Bob Barr is Your President

David Weigel | May 8, 2008

Former Rep. Bob Barr's campaign won't confirm or deny it, but John Martin is reporting that Barr will move from an exploratory bid to an official presidential run on Monday.

As I reported last week, Barr is the frontrunner, narrowly, for the Libertarian Party nomination—it's been a close three-way race between him, Wayne Allyn Root, and Mary Ruwart. Root-backing South Carolina delegate Stewart Flood tells me that he was "on the fence" as long as Barr didn't officially declare, but he's "definitely supporting him" come Monday. "I'm sure Wayne's not happy," Flood says, "but he knows my position. I think he'd make a great running mate." (I pointed out to Flood that Root has said he'd turn down the vice presidential nomination: "If Wayne doesn't want the VP under Bob, I'll buy a hat so I can eat it."

Candidate George Phillies, who has theorized that Barr was going the "exploratory committee" route because he didn't think he could win the nomination, didn't express much surprise. "If he tried announcing his bid at the convention it would get complicated," Phillies says. "This way he has a chance to make a legitimate case to the delegates. He must think he can pull it off." (Phillies has his own motives, obviously, but the "Barr won't get in because he's scared to lose" meme was swirling around when I talked to delegates.)

Phillies isn't intending to step aside for Barr. "My current reaction is that if he’s the nominee he’ll blow the party apart," he says. "The entire radical wing will walk. Some of the centrists will walk. Bob may get the nomination and go after some of those disaffected conservative voters, but it would be a dismal result for the party."

UPDATE: A statement from Wayne Allyn Root:

Bob Barr is a fine man and a solid candidate- with a well-known name in D.C. political circles.
But the Libertarian Party is an anti-establishment, anti-big government, anti-tax, anti-D.C. insiders party. Bob is a politician, ex-prosecutor and lawyer- just like virtually every single candidate offered by the Republicans and Democrats.

On the other hand, I offer a very different and unique image and attitude for the LP. I'm the ANTI-POLITICIAN. I'm a son of a butcher, 2nd generation American, small businessman, home-school father of 4 young children (including a brand new baby), and a citizen politician. I'm the quintessential Washington D.C. outsider. I've never worked in DC, never lived in DC, never done business with the government, never collected a check from government (other than a student loan - which I paid back in full). That's a very different resume for a Presidential candidate.

Amazingly, I've actually created jobs. I've actually risked my own money to start businesses. I've actually made payrolls and signed checks so others could live the American Dream. I've actually paid the health insurance for my employees. How's that for different? I don't just talk about jobs...and the economy...and the problems of small business...and the health insurance crisis- I've lived it. This is the stuff that politicians, prosecutors and lawyers just talk about!

And in a country where small business now creates the majority of non-government jobs, I think a President who understands the unique issues and problems facing small businessmen and women is the perfect person to put in the White House.

If a third party wants to think "out of the box" and present a unique candidate that fires up the spirit and passion of American voters who are obviously sick of "the same old, same old" and the same D.C. status quo, I'm the rebel with a pitchfork. That's a picture that will make huge inroads versus the 2-party system in 2008. As opposed to running a politician, ex-Congressman and lawyer to defeat who? A bunch of politicians, Congressman and lawyers. And where is Congressman Barr announcing his decision? In Washington DC of course. I spend my life figuring out ways to avoid going near the federal government or stepping foot in D.C. Quite a difference in image and attitude.

As far as media, let's compare my record to former Congressman Barr or former Senator Gravel. I'm able to attract major national media because of who I am and what I have to say, not what I've been (an ex-politician).

The media is attracted to me because I have interesting things to say and because I always say it in a dynamic, passionate and colorful way that makes Americans stop the channel and take notice. That's precisely what the LP so desperately needs. Not just someone with a great Libertarian message- but someone who can translate that message in a way that appeals to mainstream American voters.

Having said all that, I look forward to presenting our messages and visions to LP voters at our convention in Denver.

UPDATE: Mary Ruwart responds.

There are a lot of good things about Barr candidacy, and there are some things that trouble me. One thing that bothers me is his endorsement of the Fair Tax. I think we should eliminate the income tax and replace with nothing. That’s something we’ve been saying for years in the Libertarian Party. The fact that he wants to replace the income tax suggests that Bob is not serious about cutting spending.

There's something else I talked about with Bob several weeks before: The legalization of hard drugs. He said he'd come down on the side of liberty, and he said he'd express that in the media. But when he went on Hannity and Colmes he got pushed to the wall by those guys. And once again he took a different position than the LP has taken.

He sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, something that's making a lot of gay couples very unhappy, and the gay community has produced some of the biggest supporters of the LP. I'd hate to think of doing anything that would antagonize that community.

Bob has made quite a turnaround in his views, and that's a good thing. He's seen the light: That's a powerful message to Republicans disillusioned with the major parties. If I were in Bob’s shoes I’d certainly run for president, but four years ago, not this time. I'd correct my record on DOMA, my hard drugs stances, my tax stances. Our standard bearer should epitomize the libertarian philosophy in entirety, and present it in an attractive package to the country. If our standard bearer doesn’t believe in liberty, how can we convince the  American people to do so?

Ruwart didn't rule out running as a VP candidate to Barr "if I felt it would be good for the party."

Comments

stephen the goldberger|5.8.08 @ 12:02PM|#

Unless Barr can convince me otherwise, at this point I am inclined to agree with Philles.

The It Girl|5.8.08 @ 12:03PM|#

To be blunt, I'd roll with Phillies.

joe|5.8.08 @ 12:06PM|#

"The entire radical wing will walk. Some of the centrists will walk. Bob may get the nomination and go after some of those disaffected conservative voters, but it would be a dismal result for the party."

Hmm, radical wing of the LP and "some" of the "centrists" who vote LP, vs. conservatives who are opposed to the Iraq War.

Man, that's a toughie. It's like, six of one, a half million of the other.

|5.8.08 @ 12:14PM|#

Being unschooled in LP ways, could somebody explain to me why Barr might not be approved of by the LP? I had a big problem with his drug-war stance, but he seems to have repudiated that. Are there other non-lib positions in his platform?

svf|5.8.08 @ 12:23PM|#

could somebody explain to me why Barr might not be approved of by the LP?

they desperately fear getting over 0.5% of the vote... irrelevancy is a hard habit to break.

|5.8.08 @ 12:23PM|#

Brian24,
He cozied up with the Religious Right, including hate'n on teh gays in between burning druggies.

I'd vote for Barr, but I couldn't support him. I'm hoping Ruwart is my nominee. I'd have no trouble getting behind her. I actually think Root could do more damage than Barr.

|5.8.08 @ 12:25PM|#

Some polls show that Barr could carry as much as 4% of the vote. I believe it could be alot more. He can ruin McCain's chances, which is good in my opinion.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.8.08 @ 12:28PM|#

He might not confirm or deny but I got an invite to Barr's DC press conference:

Bob Barr to host press conference Monday, 5/12 to discuss plans, 2008 elections"
What: Informational Meeting
Host: Bob Barr for President
When: Monday, May 12 at 11:00am
Where: National Press Club

If it walks like a duck regards, TWC

|5.8.08 @ 12:34PM|#

I'm not really in favor of Barr being the LP guy...I'd probably vote for him if nominated, but the old religous right affiliations/ the pro-drug war stance/the old pro-war stances/the pedophile mustache...he just doesn't seem trustworthy. He could change my mind, but I'm worried he'd really damage our increasing popularity with economic conservative/ anti-war people who are leaning democrat....these folsk consider voting for Nader last time or possibly libertarian but are scared by the religous right, Barr will probably do worse with this group than Ron Paul...I'd rather have someone young and wholesome looking, we can build a new celebrity without the pro-drug, war pro iraq war tarnish

javier|5.8.08 @ 12:34PM|#

The entire radical wing will walk.

I thought most of the radical wing was purged back in the 70's.

edward|5.8.08 @ 12:38PM|#

If Barr doesn't get the nomination, it'll blow the party apart. We may see another walk out like we saw in the 80's.

svf|5.8.08 @ 12:40PM|#

I'd rather have someone young and wholesome looking

such as Phillies... or Gravel... or Root... or.... oops.

|5.8.08 @ 12:40PM|#

I thought most of the radical wing was purged back in the 70's.

As is the case with most infestations, they keep coming back unless you regularly treat with moonbaticide.

Egosumabbas|5.8.08 @ 12:41PM|#

"I pointed out to Flood that Root has said he'd turn down the vice presidential nomination"

Funny, I've heard the exact opposite said by Root himself a month ago, according to his speech in Chicago.
(for any curious, you can watch the whole speech yourself.)

|5.8.08 @ 12:42PM|#

Whomever is nominated, it'll blow the party apart. Happens every four years...

Jim Lesczynski|5.8.08 @ 1:10PM|#

Being unschooled in LP ways, could somebody explain to me why Barr might not be approved of by the LP? I had a big problem with his drug-war stance, but he seems to have repudiated that. Are there other non-lib positions in his platform?

His support of the "Fair Tax" is anathema to most Libertarians. Libertarians should never support a new tax, especially one that essentially puts the entire nation on welfare through a "prebate".

Some of his very recent newspaper columns also seem to advocate intervention in Central America "as an essential part of our anti-drug program".

http://serfcity.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/barrs-road-to-damascus-takes-a-detour/

I was cautiously enthusiastic about Barr seeking the nomination initially, but unless he starts sounding a lot more like a libertarian and less like a cultural conservative, I don't intend to vote for him at the convention.

|5.8.08 @ 1:19PM|#

It's the paranoia stupid!!

I am not sure I believe Barr has found his road to Damascus. If the LP puts him up as the nominee, I will probably vote for him but I think that Root or Ruwart have far less baggage to contend with.

As Bookworm indicated above Barr's nomination may well draw a fair amount of the conservative vote, either away from McCain or off the couch (I have my doubts on whether conservatives would vote for Maverick). Either way the amount of votes will a)not put a member of the LP into the White House and b)may well help put a Democrat there. The merit of the latter is debateable but ultimately the Presidential race is winner takes all and there is no way the LP can win it anytime in the future.

I would feel better if the LP concentrated on Local, State and Federal government races rather than bank on the "big win".

|5.8.08 @ 1:27PM|#

Jim Lesczynski | May 8, 2008, 1:10pm | #
His support of the "Fair Tax" is anathema to most Libertarians. Libertarians should never support a new tax, especially one that essentially puts the entire nation on welfare through a "prebate".

Not to pull this too far OT but I am going to disagree with you here. I agree that a "new tax" is bad but one that replaces both the leviathan that is the current tax code AND the leviathan that is the current welfare system is, in my eyes, a net win. If the "Fair Tax" is the only way we can get rank and file "safety net supporting" Americans to part with both systems then I say we do it. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than the status quo. Of course I am a libertarian who is registered Libertarian so take it for what it's worth.

tarran|5.8.08 @ 1:29PM|#

Hmm, radical wing of the LP and "some" of the "centrists" who vote LP, vs. conservatives who are opposed to the Iraq War.

Man, that's a toughie. It's like, six of one, a half million of the other.

Screw you for that insightful comment, joe. :)

To be honest, though, under the electoral system in the U.S. to consistently win elections, a political party must be composed of a coalition that is broadly opposed to another political party. There really is no room for anything more than two parties. Thus if the goal is for the libertarian party to supplant the Republicans, then it must start making use of professional politicians.

Of course, this inevitably will result in the Libertarian party morphing into another tax and spend big government party, and we'll have to throw away 'libertarian' just like we threw away 'liberal'. I guess we'll have to start calling ourselves 'propertarians' or something.

I can think of one benefit of a rise of the Libertarian party; we can taunt Michael Medved for his use of the word Losertarian. That would almost be worth it all the other negatives.:)

svf|5.8.08 @ 1:30PM|#

bank on the "big win".

anyone who thinks the LP runs a presidential candidate "to win" is kidding him/herself...

The presidential campaign exists to gain nationwide presence for the LP and help build the party, with a goal toward not only votes, but -- perhaps more importantly -- new paid LP memberships. The pres. candidate should be the one who will do so most effectively.

Harry Browne understood this. LP membership went from 10,000 to almost 40,000 between his 1996 and 2000 campaigns. Since then... not so good.

Barr could pull a decent number of new people into the LP fold who had not previously considered it... the others are merely preaching to the choir for the most part.

tarran|5.8.08 @ 1:33PM|#

Kwix, every new tax that has even been proposed was always sold as a way of reducing the bite of the previous taxes. Inevitably those promises are broken and the new tax takes its place right next to the old tax.

This motif will not change with the "Fair Tax"; we'll inevitably end up with both an income tax and a national sales tax. The measure won't really do away with the intrusive IRS; some entity or entities will still be auditing transactions to assure that the tax is being collected on taxable transactions.

Brian24|5.8.08 @ 1:33PM|#

There really is no room for anything more than two parties.

History is not destiny. Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't happen.

Besides, there have been periods where there were 3 parties, though they were brief and one of the parties eventually faded away. But I don't see any reason why we couldn't eventually have a Libertarian party competing with the survivor of the Republican or Democratic parties.

svf|5.8.08 @ 1:36PM|#

This motif will not change with the "Fair Tax";

it DOESN'T MATTER... Bob Barr will not be president. but advocating a transitional way to phase out the income tax that is at least considered moderately viable by a segment of conservatives will help build the LP as a credible option.

Nobody believed Ron Paul when he said we could abolish the income tax either. The LP needs to tolerate at least SOME "moderation" among its candidates or they will NEVER be taken seriously. Which is frankly what a large % of the LP membership seems to prefer.

Brandybuck|5.8.08 @ 1:53PM|#

Barr is a paleolibertarian. Hell, he's even given a speech to FEE, of all places. He was never a member of SDS and has no ex-weathermen friends. He is not a tolerant dynamist and isn't fun at parties. If he gets the nomination all the cosmotarians will walk!

Ayn R. Key|5.8.08 @ 1:59PM|#

My opinion on Barr...

I really do want to be able to support him, but he refuses to address any of the questions his detractors raise - and his supporters say that asking the tough questions is the wrong thing to do. Who cares what he actually stands for? So in lieu of answers, if he were to say Gravel were to be his running mate I could support that instead.

Jim Lesczynski|5.8.08 @ 2:00PM|#

The presidential campaign exists to gain nationwide presence for the LP and help build the party, with a goal toward not only votes, but -- perhaps more importantly -- new paid LP memberships. The pres. candidate should be the one who will do so most effectively.

Or most importantly, to free some minds. Libertarian campaigns -- at any level higher than the proverbial dogcatcher -- are a vehicle for getting libertarian ideas into the public consciousness, no more, no less. Votes, memberships, etc. are a side effect.

The LP needs to tolerate at least SOME "moderation" among its candidates or they will NEVER be taken seriously. Which is frankly what a large % of the LP membership seems to prefer.

No, I think it's more that we prefer Libertarian candidates to be, you know, libertarian.

|5.8.08 @ 2:01PM|#

In the article, Wayne Allen Root was quoted:

"As far as media, let's compare my record to former Congressman Barr or former Senator Gravel. I'm able to attract major national media because of who I am and what I have to say, not what I've been (an ex-politician)."

Based on what I've seen over the past several months, Barr is getting a lot more coverage than any of the other candidates, including Mr. Root.

I believe that every candidate with even a remote chance of getting the LP nomination is a Libertarian and would adequately present our views to those they are able to reach. The question is how many voters each candidate will be able to reach during the campaign.

I will support whoever the LP nominates, but based on the campaign thus far, Barr seems to have the best opportunity to reach the most voters with a strong Libertarian message.

Hacha Cha|5.8.08 @ 2:31PM|#

there is no way I'm voting for Bob Barr, no libertarian should have any reason to trust him. I'm voting for Ron Paul if I have to write him in. if they nominate Bob Barr I refuse to reregister with the lp. how can you let a scumsucker like Barr represent the party of principle by nominating him as our candidate.

|5.8.08 @ 2:38PM|#

I'm voting for Ron Paul if I have to write him in

well, given that he's not eligible for a write-in, you would successfully demonstrate that you're dumber than you sound.

Stephen Gordon|5.8.08 @ 2:48PM|#

I've spent a lot of time around Barr and never heard him endorse a prebate.

To catch what Barr really thinks about taxation, watch this YouTube.

Hacha Cha|5.8.08 @ 2:50PM|#

we hate Barr because he is a liar and is using the party as a means to further his own ends not the partys. we are at risk of becoming puppets of the Barr's and Gravel's of the world. they do not represent the message of personal freedom and economic freedom. if we want to be called the party of principle we can't nominate someone like Barr because, yes it may bring in a few more votes, but no where near as what Paul would bring in. Ron Paul already has cash and has had over a years worth of getting his name and message out. where is the undeniable strength of support Ron Paul has received; you see NO ONE REALLY WANTS BOB BARR TO RUN ACCEPT BOB BARR. the lp since I've known of it has always had people who disagreed on some issues, but this is not the case, these people like Bob Barr and Mike Gravel are not communicating the message of libertarianism, if anything maybe in a very watered down form, the right and left wings of our party I guess perhaps. Barr has no chance of winning and no one is delusional enough to think Paul will win but he is our best shot at winning universal ballot access and popularizing the message for the future of our party. honestly, what do you think a Bob Barr or Mike Gravel ticket is going to accomplish besides disenfranchising almost the whole of the party.

Hacha Cha|5.8.08 @ 2:52PM|#

yes you are right smartass... I mean Ayn Randian. I'm a bit drunk and the image of the electronic ballot from the primary is still in my field of vision, which does allow right ins.

svf|5.8.08 @ 2:53PM|#

no one is delusional enough to think Paul will win but he is our best shot at winning universal ballot access and popularizing the message for the future of our party.

true. small problem: he isn't interested.

Hacha Cha|5.8.08 @ 3:04PM|#

crap *write-in
and had to add that while I disagree with Gravel on many things and he is using the party just like Barr but he is more trustworthy, to the extent that we know he isn't just changing what he's been saying throughout his campaign this year. so you know what he stands for, you can trust him because you can go back and look how he voted and see he votes his message. with Bob Barr you know he is lying to you. he has no plans to end the DEA or bring any of the real changes we are calling for. you can probably make more kook jokes about Gravel than with Ron Paul too.
and alright I promise I won't post again for at least 3 hours... but my last point is Ron Paul has said from the beginning he will continue to run and spread the message as long as there is support. I translate that to mean he will run in November, somehow. but he may be too late. I'm not sure what the laws and deadlines are.

DW|5.8.08 @ 4:04PM|#

Anyone who's more willing to vote for Mike Gravel than Bob Barr as president isn't much of a libertarian. Gravel is off his rocker.

|5.8.08 @ 4:52PM|#

"Son of a butcher" is the new "son of a millworker".

|5.8.08 @ 5:25PM|#

Is it me or does that Root statement make him sound like the unholy offspring of John Edwards and Mitt Romney?

"My father wasn't a politician, and I ran a business! Vote for me!"

Bob Goodman|5.8.08 @ 5:56PM|#

Whatever happened to Unity '08? Guess I gotta look at 3rd Party Watch.

Gene Berkman|5.8.08 @ 6:09PM|#

I am glad Bob Barr has changed his views on many issues to be more in line with the Libertarian viewpoint, and I am glad he is active in the Libertarian Party.

My problem with Bob Barr is that his record in Congress included voting for the War, voting for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind and other big government programs. Others have changed their positions too - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards - but like Barr, when it mattered, they voted wrong.

The strength of the Ron Paul campaign was the fact that he actually opposed the war, the Patriot Act etc and voted right. It does not make sense to claim Barr is a strong candidate because he served in Congress, when he has to repudiate his record in Congress.

I won't quit the Libertarian Party, but I reserve the right to vote for the guy that saved us from Hillary and might save us from McCain.

Hacha Cha|5.8.08 @ 6:26PM|#

trust me I am FAR, FAR, FAR, VERY, VERY, FAR from a supporter of Gravel. Gravel is a smaller government democrat, that isn't a compliment. I was just trying to say that at least when Gravel says something you know he has likely been saying it for some time, not some born-again "libertarian" who is essentially a neocon-lite. I think the nicest thing I've ever said about him earlier in the race was that he was the least worst candidate the democrats had running. I think he could be useful to the party in someways but I was alluding to Gravel being the VP on the ticket in order to possibly get more votes.

a|5.8.08 @ 9:53PM|#

why do you guys care about this.

|5.8.08 @ 10:06PM|#

Uh....just one question to all you libertarians who hate the evil, evil taxes: if you get rid of them, how do you plan to pay for the following?

a) law courts
b) police
c) such useful things as the EPA and the FDA. (Or do you like having poison in your food and all sorts of stuff in your environment, like in China?)
d) the military
e) infrastructure for the US
f) basic maintenance of our science and technology platforms.

Yes, I know that libertarians love to clap their hands and say "the Free Market will take care of everything!" when there's no government around but if this is so, it's sort of, well, disappointing that places in the world with very weak government are such god-awful spots, no? (Somalia, Ivory Coast, Iraq....) Based on your arguments Ethiopia should be beating the pants off every other country in the world....

Mike Laursen|5.9.08 @ 12:00AM|#

I thought most of the radical wing was purged back in the 70's.

It was the other way around. The pragmatists walked, leaving the radicals in control.

ktc2|5.9.08 @ 12:26AM|#

So basically, despite his "conversion" or "enlightening" he still supports federal drug interdiction and other intervention in South America?

If that's the case fuck Bob Barr. I won't vote for him.

Jason Nelms|5.9.08 @ 10:18AM|#

There are many reasons that I consider myself a little "L" libertarian and this is one of them.

I cannot fathom how a man like Bob Barr, who has a voting record that stifles so many individual freedoms, can be the front runner of the Libertarian Party.

Shawn Levasseur|5.9.08 @ 11:11AM|#

The "radicals" have always been crying about attempts to purge them or threatening to leave the party. Neither ever seems to happen.

Bob Barr is more likely to get national attention, more mainstream press (and already has) than any other potential nominee. But will that translate into any real growth for the LP? Will our identity be lost to Bob Barr's?

I'm not sure about Barr as the LP standard bearer. But by the same token I don't want to discourage his further participation in the LP. I want the LP to be welcoming to politicians who have established themselves elsewhere.

I give Barr some credit for trying to blend in. He at least can speak decently to the LP about LP issues. At least he's tried to put some "sweat equity" into the party via his being a regional rep on the LNC.

Contrast that with Gravel. He just joined the LP, two months ago. I heard him speak at an LP event and he was spending too much time telling us how campaigns should be run in too scolding a manner. There were some things I'd agree with, but Gravel's style is the wrong way to do it. Too scolding, trying to woo people who won't turn to him anyway, and potentially pissing people off in the process. He seems to think he should get the nomination based on his resume alone.

Shawn Levasseur|5.9.08 @ 11:14AM|#

Jason,

I can't fathom how anyone can say who really is the front-runner in an internal LP race. Take any claims of anyone being the front-runner with a few grains of salt.

Geotpf|5.9.08 @ 6:38PM|#

I want Barr to win because his running will hurt McCain more than the other two candidates. Likewise, Ruwart has a chance at hurting Obama (but only by a really little bit). I think Root would match "generic Libertarian", with no significant damage to either candidate.

So, basically, the way to look at this is to decide, "Do you hate McCain or Obama more?" If you hate McCain more, pick Barr (who is closest to him of the three), helping Obama. If you hate Obama more, pick Ruwart (who, again, is closest to him of the three), helping McCain. That is all that the LP nomination changes things. Welcome to the weird and wild world of first past the post voting, enjoy your stay.

|5.10.08 @ 3:06PM|#

RE Fair Tax:

What we need is something that substantially increases net liberty.

For example, a "revenue-neutral" Sales Tax system, which didn't require the IRS to keep detailed financial information on millions of Americans and their businesses, would lower compliance costs on the one hand and restore an appreciable amount of personal privacy on the other. It would also give taxpayers a more straightforward way to control their tax liability, by controlling their overall spending (as opposed to having to hire tax code experts to advise how to spend and invest, so as to get maximum tax benefit under the current labyrinthine code). Although I would like to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing, the above scenario seems to increase net liberty, and so I could accept it as a worthwhile transitional step, if it were common knowledge that the ultimate goal were the downsizing of government so that the tax could be radically reduced or eliminated outright ASAP. If, on the other hand, a sales tax were imposed without replacing the income tax (whether or not the latter code were simplified), that would make me think the pols were trying to pull a fast one. So the stake must be put in the heart of the old tax system before we embrace the new one, whatever it might be.

Step 2, after the Income Tax were replaced by whatever, would be to get serious about balancing the budget and reducing the scope, size, and expense of government, so that, after a space of years, even the replacement tax could be radically downsized or eliminated.

So I have described a fairly unlikely scenario above, whatever good sense it might make in the abstract. Given that any number of acceptably libertarian transitional plans are similarly unlikely to be implemented (perhaps they won't even be proposed by "our candidates," not to mention "their candidates"), you have to wonder: why not just hold out for the very unlikely, but purely libertarian approach of simply repealing the 16th Amendment, ending the Income Tax, and replacing it with nothing, forcing the US to "get by" on tariffs, excises, and user fees?

If the only thing we can "win" is not a libertarian victory at all (i.e., one that increases net liberty), then why bother to "get behind" it and the people who are championing it? Either invest yourself and your resources in an outcome which, if realized, would make you feel good, or blow off the whole charade, live your life, and deal with the imposition of the unsatisfactory approach when it becomes manifest. Rallying behind an unsatisfactory "compromise" plan is simply to prostitute yourself into slavery. That's how it seems to me, anyway.

|5.11.08 @ 10:48AM|#

You forgot Mike Gravel, who is really Barr's main challenger, and you guys are hosting a debate with Gravel and Barr pretty soon. How could you not say he's a top candidate? That being said, Barr has too much dirt for him to get elected. We need to nominate someone with an impressive title (which, in my opinion, leaves only Barr and Gravel in the running, an author or professor just won't cut it, we need to bring a new legitimacy to the party), then we need someone who doesn't have a huge pile of skeletons in his closet. That's Gravel. Then we should choose Wayne Allyn Root as his runningmate, and it could quite possibly take the presidency, bringing the slightly left leaning moderates and slightly right leaning moderates together.

Brigitte Latter|5.11.08 @ 4:08PM|#

Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel would be a tremendous plus to the Libertarian ticket, whether as President or Vice President.

Gravel is a historic figure in the U.S. Senate. Mike Gravel is a gifted politician, and charmer in person.

Mike Gravel also brings the possibility of a Libertarian Green Party fusion candidacy.

Smart way to go both Liberarians and Green Party, who have sored successfully together in Virginia, Ohio, and elsewhere.

|5.12.08 @ 12:09PM|#

I just read Barr's bio on Wikipedia. In Congress, he was one of the strongest supporters of jail time for drug use, and part of Newt's "task force" that was going to win the war on drugs by 2002. Not just the typical "sure, I'll go along with it" type - actively supporting and furthering the War on Drugs.

Some real credibility issues here. In the unlikely event that he can even get anyone listen to him, that could certainly get thrown back in his face.

I'm not saying I could never support him - he seems genuine on some important issues. but it would be cause for concern.

dayat|10.10.09 @ 12:40AM|#

Great post, I found it useful information on this site and relationship with my blog