Nolan ChartNolan Chart
Home Be a Columnist Logon Columns TAKE SURVEY! Media Page FAQ Contact Print Ads Links RSS feed
May
Sage Observations
columnist: David F. Nolan

Like This Article?
Thumb It!
284 thumbs so far

libertarian conservative statist liberal centrist Nolan Chart
Topic: Bob Barr

The Barr Campaign is Over


Bob Barr's campaign for President fell off a cliff yesterday. It's time for those who love liberty to redirect their resources elsewhere.
by David F. Nolan
(libertarian)
Thursday, September 11, 2008

As of yesterday afternoon, Bob Barr's Presidential campaign is effectively over. There were signs of serious trouble even before yesterday, but his "no-show" at Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty news conference -- followed by an insulting suggestion that Ron should join Barr on the LP ticket in the VP slot -- demonstrated just how out-of-touch the Barr campaign is, and how poor Barr's vote total is likely to be.

In earlier articles here on nolanchart.com I tried to give Barr every benefit of the doubt. I observed that in theory he should be one of the Libertarian Party's stronger Presidential candidates. I opined that while his pronouncements on the campaign trail were hardly hard-core libertarian, they were mostly to-the-point and well stated. I did not support him for the nomination, but I was more or less comfortable supporting him once he became the LP nominee.

There has been evidence all along that the Barr '08 campaign has been mismanaged. Ballot access drives were begun late, and conducted erratically. As of today, it appears that Barr's name will be on the ballot in 46 or 47 states. (Harry Browne appeared on 50 ballots in 1996 and 49 in 2000. Michael Badnarik made it onto 48 in 2004.) Barr has failed to achieve ballot status in West Virginia, due entirely to Shane Cory's ineptitude, and there are lawsuits pending in five states (LA, MA, ME, OK and PA) to determine whether Barr will be on the ballot.

Fundraising has also been a flop. As I write this, the fundraising "meter" on the Barr '08 website shows the total raised by the campaign at $881,500 -- about $700,000 since the Denver nominating convention. That works out to about $6,400 a day or $200,000/month. In the days leading up to the nomination, Barr's people were throwing around numbers like $20 million. The reality is likely to be barely more than $1 million.

But all that would be beside the point if Bob Barr were campaigning proudly as a Libertarian and taking advantage of every opportunity to reach out to like-minded Americans.

Unfortunately, he's not. Following advice from his campaign manager, Russ Verney, Barr has avoided use of the "L" word wherever possible. There's a big empty space in the banner at the top of the Barr '08 website, where the word LIBERTARIAN could (and should) appear. It doesn't, despite several suggestions that this be remedied. Barr's campaign literature, signs and bumper stickers do not include the "L" word either. And a press release issued by the campaign earlier this week describes Barr as a "Former Congressman" with no mention of the Libertarian Party.

Clearly, Barr is not running as a Libertarian; he's running as an independent candidate: "Former Congressman Bob Barr." Which may be just as well, given the way he's been behaving.

Yesterday, Congressman Ron Paul held a news conference to denounce the two-party duopoly. He invited four alternative candidates -- Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader -- to participate. Baldwin, McKinney and Nader showed up; Barr did not. Instead, he held a separate follow-up conference of his own at which he tooted his own horn and "invited" Ron Paul to be his running mate. This was insanely stupid, for several reasons. First, because Barr has no authority to unilaterally change running-mates. Second, because it's a insult to Ron Paul, who is far better known and more widely admired. (Reportedly, Ron Paul and his top people are furious.) And third, because even if Ron Paul accepted the invitation and the Libertarian National Committee approved the substitution, it is too late to make a substitution on most states' ballots.

For a description of what happened at the Campaign for Liberty press conference, see this Washington Post article.

Why has the Barr campaign has gone so badly awry? The simple answer is that the two men running it -- Russ Verney and Shane Cory -- are not Libertarians, do not understand what motivates Libertarian activists, and have no interest in building the LP. Verney is a gun-for-hire of no discernible ideology. Cory is a Republican who left his former job at LP headquarters in disgrace, after abusing his authority prior to the Denver convention. (Just today, Verney posted a Campaign Update on the Barr '08 website, praising George W. Bush for his "leadership" during the days following the 9/11 attacks seven years ago. Any true Libertarian would have instead pointed out that Bush has USED the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to erode our civil liberties!)

With these two running the campaign it will continue to embarrass Libertarians and waste our resources. Bob Barr will never qualify for inclusion in the phony "Presidential debates." He will not get the 5% of the vote that would qualify the LP for future matching funds -- which it should not accept in any case. Indeed, at this point it seems likely that Barr will not get even 1% of the popular vote. (Bettors on intrade.com are currently betting 2:1 against Barr receiving 1%.)

So what's a Libertarian to do?

First, accept that the fact that the Barr '08 campaign is effectively over. Don't waste any time or money supporting a campaign that avoids the "L" word, has demonstrated its incompetence time and again, and goes out of its way to insult friends and allies.

By all means, vote for Bob Barr in November. I plan to, and I urge every Libertarian to do likewise. Whatever vote Barr receives will be seen by most people as "the Libertarian vote" and we want that to be as high as possible. And if you want to campaign for Barr locally, then do so. Print up flyers, put up homemade campaign signs, etc. But do not, under any circumstances, send any money to the Barr '08 campaign. Most of the money will be wasted, and the rest will be spent muddying the waters about what genuine libertarianism is all about.

If you are inclined to contribute to a Libertarian campaign, send your money to someone who will make good use of it. Two examples are Mike Munger and Morey Straus.

If you are burned out on politics, but still want to support the battle for individual rights and liberty, send your money to an outfit like the Institute for Justice. Contribute to the local animal shelter. Or take your kids to the park and buy them ice cream. In sum, do something that will actually advance the cause of liberty or in some other way make your world a better place.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
284 thumbs so far

©2008 David F. Nolan, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Thursday, September 11, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, September 11, 2008

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.

Report violation by David F. Nolan of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.


More Articles By David F. Nolan

Be A Columnist
Tell A Friend About This Article

Posted By: Tony Wall
Date: 2008-09-11 15:25:52

Well put David.

Report violation


Posted By: Andrew Rule
Date: 2008-09-11 15:50:37

A serious question is how to limit the damage from here on out.  

Report violation


Posted By: D. Frank Robinson
Date: 2008-09-11 15:50:37

I agree with your analysis, but you are more charitable that I.  I never trusted the Verney (Barr-Root) enterprise.  Call it intuition. Call it a hunch.  You were more reasoned and temperate, David, but we have pretty much reach the same destination. 

Of course, I have not contributed or campaigned for the VBR machine. I do not commend anyone who does in the future. Those who did in the past should be pardoned and given some comfort that their hope or despiration over rode their intuition or good judgnment. 

I will not face the choice of voting for Barr-Root because I live in Oklahoma - where outlaws legally rule - and the LP will not be on the ballot. I give 10 to 1 odds.

Once again, a very measured and logical presentation, Mr. Nolan. Thank you. I am passing your post around.

 

Report violation


Posted By: Robert Butler
Date: 2008-09-11 16:04:23

I attended the Ron Paul press conference in Washington this week.  As a Barr supporter, I was very disappointed that he did not show up or have the courtesy to make it clear that he wasn't showing up.

Ron Paul is caught in a difficult position.  His campaign has succeeded in uniting the disparate sections of the freedom movement, something the LP has never been able to do.  I have been working with Ron Paul people in various states.  In Ohio, the Ron Paul folks are helping Robert Owens run for Attorney General, and his campaign has received more financial and volunteer support than any independent statewide campaign I've seen.

Given this situation, Dr. Paul has done the best thing he could.  At the conference, he said he "stongly recommends"  that each of his supporters follow their conscience and vote for an independent or minor party candidate.  He strongly denounced Obama and McCain, and said that no one should consider voting for the major parties, especially if they wanted to effect change.

I'm sadly disappointed that the Barr campaign so publicly thumbed its nose at Ron Paul.  It shows extremely poor judgement at a time when independents and minor party candidates should unite to fight against the two major parties. Even though we disagree on other subjects, we need to unite against the two-party system.  There will be plenty of time for minor parties to argue after they have dismantled that system.

I would like to add that I was also sadly disappointed that certain factions within the LP could not stand together in unity behind Barr when he was nominated.  Maybe they were right to oppose Barr, but after the LP picks a candidate we ought to rally to that candidate's support.  This is the kind of incident that makes me seriously doubt the viability of the party.  If these factions win the next election, then clearly others will trash them as much as they have trashed Barr.  It's an ugly cycle.

I have recently formed an organization called I CAN Independent Candidate Action Network, at http://indyaction.org  I'm hoping to encourage all the new people energized by Ron Paul, and train them in campaign management.

 

 

Report violation


Posted By: Bob Larkin
Date: 2008-09-11 16:07:17

Bob Barr lost any chance he had at my vote. I will vote for some OTHER third party candidate and (as Ron Paul encouraged us to do) ask OTHER PEOPLE to do the same. I had my questions about Mr. Barr anyway when I never received an answer from the campaign about why he changed his spots and I think that is because he hasn't.

Report violation


Posted By: Eric
Date: 2008-09-11 16:07:57

Well put. But really, given all that can be said about both options, why should anyone still choose Barr over Baldwin?

Report violation


Posted By: Liberty Belle
Date: 2008-09-11 16:08:14

Thank you David; I agree that Barr has done nothing but discredit and abuse the Libertarian Party as well as make a general fool out of himself. He's clearly shown he can't be trusted and that he really isn't here to support the Libertarian party or its ideals. I was holding out hope that his 180 degree turn on marijuana and the Patriot Act wasn't just a ruse but I see his tactics as purely opportunistic now. Ex-CIA - what was I expecting?

 I very much appreciate the suggestion to look up the Institute for Justice - thank you. However, I was a bit disappointed that you didn't suggest a firmer alliance with the Campaign for Liberty - though the Washington Post link was good.  Surely as champion of individual rights and liberty, Ron Paul's organization continues to garner support and do tremendous good.

I admire and will continue to contribute to the Campaign for Liberty, especially since they are intent on educating grassroots workers on how to spread the message of self-governance.

 Liberty Belle

 

Report violation


Posted By: Arthur Torrey
Date: 2008-09-11 16:12:25

In case you haven't heard, after seeing this fiasco yesterday, I have formally given notice as a Presidential Elector in Mass. that I will NOT agree to substitution. A copy of the letter which I sent to the Mass. Secretary of State's office and the attorneys for the LP has been posted on LFV. While the outcome will depend on the results of the court hearing tomorrow, I presume that the result will be that Bob Barr will NOT be on the ballot in Mass. but George Phillies will be on as the LP candidate, so at least Mass. voters will have a chance to vote for a Libertarian Presidential candidate. NH will be even more interesting, as it appears that both Phillies and Barr will be on the ballot as Libertarians. I'm hoping that in this battle between a real Libertarian and the cheap imitation, that George will win. ART LPMA Presidential Elector, NOT substituting Barr! Speaking for myself

Report violation


Posted By: jeepndesert
Date: 2008-09-11 16:34:08

Thank you David Nolan. We need to take the Libertarian Party back from the neocons. How many neocon plants are there?

Report violation


Posted By: Amy
Date: 2008-09-11 16:34:16

For what it's worth, we're petitioning to get Barr off the ballot, sign if you are so motivated: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RemoveBobBar/index.html

Report violation


Posted By: jeepndesert
Date: 2008-09-11 16:50:54

Yes, sign the petition.

We also need to email and call our state parties to hold an emergency convention. I fear the Georgia LP is over-run with Republicans since they only had 2 delegates for Mary Ruwart. We need to find state parties willing to back a recall on Bob Barr/Wayne Allen Root.

David Nolan and Lew Rockwell need to jump on it. We can still save the election if we take action.

Report violation


Posted By: edward
Date: 2008-09-11 17:02:49

It seems to me that Barr has been trying to destroy the LP from the inside from day 1.  It appears that he has been successful

Report violation


Posted By: Chad Rushing
Date: 2008-09-11 17:03:37

This was an excellent analysis of the current state of the Barr campaign and recent, related events.  I appreciate the author taking the time to present it for those of us who are still sorting out everything that happened this week.

I have not researched the Constitution Party's entire platform yet; however, considering that Baldwin was a vocal supporter of Paul's platform up through the primaries, does not have socialist leanings (to the best of my knowledge), and is not Bob Barr, he will likely get my vote this time around.

Report violation


Posted By: rtbohan
Date: 2008-09-11 17:12:06

I have been reading your contributions on the Barr campaign since the convention.  I found them insightful and could see that you were trying to be for Barr.  I was looking forward to reading your reaction to the events of the last few days.  Excellent article

Report violation


Posted By: Comrade Laissez-Faire
Date: 2008-09-11 17:29:14

I'm baffled as to why the Founder of the no longer Party of Principle is still encouraging libertarians to vote for a self-serving agenda non-libertarian with a paleoconservative pompous ass as his running mate.  Compared to them, Mike Gravel would have made a better LP presidential candidate.   

I don't plan to vote for president, but if I were to, I would vote for Nader before I would vote for Barr.  Apart from his advocacy of nanny welfare statism, he is more libertarian on most other issues than Barr and Root are. 

Report violation


Posted By: Stefan
Date: 2008-09-11 17:38:21

The question is what role Verney and Cory played in advising Barr. They clearly lead Barr the wrong way, presupposing that the LP brand name is more a liability. Barr's insistance that libertarianism is a mainstream political ideology, was a very good starting point and based on that he can proudly brand the Libertarian word in everything. Verney and Cory probably advised him to shy away.

Maybe the campaign can be salvaged by holding a special LNC meeting, whereby Verney and Cory are replaced by Libertarian activists and - if possible - VP WAR replaced by Dr. Karen Kwiatkowski. That will really shake the LP race up and enable Barr to restore trust and firepower. ..

Report violation


Posted By: Jonathan Cymberknopf
Date: 2008-09-11 18:39:41

How sad that a handful of purists took it upon themselves to attack The Libertarian Party when it pounced on Barr yesterday.

That's why Third Parties never get anywhere. They cut their nose to spite their face.

Report violation


Posted By: Jonathan Cymberknopf
Date: 2008-09-11 18:42:56

Here's a newsflash: Bob Barr has raised as much money as Badnarik.

How Libertarian of you Mr. David Nolan to forbid everyone from donating their own money.  You are a true Libertarian.

Report violation


Posted By: Starchild
Date: 2008-09-11 18:49:08

Excellent piece David, and I agree with all of it except the advice to vote for Bob Barr. I don't think the case has been made that a relatively high vote total will help the Libertarian Party. At this point, it will be better if he does badly enough that the most Barr-besotted LP members can see what a colossal mistake it was to nominate him, so that similar mistakes are less likely to be made in the future. Ideally, the Libertarian National Committee will act to remove Barr as the LP's nominee, though I kind of doubt they will have the collective chutzpah to do it. 

Report violation


Posted By: Jonathan Cymberknopf
Date: 2008-09-11 18:52:35

Wow Libertarians are really something they like to cut their nose to spite their face. Barr is doing fine polling around 6% which would mean matching funds, growing the Party, exposing America to The Libertarian Party, raised so far as much as Badnarik, and Libertarians create divisions and disent to creat chaos and destroy the momentum. One may not agree with Barr's strategy but it's easy to criticize. No one to took anyhting from my article, I guess purists are too close minded, [link edited for length]

Sad to see Libertarians sabotage their own .

Report violation


Posted By: Starchild
Date: 2008-09-11 18:57:55

Needless to say, I also support the petition to remove Barr as the LP's nominee, and encourage everyone to sign it:  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RemoveBobBar/index.html

  I personally plan to write in Ron Paul for president. Not so much for him personally -- I don't feel he is libertarian enough to have deserved the LP nomination either, although he would have been better than Barr -- as in solidarity with the pro-freedom movement generated by his campaign. Sure a write-in vote will have little effect. But that's true of votes in national elections generally. The important thing is to vote your conscience.

Report violation


Posted By: Ray Carr
Date: 2008-09-11 19:13:39

Extremely well done! I have appreciated how tolerant and objective you have tried to be on your earlier status reports.

 

 

Report violation


Posted By: James R.
Date: 2008-09-11 19:25:59

Jonathan, nothing but puerile, ad hominem attacks? Purist isn't an insult to me. But don't ever call me "author of the Barr Amendment" unless you're looking for a fight!

Report violation


Posted By: Stefan
Date: 2008-09-11 19:43:17

While I agree Verney's advise for Barr to not attend the meeting was a mistake, the heading of this article does not suggest a calm rational reflection and look for solutions.  How about a "third way" e.g. providing suggestions how Barr can proceed productively forward, e.g. by perhaps dismissing Verney and/or Cory from his staff. 

Barr has made some sound libertarian statements, like his recent article about the failure of the drug war and admittance of his role in it and that it has been a mistake in huffingtonpost. He did receive praise for it from purist hardcore Libertarians. Certainly this suggest some boldness of Barr, also to address this issue, which is a Libertarian issue and all other parties would not dare to touch with a ten foot pole.

Barr has also referred to himself as a Libertarian several times and without hesitation.

Mike Ferguson obviously also made a big mistake with your facebook writing on his own behalf, which the Barr campaign requested he retract or delete.

 There was criticism of the issue that Paul would be ont he ballot in Montana under the Constitution party label (they disaffiliated fromt he national CP), but Paul has requested that his name be taken off the ballot:

http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/ron_paul_wants_off_montana_ballot/5514

This issue could have been a reason for dissatisfaction, but Paul's request and position on it should clarify the issue with the LP and the Barr campaign.

Paul's acceptance - without confirmation or refusal and no application and no campaigning with regard to the state of Louisiana is valid. Especially now that the LP may possibly not be on the ballot in LA, it does provide Libertarians with a way to vote for the Paul-Goldwater ticket. The LA LP has also indicated they would endorse the ticket, if their request to be on the ballot, fails.

Report violation


Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2008-09-11 19:49:31

I have been extremely skeptical of Barr, since before he declared for the LP nomination. I had thought that he had made some strides since his days as a drug warrior and all around conservative (bordering on the neo type) Republican.

I also knew that there were better candidates . . . Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby being the best. I never bought into the Barr has more name recognition hype. So what. If what he's selling isn't libertarian, why would libertarians want that broadcast further and wider?

I can only say that I agree totally with Starchild, as he understands that the Barr campaign doing badly (vote-total wise) is actually a good thing for the LP. So many people are keying in on # of votes, so if Barr does poorly, it will send the signal that nominatin him for his "star power" was the wrong priority. Mary Ruwart would have been a much better representative for the LP, regardless of whether or not she has the same vote getting potential. As our nominee Mary would at least present the libertarian message clearly and correctly. I would have been proud to cast my vote for her. As it stands, I cannot do the same for this LP ticket.

 

Report violation


Posted By: ken
Date: 2008-09-11 20:22:38

All I can say is long live Dave Nolan, MG, Ralph Swanson, the ISIL founding trio and all the other surviving founders of the modern Libertarian movement who made it happen when even the Rands and Rothbards thought they were quite nuts, let alone the same old pragmatist conservative types.

They've patiently led a world movement, defined a definitive Libertarian body of thought and action, created the mechanism for think tanks over the globe to generate come-hither transition proposals galore, put people in public office where experts said it was  impossible, cleverly outmaneuvered everything sent against them, and more. Why the LP leadership doesn't keep them on as permanent mentors or travelling spokespeople to clear the territory for candidates I have no idea. Instead they denounce Nolan as a ranter and GOP spy (!) and keep him cooling his heels for the privilege of speaking to LNC, while ignoring basic work like getting Barr prospect inquiries to affiliates, and sending people to mess up even their Wikipedia sites.

We wouldn't even have the internet if it weren't for these guys creating the means so people could unblock the regulations, people who now argue they're too visionary. it's just too bad that this year we lost people like Vince Miller, Orlin Grabbe and others who were way ahead of the curve.

Nolan knows when to speak and is always thoughtful. He has class, others have ass.

Report violation


Posted By: Marc
Date: 2008-09-11 20:23:50

I had a peculiar feeling from day 1 of Barr's campaign, something just did not feel right whenever I heard him talk. Now I think he was just there as a puppet for the elite. The Libertarian party did not seem to be Barr's place. Now I believe that this campaign was just a move by outside forces to cause the Libertarian party's implosion. Given the fact that most people equate (small-l) libertarians with the Libertarian party, I can see how the destruction of the party would suit the agenda of the Republocrats. A poor showing in this election would no doubt lead the general public to believe that there are a much smaller number of libertarians (both smal and large 'L') than there really are. I wonder just how many neo-cons have infiltrated the ranks of this generally most influential 3rd party?

Report violation


Posted By: MDKidd
Date: 2008-09-11 21:07:22

Be careful when you point fingers, Mr. Nolan, for there are 3 others pointing right back at yourself. Yourself, in this case, is the Libertarian Party. The party abandoned all principle this year in nominating a pair of big name ex(??) neo-cons when there were many other much better choices. Now, you stand there wringing your hands, wondering how this could have happened. Look in the mirror, Mr. Nolan. You and your party deserve what you got. You reap what you sow.

Report violation


Posted By: Scott
Date: 2008-09-11 21:17:07

Great article!  Hopefully we can take pack our party.

You forgot to mention the major censorship going on on the Barr website, any pro-Paul posts are being deleted.  I also believe that Russ Verney article was deleted, or one of them was.  Censorship by a Libertarian candidate... gotta love that. 

Report violation


Posted By: Comrade Laissez-Faire
Date: 2008-09-11 21:27:28

Johnathan Cymberknoph wrote:

"Wow Libertarians are really something. they like to cut their nose to spite their face."

The ones who voted for Barr at the convention cut their noses when they did that.

 "Barr is doing fine polling around 6% which would mean matching funds, growing the Party, exposing America to The Libertarian Party,..."

What Libertarian Party?   It's not very libertarian anymore with Barr as it's presidential candidate and Root as it's VP candidate.  May as well change the name to the Paleoconservative Party.

 "Libertarians create divisions and disent to creat chaos and destroy the momentum."

Momentum?  Enough "libertarians" basically destroyed the party by nominating Barr.

 "One may not agree with Barr's strategy but it's easy to criticize."

It certainly is for the remaining principled libertarians who were sold out by the "let's get more votes and recognition by a non-libertarian presidential candidate no matter the cost" diluted libertarians. 

" Sad to see Libertarians sabotage their own".

That's certainly true of those who nominated Barr.

 

Report violation


Posted By: John Amendall
Date: 2008-09-11 21:34:46

I don't think rewarding Bob Barr with my vote is the way to show that I'm unhappy with him.  There are other libertarian choices.  I'm eager to write in Charles Jay in my state.  In Louisiana and Montana, voters can choose Ron Paul.  In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, voters can choose George Phillies who is running with Chris Bennett.  In Florida, Charles Jay is on the ballot with John Wayne Smith.  In Colorado he's on the ballot with Dan Kilo. And in Tennessee, Charles is on the ballot with Tom Knapp.  (We tried very hard to get him on the ballot with Walter Block in Louisiana, but this failed in part because our petition team chose to put Ron Paul on the ballot there, a choice with which I won't argue.)

 Bob Barr was never a libertarian to begin with.  He barely agrees to legalize marijuana and still wants to fight the wasteful and vicious drug war at the state level.  He's a very bad man.  A vote for Barr is a vote for Barr, and to pretend that voting for a non-libertarian conveys the idea of a libertarian vote is just silly. 

Don't clutch at straws, David, and don't try to sew a sow's ear into a silk purse.  If you want a silk purse, which is a very reasonable thing to want, you have to start with silk.  Pig on a lipstick, it's still lipstick.  Lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

 I think serious libertarian activists ought to consider Peter Orvetti's idea of hedging your bets.  While the Barr campaign was busy figuring out how to self-destruct, the LNC was busy eating their own at the most recent meeting.  Bill Redpath and Aaron Starr certainly had their part to play in getting Barr nominated.  And there they were last weekend doing their best to gang rape Angela Keaton.

Report violation


Posted By: anonymoose
Date: 2008-09-11 22:00:43

For the record, Paul could have become the official nominee fairly easily. Root withdraws from race. LNC appoints Paul as new VP. News conference, press releases announce it, explain Root substitution versus names on ballots. If necessary, electors cast votes for Ron Paul instead of Wayne Root. Ta-da!

Report violation


Posted By: Steve Trinward
Date: 2008-09-11 22:05:57

well said, David ... It's funny, I have been trying to get my friends and family to vote as Ron Paul now recommends -- for whichever non Duopoly party candidate they prefer -- for about 20 years now. I don't expect them all to vote Libertarian each time, only to vote for someone they actually BELIEVE in, whoever that might be. (Voting out of "fear of the other one" has worked SO well for how long now?)

 

I'm happy and proud to be able to vote Boston Tea Party here in Tennessee, and even be listed as an elector for that ticket. I wish more folks had that option; all too many I know elsewhere are declaring their intention to write in Dr. Paul (or Mickey Mouse) despite the fact that write ins for President are even less rarely tallied than are the votes for independents whose names actually appear on the ballot. Frankly, I hope to convince enoug people here in the Volunteer State to vote Jay/Knapp, so that we outdistance the Barf/Woof fiasco ...

Report violation


Posted By: Luke
Date: 2008-09-11 22:24:16

I am not a Libertarian, I do believe in some regulation especially of corporate entities. I would however (except maybe in the case of Barr) vote for the LP before I would vote for a Republican or Democrat. I have always been a very big fan of third parties. I was thrilled with Ron Paul's endorsement, as it mimics my personal endorsement every election: "Vote Third Party!". I think that a cooperative front between all the third parties against the R&D's is the best possible way to work towards better media attention, ballot access, debate inclusion and public acceptence. I was highly disappointed by Bob Barr's failure to show. It leads me to believe that he's more opposed to his fellow third party candidates than he is to the big 2.

 I hope that in the future that all third party candidates will reach out to each other, despite obvious idealogical differences, and attack the two party system, because that's the most important issue with third parties. We need a nation where people don't immediately assume third parties can't win. Bob Barr doesn't seem too interested in that kind of nation.

Report violation


Posted By: Thane Eichenauer
Date: 2008-09-11 22:47:37

Mr. Nolan, the Libertarian Party means nothing if it does not advocate principles.  Voting for a candidate who you purport to be either incompetent or unprincipled would be to advocate supporting incompetence and unprincipled behavior.

Are you sure you aren't a pod-creature or has Russ Verney hacked your account on Nolan Chart? 

Report violation


Posted By: D. Frank Robinson
Date: 2008-09-12 00:04:42

What procedures might the Libertarian, or any American political party, do to minimize the risks of nominating a 'bull in the china shop' candidate like Bob Barr?  

One thing I think political parties should not do is to excessively formalize the nomination process with intricate party rules. Recall the damage the Democrats did to their party with the Mondale reforms.

Instead of centralizing and formalizing the campaign for the party nomination why not insist that candidates appear together on a tour before local partisans all over the country. For example, put the candidates on buses with their 'roadies' and send them out to various venues for a 'greatest hits' performance tour.

This cannot be required by party rules. But the party organizations can undertake to expedite, co-ordinate and promote this tour.

These appearance-performances can be used to generate videos for global distribution over thr web. This tour might help the candidates to reach a meeting of the minds which might avoid excessive acrimony at the nominating convention.

Of course, some candidates might drop out of the tour if they see their audiences are not receptive. Other candidates might rapidly learn and sharpen their presentation skills, build alliances with other candidates and generate such momentum that the actual nomination at the convention is in fact a genuine celebration.

This All-Star candidates tour does not have to be for just one party. Each of the other really significant alternative parties could also tour so that each party gets its own 'face time' before their supporters in a venue in the same location ir near by.

In other words, why not adopt Ron Paul's rally as a template for the customary way for these parties candidates to campaign for their nominations  getting the most bang for their bucks? Or, if you will, think of this as an opportunity for Lincoln-Douglas debates in across the nation in a 21st Century context.

After all the parties (Libertarian, Constitutional, Green, Nader, etc.) have been formally nominated, and then Independents also if they want, could continue to make many joint appearances before the general election in a similar tour format.

Narional media coverage for such a tour might be more likely and local and regional media would likely be 'deeper' in content as well.

My suggestion does not seem all that novel to me. Admitedly a lot of negotiations would be needed initially among the candidates to get such a 'rock' tour off the ground. But such negotiations are politicans are supposed to be good at. Right?  But think of the money they could generate in these coordinated appearances. And throw in some traditional entertainment as well.

I suggest that people get just a little creative and they can improve their chances of having a good outcome with their eventual candidate selection for their respective parties.

How about it? Let's roll with it, Baby! I'll bet Ron Paul would have been game for this project and might be in the future. Someone has to start every tradition. Legislation should always be the very last desperate resort.

Report violation


Posted By: Mark Watson
Date: 2008-09-12 06:26:11

As a former Buchanan Brigader active in the Reform Party (way back when) I can say I smelled a rat when I figured out early that Barr was working with Verney.

 I have been watching and contributing tangibly to the Paul campaign throughout and watched the Rally with interest when I heard Ventura say he might consider a 2012 Presidential Run via the Campaign for Liberty.

When Nolan says the Barr campaign is over, you can take that to the bank- er your numismatic coin dealer as banks are not as thrifty either...

I will take Ron Paul's advice, if I vote, to vote for Baldwin.  Vote your conscience for one of the candidates who recently signed the 4 point pledge with Ron Paul.

David Nolan, you have my respect and admiration for the many years of service to Liberty via the LP.  May I recommend a more active and prominant role for your at the CFL.  I think Ron (and the rest of us) would appreciate it.

Report violation


Posted By: EJ
Date: 2008-09-12 06:44:51

Ron Paul having a meeting with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader?  This does nothing that shows me Paul is working towards more Freedom.  Nader and McKinney are not.  I am now questioning Paul's Judgement.

Paul would not leave the Republican Party, which he has little in common.  Paul would not join the Libertarian Party, which he had much in common.  Paul meets with members of two other parties which have only one thing in common-low support.  

Paul stayed in the Republican Party yet we did not get to hear him speak at the convention.  He had to have his own rally, which did nothing for the cause.

And now everyone is pissed because Barr did not attend a meeting with McKinney and Nader present? Barr showed better sense than Paul in this matter.

Barr showed good sense not attending a meeting where two of the three were hell-bent on destruction of the principles of Liberty.

EJ

 

Report violation


Posted By: O
Date: 2008-09-12 07:19:18

Thank you, David,

           Bob Barr has been a disappointment for over 20 years and has been the point man for government tyranny for the duration of his political career.  Thus my profound disappointment when this guy actually won the LP primary.  I thought to myself, "damn, the fox got into the henhouse." He's one of the worst representatives of freedom I can imagine and, as far as I'm concerned, if he really had a change of heart, he should devote 5 or 10 years earning some credibility with his voting record, and by assisting people like Ron Paul who have stood alone in the Congress against tyranny for 30 years.

          Nevertheless, it's a damn shame, and to be expected at the same time.  Precisely the reason why minarchy will always lead to oligarchy, whether at the national level or at the party level.  

          

Report violation


Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2008-09-12 08:21:37

"Ron Paul having a meeting with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader? This does nothing that shows me Paul is working towards more Freedom."

Freedom Democrats did a vote roundup a couple of years ago on civil liberties issues. Cynthia McKinney voted the libertarian line, as represented by Ron Paul's votes, 80% of the time. Barney Frank did, too. Not a single Republican other than Paul himself exceeded 60%.

Of course, Barr was out of Congress by that time, but it's a reasonably assumption that his record in Congress was far less libertarian than Paul's -- or McKinney's.

Report violation


Posted By: The Dude
Date: 2008-09-12 08:49:54

I agree in total with the article here.  I was very dissapointed to not see Barr on the stage; Barr was not resent at what could of been a monumental moment in American Politics.  Barr and the LP parties absence set back the entire Liberty/Freedom/Revolution significantly by not showing a unified front to help attack the paralysis of the two party Duopoly. 

The point of the press-conference was to simply to address the inequites present in the current system of political exclusion and begin to attack by.  Of course libertarians/paleo-libertarians know that McKinney and Nader are socialists but they were essential to ensure that the "peace/green/socialist wing" of the democrats could be represented better by third parties.  Thereby drawing votes away from Obama.  

Dr.Paul may have some faults but I do not know of anyone single person who has been more succesful at changing the political landscape of the country.  Dr. Paul has enlightened millions of Americans to think of freedom/liberty and Consititutionally restrained government.  For this reason alone the LP and Barr should have been at the conference.  The LPs/Barr lost my vote and money by what happened that day.   

 

Report violation


Posted By: Coming back to the LP
Date: 2008-09-12 09:28:09

I think Bob Barr made the right choice in not joining in with the three others at Ron Paul’s press conference. He made the right choice for this year’s campaign, the right choice for maximizing his votes and fundraising, the right choice for building the Libertarian Party, and the right choice in the fight for Liberty.

Having said that, I can also say that had I been the LP nominee, I would have attended Ron Paul’s press conference, and then held my own after.

So why was this the right move?

1st: It’s because, when it comes to Libertarian Principles, the other 3 candidates up there ARE NOWHERE NEAR LIBERTARIAN - none of them. There is not one of the other 3 who would move the country in a libertarian direction.

Sure, they all have some good points. But you can go back through history and probably find at least one point and maybe even four points of agreement with nearly anyone.

2nd: We are building a brand, a Party of Principle that stands for liberty, and we must not dilute or confuse our message by joining a “me too” gang of even lesser 3rd party hangers on.

And it’s really ironic that those who have lamented Bob Barr’s sometimes conservatarian and not quite Libertarian positions on some issues, that when he took this truly PRINCIPLED stand to be a more pure candidate in support of Liberty, a more pure Libertarian, he has been criticized.

3rd: This is doubly ironic, because Ron Paul was often critiqued as being not pure enough and not quite Libertarian on many issues.

And now that Bob Barr continues to evolve gradually, moving closer and closer to being the Pure Libertarian that many, including myself, wish he was, he is attacked for being too Principled.

4th: For those of us who actually want to win and move the country in a Libertarian direction, we have to realize that Ron Paul’s role is ending.

Now, I don’t blame him. He’s old. He’s tired. His wife has been ill. He had plenty of reasons NOT to run for President. And it’s easier and comfortable now for him to stay with the Republicans. He can make a principled show inside congress and point out the follies and failures of the Democrats and, more importantly, the Republicans.

But, this is where his contribution will end. The Republican Party is a fascist-socialist monolith. It is an evil, diabolical monster. It cannot be changed and the fight for LIBERTY can ony be successfully engaged outside that monster. The Republican monster must be killed if we are ever to be free.

People who remain inside the belly of the Republican monster are feeding the enemy.

And for all his money and attention, Ron Paul's supporters are staying in and donating to the Republican monster.

The other 3rd parties and not moving in the right direction at all.

If we are to win, we must build a large, well respected, successful, reasonable, rational, PRINCIPLED Party for Liberty.

The Libertarian Party is that party. And in this election we must all support and stick with Bob Barr for President.

He took a courageous, bold, principled stand for US in our fight for freedom. He will help us grow, build our brand, reach out to new people, and shed some of the image of the LP being cultish, small, and dominated by single minded zealots.

Now, if it were me, I would have attended Ron Paul’s little show - out of loyalty, because he’s my friend.

Then, I would have held my own Press Conference to show that the LP is the only political vehicle on the road to Liberty.

Report violation


Posted By: Robert Kliewer
Date: 2008-09-12 10:04:27

Loyalty to the Constitution being my primary motivation, Baldwin gets my vote, in spite of his superstitious beliefs.  Barr should be smacked down and made an example for any future "hijackers" to contemplate. 

Report violation


Posted By: James R.
Date: 2008-09-12 11:36:02

So, comingback, what you're saying is that if Bob Barr were a soft drink manufacturer and he had a newish brand (let's call it Liberty Liquid) and a national department store (let's call it Paul's) offered to carry his soft drink and the stipulation was that it wouldn't be in the cooler with Coke and Pepsi but in the cooler with the smaller brands of Snapple, Arizona Iced Tea and Jones Soda, etc., Bob would be smart in turning that offer down?

That would mean that no one who shops a Paul's would be made aware of Liberty Liquid. Not a very smart marketing strategy in my opinion. 

Report violation


Posted By: Porcupine
Date: 2008-09-12 12:54:43

Well said.

I can tell you that Morey is working hard knocking on doors in his district. Morey has a real shot at winning in NH as does LP candidate Brendan Kelly  ([link edited for length]) as he is already an elected official in his town.

We welcome all to come and work hard in the Free State.

www.freestateproject.org

Report violation


Posted By: Ayn R. Key
Date: 2008-09-12 13:07:07

I have publicly stated that if Barr files the Texas Ballot Access lawsuit I'll donate to him - a real donation this time.  I'll not repudiate that statement.  I will say that my donation will be a one time instead of an opening of the floodgates.

Report violation


Posted By: James Anderson Merritt
Date: 2008-09-12 15:16:22

I am very conflicted about the Barr candidacy. I think he was lamentably late in denouncing the drug war, but he has recently done so (and more definitively than leaving the States to fight their own Drug Wars). I acknowledge that there are some places where he bafflingly neglects to mention the Libertarian Party or libertarianism, yet I have personally witnessed many media moments that clearly identify Bob with the Libertarian party or libertarianism, often through his own self-declaration. I think he made a huge mistake in handling the Paul press conference as he did, but the impulse to break away from the third-party ghetto didn't start with the Barr candidacy.

On the plus side, I haven't had to hunt for media appearances nearly as much as I did when Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne were running, and Barr isn't treated as a crank when he does appear on MSM shows. Especially on the topic of the Drug War, Barr has articulated sufficiently libertarian poisitions in a way that makes sense to a lot of people, opening their eyes to libertarianism (and inspiring more questions from my own friends and associaties about libertarianism and the LP than I have received in previous election cycles). If the polling numbers I keep hearing about are real and can be believed, Barr has a stronger and more durable base of support, coming down the home stretch into the election, than any other LP Presidential candidate in my memory.

I wanted more of a purist as a candidate. But given that Bob Barr is what we have, here's my Pascal's wager:

 1. If Barr wins, and he is true to his campaign rhetoric, America will start turning back in a good Libertarian direction.

2. If Barr wins, and governs according to politics-as-usual, we won't be any worse off than we were with the Bushies or Clintons in office. Plus, with a Libertarian in the White House, more people will have "permission" to vote for Libertarian congressmen, senators, governors, and state house reps.

3. If Barr loses, but with healthy vote totals, Libertarians may qualify for matching campaign funds (which, I agree, we shouldn't take), achieve broader ballot access, and in general be better positioned to run more effective campaigns for the Presidency and hundreds of other offices in 2010 and 2012. Also, the bigger the spash that we and Bob Barr make this year, the more respect and coverage we will get from MSM during the next several election cycles.

The only way for us to really lose is to implode and attract even fewer votes this year than in previous Presidential campaigns. I see this as a real possibility if people abandon the LP/Barr campaign in droves.

Bob Barr made a tremendous mistake yesterday, in my opinion. But if he learns some good lessons from this, and redoubles his efforts to run a libertarian campaign that appeals to libertarians between now and November, he will continue to be worthy of my support. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because of the potential he showed to bring people around to libertarian positions on touchy topics such as the Drug War: look at his recent statements on his website, in the Huffington Post, and from time to time on TV. If he continues along this path on behalf of drug war opposition, and performs similarly when discussing other topics that are usually "dealbreakers" for non-libertarians, then he'll be doing us a great service and will deserve our support. Let's pay careful attention to what happens over the next few weeks.

Report violation


Posted By: Rocketman
Date: 2008-09-12 17:26:30

Until about 36 hours ago when I learned the whole story about why Barr had not shown up at Ron Paul's event I HAD PLANNED on voting for him even though I had originally supported Mary Ruward.  NO LONGER.  Everyone in the LP who derided Christine Smith at the convention for her issues against Barr's candidacy owes her a big apology.  It's clear now that Barr is nothing but a big government republican trying to use the LP to advance his career at the expense of the LP's principals.  As soon as this election is over with every LP member should write the National committee and tell them either they kick Barr out of the LP or they will leave themselves.

Report violation


Posted By: James Anderson Merritt
Date: 2008-09-12 22:08:44

One thing I wanted to add about Barr's mishandling of the Paul press conference is tactical in nature: Although Barr might not want to appear on the same stage as such collectivists as McKinney and Nader, his willingness to link arms with them to achieve common goals, and TO DEBATE THEM, would help him attain greater media penetration.

I am a member of my local cable tv public access facility, which runs channels that are available to tens of thousands of cable tv subscribers across two cable tv systems in my county. Santa Cruz CA is fairly liberal, and were the Barr campaign to do a long-form program (as Harry Brown did a couple of elections back), I might have a hard time placing it on one of our public access channels. But if Barr were to debate Nader or McKinney, that would be a slam-dunk placement. Sadly, I think Barr may have burned his bridges by refusing to appear with Nader and McKinney at Paul's press conference. Maybe not, but why would he knowingly jeopardize an easy path to reaching tens or hundreds of thousands of cable tv viewers across the country?

The problem with Barr's decision concerning the RP press conference is that it makes the job harder for us grassroots-guys, trying to get fair exposure for our candidate. That's just a dumb tactical mistake, unless by committing it, he has opened the door to greater exposure through other channels. I guess we'll see what happens.

Report violation


Posted By: Bill
Date: 2008-09-13 04:55:36

Bob Barr was never a serious candidate and the libertarian party needs to realize that they are completely out of the stream of liberty for picking him in the first place.

Report violation


Posted By: Striker
Date: 2008-09-13 07:14:33

good writing, Mr Nolan. 

As a libertarian from it's beginning (and before) but not very active because people are so brainwashed it's useless...

Barr is the straw that broke the camel's back.  We'll never see the LP recover from this.  All we might do is talk principles thru our economic collapse and hope to pull us out of the Dark Age with some voices for objective morality.

I ask you permit my leaving my URL

http://morality101.net/blog/

thank you

Report violation


Posted By: John Howell
Date: 2008-09-13 09:52:56

Is it possible to impeach a nominee?  If the Convention were held today, I'm sure Mary would win on the first ballot, knowing what we all know now. A Ruwart Phillies ticket would have  kicked arse.

Report violation


Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-09-13 11:10:09

This is a bit off topic but in my opinion, the cause of this problem is the Libertarian party's nominating process. In the 2004 election there was bad blood between Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo which resulted in Michael Badnarik being nominated. When Nolan was eliminated he urged his followers to vote for Badnarik. That pushed Badnarik ahead of Russo and gave him the nomination. I have nothing against Michael Badnarik but I think Russo actually had more support.

In this election, when Root was eliminated he threw his support behind Barr which pushed him ahead of Mary Ruwart.

When one's favored candidate is eliminated its probably natural to support whichever candidate he throws his support behind. But that means making a snap decision without necessarily giving it enough thought. Maybe a better solution would be an instant runoff. That would prevent the eliminated candidate from making an emotional appeal to his supporters. And it should help to prevent any back room deal making. At least it would be quicker, if nothing else.

Report violation


Posted By: Brian D
Date: 2008-09-13 13:15:43

So let me get this straight. If you have not been a Libertarian for at least twenty years you are not true blue. If your campaign has broad appeal to people who are not card carrying libertarians than you are a betrayer. If you do not agree with the orthodoxy one hundred percent you are not worthy. If you have any political experience and a record that in any way can incriminate you, you are not true blue. Only people with absolutely no experience should be Libertarian candidates. Unless you talk about the Libertarian Party on every opportunity and put the name on everything and shove it into everybodies face you are not a Libertarian. No wonder everyone thinks we are a bunch of fractured, egotistical, nut jobs who think we are right about everything. There is no one that is good enough for all of us to get behind. If someone disagrees with the party line they are to be run out. If we don't like someones style or personality we run them out. We do everything possible to frustrate people and cause them to drop out. From day one you people planned to pick on every little thing and criticize every decision congressman Barr made. A campaign trys to get as many votes as possible. A party tries to educate and get as many members as possible. A movement tries to influence other parties and the population as a whole. Learn the difference. 

Report violation


Posted By: Alan
Date: 2008-09-13 14:38:02

Good article, but the advice to vote for Barr is nonsense. If it comes down to a choice between party and principle, I'll have to go with principle and vote for Baldwin. Since he is running for national office, and I do believe that he and the Constitution Party correctly understand the state's rights issue, I will support him for president. Some of the Constitution Party's positions on religion scare the hell outta me, but under their (correct) interpretation of the Constitution, they wouldn't have the power to make much of a mess out of that. Constitution Party candidates at the state and local level would really worry me.

Starchild: WOW... Ron Paul not libertarian enough? Maybe he's not Libertarian enough, but he's more libertarian than anyone else I've seen out there, and most of all he has a proven track record of sticking to those principles, even in the face of temptation.

Report violation


Posted By: Phideaux
Date: 2008-09-13 19:50:46

I'm a card-carrying LP member for 28 years, so I've been around almost as long as David Nolan. :-)

I think so far this thread has missed the biggest point: which IMHO is that selecting the "most Libertarian" candidate for the nomination is almost guaranteed to result in a negligible vote count for the ticket.

The majority of the American public doesn't give a hoot about political ideology and policies. In this celebrity-obsessed culture, it's all about the candidate, personally.

To get the attention of the MSM and the American public, we have to stop splitting hairs about which candidate is most "righteous." Righteousness may get a candidate nominated, but it doesn't get votes among the non-libertarian populace, at least not in 21st century America. A ticket of Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton would win 15% of the vote.

Unfortunately, the only "solution" I see is to nominate a "celebrity" libertarian. Clint Eastwood is too old now, I know he carries a lot of baggage and he is not popular with purists, but a guy like Jesse Ventura is the only "celebrity" I see on the political stage who has what it takes to get the attention of the media and the public, and get votes. Who else?

The LP as a whole has gone essentially nowhere in the last 25 years. If winning elections is the objective, the party have to change tactics to change the inevitable outcome, Otherwise, Walter Williams is correct, if you know what I mean.

Report violation


Posted By: Ayn R. Key
Date: 2008-09-13 21:31:00

To those who criticize those of us who are leaving Barr as being "purists" and wanting the purest candidate...

 You would have a point if Barr and Root were impure libertarians instead of not libertarians.

Report violation


Posted By: James R.
Date: 2008-09-14 06:18:23

Phideaux, The other "celebrity" who walks the libertarian line is ex-Governor Gary Johnson. 

A Johnson/Ventura 2012 run would be the LP dream ticket. Now we (as card carriers for almost 3 decades) have to prove to them they would have a chance to win. We should also convince Libertarian and persuasion expert Kevin Hogan to join the campaign staff. 

In the meantime I'll vote Barr. He has no chance of winning and will hopefully garner enough votes to make it easier to get the Johnson/Ventura ticket on the ballot in all 50 states. 

Report violation


Posted By: Nader McKinney
Date: 2008-09-14 06:36:30

Dr Ron & Ralph

"The two parties should be
almost identical, so that
the American people can
'throw the rascals out'
at any election without
leading to any profound or
extensive shifts in policy."
- Carol Quigley

Cynthia Mike Dennis Jesse Ross Jimmy

And the men* who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality
Closer to the heart

Report violation


Posted By: Phideaux
Date: 2008-09-14 07:32:57

James R.,
I do like Gary Johnson and his track record, I just think he doesn't have the same celebrity appeal of Ventura or others. They're both ex-governors, let them arm-wrestle for top billing on the ticket. :-)

I think Ventura already thinks he can win. If he can fire up and tap into Howard Beale's "I'm as made as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." I think he can win, too.
Ventura has some of the best qualities of both Ron Paul and Ross Perot, with the added "in-your-face" attitude that the media needs to follow the campaign closely.
I hate to use the analogy, but Barr is the lesser of the evils.

Report violation


Posted By: John Wayne Smith
Date: 2008-09-14 07:53:05

 Carole Ann Rand runs "campaign" to bump Bob Barr:  

 [July 27, 2002] Georgia businesswoman and longtime Libertarian activist Carole Ann Rand has agreed to challenge US Rep. Bob Barr for his seat in congress, cresting a "two-pronged attack" intended to help unseat the four-time incumbent.

It worked and we should have stuck to the original plan of keeping him out of public office.

While I had no problem with Barr being a member of the LP when he first joined I did resist his being on the National Committee and spoke out strongly aginst him at the Orlando Fl. LNC/State Chairs conference in March 2007.

At that time I knew he was going to run for President under the LP lable and it would be a disaster.  

Although it is mean spirited to say "I told you so" I did tell everyone who would listen. For 15 months I worked very hard to keep it from happening. Things have happened just as I perdicted they would.

Sad to say, I am not one to take such standing up so I made the choice to join the budding "Boston Tea Party" to try to limit his vote total in Florida.

While I may not get much from this election I will exit it with my soul and beliefs intact.

I ask all who have the choice to Vote for the BTP candidates for national office.

Charles Jay is the Presidential Candidate and Tom Knapp is the national VP candidate, but in several states there are "favorite Son" VP candidates to increase the vote total.

I am the "favorite son" VP candidate for Florida. Vote BTP on November 4, 2008.

 Thank You,
John Wayne Smith, Chair
Boston Tea Party of Florida
http://www.bostontea.us 
2008 Vice Presidential Candidate for the Florida Boston Tea Party
CEO, 1000 Planets, Inc.
Building a Private Road to the Stars!
Http://www.1000Planets.com 
203 W. Magnolia St.
Leesburg Florida 34748
2010 Libertarian Party Candidate for Governor of Florida

Report violation


Posted By: Richard Rider
Date: 2008-09-14 10:36:46

RICHARD RIDER COMMENT:  I opposed the Barr/Root nomination, but was not too concerned about it, so I did not "campaign" against them. 
 
We can all see the problems this candidacy is causing for the LP faithful.  But I see two odd, unanticipated advantages from their abortive campaign.
 
1.  There has always been a "win at all costs" wing of the LP.  Their flawed premise is that the primary role of a political party -- even an ideological third party -- is to win elections and come to power.  Now we get to see what the result is when you select wimp pseudo-Libertarian candidates to achieve that goal.
 
As we'll discover in November, we'll do poorly -- well, at least no better than usual.  As the election approaches and the "wasted vote" issue comes into play, Barr's current 6% poll preference will melt away like May snow.   The LP presidential vote total will be under a half percent, as always.
 
Hence it will be shown, once and for all, that running an "electable" Libertarian candidate who is not a Libertarian serves no purpose except to alienate the party faithful.  No money from non-Libertarians came into the Barr campaign, and the LP core didn't contribute hardly anything either. 
 
BTW, I'll probably still vote for Barr in November.  As I see it, I'm not voting for Barr -- I'm voting for the LP.  But I won't give him money.
 
There two other sensible vote options:
 
A.  Do not vote in that race at all.  That does NOT mean you refrain from voting on other matters -- our other LP candidates and the any props on the ballot.
 
B.  Write in ANYONE's name for President.  Doesn't matter who.  That's because any write-in names that are not ballot qualified (there's usually a write-in qualification procedure) are not tablulated.  All anyone analyzing the vote can see is that some people didn't vote for President, or effectively voted NOTA.
 
BTW, I still haven't decided which option I'll pick.
 
2.  The failed Barr campaign should galvanize the solid Libertarians into getting more involved in the 2012 LP presidential selection process.  Conversely, it should discourage the "compromise and win" wing of the party -- throwing a bucket of cold reality in their face.
 
The Barr candidacy is a wakeup call that if we want solid Libertarians to win the nomination, we need to get more active in the nomination effort.  That will be good for the party.

Report violation


Posted By: Jack Tanner
Date: 2008-09-14 11:06:53

Since Bob Barr was elected as the Libertarian candidate for President, his campaign provided more positive comments and interviews in the news media, about the Libertarian Party, than all the previous Libertarian candidates.

We get positive response in our area with
President BARR wave and yard signs (80 cents)

http://www.artypeinc.com/store/

http://bobbarr.meetup.com/65

Report violation


Posted By: Lojiko
Date: 2008-09-14 11:15:09

I can understand constructive criticism, but this is sabotage.  Couldn't you have saved the back-biting until, AFTER the election? 

Report violation


Posted By: Allan Wallace
Date: 2008-09-14 12:09:08

Mr. Nolan, your assesment of the situation is basically right, but you attribute too much of your dislike of Barr on his perceived insult of Paul. If that had never hapened, you would still be right to write Barr off.

 Some people have the mistaken belief that Barr's media attention (which has actually been no better than any other LP candidate at this point in the campaign) has been a Positive for the LP. This is false. In each and every interview that I have witnessed, or read Barr blatently misrepresents what libertarians believe, representing libertarianism as an offshoot of conservatism. It is wrong for him to do this and it is in no sense a positive for the LP. (even though it might be a positive for someone who sells Barr for Pres. yard signs.)

Pro-Barr neo-cons have taken key positions in the LP. We should not give them reason to celebrate a high vote total for Barr and solidify their positions in the party.

 There is only one reason to hold your nose and vote for Barr in November, and that is if your state LP depends on the vote totals for President to attain or maintain Ballot Access. Ask your state chair if this is the only race that determines ballot access in your state, and if it is, Vote for Barr. If it is not the case, then you might want to consider some other option.

 I am an Elector for Barr in Tennessee. I volunteered to do this to help my state LP. But, this is the first time in 20 years I am absolutely ashamed of the LP Candidate.

In other words, I won't be buying any yard signs.

Report violation


Posted By: Jay Polk
Date: 2008-09-14 13:22:31

Ron Paul asked people to vote for ANY third party, including the communist Green Party or Ralph Nader!! How can any liberty-loving American defend Ron Paul's decision to include these two?

I, for one, am glad Bob Barr stood for his libertarian principles and chose not to have himself lumped in with anti-liberty candidates.

I hope those of you who have withdrawn your support of Barr will re-think your position.

Report violation


Posted By: USAF Vet Dan
Date: 2008-09-14 16:58:39

David,

 You hit the bulls-eye and then split the arrow.  Barr demonstrated his complete lack of political competence by snubbing Ron Paul's news conference.  Every Libertarian I've talked to since has declared their intention to vote for anybody but Barr. 

The only thing I can add is to your list of other candidates to donate to.  At risk of appearing to be self-serving ;-) my Libertarian congressional campaign could use some financial assistance to pay for the legal expenses we've incurred fighting the Illinois Board of Elections for fair ballot access laws.  The case has proceded to the Illinois 1st Appellate Court where we expect to lose (because of state political corruption).  We will then take the case to the Federal Appellate Court where we expect to achieve victory.  My RepubliCrat opponents needed about 800 signatures.  As a Libertarian, I was required to submit 10,000, but turned in about 7,200.  The only difference between Illinois and Russia is that they have more rights in Russia.

Thanks for a great article.

 Dan Druck

Druck for Congress

Illinois 14th CD

www.TimeForDan.com

Report violation


Posted By: Andrew
Date: 2008-09-14 18:36:02

As Chair of the Libertarian Party of Utah, I think this article is at best just stupid, and at worst . .  well, you just pick a term.  My job is to support Libertarian candidates.  Many of you continue to pine away for Ron Paul, who is NOT coming to help you.  The delegates in Denver picked a candidate who they thought would help get out our message and build the party.  No, I DON'T agree with everything he is doing; but he IS our candidate.  Now, let's get him some money and some votes, and stop bellyaching.  In 4 years, maybe YOUR candidate will get the nomination; and then you will want OUR help.  As of now, I reserve the right to remember how you acted this year.  Maybe I'll help, and maybe . . .

Andy

Report violation


Posted By: D. Frank Robinson
Date: 2008-09-14 18:45:47

Another lesson to take from the Barr-Root fiasco is this: focus on electing just one additional Libertarian to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Any state, any district.  Start now to elect an LP Congressperson in 2010. How about David F. Nolan?  If David declines, then how about Dr. Mary Ruwart for Congress?

How much would it take? Half-million is a very respectable and winning budget for Congress. For a Presidential candidate it's just chump change.  

I've been waiting since 1977 for this strategy to emerge in the LP.  There could a silver lining to this disaster  in 2010.

Report violation


Posted By: Ken Wyble
Date: 2008-09-14 21:44:16

Nothing wrong with the Colorado LP, we've raised the most for the Barr/Root ticket and now focusing on our local candidates and while we would like to get a large turnout vote for Barr, we're not holding our breath. We've effectively doubled the registered Libertarians in the State since 2004 so we're pretty excited about our local efforts and I remind everybody of the values statement that Colorado adopted in 2007 that guides us. http://www.lpcolorado.org/platform.aspx#Values and no presidential candidate is going to push us away from them and I would hope that any Libertarian candidate for President reads them before campaigning for Colorado votes. This is evidenced by the 7 NOTA's on the final ballot by the 30 delegates for Colorado this past May.

Report violation


Posted By: Rich Piotrowski
Date: 2008-09-14 22:31:02

As a two time LP Congressional candidate, its sad to see what has happened to the party this year. To me its 100% obvious and clear what has happened. Barr is a former Republican that has moved towards liberty, plain and simple, but to many at the convention that was not good enough and they opposed him. His most positive attribute, which is why he was nominated, is that he is a strong campaigner.  To many people he is a serious threat to McCain and those people, many of them Ron Paul supporters, do not want to see the D's win. To them seeing the R's win is more important than gaining liberty. That makes Barr a threat to them, even though he is a 1000% better than McCain. It just doesn't matter, can't let those d's win now can we. To these people protecting the Republican Party is just more important than liberty.

These people have jumped all over Barr from day one, and they are using the old tried and true Republican tricks to bash him. This Press Conference, which there is more then one version going around as to what really happened, is their latest attempt to bash him. The sad part is how many LP members are falling for it. On a positive note, I'm now seeing many of the hard-line LP members that strongly opposed Barr's nomination are coming out in support of him. I predict that trend will continue as more people will see this for what it is in the coming days or weeks.

Make no mistake here, Barr is the candidate for liberty on the ballot, and when you see the bashing, most likely is coming from someone who would rather see Mr War himself, McCain, elected.

Report violation


Posted By: Jeremy West
Date: 2008-09-14 22:34:03

Great thoughts David. I especially agree with your point on putting your money into something that will make good use of it. I go even further (http://www.nolanchart.com/article4866.html) and say that libertarian politics is over. I believe we have got the point across to those in the political realm that there is more to politics than left and right. It's high time we put our money where our mouths are and stop supporting politics and put our money into free market solutions instead. 

Report violation


Posted By: MoultrieGAConservative
Date: 2008-09-15 14:33:54

     Horse-Manure!  This is exactly the kind of purist, defeatist crap that has resulted in too many American voters never seriously considering the LP as a viable alternative.  Just when I think that the LP might have finally matured enough as a party to recognize a golden opportunity and nominate a pragmatist rather than a purist, you seemed poised to piss away that opportunity.  You better wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late.  While too much government intervention is most certainly a bad thing, a pure "laissez faire" approach to government does not work either.

     Bob Barr may well be the best thing that's happened to the LP in a very long time.  Because Barr is a libertarian pragmatist, he is able to gain votes for the LP from constitutional conservatives such as myself who cannot support either "major party" option this time.  If you truly believe in the principles of limited government, then you really only have two choices here.  ONE:  You can grow up, get realistic, and grow the LP by becoming more pragmatic and less purist (i.e., get rid of the "dogs that won't hunt" in your party platform).  TWO:  You can persist in childish infighting, insist on ideological "purity" from Libertarian candidates, and ensure that the LP is forever relegated to little more than a minor footnote in American political history.  So, which will it be?

Mitch Hiers

Constitutional Conservative

Veteran of the U.S. Naval Security Group

Life Member of the VFW, NRA, and NAHC

Moultrie, Georgia, USA

September 15th, 2008

 

Report violation


Posted By: Tully
Date: 2008-09-15 16:06:55

Sorry, David, but I disagree.  

First of all, while I voted for Ron Paul, the reality is that the Paulites were unable to effectively translate support into significant votes.  In fact, in spite of their ability to raise money, their electoral success and campaign organization was just as sloppy, if not more so, than Barrs.

Second, the LIbertarian Party has never been able to put forth a candidate, rally around him or her, and translate their passion into votes. Barr's pissing off Libertarians and Paulites is really a non-issue.....he couldnt count on them anyway, and they carry no electoral clout.

Rather than declaring the end of Bob Bar's campaign, it may actually be time to declare of Purist Libertarianism, and the growth of a real third party movement.

Report violation


Posted By: Ben
Date: 2008-09-15 16:56:00

I agree, in part. There’s no reason this Barr/Paul mess had to happen. Barr should have attended Paul’s press conference. When it was his turn to speak, he should have said that he hopes everyone could further agree that Ron Paul should have been the one third party candidate running for the Presidency, which was exactly what Barr had in mind when he tried to recruit him to head the LP ticket, just as Paul headed the ticket in ‘88. He could then go on to say that he intends to bring Ron Paul’s message of liberty to the American people and widen the coalition beyond the one that Paul started in the GOP primary. Nolan’s criticism that “Clearly, Barr is not running as a Libertarian; he is running as an independent” is unfair. I have followed his campaign closely, and he always identifies himself with the Party. When the Libertarian Party is brought up by a reporter, he is always eager to explain its principles. He is always proud, not embarrassed, to be a Libertarian However, Barr does avoid the L-word in his campaign materials – but this is consistent with other parties. Look at the web sites, signs, and bumper stickers of the R and D – none of them have party labels. So he’s not running away from the party label, he’s simply running his campaign more in keeping with the times. (a strategic decision I disagree with, BTW) Barr’s stupidity in dealing with the Paul event is stunning, especially since he could have benefited the most from it. But one batty move won’t budge this Libertarian from the Party of Principle, and a Presidential campaign that is doing us proud.

Report violation


Posted By: Richie
Date: 2008-09-15 18:01:49

Mr. Nolan,

With all due respect, I disagree with your opinion on voting for Bob Barr this November.  One thing that I constantly heard when I was registered as a "Ron Paul Republican" was that I should vote for John McCain to keep Republicans in power and to keep Barack Obama out of the White House.  According to the individuals who pushed this, McCain is a radically better candidate than Obama.  In other words, the lesser of the two evils argument that we hear every single election!  I'm sad to hear a watered down version of this argument being used by the founder of the Libertarian Party.  I can not bring myself to vote according to party.  I will either be leaving the Presidential slot blank or voting for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.  He's more of a libertarian than Barr, which is saying something.

Report violation


Posted By: Jake Witmer
Date: 2008-09-16 22:09:24

David Nolan's article is factually correct.

 The conclusion he has reached is certainly one I cannot argue with, although I will be voting for Wayne Root in November, since I like him, and know that he has no control over Russell Verney. Shane Cory and Russell Verney chose not to be on the ballot in WV, and Sean Haugh chose not to be on the ballot in CT and elsewhere. The incompetence of Shane and Sean is legendary among libertarian petitioners (this does not include the neocon agent provacateur Eric Dondero).

Those who want more information about Nationwide ballot access for the LP should call me. My cell phone is 907-250-5503.

Ballot access for all 50 states in the form of major party status is easily possible for the LP. Six states can be begun immediately, and should be. I have decided to actually complete this ballot access work myself. I will do this personally, as a part of a small group of friends who are determined to prevent Sean Haugh and Scott Kohlhaas from destroying the LP.

  Payments will be overseen by George Phillies' group Freedom Ballot Access, and regular updates of EXACTLY what those donations have purchased will be posted on that website. Contributions can be made here: ( [link edited for length] ) If you want me to contribute signatures to the process, simply put BA JW into the "notes" section for your contribtution, so that FBA will know that you are donating because you read this post. You will not be paying one single cent to me for fundraising (you will simply be paying the fundraising website a low processing fee for doing the fundraising, something like 6%. None of this money goes to Freedom Ballot Access, except perhaps $50-$100 per month to the FBA Treasurer for no more than 4 hours of work at $25/hour). This dramatically beats what is typically paid to a LP fundraiser: 25% to 50%.

If you don't want to send the money to Freedom Ballot Access, you can send it directly to the Alabama Libertarian Party, at this web address: ( [link edited for length] ), since that is the first large State LP project that we will be completing (it is scheduled to take us 4 to 6 months, giving the AL LP plenty of time to field candidates and to campaign). We will be collecting enough signatures to qualify the AL LP for both the 2010 gubernatorial election and the 2012 Presidential election, all at the same time, so that the work need not be duplicated four years from now.

In this way, the libertarian movement is decentralized, and unstoppable, and uncorruptable (assuming that the LP nominating process is not corrupted. And even if it is corrupted, there will be other third parties on the ballot to punish the corrupters at the ballot box). The top 4 libertarian activists in the LP's 2004 ballot access drive (in terms of valid signature personal production, to the best of my knowledge), will all be performing equal work on this job. If any one of the team stops performing, the others will replace him. No deadline is dependent on any one petitioner (which is true of all petition drives that have any chance of success, but deserves mentioning anyway).

  I already have valid petitions from the AL Secretary of State, and can begin any time the LP decides to "ramp itself up". The Alabama LP State Chair can verify that this is all correct and true.

  I strongly suggest that people contribute to this worthy cause: Libertarian Party Ballot Access for 2010 and 2012. Don't forget the "down ticket" candidates for 2010 (they will not get on the ballot without this effort)! They have a better chance of achieving high vote totals, and a better chance of getting eventually getting elected.

Funding this project will also distribute a minimum of 500 ISIL FIJA pamphlets each week. Here is the (linked) text of the pamphlet: http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/new-hope-fija.html

  In addition to that, I personally have pledged to collect email addresses from anyone who signs the petition and who is willing to give me their email address for further contact from the AL LP. This is gauranteed to grow the LP in any State my efforts are financially supported.

As signatures are collected, I will be paid, and not before (thus avoiding situations like the LP ballot access drive Nebraska in 2006).

The Libertarian Movement is what you make of it. If you are not willing to do the activism, then you can pay me to do it. 

  In addition to LP ballot access, I will be placing the Constitution Party on the Ballot in any state that they so wish. Although I am a Libertarian Party Member, I support all political parties having access to the ballot, since that decentralizes power, and is in itself a libertarian goal (see: [link edited for length] ). This also promotes competition, and competition produces better results (after all, competition produced this offer, which is only 1/3 as expensive as the competing offer, which accomplishes half as much).

:D

Sincerely,

Jake Witmer
907-250-5503

Report violation


Posted By: Robert Eckerson
Date: 2008-09-16 23:03:54

Touche.   I'll be holding my nose to vote for Barr in Nov., but sorry no money for you Bob.

Report violation


Posted By: Jean-Christophe Roux
Date: 2008-09-17 02:39:18

Why should we support the efforts of the Libertarian Party to be on the ballot in many states when its members nominate someone like Bob Barr with such an awful pas and present record?

Report violation


Posted By: ken
Date: 2008-09-20 00:07:55

RE: The pro-LRC LP Chair of Utah, note they're running a religious kook who wants a theocracy for governor.

RE: Mitch Hiens, he let's the cat out of the bag on what I've been saying for years: these so-called pragmatists are out to destroy the LP and will attack any platform we have to disrupt and confuse people. That's why he denounces the present platform approved by his idol Barr. See?

When they say pragmatist, they mean religio-fascist. 

 

Report violation


Posted By: Alice Lillie
Date: 2008-09-20 20:49:54

David, you're right.

I'll vote for him, but that's about it.

The way things are going in this country, we cannot afford to play the big boys' game. We have to dig our heels in and be the Party of Principle.

Report violation


Posted By: Ben Kalafut
Date: 2008-10-01 22:14:24

Revisiting this a month later, it appears that the declaration was premature; fundraising, press coverage, etc. are all alive and well

 It's interesting how failure has been defined upward.  Had Browne or Badnarik gotten this much attention--or even the positive name-check in the New York Times--it would be called success.  But insulting a paleocon and inducing him to show his true colors, that's failure.  Surely, losing out on support of some of the Ron Paul Mouse Army of Awkward Loners is going to hurt.  But how is Barr doing in the polls?  The campaign has been a disappointment, yes, but that's because of our high expectations.  Disappointment does not equate to objective failure.

 One gets the impression that Nolan, still bitter from the defeat of the "my scruples, right-or-wrong" small-party faction at the Convention, simply would *like* Barr to fail.

Report violation


Posted By: Patrick Hubble
Date: 2008-10-02 05:46:44

I'm voting for Bob Barr and sending him money! Bob Barr hasn't been a "life time" Libertarian since leaving the womb, like some claim. (I personally joined the LP in 2000) I do know what he has done and that is he has sacrificed a lot of time with family, personal money, and has been working tirelessly since starting his campaign. He does promote the Libertarian Party and has done a lot furthering our common cause of liberty. I hope many of you will reconsider your support in helping this year financial and with your vote.

sincerely, Patrick Hubble, Treasurer Lynchburg Libertarians, Lynchbrug, VA.

      

Report violation


Posted By: Chris
Date: 2008-10-08 22:57:11

I didn't really like this article, so I looked for a thumbs down and there isn't one? :)   Seems ridiculously one-sided.   I accidently clicked on thumbs up, so congrats on the extra thumb! :) 

Report violation