Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
The Implosion of the Barr Campaign Johnny Kramer's analysis of the Bob Barr Libertarian presidential campaign's performance, and its recent snubbing of Ron Paulby Johnny Kramer
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Implosion of the Barr Campaign
By Johnny Kramer
Last week, the hottest topic of conversation in libertarian circles was expected to be Ron Paul's Sept. 10 press conference.
As expected, the event was attended by Independent candidate Ralph Nader, Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, all three of whom endorsed the following four-pronged platform of Paul's, which was unveiled at the press conference:
We Agree
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
At the event, Paul decried the Republican/Democrat duopoly, and called on all Americans to vote for any third-party candidate as a vote of dissent against the false choice they're offered in every election.
Absent from the conference was another expected attendee: Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr. But it would be his campaign's subsequent actions, not his absence at the Paul event, that would prove to be the real hot topic of the week.
Barr held his own press conference an hour later, during which he asserted that he had never promised to attend Ron's event. But, according to Campaign for Liberty Events Coordinator Don Rasmussen, Barr did commit, then backed out 30 minutes beforehand, when Barr staffer Russ Varney called Paul staffer Jesse Benton and canceled, reportedly saying that Barr thought his participation "just wasn't worth it."
At his conference, which was held in the same building as Paul's, Barr made three points:
1. In Dec. 2007, he authored the LP's statement of intent to nominate Ron Paul for president if he lost the GOP nomination. Paul turned it down. 2. The day before, Barr sent Paul a letter asking Paul to run as Barr's vice presidential nominee. Wayne Allyn Root agreed to step aside if Paul wanted the job. Paul also turned this down. 3. Barr signed onto the statement of principles that Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin signed, and maintains his support. But he declined the offer to appear at the Paul announcement.
During the question period that followed Barr's remarks, several Paul backers in the room loudly withdrew their support from Barr, and at least one asked the obvious question of whether Barr and his staff are still aligned with the GOP, and have infiltrated the LP in a plan of deliberate sabotage.
Shortly after the two press conferences, Barr's Field Director, Mike Ferguson, wrote this on his blog, where he denounced Paul for "wasting the press corps' time," and for not endorsing Barr.
The next day, Barr staffer Russ Varney also complained about Paul not endorsing Barr, writing, "the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds."
(In the press release, Varney also noted the 9/11 anniversary and praised George W. Bush for showing "incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America." He didn't elaborate on how standing on a fire truck with a bullhorn for a photo op constituted "showing incredible leadership;" maybe it was leadership for politicians on how to exploit tragedies for political gain.)
Is Barr a Libertarian?
The actions of the Barr campaign last week amounted to one giant temper tantrum over Ron Paul's refusal to either run with Barr or endorse him.
First, given Paul's repeated refusals to be personally involved in any presidential campaign this year past the Republican primaries, Barr could not possibly have expected Paul to accept a role as his running mate. Further, the offer is insulting, given Paul's much greater influence and following. Further still, according to LP founder David Nolan, Barr has no authority – presumably due to LP bylaws and possible other legalities – to unilaterally change the party's running mate. As one perceptive LRC reader noted, the offer was just a publicity stunt, likely to make Barr look good for offering, and to make Paul look bad for declining. Otherwise, Barr would've never made a public show of revealing that he had ever made the offer.
Second, it's far from clear that Barr has done anything this year to earn Paul's endorsement.
Elsewhere in his aforementioned article, titled The Barr Campaign is Over, Nolan chronicles the Barr campaign's poor management; he cites as evidence their failure to achieve ballot access in several states and their anemic fundraising totals.
More troubling is the fact that Barr's record as a libertarian is inconsistent and spotty at best.
Barr is a former federal prosecutor and ardent drug warrior. He was an "Anti-Drug Coordinator" for the U.S. Dept. of Justice (sic).
In Congress, Barr was part of the "Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America," which was created by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs," by drafting legislation intended "to win the War on Drugs by 2002." (Ha!)
Barr even cruelly (and unconstitutionally) advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana during his stint in Congress.
In 1998, voters in Washington, D.C. were slated to vote on Initiative 59 on the Nov. ballot, which was over whether medical marijuana should be legal in D.C. Barr launched a pre-emptive strike against the measure in Aug. by adding the "Barr Amendment" to the 1999 Omnibus Spending Bill; Barr's amendment not only prohibited Initiative 59 from being enacted – regardless of the election's outcome – but even prohibited the vote tally from being released. (And, in doing so, Barr unwittingly revealed a piece of evidence that the civics textbook bromides about voters controlling anything are basically lies.)
The ACLU sued to have the election's results released; when they won the suit nearly a year later, it was revealed that Initiative 59 had passed with 69% of the vote.
In response, Barr added another "Barr Amendment" to the 2000 Omnibus Spending Bill that not only repealed Initiative 59, but prohibited future laws that would in any way "decrease the penalties for marijuana or other Schedule I drugs" in D.C., which was presumably an attempt to block organizations like the Marijuana Policy Project from reforming D.C.'s marijuana laws through ballot initiatives in the future.
In March 2002, U.S. District Judge Emmitt Sullivan struck down that portion of the Barr Amendment as an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, to which Barr responded:
"Clearly, the court today has ignored the constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotics and the right of Congress to exert legislative control over the District of Columbia as the nation's capital."
(Barr evidently didn't address exactly which portion of the constitution gives Congress the "right," much less the "responsibility," to "protect" citizens from narcotics, nor the fact that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments explicitly give Congress the "responsibility" not to enact such legislation. Nor, surely, did he address exactly how creating dangerous black markets – and all of their associated problems and perversities, none of which would occur in a free market – constitutes "protecting" citizens from anything.)
The federal government appealed the judge's decision and won, just in time to stop the MPP's Initiative 63 – another attempt to legalize medical marijuana in D.C. – which had already qualified for the Nov. ballot.
As of today, the Barr Amendment remains in place, and Initiative 63 will presumably be on the ballot when – and if – that piece of Barr's legacy is ever repealed.
In 2002, the Democrat-controlled Georgia legislature redrew Georgia's Congressional districts, combining Barr's district with that of fellow Republican Congressman John Linder. The move pitted Barr against Linder for the new district in the Republican primary, so it was a win for the Democrats, who were guaranteed the removal of one of the Republican incumbents.
The new district contained more of Linder's old district than Barr's; the Libertarian Party took note of Barr's precarious position, and began airing ads in the new district about Barr's record on medical marijuana, along with sending out press releases that they were targeting one of Congress' most strident drug warriors for defeat and warning other incumbent drug warriors that they could expect the same in future elections.
Barr lost to Linder by a 2-1 margin, although it's unclear how much of an effect the LP's ads had on the outcome.
After being booted from Congress, Barr became a lobbyist – one of the highest-paid "professions" in America – for his formal archrival, the ACLU.
In 2007, Barr became a lobbyist for another former archrival, the Marijuana Policy Project.
In a 2007 interview with The Politico, Barr explained his reasons for joining the MPP by saying, "I, over the years, have taken a very strong stand on drug issues, but in light of the tremendous growth of government power since 9/11, it has forced me and other conservatives to go back and take a renewed look at how big and powerful we want the government to be in people's lives."
That was a pretty weak explanation, given that post-9/11 legislation didn't radically change the Drug War and that Barr had previously been somewhat otherwise concerned with civil liberties (more on that later).
Everyone makes mistakes and learns new information that causes them to question their previous beliefs. So, if Barr has had a genuine conviction that he was wrong about the Drug War and other issues, kudos to him.
But it's reasonable to have suspicions about his motives and sincerity, especially given the fairly abrupt nature of his change, and the blatant self-interest in becoming a paid lobbyist for organizations with which he was formerly in conflict. Did Barr become a lobbyist for the ACLU, and later the MPP, because of a genuine change of heart, or because they offered him the most money? Is he sincere, or is he an opportunistic sociopath with no discernable principles – other than to latch onto whatever positions he believes will bring him the most personal gain?
In 2004, Barr publicly left the Republican Party, joined the Libertarian Party, and endorsed that year's LP presidential nominee, Michael Badnarik.
Early this year, rumors began circulating that Barr might seek the LP presidential nomination in 2008.
The rumors proved to be true; Barr announced his candidacy on May 12, just 10 days before the convention began.
At the convention, when presidential contender Christine Smith was eliminated after the first ballot, she denounced the delegates for even considering Barr. But he was nominated on the sixth ballot, defeating long-time LP member – and more "hardcore" libertarian – Mary Ruwart; after the fifth ballot, when Wayne Allyn Root – a similar candidate to Barr – was eliminated, he endorsed Barr, and that sealed Ruwart's fate. In turn, Barr endorsed Root as his running mate for the next day's balloting, which Root would win.
During her concession speech, Ruwart removed her name from consideration for the next day's vice-presidential vote, refusing to run with Barr.
Again, Barr may be sincere in his new convictions, but it's reasonable to have doubts. And, considering that it took six ballots to nominate him, the delegates to the LP convention obviously had their doubts too.
Unfortunately, a look at Barr's campaign shows that such doubts may have been well founded.
Barr's stance on the Drug War has proven to be inconsistent this year.
On an appearance on FOX's Hannity and Colmes just two months earlier, Barr advocated turning the drug issue over to the states (which is the correct, constitutional answer in the context of a presidential campaign). But, when pressed by Hannity, Barr said if the federal government turned it over to the states and he were a state or local legislator, he wouldn't vote to legalize "hard" drugs at that level.
And, on the "issues" tab of his website, the drug war isn't even mentioned, despite it being one of the worst scourges ever perpetrated on the American people by their government.
So is Barr for ending drug prohibition, or not?
The issues that are addressed on the site are only addressed vaguely, in a way that's long on lukewarm libertarian rhetoric and short on specifics.
On taxes, Barr – to his credit – advocates repealing the 16th Amendment. But – to his discredit – he suggests replacing the graduated income tax with a flat income tax or a national sales tax.
This is a curious position for a libertarian, especially considering that – as Ron Paul explained frequently during the past 18 months – repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing would still leave the federal government with the budget it had about 10 years ago, which was still way too big.
It's also unclear what good repealing the 16th Amendment would do today, given that constitutional restraints on government are no longer recognized.
Barr acknowledges that there may be better alternatives, and asserts that there should be robust national debate about which tax system "would best protect liberty and promote prosperity."
But the best tax system to achieve those ends is no tax system at all, so what kind of language is that? No libertarian should run for office advocating the complete elimination of all taxes at the office's level of government, which would be an absurd, undeliverable promise. But he should acknowledge that all taxation is evil and theft, and should promise to reduce them to the greatest degree possible during his tenure.
Barr concludes his section on taxes by timidly calling for the estate and capital gains taxes to be "reduced and eventually eliminated."
Regarding spending, Barr calls for it to be pared down to just its constitutional functions. That's an excellent answer for a presidential candidate, except he doesn't get into specifics beyond saying that "every area" of federal spending should be cut. And, as we saw on his quote from his days as a drug warrior, his ideas about what constitutes "constitutional functions" may be at odds with a strict, libertarian, Jeffersonian reading of how the constitution actually reads. That's further evidenced by his advocacy for replacing – rather than eliminating – the income tax, which suggests that he may have a broad, Hamiltonian reading of the constitution, because cutting the budget just by the amount of the income tax – to levels of about 10 years ago – would still leave the government far beyond its constitutional functions. For that matter, so would cutting it back to the levels of 100 years ago.
Barr concludes his spending section by writing, "We should seek to establish a wall of separation between government and the economy. The legitimate economic functions of government are to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. The government should stop attempting to ‘manage' the free market.
"Capitalism is the only economic system that rewards risk, protects individual liberty, and furthers economic freedom. America will be most prosperous and free when the government stops interfering with private economic decision-making."
That's an excellent statement, but where are the specifics? And does he really believe it?
About entitlement spending of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid specifically, Barr praises the Republicans for their "welfare reform" in 1996, followed by a page of vague rhetoric about "charity," "emphasizing private choice," "private retirement accounts," and emphasizing "care for those most in need." Beyond that, he acknowledges that the entitlement programs are untenable, but offers no specifics for how to end them.
Regarding monetary policy, Barr – to his credit – questions the Fed's right to exist. But the entire section is one paragraph that does nothing but call for a "debate" on the issue.
On healthcare, Barr – also to his credit – decries socialized medicine, and calls for the repeal of insurance regulations and distortions in the tax code. But the section is otherwise short on specifics.
Barr voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002, for which he has since expressed regret. On his website, he advocates – with his characteristic lack of specificity – complete removal of all troops from Iraq "without undue delay." He also seems to advocate, without actually stating it, removal of U.S. troops from all other foreign soil. So, while his foreign policy lacks many details, it's a lot better than McCain's or Obama's.
Barr voted for the PATRIOT Act in the wake of 9/11, although only after his amendments – which added sunset provisions – were added to the bill. He has since expressed regret for that too, and has cited concerns over privacy and civil liberties as major reasons why he abandoned the GOP in 2004.
Barr may well be sincere, and may well have specific ideas for how to implement his proposals. If so, he should've written a campaign book prior to entering the race.
While questions about Barr's sincerity persist, the most damning evidence against him is documented by Nolan's article; he notes that neither Barr's website, nor any of his official campaign merchandise, contains the word "libertarian." And, according to Nolan, Barr's campaign press releases always identify him just as a "former Congressman," never as the "Libertarian Party nominee." Nolan asserts that Barr is really running for president as an Independent, and has just latched onto the LP to exploit for his personal gain whatever pre-existing infrastructure, ballot access, etc. they had to offer him.
If that's untrue, then why is Barr avoiding using the "libertarian" label, especially since the main goal of the Libertarian presidential candidate is arguably to build greater understanding of that name with the general public?
No One Owes You Anything
The third point about Paul's refusal to endorse Barr is that no one owes you anything in life just because you want it. The entire Barr campaign would do well to read Harry Browne's classic article, A Gift for My Daughter. Paul does not owe Barr an endorsement; if Barr wants it, he has to figure out a way to make it worth Paul's while to give it to him. If he feels he has already made it worth Paul's while, but Paul disagrees, then he has to either try something else to sell Paul on endorsing him, or accept that he's not going to get Paul's endorsement. Assertions of what someone "should" do for you are worthless; the question of whether the Barr team thinks Paul "should" endorse him is irrelevant, because if Paul isn't going to, he isn't going to. As Harry used to say, "No one owes you anything, because you have no way to make him pay it."
The mature thing would've been to admit the disappointment over not receiving Paul's endorsement only if asked, and to otherwise not bring it up and stand with Paul at his event.
Besides, Paul's refusal to endorse anyone else either provided an opportunity for Barr to earn the votes of Paul's supporters; of the candidates still running, Paul's supporters probably would've been most attracted to Barr, just based on the LP affiliation – even if Barr may not hold the genuine beliefs to go with the "Libertarian" label. Instead, Barr and his staff chose to throw a temper tantrum over Paul not just handing his supporters to him on a silver platter, deliberately – and stupidly – alienating most of Paul's supporters in the process.
And those supporters amount to a lot of people – far more than the 0.5% of the electorate already sold on Barr (who, based on the events of the past week, should strongly reconsider whether Barr has the judgment to be president). Ron Paul raised about $30 million last year, which is far more than all past LP candidates combined have ever raised. He received far more total votes through the entire primary season than any LP nominee has ever received in the general election, including more than 20% of the vote in a few states. He drew about 12,000 people to his rally earlier this month – nearly as many as attended the concurrent GOP convention, and many, many times more than have ever attended any LP convention. Paul has even accumulated so much influence that McCain went out of his way last week to seek his endorsement – which of course he didn't get. So, hurt feelings over lack of endorsement or not, the Barr team should've faced the pragmatic fact that they need Paul; Paul doesn't need them.
So What's a Voter to Do?
Like the question of whether libertarians should vote at all, there's no consensus for libertarians who do vote about for whom to vote.
At his press conference, Ron Paul praised principled non-voters, but urged those who do vote to vote for a third-party candidate this year.
David Nolan asked people to still vote for Barr, since Barr will be seen uncritically on election day as the "Libertarian candidate" (and presumably because his showing will affect the LP's ballot access status in 2012), but he asked folks not to send any money to the Barr campaign, and to use any money burning a hole in their pocket for other, worthy libertarian causes, or to improve their own lives directly by buying something nice for themselves.
As for me, I hadn't taken a close look at Barr's record prior to writing this article, and I haven't followed his campaign except for watching the convention in May. I intended to consider him. But, given the events of the past week, Barr has spared me the task of wondering whether he's sincere. I'm afraid I can't take Mr. Nolan's advice; Barr is out of the question for me now – as, of course, is McBomba. If I vote, it'll be either for a third-party candidate or for Ron Paul as a write-in.
I don't know that we'll find out even if it happens, but wouldn't it be something if Ron Paul received more votes as a write-in than Bob Barr does as a candidate on the ballot? It'd be bad for the LP, but maybe then its delegates will learn a lesson about what kind of person to nominate in the future.
Johnny Kramer [send him mail] holds a BA in journalism from Wichita State University. He is one of the authors and editors of the first-ever biography of Ron Paul, Ron Paul: a Life of Ideas. For more information on his work, or to hire him as a writer, editor, or to speak at your next event, please visit his website.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 56 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Johnny Kramer only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Johnny Kramer 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.
Barr knew he was on thin ice with Libertarians from the beginning. Snubbing Ron Paul was political suicide. I cannot imagine he didn't know what was going to happen after pulling a stunt like that! One can only hope that this won't negatively affect other candidates running on the Libertarian ticket.
Barr minion Russ Varney wrote, "the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds."
What Varney and his ilk don't get is that Ron Paul was addressing a larger audience than his own supporters. He was talking to people who don't necessarily endorse the whole liberty agenda and encouraging them to vote third party. This is one of those times when the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The Barrbots apparently haven't seen the CNN interview with Paul and Nader. Ron Paul explicitly said that he won't vote for Nader himself, but he hopes lots of other people do.
This isn't about the liberty message per se; it's about breaking the duopoly held by the two wings of the Big Government Party.
Russ VERNEY, Barr's campaign manager, also wrote that C4L did not give the campaign the details of the conference until 3AM the day of the conference, and that he told C4L Barr would not be attending at 9AM. Why did you leave out those points, and accept Rasmussen's quotes as gospel? When you do stuff like that, the bias in your reporting shows through, and discounts your message.
And why in the world would, after reporting that Barr spent 2/3 of his press conference pointing out that he's the Libertarian and Paul is the Republican, would "Is Bob Barr a Republican trying to destroy the Republican Party?" be "the obvious question"?
To logicprobe: Maybe it's because I'm a "Barrbot", but I find a message of "breaking the duopoly held by the two wings of the Big Government Party" both hypocritical and ridiculous coming from someone who's spent more than 20 years, and is still, comfortably nestled under one of those wings.
I think, ROn Paul having a love fest of the third parties is all well and good. But Bob Barr isn't being actively supported by ron Paul and thus is free to go or not to go. While Ron Paul has decided to fight within the Republican Party. Bob Barr has decided to fight from the out side. In my view none of us have to pick sides in Ron Paul or Bob Barr. Those trying to encourage internal strife, in my view, are doing the Democan Republicrat work for them.
Posted By: Steven A. Rosile
Date: 2008-09-16 21:47:26
Thank you for a very exhaustive and well written report. The one small error I noticed was the date that Barr announced his candidacy. It was Saturday, April 5th, at the Heartland Libertarian Conference in Kansas City. I was there for the Kansas LP Nominating Convention that was a part of it. One minor ommission, the statement Barr originally sent out in support of the federal government bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac at the same time the LNC issued a statement denouncing any such move. Barr immediately changed his position to match that of the LNC. I was also in Denver last May, as a Delegate to the National LP Nominating Convention, where I voted for Dr. Mary Ruart all six ballots. How much better a candidate she would be! I will still vote for Barr in November and I urge all Libertarians and LP supporters to do the same. I will say, regarding Barr's incredibly inept and self-destructive move at the Ron Paul press conference announcing Paul's endorsement of a group of independent and third party candidates that supported Paul's four key positions, I am shocked and disappointed. Ron Paul's supporters were not going to agree to support any one candidate and Paul's actually getting the four candidates, including socialists such as Nader and McKinney, to sign on to such a statement was quite a feat just in itself. After reading several statements from Barr's campaign manager, former Ross Perot presidential campaign manager, Russ Verney, I feel that Barr may have acted on Verney's extremely bad advice. Whichever the case, Barr's actions are inexcusable and will surey cost him the support of many who otherwise would have actively supported him, and the Libertarian Party as well.
Barr's actions aren't necessarily the problem, because they're not nearly as bad as many of you guys are making them out to be. It's hard to remain objective when your perceptions are clouded. All that's being done is the fanning of innuendo, misconstructions, and jumped-to conclusions.
Look through the Barr campaign press releases. Not a single one fails to mention the word "Libertarian" at least once when the piece introduces Barr to the reader. Nolan's problem is that Libertarian isn't always mentioned at the bottom of the press release where biographical and historical information about the press release's person of interest normally goes. The reason for that is self-evident.
This is just one among many examples of how seemingly-factual anti-Barr articles are recycling and rehashing falsehoods about Barr. Of course I shouldn't have to explain this to you, or dissect the tome you wrote, or point out the flaws in much of the information you've cobbled together from anti-Barr sources. Doing all this would be the logical equivalent of giving a man a fish instead of teaching him how to fish. All I can do is invite you to think for yourself, objectively.
I'd say this was an excellent article as far as it went. As long as we allow the Electoral College to vote for President, our votes will never count. Proof of how rigged up our elections are is the fact that the EC has put men in the White House who did not win the popular vote. This looks like a matter of which party pays the most for the EC's votes. We must demand the abolishment of the EC if our votes are ever to count. There is absolutely no justification for the EC to exist in this modern day world of instant communication. Our hijacked duopoly has rigged the election so that we have to choose between the best of the worst. Why shouldn't we be voting for the best of the best? Loyalty to ones party and it's candidate only goes so far. When there is an obvious fraud where the candidates are self-serving and even a national threat, then we have an obligation to vote for someone else. This someone else would be Ron Paul. Why? Because, Obama is an unknown element who will not reveal his true agenda. He flip flops more than a pair of beach sandals. He looks to me like a disaster waiting to happen and I don't trust him. McCain wants to continue the disasters of the Iraq War and the Drug War. Bob Barr's recent radical swing on the war on drugs makes him look like a sell out and as his latest election defeat proves, he has little cache with American Voters. Perhaps he's trying to do what Perot did and split the Republican ticket. For Republicans who can not overcome their fear that Obama will get in if they vote Ron Paul. They have the consolation that Palin admits to smoking cannabis and could possibly sign an executive order to end the "War on Drugs". That's if McCain's age or cancer prematurely end his presidency. Sorry to say it. But, our only hope is to use our best discretion in voting for Senatorial and congressional candidates who are leaning in Ron Paul's direction. In the meantime, the 2008 Presidential Election is a complete farce and a flop. Let it go and be proactive in the next election by demanding that highly qualified candidates for the people be put forth for President. That's if there is a next election.
The difference between Paul and Barr is about strategy. The real reason why Paul would not endorse Barr is that he would loose his ranking in congress and may even be booted out. He has already coming out as close as an informal "endorsement" as he can.
As pointed out, the appeal of the news conference was not limited to Ron Paul supporters. The Paul supporters are in any case a highly diverse base, ranging from the CP to GP, and Paul can only recommend people how to vote, he cannot force them in any way.
The four point plan is quite a moderate libertarian declaration, and is as such a big breakthrough for Paul to get four diverse parties to sign it. Barr has - correctly - pointed out that in the heart of avery American there is a libertarian and that libertarianism is a mainstream American idea. Now based on this, do the Barr-bots/LP want to proclaim ONLY those in the LP can promote liberty and that members of other parties understand nothing of it? Somehow, I do not think so...and think it is quite arrogant and the LP only isolates itself in this way. The LP can say it is the only consistent libertarian party with regard to most issues, but this does not eliminate other parties as unable to express liberty in some way or another.
So, Even with a 3rd party, we still get the same "playpen mentality", infighting, smears, "creative" writing to take the spoken word out of context....
So at the end of the day, We, the people will suffer More Political bull?
Sorry, but the article, for me is like "fingernails" on a chalkboard.
Looking for something different, just the facts....sans personal bias.
It is a sad day when self-declared anointed and holier than thou libertarians declare and outrage and all is lost because the Libertarian Presidential Candidate decides that it is not a good idea to stand on the same stage as a nutcase communist like Cynthia McKinney, a pro-union pro-tax pro-government control freak Ralph Nader, and a bible-over-freedom church-over-state religion first Chuck Baldwin just so Ron Paul can refuse to endorse ONE particular candidate and declare it's better to vote for one of these guys even though 2-1/2 of them don't even come close to representing the values of Liberty and Freedom over the democrat or republican candidate. First, shame on Ron Paul. I lost all respect I had for him with that "stunt"...if he holds Liberty so dear how could he possibly even somewhat acknowledge McKinney or Nader?? Second, shame on all of you who continue to hang on Paul's every word and justify HIS stupidity at this point. I believe you all have become members of the Ron Paul Cult of Personality. It matters not what he says anymore or how obsurd it is...let's all rally behind him cause he's Ron Paul. Bunk.
Bob Barr made the right decision in not attending Ron Paul's self-absorbed look at me the anti-republican republican endorsing no one but encouraging Americans to vote for a communist because I am a freedom fighter. No, Ron Paul got it wrong. Barr got it right. Perhaps the counter press conference would have been better served by Barr chosing to address WHY he wasn't there instead of trying to upstage Paul but mistakes are made. That was a mistake. Paul's press conference was a huge mistake and I am embarassed I supported him earlier on.
Regardless, I know there has been many claim that they would support Barr even though they did not want him or vote for him as the Libertarian candidate. I watched Nolan first hand at the convention...his claim to support Barr has always been a sham in my opinion...biding his time waiting for the smoking gun to come out and say "see...I told you" just has he did. Don't think I didn't stand and witness Kubby's, with Nolan standing on his left, deliver his anti-Barr "neocon" rant after Barr-Root won the nomination...it was obvious then that any "support" they gave would essentially be empty hot air as they stand by and wait to take back over the party from the "invading neocons".
I am convinced now that there is a huge faction within the Libertarian Party that truly has no interest in success. We are our own worst enemies. If we all truly cared about Freedom and Liberty as we claim there would have been much outrage over Paul's stunt. But the "Implosion" taking place is not in the Barr campaign...it's in the Libertarian Party. Because it has now become acceptable and a point of anger and outrage for many that our candidate for President chose to avoid being grouped with two other candidates that stand for EVERYTHING us as Libertarians should hate.
There has been many question Barr's Libertarian status....I think some of you need to go buy a mirror.
The problem I had with the press conference and the "We Agree" statement is that the list was drafted with the 4 different candidates' approval in mind. He was not truly presenting a list of "the most important issues facing our nation" that are "central to the health of our nation." He was simply presenting a list that the 4 candidates would agree on. Wouldn't Ron Paul consider the reduction of government power and fiscal responsibility to be an important enough issue to be included in this list? It was left off because it wouldn't gain approval from all the candidates. To me this shows a complete lack of integrity on Paul's part, and I think it was a big mistake. I can't fault Bob Barr for not going along with it.
Some people say they believe in freedom, others do so only when it supports their beliefs. Ron Paul has caused a bit of conflict with some libertarians in endorsing a vote for any 3rd party candidate....some actually take that as a straight up endorsement for other political philosophies. But the people who really understand freeodm know that Ron Paul does not attempt to dictate who you should vote for. Even in the Republcan nomination process, his attiude revolved around just presenting his ideas to the public and allowing them to decide. This press conference was an extention of that. He wanted to present a spectrum of real choice. Only a fool would take that to mean he is diminishing the beliefs he has stood up 30 years for. Ron Paul stood up for democracy in the election process. That was the point.
It's not Bob Barr that imploded but the Libertarian Party imploded like countless other Parties in History. Because some members of the Libertarian Party were sour their candidate lost in the convention, democratically I might add, they have taken upon themselves to shoot themselves in the foot or cut their nose to spite their face by doing everything they can to make Barr look bad and actually root against The Party's candidate for President.
Once upon a time The Libertarians were known for being savvy, but I guess they joined the anarchists and will never amount to anything.
The chowderheaded pro-Barr comments here are disgusting,
Barr screwed the pooch bigtime, people. It's a crowning achivement in a long record of campaign incompetencies.
Only the shilling Barrflies who think that Bobby can win something more than pointing fingers and laughter and derisive contempt seem to think Barr did a good thing. They also think up is down, black is white, and Elvis is alive. Must be some very strong stuff in their Kool-Aid and stupid pills to believe all of that...
Tannim don't we have to agree to engage in substantive discussions -- as opposed to engaging in ad hominem attacks -- when we register to post here at nolanchart.com?
Posted By: David K. Meller
Date: 2008-09-21 10:30:28
What is a voter to do? Continue to work with Ron Paul and his Campaign for Liberty, hold your nose and vote Libertarian, and increase your support for groups like fija (Fully Informed Jury Association), the Gun Owners of America--far better than the compromising NRA--, antiwar.com, mises.org, and fff.org.
Those who are so inclined can join, or contribute to groups like the John Birch Society, the American Nationalist Union (very pro-Ron Paul, although they might have some problems elsewhere)and similar patriotic and pro-Constitution groups. They might also look up AmericanFreePress.net for important and timely information in their journal--American Free Press-- and subscribe to improve your independence from the media mafia which has so strangled independent opinion and political expression in our country.
Bob Barr is the best of a bad lot! He (fortunately) won't be elected President, He and his campaign have many shortcomings, both political and ideological; both past and present, but voting for him does lay the foundation for better days. It would be a public declaration of independence, nay overt rejection of the Parties of McBama which have so dismally failed our country and its people, and our Constitution--to say nothing of endangering the rest of the world--for the past Century or longer. If Barr gets enough votes, MAYBE the Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and "paleoconservative" points of view won't be ignored as much in future elections!
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.
