The LP's Choice: A Media Wrap-Up

David Weigel | May 27, 2008

Bob Barr's and Wayne Allyn Root's pledge to vacuum up media coverage for the Libertarian Party looks, so far, like a success. Some of the coverage is the expected, post-third-party-convention spike: one of Barr's staffers told me a network declined an offer to move a Monday interview to Tuesday, because "this is a Monday story." The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash, king of the wide-ranging report from the fringe, never showed up to claim his convention credentials but has talked with the Barr campaign about an embedded feature story.

First, the Tiffany coverage: Barr walked on to C-SPAN and CNN to dish about the race.

Robert Stacy McCain has a frantic, breakneck report on the race at the American Spectator.

That some 50 of Root's delegates voted for Ruwart on the sixth and decisive ballot indicates the depth of internal hostility to Barr among some LP regulars. Yet the hard-fought win was enough for Barr, and apparently satisfied LP donors, who contributed a record $64,000 at the party's presidential banquet Sunday evening—more than twice the amount of donations at the 2004 Atlanta convention. At a private reception later Sunday night, Barr campaign manager Russ Verney solicited donations from delegates and the candidate gave a short speech mentioning $40 million as his fundraising target.

James Pethokoukis of U.S. News accuses Barr of being thin on economics:

There are a gazillion think tanks in D.C., including the libertarian Cato Institute, with a gazillion tax reform plans. These are the sorts of broad ideas you would offer if you were at 60 percent in the polls rather than an asterisk. (The Intrade betting market gives a third party just a 1.4 percent chance of winning the election. So far, there's no Barr-Root boomlet.) C'mon on, Libertarians, where are your calls to disband the Fed or put us back on the gold standard or allow citizens to print their own currency? (This is what Ron Paul has called for.) Dazzle us!

The coverage is, if anything, more interesting on the blogs. Defeated candidate Christine Smith lifts up her psychedelic typewriter and rants about the "death" of the LP. Stephen Litau mulls over the future of the LP.

Comments

|5.27.08 @ 6:17PM|#

allow citizens to print their own currency? (This is what Ron Paul has called for.)

I don't remember that.

|5.27.08 @ 6:27PM|#

Chris Potter | May 27, 2008, 6:17pm | #
allow citizens to print their own currency? (This is what Ron Paul has called for.)

I don't remember that.

Ron Paul on Competing Currencies

|5.27.08 @ 6:28PM|#

I think what he is getting at is the idea that the government should not have a monopoly on printing notes backed by assets that can be used to exchange goods and services. It reads like RP is encouraging people to print Federal Reserve Notes in their basement, but that is pretty typical MM twisting libertarian views to make them seem ridiculous.

Fluffy|5.27.08 @ 6:32PM|#

Throughout the 19th century banks holding gold were allowed to issue currency notes backed by that gold. These notes were more or less valuable based on the soundness of the banks issuing them.

It's not a particularly radical notion unless you have absolutely no inkling of the economic history of the United States.

Geotpf|5.27.08 @ 6:35PM|#

Well, this result showed the LP is good for something-Barr winning the nom should guarantee that Obama wins the presidency (over McCain).

|5.27.08 @ 6:43PM|#

Well, Barr sounded surprisingly agreeable and at least somewhat libertarian in that CNN piece.

|5.27.08 @ 6:47PM|#

Slightly OT, but Ramesh Ponnuru is a prick.

Rimfax|5.27.08 @ 6:54PM|#

It's a good thing the drinking game rules don't apply to Smith's rant. I'd be puking by the end.

I did see a slam on Smith for using an obviously outdated photo, but what about Ruwart? She's pushing 60, but her home site still features a picture that's at least 25 years old. Just a few years ago, she was using a picture of herself in her 20s in all of her ads in LPNews.

A lot of those "libertarian speaker" ads always gave me a "fleece the freaks" creepy feel.

voxpo|5.27.08 @ 6:58PM|#

It doesn't seem all that important for Barr to feel libertarian if he sounds libertarian. Others, including some in their formative years, if they hear him, will be pulled toward libertarianism. Did I just say that?

Nephilium|5.27.08 @ 7:02PM|#

If nothing else comes of this election cycle, the fact that you had a former Republican and a former Democrat looking for the nomination of the Libertarian party got the Libertarian party into the news. I was on the road Sunday, and on my local radio station's half hour news blurbs (done by Fox News), they were mentioning the Libertarian Party convention. After Barr was selected, they were still reporting on it.

I can't remember the last time that's happened.

Nephilium

|5.27.08 @ 7:02PM|#

I did see a slam on Smith for using an obviously outdated photo, but what about Ruwart? She's pushing 60, but her home site still features a picture that's at least 25 years old. Just a few years ago, she was using a picture of herself in her 20s in all of her ads in LPNews.

At the risk of sounding creepy, I watched the debate on CSPAN saturday, and if she's 60 and still looks that good, she ought to write a book about how she does it. She lost me with the whole child-porn thing, but I might have been convinced to vote for her. Barr, on the other hand, is a joke.

|5.27.08 @ 7:05PM|#

I really wish that Barr, when asked questions about stupid shit that he did in the past, would directly state that he made mistakes or that his views have drastically changed. In that CNN bit he didn't do that. I'm not sure if he is trying to avoid those issues in hopes that they go away, or if he is concealing the fact that he still holds some of those views. Maybe he is trying to maintain ambiguity so that he can draw in more conservative votes. Also, I don't think that his answer about the defense of marriage act was quite honest.

There isn't much that will prevent me from voting for him, but this shit bothers me.

Boston|5.27.08 @ 7:14PM|#

I had the same feeling on the Smith piece as i did with some of the "Radicals" in the convention. She mentions the word libertarian or some derivation thereof about 30 times. It makes it sound more like a cult than an ideology. But i could be wrong.

Eight years in the CIA.|5.27.08 @ 7:18PM|#

Eight years in the CIA.

svf|5.27.08 @ 7:20PM|#

I really wish that Barr, when asked questions about stupid shit that he did in the past, would directly state that he made mistakes or that his views have drastically changed. In that CNN bit he didn't do that.

agree. stop tip-toeing around stuff like this, come out with a straight answer... otherwise, he'll never pick up any Ron Paul mojo (or money...)

|5.27.08 @ 7:28PM|#

"agree. stop tip-toeing around stuff like this, come out with a straight answer... otherwise, he'll never pick up any Ron Paul mojo (or money...)"

The other problem that he will have in picking up the Ron Paul supporters is his lack of consistency, even if he does come clean on these things. A lot of RP's appeal is that he has been saying the same things for 30 years. That attracted a lot of people who don't trust politicians that change their story every time the weather changes.

Bingo|5.27.08 @ 7:29PM|#

Christ, Root's campaign logo is an abomination. Nice beveled font effect, that was cool in what, 1997?

|5.27.08 @ 7:36PM|#

Smith's typewriter may be psychedelic but she's 100% right.

As a two-time Libertarian Presidential Elector and holder of more county and state party offices than I care to remember, this will be the first time I'll not be voting for the Libertarian candidate for President.

|5.27.08 @ 7:39PM|#

I used to be a gold standard advocate, but Ron Paul turned me around. The answer isn't a government mandated standard and more regulations on banks. The answer is true competing currencies, otherwise known as "free banking". Make sure the banks are open and honest, then let the market decide. If they wish to issue unbacked notes, and their borrowers accept them, so be it.

I have to sometimes chuckle at the hardline anarchists at LRC demanding that the government impose a gold standard.

Orange Line Special|5.27.08 @ 7:47PM|#

What disturbs me the most about Barr is not what the lovely and talented ChristineSmith mentioned but what she oddly forgot to mention: Barr's strong anti-Pagan stance. Why, the majority of the MA delegation is Pagan!

P.S. See my site for how Barr could - but won't - have an impact.

Bill Cooke|5.27.08 @ 7:51PM|#

The fact that he is a former CIA agent, former prosecutor, and a former Congressman who voted for the Iraq war makes his conversion to the Libertarian Party all the more remarkable. What do people think is going to happen - that he is going to get elected on the Libertarian platform and then say "Fooled you!" and start advancing a neo-con agenda? Not very likely. He would govern as a moderate libertarian. I don't that that is too bad.

|5.27.08 @ 7:55PM|#

"What I saw at the LP convention disgusted me." - Christine Smith

I ask, did she herself on C-SPAN? If she had the capacity to feel embarrassment she surely would right now.

|5.27.08 @ 7:57PM|#

What do people think is going to happen - that he is going to get elected on the Libertarian platform and then say "Fooled you!" and start advancing a neo-con agenda? Not very likely. He would govern as a moderate libertarian. I don't that that is too bad.

But what about the neo-pagans? Won't someone think about the neo-pagans?

|5.27.08 @ 8:00PM|#

It reads like RP is encouraging people to print Federal Reserve Notes in their basement, but that is pretty typical MM twisting libertarian views to make them seem ridiculous.

Yeah, that's what I thought they were saying. I knew about the competing currency thing before, I'd just never heard it put in such a way.

Bob Barr?!|5.27.08 @ 8:03PM|#

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

|5.27.08 @ 8:04PM|#

http://www.bobbarr.com/bob_barr_facts.htm

I don't know if this is a pro or anti-Bobb Barr site. Holy shit, this is pretty bad...

|5.27.08 @ 8:04PM|#

From Ms Smith's remarks:

I have given several interviews (television, radio, internet, and to print journalists explaining my thoughts about Barr receiving the LP nomination-with every reporter asking why I cannot support the Barr/Root ticket.)

I wonder if she realizes that any interviews she's getting are for sheer spectacle value, not because anyone cares what she thinks. I mean, the hooker who gave Hugh Grant a blowjob some years ago got a hundred times more media attention than Smith, and I don't think it was because the public valued her opinion.

|5.27.08 @ 8:07PM|#

My God! What has become of the Libertarian Party? I voted for John Hospers in 1972 -- my first vote in a presidential election and the only time I've voted Libertarian for a presidential candidate. He was a consistent philosophical libertarian, and a rational, honest man. The parade of closet conservatives, conmen and wack-jobs since then have guaranteed that the Libertarian Party is and will remain a very bad joke.

|5.27.08 @ 8:13PM|#

I honestly think Barr did an admirable job at trying to build support in the LP.

But Jesus, is this the "proponent" of liberty you guys find?

"Member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America
Authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized
Voted for the Patriot Act (but with regrets since 2003)
Proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military


So he was pro WOD. He was anti-gay. He was pro-National Security even if it f*cks national security. He was a Christian fanatic.

Are you willing to forgive all this because of favorable anti-trust policy? How esoteric is that? Jesus Christ. So much for "liber"tarians...

|5.27.08 @ 8:16PM|#

"He was pro-National Security even if it f*cks national security."

I mean "f*cks civil liberties."

svf|5.27.08 @ 8:17PM|#

http://www.bobbarr.com/bob_barr_facts.htm

I don't know if this is a pro or anti-Bobb Barr site. Holy shit, this is pretty bad...

uh, I hope the campaign knows about this site and buys out the domain name... and quick....

Mr. Chartreuse|5.27.08 @ 8:21PM|#

So he was pro WOD. He was anti-gay. He was pro-National Security even if it f*cks national security.

I was all those things in the past, I guess I can't run for the LP nomination in the future.

Mr. Chartreuse|5.27.08 @ 8:22PM|#

Note to self, learn how to close tags. The bottom part of my comment is from me and shouldn't have been italicized.

|5.27.08 @ 8:24PM|#

MNG,

First, one need not be anti-gay to support the DOMA provision that says that states that define marriage in the traditional way do not need to recognize marriages from other states that do not fit that definition.

Second, the operative word in a lot of those sentences is was. You seem to be missing that point.

|5.27.08 @ 8:31PM|#

Chris P
About DOMA:
"The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."

That's a little more than you admit. The Federal Government may ignore state designations.

Stephen the Goldberger|5.27.08 @ 8:33PM|#

Barr has won me over with his sincerity, although I don't think he's a "pure libertarian." Do I think he supports Gay Marriage or other social causes? No he does not, clearly. But do I think he believes the "Let the states decide on Gay Marriage" talking point? Yes I do, and I think it works. It is how the LP tent can have pro-life and pro-choice people under it, and its how Barr can be their candidate.

This election year is about fiscal responsiblity, the constitutional abuses of the war on terror, and Iraq. Barr is a perfect choice to discuss those issues, and he has the Libertarian viewpoint on all of them.

Barr will do more for the Libertarian cause than any of the other candidates would, and that is what matters.

|5.27.08 @ 8:35PM|#

That's a little more than you admit. The Federal Government may ignore state designations.

Conveniently, that's the part of DOMA Barr has announced he's against.

|5.27.08 @ 8:35PM|#

"I don't like what those liberals in State X did, and I don't want any of my federal taxpayer dollars to ever sanction it, even if they define it as something that the Feds say they will protect."

States rights?

This is what discredits states rights my friend...

|5.27.08 @ 8:37PM|#

I'm not sure how "states rights" gets libertarians anywhere.

Are state governments not governmentsd that exercise coercive power?

States rights seems to me to be saying "I hate those faggots in MA, I will never submit to recognizing their rules!"

|5.27.08 @ 8:44PM|#

The vast majority of people that are the target of state coercive law enforcement power are targets of state or local power. The Federal government accounts for no more than 5% of prosecutions. The hate for the "federal" as opposed to "state" governments" seems founded in an attitude of "I agree with my state, but goddamn if I will recognize those bastards in state X!".

|5.27.08 @ 8:46PM|#

Thanks for the image of the various buttons.
I love Mary, as does everyone.
Conventions seem to be designed to do the wrong thing rather than... the name of the Spike Lee movie.
While I congratulate Barr for reaching out, way out, he has the loveability of Billary plus the baggage of wanting to take chickens from pots and cars from garages rather than put them there in the first place.
In other words, he is the Bizzaro Billary/Huey Long. Good luck.

Why can't we all just be keepers of the flame?
Ruthless

GarthStrait|5.27.08 @ 8:46PM|#

Both Smith and Ruwart are idiots if they thought they would be anything but ignored and laughed at as presidential candidates and wouldn't go down to an ignoble, less than noticable loss just like Badnarik. The cause of liberty is not served by constant crushing, humiliating defeat.

Socialists at least have understood incrimentalism -- you don't try and get everything you want at once because no one would go for that extreme; you just keep going in the direction you want to go, a little at a time, until you get there.

We're not going to get anyone elected that would create an instant libertarian utopia. Could we at least try to get someone elected who might take us in the right direction, if not all the way? Obama or McCain aren't going our way at all.

|5.27.08 @ 8:47PM|#

And if a state wants stricter anti-trust laws than the federal government (common in history)? Or stricter labor laws than the feds (also common)? Or stricter corporate law? Or stricter wage laws?

Come off it. Libertarians are not for states rights in general. Jesus.

charlie|5.27.08 @ 8:49PM|#

MNG --

Don't you get it? Only purists and radicals care about what a man says and does for some 30 years in public life. It's what he's saying in the last two or three years that matter, silly!

Clearly, Bob Barr is no longer the hypocritical, moralizing Republican that voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot act -- and successfully passed the amendment banning the District of Colombia from counting the ballots on its medical marijuana initiative (exit polls had it easily passing).

Why, today's Bob Barr is entirely different, as evidenced by these recent positions he's taken:

-Said the U.S. should give military aid to Colombia in order to fight "narco-terrorists"
-Argued for jailing 17 year old boys for having consensual oral sex with 15 year old girls
-Said private landowners and businesses should be required to allow guns on their property
-Supported passing sanctions against Iran
-Said Congress should reauthorize the Patriot act, albeit with certain "safeguards"
-Said "only a fool" would support a timetable to withdraw from Iraq, as doing so would broadcast "our" exit plan to "the enemy"

Now that you've got the FACTS, it's time to quit being so critical.

Libertarians are really just Republicans who smoke pot and watch Will & Grace from time to time without being all weirded out, ok? If you got a problem with that then why not just go vote for HITLERY!

Buh-bye|5.27.08 @ 8:51PM|#

If Christine "The She-Beast" Smith believes the LP is dead, maybe we'll be lucky and not see her around anymore. After all, she will have no reason to associate with us heretics!

|5.27.08 @ 8:56PM|#

And if a state wants stricter anti-trust laws than the federal government (common in history)? Or stricter labor laws than the feds (also common)? Or stricter corporate law? Or stricter wage laws?

I, as an Ohioan Libertarian, would argue against my state doing these things.

Bob Barr, as President, shouldn't have any say in the affairs of my state unless the State takes action that violates Federal Law.

|5.27.08 @ 8:59PM|#

So A-R, can you say that State's Rights=bullshit? That there is a national standard that the states should be held to?

|5.27.08 @ 9:01PM|#

So A-R, can you say that State's Rights=bullshit? That there is a national standard that the states should be held to?

There's supposed to be tension there, MNG. It's not an either-or proposition.

For what it's worth, I'm not arguing for "States Rights"...states don't have rights; individuals so. I am arguing for delegated and separate powers.

If the United States Federal Government isn't empowered in the Constitution to do a thing, it should not do it .

Bill Cooke|5.27.08 @ 9:05PM|#

State's Rights are part of the Constitution- whether you like it or not. Barr is running for President, not czar. He couldn't get gay marriage or end the drug war in any of the States even if he wanted to. He is against the Federal government being involved with drug prosecutions or marriage. That is good enough for me because that is all that he can do.

|5.27.08 @ 9:14PM|#

Barr is running for President, not czar.

Unfortunately, to a lot of people (some libertarians included), these two concepts merge in their minds.

But yes, Barr couldn't just end how a State administers its internal dealings.

Mr. Chartreuse|5.27.08 @ 9:17PM|#

successfully passed the amendment banning the District of Colombia from counting the ballots on its medical marijuana initiative (exit polls had it easily passing)

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A463093

"Barr will be lobbying to gain for D.C. residents the right to enact a medi-pot law. In other words, Barr will be lobbying against the 1998 Barr Amendment"

So, the facts are here is that he's lobbying against his own amendment. That neocon monster!


Said Congress should reauthorize the Patriot act, albeit with certain "safeguards"

http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/05/19/ron-paul-and-bob-barr-sittin-in-a-tree/1079/

"I voted for the Patriot Act- but I certainly would not do it again. It was probably the worst vote I cast in Congress. At the time we had obtained assurances from the administration that they would limit the applicability of the Patriot Act provisions. They promised that they would engage in appropriate and full reporting and disclosure to the Congress, and we were able to secure sunset clauses for a number of provisions.

But it became clear very quickly that the administration did not intend to limit the use of the Patriot Act. So one of my primary activities over the last five years since leaving Congress has been trying to undo the damage wrought by the Patriot Act and preventing further abuses."

The facts are here is that he's been trying to limit the scope of the Patriot Act. Neo-con takeover of the LP, oh noes!

|5.27.08 @ 9:36PM|#

In a news conference, Barr said "only a fool" would specify a date and timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. But he said it's "extremely important" and in the best interest of national defense to draw down dramatically the US troop presence in Iraq and decrease the military and political footprint in Iraq.

well...charlie seems to have a problem with Barr not wanting to broadcast the date and time the United States will depart Iraq.

Methinks, charlie, you're making imaginary hay out of a non-issue.

|5.27.08 @ 9:39PM|#

State power helps to serve as an additional check on federal power.

|5.27.08 @ 9:41PM|#

Barr was just interviewed on Rod Sharps Up All Night on BBC Radio Five -- hit all the talking points well, stayed on message -- don't exactly got Obama's oratory skills or even Harry Brownes for that matter but he is certainly more than competent to handle national media...

charlie|5.27.08 @ 9:44PM|#

Wow, Barr's tried to undo some of the damage he caused in 1998. Oh, DC still doesn't have legal medical marijuana, but hey, he tried.

And while Barr may talk a good game on the Patriot Act now (after voting for it when it actually counted), he wrote in The Hill in 2005 that the House should pass the Senate version of the reauthorization (see: http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=673). Now one can make the case that the act should be repealed altogether, not reformed, but that wasn't the one Barr was making.

You also didn't address his backing of military intervention in Latin America to fight drugs, nor his complete lack of understanding when it comes to the nature of property rights. The fact that he talks about reforming the Patriot act now doesn't outweigh his continued support for militarism, the war on drugs, and state-enforced morality.

He might make a decent conservative Republican, but he makes for a horrible example of a libertarian. But hey, the 1.5% of the vote he might get will make turning the LP into the party of pot-smoking (medically prescribed and voter approved -- assuming they counted the ballots) Republicans worth it.

And remember, it's not about what someone did. It's about what they say they would have done if they could do it again, which they can't (got it?).

Ayn R. Key|5.27.08 @ 9:54PM|#

Now that Barr has the nomination, will he finally reach out beyond the Reform Caucus and try to mend ties with the Libertarian Caucus? Or now that he's won the nomination will he see no need to mend ties and unite a divided party? I still have my concerns about him, and they are compounded many times by his VP candidate. If he were to answer the questions he has ducked until now perhaps I could warm up to him.

I admit it. I'm a Purist. But I wanted to be able to like him since before he won the nomination. But I didn't. I just wanted to. So I hoped he'd answer our doubts about him instead of ignoring us in the Libertarian Caucus.

So now that he won without us, will he make any reconciliation attempts or will he write us off as unnecessary?

charlie|5.27.08 @ 9:57PM|#

Methinks, charlie, you're making imaginary hay out of a non-issue.

It's an issue because, as far as I can tell, Barr's position on Iraq is vaguer than those of either Clinton or Obama. All I have heard is that Iraq was a mistake but that "only a fool" would set a timetable. If Barr has made a more explicit, detailed explanation of his Iraq position then he hasn't made it available on his website.

And I fail to see how broadcasting the date and time of when the U.S. military would leave Iraq would be bad. People in Iraq aren't dumb. The U.S. military won't be able to pull off a withdrawal from Iraq that doesn't broadcast to the enemy -- whoever that's supposed to be -- that they are leaving. In fact, I thought the whole point of leaving was, in part, to send the message that the U.S. was no longer trying to maintain an Iraqi colony.

Am I really to believe that Barr has some secret plan for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq that will somehow, someway, keep hidden from our "enemy" the day the U.S. will leave?

Didn't Nixon have a secret plan that would have ended the Vietnam war without broadcasting our strategy to the enemies? How'd that work out?

|5.27.08 @ 9:57PM|#

Congratulations, David Weigel, on your outstanding, comprehensive coverage of the LP convention. After getting back from Denver, it was informative and entertaining to pass the day catching up on all the blogging and commentary here.

Fluffy|5.27.08 @ 10:00PM|#

Charlie -

Too bad.

Whatever blue-colored child-fucking freak you wanted to be the nominee is not the nominee. Those are the breaks.

By the way, I defy anyone here to show me evidence that the libertarian party supported gay marriage in, say, the 1970's. The issue is not addressed at all in the party platform of 1972, and I bet if I kept reading in 76, 80, 84, 88, etc., it wouldn't be there either.

So if anyone who changed their mind about gay marriage is not a libertarian, that means that the ENTIRE FUCKING PARTY is not libertarian, since there was a point in party history where gay marriage was not contemplated.

I just read the 72 platform again, and Barr stands for 95% of it. Of course, he doesn't want to fuck 8 year old kids, so that means he's not acceptable to the Ruwart folks. But I guess the rest of us will just have to be happy for little things.

Ayn R. Key|5.27.08 @ 10:02PM|#

Of course it's vague. His running mate is pro-war, but stopped saying so because that's not the way to win. Barr, who voted for the war, realized that if he never mentioned it (and ducking questions is something he is good at) then everyone would assume he's pretty traditional libertarian on that area. But I suspect that anyone the Reform Caucus would back would never favor peace.

|5.27.08 @ 10:03PM|#

So now that he won without us, will he make any reconciliation attempts or will he write us off as unnecessary?

If you all leave the party in protest, as most of you are threatening, then why should he reconcile with people who aren't even in the party? Do not be surprised if the people you treat as enemies aren't first in line to kiss your feet.

charlie is illiterate|5.27.08 @ 10:06PM|#

charlie, Barr told The Hill,an audience of Congressional staffers who were about to pass one of two bills, that both are rotten but B is better than A.

Hope this helps.

|5.27.08 @ 10:12PM|#

By the way, I defy anyone here to show me evidence that the libertarian party supported gay marriage in, say, the 1970's. The issue is not addressed at all in the party platform of 1972, and I bet if I kept reading in 76, 80, 84, 88, etc., it wouldn't be there either.

Nobody supported gay marriage before the mid '90s. It came out of leftist field and before you knew it, you were unable to be a tolerant cosmopolitan unless you are adamantly in favor of it. You were an evil person if you wanted to keep marriage a traditional union between two sexes, as it has been in every culture for the past six thousand years.

But libertarians in 1972 were indeed questioning whether marriage itself should be a government-affirming sacrament. What business is it of the state who you marry? As a single person living in California, I am sorely pissed that I am being taxed MORE than a gay married man. I don't mind gays being married, but I do mind government policies that encourage gays to marry. I say give everyone that tax break and get government out of the marrying business.

Colin|5.27.08 @ 10:22PM|#

Brandybuck, as a fellow goldenstater, I agree with you fully.

Rimfax|5.27.08 @ 10:26PM|#

bobbarr.com is a Pro-Barr site for uber-Xians.

See this. If I were a recruiter and heard someone say something like this, I'd thank them for the interview, escort them to the door, and bolt the door behind them.

|5.27.08 @ 10:36PM|#

bobbarr.com is a Pro-Barr site for uber-Xians.

I suspect that makes it an anti-Barr site for everyone else... ;-)

git|5.27.08 @ 10:56PM|#

I don't know if religion poisons everything but it certainly poisons bobbarr.com.

I've never been happier that I'm only a small-l libertarian.

Mr. Chartreuse |5.27.08 @ 10:58PM|#

Wow, Barr's tried to undo some of the damage he caused in 1998. Oh, DC still doesn't have legal medical marijuana, but hey, he tried.

Are you being serious? A politician is lobbying for his own amendment to be revoked. The dude is trying to atone for a past sin, but I guess the purists and their "facts" can't have it. I guess all the new Libertarians will have to spring ex nihilo out of the ground, because all of us former sinners aren't allowed to join the club.

As for Bob Barr's militarism:

http://bobbarrblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/we-rush-to-war-in-iran-at-our-own-peril.html

Yes, it looks like Barr is for political and economic sanctions against Iran, but his position is far better than that of John "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain and is no worse that Obama's positions on Darfur.

And yes, Bob Barr is wrong on Colombia: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12689
I don't like it, but it isn't worse than the current candidates for POTUS.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-caucus0526.artmay26,0,1858205.story
"He also proposes to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and from around the world."

So he doesn't want to invade Iran, he wants to withdraw from Iraq, and he wants to bring the troops home from around the world, but at worst he wants sanctions on Iran and funding for anti-FARC folks in Colombia. I'm not a fan of those things, but taken with his other positions that hardly makes him a militarist.

As for the property rights/guns issue, I presume you are talking about this:

http://www.mdjonline.com/content/index/showcontentitem/area/1/section/17/item/102431.html

This doesn't seem to be a cut-and-dry issue among Libertarians, as shown by this comment thread on a similar issue:

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000210.shtml

Moreover, in this article, Barr seems to understand property rights very well:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/31/seeking-quality-of-life-at-the-point-of-a-gun/

"[...]or property owners must fear being visited by an armed officer and possibly jailed because a neighbor turns them in for permitting more than the legally allowed number of persons to reside in their house."

So, at worst Barr thinks that the right to carry a gun can be extended the parking lot, open to the public, of a private company. While debatable, I don't think it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of property and it is ends being much less of a problem than you make it out to be.

charlie|5.27.08 @ 11:37PM|#

From Barr's column in the Hill:

"In the next few days, members of Congress are expected to sit down to finalize a Patriot Act reauthorization bill out of the competing measures passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Although there will undoubtedly be future opportunities to amend discrete sections of the 2001 law, for those of us supporting proper reform, this really is zero hour."


Now can someone tell me what Barr really meant when he bemoaned the loss of uber-neocon John Bolton at the U.N.? You know, when he wrote "The fact that we ultimately failed to secure such an appointment for this excellent public servant is a deep loss for America's sovereignty and for the principles of freedom that both Bolton and Kirkpatrick so eloquently espoused."

Or how about his defense of the continued imprisonment of a 17 year old boy in Georgia for having consensual oral sex with 15 year old girl -- breaking a law that had ceased to exist (http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=864)?

Is it too much to ask that the Libertarian nominee espouse something other than nationalistic, social conservative claptrap? The guy can't even utter the word "empire", much less offer a systematic critique of the U.S. imperial state. He's not going to fucking win -- sorry -- so the least he could do is offer a principled defense of the libertarian philosophy.

Oh, but that's right, to offer a comprehensive critique of U.S. imperialism one would have to be one of those crazy "blue-colored child-fucking" freaks.

By the way, any of you guys ever hear of this Ron Paul fellow?

|5.27.08 @ 11:41PM|#

I think we have to accept Bob Barr for what he is- a better than normal Conservative. To expect any concessions to the "purist" wing at this point would be absurd. The Libertarian phase of his campaign is over. If he's going to get votes (and votes are the whole rationale of his candidacy) he needs to go after Conservatives pissed that McCain isn't "conservative" enough but think Ron Paul is a hippie loon. The poster who noted that the LP gave us a choice of the lesser of three evils was pretty much spot on. Either the least bad is good enough for you, or it isn't. I think what is frustrating for us purists is that in the GOP primary we got to proudly vote for a great libertarian candidate and that option isn't going to be open to us in November, despite the presence of the LP on ballot. It's kind of a buzz kill.

|5.27.08 @ 11:41PM|#

By the way, any of you guys ever hear of this Ron Paul fellow?

Is that who you want?

Careful with that one, charlie. You're about to undo yourself.

|5.27.08 @ 11:46PM|#

Realistically, I can't imagine, Smith, Kubby, Jingozian, Ruwart or any of the other LP candidates, with the exception of Barr, on the beltway battlefronts.

After seeing Smith at the Heartland Libertarian debate, one can only feel sorry for this delusional "purist." I couldn't tell if she was rehearsing her line for a seventies like porn film; where she has the leading role as a dominatrix, or if she was running for a utilities board. Can you imagine how the old political warriors in D.C. would steamroll over Christine, while she remains clueless? Enough winks, nods, chuckles and raised eyebrows would generate enough electricity to power the D.C. grid.

Ruwart, while very knowledge, seems to be a bit mousy. Seasoned Reps and Senators would stop her dead in her tracks with the, "stare." She has many good ideas, (child porn is not one of them)and should stay where she is, as a writer for the advancement of libertarianism.

Kubby? Please! After many trips to the bathroom for a toke, when confronted with real life issues; do you think the press corps will catch on?

How many posters here would (or did) vote for Barry Goldwater? The way I see it, in real world situations, Goldwater had the political savvy to not only get things done, but survive the dog eat dog world of Washington D.C. In other words, he was an experienced pro.

Goldwater was probably the most credible, libertarian candidate ever. Wayne Root says he has the same values as Goldwater... and that ain't so bad! Barr's take on the issues seems in line with Goldwater as well. Think hypothetically, how any of the other LP candidates would conduct themselves in the White House. Pragmatically speaking, Barr is the only person from the LP, with experience to navigate around the capitol. If Root could keep his high octane mouth shut, he could learn something along the way about how the real world works, and actually do something for the advancement of libertarian thinking.

Nephilium|5.27.08 @ 11:47PM|#

Brandybuck:

Personally... I think the government should get the hell out of the marriage business. That covers everyone (gay/straight/bi/poly/mono/etc.). If it's a tax thing, allow anyone who wants to file a joint return with anyone else who wants. Leave marriage to the religion you're a member of. Follow the rules you agreed to when you joined your church.

But that's just my opinion...

Nephilium

|5.27.08 @ 11:51PM|#

Or how about his defense of the continued imprisonment of a 17 year old boy in Georgia for having consensual oral sex with 15 year old girl -- breaking a law that had ceased to exist

oh, let's roll tape on that one:

Even though the Legislature expressly did not make the change in the law retroactive, many observers and lawyers are upset it did not do so. The whipping boy for the "free Genarlow Wilson" movement is Georgia's Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who has insisted that proper respect for the rule of law and legal procedure take precedence over sympathy for a not-terribly sympathetic figure. Wilson committed acts that the people of Georgia had determined through their lawful, elected representatives across the state...should be punished. Whether one agrees or not with that decision or with the subsequent one not to soften the law retroactively, both decisions were arrived at lawfully and properly.

So Barr says "Following the procedure is more important than altering the law in the face of public outcry".

I may not like his tone, but that's correct: there is a proper procedure for changing the law, and retroactive laws aren't one of them.

|5.28.08 @ 12:00AM|#

So Barr says "Following the procedure is more important than altering the law in the face of public outcry".

Correction: Ensuring the procedure is more important than completely throwing the whole thing out because of a public outcry.

charlie|5.28.08 @ 12:02AM|#

That's just the point, Ayn Randian. I'm not looking for the perfect candidate, nor are I think a lot of the other critics of Barr here. But at least Ron Paul could offer a principled critique of the system -- with a particular focus on how an empire abroad is incompatible with a system of liberty at home, not to mention immoral and unsustainable -- and he did so from within the Republican Party. He might deviate from where I might be on immigration, but he at least gets the concept of a voluntary society, which I happen to think is still foreign to Barr.

The LP, meanwhile, which one would imagine could capitalize on the demonstrated appeal of Paul's radical critique instead nominated a better-than-usual conservative best known for looking to impeach Clinton over a blow job. He has no appeal beyond Republicans unhappy with McCain, none of history of voting what he preaches like Paul, and he has a VP candidate with all the charisma of a used car salesman and the intellectual depth of doormat to boot.

I'm fine with Barr arguing for reforming the Patriot act as a private citizen, I just don't think he's a good face for libertarianism. Neither was that guy who dyed himself blue, for that matter.

|5.28.08 @ 12:09AM|#

charlie, that is what I call a decent criticism. Seriously, much better and more thought out than the random attacks. Kudos.

However...

But at least Ron Paul could offer a principled critique of the system -- with a particular focus on how an empire abroad is incompatible with a system of liberty at home, not to mention immoral and unsustainable

Great...good on Ron Paul. Two things:
1) He's not the nominee. Nor will he be (for any party...probably ever again) and
2) A lot of Average Joes (I kind of include myself in this category) shut down when you call America an "empire". I just don't consider it a good critique: American foreign policy hasn't been explicitly expansionist for a while. No, as a noninterventionist I don't think we have any business militarily messing with other countries' affairs, but empire? "Empire" makes you sound like a loon. Thems the breaks.

Paul's radical critique instead nominated a better-than-usual conservative best known for looking to impeach Clinton over a blow job.

Small quibble: Barr wanted to impeach Clinton over the whole Chinese thing, prior to Lewinsky. I don't know if I disagree with him.

|5.28.08 @ 12:09AM|#

Weigel is so obviously and openly biased that he shouldn't be allowed to pretend he is a journalist.

|5.28.08 @ 12:11AM|#

oh, and sorry for the double comment but:

He has no appeal beyond Republicans unhappy with McCain, none of history of voting what he preaches like Paul, and he has a VP candidate with all the charisma of a used car salesman and the intellectual depth of doormat to boot.

Maybe. We could debate what went down at the LP Convention forever. But that ship has sailed, charlie. So...are you going to help Barr out or stay ineffectual?

Rimfax|5.28.08 @ 12:13AM|#

Holy shit! Thanks, charlie.

Bob Barr, 10 months ago:

"[C]urrently receiv[ing] far more attention than [his] actions warrant -- 21-year-old convicted child molester Genarlow Wilson."

"Four years ago, Wilson, then a 17-year-old Georgia high school student, labored in obscurity until a New Year's Eve party involving marijuana and alcohol degenerated into hedonistic sex acts, including oral sex performed on Wilson by a 15-year-old girl."

"There is nothing heroic in Wilson's actions that landed him in his current predicament. He remains not a paradigm of how young people ought to behave, but of how they should not comport themselves."

So, Barr here demonizes recreational drug use and oral sex in the context of an ad hominen attack justifying the jailing of a young man for a crime without any victims. He then argues that because this kid was nothing special that he deserves his fate. In fact, he implies that because the kid was having a good time, he especially deserves it. I don't see any room for "pursuit of happiness" in Barr's world.

I'm thinking that a lot of folks in Denver just got played this weekend.

|5.28.08 @ 12:22AM|#

So, Barr here demonizes recreational drug use and oral sex in the context of an ad hominen attack justifying the jailing of a young man for a crime without any victims.

Uhh...no. How did he "demonize" it, again?

And how dare he think that young people shouldn't be engaged in sex acts! What kind of libertine libertarian is he!?

And where did he say that Gearlow Winslow "deserves his fate"? Please quote him on that.

You read all that into Barr's very plain words.

I don't like what happened to Gearlow any more than you do. But Barr doesn't say what his opinion is either way. Just that there was a "hue and cry" to toss out the process, which isn't a smart move.

Rimfax|5.28.08 @ 12:26AM|#

charlie,

Neither was that guy who dyed himself blue, for that matter.

Don't listen too much to Fluffy. He's a shitbag sometimes.

Ayn_Randian,

So...are you going to help Barr out or stay ineffectual?

(I know you were addressing charlie.) I was all prepared to support Barr, but his shit piece about Wilson screams the opposite of "live and let live" that I consider critical to libertarianism. You can jerk off about the legal accuracy of his statements and what the legislature and prosecutor should and should not have done, but his overall tone is that this boy deserved to have his life ruined for being around marijuana and accepting a blowjob from a classmate.

Unless he manages to change my mind before November, I see no reason to cast a symbolic vote for a man whose contemporary public speech is still anti-individualist. (Or should I say that it is pro-individual,...as long as no one is having any fun?)

|5.28.08 @ 12:31AM|#

but his overall tone is that this boy deserved to have his life ruined for being around marijuana and accepting a blowjob from a classmate.

So he has the wrong tone now?

Barr made two separate arguments:
1) Young people shouldn't be "comport themselves" that way
2) The way the process worked wasn't necessarily universally just, but legalistically correct.

I was all prepared to support Barr, but his shit piece about Wilson screams the opposite of "live and let live"

That's your problem. Libertarianism ISN'T ABOUT "LIVE AND LET LIVE", sparky. It's about what government should and should not do. In this case, I (and maybe Barr, who knows?) don't think that the law about Wilson should have been on the books, nor do I think the outcome was just (and, again, we don't know what Barr thinks because he didn't say).

|5.28.08 @ 12:33AM|#

Personally... I think the government should get the hell out of the marriage business. That covers everyone (gay/straight/bi/poly/mono/etc.). If it's a tax thing, allow anyone who wants to file a joint return with anyone else who wants. Leave marriage to the religion you're a member of. Follow the rules you agreed to when you joined your church.

Oh I agree!

There used to be a time when the state didn't care about marriage. If your fellow villagers said you were married, then you were married. If you slept together, and had a child, you were married. Sometimes you had a little ceremony, and sometimes you didn't. Then along came feudal manorialism, and the state started treating peasants as chattel. You needed your lord's permission to marry. I seem to recall that the impetus for church recognizing marriage, was as a check against the state.

|5.28.08 @ 12:39AM|#

I hope Barr does well and gets a record percentage of the vote. However, I can't trust Barr and I won't vote for him. I just don't believe he is really against the drug war after being a ruthless bastard about it for a couple decades. Maybe I'm wrong, but I trust the Constitution party guy a little more this time.

|5.28.08 @ 12:40AM|#

(Or should I say that it is pro-individual,...as long as no one is having any fun?)

ya know, I know that it's all "cool" to freak out the "squares", but there are still some people (I KNOW! THE HORRORS!) who don't think the idea of 15-year-old girls giving blowjobs is "fun".

Rimfax|5.28.08 @ 12:40AM|#

The whole editorial.

Uhh...no. How did he "demonize" it, again?

Did you actually read the editorial? Did you notice that the title was "When oral sex gets 'em more than 15 minutes of fame --- not shame"? Do I need to provide more quotes?

And where did he say that Gearlow Winslow "deserves his fate"? Please quote him on that.

Barr is a lawyer. He takes care not to say anything as committal as that. Feel free to make your own conclusions about Barr's opinion about what Wilson deserves. I've told you mine.

I'm not insisting that the process be thrown out, either. I'm just asking that the process be allowed to work as it does for everyone else. Wilson isn't in the media for getting special favors. He's in the media because prosecutors have used the system to fuck him in ways that they have chosen not to fuck anyone else for decades. The system has mechanisms for correcting such injustices and Barr is arguing against their use. Appealing to the legislature is part of that system.

|5.28.08 @ 12:45AM|#

The system has mechanisms for correcting such injustices and Barr is arguing against their use.

Where? Quote that too, please.

Nash|5.28.08 @ 12:48AM|#

Well this sucks now the LP is going to get some mainstream press and more than 3% of the vote.

Ayn R. Key|5.28.08 @ 12:52AM|#

So now that he won without us, will he make any reconciliation attempts or will he write us off as unnecessary?

If you all leave the party in protest, as most of you are threatening, then why should he reconcile with people who aren't even in the party? Do not be surprised if the people you treat as enemies aren't first in line to kiss your feet.

Because as I wrote I tried to like Barr, I wanted to like Barr, but found him always ducking the tough questions rather distrubing. Then adding Root to the ticket was an obvious gesture, the one with one finger raised, in which the Reform Caucus said to the Libertarian Caucus that they are not wanted or needed and should leave.

So if they are telling us to leave in protest, should we not listen to them?

By the way, have you ever tried leaving a comment in his blog that is less than praiseful? I've tried leaving "I'm concerned about your stand on this issue, would you explain it further" only to have the moderator disapprove it. That's certainly an open line of communication, and that was before he became the candidate, when he was still trying to gain support in the party.

He's going to ignore the Libertarian Caucus from now on. There are going to be no attempts at reconciliation, which is unfortunate. I wanted to be able to like him.

|5.28.08 @ 12:55AM|#

He's going to ignore the Libertarian Caucus from now on.

you know, I am starting to get the sense that when people said they wanted "big-tent libertarianism" they really meant: "we want to convert people of all stripes to our 'pure' ways".

You want to talk about gestures, R. Key? Let's start with Ruwart's concession speech: no calls for unity, no talk of Barr.

I think Ruwart could have had the VP slot. She didn't want it...oh no sir, Barr wasn't good enough for her.

Regardless, I'm not going to continue this snit-fit. Unite around the candidate...or don't. But we want you to.

|5.28.08 @ 12:57AM|#

There are going to be no attempts at reconciliation, which is unfortunate.

oh, and what does Barr need to reconcile for? Winning? Would the reconciliation have gone the other way? (I'm skeptical).

Rimfax|5.28.08 @ 1:01AM|#

AR,

I didn't know that we were close enough for pet names like "sparky". I think I'll call you "champ". Can I call you "champ", champ?

Anyway, it's a far cry from arguing that 15 year-old girls ought not be giving 17 year-old boys blow jobs and arguing that the 17 year-old boys on the receiving end should pay for that with 10 years in state prison. Barr completely fails to acknowledge that such a distinction exists. Barr's quasi-legal, quasi-moralistic arguments willfully ignore the fact that vaginal sex with the 15 year-old would have netted the 17 year-old boy a misdemeanor and no lifelong-perv-registration. His arguments about due process, like the poor prosecutors aren't getting their rights respected, comes off more as a bad faith condemnation without the balls of actually saying what he really means.

With that, I'll have to say goodnight. I'll try to check the thread again in the morning.

|5.28.08 @ 1:18AM|#

I didn't know that we were close enough for pet names like "sparky". I think I'll call you "champ". Can I call you "champ", champ?

Knock yourself out, kiddo.

Anyway, it's a far cry from arguing that 15 year-old girls ought not be giving 17 year-old boys blow jobs and arguing that the 17 year-old boys on the receiving end should pay for that with 10 years in state prison.

I'll ask for this one more time: where did Barr say that 10 years *should* have been the punishment?

His arguments about due process, like the poor prosecutors aren't getting their rights respected

Maybe you dream of a world without due process. Not me. Maybe you think Libertopia is going to come about because one of *us* will one day become Czar of Libertopia. I don't know; but your disrespect for due process is dangerous.

comes off more as a bad faith condemnation without the balls of actually saying what he really means.

So he didn't say any of the things your deigning (daring?) to insinuate he said. What, are you Kreskin now? Do you read tea leaves? The man said what he said.

Barr completely fails to acknowledge that such a distinction exists.

I guess he should head every article he writes with the Standard Libertarian Disclaimer.

you're reading more into it than is there, Rimfax. Like I said, I didn't like his tone. His moralizing I disagree with (but it isn't germane to his political attitudes). That's the extent of my quibble.

Of course, you can always vote for Obama and McCain...over something you didn't read closely enough.

Ayn R. Key|5.28.08 @ 1:44AM|#

Reconciliation, not as apology, but as an attempt to bring the disparate factions together in any way other than "I'm your guy so you must support me whether you like it or not and I'm not going to do anything to make you want to support me." Ayn Randian, for someone else who uses the name of a philosopher who is strict on word usage, it is interesting that you so deliberately misinterpreted my usage.

When disparate factions of the Republican or Democratic parties finally reconcile at the end of the primary, there's some give an take to bring them together, such as forming a unity coalition behind the candidate that usually involves a VP slot from the other side. Not always the leader of the other side, but someone mid-prominent from the other side. That means Ruwart wouldn't be the person, but Kubby would.

It is obvious you want us to unite around the candidate, but does Barr himself want us to? Perhaps. Does WAR want us to? Less likely. I find that the refusal of Barr to address even basic concerns from the other side to be an indicator of his desire for unity. Unity means doing things entirely his way, and no other?

|5.28.08 @ 1:48AM|#

R. Key - remind me again: why is it that Barr should reconcile in the first place? That's a serious question: what did he do to the Purity Caucus that he has to be the one to reach across the aisle?

Didn't the Purity Camp win the LNC? So what's the malfunction? AFAIK, that was a deliberate decision by the Reform Group, to stay out of that arena.

Ayn R. Key|5.28.08 @ 1:56AM|#

Because he refuses to ever discuss any of the concerns that the Libertarian Caucus has.

Go to his blog. Write "I have a concern about your position on this issue. Could you elaborate on it?" Wait for the comment to be approved. Watch as it isn't. Try it.

If he wants support from the Libertarian Caucus as well as the Reform Caucus, he should communicate with us. Which he doesn't.

Again you show you deliberately misinterpret word usage, which is odd considering the similarity of our screen names. As I pointed out, reconciliation isn't "I'm sorry I won." It is both sides trying to unify. Well, as I originally wrote I want to be able to like him,k and if he were to ever come out and address any of my concerns in the deleted blog comments I would be greatly satisfied.

Yes, the Libertarian Caucus won the LNC, after the Reform Caucus won both spots on the ticket with "I won't discuss the issues" Barr and the much worse Root as his running mate. Perhaps that will lay the groundwork of cleaning up the LP. But simply talking to the other side would be enough for me.

WTF?|5.28.08 @ 2:18AM|#

Reading through the thread, I can't help but be amazed at the whining and crying that Bob Barr won't seek reconciliation with the party purists. Barr didn't do a damn thing against the purists. Why should he, of all people, seek reconciliation with people that act like petulant children?. He simply ran a campaign and the delegates in convention chose him as their nominee, fair and square. The Barr campaign has been cordial, but with a few rare exceptions, purists have NOT and act like children and complain, complain, complain that they didn't get their way this year. Guess what? That's politics for ya. Bob Barr owes the purists NOTHING. In fact, I am tempted to urge his campaign to ignore the purists, but I won't quite yet. I'll wait for the emotional drama expressed by the purists to calm down and see if they finally begin making rational decisions.

|5.28.08 @ 3:00AM|#

I used to be a member of the Reform Caucus. But I left after the Portland massacre of the platform. I wanted the platform moderated , not gutted like a trout. But the reasons I joined them are still valid: I want the LP to start winning some elections. They can't do that if they keep engaging in contests of purity.

Political parties are supposed to be pragmatic things. Discussing the private ownership of nuclear weapons or the legalization legalized child prostitution may be interesting philosophically, but it has no place in a pragmatic political party.

Rimfax|5.28.08 @ 9:37AM|#

AR,

The server squirrels keep eating my replies. Let's just agree to disagree on this. Okay, champ?

Ayn R. Key|5.28.08 @ 10:49AM|#

So, even though all "real" political parties go through a reconciliation phase once the candidate is chosen (and I'm not suggesting that it be a one sided affiar), the LP should not do this and Barr should not do this?

You don't need to urge Barr to ignore the Libertarian Caucus - he's already doing so. He did so when he was seeking the nomination, and he's continuing to do so in spite of the good it would do the party to bring the two factions back together. The Reform Caucus and their candidates are bluntly telling the Libertarian Caucus that they are only there to vote, not provide any actual input. What should we make of that?

|5.28.08 @ 11:15AM|#

Yes, the Libertarian Caucus won the LNC... Perhaps that will lay the groundwork of cleaning up the LP

Yeah, your bias isn't obvious. Just cram it already; you're not fooling anybody.

Ayn R. Key|5.28.08 @ 11:44AM|#

I've never lied about being in the Libertarian Caucus instead of the Reform Caucus, but as I also wrote I wanted to like Barr, I tried to like Barr, but he is too busy spurning the Libertarian Caucus to make that likely.

Since you think that the Libertarian Caucus is entirely useless, why not come out and say so?

|5.28.08 @ 11:59AM|#

A Bob Barr Meetup Group has been started in Leesburg, Va. This group invites everyone interested in Bob Barr for President to join up.

http://bobbarr.meetup.com/20/

BARR/ROOT '08

|5.28.08 @ 12:11PM|#

Barr's running mate Wayne Allyn Root is a neocon. He is for continuing the war in Iraq.

What has happened to the libertarian party?

miche|5.28.08 @ 12:19PM|#

I just want to point out that many reformers ran for LNC At Large spots. Some of us "purists" stuck around long enough to vote for the radicals though. In my case, I drove back >1000 miles with other TX delegates instead of flying home on my ticket.

|5.28.08 @ 12:21PM|#

Reading through the various blogs that discuss this "purist" versus "pragmatist" split in the party, what I'm seeing thus far is one sided: the vitriol and name calling is coming nearly exclusively from the purist wing of the LP. Yes, I see some limited negative reaction from the pragmatist side, but that seems to be a reaction to the anger expressed by "purists".

miche|5.28.08 @ 12:33PM|#

Gene,
You won't be seeing name calling from me. Although I didn't support Barr or Root, they had people out there who did. As I said another place:

BUT, we have only ourselves to thank for this shift. Barr's team got in there and voted for their candidate. It was a hard fight for him but the closeness of the vote indicates that he has no huge majority. If some of the people complaining right now had been at the convention rather than watching on CSpan, we may well be celebrating a Ruwart/Kubby ticket.

Let's be libertarian about this all and recognize that personal freedom should always be coupled with personal responsibility. If you weren't responsible enough to get your ass to the convention, you are free to do nothing but bitch about the outcome. Just remember next time that you could have changed it.

And, FWIW, I've seen more nastiness from reformers who are calling us inept freaks. I just keep reminding myself that I started in the party as a disgruntled republican who thought that the purists were keeping the LP from making any real change. It was a process for me to come to the idea that government has no biz stomping on the individual in favor of any group. Now I regret my 2003 thoughts of getting the weirdos and potheads off television. Today I think we should only show how many of us there are.

|5.28.08 @ 12:44PM|#

I tried to like Barr, but he is too busy spurning the Libertarian Caucus to make that likely.

how is he spurning the Purists? HOW!? It's been asked plenty of times for you to answer.

as you indicated, you think the LP needs "cleansed", so I don't think you're coming from an open-minded POV.

Ayn R. Key|5.28.08 @ 12:52PM|#

I answered in an other blog entry when you complained that nobody has ever answered your question. I guess you have moved on from that entry by the time I answered you.

In my case, it's by not addressing questions I have, and even moderating them out of the comments on his blog. He doesn't address issues of concern to those whose support for him is not established. Even a bad answer would be better than what he currently gives - no answer.

As I answered you before, it's not what he's done, it's what he hasn't done.

|5.28.08 @ 2:03PM|#

I have a question for all of the LP "purists" or "radical caucus" or whatever you want to call yourselves ...
Have you ever done things you regret and try to make corrections for them later?
How is that any different from what Bob Barr is doing?
How is a party that claims to be based on principles of TOLERANCE so vindictive and judgmental of someone willing to fight for your cause, even though he was on the wrong side before?
Don't shoot the messenger!
Bob Barr, while not the ideal libertarian (who is?), may have the BEST chance of spreading the MESSAGE!
We have to take baby steps before we try to run