Topic: Bob Barr
Ron Paul on Bob Barr: "We're allies" However, Paul is not going to endorse Barr. Here's why.by George Dance
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Since Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party nomination just over a week ago, a question that has been bothering Nolan Chart readers for two months -- Will or Won't Ron Paul endorse Barr? -- has begun to invade the main stream media. As well it should, as the answer could determine the next President.
As, for example, the Huffington Post explains the situation:
Paul has no use for either anointed GOP nominee John McCain or the party establishment. However, he does have support from a tenth or so of the Republican electorate. And should Paul signal his followers to back this year's presumed Libertarian presidential nominee, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, some pundits think the latter could take 2-3 percent of the November vote, siphoning off enough disgruntled conservatives to beat McCain. (1)
Paul has been unremittingly positive in talking about Barr to the media. On June 2, when Newsweek asked him, "What are your feelings toward [Libertarian nominee] Bob Barr?", his response was: "We're pretty friendly. We're allies, he's a good friend. He has called me a couple [of] times recently, so it's very cordial." (2)
On May 30 Paul also praised Barr, to Jason Rosenbaum of the Columbia Daily Tribune: "He'll be a good candidate. Some Libertarians are excited, and some are leery, but I think he can do a very good job."
Rosenbaum asked the obvious follow-up -- "Would you consider endorsing him?" -- and Paul responded in the negative:
"Well, 'considering' means the thought crosses your mind, and he has made inquiries as to what I might be able to do, and my answer is that I don't plan to get involved, because Chuck Baldwin is a candidate for the Constitution Party, and he's a good friend, and he also worked very hard on my campaign, so it's pretty hard for me to endorse one or the other." (3)
Earlier in the month, at a May 7 book signing for his bestseller, The Revolution: A Manifesto, Paul had told Reason editor Dave Weigel that "he won't endorse Baldwin or Barr. He'll kinda-sorta endorse both. He won't stop them from using photos of him or talking about his campaign." (4)
Paul told Weigel that Baldwin has also been in contact: "Chuck was in my office today to say hello, but I haven't said anything about supporting either one of them. I support both of them in what they're doing, and I encourage them, but that's all."
On May 28, Weigel repeated that Paul is "neither going to endorse Bob Barr nor the Constitution Party candidate -- maybe not even after the Republican convention wraps up." Weigel then pointed out another good reason for Paul not to do so:
At issue is Paul's congressional seniority. He's worried, and rightfully so, about losing his precious banking committee seat if he hands over too much support to third party candidates who are trying to bleed the GOP. (5)
That is not a minor consideration. Paul is the Ranking Member of one House Committe on Financial Services subcommittee (Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology), and the Vice-Chair of another (Oversight and Investigations). He also serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Joint [House-Senate] Economic Committee. All of those positions give him forums for his message, with greater publicity for it now than ever before; but Paul enjoys all of them at his party's pleasure.
Even more could be at stake. Paul has more than a few enemies in the party -- as Baldwin puts it, "Paul's willingness to openly oppose his own party has caused him to be blacklisted by party loyalists and apologists" (6) -- and it's not inconceivable that some of them would move to strip Paul of his Republican nomination for Congress as well, should he formally endorse another party's candidate.
Already there is some pressure on Paul to endorse his own party's "anointed nominee" -- some even, reports Weigel, from within Dr. Paul's own campaign:
this is actually a sticking point in the Paul campaign: Some people in his circle want him to swing his weight behind McCain once the primaries are over. At the moment, they're being overruled. (4)
Paul himself appears to be one of those doing the overruling. He has not bothered to hide his opinion of the "presumptive nominee." Asked point-blank, "What's your relationship like with McCain?", he told Newsweek: "It pretty much doesn't exist. He has his beliefs and I have mine, and they just don't come together very well." (2)
Or as he quipped at the booksigning:
"Maybe you'll endorse McCain and surprise everybody," asked one of the people walking out of the event with us. "That would surprise me, too!" said Paul. (4)
---------------
Sources
(1) Kevin Phillips, "Time to End ‘Bernanke Panky’?", Huffington Post, Jun. 3, 2008. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-phillips/time-to-end-bernanke-pank_b_104769.html
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 39 thumbs so far
2008 George Dance, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, June 5, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of George Dance only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance 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.
Good article, George. You could also add that Paul does not consider an endorsement as so significant also and leave it up to his supporters to make up their own minds. I think he has the strategic correct position. He would not only loose credibility if he would endorse McCain now, but also strategic bargaining power, e.g. he is earning alot of respect from disaffected libertarians and conservatives within the GOP, some of whom have not voted for him, but cannot stand voting for McCain. Not endorsing McCain puts some pressure also, as Paul really has the balancing power and cards in his hands. In a close election every vote is crucial and Paul also brings a lot of enthusiasm, fund raising power and an ever growing numbers, consider 21% in WA, 25% in Montana, 24% in Idaho. If primaries were to be held now, with Paul's book and more people knowing about him than a few weeks/months ago, I am sure he would fare much better even. This must clearly worry McCain & Co. In a close election even 1-2% in a state can make the difference between winning and losing.
I hope Baldwin and especially Barr poll quite high by August, it will put additional pressure on the GOP and they should treat Paul and his supporters and ideas with respect.
dont be surprised that Paul says they are allies, Heres a link with a video that has paul talking about Bob Barr. He might be planning to endorse Barr after all. www.BarrRoot08.com
I love Paul. I hate the FED. Barr says jack about monetary policy. Baldwin calls out Moneychangers. The only problem with that is MSN will laugh at chuck for his old timey slang.
Paul lays it out pretty clear...He won't endorse B. husane. O and J. Mcinsane. But could endorse either BOB or Chuck...process of elmination concludes you have to use fact or reason to make up your own mind on who to vote for. Amazing, I guess I got some time to figure out if the constitution party even stands a chance against the libertarian. What a day! That I can say thats my choice; not like the republicrats won't dominate them both due to the media matrix.
Too bad that Paul won't endorse Barr. I thought Baldwin was all right while he was supporting Paul, but it's insanity to not go with the LP over the Constitution Party, for these reasons:
1) The Constitution Party is prohibitionist, and religious, and thus inconsistent in its defense of secular, free government.
2) The LP has 48-50 states of ballot access, which is necessary to win a presidential race. The "Constitution Party" has more like ~10 states.
3) The Constitution is a weak document. Even where it is fairly explicit, it has failed due to being awkwardly worded (such as the second amendment), and where it is not explicit (the 6th amendment's reference to the "common law") it has been completely reversed/ignored/used for the opposite intentions it was created for. It no longer stands for the principles of individual freedom, which are separate and superior to the Constitution's failed attempt to protect individual freedom.
In short, protect the underlying principles individual freedom, not an old and inconsistent document that failed to protect it. see:
People who love liberty should forget about the Constitution Party. It's just one more "Conservative" party that conserves nothing of value, and confuses the ideas of individual freedom.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-06-05 18:04:53
I agree with your point but you have certainly over complicated the situation. Ron Paul will not endorse Bob Barr because doing so undermines his entire career, diminishes the success of the GOP revolution he started and leaves his staunch GOP supporters like me with no future.
Dr. Paul is too smart and too principled to waste his entire career and the recent momentum on a meaningless endorsement of a 3rd party candidate. No one stands to gain anything by his making such an endorsement...except a few overwrought LP members will have their egos stroked for a few minutes. No other positive outcome can result from Dr. Paul making such an obviously foolish move.
That would be why he ran for President as a third party candidate, correct? All that GOP loyalty?
My family has been Republican since Shiloh, but I've said the hell with them, and hope too see the party dissolve, along with the democrats. They are both outmoded and unneeded money raising tools that lead to collusion and corruption
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.
2008 George Dance, all rights reserved.