Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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.
|4.5.08 @ 11:43AM|#
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...
|4.5.08 @ 12:13PM|#
I'm torn between the two babes and Mike Gravel....Bob
Barr!?!?!?!?!
Have a nice saturday
|4.5.08 @ 12:18PM|#
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
|4.5.08 @ 12:28PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 12:46PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 12:51PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 12:52PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 12:55PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 1:04PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Uh, where's the prog?
submitted for your consideration... [MP3 link, sorry no
video]
|4.5.08 @ 1:44PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Lonewacko, do you still not understand that everyone on this blog thinks you're a BigAsshole?
|4.5.08 @ 1:56PM|#
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.
John|4.5.08 @ 2:18PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Maybe we should wait to actually listen to the guy first, before we make any judgments about his integrity and potential candidacy.
|4.5.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Um, Ive been checking that thing all day and it says "not broadcasting" and is showing some Missouri public access stuff.
|4.5.08 @ 3:02PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 3:09PM|#
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?
|4.5.08 @ 3:16PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 3:26PM|#
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/
|4.5.08 @ 3:28PM|#
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.
Valiant Knights of the Pink Ha|4.5.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Depends. Does Bob Barr support our cosmotarian right to ignore the Libertarian presidential race?
|4.5.08 @ 3:44PM|#
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?
|4.5.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Anyone else having connection problems? Keeps 'syncing.' All I'm getting is a still image of Barr with his hipster glasses.
|4.5.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Yeah, Justin.tv is not pulling its weight on this one. Hope it makes YouTube quickly.
joe|4.5.08 @ 4:04PM|#
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?
|4.5.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Justin.tv sucks.
The feed started for 10 seconds with someone telling me to try a
caramel latte.
Valiant Knights of the Pink Ha|4.5.08 @ 4:14PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 4:15PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 4:17PM|#
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...|4.5.08 @ 4:18PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 4:21PM|#
1. I'm a giant douchebag
2. I have no life
3. I'm just trying to get into Michelle Malkin's skirt.
|4.5.08 @ 4:23PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 4:23PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 4:24PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 4:27PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 4:27PM|#
3. I'm just trying to get into Michelle Malkin's skirt.
This admission would afford me so much more esteem for LoneWacko.
|4.5.08 @ 4:30PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 4:35PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 4:37PM|#
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.
BakedPenguin|4.5.08 @ 4:45PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 4:47PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 4:50PM|#
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.
ABC|4.5.08 @ 5:08PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 5:11PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Bingo I can understand a Bush in 2000, but why in 2004 after everything that happened?
Bingo|4.5.08 @ 5:31PM|#
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 ;) )
|4.5.08 @ 5:34PM|#
(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.
|4.5.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Oh, I remember! I was hoping that Bush would follow through on his promise to destroy Social Security.
|4.5.08 @ 5:46PM|#
I hope if McCain is elected (or, if not, when he retires in 2010) Flake will take his seat.
|4.5.08 @ 5:49PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Did I just hear Barr say that McCain supports the "statist quo" instead of status quo. That's a cute play on words.
|4.5.08 @ 5:54PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 5:54PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 5:56PM|#
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?
|4.5.08 @ 5:57PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:01PM|#
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
Bingo|4.5.08 @ 6:09PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 6:10PM|#
I sorry but the LP needs someone WAY more charismatic than Barr. Plus, America will never elect someone with a mustache.
|4.5.08 @ 6:11PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:17PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:17PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 6:18PM|#
"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|4.5.08 @ 6:18PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Damnit Bingo, I thought the Internet and world-wide
communication was a force FOR freedom!
See? You're continuing the 2000's running theme. ;)
|4.5.08 @ 6:20PM|#
Hmm, I wonder if (******) above is going to switch to posting vacuous diatribes against Barr now that the rLOVEution is petering out.
|4.5.08 @ 6:23PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:25PM|#
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
Countdown to Knowledge|4.5.08 @ 6:25PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:28PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 6:29PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:30PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:30PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:32PM|#
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
|4.5.08 @ 6:33PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 6:38PM|#
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
|4.5.08 @ 6:41PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 6:45PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 6:48PM|#
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?
|4.5.08 @ 6:53PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 6:57PM|#
"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"
|4.5.08 @ 6:57PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 6:58PM|#
I wonder why this page seems to have been purged from the LP site?
|4.5.08 @ 7:01PM|#
Truther,
Heh. I can't believe the LP would have a memory hole, must be
technical difficulties. ;-)
Colin|4.5.08 @ 7:03PM|#
He gets some bonus points for quoting Dante.
But considering his history, Machiavelli would've been more
apropos.
|4.5.08 @ 7:05PM|#
You know, if you libertarians ever want to have any success, you have to be more accepting of converts from the other parties...
|4.5.08 @ 7:08PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 7:13PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 7:14PM|#
Chris,
No I am not for Root nor am I a Libertarian party member, so I have
no dog in this hunt.
|4.5.08 @ 7:14PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 7:19PM|#
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?
|4.5.08 @ 7:19PM|#
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
|4.5.08 @ 7:22PM|#
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."
|4.5.08 @ 7:24PM|#
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
|4.5.08 @ 7:46PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 8:15PM|#
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).
|4.5.08 @ 8:26PM|#
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
|4.5.08 @ 8:30PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 8:33PM|#
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?
|4.5.08 @ 9:13PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 9:16PM|#
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!"
|4.5.08 @ 9:42PM|#
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.....
|4.5.08 @ 9:50PM|#
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
|4.5.08 @ 9:56PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 10:01PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 10:16PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 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.
|4.5.08 @ 10:26PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 10:28PM|#
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!
|4.5.08 @ 10:37PM|#
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.
Mike Laursen|4.5.08 @ 11:01PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 11:16PM|#
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.
|4.5.08 @ 11:25PM|#
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|4.5.08 @ 11:41PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 12:07AM|#
with the Republicans winning we've got a war that will
actually end.
In about 100 years, from what I've heard...
|4.6.08 @ 12:09AM|#
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
|4.6.08 @ 12:20AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 12:46AM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 1:00AM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 1:03AM|#
Waco 2.0 that's going on right now
This time they're sending ambulances. Strange. Last time it was,
Burn, Baby, Burn.
|4.6.08 @ 1:07AM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 1:53AM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 8:25AM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 8:35AM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 8:57AM|#
"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.
Elemenope|4.6.08 @ 9:47AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 9:47AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 10:01AM|#
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...
Elemenope|4.6.08 @ 10:22AM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 10:40AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 10:52AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 10:55AM|#
It's a shame, in a way.
Bob Barr should have been the one to run for the GOP nomination,
not Ron Paul.
Edward|4.6.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Tom,
Thanks for the personal details. We were all wondering whether you
were going to the convention. How's the new job?
Edward|4.6.08 @ 10:59AM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 11:06AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 11:19AM|#
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??
|4.6.08 @ 11:23AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 11:29AM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 11:30AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 11:32AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 11:33AM|#
I wasn't aware that Demcorats were a hate group now??
I guess you are not a rich white heterosexual male, then.
|4.6.08 @ 11:37AM|#
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!
|4.6.08 @ 11:42AM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 12:00PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 12:04PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 12:09PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Funny, from what I can tell the incident is about the allegations of one teenage girl, who now is nowhere to be found.
Fluffy|4.6.08 @ 12:23PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 12:31PM|#
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?
|4.6.08 @ 12:31PM|#
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
|4.6.08 @ 12:34PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Can't reason with some people Adamness, they probably also think it was wrong fro the Chilean government to raid Colonia Dignidad
|4.6.08 @ 12:53PM|#
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".
|4.6.08 @ 1:35PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 1:52PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 2:00PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 2:02PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 2:03PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 2:04PM|#
Eh, it seems like splitting hairs. It seems the neo-cons merely exploited standing policy.
|4.6.08 @ 2:06PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Given what the federal government did to the Mormons early on, one thinks Mormons would be the most libertarian people in America.
|4.6.08 @ 2:11PM|#
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".
|4.6.08 @ 2:17PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 2:22PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 2:22PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 2:24PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 2:32PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 2:43PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 2:47PM|#
"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.
|4.6.08 @ 2:50PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 3:04PM|#
. 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.
|4.6.08 @ 3:07PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 3:08PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 3:10PM|#
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!"
|4.6.08 @ 3:12PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 3:14PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 3:24PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 3:25PM|#
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)
|4.6.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Andrew-
Their constitution MANDATES at least 33% of their Parliament be
filled by women. So, that helps just a little bit.
|4.6.08 @ 3:33PM|#
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
|4.6.08 @ 3:33PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 3:38PM|#
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
|4.6.08 @ 3:44PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 3:49PM|#
"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.
|4.6.08 @ 3:51PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 3:57PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 4:00PM|#
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
|4.6.08 @ 4:05PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Heeeeey.
CNN is talking about Bob Barr right now and they're playing his
speech from yesterday.
|4.6.08 @ 5:01PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 6:02PM|#
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?
|4.6.08 @ 6:06PM|#
"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.
|4.6.08 @ 6:43PM|#
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;
}
|4.6.08 @ 6:46PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 6:47PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 6:51PM|#
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
|4.6.08 @ 6:55PM|#
Cesar-I'd agree with N. Korea's leader as the worst. It's the worst tyranny going today from what I know.
|4.6.08 @ 7:11PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 7:20PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 7:22PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 7:26PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 7:29PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 7:35PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 7:40PM|#
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?
|4.6.08 @ 7:45PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 8:02PM|#
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?
|4.6.08 @ 8:03PM|#
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
|4.6.08 @ 8:06PM|#
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
|4.6.08 @ 8:47PM|#
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?
|4.6.08 @ 8:56PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 9:26PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 9:46PM|#
Chris, I think a very noble and good cause has been disfigured and fucked up by the Bush Administration.
Bill Cooke|4.6.08 @ 10:16PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 10:28PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 10:39PM|#
...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?
|4.6.08 @ 10:53PM|#
allowing Saddam to try and buy WMD's from North Korea as
late as 2003 in Syria
Say what? Link please.
|4.6.08 @ 11:15PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 11:44PM|#
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?
|4.6.08 @ 11:47PM|#
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.
|4.6.08 @ 11:52PM|#
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|4.6.08 @ 11:53PM|#
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|4.7.08 @ 12:11AM|#
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.
|4.7.08 @ 12:20AM|#
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.
|4.7.08 @ 12:47AM|#
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.
|4.7.08 @ 1:05AM|#
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|4.7.08 @ 1:32AM|#
|4.7.08 @ 1:36AM|#
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.
|4.7.08 @ 1:58AM|#
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.
|4.7.08 @ 2:13AM|#
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.
|4.7.08 @ 2:27AM|#
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.
Kolohe|4.7.08 @ 3:07AM|#
How can they be starving if they have access to
strawberries.
Besides,
this guy could probably benefit by going on a diet.
Bill Cooke|4.7.08 @ 6:48AM|#
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|4.7.08 @ 8:22AM|#
"but I can't see any person who is publicly pro-life paying for
an abortion"
obviously you don't look at politicians much.
|4.7.08 @ 9:04AM|#
Agreed, Shocked Moose
but I can't see any person who is publicly pro-life against
prostitution paying for an abortion prostitute
Fixed
|4.7.08 @ 9:09AM|#
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.
libertarianjim|4.7.08 @ 9:38AM|#
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.
|4.7.08 @ 11:29AM|#
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.
|4.7.08 @ 12:29PM|#
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?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245