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.

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    What the hell is Cuddy doing in Barr's office? Damn writer's strike.

  • JM||

    Nice, I look forward to supporting him this November.

  • Travis||

    What's his position on Iraq?

  • ||

    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.

  • robc||

    Cameron,

    check the update above to Weigel's post.

  • Nash||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    "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®||

    ...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||

    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.

  • Episiarch||

    If Hannity is giving him shit, that can only be a good sign.

  • svf||

    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||

    Wouldn't be great if McCain lost the eclection because of the Libertarian Party.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • Travis||

    "Immediate Withdrawal"

    That will get Dondero going.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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."

  • ||

    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?

  • svf||

    Don Gorman?

    That's it!

  • ||

    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...

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "You're a blockhead Charlie Brown!"

  • Nash||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    Witnit: it appears that Barr acknowledges and regrets some decisions and opinions of the past, I don't think its an issue.

  • Fluffy||

    The Barrmentum is now unstoppable.

  • Witnit||

    Bingo: I wasn't impressed when Albert Speer tried that gimmick after Nuremberg, and I'm not impressed now.

  • Witnit||

    Godwin by proxy!

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • Travis||

    Well said Adamness

  • Fluffy||

    And................

    He's not McCain.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    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.

  • ||

    ...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||

    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®||

    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!

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    You are such a loser.

    Goddamn it! Why do the Rockwellian dead-enders have to be so convincing?

  • JB||

    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.

  • ||

    Oh good. Someone I can actually vote for. I may only agree with him 85%, but the others I disagree with 100%.

  • ||

    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||

    CLS: People--including people with political credibility--changing their minds and coming over to our side is what we want.

  • Nash||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    "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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.)

  • ||

    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||

    "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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Edward||

    Oh, this is so exciting.

  • Colin||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    The COCC website is certainly in the spirit of the newsletters. Can we blame that on Lew Rockwell too?

  • LevStrauss||

    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||

    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||

    Barr seems to have evaded and distorted the COCC issue. The whole story makes him look pretty shabby.

  • Colin||

    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||

    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."

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • javier||

    it actually seems that the lew rockwell crowd is embracing Barr

  • alan||

    Whoops. I was experimenting with tagging (and ran out of paint). That was suppose to be a preview hit. Nothing to see, folks.

  • alan||

    Cool, you didn't see it. Nevermind.

  • ||

    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/

  • ||

    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®||

    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||

    "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||

    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||

    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||

    VM,

    Anyone who wants to can make a loving commitment. If you need government approval to do it, you are doing something wrong.

  • Fluffy||

    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||

    >

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    * dusting off crystal ball *

    1)Ruwart ... 0.2%
    2)Barr ... 2.8%
    3)Other prior candidates ... 0.2%-0.5%
    4)Gravel ... 1.2%

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Doug Stanhope really would have been an ideal LP candidate. Sigh.

  • ||

    http://stanhopeforpresident.com/

  • ||

    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.

  • Rimfax||

    Art-P.O.G.,

    That's brilliant!!!

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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||

    Bob Barr, Ron Paul--aging white guys with racist pasts. Nobody fucking cares. Note to libertarians: Get a life.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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."

  • ||

    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.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  • sathi2000||

    Republicans won’t vote for an anti-war candidate; Ron Paul’s campaign has already proven that. If he takes the strongest anti-war, anti-torture, pro civil liberties positions Barr will be taking votes from Obama not McCain.
    http://www.mirei.com

  • Austin Remodeling Contractors||

    t 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

  • ||

    Wow. I thought redneck cops aren't scared of anything but commies and black people?? This one was actually scared of a friendly looking dog. What's next? A cop comes up to your house to borrow sugar and shoots your cat in the face with a RPG??? I mean geez dude
    Austin Roofing Contractor

  • ||

    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.
    Mother's Day Flowers

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement