Another term for it might be “turning out your base.” Sadly, I won’t be able to be there for Barr, it sounds like it will be quite a good time.

Not a “moderate”. A moderate Libertarian (i.e., someone who wants to reduce government all around, but not as far as anarchism or minarchism).

Brian: “He’s a conservative Libertarian…”

Right. A conservative Libertarian who supports gay unions, withdrawal from Iraq (though not in a week), marijuana legalization, gambling legalization, legal abortion (during most of pregnancy), repealing the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. That doesn’t sound socially conservative to me, and I doubt any staunch social conservatives would think so either.

Brian: “...and made that abundantly clear at his Conservative Leadership Conference keynote last year.”

It’s not shocking that a presidential candidate addressing a forum of conservatives would seek to play up commonalities and downplay differences. That doesn’t make him socially conservative though.

I see, and I’m sorry for the confusion. I should have been careful to explain that in using the terms “moderate” and “radical” I am not necessarily describing the candidates themselves, but rather the party factions lining up behind those candidates.

It would be reasonable to describe both Barr and Root as “conservative.” However, the faction of the party lining up behind Barr and/or Root isn’t so much ideological as it is tactical—perhaps “in favor of putatively ‘mainstreaming’ the party rather than positioning it as radical” might be more accurate than “moderate.”

The whole intra-party debate turns on multiple axes (ideology, strategy, the gravity wells of past fights, etc.), and it’s hard to capture the full picture in one or only a few terms, especially since many of the most-used terms have taken on propagandistic lives of their own.

So, let me try again:

I believe that at the convention, with respect to the presidential nomination, the vast bulk (80% minimum on the first ballot, probably more like 90%; and approaching 100% on subsequent ballots) of the delegates will break down into two rough sets of roughly equal size—those backing Barr and/or Root, and those backing Ruwart and/or Kubby.

I further believe that the last two candidates standing will be either Barr or Root, and either Ruwart or Kubby (i.e. I don’t think we will see a final ballot of Barr v. Root or Ruwart v. Kubby). Most people making odds would probably lay money on it coming down to Barr v. Ruwart, but I think there’s a reasonable chance that it will be Root rather than Barr, and/or Kubby rather than Ruwart, who survive to the final ballot. Not saying I’d lay money on it, but I I think it could happen.

Finally, I believe that Ruwart or Kubby—whichever one makes it that far—will win the final ballot and the nomination.

One reason I believe that last is that of the delegates who are NOT part of that vast bulk of bi-factional separation—those who are supporting George Phillies, Christine Smith, Michael Jingozian, et al—will consist of delegates who, when it comes down to it, simply agree more with Ruwart or Kubby than they do with Barr or Root on what they consider key issues of policy and strategy. Maybe not enough to support Ruwart or Kubby on the first ballot, but enough to do so when their own preferred candidates are no longer in the running.

But that’s just me spitballing. I could have it all wrong.

With the LP convention, everyone involved in the nomination is in the same room at the same time.

Reform was doomed to break down once Ross Perot stopped running. The party existed mainly to collect the government money for presidential campaigns. Which was why Buchannan was recruited, to get the 5% necessary to keep getting that money. (Government money corrupting the political process? Who’d’ve thunk it? )

The LP was built on something more than just a single campaign. No presidential campaign is going to threaten it.

The entire thing. I don’t think there’s a single person in the LP (including Mr. Root himself) who would describe him as a “moderate.” He’s a conservative Libertarian—and made that abundantly clear at his Conservative Leadership Conference keynote last year.

Which part did you not understand?

Huh?

Since 2002, my impression has been that most states have tended away from just handing out empty delegation seats to whomever walks up at the convention wanting one.

Also, I’m assuming that Missouri is not atypical of state LPs in that it fairly easily filled its delegate allocation and even has a few alternates.

Are there some organized Barr contingents going to Denver? I’m sure there are—I’m planning to travel with a van full of mostly Barr supporters coming from Atlanta. Believe it or not, Barr DOES have considerable support in the party. I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever of any operation to bus in “ringers.” If I do see evidence (and feel free to mail me with it if you have it), I’ll join you in sounding the alarm.

As far as me “putting Barr in the driver’s seat,” I have no reason to believe that he IS in the driver’s seat.

In my opinion (and it’s fairly obviously the conventional wisdom) the race will eventually come down to one “moderate” (Barr or Root) versus one “radical” (Ruwart or Kubby).

The follow-on conventional wisdom is that the “moderate” will be Barr and the “radical” will be Ruwart. I suspect otherwise. I think it very likely that the “moderate” will be Root and I believe Kubby still has a fighting chance of being the “radical.”

Either way, I believe that the “radical” will be the nominee, especially if the claim that Barr said on TV today that he wants to use the LP’s presidential nomination to boost the GOP’s congressional slate turns out to be true.

How about we all start scouting out which street corner we’ll jump off of into a bus’s path now? Don’t want to have time to think theres more to life if those two get the nomination. Wise Rd. looks good…