Third Parties

Bob Barr Talks

The best-known nominee in Libertarian Party history talks to reason about war, drugs, pornography, Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ayn Rand.

|

On Memorial Day weekend, former four-term Republican Rep. Bob Barr took the stage at the Sheraton Denver and asked a skeptical Libertarian Party to make him its nominee for president. Hundreds of party delegates were dead set against his nomination. Anonymous flyers claimed the Georgian wanted to turn the Libertarians into "the New Republican Party." Barr's record in the House of Representatives, particularly his hostility toward medical marijuana and his support for President Bush's anti-terrorism policies, were widely seen as deal breakers.

"Many of you have come up to me and asked, 'Bob, why did you author the Defense of Marriage Act?' " Barr told wary delegates. " 'If you're so set against the PATRIOT Act, why did you vote for it?' Well, let me tell you: I have made mistakes. But the only way you make mistakes, the only way you get things done, is by getting out there in the arena and making those mistakes, and then realizing, as things go on, the mistakes that you've made. And I apologize for that."

That dramatic confession drew a burst of surprised applause from the ballroom. Hours later, Barr became the ninth man to lead the Libertarian Party into a general election.

Bob Barr is easily the most famous politician to represent the party. When Ron Paul won the nomination in 1988, the then-former Texas congressman was far from the national figure he is today. Barr's comparative notoriety, however, stems from some of the very activities he was atoning for in Denver, in addition to his aggressive role in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. His unlikely journey from drug warrior to Libertarian standard-bearer speaks volumes about how his views have changed, and also about how the conditions for Libertarian politics have changed—for the better.

Barr's public career began in 1986, when he was appointed the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. There he prosecuted members of Pablo Escobar's drug cartel, jailed a Republican congressman for perjury, and consulted for the pro-market Southeastern Legal Foundation. In 1994 Barr was elected to Congress as part of the Newt Gingrich Revolution and became a dogged opponent of Clinton-era executive power. As a legislator, the staunchly anti-abortion, pro-drug war politician also wrote bills to limit the government's ability to tap phones and intercept cell phone calls, tighten the laws governing civil asset forfeitures, and shrink the duration of firearm background checks. In most of those cases both parties opposed him.

When Georgia Democrats redrew their state congressional map in 2002, they sliced up Barr's district and left him scrambling to run in a different one. The Libertarian Party, angered by Barr's opposition to medical marijuana, ran ads against him in the Republican primary, helping ensure his defeat. Barr then rebuilt his career as a lawyer, consultant, and pundit with a jaundiced eye on the Bush administration's post-9/11 abuses of civil liberties. He endorsed Libertarian presidential nominee Michael Badnarik in 2004, and in 2006 he officially joined the party as a regional representative. At the time he denied interest in a presidential run. But he entered this year's race shortly before the Libertarian convention, started building a staff, and is now aiming to be on 48 state ballots as a "viable third option" for the presidency.

Associate Editor David Weigel spoke to Bob Barr in May, just before the convention, and again in August. For a video interview with the candidate, go to reason.tv/barr.

reason: In 2006, when you joined the Libertarian Party, you told reason that you were not interested in running for anything else. What changed?

Bob Barr: A couple of things. First of all, since 2006 civil liberties have continued to be under assault by this administration and by Washington generally. At the national level—in both the Congress, with very few exceptions, and in the administration, with no exception—the assault on the right to privacy and other civil liberties, the assault on the notion that we are a nation that lives by the rule of law, not by the rule of men, continues to move forward at an accelerating pace.

There's a very interesting quote by Dante Alighieri: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis remain neutral." So even though continuing to work as a member of the Libertarian National Committee certainly provided an appropriate forum and an opportunity to work to restore liberty and freedom in America, the process has accelerated so greatly that it was absolutely essential to enter the fray.

reason: Some of what you're talking about, though, you supported in Congress. You voted for the Iraq war.

Bob Barr: The Iraq war was presented as something that was based on sound intelligence: a clear and present danger, an immediate threat targeting the United States by the Saddam Hussein regime. We now know that the intelligence was not there to support those arguments. Many of us, including myself, gave the administration the benefit of the doubt, presumed that this would be an operation that was well founded, well thought-out, well strategized, when in fact it wasn't. There was no clear strategy, and we've paid a very, very heavy price for that.

After five years our government is spending humongous amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars, somewhere upwards of $400 million every single day, to do something that the president said we should never do and would never do, and that is to build a nation. That's not the appropriate role for our military. It's not the appropriate role or goal for a legitimate national defense policy if the emphasis is on defense.

reason: What do you think about the claim by people on the right that radical Islam is a threat similar to communism?

Bob Barr: The Soviet Union and other communist nations, such as China, very clearly were adversarial to us. The entire thrust of their policies was anti-United States, and they created problems for us in a number of areas around the world. That has nothing to do with what's going on in Iraq. The occupation of Iraq should rise or fall on its own. I think it's a very bad foreign policy, a very inappropriate use of our military and a huge number of taxpayer dollars. I would as president begin immediately extricating ourselves, both economically and militarily, from Iraq. It is a bad policy, and it is a counterproductive policy.

reason: What about the PATRIOT Act?

Bob Barr: This was presented to us immediately after 9/11. I took what might be called sort of a leadership role in Congress in marshaling a lot of different groups in opposition both to the PATRIOT Act generally and to specific onerous provisions in it. Several factors caused me to sort of go against my gut reaction and vote for the PATRIOT Act.

The administration did in fact work with us and agree to several pre-vote changes to the PATRIOT Act that did mitigate some of the more problematic provisions in it. The administration also, from the attorney general on down, gave us personal assurances that the provisions in the PATRIOT Act, if they were passed and signed into law, would be used judiciously, that they would not be used to push the envelope of executive power, that they would not be used in non-terrorismrelated cases. They gave us assurances that they would work with us on those provisions that we were able to get sunsetted, work with us to modify those and to look at those very carefully when those provisions came up for reauthorization. The administration also gave us absolute assurances that it would work openly and thoroughly report to the Congress, and by extrapolation to the American people, on how it was using the provisions in the PATRIOT Act. In every one of those areas, the administration has gone back on what it told us.

reason: When the District of Columbia had a nonbinding referendum about decriminalization of medical marijuana in 1998, you wanted them not to count the votes. Do you regret doing that? How have you changed your views on decriminalization and on the war on drugs?

Bob Barr: It's a very legitimate question, and it's one that I've dealt with at great length with a lot of Libertarians.

As I've looked both at the way the drug war has been fought and at the overall substantial growth in government power—which as you know always comes at the expense of the liberty and the freedom of the people; there's nothing, no power that government exercises that is not the result of taking power from the people—the way the federal government has approached the war against drugs has been one that tramples on the very notion of federalism, which used to be one of the underpinnings of the Republican Party. And in that context, to now see the manner in which the administration has fought tooth and nail against any dilution of its absolute power over the states to completely run roughshod in the areas of drug use, even to the extent of refusing to allow legitimate testing to determine whether or not medicinal marijuana meets the criteria laid out in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act—that's very disingenuous. That's very improper.

reason: You called that "voodoo," the idea that marijuana could be used for medical purposes. You were debating Neal Boortz and dismissed it out of hand.

Bob Barr: I think what's really voodoo about this is the way the administration disingenuously says the Controlled Substances Act itself provides a mechanism whereby if there really are valid medicinal uses for marijuana, then certainly we'll consider those, and if they meet the criteria, we'll decriminalize it, take it off of Schedule I, for example. The fact of the matter is that the government has placed roadblock after roadblock in front of any legitimate testing of medicinal marijuana in order to meet the very criteria that the law lays down. That to me is voodoo. Not voodoo economics but voodoo government policy.

What's been very important to my epiphany in this area has been the fact that since 9/11, the speed and scope of the government's assault on individual liberty has become so profound, so pervasive, and so rooted in this notion that the federal government, the executive branch in particular, has plenary power to do whatever it wants. That has caused me to go back and look very carefully at a number of areas in which previously I might've been prone to give the government the benefit of the doubt. We cannot afford any longer to give the government a benefit of the doubt in these areas. We have to go back and try to reclaim them for the individual in terms of liberty.

reason: Would that extend to obscenity prosecution as well? What about the Justice Department prosecuting adult entertainment producers for things that it finds obscene?

Bob Barr: We have well in excess of 4,000 federal criminal laws on the books, to say nothing of all of the civil regulatory edicts that the government has available to it or that the states have available to them. There are over 4,000 different federal criminal laws! That's one reason why we have such a pervasive government presence in our society. That's why federal prosecutors and attorneys general as well—Eliot Spitzer when he was the attorney general up in New York, for example—have been able to use that very heavy hand of prosecution to dictate social behavior. And every year that goes by, not fewer but more criminal laws are placed on the books.

Regulating speech is not something that I believe is or should be in the so-called quiver of weapons that the federal government should have available to it. Particularly here again, as the federal presence has become so pervasive, so oppressive, we really have to take a proactive responsibility to go back and start looking at every one of these areas. Is this really a legitimate area for the government to be involved in? And with regard to obscenity, no, it isn't. That's an area where schools ought to be involved, where parents ought to be involved, where the telecommunications companies and the entertainment industry ought to be involved, but not the federal government. Certainly not from the standpoint of criminal laws.

reason: How would you characterize your philosophy? You've described yourself as a Randian. Unpack that.

Bob Barr: I don't know that anybody is a perfect Randian. I have a very high regard for Ayn Rand, her philosophy, her writings, and the ideas that continue to resonate surprisingly well in our society more than 50 years after Atlas Shrugged and 65 years after The Fountainhead was published. To me the philosophy that is at the core of Ayn Rand, that is at the core of the Libertarian Party, and that is at the core of my philosophy of what government should be doing, is that the government should exercise those powers that are clearly delineated to it and, in addition to that, are essential to allow the citizens to operate with the maximum amount of freedom in our society. In other words, scaling back tremendously, for example, that scope of federal criminal laws.

Even if Bob Barr were president or another Libertarian were president, none of these changes would be accomplished dramatically and instantaneously. But if we don't commit ourselves very consciously to the process, to start unraveling the power of the federal government in particular, I fear the notion that the federal government is able to and should be the supreme authority in a whole range of domestic behavior will be so entrenched, so established, so systematized, that it will from a practical standpoint be impossible to unravel. In that sense, I think this current cycle and the next few years are the sort of the last best hope, as Reagan said, to unravel the oppressive statism that has grown up in our society.

And it's the result not just of these social issues. It's the result, I think, also very much of the power of the government to regulate in the economic sphere. Government regulates so much of what goes on in business and in our economy at all levels, from the personal through the state to the federal level, that it has acclimated people to think of the federal government as not just the last but the first resort to solve problems that people perceive in this society. That is not the job of the federal government.

reason: Do you still think it was justified to impeach Bill Clinton?

Bob Barr: Absolutely. I believe in the rule of law.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton, I think, was a very appropriate exercise of legislative power in this country. Congress clearly has the constitutional power and the responsibility to assure itself on behalf of the American people that a president is operating within the bounds of the law, a responsibility that very, very few Congresses even understand anymore. Look at the sorry oversight experiences of the Congresses under the last several administrations. They rarely view as their responsibility assuring that the executive operates within the laws and with the intent of the laws that Congress has passed and the presidents have signed.

Where you have a president who violates those laws, if they are of the sort that go directly to the character of the presidency, not the president but the presidency, and the operation within the constitutional separation-of-powers framework that our Framers gave us through the Constitution, then I think it's imperative for the Congress to step in. The basis on which I had filed back in November of 1997 the first inquiry of impeachment had nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky or the subsequent obstruction of justice and perjury by the former president. It had to do with other issues that we were never able to secure support from the Republican leadership in the Congress to move forward on, and those related to possibly trading national security information and procedures, national security-related technology, in return for foreign monies coming into our electoral process, directly to the White House in some instances.

We were unable to get the Republican leadership to move forward on the basis that was the primary reason for our initial inquiry. Then the information came in on the obstruction and the perjury. To me, perjury and obstruction were of the sort of potential offenses on the part of a president that went to the character and nature of the presidency, that would provide and should have provided the appropriate basis for an impeachment.

reason: Who's your model Supreme Court justice, living or dead?

Bob Barr: I don't agree with him on several of his substantive opinions, but in terms of the approach and the background and the intellect that he brings to the arguments on the bench, it would be Antonin Scalia. I think he is a very, very fine jurist.

Pretty much all of the justices who have taken the bench in the last several cycles are far too ready to defer to the executive branch in terms of executive branch power. They are far too ready to concede plenary power to the executive branch over anything that might be called national security, whether it is or it isn't. That worries me a great deal.

reason: What Cabinet-level positions do you think could be abolished?

Bob Barr: I would certainly start with the Department of Education. There is, to me, no legitimate basis whatsoever to have the federal government involved in education, period, and certainly to the extent of having a multibillion-dollar federal agency setting the standard for schools in our country.

The Department of Energy to me has no broad legitimate function. If there are some legitimate purposes for having the federal government involved, for example, in assuring the security of atomic materials, that is a very limited function that can and should be more properly handled by the Department of Defense. It does not require a Department of Energy.

The Department of Commerce, to my mind, has no legitimate Cabinet-level function. If there are legitimate functions of the federal government in the commerce area to assure free interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, that could be handled either through the Department of Justice, assuring that the laws against infringing interstate commerce are appropriately enforced, or maybe by having a very much smaller Commerce Office.

reason: If you were in Congress these last six years, do you think you would have started an inquiry or voted to impeach President Bush?

Bob Barr: I think there clearly were and remain areas that Congress needs to look into from an executive branch abuse standpoint. Whether or not that rises to the level of impeachment, we don't know yet, and I wouldn't speculate on that. But I do believe in the area, for example, of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, systemic abuses, based on a completely alien notion that the chief executive can ignore laws whenever the chief executive decides to, should be investigated.

There are other areas that have come to light recently. For example, the latest memo by John Yoo that relates to the notion that domestic military operations are not subject to the Fourth Amendment. That raises a threshold question: What are we talking about, "domestic military operations"? The federal government should not be involved militarily in domestic operations. What are they doing here? What authorities have they been abusing? Have they actually been operating in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Those clearly are legitimate avenues of inquiry.

reason: What do you think can be or should be done with 12 million undocumented people? Do you think it's a government role to keep track of those people, and potentially move them out of the country?

Bob Barr: Certainly. It is a proper function, in my view, of the government to know who is coming into the country and who is here under different types of visas and for different, lawful purposes. One of the reasons why the terrorists succeeded on 9/11 and on the days leading up to 9/11 is that the government was not tracking those who are in this country under various visas and various procedures. Obviously the results of not doing that can be devastating.

I believe it is a perfectly legitimate function of the government to provide visas, different types, for those who wish to enter the country, whether for work, education, or simply visiting. I believe in a very, very open system of visas for people who wish to enter this country. The criteria need to be that they submit themselves to having a reasonable background check to assure ourselves reasonably that they do not pose a security risk to this country and submit themselves to a basic health check to assure ourselves reasonably that they don't have a communicable disease.

For those who are currently in this country unlawfully, I do not believe in trying to round them up. I think that would require such an oppressive immigration or law enforcement presence that it would be completely counterproductive in terms of liberty and freedom. But I do believe if people who are in this country unlawfully do not submit themselves to coming back in lawfully according to the same terms as those people who are now seeking to enter the country, they should be deported if they are found out.

reason: What is the harm of having people who came here from Ecuador or Mexico, without documentation, if they're not otherwise committing crimes?

Bob Barr: It has to do with basic respect for the rule of law and respect for a country's sovereignty. If people do not have that respect for the law, and if people do not have that respect for our sovereignty, they have no business being here. If someone wants to enter this country, they need to do so lawfully so that our government knows who is coming in, and if they are here under a temporary visa, that we know that they are here under a temporary visa. When the terms of that are up, they need to submit themselves to a change in their status. I think it is a legitimate function of government to control its own borders and protect its own sovereignty.

reason: Libertarians are getting creamed when it comes to smoking and what's in food. Why do you think the momentum's on the other side?

Bob Barr: I suspect it's because we don't have at the appropriate level of government strong spokespeople to raise these issues and to get the appropriate pro-liberty view before the relevant government officials or the voters. It is very distressing to see these things happen, whether it's in New York, by virtue of Mayor Bloomberg, or in California, by virtue of his soul mate Arnold Schwarzenegger.

reason: An issue that really animated Ron Paul's campaign was whether there should be a Federal Reserve. What's your take on that, and how much of a priority do you make that in talking about the economy?

Bob Barr: The primary focus of our campaign is to begin shrinking the size, the power, the scope, and the cost of the federal government, even before we begin focusing on, for example, specific tax reform measures. The first order of business is to get a handle on the fiscal size of the federal government. They just raised the debt ceiling by $800 billion to $10.6 trillion, if I'm not mistaken. The president's budget, which is going to be nearly $500 billion in red ink at the end of this fiscal year, is well over $3 trillion. These sums bear no relationship to the reasonable function, the reasonable expenditures, of the federal government, and account for, in large measure, the economic problems we're having in this country. We've got to get a handle, first and foremost, on government spending.

If we allow ourselves to be drawn off that primary message, the priority message of this campaign, by getting into a theoretical discussion of the Federal Reserve, then it's going to be very difficult for us to reach the American public in a way that they can relate to, which is how much of their money the federal government is taking and spending on programs that it has no business getting involved in. Like $70 billion, give or take, with the Department of Education.

Now, as a longer-term measure, yes, that would be a goal of our administration. I do not believe it is appropriate for unelected, unaccountable individuals—that is, the Federal Reserve Board members—to be controlling and attempting to manage our economy. We are moving right now in the direct opposite direction than I would take, through the forced takeover of Bear Stearns, the involvement of the Fed in the mortgage business.

reason: You observed the 2004 Libertarian presidential campaign from the outside. What mistakes did you see? How would you correct them as a third-party candidate yourself?

Bob Barr: I'm certainly not so presumptuous as to tell the Libertarian Party what it ought to be doing or what it's done wrong in the past. But I think it is a responsibility that I have as a life member of the Libertarian Party, as a member of the Libertarian National Committee, and as a nominee to not engage in certain behavior or certain strategies that clearly are doomed to failure.

I think one thing the Libertarian Party needs to do is to present its message of freedom and liberty to the American people through candidates that the American people can relate to, and in words and priorities that the American people can understand. So that, for example, rather than talk hypothetically about executive branch power or hypothetically about the high cost of regulation, talk about these issues in ways that the small business owner, that the American family, that the individual voter and citizen in this country can understand.

If you talk about these issues in very vague, hypothetical terms, or you talk about issues that are going to scare the American public, I think you're making a mistake. You can make the same point, you can move that Libertarian agenda forward much more rapidly, if you keep in mind that your audience is not necessarily going to be fellow Libertarians, it's going to be fellow Americans. And you have to recognize also that in the heart of every American beats a libertarian about something. Every citizen in this country, I believe, has some area of their lives—whether it's their personal behavior within their homes, whether it's how to educate and discipline their children, whether it's about how to run their business, their political thought, their religious practices—where they want to be left alone. The Libertarian Party, I think, needs to recognize that and appeal to that and draw that out from the American public and the American voters, rather than talk just generally about great philosophical principles.

reason: How do you feel now about losing your House seat in 2002?

Bob Barr: I didn't set out to lose in 2002, and I certainly was not happy about losing in 2002, but to be honest with you, I lost not one moment of sleep over it. It happened. We moved on. You look for new opportunities. Those new opportunities presented themselves to me, to some extent, in the form of the Libertarian Party.

The fact that the Libertarian Party worked against me in 2002 caused me to look very hard at the Libertarian Party. Not as an adversary—not with any bitterness. I looked at the Libertarian Party because I believed there was something that they did and stood for that they were able to tap into that maybe I should pay closer attention to, and look at why I lost that election, not blame somebody else for it. I never blamed the Libertarian Party or anybody for my loss. That irritates me a little bit with the Republicans and the Democrats who denigrate any third-party candidate who might have the audacity to rear their head above the weeds and say "I'm going to run."

The two major parties seem to think that they have a God-given right to be the only players on the political field, and therefore if somebody else runs and gains enough votes, the major-party candidates can somehow through their flawed logic say, "Aha, I lost because this third-party candidate took votes." It's absolutely inappropriate. It's un-American. What Sen. McCain, if he is unsuccessful in the 2008 election, ought to do, is look back, along with his colleagues in the Republican Party, and do some soul searching. Why did we lose the election? What was it about our message and our platform, if there was one, that didn't resonate sufficiently with the American people? Why was this candidate not attractive enough to the people? Do that, and try to improve their message and their platform perhaps, rather than simply blame somebody else.

reason: Do you worry about being ostracized, as Ralph Nader was by liberals in 2000, or losing influence and the ability to speak out on some of this stuff?

Bob Barr: No, I don't worry about it. I believe I have developed over the years a marketable credibility on the issues about which I was asked to speak. That's not going to change. I fully intend to continue working on the same areas, and continue, I hope, to have credibility on issues like privacy, separation of powers, executive power, and congressional oversight.

NEXT: Does America's Drug Czar Support Decriminalization?

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. not a real libertarian. Doesn’t fool me.

  2. The reformers have had their way with my party for the past four years. I was much more comfortable being one of the fruits and flakes that were committed to the principals of personal autonomy, property, and peace, that lost elections, than I am as one of a band of respectable partisans committed to political expediency, that lose elections.

    If the radicals can’t retake the LP, I don’t know how much longer I’ll be able to support it.

  3. Why does every. single. Barr. discussion have to rehash the same shit over and over and over again?

    I want to see some goodwill from the whiners. Wish Barr the best of luck or show that you’re just being obstinate and malignant at this point. It is WAY too late in the game to sit here and hash out this shit for the twenty-thousandth time.

  4. I think he was the best known libertarian candidate for president until he became the libertarian candidate for president.

  5. TAO, it’s about ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IMMEDIATELY!!! If a Libertarian candidate isn’t for ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IMMEDIATELY!!!, he’s obviously a whore and a traitor.

  6. Wait! He voted FOR the Patriot Act?

    I have thrown my vote away. I am leaving the country.

  7. Warren – the whole point of the “reform” movement was that there is supposed to be room for both. The “diehards” are the soul and anchor of the philosophy…but remember the lesson from Office Space? “The engineers don’t have people skills”.

  8. Scalia????

  9. Interview Baldwin.

  10. TAO
    I am voting for Barr. But this will be the first time I have to hold my nose to vote for the LP candidate.

    I know what the point of the “reform” movement was. I didn’t support it, but I was amenable to it’s goals. But what have been the fruits of it’s efforts. A bland platform, and a Republican Wannabe spokesman + no increased penetration into MSM or voter appeal = FAIL

  11. This guy is so far off from being a libertarian (big ‘L’ or little) that I’m almost glad he’s being ignored by the media.

  12. Warren – the “reform movement” has run ONE election, outcome not even determined yet! And yet you declare it a FAIL?!

    I mean, it’s obvious that you WANT it to fail, but whether or not it will remains to be seen. Furthermore, what is your definition of “failing”? For a candidate, Barr has garnered more media attention than anyone else.

  13. Yeah, Barr did some stuff while he was in Congress I thoroughly disagree with. But, he’s the only person on the ballot who, about 85% of the time, says stuff I agree with. The rest of the pack appear to be running as far away from libertarian principles as possible. And, Barr ISN’T gonna be president. Not gonna happen. ZERO percent chance of that. So, who fucking cares how we would actually govern if we got in office?

    So, your choices are this:

    1) vote for Obama / McCain and send the message that to get libertarian votes, politicians only have to be slightly less hardcore statist than the other guy to get your vote.

    2) don’t vote, and send the message that libertarians can be safely ignored.

    3) Vote, but leave the presidential vote blank, sending an ambiguous message that your vote can be had, but not really signaling whether they need to be MORE statist or less to get your vote.

    4) Vote for Bob Barr, and send a clear, unmistakable message that to get your vote, they must become considerably more libertarian.

    I’m going with option 4, because it communicates very clearly exactly what it takes to get my support. The others, not so much so.

  14. Man who vote Libertarian
    sets high Barr

  15. But this will be the first time I have to hold my nose to vote for the LP candidate.

    The first time? You were actually thrilled with the choice of Badnarik?

  16. @prolefeed

    Despite my earlier “Scalia???” comment, I agree with you completely: it’s option 4).

  17. In general, I agree with prolefeed. But I’ll probably write in Cthulhu anyway.

  18. I’m curious to know who the purity faction views as the best LP presidential candidate of all time.
    I’m guessing Hospers.

  19. I’m curious to know who the purity faction views as the best LP presidential candidate of all time.

    It was Rothbard.

    But he didn’t run!

    PRecisely. 😉

  20. Regulars at Hit & Run likely remember the Genarlow Wilson case, where a 17-year old boy received a 10-year prison sentence for consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old partner. Barr laments the “attempt by some to transform the case from one involving child molestation into the latest great civil rights crusade.” He goes so far as to defend the prosecutor’s rabble-rousing effort to turn public opinion against Wilson by circulating copies of the video tape of the teens having sex. Barr wants to pretend that it was just an attempt to comply with Georgia’s Open Records law regarding evidence in criminal prosecutions.

    This goes a long way to legitimize doubts about the depth and sincerity of Barr’s road to Damascus conversion to libertarian philosophy. At heart, he still seems an anti-sex, pro-cop zealot.

    Click on my name for a link to Barr’s defense of the prosecutions disreputable smear.

  21. “Politics is the art of the possible.” ~ Otto von Bismarck

  22. I STILL don’t get all the people who are saying “He’s not a REAL libertarian”, “He can say that stuff, but doesn’t mean it”, “He voted for all that bad stuff, he still thinks that way”.

    How many libertarians do you actually know who *weren’t* part of one of the two major parties? Who didn’t realize, over time, that things were wrong with what they were doing, how they were thinking, and looking for a new way? How come it’s believable in Joe Shmoe, but not a guy like Bob Barr?

    Maybe he’s not Harry Browne, saying he’s going to cut the Federal government in half in the first 100 days he’s in office. But what’s the biggest problem people have with libertarian issues? “How do we get there from here.” We gotta start somewhere, and really, it’s not like Barr is saying that he’s going to only be libertarian on the things he wants to be. Every thing I’ve heard him say is ‘government shouldn’t be in that, whether I think it’s right or not.’ And that’s what my idea of government is as well.

    I’m voting for him.

  23. Barr is far from ideal, but he’s at least saying things pleasing to a libertarian now and then. Obama and McCain are not. Barr’s got my vote.

  24. First, Bob Barr gets my vote next week. So does tle libertarian who’s running for the house in my district.*

    Second,

    … you can move that Libertarian agenda forward much more rapidly, if you keep in mind that your audience is not necessarily going to be fellow Libertarians, it’s going to be fellow Americans. [emphasis added]

    That is reality based wisdom.

    * I could look the name up, but I plead TLTG.

  25. I’m guessing Hospers.

    Well, the man will likely continue to be the all-time electoral vote getting LP presidential champion. Gotta hand it to him for that.

  26. Barr wasn’t on the DC ballot anyway, so I just wrote in “Ron Paul.” Ron Paul I can feel good about, Barr, no way. (Early-voted last week.)

  27. Highway, my comments are about things Barr is saying now. The article I linked to about Genarlow Wilson is on the”Bob Barr 2008″ campaign website.

  28. Actually, Barr will be the first Libertarian for President I will have voted for. Couldn’t quite do it earlier, but Obama or McCain? Ugh!

  29. I was thinking I’d consider my vote for Barr a vote for the Libertarian Party, but I don’t think the LP deserves my vote for nominating someone like Barr.

    Sure, he admits he made “mistakes,” but he doesn’t seem to know what a bigoted, hypocritical douchebag he was. As if his actions in congress weren’t enough (and I think they are, considering their number and the degree of wretched statism involved), he admires Scalia. He pretends there was reason to trust the government’s case for going to war in Iraq. He voted for the Patriot Act. And, as parse above points out, he supports the state’s case against Genarlow Wilson.

    At this point, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say, “Fuck that guy.” And fuck the LP for nominating him.

  30. Barr wasn’t on the DC ballot anyway, so I just wrote in “Ron Paul.” Ron Paul I can feel good about, Barr, no way. (Early-voted last week.)

    DC is really that backward? We have 8 choices for president and 8 choices for Senator in Tennessee. I voted L in both. However, my House Rep. is an R and does vote the way I like (from the comments here some of the Ls would prefer Jimmy Duncan to be in their party, so there).

    Anyway, these stupid hoops so many States and the District throw at candidates are just silly.

  31. The only choice at this time is stay home or vote for Barr.

    I haven’t missed a presidential election since 1980, but I am tempted to stay home next week.

  32. The Genarlow Wilson comments by Barr are pretty horrific. Still better than socialism and foreverwar though.

    I’m even voting for the Libertarian running for Senate in my state…..and she’s a Scientologist. I’m holding my nose in the booth.

  33. OT reminder, Guy Fawkes day is just around the corner!

  34. November 5th, 2007

    The only day in my adult life when I actually thought the world might be going the correct direction.

  35. he supports the state’s case against Genarlow Wilson.

    That’s actually not true at all. Barr just doesn’t see the need for raising a big hue and cry about it.

  36. Guy Montag (2:03pm),
    Okay, sweet. Who cares, though.

  37. Vote Cthulhu

    why vote for a lesser evil?

  38. DC is really that backward?

    Uh, like yeah. Cynthia McKinney is on the ballot in DC this year, but the libertarian candidates for president are not. Which is odd, since there was one libertarian candidate for a local position.

  39. Tobycat,

    Cynthia McKinney is on the TN ballot too. How many choices got placed on your ballot?

  40. my recollection of barr in his inquest vs clinton during the impeachment is a lot different than his recounting in this interview. barr was the ringlead not about foreign money to the clinton administratino, but on the tawdry sex scandal. in retrospect, the entire impeachment was just about sex, or about lying about sex anyway. in the mean time, there was a gathering threat overseas against our country and congress and the president were distracted by monica lewinsky.

  41. Once again Mr. Weigel distorts facts. His reporting on Denver was terrible at the time and worse now. The “anonymous flyer” he refers to was clearly a satirical one and not a serious one. Most people took it as a joke. Not Mr. Weigel, who clearly had a horse in this race and is backing him to the hilt. Now he reports it as if it were serious. if Weigel can’t tell the difference between satire and campaign literature he ought to resign — better yet, Reason ought to find a better reporter.

    Please note that once again Barr only limits his criticism to a federal war on drugs/obscenity. He’s perfectly fine with local authoritarianism.

  42. In Florida, we’ve got a ballot chock-full of presidential candidates:

    John McCain/Sarah Palin (Republican Party of Florida)
    Barack Obama/Joe Biden (Florida Democratic Party)
    Gloria La Riva/Eugene Puryear (Party for Socialism and Liberation – Florida)
    Chuck Baldwin/Darrell Castle (Constitution Party of Florida)
    Gene Amondson/Leroy Pletten (Prohibition Party)
    Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root (Libertarian Party of Florida)
    Thomas Robert Stevens/Alden Link (Objectivist Party of Florida)
    James Harris/Alyson Kennedy (Florida Socialist Workers)
    Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente (Green Party of Florida, Inc.)
    Alan Keyes/Brian Rohrbough (America’s Independent Party of Florida)
    Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (Ecology Party of Florida)
    Brian Moore/Stewart Alexander (Socialist Party of Florida)
    Charles Jay/John Wayne Smith (Boston Tea Party of Florida)

  43. Wait… A person admitting he’s human is running for president? And he thinks he has a chance?

    We want superman on the job, not a human. John McCain or Barrack Obama wouldn’t make mistakes.

    Silly human.

  44. Well, I’m gonna go early vote at the mall now for the two libertarians on the ballot (president and U.S. House), a few people who are Teh Bad but better than all the other choices on the ballot, and leave the rest blank.

    Y’all do whatever you feel is right, even if it is to vote for McSameOle-bama, and then feel kinda sick when they betray most every value you hold dear.

    Later, dudes and dudettes.

  45. That’s actually not true at all. Barr just doesn’t see the need for raising a big hue and cry about it.

    From his article:

    …an attempt by some to transform the case from one involving child molestation into the latest great civil rights crusade.

    and

    As distressing as are the continuing efforts by many community leaders to clothe Wilson with the halo of victim-hero…

    Nowhere does Barr condemn the case and only defends the state’s actions. Even if he only didn’t “see the need for raising a big hue and cry about it,” “it” being the imprisonment of a 17 year old for having consensual sex with a 15 year old, that would be bad enough.

    Barr has, throughout his career, consistently been an utter hypocrite regarding consensual actions he doesn’t approve of.

  46. I don’t see how anyone in good conscience can vote for Barr. Or those other two bigwigs. I don’t see the point in voting at all anymore. Might as well have Rupert Murdoch run for president. The end game is the same.

  47. How many choices got placed on your ballot?

    Obama, McCain, McKinney, Nader.

  48. Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez (Ecology Party of Florida)

    I’m old enough to remember when Nader’s reason for running for president was to build up the Green Party. Ironically, between ruining their image with bitter Democrats and splitting the Green vote every year, he’s probably the worst thing that’s ever happened to them. The whole “run on different party label in different state” thing is an example of this.

  49. The political system is a machine running without a sufficient feedback mechanism. What we really need is a “None of the Above” slot to show the two wings of the national party that a ballot marked for one does not necessarily mean a vote _for_ them, but against the other.

    “None of the Above” universal campaign signs available at cafepress.com/gigb.

  50. Looking at the Florida ballot, I’m reminded of Life of Brian. One would think that the various socialists could put aside their differences to stand united as one socialist party–ditto the Greens and the Ecology Party.

    Just for fun, here’s a list (linked page has links to party web sites) of all of the authorized parties in Florida right now (many without presidential candidates, of course):

    Major Political Parties

    * Florida Democratic Party (DEM)
    * Republican Party of Florida (REP)

    Minor Political Parties

    * America First Party of Florida (AFP)
    * American Party of Florida (APF)
    * American Poor People Party (APP)
    * American Reform Party of Florida (ARP)
    * America’s Independent Party of Florida (AIP)
    * Boston Tea Party of Florida (BTP)
    * British Reformed Sectarian Party (BRS)
    * The Christian Party (CHR)
    * Constitution Party of Florida (CPF)
    * Ecology Party of Florida (ECO)
    * Faith & Patience Inc. N.P.G.G. (FAP)
    * Family Values Party (FVP)
    * Florida Socialist Workers (SWP)
    * Florida Whig Party (FWP)
    * Green Party of Florida, Inc. (GRE)
    * Independence Party of Florida (IDP)
    * Independent Democrats of Florida (IDF)
    * Independent Party of Florida (INT)
    * Libertarian Party of Florida (LIB)
    * The Moderate Party (MOD)
    * Objectivist Party of Florida (OBJ)
    * Party for Socialism and Liberation – Florida (PSL)
    * Possibility Party (POS)
    * Progressive Libertarian Party (PRL)
    * Prohibition Party (PRO)
    * Real Food Party of the United States of America (RFP)
    * Reform Party (REF)
    * Socialist Party of Florida (SPF)
    * Southern Party of Florida (SFL)
    * Surfers Party of America (SPA)
    * Term Limits for the United States Congress Party (TLP)
    * Unity08 (UNI)
    * Veterans Party of America (VET)

    Good to see that the Whigs are back, at least. And I wonder what the Surfers Party of America’s platform looks like?

  51. Phalkor:

    Please tell me I can find a shirt somewhere that says that.

  52. “Get rid of the Dept. of Education”!!!

    WTF

    I know the US is falling behind in terms of education but that is no reason to completely throw in the towel.

    Maybe of generation of young people exclusively learning from Church, TV and parents will help bring about ‘End Times’? One can only hope.

  53. Today, the Modern Whigs are the fastest-growing non-fringe party. We represent middle-of-the-road voters from all walks of life who cherry-pick between traditional Democratic and Republican ideas.

    Sounds like the modern democratic or republican parties

  54. I don’t trust Barr because his change of heart was in his late 40’s… a couple of years ago. But he’s trying to play off that shit like a youthful indescretion. Bullshit! I don’t need a perfect candidate, but I dislike Barr too much; I’d be ashamed to vote for him because people could ask, “You voted for that social conservative Replubican?” or “…that drug warrier?” or some such. I won’t put up with it.

    On those 4 voting options and what message they deliver… doesn’t writing in Ron Paul send the right message without the Barr baggage?

  55. The “youthful indescretion” was in Barr’s late 50’s, not 40’s.

  56. zoltan,
    Try here:
    http://shop.cafepress.com/cthulhu

    I’ve been proudly displaying a bumper sticker for months now. Next Tuesday I’ll swap it for my “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Cthulhu” sticker.

  57. 4) Vote for Bob Barr, and send a clear, unmistakable message that to get your vote, they must become considerably more libertarian.

    I’m going with option 4, because it communicates very clearly exactly what it takes to get my support. The others, not so much so.

    Bingo. Anyone voting for Obama to send a message to Republicans that they need to get back to their small-government roots has it exactly backwards.

  58. doesn’t writing in Ron Paul send the right message without the Barr baggage?

    No, because in most states Ron Paul write-ins will not be counted, tallied, or reported. But if that’s what makes you happy, go for it, bud.

  59. I’m voting for Barr to help the Libertarian Party and he seems the best of the candidates who are still actually running. Obviously he’s not a Republican or drug warrior anymore (so he says). Ron Paul’s campaign is suspended, it’s a bit useless to vote for him.

  60. I know the US is falling behind in terms of education but that is no reason to completely throw in the towel.

    Getting rid of the Dept. of Education would only mean that state and local governments could focus on what they need. Since it would eliminate the interference and static from the feds, it would be a step in improving state education.

    Maybe of generation of young people exclusively learning from Church, TV and parents will help bring about ‘End Times’? One can only hope.

    Church and TV (most of it, anyway) are poor sources for education, but if more parents realized that they are ultimately responsible for how and what their children learn, we wouldn’t be falling behind at all.

  61. The only possible glimmer of hope in this election is that an unusually high number of voters vote Libertarian. That isn’t likely to happen, in large part because Barr screwed up in failing to woo Paul, but there’s still the outside possibility. I think anyone who cares about liberty and free markets who votes for either major party’s candidate is doing a disservice to us all. This idea that the GOP in particular needs punishment is folly of the greatest sort–both parties need punishing, and I don’t mean the comfy chair, either.

  62. Planning on writing Ron Paul in?

    Next time you take a dump, bring a magic marker into the can with you, and write his name on the TP before you wipe your ass with it.

    It’s probably more likely to be seen by poll workers that way.

  63. svf has got this right, many places will not count write ins.

    And again…
    HE’S the candidate, not gonna win, get over it. Come next cycle this may put the LP over the hump for ballot access. Like him, hate him, whatever; vote party lines like 90%+ of the sheeple(TM).
    Unless you find Constitution or Green more in line with your political leanings … but you wouldn’t be HERE then, would you.

  64. Cartman ’08!

  65. The Prohibition Party should rename itself the “Goddamn nosey asswipes who helped create organized crime” party. More accurate, you see.

  66. “If you talk about these issues in very vague, hypothetical terms, or you talk about issues that are going to scare the American public, I think you’re making a mistake. You can make the same point, you can move that Libertarian agenda forward much more rapidly, if you keep in mind that your audience is not necessarily going to be fellow Libertarians, it’s going to be fellow Americans.”

    I found this paragraph insightful.

    Ron Paul energized his base because of generalized rhetoric but had few votes to show for it. Barr is doing even worse because he never energized the base. Regardless, the above hold true, I think you just have to know who you’re talking to when you say it.

  67. WHY BARR IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!!!

    Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr is running for President of the United States for the following reasons:

    1. He is a patriot. 2. He is the ‘leader’ of the nation’s third largest political party. 3. As he wants to promote his party’s belief in smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom, a Presidential election season is an opportune time to do this. 4. In a nation that believes in freedom of choice, he wants American voters to have an additional option to vote for. 5. A Presidential election season is a great time to bring attention to, and gain members for, your political party. It’s also a great time to help set the national political agenda for the next legislative term. 6. Two things will happen, if he and his running mate Wayne Allyn Root, get at least 5% of the nation’s popular vote on November 4th. Beginning with the 2012 Libertarian Presidential Campaign, signature petition drives for state ballot access would become unnecessary. Also, the party’s Presidential Campaign would qualify for voluntary federal Presidential Election Campaign Fund money. 7. He believes that America ‘desperately needs’ a third major political party right now. So he is working very hard to help build it. If he gets more than 921,299 votes or more than 1.1% of the total votes this national election, he will set a Libertarian Party Presidential record. 8. To get enough national popular and electoral votes to become the next President and help return this nation to greatness.

    So as you can see, Bob Barr has many very important reasons to run for President than just to win The White House! If you believe in this his cause, and after studying him like him best, then simply support him for President. Time will tell how many victories his campaign won!

    I trust this information has helped you in making your decision. I will be voting for a ‘real winner’ in Bob Barr on November 4th! I certainly hope that you will join me, by voting for him too!!!

  68. It was a huge mistake to nominate Barr. He does / did nothing to spread Libertarian views. He does not even represent libertarian views. What is libertarian about pre-emptive war? Scalia the ideal judge? Puhleez!

    The momentum of Paul came to a screeching halt with the nomination of Barr.

    Flake, 2012.

  69. This guy is so far off from being a libertarian (big ‘L’ or little) that I’m almost glad he’s being ignored by the media.

    If you look at the Nolan Chart, you’ll see that “libertarian” covers 20%. It’s one quarter of the chart with a corner lopped off for the centrists. You don’t have to be a perfect 100/100 at the very point in order to be a libertarian.

    Bob Barr most certainly fits within that area. He ain’t a purist anarcho, but I guess to some people if you ain’t arguing the finer points of agorism you ain’t genuine.

  70. The momentum of Paul came to a screeching halt with the nomination of Barr.

    Uh… more like right after Super Tuesday.

    By the time the LP convention happened, the “rLOVEution” had already become so fragmented and divided into various caps that there was no more momentum to build upon.

    The Rally for the Republic MIGHT have presented an opportunity for Ron Paul/C4L to make a meaningful third party endoresement of some kind (whether it be for Baldwin, Barr, or whoever).

    Instead, what’s left of the RP “movement” will divide their million or so votes between McCain, Obama, Barr, Baldwin, Nader, writing in Ron Paul (or voting for him where they forced him on the ballot) or staying home.

    Divide and conquer — mission accomplished!

  71. various caps

    various CAMPS… wearing various caps… or something…

  72. One of these days, a radical is going to get elected, and I am going to laugh my ass off when all of you radicals think that he or she has “sold out.”

    You know, talk about limited government and then start doing things like asking for earmarks, voting against bills protecting online privacy, allowing his cronies to use his name for disgusting purposes.

    Oh…wait…it’s already happened. Hello there, Dr. Paul!!!

    Long story short: if people want to get into politics they will, by definition, have to compromise.

  73. Seriously, after reading some more of the comments, I have to ask:

    are you radicals really so enlightened that you so easily forgive one candidate (Paul) for ALL of his MANY libertarian sins, not to mention his completely incompetent campaign that put my money into Lew Rockwell’s hands via the CFL,

    but you can’t forgive the other (Barr) because he was anti-drug and anti-gay?

    The one (Paul) took money from racists in the campaign, and the other (Barr) told all the racists and any other group that hated anyone else to piss off. Tell me which one sounds more “radical” to you.

    And just in case anyone forgot, Paul endorsed a party’s candidate with a platform that supports theocracy and jingoistic nationalism. That ought to show everyone where his true loyalties are.

  74. I voted for him. He’s not perfect, but prolefeed’s layout was pretty accurate for why it’s worth the effort. The other two parties need to know that libertarians are out there to be won.

    Maybe when the Republicans lose big, they will rethink some of their bullshit. You never know. (Well, sometimes you do.)

  75. For a proper comparison on who falls where, see http://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/09/spectrum-standings.html.

    As for Barr, those of us in the libertartain wing of the LP warned you, and you didn’t listen. We can now say, “WE TOLD YOU SO!”

    And as for Barr, my votes against him in Denver were because of two words: Fort Hood.

    If he can’t get the First Amendment right, he has no business being a candidate in ANY race under the LP banner.

  76. Andy, we’re not out here to be won like some prize at a carnival. That just adds to the bullshit idea that votes are entitlements and mean nothing else, and denigrates voters as mere chattel to be exploited then ignored.

    We are out here to get our Freedom and Liberty back. The parties in Big Government Left and Right Branches aren’t. When the electorate finally realizes that, things will change. I’m not holding my breath, though.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.