Topic: Election 2008
Self destruction, thy name is Bob Barr What appeared to be the most promising Third Party campaign in Bob Barr since Ross Perot was all but a mirage.by Jonathan Cymberknopf
(libertarian)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What started out as the most promising Third Party campaign in years is turning out to be the most disappointing one in years.
Looking back at the Libertarian convention, the purists of the Libertarian Party did try to warn us, but we did not listen as promises of gold blinded our eyes.
We forgave Bob Barr's despicable voting record in Congress as a Republican and gave him the benefit of the doubt that he truly had repented for his sins and hoped his transformation was true to form in exchange for going after the gold.
Unfortunately, it turned out to be fools gold, as Bob Barr has made one bad decision after another during a Presidential race that could not afford any missteps.
Campaign money was squandered, ballot access in many states mishandled and opportunities missed.
Opportunities that come once in a lifetime were missed such as earning the votes of Ron Paul's supporters. As we all know Ron Paul earned more than a million votes during the Republican Primaries and earned a cult following much like the Grateful dead.
Instead of courting Ron Paul and his supporters, it looked like Barr went out of his way to defecate on them by tossing Ron Paul aside and skipping Ron Paul's endorsement press conference. Newsflash to Barr: stubbornness is not a good Presidential trait, see George W. Bush. Obviously this made Ron Paul very mad and rightfully so, and we all know how the story ends with Dr. Paul endorsing Chuck Baldwin as a result.
I used to laugh at the conspiracy theories going around the internet saying Bob Barr was an infiltrator, but now I've stopped laughing.
I still remember seeing Barr on Fox News very early in the campaign when asked by Neil Cavuto how much money he expected to raise, Barr responded 35 million. Obviously he was counting on Ron Paul's supporters. Way to get that endorsement Bob.
Personally, I have to admit I looked the other way, always defending Barr, continuing to donate money, write articles, blog and email the media, but all along felt uneasy doing so.
I watched with my own eyes as one of my good neighbors peeled his Bob Barr bumper sticker off his truck and replaced it with a Chuck Baldwin bumper sticker. He actually came to my door having seen my Bob Barr bumper sticker and handed me a Baldwin one along with information on The Constitution Party. Boy did this action make me think.
I did not find Baldwin appealing due to the preamble of the Constitution Party, but that was not the point, I had a bad feeling on my candidate that I could not shake, however, I kept supporting my imperfect candidate.
The final straw for me was when the first attempt at a Third Party debate was being put together and Bob Barr refused to attend. Rumors had it he would only debate Ralph Nader alone without the others. I wrote the campaign and urge them not to make this mistake, but they would not listen. What kind of message do you put forth as a Libertarian candidate not wanting to debate ideas and win over votes?
When the final debate was a done deal and announced it was being covered by C-SPAN live, I wrote in Bob Barr's campaign web site blog as I usually did almost on a daily basis, simply that the Third Party debate was on and that C-Span was covering it live. My entry was immediately deleted and so I tried it again in case it was a computer glitch but I was in fact censored. This had never happened before, at least, not to me. How very Libertarian to censor a comment that had no foul or hateful language.
I realized I made the right decision in not casting my vote for Barr.
Today, I voted for Ralph Nader in this third day of early voting in Broward County Florida. And I feel great about my vote.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 74 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jonathan Cymberknopf only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jonathan Cymberknopf 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.
I wrote about Barr in some of my articles & caught tons of hell just for telling people that I wouldn't vote for him. I didn't even tell anyone even once, to not vote for him. I even went as far as to say that because he was picked to lead the LP at the ballot box that I wouldn't ever tell anyone NOT to vote for him.
Of course this didn't matter to the Legion of the Brainwashed that accused me of outright hatred of the LP.
Barr had the gall to state that he is somehow in charge of the debate process and would only debate Nader. He made a big deal out of rubbing elbows with (and kissing the filthy butt of) none other than Man-bear-pig himself, Al Gore. Riddle me this, Batman, when has Al Gore or Ralph Nader ever once in their miserable lives, even once, took a stand for liberty?
The candidate that the party picked to represent it's views of Liberty to the world, has shown himself to be an embarrassment of epic proportions. Nothing more than a trick-bag former CIA agent intent upon the destruction of freedom in our nation.
Ron Paul had backed the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, to show America that Chuck was more Libertarian than who the Libertarians chose to carry their banner.
Perhaps the party will survive if they actually learn anything from this and field a REAL Libertarian in 2012. Fielding these right wing clods is nothing less than a sick exercise in political insanity.
As a Libertarian, I am proud of Bob Barr as our candidate for President. The Barr campaign provided more positive comments and interviews in the news media, about the Libertarian Party, than all the previous Libertarian candidates I supported.
I hope he is our candidate again in 2012.
President BARR wave and yard signs (80 cents) http://www.artypeinc.com/store/
Item 1: Ron Paul is enjoying great success and just might become the next President of the USA..
Item 2: Although RP asserts that he will not go independent in the presidential race (should he not win the Republican Party nomination) the door is still there..
Item 3: RP's political enemies would fear an independent running for president that is enjyoing the same popular support as RP did earlier this the year. The question on these people's minds are these:
How do we prevent RP from running for President as an independent? How do we prevent someone else running for President as an indepent from enjoying RP's success?
Ironically, Ron Paul will most likely be voting for Bob Barr even though he endorsed Baldwin. That's b/c Baldwin won't be on the ballot in Texas and RP says he will be voting for a 3rd party.
Besides the irony that RP will most probably be voting for Bob Barr in Texas, I just spoke with Bob Barr at the event in Cincinnati last night and the Libertarian Party of Ohio is organizing a 3rd party debate that Barr says will include him and the other 3 third party candidates. This kind of casts a real shadow on the demeanor and negative tone of this article towards Bob Barr.
Very good article, I have been saying this from the beginning, Libertarian principles are not picked up in this two party congress, they are established well before. I am not saying people can't change their beliefs, but changing them in our corrupt government is very unlikely.
This is complete speculation but also makes sense that Barr would be placed in the Libertarian spot to force Ron Paul votes to other candidates and thus not producing the coverage that it should entail with millions of Ron Paul supporters.
I believe this was also tried once before early on in the race with Alan Keyes, talking about fair tax and other borderline libertarian principles.
I think the elite pretty much try and cover every angle to make sure that their candidate, who is easily controllable is placed into office. There is nothing more obvious.
Very good article, I have been saying this from the beginning, Libertarian principles are not picked up in this two party congress, they are established well before. I am not saying people can't change their beliefs, but changing them in our corrupt government is very unlikely.
This is complete speculation but also makes sense that Barr would be placed in the Libertarian spot to force Ron Paul votes to other candidates and thus not producing the coverage that it should entail with millions of Ron Paul supporters.
I believe this was also tried once before early on in the race with Alan Keyes, talking about fair tax and other borderline libertarian principles.
I think the elite pretty much try and cover every angle to make sure that their candidate, who is easily controllable is placed into office. There is nothing more obvious.
Millions of Ron Paul supporters? It amazes me that people think that Ron Paul has that many loyal supporters. If he had that many loyal supporters, how come his Campaign for Liberty only has a little over 100,000 people join? Why, because a lot of the votes that Ron Paul got in the Republican primary were single-issue voters and were voting for him simply because he was the only Republican who was against the war in Iraq.
Now Ron Paul does have a legitimate amount of supporters and they are passionate, but it isn't in the millions, it is in the thousands.
Posted By: Coming back to the LP
Date: 2008-10-23 10:19:47
Jonathan,
You are making the assumption that you know better what political strategy will work best. The Barr campaign has decided that "debating down" is a bad strategy and they may be right. The big 2 parties never debate down unless the opposition is so strong that the "down" candidate might be one of them. The big 2 strategy seems to be working, they always seem to win.
If the LP wants to win, we have to become big first. There is a strategy that will allow us to do just that, but it has never been tried.
As to Ron Paul's supporters, they were all gone long before his pitiful self-promoting news conference. In two weeks we will all see that Chuck Baldwin's vote total is in line with other years for the CP and that the Ron Paul effect is close to zero. It is unlikely that we will find more than 10,000 Paulites were left to be influenced and there will be no obvious net benefit to the CP.
Further, it is quite likely that Barr's vote totals will be higher than all the anti-Barr-ites would like.
Finally, even if you are upset at the Barr Campaign strategy, that is no reason not to vote for the LP candidate. And while it's true that the LP and Barr campaign have really failed at ballot access due to poor managers, that is a good reason not to donate to Barr/2008, but no reason not to vote for Barr. And even though I agree that Barr should appear in this final chance to debate with Nader, Baldwin and any of the "theoretical 6 possible winners debate," that too is no reason not to vote for Barr.
If you vote (or have voted) for Nader instead of Barr, you are supporting Socialism over Liberty. That is your right, but you are no Libertarian and no friend of Liberty.
Out of curiosity, I went online and checked to see what flights there were out of Atlanta to DC after Bob Barr's speaking engagment at Georgia Tech. I found only one flight that would get Barr to Dulles before the scheduled debate start, but even then, given the distance from Dulles to the debate site, the traffic in and around DC, and the delays associated with getting your luggage and a rental car at the airport, I seriously doubt he would have any chance to get to the debate prior to its start. Knowing this, I think Bob not attending is the right move, why spend the valuable campaign funds to attempt to attend an event you have no chance at making before it starts.
The Kool-Aid and Weed must be pretty strong in some circles of the LP.
To wave off the influence of the Ron Paul voter (one-issue voters? Yeah, that issue would be the Constitution) is pure hopes, wishes and naivete. Had Barr acted with a little more humility in his campaign, he would have recieved the majority of Ron Paul supporter votes. The low-end would have been in the hundreds of thousands. The high-end? Who knows, probably a million, maybe even more. We'll never know.
But Barr's ego wouldn't allow that. Even though he resided in the GOP, Paul still casts a large LP shadow in Barr's direction and he knows he can't out-Liberty the man. I think the possible hidden resentment has caused Barr to act even more irrationally.
The GOP nominee is a chump. The Dem nominee is a chump. The LP nominee is embarassing. At least Chuck Baldwin has a little personality, is humble and really cares about American's freedoms.
I switched from Barr to Baldwin and there's a grip of us. Sorry LP.
Actually, Chuck Baldwin *is* on the ballot in Texas - as a certified write-in candidate:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/ba_stats.php
Therefore Ron Paul very well could be voting for him.
I've already voted, and I cast my ballot for Baldwin. I did so not because I'm a huge fan of his - in fact, I am in disagreement with many of the "Christian-driven" planks in the Constitution Party platform such as their opposition to abortion and gay rights.
But apart from those issues Baldwin is very libertarian - much more so, in my humble opinion, than Bob Barr.
The sad fact is, I've voted for the Libertarian candidate in every election since I discovered the Libertarian Party in 1992. But this year, I simply couldn't do it. I've had an abiding dislike for the policies and views of Barr since he was in Congress.
In Congress, Barr was an anti-drug zealot. Has he ever really changed his mind? Has he ever apologized to the thousands (or is it tens of thousands) of nonviolent drug users he worked so hard to lock away in prison while he was a federal prosecutor?
He's on the record, previous to his "conversion," for such anti-libertarian positions as helping author the Defense of Marriage Act (anti-gay) working to make illegal the practice of Wicca in the military (anti-religious freedom) voting for the Patiot Act and invasion of Iraq (anti-Constitution).
I know he's said he has changed his mind. But has he ever said *why* he's changed? Usually such an about-face comes after some sort of striking epiphany, a revelation that makes one want to shout to the world about WHY you were wrong.
So far, all I've seen from Barr are a few generic "uhh... sorry 'bout that!" statements without explanation or elaboration.
I can't believe the man. Not without further explanation. Personally - my opinion here - my impression of Bob Barr is that of a political opportunist who thought he could combine a few right-wing semi-libertarian positions and hook them to the forces driving the Ron Paul movement for a quick ride to the top.
I'm betting he will receive fewer votes than Badnarik did in '04.
Posted By: Coming back to the LP
Date: 2008-10-23 12:23:35
"The low-end would have been in the hundreds of thousands. The high-end? Who knows, probably a million, maybe even more. We\'ll never know."
Of course we\'ll know. We\'ll look at Balwin\'s votes, subtract the previous vote totals and we\'ll see the net change. We\'ll see that there is no increase from the Ron Paul endorsement. We\'ll see that Ron Paul\'s supporters went back to where they came from.
Then we\'ll look at Bob Barr\'s votes and we\'ll find out if the massive increase in media coverage that Barr has received, compared to past LP candidates, has resulted in increased vote totals.
"I\'m betting he will receive fewer votes than Badnarik did in \'04."
You\'ll lose your money.
Barr will receive either the highest or, at worst, second highest number of votes of any LP Presidential candidate, ever.
1) Again, Baldwin is NOT on the ballot...at least not until you WRITE him on it.
2) Ron Paul is the one that said Baldwin is not on the ballot, but that he'll be voting 3rd party.
3) Ron Paul had over 1 MILLION people donate to him during the primaries. That's ONLY those who donated. That doesn't include their wives, children, family, and others who simply did not contribute but voted. I know many who did not donate, but voted. That puts him well above 1 MILLION.
This article hit the nail on the head. Finally someone has it figured out!
If Bob Barr is not a GOP plant he sure acts like one. I was so pissed when I heard he brushed off RP's press confrence to have his own and then ask RP to be his vice president. I was in total shock. Bob Barr had the "closest to the RP issues" and would have had the RP endorsement.
Bob Barr is either an idiot or a GOP plant.
Bob Barr's website is not for free speach either because they deleted my messages.
Then the final straw is the amature LP not getting on the ballot in my state Louisiana. The LP has no valid excuse to not have been on the ballot. Not even a hurricane.
The Libertarian Party has the right ideas that would save our country but until the Libertarian Party stops being a big disorganised joke they will never be anything but a bunch of winers with no power. Thanks LP for giving me some hope and then yanking it away from me.
At least I can vote for Ron Paul in my state as a protest vote.
Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul\'s brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign\'s accounting,.
Shane: you apparently are making the same mistake as Mike Ferguson. Does the fact that millions voted for Paul (right now it would be several million, as many Huckabee, Romney etc. supporters and also more iNdependents have turned to Paul) mean they all have internet access and also should sign up with the campaign for liberty? Nope. Your comments is like saying when the Republicans and Democrats receive millions of people in an election, why don\'t all those people not join the party? The very active members are actually just a fraction of those that vote. And the campaign for liberty is ongoing and many people active, although they may not have officially joining the CFL yet.
Stefan you make the mistake in assuming that all or most of the people who voted for Ron Paul in the primaries voted for Ron and not against the other worthless Republican candidates.
I support Ron Paul and I am a member of the C4L, but I am a realist and I recognize that the vocal minority does not make a majority. I recognize that Ron Paul has thousands of loyal supporters, just not as many as the really loyal Ron Paul followers think.
So how much of that "Ron Paul" money has Chuck Baldwin be able to raise. Let's be honest. As long as TV, Newspapsr, Radio, and our schools endorse and promote the two-party system, you're sunk.
It's depressing that so many people have to pin their hopes on just a single third-party candidate instead of enjoying a robust debate across the specturm where the top five or six parties get to debate policy and introduce themselves to the American Voting public.
1- I agree with Shane and a few other that posted that Ron Paul lost many votes before Bob Barr even came into the picture. My family, friends, and myself included, all dropped our vote for Ron Paul the instant he went to the republican side. After further looking into his policies, we all decided that he is a turncoat.
2- Humility is good, but not when it keeps you from doing what you have to. This article focuses on Bobs disrespecting Ron Paul. First off, why would you vote for someone who endorses another candidate? If they endorse said candidate, then they might as well not be running against them. This means that Bob obviously does not see things the way Ron does. This having been said, why would Bob even want Ron’s endorsement? To get voters? No, he has more integrity then that.
3- Ron Paul made a huge mistake when he joined the republicans. The truth is that he needed votes. As a third party candidate, the possibility of him getting elected dwindled to 0. So to get votes, he jumped on the bandwagon as a republican. His original policies which won him so much of his original support sure as hell aren’t truly republican. This mean that he will either disappoint his republican supporters by a wide margin, or that he did what he has attacked so many other candidates for doing- sacrificing your goals for votes. Either way, he lost my support, and the support of everyone else who I know who was voting for him. W proved that you can’t trust a flip flopper, least of all a republican one.
4- Right now, it is becoming self-evident how big the libertarian party is getting. Before, you had no arguments within the LP as you do today because no one really heard about it. Now, millions are arguing each day over which libertarian to vote for. Due to the fact that the LP is still comparatively small, the division will make it impossible for either to win. Just wait another 4 years and the difference will become more apparent. The problem is the same now as it always has been just in a different circle. I.E.- Most people want more. In the past, this meant voting for someone who would cut taxes (for those who are working), and at the same time give a free ride to those who don’t work.
5- Society is getting pissed. Plain and simple. I make 70k+ a year. I see 46k after taxes. This does not include property, sales, gas, or capitol gains taxes. Land of the free? HA! I know damn well that millions out there are in the same position. Problem is, to many of them believe Obama or McCain when they say they will cut taxes and make healthcare cheaper. The fact remains that neither one can put their money where their mouth is due to their own political agenda’s and polices. Enter the LP.
6- Due to their unique solutions, the majority of the people are afraid to even try this method. Land of the brave? HA! Due to the fact that people have lost their common sense and ability to think independently, we now have a nation of the blind leading the blind.
7.- Then you have articles like this where the author has obviously allowed his already weak perspective to be shifted by the action of someone else who doesn’t truly understand it either, thus proving my point. In the end you have spineless fools like this clown who throws the towel in to the status quo, instead of finding a good foundation of belief and sticking to it. Does this make you happy, oh great author of nonsense? How do you feel now? Better now that you moved to another candidate that probably will do something to upset you in another 2 years anyway (IF he is elected that is)?
8- Fact remains. We all have our opinions. Then there are facts. Had you stuck to the facts, I would never have posted this. But because you injected your two cents (to quote Humphrey Bogart- ‘That’s about all their worth anyway’), in doing so caused strife that will only the end hurt both Bob and Ralph. After all, who wants to vote for the same candidate that cowards and non-informed idiots do?
On the question of Barr being a plant, it wouldn't surprise me. It also woudn't surprise me if he's not. At this point, for the servile masses, Libertarian is similar to Progressive on the Left. That is to say it's the catch all for the disaffected on the right, which is why Barr might not be a plant. The problem for Libertarians is that to grow they have to let the disaffected in, until they can get their voice out through the corporate media, which won't happen any time soon. Right now, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. The key will be how the Libertarians build the party from now on. Will it be 'pure' or will it be a hodge podge?
I'd take the time to post a rebuttal to the article and many of the comments here, but it's not my job to do your thinking for you.
I will say one thing, though: I'm pretty sure when someone's comment is voted down to a certain point on the Barr campaign blog it automatically hides the comment. Your conspiracy theories about getting deleted are probably unfounded.
RP didn't leave and turncoat to the Republican Party. HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A PART OF IT. He has always been fighting from within! If you saw him in the debates and are calling him a turncoat, then you are either 1) ignorant or 2) deaf b/c he lambasted all of the neocons and their ideas. This NEVER would have been allowed had he been some kind of turncoat.
It should be noted that a voter and a supporter are not the same thing. A voter can be a supporter, but more often then not, they aren't. A supporter is someone who works to further a candidates campaign or message. This could be through volunteering, donating, or just work on spreading the candidates message. A supporter sticks with the candidate from one campaign to the next.
A voter on the other hand is fickle. If they have any allegiance, it is to a party or a single issue, not a candidate. This is why a candidates votes total changes from election to election. The supporters vote for their candidate, a voter votes for whomever they believe it is the best flavor-of-the-month.
Now the question is, on average, how many voters for a candidate are supporters? I don't know for sure, but I would guess that it is less then 25%.
Posted By: Richard Rider
Date: 2008-10-24 08:08:25
In California the good news is that Ron Paul is now an official write-in candidate. That means that if you write in his name, that vote WILL be counted. Most write-in names are not ballot qualified -- and thus not counted.
I haven't decided whether or not I can hold my nose and vote for Barr. A former Congress critter, well versed in coventional politics, Barr totally misunderstood the role of a third party candidate, and what is necessary to be relatively successful.
Barr hired the standard GOP political operatives as his mentors. These "camapign experts" brought their wealth of ignorance to the effort -- totally clueless about third party politics.
I sure like having the Ron Paul ballot alternative.
Your analogy of Ron Paul's supporters being a cult folowing like the Grateful Dead's was pretty stupid. Think about it. Do I really need to elaborate?
Bob Barr is a bad choice for Lib. candidate and does not have my support. I am a person that does not forget or ignore past actions and recent records. That' a fools game.
The fact the Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin really blew my mind. His bible thumping message cloaked in the constitution is sickening to me. We might just as well vote for Sarah Palin. Ron Paul let so many of us down. His actions after he dropped out were bewildering to many of us.
I shall get blasted and scourged (I already have from many of my campaign friends) for changing my vote to Obama. At this point in time, I am terrified of John McCain becoming POTUS that I feel like it's much more important to vote Obama than making a statement by voting third party. McCain should horrify every voter out there enough that they would vote for Obama, to keep McCain out of the White House.
Don't waste your vote on a third party. It is imperitive at this point that we keep another Neocon OUT of the office of POTUS! We absolutely cannot afford another wreckless warmonger that barely graduated from college and is a known lobby whore, to become POTUS. I haven't even started on the lunacy of his running mate, Sarah Palin.
I know it's hard and I know it's not what folks want to do, but we must all vote for Obama to keep another lunatic out of the White House.
I doubt that they will let this comment be posted. I'd be very surprized if they do.
Posted By: Richard Rider
Date: 2008-10-24 08:50:20
Because of the Electoral College, for most there is no need to fret about voting for the lessor evil. In at least 40 states -- certainly Democrat-controlled California -- there is no doubt as to the outcome. And when a state's outcome is decided, ALL electorial votes to to the victor (except in Nebraska and perhaps another state or two that prorate the Electoral College vote).
In addition, there's essentially no chance that your solitary vote will change the outcome of a state Presidential election -- let alone the national outcome. If you vote in order to DECIDE the outcome of such races, you are delusional and should not be allowed near a polling booth.
More important, a vote for McCain or Obama is misinterpreted by the press and the public as a vote FOR the candidate, when most people voting in this election (certainly Libertarians) would really be voting AGAINST the OTHER candidate.
Obama and McCain should not get a mandate. Cast your vote for anyone BUT those two knaves, or don't vote in the Presidential contest at all.
As to whether Bob Barr is an idiot or a GOP plant, please watch Borat before you decide. The movie pretty much stripped him any traces of credibility that Larry Flynn's revelations may have left him.
RP's support began to drop as it became obvious that he would not become a candidate, unless he decided to violate his pledge not to run outside the GOP. Once you have read his books, and found Lew Rockwell's site, why would you continue to contribute to Ron's war chest, knowing that he is running for his seat in Congress unopposed?
Some of the more pragmatic of his adherents, who are afraid of “wasting” their vote, have either to vote against McCain because they are anti-war, or vote against Obama because they are against (unabashed) socialism.
Others of us who remain true to Ron Paul's ideals had to make the choice between Barr and Baldwin; speaking to the two issues brought up, those who believe abortion and gay rights are inalienable probably support Bob; those of us who believe that establishing laws concerning homicide and marriage are the responsibilities of the states under the Tenth Amendment tend to go with Chuck.
As to who will actually get more votes, I would tend to go with Barr over Baldwin, For whatever reason, Barr has a greater name recognition than any third party candidate save Nader (which may not be his greatest asset); I would imagine the LP slate is on more state ballots, and undoubtedly have candidates running for more offices, netting more undecided/independent votes; and both the Constitution Party and “Baldwin2008” organization seemed to leave the gate rather haphazardly, hitting every opportunity to advance with “too little, too late,” until RP’s passing of the torch seemed to amount to an “unfunded mandate.”
Speaking of "plants," why are so many "Paulites" suddenly going over to Obama, even though he and RP differ on almost every issue except Iraq?
Could it be that when Ron was a visible and viable alternative, backing him might split and confuse enough conservatives that a paleocon/libertarian third party might steal sufficient votes from the GOP to assure a Liberal Democrat in the White House?
Maybe Ron (and Bob) were tools of the Democrats all along!
Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2008-10-24 13:31:05
Glad you finally saw through the hype and BS, Jonathan. The sad reality is that while Barr is actually a pretty good spokesman for the libertarian viewpoint, especially on the big issues of the day (i.e. the financial mess), his campaign has been a disaster. I attribute that mostly to the clueless and inept Verney/Cory team.
I am voting for Barr, and hope he gets at least one million votes (which would be about 0.75%) but I have my doubts that he will do that well. My best guess as to vote totals in the Presidential contest are as follows:
Like a whole lot of other libertarians when Barr first won the nomination I was more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but in my eyes it's been downhill ever since. I refuse to vote for him if for no other reason it's because he's shown himself either through arrogence or deliberate intent to be a total ass. I can see what Paul is trying to accomplish and I applaud him for it. Maybe by providing a united 3rd party front and debating in different cities the Constitution Party, the Green, Nader and the others can get media coverage in different cities in the 2012 election. I just hope that the LP national committee wakes up and refuses to allow a Barr or Root to not steal the nomination again.
I don't really want to vote for Barr and and I can't vote for a theocracy. I stopped sending him donations after the no-show at the Ron Paul conference....but I will have to vote for Barr because if I don't I will be punishing the 2012 LP nominee who needs my 2008 vote and thousands of others to get automatic ballot access for the 2012 election. 2% of the popular vote will accomplish that in several states. I don't want him/her fighting the courts and the 2-party system to get on the 2012 ballots.
I agree. Thank the anti-pledge nincompoops around him and on LNC. While I'm sticking with Barr if Nolan is, I estimate 70% of the Libertarian-leaning are voting for Obama.
I understand that at least one well-connected Libertarian leader has opened talks with Obama advisers on Libertarian appointments and initiatives, so at least someone is taking action for the movement. The buzz in many chatrooms is that LP leaders are quietly coming out for Obama, letting Obama's folks know it, beating the movement tom-toms, and therefore it's OK to vote for Obama at least in swing states. I think Libertarians in the swing states will hand him the election. People are calling for an open Liberal-Libertarian alliance.
Just GOOGLE the 'Libertarians for Obama' blog at his site. My eyes just about rolled out of my head. But I wasn't really shocked. I went to an LP group meeting recently and they all said flatly they were voting for Obama, except for two guys who were with the Geritol War crowd, and a local arch-purist. The real irony is that the people usually identified as the purists are the only ones sticking by him, mostly for party unity.
And media coverage? Where? We're getting less stories relative to media growth, and I think locally in absolute numbers, because of him. A well-connected activist told me the Libertarian-friendly media, which is pretty sophisticated here because of local activity (200 top journalists who wrote about Libertarianism got Bergland's book and a call explaining the platform and our achievements back in 2001) are avoiding covering Barr here. They don't want to hurt the local Libertarians, who're doing well.The press coverage here is certainly non-existent from people who normally like the LP and cover Libertarian items. A friend spoke with a columnist who describes himself as Libertarian about this and he said, 'You bet, I'm focusing on local issues.'
This weekend after hearing him speak in Florida (Two LP officials told me the co-ordination by Barr's group was terrible, and that they were told by one of cronies it was intentionally so since 'we only support our Libertarians' ) it was clear why. Jesus Christ. Someone hand Barr the 2004 platform. It was like McBride all over again, lost like a baby as soon as he got off the 'small government is beautiful' platitudes. He was being tripped up by the simplest philosophical points. So much for politics versus philosophy society. Then it got really bad. He just babbled on about how he supported fighting drugs and believed in financial regulation and a flat tax. The media even said, 'Gee, you don't sound very Libertarian. Isn't the libertarian position...?' and Barr implied that was past and all flexible and basically started debating the platform. We just all started laughing at that point. Someone said 'Small government isn't a principle, it's a tool, fool!' Another said her impression was Barr was more interested in propping up the Libertarian Reform Caucus on platform battles then telling the public about Libertarian solutions they might vote for!
So I now understand the Obama support in the LP and the movement in general. Obama way outflanks Barr on drugs, tax cuts, getting a handle on the bailout, civil unions, let alone foreign policy. Nothing on civil rights and liberties. We have a giant issue on a civil unions vote here in Florida in the election but nothing. We've had some great Libertarian victories here but not a word ('Just as libertarians have helped put tax cut amendments on here in Florida, in the federal government I'll...). He didn't do basic research (or his staff) because they think Libertarians do nothing so there's nothing there...or deliberately ignore it. That's what it looks like.
So as somebody said, Barr makes Obama look Libertarian. One lady who's a Democrat who likes the local LP was little sympathetic and said it best, 'Who's advising him? He's the Self-Joe Biden.'
Jonathan.... are you serious? After all this, you voted for who? Nadar? Granted, less dangerous than Obama but still a left wing, socialist nut job, none the less.
I've read your stuff here cause it's somehwhat analytical and better writing than mine. But come on, how much did the RP pay you to write this one?
Let's realize one big thing, Ron Paul is not on the ballot. Bob Barr is on the ballot! Ok, ok - YES, if Barr and Paul would have teamed up, then this race would have made a heck of a better show. That would have made it 6 week competition and been even fun to watch. But because Barr went his own way, Paul didn't get his way and pouted.... and then just confused most of his cult-like followers by endorsing Chuck Baldwin. Seriously, Ron Paul preaches little to nothing of the CP stance. We see what good that has done Baldwin, who we haven't heard more than a squeek from. Personally, I think the Barr campaign did well, all considering. They went their own way and took advantage of what little they had to work with. (Also, I don't remember seeing much coverage about that well organized 3rd party super power debate on CNN or FOX.)
So yet again, thanks to great supporters like yourself, we have another round of 1% protest voting and no support for a real candidate that stands on priciples (unless, of course, you actually think McCain or Obama are good candidates who stand on principle even though they bought their way there.... then nevermind). Anyway, we now have to wait for the implosion of the RP that will happen if they lose the House, Senate and the Executive branch, and hope for the fiscal conservatives that have half a sack to filter over to the LP.
Well, Barr is still the only candidate that I still agree with on most, if not nearly all, of the topics and I'm still voting for him.
Here's to hoping that all the ballot rigging goes wrong and Barr gets 99% of the vote!!
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.
