Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Belated thoughts on the Libertarian Party nominating convention An overview of what transpired at the recent Libertarian Party nominating convention in Denver (May 23-26) and some thoughts on what is likely to happen as a result.by David F. Nolan
(libertarian)
Monday, June 2, 2008
After attending the Libertarian Party's presidential nominating convention in Denver, I spent five days driving home with my wife, Elizabeth. This provided a much-needed break from politics, and gave me time to let my impressions of the convention settle. Here, after a week of "settling time," are my impressions and observations.
First, I was surprised that the 2008 convention was noticeably smaller than the 2004 nominating convention in Atlanta. Despite claims of growth by the national party organization and predictions of a massive turnout by various factions within the party, the attendance was down by about 20% compared to four years ago, and 30% vs. eight years ago.
The much-anticipated debate over the party's platform turned out to be both brief and civil. While a sizable minority (perhaps 40%) of the Denver delegates supported a reversion to the 2004 platform as a starting point for our 2008 platform, a clear majority favored the platform committee's majority report. Once this became evident, the backers of the minority report withdrew their proposed planks, and debate over the majority report's proposals proceeded quickly. Both sides agree that the resulting document is far better than the truncated version that came out of the poorly-attended 2006 convention.
The contest for the presidential nomination was spirited, but for the most part civil. The night before the presidential balloting began, there was a candidates' forum featuring the seven candidates who had qualified for inclusion in that forum: Bob Barr, Mike Gravel, George Phillies, Mike Jingozian, Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby and Wayne Root. All performed creditably, but judging from audience reaction, Kubby and Root were the standouts.
Nominations and voting began on Sunday morning, May 25. The seven candidates from the previous might's forum, plus one other (Christine Smith) were nominated from the floor and the first ballot commenced. The results were: Barr 153 votes, Ruwart 152, Root 123, Gravel 71, Phillies 49, Kubby 41, Jingozian 23 and Smith 6. As was widely anticipated, the race was clearly going to be between Barr, Ruwart and Root.
As the lowest-running candidates were eliminated on subsequent ballots, Barr and Ruwart slowly pulled away from the pack. By the fifth ballot, the tally was Ruwart 229, Barr 223 and Root 165. Then, Wayne Root got up and endorsed Barr, and the fight was over. Barr won by a 324-276 vote on the sixth ballot, with 26 votes for other candidates or "none of the above."
As a staunch Kubby supporter, I was naturally disappointed that Steve fared so poorly. In my discussions with delegates prior to Sunday's balloting, I found that the most common objection to a Kubby candidacy was his perceived health problems, and not his being tagged as a "one-issue candidate." It appeared that while Kubby is widely admired, many people doubted his stamina.
Kubby's popularity became evident in the Vice-Presidential balloting. Despite a ringing endorsement from Barr, Wayne Root was unable to muster a majority of the vote on the first ballot, with Kubby running a close second! Root triumphed on the second ballot, and at that point close to 100 delegates left the convention hall. There was widespread feeling that Barr had missed a golden opportunity to unify the party by selecting Kubby as his running mate, or at the very least remaining neutral in the VP selection.
Kubby went out into the hallway to calm irate delegates who were bitterly disappointed in the outcome of the balloting, and persuaded most of them to stay in the LP at least long enough to see how Barr and Root perform over the next few weeks and months. Personally, I felt that Barr made a very poor decision in going with Root as his running mate. Unlike many of the "radical" or "purist" delegates, I was not virulently anti-Barr, but really wanted to see a Barr-Kubby ticket as a symbolic gesture of unity within the party. I also thought that this would be our most media-worthy ticket -- the former Drug Warrior and the Drug War P.O.W. joining together for liberty! But alas, it was not to be.
The celebratory banquet held on Sunday night was both small and subdued: about 250 people. Steve Kubby was the only defeated Presidential contender to participate (at least as far as I could observe). The mood was cautiously optimistic, and about $64,000 was raised, most of it from a handful of large contributors.
On Monday, Bill Redpath was re-elected as National Chair on the second ballot. Mike Jingozian was elected Vice-Chair, in a surprise victory over incumbent Chuck Moulton. Bob Sullentrup was unopposed for re-election as National Secretary, while Aaron Starr easily defeated Carol McMahan for the Treasurer's position.
In the week since the convention, emotional surges seem to have mostly died down. While not everyone in the LP is thrilled with our national ticket, most people seem inclined to give our candidates a "clean slate," as Brian Holtz put it. Nobody knows how many votes Barr and Root will receive in November, but hopes are high that they will surpass the record of 1.06% set by Ed Clark in 1980. Talk of 2%, 3% and even 5% is in the air.
Personally, I think a 5% showing is very unlikely, but consider 2% well within the realm of possibility. As to whether the vote for Barr will significantly affect the outcome of the general election is another matter. Typically, the Libertarian vote is highest in the Rocky Mountain states, which usually go Republican by a heavy margin. It is possible that Bob Barr could "make the difference" in states like Nevada and New Hampshire, but even that is iffy.
The most important question in my mind is "will this campaign help build the Libertarian Party for the long run?" What message will Barr and Root take to the American people, and how many of them will switch their allegiance to the LP as a result?
Only time will tell.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 53 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of David F. Nolan only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. David F. Nolan is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I visit this website daily and have been hoping we'd hear from you re: the Debacle in Denver.
But how disappointed I am! I was expecting more than this from the party's founder. I anticipated an impassioned, illuminating, insightful critique. Instead you read us the "Minutes of the Last Meeting" that ANYONE could have read: facts, percentages, vote counts, etc. We've already had this from many others and saw the videos.
I was expecting more than this from you. Come on, Dave. This party is your baby. They're dilutng the very genes of your progeny and all you cangive is facts and figures? Is this how a father fights for hois child? Shouldn't he give quidance and counsel in times of strife?
Your party you fought and worked so hard for is lost and llounderingand needs youand your wisdom and experience. They've nominated Bob Barr who is neither a conservativeNOR a libertarian. How can you just sit there and not at least give them their spanking? After 5 days of driving and thisis the best you can do?
I weep for us as a nation and as a party. How I miss the old days when we fought to maintain purity. We aren't SUPPOSED to win elections! Doesn't anyone get it? We are the standard by which everyone else is measured. I you mess with the measuring stick, how do you know who or what is right any more? THAT is the proper function of the Liberttarian Party. And you know it's working because people do know what libertarianismis and stands for now. The term has entered into the vocabulary of mainstream political discussions.
Do you want the same thing to happen to us that happened to the Republicans? That's how it began. They dropped their guard, compromised, and let in the enemy and now look at them -- not even a shadow of their former self. And that's exactly what will happen to us.
Where were you Dave? Why didn't you fight harder? What have they done to you?...
Posted By: Robert Butler
Date: 2008-06-02 19:20:13
I was unable to attend the convention, but I watched most of it on CSPAN. The television coverage was excellent. There was running commentary from a CSPAN reporter and a reporter from Reason Magazine as the Libertarian expert.
The candidates all looked great in the forum, very professional. The moderator flubbed a lot of his lines, I was disappointed in his performance.
With the notable exception of Christine Smith, all the candidates presented their ideas in a professional and impressive manner. They were prepared for their appearances and spoke intelligently about the issues. A few of them appeared nervous, but did quite well compared to candidates of previous years. I think Libertarians should be well pleased that so many qualified candidates were interested in our nomination.
I agree with Mr. Nolan that attendance is a concern. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that Denver was a long drive from either coast and no one likes to fly these days. The last two conventions weren't close to any major population centers.
I liked your comments. That is pretty much the way I saw the whole thing.
I think the LP needs to act more like a church. Churches welcome repentant sinners into their midst. That’s’ how they grow, rather than by excluding all those who are not ideologically pure.
It is also possible that Barr could do very well in his home state of Georgia, perhaps affecting the outcome of the election there. I have no idea what will happen, but if Barr and the LP can help to defeat the most militaristic candidate, John McCain, I see that as a positive thing.
I am concerned that the LP will draw in more new members who are conservative than new members who are libertarian. The Reform Party faded into obscurity, in my opinion, because it did not have any uniting principles. "Reform" meant something different to everyone, so they could not agree on much of anything. They had no guiding vision, so people got frustrated and left. That's what will eventually happen to the LP if we lose our libertarian principles. However, I do think we are starting from a stronger position than the Reform Party, ideologically, so it will take longer for the LP to become relegated to the dustbin of history.
I think we can and will return the party to its principles. I hope that it happens sooner rather than later.
I haven't joined Scott Bieser in tossing my Libertarian Party membership, and I fervently hope it doesn't come to that. I suspect he also overlooks the positive but difficult to quantify effect that the party has had on the political debate in the U.S. Waging intellectual and cultural war for the hearts and minds of the populace is well and good, but meanwhile it is also important to try to ensure that the people serving in public office and making laws and policy are as libertarian-oriented as possible, even if only as a form of damage control in order to buy the time we need to win the larger war. And political parties and their candidates do have a built-in degree of visibility which is useful for getting out a message. However, if the trends which have just produced the Barr/Root ticket do not abate, and the LP continues its slow downhill slide past an apparent point of no return, Scott's advice that we focus on rescuing and preserving the word "libertarian" (see article from The Libertarian Enterprise below) will be spot on. The increased public recognition of this word and what it stands for are among the most valuable results that the LP has produced, and to win the fight for global freedom, we must preserve and increase that understanding.
Along these lines, a brainstorm I had before the Denver convention seems even more relevant now. On a formerly Libertarian-run blog now owned by Republican operator Richard Viguerie, I raised the possibility of an amicable split between the libertarian radicals and the conservative-leaning pragmatists. The gist of it is that the current LP would adopt a new name and give the "Libertarian" name and related assets (the LP.org website, etc.) to radicals with which to start a new LP. Abandoning the Libertarian name was proposed several years ago by the pragmatist faction's Mark Schreiber (then LP marketing director, now Root campaign manager), who complained that it had too much negative baggage. Giving up something they've long had mixed feelings about in favor of a more "marketable" name, and letting those who value the word most have use of it, shouldn't bother the moderates too much. In exchange, radicals would agree to walk peacefully, leaving the party's membership, structure, mailing list, ballot access (to the extent this could be legally accomplished) and physical assets in the hands of the Barr/Root faction. To the extent possible under the law and human nature, the parties should seek to help each other in their respective missions, sending each other ideologically compatible referrals, coordinating strategy, possibly sharing assets, etc. In the event of an attempted hostile takeover of the moderate party, members of the radical party could be invited by the moderates to temporarily join them in order to provide the votes to keep the moderates on their gradualist path toward liberty rather than falling into statism. Meanwhile, to the extent the moderates might achieve electoral success, they could help guarantee ballot and debate access for the radical party and its candidates. These and other provisions for cooperations could be spelled out in a joint agreement (again to the degree such an arrangement would be legal).
I'm just raising this idea as food for thought, not being fully sold on it myself. There may be problems with a renamed party maintaining ballot status in various states. And in winner-take-all political systems like that under which the U.S. suffers, there will ideally be no more than one pro-freedom political party per jurisdiction in order for libertarian and libertarian-leaning candidates and parties to avoid competing for the same votes. On the flip side however, the reality is that Libertarians are badly split already, and this factional fighting is taking a lot of time and energy that would be better spent on outreach, education, and campaigns. If present trends continue, both factions might be better off seeking an amicable parting of paths on terms that would allow us to minimize the bitterness and maintain some degree of cooperation to our mutual benefit.
At things stand, myself and many others are stuck with a party whose presidential ticket we cannot in good conscience support. Pressuring us to get in line will just increase the rancor without solving anything. I hope that Barr and Root prove themselves libertarian enough in their messages that my feelings toward them will change before November. But given the possibility the standard-bearers will not get any better, and that they will meanwhile accelerate the party's ideological drift still further by attracting more pragmatist and conservative oriented members, it is definitely worth considering our options, such as how much those of us who value liberty over "winning" can get by peacefully cashing in, as a group, our "shares" of an LP gone corporate. For the present, I think the results in Denver were close enough, and mixed enough, that the fight for the soul of the Libertarian Party is not lost. Therefore I urge radicals to stay in the party and simply direct their money and support towards those down-ticket candidates worth supporting in this cycle, and see where things go. In any case, I urge those who believe in the Non-Aggression Principle and want a party that stands for it not to leave this party unless/until a viable alternative vehicle for promoting liberty materializes.
This note was meant to be added to the post above, explaining that it is a response not to David Nolan's piece, but to an article by Scott Bieser in the Libertarian Enterprise (online at http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle470-20080601-02.html). I believe it is on the same general topic of where our party stands, and hope it is not unwelcome here.
By the way, I agree with the comment by katieo that the LP ought to be more like a church, though for at least partly different reasons.
Nathaniel Branden once said that until libertarianism is understood as a spiritual quest and not merely a matter of economics, it will not be properly understood.
I believe he was onto something. I also think that we in the libertarian movement need more of the sense of solidarity, community, and (dare I say it?) altruism found in churches. Not the self-sacrificing kind of altruism that Ayn Rand denounced, but the kind that sees helping others, specifically standing up for the oppressed, the poor, the marginalized, the underdog, as not only the right and proper thing to do, but also as spiritually beneficial to ourselves.
I would like to see us embrace practices such as tithing a portion of our incomes to the movement, singing songs of devotion to the cause (think the early labor movement), extending our hospitality and opening our homes to fellow freedom movement members passing through our communities, perhaps even sending people on missions, etc.
A little half-humorous, tongue-in-cheek "worship" of Lady Liberty as our goddess could also serve us well. Perhaps a bit of ritual and ceremony, such as the symbolic lighting of her torch at the beginning of LP conventions and other important gatherings.
The idea here is most definitely not to encourage libertarians to bow down to some external or "higher" power, but rather to inspire our radicalism and idealism, motivate people to greater efforts on behalf of liberty, help art and music play a greater role in our movement, and make people feel powerfully and meaningfully a part of something vital.
Not that I don’t believe that change is possible for anyone who is still sucking air. Talk to anyone who has made drastic changes in their views or their life and you’ll find some key event that is often referred to as an epiphany.
Yes some people who flip flop on their core beliefs are sometimes motivated out of greed when paid to change what they espouse. Others change out of fear of personal embarrassment when they are faced with overwhelming evidence countering their beliefs. A few have changed through enlightenment involving dedicated studies or education to free them from their past ignorance. And of course there are those who have had a near death experiences.
Former CIA (One of the many unconstitutional alphabet agencies)
Former Federal Prosecutor (but may not have ever prosecuted anyone as he claimed)
Former Republican Congressman
Authored the homophobic Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Voted for the Patriot Act
Claims of sexual infidelity, hypocrisy and lying under oath about an abortion. [link edited for length]
Called "the worst drug warrior" on Capitol Hill by the Libertarian Party in the LP News. (Oops the page www . lp.org / lpnews / 0210 / barr.html has been moved) but is still available at [link edited for length]
Libertarian Congressional Candidate Carole Ann Rand runs campaign To Bump Bob Barr- LP Press Release Concerning Crickenberger's Help for Rand [link edited for length]
See the anti Barr TV ad on youtube at the following link, then read Mr. Barr's response below[link edited for length]
As reported by Sam MacDonald for INSIGHT for the News 6/3/2002
Ron Crickenberger, political director of the LP, tells INSIGHT that the party plans to spend as much as $100,000 in the race to attack Barr's hard-line position against medical marijuana and give the primary to Linder. An LP position paper entitled "Spoiler Targets for 2002" presents the case in stark terms: "Bob Barr is target No. 1, both in terms of time criticality and in overall importance. To the medical-marijuana movement, Barr is the equivalent of the Antichrist." A spokesman for Barr says he, too, is unaware of the LP strategy, but in a written statement to INSIGHT the congressman does not shrink from the challenge: "I'm proud to be the antidrug candidate in this race.... I have been a leader in the war against [illegal] drugs and if the pro-drug folks want to target me with negative ads then that tells me I've been doing a good job in that effort."
When and what was Bob Barr’s epiphany? Maybe as a paid consultant for the ACLU or lobbyist for the MPP [link edited for length]
As a converted libertarian, calls for US intervention in South America
For a few more Barr faux pas that are less then two years ago, see the list recapped by Garry Reed @ [link edited for length]
And as you must be aware, LP's VP candidate Wayne Allen Root allegedly has many spots to change also! Submitted by michelle @ [link edited for length]
This is your Dream Ticket to be the standard bearer for the Libertarian Party?
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-06-03 05:59:48
Dear Dave, interesting, well-balanced thoughts on your party's convention, I have been looking to find the tapes of barr, gravel, root, smith, etc to make up my mind for myself, are these posted anywhere?
Your party still has hope (in my mind). You didnt mention it but in George Dance's article on the first vote 6 delegates voted Ron Paul. I have no idea if your party could even elect the guy since he not LP, but that was your best hope out of all the candidates. RP's chances are iffy at best, but when you talk about not compromising libertarian ideals and actually winning the nomination, you folks missed your best shot at it. The Barr-WAR ticket is probably Dead On Arrival as described above, forgive me if I try to limit the damage to the revolution in my column as I see this as fracturing the RP revolution - plenty of people have been working inside the hijacked party of the neocons to make this happen - he went from 1-3% in the polls at this time last year to (just my guess) 8-10%. 300% ain't bad, and momentum for another 6 months could make him a contender or at least a major factor. My view is that Barr being billed as a viable alternative will only fragment this movement and I will try to explain my view shortly. Anyways I, as you, don't see this nomination exactly as the greatest thing since sliced bread either. However, Never give in, never give up. Liberty is a beacon in the darkness, but that beacon doesn't have Barr's face on it. What do you think of Dr. Paul?
Rest up some more, hope to see more of your writings on this site. I don't mind well-balanced views, but if you want to write articles with pointed, sharper opinions than 'sage observations' please do, I won't mind at all. What do you think about these wars going on?
Dude, this site is named for you, that's pretty cool! Take care, and Regards, Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
This post may as well have been, "Barr-Root, will this be good? Who knows."
The results of this convention, especially nominating a neocon for VP, have further cemented in my mind the irrelevant status of the LP. The only remaining principled libertarians in politics are now the Ron Paul Republicans.
I watched the LP convention with real interest. As a Ron Paul Republican I am searching for a candidate that agrees with me on many of todays pressing issues (the Wars (Terrorism & Drugs), Interventionism, Immigration, Trade, Taxes, Monitary Policy, the Constitution, etc...). So naturally I was interested in the results of the LP convention. After the intial debate I was fairly convinced that the right candidate to lead the party was Kubby. He would have pulled many of the RPRs like myself to the party. Here was an opportunity for the LP to take a large chunk of voters from the GOP. Not only did they not take that opportunity but they slammed the door in our faces by selecting a NEO-CON as their Presidential Candidate and then another NEO-CON as his running mate. This ticket will get less than .5% when it's all over, the NEO-CON voters already have their Pro-War, Pro-Interventionism, Anti-Constitution candidate. So it's off the So-Called-Libertarian Party diet I've been on for over a year now, and on to the Constitution Party and Chuck Baldwin for me (my state doesn't allow Write-Ins so I can't Vote for Dr. Paul like I want to). After this how does the Libertarian Party now square the defininition of the word 'Liberty' with its ticket. It was sad for me to watch as the Libertarian Party removed 'Liberty' from its platform.
Let me start off by saying, the joke Huckabee made at the NRA convention despite what all over P.Ceed leftist would have you beleive what out right halarious and I about fell out of my chair laughing. NO it was not a joke about an assasination. It was a joke about Obamas Stance on Gun Rights and the second amendment. I am a Huckabee Voter all the way, Everyone I know is Huckabee supporters and I know quite a few Athiest that was voting Huckabee as well. That said. If Huckabee isnt the Veep pick by Mccain or I reffer to him "Old man McCane" www.Mccanes.com
I will probably be voting Libertarian. Bob Barr is drawing many Huckabee supporters who feel like they have been disinfranchised by the GOP, So be nice to Huckabee Bob Barr becuase lots of your supporters are coming from the Huckabee camp. That said I know of about two thirds of the people I know that where voting huckabee will be voting Barr if Huckabee is not the veep. I learned quite a bit about barr at www.BarrRoot.com I didnt know much about Barr or The Libertarian Party pick for vp Wayne Root until about a month ago. You can learn more about wayne root at
wwwBarrRoot2008.com My second pick to Huckabee was Ron Paul. Too bad he didnt run on the LP ticket. Im sure he would of done extremely well. Maybe even had a shot at the office of the president. To see how Ron Paul feels about Barr watch this video at www.BarrRoot08.com
Please be nice to Huckabee Libertarians. Theres alot of us thinking about making the switch.
The problem wasn't low attendance; the problem is that the LP has abandoned its core principles. (For 8, 10, 15 ? years now). Unless the LP returns to principle it won't survive or be worth saving.
And having "many" candidates from which to choose is not a good thing when half or more of them aren't libertarian.
There's no "free lunch", folks, even in politics. Don't we, of all people, know this?
I second Starchild's comments about treating the Libertarian Party/Movement as a spritual quest! His ideas about symbolically lighting Lady Liberty's torch and singing songs are right on the money as well.
To grow, we need to experience Liberty emotionally, not just on a rational/logical level. We have to get EXCITED about it.
Give me an L! Give me an I! give me a B! give me an E! Give me an R! Give me a T! give me a Y! What does it spell??
David Nolan: thank you for your sincere remarks. I have always thought the best and strongest ticket would be Barr-Ruwart and it is a pity that while she called for party unity, she was not available as VP candidate. That would have been a perfect unity ticket and they would also have been able to unifymost of the "right" and "left" wing Ron Paul supporters, and the ticket that would attract the maximum from traditional conservative R, liberal D, Green and Independent supporters. Mary would have been able to pick up considerable female vote (a pity that she played the gender card too much, but Root also played the jewish card...). I understand and could see during the vote in chat that several Barr supporters wanted Kubby and not Root as VP candidate. Some "radicals' should not have left before the VP vote and Barr should have remained totally neutral. I think he probably felt bound to return Root's endorsement favor.... Root criticized him also (being a lawyer) and there are differences on some issues. It is perhaps significant and telling that Barr received all GA votes from his home state, while Root received none from his, Nevada (and his wife and children represented CA). Kubby has a real good sense of humor and dynamic appeal. Root would have to proof himself and demonstrate how much of the 12 m poker players he can get. Barr could do well in GA and other southern states, and then also Western states. I think Barr, not Root, will be the real "vote-getter".
Those who are very dissatisfied with the choice, in five months it will be over and then Root will not play an important role anymore, he should apply to get a mayor position and stay there, I do not think he has a chance to be an elected congressmen, let alone senator. Kubby should try to get a congres seat, instead of going to governor...same with Ruwart and some others.
"I think the LP needs to act more like a church. Churches welcome repentant sinners into their midst. That’s’ how they grow, rather than by excluding all those who are not ideologically pure."
Yes, but churches don't usually ask the worst sinners to be priests. (They might take a child molester, but not a mass murderer like Barr.)
Ron Paul introduced libertarianism and the LP to millions of people, which scared the shit out of them. CIA asset Barf is a plant with the purpose of marginalizing the LP - which he is doing a very good job of.
If ya’ll think that the military-industrial complex backed “2” parties are going anywhere anytime soon, you are in for a major wake-up call.
Ron Paul introduced libertarianism and the LP to millions of people, which scared the shit out of them. CIA asset Barf is a plant with the purpose of marginalizing the LP - which he is doing a very good job of.
If ya’ll think that the military-industrial complex backed “2” parties are going anywhere anytime soon, you are in for a major wake-up call.
The Libertarian Party does not have the members or the resources to mount an effective campaign for President. Bob Barr won the nomination because he is a former Congressmen, and none of the other candidates could point to a winning campaign they had been involved in.
Some of the value of having a former Congressman as a Libertarian candidate is negated by his record in Congress. Bob Barr is no Ron Paul!
Dave, if you wonder why the convention had fewer attendees than 2004, look at the loss of moral inevitable after Mike Badnarik was nominated in 2004. I am surprised the LP survived such a poor campaign.
Millions of Americans are looking for an alternative. But we need to build from the bottom, running people for Congress and state legislature who are known in their own community. Your strategy of running "educational" campaigns for President has reached a dead end.
Bob Barr admitted that he made mistakes and has taken steps to undo them. He has met with Outright Libertarians and has admitted that he made a mistake in authoring DOMA and he has admitted to making a mistake when he agreed with the Patriot Act. What more do you want?
Just so I'm clear: what you are saying is that you can't change your mind and admit to making a mistake which is what Bob Barr did.
I'm very pleased with the outcome. I would have preferred another candidate for the VP slot to balance the ticket, but Root will do a fine job. He's already done a better job than most of our previous VP candidates.
If we ever expect to be really successful it will mean that we'll be converting a lot of people from the Democratic and Republican parties as well as getting the no voters involved again. I think the person who commented that we need to be more like church where we accept sinners and let them repent is spot on. Barr committed libertarian-sins in his past, but he's done an honorable job at standing up to his mistakes and he's been trying to correct the damage.
Barr is getting national media attention. He will be on the Colbert Report tomorrow night. Barr is polling at 6% in NC and 7% in GA. We in the party need to push early to get keep this media snowball rolling so that Barr can be peaking in mid-October.
Barr's performance in NC will help our candidate for governor Prof. Munger to get the percentage needed to secure ballot access for 2012 which means less money spent on ballot access and more money spent on outreach.
Nolan down played the banquet. I heard the $65k raised broke all previous records. Portland only raised $14k (if that). And, it doesn't matter that it was mostly large donors...we need more large donors in the party and we need more small donors in the party. I would have liked to see the banquet bring in $100k.
It takes a lot of money to be successful in the political arena. All of our members ought to be donating a pizza ($10) and beer ($5) each week until the election to Barr's campaign...if you can front load your donation as I did that's even better.
Rectitude of intent from Mr. Barr would be a big plus, instead of just spin.
"Well, I wouldn't be too hard, too fast to talk about the defense of Marriage Act flying the face off anybody's platform. It simply stands for the proposition that each state is free to make up its own decision, its people are able to decide for themselves what their definition of marriage to be and no one state should force another state to adopt its definition. A very, very sound individualistic and state's rights policy."
Bob Barr, CNN American Morning, May 26, 2008 - Transcript - Video
"The problem wasn't low attendance; the problem is that the LP has abandoned its core principles. (For 8, 10, 15 ? years now). Unless the LP returns to principle it won't survive or be worth saving."
To Carl Vassar: It always hurts me when I read things like that considering it was Michael Badnarik that got me started on Libertarian ideals. I could never fully call myself a Libertarian ("fully" meaning I call myself Libertarian, but would never join the party) as to place a label on myself would restrict me from thinking for myself. I consider Badnarik the biggest influence in my political development. No, it's perfectly fine if you think little of him, but I'd be kidding myself if I said it didn't bother me.
To The Big Picture: I detest the reason given to support Barr being that he provides more vote getting. That has as much value as supporting Obama because he's black. Say he'll get more votes to booster the Libertarian platform? Ok, but if you want me onboard the Barr-Root train, I need to be convinced Barr and Root are Libertarians. If you can't do that, then you're gaining votes with no message.
Put it this way, which is more important? Having one egg that's delicious to the very last bite or 10 eggs that has nothing inside the shell?
OK let's pretend Barr has asked someone to forgive his past as a Republican Neo-Con and that he is currently on a mission to right his past wrongs. Maybe we can make believe that he has publicly denounced all of his Neo-Con party line votes. And let’s fantasize that he has said that working for the CIA and as a Federal Prosecutor are acts which he is deeply ashamed of.
Yes I know the above is just too much to swallow, especially since it’s not true. Have you ever read any of his writings? Or better yet, the Capabilities Statement[link edited for length] from his lobbying firm which bears the Orwellian newspeak name Liberty Strategies. [link edited for length] This statement brags about the connections not only in the US congress but also in foreign governments. "Liberty Strategies’ client base ranges from small defense-related companies to major public technology companies." "With Congressman Barr having played a key role in drafting many of the statutes impacting privacy policy (Gramm-Leach-Bliley, USA PATRIOT Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.), Liberty Strategies understands where problems in these areas lie, and how best to navigate them in the public affairs arena." Read it, and then call Bob Barr a principled libertarian and the candidate that should be the standard bearer for the LP.
You think this big government mantra is just from his past? Think again. On 3/19/2008 as a converted libertarian, Barr calls for US intervention in South America, stating “On the darker side of the trade ledger, cocaine, marijuana and heroin from South and Central America fuel the appetites of drug users in American cities.” [link edited for length]
I don't see the logic in bashing Bob Barr for his lack of libertarian purity while championing Ron Paul. Paul's views on immigration in particular are far from libertarian. Paul's earmarks for his Congressional district aren't particularly libertarian. Paul and Barr both duck social issues by appealing to federalism (both support the DoMA) and ignoring the doctrine of incorporation. Not only that, Paul has gone much farther than Barr by showing a willingness to stray from even that position for social conservatives (e.g., voting for the federal partial-birth abortion ban, and his various go-nowhere bills which kneecap federal courts from using the right of privacy).
My point here is not to trash Paul, who was still better than any of the other Republican primary candidates. My point is that no candidate is perfect, and to insist on perfection in a political party is foolish. I'm not naive; if Barr had converted to the libertarian cause months before the primary like Gravel, I would be a whole lot more skeptical. But he endorsed Badnarik in 2004 and has been putting in work lobbying for libertarian causes in the years since. There are far more lucrative lobbying opportunities available for former Republican congressmen than the ACLU and MPP; the fact that Barr chose to work for them and burn lots of his Republican bridges in the process speaks volumes to his current political values. Calling him a CIA plant, or a neo-con (especially after his answers on foreign intervention in the debate), or any number of other silly things I've heard from the radicals lately simply comes off as sour grapes rather than any kind of substantive critique.
Many congratulations to the Libertarian party from their successful transformation from the party of principle with no hope of winning to the party of sellouts with no hope of winning. It takes a special kind of talent to nominate a candidate who was representative of nearly everything the LP stood for as recently as eight years ago.
Look maybe Bob Barr has changed. I'll hold that open as an outside possibility, weighed against the many years of being a statist morality-enforcing thug. Good for him, but professing to being an ex-statist doesn't make you a libertarian. It just makes you an (alleged) ex-statist.
And the idea that he is preferable because he has shown he can win? Well, maybe we should consider that he won on platforms that we (and supposedly now he) violently oppose.
... and that Root guy just remonds me of one of those loudmouth empty head right wing talk radio guys. Great selection there too...
Posted By: Arthur Torrey
Date: 2008-06-03 22:34:28
I'm posting this in lots of places - I'm not selling out to Barr, and think we need an LP revolt to take our party back... So who will lead this? I don't want the bloody job, but don't see anyone else doing much.
For those who said reformation is possible - Jesus may have let a reformed thief into heaven, but I've not seen anywhere that says he put him in charge of the crown jewels...
-----
As perhaps the only potential elector who has clearly and distinctly stated that he could not cast an electoral vote for Barr in the admittedly unlikely event that I was called on to serve, I’m finding that a certain amount of heat has been falling upon me, while others are responding positively to my comments about Barr’s unsuitability for the LP Presidential nomination.
This has caused me to get dragged into blog-land in an effort both to see what is being said, and in some cases in self defense.
One of the things that I find frustrating is that while many people are expressing upset over Barr’s nomination, I’m not seeing any clear signs of coordinated efforts to oppose Barr, or do anything else about the situation. Rumours abound, but I haven’t seen or heard much about any definite plans to DO anything… I have to say that I’m less than thrilled by the somewhat muted response of my own Mass. State Committee, but it seems we are doing more than most. Right now it looks like Mass. will put Barr / Root on the ballot, only because doing so is the only way we can get our US Senate candidate on, but will do little beyond that to aid the Presidential campaign. Instead we will urge our members to support Bob Underwoods Senate campaign, the Income Tax Repeal and Marijuana Decrim ballot initiatives, and so forth.
It seems that nearly half the delegates in Denver aren’t happy with the results, but how many are actively attempting to DO something other than just piss and moan about it? How many are working to get their State Party to do something, whether it is putting some other name (or Nobody) on the Presidential ballot? How many are urging a boycott of the Barr campaign? How many are protesting in some other way (if so what are you doing)?
It seems to me that this is an issue that is larger than just Barr / Root - The LP as it currently stands has the potential for multi-state ballot access, something of great potential value to political failures from other parties that have delusions of greatness - arguably we had two efforts in Denver to hijack the party, one from the D’s and one from the R’s - unfortuneately the R’s got away with it. IMHO if we are going to get the LP we want back, it needs to be made painfully clear to those attempting to hijack the party will end up with nothing useful if they succeed - minimal ballot access, no support, etc.
If you are like Mass. where we must put Barr on for other reasons than supporting him, what about passing state wide resolutions of non-support? AFAIK the LPUS bylaws may require a state to put the Pres. candidate on the ballot, but don’t have any provisions about a state refusing to endorse a candidate or even condemming him.
If you are organizing or participating such an act of revolt in your state, or have definite knowledge of others working on such actions, I’d like to hear from you - My email is arthur(underscore)torrey(at)comcast(dot)net (make the substitutions in parens - I don’t want to feed the spambots…)
I don’t want to hear complaints, I want to hear about ACTIONS - they speak louder than words!
Arthur Torrey
LPMA Operations Facilitator
Potential LIBERTARIAN Presidential Elector
Elected Libertarian Officeholder
(speaking for myself only - for now…)
Arthur Torry - Few in the LP appreciated Arizona's decision in 2000 to substitue L Neil Smith's name for Harry Browne's on the ballot. That cost him 50-state ballot access. If MA or another state were to do the same to Barr it would be just as unproductive. Plus, what would stop a "pragmatic" state from doing the same to a future radical candidate? The core purpose of a political party is to support its candidates. I would be the last person to suggest anyone leave the LP, as I want it to be as big as possible, but as a general observation if one's idea of political activism is to undermine his own party he should consider whether he is in the right one.
Posted By: Arthur Torrey
Date: 2008-06-05 10:09:15
Darren, you might want to look at the history of what happenned in AZ before throwing stones at them. If it was not for the actions of NATIONAL who decided to disaffiliate the legally recognized AZ party organization, (arguably in violation of the LP's own bylaws) AZ would have been obliged to place Harry on the ballot. However since National had chosen to kick out the AZLP, the AZLP had no more obligation to put National's candidate on the ballot than it did the candidate of the Communist Party, so they chose the candidates that they best felt suited to represent the views of their party... For details, I would refer you to one of George's books, which IMHO is one of the saner summaries of the events. The relevant chapters are freely published over on Last Free Voice.
As to undermining the party - IMHO BARR and friends are the ones chopping the principles out from under, I see refuting Barr and the neocons as an attempt at "damage control"
ART
I agree with Art's view that refuting the Barr campaign is damage control. I am not in favor of overtly opposing the Barr/Root campaign, but I do think that, when the Barr campaign goes astray, we need to let the public know the traditional libertarian positions, based as they are on the non-initiation of force principle (which Barr has clearly not accepted yet.)
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
