A day later, the storm around "Snubgate" -- Bob Barr's no-show at Ron Paul's 'unity event' press conference -- continues to gather strengh. Just some of the day's many stories: by George Dance
(libertarian)
Friday, September 12, 2008
Iowa Independent:
Independent candidates [...] will split the vote all over the place, if Ron Paul has his way. He endorsed… well, no one in particular on Wednesday, but rather third parties in general and Not McCain in the specific, making a point of saying that he’d gotten a last minute call from the McCain campaign asking for an endorsement and that he’s turned them down. Everyone assumes Paul is really backing Bob Barr, whose running mate this week offered to stand down for Paul. Paul, meanwhile, is coasting to re-election to the house — on the Republican ticket. He may have to eat lunch alone next year.
(John Deeth, "Lipstick on a Pig, Snakes on a Plane," Iowa Independent, Sep. 11, 2008.) http://iowaindependent.com/5381/lipstick-on-a-pig-snakes-on-a-plane
-
Hartford Courant:
Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was a no-show. So, popular renegade Paul and bane of corporations Ralph Nader shared a lot of microphone time pushing the rest-of-the-ballot hopefuls.
(Not showing up to Paul's party certainly doesn't bode well for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr's overture yesterday to Rep. Ron Paul to get him on the Libertarian ticket.)
(Jesse A. Hamilton, "Nader and Paul Ideological Seatmates," Hartford Courant, Sep. 11, 2008. http://blogs.courant.com/on_background/2008/09/nader-and-paul-ideological-sea.html
-
Washington Post:
Ron Paul, the libertarian gadfly who launched a mass movement in his failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination, convened a third-party unity event at the National Press Club yesterday to bring Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin together into one big, happy family of independent presidential candidates.....
"The more, the merrier," Paul said of his band of candidates, many of whom had already been rejected by the two major parties. McKinney had lost her House seat after she struck a Capitol Police officer with her cellphone. Nader has already made two unsuccessful runs for the presidency. Barr lost his House seat in a Republican primary before becoming a dupe in the "Borat" movie. And Paul, serving as a convener rather than a candidate, has failed as both a Republican and Libertarian presidential candidate.
---
Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president, never showed for the unity event, instead having an aide hand out notices at the door announcing that he would be making a "major campaign announcement" at a rival news conference in the same place two hours later. His major announcement: that Ron Paul could get lost.
"I'm not interested in third parties getting the most possible votes," Barr told the cameras. "I'm interested in Bob Barr as the nominee for the Libertarian Party getting the most possible votes." In a further insult, Barr said he would permit the vastly more popular Paul to be his vice presidential running mate.
Paul partisans were appalled. "I will be withdrawing my endorsement," a man identifying himself as an "independent blogger" declared from the audience.
"Me, too!" called out another.
"I was gonna vote for the guy, but I think he’s about as arrogant as George Bush," proclaimed a third.
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....
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....
(David F. Nolan, "The Barr Campaign is Over," Sage Observations, Nolan Chart, Sep. 11, 2008.) http://www.nolanchart.com/article4805.html
-
LewRockwell.com:
"Bob Barr Lost 100,000 Votes Yesterday." That's the view of long-time LP activist Eric Garris, because of this. "There might be perfectly good reasons not to attend, says Eric; "in any event, the decision is the LP's. But there are no good reasons to say you will be there, to place it on your public schedule, to attend planning meetings, and then to blow it off 30 minutes [sic] before the press conference."
It became evident to me after meeting with Ron Paul’s staff that this media event was not about promoting the liberty agenda; it was about promoting a man. That’s not what we’re in this for.
After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race – just to hype the event – I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul’s staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.
When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul’s prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.
His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded ‘non-voters’. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.
I made the decision that attending that news conference was not consistent with Bob Barr’s principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.
Once I informed Ron Paul’s staff of my decision I was rudely informed that my decision would have permanent ramifications, I was personally threatened and Bob Barr was politically threatened. That’s a far cry from principled leadership.
(Russ Verney, "Principled Leadership in Times of Crisis," Campaign Updates, September 11th, 2008.) http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/11/principled-leadership-in-times-of-crisis/
-
Independent Political Report:
Behind the scenes, there is pressure being exerted on LNC members to bring forth a motion to "un-endorse" Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, and either replace them with alternative candidates, or leave the ticket empty. It is said by advocates that this is the only way the Libertarian Party’s brand can be salvaged after Bob Barr’s no-show at yesterday’s Campaign for Liberty event and the subsequent fall-out.
On a more grassroots level, an activist has started a petition for Libertarians to state their support for the removal of Barr to be replaced with someone other than Root.
("Movement afoot to remove Barr/Root from LP ticket," Independent Political Report, Sep. 11, 2008.) http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/movement-afoot-to-remove-barrroot-from-lp-ticket/
"BARR MUST BE REMOVED."
(G.E. Smith [Jason Seagraves], Editor-in-Chief, Comment, Sep. 11, 2008. [Upper case in original].) http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/09/barr-campaign-manager-bush-showed-incredible-leadership-criticizes-ron-paul-and-followers/
-
Socialist Worker:
Rejecting a plea from the McCain campaign to endorse the GOP ticket, Paul held the press conference to announce that he would call on supporters to back one of four third-party candidates: Nader, McKinney, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party and Chuck Baldwin of the crackpot Constitution Party.
In fact, Barr snubbed the gathering, arguing at his own press conference a few hours later that he wasn't "interested in third parties getting the most possible votes," but in building his own candidacy.
That's what Nader and McKinney should have done.... They should reject Paul's endorsement and distance themselves from any other initiative that unites third-party presidential candidates, regardless of their politics.
(Alan Maass, "Going in the wrong direction," Socialist Worker, Sep. 12, 2008. http://socialistworker.org/2008/09/12/wrong-direction
-
Kyle Varner's blog:
The whole event has been chronicled over and over throughout the blogosphere, so I won’t go into any details about the personal spitting matches that have been going on for the last few days. But, I’m willing to say what almost everyone in the know knows but none of them want to say: Ron Paul broke his promise to Bob Barr.
Don Rasmussen, in a dishonest and quite frankly absurd statement distributed across the internet today claims, "I look forward to hearing him explain how breaking a promise to Congressman Paul constitutes a wise campaign strategy. " Invoking the morality of a promise over the course of events started by a broken promise. This, ladies and gentlemen, is political rhetoric at its finest.
Here’s the truth:
Back in March of this year, Bob Barr and Ron Paul met. There were no press reports about it, but those of us who were deeply involved heard about it through the grapevine. Eric Garris, in a post at LewRockwell.com gave us a one sentence heads up.
What took place at this meeting? That was another open secret: Ron Paul offered his endorsement to Bob Barr if he would run for president. Barr launched his exploratory committee in April. While Barr was interested in running for president before that, he had more or less written the idea off (hence the draft Bob Barr effort) because he didn’t think a serious campaign was possible. This all changed when Paul offered his support in that meeting....
Those in the know from the Barr camp tell me that Paul kept putting off the endorsement. A huge, high-stakes game of political chess was going on behind the scenes.
I am glad that I supported the Ron Paul campaign. We made more progress in one year than I thought we would make in fifteen. Now, Ron Paul is done. He has quit. By telling his supporters that not voting, or, even worse, voting for statists, constitutes even semi-effective advocacy of liberty, he has essentially thrown away his chance to educate his numerous casual supporters who are receptive to libertarianism but are drawn, like moths to the flame, to theocratic statists like Chuck Baldwin.
Dr. Paul, you had so much going, and you’ve thrown it all away. Shame on you.
To Bob Barr: I hope that what you did proves to be prudent. You got more attention this way than you would have ever gotten standing on stage with those statists.
(Kyle Varner, "The Paul/Barr Breakup: The Inside Story," Kyle Varner's blog, Sep. 12, 2008.) http://www.kylevarner.com/2008/09/12/the-paulbarr-breakup-the-inside-story/
The views expressed
in this article are those of George Dance only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
George Dance is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Andrew Panken
Date: 2008-09-12 04:43:19
Regardless of the petty politics, Barr will easily beat all previous LP vote totals except possibly Ed Clark's run back in I think 1980. Personally, I'm not interested in this infighting, either. I just don't think it's productive to smear each other.
I agree with Andrew, this is not productive at all, but unfortunately a handful of people relish in hoping the Libertarian Party fails this election.
Personally, I’m voting for Barr, I’m not a masochist. Why would I want the Libertarian Party to fail and ruin their chances for 2012? Say what you will about Barr, he will get enough votes that automatic ballot access and matching funds can be a reality in 2012.
I don't like the infighting, but it goes on every year. The fighting around Browne was intense. It's a lot of ego's.
Bob Barr is the nominee, one of the finest we've had. The infighting is normal, I cannot say that is suppressing his fundraising or vote getting, you know, more than usual.
It would be great if it went away, but it never does.
No, what is hurting him, more than usual is Ron Paul.
Ron Paul's 'support' has been worthless, and even destructive. His campaign hasn't translate into anything for the LP organization, thats for sure.
And then there is the CP. They understand the LP memberships predeliction for endless infighting and have been posing as LP members, trying to goad that on, and quite successfully.
Negative campaigning works, its also about to work agaisnt Ron Paul. The C4L will be essentially dead in a few years. The problem for Ron Paul is all of his support isn't really core support, from veterans of politics, its from neophytes who openly declare their love for the man...the moment he becomes controversial all that love flies away like a speeding bullet.
You saw that after his racist newsletters were revealed, that really hurt his momentum, donations plumetted. You'll see it more now, because Bob Barr was our nominee. I.E. for all the posing by CP members, the real LP members selected Bob Barr, and we are a large group, and we can fight back.
Interesting comments about the CP, Robert. I already suspected that many of the mostly anonymous "many Libertarians" sniping online at the Barr/Root were actually from a different party, but I tended to classify them as either Republicans or BTP. I never thought the CP would get up to that -- some silly idea of mine about Christians not bearing false witness.
I have tracked down the CP as the source of the "Barr praised the surge" rumor that appeared both here and in LewRockwell.com this week. I'd be interested in seeing more documentation, if you know of any.
As for Paul: it looks to me like, in internal politics, anyway, he's being a typical politician. He wants to keep his coalition together, and not offend anyone, so IMO he came up with this "endorse everybody" (including non-voters) scheme as a way to do just that.
Not that I think it was the right thing to do (especially if Varney's sources are right, and he offered Barr an endorsement to get him to run); but his motives are understandable.
I was pretty mad, at first, when I dug into this; even planned to take his name off the title of my column; but now I'm a bit more sympathetic, even if still in disagreement.
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.
