Topic: Bob Barr
Obama/Barr '08 Strange bedfellows could make for some interesting politics.by RS Davis
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The brouhaha in Texas presents Barack Obama with a unique opportunity to lock in his victory for President of the United States. As I've been reporting, John McCain and Barack Obama missed the filing deadline in Texas to be included on the state-wide presidential ballot.
The Texas Secretary of State, violating the Texas Election Code, went ahead and certified them anyway. Bob Barr then filed a writ of mandamus, trying to force the courts in the lonestar state to eforce their laws and remove the mainstream candidates from the ballot.
In true political oligopolist fashion, the Supreme Court of Texas - faced with an airtight case against the GOP and Democratic candidates - simpy denied the writ, giving no explanation.
A lot of people just shrugged, dropped their heads, and went home dejected, but there is still a chance for Mr Barr if he appeals this decision to a higher court.
If he does this, he should look for an ally in Barack Obama - it would be a shrewd political move for the Obama campaign, a gambit worthy of Bobby Fischer. You see, in chess, a gambit is a strategy where you sacrifice an important piece to gain position on your opponent - and Texas could be that piece for Barack.
Let's go to the map.
According to the interactive electoral map on RealClearPolitics (RCP), right now John McCain has 163 probable electoral votes, Obama 249. It also has Texas' 34 electoral votes going solidly to John McCain.
Obama has nothing to lose in Texas, but by joining Barr in his cause, he has everything to gain. If Obama can help shift 34 votes to Barr, that leaves the race at 249 for him and 129 for McCain, with only 126 up for grabs.
Now, the magic electoral number is 270. With Texas' electoral votes, McCain only needs 107 votes - a tough task, but not impossible. Take those away, and that leaves Obama needing 21 votes, with McCain facing the Herculean task of getting 141 more votes to secure GOP victory.
When there only 126 votes in play, losing the Texas electors makes an Obama victory an almost sure thing.
Obama is no stranger to this type of campaigning - in 1996, when he was running for the Senate, he had his campaign go over the signatures of his Democratic primary opponents' ballot-access petitions and didn't stop "until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot."
That was a bold, cynical move that had one opponent lament: "Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?"
If he employed my strategy, he could do almost the same thing, but shroud it under the notion of principle and the rule of law. He could say, "America, I am willing to risk those electoral votes to ensure an election that plays by the rules, follows the law. Both my campaign and John McCain's campaign failed to meet the requirements of the Texas Election Code to be included on the ballot, and we should have live with the consequences of that. Anything else would undermine this nation of laws and damage the electoral process forever."
If Barr loses the case, no harm no foul for the Obama campaign - they are in the exact same position as now. But if he wins, it's oath of office time.
It's a win-win for Obama. He knows, as we all do, that Barr has absolutely no chance of beating him in the general election, so throwing 34 votes to him poses no risk, but the benefits to both men of an alliance are also undeniable. It would assure Obama a victory if they win, and for Barr, it assures crossing the 15% threshhold and ushering in unprecedented access for the Libertarian Party to the mainstream political machine - uncontested access, invitation to future debates - legitimacy.
So, I offer it up to the Obama campaign - ensure a victory for the Democratic Party, and at the same time herald your machinations as striking one for open and honest elections, and a blow against the party elites who try to keep alternative points of view out of the national debate.
The views expressed in this
article are those of RS Davis only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. RS Davis 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.
There is an important reason this will not happen. Obama and the Democrats are thinking long term, not short term. Yes, this will lead to an Obama victory in the now, but it will also be a big boost to the Libertarian Party.
In the long run the last thing the Democrats or Republicans want is any sort of boost to the Libertarian party or any other third party. They want to maintain the duopoly. The Democrats would rather lose and keep the duopoly than win and break the duopoly.
It's obvious this would only help Obama, but only an idiot would believe he was doing it for the right reasons. Texas is a guaranteed Republican state, and doing that would cause a national uproar of immense proportions.
Three things would happen - first, all the black people and the NAACP and the ACLU would launch the biggest anti-Libertarian campaign in history, Preventing just one black Texan from voting for Obama would lead to lawsuits guaranteeing the the LP would never rise from the ashes.
Next, any Republican allies of the LP would revolt, and the LP again would never rise from the ashes.
Third, Texas will find some legal loophole to ban the LP from the ballot for eternity. You cannot disenfranchise one of the largest states in the country.
Finally, after all is said and done, the LP will be left with just a handful of the most Left-Wing nuts in the Party, because any sane moderate or conservative Libertarian does not believe that deliberately rigging an election to elect a Communist like Obama is the right thing to do. At least half the LP would rather have McCain as President than Obama, since, if nothing else, McCain would never mandate a socialized healthcare system.
This is why the LP has so many problems. You always cut off your nose to spite your face, and spend your money to get blatant Commies elected over Republicans you do not like.
This is probably why Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin. And, if he's on the ballot, this LP crap gives me all the reason I need to vote for Baldwin as well.
My prediction - within a year the Constitution Party will overtake the LP as third larget Party. Precisely because of shit like this.
The LP - the Stormtrooper arm of the DNC.
I just realzed the truth. The LP has been infiltrated by the disgruntled members of the American Communist and Socialist Workers Parties. It makes perfect sense. The Zionists of the Democratic Party inflitrated the GOP in the 1970's, ushering in NeoCONservatism (they were ALL avid pro-war Trotskyites who left the Dems after the anti-war movement), so the Communists and Socialists realized how amazingly easy it was to infiltrate and brainwash the Party that is ideologically oppsosed to you, go undercover, and after 30 years have total control. So, now we know exactly what ideology the LP will be spewing in 30 years. The LP was anathema to Comminism, but now the die-hard Marxists are lurking in the ranks and soon will be in control. Brilliant!
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.
