I agree that he would be a great keynote speaker. Somehow I just don’t see the Republicans allowing one of our members to be their keynote speaker. Even Ron Paul is struggling to get a speaking spot at the Republican convention. This is an odd situation. I hope we can remedy it while there’s still time.

I also hope that C-SPAN covers the convention at greater length than it did four years ago. If I remember correctly, they only covered the nomination and largely ignored the floor business and speeches. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt for us to politely contact C-SPAN, too.

I’m starting to become confused as to what is going on at the national level, between the mysterious decision to make Mr. Viguerie the keynote speaker and the LP press release calling on an unconstitutional federal government agency to protect our children. This is all very odd.

I agree, and found this info to be extremely distressing. The idea of a keynote is that it sets the tone for the convention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynote

“At political or industrial conventions and expositions and at academic conferences, the keynote address or keynote speech is delivered to set the underlying tone and summarize the core message or most important revelation of the event.”

If the ‘tone’ of our convention is Viguerie, it will be conservativism rather than libertarianism:

His website:

http://conservativehq.com/home

If he wants to give a fundraising seminar, great. But NOT a keynote speech. Besides the debate and post-nom candidate speech, the Keynote is the address most likely to be picked up and quoted by the press. Ouch.

I echo David Nolan’s call to LPers to call Bill Redpath – and your LNC rep – and BEG them to have a Libertarian – not a Republican Conservative – set the tone at the Libertarian Party Convention.

I spoke with Barry yesterday, and he has officially dropped out because he wants a speaking slot at the national convention, and the convention organizers have stated that candidates cannot be speakers, as it would give those who got speaking slots an unfair advantage. Reasonable enough.

I suggested that Barry would make an excellent keynote speaker, since Barr is now ineligible. However, it seems that “someone” (nobody will say who, but it’s not Bill Redpath, the National Chair) has told Bette Rose Ryan that Richard Viguerie (a non-libertarian) is the new designated keynoter. She has been given no choice in the matter.

Now Mr. Viguerie is undoubtedly worth listening to. He is, after all, the world’s leading expert on direct mail fundraising. But shouldn’t the keynote speaker at the Libertarian Party be a LIBERTARIAN? And who was given the authority to dictate that a NON-LIBERTARIAN be the keynoter?

Kinda strange, no? If anyone else thinks this is all very fishy, I invite them to telephone Mr. Redpath and ask him who’s in charge of the LP these days, since apparently it isn’t him. His phone number is 703-864-2312. While you’re on the line, you might make the point that the keynote speaker at the national convention should be an actual member of the Libertarian Party—preferably someone like Barry Hess, who has actually run for office as a Libertarian.

Just a thought.

He should wait to run for president though, IMO.

W.A.R. on the other hand should first apologize to the LP membership for trying to pull the wool over their eyes, pretending to be a libertarian. He ought to then drop out of the contest, and study libertarianism, free market economics, libertarian theory, and fully understand Harry Browne’s “Why Government Doesn’t Work”, along with other fine works of Browne and others. He should get involved in his local and state party; run a campaign for something local.

Nestled in there, he ought to apologize to Mary Ruwart. He and his campaign (especially that bonehead Mark Schreiber) ought to study her writings, instead of simply trying to draw tortured conclusions.

These guys want to help the LP? First become a libertarian . . . that would be a good start!

So just like W.A.R. and Barr, who jump into the LP going straight for the top, Capozzi goes straight to the national LP, & platform committee, and yet nobody has ever heard a peep out of him in the LPVa, or any of the Northern Virginia county organizations. Ron Paul led a grassroots movement . . . Capozzi believes in top down I guess . . . good strategy Bob. What other gems do you have for us?

Three’s company . . . too!

“It’s way worse in my book that any issue that Barr or Root has espoused.”

Barr’s vote for the Patriot Act, DOMA, desire for intervention in South America,etc . . . W.A.R. support for Lieberman, McCain, war on terror, middle east interventionism, etc . . . these are all better than Ruwart, who believes that the lack of efficacy of laws should not trumps people, families, and individuals deciding for themselves. Very libertarian, Bob.

Robert—Here are some links wherein Mary explains her position further.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stevekubbyshow

http://votemary2008.com/node/52

I hope this helps.

That would be Barr, Root, or Gravel?

April 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
The ‘long time Libertarian activist’ criterion is the worst.

We should pick a member of the club?”

I would include those who are a part of the overall libertarian movement but haven’t been members of the Libertarian Party.

I think it is more important to run sopmebody who will be a good communicator of libertarian ideas than to run somebody with political experience (or money or name recognition.) After all, other than Ron Paul, what do politicians generally have experience doing? Growing government, mostly.

We can’t be sure that a bold, purist libertarian campaign would not capture the public’s imagination more than a “safe,” wishy-washy conservative campaign would.

It would really disappoint me if the Republican Party had a candidate (Ron Paul) who was more libertarian than the LP’s eventual nominee.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski37.html

‘Reason’-Funder To Host Cheney
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020581.html