Bob Barr Celebrates Death of "So-Called Barr Amendment"

The City Paper reports on weed in Washington:

Last week, the House of Representatives at long last voted to kill the Barr Amendment—a rider banning D.C.’s implementation of a medical marijuana initiative passed in 1998. It was originally sponsored by Georgia congressman Bob Barr and has been attached to the annual District budget for a decade.

And now a press release from the Libertarian Party, featuring Barr, who is once again contrite for his past Republicanisms:

“While I in fact sponsored the initial appropriations limitation in 1998, the years since then have witnessed such a dramatic increase in federal government power and an unprecedented decrease in individual liberty, especially since 2001, that I have come to realize that such limitations as the so-called “Barr Amendment” are not and cannot be justified. It has become necessary to reevaluate the power of the federal government that I and others once were able or willing to justify, and do what we can to roll back the tide of government control."

Welcome to the party, Bob.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    That graphic is AWESOME!

    Oh, yeah, better late than never, Bob.

  • ||

    At least he's getting the message right.

  • ||

    how the hell did this guy ever get elected in the first place? i still don't trust him now that he's seen the error of his ways.

  • ||

    So, following his logic, if there *hadn't* been "such a dramatic increase in federal government power and an unprecedented decrease in individual liberty, especially since 2001", he'd still be in support of his amendment?

    Bob Barr - a yutz in 1998, still a yutz in 2009.

  • ||

    Welcome to the party, Bob.

    Just don't bogart.

  • ||

    Bob Barr is a phony.

    Stop giving this ass-wipe a platform.

    Make room for people who are smart enough to get rid of bad ideas, before the bad ideas get rid of us.

  • ||

    J sub D, don't you think Bob would come to the party with a jont or two already rolled? Ready to share with you and me over a civil war discussion?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I hope he doesn't get the libertarian party nomination again. The last thing we need is a Nader.

  • ||

    I have no idea how or why the LP backs Barr. He literally split the party in two when we needed someone to help build the party and rally behind.

  • ||

    So flip-flopping is okay as long as it's by someone we like on an issue we find near and dear to our hearts? mmmm-kay

  • DJP||

    I'm a voting Libertarian who used to be against Barr. This was largely due to his previous ANTI-Libertarian approach to drugs and "social" policy.

    With a reasonably Libertarian candidate, who takes the libertarian platforms of each major party, I could see myself voting L for President instead of my usual D and R votes.

  • TallDave||

    He's a little late, but we're a forgiving bunch.

  • robc||

    brotherben,

    Flip-flopping is always okay as long as you flip to the good side and you mean it. That is called converting. :)

    Last year, I might not have bought it. As it seems unlikely he is ever running for any office again, I accept it as real.

  • robc||

    My definition of "reasonable" must be different from DJP's. I have voted LP 4 times in a row for prez and Barr was the least reasonable candidate in that stretch.

  • ||

    I swear I am NOT a Christine Smith dead-ender. I even voted for Barr. But, geez, he is so ideologically tone deaf.

    It's not, "the growth of the government requires me to change", it's "I was wrong, wrong, wrong and have seen the light; the only way I or anyone could suppress so innocent a weed in so absurd a way was that I was high on the glue fumes of conservative power mongering. My name's Bob and I'm a recovering statist."

    He literally split the party in two...



    Granted, a 99.5% / 0.5% split is still "in two", but maybe not that big a deal. There is more than ample Weigelalia to demonstrate that Barr's results were hardly a catastrophe, but not any improvement, either. (E.g., the Boston Tea Party didn't take off, Paul's endorsement of Baldwin didn't throw votes his way.)

    Running a "name" politician every 18 years, + or -2, is worth it, just to see if the gambit works, but now that that's over...Ideological Purity 2012! (Run, Penn Jillette, Run!)

  • robc||

    ben,

    Also, part of the "conversion" process is that you arent just flipping on the one issue. It should involve a philosophical change (unless you were just out of whack on that one issue) of heart. Barr was always somewhat good on civil liberties, he seems to have had a change on most of the rest since joining the LP. So it is consistent with his body of work.

  • robc||

    Ideological Purity 2012! (Run, Penn Jillette, Run!)

    That is different than running a "name" in what way?

    Is Teller from the same state?

  • robc||

    However, also, as ChrisH points out, part of converting is getting your phrasing right. Sigh.

  • BlueBook||

    I would pay good money to see President Teller mime the State of the Union address.

  • ||

    # (Run, Penn Jillette, Run!)

    Unfortunately, that would probably force Bullshit off the air. On the other hand, perhaps Penn could start a series of political infomercials in which he and friends (Teller, Teller...?) expose the tricks of the political magicians of recent years: Penn (& Teller's?) "Bullshit: The Special Politics Edition."

    We can only hope.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Seldom can the converted effectively lead a movement. They are, by definition, followers. Barr was never The One.

    A politician admitting a mistake without first having to be confronted with photographic or wiretapped evidence is nice, though.

  • Mad Max||

    'Unfortunately, that would probably force Bullshit off the air.'

    I'm not a supporter of Gillette, but I wouldn't mind seeing him promoting his candidacy on TV - and it *might* happen, if the courts belatedly realize that there might be a slight First Amendment problem with the campaign finance laws. The Hillary Documentary case might be promising in this area.

  • ||

    Face it, Ron Paul was the Keanu Reeves.

  • ||

    I have no idea how or why the LP backs Barr. He literally split the party in two when we needed someone to help build the party and rally behind.

    Bull. Shit.

    The purists were the ones responsible for the split. Barr offered Ruwart the VP slot and she turned it down. Also, how many elections were more down-to-earth libertarians forced to vote for some whackjob who refused to get a drivers license or wanted to blow up the UN?

    It's not, "the growth of the government requires me to change", it's "I was wrong, wrong, wrong and have seen the light; the only way I or anyone could suppress so innocent a weed in so absurd a way was that I was high on the glue fumes of conservative power mongering. My name's Bob and I'm a recovering statist."

    I thought the LP was a political party, not a religion.

    Running a "name" politician every 18 years, + or -2, is worth it, just to see if the gambit works, but now that that's over...Ideological Purity 2012!

    Bob Barr wasn't just a name. He was a decently libertarian except for a couple of issues, and an experienced politician who knew how to run a campaign and get media attention (without handcuffing himself to the Green candidate in front of a presidential debate location). Unfortunately he had to contend with Ron Paul's family business campaign sucking up libertarian money like a Dirt Devil in the months before Barr was nominated; Republican legal challenges to keep him off the ballot in several states; and finally the betrayal of the LP neopagan wing, et al.

    But hey, if you want to nominate a Badnarik type in '12, see how well that works out when those of us more interested in a political party than a church decide to sit this one out. You'll be lucky to get half of Barr's totals.

  • ||

    Seldom can the converted effectively lead a movement.

    You must be completely unfamiliar with the New Testament and how most of it was written by someone who started off as a vicious harasser of the early church.

    Or how several people in line to be president of the Mormon church are converts.

    Or ... well, just fucking google it. Some of the most fanatical people in any given movement are the converted.

  • ||

    prolefeed,

    I think what he's saying is true up to a point. Often it's not the converted's lack of zeal that prevents him or her from being a leader, but rather the inability of those born into the faith to trust a convert.

    Of course, that means the fault lies with the purist more than the convert, which obviously isn't going to work for a lot of folks round here.

  • ||

    Some would argue that Paul was Satan's answer to Jesus.

  • BakedPenguin||

    So flip-flopping is okay as long as it's by someone we like on an issue we find near and dear to our hearts? mmmm-kay



    Changing you mind is something most people do. It means you don't have everything etched in your head for perpetuity, and you are amenable to evidence that challenges previously held convictions. Provided it's based on actual evidence, or sound logic, why is that a problem? When it's for blatantly cynical reasons (e.g., Obama's recent "transparency" record), you can rightfully call bullshit.

    When someone goes form being in a major party to a minor party, and then keeps his same views after going through a rough campaign, and serious abuse from the party faithful, it's hard to view the change of heart as a cynical ploy. What the fuck does Bob Barr have to gain at this point for making a political statement like this? What is his super-secret ulterior motive for ultimate planetary control? The Libertarian Pres nomination in 2012? Oh. golly, I bet he's fucking drooling over that.

    If he goes back to being a Borkish, Hobbesian conservative, by all means, have at him. Until then, give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You must be completely unfamiliar with the New Testament...

    Who knows, maybe I'm Jewish. But apparently "seldom" and "effectively" can be tough words to get a handle on.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "we're a forgiving bunch"
    Hahahahaha
    Burn the witch! Burrrn him!

  • Warty||

    Fucking Badnarik. I blame him for that Bush vote of mine in 2004. I'll never forgive him.

  • PC||

    The Medical Weed initiative and Bob Barr. Well he couldn't talk about weed making someone lazy since at least the weed initiative got on the ballot in DC.

  • Pendulum||

    After you realize that your entire career in public service has been disasterous, the least you can do is avoid seeking public office again. A failure to realize this alone disqualifies you from decency.

  • Zeb||

    "So flip-flopping is okay as long as it's by someone we like on an issue we find near and dear to our hearts? mmmm-kay"

    To be fair, I think he just changed his mind. Doesn't flip-flop mean that you change your position and then change it back again? Just changing once is simply a flip, no?

  • ||

    Bob Barr needs to lick envelopes and man phone banks for a few hundred hours before he's allowed to speak in public again.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    oh, I see Deacon Warren is prescribing Libertarian Hail Marys to those he sees as sinners. how many "Our Hospers" do I have to say, Warren, for voting for Barr and going drinking with him?

  • ||

    Bob Barr needs to lick envelopes and man phone banks for a few hundred hours before he's allowed to speak in public again.



    Real Libertarians collect petitions in the snow.

  • ||

    And Isaac shoots... HE SCORES with a Donderooooooooooooo Zing!

    Well remembered, Mr. Bartram.

  • ||

    Seldom can the converted effectively lead a movement.

    Didn't Ronald Reagan start out as a Democrat?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Didn't Ronald Reagan start out as a Democrat?

    THE VERY REASON I PUT "SELDOM" IN THERE!!!

    Sheesh. What's this world coming to when subjective words and phrases can't protect me from criticism? (Plus, Democrats ain't quite what they used to be.)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement