Reply to comment

He'll win the Libertarian Party nomination in 2012, in spite of his views about "god" (and its rather misleading inclusion into his book title). Marketing the LP _primarily_ to conservatives is a dire error. It wasn't conservatives that were the fuel behind the Ron Paul revolution, it was liberals. Conservatives don't change their minds. Liberals do. (LOL ...at least they're often willing to admit how little they know!) In spite of all that, Wayne is the guy for Libertarians to run in 2012. Why? Because he knows that his religious views should be kept out of government, and because private citizens often use their religiously-informed consciences to vote "not guilty" when they sit on juries. These explanations in his book are likely to play damage control. I don't know since I haven't read it yet, so I am doing some assuming here. But let's just say that he comes off as a guy who honestly believes in god, leprechauns, unicorns, and other mythical creatures. He wouldn't sound worse than Obama or Bush on those issues, and he does know that if he wins election, he needs to keep his religious views out of the office. This would give anti-theist libertarian-leaning Democrats and Republicans a reason to avoid him, but that's not most voters. Most voters wouldn't care, or would actually approve. Those who do care and are anti-theist (like myself) will research the issue and see that Wayne is an anomaly, (along with Ron Paul). Catching on? No politician is ever going to get elected who is perfect. The perfect is the enemy of the good. If I can run a candidate who wants to end the fed, and his belief in unicorns makes him more electable, then fine! Let's have the first unicorn believer in National office. Sure, Wayne would be a more attractive libertarian if he didn't have any conservative history. As long as he ditches the small amount of "conservative" rhetoric he still includes in his speeches, he'll do fine in 2012. In fact, he'll do better than any other Libertarian candidate, including Ed Clark. Why? Because he's not a useless lazy bastard, and because he tries hard, and because he doesn't heap scorn and derision on the American voter, but he also doesn't engage in complex philosophical explanations to them either. (In all fairness, Browne was a great speaker, but even he didn't have 1/4 of Root's campaign energy or political savvy.) Root is tirelessly on CNN. He represents the LP well, except where he mentions god in his book title. This is a minor gaffe that actually probably results in expanded demographic approval from the less-libertarian public (minus libertarian-leaning leftists who represent the largest growth area for the LP). I'll take Wayne's effectiveness over further marginalization and silence any day.