GordonUnleashed

Libertarian Wackos

April 22nd, 2008 by Steve

The headline may read “Candidate doesn’t mind being labeled ‘wacko’” — but I certainly resent being associated with those who think ‘wacko’ is a good thing. I’m certain to anger some of my fellow Libertarians with this view, but I’m beyond the point of caring. We’ve got one fruitloop running for office in Utah who says he’s “the Ron Paul of Utah congressional politics” while closing his campaign announcement by stating that the news media are “ignoring signs of extraterrestrial visits and the military’s blockade of information about outer space visitors.”

From the article:

“I don’t mind being seen as a wacko because to me, the world looks completely wacked,” said Buchman, the Libertarian nominee for the seat of Republican Rep. Rob Bishop. Buchman wore a black tie covered in planets and stars and galaxies to the news conference at the National Press Club in Washington.

There is also the website LibertariansForJustice.org, which states:

We’ve already had a farce of an official investigation, I doubt if another governmental investigation will be real until something changes. That something is an end-run around the official media. Until the mass media covers the dozens of panels, grand juries and other unofficial investigations that the 9/11 truth community has already had including their conclusions & all their evidence, nothing will change.

It gets even better:

I think a day will come, perhaps not too long from now when such a large segment of the population has tuned out of TV & mainstream radio & newspapers that the corporations will notice that they have lost a large segment of the consumer population’s business. They will have to advertise with the alternative news sources in order to get business. This will change everything. In the meantime, don’t sponsor the corporate machine. Turn off your TV & turn on the alternatives. Don’t buy from large corporations, sponsor small, locally owned businesses. Sponsor the companies that advertise in the alternative media. The whole nation has begun to buy organic food, this is a beginning. When the whole nation buys alternative media we will get a real 9/11 investigation & hopefully get our democratic republic back as well.

Of course, a creepy video they display overlaps their online poll, which is filled with very biased questions. They could have left another option, something along the lines of “Do you think 9/11 Truthers are nutso?” I’m sure this option would receive the greatest number of votes.

Fortunately, their website design skills are probably superior to their organizational skills.

I’ve put a lot of time, energy and money into helping the Libertarian Party to become a more mainstream, viable and legitimate political party. If you start seeing people like me leaving the LP, you’ll certainly know why.

Keep in mind that I was the one who had to deal with the national media in 2006 when our blue guy turned the Senate blue.

As a parting thought, maybe the nutballs are right. The melting point of steel is warmer than the temperature of Pluto and we have no known fuels which can melt steel girders. We don’t have the technology to force buildings to defy the laws of gravity. Perhaps it stands to reason that the Martians are truly to blame for 9/11. The theory make sense because of the timing of the secret government plot to declassify Pluto as an actual planet. If you don’t like my hypothesis, then disprove it.

Beam me up, Scotty!

Posted in Libertarian Party

19 Responses to “Libertarian Wackos”

Anon E. Mouse wrote on 04/22/08 at 4:10 pm :

I’m somewhat hesitant to weigh in on this topic as a potential waste of my time because it’s all to easy for the intellectually lazy to just kind of lump the radical (such as myself) in with the irrational for the vaguely defined sin of being insufficiently plain-vanilla.

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to point something out…

Without commenting on the topic of extraterrestrials or 9/11 directly, I would like to point out that there are lunatics in the mainstream parties as well. What you do not have in the Libertarian Party are figures with sufficient public stature to SOCIALLY ECLIPSE the lunatics.

The thing about politics, though, is that a party with enough power to attract respectable mainstream opinion shapers and “natural leaders” that CAN eclipse the lunatics is ALSO sufficiently powerful to attract the scum-sucking bottom-feeders that infest both major parties and made people want a third party to begin with.

This represents a dilemna for you to solve. I’m not going to provide you with the solution because you’ll only value that solution if you go looking for it and find it yourself.
Rachel wrote on 04/22/08 at 4:15 pm :

Uh oh, Stephen. What does this mean? The asylum needs you! ;)
Sean Haugh wrote on 04/22/08 at 6:52 pm :

Howdy Steve! Yeah, it took me awhile to learn to love the Blue Guy too, but I’ve gotten pretty comfortable with it. And if the only negative press Joe Buchman gets is from you, I can deal with that. ;)

Your efforts are paying off, because for every candidate you might want to run and hide from there’s several others like Kent Marmon in Idaho who was featured on the lp.org blog today. I’m a little surprised this vitriol is coming from you, since you were the one who turned me on to Loretta Nall, someone else I’d love to get back on the ballot for us and watch her work her special brand of controversy again.

As I would say to any member of the media, it’s a good idea to talk to the guy and investigate the story before jumping to any immediate conclusions. Maybe I’m a wacko too, but I believe that government secrecy and black budgets are very legitimate issues that people do care about, especially in Utah, and that Joe is a good guy to carry these issues forward.

The first obstacle we have to face of course is being branded as wackos for having the temerity to ask such questions and want to be told the truth. I’m just a touch disappointed that you are the person in the media who feels the need to dismiss Joe as a nut without a second thought.

Joe happened to call while I was typing this and says I should give you his phone number if you want to interview him.
ElfNinosMom wrote on 04/25/08 at 8:01 pm :

I’m with Steve on this. There are way too many wackjobs in the LP; percentage-wise, there are far more than in the mainstream parties. The wackjobs get entirely too much attention, to the point that we all look like wackjobs for being in the same party with them.

While sometimes I admittedly find them extremely entertaining, at other times I find them extremely annoying.

Today I’m in the latter category, simply because I am still trying to digest Mary Ruwart saying that child pornography should not be illegal, and that’s it’s actually okay as long as the child consents. Ever since I read that, along with some of her other statements which made even less sense, I have felt like I’m living in BizarroWorld.

What I’d like to know is why the LP lacks internal controls, to stop wackjobs from running for office under the party banner in the first place. Steve, do you have any insight into that question?
JB wrote on 04/26/08 at 7:19 am :

There are all kinds of people associated with any major political party. It is much akin to having a wack-job in your family. It is inevitable, and also makes life interesting.

I would be very hesitant to paint all those libertarians who have views outside the mainstream as looney toons. I am sure that there are more than a few neocons and socialists who believe you are a wack-job.

For those “9-11 Truthers”, let them speak, they do have some legitimate questions which have not been fully addressed. If you buy one of their scenarios or not, who cares? Asking questions and demanding answers is never harmful. Do you have the same kind of vitriol for the JFK assassination fanatics?

JB @ cobbtown.com

PS - Bob Barr, huh? Well, he may be preferable to either of the Three Stooges left on the main stage, but he’s no Ron Paul, huh?
Jeff Wartman wrote on 04/26/08 at 4:59 pm :

This is something I believe most of us deal with on a consistent basis, and needs to be addressed.

We are not a party of wackos, we are a party that attracts wackos. We are a party of good, smart, hardworking individuals who primarily work in the mainstream of society. We are your friends, family and neighbors.

But there is no question that we attract wackjobs. We do so because our philosophy is the philosophy of freedom. Those on the fringes of society will be attracted to the Libertarian Party because we are the only political party which offers those on the fringes the ability to live their lives as they wish without interference.

There is something to be said about not letting the wackjobs represent the party. It works against electoral success to have people like on the ballot.
Jeff Wartman wrote on 04/26/08 at 5:00 pm :

Sorry, messed up the HTML. Should have read “people like this guy on the ballot” with the link inserted.
paulie wrote on 04/27/08 at 10:33 am :

Joe Buchman is far from being a whacko. You should get to know him.

Why laugh at subjects the “mainstream” is uncomfortable with? They laugh at our ideas, like ending the drug war, dismantling the military-industrial complex, and ending coercive taxation, too.

There’s a huge number of people out there interested in finding out what the regime may be covering up about 9/11, UFOs, etc. Most of them are not LP, but they already distrust the government in at least one area, which makes them a prime target market for recruiting.

And Jeff, Chief Wana Dubie had more electoral success than most LP candidates.

Hey, I feel embarassed by LPers sometimes too - mostly, the semi-reconstructed reich wing Republicons AKA Republitarians. Yes, I’m frequently embarassed to be in the same party with them, especially now that they are taking over.

I’m giving the LP one more try this year, to restore a more complete ideologically libertarian platform, and to run a true hardcore libertarian such as Kubby or Ruwart for president.

However, agorism, issue politics, and other non-partisan libertarian strategies are sounding better and better all the time, as are other possible projects, such as a libertarian caucus in the Green Party.
Dave Williams wrote on 04/28/08 at 5:39 am :

Hi to all,
S.G. just thought I’d drop in and thank you for your positive efforts to bring the LP to a more rational position, and for your recent stance against child pornography.

It is rather irritating when wacko’s like paulie continually change the subject from Ruwarts beliefs, which ENM pointed out, to falsehoods like this; “semi-reconstructed reich wing Republicons AKA Republitarians”. At least us former GOPers have denounced and do not support the neo-con agenda. Why has Mary not done the same, paulie?

Have a great week and keep up the good fight!
Joe Buchman wrote on 05/1/08 at 5:21 pm :

Steve,

Nice photo with the tin foil hat and good job further distorting and ridiculing my position.

Anyone who has never been misrepresented or ridiculed in the media probably can’t imagine the disconnect between the interviews I’ve given to the Salt Lake Tribune, KSL radio and others and what winds up reported. Wack-O headline included.

I understand you called Bill Redpath while I was visiting his home outside DC last week, and have had quite a bit of fun on the State Chair’s list regarding my campaign.

I just have to wonder why you’d not have the simple courtesy to talk to me, especially when I was so easily available, before further distorting and ridiculing my campaign? Perhaps like others in the media you are simply having too much fun.

To be clear:

1) I believe the Universe is teaming with life

2) The idea that we are either alone in the Universe or the most intelligent thing in it is absurd.

The keynote speaker at the exo-politics conference in DC was none other than Dr. Edgar Mitchell, (PhD MIT) the 6th man to walk on the moon.

I went to that conference to meet (and talk) with him; as well as Dr. John Alexander (of Los Alamos National Labs), Dr. Bruce Macabee (Naval Research labs), Dr. C.B Scott Jones (retired naval aviator) and others.

All of us, yes me included, are calling on our government to Disclose what it knows. That also includes John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.

By contrast, I see on the LNC’s convention schedule that Richard Hoagland is speaking on the future of NASA.

May I respectfully suggest that you review Mr Hoagland’s academic background and absurd claims regarding mile high glass structures on the moon, and photo evidence of cities on Mars — none of which any of the speakers in DC nor I find at all credible and compare it not only to my record but that of speakers I’ve mentioned above.

Maybe then you will reconsider on whose head you wish to put your tin foil hat.

It simply doesn’t fit on mine.

While I find your behavior here to be at least borderline slanderous, you’re still welcome to call, or email, or contact me in whatever way you choose (I’m afraid your tin foil hat antenna isn’t working on my end).

If not I look forward to meeting you in Denver, and if you’re willing to have a conversation, clearing any other concerns or misimpressions you or anyone else may have.

Till then, all the best,

Joe

Joseph G. Buchman, PhD
www.BuchmanForCongress.com
Third Party Watch » Blog Archive » Is there a new Libertarian Party branding operation underway? wrote on 05/2/08 at 4:05 pm :

[…] the record, Buchman called my recent criticism of him “borderline […]
paulie wally wrote on 05/2/08 at 4:05 pm :

It is rather irritating when wacko’s like paulie

Thanks, that means a lot coming from you, troll.

continually change the subject from Ruwarts beliefs,

Um…the subject was my friend Dr. Joe Buchman, who also happens to be one of LP Chair Bill Redpath’s good friends since the 1970s.

The subject was Dr. Ruwart’s beliefs? I missed that, sorry.

to falsehoods like this; “semi-reconstructed reich wing Republicons AKA Republitarians”. At least us former GOPers have denounced and do not support the neo-con agenda.

Debatable. Another time, Dave.

Why has Mary not done the same, paulie?

She hasn’t denounced the neo-con agenda? I’d be surprised, but if that’s the case, she should get on top of that.

You should ask her, though. I am not involved in her campaign. I offered tactical help but they have not really responded. Maybe because I’m working on Kubby’s campaign? Dunno.

Have a great week and keep up the good fight!

Thanks, I will!
The Wine Commonsewer wrote on 05/3/08 at 8:51 pm :

Don’t care what Google says, that’s not a REAL tinfoil hat. Real tinfoil hats look more like a shiny graduation-style mortar board.
Craig wrote on 05/10/08 at 11:17 pm :

But what if the media really are ignoring signs of extraterrestrial visits and the military’s blockade of information about them?
Fred wrote on 05/11/08 at 7:21 pm :

I never took issue with the blue guy, the alien guys, or the guys that think 9/11 was all a hologram. What does get my panties in a wad are the wackos that insist they have an intellectual monopoly on libertarianism and that anyone that deviates from it is a plant, shill, ignoramus or phony.

I have no choice but to agree entirely with the statement “If you start seeing people like me leaving the LP, you’ll certainly know why.” I had a damn good time as a principled independent and tactical registrant, and if it becomes a their-libertarianism-or-mine situation, I’ll have to conclude I had the right idea all along.
none wrote on 05/28/08 at 2:49 am :

Wacko, he sure is. But what do we say about someone who gets paid to betray his own party to a bunch of conservatives. One puts him on his staff and then the other man looking to buy a party buys out the guys website. Was that for 20 pieces of silver or what? Exactly what is the going price for betrayal?
Joe wrote on 06/3/08 at 1:36 am :

For the record,

Sean Haugh wrote:

“Joe happened to call while I was typing this and says I should give you his phone number if you want to interview him.”

Mr. Gordon has yet to call, nor did he find time, depite a friendly handshake I initiated, to speak with me personally at the convention.

If anyone remains at all interested in this subject, I strongly recommend reading Dr. Edgar Mitchell’s (PhD, MIT; Captain USN, and 6th man to walk on the moon) forward to the just published book by Stan Friedman, “Flying Saucers and Science: Interstellar Travel, Crashes, and Government Cover-ups.”

Joe
www.BuchmanForCongress.com
Joe wrote on 06/3/08 at 3:30 am :

Steve,

Thanks for the call and the generous amount of time and interest you found for my campaign. One hour and 19 minutes according to my cell timer. Truly appreciate your solid, useful and insightful campaign advice.

Looking forward to finding common ground to work together to advance the cause of Liberty that I get we are each passionate about.

Next convention, if you really keep your intention to be a delegate and have some fun, the first beer is on me.

Joe
Jake Witmer wrote on 06/27/08 at 5:47 am :

I like to apply Dilbert’s “What is more likely” test to politics. Will talking about UFOs make us more free? Not likely. Will it make us look silly, and thus less effective? Probably.

Should candidates who have the media’s attention take pains to only give remarks that cannot be easily misquoted (or quoted in isolation so they seem NUTS)? I think so. Are they obligated to do so? No. (This last point is fairly uncontroversial.)

It’s a simple issue, really. Do you, as a candidate, care enough about freedom to take your run for office seriously? To try to do damage to the drug warriors, and other slavers? Do you care enough about the lives of the people who are rotting in jail to try to help them out (and help your own access to a more vibrant marketplace, and help diminish your own chances of one day becoming a slave)?

Or are you “in it” because you want a podium for your own pet ideas and issues that really don’t have much to do with individual freedom?

Here’s another question- Assume you’re right. There are UFOs all around us, and the pentagon has detailed anotomical alien body plans along with “their” blueprint for peace on earth.

Are the currently non-libertarian masses more likely to listen to what you’re saying
1) when you are currently (and will remain) an unelected person who is made a mockery of by the mainstream media?
or
2) when you are an articulate and fairly uncontroversial elected figure who has used his power to actually uncover some of the “government cover ups” you’re talking about?

…What really is more likely?

Here’s another “What is more likely?”.

What SHOULD BE more likely…

…that the State Chair and campaign manager’s job is to make sure that Libertarian candidates have been properly vetted, and will agree to follow a rational plan for attaining the highest vote totals?

…that the State Chair and campaign manager’s job is to recruit lots and lots of totally delusional-sounding and politically ineffective paper candidates?

I know how I answer this question. Which will attract more new people to the LP, thus making the LP more effective?

I answer it in such a way that you cannot doubt that I feel a lot of compassion for twenty year old black kids in Chicago who are rotting in jail because of ‘Jim Crow’ advocates like Barack Obama. I answer it in such a way that you know that I’ve been handcuffed and wrongly stuffed into the back of a police car, after being denied my individual “Constitutionally protected” rights. I answer that question like someone who understands that the minimum acceptable thing a candidate can do is to shut up, occupy a place on a piece of paper, and not waste the time and money of candidates that are seriously fighting incremental socialist tyranny in America (by putting them on the defensive with “guilt by association” smear campaigns).

Of course, there will be people who embarrass the LP internally by saying all kinds of crazy stuff. Perhaps simply resigning ourselves to that fact and running candidates who are smooth enough to have good responses when the “guilt by association” smear campaigns pop up is the answer. It’s certainly one answer.

But I somewhat agree with Gordon’s frustration.

For the general public, the clearly expressed gun rights that were built into our country’s founding charter are “controversial”.

If the public needs remedial lessons on what their own basic self-interest is, and needs to be shown evidence that capitalism functions better than the marxist dictatorships that have killed over 170,000,000 innocent people during the last 100 years… Are they ready for anything that involves heated controversy among people who already call themselves libertarians?

Moreover, since we are an infinitisemal minority already, and our goal is a zero-sum game of winning votes, or at least influencing the swing of an election, should we divide ourselves with controversy? What has dividing ourselves ever won us? Is there a cost/benefit equation to be pondered before any candidate is chosen to represent us? As a party of economists, I hope so.

Are the radicals, UFO investigators, blue men, etc… happy with Barr? Ruwart supporters elected Barr over Root, eschewing the “lesser of two evils”. I bet most of the “radicals” would have been happier with Root, encouraging juries to nullify bad law on national TV. Barr, as yet, does not appear to support the basic “common law” jury rights won by the levellers. (Root is a die-hard FIJA supporter.)

Ruwart supporters (in their infinite wisdom) hopped on the ballot a few months before the Denver vote, after Root had been putting his ideas out into the mainstream media for over a year. Was his hard work respected? Nope. One question was more important than all others: “How 100% perfect is he as a libertarian?” …Nevermind how perfect he is as a candidate!

A pattern emerges.

The shrieking, infantile crowd that believes that, 100% philosophy and no strategy is OK, but an 80% philosophy and 20% strategy split is totally public temper-tantrum unacceptable, is not willing to do the work, doesn’t respect strategy as a form of work, and doesn’t actually care about winning freedom (because they actually secretly view it to be impossible).

Meanwhile, in the Frederick Douglass camp, we are actually trying to end slavery, because slavery apalls us. And if we can only set a few slaves free, that’s better than writing essays about freedom that will never be read.

And if we can get the slavers to infight, or better yet, if we can run a former slaver against the existing slavers and embarrass them, we will do it.

When you actually think about how effective we could be, it tends to get rid of the desire to use ballot access as a podium to talk about one’s pet issues. And think about it: will the public understand that pet issue’s importance to individual freedom? Is the subject even DIRECTLY related to individual freedom?

If it fails the “What is more likely?” test, I’d shut up about it, and focus on keeping the freedom train on the track. Because the mason-dixon line is just a few more coal shovels away, and it’s well worth it …at least to the guy hiding in the back of the car, with the leg irons on.

TrackBack URI

Rants, Opinions and Blogosphere Banter

Libertarian Wackos

19 Responses to “Libertarian Wackos”

Leave a Reply

About

Bloggers with whom I'd like to hang out

Bloggers with whom I've hung out

Other places I blog

Archives

Categories

Meta