Bob Barr Talks

The best-known nominee in Libertarian Party history talks to reason about war, drugs, pornography, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ayn Rand.

(Page 3 of 5)

And it's the result not just of these social issues. It's the result, I think, also very much of the power of the government to regulate in the economic sphere. Government regulates so much of what goes on in business and in our economy at all levels, from the personal through the state to the federal level, that it has acclimated people to think of the federal government as not just the last but the first resort to solve problems that people perceive in this society. That is not the job of the federal government.

reason: Do you still think it was justified to impeach Bill Clinton?

Bob Barr: Absolutely. I believe in the rule of law.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton, I think, was a very appropriate exercise of legislative power in this country. Congress clearly has the constitutional power and the responsibility to assure itself on behalf of the American people that a president is operating within the bounds of the law, a responsibility that very, very few Congresses even understand anymore. Look at the sorry oversight experiences of the Congresses under the last several administrations. They rarely view as their responsibility assuring that the executive operates within the laws and with the intent of the laws that Congress has passed and the presidents have signed.

Where you have a president who violates those laws, if they are of the sort that go directly to the character of the presidency, not the president but the presidency, and the operation within the constitutional separation-of-powers framework that our Framers gave us through the Constitution, then I think it's imperative for the Congress to step in. The basis on which I had filed back in November of 1997 the first inquiry of impeachment had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky or the subsequent obstruction of justice and perjury by the former president. It had to do with other issues that we were never able to secure support from the Republican leadership in the Congress to move forward on, and those related to possibly trading national security information and procedures, national security-related technology, in return for foreign monies coming into our electoral process, directly to the White House in some instances.

We were unable to get the Republican leadership to move forward on the basis that was the primary reason for our initial inquiry. Then the information came in on the obstruction and the perjury. To me, perjury and obstruction were of the sort of potential offenses on the part of a president that went to the character and nature of the presidency, that would provide and should have provided the appropriate basis for an impeachment.

reason: Who's your model Supreme Court justice, living or dead?

Bob Barr: I don't agree with him on several of his substantive opinions, but in terms of the approach and the background and the intellect that he brings to the arguments on the bench, it would be Antonin Scalia. I think he is a very, very fine jurist.

Pretty much all of the justices who have taken the bench in the last several cycles are far too ready to defer to the executive branch in terms of executive branch power. They are far too ready to concede plenary power to the executive branch over anything that might be called national security, whether it is or it isn't. That worries me a great deal.

reason: What Cabinet-level positions do you think could be abolished?

Bob Barr: I would certainly start with the Department of Education. There is, to me, no legitimate basis whatsoever to have the federal government involved in education, period, and certainly to the extent of having a multibillion-dollar federal agency setting the standard for schools in our country.

The Department of Energy to me has no broad legitimate function. If there are some legitimate purposes for having the federal government involved, for example, in assuring the security of atomic materials, that is a very limited function that can and should be more properly handled by the Department of Defense. It does not require a Department of Energy.

The Department of Commerce, to my mind, has no legitimate Cabinet-level function. If there are legitimate functions of the federal government in the commerce area to assure free interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, that could be handled either through the Department of Justice, assuring that the laws against infringing interstate commerce are appropriately enforced, or maybe by having a very much smaller Commerce Office.

reason: If you were in Congress these last six years, do you think you would have started an inquiry or voted to impeach President Bush?

Bob Barr: I think there clearly were and remain areas that Congress needs to look into from an executive branch abuse standpoint. Whether or not that rises to the level of impeachment, we don't know yet, and I wouldn't speculate on that. But I do believe in the area, for example, of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, systemic abuses, based on a completely alien notion that the chief executive can ignore laws whenever the chief executive decides to, should be investigated.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • xx||

    not a real libertarian. Doesn't fool me.

  • ||

    The reformers have had their way with my party for the past four years. I was much more comfortable being one of the fruits and flakes that were committed to the principals of personal autonomy, property, and peace, that lost elections, than I am as one of a band of respectable partisans committed to political expediency, that lose elections.

    If the radicals can't retake the LP, I don't know how much longer I'll be able to support it.

  • ||

    Why does every. single. Barr. discussion have to rehash the same shit over and over and over again?

    I want to see some goodwill from the whiners. Wish Barr the best of luck or show that you're just being obstinate and malignant at this point. It is WAY too late in the game to sit here and hash out this shit for the twenty-thousandth time.

  • fyodor||

    I think he was the best known libertarian candidate for president until he became the libertarian candidate for president.

  • BakedPenguin||

    TAO, it's about ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IMMEDIATELY!!! If a Libertarian candidate isn't for ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IMMEDIATELY!!!, he's obviously a whore and a traitor.

  • Guy Montag||

    Wait! He voted FOR the Patriot Act?

    I have thrown my vote away. I am leaving the country.

  • ||

    Warren - the whole point of the "reform" movement was that there is supposed to be room for both. The "diehards" are the soul and anchor of the philosophy...but remember the lesson from Office Space? "The engineers don't have people skills".

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Anarchy Soon!!!!

  • ||


  • a name before submitting the f||

    Interview Baldwin.

  • ||

    I am voting for Barr. But this will be the first time I have to hold my nose to vote for the LP candidate.

    I know what the point of the "reform" movement was. I didn't support it, but I was amenable to it's goals. But what have been the fruits of it's efforts. A bland platform, and a Republican Wannabe spokesman + no increased penetration into MSM or voter appeal = FAIL

  • Gabriel ||

    This guy is so far off from being a libertarian (big 'L' or little) that I'm almost glad he's being ignored by the media.

  • ||

    Warren - the "reform movement" has run ONE election, outcome not even determined yet! And yet you declare it a FAIL?!

    I mean, it's obvious that you WANT it to fail, but whether or not it will remains to be seen. Furthermore, what is your definition of "failing"? For a candidate, Barr has garnered more media attention than anyone else.

  • ||

    Yeah, Barr did some stuff while he was in Congress I thoroughly disagree with. But, he's the only person on the ballot who, about 85% of the time, says stuff I agree with. The rest of the pack appear to be running as far away from libertarian principles as possible. And, Barr ISN'T gonna be president. Not gonna happen. ZERO percent chance of that. So, who fucking cares how we would actually govern if we got in office?

    So, your choices are this:

    1) vote for Obama / McCain and send the message that to get libertarian votes, politicians only have to be slightly less hardcore statist than the other guy to get your vote.

    2) don't vote, and send the message that libertarians can be safely ignored.

    3) Vote, but leave the presidential vote blank, sending an ambiguous message that your vote can be had, but not really signaling whether they need to be MORE statist or less to get your vote.

    4) Vote for Bob Barr, and send a clear, unmistakable message that to get your vote, they must become considerably more libertarian.

    I'm going with option 4, because it communicates very clearly exactly what it takes to get my support. The others, not so much so.

  • ||

    Man who vote Libertarian
    sets high Barr

  • ||

    But this will be the first time I have to hold my nose to vote for the LP candidate.

    The first time? You were actually thrilled with the choice of Badnarik?

  • ||


    Despite my earlier "Scalia???" comment, I agree with you completely: it's option 4).

  • Tsu Dho Nihm||

    In general, I agree with prolefeed. But I'll probably write in Cthulhu anyway.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I'm curious to know who the purity faction views as the best LP presidential candidate of all time.
    I'm guessing Hospers.

  • tarran||

    I'm curious to know who the purity faction views as the best LP presidential candidate of all time.

    It was Rothbard.

    But he didn't run!

    PRecisely. ;)

  • parse||

    Regulars at Hit & Run likely remember the Genarlow Wilson case, where a 17-year old boy received a 10-year prison sentence for consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old partner. Barr laments the "attempt by some to transform the case from one involving child molestation into the latest great civil rights crusade." He goes so far as to defend the prosecutor's rabble-rousing effort to turn public opinion against Wilson by circulating copies of the video tape of the teens having sex. Barr wants to pretend that it was just an attempt to comply with Georgia's Open Records law regarding evidence in criminal prosecutions.

    This goes a long way to legitimize doubts about the depth and sincerity of Barr's road to Damascus conversion to libertarian philosophy. At heart, he still seems an anti-sex, pro-cop zealot.

    Click on my name for a link to Barr's defense of the prosecutions disreputable smear.

  • anarch||

    "Politics is the art of the possible." ~ Otto von Bismarck

  • ||

    I STILL don't get all the people who are saying "He's not a REAL libertarian", "He can say that stuff, but doesn't mean it", "He voted for all that bad stuff, he still thinks that way".

    How many libertarians do you actually know who *weren't* part of one of the two major parties? Who didn't realize, over time, that things were wrong with what they were doing, how they were thinking, and looking for a new way? How come it's believable in Joe Shmoe, but not a guy like Bob Barr?

    Maybe he's not Harry Browne, saying he's going to cut the Federal government in half in the first 100 days he's in office. But what's the biggest problem people have with libertarian issues? "How do we get there from here." We gotta start somewhere, and really, it's not like Barr is saying that he's going to only be libertarian on the things he wants to be. Every thing I've heard him say is 'government shouldn't be in that, whether I think it's right or not.' And that's what my idea of government is as well.

    I'm voting for him.

  • ||

    Barr is far from ideal, but he's at least saying things pleasing to a libertarian now and then. Obama and McCain are not. Barr's got my vote.

  • ||

    First, Bob Barr gets my vote next week. So does tle libertarian who's running for the house in my district.*


    ... you can move that Libertarian agenda forward much more rapidly, if you keep in mind that your audience is not necessarily going to be fellow Libertarians, it's going to be fellow Americans. [emphasis added]

    That is reality based wisdom.

    * I could look the name up, but I plead TLTG.

  • svf||

    I'm guessing Hospers.

    Well, the man will likely continue to be the all-time electoral vote getting LP presidential champion. Gotta hand it to him for that.

  • ||

    Barr wasn't on the DC ballot anyway, so I just wrote in "Ron Paul." Ron Paul I can feel good about, Barr, no way. (Early-voted last week.)

  • ||

    Highway, my comments are about things Barr is saying now. The article I linked to about Genarlow Wilson is on the"Bob Barr 2008" campaign website.

  • ||

    Actually, Barr will be the first Libertarian for President I will have voted for. Couldn't quite do it earlier, but Obama or McCain? Ugh!

  • Les||

    I was thinking I'd consider my vote for Barr a vote for the Libertarian Party, but I don't think the LP deserves my vote for nominating someone like Barr.

    Sure, he admits he made "mistakes," but he doesn't seem to know what a bigoted, hypocritical douchebag he was. As if his actions in congress weren't enough (and I think they are, considering their number and the degree of wretched statism involved), he admires Scalia. He pretends there was reason to trust the government's case for going to war in Iraq. He voted for the Patriot Act. And, as parse above points out, he supports the state's case against Genarlow Wilson.

    At this point, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, "Fuck that guy." And fuck the LP for nominating him.

  • Guy Montag||

    Barr wasn't on the DC ballot anyway, so I just wrote in "Ron Paul." Ron Paul I can feel good about, Barr, no way. (Early-voted last week.)

    DC is really that backward? We have 8 choices for president and 8 choices for Senator in Tennessee. I voted L in both. However, my House Rep. is an R and does vote the way I like (from the comments here some of the Ls would prefer Jimmy Duncan to be in their party, so there).

    Anyway, these stupid hoops so many States and the District throw at candidates are just silly.

  • kinnath||

    The only choice at this time is stay home or vote for Barr.

    I haven't missed a presidential election since 1980, but I am tempted to stay home next week.

  • zoltan||

    The Genarlow Wilson comments by Barr are pretty horrific. Still better than socialism and foreverwar though.

    I'm even voting for the Libertarian running for Senate in my state.....and she's a Scientologist. I'm holding my nose in the booth.

  • Guy Montag||

    OT reminder, Guy Fawkes day is just around the corner!

  • kinnath||

    November 5th, 2007

    The only day in my adult life when I actually thought the world might be going the correct direction.

  • ||

    he supports the state's case against Genarlow Wilson.

    That's actually not true at all. Barr just doesn't see the need for raising a big hue and cry about it.

  • economist||

    Guy Montag (2:03pm),
    Okay, sweet. Who cares, though.

  • ||

    Vote Cthulhu

    why vote for a lesser evil?

  • ||

    DC is really that backward?

    Uh, like yeah. Cynthia McKinney is on the ballot in DC this year, but the libertarian candidates for president are not. Which is odd, since there was one libertarian candidate for a local position.

  • Guy Montag||


    Cynthia McKinney is on the TN ballot too. How many choices got placed on your ballot?

  • abu hamza||

    my recollection of barr in his inquest vs clinton during the impeachment is a lot different than his recounting in this interview. barr was the ringlead not about foreign money to the clinton administratino, but on the tawdry sex scandal. in retrospect, the entire impeachment was just about sex, or about lying about sex anyway. in the mean time, there was a gathering threat overseas against our country and congress and the president were distracted by monica lewinsky.

  • ||

    Once again Mr. Weigel distorts facts. His reporting on Denver was terrible at the time and worse now. The "anonymous flyer" he refers to was clearly a satirical one and not a serious one. Most people took it as a joke. Not Mr. Weigel, who clearly had a horse in this race and is backing him to the hilt. Now he reports it as if it were serious. if Weigel can't tell the difference between satire and campaign literature he ought to resign -- better yet, Reason ought to find a better reporter.

    Please note that once again Barr only limits his criticism to a federal war on drugs/obscenity. He's perfectly fine with local authoritarianism.

  • ||

    In Florida, we've got a ballot chock-full of presidential candidates:

    John McCain/Sarah Palin (Republican Party of Florida)
    Barack Obama/Joe Biden (Florida Democratic Party)
    Gloria La Riva/Eugene Puryear (Party for Socialism and Liberation - Florida)
    Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle (Constitution Party of Florida)
    Gene Amondson/Leroy Pletten (Prohibition Party)
    Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root (Libertarian Party of Florida)
    Thomas Robert Stevens/Alden Link (Objectivist Party of Florida)
    James Harris/Alyson Kennedy (Florida Socialist Workers)
    Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente (Green Party of Florida, Inc.)
    Alan Keyes/Brian Rohrbough (America's Independent Party of Florida)
    Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (Ecology Party of Florida)
    Brian Moore/Stewart Alexander (Socialist Party of Florida)
    Charles Jay/John Wayne Smith (Boston Tea Party of Florida)

  • ||

    Wait... A person admitting he's human is running for president? And he thinks he has a chance?

    We want superman on the job, not a human. John McCain or Barrack Obama wouldn't make mistakes.

    Silly human.

  • ||

    Well, I'm gonna go early vote at the mall now for the two libertarians on the ballot (president and U.S. House), a few people who are Teh Bad but better than all the other choices on the ballot, and leave the rest blank.

    Y'all do whatever you feel is right, even if it is to vote for McSameOle-bama, and then feel kinda sick when they betray most every value you hold dear.

    Later, dudes and dudettes.

  • Les||

    That's actually not true at all. Barr just doesn't see the need for raising a big hue and cry about it.

    From his article: attempt by some to transform the case from one involving child molestation into the latest great civil rights crusade.


    As distressing as are the continuing efforts by many community leaders to clothe Wilson with the halo of victim-hero...

    Nowhere does Barr condemn the case and only defends the state's actions. Even if he only didn't "see the need for raising a big hue and cry about it," "it" being the imprisonment of a 17 year old for having consensual sex with a 15 year old, that would be bad enough.

    Barr has, throughout his career, consistently been an utter hypocrite regarding consensual actions he doesn't approve of.

  • JLE||

    I don't see how anyone in good conscience can vote for Barr. Or those other two bigwigs. I don't see the point in voting at all anymore. Might as well have Rupert Murdoch run for president. The end game is the same.

  • ||

    How many choices got placed on your ballot?

    Obama, McCain, McKinney, Nader.

  • Dave Weigel||

    Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (Ecology Party of Florida)

    I'm old enough to remember when Nader's reason for running for president was to build up the Green Party. Ironically, between ruining their image with bitter Democrats and splitting the Green vote every year, he's probably the worst thing that's ever happened to them. The whole "run on different party label in different state" thing is an example of this.

  • A.G. Pym||

    The political system is a machine running without a sufficient feedback mechanism. What we really need is a "None of the Above" slot to show the two wings of the national party that a ballot marked for one does not necessarily mean a vote _for_ them, but against the other.

    "None of the Above" universal campaign signs available at

  • ||

    Looking at the Florida ballot, I'm reminded of Life of Brian. One would think that the various socialists could put aside their differences to stand united as one socialist party--ditto the Greens and the Ecology Party.

    Just for fun, here's a list (linked page has links to party web sites) of all of the authorized parties in Florida right now (many without presidential candidates, of course):

    Major Political Parties

    * Florida Democratic Party (DEM)
    * Republican Party of Florida (REP)

    Minor Political Parties

    * America First Party of Florida (AFP)
    * American Party of Florida (APF)
    * American Poor People Party (APP)
    * American Reform Party of Florida (ARP)
    * America's Independent Party of Florida (AIP)
    * Boston Tea Party of Florida (BTP)
    * British Reformed Sectarian Party (BRS)
    * The Christian Party (CHR)
    * Constitution Party of Florida (CPF)
    * Ecology Party of Florida (ECO)
    * Faith & Patience Inc. N.P.G.G. (FAP)
    * Family Values Party (FVP)
    * Florida Socialist Workers (SWP)
    * Florida Whig Party (FWP)
    * Green Party of Florida, Inc. (GRE)
    * Independence Party of Florida (IDP)
    * Independent Democrats of Florida (IDF)
    * Independent Party of Florida (INT)
    * Libertarian Party of Florida (LIB)
    * The Moderate Party (MOD)
    * Objectivist Party of Florida (OBJ)
    * Party for Socialism and Liberation - Florida (PSL)
    * Possibility Party (POS)
    * Progressive Libertarian Party (PRL)
    * Prohibition Party (PRO)
    * Real Food Party of the United States of America (RFP)
    * Reform Party (REF)
    * Socialist Party of Florida (SPF)
    * Southern Party of Florida (SFL)
    * Surfers Party of America (SPA)
    * Term Limits for the United States Congress Party (TLP)
    * Unity08 (UNI)
    * Veterans Party of America (VET)

    Good to see that the Whigs are back, at least. And I wonder what the Surfers Party of America's platform looks like?

  • zoltan||


    Please tell me I can find a shirt somewhere that says that.

  • ||

    "Get rid of the Dept. of Education"!!!


    I know the US is falling behind in terms of education but that is no reason to completely throw in the towel.

    Maybe of generation of young people exclusively learning from Church, TV and parents will help bring about 'End Times'? One can only hope.

  • Boston||

    Today, the Modern Whigs are the fastest-growing non-fringe party. We represent middle-of-the-road voters from all walks of life who cherry-pick between traditional Democratic and Republican ideas.

    Sounds like the modern democratic or republican parties

  • ||

    I don't trust Barr because his change of heart was in his late 40's... a couple of years ago. But he's trying to play off that shit like a youthful indescretion. Bullshit! I don't need a perfect candidate, but I dislike Barr too much; I'd be ashamed to vote for him because people could ask, "You voted for that social conservative Replubican?" or "...that drug warrier?" or some such. I won't put up with it.

    On those 4 voting options and what message they deliver... doesn't writing in Ron Paul send the right message without the Barr baggage?

  • ||

    The "youthful indescretion" was in Barr's late 50's, not 40's.

  • Tsu Dho Nihm||

    Try here:

    I've been proudly displaying a bumper sticker for months now. Next Tuesday I'll swap it for my "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Cthulhu" sticker.

  • ||

    4) Vote for Bob Barr, and send a clear, unmistakable message that to get your vote, they must become considerably more libertarian.

    I'm going with option 4, because it communicates very clearly exactly what it takes to get my support. The others, not so much so.

    Bingo. Anyone voting for Obama to send a message to Republicans that they need to get back to their small-government roots has it exactly backwards.

  • svf||

    doesn't writing in Ron Paul send the right message without the Barr baggage?

    No, because in most states Ron Paul write-ins will not be counted, tallied, or reported. But if that's what makes you happy, go for it, bud.

  • zoltan||

    I'm voting for Barr to help the Libertarian Party and he seems the best of the candidates who are still actually running. Obviously he's not a Republican or drug warrior anymore (so he says). Ron Paul's campaign is suspended, it's a bit useless to vote for him.

  • Les||

    I know the US is falling behind in terms of education but that is no reason to completely throw in the towel.

    Getting rid of the Dept. of Education would only mean that state and local governments could focus on what they need. Since it would eliminate the interference and static from the feds, it would be a step in improving state education.

    Maybe of generation of young people exclusively learning from Church, TV and parents will help bring about 'End Times'? One can only hope.

    Church and TV (most of it, anyway) are poor sources for education, but if more parents realized that they are ultimately responsible for how and what their children learn, we wouldn't be falling behind at all.

  • ||

    The only possible glimmer of hope in this election is that an unusually high number of voters vote Libertarian. That isn't likely to happen, in large part because Barr screwed up in failing to woo Paul, but there's still the outside possibility. I think anyone who cares about liberty and free markets who votes for either major party's candidate is doing a disservice to us all. This idea that the GOP in particular needs punishment is folly of the greatest sort--both parties need punishing, and I don't mean the comfy chair, either.

  • cunnivore||

    Planning on writing Ron Paul in?

    Next time you take a dump, bring a magic marker into the can with you, and write his name on the TP before you wipe your ass with it.

    It's probably more likely to be seen by poll workers that way.

  • ||

    svf has got this right, many places will not count write ins.

    And again...
    HE'S the candidate, not gonna win, get over it. Come next cycle this may put the LP over the hump for ballot access. Like him, hate him, whatever; vote party lines like 90%+ of the sheeple(TM).
    Unless you find Constitution or Green more in line with your political leanings ... but you wouldn't be HERE then, would you.

  • economist||

    Cartman '08!

  • economist||

    The Prohibition Party should rename itself the "Goddamn nosey asswipes who helped create organized crime" party. More accurate, you see.

  • Nash||

    "If you talk about these issues in very vague, hypothetical terms, or you talk about issues that are going to scare the American public, I think you're making a mistake. You can make the same point, you can move that Libertarian agenda forward much more rapidly, if you keep in mind that your audience is not necessarily going to be fellow Libertarians, it's going to be fellow Americans."

    I found this paragraph insightful.

    Ron Paul energized his base because of generalized rhetoric but had few votes to show for it. Barr is doing even worse because he never energized the base. Regardless, the above hold true, I think you just have to know who you're talking to when you say it.

  • ||


    Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr is running for President of the United States for the following reasons:

    1. He is a patriot. 2. He is the 'leader' of the nation's third largest political party. 3. As he wants to promote his party's belief in smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom, a Presidential election season is an opportune time to do this. 4. In a nation that believes in freedom of choice, he wants American voters to have an additional option to vote for. 5. A Presidential election season is a great time to bring attention to, and gain members for, your political party. It's also a great time to help set the national political agenda for the next legislative term. 6. Two things will happen, if he and his running mate Wayne Allyn Root, get at least 5% of the nation's popular vote on November 4th. Beginning with the 2012 Libertarian Presidential Campaign, signature petition drives for state ballot access would become unnecessary. Also, the party's Presidential Campaign would qualify for voluntary federal Presidential Election Campaign Fund money. 7. He believes that America 'desperately needs' a third major political party right now. So he is working very hard to help build it. If he gets more than 921,299 votes or more than 1.1% of the total votes this national election, he will set a Libertarian Party Presidential record. 8. To get enough national popular and electoral votes to become the next President and help return this nation to greatness.

    So as you can see, Bob Barr has many very important reasons to run for President than just to win The White House! If you believe in this his cause, and after studying him like him best, then simply support him for President. Time will tell how many victories his campaign won!

    I trust this information has helped you in making your decision. I will be voting for a 'real winner' in Bob Barr on November 4th! I certainly hope that you will join me, by voting for him too!!!

  • pissed||

    It was a huge mistake to nominate Barr. He does / did nothing to spread Libertarian views. He does not even represent libertarian views. What is libertarian about pre-emptive war? Scalia the ideal judge? Puhleez!

    The momentum of Paul came to a screeching halt with the nomination of Barr.

    Flake, 2012.

  • Les||


    With all due respect:

  • Brandybuck||

    This guy is so far off from being a libertarian (big 'L' or little) that I'm almost glad he's being ignored by the media.

    If you look at the Nolan Chart, you'll see that "libertarian" covers 20%. It's one quarter of the chart with a corner lopped off for the centrists. You don't have to be a perfect 100/100 at the very point in order to be a libertarian.

    Bob Barr most certainly fits within that area. He ain't a purist anarcho, but I guess to some people if you ain't arguing the finer points of agorism you ain't genuine.

  • svf||

    The momentum of Paul came to a screeching halt with the nomination of Barr.

    Uh... more like right after Super Tuesday.

    By the time the LP convention happened, the "rLOVEution" had already become so fragmented and divided into various caps that there was no more momentum to build upon.

    The Rally for the Republic MIGHT have presented an opportunity for Ron Paul/C4L to make a meaningful third party endoresement of some kind (whether it be for Baldwin, Barr, or whoever).

    Instead, what's left of the RP "movement" will divide their million or so votes between McCain, Obama, Barr, Baldwin, Nader, writing in Ron Paul (or voting for him where they forced him on the ballot) or staying home.

    Divide and conquer -- mission accomplished!

  • svf||

    various caps

    various CAMPS... wearing various caps... or something...

  • The Democratic Republican||

    One of these days, a radical is going to get elected, and I am going to laugh my ass off when all of you radicals think that he or she has "sold out."

    You know, talk about limited government and then start doing things like asking for earmarks, voting against bills protecting online privacy, allowing his cronies to use his name for disgusting purposes.'s already happened. Hello there, Dr. Paul!!!

    Long story short: if people want to get into politics they will, by definition, have to compromise.

  • The Democratic Republican||

    Seriously, after reading some more of the comments, I have to ask:

    are you radicals really so enlightened that you so easily forgive one candidate (Paul) for ALL of his MANY libertarian sins, not to mention his completely incompetent campaign that put my money into Lew Rockwell's hands via the CFL,

    but you can't forgive the other (Barr) because he was anti-drug and anti-gay?

    The one (Paul) took money from racists in the campaign, and the other (Barr) told all the racists and any other group that hated anyone else to piss off. Tell me which one sounds more "radical" to you.

    And just in case anyone forgot, Paul endorsed a party's candidate with a platform that supports theocracy and jingoistic nationalism. That ought to show everyone where his true loyalties are.

  • Andy||

    I voted for him. He's not perfect, but prolefeed's layout was pretty accurate for why it's worth the effort. The other two parties need to know that libertarians are out there to be won.

    Maybe when the Republicans lose big, they will rethink some of their bullshit. You never know. (Well, sometimes you do.)

  • ||

    For a proper comparison on who falls where, see

    As for Barr, those of us in the libertartain wing of the LP warned you, and you didn't listen. We can now say, "WE TOLD YOU SO!"

    And as for Barr, my votes against him in Denver were because of two words: Fort Hood.

    If he can't get the First Amendment right, he has no business being a candidate in ANY race under the LP banner.

  • ||

    Andy, we're not out here to be won like some prize at a carnival. That just adds to the bullshit idea that votes are entitlements and mean nothing else, and denigrates voters as mere chattel to be exploited then ignored.

    We are out here to get our Freedom and Liberty back. The parties in Big Government Left and Right Branches aren't. When the electorate finally realizes that, things will change. I'm not holding my breath, though.

  • nfl jerseys||



Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.