Wayne Allyn Root's Plan to become President in 2016 or 2020 [VIDEO]

[ZanZibar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApbtOZGctRg

[Dreamofunity]

Delusions of grandeur... (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusions+of+grandeur)

[BuddyRey]

W.A.R.! What is he good for? Absolutely nothin'.

[Rocco]

I don't know a lot about root, but ive noticed he's not very well liked around here. Why is this?

[sailingaway]

Delusions of grandeur... (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusions+of+grandeur)

I was just going to post that!

[Sola_Fide]

Wayne's got the WorldNetDaily vote locked down.

[brandon]

I don't know a lot about root, but ive noticed he's not very well liked around here. Why is this?

Because he is a swarmy wannabe-politician who sounds like a used car salesman. His understanding of libertarian philosophy doesn't seem to go much beyond pragmatic talking points.

Also called Ron Paul "Weak on national defense"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/21275.html

[BuddyRey]

I don't know a lot about root, but ive noticed he's not very well liked around here. Why is this?

He's not horrible or anything. He's just really watered down (even for a mainstream Libertarian) with a foreign interventionist streak. I think he's what some would call a "neolibertarian", like Neil Boortz.

[emazur]

I don't know a lot about root, but ive noticed he's not very well liked around here. Why is this?

I like and follow Root (not my favorite libertarian though) but a very large chunk of people on this forum distrust everyone but Ron Paul and one little difference can frame you as a "neocon". Peter Schiff says he would not allow Iran to develop nukes? Neocon. Rand Paul says he won't close Gitmo? Neocon. Wayne Root says Reagan was his hero? Neocon.

Root is with Paul on nearly every issue: end the Fed, bring home the troops, end the wars, stop crony capitalism, no bailouts, end the welfare state, advocate home schooling, end foreign aid. Root does differ on the position of Israel - says end foreign aid to other countries first and Israel 5 years later (NEOCON!!!!) b/c he thinks Israel plays an important part in American national security and he doesn't want to suddenly leave Israel vulnerable without giving them time to adjust (plus Root is Jewish - he doesn't mention that as I reason but I can read between the lines). There are also stylistic differences - Paul's style makes him more likeable to independents and leftists, root's style is in-your-face anti-leftist right-wing populism designed to appeal to conservatives. And despite what people like to say, Root is not ignorant of deep libertarianism (no, not as good as Paul, but that's a pretty damn high standard to live up to). I would suggest reading a couple hardball interviews with Root to get a deeper look:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/04/root-answers-moulton/

3. Some have described you as the Sarah Palin of the LP in that you are great at delivering talking points, but when conversations get more substantive you sometimes do not have the deeper insights that come from scholarly study of issues (in stark contrast to Ron Paul, for example). As valedictorian of your high school class and an ivy league graduate, clearly you have the capacity to learn and convey such information. If elected Chair, will you correct this deficiency by getting in depth briefings from Cato scholars on issues of the day and teach yourself the principles and applications of free-market (Austrian) economics by studying Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard?

I’m not exactly ignorant in the subject of political philosophy. I graduated with honors at Columbia University with a degree in Political Science.

I’ve read Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty. I understand from Von Mises and Hayek how manipulation of the credit markets causes a boom-bust cycle. I’ve read the Cato Handbook from front to back. I’m actually a policy wonk who studies every political poll in the country so I can gain an understanding of where the electorate stands and how the LP can position ourselves to capitalize.

I understand the desire of some of us to want to put forward the intellectual arguments for a free society. Unfortunately very few voters know, understand or care about any of the LP’s principled or intellectual stands. If they did, we would have made a lot more progress during the last 39 years.

We are far too intellectual in our approach for the average voter, who is too busy earning a living, raising kids, and trying to pay the mortgage to care. Just because we Libertarians have spent more time pondering issues does not mean the average voter will.

I aim to simplify it all in a positive, pragmatic way to get their attention and support. There is very little difference between what I believe and what my opponents for National Chair believe. But what’s different is style. I don’t scare away voters with radical or extreme language. I try to find common ground and build consensus. I make friends with my viewers and listeners. I try to show them as much of the libertarian philosophy as they’re able to see.

I don’t dismiss those who debate with me as being fools, but try to have a reasoned discussion with them.

I believe you first have to make someone comfortable with you before they will listen.

I’m interested in how to better communicate with the public, so that they will adopt our ideas. We will get more people to adopt our views by studying the communication techniques of Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, rather than the writings of Lysander Spooner.

I know how to successfully reach and communicate with members of the American public. My bigger struggle is communicating with members of my own party the fact that in this country, at this time, style is the key to selling substance. The question you have to ask yourself when voting for a chairman is which group would you rather he or she be successful at addressing- those who are already with us, or those who have yet to join us? The choice for LP Chair is clear- I am the LP Chairman that stands for expanding our base and spreading freedom and liberty to tens of millions of voters who may not know they are Libertarians- yet. I want to make the tent bigger- with room for all of America’s freedom-lovers. Only then will freedom reign.

And I agree with him: libertarians need to improve their communication ability. Reagan talked the libertarian talk and won (though didn't walk the walk). Rand Paul cloaked libertarianism in conservative talk and won. Ron Paul, though perfectly capable of being a good communicator (2010 CPAC speech was great) still says a lot of stuff that goes over people's heads like 'bad monetary policy', 'malinvestment', 'Austrian economics', 'liquidate the debt', and can sometimes ramble and get off track w/o giving a clear answer (everyone here knows this), and sometimes he gives an answer that is too blunt without an easy to swallow explanation.

I can understand some distrust - there are so many flakes out there (most recently Jeff Flake endorsing Romney), but the outright hatred for Root is petty. Funny how nobody calls out Ron Paul for endorsing pro-Patriot Act Michelle Bachman during her Congressional elections, or Paul wanting to keep Social Security alive for those already on the dole even though there is no Constitutional authority to do so or suggesting we might lower the income tax to a flat 10% even though that means the government still owns you and you don't own the product of your own labor. Oh, but he's being pragmatic and trying to do the best in a bad situation you say? I agree, but realize he's not the only one who has to play in these conditions. Let Root offer his solutions and try to spread libertarianism in his own way. He's not the only game in town.