If this is any indication, the Beltway Libertarians may embrace Barr as a weapon to dispatch of the inconvenient grasroots libertarians:
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/...-for-president/
Ever since the LP was unable to expand past Ed Clark's 1980 numbers, it was an asset waiting to be taken over.
I would say "this is just a phase", but I don't think that is so. The asset is to valuable to conservatives.
There desparately needs to be a new Libertarian Party that avoids the errors of the first one. No stupid pledge. A platform and a culture that respects the need for local government -- IMO one of the reasons the LP was never able to get anywhere is that everyone was focused on the gross excesses of the Feds and so it never got a cadre of local officeholders. No obscure mini-archist vs anarchist infighting. I hope that party forms soon.
As a young, left-leaning libertarian I can tell you that the LP is not getting my vote. Maybe not ever. I once heard the joke that Libertarians are not so much in favor of 'freedom', as they are the 'freedom' to own slaves. With people like Barr and Root suddenly leading the LP, I can see their point.
The fact is that Ralph Nader will get my vote before Barr- Nader is better on civil and political liberties, and for me that is worth more then any false pledges towards 'federalism' and 'capitalism' (I think Barr's version of capitalism is probably closer to mercantilism anyway).
Just two words: Thank you.
I must say it's about time. You can't cure politics with politics. It's time to actually be principled and stop supporting group violence as a means to individual peace and freedom. Voters get what they deserve.
- NonE
Well, coming from a Right Rothbardian, I find it to be a little strange we have a "Neo-Con" lite nominee.
Granted our belief is, and always will be "The state is our enemy". And that won't ever go away. But, I will say this, I might end up voting for this ticket.(And I hate voting) And yes, it is the reason you listed about as being "a bad one". I believe this ticket could get us into a huge National spot-light. And I don't see that as a bad thing. That's a pretty damn good thing.
This could turn into something huge. Let's not spoil it.
And for the person saying, "they will vote for Nadar" and calls him/herself a Libertatian. Well, that's about as Oxy-Moron as it gets.
It's a crying fucking shame isn't it. I left the Democrats way back in the early 80s because I finally saw the light about what they were doing to this country.
I left the GOP about 8 years ago because they had become exactly what the Democrats already were. Both parties want big government that does nothing but create shitty feel good programs that they make money from while continuously raising taxes on the average working person.
I see no difference between the Democrats and the GOP except for the lies they tell. I thought back then that I saw some light at the end of a long dark age if the Libertarian Party came to power.
They had fresh, new ideas that would make a big difference in this country. I truly had hope again.
Now look at them. They have become what they were against from the beginning. For where I stand they are nothing but an extension of the GOP now.
They can kiss my ass. I will be sending them their membership card back and stopping all financial support as well as any other support I had given them freely for the past 8 years. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
Joe
P.S. - On the other hand, just fuck them. Leave the poor horse out of it. He probably got bullshitted like the rest of us.
Skip: I don’t see any so-called “Beltway Libertarians” involved. The main agents of this were from Georgia and California. The head office people, as I understand it, are not libertarians but conservatives.
The BL term is a slur aimed by some cultural conservatives in Alabama against traditional libertarians like Cato. I actually blame our Alabama friends far more for this fiasco as they have been pushing the “cultural conservative” or paleolibertarian agenda.
RegularRon: what are you talking about? The spotlight won’t be on libertarianism since the LP isn’t running libertarians. It will be another nail in the coffin of the libertarian movement because it will continue to confuse the public. It mistakes paleoconservatives for libertarians. They are not libertarians but another form of conservative.
I consider the so-called Right Rothbardians as a corrupting influence pushing a paleoconservative (often bigoted) agenda and pretending it is libertarian. I wouldn’t vote for Nadar myself but I would never vote for Barr and the really sleazy Root.
Assrot: We both agree. Don’t blame the horse.
RegularRon's worldview:
Nader holds some strongly unlibertarian positions and some libertarian positions. LeTerrassier is thinking of voting for him as the least bad candidate (based on his personal priorities), and therefore should be mocked for thinking of himself as a libertarian.
Barr holds many strongly unlibertarian positions and, as of a couple of days ago, some libertarian positions. Therefore he should be embraced as the standard bearer of liberty.
With logic like that I suspect you must be a conservative.
"Skip: I don’t see any so-called 'Beltway Libertarians' involved. The main agents of this were from Georgia and California. The head office people, as I understand it, are not libertarians but conservatives.
"The BL term is a slur aimed by some cultural conservatives in Alabama against traditional libertarians like Cato. I actually blame our Alabama friends far more for this fiasco as they have been pushing the 'cultural conservative' or paleolibertarian agenda."
CLS, I agree that the conservatives are responsible for Barr's nomination. But judging from some of the early inside-the-beltway reaction (and I happen to live in DC myself), I think there's some relief from the Cato-type crowd that the LP nominated a "mainstream" politician who won't embarrass them in public.
Thanks for your excellent coverage, CLS. This is a tragedy.
To those suggesting it, I do not believe that starting a new party is a good idea; what is there that could prevent this process from occurring again?
Instead, libertarians need to focus on pushing ideas, philosophy, and the like. The LP could have been a vehicle for this, but the dynamic & incentives of electoral competition led it astray. The focus has to first of all be on persuading people that the libertarian view is superior to alternatives.
This will become all the more important, now that these conservative bastards are engaging in a campaign of disinformation against libertarianism, and have seized the LP as a vehicle for doing so.
Finally, I think either Obama or McCain would be at least as good a president as Barr. At least there's no evidence either one is a theocrat or racist, and neither is as anti free trade anti-immigrant as Barr.
This isn't the first time a shady deal surrounded a nomination. Gary Nolan threw his delegates to the wholly embarassing Badnarik (this is why the party needs to go to Condorcet voting, on a single ballot!) and the old-timers talk of Ruwart having a major role in the Bergland fiasco.
Despite my long absence from the LP, I couldn’t avoid a surge of hope at Mary Ruwart’s candidacy. Maybe, since I was not there to support her, I have no right to complain (but I know that I will anyway).
No matter what the goals of the founders, any organization, and especially any political organization, is an amoral entity that seeks first its own aggrandizement. All of Barr’s supporters said they were acting in the best interests of the party, and maybe they were. As an organization, the LP might be stronger without principles, and without libertarians.
I don’t think that there’s any way to evade the fundamental contradiction of a libertarian seeking political power. A libertarian will always be ambivalent; while those who truly want political power will gladly exert and pervert everything they have and are to get it. If they want the party badly enough, they will own it. Whether the party, and the word ‘libertarian,’ are truly lost yet or not, it seems most likely that they will be.
Thank you, CLS, for the report.
the only thing you got wr4ong was claiming that the LNC Rep Barr replaced was forced out -- he was actually in very poor health, and needed to step back for that reason. (Why Barr was the ONLY substitute pur forward is another matter entirely ...)
I find myself trying to become convinced that Obama is somehow an alternative; until the Root portion of the coup (and the Williams "deal" apparently?), there was still a small chance the LP would get my vote via Kubby as VP ...
When Barr slammed that down, and then Williams (whoever the hell he was) suddenly handed his 7% over, it was like an inversion of the 1975 confrontation when we got another KNOWN GOPer to stand down from his perch ... and then got someone he was OK with anyway (Bergland, instead of either Trotter or Vernon, the delegates' choices).
it's pretty clear this was orchestrated on several levels, by a bunch of neocons and other right-wingers (not even "conservative" fits the paths they took), and probably they had the whole thing mapped out (including who endorsed whom?) months before Barr even announced.
I'm just glad I decided not go this time; my "recovery period" (think bad acid) will now be measured in days, not months ...
I’m home and exhausted but I will try to reply. I can only say I’m glad it is all behind us now.
Skip: One comment from one Cato/Reason affiliated individual is hardly a trend. I think Balko was feed bad information and out of context information myself. I was very disappointed in what he said. It was the paleolibertarians, in my opinion, who laid the groundwork for this fiasco by their constant attacks on libertarians who supported social liberalism.
Charles: I tend to agree with you. I had more convering those thoughts but cut it to work on for a latter posting. It was too long as was.
Ben: I agree Badnarik was awful. He was a bad candidate. I just wish people would understand you don’t have to compromise by picking either someone without libertarian principles or someone who is a lousy candidate. One can be consistently libertarian and still market the message efficiently. People seem to think you either have to be an offensive purist or unprincipled.
Steve: I didn’t say the LNC rep replaced by Barr was forced out. I said they “arranged” for him to step down. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t have a valid reason for doing so. But when Barr became available that was when they arranged the resignation. The term “arranged” should not be construed to mean “forced”.
I was planning on voting for Barr but things like this keep popping up: http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?p...ewsdescr&
RI=864
Barr is defending the imprisonment of Gernalow Wilson, the 17 year old who had sex with the 15 year old girl (the horror!). Then he adds insult to injury by claiming it was his "15 minutes of fame" and he didn't deserve his "celebrity" status. WOW, what a dick. And then there is an article at Antiwar.com that I read that shows he supports intervention in Columbia.
At this point I don't think I have anybody to vote for. I might write in Ron Paul's name for the hell of it.
Chris: You are correct on both accounts regarding Barr. He is a conservative in his heart and will run a conservative campaign not a libertarian one.
I am not an American, bur I allways was proud that there was such a political party LP in US... This party had a historical chance to go ahead with libertarian agenda and Mary Ruwart as a candidate. Her book Healing Our World" is brilliant and her nature as a woman and soft libertarian would had attracted lots of attention from regular US voters. They would have had a choice. Do they have a choice now? I don't think so. LP missed it's chance... Yes, it is sure that US is going back from it's originas values declared by Founding Fathers...
CLS, time for a write in campaign... who shall you put up...
Excellent article...I was aghast while watching it on C-Span...now the whole country will see this obscene version of the late-great Libertarian Party. So fu*king sad.
Michelle L
I attended the convention and what CLS reports does not surprise me in the least. I must admit I was only associating with radicals and other backers of Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby so my exposure to other delegates was limited.
However, I came out of the convention much more optimistic than going in.
The reason why was due to other radicals meeting in the waiting area outside the convention hall with Steve Kubby and David Nolan pleading with a crowd of backers not to leave the party.
The crowd overwhelmingly voted to stay and I think this can translate into restoring the LP down the line.
I am confident the damage done to the LP can be reversed down the line and with time and effort it can be restored to what it once was.
The Arizona LP was badly damaged after the civil war but, fortunately, much of it has been repaired. With a new influx of activists with fresh, new ideas the AZLP is in better shape than we have been.
I urge people to not give up on the LP just yet since I think the Barr campaign can present an opportunity to see if the pragmatists are correct in their vision of how the party should conduct itself.
Mike: How do we measure if the Barr campaign strategy is correct? If you mean votes I have no doubt he'll do well. But are votes the measure? If so, then endorse Obama instead and the LP will get far more votes.
I argue that the purpose is to get libertarian ideas out into the world. Barr can't do that for the reasons stated.
Barr will get more votes by selling a message that is more conservative than libertarian. People merely interested in power will say that was more "successful". People interested in spreading liberty will say that was a failure no matter how many votes he gets.
Bexie: No preferences. A write in is useless.
Virgis: I agree 100%.
Michelle: You are right, obscene is a good way of describing this take over.
After the Libertarian Party eviscerated its platform in 2006, Tom Knapp organized the Boston Tea Party. Visit us at bostontea.us.
I was at the convention in Denver. I would say that the large light mural behind the podium of 2008 over a picture of a windmill says it all. The LP now faces whichever way the wind blows strongest.
I believe the Boston Tea Party is a better option for dedicated libertarians who want consistency on principles and a platform that sticks to the smaller government message. We are working to nominate a candidate by 14 June.
Please join us.
I am new to the party (a neophyte, as Dr. Ruwart would call me) and am saddened to see this current schism forming. It also saddens me to see that so many people are already turning their backs on the LP when I'm just starting to get involved. Why leave?
I wish that all those who believe that the party has been taken over by non-L's would simply take their energy and focus it on strengthening their own State organizations. If the goal is to drive a certain group of people out of the party, why would those who would be ousted accommodate the desires of the interlopers by leaving?
Steve and cls: Don't forget too, that the Regional Alternate to the LNC, Flood, declined to fulfill his only duty as an alternate - to step into the Delegate slot if the Delegate steps down - and allowed Barr to take the LNC Delegate spot. Flood, a "reformer", is still the regional alternate.
Lance: some of us conclude that the political process is not the best means of making a difference. So don't drop out, there are other forms of activism which are possible.
Lance, it is very simple. Each individual chooses for himself or herself what to do.
Back in 1998, I stopped paying my membership dues to the LP because I saw too much corruption, too much influence peddling, and too much abuse of the powers of offices by headquarters staff and national committee members. Things have not gotten better, so I have not come back to the LP.
In 2006, Tom Knapp was appalled by the evisceration of the party's platform, its own statement of principles, and he formed the Boston Tea Party bostontea.us so people with similar views would have another choice.
Why not leave? Sure, you joined the LP recently, but, does its standard bearer actually represent you? Are you for the war in Iraq that Bob Barr voted for? Are you for the war on drug use that Bob Barr supported and prosecuted? Are you for the CIA spying on Americans and assassinating foreigners - the CIA which Bob Barr worked for when it was first revealed that the CIA was doing horrid things - is that how you see yourself? Are you against gays being allowed to marry? Are you against Wiccans in the military having their own ceremonies and their own chaplains? Are you against polyamorous marriages?
Bob Barr voted for the USAPATRIOT act. Do you support that choice? Two weeks before the convention in Denver, Bob Barr told Fox News he was against legalizing drugs. Tuesday morning after the convention nominated him, Bob Barr told CNN that he was right to vote for the war in 2003, and right to oppose same sex marriage.
If Bob Barr is not your candidate, if he does not represent your values, then leave the LP until they have a candidate who inspires you.
I have never been a Republican, but Ron Paul inspired me. He inspired me in 1988, he inspired me in 2007, and I worked for his campaign in South Carolina and in Kansas in 2008, I donated money and encouraged others to donate, and I bought his book.
Being a part of the LP is like being a part of a club or a supporter for a team. It just isn't very important. If you get what you want from that club or that team, then root more, donate more, volunteer more time. And if you don't, like thousands of others, get what you want from the LP, go. Withdraw your consent. Withhold your support. Refuse to contribute your time.
These are choices to take. It is a free market of ideas. Choose as you see best. But, really, as a neophyte, it is rather silly of you to suppose that you can tell those who feel they must part ways that they are taking the wrong choice. You have no idea what battles they fought, what heart breaks they suffered, what has brought them to this choice. It is theirs to make, and, honestly, not yours to criticise.
Obviously people have the right to make their own choices. I just re-read my post and don't find any criticism therein.
Why won't I leave? The LP is the best party that I've found. Libertarian principles are intellectually sound. If Barr doesn't represent them then I am sure we can all make a bunch of noise about it and he will be ousted.
People can change. Look at Joe Banister, or Saul. Cheers!
Funny you should mention Saul. I am not a follower of the teachings of St. Paul. Saul was a Roman citizen who tortured Christians. St. Paul continued to be a Roman, justified all sorts of idolatry, and continued to be authoritarian right up until his death. I don't think he represented Jesus well, at all.
The difference between Joe Banister and Bob Barr is clear. Joe didn't know that there was no proper authority for the income tax. Bob knew that war in Iraq was the wrong choice. Joe stopped enforcing the income tax when he knew the truth. Bob has been shown the truth about the war on drugs, and he still went on Fox News two weeks ago and said he was against legalizing drugs.
I would trust Joe Banister as a candidate for a libertarian party. Obviously, I have good reasons for not trusting Barr.
Superb writing and very thorough, cls. I forgot to thank you for your work.
Jim, you and so many others have been paying much closer attention to Barr than I have. I know about his prior legislative history and I know he has ties to the CIA by former employment but if the LP was so weak that he was able to run an operation on it to take it over then shouldn't he have it? If that is the case then the only thing to do is to take it back. He can't erase 40+ years of Libertarian writing, can he? If he is not a Libertarian he won't be able to hide that fact and he won't be able to influence the party anymore. Maybe I'm wrong.
I am 36 and have been breathing for less time than a lot of you have been working on advancing libertarian thought. I didn't even know that much about this party when I decided to run for office and chose to file as an L. If you watch my interview with Mike Ferguson you can tell what a knucklehead I am in comparison to most of the people that I know who are involved with the LP.
In the past 6 months I have discovered more and more that affirms my choice to file for office as a Libertarian instead of as a Democrat or a Republican. For example, the preference for persuasion vs. coercion. No contest. Everything that I discover about this party's philosophy is head and shoulders above anything else I've ever read about politics and society.
I am a part of the tip of the iceberg for the LP and many more are coming. I'm sorry that so many of you are so heart-broken about what you think is the loss of your party. If that is true then I can only say it won't last long. "Generation X" is right behind me and they are much more pissed off than I am. Deep thinkers and the so called "purists" (who first started using that term?) will be needed to help educate well meaning latecomers like me. I need your help and won't waste my time on a new party when there is a 10 million dollar asset that is already all set up. I hope you and others continue to contribute in whatever way you can, inside or outside of the party. Thanks for your patience and your efforts toward the expansion of our Liberties.
Lance: Remember the LP is there for a purpose and the purpose is not the party itself but the promotion of liberty. If one promotion doesn't work that doesn't mean you give up but you do look for another idea that does work. Promoting freedom is important but there are many ways of doing that.
When people put all their eggs in the same basket, and the bottom falls out, they lose everything. That isn't necessary.
The LP was broken long before Barr arrived. It would be broken even if 48 more had voted Ruwart.
Lance, I have supported the LP for a long time: I've never voted for a Presidential candidate other than the LP nominee... some were quite goo, some frankly were not, but all seemed to be to be genuine libertarians.
Bob Barr is not a libertarian, but a religious right conservative. I have always opposed this political viewpoint, and would never consider voting for it, since I am a libertarian.
I fear Barr will run an explicitly conservative campaign, and he might well get more votes than any previous LP candidate. The votes will come from religious conservatives, proponents of discrimination against gays, people who favor closed borders and roundups of immigrants... and those who suppose the whole point is getting votes, rather than promoting principles, will declare victory.
I promote libertarian principles in the classroom, in my writing, and when I speak to people. I'm sorry to see that the LP is abandoning this, but it really the LP that has left me, not vice versa.
Umm... some were quite goo*d*. Maybe Barr is "goo."
This article is full of lies and half-truths.
I'll answer the questions and rebut the mistakes in chronological order.
The 'Party of Principle' concept was a slogan made up for a promo. It's not a defining statement. In fact, it's insulting to outsiders and probably a mistake to use.
The author whines about the outcome. I bet he didn't complain when his 'side' got their way. Welcome to politics. No one wins all the time.
It's pretty hard to call someone who is pro-pot, anti-IRS, pro-choice and pro gay rights 'far right'. But the author tries.
As far as deal making, the only Barr/Root interaction was just a few minutes before Wayne's concession speech. SO WHAT. They decided to team up and influence who would be VP. THAT's POLITICS!
Root never said he would never take VP. LIE.
Barr didn't promise him the Presidential slot. LIE. Barr said he would support Wayne in '12, since he was not running.
Both Wayne and Bob are very Libertarian in thought and deed. Neither of them endorse ANY foreign intervention, though I personally wish they did.
Wayne Root gave Lieberman money BEFORE he was an LP member or candidate and there is a back story there.
No duping of the 'anti-war' folks here. Wayne has always been open and consistent about his positions. Wayne has never been a 'warmonger'. [See http://www. Dictionary.com for a definition.] Just because someone disagrees with you on Foreign Policy, doesn't make them a warmonger. WORDS MEAN THINGS - get it right.
Barr could very well improve his position on the WOD. I don't see any points for Root who has CONSISTENTLY been against it. EVEN BEFORE he was in the LP.
The anti-Barr delegates and Candidates ensured Barr got the nomination. They all said before the voting, they preferred Wayne by a long shot for many reasons. They all,
each and every other Presidential Candidate, could have supported Wayne and kept Barr off, but they didn't.
Another lie is that Barr suddenly changed his position on issues important to gays. Barr has been steadily improving his position on DOMA and gay rights. This position of his is not new to the Convention. It's just new to YOU because you have refused to listen to Barr's changing stance.
The author commits another lie when he claims Barr brought in ringers. As a member of Wayne's team, I was frustrated they bused people in, but... The truth is Barr did a marvelous GOTV (Get Out The Vote)
effort with LP Members. These folks were already Delegates, but
he helped and encouraged them to get there. He did a better job at it than any other candidate.
This is like complaining that the other team's pitcher won the game because he practiced more and focused better.
Preparation took the day.
And if these people were only interested in plugging the GOP, they would have elected Ruwart. Barr as our Candidate HURTS the Republican candidate, GOPers think.
Barr is going to campaign as a LIBERTARIAN, not a conse
So “party of principle” is a mistake to use. I suggest you take it off your own website then since you clearly think it is a mistake and just a slogan with no meaning.
Over 30 years my side has lost many times in the LP but it always lost to another libertarian not to a conservative.That is the difference. The LP is not running a libertarian this time. Every other time it has even when it was people I opposed. Sure I “whine” about outcome when it means the betrayal of libertarian values. That you don’t is your problem.
He’s not “pro-pot” which is not a libertarian view per se. Pro legalization would be but he isn’t for that either except for medicinal purposes. Otherwise he’d haul your ass to jail. He is a drug warrior and made that clear -- he just wants the war fought by the states. He is not pro-choice on abortion and publicly opposed abortion (except when privately paying for the abortion of one of his wives). And he is not pro-gay. Gay delegates in Denver certainly didn’t think so and neither did anyone else. He claimed a last minute conversion on DOMA very conveniently but that was just hours before the vote. Hardly convincing.
He voted against free trade as outlined on this site. He was also a supporter of the biggest socialized medicine measure in recent years -- the drug policy that Bush pushed through.
You may wish they supported more interventionism overseas -- that tells me how conservative you are. But Barr does support interventionism so you clearly haven’t paid attention to the candidate you support but still think you can lecture about his real beliefs. Barr wrote supporting interventionism in South America in particular in a recent column he wrote.
Personally I think those like you who support global military central planning -- an interventionist foreign policy -- ought to go back to the big government parties that love that sort of sick theory.
Barr did not slowly change his view on DOMA. He was defending it right up to the convention and then changed his mind less than 24 hours before the vote. Even in newspaper and TV interviews he was defending it. I quoted them here and the readers here know it. You are the one who is clueless - in so many ways.
I said Barr paid to bring 50 delegates to the convention. You say Barr did the same thing. What is the disagreement? I didn’t use the term “ringers” == you did.
You are right. The libertarians were not prepared for the sort of concerted campaign by Barr and Viguerie to take over the party. They didn’t expect sell outs like Cory and Gordon getting money from Viguerie and turning the party into a conservative party. They weren’t prepared and the conservatives took over. I’m not surprised you aren’t worried after all you want more military adventurism overseas yourself.
I don't have the words 'party of principle' on my own website.
Every political party has principles.
The statement is meaningless. It's demeaning to non-Libertarians, too.
Something you and Ms. Ruwart haven't realized is an anti-recruitment tool.
He is not only pro-pot, but is a paid Board Member of a pro-legalization board.
He is pro-gay, and has had a changed position on that for quite some time.
(Have you been sleeping?
I never said I wanted more intervention. Why do you extremists insist on making things up? Since you call yourself a 'reporter', how about you quote people correctly?
I want NO adventurism, and as to the gay thing, yes. Barr has been steadily changing his position.
You fantasize about what you WANT to hear so you can create an enemy.
Don't let the facts get in the way, CLS and don't contact me to get the record straight.
SOME REPORTER.
Mr. Cohen: You are simply lying now. You say you don't have the slogan you attack on your web site. I just viewed it myself and right at the top it says: "Libertarian Party: The Party of Principle". At the very least I would have expected you to delete it before lying about it here. And if you are just "confused" (which is very believable based on your right-wing views) then at least be smart enough to go and double check before you make your denial. Otherwise it just makes you look stupid or incompetent or both.
However, don't be confused by this. I am not saying you have principles so you don't have to worry about be labelled an "extremist" by the wackjobs who took over the party. I merely pointed you were a hypocrite for attacking the slogan and then using on your web site. And now I merely point out you are lying about its presence. Let's see, no principles, dishonest, hey, you'll go far in the Liberpublican Party.
In regards to being stupid you clearly don't know the difference between being pro-pot (which means advocating liking the drug) and being pro-legalization (which doesn't endorse the drug but wants it legalized). I'm anti many things which I think ought to be legal. Barr has not said he wants pot legalized except for medical purposes. Another false claim you make is that Barr is a "paid Board member" of the MPP. (You didn't name the group but that is the group you mean.) I find nothing listing him as a Board member as you claim. Can you cite one source for your claim? And remember that being a paid lobbyist on medicinal marijuana is not the same thing as being a board member.
To avoid word limit issues I will finish in a second reply below.
Part 2 on Cohen’s false claims
More regarding him being “pro-pot”. Please provide one reference where he supported anything on pot other than the legalization for medicinal purposes.
Next you again use the phrase “pro-gay” in the same manner you use “pro-pot”. This is typical of your confused claims. This implies he endorses homosexuality -- which is unlikely. Or do you mean he takes positions supporting the rights of gay people? Be clear as to your claim. I don’t believe he endorses homosexuality and he has said nothing on it. Up until a week ago he was trying to justify his authoring the the Defense of Marriage Act which stripped gays of rights. Only at the convention did he finally repudiate it and then less than 24 hours before the final vote. If you are saying he changed his view on that “for quite some time” can you provide a source backing up that claim?
Now let us go to your claim that you never said you wanted more intervention. I quote your exact sentence: “Neither of them [Barr and Root] endorse ANY foreign intervention, though I personally wish they did.” You wrote that you wished these men “wanted” “foreign intervention.” That sure sounds like you want foreign intervention yourself. In addition your own blog demands that “we” (referring to the US govt.) keep up pressure on Iran. You also say that you'd want the US troops home eventually just not now because “Our exit strategy in Iraq must account for its effect on
Iran, and frankly, increasing the pressure on the current regime will also have a side effect almost everyone will like. Done properly, we can clean up in Iraq and get out much faster, more safely and not leave things a mess, like we did in Vietnam.” That sounds like the very interventionism I said you supported and which you deny.
Next you write of me, “you call yourself a ‘reporter’” with the word reporter in quotes. Again this has two different meanings, check your dictionary if you have one. One is “a person who reports” and in personal communications or essays that usually means the writer who is reporting on his experiences. The second is “a person employed to gather and report news, as for a newspaper....” If one “calls oneself a reporter” that usually means they are claiming to be employed by a news agency. And while I have written for numerous newspapers around the world, and been paid for what I wrote, I have not claimed to be a reporter in that sense of the word at all. I have claimed to be reporting on what I saw in Denver but nothing more. I wanted to clarify that since your loose use of language could confuse another reader into thinking I had claimed to be employed by a news agency. I don’t.
Why do I need to contact you to get the record straight? I spent about 13 hours per day at the Denver convention from before breakfast until late at night each day beginning on the day before it started and leaving only after the last gavel. I talked to several dozen people each day and watched the p
(damn Haloscan's inability to post full replies. Here is the last part of my reply to the Liberpublican mr. Cohen regarding his falsehoods)
I talked to several dozen people each day and watched the proceedings. I spent an average of about 23 hours per day in the hotel where it took place. I was there. I don’t need you to tell me what I saw.
As for your accusation that I’m a extremist what does that mean? Am I an extremists because I support free markets? Or as I an extremist due to my support for social freedom or because I oppose foreign interventionism? Exactly what justifies the label “extremists” that you used so freely?
I do think you will fit right in with the New Liberpublican Party. I can see why you love Root and Barr -- birds of a feather and all that rot.
Mr. Cohen has insisted that the phrase "party of principle," which he finds insulting, is not used on his web site. Mr. Cohen is not being truthful. I have now posted a screen capture of the top of his web site where this slogan is very prominently used. Not only does he use it but it is on every single page of his website. He has incorporated this meaningless, "insulting" phrase into the banner of his page. You can see that on the main page of this site.
Yeah, so my banner has it.
My web guy put it up there and I didn't notice, so what?
I don't like the slogan, and when I can get him to wake up and smell some coffee, I'll pull it.
Slogans like that hurt the party, and so does the silly pledge.
Bruce Cohen thinks that extremism in the defense of liberty is a vice. No doubt he would find moderation in support of justice to be a virtue.
Scum like Cohen, Redpath, Starr, Emerling-Cloud, and the like have always plagued the Libertarian Party. They aren't willing to take the pledge because they want to have the option to use initiatory force to coerce others whenever they please.
Like I have said elsewhere, the front mural at the convention in Denver featuring 2008 and a windmill was very appropriate. A device for pointing toward the strongest wind - that's all the LP is now.
Let me say that the parties of political harlotry and the members of those parties ought to be offended by the statement that the LP is the party of principle. But, those of us in ethical parties, like Personal Choice and Boston Tea parties, aren't offended. We're just amused that the LP claims to be principled and really isn't.
It is a good thing to offend people who sell their political offices to lobbyists, foreign governments, and corrupt agencies. Calling the Democrats and Republicans unprincipled is just a good start, it is by no means sufficient.
Who are they to complain? Nixon resigned in shame and was within days of being impeached. Clinton was impeached, and certainly seemed guilty to me. The current Bush would be impeached if the Democrats weren't afraid of their own scandals.
Obviously, principles don't matter to Bruce Cohen because all he cares about is money, power, influence, and being invited to the events he wants to attend. His lack of ethics stinks to high heaven.
And his "web guy" is to blame for the banner on his web site. Yeah, like Bruce had no responsibility to convey his objections to the slogan to the guy building his site.
Unethical and kinda stupid.
Is that the best you can do?
Put words into my mouth?
Your case is that weak you have to lie to support it?
You have so little to say, you have to create a straw man enemy to fight against in a pretend battle?
Pretty funny.
Face it, the weirdotarians and the extremists lost.
Plain and simple.
The grownups and reformers won.
They won on the platform and program.
It was almost a no-hitter and certainly a shutout.
They won on all the officers.
They won on the Candidates.
And it was a split decision on the LNC seats, 2.5 to 2.5.
Mary Ruwart cried crocodile tears over some alleged purge of her and the extremists like you.
Yet, the grownups and reformers don't suggest anyone leave the party. We don't call you a 'liberaltarian' or other derogatory terms.
We discuss the issues and solutions in a rational and inclusibe manner.
Why can't you?
Mr. Cohen is obviously some sort of jackass who would rather have friends in high places than a country that allows individuals the freedom to get high. Instead of responding decently or intelligently, he calls his opponents weirdotarians.
The LP is now as much like the Demopublicans and Republicrats as it can be. Except, not in power, and not as effective.
Let's see, Mr. Cohen insists adamantly that he doesn't have the slogan on his site because it is so offensive. In that comment he also insists that we should trust his observations of the convention over mine. Yet he can't be trusted to correctly what is happening on his own website. And he wasn't even smart enough to check before telling me how wrong I was. It is a bit hard to trust his observations when he doesn't even pay attention to his own wieb site and has to blame some unnamed third party for that.
I did ask him to define "extremists" since he throws it around to describe anyone who doesn't want to be a Republican like himself. So far he has declined to define what it is that makes one an extremists and what view I proposed qualifies me -- other than the fact that I don't care for conservatives like Barr and Root. (He was also naive enough to think Root was an alternative to Barr -- sort of like Mao was an alternative to Stalin).
I will also note that I responded to Cohen on numerous points he made and he ignored all of them and then claims that the issue of him misreporting his own web site is "the best" I can do in replying. He also claims I lied but won't specify where.
In my opinion he is just another nasty Republican, without a shred of principle in his body, who doesn't understand libertarian theory and wants the LP to become the true conservative party like Mr. Barr. He can have it. If people wanted cheap politicians like him they can find them a dime a dozen in the real Republican Party. Voters are not interested in fourth rate politicians like Mr. Cohen and I suggest we can see that come election day.
Thanks. I flew through Denver from Indianapolis on my to an Alaska vacation. Glad I didn't stop. Dirt on Barr is disappointing but hardly shocking. Voted for O'Bama last month as the anti-war candidate. Will vote for McCain in November to make tax increases more difficult.
I have been enjoying your blog greatly CLS, and have been posting several pointers to it on the LPMA website.
As a side note to Mr. Cohen, I spoke to Barr on Friday, and he was emphatically religiously anti-freedom, and clearly thought homophobia was a "states rights" issue. - didn't sound a BIT libertarian to me...
As I have said repeatedly and publically, I have been active in the LP for over 26 years, and Barr is the FIRST nominated candidate I can't support - As a potential Presidential Elector, I've been called "faithless" for this. I disagree, as I promised to vote for a Libertarian Candidate, and Barr isn't one by my standards.
On a separate topic, while it is your personal choice, I do wish you wouldn't hide behind the shield of anonymity - IMHO it somewhat reduces your credibility. As an unknown person, it is hard to tell if you are in a good position to know the things you state as facts, etc.
I have been open about my stance, and it has caused me to get a fair bit of heat, but people can tell I'm not making it up...
Arthur Torrey
LPMA Operations Facilitator
Potential LP Presidential Elector (not voting for BARR!)
Elected Libertarian (Billerica Town Meeting)
I think it brilliant that an LP presidential elector not vote for Barr. There is a long and honorable history of electors going their own way. In 1972, Roger MacBride, a Republican elector from Virginia, cast the first electoral vote ever for a woman candidate, Theodora Nathan, the LP vice presidential nominee. Sweet.
Personal Choice Party and Boston Tea Party seem determined to run liberty oriented candidates this year.
Then again, "none of the above" is a valid libertarian choice.
Arthur: Mr Barr is all over the place on these issues. It is hard to pin him down. Two days before the convention he was on radio defending DOMA then at the convention he is renouncing it. People tell me he was against it in the past. Yet I see him on TV defending it. He's all over the place and hard to pin down.
As for anonymity. I understand your point. My situation is that I have to work with lots of libertarians around the country and my full time position does not allow me to be open without jeopardizing my employment. It would turn my personal observations and opinions into an official stand for them. In addition my experience is that there is a smearbund within the libertarian movement that will lie about individuals they don't like and spread vicious and malicious claims about them. Anonymity prevents that. Those two things together make it impossible for me to do what you wish.
In addition, one benefit is that it forces people to debate the argument and makes it hard for them to debate the person.
All I can say is that I've been in this thing a bit longer than yourself. (I've even been to a couple of your state conventions over that period of time.)
As I said, anonymity is your choice and I'll respect it, though I think it's regrettable. You do have legitimate reasons so I will not say more about it.
ART
Thanks so much for this insightful and inside look at the failure of the current Libertarian Party to be independent.
Nancy
The Hankster
Commenting by HaloScan
