible record, is not going to be worth a hill of beans. Yet, he will still be president.

Under that circumstance, the best you can hope for to minimize what he can accomplish as a second term president is to undermine his legitimacy as an office holder. The only way you can accomplish that is by digging into his past, and though that sounds like you are getting your hands dirty, what is more important? People calling you a crazy birther, or stopping Obamacare II, This Time Its Personal?

You say, 'if we can't win on his shitty record, we deserve to lose.'

I say, deserves got nothing to do with it.

[kbolino]

The only difference between the 2008 election and the 2012 election is the record. None of this stuff is new; if it didn't completely undermine Obama's "legitimacy" in the first election, what makes you think it will have any impact this time around?

Also, to turn your argument on its head, if Obama does win, then you will have sacrificed your integrity for nothing. Hell, even if he loses, all you've gained is getting some marginally--if at all--better figurehead in a position that is vastly overinflated. In reality, the Congress will remain mostly unchanged, and will continue to be the source of the vast majority of our problems.

[Killazontherun]

The only difference between the 2008 election and the 2012 election is the record. None of this stuff is new; if it didn't completely undermine Obama's "legitimacy" in the first election, what makes you think it will have any impact this time around?

Obama was untouchable in'08. He was barely vetted. His campaign got away with outright lying. They denied he was a member of the Chicago based socialist New Party, and the leaders went so far as to deny there even existed a membership cadre. There own minutes released in the last year have proved that to be untrue on both accounts.

if Obama does win, then you will have sacrificed your integrity for nothing.

My integrity is not wrapped up in a lady's hanky and a flustered 'oh, my!' while shaking a fan at everything that might be perceived by Team Wet Noodle to be disagreeable. Your idea of character is not quite the manly Aristotelian ideal.

all you've gained is getting some marginally--if at all--better figurehead in a position that is vastly overinflated

Oh really? Is congress calling the shots on the assassination list Obama personally decides every Tuesday afternoon who is to be dronesmacked? A mere figurehead, lol!, how the fuck could you have lived in the United States of the last 70 years and call the presidency a mere figurehead? Tzars and Caesars would envy the power of our Maxarchist executive.

[kbolino]

His campaign got away with outright lying.

Which differs from the present how, exactly?

Your idea of character is not quite the manly Aristotelian ideal.

Considering I spoke nothing of my idea of character, I don't know what you're talking about.

Is congress calling the shots on the assassination list Obama personally decides every Tuesday afternoon who is to be dronesmacked?

If he actually spent anywhere near the amount of effort you imply, I'd be impressed. The list is compiled by the intelligence community, approved by the national security council, and as an afterthought given to the President. If he's feeling particularly drone-smacky, he might get to suggest a name, but that's pushing it.

how the fuck could you have lived in the United States of the last 70 years and call the presidency a mere figurehead?

The last time we had a strong executive was arguably in the 1980s, when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. Even then, his impact was limited. By contrast, no modern President would dare take on the bureaucracy, least of all the bureaucrat darlings Romney-bot and Obama-tron.

[Killazontherun]

NYT was clear in the article revealing the details of the assassination program Obama gives loving attention and careful philosopher king like scrutiny to who actually gets the hit. You can be as flippant about it as you care, but you obviously didn't RTFA.

The Imperial Presidency lives on. It is true even though Obama is the CIA's bitch. It is the power of his office that allows the agency to get what they want through manipulating their puppet, and that is a more dangerous state of affairs than presidents who are come in to office with their own source of power and influence independent of the bureaucracy.

[Killazontherun]

I mean, we are talking about a president who entirely ignored the war powers act that was used quite effectively against the Reagan administration, and you consider that administration a power house versus the Obama one? Your argument stands against not even the slightest scrutiny.

[Robert]

Oh, I'm sure he RTFA. He just didn't BTFA. He RBTLOTFA.

[kbolino]

Indeed, I trust the inestimable New York Times slightly more than that naked homeless guy with a sandwich board that reads "The End is Near".

Of course they're going to say Obama-bot is calling the shots. For one, it makes him look TOUGH! ON! TERROR!, and for two, it keeps their inside access with all of his minions.

[Rasilio]

"Oh really? Is congress calling the shots on the assassination list Obama personally decides every Tuesday afternoon who is to be dronesmacked?"

Um yes but you already admitted that Johnson (or that Green chick whatever her name is) have no shot in hell of winning the Presidency which means the only alternative is Romney.

Do you honestly for one second believe that Romney will do ANYTHING but expand on the drone war? Sure he might change the process for picking the kill list, maybe he won't want to be so personally involved and so he delegates it to unaccountable bureaucrats but either way whichever guy wins we will be looking at a 4th term of George Bush's war fighting policy.

Similarly with Obamacare. Do you honestly believe for one second that Romney will do anything to end it? Sure if the Republicans end up with strong majorities in both houses of Congress and push through a repeal bill he'll have to sign it but given how active of a player he was in designing and passing Romneycare it is pretty clear that he personally does not have any problem whatsoever with Obamacare and at best he'll tinker around the edges

[Killazontherun]

You know what you are really doing? Obama still remains untouchable. The late night comedians are still weary of making fun of him. It is something close to ten percent of the jokes made about W the last time I checked into right wing sites who bother to measure that sort of thing. From my consistence viewership of Conan O'Brien, and flipping through the others those numbers sound about right. Turning W into a laughing stock certainly helped delegitimize his presidency, and except for wars, a somewhat okay tax cut (investment breaks were neglected) and the things democrats want like medicare expansion, federal dictate of local school policy, he got little accomplished. Obama deserves the same ridicule, probably more, but he gets a mere fraction because people like you are scared to cross a line that is unique to his presidency. You object to what I have to say because you can't face your own weakness, and the degree you have come to accept it.

[Killazontherun]

From my consistent viewership

Didn't like 'viewership', an ugly word. Checked it out to make sure it applied. Didn't notice the actual mistake.

[kbolino]

You object to what I have to say because you can't face your own weakness, and the degree you have come to accept it.

I said a handful of things and yet somehow you've turned me into a proxy for everything you hate. I object to the creation of a pointless sideshow in order to score meaningless political points. I'm more interested in winning hearts and minds than in some worthless horse race that we are contractually obligated to go through every 4 years.

Stop ignoring the narcissistic, nepotistic, legalistic clusterfuck that is the United States Congress. The Presidency is a distraction.

[kbolino]

Turning W into a laughing stock certainly helped delegitimize his presidency, and except for wars, a somewhat okay tax cut (investment breaks were neglected) and the things democrats want like medicare expansion, federal dictate of local school policy, he got little accomplished.

Case in point: actually, all of those things are acts of Congress.

[Killazontherun]

And W was just their rubber stamp! Going along to get along. Nobody, I mean NOBODY believes that.

[kbolino]

I was not denying that he proposed some of those things, that he cheerleaded for them, and that he did not veto them. But at the end of the day, he was still President, not Prime Minister. He didn't write those bills, he didn't discuss them in either house, and he didn't get to vote on them.

Here's the deal: our government is set up so that real power rests in the hands of the legislature. This is intentional: the legislature is directly elected, its members are geographically diverse, and it is not monolithic. This makes it more representative and less efficient (that's a feature, not a bug).

Most of the "powers" of the modern President are not exercised by the President directly, but rather by the various bureaucratic agencies of our government. Those agencies, in turn, are governed by a hodge-podge of Congressional law and executive orders. However, the Congress can change the law, and the executive orders cannot contradict the law, so it should be fairly obvious who really controls the strings.

I'm not saying we can't have a discussion about the President and what he's done; au contraire, I'm saying if we are going to have such a discussion, we should be mindful both its relative insignificance and of the relative importance of what the candidates have actually done in office, since that is the only true measure of what they will do in the future.

[Killazontherun]

I didn't make you a proxy for anything. You decided to cross my path and make ridiculous arguments against mine so you have to take some heat for doing so.

[kbolino]

I'm trying to participate in the discussion, not have a pissing contest. I believe we have all, collectively, bought into the notion that the President is god-king when, in fact, the man behind the curtain is the Congress, which we ignore repeatedly to our peril.

Also, I can't remember the last time that any objective measure of "legitimacy" actually mattered in politics. A politician will always be "legitimate" to his supporters and "illegitimate" to his opponents, regardless of his qualifications or actions.

For example, you can talk about what President Obama did in college until you're blue in the face, but Democrats still won't give a fuck, and Republicans still won't vote for him. You may be able to sway the morons in between, but as I was trying to point out, it will take an inordinate amount of effort to give an old issue new traction, and meanwhile your Senator and Representative, who really are fucking you, will have been reelected.

[Seymour_Results]

I completely agree. Sorry I'm a little late to the thread. Found it through IPR covering Blessing's "heresies." LOL

[Hugh Akston]

I wonder how much it would cost to send Wayne Allyn Root to Mars.

[Archduke PantsFan]

I'm sure we could raise funds.
However, there's likely a list of a dozen or so people who we should send to Mars first.

[The Hammer]

Schumer's tits would probably cost extra.

[cmace]

Is it publicly or privately financed?

[Hugh Akston]

That's why I'm asking. If the costs are reasonable, I think we could fund it with Kickstarter or something.

[Bruce Majors]

And you don't really need a brand new, grade A life support system or fuel for a return trip.

[Spiny Norman]

Kinda seems like he's there already.

[Bruce Majors for Congress]

Vegas isn't Mars?

[The Hammer]

God Fucking Dammit, Wayne! You are why I couldn't bring myself to vote L in '08, now shut the fuck up and don't fuck it up for Johnson! And change your fucking registration to Republican. Can you seriously not come up with anything substantive to criticize Obama for? Nobody gives a fuck if he is a foreigner, or claimed to be a foreigner 30 years ago. We care that he sold out the entire population to the insurance companies, wasted trillions of dollars in our names, expanded the drug war, showed no curiosity or capacity for self-examination, and just this week signed a bill abrogating the first amendment in exchange for some cheap political points. Jesus Christ, just shut up. You are the Libertarian Party's Biden.

[Cytotoxic]

You are the Libertarian Party's Biden.

It was worth repeating.

[yonemoto]

no. As much as I hate to say this, he's worse.

[yonemoto]

(WAR is worse than Biden, that is)

[Proprietist]

The Hammer hath spoken the truth.

[Ken Shultz]

It's not as bad as, say, Donald Trump going full birthertard.

But it's like that.

[Proprietist]

It's worse. At least Donald Trump didn't pretend to be a libertarian of influence, and everyone knew he was crazy already.

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, it's worse for us.

It's Badnarik on his website bad.

[JeremyR]

Actually, I think it's the foreign policy stuff that is holding back Libertarians. The post about Hiroshima, for instance, where is displayed the belief that the US should have been neutral in WW2 (along with things like we deserved Pearl Harbor for not selling goods to the Japanese so they could invade China more efficiently)

Though the ultimate problem is that people just want "free" goodies from the government. People just don't perceive that it costs them in the long run and nothing is really free.

[Hugh Akston]

See it;s interesting to me that you would frame it that way. Because to me, the problem is that there are too many foreign explosionists in the electorate and the corridors of power who don't recognize the distinction between legitimate national defense and solving all your problems with flying killer robots.

[Hugh Akston]

That should read "solving all the world's problems with flying killer robots."

[Cytotoxic]

No the problem is is that a large bunch of libertarians seem to classify things that are firmly related to our defense as playing 'world police' and that if you don't support the noninterventionist agenda 100% you are a 'neocon'.

[Calidissident]

The problem is that people like you and John are massive government skeptics on economic and domestic issues, but for some reason think that when it comes to foreign policy and the military, they're a bunch of geniuses with pure motives and aren't bothered by the inefficiencies that plague the rest of government

[VG Zaytsev]

Someday they'll link of with the progs and install the perfect government on the US - a military dictatorship.

[Cytotoxic]

You aren't listening.

I am a huge skeptic of the USG on foreign policy. Foreign aid, most interventions, Libya etc. That does not mean I or John am joining the noninterventionist cult.

[Calidissident]

You're not a skeptic at all. Your posts indicate you have a belief in the power of government in the realm of foreign policy that is similar to how progressives view it in the domestic sphere; you value intentions over results, often ignore or overlook the possibility/probability of unintended consequences, and believe that every (or at least most) problem is in need of a state solution. I admit this is a generalization, but it is fairly accurate.

How exactly is supporting military intervention only when we are actually threatened or attacked being a part of a cult? I think the interventionist and militarist crowd is a lot more cult like in that regard. Heck, the fact that you try to label your opponents as some sort of lunatics is very similar to what establishment politicians, media, and their supporters, do to anyone who challenges the assumptions of the status quo

[Stormy Dragon]

Extrajudicially killing hundreds of people is a far worse crime than wasting money on foreign aid, even if you're so morally stunted you aren't bothered by anything not happening to you personally.

[Bruce Majors]

There is a vast ocean of policy options between Antiwar.com or Ron Paul and the neocons/status quo. Johnson is not in the middle, but he is in between. So is Rand Paul. Most critics of Ron Paul ignore the fact that their criticism of Ron Paul or their characterizations of him in no way justifies their antipodal, trillions for DoD, positions.

[Bryan C]

I don't think that's true at all. I think everyone here would agree that our military is hugely inefficient, and that our foreign policy is incoherent and counterproductive.

I'd love for the armed forces to be reformed and streamlined (which is one reason I can't bring myself to be too upset about budget sequestration). I think the current drone war is a travesty that should result in resignations and disgrace for all concerned. I'd love to eliminate or consolidate the many foreign aid programs and disentangle ourselves from the useless tyrants at the UN. So let's do that.

Unlike domestic policy and economic policy, however, military force and foreign policy are two powers explicitly reserved to the federal government by the Constitution. If you have a better alternative and want to amend the Constitution then we can talk. Until then, you might find it productive to support the lesser of the two evils running for the office of President, rather than ritually sacrificing your vote to the glory of the Great Cause.

[Cytotoxic]

How exactly is supporting military intervention only when we are actually threatened or attacked being a part of a cult?

It isn't. And I follow just that prescription which is why I support the drone war which has been amazingly effective.

[Bruce Majors]

Except budget sequestration is going to be done by the same Obamatards who will make D0D spend millions on biofuels, and impose other wacko social re-engineering programs on the military.

[Randian]

Cyto, I have no idea what it is going to take for you to get the fact that these wars are not in America's self-interest. Not a one of them since WWII has been.

[Calidissident]

We had some disagreement in the other thread, but I agree with this 100%.

[Cytotoxic]

If you don't think Afghanistan was in our self-interest you're out of your mind.

[Generic Stranger]

Initially, when we went in and wrecked Taliban and Al Queda's shit, sure. Just as soon as we were done with that, we should have pulled out. "Nation building" in Afghanistan is a waste of time, effort, and lives.

[Stormy Dragon]

Destroying Al Qeda was in our interest. Turning Afghanistan into Democracy fantasy land was not.

[Cytotoxic]

Fair enough to the above 2 comments. I thought Randian was talking about the initial invasion as well.

It should be noted destroying AQ is still in our interest hence the need for ongoing drone operations.

[kbolino]

if you don't support the noninterventionist agenda 100% you are a 'neocon'.

You said this in the Hiroshima thread:

It is the right of any rights protecting nation such as America to occupy, annex, or otherwise change the regime of an unfree state so long as the unfree state becomes significantly freer or it is necessary for the security of the free state.

That is the fucking definition of neoconservatism, so yeah I'd say you deserve the label.

[Cytotoxic]

No it is not. You don't understand what neoconservatism is one iota just like 99% of the people here.

[darius404]

You're right Cytotoxic, most of us DON'T "understand" neoconservatism. That's because it takes a neoconservative to grasp the peculiar train of logic (or lack thereof) and "understand" it.

[VG Zaytsev]

That should read "solving all the world's problems with flying killer robots."

Which world problem have the killer flying bots actually solved?

[Cytotoxic]

Many Taliban and AQ members have been solved by them.

[Hugh Akston]

We've also made people think twice about crossing the border into Pakistan, or getting married in Afghanistan, or living next to people who have the same names as super evil terrorist bad guys.

[Cytotoxic]

...and?

[Automata]

Oh yeah, they're brown and not 'murican, so you don't care about their natural rights.

[Audrey the Liberal]

Just out of curiosity, Hugh, are there problems that can't be solved with flying killer robots?

[Proprietist]

While Japan thoroughly deserved their beatdown for not listening to Tojo's warnings about the power of the U.S. military, I think one thing you have to factor in is that libertarian policies would have avoided their ire in the first place. Colonizing the Philippines, embargoing their oil, being less than neutral about their atrocious China policy, the West's double standards about Western imperialism being perfectly kosher, etc. They would have eventually gotten beaten down by the Chinese or Soviets if we hadn't been involved.

It's easy to say that libertarians should support the war after being attacked, but if we're being honest, we also have the right to say that our policies would have likely avoided the attack in the first place.

[yonemoto]

You mean Yamamoto's (not to be confused with Yonemoto) warnings about the power of the US Military. Tojo was actually the agitator army dickhead prime minister responsible for many of the horrors of Japanese Empire, and also responsible for ordering Yamamoto to attack Pearl Harbor. Also: Togo (like the sandwich joint) was Yamamoto's predecessor, Russo-Japanese hero, admired by Nimitz, etc. Yes, it's confusing, but at least we don't all have the same last name.

[Proprietist]

Ah duh. Sorry, you're right - Yamamoto's who I meant. Also, if Japan had just listened to their anti-imperialists in the business community, the entire thing could have been avoided altogether.

[yonemoto]

or you know, listened to the GUYS WHO WENT TO COLLEGE IN AMERICA.

[Cytotoxic]

No. The Japanese Empire was insatiable. Those policies would've created a stronger Japan that America would've had to fight.

[The Hammer]

Right, let's base all of our foreign policy on an unverifiable assumption that all foreigners are Emperor Palpatine.

[Cytotoxic]

Maybe we should just bomb them with your strawmen.

[daveInAustin]

After folks like Harry Browne and Andrei Marrou, Ron Paul, and even Michael Badnerik what kind of brain fart produced a Bob Barr and Wayne Root ticket? Still, didn't Wayne Root right some decent articles for Reason at one time?

[johnl]

You mean Damon W Root? I've always assumed that's not the same guy.

[Bruce Majors]

I doubt they even came from the same root.

[Killazontherun]

Okay. Root didn't mean shit to me in '08, and I couldn't be anymore apathetic towards his existence now, but this is typical Riggs, and is highly indicative of why he is a pathetic excuse for a Reason editor.

Wayne Allyn Root knows all this because he also graduated from Columbia in 1983 and doesn't remember seeing any black people.

Where can you find this in the editorial you are summarizing, Riggs? I read it twice through to give you the benefit of the doubt, and there is nothing racial there. Take that editorial license bullshit somewhere like the New Republic where it belongs.

[Mike Riggs]

It was a joke, based on the fact that Columbia wasn't exactly brimming over with black students in the early 80s. But I've struck through "black people" and replaced it with Root's own language, which is so much less offensive.

[Bruce Majors]

Actually I would think by the early 80s Columbia would have some affirmative action in place. I believe even by the late 70s Ivy and Ivy-adjacent universities were generally aggressively competing with each other over the small pool of African-American high school grads who could reasonably be admitted, such that scholarships and even admission were already easier to come by if you were African American. I went to school just a year or two earlier, to the University of Chicago, which had a more race neutral policy, and did not compete in the same way for African Americans, and so as a result instead had lots of Asian American students who got bumped out of places like Columbia.

[grrizzly]

"It's existence is a tragedy for Libertarians and libertarians."

There's no apostrophe in Its. Why is it so hard to avoid this mistake for people who write for a national magazine for a living?

[Mike Riggs]

It's late, and I don't make that mistake often.

[Randian]

If you want it to be possessive, it's just "ITS." But, if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's "I-T-apostrophe-S"...scalawag.

[The Hammer]

If you're willing to take that call in the middle of the night and update us on Root going full retard, I'm willing to let a few typos slide until morning.

[BoscoH]

I thought his self-introduction as the best tea leaf reader and water diviner in the country pretty much set the tone. Dude is batshit crazy and delusional and probably believes his shit doesn't stink.

[givemeliberty]

I will be at the 2014 Convention for the sole purpose of voting Root off the LNC. Or against his run for Chair. Or whatever shenanigans he plans on pulling.

[Hugh Akston]

There's a lot of places in Columbus for a guy to go missing. I bet the search for Root's body wouldn't be terribly thorough either.

[SIV]

he is a pathetic excuse for a Reason editor

I've said as much since 2008. Riggs might've been an intern back then.

[Bruce Majors]

I generally like his stuff. He seems like a nice guy in person, and libertarians in DC speak well of him. I thought his LP convention coverage was good. It's only the race remark I question.

[Coeus]

Going OT here, cause the topic is fucking depressing:

Florence family accuses police chief of shooting 2 dogs

Caren said Sassy was lying in the door way bleeding. And standing above her was Florence Police Chief Julie Elliot-Abshire. After a short exchange, Caren said the chief ran to the back yard and shot the other family dog that was locked up, a two year old pit bull named Boomer.
"I asked her what is going on," Caren described, "and she said, um, the b-word, did you not hear me knocking on your front door. And I said no, why did you shoot my dogs?"

[sidebottom]

thanks for the pick-me-up!

[The Hammer]

Thank God, this is still the same story from back in June that was covered by about a half dozen Reason articles. I was afraid it happened again.

[Cytotoxic]

At first I was angry and then I was happy because this might quicken the demise of the LP. The LP needs to die. It has been nothing but a failure. Gary Johnson will be a high note to finish on and start putting away the tables.

[Killazontherun]

Compared to the Republican and Democratic parties? Come on! A fuckin' break, man. What have they given us, John McCain, a maniac who considers the back stabbing of allies his first priority? Obama, an abysmal record that at three and a half years is longer now than all of his previous experience combined? Romney whose greatest achievement was to created the plan that inspired Obamacare? Comparatively speaking, what party or parties need to die? There is nothing Root can do to discredit the LP that is as bad as what those two parties have done to this country.

I can understand why libertarians are concerned there is a Glen Beck wing in the LP now, and if they want to knock Root off the roost, go for it. But please, enough of the hysterics. Root is not the reason why the LP polls low, and purge diets and self flagellation are not productive.

[Killazontherun]

was to have created the plan

[Proprietist]

I'm with you 100%. We need a much more effective moderate libertarian party that doesn't limit itself to one side of the political spectrum, with a heavy focus on political and electoral reform, ending the War on Drugs, cutting spending and balancing the budget, rolling programs back to the states and shifting the tax code to a single land tax. The highlighted policies need to have a commonsense, balanced appeal to the left, right and center, and any notions of "crazy" should be avoided like the plague. In any sane party, statements like Root's should be cause for complete termination from the board.

[Cytotoxic]

RE: Killaz: the failure of the other parties only highlights the failure of the LP. All this and they still can't do shit but bottle up votes and energy in something useless. The statists couldn't ask for a better containment device for our influence.

Which leads to REL Proprietist: I want to agree with you but alas no. The best LP is no LP. Let the major parties compete for our votes or just don't vote for either one. If one of them is sick, libertarians should infect it. And that is just what is happening to the GOP; our new host.

[Calidissident]

Cyto, given your views on foreign policy, I'm curious as to whether or not you supported Ron Paul in the primaries. If not, who exactly is an example (in your mind) of the kind of politician that you support who is taking over the GOP? Rand Paul? Mike Lee? Jim DeMint? I'm just curious as to who is the kind of guy you think we need more of in Washington

[Cytotoxic]

I much prefer Gary Johnson to Ron Paul for a host of reasons. I still prefer Ron Paul over any of the clowns running for a host of reasons. He is the only serious man.

Remember that somewhat libertarianish guy that ran off to Argentina? Dammit I wish he had stuck around regardless of his affair. You know it's bad when I prefer Mitt Romney to almost everybody else (except Paul and Johnson).

[Proprietist]

I disagree. A third party movement does not need to take over the LP to be effective. They merely need enough votes to prevent either party from having an outright majority, thus making them the independent kingmaker and forcing issue-based coalitions.

Making a more centrist, pragmatic party with a new brand is the only practical and lasting way libertarians will be able to win what they want. Rand Paul will quickly fall out of favor in the GOP when they get back in power and he's forced to take an adversarial role vs. Romney, et al.

[Proprietist]

Make that "a third party movement does not need to take over a major party to be effective"...

[Cytotoxic]

If worse comes to worse, the Tea Party wing of the GOP led of Rand Paul should splinter from the GOP Inb4 SPLITTER!

[Bruce Majors]

OK Cyto then be sure and make me your final donation:

http://www.BruceMajorsDC.com

[Mike Laursen]

Once again: W.A.R, what is he good for?

[Coeus]

Progressives.

[joshua corning]

In fairness main stream republicans and democrats say and write crazy shit all the time.

[Ken Shultz]

Yeah, but Republicans and Democrats aren't fighting the stereotype that they're batshit insane like libertarians have to contend with.

[joshua corning]

If claim we need to cut military spending by 1/3rd I'm already labeled as batshit insane by all Republicans and 80% of Democrats.

You are fundamentally misdiagnosing and underestimating the problem.

The real problem is that it is not common understanding that Republicans and Democrats are batshit insane and that they are running the country into back hole of debt and destruction.

[Paul.]

running the country into back hole

I see what you did there.

[joshua corning]

You still taking bets on the Romney/Obama race?

[Paul.]

Yes.

What, you think there's something to this Root conspiracy?

[yonemoto]

did you have to make that word extra black?

[Killazontherun]

Really?!? That's pretty much the mainstream media perception of Republicans like Michelle Bachman and Democrats like Mike Lee and Dennis Kucinich, also the Tea Party and, interestingly, of late, OWS, too. Anyone who is an outlier and not part of the elite of whom the MSM depends upon for its inside info is going to be treated nastily. Just look at McCain and Bloom, both are insiders, and both are fucking nuts, but the MSM treats them with respect. It is political status itself that defines whether or not you belong, not anything you actually do. There is no meritocracy in the political realm where if you are solid and have a defensible record you go to the top. You get status by giving in. Honorable and decent Ken Shultz would never fit into that world because he strongly opposed the bailouts, and that alone to the inside party means he is one of the outlier fruitcakes.

[Killazontherun]

Democrats like Mike Lee and Dennis Kucinich Wait, not Mike Lee. A democrat, who am I thinking of? Ridiculed for years, retired recently.

[Bruce Majors]

Sure they do. They are batshit insane and it is no stereotype. And they have the NYT, WaPo, Slate, NBC/PBS/NPR/ABC/CBS/MSNBC and sometimes FOX deployed to make it look like they are not crazy.

[Paul.]

My take:

If the Libertarian Party keeps putting Root in charge of important things, then Libertarians are the reason L(l)ibertarians can't have nice things. That is all.

No wait, it's not all.

If Californians knowingly elect Jerry Brown as the man to bring change to California politics, Californians are the reason Californians can't have nice things.

I could do this all night.

[joshua corning]

will probably be the most widely read thing Root has ever written. Its existence is a tragedy for Libertarians and libertarians.

Before anything gets too weird (the comments here have started to turn that direction) I would like to say I think you are exaggerating a bit.

You live in a bubble of the political media complex. For everyone else this is just the chatter that surrounds presidential year elections.

The Columbia thing was out there before root said anything and everything he did say was supposition and innuendo...no one will remember in 2 days who said what about what.

But yeah the LP has a shitty Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee....the LP should consider getting one that will talk up LP candidates not give fake advice to Romney.

[Killazontherun]

^this.

[Killazontherun]

And for perspective,

this and this

[Bruce Majors]

Maybe Romney will make him an ambassador to Lichtenstein or he will run in the GOP against Harry Reid and you will no longer have to worry about him.

[Captain Freedom]

Root does this all the time. Why has the LP not done anything about it? He has money, and fundraisers. That's it. Their selling their soul to the devil for a few pennies more. He also supports financial aid to Israel, the War in Afghanistan, and is weak on social issues. BOOT ROOT.

[Captain Freedom]

Don't show this article to Root. He'll call Mike Riggs a "jealous leftist/anarchist" like he always does.

[Paul.]

just because Riggs is a jealous leftist/anarchist doesn't mean he's wrong about Root.

*ducks*

[Bruce Majors]

The implication that Root is a racist was uncalled for. I could go around posting all kinds of things about Mike Riggs. I could even take thing he has written (about his high school girl friend for instance), spin them slightly and make him seem like a cad, even though it would be a lie. So he really shouldn't have done that.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

so the Libertarian party is at least as fucked up as the ignorant, cognitive dissonance embracing anti-cop bigots here?

wow. how unshocking.

capital L Libertarians are a fucking train wreck. libertarianism as a philosophy is sound. but jesus fucking christ what a sad spectacle root and many of his cohorts are.

libertarianism is doing ok. not great, but ok. but the Libertarian party - jesus what a fucking train wreck.

[Killazontherun]

I don't see any swastikas or any pictures of the President in black face or burned in effigy here. The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way I've seen Tea Party extremists?Republican Tea Party extremists?express their right is dramatically different

After my daughter heard that, you know, Gabby had been shot, the first thing she asked me was, you know, 'Mommy, are you going to get shot? Does that mean you're going to get shot? ? But Mommy, Florida's going to pass an immigration law like Arizona and then people are going to be mad at you.'

The effects of global warming threaten global environmental upheaval over the coming century. But for South Florida and the Everglades, it could be our death knell if urgent action is not taken.

Is it a violation of the House rule wherein members are not permitted to make disparaging references to the President of the United States? In two previous gentlemen's statements on the amendment, both of them referred to the Affordable Care Act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as 'ObamaCare.' That is a disparaging reference to the President of the United States. ? It is clearly in violation of House rules against that

Yeah, we're the fucked up party, America's worst nightmare, you seem to be saying.

[Dunphy (the real one)]

seriously. you want to make the argument the Libertarian party has been a success? knock yourself out.

hey, they are doing better than the whigs OR the tories at least!!!!

[Killazontherun]

I'm saying your rationale for why the party has not been successful is crap given your criteria does not apply to the two major parties. They are full of idiots that make Root look like a genius in comparison, so, no relatively fucked up rhetoric can't be it.

It's simple, actually. Politics is bribery. Free shit for votes. The LP does not engage in that, so until the free shit runs out, the votes will remain minimal.

[Bryan C]

Foolish mortal! The Libertarian Political Party has evolved far beyond your puny human politics!

Please. The LP is worse than useless because failure is their default condition. The party has been an utter failure for so long that success is now seen as selling out. Like those sad inner-city kids who don't dare do well in class because it would ruin their gangsta' street cred.

[Seymour_Results]

^This is true. Sorry I got to it so late. I followed this here due to Mike Blessing's Wayne Root retrospective.

The Libertarian Party is full of delusional dreamers who score a perfect 100% on the 50% of the test that is philosophy, and they score a 0% on the part of the test that is strategy, giving them a 50/100 failing grade on the test of "running a political party that remains relevant."

Their primary failure is in firing (or "not rehiring") all the actual libertarians that have ever worked for them (Milton Lukins, Paul Frankel, Andy Jacobs, Jake Witmer, Phil Heath, etc.) and replacing them with "bottom of the barrel" mercenaries whose "work" has not resulted in a single new libertarian, and has resulted in thousands of dollars of fines, wasted money, and missed opportunities. (Debra De la Roca, Daryl Bonner, etc.)

The LP is f|_|cking stupid, and highly probably a political "pressure release valve" run by the FBI and/or CIA. (I wouldn't have mentioned the CIA if it wasn't for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IyQRxzs61Y ) The part about him being questioned by the CIA about how he won the governorship is interesting to someone who sympathizes with AIM being infiltrated by Douglas Durham.

This should repeatedly be a huge topic of debate among libertarians: The NSA works with local police to snoop on all of our communications, and the CIA is involved in domestic politics. If this doesn't alarm everyone on this website, they have their head way up their ass.

[The Hammer]

Anti-cop bigots?

[Joshua]

Dunphy's a cop lotsa posters go rabid on cops when cop fuckups are featured in stories. Dog shootings, no knock raids, killing crazy homeless guys for fun, etc.

Dunphy takes it personally. He's not always wrong, but he comes off sounding like an apologist for cops in general.

[Killazontherun]

He is your president, why shouldn't you scrutinize him as if you were an HR department looking over his shoulder?

I'm eight years younger than the president. What I knew in high school was that fucking around and getting anything less than near perfect grades meant I could kiss an Ivy League education good bye. I kissed it good bye. I did something similar to Obama, I loaded up at less prestigious schools, and then transferred to a well known and respected university. It was the best I could hope for, but because I fucked around in high school, the excellent grades I was accepted on were still not good enough for an Ivy League school. Obama talks about fucking off through out high school. His mention of cocaine use comes from the early days of college if I recall. He didn't get serious until he was at Columbia. This is an anomaly worth sorting out.

[Drake]

According to the article and my observations of him as President, he never stopped fucking around.

[Bruce Majors]

http://fellowshipofminds.wordp.....mans-club/

[A Serious Man]

Well I for one look forward to reading a snarky Weigel blog post tomorrrow about Root's article and the subsequent libertarian bashing in the comments to follow.

[Bruce Majors]

Someone has to keep public school teachers busy so they have less time to molest their inmates.

[TengaDun]

Dude is like totally rockin it man!

http://www.Goin-Private.tk

[Killazontherun]

Thanks!

[Robert]

So why is Wayne Allyn Root giving Romney free campaign advice, when he should be talking to, and about, Libertarian Party candidates?

Could it be because the former is what far more people are far more interested in?

[Stormy Dragon]

The Libertarian Party should form some sort of committee to coordinate their campaigns nationally to try and change that.

[John-Henry Liberty]

For the record the LNCC is in no way affiliated with the LNC. W.A.R and his group formed the LNCC to confuse people into thinking Root is the chair of what appears to be the Libertarian party nationally. This is not the case.

He did somehow manage to get elected as an At-Large member of the LNC. However, most Libertarians strongly dislike this guy and feel he is not a Libertarian in practice, policy or in his actions.

[Stormy Dragon]

Wow, how screwed up are you when you have to pretend to be a Libertarian to get people to take you more seriously?

[Bruce Majors]

Someone should form the LNSC. And if you don't do it I may.

[Jennifer]

Former Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate and current Libertarian National Campaign Committee Chair Wayne Allyn Root is why libertarians can't have nice things.

Don't lay the blame entirely on him; nominating Bob Barr for the last ticket did the LP no favors either. Barr was as pro-government and pro-authoritarian as they come until he stopped being re-elected to Congress, and only THEN did he start paying lip service to principles of personal liberty (when he wasn't kissing up to ex-Haitian dictators for money, I mean).

What a person does when he actually wields power offers far better insight to his character than what a person says after he loses it.

[Bruce Majors]

And now his cousin Roseanne is running on the Peace and Freedom ticket. I like his moustache better though.

And why not assume, charitably, that Barr has actually had a change of heart, and is somewhat more pro-liberty now?

[bassasaurusrex]

Root fails big time for not mentioning Gary Johnson or the movements to stop Paul from getting a brokered convention.
Obama was not vetted in '08. He is friends with radicals and has horrible associations. No one cares or they don't want to say they care because the Obama campaign supporters are quick and free with the race card which essentially kills an and all conversation on just about any topic.
If being a friend of an admitted domestic terrorist (Bill Ayers) wasn't enough to stain him, his getting an 'F' at Columbia won't be either.
If pounding the message of: "unemployment at 8+%. Stagnant economy. Endless war. Kill list. Unemployment at 8+% Unemployment at 8+% Unemployment at 8+% Unemployment at 8+%" isn't enough to beat this clown then no one can ever do enough to harm to be worthy of ouster from office.

[DaveinAustin12]

ok - all the 'not mentioning libertarians' points are good . . . and in a sly way, this is good, because it helps spread root's message (which yes, does help undermine obama). 'cause, you know: it IS weird that he won't release those records. It's very weird. Root's argument there seems solid. the slam "doesn't remember seeing black people" at root was slimy, though; there's nothing racist in root's article (though it will tend to get Ls on your side, 'cause nothin' outrages us like racism, etc.).

[Bruce Majors]

Mike Riggs! Didn't your mother teach you not to call people at 3 am and play pranks! http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/cla.....n-citizen/

Maybe you should follow this issue throughout the campaign? But you should read all the tangential material, like Angelo Codevilla's speculative essay on how the maternal side of Obama's family were CIA agents, leftist "social democrats" at the CIA who worked to fund independent non-Communist Party socialists in the third world.

It seems very credible to me by the way that Obama and his entire family have a history and character of fabricating stories about themselves to their own advantage, even more so than your average person, and even more than your average politician. His slickness and charm is that of a congenital liar and con man.

[Bruce Majors]

Also, though I don't know Root, may disagree with many of his opinions in the same way as people in the Radical Caucus or Antiwar.com, and the one time I attempted to tell him something he was curt with me because I was keeping him from hearing some rather dull LNC speaker, why the aside above implying that he is racist? Is there ANY evidence for that? Why play the tired riff that a critic of Obama is concerned with Obama's melanin?

[CZmacure]

@Mike Riggs:
Conspiratorial? What a bat-shit stupid response. Root brings up a valid point. Since Obama's lap dog Harry Reid insists that Mitt Romney dignify a ridiculous accusation of tax evasion by releasing tax files, perhaps Obama should fork over some documents of his own. B. Hussein has refused to release or discuss many documents which cover his 'education' and past leftwing radical activities and associates. "Transparency", right? Obama's credentials are based on bullshit. He is the quintessential Peter Principle. His "resume" is an embellished fabrication. His "law/teaching career" at Harvard was wrought with sub par performance. His peers viewed him a lazy and unqualified. He got by on affirmative action, charisma, arm-twisting, and being a member of radical groups with powerful connections.

The Smartest Guy in the Room has some pretty serious intellectual flaws and competency issues. He's a socialist empty suit foisted into the world's most powerful position by liberal morons and minorities who voted for messianic idolatry and pigment over substance.

Substituting reality with made up fantasies is indicative of a pathological liar. Obama lacks the character and ethical backbone it takes to be a real leader. This latest dumbassity involving Harry Reid is more proof.

[Elizabeth]

Thank you Mike Riggs.

As a long time Libertarian, I've witnessed the Libertarian party repeatably shoot themselves in the foot with their inability to grasp campaign management basics. Instead of focusing on getting Libertarians elected, they meander down the road to crackpotdom and squander our hard earned political capital.

[Northstar]

Root has hit on a way to expose major flaws that both candidates have (in the eyes of the sheeple). It's a lose-lose proposition for the D R parties. Who do you think that benefits genius boy?