If you think Root is a good choice against a McCain, that makes him a good choice against Giuliani, because you wrote that Root is good against non-libertarian GOP nominees.

What’s so libertarian about someone who arrests stock brokers off the trading floor for being successful, was a petty dictator in NYC, would enjoy answering Kubby that the war on drugs should not only continue but be expanded, etc?

Kubby has a solid hardcore Marijuana constituency. I know this may be appalling to some, but maybe it’s not so bad for the Libertarian Party to become essentially the “Pot Party.”

Kubby could just emphasize that single issue for 2008, and if he was effective enough, he could force the other two candidates to address it.

In that sense, I find Steve Kubby to be a far more attractive candidate than George Phillies, who has no discernible constituency.

At least with Kubby you get some progress for the Libertarian Party and movement. At least he will put the Marijuana issue on the map, which would otherwise be ignored if he wasn’t in the race.

It’s increasingly looking as though a libertarian-leaner like Giuliani or Fred Thompson will win the GOP nomination. With such a scenario it’s better that the LP vote be kept to a minimum. Thus a first tier candidate for the LP running a well-funded Ed Clark style campaign, would not be beneficial. A Dennis Miller, PJ O’Rourke, Tammy Bruce, Neal Boortz or even Wayne Root would end up taking too many votes away from Giuliani or Thompson, and help to elect Hillary.

The more inevitable Giuliani looks as the GOP nominee, the better it will be for the LP to nominate a 2nd tier Phillies or Kubby type.

Wayne Root would run best against a non-libertarian GOP nominee like Huckabee, Brownback, or McCain.

Phillies and Kubby fit that bill for the Libertarians, and the party faithful know it.
As for the Greens: (link to declared Green presidential candidates)
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_06_27.shtml
there field is truely weak as of now.

Thanks for the nomination … but!

This site is called “Third Party Watch.” Left-libertarianism isn’t a party. There’s a (growing) left-libertarian tendency [1] within the Libertarian Party, but it doesn’t constitute a faction per se, and much of the left-libertarian movement is not only outside the LP but rejects electoral politics altogether (e.g. the Movement of the Libertarian Left, which, due to proprietarianism machinations on the part of the executor of MLL founder SEK3’s estatate, is at present being supplanted by the more ecumenical Alliance of the Libertarian Left).

I could be mistaken, but my understanding of Austin’s purpose in maintaining this site is to provide reasonably “newsy” coverage of third parties … argument and opinion is really more for the comments section. I’m not saying I couldn’t do that job, but if I did it I wouldn’t be doing it as a left-libertarian, but rather as someone who presumably has good sources within the LP, an eye for what’s going on that should be of interest to the blog’s audience, and the writing ability to coherently present the material.

I may or may not meet those three criteria, but there’s good reason to believe that I’m highly partisan to the degree that what I might choose to cover, and the way in which I might choose to cover it, might not best serve TPW’s purpose.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

[1] I use the word “tendency” within the context of partisan groupings of “factions, fractions and tendencies.” I have an explanation of these terms—which are fairly peculiar to the Marxist left in usage, but applicable to any political organization.

Briefly:

A “tendency” within a political party is a not-necessarily identifiable grouping of people in that party who hold certain beliefs or support certain ideas.

A “faction” within a political party is an identifiable grouping of people in that party who have organized themselves for the purpose of making a certain belief or idea (or set of beliefs or ideas) the party’s policy or “party line.”

A “fraction” within a political party is an identifable grouping of people that party who have organized themselves for the purpose of accomplishing a particular objective on behalf of the party (said objective presumably already being part of the party’s policy or line).

For example, “pro-life libertarians” would be a tendency within the LP. A caucus of pro-life libertarians organized for the purpose of modifying or deleting the LP’s abortion plank would be a faction. And a group of people who commit their time and effort to explaining, promoting or implementing the existing plank outside the party would be a fraction.

There is some overlap in membership between the left-libertarian tendency (a tendency) and the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus (a faction) in the Libertarian Party, but the LPRC is not a “left-libertarian faction.” There are identifiably rightist libertarians in the LPRC.

The biggest fraction in the party would probably be those who either run for, or support those who run for, political office—the “electoral politics fraction.”

Third Party Watch has become Third Party Propaganda.

It was fun while it lasted.

One of the problems with Eric is that his opinion changes (as does his recollection of facts) about as fast as the sweep second hand on a Timex. After shooting the shit with him for a few years, I’m beginning to become convinced that those opinion changes and memory lapses are genuine. That may not reflect well on Eric’s mental state, but it also reduces the likelihood of shady “conspiracies to destroy the LP with Wayne Root as the weapon.”

Tom Bryant has it mostly right on the LP-GOP connection. Not entirely right, but mostly. Root isn’t a “nobody” in the GOP. You don’t get your picture with Rove, etc., unless you’ve forked over campaign contributions, hectored others into doing so, etc.

Thing is, Root wants to move to the head of the line and go directly for US Senate without first screwing around in the state legislature, etc., to make his bones, and having raised some money for the GOP isn’t enough for that. If he’s the LP nominee, he raises his name recognition as a politician, and if he runs a strong Nevada-centered campaign (as I expect he would), doubly so for the intended purpose. So he goes back to the GOP as a former LP presidential nominee, and that’s something that will probably help, rather than hurt, him with Nevada Republicans.

WAR is a nobody in the Republican Party right now. In order to get the Senate nomination, he will have to be backed by the movers and shakers of the GOP.

If WAR wins the LP nomination, and then drops out, the GOP will not have to worry about losing 0-3% of the vote in some swing states. 2008 will be a close election, and every little bit will help. This move by WAR would definitely help him win supporters in the GOP, enough to get him the Senate nod.

This would also further Eric’s goals of destroying the LP. The sheer embarrassment will hurt the party in a huge way.

That’s the only explaination I have for him running for the LP nomination without having any support within the LP.

Root only won in terms of bluster and self-promotion. He came across as a game-show host.

And Ladbrokes lists only one LP candidate, so naturally that one would be the front-runner. My guess is, Root planted that entry like he planted the Yucca Mountain question.

WAR has Eric Dondero pushing really hard. Remember Eric Dondero has said countless times that he is at war with the LP, and wants to see their demise. What could WAR do as the Libertarian Presidential candidate to further Eric’s publicly declared intent to destroy the LP?

Joey Dauben, another Republican and a Dondero-in-training, supports him. Why can’t WAR get any Libertarians to support him?

It’s not hard to put the pieces together.

I guess Google searches go back only to 2006? Ass.

Oh, and Chuck, I’ve communicated with WAR on e-mail about the MySpace site; I simply wanted him to have a presence on the site. Not that I was trying to assert any sort of “role” in the campaign. I just saw a need (i.e, a market) and filled it, albeit temporarily I guess…