Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bob Barr's Announcement
The smallish room Bob Barr booked for his presidential announcement was overflowing with journalists. I've seen every Ron Paul 2008 event held at the venue, and they never drew this sort of interest: There were, I think, four working reporters at the press conference announcing the haul from the first moneybomb. But Barr's announcement drew live reporters from the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post (even if it was the famously snarky "Sketch" author Dana Milbank). Barr foreign policy pal Doug Bandow stood by him at the podium, and foreign policy maven Jim Bovard sat in the audience.
I doubt the interest will keep up unless Barr's promises come true and he becomes a "credible candidate" for the White House with a chance to win a plurality of the vote. The press corps wanted to know two things: Could Barr be stumped on any policy questions? Did he explicitly want to spoil the election for McCain? The answers were no and no, although Barr's "spoiler" answer wasn't entirely credible. "The thought has never crossed my mind," he said. Well, sure it has. After the conference, Barr's political adviser Russ Verney told me that Barr had tested the waters with an exploratory committee because he didn't want to run if he couldn't win. "There are substantial risks," Verney said. "We're talking about alienating life-long friends. We're talking about putting your credibility on the line." The main thing that would cause Barr to lose friends would be, of course, if he Nadered McCain.
So the media attention puts to rest the claims of rival candidates, like Christine Smith, that Barr is anything but the biggest publicity draw in the race. He was notably less dry than the figure the Washington press remembers from the Clinton impeachment. Ralph Z. Hallow of the Washington Times framed a question about immigration in terms of public "compassion." Barr filibustered a little. "No one's ever accused me of being a compassionate conservative," he said. "Am I compassionate? You could ask my wife." A bit after Barr said he opposed a specific timetable for withdrawal from Iaq, Sean Higgins of Investor's Business Daily asked if Barr knew which states he'd be targeting. "Yes." Higgins asked him to elaborate. "Just as it's not strategically sound to tell the enemy your timetable for withdrawal..." Barr explained.
Is Barr picking up the Ron Paul vote? He acrobatically avoided tying his campaign to Paul, but I talked to a few familiar Paulites in the audience. Ron Paul Rider Michael Maresco, who staged a 60-day bike ride across the country to support Paul, shook hands with Barr then told me he would back him. Brad Jansen, a ubiquitous DC organizer for Paul and manager of one of the Ron Paul Republicans' campaigns for the House (Vern McKinley, in the DC exurbs), talked to Barr about writing a follow-up to his 2002 Liberty article defending him against attacks by the then-leadership of the LP.
The audio of the press's questions is here. The reporters are hard to hear, but Barr's voice should be clear.
|5.12.08 @ 2:14PM|#
McCain can't be happy.
He can't help but remember the cheering from Republican debate
audiences when Ron Paul denounced the war and called for ending
it.
Not all of the them. Not even most of them.
But enough that the debate halls echoed.
Neil|5.12.08 @ 2:18PM|#
The only way Dems can win are with right-wing spoilers (such a Perot). Still no majority of the popular vote, though.
|5.12.08 @ 2:18PM|#
"A bit after Barr said he opposed a specific timetable for
withdrawal from Iaq,..."
I thought Barr had adopted a more libertarian friendly view about
Iraq? If he is a "stay in it until we win it" guy, how is he better
than McCain?
|5.12.08 @ 2:20PM|#
First off--Great comment, joe.
It seems to me that the main danger for Bob Barr is some sort of
purist insurrection at the LP convention. God I hope that doesn't
happen.
If Barr can take it, things could get fun. God, it's been annoying
watching McCain act so smug, self-superior, and contented these
past few months. The power-worshipping DC press corps has been
treating him as if he's something besides lucky. (Not to mention
something besides a moron.)
Now we're in a position to really fuck with him. The neo-cons have
been giving it to us high and hard for, oh, about seven years
now.
With any luck, we can drown them in their own nut-sweat.
robc|5.12.08 @ 2:22PM|#
JLM,
While I make no claims to speak for Barr, there is a difference
between announcing a date and staying in until we win. I never
thought the "we were start withdrawing on Jan 21" was the smartest
strategy. That said, I want more details on what he really means.
In until we "win" is stupid, unless he agrees with me that we had
already "won" the war as of the Mission Accomplished sign.
|5.12.08 @ 2:24PM|#
JLM,
Barr is not a "stay until victory" type. He seems to genuinely
support a quick, Paul-like withdrawal. He just doesn't want to
telegraph troop movements.
|5.12.08 @ 2:27PM|#
joe,
OK.
By the way, when you leave for work in the morning, is that Neil
guy outside your door waiting to heckle you?
Bingo|5.12.08 @ 2:30PM|#
The Paulites causing trouble at the national convention and a Bob Barr LP ticket should keep things pretty damn interesting on the GOP side. Good timing too, should keep things interesting now that the Clinton/Obama fiasco is almost over.
Episiarch|5.12.08 @ 2:39PM|#
I just don't buy Barr's "conversion". He's going to revert to
his habits (WoD, social conservatism) during the campaign.
Methinks some of you are so excited by what he can do to McCain
(and admittedly, it is quite exciting *rubs hands*) that you're not
realizing what he might do to the Libertarian brand if he
reverts.
|5.12.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Is Barr even a Nader-level spoiler?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not doing a "nyah nyah cosmotarians suck"
thing here but we're talking about a guy who is a repubublican who
wants to smoke pot, rather than a Libertarian.
(whisper whisper whisper)
Pardon me, a republican opposed to pot but thinks that states
should be allowed to make the decision themselves.
Is he even a Nader-level guy?
And can't we run someone who has had fewer wives than Rush
Limbaugh???
|5.12.08 @ 2:42PM|#
Watch the republicans use this against giving Paul a prominent speaking slot at the convention. Paul will never endorse McCain, but he and his supporters will continue to draw signifigant attention leading up to and during the convention (as McCain's nomination will be old news by then). Paul will eventually endorse Barr, but he won't leave the party.
Episiarch|5.12.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Neil, what did you think of Takeshi Kitano's performance in Battle Royale? Textured and deep, or was he just phoning in the same Kitano performance?
Bingo|5.12.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Epi: You are arguing about "what if" when he's on the record saying he's against the drug war?
|5.12.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Episiarch,
Why worry about Barr's "conversion" when you've got 3 unrepentent
heathens to choose from otherwise?
If only they could all lose.
Neil|5.12.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Once a real conservative is on the ticket with McCain (Jim DeMint) Barr will be yesterday's news.
|5.12.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Barr isn't somebody who converted two months before his campaign
began.
I remember reading about his political evolution in Reason back in
02 or 03.
|5.12.08 @ 2:48PM|#
I just don't buy Barr's "conversion". He's going to revert
to his habits (WoD, social conservatism) during the
campaign.
Episiarch -- got any links to anything Barr has said or done since
joining the LP party that would indicate he'll do this?
Or just a gut feeling, unsubstantiated by facts?
Bingo|5.12.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Is being a pessimistic asshole built-in to the libertarian ideology? Why are so many skeptical of ANY candidate that comes along?
|5.12.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Neil, who do you think is more sinister as Cardinal Richelieu in The Three Musketeers: Vincent Price or Charlton Heston? I was surprised by Heston's range in that role, but I just can't seem to get away from being a Price fanboi.
Episiarch|5.12.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Or just a gut feeling, unsubstantiated by facts?
That and his "timetable" comment freaked me out. No, I have no
proof.
robc|5.12.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Bingo,
All politicians suck. Therefore, logic dictates that all
libertarian politicians also suck. If I ever run for office, I will
suck.
It isnt skepticism when its true.
|5.12.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Bingo,
Reams and reams of historical evidence makes skepticism the sane
position. A candidate who proves themselves worthy of my respect
will get it.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.12.08 @ 2:53PM|#
So a man who voted for the Patriot Act, the DOMA and proposed the banning of Wicca in the Military wants to run for President as a Libertarian?
|5.12.08 @ 2:55PM|#
got any links to anything Barr has said or done since
joining the LP party that would indicate he'll do this?
More to the point... Why would he?
The Republicans he is trying to court are the alienated
libertarian-leaning wing -- people who are tired of neocons and
moralists having their way and who would, in fact, not care that
much if Obama beat McCain.
Barr's only hope is that a libertarian message built much like Ron
Paul's will draw enough of an interest in polls and money that the
media pay attention. He can reach back toward conservatives from
there, but the center of his constituency will have to be
pro-liberty.
charlie|5.12.08 @ 2:56PM|#
it's not strategically sound to tell the enemy your
timetable for withdrawal...
I was willing to forgive Barr for his past support for draconian
drug laws and social conservatism (as well as the PATRIOT act and
the Iraq war), but there's no way in hell I will now.
In addition to his support for military intervention in South
America, he accepts the framing that announcing a timetable for
withdrawal would send a message to the "enemy" (a
collectivist/nationalistic term -- who would that "enemy" be? the
Iraqi insurgents? Iran?) that is antithetical to the libertarian
position that the Iraq war is an illegal act of aggression and that
each day it goes on is a continuation of a criminal act.
If he wanted my vote, and I reckon the votes of many of my fellow
"extreme" libertarians, he should've called for an immediate
withdrawal - - now he's just another conservative politician trying
to use the party to "reform" the Republicans. No thanks.
|5.12.08 @ 2:56PM|#
I don't know that I trust Barr. I'm a Paul supporter and I get
the impression that we're all supposed to now rally behind Barr.
Well, I still think Paul deserves to speak at St. Paul and I don't
see that as being the end to the Paul movement (which will continue
to move at the local level). From what I've read of Barr, while
he's taking a bold (compared to the other candidates) position on
the Iraq occupation, he's an interventionist just like the rest of
them. Perhaps that's why Reason is covering him here in a positive
manner and the reporters showed up to hear him announce his
candidacy.
I'm not interested in what a candidate *says* they're going to do
unless their record backs it up. Paul's rhetoric matches his
past/current voting record.
svf|5.12.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Once a real conservative is on the ticket with
McCain
you mean Joe Lieberman?
|5.12.08 @ 2:56PM|#
So a man who voted for the Patriot Act, the DOMA and
proposed the banning of Wicca in the Military wants to run for
President as a Libertarian?
Have you ever dealt with an ex-smoker or someone who has been
through the 12 steps? If so, didn't you find them thoroughly
"converted" and pretty zealous?
Shazbot|5.12.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Christopher Logue did a pretty good Richelieu in The Devils. He's also a hell of a poet.
Bingo|5.12.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Pro Lib:
So how the fuck is any LP candidate going to be elected?
1) Large number of libertarians (apparently) need a strong track
record of libertarianism before voting for a candidate
2) In order for a candidate to be elected, he needs large numbers
of votes
3) A candidate needs to actually be elected in order to have a
strong track record
The libertarian movement in the country is hardly going anywhere
and half of us are worried about how someone voted 15 years ago,
when they've since publicly changed their position.
|5.12.08 @ 2:58PM|#
charlie - you're an idiot.
What would "immediate" withdrawal mean to you? Do you think 150,000
people and the trillions of tons of equipment would just vanish one
day?
You don't announce the day because you don't want Soldiers getting
killed.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.12.08 @ 2:59PM|#
"Have you ever dealt with an ex-smoker or someone who has been
through the 12 steps? If so, didn't you find them thoroughly
"converted" and pretty zealous?"
Smokers usually do not have the power to force me to smoke.
|5.12.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Heston was really good as Richelieu. If you read the novel, Richelieu is not supposed to be a total fiend--he just wanted to call all of the shots.
Episiarch|5.12.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Yes, but was Heston a better Robert Neville* than Price? These
are the real questions that must be answered.
* fuck Will Smith I hatessess him
Mad Max|5.12.08 @ 3:01PM|#
"Once a real conservative is on the ticket with McCain (Jim
DeMint) Barr will be yesterday's news."
Thereby sending the upbeat, affirming message: "I might suck, but
if you vote for me, I might die of old age and get shot, and then
you'll have a conservative President!"
(Assuming Jim Dimwitt is a conservative - I suppose I'll have to
take your word for it)
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.12.08 @ 3:02PM|#
"So how the fuck is any LP candidate going to be elected?"
Bingo, IMHO that is not the point of the LP. How many Free Soil
Party people actually got elected? The point is education and
advocacy, if we get a few people elected that is a bonus but in my
opinion not the point.
|5.12.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Bob Barr's compassion for who? Illegal immigrants or American citizens? He is not going to find much compassion, amongst citizens and permanent residents. They are the ones as overburdened taxpayers, who are supporting cheap labor, because parasite employers have attracted them across our open border. American patriots demand your Democratic representative ignore Madam Nancy Pelosi. demand the SAVE ACT (4088) before the next presidents massive AMNESTY. Millions more will come, after that disturbing law is enacted. Not even our standing army will stop the tidal wave of poor people after that..?
Neil|5.12.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Hes ranked as the most conservative, right wing member of the Senate Mad Max.
|5.12.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Smokers usually do not have the power to force me to
smoke.
And what's Barr going to do...force you to be free or something?
You completely missed my point.
If PIRS and charlie are examples of the "radicals" walking...then I
hope they walk. I mean, seriously, who converts to a dead-end third
party for popularity...you people need to get your heads
out of your fourth points of contact.
Mad Max|5.12.08 @ 3:13PM|#
I don't deny that the other Senators are more liberal than Jim
Dimwitt, but I'm thinking about McCain's campaign message to
conservatives:
"I'm John McCain, and I'm very old. I also have it on good
authority that a team of Communist snipers from Vietnam are even
now trying to kill me. If *that* doesn't work, my heart has always
been bad since my days in a prison camp, and the old ticker could
give out any day now. And when I kick the bucket and join the choir
invisible, then my running mate, Jim Dipshit, will become President
and reverse *all* my policies. He'll have Congress rescind the
McCain-Feingold Act, he'll get serious about illegal immigration,
he'll veto all federal overspending, and he'll veto all the new
big-government programs that I would otherwise have signed but for
my untimely death. So vote for me, John McCain - I'm at death's
door!"
|5.12.08 @ 3:13PM|#
Pro Libertate | May 12, 2008, 2:59pm | #
Heston was really good as Richelieu.
Meh, Heston was alright but for capturing the real feel of the man
in red you can't top Tim Curry. He was the
only bright spot in an otherwise abysmal film.
Neil|5.12.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Mad Max, something like that. Though it wouldn't be put that
bluntly.
And you would like Jim DeMint's policies hes a true, real,
right-wing conservative.
|5.12.08 @ 3:15PM|#
If you read the novel, Richelieu is not supposed to be a
total fiend--he just wanted to call all of the shots.
Well, if that's the standard, I didn't find Tim Curry's portrayal
particularly fiendish...just brutally Machiavellian.
Perhaps this makes me an amoral SOB, though...
|5.12.08 @ 3:18PM|#
I like Tim Curry, but that movie was an abomination. And the Richelieu character was written as Satan's tool.
Mad Max|5.12.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Neil,
As long as you're telling me what to like, let me return the favor
and recommend the play "Shoggoth on the Roof," a Lovecraftian
interpretation of "Fiddler on the Roof." It's shown in 11 parts on
YouTube.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qgvogA7r5b0
But don't worry, it's all handled very tastefully. Especially the
"L'Chaim" song, as rendered by Dr. Herbert West. "To life, to life,
I'll bring them" - ah, priceless!
Episiarch|5.12.08 @ 3:20PM|#
He was the only bright spot in an otherwise abysmal
film.
What's next, Kwix? You going to tell us that William Peterson's Pat
Garrett was the bright spot in Young Guns II?
|5.12.08 @ 3:21PM|#
yeah, jeez, Kwix...you completely overlooked Charlie
Sheen...
Or maybe you didn't :-D
|5.12.08 @ 3:25PM|#
If it's not Dr. Paul, or someone personally anointed by Dr. Paul
(or someone at LRC), then whoever we're talking about is a crazed
neocon warmonger.
Buy Revolution: A Manifesto!
And oh yeah, the Kochtopus sucks!
|5.12.08 @ 3:29PM|#
As someone who supports a timetable for withdrawal, I read
Barr's (and Ron Paul's) opposition to a timetable totally
differently than does charlie.
There are two withdrawal positions, fast and negotiated.
A fast withdrawal, which Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich favor, is
basically an order that everybody throw their stuff in a truck and
hightail it to the Kuwaiti border. No muss, no fuss, and absolutely
no reason to announce when it's going to happen.
A negotiated withdrawal is about using the withdrawal as a tool to
bring about a decent settlement, in conjuction with a diplomatic
process involving the different parties in Iraq and its neighbors.
Under this scenario, we use the announcement of our intention to
withdraw, the renunciation of permanent bases and oil rights, and
other indications that we're going (such as actually going) as
carrots in the negotiations.
Barr's statement looks more like Ron Paul than John McCain to
me.
Mad Max|5.12.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Campaign commercial
[Sen. McCain is in a wheelchair, attended by his wife Cindy.
Through careful application of makeup, 20 years have been added to
his age. In the background the viewer hears the strains of "knock,
knock knockin' at heavens' door"]
McCAIN: I'm John McCain, and I'm running for President. A lot of
people say my policies will ruin the country. That may be true, and
in ackowledgement of this, I have chosen a Vice-President who
agrees that my policies are wrong, and who will reverse them if he
can. I . . . ack . . .
[McCain collapses in his wheelchair. Cindy listens with a
stethoscope to McCain's chest]
CINDY: His heart has stopped!
[Several medical personnel enter, and apply the heart-revivifying
thing to Sen. McCain's chest.]
DOCTOR: Clear!
[Slowly, Sen. McCain revives. The medical personnel continue
hovering around.]
SEN. McCAIN: As I was saying, when I go to meet my Maker, I've made
sure that a qualified successor will take my place. Someone who
actually believes in liberty and the Constitution, unlike me. So do
you really want to throw your vote away on a third-party candidate
like Baldwin or Barr, when you just need to wait a couple years,
and I'm outta here?
|5.12.08 @ 3:36PM|#
David,
No, but now I'll have to go check it out after reading the excerpt
on IMDB.
|5.12.08 @ 3:38PM|#
I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that John McCain will select a woman as his runnning mate... or Joe Lieberman, if his face is still attached to his skull.
|5.12.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Pro,
However, if you don't see them all on the same screen at the same
time, its harder to see because its not right in front of you.
Obvious in hindsight, but not something you think about
beforehand.
Episiarch|5.12.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Barr's statement looks more like Ron Paul than John McCain
to me.
That's great, joe, but what about the Heston/Price issue?
|5.12.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Reinmoose,
So you're saying McCain will move white queen to counter black
knight in order to save white rook? That's a losing strategy. All
Obama need do is move black bishop to take king's white pawn and
its checkmate.
Episiarch|5.12.08 @ 3:46PM|#
So you're saying McCain will move white queen to counter
black knight in order to save white rook? That's a losing strategy.
All Obama need do is move black bishop to take king's white pawn
and its checkmate.
Racist.
|5.12.08 @ 3:48PM|#
That's great, joe, but what about the Heston/Price
issue?
Name one Michael Jackson song with a monologue by Charlton Heston.
Just one.
You can't, can you?
I rest my case. No mere mortal can resist the evil of the
Price.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa...
(Best. Christmas. Ever.)
Episiarch|5.12.08 @ 3:53PM|#
joe, if you haven't seen Witchfinder General (aka The Conqueror Worm), I suggest you check it out. Price is fantastic as always, and he does the sleazy Inquisitor thing perfectly.
|5.12.08 @ 3:53PM|#
So you're saying McCain will move white queen to counter
black knight in order to save white rook? That's a losing strategy.
All Obama need do is move black bishop to take king's white pawn
and its checkmate.
Heh, clever. But really only true if you suggest taht he move the
black bishop out of the way! :)
|5.12.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Reinmoose,
Not so. The black bishop is only a hindrance when operating on your
side of the game board. Once unleashed against the opposition in
their territory, he causes havoc, especially on the slow moving
pawns. Unfortunately, most pawn defensive strategies can force the
bishop back into his original position, preventing the king from
castling and fortifying a stronghold. The key is the use of the
bishop, especially for end game wins when all other pieces have
been taken off the board.
|5.12.08 @ 3:59PM|#
This is a bit of an aside, but looking at pictures of Bob Barr
just now I finally realized who he reminds me of...
Royal
Tenenbaum!
|5.12.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Mad Max, those are plausible scenarios but for one thing - you
forgot all the, "my friends..."
Otherwise, bravo!
Stephen the Goldberger|5.12.08 @ 4:02PM|#
IMHO Barr is a Conservative not a Libertarian. I am unable to support him until I am convinced otherwise.
charlie|5.12.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Ayn Randian:
I've already told you how you come across as a petulant ass with a
shitty, total war-advocating idol as a moniker, but it should be
clear: an "immediate withdrawal" is one that begins immediately.
Maybe Barr favors that -- I sure hope he does if he gets the LP's
nod -- but his insistence that announcing a "timetable" sends the
wrong message to "the enemy" shows that he's incapable of breaking
out of the framing of the debate established by the
inside-the-beltway types.
Announcing that you are going to begin withdrawing troops Jan. 21
with a goal of getting them all out within nine months could either
be seen as "immediate withdrawal" or "setting a timetable" -- but
Barr, by rejecting one, is implicitly rejecting the other, at least
that's how I read it (and I know I'm an "idiot").
If you say "setting a timetable" is broadcasting the wrong message
to your enemies, what kind of message does saying you will
withdrawal all of the troops within a year send? What the hell's
the difference? On top of Barr's insistence that we need more
interventionism in the Mideast, his recycling of a stale Republican
talking point in regard to a timetable does not bode well for his
commitment to a foreign policy of peace and
non-interventionism.
Then again, I don't have my copy of The Fountainhead on me, so can
you tell me What Ayn Rand Would Do to get us out of Iraq (besides
incinerating all the Arabs for their lack of respect for property
rights)?
David Nehme|5.12.08 @ 4:12PM|#
I'm excited about the LP getting some publicity, but Bob Barr doesn't seem like a libertarian at all: voted for the Iraq war (sounds only slightly better than Hillary in explaining why), the Patriot act, pushed the war on drugs. I know he's a fiscal conservative, and says he regrets some of the non-libertarian things he did in congress, but he sure doesn't look libertarian to me.
|5.12.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Swot,
Sorry, but Palin portrayed Ron Higgins, professional Cardinal
Richelieu impersonator, not the august cardinal himself.
|5.12.08 @ 4:14PM|#
I see no inherent conflict between Vincent Price and Charlton Heston. The world needs both.
charlie|5.12.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Joe,
In re: to the "timetable" vs. "immediate withdrawal" semantic game
-- how could the U.S. military hightail it out of Iraq without it
being de facto announced? Is Moqtada al Sadr going to wake up one
day and realize all the Americans are gone? Does the U.S.
government just not announce when the end date of the withdrawal
will be, therefore it no longer qualifies as a "timetable"?
That's what I don't understand about Barr's statement -- if he
supports withdrawing all the troops, why play into the whole
"sending the wrong message to the enemy" Bush/McCain framing of the
debate? After all, for the military to conduct an "immediate"
withdrawal, one would think there would be some "timetables"
involved in order to get all of those 150,000 troops out...
|5.12.08 @ 4:25PM|#
The United States should build a giant tunnel between Iraq and
Kuwait. When it's ready, all of our troops will enter the tunnel
and leave, all at once. At night, unannounced.
Simple!
Fluffy|5.12.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Charlie -
You're dead wrong.
The "timetable for withdrawal" slogan represents a non-immediate
withdrawal. I have always viewed the calls for a timetable to be a
rhetorical concession to people who want to stay. The people who
talk about setting a timetable for withdrawal are basically
advocating picking a date a year from now [or whenever] and using
that approaching date as "incentive" for the Iraqi government to
"get on with it". [Whatever "it" is.] Having a timetable for
withdrawal only makes sense if you don't favor immediate
withdrawal.
To me, if you favor immediate withdrawal and someone asks you, "Do
you favor a timetable for withdrawal?" the answer is No.
Neil|5.12.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Folks age wont be an issue in this election except for left wing
loons.
McCains mother is still alive and shes 90. He has good genes.
|5.12.08 @ 4:36PM|#
charlie,
how could the U.S. military hightail it out of Iraq without it
being de facto announced?
The issue is when to announce it, when to let the militias and
whatnot realize there is a withdrawal happening - six months
before, so they can have six months to plan, or a week
before?
And the word "semantic" actually has a definition, and is not just
a catch-all term for "argument I don't have an answer for." There
was nothing remotely semantic about the difference between the
positions I outlined; rather, there are a number of very
significant substantive differences.
if he supports withdrawing all the troops, why play into the
whole "sending the wrong message to the enemy" Bush/McCain framing
of the debate? Because he's not making the Bush/McCain
argument about "sending a message." He's talking about conveying
useful intelligence information about troop movements and our
plans. I know what you're talking about - the "saving face" and
"emboldening our enemies" arguments. As I read Barr's comments, I
don't think he's making that argument at all.
|5.12.08 @ 4:39PM|#
"why would he convert to a unpopular third party if he weren't
genuine?"
I get the bad feeling that the word was given from on high to send
reporters to Barr's press conferences, get Ron Paul to publicly
endorse him, build him up as libertarian man then they will pull
out all the old child pornography pedophile pictures or show him
dealing cocaine in 2002 and put him on the front page with the
headline..."Populist Libertarian is a Raging PEDOPHILE"....then
they can recycle a libertarians are pedophiles mantra for the next
20 years anytime they want.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.12.08 @ 4:45PM|#
"And what's Barr going to do...force you to be free or
something? You completely missed my point."
No, I did not miss your point. I have known former smokers and
sometimes - in times of stress - they pick up the habit again for a
while. This harms no one but themselves. POTUS is a very stressful
job - one that would test the resolve of a former smoker. I did NOT
miss your point.
"I mean, seriously, who converts to a dead-end third party for
popularity..."
Alan Keyes is an example.
Mad Max|5.12.08 @ 4:52PM|#
"I get the bad feeling that the word was given from on high to
send reporters to Barr's press conferences, get Ron Paul to
publicly endorse him, build him up as libertarian man then they
will pull out all the old child pornography pedophile pictures or
show him dealing cocaine in 2002 and put him on the front page with
the headline...'Populist Libertarian is a Raging PEDOPHILE'....then
they can recycle a libertarians are pedophiles mantra for the next
20 years anytime they want."
Nonsense, only morons would swallow that kind of blatant smear -
taking the scandals of particular people and using those scandals
in an attempt to taint and smear an entire organization.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.12.08 @ 4:56PM|#
"only morons would swallow that kind of blatant smear - taking
the scandals of particular people and using those scandals in an
attempt to taint and smear an entire organization."
Agreed, only morons would swallow that kind of blatant smear.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of morons - some of them vote. I am
not saying we should play to the lowest common denominator, but we
should avoid potential landmines if we can.
Fluffy|5.12.08 @ 5:24PM|#
No, I did not miss your point. I have known former smokers
and sometimes - in times of stress - they pick up the habit again
for a while. This harms no one but themselves. POTUS is a very
stressful job - one that would test the resolve of a former smoker.
I did NOT miss your point.
But that wasn't his point, so I guess you did miss it.
His point was that often recent converts are the most militant.
Smokers who just went through the 12 step program to quit are often
the most aggressive and obnoxious about pressuring others to quit.
Reformed drinkers are the most aggressive about telling everyone
else who drinks that they have "a problem" and need "a higher
power".
That would imply that there's a chance that the recent vintage of
Barr's conversion would make him a more militant libertarian, and
would enhance his libertarian credentials, and not detract from
them.
|5.12.08 @ 5:34PM|#
A fast withdrawal, which Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich favor,
is basically an order that everybody throw their stuff in a truck
and hightail it to the Kuwaiti border.
No muss, no fuss,
Well, unless you're an Iraqi trying to survive the resulting power
vacuum and collapse of civil order.
and absolutely no reason to announce when it's going to
happen.
There is no way on earth that over 100,000 US troops and all their
gear can be turned 180 degrees and moved out of the country without
an awful lot of people knowing when it will happen, well in
advance.
The issue is when to announce it, when to let the militias and
whatnot realize there is a withdrawal happening - six months
before, so they can have six months to plan, or a week
before?
The notion that we can announce the withdrawal a week in advance
shows a touching naivete, joe. Most people can't plan a family
vacation with so little notice.
A bug out withdrawal is a recipe for chaos, and in the real world
the Bad Guys (however you define the term) will have all the notice
they need.
Mad Max|5.12.08 @ 5:34PM|#
PIRS,
To be fair, the Libertarian Party isn't the *only* organization I
was referring to as the target of moronic smears.
Mad Max|5.12.08 @ 5:36PM|#
"Well, unless you're an Iraqi trying to survive the resulting
power vacuum and collapse of civil order."
Wouldn't it have been nice if our lords and masters had taken this
into consideration before commencing their cakewalk,
home-by-Christmas, we'll-be-welcomed-with-flowers war.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.12.08 @ 5:40PM|#
"That would imply that there's a chance that the recent vintage
of Barr's conversion would make him a more militant libertarian,
and would enhance his libertarian credentials, and not detract from
them."
We do not need more "militant libertarians". We have more than
enough of those. What we need are consistent libertarians with the
ability to communicate with many different kinds of voters and not
alienate major potential voting blocks. Because of his past Barr
could very well alienate gays, pagans and privacy advocates.
Wiccans, whose religion Barr tried to ban in the military have as
one of their texts something they call the Wiccan Rede - it begins
"An it harm none, do as ye will" (I may not have the wording
exactly right but that is the sentiment. This is a very libertarian
sentiment - in a sense this makes Wiccans theologically
libertarian. Barr, if he got the LP nod could alienate these people
from the libertarian movement.
charlie|5.12.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Fluffy,
I agree entirely that the term "timetable", when used by a
Democratic politician, is usually meant to imply keeping troops in
Iraq indefinitely but setting meaningless hoops for the "Iraqi
government" to hop through. But that's not why Barr objected to the
term -- he did so because he thinks it would convey the wrong
message, strategically, which I would argue is bullshit. Also,
notice how he did not follow his comments with a call for an
immediate withdrawal, so if his position is distinguishable from
the the mainstream Democrats on this then he didn't express
it.
And joe, I think when most people talk of a "timetable" to
withdrawal, they are talking about the actual process of
withdrawing, i.e. 30,000 troops with three months, 90,000 within
six, etc. -- at least that's how I intended it. Again, does not a
withdrawal that begins tomorrow and ends in six to nine months
constitute a form of "timetable." My point about semantics was not
to belittle your argument, but merely to point out that Barr's
vehement opposition to the idea of timetable when it was brought up
was not because it didn't go far enough; no, all he said afterward
was that we needed to reduce our "footprint" in Iraq.
Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.
And as a side note, am I seriously to believe that telling the
Iraqis when we're going to withdrawal is going to make a fuck of a
difference in the end? This all reminds me of the logic behind
Nixon and his "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. Just as it
was clear by the troop buildup in the Mideast in 2003 that there
was going to be war with Iraq, I think the signs will be clear when
the American military prepares to leave, whether it's publicly
announced and flaunted or not.
I fail to see how announcing a timetable, even the one you are
discussing (a timetable of when to begin to withdraw)
could make the U.S. exit from Iraq any better or any worse -- after
all, the U.S. military can't prevent the militias and whomever from
doing whatever they want when its gone (and it's not doing much
better a job as it is now).
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.12.08 @ 5:52PM|#
"To be fair, the Libertarian Party isn't the *only* organization
I was referring to as the target of moronic smears."
I agree many organizations can be smeared quite easily in the eyes
of morons.
Shakin_T|5.12.08 @ 6:33PM|#
This article contains proof that Bob Barr will revert to his
neo-con views, based upon something Barr posted on his own website.
Barr now supports medical marijuana, maybe even legalizing pot, but
he still seems to be against legalizing anything else. (Does anyone
have proof that Barr is now totally against the WoD?) He also
supports an aggressive foreign policy in Latin America, especially
against Chavez and the FARC, even though he wants to withdraw from
Iraq.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12689
Shakin_T|5.12.08 @ 6:42PM|#
Here's a direct link Barr's neocon tirade about the need to be
more aggressive with Chavez and support Colombia's Uribe, written
March 0f 2008.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2008/03/19/barred0319.html
Allen|5.12.08 @ 7:40PM|#
I'm not sure the linked AJC article really reveals Bob Barr as a
neocon imposter. All he says regarding South America is that we
should pay closer attention to what happens there since there is a
big economic impact. He doesn't really suggest HOW we should
interact with them - whether it be militarily (neocon) or through
opening channels of communication and trading with them
(libertarian).
So, while the article "sounds" like he's taking a hard-line neocon
type stand (the use of the phrase "security interests" always
raises a red flag with me) I'm not sure that it's so cut and
dried.
Swot|5.12.08 @ 8:26PM|#
Pro L, you've forgotten the episode where Cardinal Richelieu
impersonates Petula Clark. That's the real Cardinal Richelieu -
sixteen stone of pure man.
For penance, you have to kick Bob Barr up the arse.*
*Father Ted reference, but not a bad idea.
|5.12.08 @ 8:29PM|#
Do not intend for this to sound pejorative or trite, but doesn't Bob Barr look like Rev Jeromiah Wright's twin brother?
|5.13.08 @ 6:20AM|#
Barr is strongly crtitical of preventative war and nation
building. He is almost directly opposing the principles of "neocon"
foreigh policy. He has also called for reducing the number of U.S.
bases and troops abroad. The impression is that he supports a very
large reduction, though he claims that the decision will be made on
a case by case basis, looking to U.S. national security.
If I had to describe his policy, it looks to be something like the
"strategic disengagement" advocated by Cato. My guess is that he
will avoid that "anti-imperialist" rhetoric employed by Ron
Paul.
I believe that opposition to the neo-con foreign policy in
principle, and the Bush's administration actual politicies in the
middle east is the most important issue. I think
Barr is doing great so far.
Susan Hogarth|5.13.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Do not intend for this to sound pejorative or trite, but
doesn't Bob Barr look like Rev Jeromiah Wright's twin
brother?
Oh, my - you're right! If only Barr had 1/100 of Wright's charisma
and integrity, the LP would be in wonderful shape.
|5.13.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Please read before voting for anti-American Amnesty
Mccain;
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin447.htm
|5.13.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Ayn Randian-
Have you ever dealt with an ex-smoker
Yup.
He bummed a cigarette off me at the bar last night (while saying,
"I only smoke when I am drinking.")
|5.13.08 @ 6:34PM|#
I'm having a hard time with Bob Barr. At this point in time I'd
rather write in Ron Paul than vote for him. I've held my core
beliefs for most of my life so its difficult for me to believe that
he's suddenly changed his mind.
I'll wait to see how the LP's convention goes, but I hope he at
least directly apologies to all of the people he's hurt with his
championship of the WoD. Oh I'll be honest, unless he promises
amnesty for all all non-violent drug "offenders" arrested for
possession then I'll probably never trust him.
|5.13.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Overall a good year for libertarians. There is something in the
air. First Ron Paul surprises with a strong bid as a Republican and
now Bob Barr is creating a buzz like I have never seen for a LP
candidate. No matter where one falls on the details of Ron Paul's
or Bob Barr's rhetoric I think it all has been a tremendous a boost
for libertarian movement in general.
I supported Ron Paul in the primaries because even though I
strongly disagreed on some specific issues he is the strongest
libertarian leaning candidate so far. I will support Bob Barr for
the same reason once Ron Paul gives up the GOP race. Heck I would
be thrilled if they both ran on the same ticket!
|5.13.08 @ 11:16PM|#
Barr should have answered the spoiler question saying that he intends to spoil things for both parties.
Susan Hogarth|5.14.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Barr is strongly crtitical of preventative war and nation
building.
But he's pretty much OK with sanctions and shoveling U.S. taxpayer
money to South American governments to fight 'narco
terrorists'.
He may not be a nation-builder, but he *is* an admitted
interventionist.
|5.18.08 @ 3:20PM|#
I am a Paul supporter and I would never back Barr. Why, all of
the sudden, has he changed stances to fall in line with Paul's -
could he I am against any smoking ban, against extra taxes on
really have a change of heart on so many issues in such a short
time period? I don't trust him. I will vote for Chuck Baldwin
probably.
Also for the comment "Have you ever dealt with an ex-smoker?"
I am an ex smoker but I will protect anyone right to smoke.
|5.18.08 @ 3:21PM|#
(edit of previous post, it got scrambled)
I am a Paul supporter and I would never back Barr. Why, all of the
sudden, has he changed stances to fall in line with Paul's - could
he really have a change of heart on so many issues in such a short
time period? I don't trust him. I will vote for Chuck Baldwin
probably.
Also for the comment "Have you ever dealt with an ex-smoker?"
I am an ex smoker but I will protect anyone right to smoke.
DR|5.18.08 @ 4:29PM|#
To succeed Barr has to embrace true conservative principles (reduce gov't, reduce taxes, strong defense, reliance on the individual). True consevatives are hungry for a candidate; so, we'll see.
Patrick|5.25.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Barr got the nomination.
War on drugs, government interventionist...
How's he a Libertarian again? Oh, he said he was sorry for the
bills he voted on and the ones he sponsored.
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