I was worried that I might have to throw my hat in the ring for President if Wayne Root was the presumptive favorite going into 2012. I figured I could wait until January of that year given the somewhat simplistic process in which these things are decided in the LP. In the mean time I could flirt with a few other campaign attempts and get some other projects done (finish writing a few books, build an addition on the house and expand some business interests).
Fortunately the suspense of the revelation that Knapp2012.com was registered didn't go for very long. Long time libertarian activist, blogger, candidate and party turncoat, Tom Knapp, confirmed his intentions soon after. While a certain faction of the party (the non-active blogging types) are elated at the revelation, the only solace this observer can take from it in the next four years is that Wayne Root will be countered on a style and philosophical basis. Otherwise expect a torturous four years of pontificating, clarifications, bold pronouncements and nothing really being accomplished.
Perhaps Angela's pre-menopause infatuation with a hottie granny down in Texas will provide some relief.
Whatever credit Wayne Root deserves for the 2008 campaign is that he is persistent and New Jersey and California LP'ers love him. Certainly his claim that college poker players and home schooling parents would flock to him was unabashed hyperbole and the AM radio strategy was his niche as old Bob lapped up the Glenn Beck interviews. Does the man deserve the nomination in 2012 now that he has studied at the feet of the Master ? Bang ! Who knows . . . who cares at this point ? Dondero perhaps.
As far as I can tell, after a quick perusal of the Internet, there is no video record of Tom Knapp. Search Google video or YouTube and only one video is revealed. Even that has been taken down. Whether it's a conscious choice or just a result of lack of opportunity it's just not available. While there certainly is time in the next four years to accrue value there, you might check the comments for TK's explanation of it.
While Knapp attempts to take the high ground in all matters LP Presidential, let's consider a few negatives right off the bat. He doesn't enjoy widespread popularity within the party. While I always take any political conversation with a grain of salt, I have heard many negative things about Knapp on the sidelines. While these may have come from competing detractors, they exist none the less. I won't bear them any fruit here, as I have no confirmation of the facts in such matters, I will say they exist. As the old maxim goes, perception is everything.
What does bear worth mentioning is two items. One was the attack on Sean Haugh at Third Party watch soon after the Las Vegas LSLA convention in Las Vegas last January. In his capacity as 'reporter', Knapp related that Haugh made some crack about voting for a Republican for the first time in his life, rather than the LP nominee in the same race. While such a crack could have easily come in a moment of insider jocularity and jest, without being there or even confirming it via phone (Haugh went on vacation soon after the LSLA), Knapp gave it no consideration and reported it as libertarian sin. Perhaps that is what I read between the lines.
I was okay with Steve Kubby as the pot candidate. It is a good story, if true. I wasn't in Denver (and am happy to report my kitchen floor is done) but I would have been curious to know if a true rally of radicals would have made Kubby VP. Regardless, the tales of Kubby's after rally was inspiring enough to lend the LP a continued try as the cries of Mary subsided. After watching the debates amongst the candidates I did feel that Steve may have been the best spokesman for Libertarian values. I especially liked his reconciliation with Barr on camera about coming around. It was good enough transition and made it very known that Barr had to still convince the LP base. Which he eventually did with gushing promises and apologies. Perfect politician. OKay, roll the dice.
What's the difference between the Republican Party and the Boston Tea Party, aside from money, power, prestige, tradition, size and a real chance to win ? Nothing. It represents a competing party in an arena of electoral competition. If a group forms and runs candidates in that arena, unless you have 'fusion' in a given state, it is competition to the other party. All the attendant loyalty and trust factors come into play. Wasn't Knapp the one howling about the Ron Paul donations from members of the LNC ? Coke and Pepsi CEO analogies, I recall.
I'm with ya TK, when I see the pitchforks and flag's rising atop public buildings, it will be hard to forswear the inherent unjust violence that has precipitated from the mess that is the American Polity. A violence which we as libertarians should reel against forever. But spare me the rational how you can have a fiduciary confidence in a decision that lead to a candidacy in two races in two different parties. One of those candidacies in direct competition with the other party's nominee. Spare me the scale argument. The Dixiecrat critique was lame. The Barr campaign dropped the ball in so many ways that didn't even matter.
I'll just kill the feed read for IPR if it comes down to a post every other day for four years about what 2012 candidate Knapp says about something. This is pure blithering ego, analogous to the other dude named in this post.
A lot of earnest and good radicals want their party back. The Barr experiment failed. I personally think a unified effort going into 2010 is far better than all the griping and complaining about the one campaign that doesn't matter a whole lot. Let's get our licks in at US Senate and House debates. Let's harness these bloody tubes in an innovative and positive way.
It may very well be that the radicals have to play a smaller fiddle at the ho down every Friday night. Sometimes the jocks win, well, usually all the time. It doesn't mean we can't have a good time and look to races and campaigns that offer hope and inspiration (thank you Mike Munger).
Well it's a little past 9AM, I'm not going to bother with an edit or links on this one.
Eric,
Nice post.
I'm unaware of what video of me it might be that has been put up, or taken down. I know there are a few out there and I'm not personally video-averse. I've just never previously had great reason to seek the cameras for myself and archive what came of it, or to produce videos of myself.
On the matter of Sean Haugh: I made sure I had my facts straight before I publicly mentioned it. Not only was Mr. Haugh himself the first to publicly report on his comments, but, as is mentioned in the blog entry you allude to, before publicly taking him to task for them I obtained personal confirmation from him that he "enthusiastically" stood by them.
You're correct that I don't "enjoy widespread popularity within the party." Or, to be more accurate, I enjoy a modicum of popularity within the party, offset to some unknown degree by high negatives with segments of the party I'm not popular with. Good call. If you choose to continue to cover my candidacy from that angle, feel free to crib from my own early analysis of the Phillies 2008 campaign.
I do believe that there are material differences between the LNC supporting a Republican presidential campaign on one hand, and a candidate seeking the nominations of both the LP and the BTP on the other. If you want to play those two scenarios as a hypocrisy hand, though, knock yourself out.
In my announcement, I was very explicit concerning my purposes for running and my goals in running. I'll try to fulfill those purposes and achieve those goals without annoying you any more than necessary.
Best regards,
Tom Knapp
It seems to be working now . . .
I see the BTP as just as much a caucus of the LP as it is an independent political party.
If Root intends to run for the Libertarian nomination in 2012 I think that he can expect a LOT of serious opposition. Barr turned out to be just a bad as I could possibly imagine and next time the purist LPer's will be ready for him. You had your chance Barr and you blew it big time.
I, too, see the BTP as essentially an LP caucus.
Anarchists founded the LP. We're not going away.
If anarchists have to form a BTP to platform a "pure" expression for our views - while the LP is busy trying to draw a distinction between "minarchist" and "statist" politics and acquiring public faces to reflect that - so be it.
Party turncoats?
Please.
More like old fuddie-duddies out of step with the New LP, who don't want to dance with Republocrats, and still cling to the tired old notion of uncompromised Liberty.
... and will not shut up about it.
Charles,
Thanks for the comment. I see nothing inherently anarchist about the simple BTP platform which simply calls for reducing the size of the government. If it were a caucus as you and George suggest, there would be no need to run candidates on a separate label . . .
Eric,
The GILF already has two position papers and a list of cabinet recommendations. Keaton/Shinghal will go places that Barr/Root couldn't spell, find or get past the bouncer. A libertarian campaign for a libertarian America. Our cross over appeal to BTP, the Objectivst Party and Free Soil is undeniable.
Can Knapp crank up to keep up? Orvetti ran. Munger is willing to "accept an advisory position." Can you blame him? Our momentum is unstoppable. We've been mentioned in Reason, Daily Kos and Eric Dondero's Libertarian Republican. What next? Justin TV?!
Do you think Wayne's saggy butt can keep up with Miche's tighter than...well, this is family blog. So please, all of you drop out with dignity. It won't be long before we challenge the other candidates to oil wrestling. Let's not let it get that far. Stand back and Keaton/Shinghal '12 will set the standard for the New Libertarian Party.
Yes but Angela . . . you're leaving out the potential of the surprise Holtz/Sundwall ticket in January 2012.
After four years of bickering about anarchist and minarchist minutia, two boring family guys with expanding guts take the party by surprise with a series of Lincoln/Douglas style debates on Blogging Heads TV.
Despite their attempts to counteract, all opponents are summarily defeated as both California's and New York's favorite son libertarians just pack the convention with devotees of unparalleled exuberance. Pundits at Reason, Lew Rockwell and Jane Galt all exhort the effort as a brilliant play for old time numbers politics.
Stay tuned for excerpts from the Sundwall/Holtz administration.
" I see nothing inherently anarchist about the simple BTP platform which simply calls for reducing the size of the government."
If it's the, "World's smallest political platform" that Knapp authored, I'd agree that it's not an anarchist platform. it's simply written so that it encompasses most brands of libertarianism, including anarchists, reformers, and radicals. It explains libertarianism simply and plainly.
Personally, I'd like to see it be the LP's platform. (Fat chance of that happening, though.)
The concept of a collective document speaking in detail on policy positions for the individuals within the party always seems a bit odd for the LP to have. Explaining ourselves in detail is something we should be doing through the mouths of ourselves and our candidates.
Bickering over pointless documents that are frequently misinterpreted and used against us, if they're noticed at all should be set aside. At least bickering over presidential candidates is relevant to the public face of the party.