Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
WHY I CANNOT VOTE FOR BOB BARR As a Libertarian, I just can't vote for Bob Barr.by Christopher Billings
(libertarian)
Friday, July 25, 2008
We all know that hindsight is 20/20. Once you've seen reality, it's quite easy to make a correction and move on, as if you've never seen things wrong. If you're Bob Barr, you hardly need to admit your views were wrong. You just move on with the current times and change your views as you go, especially if it means a possible Presidential election.
When you study the career of Bob Barr, you start to get the feel that his views change with the "popular" wind. How could he vote for the Patriot act, which walks all over American's civil liberties, and then decide that he voted wrong. I want a President who looks ahead and who would not have signed this blind agreement without realizing the consequences.
Another problem is that he was a big supporter of the war on drugs, which has torn families apart and helped to create the situation that we are in, incarcerating more people per capita than any other nation. But Wikipedia states that on June 4, 2008, during an interview with Stephen Colbert, Barr confirmed thay he now supports ending the war on drugs. I wonder if this was a change of opinion or a quest to conform to Libertarian ideals.
He has voted for the war in Iraq. More recently though, he has called for an end to the Iraq war. Again, hindsight is 20/20.
He certainly does make a lot of sense at times, Wikipedia says:
"Barr has been a vocal opponent of President George w. Bush's claim of authorization to wiretap transnational phone calls without individual judicial license. He has said, "What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."
In the end though, as much as I treasure the Libertarian platform, I cannot bring myself to vote for Bob Barr. As much as I want to, I just cannot. We need somebody else.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 16 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Christopher Billings only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Christopher Billings 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.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2008-07-25 04:10:15
At least Barr now agrees with libertarian positions, and I will vote for him. A vote for Barr is a vote against big government. The democrats are leading us into socialism and the republicans want to use the power of government to tell us how to live.
Posted By: James Maynard
Date: 2008-07-25 07:20:53
Yes, the 18-year-old kids out there think that they will never change their minds about anything, and that anybody who does change their minds is hypocritical. But that is EXACTLY what intelligent, thoughtful people do.
Barr is no Ron Paul, but he is the ONLY candidate that the LP has ever run, except for Dr. Paul, who has the experience, the connections, and the history of WINNING elections to actually be a QUALIFIED candidate for President.
As much as people loved Mary or Kubby, Barr and Gravel were the only people on the ticket who had actually managed to get themselves elected to office.
The question is whether we want to waste 30 more years as a debating society, or actually become a legitimate political party. Barr is closer to being allowed into the debates than any LP candidate in history. THAT would be a history-making moment and would propel the LP into real legitimacy and give us major party status in ALL 50 states - No more petitioning for any of our candidates.
Barr '08!
JM
Barr is standing on the shoulders of the libertarians who have gone before him. A vote for Barr is a vote for the Libertarian Party, and that will help all of us get the LP's message out to the American people.
Every interview, every appearance, every talk show Bob is promoting the message of our party.
A little forgiveness of his past sins would go a long, long way for all of us.
Did anyone see the video of Ron Paul losing his temper while talking about Obama? LOL., Maybe Ron Paul should be running for President. Heres the video http://www.BarrPaul08.com If you didnt see the video of McCain falling asleep on the Conan show Ill also leave a link for that http://www.McCanes.com . .
You value the libertarian platform, but unfortunately not the Libertarian Party nor the Libertarian candidate.
The more I read of these types of articles, the more I am reminded of a small child who, upon not getting his or her own way, throws a hissy fit and threatens to take their toys and go home.
Or in this case, withhold their vote.
You want a different candidate.
Guess what? Not gonna get one.
I want a date with Rosario Dawson.
Guess what? Not gonna get one.
It's not going to stop me from dating other women, just like having Bob Barr as our candidate should not stop you from supporting and voting for him.
When you vote for Barr, remember that you are not only voting for a man, but you are voting for a philosophy and a party. Getting more votes in key states can help towards ballot and debate access in future campaigns.
Having a hissy fit and not voting is incredibly selfish and short sighted.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-07-25 08:57:23
Dear Christopher Billings -
I have my issues with Barr as well, which are stated in a 6-part series here http://www.nolanchart.com/author481.html. You might find it useful to take a look. I did come to alter my opinion by the 6th article from all the feedback I received
So if you are not going to vote for Bar; who will you vote for? Baldwin, Nader, and the Green Party are having serious ballot access issues. Obama is a socialist. McCain relies too much on military solutions. Who is left? I am voting for Barr because it helps Libertarians with ballot access. More ballot access helps all parties as it gives us more choices. Utah has had nearly twenty choices on the ballot. It did not hurt the Democrats or Republicans at all. In fact it actually hurt the third parties as it split their votes. At least; however, Utah could tell people it really was giving them a choice.
If we can never forgive past transgressions, if we can never accept our former opponents within our folds,; and if we can never temper the most extreme goals with logical and reasonable moderation; then the Libertarian party will never be more than a highly principled, vicious social club.
Bob Barr has already recieved more media attention than previous LP campaigns. I'm from Georgia, and I have seen the transition of Bob Barr's beliefs. This was not an overnight process, but over a period of years, Barr was persuaded by the Libertarian arguement. If Georgia's LP has welcomed Barr, the rest of the country should take a cue from those who know him, and have watched him the closest.
There is not a purity test to gain acceptance within the LP. Past records aside, when someone's seen the light, we should support them, not continue to criticize them.
I agree with Christopher. Ideas are more important than party discipline. When the leadership of a party shifts the platform far away from one's own conviction, there is no reason to stay with that party.
I agree with James Mynard completly!! As for your comment about Bob Barr being for the drug war, he has since stated he made a mistake supporting the drug war. Bob Barr is the only candidate who might be able to get America back to a free society. As for the so called Constitutional party, I am unwilling to support Chuck Baldwin for two reasons. One, his seeming inability to separate church and state. In my opinion, He seems to think every one should have Christian views as well as be constitutional. He seems to think that they are one and the same. The Constitution was written with the idea, Americans should have freedom of religion, regardless of which religion. Second his party will not be on the Ballot in most states. That immediately and simply makes voting for him a wasted vote. I believe Bob Barr and Wayne Root are the only viable "Constitutionalists" running for office this time and they will be on at least forty eight state ballots if not all fifty. They are for almost the same issues Chuck Baldwin professes to be for. They are as close to following the Ron Paul ideas and ideals as we can get. They would follow the rules and laws of the constitution as best any one can. If all the freedom loving Americans vote Libertarian this time, we could make a significant difference. If some choose to vote Constitutional party, Democrate, or Republican We will all loose because those votes will not count for any one who might be able to win a constitutional victory.
Posted By: Geno Canto del Halcon
Date: 2008-07-25 13:08:53
Even though I've actively helped get Barr on the ballot in my state, I'm going to write in MARY RUWART in November. I voted for her on all six ballots at the convention. To some people, standing up for your principles might seem childish. So be it. However, at least I have principles.
As a Libertarian, ofcourse I'm voting for Bob Barr. We've had candidates for President before that were not worthy and finally we have someone that eloquently pushes the agenda. As an American I must vote for Bob Barr.
Please pledge your support on AUGUST 5th at barrbomb.com started by Ron Paul supporters
Bob Barr is far from what I would like to see in a candidate, but I will back him all the way because it will help the Libertarian Party in the long run. If the LP gains sufficient votes in each state, it will earn automatic ballot access and can stop having to hold all these petition drives. If the LP gains sufficient votes nationwide, future candidates will be able to gain debate access as well. That's assuming the LP continues to field candidates that are electable.
First off, Barr did not "vote wrong" on the Patriot Act. If he'd voted against it, it would have passed, and been permanent. By voting for it, he gave the people a way to get rid of it. That could happen next year, depending on this election. Barr prefers to pander to libertarians rather than defend his choice, but it's fully defensible.
Second, while Barr did "vote wrong" on the Drug and Iraq Wars, he changed his mind for a good reason: it's ridiculous to think he'll just change back again for no reason other than popularity.
We're going to have to become used to people who used to believe other things, and have now become Libertarian. That is a natural byproduct of convincing people. The fact that there are Libertarians who used to be Liberals or Conservatives is, in my mind, a good thing.
As for the areas, and I think there are a few, where Barr would like to see a bit more government than most Libertarians want, it seems like a non-issue to me. Lets face it: if we are lucky enough to get to the point where Barr has achieved all he wants to achieve, and we want to cut government further, we'll have a much larger party, permanent ballot access in many more states, and a large group of people to convince that even less government would be even better. That's a set of problems I'd like to have!
When I joined the Libertarian, I was not yet scoring 100/100 on the Nolan Chart. I said to myself "These Libertarians seem to want to go farther than I do. But they and I want to go in the same direction. So I'll just vote Libertarian until I'm a little too free". Now, I am a 100/100 Libertarian, but I still look at candidates in terms of direction, not destination. Barr wants to go in the right direction, and he has the ability to sell Libertarianism to the general public. That strikes me as a win/win situation!
To show the direction, the Libertarian Party must be ahead in the fight against governments. With Bob Barr and all the ideological shifting going on, the Libertarian Party is falling behind.
To Libertarians, Ron Paul used to be an acceptable compromise. Ron Paul has become the ideal. Almost a utopia because Ron Paul, contrary to Bob Barr, dares say clear things like "shutdown of the Fed" that pragamatic and vote-seeking Libertarians would not dare say lest conservatives would call them crazy. Everything has become soft, flexible, interpetable...
On monetary policies and from bobbarr2008.com: "We should begin a debate over more far-reaching policy changes, including eliminating the federal government's control over the money supply, thereby leaving monetary policy under the control of the market rather than of politics." Greeespan could agree on that one!
A lot of LP members were angry in 1988 when Ron Paul got the nomination, stating that his pro-life views where somehow not libertarian. In the end it won’t matter. Barr will attract more new voters to the LP than he’ll lose from the LP. Hopefully that will enable the LP to become a serious party for the first time.
Posted By: Kevin Houston
Date: 2008-07-26 16:21:04
I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin. He has been a consistent voice for liberty.
If Bob Barr had even a smidgen of a chance to be elected, I might be willing to overlook his past votes and vote LP. But neither Bob Barr nor Chuck Baldwin will have a shot at winning, so I may as well vote principles over pragmatism.
At least this way, the LP might get the message and nominate a real Libertarian next time. If we support a candidate who thinks the Fed Gov needs to bail out the home mortgage crisis (currently, on his own website) this time, then next time we will get a candidate who thinks the war on [some] drugs is just fine.
It's not Bob Barr's past positions that preclude me from voting for him, it's his current positions, and the wishy-washy way he presents even those issues in which he has always agreed with the LP platform.
The lesser of evils argument only works if that candidate actually has a chance of winning. Since Bob Barr wouldn't win even if every LP, CP, Green, etc. party member and hanger-on voted for him, it's a moot point. Vote for principles over pragmatism.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-07-26 19:22:31
Take heart Christopher, your vote would be for the LP platform and not for Barr. It doesn't matter if the LP candidate is Jessica Rabbit or Jack Black or Bob Barr. ...OK wait,maybe that was a bad example because probably both Jessica Rabbit AND Jack Black would get more votes than Barr...but you get my point.
Hell, the LP could save a ton of money and nominate "No One" if "No One" would be allowed on the ballot. The name beside the "L" box is irrelevant. Even if the candidate was "No One" the LP would get roughly the same number of votes because no conscious libertarian would vote for a person, they vote for principles.
If you can't vote for Barr, at the very least do your part to help him get on the debates...someone has to go to the debates and talk about liberty, small government, the Constitution, etc. Otherwise the debates will all be about McCain and Obama's big government talk and the millions who will be watching will be further brainwashed into accepting the status quo.
Interestingly Bob Barr's appearance on the Colbert Report is pretty much a direct response to the points brought up in your post. It's worth watching. Through Google, this is where I found it:
Posted By: Christopher Billings
Date: 2008-08-08 22:48:56
Thank you all for your comments. You have made me reassess my image of Bob Barr. Many have asked, "well who will you vote for?". That is a tough question because as much as I despise Barr's long term hypocrisy, I realize that I too have changed my views over the last 10 years, just like Bob Barr. I don't regret having spoken the truth about Mr. Barr, but I have a tough time picking a better candidate for the U.S. based on the fact that he has indeed had a change of heart.
Ron Paul was asked if he were to be President, would he consider McCain as VP? His carefully worded answer was basically, "I'd have to be sure that he'd had a legitimate change of heart from his old views."
This is a question I have asked myself regarding Bob Barr. I'm not sure of the answer but I'm leaning towards the fact that he has indeed had a legitimate change of heart. Maybe he now sees clearly? That won't help the decades that children grew up without a parent because of his pro-drug war views. Nor will it bring back the thousands of years that people have suffered under his "go with flow" justice views.
I'd planned to write in Ron Paul, but it seems this is far too complicated of a process to succeed.
However, with Ron Paul no longer being a candidate, Barr would be a far better candidate than either major party, at this point.
Bar's intentions are good. Some may even argue Bush's "intentions" are good... and pleeeease note I said "INTENIONS".
The problem is both of these politicians display patterns of fundamentally poor decision makers. They both focus on their personal ideals, but ignore the long term law of unintended consequences. They both make snap decisions without thinking about how they may affect their long term consequences.
Both Bush's and Bar's decisions for the Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq (robbing hundreds of thousands of civilians of their #1 civil liberty... "life"), and the War on Drugs... among many others worked in great opposition to their goals. That's why Bush is a huge failure and always has been.
I vote based on reality. The reality is voting for Bar won't change anything... because it's not going to affect the election in any way.
In order to accomplish things a president is much like a great General. Great Generals can win wars by making their soldier's believe that if they do their part the battle can be won for the greater good of mankind. People will vote for Obama because they believe... no other candidate has the same power of influence to bring people together... and thus no greater influence in reforming policy for the good of mankind.
Issues will always be issues and most Americans are on the same page with only a handful of different ideals that can easily be dealt with through compromise and quality diplomacy. I feel like Obama has what it takes to bring people together and that's what it takes to make a positive difference.
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.
