I have recently heard from many wonderful folks in the Libertarian Party that support the Barr-Root ticket; people that say we need to rally round the candidates and that I’m committing the cardinal sin of “cut and run” rather than putting the Party first. While I have utmost respect for all members of the Libertarian Party, I am having a very hard time believing that these particular leopards can change their spots.

I would like to categorically state that I have zero problem with candidates switching parties — it would be wonderful to think that with sufficient experience and growth that all Democrats and Republicans would naturally gravitate to the Libertarian Party — that they would heed the instruction given at their swearing in to uphold the Constitution and be true representatives of their constituents.

When Ron Paul switched to the GOP I was aghast — how could he go from supporting liberty to the Grand Oil Party? Needless to say, I was in a high state of piss-off until I actually asked Dr. Paul himself (way back a number of years ago at a 4th of July parade in small town Texas) and he said that the election rules were set up in such as way as to almost guarantee exclusion from third party candidates and that he believed so strongly in freedom that the most expedient way of spreading the message was to gain ballot access with the GOP.

So, it’s not party switching that I have a problem with, it’s how the candidate votes — either in office or with financial donations that tells me where they stand.

This brings up my first real issue with the Barr-Root ticket … when questioned about this contribution to Joe Lieberman, Wayne Root has this to say:

Root, meanwhile, claimed the award for the greatest show of candor by a presidential candidate in a debate when he was asked to explain his donation to Joe Lieberman, whose combination of hawkish foreign policy and big government domestic views make him anathema to libertarians “I’m a businessman above all else,” he boasted unapologetically. “About two years ago, a very good friend of mine gave me $1 million for my business, and he was bundling checks for Joe Lieberman, and said, ‘By the way, would you make an investment in Joe Lieberman’s campaign?’ And I wrote a $1,000 check as a sign of friendship for someone who gave my business $1 million.

[Source: Interview with moderator Dave Weigel, the associate editor of Reason on May 20th, 2008 and reported in the 5/28/08 Huffington Post]

So what’s a forward-thinking person to infer from this statement? To me, it says loud and clear “I am available to the highest bidder — give me money for what I want and I will back your causes no matter how odious or contrary to the Constitution they may be. I won’t look to principals or values because I am a by-God businessman first and foremost!”

And we’re not talking ancient history here folks, this interview was but weeks ago.

This is from the guy who published a book titled Millionaire Republican in 2006 — again, not exactly accessible only through archaeological digging.

This matters because political donations are important for two reasons:

First, they are a tangible, concrete expression of support — that someone thinks highly enough of a candidate and by association, the candidate’s positions; to open his or her wallet … it’s seen as putting your money where your mouth is. Or in some cases, putting your money where someone who gives you money wants you to put it — as a sign of friendship you know.

More importantly politically, the media takes notice of political donations — an obvious example being that the Ron Paul campaign received the bulk of its mainstream media attention only after it raised more money in contributions than the other “first tier” candidates. And the reason that the Money Bombs were so successful was that the people contributing supported the message of freedom and smaller government.

And, far from distancing himself from this contribution, Wayne Root was quoted:

Senate Majority Leader Lieberman would be in a position to aid the Jewish state of Israel — something so important to him (and many Americans — including me). But I’m not done yet — here’s the coup de grace: the GOP offers Lieberman one more carrot that is impossible to turn down — a place on the GOP Presidential ticket! That’s right — I’m suggesting an unbeatable GOP ticket of McCain- Lieberman in 2008 …

And this is from his website Root for America which has an URL that pretty much sums things up … millionairerepublican.com.

Speaking of the Internet, perhaps Mr. Root has problems getting onto the internet tubes because otherwise I have no idea why he would post the following, again to his web blog at millionairepublican.com:

Tuesday, February 12, 2008, 08:02 PM Ron Paul all but bowed out honorably a few days ago — not only as a GOP Presidential candidate (announcing he is now focusing his energies on retaining his Congressional seat), but as a third party candidate as well. That shocked and saddened his supporters — many of whom are dedicated Libertarians. Now that he’s out of the game, it’s up to all of us to push the ball over the goal line for a touchdown. We must work together to do so.

Our goal must be success — not just gaining small amounts of progress, but to carry on the Ron Paul Revolution.

Uh, as much as you might not like to admit it, Ron Paul is still in the race and is still gaining delegates and supporters. Deal with it, we’re not going away … the R3VOLution is about more than just this election cycle.

Another quote from Mr. Root; this one in an interview on the Bob Grant radio show in New York last month (thanks to Lew Rockwell.com)

There, Mr. Root said that Ron Paul is not a good communicator(!), and that he’s “weak” on national defense (the military-industrial complex) and the war on terror (imperialism).

Here is the link so you can hear it for yourself:

www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021275.html

As to his assertion that Ron Paul is “weak” on these subjects, I can only assume that Dr. Paul may look weak only when viewed from a hard-core, big government Republican perspective. Not only are Dr. Paul’s stances not weak, but are principled stances that he had no need to change, principled stances that he has held for all of his many years of service to his country; the same principled positions and adherence to the Constitution that have made possible the groundswell of support for Ron Paul and the R3volution by true patriots who are loathe to trade their votes for media recognition. Even the most derogatory hatchet pieces on Dr. Paul by the mainstream media never failed to point out the consistency of his voting record — an untarnished testament to someone who never felt the need to twist and turn depending on which way the political wind may blow.

In conclusion, I have made my opinion perfectly clear on Bob Barr’s (some of it in the none-too-distant past) support for the DOMA, his Patriot Act voting record and unfailing (and to my knowledge never fully disavowed) support of the War on Drugs; and while there are many intelligent people who believe that these special leopards can change their spots, I much prefer to put my efforts and support behind the candidate that has no spots to change.