The Weekend Political Thread: Bob Barr Edition

The big news this weekend should be Bob Barr's presidential launch, so here's a link to the happenings at the Heartland Libertarian Conference. Starting at 11 a.m. ET there'll be streaming video of the Libertarian candidates debate, sans Barr. At 3:50, Barr's announcement will be streaming.

Steve Gordon has polled support for Barr and finds him easily leading the field--but as expected, not with a convention-stealing majority of votes.

UPDATE: Stacy McCain's efforts at refreshing bobbarr2008.com have paid off: The site is live. It looks a whole lot like Ron Paul's site. Liked "Hope for America"? Hey, try some "Liberty for America."

And no, you're not the only one having trouble watching the announcement. Check YouTube tomorrow, I guess. "I'm announcing [buffering] my intent to [buffering] seek the presidency" is a bit of a letdown; the whole speech, from what I can tell, is actually quite good.

UPDATE II: Here's the press release:

In his speech, Barr noted that, “America today faces a grave moral and leadership crisis, and those of us who care about our country’s future can no longer sit on the sidelines and remain neutral.” “As Dante Alighieri said many centuries ago,” Barr observed, “the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Continuing, Barr stated that, “some say it is not now expedient or politically pragmatic to do the right thing, for the right reason.” But, he then asked his audience, “When has there been a better time? When has the risk of inaction carried more serious consequences? When will it be appropriate to take extraordinary steps? What must happen to our Constitution before we set aside our complacency and expediency in favor of principle?”

Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA for nearly eight years.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and actively advocating American citizens’ right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. He serves also as a board member for the National Rifle Association, and works with the American Conservative Union and other groups.

Barr’s speech to the Heartland audience touched on the issues the candidates for the two major status quo parties have not addressed sufficiently, namely: the urgent need for truly cutting the size of the federal government, protecting our civil liberties, securing our borders, and fundamentally reforming our tax code.

“Removing ‘earmarks’ but not cutting the underlying spending is simply government as usual and is nothing more than a cynical shell game,” Barr stated; adding, “and that’s the high water mark in the debate thus far.“ Barr said this is not adequate, and that America’s voters deserve better than a choice between the lesser of two evils.”

Here's a for-the-Web announcement.

Here's four ways Barr can avoid Ron Paul's mistakes, off the top of my head.

1. Be specific. The Paul campaign was a function of its candidate, unable to stick to a few clear messages: It didn't simply try out issues and see if they got any gains from them, it bounced from issue to issue without much connectivity. Right now I see four issue areas on Barr's site: "Cut big spending," "individual liberty," "secure our borders," and "national defense." That's a good start. (And border hawk campaigning will have more resonance in a race against John McCain than in a multi-way race with other candidates going for that vote.)

2. Tap the Ron Paul network, if not Ron Paul. Obviously not everyone who donated to Paul will donate to Barr. But if the Barr campaign can purchase Paul's list, and do a little fishing to see how many of those donors are gettable, it can build the biggest war chest any Libertarian's ever built. (Badnarik raised about $1 million last time.) Whether Barr wants Paul's explicit endorsement (Barr endorsed Paul, after all) is up to him, and whether he thinks the association would help him with protest voters.

3. Attack, attack, attack. The Paul campaign was about ideas, sure, but there was precious little thirst for blood: Paul didn't go after his fellow candidates, and was thereby left out of the narrative from week to week. The only extended line of attack was on McCain's "100 years" comment, but Paul had to be prodded to do it.

4. Talk to voters where they live. That goes for the candidate and for his campaign. They can knock on doors and make phone calls while he runs a real, dogged campaign, town halls and speeches, daily press conferences. Are some of those press conferences going to have a certain lack of, uh, reporters? Sure, sometimes. But you have to feed the beast to get coverage.

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.

  • ||

    Waiting for our Valiant Knights of the Pink Hankie to protest Barr is no libertarian because he doesn't support some kind of cosmotarian "right" in 5,4,3...

  • ||

    I'm torn between the two babes and Mike Gravel....Bob Barr!?!?!?!?!

    Have a nice saturday

  • ||

    Bob Barr is a phoney. He was all for the Patriot Act as a Republican then when he turned to the LP, he magically became one of it's biggest critics.

    Likewise, he was all for the War on Drugs but yet again as soon as he became a Libertarian, he had a Road to damascus experience and decided that the War on Drugs was a bad idea.

    Much like his moral crusade against Bill Clinton, this too is all an act(Barr has been married 3 times and forced his first wife to have an abortion in 1983 despite the fact that Barr is publically pro-life)

    http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Barr/barr1.html

  • ||

    I'd hate to see Barr get it might as well just vote for McCain.

    Mr. Root, I'm gonna buy myself a TV just so i can watch all the shows you're going to be on.

  • Rotter||

    Andrew Murphy nails it. In Congress Barr was intolerant, authoritarian and theocratic as well as one of the most vociferous loudmouths in favor of the drug war. Now he's had some kind of conversion and Reason fawns over him because he's slightly well known. I realize that by LP standards his fame is titanic, but does anyone seriously think that will turn into votes? To whore yourself out to win is shameful but to whore yourself out to get an extra 0.5% of the electorate is just pathetic.

  • svf||

    whew, it's finally over... I caught about 70% of it but needed frequent breaks from the lo-fi a/v stream... report card:

    Kubby: nice guy, no charisma. drop out.

    Imperwhatshisname: zzzzzzz. drop out.

    Christine Smith: bush league. drop out.

    Phillies: shrill, obnoxious, rotary club league. drop out.

    Ruwart: like watching paint dry. should run for VP and hopefully not get it.

    Root: didn't want to like him but I did. good talker, puts things in practical terms. should run for VP and hopefully get it.

    Gravel: bonus points for sticking to his guns on his non-paleoLib friendly issues, but disappointing overall. seems to be using the LP as a vehicle for a book tour. will probably run for Green Party when he loses the LP nomination.

    Bob Barr will mop the floor with all of them at the Nat'l convention. Stongest ticket would be Barr/Root. Hopefully we can make it happen and pull 2-5%.

  • Travis||

    For all the demonizing that goes on here against him. I thought Gravel sounded pretty good in the debate. He's as much of a libertarian as Bob Barr is.

  • Countdown to Knowledge||

    Uh, where's the prog? Where's the priceless analysis of today's events? I've been completely thrown for a loop here.

    9. It looks like the Kossacks are starting to wake up, and calling out "libertarians" in the process.

    8. Even bad influences can be hot and likeable: youtube.com/user/KatieCouric
    BrentBozell, please forgive me, but it's the truth.

    7. Don't worry about the recent AbsolutVodkaAd. It's not like they knew those types of sentiments would strike a chord south of the border or anything, and there's nothing to fear from millions in the U.S. sharing those sentiments.

    6. BHO promised an "honest conversation", and went on to lie.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Gosh, Lonewacko, where's the hysteria over irrelevant bullshit? Where's the WeirdCapitalization? Where's the insulting tone towards Reason writers, and the smug, smarmy arrogance?

    Oh, wait. It's all there. Never mind.

  • svf||

    Uh, where's the prog?

    submitted for your consideration... [MP3 link, sorry no video]

  • ||

    Rotter,

    I could have also pointed out his 100% voting record with Christian Coalition and that he was a keynote speaker for the Council of Conservative Citizens, a neoconfederate paleoconservative group.

  • ||

    Lonewacko, do you still not understand that everyone on this blog thinks you're a BigAsshole?

  • ||

    I have the same problems with Bob Barr that I had with Mitt Romney. You change your mind on one issue, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Wholesale conversions from your past statements and voting record while seeking a nomination strikes me as completely insincere.

  • ||

    I, for one, agree with our SpaceBarChallenged friend. Where's Politics 'n Prog?

  • John||

    There are several reasons why I think Barr's "conversion" is genuine, as opposed to Romney's. The primary difference is that where Romney was a "socially liberal" republican who later became a social conservative once he began campaigning for president, Barr left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party a much smaller outlet. Romney switched positions so he would become more electable. This same thing cannot be said about Barr. Honestly, who would switch positions and join the Libertarian Party to run for president is they could very well have stayed in one of the big parties and run on their platform. There just isn't the same political opportunism here. Also, compare his position to Ron Paul's. Paul ran as a libertarian in the Republican race because, arguably, that he would get nowhere if he ran on the LP ticket. The fact that Barr switched positions and joined a fringe party I think bolsters his credibility rather than harms it. But that is just my opinion.

  • Colin||

    Will Barr be wearing a white hood during his announcement?

  • ||

    John, I just don't buy it. Rep. Barr's conversions don't pass my smell test.

  • Robert Stacy McCain||

    Dude, link me next time.

  • ||

    Maybe we should wait to actually listen to the guy first, before we make any judgments about his integrity and potential candidacy.

  • ||

    Um, Ive been checking that thing all day and it says "not broadcasting" and is showing some Missouri public access stuff.

  • ||

    How delusional do you have to be to think Barr's conversion to Libertarianism is some kind of savvy Romney-like political calculation? Since when do mainstream Republicans in Georgia join the Libertarian Party to advance their careers? Barr was the guy who insisted on the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act, so even when he was in Congress voting for it, he had reservations. By 2004 he was heading an anti-Patriot Act coalition and was endorsing the LP candidate for President. He's worked for the Marijuana Policy Project. This isn't Mitt Romney paying lip service to popular social views. This is a guy doing actual work for unpopular libertarian views. Even when Barr was a full fledged Conservative he displayed an unusual level of concern for Civil Liberties. Libertarianism is the logical progression for a thinking civil libertarian minded conservative.

  • ||

    I tend to agree that the Barr scenario can be distinguished from Romney, as Romney was always switching to the position most favorable with whatever electorate he was courting while Barr is switching to a party that usually gets a small vote. Perhaps he always felt that way but espousing Libertarian views as a Georgia congressman would have lost him his job faster...

    However, he may just be calculating that by becoming a Ron Paul like figure he could make a little cash selling books, making appearances and such, and what else were his options?

  • ||

    Ron Paul switched positions on some things too, and held what some might call 'unlibertarian' positions. Barr might not be the greatest libertarian ever, and very might well be an opportunist, but pending what he has to say today and over the next few weeks, I think he could fit in well and might be able to draw wide support like RP did. I'm hoping the LP candidate gets more votes than Nader.

  • Countdown to Knowledge||

    14. In the 1500s, this was considered prog. Nowadays, thankfully, it's just a time-honored albeit strange tradition.

    17. If Barr does have CCC (get it?) links, I'm sure Reason's favorite TNR writer won't try to take advantage of that.

    11. According to Dr. Gen. C. Everett Koop, "even residual exposure to prog's lack of emotion, lack of issues-related messages, and lack of trilled-r's can lead to a form of 'EmotionalAnemia'". This classic prog anti-dote will rectify matters.

    33. Here's this week's SIV-friendly antidote.

    Alternative SIV-friendly antidote: flickr.com/photos/beatgirl/467826184/

  • ||

    Mr. Nice Guy,

    The problem with that theory is that he left the GOP over 4 years ago. When he endorsed the LP candidate for President in 2004, it was the socially pathetic, completely hopeless Michael Badnarik who was running, not Ron Paul. Nobody could have foreseen in 2003 that the LP would offer the political opportunities that it might hold this year. Barr was the impeachment guy. He already had a pretty good hook from which to make speeches and write books. With another Clinton poised to run in 2008 things looked very bright for anyone associated with the Clinton Hating empire. Instead, he threw all that away to rail against the Patriot Act and promote Mary Jane.

  • ||

    Ok, it's 3:30, where's the announcement?

  • ||

    Is it 3:50 EDT? The clock on the video is in MDT.

  • Valiant Knights of the Pink Ha||

    Depends. Does Bob Barr support our cosmotarian right to ignore the Libertarian presidential race?

  • ||

    Or is that CDT? I think it's central time. Anyway, am I wasting the next 6 minutes waiting for something that's coming on in 66?

  • ||

    Anyone else having connection problems? Keeps 'syncing.' All I'm getting is a still image of Barr with his hipster glasses.

  • ||

    His website is up, by the way: bobbarr2008.com

  • ||

    Yeah, Justin.tv is not pulling its weight on this one. Hope it makes YouTube quickly.

  • ||

    Go here: http://www.justin.tv/davidw

  • ||

    ARGH! All you HNRs are ruining my feed!

  • joe||

    The big news this weekend should be Bob Barr's presidential launch

    I don't know, did you see that Chinese bear twirling the log?

  • ||

    Justin.tv sucks.

    The feed started for 10 seconds with someone telling me to try a caramel latte.

  • Valiant Knights of the Pink Ha||

    By the way, we think it's great that U.S. and Canadian troops can help out with emergencies in either country, we didn't understand what the hell you were trying to say about Katie Couric, we like Absolut in our cosmotinis, and we thought Obama was being realistic.

    Oh, and there isn't really such a thing as a cosmotarian, and we have no spokesperson.

  • SIV||

    he was a keynote speaker for the Council of Conservative Citizens, a neoconfederate paleoconservative group.

    Take that ya Damn Yankees!

    Bob Barr will make an excellent candidate.
    I look forward to supporting him.

  • Robert Stacy McCain||

    All I'm getting is a still image of Barr with his hipster glasses.

    That's all you need, man. That's all anybody needs.

  • KirchikHitPiece in 15, 14...||

    Uh oh. He wants to "secure our borders". Statist!

    The rest of that part is just muddled thinking. By not "restrict[s] the labor pool" I assume he means some sort of massive GuestWorker scam or something. What he fails to understand is that people = PoliticalPower, whether they can vote or not. The more "guests" or similar, the more power he would give to the far-left and the worse off libertarians would be.

    It's not rocket science, but, Barr can't figure it out.

  • LoneWacko||

    1. I'm a giant douchebag

    2. I have no life

    3. I'm just trying to get into Michelle Malkin's skirt.

  • ||

    Yeah, I left the GOP and pretended to be for drug legalization so that I could run for president as a Libertarian and get 0.5% of the vote. And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling cosmotarians!

  • joe||

    So, you hate Bob Barr because, when he thinks about immigration policy, he doesn't put enough thought into how it would effect domestic partisan politics.

    Um. 'kay.

  • ||

    I kind of like the glasses. I don't think a conservative/paleocon hiding as a libertarian would wear hipster glasses. If anything makes me believe his libertarian credentials, it's the glasses.

    Uh oh. He wants to "secure our borders". Statist!

    Is it really a concern that illegals are "carriers of communicable diseases?" That seems like a stretch.

    Does anyone have any additional info on Barr's immigration position? Does he support some kind of legalization or 'path to citizenship?'

  • BakedPenguin||

    SIV - so I guess we know Barr's position on cockfighting, eh?

    Lonewacko does get points for linking to Morris dancers. However, since I never tire of taking shots at him, let me say that Mary Ramsey is a better singer than Natalie.

  • ||

    3. I'm just trying to get into Michelle Malkin's skirt.

    This admission would afford me so much more esteem for LoneWacko.

  • ||

    BakedPenguin-that's a nice version, but I miss Bryan Ferry's warbling. Roxy Music kicked so much ass. Bill Murray's version in "Lost in Translation" was great, too.

  • ||

    The site is live and he's already raised 8022 dollars!

    I don't care much about Barr, I just want to see the republicans go down to crushing defeat. And this is coming from someone who counted the Gingrich-led GOP takeover of congress in 1994 as the happiest day of his political life.

  • Bingo||

    The same webdesign group that did RP's site also did BB's site, thats why they look so similar.

    And all of you people getting mad about Barr's changing of position are assholes. Many people over the last 7 years, myself included, have come to terms that we were wrong about a lot of things, including the PATRIOT act and the war. This administration has really brought to light a lot of sad facts about the state of our nation and the direction that it is heading in.

    I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. I was wrong.

  • ||

    Bingo-

    You have no idea how good it feels that I voted for Harry Browne in 2000.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Art-POG - I'm with you on the song (I like the Roxy version too) and the Malkin thing. Whatever her politics, she is hot. Sadly enough, she once had different ideas. I suppose there was more money in being a conservative shill than libertarian.

    Cesar / Bingo - I've said this before, but had I chose to vote R/D in 2000, I would have voted for what I saw as the "lesser evil" of Bush. This is why I'm voting Libertarian (or not voting) instead of Obama.

  • ||

    Baked you live in Chicago don't you? Given that you're state is going to Obama no matter what it doesn't really matter how you vote anyway.

    If my state isn't a swing state I'll go for Barr. If its within three points and "More Wars" McCain is close to winning the Presidency, I'll vote for Obama and take a shower.

  • ||

    Bingo, I have to admit a regretted Bush vote in 2000 as well. Bob Barr just doesn't appear sincere to me. I could be wrong and am not averse to changing my opinions as facts warrant.

    Let me also add that neither McCain or Obama set my heart atwitter.

  • ||

    Announcement video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXJtWRW0CQI

  • ||

    Damn, yeah, Michelle Malkin pulled a total Anakin Skywalker. Sad to see.

  • ||

    RE: Barr's announcement

    I thought it was J. Jonah Jameson.

  • ABC||

    As folks have pointed out it doesn't make much political sense to switch from the GOP to the LP for political gain. His conversion seems sincere enough, and on the impeachment issue; if I remember correctly the LP supported impeachment as well.

    Barr could appeal to folks who weren't born as libertarians because he could admit that "Hey, I was a dumbass.. now I'm less so"

  • Bingo||

    Well it is worth noting that Bush campaigned on a relatively libertarian platform in 2000, especially compared to Gore. The scary thing is that Gore of 2000 was way more moderate than Hillary and Obama are in 2008.

    Bob Barr's announcement got me excited again. Who knows, maybe if his presidential bid fails he can run for Senate or House with the -L attached to his name. It would be really cool to get some people in Congress, and the LP may actually stand a chance of doing that over the next couple years.

  • ||

    Bingo I can understand a Bush in 2000, but why in 2004 after everything that happened?

  • Bingo||

    Cesar:

    Well, the War and also domestic issues. I thought that we were doing good things in Iraq, that the Iraqis wanted and needed us there, that we were maybe a year or two off from forming a government in Iraq that would be friendly and peaceful, and the new Iraqi government would help fund our efforts to ensure their freedom with money from the new oil platforms that would be built. I was also under the impression that there might have been some connection to Bin Laden that somehow justified the whole endeavor. Plus, and I don't think many people will admit this, it's pretty cool seeing a bunch of backwards authoritarian religious nutballs get their asses kicked by the US military. Guns and explosions are cool.

    On domestic issues I had assumed the GOP was still the party of limited government and would work to shrink the size and at least try to follow constitutional limitations. Maybe even privatizing social security as was promised for years now.

    As it turns out, I was wrong about pretty much everything. Terri Schiavo, Perscription Drugs, PATRIOT Act expansion, the perfect merger of big corporate interests and big government interests, continued chaos in Iraq with no signs that anything will ever change, the idiocy against gay marriage, war on drugs and perceived social ills, and general fiscal insanity both domestically and overseas.... it sorta adds up after a while.

    GW was the first president I voted for, but he will be the last Republican I ever vote for. (I do, however, reserve the right to vote for Jeff Flake ;) )

  • ||

    (I do, however, reserve the right to vote for Jeff Flake ;) )

    Me too, but I hope he loses that creepy "He seemed like a nice guy until he murdered 20 people in his basement" demeanor.

  • ||

    I voted Harry Browne in 2000 and Bush in 2004.


    Yeah, I don't know either.

  • ||

    Oh, I remember! I was hoping that Bush would follow through on his promise to destroy Social Security.

  • ||

    I hope if McCain is elected (or, if not, when he retires in 2010) Flake will take his seat.

  • ||

    "Barr has shown "

    What? What has Barr shown? Tell us, please!

  • ||

    Bingo I didn't think Bush would be SO bad in 2000. I really didn't think Gore was that bad, either, they both ran as squishy middle of the road centrists (remember the "I agree" debate?).

    But things turned out much worse than I thought they would be, which seems to be the theme for this country since the decade began.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Did I just hear Barr say that McCain supports the "statist quo" instead of status quo. That's a cute play on words.

  • ||

    What? What has Barr shown? Tell us, please!

    Apparently, Barr has shown a willingness to attack the other candidates.

    I guess that's along the lines of what the NSA redacted writer forgot to finish.

  • Eric Dondero||

    I have to part company with my old friend Andrew Murphy here. I like Barr, alway have. I could support him.

    But taking a wait and see approach on his foreign policy. No doubt once the puritarian wing of the LP gets their claws into him they'll make him more non-interventionist/pacifist.

    If he goes too far to the libertarian left on foreign policy, he won't get my support.

    Bob Barr: Please stay who you are right now - skeptical, but still Pro-Defense.

  • ||

    Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.



    That isn't too much for you Dondi?

  • ||

    Oh, I thought this would get you pissed off too:

    However, invading or initiation force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.

  • ||

    Eric,

    Are you not concerned about Barr's 100% Christian Coalition rating and his playing footies with neoconfederates at the Council of Conservative Citizens?

    If Barr is libertarian, then so is Mike Huckabee and Pat Buchanan

  • Travis||

    If Dondero ends up backing Barr we should take that as a warning sign.

  • Bingo||

    Cesar:

    But things turned out much worse than I thought they would be, which seems to be the theme for this country since the decade began.



    I think there are two reasons for this. 1) The "do something!" reflex that has been ingrained into Americans 2) The huge amount of information readily available, as revolutionized by the Internet. When you combine the two, you end up with a lot of scary stuff that you didn't know was out there, and someone needs to do something about it. It's just a hypothesis, but it coincides well with your timeframe.

    You find out people can make meth from ephedra? Ban ephedra! From ephedrine? Ban ephedrine! From pseudo-ephedrine? Lock up all the cold medicines and require a signature and an ID to purchase.

    Kids get made fun of and bullied? Teenagers meet up with older people for romantic relationships? Teenagers are emotional and are frequently prone to drama and relationship trouble? Teens have sex and even take sexy pictures? This shit has been going on for EONS but it wasn't really put into the spotlight until Myspace and facebook showed up. Obviously, we need to ban or regulate myspace and facebook!

    Same thing for healthcare problems, atrocities in third-world countries, environmental catastrophies, violence (in videogames or other media), any sort of chemical induced high (which are all heavily documented in easily accessible scientific literature), gambling, homosexuality, and tons of other perceived bad things. All these things for which the government can do something about.

    We've been playing whack-a-mole with supposed societal ills since at least the temperance movement, and the rate of moles have increased and so has the whacking.

    I dunno, its an interesting hypothesis.

  • bill||

    I sorry but the LP needs someone WAY more charismatic than Barr. Plus, America will never elect someone with a mustache.

  • ||

    For those not familar, the Council of Conservative Citizens was founded by members of the segregationist Citizen Councils of America.

    They invite racists from the National Front Party in France and the British National Party to come to speak before their groups.

    They have on their editorial board for their newspaper, Jared Taylor, a notorious white nationalist and they praise the works of the late Samuel Francis.

    All you Barr fans should ask Barr if he regrets speaking before their organization which conveniently I am sure he will say "yes" since he has done a great job so far of changing from a Pat Robertson Republican into a Libertarian in just a few years.

  • ||

    Fuck you and your hairless upper lip, bill.

  • ||

    All you Barr fans should ask Barr if he regrets speaking before their organization which conveniently I am sure he will say "yes" since he has done a great job so far of changing from a Pat Robertson Republican into a Libertarian in just a few years.

    Actually he did apologize and say he regrets doing it soon after he realized the racist views of the organization. All this was in 1999.

  • ||

    Andrew Murphy,

    You still haven't answered how Barr benefitted by his change in views towards libertarianism. Generally, people have to have some sort of ulterior motive to make it worthwile to live a lie (Hillary Clinton is a possible exception).

  • Edward||

    "Paul didn't go after his fellow candidates, and was thereby left out of the narrative from week to week."

    You always want a candidate who lets racist filth be published under his name to be left out of the narrative for as long as possible. If you don't matter, nobody cares.

  • Bingo||

    Andrew Murphy and Dondero:

    Fuck off. The Libertarian Party is in no condition to be applying a litmus test for ideological purity to everyone that joins. Personally, I am overjoyed that both Bob Barr and Mike Gravel desire to be affiliated with the party that champions individual liberty and freedom.

  • ||

    Damnit Bingo, I thought the Internet and world-wide communication was a force FOR freedom!

    See? You're continuing the 2000's running theme. ;)

  • ||

    Hmm, I wonder if (******) above is going to switch to posting vacuous diatribes against Barr now that the rLOVEution is petering out.

  • ||

    If Dondero ends up backing Barr we should take that as a warning sign.

    If only we could get Dondero to back the junior senator from New York.

  • ||

    Chris,

    How did he benefit? He lost his GOP seat. His former congressional seat was not an option and he was not well liked enough in Georgia to run for the Senate.

    Where else was he to go?

    Ask your self that question again. He is a rock star in the LP because he was a former GOP member. Would he be getting the same treatment in the GOP

  • ||

    J sub D-

    He actually prefers her getting the nomination to Obama.

  • Countdown to Knowledge||

    73712109423. I'm surprised that MattW hasn't pulled this thread, seeing as Dave Weigel is, for once, making some slight sense. He just needs to connect the first point to the third. The three major candidates are extraordinary vulnerable on the entire ImmigrationIssue. By attacking them on it in the right way, Barr could shake up not just the current race but the entire political system. And, no, that's not hyperbole.

    73712109422. Some ways to attack the three top contenders: (McCain), (Obama), (Hill).

    73712109421. Needless to say, by taking a pro-American stance on this issue Barr would at least annoy many libertarians. As if that means anything.

    73712109420. A HillaryClinton co-chair recently told us what immigration is all about.

    73712109419. I've contacted the Barr campaign regarding their stance and shall report back.

  • ||

    Oh, Bingo, you must be the house Vulgarian around here.

    Well, I have no "ideological purity" here, only pointing out that the guy is a fraud just like his holier-then-thou campaign aginst Bill Clinton.

    Gravel is a decent, honest man. If the LP wants a true man of conviction, Gravel is way ahead of your boy Barr

  • Bingo||

    Cesar:

    No it's a force for freedom. We have all this information, from how to manufacture explosives to how to treat a wound. You can find recipes for cookies or hallucinogens. There's immense theological and philosophical discussion and there are people exploring nausea inducing sexual fetishes. It's pretty awesome to be able to find anything from scat porn to portraits of Jesus just by typing few different letters into a search engine.

    The problem is that people are absolutely terrified of the bad stuff that they were ignorant of previously and want the government to ban anything that could lead to the bad stuff.

  • ||

    Gravel is a decent, honest man. If the LP wants a true man of conviction, Gravel is way ahead of your boy Barr

    You call Barr a fraud and opportunist, but then praise Gravel?

    Bahahaha.

  • ||

    Im on the fence on Bob Barr, waiting to see if he adopts Dr. Paul's foreign policy. So if Dondero backs him I don't think I can.

  • ||

    Tell me where Gravel has changed his positions radically since joining the LP?

    Barr has changed into a totally different person since joining the LP

    Big difference


    Bahahaha too you

  • ||

    Fun with comments on Lonewackos site:

    Gravatar It is a Race War by the third world Oligarchies who want your Nation and want living room for its enslaved people...see Hitler 1933-1945.


    Its is evil and your government and its political rat class are helping our enemies for race reasons and mass enslavement of all people
    its just the one world pigs at work.

    the funny thing is if you really look at the one world people you can see hitler and the Islam ideals all in one, this is never talked about or is mass attacks on this nation and its people by the third worlds people the system will use jihadist mexicans and third world people to take our freedoms and make us a dead people just like the Romans or the Byzantine Empires.



    Classy operation there.

  • Bingo||

    Andrew Murphy:

    I think you have Barr's cause and effect mixed up.

    1) Realize you were wrong about a lot of things and now want to promote smaller government and more freedom
    2) Join party of smaller government and more freedom

    is much more logical than

    1) Pass a bunch of bills advocating larger government and less freedom
    2) Join an ineffectual party of smaller government and more freedom because of some perceived advantage
    3) Realize you were wrong about a lot of things and now want to promote smaller government and more freedom

  • ||

    Tell me where Gravel has changed his positions radically since joining the LP?

    Barr didn't change positions after joining.
    And Gravel is barely a libertarian anyway, if one at all.

    Gravel is using the LP because the Dems didn't want him. He thought he could ride the Ron Paul bandwagon to vast fortunes of fundraising and internet popularity. Gravel is the opportunist here. Plus, I question his sanity.

  • ||

    I'm starting to think M'sieur Murphy works for one of the other LP candidates. Why would anyone care that much about Barr otherwise? Unlike they're just a god-damned lunatic, like some of our other frequent visitors.

  • SIV||

    Andrew Murphy,

    Where has Barr "radically changed" since joining the LP? (other than the WoDs)

    What does Barr's role in the Clinton impeachment have to do with anything?

    Why do you have a problem with Evangelicals or Racialists who support limited Government and individual liberty?

  • ||

    Barr's been in the LP for four years. Gravel hasn't even been in the LP for four weeks.

    Sorry, "he had nothing better to do" isn't enough of an ulterior motive for pissing off his existing political friends and benefactors by joining the LP.

  • Vulgar Minion of URKOBOLD||

    "Oh, Bingo, you must be the house Vulgarian around here."

    I AM THE VULGARIAN.

    AND DON'T YOU EVER FREAKIN FORGET THAT.

    oh hai "dickhead2"

  • ||

    I'm starting to think M'sieur Murphy works for one of the other LP candidates.

    Considering this by-line, I'm assuming he's in the tank for WARoot.

  • Bob Barr Truther||

    I wonder why this page seems to have been purged from the LP site?

  • ||

    Truther,

    Heh. I can't believe the LP would have a memory hole, must be technical difficulties. ;-)

  • ||

    oh hai "dickhead2"

    moi?

  • Colin||

    He gets some bonus points for quoting Dante.

    But considering his history, Machiavelli would've been more apropos.

  • ||

    You know, if you libertarians ever want to have any success, you have to be more accepting of converts from the other parties...

  • ||

    Oh, Bingo, you must be the house Vulgarian around here.

    Uh, that would be me. Say something incredibly stupid or blatantly immoral and I may demonstrate what I believe is a finely honed skill.

  • ||

    You know, if you libertarians ever want to have any success, you have to be more accepting of converts from the other parties...

    I think libertarians are scared of success. It would explain most of the candidates the LP put up.

  • ||

    Chris,

    No I am not for Root nor am I a Libertarian party member, so I have no dog in this hunt.

  • ||

    Fun with comments on Lonewackos site:
    ...
    Classy operation there.


    Cesar,
    I have no pretenses of superiority over those that pump out septic tanks for a living. It's a dirty job that needs done, I just don't wish to do it. In that spirit, I thank you.

  • ||

    Do you deny being the Andrew Murphy who shares bylines with DONDEROOOOOOOOOO?

  • ||

    the third worlds people the system will use jihadist mexicans and third world people to take our freedoms and make us a dead people


    Fuh?

  • ||

    SIV wrote,

    Where has Barr "radically changed" since joining the LP? (other than the WoDs)

    What does Barr's role in the Clinton impeachment have to do with anything?

    Why do you have a problem with Evangelicals or Racialists who support limited Government and individual liberty?

    1) Barr voted for the Patriot Act which he now takes a page out of Hillary Clinton book on Iraq, Barr now claims he really didn't know what he was voting for

    2)Because he claimed he was fighting against "immorality" when he himself was guilt of cheating on his 2nd wife with his soon to be 3rd wife. Also he was one of the most strident pro-lifers in Congress but behind close doors in 1983, he forced his 1st wife to have an abortion against her own wishes

    3)Not against religious people involved for limited government at all, just opposed to smarmy holier-then-thou types like Bob Barr who wants to play the old' Do as I say, not do as I do game with character and moral issues

  • ||

    KirchikHitPiece.

    I never really thought about it, but it's interesting that all the furriners who are hardworking and come here for opportunity somehow "expand the far left" but the lazy protectionist welfare statists make-up the "right"? "The right" = national socialists? Interesting.

    If that's the case I guess i'd rather epxand the "far left."

  • ||

    Chris,

    No I don't deny it all.

    If you noticed, Dondero and I don't see eye to eye on Bob Barr.

    So thanks for throwing in that red herring

  • ||

    The stench of the Evangelicals* cannot be removed once smeared onto a group of people.

    *(substitute Muslims if you like - same thing but different title on the songbook)

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Not sure I can trust the guy just yet, but if it came down to Bob Barr vs. Mike *snicker* Gravel for the LP front-runner... well, duh.

    I do hope Mary Ruwart does well, though. She'd make a great candidate for the LP, and would also blow some smoke in the faces of the types who think women can't be taken seriously in big political races (Hillary doesn't count).

  • ||

    the types who think women can't be taken seriously in big political races (Hillary doesn't count).

    I consider it far from settled whether Hillary Clinton is in fact a woman.

    -jcr

  • Bob Barr Truther||

  • ||

    Gravel may not be the ideal candidate but he does have some legitimate milestones. He helped end the draft, fought to end the Vietnam War, helped bring the Pentagon Papers to light and he helped establish legislation for ESOP companies(Employee Stock Option Purchase) which gives workers ownership within companies. Other then saying he regrets his vote on the Patriot Act and is against the War on Drugs now, what sort of libertarian acomplishments can Bob Barr claim??

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    That's what I meant, John. Although, as we all know... any criticism of Hillary is rooted in misogyny. *snicker*

    BTW, isn't it telling that the Clintons will be supported by the usual suspects after their revelation of being multi-millionaires? Seems it's only "okay" for Democrats to be wealthy, don't it?

  • ||

    Gravel may not be the ideal candidate but he does have some legitimate milestones.

    Don't forget he wants universal healthcare and is against free trade. A great libertarian!

    The Patriot Act might be permanent if it wasn't for the efforts of Barr. In a way it's admirable that, assuming he's being honest about it, realizes why his past positions were wrong. Learning from mistakes can teach you more than if you got it right the first time.

    Ever since the silly 'flip flop' charge against John Kerry, people have become obsessed with having their candidates have the exact same positions from when they were fetuses to when they run for office. There's nothing wrong with having a change of heart, and I didn't fault Kerry for it and I don't fault Barr for it. As long as they're honest about it and explain why they changed their mind (I don't think Romney, for example, was honest or explained it well enough), I can't fault them.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Cesar (if you're still reading the thread) - actually, I'm in Florida, so the vote could be close.

    You can find recipes for cookies or hallucinogens...



    Sound like a Reese's moment to me. "You got your hallucinogens in my cookies!" "No, you got your cookies in my hallucinogens!"

  • ||

    Adamness, I agree. Everybody can honestly change their opinions, however I am just cynical enough about Bob Barr to think to it is all a show. Maybe I am wrong and mis judging his positions but I just find it a remarkable coincidence that as soon as he joined the LP, he started suggesting he was wrong about the drug war and the Patriot Act.....

  • ||

    Adamness, I didn't say Gravel was the ideal candidate just he had some contributions to bring to the table. You must admit Gravel being a libertarian is not as much of a stretch as Justin Raimondo's claim that Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader are Old Right libertarians....That one still makes me shoot scotch out of my noise LOL

  • ||

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not 100% gung-ho on the guy either, but if he is sincere, I think he's the best shot we've had in a while, and is better than the other candidates.

    As to his sincerity, I really don't see why he'd put up this charade just to run as a libertarian. It's hard to believe he'd still be for the drug war and Patriot act, all while writing and working against those things these past years. If that wasn't enough, why would he run for president on a platform that would be the opposite of what he believes? He could have run as a Republican like Ron Paul did.

    It doesn't add up that Barr would just be faking it.

    I'm not saying that Barr supports drug use or anything, but I do believe that he rejects the drug war, if for no other reason than it hasn't worked. He apparently had a bit of a libertarian streak in the House, hence his amendment for a sunset clause in the Patriot Act. And after seeing the Bush admin in action post-9/11, it wouldn't take much to turn someone against big and intrusive government and draw out libertarianism in a lot of people. Where do you think Ron Paul's support came from? It was people who realized big government is bad government, and Bob Barr likely came to the same conclusion. I don't think we should hold it against him that he had to see it to believe it. If anything, it makes him a stronger candidate for us.

  • ||

    Andrew, it reminds me of how on H&R, some of the writers were trying to claim Obama was 'good for libertarians' because he didn't want a healthcare mandate.

    I've said it a few times around here that being less authoritarian does not make one a libertarian or more libertarian; just less authoritarian. Obama is not a libertarian, and neither is Mike Gravel. Both might be less authoritarian, Gravel more than Obama, but that's not libertarian. If Gravel rejects free trade (likely for a more protectionist stance) and supports universal healthcare, he's just like the racists and conspiracy theorists who use libertarianism to further their goals and ideas without believing in libertarianism.

  • Kolohe||

    I'm not a Barr fan, (heck I'll admit I'm not even an LP fan) but while Saul held the coats, Paul (the 1st c one) spread the word.

    So while I'm not sure what actually brought him to the metaphorical Syrian highway, a morally honest conversion is totally possible.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Best to always back those candidates that "Dondi" is not supporting.

    I'm hereby endorsing Mary Ruwart, George Phillies and Steve Kubby. So, best to stay away from these three.

    I'm not supporting Bob Barr or Wayne Root. So, they're safe for you all to support.

  • ||

    And after seeing the Bush admin in action post-9/11, it wouldn't take much to turn someone against big and intrusive government and draw out libertarianism in a lot of people.

    Fer sure. The Bush years ended for me any illusions that the GOP favored a smaller government or a humble foreign policy. None of the R or D frontrunners gets my vote. It's LP, unless Gravel gets nominated, in which case blank ballot, baby.

  • ||

    Eric Dondero | April 5, 2008, 10:23pm | #

    Best to always back those candidates that "Dondi" is not supporting.

    I'm hereby endorsing Mary Ruwart, George Phillies and Steve Kubby. So, best to stay away from these three.

    I'm not supporting Bob Barr or Wayne Root. So, they're safe for you all to support.


    Since we all know that was totally insincere, I now know that Ruwart, Phillies, or Kubby are all preferable to Barr or Root. Thanks for the heads-up, Dondero. Strong work!

  • ||

    I'm hereby endorsing Mary Ruwart, George Phillies and Steve Kubby. So, best to stay away from these three.

    I'm not supporting Bob Barr or Wayne Root. So, they're safe for you all to support.


    Jedi mind tricks.

  • ||

    So, Bizarro-Dondero has no opinion on Mike Gravel? Interesting.

  • Mike Laursen||

    I'm surprised that MattW hasn't pulled this thread...

    Well, first of all Nick Gillespie is the editor of reason.com. Matt Welch is the editor of reason magazine.

    Second, when has any thread ever been pulled from Hit & Run?

  • Mike Laursen||

    I've said it a few times around here that being less authoritarian does not make one ... more libertarian

    Sure it does.

    ... without ***believing*** in libertarianism.

    Reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists I grew up around, who were so adamant that those who merely do good works without believing in Jesus were all going to hell. Look, libertarianism has a proven, practical, great track record. That's enough. It only detracts from the sheer practicality and sense of it when we try to turn it into a religion.

  • ||

    Reminds me of the Christian fundamentalists I grew up around, who were so adamant that those who merely do good works without believing in Jesus were all going to hell. Look, libertarianism has a proven, practical, great track record. That's enough. It only detracts from the sheer practicality and sense of it when we try to turn it into a religion.

    No, I'm just saying there should still be a distinction made between the philosophical side of libertarianism and the political side. Mike Gravel, racists and conspiracy theorists might all be card-carrying Libertarians, but that doesn't mean they adhere to libertarian philosophy.

    Libertarianism is a big tent and I'm not saying we should kick people out, but I also don't want to be lumped into supporters of universal healthcare and racists, so I like to make a distinction of the philosophy and politics.

  • Seer||

    Maybe it's just me, but maybe ****ing up the election would be a bad idea this cycle. Think about it: the Democrats have a lot of political capital towards universal healthcare right now, and that might not be the case later. I guess I'm seeing a situation where if the Republicans lose, we're stuck with a universal healthcare system forever, whereas with the Republicans winning we've got a war that will actually end.

    That's right, eliminating the entitlement system is much harder than ending a war. Let's make things easy and beat the Democrats first.

    Then again, if Barr really nails the Democrats on the anti-war side, maybe it won't be so bad. Especially if the Democratic primary stays so messy. I wonder if the Dems that say they won't back Hillary/Barrack respectively would switch to Barr over McCain?

  • Ol\' Zip||

    with the Republicans winning we've got a war that will actually end.


    In about 100 years, from what I've heard...

  • ||

    Chris, Dondero had Gravel on his Blog radio show last week. Spoke highly of his efforts in the past to end the draft. Dondero is a Root man however likes the idea of Barr joining in the presidental race. Where your reading Dondero is being pensive about Gravel I am not sure. Go to his website or listen to the Gravel interview

  • ||

    I'm really hoping Reason gets on board Waco 2.0 that's going on right now. There are libertarian issues, and this standoff could be what splits the cosmos from the paleos.

  • ||

    Here's the video of Barr's speech today: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3962676876294897674&hl=en

    "I'm really hoping Reason gets on board Waco 2.0 that's going on right now. There are libertarian issues, and this standoff could be what splits the cosmos from the paleos."

    It won't turn out the same. This is about an alleged 15 year old abused girl, not a possibly unjustified weapons raid. Doesn't statutory or regular rape of a 14-15 year old girl warrant police action?

    And Charlton Heston died. I guess this means we can finally take his gun.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    And Charlton Heston died. I guess this means we can finally take his gun.

    Just this minute got an email from a friend in Ohio and it said...........

    they can pry the gun out of his hand....

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Waco 2.0 that's going on right now

    This time they're sending ambulances. Strange. Last time it was, Burn, Baby, Burn.

  • ||

    Adamness, we agree totally on this. Police action was warranted in this case. How many times are some libertarians going to play the Waco card everytime the police intervene. You guys ever heared of the story of "crying wolf" too many times???

  • Cosmo||

    this standoff could be what splits the cosmos from the paleos.

    I must have missed the part of this standoff that had to do with xenophobia, racism, or nutty conspiracies...

  • Fluffy||

    I guess I'm seeing a situation where if the Republicans lose, we're stuck with a universal healthcare system forever, whereas with the Republicans winning we've got a war that will actually end.

    Funny, we had a Democrat President not too long ago, and somehow we didn't get campaign finance reform, nor did we get a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

    Both of those required a Republican President.

    If McCain is the President, we will absolutely end up with some more malignant version of Romneycare on the federal level. Bank on it.

    Against a Democrat President, the rump Republican Senate caucus will grab a couple of Blue Dog Democrats and stop policy initiatives just out of spite. With McCain as President, you'll see the same coalition that passed the Medicare expansion pass Romneycare on steroids. McCain loves "bipartisanship" when it's anti-freedom and pro-state.

  • Fluffy||

    You know what pisses me off about Andrew Murphy?

    The fact that he says stupid things like demanding Barr apologize for speaking to the Council of Concerned Citizens, but then says he wouldn't believe it if he did.

    He says this even though Barr apologized for this while he was still a Republican, and even though even critics of Barr commended him for quickly denouncing the group at the time.

    If you're going to specialize in demanding symbolic denunciations, do try to keep up with what symbolic denunciations have already been issued.

    And it's especially comical in the context of your praise of Gravel. Gravel has also spoken to offensive groups, you know. I saw him participate in debates in front of audiences composed of Democrat activists. Has he denounced those persons yet?

  • Travis||

    "If McCain is the President, we will absolutely end up with some more malignant version of Romneycare on the federal level. Bank on it."

    Couldn't have put it better myself this isn't Barry Goldwater we're talking about it's McCain. Who just 7 years ago was thinking about switching parties & becoming a democrat.

  • ||

    Totally off-topic, but Charlton Heston died last night. RIP El Cid

  • Elemenope||

    Totally off-topic, but Charlton Heston died last night.

    I guess now we can have his gun, seeing as how his hands are all cold and, um, dead.

    /ducks

    But seriously, good actor, great cultural loss. RIP.

  • ||

    Bob Barr isn't going to become President of the U.S. in 2008. It is foolish to worry that he sneak in on a libertarian platform and then, as President, return to authoritarian-Republican policies.

    The only thing to worry about is that he will win the LP nomination on a libertarian platform, and then, begin to run on conservative policies in the general election.

    I don't beleive that he will do this. I think he will try to appeal to those who supported Ron Paul in the primaries.

    He will want to get the funds and volunteer support all the way until November.

    And, all the evidence suggests that Ron Paul's least libertarian postitions did little to promote his popularity.

    Getting the Ron Paul supporters to vote for a Libertarian will be good for the Libertarian Party.

    It is our best hope to get the Ron Paul people on board.

    As a small party, the LP needs people to convert. In the near future, the only credible candidates we will have for President will be people who switch parties.

    For high level campaigns where victory is more or less impossible, we don't need to worry too much about whether the conversion is sincere. As long as they run on a libertarian platform (smaller government, less intervention, more personal liberty,) then the creditials a former public official trump most concerns.

  • ||

    Heston dead? Shit, that sucks. RIP.
    I saw Heston give a speech on C-Span years ago and I could have sworn it was a Reagan with even better delivery. I thought he could have made a run for high office if he had not gotten ill soon after. Whatever else one thinks of him, he could have sat around Hollywood drinking cocktails and rolling around in money but he believed in things, articulated them strongly and well, and worked hard to defend them. If I remember correctly he marched with Civil Rights Activists back in the day.

    He may have been on of those over-the-top actors, but he had incredible courage and imagination in choosing roles. It would be hard to imagine someone who would choose such a range of film genres as he did. He could be in big budget studio epics like 10 Commandments or El Cid, but also quirky sci-fi classis. Omega Man. Planet of the Apes. Soylent Green. Wow.

    I don't believe in an after life, so I'll just say goodbye to Heston and reflect on his great life achievements...He was a man, take him for all in all I shall not look upon his like again...

  • ||

    El Cid is my favourite movie of all time. Maybe now it will get re-released.

  • Elemenope||

    He could be in big budget studio epics like 10 Commandments or El Cid, but also quirky sci-fi classis. Omega Man. Planet of the Apes. Soylent Green. Wow.

    Don't forget Wayne's World 2.

    Greatest. Role. Ever.

    Slightly more seriously, though, I really appreciated his cameo in the new Planet of the Apes. Soylent Green was teh best, possibly.

  • Edward||

    Heston was a fucking right-wing lunatic. I loved the debate about going to war against Iraq between him and Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens asked him what countries border Iraq. Heston, of course, hadn't the vaguest idea. Then Hitchens said something like "You want to start bombing this country, and you don't even know where it is?" I half expected Heston to pull out a gun and say, "You think you're smarter than a bullet?" If there's a heaven for morons, maybe Heston and Reagan are playing checkers as we speak. If so, I imagine Reagan is winning.

  • ||

    I will listen to Barr as he explains any shifts in positions he has held in the past. Primarily on the drug war.

    So long as he supports some sort of removal of federal rules against marijuana, I can live with that. Preferably reversal of the Raich decision via legislation. I would like more of course. but having someone with better credentials than the typical Libertarian cadidat come out for that would be a big change in US politics and could only be a good thing.

    Support for the Fair Tax or some other alternative to the Income Tax, along with 16th Amendment repeal would also be good.

    I no longer look for purity, that is for fundamentalists and fanatics. I just look for reasonable movement in the direction of liberty.

    Other things, like opposing foreign wars should be a given, but I will wait and see.

    Not certain if I will go to the convention this year or not. I have a new job and may not be able to take the time. Plus Denver is a looooong drive from NJ, and I'm not sure if I want to go through the virtual arm-tattooing needed to use an aircraft now-days.

  • ||

    It's a shame, in a way.

    Bob Barr should have been the one to run for the GOP nomination, not Ron Paul.

  • Edward||

    Tom,

    Thanks for the personal details. We were all wondering whether you were going to the convention. How's the new job?

  • Edward||

    JKP,

    Right. Instead of a clean-shaven boring old fart, libertarians would have had a mustachioed boring old fart to champion the cause.

  • Mike Laursen||

    so I like to make a distinction of the philosophy and politics.

    Fair enough. There are a few related philosophical schools that go under the libertarian label, though, not just one.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    I thought it was on this blog I apologized for saying that, it must have been another website, but anyway, that is true. Barr did apoloigize in 1999 for dealing with this neoconfederate Councils.

    Fluffy wrote, " I saw him participate in debates in front of audiences composed of Democrat activists."

    I wasn't aware that Demcorats were a hate group now??

  • ||

    Funny, we had a Democrat President not too long ago, and somehow we didn't get campaign finance reform, nor did we get a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

    Both of those required a Republican President.


    And a Repiblican House.
    And a Republican Senate.
    Lest anyone forget the fuck story that is Iraq, GOP, GOP, GOP.

  • ||

    J sub D,

    Let's not forget that it was a DEMOCRATIC president Bill Clinto that signed into law October 31, 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act, passed 98-0 in the US Senate which mandated that the USA was obligating ittself to a regime change in Iraq.

    In 1998, George Bush was still governor of Texas and Dick Chaney was still at Hailburton

  • Elemenope||

    I just look for reasonable movement in the direction of liberty.

    In other news, the universe has just collapsed in upon itself.

    Also, *drink*! I don't care that it's Sunday.

  • ||

    I wasn't aware that Demcorats were a hate group now??

    Not a gun owner, huh?
    Or a stockholder in oil, pharmaceutical, or the domestic auto industries?
    Or a tobacco exec.

  • ||

    I wasn't aware that Demcorats were a hate group now??



    I guess you are not a rich white heterosexual male, then.

  • ||

    I first saw Bob Barr when he criticized the BATF and FBI in the WACO hearings. That certainly impressed me.

    He continued to criticize the police organs of the state for rights violations. Very un-conservative.

    When he joined the LP, I was cautiously optimistic. Yes, he was a bastard on drugs, but a states rights POV is all that is needed to right that, and he seems to hold that now.

    If he strongly espouses a non-interventionist foreign policy, and if the LP convention does not shoot itself in the foot and nominate someone else, and MCCain does not implode in a paroxysm of self contradictions and Ron Paul is not nominated, then Bob Barr is my man!

  • ||

    Let's not forget that it was a DEMOCRATIC president Bill Clinto that signed into law October 31, 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act, passed 98-0 in the US Senate which mandated that the USA was obligating ittself to a regime change in Iraq.

    Wow, a resolution that said Saddam is a bad guy and we want him to go. Almost the same as sending 100,000+ troops and a trillion dollars halfway around the world.

    Get real.

  • ||

    Get real indeed, J sub D.

    SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

    It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

  • Edward||

    I wasn't aware that Demcorats were a hate group now??

    You have to get with the libertarian program. The ordinary meanings of words are replaced by the appealing sound they make rolling around in our bony skulls.

  • Brandybuck||

    I'm really hoping Reason gets on board Waco 2.0 that's going on right now. There are libertarian issues, and this standoff could be what splits the cosmos from the paleos.



    That incident is about forced marriages of underaged girls. Unless you're an anarchist who thinks the government should abolish the rape laws, then it doesn't matter if you're a paleo or a cosmo, you should be against it.

  • ||

    Funny, from what I can tell the incident is about the allegations of one teenage girl, who now is nowhere to be found.

  • Fluffy||

    The Democrat party is not a "hate group", but the John Birch Society isn't a hate group either.

    I am unfamiliar with any accusations that the JBS has ever undertaken violence against any one.

    They may have a flawed view of the world, but so does the Communist Party of the USA. I wouldn't consider the CP-USA a "hate group". Why not? Because they aren't out there burning down churches with little girls inside, and neither is the JBS.

    To me all false ideologies are equally false. The Democrats are more socially respectable, certainly. But so what? They've certainly done more actual harm in the world than the JBS precisely for that reason.

  • Elemenope||

    from what I can tell the incident is about the allegations of one teenage girl

    ...and since both teenagers and girls are naturally less trustworthy, and rape isn't really *that* big a deal, we shouldn't take it all that seriously...

    Huh? Are you serious?

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    JBS is not a hate group although one of their founders Revilo Oliver was a neo-nazi.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revilo_P._Oliver

    All you really need to know about the JBS is that they think the lying boozer Joe McCarthy and his evil mini-me, Roy Cohen were American heroes. That about sums up the JBS in my book

  • ||

    Funny, from what I can tell the incident is about the allegations of one teenage girl, who now is nowhere to be found.

    They raided what was the extension of the Fundamentalist Mormon Church once led by Warren Jeffs, who was convicted of rape with minors and arranging marriages of young girls. I don't think that was isolated, and this whole thing started when the missing girl in question reported abuse. The girl was married to someone who is a convicted sex offender for having sex with a minor. This isn't Waco 2, and I don't see anything wrong about the police getting involved. There's likely dozens of young girls who've been raped.

    Secondly, the police did enter the Church last night, and there wasn't any violence.

  • ||

    Can't reason with some people Adamness, they probably also think it was wrong fro the Chilean government to raid Colonia Dignidad

  • ||

    Bill Woolsey is correct: the LP needs converts if it is to succeed. My wife and I were not 100% libertarian when we joined, but over the course of a couple years of activity, we learned more about the philosophy of liberty, especially with the help of my friend Gene Berkman (and his shop, Renaissance Books, was a valuable resource).

    I say: welcome converts with open arms, but work like hell on internal education to get these converts to embrace the freedom philosophy even more. If Bob Barr can attract a sizable number of Paul supporters, we're going to need an internal education program to handle the influx and keep the LP "libertarian".

  • ||

    Oh-oh, I just agreed with Edward.

  • Colin||

    How about a Welsh/Howley ticket?

  • ||

    Andrew Murphy,

    Yep, the authorization for the invasion of Iraq was asked for and granted to Bill Clinton. That explains why G.W. Bush asked for and received this Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

    Perhaps you are too stupid to discern the difference.

  • ||

    J sub D,

    "stupid"

    Wow, you must have been the star pupil in your debate class in college.

    It is quite amazing for anybody to suggest that the seeds of the Iraq War were in sowed during the 1990s when the USA and the UN put in place the Oil-for-Food, the no-fly zones, the UN votes which told Iraq if they did not allow the UN nuclear inspectors to accomplish their job there would be "serious" reprecutions.

  • ||

    Andrew, I think its very possible in an alternate universe somewhere President Gore is defending his Iraq surge while a Republican Congress cries for an exit strategy.

  • ||

    Andrew, if you are unable to see that this is a G.W. Bush war, you are beyond reasoning with. Believe what you will, but my mom taught me about fools and drunkards.

  • ||

    In other words, often the stand one team takes against the other is not principled but done merely because the other team is doing the opposite.

  • ||

    Eh, it seems like splitting hairs. It seems the neo-cons merely exploited standing policy.

  • ||

    Re: Waco 2, yes, allegations of rape should be taken seriously. But, I think it's a bit unfair to jump all over someone for pointing out that the person allegedly making the allegations about an alleged rape can't be located, nor can the alleged victim be located, in a situation where the government is going after an unpopular group that holds unpopular religious principles, and where certain politicians might be looking to burnish their resumes by going after said unpopular group. I don't think it's off-limits to discuss whether the government has some ulterior motives here unrelated to the allegations of rape.

    Not defending the FLDS -- they're certainly scumballs -- but they do have the right to exist, and if you believe in freedom it has to be extended to people who hold vile beliefs to mean anything. Read the early history of the Mormon church, then tell me that there's no reason to suspect the motives of the members of the government calling the shots here.

  • ||

    Given what the federal government did to the Mormons early on, one thinks Mormons would be the most libertarian people in America.

  • ||

    Eh, it seems like splitting hairs. It seems the neo-cons merely exploited standing policy

    Going from containing Iraq, to invading and occupying Iraq, sure seems to me to be significantltly more than "exploiting existing policy".

  • ||

    J Sub D

    Yeah. But I've seen extremists in the anti-war crowd blame the sanctions on Iraq for so many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths.
    I'm not justifying that viewpoint, I think the US should have a foreign policy but the extreme anti-war left and the paleocons seem to think we should have been "ignoring" Iraq the whole time.
    I guess I sound like I'm playing Devil's Advocate and not doing a very good job of it.

  • ||

    Art-P.O.G.

    Yeah, there is enough blame to go around. You can even spread some on the French. That said, this administrations cavalier attitude about going to war borders on the criminal.

  • Mad Max||

    I'd like to kick Barr's tires a little more, but he sure looks appealing at first glance.

    One thing I'd like clarified is his position on abortion. I don't assume he's pro-abortion merely because he is a consultant with the ACLU on privacy issues, but from the guilt-by-association perspective, this is much worse than speaking at some dinner sponsored by the CCC.

  • ||

    Art-P.O.G.,

    You hit it on the head being a devil's advocate. Everybody agrees in 2003 that the sanctions, oil-for-food, the no-fly zones could and would not last forever. Evidentally, something was going to have to be done in Iraq.

    Does anybody really believe that if we had allowed Iraq to implode on itself, the USA regardless of who was going to be in the White House(a Democrat or Republican), would not have been involved in somehow with the mop up involved.

    Perhaps those on this board can find time to come down from the peanut gallery and share with us all what exactly the alternatives in 2003 were? Everyone agrees the oil for food was a disaster, the sanctions were not working on Iraq, and Iraq continued to thumb its nose at the international community regarding its WMD program. At what point does the international community have the right to say, "Enough is enough"?

  • Travis||

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints is behind alot of the crack down on polygamists in Utah now a days. They put a lot of pressure on State officails in Utah many who are members of the LDS to go after groups like the FLDS. It's a way of shutting down heretical Mormon sects.

    Having said that no girl should have to marry someone she doesn't want to marry. If the FLDS is marrying underage girls off, the men deserve to go to prison.

  • SIV||

    El Dorado TX isn't "Waco II" because it isn't the Feds conducting the raid and there are no fatalities yet.

    False and/or groundless "tips" are a routine,daily occurrence in the CPS bureaucracies- and they are mandated by law to investigate every one of them.

    As they are raiding an entire community and have removed more than 180 people they are bound to find something "real" whether or not the original allegation is true.

  • Travis||

    "Perhaps those on this board can find time to come down from the peanut gallery and share with us all what exactly the alternatives in 2003 were? Everyone agrees the oil for food was a disaster, the sanctions were not working on Iraq, and Iraq continued to thumb its nose at the international community regarding its WMD program. At what point does the international community have the right to say, "Enough is enough"?"


    The oil for food program was a disaster & should have been ended. If I was the one making decisions in 2003 I would have ended the embargo. Iraq was never a threat to American security. I would have sold arms to the Kurds to make up for ending the no fly zone told Saudi Arabia & Kuwait it's time to spend your immense wealth on your own self defense & stop treating the American armed forces as hired mercenaries. About the WMD's, Hans Blix the U.N. weapons inspector said he didn't believe there were WMD's in Iraq at that time remember.

  • ||

    Does anybody really believe that if we had allowed Iraq to implode on itself, the USA regardless of who was going to be in the White House(a Democrat or Republican), would not have been involved in somehow with the mop up involved.

    There at least would have been some kind of justification to go into Iraq in that case. The war that was waged was not a just war, or even a preemptive war, which is sometimes legally and morally permissible. The Iraq war was a preventative war, and that's a bad precedent to set.

    Not only that, if Iraq did naturally progress into an unstable state, like it is today, it wouldn't have been only America (don't forget Poland!) dealing with it. Even in a totally practical and utilitarian sense, it would have been better not to invade when we did.

  • ||

    . Everybody agrees in 2003 that the sanctions, oil-for-food, the no-fly zones could and would not last forever. Evidentally, something was going to have to be done in Iraq.

    Ah, yes. "Everybody" knows that 130,000-troop occupations are much easier to sustain than no-fly zones and economic sanctions.

    I tried not to judge you via guilt by association with DONDEROOOOOOOOO, but you're doing nothing to help in that attempt.

  • ||

    Perhaps those on this board can find time to come down from the peanut gallery and share with us all what exactly the alternatives in 2003 were?

    Leave a defanged Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq. Make certain he knows that his neighbors will be defended. The "implosion", if and when it occured, would arguably be less harmful than what has occurred and would not be the United States business.

    How's that "Arab Spring", democracy breaking out all over thing coming along? GWB's father knew that nation building in Iraq was a fool's errand. He had a limited objective, applied sufficient force, achieved the objective and left. All of these points were being made in 2002. They were ignored by this administration. Therefore they get the blame.

  • Kolohe||

    Perhaps those on this board can find time to come down from the peanut gallery and share with us all what exactly the alternatives in 2003 were? Everyone agrees the oil for food was a disaster, the sanctions were not working on Iraq, and Iraq continued to thumb its nose at the international community regarding its WMD program. At what point does the international community have the right to say, "Enough is enough"?



    We seem to following a policy of containment with the DPRK- for doing the exact same shit.

    Only history will tell whether or not it's the right call, but it is obvious at the current juncture that our policy wrt East Asia is a hell of lot less of a clusterfuck than that of the Mid East.

  • ||

    A neoconservative told me once that Clinton should've launched a "small tactical strike" against the DPRK's nuclear facilities.

    When I told them the North Koreans had thousands of artillery pieces aimed directly and Seoul, a capital of our ally, and would shell the city back to the stone age if we did that he simply said "Theres always a price for freedom!"

  • ||

    We seem to following a policy of containment with the DPRK- for doing the exact same shit.

    We never attack countries that can fight back to any significant degree. At least that we think can fight back. We didn't know (or claim to know) that an insurgency would develop in Iraq, and for all we know the North Korean army would fold in a day.

  • ||

    Perhaps those on this board can find time to come down from the peanut gallery and share with us all what exactly the alternatives in 2003 were?

    Ask, and ye shall receive. Note that none of the above suggested sacrificing 4000+ American lives, $1 trillion+, and U.S standing in the world. All of these suggestions were made in 2002.

  • ||

    On this FLDS crap.

    Are the feds involved? I don't see it in the Salt Lake City rag.
    Are there any deaths or injuries? Again, I see nothing in the paper.
    Late breaking news may change my opinion, but comparing this to Waco at this point seems hysterical.

  • ||

    The "Arab spring" well, first the illegal occuption of Lebanon has come to an end by Syria. There are budding feminist groups in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia first the first time. The democratic opposition in Egypt has been getting stronger year after year. And Afghan women are becoming citizens in their own country again after the stone age fascism of the Taliban. Likewise, in Iraq, 47 percent of the members of the Iraqi Parliment are women(compared to 17 percent in the US House of Rep)

  • ||

    Andrew-

    Their constitution MANDATES at least 33% of their Parliament be filled by women. So, that helps just a little bit.

  • ||

    For those making the North Korea comparison, that is a red herring. There are 4 conditions under international that a nation can lose its sovergnity. If it is a member of the Genocide Convention and found to have committed genocide. If the nation wages aggressive war and occupies its neighbors and if it harbors and finally supports international terrorists. Iraq meet all those conditions, NK doesn't. Iraq committed genocide in it's al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds. It occupied Kuwait and waged war on Iran. Also it was a safe haven for Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Musab al-Zarqwie, Abdual Yassin and Iraq was offering to pay a stipen for life to all Palestinan widows who's husbands killed themselves blow up Israelis and Iraq supported terrorist groups in Iran and Turkey

  • ||

    Hizbollah in Lebanon.
    Witch trials (literal witch trials) in Saudi Arabia.
    Hamas in Gaza.
    Sharia law in Afghanistan.
    Iran being Iran.

    Yeah, Arab Spring.
    Cherry picking like that and I can demonstrate Detroit is a city undergoing an urban renaissance.

  • ||

    I think this is relevant:

    Report: US no closer to Iraq goals

  • ||

    Unrelated to democracy, but one of the other unsung accomplishnents is the closing down of the AQ Khan network which was selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder. Also, because of that, we discovered that al-Quada was slowing trying to talibanize Pakistan from within. Today, al-Quada can no longer do that without the world paying attention to it

  • ||

    I didn't say it was all rose garden. Syria is nolonger the occupier of Lebanon. True Saudis still have witch trials and are a foul regime but there is a small but vocal feminist group in SA that was not there 15 years ago. Afghanistan in areas under the Taliban are indeed under sharia law. Iran is being Iran but the mullahs are hated by the youth and the labor unions and hopefully we will see a democratic end to the mullah regime........

  • Travis||

    "Afghanistan in areas under the Taliban are indeed under sharia law"

    The entire country is under Sharia Law even the parts that are controlled by Nato backed government.

  • ||

    Let me set the record straight, I agree the Bush Administration's handling of the war has been terrible. They ignored General Shiniski's recommendation for more troops. Donald Rumsfeld wanted to win a war on the cheap with airpower. They tried to frighten people about WMD's versus making a humanitarian case to eliminate Saddam. They put a Kissinger toady, Paul Bremer in charge of the provisional government who delayed democracy for a year(never put a Kissingerite in charge of a democracy, by reflex they are anti-democracy) etc-. However, I am willing to see past the politics of this and say, that removing Saddam was a good thing despite the efforts of the Bushies to make it seem like a bad idea

  • Kolohe||

    1) If it is a member of the Genocide Convention and found to have committed genocide.

    DPRK is a member - and with the USSR they had the UN take out the language that killing "groups identified as holding similar political opinions or social status would constitute genocide " (per wikipedia) So if you take the original intent of the UN resolution they would be guilty. But by definition you're correct; it's hard to commit genocide when when you just kill millions of your own ethnically homogenous nation.

    2) If the nation wages aggressive war and occupies its neighbors

    Um, sure did



    3) & 4) and if it harbors and finally supports international terrorists.

    They're on the U.S list of terror supporting nations. It's a pretty elite club.

    They provide assistance to the Japanese Red Army
    They've kidnapped Japanese filmakers.
    They bombed south korean airliners.

    Granted, they've been quiet for going on twenty years now. But that's because they're broke.

    Red herring, not at all. They're still red, but they prefer pickled cabbage to pickled fish, I believe.

  • Kolohe||

    dang, I forgot to delete that first bold tag

  • Kolohe||

    fwiw, i agree with your 3:51. In hindsight, though, I have a feeling that the cure may have worse than the disease, especially due to the neolithic incompetence of the current admin

  • ||

    FWIW, even though I don't like the situation in Iraq, I appreciate the ability of members of this board to have a civil, intelligent discussion about it. Too often I've seen these things devolve.

  • ||

    These discussions/arguments devolve, I mean.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Crap, can't spell my own name.

  • ||

    Heeeeey.

    CNN is talking about Bob Barr right now and they're playing his speech from yesterday.

  • ||

    I readily admit that Saddam was an evil bastard.
    Was he the worst on Earth? Certainly not.
    Was he the worst in the middle east? Maybe. Both the House os Saud and Bashar al-Assad provide serious competition.
    Does that justify invading? Not in my mind.

  • ||

    Who is the worlds worst tyrant anyway?

    I have to vote for Kim Jung Il.

  • ||

    Barr's record:

    Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.
    Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC.
    Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
    Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO.
    Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements.
    No US troops under UN command; more defense spending
    Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill
    Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers
    Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts

    Since when a guy who wants the federal government to manage social norms like marriage, who is anti-free-trade and who wants to use the federal law to avoid companies to freely recruit foreign workers is considered a libertarian?

  • ||

    "If McCain is the President, we will absolutely end up with some more malignant version of Romneycare on the federal level. Bank on it."

    Why? McCain was one of the few republicans who opposed the Medicare extension - he even tried to filibuster it. He also voted against the Farm Bill, the Energy Bill and the Transportation Bill: the 3 laws that required more discretionary spending during the Bush Administration.

    McCain is very reliable on spending.

  • ||

    Andrew Murphy: "one of the other unsung accomplishnents is the closing down of the AQ Khan network which was selling nuclear technology to the highest bidder. Also, because of that, we discovered that al-Quada was slowing trying to talibanize Pakistan from within."

    Complete hogwash. Pakistan's exportation of nuke-tech and the Khan network shut-down is not an "accomplishment" of the Bush Administration. Instead is an event that happened notwithstanding the Bush Administration.

    * Dafna Linzer, "U.S. Misled Allies About Nuclear Export - North Korea Sent Material To Pakistan, Not to Libya", Washington Post, March 20, 2005

    Additionally, the Administrations of GHW Bush, and Reagan concealed intelligence about Pakistan's press to become a nuclear power, and it willingness to export nuke technology.

    * Matt Kelley, "Pakistan threatened to give nukes to Iran, ex-officials say", Associated Press, February 27, 2004

    The Kelley article raises grave concerns about the veracity of the Silberman/Robb Intelligence investigation, as on of the primary form officials quoted in it is Henry Rowen, who was, as all member of Silberman/Robb were, simply appointed by Bush.

    If you first became aware that al Qaeda was "Talabanizing" the Pak/Afghan frontier only after the public disclosure of the Khan network, you've had your head u...um...buried in the sand. This has been well reported since Mr, Bush turned the American military away from the good fight, against The Nation's real enemy, at Tora Bora in December 2001.

    Function (BuShilling)
    {
    BeginLoop;
    [Wash, Rinse, Spin];
    If Facts == Discernible then goto BeginLoop;
    Else EndLoop;
    }

  • ||

    On this FLDS crap.

    Are the feds involved? I don't see it in the Salt Lake City rag.
    Are there any deaths or injuries? Again, I see nothing in the paper.
    Late breaking news may change my opinion, but comparing this to Waco at this point seems hysterical.


    It's unlike Waco for the reasons J sub D pointed out above, plus so far the lack of violence. It is a bit like Waco due to the massive number of law enforcement agents involved in investigating a single allegation of rape, rounding up hundreds of people, and the fact that this is aimed at a tiny and very unpopular religious sect where politicians can with impunity run roughshod over the people involved.

    I haven't heard how this escalated -- did they start by sending a single patrol car out there with a team of cops to investigate, and then slowly add more cops when that initial attempt to enforce the law was rebuffed (which I would consider OK), or did they swoop down with all the cavalry despite little or no resistance (not so much OK in my book)? Was an appropriate escalation of force used? Or was this a "kick down the doors at 3 am with a SWAT team to investigate an allegation that someone inside maybe had a joint" kind of deal we keep reading about here?

    So far, it appears to me to be the "Mini-me" of Wacos.

  • ||

    CivilLibertarian, in fairness to Barr, he now claims he was wrong about some of that stuff like the drug war and Patriot Act. It remains to be seen if he has had a genuine conversion or not but you have brought up some interesting points about his anti-free trade and the like.

  • ||

    knight, I didn't say the Bushies get credit for it only that it was an unsung accomplishment on part of theinternational community that we shut it down and that Libya is also out of the WMD game also, which is a good thing also. I assume you agree with that

  • ||

    Cesar-I'd agree with N. Korea's leader as the worst. It's the worst tyranny going today from what I know.

  • ||

    Andrew Murphy,

    *ahem* Care to address this point, or withdraw your claim about the unsustainability of sanctions?

    Everybody agrees in 2003 that the sanctions, oil-for-food, the no-fly zones could and would not last forever. Evidentally, something was going to have to be done in Iraq.

    Ah, yes. "Everybody" knows that 130,000-troop occupations are much easier to sustain than no-fly zones and economic sanctions.

  • Laughing at Reason and the LP||

    yeah I mean why would you want a candidate who has said/voted the same way since he went to DC in the 70s when you could vote for some asshole that worked for the CIA and flipflops just like the booboisie. if the lp does not draft Ron Paul and actually nominates this scumbag Barr then I would have a hard time believing the lp could ever have any serious contenders in a presidential or congressional race, you've already lost most of your base to the republican party. I can see it now Barr is nominated at the convention and everyone who switched their party affiliation to vote for Paul in the primaries ends up not switching back and the lp loses a large part of its base because of Barr. Barr + lp = Ayn Rand was right about the lp all along.

  • ||

    No Chris, I will not because as you know Iraq would have imploded from within evidentually and the USA would have been in the mop up....Frankly, I find it sad that on one hand you hate the war because of the deaths the occuption has caused on the Iraqi people but then turn around and say we should have continued the sanctions which was causing huge suffering especially for the children of Iraq and we know the Oil-for-Food money was going build palaces for Saddam's family and George Galloway's wallet versus helping the people of Iraq. So, your only probelm is not that Iraqis are dying of a civil war just that they should be dying because of sanctions instead. Very moral and decent of you, I must say.

  • Edward||

    Since when a guy who wants the federal government to manage social norms like marriage, who is anti-free-trade and who wants to use the federal law to avoid companies to freely recruit foreign workers is considered a libertarian?

    Where the fuck have you been? Libertarians have been ga-ga over Ron Paul, a loony old fuck who thinks there's a war on Christmas or some shit like that, wants to take away birthright citizenship to keep the Spicks out, and used a racist newsletter to raise funds. Bob Barr--unappealing as he is-- is a bright star by comparison.

  • ||

    Laughing at Reason and the LP,

    Where can I enroll in your "Using Punctuation Correctly" course of instruction?*

    * Yes, you do present youself as an uneducated buffoon.

  • ha ha||

    so now that the libertarian party has lost its base its decided to lose the prinicples too? "party of principle" yeah right. if you can't agree what the fuck your position on the governments basic roles are you are just republican lite. I agree if Barr is nominated it could be the death of the libertarian party, or at least nail the coffin shut on ever getting anywhere near the votes they got with Clark or Paul or Badnarik, have fun coming in right behind Nader, the green party, and the socialists.

  • ||

    No, Andrew. I hate the war primarily because of the American lives and treasure that are being pissed away into the sand. I guess I have this antiquated idea that both the US and other countries should take care of themselves and mind their own business.

    Also, you're a fool if you think the Iraqi suffering caused by the sanctions is remotely close to the suffering caused by the invasion. There weren't that many refugees from Iraq while the sanctions were in force, were there?

  • ||

    Libertarianism applies only to domestic issues, because following the non-aggression principle is impractical in an arena over which no state has authority. And immigration is not a domestic issue.

  • ||

    I could have also pointed out his 100% voting record with Christian Coalition and that he was a keynote speaker for the Council of Conservative Citizens, a neoconfederate paleoconservative group.



    And Barak Hussein Obama is really a Muslim whose father sent him to a madrassa, right?

    Do you believe all the bullshit stories about political candidates, or just the ones that suit you?

  • ||

    Chris, you were in favor then of continuing "as is" in 2003 with Iraq. Keep the corrupt oil for food, sanctions, no fly zones, allowing Saddam to try and buy WMD's from North Korea as late as 2003 in Syria and thumb his nose at the UN inspectors all of that. How much longer could have all that lasted until either the USA or the UN did something to change the regime

  • ||

    Issac, I said on this very thread that I was mistaken, Barr did apologize and distance himself from this neoconfederates in 1999. Do you read only the ones that suit you also? Apparently

  • ||

    Chris, you were in favor then of continuing "as is" in 2003 with Iraq.

    If the only alternatives were that and creating a complete and utter mess by invading, then I must say "hell yeah" I'd continue the 2002 status quo. If there were an "undo button" for the invasion, are you telling me you wouldn't be pushing it right now?

  • ||

    I mean, currently most war supporters are taking the sensible-sounding, though ultimately fallacious, line that we have to look towards the future instead of looking back at "the mistakes of the past". I haven't heard anyone since 2005 or so seriously claim that we're better off now for having invaded. If that's your opinion, you have a right to it, but you've got quite a bit of convincing to do, to say the least.

  • ||

    Andrew Murphy

    I see that at April 6, 2008, 11:19am, you did in fact say that you had apologized elsewhere. I missed that so I posted my comment.

    Since you have in this indirect way admitted your error common decency requires that I apologize to you, so I do.

    For what it's worth, I agree with you that the seeds of the Iraq invasion were sown in the Clinton administration. Furthermore I think that Al Gore's and the other Democrats' opposition was based on the same premise as the Republicans' opposition to our various Southern Slavic adventures. Namely that it was not their splendid littles adventure.

  • ||

    Chris, I think a very noble and good cause has been disfigured and fucked up by the Bush Administration.

  • ||

    Issac, thanks

  • ||

    His name has seven letters. All I need to know.

  • Bill Cooke||

    I gave him $25 earlier today. He isn't perfect, but unlike the other guys running for the nomination he has some name recognition, which is critical.

  • ||

    Chris, I think a very noble and good cause has been disfigured and fucked up by the Bush Administration.

    When a good cause is impossible to accomplish, it's probably a bad idea.

  • ||

    ...I will not because as you know Iraq would have imploded from within evidentually and the USA would have been in the mop up.

    Do you think if you keep saying it that it will come true?

  • ||

    allowing Saddam to try and buy WMD's from North Korea as late as 2003 in Syria

    Say what? Link please.

  • ||

    www.merlin.ndu.edu/merln/pfiraq/archive/state/19988.pdf........."Two North Korean officals met the head of the al Bashair at SES offices in Damascus a month before the war to discuss Iraq's payments of $10 million for "major components" for ballistic missiles.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Libertarianism applies only to domestic issues, because following the non-aggression principle is impractical in an arena over which no state has authority.

    So you need a strong central geographic authority to have a libertarian society. Are you sure you didn't reverse a sign somewhere in your calculations?

  • ||

    allowing Saddam to try and buy WMD's from North Korea as late as 2003 in Syria

    Say what? Link please.


    I think it had something to do with tubes and cake.

  • ||

    I tried not to judge you via guilt by association with DONDEROOOOOOOOO, but you're doing nothing to help in that attempt.

    Based on his link (which doesn't work), I have enough info to know where he's coming from.

    Andrew, "major components" of missiles are not considered to be WMD's.

    Oh, and all those blog posts about this, I found the original source. They're based on a LA Times article from 12-30-03. Not one word about WMD.

  • Pablo Escobar||

    Bob Barr for President. The Libertarian Party has been unable to produce a politically astute candidate in the past 30 years (apart from Ron Paul in 1988) and it's about time someone with experience in Congress and media recognition promoted the party's platform.

  • Countdown to Knowledge||

    If only "libertarians" could expend the same energy as they do trying to ensure that the StrawberryIndustry has cave-dwelling workers against this new program.

  • ||

    I will try again tomorrow morning....I must have typed in the link incorrectly

  • ||

    However, buying components from ballistic missles was a violation of Iraq's promise not to monkey around with the purchase of any weapons, WMD or not, mandated by the UN. Again, it comes down to the issue of Saddam without USA or UN pressure would have continued to try and acquire weapons of any caliber.

  • ||

    Happy Jack and others, what is this obsession with Dondero(or as you guys spell it Donderoooooo). If he is an outcast because he is pro-war, then do you not need to read John Hospers, Randy Barnett and the Objectvists out of the Libertarian movement as well since they are pro-war in Iraq.

  • ||

    Andrew -- Dondero is an outcast because he is a buffoon and a prick.

    And the Objectivists have for the most part read themselves out of the libertarian movement, and oftentimes describe libertarians with the contempt and invective that can only be leveled at people who share virtually all of your philosophy and should be your allies. Go figure.

  • Jeff Wartman||

  • ||

    then do you not need to read John Hospers, Randy Barnett and the Objectvists out of the Libertarian movement as well since they are pro-war in Iraq.

    We can read what other people write without having to like the writers themselves. I hold nothing personal against those people, including Dondero, and even I don't fully get why he's such an object of disdain. But then again, I haven't been following the minutiae of libertarianism for years like some of you.

  • ||

    For the record, I have nothing whatsoever against Dondero on a personal level. He simply doesn't share interest in the same priorities as I 90% of the time.

  • ||

    Someone on Youtube posted clips of Bill Maher's show with Bob Barr from 2003. He's kind of a funny guy...for a Republican, (which he still was at the time), but he still kind of defended the drug war.

  • ||

    Well, we libertarians do like our strawberries. And if our getting our strawberries for cheap means a few starving illegal immigrants living in a cave, so be it.

  • Tom Tancredo||

    DID SOMEONE MENTION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

  • Kolohe||

    How can they be starving if they have access to strawberries.

    Besides, this guy could probably benefit by going on a diet.

  • Bill Cooke||

    Andrew Murphy, do you have a source for this abortion story other than Larry Flynt?

    I don't know Bob Barr, but I can't see any person who is publicly pro-life paying for an abortion, unless the life of the mother might be at risk.

    Maybe this was part of the reason he divorced her?

  • Shocked Moose||

    "but I can't see any person who is publicly pro-life paying for an abortion"

    obviously you don't look at politicians much.

  • ||

    Agreed, Shocked Moose

    but I can't see any person who is publicly pro-life against prostitution paying for an abortion prostitute

    Fixed

  • ||

    Bill, the story comes from court affidavit docu.ents from his various divorce cases. I was not aware Hustler was involved. All I did was do a Goggle search on Bob Barr and found the abortion story all over the place, one case showing the actual transcripts from his 1st and 2nd wives open court allegations.

  • Mad Max||

    Did the courts buy these stories? Did the wives had supporting witnesses?

  • Mad Max||

    did the wives *have*?

  • libertarianjim||

    Barr has the most common trait of all politicians, he is a hypocrite. If he is the best the Libertarian Party can do, punt. He has name recognition, but little else to offer. If he was a serious threat to the candidacy of anyone else, we would see all the clips of him looking like Jeremiah Wright in his most embarrassing moments. I doubt we will though.
    The mainstream media won't give him the time of day. If they do, they will crucify him.

  • ||

    How can they be starving if they have access to strawberries.

    The gang boss cuts off a finger for each strawberry pilfered. It's horrible, and it could all be prevented if we libertarians would just let Lonewhacko build his trillion dollar border wall with sharks and laser beams.

  • ||

    If Bob Barr were to run on a platform of the importance of family values or the need to end abortion, then his former wife's abortion or his alleged affairs would be a big issue.

    However, if you look at his website, he is not running on these issues. He did emphasize such things at one time, but now he is not. So, perhaps he _was_ a hypocrite, but he is no longer a hypocrite.

    Personally, I don't think a position that says that the Federal government has no business interfering with state policy on abortions is hypocritical if you do nothing to stop your wife from having an abortion. If we would take a step back from strident pro-life views for this reason, it could only help.

    Similarly, there is a lot to be said for an approach that slams hypocritical pro-life Republicans. I mouthed pro-family platitudes when I knew that I personally fell short. I am sick of it. I won't do it anymore.

    I try to be faithful to my wedding vows. I think everyone should. But it isn't the role of policians to serve as preachers.

    While I wouldn't be surprised if conservative bloggers took the approach of arguing that Barr only emphasizes privacy because he has so much to hide (that is, what appears to be a tendency to give into temptation to stray from his martial vows.)

    I think that most conservatives who might take a libertarian turn, may well say.. yes.. that is why privacy is important. And, of course, how many libertarian voters will care much about this?

  • 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.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement