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
LP Founder Declares Barr Campaign Dead
David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party, has had it with Bob Barr's campaign. Why?
There has been evidence all along that the Barr '08 campaign has been mismanaged. Ballot access drives were begun late, and conducted erratically. As of today, it appears that Barr's name will be on the ballot in 46 or 47 states. (Harry Browne appeared on 50 ballots in 1996 and 49 in 2000. Michael Badnarik made it onto 48 in 2004.) Barr has failed to achieve ballot status in West Virginia...and there are lawsuits pending in five states (LA, MA, ME, OK and PA) to determine whether Barr will be on the ballot.
Fundraising has also been a flop. As I write this, the fundraising "meter" on the Barr '08 website shows the total raised by the campaign at $881,500 -- about $700,000 since the Denver nominating convention. That works out to about $6,400 a day or $200,000/month. In the days leading up to the nomination, Barr's people were throwing around numbers like $20 million. The reality is likely to be barely more than $1 million.
Not only is Barr's campaign inept, Nolan feels, it's also failing even in what outreach it succeeds in in growing the LP brand:
Following advice from his campaign manager, Russ Verney, Barr has avoided use of the "L" word wherever possible. There's a big empty space in the banner at the top of the Barr '08 website, where the word LIBERTARIAN could (and should) appear. It doesn't, despite several suggestions that this be remedied. Barr's campaign literature, signs and bumper stickers do not include the "L" word either. And a press release issued by the campaign earlier this week describes Barr as a "Former Congressman" with no mention of the Libertarian Party.
Clearly, Barr is not running as a Libertarian; he's running as an independent candidate: "Former Congressman Bob Barr." Which may be just as well, given the way he's been behaving.
While some LP activists of my acquaintance think the whole dustup this week over Barr's dissing of Ron Paul's ecumenical "Campaign for Liberty" will cripple him (whatever that means for a campaign clearly never destined to break 1 percent anyway--it did though create this online petition to have the LP's National Committee pull Barr's nomination), I expect most of the hundreds of thousands out there likely to vote Barr or LP probably will little note nor long remember these sort of blog-world dustups; no amount of LP voices speaking out like this are likely to cause Barr to do any worse than he would have anyway.
Still, there was some promise in the Year of Ron Paul that another ex-GOP congressman could do a bit better at ginning up positive publicity, energy, and cash than Barr has so far.
JMR|9.12.08 @ 5:28PM|#
The weird thing about the LP is that if Mary Ruwart and I had spent the money & time we spent on Ron Paul instead on Mary, she'd probably be AT LEAST the VP, and would have possibly beaten Barr. Of course, we both didn't, but in hindsight, we could have either changed history or made the LP much more difficult for Barr to infiltrate and take-over. I think Barr's setting the party back with his tactics, and it's so ham-handed I'm beginning to suspect it's deliberate. Sigh...
|9.12.08 @ 5:37PM|#
When all the dust settles, it will be interesting to see whether
Barr's problems with ballot access were due more to incompetence on
the part of those trying to achieve it, or to a more intensified
major-party opposition against what may have been perceived as a
more credible LP candidate than the party has fielded in many
years. Were the LP and Barr-istas more clumsy, or were the Donkey
and Elephant more worried that the LP might actually give them a
fight this year?
(Of course, some say that it is the latter motivation that led the
GOP to send Barr in as an infiltrator to implode the LP from
within, much as Buchanan imploded the Reform party a few years
back. So is Barr a victim, or a perp? Time will tell.)
JMR|9.12.08 @ 5:50PM|#
I'm slightly leaning towards the Barr as perp theory, but it's also possible -- if not probable -- that Root isn't helping Barr much, politically or psychologically. Barr's VP needed to pull the party together and counsel Barr towards sanity, and I don't see Root doing that.
Franklin Harris|9.12.08 @ 5:54PM|#
If you want to know what's wrong with the Barr campaign, you need only look at odious former Ross Perot hack Russ Verney.
|9.12.08 @ 5:57PM|#
On fund raising... does anybody know how much previous LP
candidates have raised?
Also, I think at least one thing the Barr campaign has done right
is their use of the Internet. But that has more to do with his
technology team than it does Barr.
I don't buy the GOP operative conspiracy... an organization only
implodes if its members let it... besides, why would they want to
implode the LP? It's really not that powerful now, and it certainly
wasn't pre-Barr. It's not like libertarians will just cease to
exist if the LP does implode.
As for ballot access, maybe some incompetence there. But I tend to
agree with James above... I think it's possible the two major
parties were intent on limiting access this year, particularly when
Barr was running at 5% nationally.
Remember, Barr is the '08 presidential candidate... but he's not LP
committee or really even part of the libertarian intellectual
cadre. So I don't expect libertarians, or even the LP, to implode
over Barr.
If anything, hopefully a lot more people were introduced to
libertarian thought by his and Ron Paul's campaign.
jj|9.12.08 @ 5:59PM|#
Thanks for some excellent reporting, Mr Doherty. It's great to read actual reporting (rather than more Weigelistic sneering) about the year's Republican Libertarian.
I, Kahn O\'Clast|9.12.08 @ 6:04PM|#
I noticed the same thing about the lack of the word
"Libertarian" on the Barr website but shrugged it off since I never
believed that Barr is a Libertarian. He's an opportunist and his
candidacy will hurt the Libertarian Party since he won't address
one of the main issues driving people towards Libertarianism:
ending the war on drugs.
He's a conservative, not a Libertarian.
|9.12.08 @ 6:06PM|#
jj | September 12, 2008, 5:59pm | #
Thanks for some excellent reporting, Mr Doherty. It's great to read actual reporting (rather than more Weigelistic sneering) about the year's Republican Libertarian.
Did someone say Donderoooooo!?!?!?
Cosmotarian troll|9.12.08 @ 6:15PM|#
I think that the LP got the candidate that it deserved. Just as
the Dixiecrats had a hard time facing the fact that the Democratic
Party was no longer with them, Libertarians are continuing to cling
to the Republicans.
Barr doesn't appear to be a social conservative in the coercive
sense, but he is still a social conservative in the cultural sense.
So, while I can accept him as sincere when he says, "The Drug War
is wrong," I don't ever expect him to say, "Getting high is a
inalienable right."
I want my LP candidate to fight for porn and drugs with the save
fervor and indignation as guns and tax cuts. Barr is not that
candidate.
|9.12.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Barr's website at first was "small government, lower taxes, more
freedom". That's nice, but it did sound a bit like an old
conservative.
Now it's "Liberty for America". Better, but I concede not much use
of the word libertarian. Also, not many obvious links back to the
LP website.
And drug prohibition really took a back seat at first, until
recently... but now he's just talking about medical marijuana and
the drug war being a failure. A little better again, but it's
coming a little late.
jj|9.12.08 @ 6:23PM|#
By Republican Libertarian I meant Ron Paul, not Bob Barr. This
has indeed been the year of Ron Paul despite reason's (excepting
Doherty's) attempts to belittle them.
I can't think of another time that thousands of people congregated
in every city and town, and over a million voted for a candidate
who would have actually changed the status quo had he been elected.
Of course he wasn't, but the fact that he drew such a following
should not be underestimated.
Brian Doherty|9.12.08 @ 6:30PM|#
Paul---While it ain't over yet, the famous and successful career politician Barr seems about on track to pretty much match what complete unknown Michael Badnarik did in fundraising for his 2004 LP prez bid--slightly over a million.
Gene Berkman|9.12.08 @ 6:30PM|#
I think Bob Barr should be involved in the Libertarian Movement
longer before he runs for office. In his defense, I don't think he
planned to run for President, but was talked into it.
It looked good on paper. Ron Paul got a following, the LP runs a
former Conservative Congressmen to pick up the disenchanted Paul
voters. It still may happen, but Bob Barr is not doing what he
needs to do to make it happen.
And Franklin Harris is right - Russ Verney is the biggest problem
in the Barr campaign.
|9.12.08 @ 6:33PM|#
Well, Barr is CIA. If he does turn out to be an infiltrator, nobody better act surprised. And if he's doing it as a favor to the Demopublicans, well, who else would back that type of move? In a year when a blackout didn't prevent Ron Paul from raking in 10's of millions, it would certainly appear the tide might finally be turning. And it doesn't take a spy to notice that both fellows running Pres/VP for the party are oddly not very Libertarian.
I, Kahn O\'Clast|9.12.08 @ 6:35PM|#
JJ,
I remember Ross Perot rallies and him winning something like 20
million votes in 92 in spite of being a nut and having dropped out
of the race for a while bcse of a photoshoped photo (which no one,
to my recollection, has ever seen)
jj|9.12.08 @ 6:49PM|#
I, Kahn,
Point taken. However I meant a principled,
libertarian politician. If all you are looking for is a big rally,
then Farrakahn, or even hitler would do fine.
|9.12.08 @ 6:51PM|#
Thanks Brian... it does seem like Barr should be raising a lot
more with all of the media exposure he's received. Personally, I
think their fund raising copy has been weak... the website in
particular.
That said, any idea as to the effect the economy or McCain/Feingold
has had on 3rd party fund raising?
By the way Brian, I'm reading your book "Radicals for Capitalism".
Great job!
|9.12.08 @ 6:51PM|#
Perhaps if the party had nominated an actual libertarian the presidential campaign may have raised more than a fifth of what WEEI raised for the Jimmy Fund in two days.
jtuf|9.12.08 @ 6:52PM|#
I think the Barr campaign has helped recruitment. If you add up the audiences from all his TV interviews, it is easily 10 times the exposure any previous candidate got. The problem is a rift within the LP. We got a bunch of disillusioned Republicans a few years ago after the Republican controlled congress increased the federal budget. A small handfull within this group (none of them Barr) are set on remaking the LP in their image for personal reasons. However, most of the newbies are ready to learn Libertarian philosophy if only there were enough local members ready to teach them. If the LP is ever going to grow from a club that people find to a party the seeks new members, it needs a reliable system for explaining the philosophy to newbies. If we just recruit newbies but don't take the time to show them the ropes, of course the center of the party shifts. Most of the LP newbies are ready to learn about Locke, Ann Rand, and NORML. Are the long time members ready to explain them?
cunnivore|9.12.08 @ 6:53PM|#
A major problem with the ballot access drives was that many of
the most experienced volunteers chose to stay home and pout over
Barr getting the nom, rather than doing the work they'd done in
years past.
And Nolan citing the lawsuits brought by McCain supporters as
evidence of Barr's weakness is damned dirty pool, dontcha think?
Does he even ask himself why Bush supporters weren't going to court
to get Badnarik off the ballot, or woul that spoil the
narrative?
cunnivore|9.12.08 @ 6:58PM|#
jj,
I think you mean a principled, libertarian politician whose most
successful legislative activity has been drawing federal pork
spending to his district, and who endorsed the Bridge to Nowhere
guy.
In other words, scratch the principled and libertarian parts.
|9.12.08 @ 7:05PM|#
I think you make a valid point jtuf...
I've been on the Barr Blog from time to time commenting about
different sources of libertarian information... writing about
individualism... jeez, I even quoted Etienne de la Boetie once. Not
much on the Barr site though.
Who knows if anything I wrote got through to people? I suspect a
lot of people will inquire into things more and others won't.
Jonathan Goff|9.12.08 @ 7:15PM|#
While I still intend to vote for Barr (because incompetent or
not, at least I wouldn't have to plug my nose to vote for him like
I would for Obama or McCain). But I was expecting him to run a
better show than this. I mean, he *did* get elected in the past,
you'd think that would lead to at least some level of competence
greater than what we've seen this year.
~Jon
|9.12.08 @ 7:39PM|#
jtuf wrote, "Most of the LP newbies are ready to learn about
Locke, Ann Rand, and NORML. Are the long time members ready to
explain them?"
As a matter of fact, my wife and I spent a good couple of hours in
a mutually enlightening back-and-forth with a newly self-aware,
self-proclaimed libertarian who had many excellent questions. This
fellow came from the Demo ranks, however (no surprise there -- we
both live in Santa Cruz CA, after all) and wasn't one of those
disaffected GOP discussed earlier in this thread.
I'm ready for more!
Ben Kalafut|9.12.08 @ 7:42PM|#
Curiously, Dave Nolan is doing his part to support the ticket
locally.
Also curiously, despite his role as a Restore '84 ringleader at the
convention, he's not Part of the Problem in Arizona.
Are there two Dave Nolans?
|9.12.08 @ 8:16PM|#
# J sub D | September 12, 2008, 6:26pm | #
# I'm a Libertarian and a Detroit Lions fan.
# My life sucks.
It could suck worse. You could also be a speaker of Esperanto. Or a
fan of the greatest TV show that almost everyone in the US has
never seen, Charlie Jade. Oh yeah, and addicted to original recipe
Taco flavored Doritos. Yes, life could suck much worse... ;-)
|9.12.08 @ 8:17PM|#
Then again, as the old wisdom goes, it sucks a helluva lot less than the alternative.
jj|9.12.08 @ 8:18PM|#
I think you mean a principled, libertarian politician whose
most successful legislative activity has been drawing federal pork
spending to his district, and who endorsed the Bridge to Nowhere
guy.
In other words, scratch the principled and libertarian
parts.
You know you are only telling part of the story, don't you?
Paul considers himself both a Representative and a Legislator. As a
Representative he petitions the government on behalf of his
constituency. As a legislator he votes (consistently) against pork.
And that includes the pork requested by his district.
Now you may not like his approach, and you may disagree with him
philosophically, but there is a consistency, and even a libertarian
consistency there.
For years I worked as a software engineer where I paid taxes. Now I
am attending a state-run med school. As a taxpayer who was forced
to hand over my money for this "pork," I am okay with attending the
school and regaining some of it. But if I had a chance to vote (or
wave a magic wand to end the whole "public" system, I would do so
immediately.
By all means, call me (or Paul) unlibertarian, but at least explain
the other part of the story. Something reason consistently fails to
do.
Gorgeous Gus the Wonder Dog|9.12.08 @ 8:23PM|#
"LP Founder Declares Barr Campaign Dead"
Vinyl albums are so 20th century. Kinda like Bob Barr.
|9.12.08 @ 8:35PM|#
Something reason consistently fails to do.
Wrong-o, champ. God, how many times do we have to educate the
paultards?:
For example, he happily inserts earmarked pork spending that
benefits his district in spending bills, to keep them happy-and
then votes against the bills, to keep his free-market constituents
nationwide happy.
Paul argues that the voting against the total bill is enough, that
the rules of Congress mean the earmarks don't actually increase
total federal spending anyway, and that while he'd rather the
government didn't take the money, it's not inherently a crime to
try to get some of it back for his constituents.
From this July 27th, 2007
article.
That took two seconds. Try researching before opening your mouth
and proving you don't care what's coming out of it.
Puck Smith|9.12.08 @ 8:49PM|#
"If anything, hopefully a lot more people were introduced to
libertarian thought by his and Ron Paul's campaign."
As long as you leave the "l" small I'd have to say yup. I was
tottering on the brink of apathy and a gentle old man toppled me
right into the arms of L. Neal Smith.
:)
Puck Smith|9.12.08 @ 8:56PM|#
"And Franklin Harris is right - Russ Verney is the biggest
problem in the Barr campaign."
That name keeps coming up. I found this about a Russ Varney in the
Buchanan 2000 campaign. If this gets munged
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:nGgOpQeSYEYJ:www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0800buchanan.htm+Russ+Verney&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
Try this at tinyurl /53amcd
Is it the same guy?
|9.12.08 @ 10:16PM|#
I have posted my opinion on Russ Verney elsewhere. Basically he
rode the coattails of an eccentric billionaire to a lifetime gig as
the "go-to 3rd party/independent campaign manager."
When you take away money and personality and stick Verney with a
stiff like Barr, he's not going to see any results.
|9.12.08 @ 11:01PM|#
I think Barr's problem is that the libertarian base abandoned
him. A significant portion either quit the LP or are deliberately
sitting the season out. Many of the rest have grown apathetic from
the quadrennial 0.5%. W.A.R. showed up here for a fundraising rally
and managed to draw *ten* people in a major metropolitan
area.
The LP is afraid of growing beyond its reputation as debating club
for angry white men with alternative lifestyles.
Lefiti|9.13.08 @ 12:08AM|#
LP Founder Declares Barr Campaign Dead
Shhh! No arguments in the cemetery!
|9.13.08 @ 12:33AM|#
Great post. I joined the LP after following Ron Paul until his run was over. I was a Republican. I was going to vote for Barr until the press conference dust up. Seems like it should have been obvious to Barr that going along with Ron Paul's press conference would have won him more votes, loyalty and press coverage. Really, it is just basic politics and marketing. Instead, he lost votes (including mine) by how he acted. As a politician, he should have known better. Barr really is just an Independent candidate that should have stayed a Republican. I'm new to the LP and libertarian movement and I can see that.
Franklin Harris|9.13.08 @ 12:54AM|#
Puck Smith,
Fortunately, there is only one Russ Verney ruining every
third-party campaign he touches.
I'm on the record as saying the LP nominating Barr was a good move.
And, frankly, at worst, his campaign could end up a disaster and
still do as well any other LP nominee since Clark. And it won't do
permanent damage to the LP because it will be forgotten. The
average person can't name any failed Democratic or Republican
candidates, apart from Al Gore. What does a third party have to
worry about if it ends up with someone it wants to sweep under the
rug?
But I did get that sinking feeling when I saw Verney onstage with
Barr during Barr's convention acceptance speech. And,
unfortunately, the sinking feeling was right.
Now, I thought Ron Paul's little press conference where he just
said "vote third party" was pointless, but since Paul held it, Barr
was shortsighted not to attend. And offering Paul the LP's vice
presidential nomination was, frankly, insulting, not to mention
unworkable. It was a bad move, and all of the insider dirt I've
seen blames Verney for it, which may or may not be true, but it
certainly sounds like Verney's M.O. (Again, go back and see what a
mess he made of the Reform Party, not that it wasn't a mess to
begin with.)
But my advice to the big-L libertarians is to just live with it.
All of the infighting and all of these splinter Boston Tea Party
groups are beside the point. The only way the Libertarian Party
amounts to anything this election cycle is to cost McCain enough
votes to cost him the election. Don't worry about the purity of the
message: political campaigns are lousy vehicles for that, anyway.
Just try to keep Barr straight on the bullet points. (And to do
that, agitate for him to fire Verney. That's where a little bit of
infighting might do some good.)
Sambo|9.13.08 @ 1:25AM|#
"The only way the Libertarian Party amounts to anything this
election cycle is to cost McCain enough votes to cost him the
election."
Isn't that the textbook definition of a sociopath? You know,
lighting this bundle of dynomite is ginna kill me, but I'm taking
you with me, fool.
|9.13.08 @ 3:06AM|#
Really, it is just basic politics and marketing. Instead, he
lost votes (including mine) by how he acted.
Oh, found someone better, did you?
Franklin Harris|9.13.08 @ 3:37AM|#
Isn't that the textbook definition of a sociopath? You know, lighting this bundle of dynomite is ginna kill me, but I'm taking you with me, fool.
No. If the LP is seen as costing McCain the election, it only helps
the LP. And I reject the idea that electing Obama is somehow worse
than electing McCain. Do we get a different brand of big
government? Yes. But we get big government either way.
dpsc:|9.13.08 @ 4:53AM|#
So, Franklin, what if it costs Obama the election? Given his strong libertarian stands on things like guns and drug legalization that might be a disaster.
Nick|9.13.08 @ 6:37AM|#
It's funny - because 99% of the public thinks the LP is dead.
I'm sure Nolan's child porn defending Mary Ruwart would have been
busting new fundraising barriers and poll numbers as well. After
all, the number of pedophiles in the country might have actually
doubled the size of the LP.
As a co-founder of the Libertarian Reform Caucus who has now given
up any hope for the LP, I think we should let the LP wash out to
sea with its boatload of radicals and start something new. There
needs to be a party that reclaims classical liberalism, and reaches
out to the Left by showing how laissez faire is more progressive
than socialism by improving conditions for small businesses and
enabling them to compete, while forcing corporations and their
members to be directly legally and financially accountable for
fraud, personal harm and destruction of property. Localization of
federal programs, incremental reduction of government spending and
taxes, a progressive tax structure, free trade as war deterrent,
fighting bureaucracy and waste, cooperative and charitable
solutions to social problems, improving public schools through
school choice, ending irrational wars on guns, drugs, prostitution,
etc from the standpoint that the illegality of these things funds
the criminal underworld - these are all programs that can appeal to
middle America, basically it would be the party of progressive
conservatives and unsocialist liberals.
Whatever the ideal society we desire, wherever it ranges between
"more freedom than now" to Libertopia, we're never going to get
there unless we do what the socialists have done since the 1920s -
sell to the middle and gradually move the country back in our
direction. The LP has failed to reach moderates and thus in my
opinion is a dead vessel for liberty. If fact, the LP's radicalism
has sadly caused most of America to write off the concept of
libertarianism as kookdom. For that reason, the LP deserves to rot
in its own counterproductive obscurity.
robc|9.13.08 @ 8:56AM|#
I'm a Libertarian and a Detroit Lions fan.
When does CJ turn 35, I can support him for president?
cunnivore|9.13.08 @ 9:26AM|#
Paul considers himself both a Representative and a
Legislator. As a Representative he petitions the government on
behalf of his constituency. As a legislator he votes (consistently)
against pork. And that includes the pork requested by his
district.
That's just so much sophistry. So if his constituents told him they
support the war in Iraq and love the Federal Reserve he would have
to never speak out against those in his speeches in the House? He
has to represent the views of his constituency,
right?
Whatever facile explanations he and his supporters offer, the truth
is the same as it is with any other politician: he requests the
pork spending because his constituents would notice if he didn't.
The fact that they don't notice his lecturing the overnight shift
C-SPAN engineers about libertarianism is just a testament to how
ineffective he is when it comes to defending liberty and how
harmless he is to the foes of liberty.
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 9:30AM|#
I may roll my eyes while voting for Barr, but at least I won't
have to hold my nose, and I won't have to throw up afterwards. The
very fact that Barr seems to have retained some of his conservative
views (eg, on abortion) is a feature rather than a bug as far as
I'm concerned.
It is true that the Bob Barr Web
site doesn't say "Libertarian Party" at the top, although the
first sentence of every Bob Barr press release mentions Barr's
Libertarian status (links to the press releases are on the left of
the home page).
The
Obama campaign Web site and the
the McCain campaign Web site don't mention the party
affiliations of their respective candidates on the main page,
either.
On the McKinney
campaign Web site, you have to scroll down the screen to find
that she's the Green Party nominee.
"If all you are looking for is a big rally, then Farrakahn, or even
hitler would do fine."
We have a Godwin!
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 9:33AM|#
"The fact that they don't notice his lecturing the overnight
shift C-SPAN engineers about libertarianism is just a testament to
how ineffective he is when it comes to defending liberty and how
harmless he is to the foes of liberty."
Michelle Malkin and *The New Republic* were certainly upset at Dr.
Paul's candidacy, and thought it worth derailing even at the
expense of telling a few untruths. Why such zeal, if Dr. Paul was
no danger to them? Or are Michelle Malkin and *The New Republic*
actually friends of liberty?
Free Thinking American|9.13.08 @ 10:14AM|#
I have voted libertarian in the last few elections, But I am not sure that I can bring myself to vote for Bob Barr. He is just a little too conservative for my likes. I was hoping for more from the libertarian party.
Sean Scallon|9.13.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Barr's nomination is not really the issue because there were a
lot of disgruntled Republicans out there and it would have been
silly for an LP looking to grow itself from being a "debating
society for anrgy white men with alternative lifestyles" not to
choose someone who was a disgruntled Republican himself. Yes Barr
is a Johnny-come-lately to libertarianism, but if you want broaden
the base of party, then a lot of people will be
Johnny-come-latelies. Besides, what better story for a campaign
than a fellow who was kicked out of Congress thanks to the votes of
libertarians in Georgia using that defeat to
discoverlibertarianism?
Sadly I think the Barr camapaign will fall far far short of the
lofty goals many had for it back in May. Part of it is their own
doing but also because of events they could not control. The Barr
campaign has already influenced the general election with Sarah
Palin's GOP nomination as vice-president. This would not have
happened had Karl Rove not seen McCain's poll numbers, especially
in the West and Atlantic South, being chopped up by Barr. Palin was
a response to this and ergo, the number of disgruntled Republicans
has shrunk accordingly. Now it may be that Mrs.Palin is being
turned into a neocon robot as we speak but I think we would all
agree somone like her, with regular libertarian and paleo
instincts, would have never been chosen in the recent past. This is
progress however small.
Then of course you have the Barr's campaign's own self-inflicted
blunders, which has robbed him of any potential grassroots base
thanks to the wickedly incompetent Russ Verney. Root has been a
total disappointment as the VP nominee and one wonders if his heart
is really into the campaign. Recent poll number show Barr dropping
to 1% and falling and could reach Badnarik levels by Novemeber 4.
Bob Barr the idea was good but Bob Barr the candidate leaves a lot
to be desired.
I hope that's not the case and I hope the LP does have an affect on
the outcome of the presidential race and I hope the press
conference fiasco doesn't hurt LP candidates downballot, some of
whom are doing quite well by LP standards.
But LPers have to be honest with themseleves and admit that Ruwart
or Kubby or Phillies would not be doing all that much better than
Barr is even if they were running perfect campaigns. What's needed
is a campaign that balances the desires of those wishing to grow
the party without ignoring all those who who worked hard over the
years to try and keep it afloat without indulging the crazies like
Starchild and Chief Wana Dubie. A Barr/Kubby ticket would have been
perfect in this regard.
The LP will survive what happens to Bob Barr but what will it
become? That's the point to ponder. If, after Election Day, the
Barr crowd is swept out of party HQ and the party regular faction
is back in control, basically you're back to square one again just
like in 2004. That situation ultimatley led to the Portland
Convention in '06 and Barr's nomination in '08 because many LP
members got tired of losing and looking like freaks. Nothing will
have changed and opportunties will have been lost if a typical
purge takes place.
If such regulars to simply wish maintain themselves as a club for
kooks and prevent the party from growing, then maybe Nick is right
that the LP isn't worth the effort anymore and a new party is
needed that combines a lot of the moderate forces within the
non-major parties (Nader, Paul, Baldwin (and if you think Baldwin's
a right-wing nut there are far more kookier people in the CP than
him and it has caused any number of problems for the party) which
uses Paul's financial and activist base. The Campaign for Liberty
could be the template for that new party.
Such things aren't planned as they are, events just have a way of
pushing them to happen and we may see all of this take place in the
fermet that's been caused by Paul's campaign.
cunnivore|9.13.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Mad Max,
The Kirchick story in the New Republic didn't contain any lies as
far as I am aware. The bare truth of what Dr Paul was allowing to
be published in his name (assuming he did not write it) is
scandalous enough.
As for Malkin, Fox News et al, they're not the bastions of
calculating judgement that you seem to think they are. Had they
kept silent about Paul rather than tearing into him for his
supposedly blame-America attitude, his campaign would have been
even more irrelevant than it actually turned out to be. Indeed,
towards the end his opponents adjusted their strategery in the
debates and confronted him directly, using him as a
scapegoat/punching bag to show the base what great warriors they
would make. The bully who's wedgieing the weakling in front of a
bunch of girls isn't doing it because he's afraid.
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Dr. Paul allowed a lot of offensive things to go out under his
name. That doesn't mean TNR told the truth.
The classic example is TNR saying that, in this
newsletter, Dr. Paul compared Salman Rushdie to
Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel. A classic half-truth, in that they
wanted their readers to believe the newsletter was praising Zundel.
In fact, the comparison in question was that (a) both Rushdie and
Zundel said offensive things, and (b) both should have the right to
free expression. The newsletter then took *The New Republic* to
task for defending Rushdie's right to free expression while denying
Zundel's rights.
TNR thought that the actual record of the good doctor's offensive
comments wasn't good enough - they had to take comments which were
not only defensible but fully accurate and throw those into the
pile as well.
Why go to such lengths to oppose someone who is "ineffective" and
"harmless to the foes of liberty?"
Malkin, like it or not, is a key ally of the Republican Party. She
tries to head off what she considers threats to her party's
dominance. She targeted Dr. Paul. Why was that?
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 2:32PM|#
"The bully who's wedgieing the weakling in front of a bunch of
girls isn't doing it because he's afraid."
Are you perhaps referring to Dr. Paul's opponent, the wife-swapping
ex-mayor of New York, who tried to shore up support for the Bush
administration's increasingly-unpopular military policy by
attacking Dr. Paul's antiwar stand? How did that work out for the
wife-swapper? Not so well, since he kept running below Dr. Paul's
vote totals in the primaries. Who, then, got wedgied?
MAX HATS|9.13.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Theory: despite growing sympathy to libertarian viewpoints in
the electorate, no more than a few percent of said electorate is
willing to throw their vote or prospective campaign contribution
away. Controversial, I know.
Especially in this day and age, when fundamental issues of war and
peace are being decided, you're going to find the share of people
willing to vote for a fringe political party low.
It's a two party system. 95% of the country realizes that. You want
change, you work within one of the two parties, put your head down,
accept compromises, and eventually your own personal issues become
national issues. The christian right knows it, the environmentalist
movement knows it, the neoconservatives know it.
piperTom|9.13.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Brian left out the best part: Nolan recommends Libertarians
support more responsible candidates, such as Dr. Mike Munger. He is
running a good campaign for NC Governor and has meeting the state's
threshold for ballot retention (it would be the first time for the
LP with potential savings of $200K NOT doing another hideous ballot
drive).
http://munger08.com
cunnivore|9.13.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Malkin, like it or not, is a key ally of the Republican
Party. She tries to head off what she considers threats to her
party's dominance. She targeted Dr. Paul. Why was that?
Because she's a stupid twat. She wrote a book defending the
internment of Japanese-Americans, for Christ's sake! Do you
seriously think she sat down and calculated whether doing that
would help the GOP before she did it? No, she just heard someone
say something she didn't like, and started squawking.
Who, then, got wedgied?
I wasn't referring to the Rudy spat -- that was a spur of the
moment thing in only the second debate. I'm referring to the
obviously pre-planned confrontations with Huckabee and McCain,
which gave the former the opportunity to thump his chest about
honor and tell a funny story about his mother, and the latter a
chance to paint himself as a great warrior who would have stopped
WW2 from happening with his big dick stiplomacy.
Pendulum|9.13.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Max Hats is correct
It's a two party system. 95% of the country realizes that. You want
change, you work within one of the two parties, put your head down,
accept compromises, and eventually your own personal issues become
national issues. The christian right knows it, the environmentalist
movement knows it, the neoconservatives know it.
And in a miniscule demonstration of this, I will be voting for
Obama, who opposed the war, will be a competent diplomat, and
displays a rudiamentary understanding of market behavior.
Additionally, most people don't like extremists, and the
Libertarian Party is nothing if not extremists. As Ron Paul said at
the rally for liberty, anyone conceding a 1% income tax has
conceded 100% of the principle. Well, I admire Dr. Paul's
principled stand, but since I formulate my principles differently,
I can't ultimately agree. Most people want some government
services, even if it means an income tax. This is the reality.
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 7:34PM|#
So, the major-party candidates are bound to get an overwhelming majority of the votes? So the two-party system is in no danger whatsoever? What a relief! I would hate to endanger the two-party system, and apparently I don't. So I guess they don't need my vote, then! And I suppose they'll quite asking for it
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 8:01PM|#
"[Malkin] wrote a book defending the internment of
Japanese-Americans, for Christ's sake! Do you seriously think she
sat down and calculated whether doing that would help the GOP
before she did it?"
I don't know if it hurt the Repubs or not. It didn't stop their
Pres candidate from being elected in 2004, the year it came out. I
also don't recall
Even if Malkin's views were politically dangerous, that didn't stop
key Repug supporters from trumpeting her internment book and
back-slapping her over her "courage" in fighting the libruls.
John
Leo praised Malkin for violating the "Internment Taboo."
The Conservative Book Club hyped the book under the headline,
"Should civil liberties *always* trump national security?
Michelle Malkin's airtight case for profiling in today's terror war
-- and her courageous defense of World War II internment
measures."
Thomas
Sowell also weighed in with a rave review, declaring that
Malkin "brings out many facts and arguments that have long been
ignored by those who prefer simpler explanations that enable them
to condemn America."
Daniel
Pipes praised the book for rebutting the propaganda of the
"victimization lobby."
How much does Malkin have to get praised from key elements in Repug
"intellectual" circles before she stops being marginal?
Mad Max|9.13.08 @ 8:40PM|#
A marginal broadcast network known as the Fox News Channel gave
Malkin a platform to falsely accuse Dr. Paul of being a
Truther.
Those marginal attackers of Dr. Paul seem to stick together! Good
thing they don't represent the mainstream of the Repug
leadership.
Nick|9.13.08 @ 9:54PM|#
Here's my question for you, Pendulum:
Is your state likely to come down to your one vote? I don't think
there's ever been a state in history where it came down to the
difference of one vote. Because of this, you should vote for
whoever you want to, because you won't impact the race anyway. If
you think Obama is preferable to McCain because he won't start a
war in Russia (even if he implements permanent socialism) and he's
also preferable to Barr, Nader, Baldwin, McKinley or writing in
whoever you think would be the best president, by all means vote
for him. Otherwise, pick the person that most closely represents
your values instead of thinking that your vote actually matters any
moreso because it is going to the major parties.
Personally I'm kind of leaning towards writing in some inanimate
object or animal to express my intense dissatisfaction with all of
the human choices, all of whom are incredibly disappointing this
cycle.
|9.13.08 @ 10:05PM|#
MAX HATS wrote, "It's a two party system. 95% of the country
realizes that. You want change, you work within one of the two
parties, put your head down, accept compromises, and eventually
your own personal issues become national issues. The christian
right knows it, the environmentalist movement knows it, the
neoconservatives know it."
And so, it seemed, did Ron Paul, who has been working in the
vineyards of the GOP for decades, and who would not himself pursue
a third-party bid for POTUS this year. Yet he called a press
conference to express his belief that working within the system is
a mistaken strategy. Who knows the truth of the situation better
than he? If Ron Paul can give up on the "change it from the inside"
approach, then who can defend it, and on what grounds?
Perhaps it is inevitable that we will have two parties slugging it
out forever, but not necessarily the same two parties. I can only
hope that a more libertarian party supplants either the Demos or
GOP in my lifetime.
|9.13.08 @ 10:46PM|#
I do hope they throw the bum out. I have voted libertarian for
decades and even I can't pull the lever on this guy.
I didn't know what I was going to do until I read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html
Thank you Ms. Hamilton. My decision is now clear.
JMR|9.14.08 @ 11:16AM|#
"Child porn defending"??? I must come to my friend Mary's
defense, and I'll make it simple enough that even the media could
get it.
Mary's point was about the very broad possible definition(s) of
"child porn" under yet-another law, not about allowing or
encouraging the sexual abuse of children. It's about control of
adults!! For example, if you think it's illegal to download "child
porn," a broad enough definition could affect you very easily,
given the proper political agenda.
I'll use an ascii-art example I saw on an email list in the 1990s
to show why.
o|=
JMR|9.14.08 @ 11:18AM|#
Crap, the html command apparently erased the rest of my post, but there's a < character for her legs, and the statement "look at her, so young, so willing," under that.
Hacha Cha|9.14.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Barr can't deliver on his promises by a long shot, which I already knew, and so did everyone else I guess. I went from HATING Bob Barr to somewhat warming up to him as a libertarian candidate because of all his talk about brining in the numbers at the polls and in funds, then I actually considered voting for him, HA! now I'm back to thinking what I did in the beginning, Barr cannot be trusted and he is using the party as his own independent platform to jerk off his ego or whatever politicians do. we should all be so lucky as to have a Paul/Goldwater ticket under the LIBERTARIAN party. maybe we could have had ballot access and got into the debates, again, HA!
|9.14.08 @ 5:53PM|#
# Libertylover | September 13, 2008, 10:46pm | #
# ...
# I didn't know what I was going to do until
# read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/hamilton4.html
In Hamilton's article, she asks, "What is so difficult about
allowing the American people to pick the person they want to be
President? Why is this so dangerous?"
I wish she had studied history well enough to answer her own
question (which, I admit, was posed only rhetorically).
For one thing, the people were never intended to pick the Federal
president. The President was to be selected by the States, by the
expedient of the various state legislatures appointing electors.
The Federal government was a creature of and a facilitator for the
States, and the President was to be, in large part, a ringmaster
who could help coordinate their mutual cooperation.
The indirect selection of the President by the States was a
deliberate component of the web of checks and balances that is
woven throughout the Constitution. Progressive and populist
movements (in either deliberate or inadvertent service to the major
parties of their times) subsequently engineered the
extra-constitutional arrangements, whereby the legislatures would
obligate themselves to respect popular vote for President in
selecting electors. Over time, people got used to voting for
President, seemingly "directly," and came to believe that it was
not only wise and good, but INTENDED, for the people to elect the
President.
Let me be clear: When States select the President, the federal
government will be weaker and more manageable than when people
elect the chief executive directly. The only federal officers who
were to be elected directly by the people were House Reps. States
were to appoint Senators (changed by the unwise 17th Amendment, in
one of the same waves of reform that brought us semi-direct popular
election of the President). Since, in our system, political
authority flows from the people, direct election by the people
confers more "legitimacy" on those office-holders, than on those
who are merely appointed by other governmental functionaries,
however highly-placed those making appointments might be. Electing
the President directly would shift the balance of power -- giving
orders of magnitude more "legitimacy" to the President than to any
other elected official, and paving the way for the President to be
de facto King and even Dictator. The founders saw this easily and
wisely made the Presidential selection process a very indirect
one.
There is a good reason today for people to vote directly for the
President, and that is because the Federal government is now in
everyone's face, all day, every day, to an extent that would have
disappointed -- if not horrified -- the people who wrote the
Constitution. With Presidential decisions and appointees in charge
of so much of our wealth and everyday behavior, it behooves the
average man to demand a say in the selection of that official. But
the pressures to legitimize direct democracy in the selection of
the President are evidence of a deadly positive-feedback loop that
we would be wiser to resist. Rather than continuing to move toward
direct election of the President, we should recognize the harm that
an imbalance of power between the governmental branches could and
probably will cause, and move instead back toward the idea of
States appointing Senators, and States indirectly (through
electors) selecting the President. The original design is a lot
better than the "improvements" that would-be "reformers" brought us
in more recent times. Newer is not always better. From everything I
have seen in decades of watching our nation's political dramedy,
the founders got that balance-of-power thing very right, and we
tinker with it at our peril.
|9.15.08 @ 9:10AM|#
Many seem to have an inflated view of the importance and visibility of the LP. Most people don't even know that it exists, and a large proportion of those who do think it is run by Lyndon LaRouche. Yes, it appears that Barr is screwing up his campaign, but to pretend it is any worse than Badnarik or even Browne just goes to show that libertarians have a short memory (probably because so many weren't libertarians four years ago). The world is not collapsing, and the LP will still be there, performing badly, in the next election.
Warty|9.15.08 @ 10:21AM|#
J sub D | September 12, 2008, 6:26pm | #
I'm a Libertarian and a Detroit Lions fan.
My life sucks.
It could be worse: you could be a Browns fan like me.
jmd|9.15.08 @ 11:22AM|#
giuliani the "wife swapper"...i love it !! apparently the paultards are now insinuating that divorce should be illegal too. how libertarian of them.
|9.15.08 @ 4:46PM|#
dpsc: | September 13, 2008, 4:53am | #
So, Franklin, what if it costs Obama the election? Given his strong libertarian stands on things like guns and drug legalization that might be a disaster.
Let me know when I can catch the next train to whatever dimension
you're living in. If you heard Obama talking libertarian-like about
guns and drugs during some speech or another that doesn't mean he
believes what's coming out of his mouth.
Nick | September 13, 2008, 9:54pm | #
...
...Personally I'm kind of leaning towards writing in some inanimate object or animal to express my intense dissatisfaction with all of the human choices, all of whom are incredibly disappointing this cycle.
I find it curious that you'd say this after saying the LP needs to
either accomplish something or just go away in an earlier post of
yours. If you want the LP to succeed you have to vote for them. Bob
Barr will not last, but the LP will. A vote for Bob Barr is a vote
for the LP, for automatic ballot access thresholds, and for
visibility in future elections.
For everyone else: Someone mentioned the LP regulars that are
sitting out this election, but nobody mentioned those that are
operating anti-Barr campaigns. This scorched earth policy is silly,
and for what? So you can help Barr to not do well? So you can point
to his floundering campaign fund and decent but unremarkable vote
totals and say itoldjaso? Pathetic. Childish. Divided we fall.
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