mediaconsumption | Author Index | About Us | Book Reviews | Music Reviews | Email | Punk Encyclopedia | Punk Links | Writers


mediaconsumption Home
Sobriquet Home
About the Main Blog
About the Zine
Record Reviews
Ed Kemp
Sobriquet on Facebook
Sobriquet on MySpace
Sobriquet on Twitter


New York Times
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Newark Star-Ledger
Chicago Tribune
Minneapolis Star-Tribune
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Washington Post
Los Angeles Times
San Francisco Chronicle
Christian Science Monitor
San Jose Mercury News
Boston Globe
Dallas Morning News
Miami Herald
Houston Chronicle
Chicago Sun-Times
Denver Post
Detroit Free Press
San Diego Union-Tribune
Detroit News
Baltimore Sun
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Sacramento Bee
Kansas City Star
Orlando Sentinel
Seattle Times
St. Petersburg Times
Indianapolis Star
Boston Herald
Tampa Tribune
Orange County Register
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Hartford Courant
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Columbus Dispatch
Louisville Courier-Dispatch
The Oklahoman
Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
Los Angeles Daily News
Philipine Star
Omaha World-Herald
Richmond Times-Dispatch
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Philadelphia Inquirer
Arizona Republic
San Antonio Express-News
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
American Reporter
Portland Oregonian
Charlotte Observer
Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Terre Haute Tribune-Star
Sacramento Union
Washington Times
The National Ledger
Anchorage Daily News
Charleston Gazette
Ashland Daily Tidings
The Daily Star

Powered by Blogger

eXTReMe Tracker
Bob Barr + Wayne Allyn Root = Yuck.

Sunday, May 25, 2008
I am not a Libertarian Party member and never have been one, so some people will dismiss my comments as uninformed and irrelevant. That's fine; I make no claim to be an expert on libertarian philosophy. Still, I find I sympathize with the Libertarian Party and share many of the values central to libertarian thought.

I am also a fan of Mike Gravel, though I never really thought he would win the Libertarian nomination. Having met the man, having listened to him speak, having discussed issues I care about with him, I was pleased when he joined the Libertarian Party, which I do think espouses a set of beliefs that are closer to his philosophy than, say, the Democratic Party. To be honest, I think Gravel was more interested in running for president than in running for president as a libertarian. At the same time, as much as I like libertarianism, the fact that so many of the party's ideological purists reject Gravel is exactly why I couldn't join the party. I am about as much a libertarian as Senator Gravel and, it would seem, the Libertarian Party says it is not libertarian enough. Though he's dropped out of the race, I may still write him in.

That said, although I didn't expect Mike Gravel to win the nomination today, I was very interested in the Libertarian convention and I really hoped that they would field a strong ticket. Bob Barr, it seems to me, was a solid choice for the presidential nomination. He has the political experience and the name recognition the party's past nominees have largely lacked. Accordingly, CNN and other major news outlets have provided the party with a level of mainstream media exposure unheard of in the almost forty-year history of the Libertarian Party. This is good.

Like many Americans my age, I cannot stand the two party system we've got in this country. As someone who has lived abroad for several years, I have seen parliamentary governments with six or seven parties working together and long for a day when Americans can say that we have Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, et cetera, in Congress, in proportion to the numbers of people voting for them. I also realize that we must work with what we have and, right now, we need a viable third party to make a push for the White House to show people that a vote for a third party is not a vote thrown away.

As the third-largest political party in the United States, the Libertarian Party has had the best chance to make that sort of impact and this afternoon's nomination of Bob Barr will ensure that people pay attention to the party. With the Greens lacking a big name candidate, the Libertarians sat poised to be the third party in this election.

Wayne Allyn Root will ruin that chance. As Barr will readily admit, he does not come across as particularly charismatic or energetic, but he does come across as a seasoned politician with the ability to communicate his ideas (and those of his party) to a much broader audience than anyone other than Ron Paul, who was the Libertarian Presidential nominee in 1988. Root, while energetic, will not appeal to most Americans. Seriously: even if his ideas are consistent with the libertarian ideological core, his grating public personality is better suited to infomercials for real estate schemes at three in the morning than to serious political discussions. He comes across as glib, self-obsessed, obnoxious, and an amalgam of every horrible stereotype you can come up with for lawyers, used car salesmen, miracle cure-hawking mountebanks, and...well, I imagine you get the picture. I would not buy a salad shooter or a home gym from this guy, let alone a plan for fixing America and I suspect I am far from being the only one. And that's a problem. Even if he is nice, even if he is sincere, he does not project that sort of authenticity.

Had Barr urged voters to pick someone else instead of making a deal with Root, he stood a real chance to achieve major party status for the Libertarians.

Having seen Jesse Ventura win the gubernatorial race in Minnesota a decade ago, I know it is possible for a third party to field a candidate able to win an election, but until we see that sort of success on the national stage, such a victory will be the exception and not the rule.

Unless the Green Party somehow snags Al Gore, we won't see a third party candidate in this year's election do much more than act as a spoiler. Barr gives the Libertarians the chance to step up. Root takes it away.

We need someone with the money of a Ross Perot and the popular appeal of an Al Gore to do it.

So, no, I'll not be voting Libertarian this election. I agree with quite a bit of the libertarian platform, but not enough to justify voting for two men I do not like. And I sure as hell won't vote for Obama, Clinton, McCain, or Nader, either.

I just hope Barr wins the five percent to make the LP a major party. Then, at least, our country will have made a step towards dismantling the two party system. After all, the Libertarians have the long history and core believers the Reform Party lacked when it made its splash in the nineties. But, man, I just can't bring myself to help the Libertarians this time around, not with Barr and Root bearing the banner.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Permanent Link
Copyright Sobriquet Magazine

Share: StumbleUpon Toolbar Add to Mixx! Digg!

Observations on the 2008 Libertarian Debate

Saturday, May 24, 2008
A few of my observations and opinions on the Libertarian Party candidates after watching this year's Libertarian National Convention Presidential Debate on C-SPAN, listed by candidate, which I posted on

Bob Barr: I've never been a particularly big fan of the former congressman, but Bob Barr does strike me as one of only three candidates (the others being Mike Gravel and Mary Ruwart) in this year's batch to have any real chance of making an impact in November. Barr clearly recognizes this fact and, consequently, projected an air of confidence and composure throughout tonight's debate. From what I could gather, the assembled crowd included some pretty big Barr enthusiasts, but a hefty number of vocal detractors as well. That said, Barr answered most of the questions directly, with practiced eloquence, and with suitable deference to a party he has only been a member of for a relatively brief period. He did address having authored the Defense of Marriage Act and seemed to use it to launch into a "I'm really one of you" spiel, but it seemed genuine enough. If anything, it was a less forced political gesture than, say, Dennis Kucinich's awkwardly contrived "Look here: I carry a copy of the Constitution in my pocket!" faux pas. As an experienced politician, Barr clearly knows how to speak in public, but does not really inspire much confidence and lacks the charisma one would like to see in a third party candidate struggling to get media exposure.

Mike Gravel: To be fair, I have always been a big Mike Gravel supporter, dating from the time he was a registered Democrat, so there will probably be some bias in my views -- but this is a blog, so I reckon it should be okay. At any rate, Gravel seemed to receive more cheers than any of the candidates save for Ruwart. I am not certain if this means that he simply has a louder group of supporters or if the former Alaska senator has more support than most other candidates, though I am hoping for the latter. As always, Gravel exuded a tremendous amount of energy, spoke eloquently and intelligently, and played to the audience. Of course, the senator made certain to emphasize the National Initiative and, like fellow recently-minted Libertarians Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, occasionally seemed eager to emphasize his Libertarian-ness. For the most part, though, the views Gravel expressed during the debate seemed consistent with those he has espoused for years as well as those embraced by many Libertarians, although he seemed to fumble when faced with a question on health care. While he has always expressed a desire to push for the privatization of health insurance, he has also spoke favorably of some state-sponsored health care systems at odds with right-leaning Libertarian economic policy. Still, like Barr and Ruwart, Gravel emerged as extremely well-qualified for a presidential campaign and seemed to enjoy a warm enthusiasm from the crowd when discussing such key topics as gay marriage, immigration, drug decriminalization (though, to be fair, all candidates seemed about the same on that issue), military expenditure as well as when he critiqued some of the party's more unrealistically utopian ideas. To my mind, Gravel remains the best candidate in the field, though I am not certain (given the number of tokens he received) if the party's core members will agree with me, a decidedly independent -- though interested -- onlooker.

George Phillies: As an academic, I really feel for Dr. Phillies. He's intelligent, very active in Libertarian Party affairs, and is extremely well-versed in Libertarian philosophy. I won't say he's the purest libertarian in the group, but he's close at the very least. The problem, as he is well aware, is that he does not look or sound like a good candidate. If words alone would be enough to convince people, he would be up there with Gravel, Barr, and Ruwart, in terms of his ability to win support but, unfortunately, he often comes across as a hopelessly nerdy intellectual -- certainly not the type of person able to compete with the photogenic Barak Obama, the media-minded Hillary Clinton, or the jingoistic John McCain. And it's a shame. I get a real sense that Phillies cares about people and wants to make the world a better place -- two qualities one almost never finds in a candidate.

Michael Jingozian: Jingozian, like Phillies, appears to really care about Libertarian ideas and has a sense of humor that most politicians lack. Unfortunately, while he seems to toe the party line on most issues, he seems lost among candidates like Gravel, Barr, Steve Kubby, and Root, who are considerably more experienced with the media. As a result, Jingozian does not inspire much confidence as a leader. Again, like Phillies, I think he's really, really good for the Libertarian Party and, I suspect, people more interested in promoting an idea and embracing a set of values than winning an election or achieving major party status will consider voting for him. And that isn't a bad thing. Like Root, Jingozian is a businessperson and brought a decidedly entrepreneurial spirit to the debate, planning ahead for party development. I get the feeling that he won't come close to the nomination, but if he remains behind the scenes, he'll do some great things for the eventual nominee.

Mary Ruwart: An extremely eloquent woman, Dr. Ruwart was quite eager to mention her long (and distinguished) track record within the Libertarian Party. Like Phillies and Kubby, Ruwart has been a Libertarian for quite some time and, while perhaps a bit more left-leaning than some, is pretty consistent with the majority of Libertarians on most major issues. She does occasionally project a certain cockiness, but she backs it up with knowledge and real well-thought-out arguments. She is possibly the best "Libertarian" candidate in the party and will speak well and represent the party with dignity and grace if nominated, but she lacks the media connections of Barr, Gravel, and Root. She did try to capitalize on her gender, positioning herself as poised to take advantage of the tide of gender politics stirred up by Hillary Clinton, but her best selling point, really, is her track record. She is a Libertarian and she knows what she is talking about.

Steve Kubby: I was pleasantly surprised by Steve Kubby. For some reason, I was expecting him to be less eloquent, but he spoke extremely well and, while he emphasized his experience with drug decriminalization throughout the debate, fielded questions in all areas with an intelligent and good-humored thoughtfulness. Like Phillies and Ruwart, Kubby discussed his long history working within the party and seems to really appeal to traditional Libertarians for precisely that reason. Like Ruwart, especially, Kubby strikes me as a left-leaning Libertarian with all the "right" stances but, unlike her, he doesn't seem to be a personality that will appeal to many non-Libertarian Americans, which is unfortunate. He's got a lot of good things to say.

Wayne Allyn Root: By far the worst candidate, Wayne Allyn Root is disturbingly unctuous, utterly supercilious, and seems phonier than anything Holden Caulfield would have had nightmares about at Pencey Prep. Truth be told, Root struck me as resembling the kind of kid who talks too much at parties, tries to be everyone's friend, and doesn't realize that everyone finds him obnoxious and a bit creepy. He'd be terrible as a candidate, though he's eager to promise how dynamic he'd be. Ultimately, the only people who will buy Root's schtick will be the sort of nine-to-fivers that shell out hundreds of dollars to attend vacuous Tony Robbins lectures.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Permanent Link
Copyright Sobriquet Magazine

Share: StumbleUpon Toolbar Add to Mixx! Digg!



Arts & Letters Daily
Stirrings Still
With A Book In Hand


The Atlantic
National Geographic

Add to Technorati Favorites

Add to Google

Site Visits:
This site was built by modifying a template designed by Maystar Designs. All text, unless otherwise noted, is copyright 2001-2009 by Sobriquet Magazine (ISSN 1930-1820). Sobriquet Magazine and the Sobriquet Magazine logo are registered trademarks of Sobriquet Magazine.