"Hmmm. Who's the Libertarian candidate again?"


Bob Barr isn't sure who he's voting for this year.


NEXT: Debates Debatable, Judge Declares

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.

  1. Bush has lost right wingers in Georgia?!?

    I predict that a lot of Republican districts/counties/states are going cast a lot more votes for Republican Senate, Congressional, gubanatorial, and state leg. candidates than for George Bush. Probably not enough to cost him any safe Republican EVs, but enough to drive his popular vote totals way down from 2000.


    Film at eleven.

  3. Considering the GOP control of the government and the drunken spending that has gone on, the Republicans have been a disaster just on principles!

  4. W will win his red states. He loves Jesus and the conservative faithful are convinced that Osama wants Kerry to win.


    Film at eleven.”

    Uh, yeah. I predicted that there will be good turnout for Republican candidates up and down the ticket, and that Bush won’t lose any red states.

    Wow, that IS a disaster.

  6. Barr has lost his way. If he can’t see what Kerry’s policies would do to America, it’s good he no longer represents the State of Georgia in congress.

  7. If he can’t see what Kerry’s policies would do to America…

    Run for the hills, the sky is falling!

  8. Yeah, if Kerry really fucks up he could inflame international terrorism, drive down the value of the dollar, and explode the deficit.

    Oops … uh … or …

  9. R Roof,

    It’s not a question of “what Kerry’s policies would do to America,” but of what the federal government as a whole is likely to be able to do with Kerry in the White House and the GOP controlling Congress.

    And Kerry is likely to be a one-termer. A Republican loss of the presidency will do the GOP a world of good: it’ll put the Bushes and their personal cronies from the Iran-Contra mafia in permanent political exile, do the same for the folks from PNAC and the Weekly Standard, and mean a big resurgence of the Party’s realist wing (and probably a significant reinvigoration of its non-interventionist wing). This election, for me, is not so much between the agendas of the mainstream Democrats and Republicans, as for or against the very scary circles that surround GWB personally.

  10. What makes you think the non-interventionist wink will reinvigorate? Do you mean the isolationists? Wasn’t Buchanon thoroughly trounced? I may be missing something, but any voices I hear on that side are few and far between. It seems to me the interesting thing about the Rep. party is the uneasy (but convenient, at the moment) relationship between social conservatives and social liberals that agree on foreign policy and economics.

  11. And another thing, I’m curious what you find so scary about global realism (neo-cons). Also you’re view of what is different betweeen the realism crowd and the neo-cons, with big picture specifics.

  12. and mean a big resurgence of the Party’s realist wing

    Oh goody, a return to the happy days of Nixon and Kissinger.

  13. What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
    Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man, You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
    A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
    And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
    And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
    There is shadow under this tin foil tent,
    (Come in under the shadow of this tin foil),
    And I will show you something different from either
    Your shadow at morning striding behind you
    Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
    I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

  14. One of the reasons I really really want Bush to lose is to save the republican party.

    Dan – I’d love a return to dirty old realpolitik. 4 years with these crusading incompetent loons is enough. It won the Cold War. If these guys were running the Cold War none of us would be here.

  15. Fred,

    OK, so you know your TS. What does the quotation have to do with the present discussion?

  16. notJoe,

    Not much.

    I should have been a pair of ragged claws
    Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.

  17. Fred grows old, Fred grows old
    He shall wear his trousers rolled!

  18. Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
    I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
    I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

    I do not think that they will sing to me. Dammit!

  19. Don’t worry Fred,

    There will be time, there will be time
    In the end I changed my mind
    Forced a moment to its crisis
    And danced while mermaids sang of Isis.

  20. Dan – I’d love a return to dirty old realpolitik. 4 years with these crusading incompetent loons is enough. It won the Cold War.

    No, it didn’t. The Soviet Union steadily and continually added new nations to its empire during the entire period of “realism”. The essence of the “realist” philosophy was that the USSR was a permanent enemy and the best we could hope for was to fight an indefinite war against it. It wasn’t until the “realism” of Nixon was discarded in favor of the idealism of Reagan, who honestly believed that victory was possible, that the USSR was actually defeated. I would also like to point out that Nixonian “realism” resulted in the deaths of an order of magnitude more people, far more egregious violations of human rights at home and abroad, and the energy crisis of the 1970s.

  21. Here I sit
    All broken-hearted …

  22. T.S. Idiot, Good riposte.

    T.S.tevo, Crappy way to end a thread! 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.