Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bob Barr Expected to Launch Libertarian Presidential Bid on Saturday
When former Rep. Bob Barr arrives in Kansas City on Saturday for the Heartland Libertarian Conference, organizers expect him to launch an exploratory committee for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. Barr is meeting with his political team on Friday to firm up plans. Right now, he's expected to fly into the city at about noon Saturday and address the conference in the early afternoon.
The Barr launch is getting to be an open secret among conference-goers. Advocacy Ink, the firm that handles Barr's public relations, is advertising the speech to local and national reporters. Mike Ferguson, the de jure organizer of the conference, is scrambling to deal with a crush of new media requests.
"It doesn't take much to put two and two together," said Ferguson. "You don't do this unless you're making the announcement."
The rest of the LP's field, including new candidate Mike Gravel, will participate in a debate before Barr's speech. Ferguson doesn't expect Barr to participate, but doesn't think that will matter. "Once he gets in, to call him the frontrunner would be an understatement," Ferguson said. An advisor in Barr's camp agreed, but averred that Barr doesn't yet have enough support among an expected 800+ LP delegates to win on the first ballot.
There is no truth to the rumor that Barr will ditch the party and run as an independent. "We're on the ballot in 45 states," said one organizer at the conference. "Why would he throw away two years of work with the party to run an ego trip campaign with no ballot access? That story doesn't make sense." Lisa Edelstein in Barr's office also rejected the "independent" rumor. "If he does decide to run, he will run as a Libertarian candidate," she said. (The position in Barr's office is that he is "considering running and is now making up his mind.")
There's also no truth to the rumor that Ron Paul will endorse Barr, although both men will appear at an April 15 event in D.C. (UPDATE: It's on Barr's public schedule, but his campaign team will be drafting a solid schedule on Friday.)
So, how's this mesh with what Barr told me in 2006?
I’m contemplating no runs for any office. I’m delighted to be asked to work in this capacity for the Libertarian Party, and I’m going to work on range of issues. But I’m not a candidate.
Obviously, that's no longer operative. What I haven't yet figured out is whether Barr was mulling a run for the past two years, whether his friends in the party and the Ron Paul rEVOLution changed his mind, or whether there was some combination of the two.
UPDATE: Barr just wrapped an interview with Sean Hannity, and I want the transcript before I quote anything, but the highlights were Hannity accusing Barr of wanting to legalize crack and elect Hillary Clinton, and Barr coming out for medical marijuana.
UPDATE II: The campaign site isn't up yet, but it will be bobbarr2008.com. You can see here that Liberty Strategies owns the domain--Liberty Strategies being Barr's consulting firm.
UPDATE III: Stacy McCain has Barr-on-Hannity goodness here.
|4.3.08 @ 4:17PM|#
I can't square Bob Barr's newfound libertarianism with old Bob Barr's stance against gay marriage and his role in passing the Defense of Marriage Act. I understand libertarian opposition to any type of government-sanctioned marriage, but his opposition is selective, targeting only gays and thus exalting heterosexuals with a special government-determined status. The only thing worse than government-sanctioned marriage for all is government-sanctioned marriage for someone, which compounds the inappropriate role of government in regulating personal relationships and contracts.
|4.3.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Also, IIRC, Barr is (or at least was) a self-proclaimed leader in the war on drugs. Someone please tell me he has reformed his views. If not, the LP is an even sadder joke than everyone thinks it is.
Nash|4.3.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Travis: Immediate Withdrawal.
He really is the best we could hope for in this election because he
has "conservative credentials" and unlike Ron Paul has some
traction with hardcore GOP conservatives because of the Clinton
impeachment. He's also a much more accomplished speaker although
that probably won't do him any good since he'll get shut out of the
debates. He could steal a lot of that vote out of disgust with
McCain. He'll lock up the Paleo vote and if Matt Welch doesn't bash
him over old newletters he never wrote he could get the Cosmo's as
well.
He's not 100% perfect on everything but it would be really nice to
have someone to vote for again this election cycle. Getting 5% in
the general is feasible. If he could manage to get into the debates
somehow then 10-15% is not out of the question.
robc|4.3.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Isnt Barr's only "scandal" (other than some positions he has
held, like the WOD) a "strippers on a golf course
fundraiser"?
Or was that someone else?
PC|4.3.08 @ 4:38PM|#
http://www.grannywarriors.com/rally.htm
Oh you mean this April 15th Event. The MC has made a truther video
about plane pods and one of the speakers, James Fetzer doesn't
believe it was a thermate controlled demolition, he thinks it was
freaking laser beams.
Looks like Bob is going to get off to a great start. None of our
enemies in the conservative blogs are going to make a peep about
this until it actually goes down.
|4.3.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Like I've said, I'll vote for Barr if he's the LP candidate. But I'd sooner vote for Kubby, Root, or Ruwart (and probably anyone else running aside from Gravel). When Barr joined the LP I figured he was just using it as a means to get more MSM attention and then jump back to the GOP. I think we should be very very leery of such a fair weather friend.
robc|4.3.08 @ 4:40PM|#
"was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at his
inaugural party."
Okay, I have no idea where I got golf course from. I think I
combined it with some other scandal.
Anyway, we have something to look forward to next Jan 20. :)
Taktix®|4.3.08 @ 4:41PM|#
...the highlights were Hannity accusing Barr of wanting to
legalize crack and elect Hillary Clinton...
Sounds like Hannity's M.O.
Imagine how great an actor I was one Christmas, when my family
bought for me one of Hannity's books, and I had to fake how much I
like ol' Sean. Suffice to say, that books has been converted to
carbon since.
...and Barr coming out for medical marijuana.
From what little I understand, Barr began a transformation after
voting for the PATRIOT Act and seeing how it has been
implemented.
Say what you will about voting for the damn thing, but every time
I've seen Barr in the media since, he's been stating that he
strongly regrets that decision.
The hope in me says he's seen the light, and the skeptic in me says
the LP will be irrelevant anyway, so this announcement isn't as
terrible as some would have one believe...
ce|4.3.08 @ 4:46PM|#
I don't mind Barr's past if he's going to man up about it. I applaud him for having the guts to openly change his mind about things, not something we usually get with candidates.
svf|4.3.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Isnt Barr's only "scandal" (other than some positions he has
held, like the WOD) a "strippers on a golf course
fundraiser"?
There's the "drove one of his ex-wives to the clinic and paid for
her abortion" one out there too. yawn.
Hardest thing for me is getting over what a complete asshole he was
during the Clinton impeachment hearings.
Ok, I'm over it.
Travis|4.3.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Wouldn't be great if McCain lost the eclection because of the Libertarian Party.
|4.3.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Robc, you're not from Vegas are you? We had a really excellent scandal with a local politician a couple of years ago involving strippers on a golf course.
|4.3.08 @ 5:05PM|#
"was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at
his inaugural party."
If it isn't Nazi uniforms in a concentration camp-themed dungeon,
I'm just not outraged.
|4.3.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Suffice to say, that books has been converted to carbon
since.
If you had sold it or given it to a library, you might have
prevented some retail sales putting money in his pocket.
But then someone might have read it and taken it seriously. Tough
call.
Episiarch|4.3.08 @ 5:12PM|#
I read an Ann Coulter book once. I had to see if she was as
batshit crazy as her opponents made her out to be.
She was. So is Hannity. Actually, Hannity strikes me more as an
opportunist. He saw a niche as the louder, more attack-dog-ish
Limbaugh (I guess for people who think Rush is too mild?), and
filled it. Hey, it worked for him.
|4.3.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Let's give Barr a chance to articulate his platform. We want
flip-flopers to our views, don't we? Probably the majority of LP
delegates would welcome a Barr/Ruwart ticket.
It could probably get an Ed Clark-like 1,000,000 votes, especially
if it can raise 1/3 the Ron Paul total and inherit the bulk of his
enthusiastic supporters. And being "balance of power" can only help
the GOP return to being the smaller government party.
svf|4.3.08 @ 5:24PM|#
I'm a bit out of touch -- does the LP still have people "running
for the VP" slot, and then there's a seperate delegate vote for
VP?
I remember the attempt to draft what's-his-name from New Hampshire
for Browne's VP in 2000, but he declined since other people were
running for that slot from day one and he didn't want to step on
their toes.
Hopefully rules have now changed making it easier for a
presidential candidate to seek the VP spot if they don't get the
pres nom.....?
Nash|4.3.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Bob Barr:
"What we've fallen into in recent years - not just since 9/11, but
particularly since 9/11 - is this notion that, in order to protect
ourselves, we have to preemptively go into and - in the case of
Iraq - occupy another sovereign nation," Barr said. "Simply saying,
'Gee, it's better to fight over in this other nation and destroy
another nation, so we're not potentially attacked here, is the
height of arrogance."
As for the Bush administration's refusal to define waterboarding as
torture, Barr referred to the practice as "sophistry of the worst
and rankest order."
|4.3.08 @ 5:35PM|#
I remember the attempt to draft what's-his-name from New
Hampshire for Browne's VP in 2000, but he declined since other
people were running for that slot from day one and he didn't want
to step on their toes.
Don Gorman?
|4.3.08 @ 5:37PM|#
The irony is that Barr was targetted by the LP during his
re-election bid because of his drug warrior stance.
Just when you think the LP can't get weirder...
|4.3.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Barr is still a drug warrior and has a reputation as a very
antigay politician due to his Defense of Marriage Act. So
apparently the Libertarian Party is no longer interested in
legalization of drugs or equality for gay people.
If they nominate a conservative like Barr the will do much harm to
the cause of libertarianism by associating it with views that are
clearly not libertarian. Shame on them for contemplating this. So
far only two of the serious LP candidates are actually libertarian:
Ruwart and Kubby -- Gravel is a libertarian-leaning leftist and the
rest are substnatially conservative -- at least on some issues.
Nash|4.3.08 @ 5:51PM|#
He's not "still a drug warrior".
From wikipedia: "Since joining the Libertarian Party, Barr has
reversed his previous stance favoring the War on Drugs and is now a
lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project."
He also takes the Ron Paul position on Marriage: It's a state
issue.
LevStrauss|4.3.08 @ 5:51PM|#
cls | April 3, 2008, 5:43pm | #
Do you have info that he still support the WOD? I found this
article that says otherwise.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/479/bob_barr_joins_mpp
Witnit|4.3.08 @ 5:52PM|#
I think that Barr's record reflects even more badly on him than the newsletters did on Ron Paul. So what's going to happen here? Will Reason fall in love with Barr for a few months and then run an "expose" of his noxious right-wing past?
Bingo|4.3.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Witnit: it appears that Barr acknowledges and regrets some decisions and opinions of the past, I don't think its an issue.
Witnit|4.3.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Bingo: I wasn't impressed when Albert Speer tried that gimmick after Nuremberg, and I'm not impressed now.
|4.3.08 @ 5:58PM|#
it appears that Barr acknowledges and regrets some decisions
and opinions of the past, I don't think its an issue.
Speaking only for myself, that's the key here. Barr has had a
number of "come to Jesus" moments about the darker blots on his
record, and I'm informed he'll have more of them. Paul refused to
talk about the newsletters and then unconvincingly explained them
to Wolf Blitzer after the story was really hurting him. If he'd
gotten in front of it, who knows what would have happened?
|4.3.08 @ 6:00PM|#
Come on guys. Don't start pooh-poohing him before he starts. Libertarians will never agree on everything, but keep in mind that any libertarian candidate needs lots of support and we'll need some kind of unity. It's far more important to push the LP candidate than to back away from him because of a few possibly less-than-libertarian positions. Remember that we'll be going up against McCain and Clinton and Obama, so unless you want to give in easily, please at least give this guy (or whoever the final LP candidtate is) a chance.
stephen the goldberger|4.3.08 @ 6:22PM|#
I'm gonna give this guy a chance, but his resume doesn't really wow me to say the least. He seems like a good candidate if the LP's goal this election cycle is to win over angry Republicans, which seems like a pretty smart move given the current climate.
|4.3.08 @ 6:32PM|#
...highlights were Hannity accusing Barr of wanting to legalize crack and elect Hillary Clinton...
Hey, if Hillary is elected, we're going to NEED the crack --
Hannity of all people should understand that.
Rimfax|4.3.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Bob Barr is a big name with electoral bona fides and minimal
personal presence, much like Ron Paul. He will make an excellent,
if unremarkable, Libertarian Party candidate who will get the
standard LP percentage of the vote. I look forward to voting for
him in November.
What I'd really like to see would be an LP candidate with genuine
"freak" credentials and at least the faintest whiff of charisma. By
"freak", I mean someone who the paleos don't want to like, but
can't find anything wrong with his/her policy positions. I want
someone who'll make the paleos say, "Why doesn't he get a haircut?"
or "Why does she have to dress like a whore?"
The LP presidential nominee is just a figurehead anyway. No matter
how "serious" a candidate he has turned out to be, intellectually
or politically, none have ever deviated significantly from the
standard minimal vote count expectations. None ever get invited to
the relevant debates. None ever get decent press coverage. Why
waste it on a purely "serious" candidate?
If any party is the home for "freaks" it is the LP. I am reminded
of the Stonewall Riots in NYC. It wasn't the stealth gays who got
the NYPD to stop hassling them. It was the freaks, the drag queens
and trannies, who stood up and fought back, and the NYPD backed
off.
I'd much rather risk the LP become something of a laughing stock
than to continue the ongoing cultural impression that libertarians
are what paleos appear to be: stodgy, boring, and personally
prudish.
Taktix®|4.3.08 @ 6:52PM|#
His Wikipedia entry is
interesting and well cited.
This may sound kind of lame, but I was contemplating while watching
John Addams the other night, and I realized that no one seems to be
doggish supporters of the rule of law, and his Wiki seems to paint
that portrait.
Michael Barone said in
2003 that he was handed a gun at a rally and it went off. We'd
need Ted Nugent to make up for this policy gap.
Barr/Nugent 08'
Now with more nuts!
|4.3.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Speaking only for myself, that's the key here. Barr has had
a number of "come to Jesus" moments about the darker blots on his
record, and I'm informed he'll have more of them. Paul refused to
talk about the newsletters and then unconvincingly explained them
to Wolf Blitzer after the story was really hurting him. If he'd
gotten in front of it, who knows what would have
happened?
You are such a loser.
|4.3.08 @ 7:23PM|#
You are such a loser.
Goddamn it! Why do the Rockwellian dead-enders have to be so
convincing?
JB|4.3.08 @ 7:28PM|#
Holy cow. Barr/Nugent '08!!! I might not just register to vote, I might actually donate money to a political candidate. Let's get this meme started.
|4.3.08 @ 7:33PM|#
Oh good. Someone I can actually vote for. I may only agree with him 85%, but the others I disagree with 100%.
|4.3.08 @ 7:43PM|#
I'm shocked some people are lying about Barr's antiliberty
positions. Changing your mind on medicinal marijuana is not chaning
you mind on illegal drugs just on one illegal drug.
And Barr's position isn't that marriage should be left to the
states. His law was a federal law not a state law. Under Barr's law
the foreign partner of a gay American can't come to the US -- the
federal govt. is strictly forbidden from recognizing that
relationship as valid. Yet the foreign partner of a heterosexaul
American can do so.
Recently Barr's law prevented a gay man from changing his name on
his passport to one that reflected his legal status as married in
MA. They said Barr's law won't allow them to recognize the new name
even though it now the man's legal name.
Barr has lots of apologizing to do before he's acceptable.
Ben Kalafut|4.3.08 @ 8:00PM|#
CLS: People--including people with political credibility--changing their minds and coming over to our side is what we want.
Nash|4.3.08 @ 8:03PM|#
From Wikipedia:
"He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law
enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a
man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states
may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in
another state. However, he does not support the Federal Marriage
Amendment, citing states' rights reasons."
It's not perfect but this means he's a prude not a gay hating
fascist. There is a difference.
|4.3.08 @ 8:11PM|#
What about balancing the ticket with Jesse Ventura? It would be hard for the media to ignore the LP ticket if they had both of them.
Kolohe|4.3.08 @ 8:17PM|#
If he'd gotten in front of it, who knows what would have
happened?
Nothing substatially different that what has transpired over the
last quarter.
Kolohe|4.3.08 @ 8:22PM|#
N.B. I know I can't spell, and don't take that 8:17 as a
criticism of Paul, or for that matter Weigel. I just have little
faith that you can create political momentum as fast as was
necessary for a Paul candidacy to be successful. He had velocity,
but not mass.
Barr, or any other LP nominee, will have this same problem in the
general and not substantially alter the race between Obama/McCain
or Clinton/McCain one iota.
|4.3.08 @ 8:45PM|#
"He also takes the Ron Paul position on Marriage: It's a state
issue."
I have never bought this as an acceptable position for things
involving personal liberties: marriage, racial segregation, etc.
Sounds too much like states rights federalists, and their track
record on civil liberties has been poor.
Episiarch|4.3.08 @ 8:45PM|#
Goddamn it! Why do the Rockwellian dead-enders have to be so
convincing?
Is it telling that Dave is most active on Thursday night threads?
Get a life, Weigel*. Just kidding. Your hair rocks.
* Wait. If I am on the thread, then am I the same as Dave?
AIUGHHH
LevStrauss|4.3.08 @ 8:47PM|#
The media really dictates who the candidates are for the major
parties. You want to know why Paul didn't have mass to match the
money, because he's old, too nice, and especially his media
coverage. If you didn't know anything about Paul and learned
everything about him from either Talk Radio or TV, what would you
think of him? The only damn questions he seemed to get every single
debate or interview was "are you a truther because all your
supporters are truthers" and "are you going to run third party
after you lose horribly." That is all people knew of Paul. It
wasn't newsletters, though that did hurt online momentum and kind
of made the MLK moneybomb awkward, but it absolutely had to do with
the media.
That said, Barr is the only LP candidate I have ever seen on a TV
and he is ten times better than the candidates of the major
parties. I'd rather have people say "oh...him, haven't seen him in
a while" instead of "who the hell is he and what country is he
running in" when I tell people who they should vote for.
I know much of what I said sounds shallow, but the finer points of
ideology don't mean shit when you're pulling .5%. We need bodies
first and foremost. Besides people don't give a damn about policy
just as long as they can sit their fat asses on the couch without
too much trouble. Don't forget McCain carried the anti war vote in
the primaries.
|4.3.08 @ 8:53PM|#
You all can fight and question Barr or whoever the LP candidate ends up being, but let me just say that if, in this political climate and after Ron Paul's quasi-success, the Libertarian candidate only gets .32% of the vote again, there's no point in having a LP at all. I obviously don't expect the LP candidate to win or get close, but is 5-10% of the vote too much to ask for? (I know it is, but I'm hoping for it anyway.)
|4.3.08 @ 8:59PM|#
Barr, or any other LP nominee, will have this same problem
in the general and not substantially alter the race between
Obama/McCain or Clinton/McCain one iota.
Have to disagree. If the election comes down to a thousand votes in
Florida or Ohio or New Mexico or ...
OR
The LP candidate pulls more votes than the margin of victory in
several swing states
THEN
Politicians, especially Republican ones, will have to start looking
at being a tiny bit small-l-ish.
Nash|4.3.08 @ 9:05PM|#
"I have never bought this as an acceptable position for things
involving personal liberties: marriage, racial segregation, etc.
Sounds too much like states rights federalists, and their track
record on civil liberties has been poor."
Fair enough but I sought to differentiate this position from say,
Mike Huckabee for example, who wants a federal amendment.
You may not like either position, but they are different in
scope.
|4.3.08 @ 9:26PM|#
I'd like Barr as the LP candidate, but I'm
more comfortable with conservatives than some
Libertarians. But it might be prudent for him
to have someone like Mary Ruwart as VP.
Having Gravel would just be absurd.
I just worry that Barr would have trouble
pulling in liberals. Ron Paul didn't have that trouble and the
liberal support certainly helped him.
Colin|4.3.08 @ 10:14PM|#
I just read that Barr had a relationship with the Council of
Conservative Citizens -- what appears to be a white supremacist
organization.
I hope Reason will research this as diligently as they researched
Paul.
I don't mind voting for someone who can't win, but I won't vote for
a racist.
|4.3.08 @ 10:26PM|#
I just read that Barr had a relationship with the Council of
Conservative Citizens -- what appears to be a white supremacist
organization.
Here we go again.
After some not-so-thorough research I found this: "The CofCC became
involved in national politics during the 1990s when it was
discovered by journalists and researchers that many politicians,
including Bob Barr, had belonged to or spoken at CofCC functions
(saying later in Barr's case that he found the groups' racial views
to be "repugnant," and didn't realize the nature of the group when
he agreed to attend)"
Huckabee spoke to this group earlier this year, if that counts for
anything. They seem pretty nutty, and dare I say, racist.
Rotter|4.3.08 @ 10:37PM|#
The COCC website is certainly in the spirit of the newsletters. Can we blame that on Lew Rockwell too?
LevStrauss|4.3.08 @ 11:20PM|#
Barr is the same guy who go fooled by Borat. This guy will speak
to anybody. On MLK Day he opened for Gore a few years ago when Gore
made his warrantless wiretapping speech, his last decent act before
becoming a bonafide global bureaucrat, although he always had
issues. He said the organization's views were repugnant. No issue.
Huckabee was a lot more welcoming to the group and that didn't stop
him from favorable media treatment.
This is nowhere near what they had on Ron and the circumstances
surrounding it. Ron had to cover up to most likely keep from
sacrificing Lew, so he stonewalled. If that wasn't the case then
its worse than I really want to know. The newsletter "controversy"
also was a story of personal financial interests that included Ron
and Lew. The marketing efforts of these organizations also were
interconnected, the same people were interchangeable in
collaboration.
Of course they will try to nail Barr on the 15th at the Rally MC'd
by the guy who made the 9/11 truth movie on pods. This will get
played out in conservative circles by the media outlets and will
not be helpful. Especially since the laser beam guy is also on the
agenda as a speaker. This is dangerous ground. Somebody might want
to let him know.
alan|4.3.08 @ 11:28PM|#
So, Hannity is implying that he is not on crack?
Some one needs to tail that bitch. He is too creepy not to be a
major hypocrite in some deeply repugnant fashion.
Rotter|4.3.08 @ 11:32PM|#
Barr seems to have evaded and distorted the COCC issue. The whole story makes him look pretty shabby.
Colin|4.3.08 @ 11:53PM|#
Barr's wikipedia page just reeks of hypocrisy and
opportunism.
Seems strange he was taken in by Borat considering he spent many
years of his youth in that part of the world, and then worked for
the CIA.
Colin|4.4.08 @ 12:00AM|#
Qouth Alan Dershowitz,
"[E]ither Bob Barr is the stupidest man in Congress, the most
mendacious, or both. I don't for a minute believe that he didn't
know about this group."
|4.4.08 @ 12:01AM|#
Barr seems to have evaded and distorted the COCC issue. The
whole story makes him look pretty shabby.
I dunno, I read through that and it seems like the ADL is making it
seem worse than it really is, which isn't uncommon for them. Keep
in mind their bias when you read their account of things; they're
trying to find him guilty, and I'm not convinced.
The whole thing was much worse for Trent Lott, who seemed reluctant
to speak against it. Barr denounced the organization and expressed
regret directly to them and wrote an op ed in the NY Daily News
soon after. (I can't find a copy of that anywhere). Seems to me Bob
Barr got mixed up in something he wasn't fully aware of, which is
eerily similar to the Ron Paul racist deal. Still, I think this
isn't as big of a deal as that, and we should stop trying to shut
him down before he even starts.
|4.4.08 @ 12:16AM|#
I knew it.
I knew it I knew it I knew it.
The moment that right-wing slimeball was accepted on the NatComm, I
knew he'd seek the LP nomination for President. I bet there was a
quid pro quo from day one. He's a has-been in Republican circles
(thanks partly to the LP, irony of ironies) who decided to jump
ship and become a big fish in the small pond of the LP.
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop at some future date:
the moment the Republican nomination for something... ANYthing...
is dangled in front of him, he'll bolt the LP faster than
Snagglepuss exited stage left, and then spend the rest of his life
denigrating the only party stupid enough to take him in when he
lost his Congressional seat.
If the LP convention has *any* sense (and trust me, I'm not holding
my breath), they'll nominate someone ELSE - someone with a few more
libertarian bonafides than Barr.
(Besides, his nomination would set back every effort made in the
last few years to broaden the party beyond geeky white heterosexual
males.)
LevStrauss|4.4.08 @ 12:16AM|#
Even the ADL "militia watchdog" says this:
"# Of the three major politicians implicated in the scandal, Bob
Barr is probably the one who deserves the least criticism. His
connection appears to have been limited to one event, and it is
true, as he has said, that some of the literature he was given (you
can see one example for yourself) is not overt about racism.
Moreover, and to his credit, he has strongly denounced the Council
multiple times and been quick to do so."
If you sneeze within fifteen feet of someone who looks remotely
Jewish the ADL calls you an anti semite, also known as the "Alan
Dershowitz Standard." The fact that they concede this pretty much
exonerates him.
|4.4.08 @ 12:39AM|#
If the LP convention has *any* sense (and trust me, I'm not
holding my breath), they'll nominate someone ELSE - someone with a
few more libertarian bonafides than Barr.
No matter who the LP nominates, there will be a ton of people who
will say they're not libertarian enough or not the right type of
libertarian.
Maybe Barr is the best choice, maybe not, but I don't see why so
many are jumping on him before he's even thrown his hat into the
ring. Give the guy the benefit of the doubt for now.
If you sneeze within fifteen feet of someone who looks remotely
Jewish the ADL calls you an anti semite, also known as the "Alan
Dershowitz Standard."
Sounds like something only a true Nazi would say. I'm sending your
comment to the ADL.
LevStrauss|4.4.08 @ 12:55AM|#
Adamness | April 4, 2008, 12:39am | #
Upon further inspection they can be rather forgiving at
times.
http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/left_behind_and_jews.asp
Rotter|4.4.08 @ 12:56AM|#
Amazing as it might seem, many politicians manage to go through
their whole careers without visiting outfits as vile and disgusting
as COCC. The opinion that Barr was the least reprehensible of a
very slimy group isn't much of a defense, but you will obviously
grab at any excuse for him.
Jewbaiting doesn't help your argument any, either.
The It Girl|4.4.08 @ 1:06AM|#
CLS: People--including people with political credibility--changing their minds and coming over to our side is what we want.
It's more like "abandoning their principles and pandering to
ours".
Congratulations, Libs - you have your own Mitt Romney.
LevStrauss|4.4.08 @ 1:17AM|#
Rotter | April 4, 2008, 12:56am | #
No Jew baiting, Dershowitz helped get OJ off. Seems he doesn't mind
defending someone who killed a Jew if the price is right. That
doesn't strike me as am to judge the gold standard for
antisemitism. He is not genuine.
As you see in my link, the ADL has no problem being lukewarm on an
apocalyptic cult that thinks "Jews are not as fully human as
Christians" as they put it themselves. Of course the reason they
are lukewarm has everything to do with foreign policy. The ADL and
an apocalyptic cult are united on foreign policy. I just wanted to
repeat that.
Angela Keaton|4.4.08 @ 1:44AM|#
Rimfax:
What you are suggesting would require political savvy, knowledge of
popular culture, understanding human psychology, not pandering to
the low self esteem of the big fish/little pond dish rags who have
only the vaguest notion of what respectability actually is yet
crave to point of embarrassing themselves. It's the phony
respectability that ensures the party remains an Onion
headline.
Don't count the Paleos out on the freak issue. Given how far the LP
has drifted from its core values, the LewRockwell crowd would
probably be thrilled with a one legged, albino, drag queen who
really got the anarcho-cap rap down right.
alan|4.4.08 @ 3:28AM|#
Whoops. I was experimenting with tagging (and ran out of paint). That was suppose to be a preview hit. Nothing to see, folks.
|4.4.08 @ 4:16AM|#
Check out the CNN news of this: they say he is inching closer to
an "Independent" bid. While the article makes clear that he is not
running as an independent, but as a Libertarian, I think that the
idea that a Libertarian candidate is an "independent" is a real
problem, and one the Libertarian Party (and probably the Greens and
other "third parties" should be complaining to CNN about.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/03/former-gop-rep-closer-to-independent-white-house-bid/
|4.4.08 @ 6:12AM|#
I want someone who'll make the paleos say, "Why doesn't he get a haircut?" or "Why does she have to dress like a whore?"
Dennis Rodman?
Taktix®|4.4.08 @ 6:47AM|#
Seems strange he was taken in by Borat considering he spent
many years of his youth in that part of the world, and then worked
for the CIA.
Perhaps he did it on purpose. It's not like Pamela Anderson was
actually attacked by Borat either.
Sure, he might not have known the full joke beforehand, but I can't
imagine Barr didn't expect something.
VM|4.4.08 @ 7:41AM|#
"He also takes the Ron Paul position on Marriage: It's a state
issue."
so you are okay with forbidding two people from making a loving
commitment cuz people at the state level find it icky? sher. a
fucking good position. oh, as long as the individual states are the
jackbooted thugs, it's okay. balls.
svf|4.4.08 @ 7:53AM|#
I think that the idea that a Libertarian candidate is an
"independent" is a real problem
I think it actually helps since so many voters think of
"independent" as a badge of honor, whereas "libertarian", "green",
etc. implies "fringe", "wackos", "wasted votes" etc. to the
uninformed masses...
robc|4.4.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Amazing as it might seem, many politicians manage to go
through their whole careers without visiting outfits as vile and
disgusting as COCC.
Ummm....you make like congress or a state legislature? All
politicians have visited outfits more vile and disgusting than
COCC.
robc|4.4.08 @ 9:07AM|#
VM,
Anyone who wants to can make a loving commitment. If you need
government approval to do it, you are doing something wrong.
Fluffy|4.4.08 @ 9:28AM|#
I laughed my ass off at the Borat movie, but was never one of
those who thought by being tricked by Borat meant that you were an
idiot.
Most people will accept the reality of a situation they are
presented with, at least for a few moments. Most people are also
too polite to say, "What the fuck is going on here?" Especially
with camera lights in your face. The one time I was on television,
they could have had an albino gorilla jerking off behind those
lights and I would have had no clue.
And hey, CBS in Boston only just now fired Bob Lobel. The
standard for actual broadcasters is therefore very low, and
includes incoherent stumbling drunks, so a crazy man pretending to
be a rapper or pretending to be a Kazakh is a feasible potential
interviewer.
No one ever stands up on The View and says, "Is this a fucking
joke?" so it doesn't surprise me that no one did that to Borat.
svf|4.4.08 @ 9:29AM|#
>
Exactly, the Libertarian position should be: "marriage is none of
the government's business, period." you need a contract from the
government to get married? you want to get married to get the "tax
benefits"?
I give Ron Paul credit for hinting at this at some point, I think
in the Stossel interviews... "it's a religious ceremony, it should
be none of the govt's business" or something to that effect.
Fluffy|4.4.08 @ 9:33AM|#
so you are okay with forbidding two people from making a
loving commitment cuz people at the state level find it
icky?
As the anti-gay marriage people know quite well, allowing it at the
state level will ultimately make it triumphant everywhere
anyway.
I'd prefer to see gay marriage the law of the land nationwide, but
I can also understand how politicians running for a federal office
who want to disempower the federal government might want to shrink
the range of issues where the federal government thinks it has a
legitimate interest.
Rotter|4.4.08 @ 9:50AM|#
Ummm....you make like congress or a state legislature? All
politicians have visited outfits more vile and disgusting than
COCC.
Yeah, trivialize it with a cheap joke. One of the things that makes
Congress so vile is having people like Barr in it.
|4.4.08 @ 10:03AM|#
Personally, I would take Mary Ruwart over both, Barr or Gravel.
I think she can actually bring together both the liberal and
conservative sides of the LP party. She may also be able to bring
in a few women voters who were looking to vote for a woman. I don't
think that to many people can say she isn't libertarian enough. I
doubt if you will find many skeletons in the closet like you will
find with Barr, Gravel, and Paul. I do think she would do very well
in a debate if allowed to compete against the R and D. The one
thing she doesn't bring is instant credibility from the media like
Barr might bring. There is also the issue that there are a lot of
conservatives that would like to vote for someone other than McCain
and Barr would likely fit that ticket a little better. If Obama is
the candidate I don't see many liberals flowing over to the LP
candidate, even if it was Gravel, who had minimal support even when
he was running for the Dem nomination.
1)Ruwart 2) Barr 3)Other prior candidates 4) Gravel
robc|4.4.08 @ 10:05AM|#
Rotter,
I wasnt joking. One of the things that makes congress more vile is
they actually affect my life, unlike the COCC.
BTW, whats with all the names on this thread that I have never seen
before on Reason? Where did they all come from?
PC|4.4.08 @ 10:14AM|#
On the marriage issue it should be left to the states. Of course
I don't think the states should get involved either but that is
correct jurisdiction and should be the belief of any federal
libertarian candidate. They also need to revoke the marriage tax
break and spread that across to everyone. The marriage tax break is
social engineering and unfair to single people. Of course a
libertarian would cut the budget and taxes to an amount where there
wouldn't be much of a change for married couples. Of course I am
opposed to all narrow tax breaks because they are social
engineering. Tax breaks should be uniform and cover everyone.
What States should have are generic contracts or a one stop
contract that dictates hospital visitation rights, child custody,
inheritance, etc. You should be able to include whoever you want,
if you are single and enter into the contract with a friend that
should be allowed, it should have nothing to do with marriage, and
be easy enought to execute with minimal lawyer interference.
Marriage is a sacrament to most religions and should stay that way.
Civil benefits and marriage should be as separate as
possible.
Seems like some want to make the legalization of gay marriage a
federal issue. Federal Democracy is how this government got so out
of control in the first place and shouldn't be our outlet to
reverse things, libertarians should respect jurisdiction. States
can be as assinine as they want to a point, it just helps me
dictate where I will not be moving to. This idea of enforcing all
these laws at a federal level, either way, has to stop. We are not
a homogenous group of 312 million people and shouldn't be treated
as such.
svf|4.4.08 @ 10:37AM|#
* dusting off crystal ball *
1)Ruwart ... 0.2%
2)Barr ... 2.8%
3)Other prior candidates ... 0.2%-0.5%
4)Gravel ... 1.2%
|4.4.08 @ 10:43AM|#
When talking about his national prospects with liberals and conservatives, lets not forgot that Barr is involved with the leadership ranks of both the ACLU and the NRA. If he is the LP nom, it would be interesting to see if those groups will give him their endorsements.
|4.4.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Bob Barr on the Libertarian ticket completely changes my thing
about my November ballot. It may be time to "throw away my vote"
again.
Call it principle.
|4.4.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Rimfax, thanks. And despite Mr. Rodman's oft-stated affinity for Pearl Jam, I have long suspected that he was a closet libertarian. Anyone have his cell phone number?
|4.4.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Harry Browne was the reason I joined the LP, but after about six
years my interest waned. Watching LP conventions on CSPAN was like
attending a Trekkie fan club meeting. The party seemed to be
absorbed in platform and issues with little thought to winning
elections and actually changing government.
With the LP and institutions like Cato, most policies have been
throughly discussed to establish the definition of Libertarian.
Unfortunately, the party has been unable to select candidates with
the political savy or skills to present us to the unwashed masses.
Say "Libertarian" to the average Joe and he thinks "Liberal", you
can't win elections if the world doesn't recognize you.
So this time pick someone with an identity and a personality to woo
the media and least be able to define Libertarian
Edward|4.4.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Bob Barr, Ron Paul--aging white guys with racist pasts. Nobody fucking cares. Note to libertarians: Get a life.
|4.4.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Note to libertarians: Get a life.
Pure performance art. It's like telling the guys you hang out
with every day that they need to get a life. Keep 'em smiling,
Eddie.
So how's counseling?
|4.4.08 @ 11:32PM|#
Looks like bobbarr2008.com is getting a little action.
"We'll be back...
We are updating our site, and should be back online very soon."
|4.7.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Gay marriage is a non-issue for me. Gay couples may commit
anything they like to one another, and they're better off crafting
the terms themselves rather than signing on to some institution
crafted by the trial lawyers' lobby in the legislature. This
officially sanctioned "gay marriage" is only a pretext to gay
divorce, and it also amounts to the public registration of sexual
orientation, an idea that reeks of Nuremberg and that gay activists
would surely oppose if Jerry Falwell advocated it.
Gay marriage is anti-gay. Gays are better off without it. Demanding
equally bad treatment in the name of "equal rights" is incredible.
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas largely settled the gay rights issue.
Gays should now stay out of politics and focus on creating their
own institutions.
I don't know a lot about Bob Barr, and his role in the Clinton
impeachment show doesn't recommend him to me, but he has some
backers I respect, and I like what I've heard from him thus far.
Ron Paul should endorse a credible candidate to reenergize his
backers. If Democratic super-delegates hand the nomination to
Clinton, we could see mass defections from both parties to a
credible LP ticket this year. I don't know who we could attract
from "the left" (please not Gravel), but I still believe that the
climate for a third party challenge has never been so
hospitable.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245