Drafting Bob Barr?
When I hang out with Robert Stacy McCain, something interesting always happens. After spending a good deal of time with him last week at CPAC, he picked up on a buzz there with which I played a role. Today, McCain is reporting that there is a movement, at this moment unorganized, to get former Congressman Bob Barr to run for president.
Bob Barr, who helped lead the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton, is the object of an alliance of conservative and libertarians seeking to recruit the former Georgia Republican congressman as a third-party presidential candidate.Now an Atlanta-based activist with the Libertarian Party, Barr has repeatedly disavowed any intention of seeking the LP’s 2008 presidential nomination. He reiterated that stance Monday during an appearance on Neal Boortz’s Atlanta-based syndicated talk radio program.
While I missed the Boortz program in question, my understanding is that Barr asked Boortz if he’d be willing to write a big check when asked if he’d consider running for president.
“Right now, he’s concentrating on establishing the Libertarian Party as a viable third party,” said Derek Barr, the former congressman’s son, who now serves as his father’s communication and research director.However, efforts to push a Barr candidacy were given new impetus last week when Rep. Ron Paul sent a letter to his supporters announcing plans to scale back his Republican presidential campaign and concentrate on his congressional re-election fight in Texas.
Several organizers behind the draft-Barr movement were supporters of the Paul presidential campaign. Last week, Barr introduced Paul at of the 35th annual Conservative Political Action Conference, calling the Texas congressman “the Constitution’s best friend” and “the gold standard of conservatism” in the GOP presidential campaign.
Barr’s backers have also solicited support among conservative Republicans who were disappointed by last week’s announcement—made on the opening day of CPAC —that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was suspending his Republican presidential campaign.
Former Romney backers were “very excited” by proposals to recruit Barr for a White House run on the Libertarian ticket, a source said.
Barr gave a fiery introductory speech for Paul at CPAC, which may have refueled some of the enthusiasm for a draft movement. Here’s the YouTube of the intro.
I first heard the talk about Barr at a party co-hosted by McCain shortly after Mitt Romney suspended his campaign last Thursday. A lot of the Romney supporters I spoke with that night were strongly considering voting for Ron Paul—or a third party candidate. Several asked me if the Libertarian Party might be running someone other than those who had officially announced so far. Barr’s name came up a few times in conversation.
After Ron Paul sent out an e-mail announcing that he was scaling back campaign operations, the third party questions from Romney supporters and libertarians increased. Later that evening, Bob Barr and a group of other people met in the hotel lobby before heading to Shelly’s Back Room for a while. This is when and where the picture was taken of Phil Kent (McCain took the picture) . Several libertarians and fiscal conservatives who I knew from previous political activities or Stacy McCain’s party the previous night saw me standing with Barr as we organized our group enough to hop into taxis and head down the road.
About the time we arrived at our destination, my phone started ringing. The speculation was about whether Barr might run or if we were meeting to try to persuade him to run. Before the night was over, calls were coming and going from around the country. Some were initiated by me and some by others as the story started leaking beyond the Beltway. McCain almost certainly overheard some of those telephone conversations.
To be clear, the topic of a presidential run was only raised in a very general manner while we were at Shelly’s and no one (of which I’m aware) directly popped Barr the question. He spent more of his time discussing the qualities of fine cigars or listening to me rant about McCain-Feingold. I recall that I did make a lame Monica Lewinsky joke as our cigars arrived.
One supporter said Barr could become the “heir apparent” to Paul, whose campaign raised more than $30 million. In a Friday message to supporters, Paul—who was the 1988 LP candidate—definitively ruled out a third-party White House run this year.Another pro-Barr activist who is familiar with details of the record-setting online fundraising operation for Paul’s campaign said the Texan’s donors are primed to shift their contributions to a Libertarian candidate “who’s got a real chance” to win in November.
“They’re ready to go,” said the Internet activist, who said he’d been trying to persuade Barr to seek the LP nomination since last fall. “It’s very logical—that’s what’s next.”
The online Barr backer, a longtime Libertarian, said he was at first skeptical when the Georgia Republican switched to the LP in 2006.
“I’ve been very, very impressed,” he said of Barr, a former federal prosecutor. “He’s completely turned around” on key Libertarian issues, including decriminalization of marijuana. However, Barr’s supporters would expect him to advocate a conservative stance on immigration—a position shared by Paul.
While there were quite a few Ron Paul supporters (myself included) at Shelley’s that night, I’m not sure who the “Internet activist” or Barr backers are, but I do know that McCain called me several times to thoroughly source this article. I’m guessing this is a partially different group of people from those at the bar Friday night. I suspect that the “longtime Libertarian” is one of the people with whom I spoke on the telephone, though.
Another Barr supporter noted that the former House Judiciary Committee member’s role in the 1998 Clinton impeachment would make for an interesting media angle, should former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton win the Democratic Party nomination.“It’s a sequel—a rematch,” the supporter said.
It is quote possible that I was being quoted here—I’ve made several similar statements in McCain’s presence.
For the record, I have no real clue about how seriously Barr is taking all of this, although I have spoken with one of his staffers today. I do know that my phone started ringing off the hook when the prospect of a Barr run became a minor buzz at CPAC. The calls died off yesterday as I was telling people I didn’t think there was much of a chance of Barr running. However, they picked back up this morning, mostly from people who weren’t at CPAC. I’m sure McCain’s article will encourage more of such contact.
There is clearly a small but growing movement which seems to have started spontaneously. The three legs of the movement seem to be Ron Paul supporters (one of whom suggested a theme of “Paul in September, Barr in November”), small-government Republicans and libertarians/Libertarians.
My only advice to the former congressman, while he ponders these latest developments, is to consider that a lot of very serious players are showing interest in even the possibility of a Bob Barr presidential bid.
Personally, I’d be happy to support the campaign of someone who tells off current Bush apologist Dana Rohrabacher on CNN about issues like electronic eavesdropping, foreign policy and the presidential oath of office. We could certainly use a president who would honor that oath as well as one who will tell Congress, in no uncertain terms, to take your unconstitutional policy and shove it.
Photo credits:
Top: Bob Barr shortly after introducing Ron Paul, taken by Stephen Gordon.
Middle: Photo by Robert Stacy McCain, described in this manner: “Prior to Friday night’s departure for important conference activities, Atlanta-based media legend Phil Kent learns from libertarian activist Stephen Gordon that Ron Paul” had just downsized his campaign operations.
Bottom: At Shelley’s, taken by Robert Stacy McCain (or at least with his BarbieCam).
All of these photographs were “lifted” from Facebook.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I’d like to see it but I doubt he would consider this. I don’t think he’s blind to the fact that he isn’t very popular with many members of the LP, especially the “radicals”
February 11th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Is Bob Barr pro-life? I believe he is.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I’m pro life as well…personally, but what someone else does is their own business.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Has Barr come out in no uncertain terms for a non-inteventionist foreign policy? Has he completely abandoned the drug war. If so, in both cases he could accused of being a flip-flopper….but this might be a relatively minor objection. If he has truly changed his positions, however, he would be far superior to any of the other announced candidates….though Gary Johnson (who has a long record of consistency) would be ideal.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Seems a bit hyped up, but, I’d support a Barr presidency.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Has Barr come out in no uncertain terms for a non-inteventionist foreign policy?
I can’t speak to that, but he opposed to Iraq on constitutional grounds on the CNN transcript above. My recollection is that he opposed most military intervention in the past—but it is also worthy to note that Barr has become considerably more libertarian over the last few years.
About the WOD, he’s working with MPP and took the WSPQ the other day where he indicated he would “Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.”
February 11th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I consider myself a Radical, and I’d vote for him. His positions are the same as Ron Paul’s (and I’m pro-life) but I can deal with the federalist postion he would probably have as long as he continues to fight for cutting spending and saving our civil liberties. And of course, Iraq.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Looks like the best next phase (if Gary Johnson won’t run) for the Ron Paul Revolution of all of the options provided.
Does anybody know how Bob Barr is on the CFR, Nafta, and the trans-Texas corridor?
February 11th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Barr is definately a lot better than any of the other LP candidates. Maybe better than Ron Paul. At least he doesn’t have NewsLetterGate behind him. But Paul doesn’t have Larry Flynt after him, either.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Jason Gatties,
Who are these radicals you talk about? Anarchists?
February 11th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I still wouldn’t count out Ron Paul seeking the LP nomination. I think it depends how he does in Texas, both in the presidential primary and in his own congressional district primary on March 4. The LP convention is a month after that. If he loses the primary, and loses his congressional primary, then he would have less reason to go to the Republican convention—and may consider running for the LP. A Paul-Barr ticket would be pretty strong, as a Third Party—especially if the other choices are Hillary and McCain.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I’d support Barr and I’m very confident he’d win the LP nomination if he sought it soon enough. If he waits too long, however, many of the LP activists will be committed to other candidates and he could fizzle like Fred Thompson.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Hell, I’d support him. And I was mostly a reluctant supporter of Paul.
February 11th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I’ve never voted Libertarian in my life, but I would pull the lever, donate $2,300 twice (if I can-how does this work for Libertarians?) and camp on the campaign doorsteps just to help my old congressman out. How does he get on the ballot?
February 11th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
A Bob Barr LP bid would be quite ironic as well, for those who remember the LP’s targeted effort to boot him out of Congress as one of the worst of the drug war leaders! If I recall correctly, the LP even publicly claimed his defeat a sign of their strength on their national website.
It seems like he is turning in the right direction on that issue, and he would undoubtedly be a much better president than the remaining D’s and R’s (excluding Ron Paul) but how quickly people forget.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Well even if we end up with McCain, Obama, or Clinton this year, we need to use what Ron Paul has built up into 2012. However, Paul will be 76 by then, so most likely we will need someone else to carry the torch. Barr could be that person.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Oh my. What’s Susan Hogarth going to say?
Susan, if the choice were between Wayne Allyn Root and Bob Barr, who would you pick?
February 11th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Wes,
I’m curious about WWSD (What Would Susan Do?) too.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
A Bob Barr LP bid would be quite ironic as well, for those who remember the LP’s targeted effort to boot him out of Congress as one of the worst of the drug war leaders!
Lots of irony. Barr v. Hillary would be amusing. Also, Barr and Cynthia McKinney have led impeachment movements.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
“I still wouldn’t count out Ron Paul seeking the LP nomination. I think it depends how he does in Texas, both in the presidential primary and in his own congressional district primary on March 4.”
I’m with you there. And while a small minority of RP supporters (the active ones, that is) might be ticked that he’d be going back on what he said, i think the majority would be overjoyed at the change of course.
“A Paul-Barr ticket would be pretty strong, as a Third Party—especially if the other choices are Hillary and McCain.”
That’s true too, though I think Obama would deflate the balloon sizeably since antiwar dems seem pretty comfortable with him. They’d still take a big chunk out of McCain’s ass though.
Even if Paul’s absolutely 100% out, Barr should still try to consult/coordinate with him if he does decide to make a go of it. With his congressional record, I think many RP supporters will be wary of getting behind him without a Paul Seal of Approval.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
donate $2,300 twice (if I can-how does this work for Libertarians?)
Just substitute conventions for primaries. It’s $2300 pre-nomination and $2300 post-nomination. And if you have that much money, I’m sure plenty of people at LPHQ would like to tell you about coordinated campaign expenditures with much higher limits.
Welcome aboard.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
WWSD—good one Stephen.
We’ll have to wait and see. In the short term, I bet she’ll refuse to choose a preference between what she will call “the lesser of two evils.”
Anyway, I’m just speaking for her because she’s not here to defend herself and I want to get in a few jabs before I have to run and hide and pretend I’m not reading the comments
February 11th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Even if Paul’s absolutely 100% out, Barr should still try to consult/coordinate with him if he does decide to make a go of it. With his congressional record, I think many RP supporters will be wary of getting behind him without a Paul Seal of Approval.
Important point. Because I speak with him frequently, it’s easy for me to forget how many reasonable people might not realize just how freedom oriented Bob Barr is these days.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
For once Wes Benedict is right. He needs to announce soon, or like Fred Thompson, his supporters will already be committed to the current announced candidates.
Seems that Wayne Root is picking up steam, gaining media, gaining Libertarian primary wins. This LP race may solidify within the coming weeks.
I’d be all for Barr. But I fear the mainline LP convention goers are too radical and basically too stupid to nominate him.
Evidence of their stupidity?
Michael Badnarik.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Anybody else notice the potential irony in the Presidential race if Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party nominee of him running against fellow Georgian, Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney?
That would be a hoot!
Just let Barack Hussein Obama and boring Squish McCain try to keep that duo out of the Fall debates.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“I’m pro life as well…personally, but what someone else does is their own business.”
Nice pro-choice boilerplate Jason, but it also happens to be the business of the baby that is getting slaughtered.
If Barr is pro-life, anti-amnesty/pro-border security, and anti-intervention then he could grab some of the conservative/libertarian coalition that Ron Paul was managing to hold together.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Actually with McKinney running on the Green ticket and Barr on the LP the media might give them publicity just to keep people interested in the election.
Let’s face it McCain and Obama/Clinton aren’t going to be too interesting.
Now add another former congressman…Bob Smith on the Constitution line and we can have some fun.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Red,
Actually, half of the Ron Paul supporters I know in Alabama are pro-choice. Most of my DC Ron Paul friends are pro-choice. That’s the beauty of the federalism angle in his platform. I’m sure, based on conversations on other topics, that Barr would take the same position.
Not so sure exactly how he would go on immigration, but I expect I would hear the phrase “rule of law” in his arguments.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Many Libertarians would support Ron Paul because he has a long history of involvement with the Libertarian Party and other libertarian institutions.
I welcome Bob Barr into the Libertarian Party, but maybe he should run for Congress or Senate in Georgia, so we can see how he represents the LP in a campaign before we fantasize about a Presidential campaign.
Face it, we will have a pro-government politico as President, whether it’s McCain or Obama or Hillary. We need pro-freedom Congressmen to counter President Statist and the Dana Rohrabacher’s of Congress.
Of course, if Gary Johnson wants to run for President on the LP ticket – this year or in 2012, I would back him.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Gene,
I’d back Johnson in a heartbeat. However, Johnson has expressed no interest and Barr is positioned well enough to consider a run. From an LP perspective, he’s as libertarian as Badnarik, Russo, or Paul. His speaking ability is better.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Run, Bob, run!
RUN, BOB, RUN!
February 11th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Stephen, I suspect that most of the Ron Paul supporters you know are l/Libertarians. For hard core conservatives, esp. conservative Christians, being pro-choice is a non-starter. Once you know that, you don’t need to know anything else. They have been eliminated from consideration.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Red,
In DC, they are mostly libertarians. In Alabama, it’s a pretty wide open mix. Most of the conservative Christians are strongly pro-life, but don’t belong to organized “box” religions. I do agree with your general assessment about this demographic group, though.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
And some of us Ron Paul supporters have abortion as a low priority… and really like the federalist approach.
a run by Bob barr would be interesting…
February 11th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I couldn’t support Ron Paul because of previous horrible selections of staffers. Eric Dondero, have you ever worked for Bob Barr?
February 11th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I’ve got $1000 for Bob Barr should he run for the nomination.
I’m not planning on going to the National Convention, but my wife and I would attend to give him two delegates there as well.
Any savvy web guy want to create a nice site encouraging Bob Barr to run, with the ability to “pledge” money and National Convention delegates if he does entertain the idea?
February 11th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Barr had a good immigration reduction record while in Congress
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=GA07&VIPID=219&retired=1
.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Wes,
You write:
“Susan, if the choice were between Wayne Allyn Root and Bob Barr, who would you pick?”
I’m not Susan, but I’ll answer the question anyway: Cynthia McKinney.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
I would be all over a Barr run.
Still voting for Paul in the Texas primary.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Tom: “I’m not Susan, but I’ll answer the question anyway: Cynthia McKinney.”
I really hope that is a joke.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Here’s another question. If the choice were between Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, what would Brian (oops—just forgot his last name—the cranky reform the platform humany guy) do?
In any case, I’d support Root or Kubby if Barr won’t run, and definitely would support a Ron Paul nomination if he were interested, but the rest of those LP characters don’t have a chance. Barr, Root or Kubby would easily demolish Phillies and the rest of them.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
“...donors are primed to shift their contributions to a libertarian candidate ” who’s got a real chance” to win in November.” WHAT! Where did this come from? Ron Paul candidacy panderers? Oh, Ron Paul has a chance to win. Vote Ron Paul. & the more you contribute, the better his chances. Anybody who knows ANYTHING political knew from the get-go Ron Paul had virtually ZERO chance of winning the election. In fact he had virtually ZERO chance of winning EVEN ONE primary. The Libertarian Vote see Cato Institute study is in effect a niche vote with a 20% ceiling. If he saw it through to the convention he might could emulate Keyes & get some delegates & even speak or be a player at the convention. No libertarian can win. THAT’S IT. Now, if this criterion is so important to these donors, THE ONLY POSSIBILITY OF A REAL CHANCE TO WIN in November is via the Progressive Alliance Strategy. & it also gets some Congresspersons elected on the coattails. Otherwise all the Paul/Barr, McKinney/Paul, McKinney/Nader talk is the SAME OLD POLITICS AS USUAL. Tell these people/donors the truth, Steve. Further, “However, Barr’s supporters would expect him to advocate a conservative stance on immigration-a position shared by Paul.” Also by me & George Phillies. However my position I arrived at by logical conclusion of advocacy of amends to Native Americans. Curtailing immigration & even reversing it in order to arrive at a future of population parity with them. This is a good example of compromise/negotiation with leftist(Green) & rightist (libertarian) ideology. The abortion issue is another one that Ron Paul/small government republicans make compromise/negotiation>alliance somewhat difficult. Progressivism is basically the compromise that makes election victory possible. Get with the program!
February 11th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
& I’ve taken a lot of grief from Tom K. about my immigration position.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Jeff Wartman, knowing Tom as I do, I’d say that’s probably NOT a joke & I tend to agree with him.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Yes, I am very happy that Bob Barr would lose the election even if we did run, and we will have a president who believes in state power and crushing the constitution and crushing economic freedom. The true socialist revolution will come, and it will see the conglomeration of the two parties. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will divide the Democrats, while McCain and Huckabee will divide the Republicans. Hillary will take McCain as her running mate and Obama will take Huckabee as his running mate. The third parties will get a few thousand votes, but most of them will realize the greatness of Obama and Huckabee, and they will submit.
So, please pray for Barack Obama and please pray for Mike Huckabee, the Christian version of Leon Trotsky.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:10 am
& Shane Cory, will you please put my name back on the Liberty Decides website?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:12 am
I know you are busy what with trying to straighten out all this Ron Paul nonsense.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Bob Barr, cigar smoker, having his picture taken with chicks. That’s manly. I respect that.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Itch, I don’t know…it looks like the brunette in the background is about to stick her cigar in his ear.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:13 am
I bet she’s at least thinking about it.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Bob Barr seems like he’d be one of the best bets for a Libertarian presidential candidate.
I’m still hoping Ron Paul has a change of mind and runs for the LP nomination after he secures his seat in congress in the primary.
In Freedom & Liberty
Ryan Brennan
http://www.thirdpartynews.net
February 12th, 2008 at 5:41 am
A Paul/Barr ticket, that’d be incredible!
February 12th, 2008 at 7:12 am
I linked to this story over at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
BTW, there’s another HUGE story breaking of great interest to libertarian Republicans. AZ Cong. John Shadegg is “retiring” but speculation is that the libertarian Republican is in line for the McCain Senate seat. Also, Shadegg’s replacement is a hardcore libertarian Republican!!
Full story at MainstreamLibertarian.com
February 12th, 2008 at 7:13 am
No, Ron Paul on the ticket would turn off too many mainline Republicans.
Barr should run with someone like Wayen Root, Ed Thompson or Don Gorman. He’d gain much more credibility.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Hey “Taxactivst” is that you Paul Frankel?
February 12th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Barr would be very interesting, as would Johnson. All due respect to the announced field, either would be a quantum increase in credibility. A draft movement for either allays the “Fred Thompson factor,” in my judgment.
I would like to see either be anti-Iraq, even in retrospect. I’d hope the LP has matured to the point that a decriminalize drug possession position comes far enough, if Barr will do so.
Johnson/Barr or Barr/Johnson would be awesome! That’s hard to dismiss.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Out of the current lot of LP contenders, I like Steve Kubby, but if Bob Barr jumped in, he’d have my support. Where do I sign up?
February 12th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I found Gordon’s description of Barr’s introduction of Ron Paul as “fiery” interesting. I actually found that it sounded relaxed – but then I was watching on the small screen, not there in the room. It was certainly the most coherent and focused bit of speaking I’ve ever heard Barr deliver.
Barr’s main point in the intro seemed to be that Ron Paul (and, by extension, Bob Barr) was a ‘real conservative’. Given the audience (CPAC attendees), I can see the appeal of the message, but we are left with two alternatives: (1) Barr and Paul were pandering, or (2) Barr and Paul want to be known as ‘conservatives’, and are happy to be described thusly. As Paul is apparently sticking with the Republican Party, that makes sense for him. As Barr runs a conservative PAC that funds Republican candidates, that makes sense for him as well. Whether it makes sense for someone who represents the Libertarian Party is something that Libertarians will have to decide.
I personally find it very much a concern that many in the LP are trying to saddle the LP with the ‘conservative’ label. I think ‘conservative’ applies to libertarians about as much as ‘progressive’ does – and I feel that the consistent use of either of these terms in the present political atmosphere creates a misleading impression of libertarianism and libertarian goals.
Libertarianism isn’t ‘true conservativism’ any more than it is ‘true progressivism’ – although we ally with both conservatives and progressives on particular issues. Libertarianism isn’t constitutionalism – though nearly every libertarian will readily agree that the government would be more tolerable were it confined to the constitution that was designed to contain it. Libertarianism is the belief that individual people should be allowed to make their own individual decisions about their own life and property.
I am confident that the Libertarians who come to Denver will – after carefully considering the alternatives – choose the candidate that best represents the libertarian message of peace, freedom, and individual responsibility. I believe I have identified that ‘best representative’ – Steve Kubby – and will be working in the next few months to help convince my fellow delegates that he is the best choice for the LP.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Thinking a bit more on this: while I’m more of a “left libertarian,” whatever THAT is, Barr/Johnson is in some ways far more formidable than even Ross Perot was. While I bristle a bit at the idea of the LP being a reconstituted GOP, the fact is Libertarians tend to draw former Rs and are at least rhetorically in tune with aspects of Republicanism. I’d REALLY love it if we attracted more former Ds, but it is what it is.
McCain—I believe—will be a weak candidate, perhaps as weak as Bob Dole. Barr or Johnson could break 10% in this environment.
The Great One—Murray Rothbard—might spin his grave, but real politics involves at least some “opportunism.” (Note, of course, that Rothbard supported Pat Buchanan, so I can sleep at night with my particular heresy.)
In some ways, I prefer Barr to Paul, even though on issues I’d probably be more in line with Paul. Barr is substantially more articulate, and doesn’t have a history of newsletter publishing
, at least none that I know of.
It’d be great if we had a farm team of home grown Ls who could make plausible Presidents. We don’t, I believe it’s fair to say.
Very outside chance that this could be an 1860-type moment. Ponder THAT!
February 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am
If the basis for selection of a candidate is who is “most Libertarian,” then I believe the choice is obvious:
DRAFT HOGARTH 08!
February 12th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Dondi:
If Barr ran with Root, Root would have to change his views on Iraq. Again, a third party pro-war candidate will be strongly opposed by large segments of the libertarian movement. Root is a non-starter.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I found Gordon’s description of Barr’s introduction of Ron Paul as “fiery” interesting. I actually found that it sounded relaxed – but then I was watching on the small screen, not there in the room. It was certainly the most coherent and focused bit of speaking I’ve ever heard Barr deliver.
Susan, the YouTube didn’t capture it well. You will note that both Dave Weigel (of Reason) and I described Paul’s speech as really good too, but the YouTube didn’t capture that well, either.
Also, the audience response to either speech wasn’t captured well on the video. As speeches go (they often get boring to me, as I hear more than my fair share of them) both were well presented.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Bob,
You write:
“the fact is Libertarians tend to draw former Rs and are at least rhetorically in tune with aspects of Republicanism. I’d REALLY love it if we attracted more former Ds, but it is what it is”
A shrug and an “it is what it is” is the last thing I’d expect to see from someone associated with the Libertarian REFORM Caucus. Whatever happened to the notion that the LP can change?
The LP is ideologically well-suited to left outreach.—it just has to choose to do that outreach instead of remaining stuck in its dead-end rut of trying to appeal to a political “right” that will never, ever, ever, ever give up its corporate welfare, its Know-Nothingism, its “cut taxes from the top down, but never mind that down part,” its dedication to keeping middle class entitlements going and growing to buy votes, its faux “federalism” where rights are concerned but never where its own desire for regulation is concerned, etc.
The first step to breaking out of the “right-wing rut” is to quit pasting “Libertarian” stickers on the foreheads of Republican Retread candidates and trying to pass them off as the real thing.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:50 am
As someone from another party who is vastly interested in all the CP tickets—I’ll say this.
Barr/Johnson or Johnson/Barr would be,quite possibly, the strongest third-party ticket the LP ever had and the strongest ticket in the 3rd party ‘08 field.
Of course, you’ve got to contend with the possibility that the Greens could pull off Nader/McKinney or McKinney/Nader. And the CP could get Smith/Moore or Moore/Smith.
You get all of those tickets and this is a 5 way race. With the LP and CP splitting the “disgruntled conservative” vote.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Barr’s main point in the intro seemed to be that Ron Paul (and, by extension, Bob Barr) was a ‘real conservative’. Given the audience (CPAC attendees), I can see the appeal of the message, but we are left with two alternatives: (1) Barr and Paul were pandering, or (2) Barr and Paul want to be known as ‘conservatives’, and are happy to be described thusly. As Paul is apparently sticking with the Republican Party, that makes sense for him. As Barr runs a conservative PAC that funds Republican candidates, that makes sense for him as well. Whether it makes sense for someone who represents the Libertarian Party is something that Libertarians will have to decide.
Barr was presenting Paul to a conservative audience, and the libertarians there are used to the tag. However, I can tell you that Barr is very unapologetic about his Libertarian Party connections when dealing with conservative VIPs.
Unlike Ron Paul, I don’t believe he’d avoid the “libertarian” tag—especially on national television, except possible when dealing with narrowly targeted audiences.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Paul avoids the “libertarian tag” because he’s running as a Republican. Barr would be running as a Libertarian in your scenario, so I’m not sure I find your “I don’t believe he’d avoid the “libertarian” tag” very reassuring, especially when you follow with an ‘except when’. If you’re trying to bolster support for Barr as a presidential candidate within the LP, ‘he probably won’t publicly disown the Party he’s a candidate for’ is really a very lukewarm endorsement.
This piece has an interesting comment from Ron Paul on the possibility of his mixing in third party affairs while remaining a Republican candidate:
“I may well have an influence and I will make statements and maybe there will be somebody I can support …”
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/ron_paul_will_not_support_a_jo.html
I really really would like to see the LP steer clear of this dangerously close association with the Republican Party. I hope to have a hand in that steering away as part of the next LNC.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I’m still confused about who the radicals are? Are they people to the left in the libertarian world or are they anarchists?
If they are anarchists, Barr would still be their best bet. If they are to the left, it depends on whether issues like immigration or abortion are priorities over the war in Iraq or civil liberties?
Does one of you big-EL people want do explain this to me?
February 12th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Who says that is really a cigar?? Could it be a blunt?? How Libertarian is he?? If it is a cigar, is it of questionable origin?? How Libertarian is he??
Seriously, when I first heard a couple of years ago that Barr had joined the LP, I was flabbergasted! Then I heard he’d been appointed to the LNC. Too weird for me. I can remember when Barr was the most reviled man in Congress.
Then a friend reminded me that this sort of thing had happened before. When Saul of Tarsus became St. Paul.
With that in mind, are we ready to see the LP not neccessarily change direction, but to be known as a “conservative” party? The Christianity that St. Paul preached was not the same thing as the Christianity preached by the disciples. Close, but no cigar.
PEACE
Steve
February 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Susan,
I’d prefer for our candidates to have the support from as many reasonable (KKK and a few other groups notwithstanding) groups and people possible in order to establish the greatest coalition that can be built.
I’d support a left libertarian or a middle-of-the-road libertarian (my preference) who could build as large a coalition. Unfortunately, such people who also have both electoral experience and name recognition within their bases rarely exist and aren’t running for office.
Perhaps the solution with a right-leaning libertarian campaign is to ensure a solid approach for recruiting left-leaning supporters. The opposite applies as well. We’ve got to look at the potential of any given race while keeping the long term interests of the party in mind, too.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I’m still confused about who the radicals are? Are they people to the left in the libertarian world or are they anarchists?
I’d say it is a bit of both. I’d also add that each of them will disagree with my assessment, unless they merely agree with me to be disagreeable.
February 12th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Knappster: A shrug and an “it is what it is” is the last thing I’d expect to see from someone associated with the Libertarian REFORM Caucus. Whatever happened to the notion that the LP can change?
Bob: Yes, it can change, of course. Make book on that. I joined the Reform Caucus to make institutional change that allows libertarian-leaning Rs, Ds and independents to join the LP, and to rid the platform of highly theoretical extremism that’s sorta interesting to talk about in the dorm room, but is a millstone for BOTH electoral efforts AND education.
KNAPP: The LP is ideologically well-suited to left outreach.—it just has to choose to do that outreach instead of remaining stuck in its dead-end rut of trying to appeal to a political “right” that will never, ever, ever, ever give up its corporate welfare, its Know-Nothingism, its “cut taxes from the top down, but never mind that down part,” its dedication to keeping middle class entitlements going and growing to buy votes, its faux “federalism” where rights are concerned but never where its own desire for regulation is concerned, etc.
BOB: Tom, I don’t disagree. If Barr or Johnson are near-term options, however, the odds are great that they can cast the net many, many times wider than another Badnarik-type of candidate, i.e., an unknown, non politician. I’ll trade off some of my lefty sensibilities for the prospect of prime-time exposure all day long. From 09 to 12, you and I can sing the praises of bottom-up tax cutting as strategically superior.
KNAPP: The first step to breaking out of the “right-wing rut” is to quit pasting “Libertarian” stickers on the foreheads of Republican Retread candidates and trying to pass them off as the real thing.
BOB: The challenge of being in the right-wing rut is minor IMO compared with the LPs tiny size and resources. My MO is: First things first. And go with the flow, but do your best to steer things in a virtuous direction.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
MM,
Radicals within the LP are committed to keeping the Party on a course consistent with basic (thus ‘radical’ in the sense of ‘going to the roots’) libertarian principle. We are neither right nor left, but strictly libertarian. Some of us are anarchists.
Among radicals, non-interventionism is a key issue at this time because the US government is maintaining a system of overseas occupation that is basically a military empire. Most radicals, I think, are strictly open-borders, though some sympathize with a Hoppean anti-open-borders position.
I am a radical. I find it difficult to analyze Barr as a potential candidate because I’ve never heard him give a straight answer to a question. For instance, I see people referring to him as being anti-Iraq war, but I can’t find any clear written statement on that from him. Would he commit to removing troops immediately upon taking office as president? Would he pull troops out of Afghanistan? Korea? Germany? Will he support the LP’s position on the War on Drug Users, or only the very watered-down version of it for which he is getting so much credit as ‘most improved’?
One specific example:
On the issue where Barr purports to be most libertarian – privacy – he only looks good when put up against Dana Rohrbacher, and even there he can’t apparently even bring himself to condemn government spying against Americans except as ‘bad policy’ under certain conditions – as when he says:
One, it’s bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it’s bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order.
Can’t he simply say that the US government should not be in the spying business? It’s really not that hard. And it’s addressed even in the remnants© of our platform:
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#propriv
The individual’s right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual’s actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant.
It doesn’t say “except when the government makes a law saying it’s OK” or “except when the government courts say it’s OK”. It says it is not OK for the government to spy on individuals, and that’s a radical libertarian response and one that Barr has seemingly not been able to embrace.
And on an internal level: will Barr continue to conduct large-scale fund raising for Republican candidates through his PAC while sprinkling a few thousands among Libertarian parties and candidates? Will he use LP mailing lists to send such folks as Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham, for whom he raised funds in 2007 while serving as a representative on the Libertarian National Committee? Is that really what Libertarians want as a future for our Party – to become an appendix of and fund raising organ for the Republican Party?
I do think much of this discussion is vastly premature, and based on Gordon’s desire for something juicy to talk about and the bonus of floating Barr to see what reaction he gets. Obviously, I’m willing to play along to some degree, or I wouldn’t be typing away here. But I think Barr should be taken no more seriously as a candidate than he takes himself – and right now that’s at 0%.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I wrote Will he use LP mailing lists to send such folks as Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham, for whom he raised funds in 2007 while serving as a representative on the Libertarian National Committee?
That ought to have been Will he use LP mailing lists to send such folks as Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham, for whom he raised funds in 2007 while serving as a representative on the Libertarian National Committee, back to Congress?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I do think much of this discussion is vastly premature, and based on Gordon’s desire for something juicy to talk about and the bonus of floating Barr to see what reaction he gets.
I wouldn’t have floated Barr’s name like this if Robert Stacy McCain hadn’t written his article.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Will he use LP mailing lists to send such folks as Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham, for whom he raised funds in 2007 while serving as a representative on the Libertarian National Committee, back to Congress?
Barr doesn’t have access to LP mailing lists. And the LNC/Judiciary Committeee would chop off his head (and/or staff heads) if LP lists were used for non-LP candidates.
However, an LP run would give Barr the ability to generate larger personal lists where he would have to cater to LP candidates and activities.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Can’t he simply say that the US government should not be in the spying business? It’s really not that hard. And it’s addressed even in the remnants© of our platform…
Amount of times Shane C., Bill R., Badnarik, or me have been on CNN/Blitzer discussing the issue: Zero.
While all of us have been in the national media on the general issue, none of us has hit this level of media exposure. That should make my point right there.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
KNAPP: The first step to breaking out of the “right-wing rut” is to quit pasting “Libertarian” stickers on the foreheads of Republican Retread candidates and trying to pass them off as the real thing.
Then give us some Democratic “Retread candidates” so we start discussing how to get out of the “left-wing rut.”
Please, please, please!
I’d love to be holding a debate about whether we should nominate Mike Gravel, Bill Richardson, Ron Paul or Bob Barr. Instead of whining about retreads from the right, how about recruiting some retreads from the left.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Susan gets to the root, indeed. If one views the top of the ticket as a “representative,” that might lead one to want a Phillies or a Kubby.
If one views the LP’s prez candidate as one who generates positive interest in his or her campaign and the LP with credibility and celebrity, Root might do, Barr and Johnson far more so.
As I’ve already started the Draft Hogath movement, here’s another:
DRAFT VENTURA.
Indeed, Ventura might eclipse Barr and Johnson. The dude’s actually been elected as a 3rd party candidate, and he might be more aligned with classic libertarian positions than Barr and Johnson.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Instead of whining about retreads from the right, how about recruiting some retreads from the left.
You really view this as progress?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
While all of us have been in the national media on the general issue, none of us has hit this level of media exposure.
So how does that benefit either the LP or libertarianism? Barr said nothing particularly libertarian in that discussion.
Just getting ‘exposure’ isn’t a plus for the LP, if the exposure doesn’t highlight Libertarian Party positions or indeed contradicts them.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Milnes, dude, if you got any scoop on Scratch’s death, you gotta come forward. Looks like the lnc shemale’s got an alibi. Peeps working for the lp think Imperato’s boys took him out when he started getting all gnostic and freaky deaky about what’s really goin’ down on the lnc.
Tom Knapp, bald headed Marine dude, chooses hot black chick over old white dudes. That’s manly. I respect that.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Steve, Susan, Tom, the problem with “recruiting” or reaching out to leftists is that you would be TAKING their vote-assuming you succeed-FROM wherever they would otherwise vote i.e. STEAL them. So leftists who would vote green except wind up voting democrat vote libertarian INSTEAD of both. + there ALREADY is about a 7% crossover. Take enough votes from the dems & become a spoiler allowing the republican warmonger to win. True there is not MUCH difference between the dems & reps, but there IS SOME. Better to let the greens be the inclusive leftists & ALLIANCE would in effect BORROW their votes in each particular case for mutual benefit-successful election of the particular candidate. Susan, unfortunately libertarians have necessarily a relationship with reps (conservatism) & dems (progressivism). The obvious example of the latter would be Teddy Roosevelt. Yet he was a REPUBLICAN elected to VP. I’ve gotten a lot of grief from pointing to him. & you & Tom have given me grief about how Kubby is a true (radical) libertarian & would reach out to the left. Not good enough for an alliance.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Barr doesn’t have access to LP mailing lists. And the LNC/Judiciary Committeee would chop off his head (and/or staff heads) if LP lists were used for non-LP candidates.
The essential point is that Barr has shown himself willing to actively fund raise for Republican party candidates while serving as a representative of the Libertarian Party. As a candidate, he would be generating expanded personal lists which would presumably be used to further his funding efforts for Republicans. Why should anyone think otherwise?
February 12th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
you & Tom have given me grief
Really? As far as I can recall, this is the only time I’ve ever responded to you.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Steve,
You write:
“Barr doesn’t have access to LP mailing lists. And the LNC/Judiciary Committeee would chop off his head (and/or staff heads) if LP lists were used for non-LP candidates.”
Given that LNC and LPHQ have been using LP lists for a non-LP candidate for months now, with Barr’s participation in a unanimous LNC vote to support that non-LP candidate, I don’t find your assurances on that very convincing.
“However, an LP run would give Barr the ability to generate larger personal lists where he would have to cater to LP candidates and activities.”
The reverse seems to have been true in the past. Once again, Ron Paul is the historical example. The “catering” with respect to Paul has been very much in the opposite direction. Paul runs for president, we nominate him, he builds a list, then he goes back to the Republican Party and signs letters to Libertarian voters asking them to support Republican incumbents over LP challengers. The only “catering” to the LP that I’ve noticed is that he’s happy to hold our coats while we fumble with our checkbooks.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
The difference between Barr and Paul is that Barr (I’ve been introduced by him to serious GOP players quite a few times now) doesn’t just hide from the LP, he goes out of his way to inject the words “Libertarian Party” into introductions and conversations and such. In another example, he got into it with Bruce Bartlett the other day and was strongly defending the LP.
Paul has hidden from the LP and the “l” word; Barr seems to be looking for every excuse possible to introduce it.
I can’t promise anything about list usage, but the signals I have personally recieved indicate that he’s looking for the opportunity to steer as closely to the LP as possible.
Keep in mind that I predicted some of his work with the ACLU in public, broke the story about him working with MPP, was the first (that I know of) to catch his opposition to the Iraq War. I’ve been pretty close to accurate in the past and a lot of this has been based on instinct. Will I be wrong about something about Barr in the future? Certainly. However, movement being made in the proper direction has been consistent—there is now a track record and the slope continues in our direction.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
he goes out of his way to inject the words “Libertarian Party” into introductions and conversations and such
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22libertarian+party%22+site%3Awww.bobbarr.org&btnG=Search
The LP is mentioned 21 times on his website. Hardly going out of the way in my book. Even the bioline of the front page story about the amicus brief he wrote for the LP doesn’t bother mentioning that he serves on the LNC:
“Barr, a former Member of Congress (1995-2003), also served previously as a US Attorney and with the Central Intelligence Agency. He is a lawyer and currently works with national organizations on issues related to privacy and national security.”
To me, that looks like downplaying rather than going-out-of-the-way. But naturally he wouldn’t want to seem to scary to the folks he asks for money on behalf of Republican candidates.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
catch his opposition to the Iraq War
Can you point me to that? I’ve never really grokked his position on the war.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
As I’ve been suggesting for years, the LP should recruit Tim Penny. He’s a libertarian-leaning former Democrat who worked for Cato after serving in Congress for a decade, then ran for Governor of Minnesota 3rd party as Jesse Ventura’s hand picked successor, though he lost that race.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Penny
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-ma-tp.html
I believe Barr/Penny, Penny/Barr, Johnson/Penny, or Penny/Johnson would achieve a better left/right balance than Barr/Johnson or Johnson/Barr.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Susan, true, you have never directly responded to me. But indirectly, when you in this instance support Kubby & as Tom has told me many times, his willingness to reach out to the left. Gives me grief. That is just not good enough & is politics as usual. Take leftist votes & offer them what in return? Radical libertarianism? Even a lot of libs (LReformC) can’t stomach that. We still haven’t resolved Kubby & Smith evidently saying they would immediately withdraw troops from Iraq & evidently (Smith) & definitely(leave the keys) Kubby.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
In the instance of Paul & Barr, it looks to me like Barr would be the lesser of two evils.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Steve and Tom, getting into it on Third Party Watch. Men fight. That’s manly. I respect that.
Bob the Liberal, drafting Susie Not a Shemale and a bald headed bad ass. That’s freaky. I respect that.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Above cont: leave the equipment. (in Iraq).
February 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I should mention Penny is good on ballot access and has been touted by other libertarians.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/11/02/libertarian-party-endorses-ron-paul-ballot-access-bill/
http://www.nolanchart.com/article2654.html
February 12th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Stephen;
Thank you for the thoughtful comments.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Chuck,
Have you talked with Penny to see if he might be interested in joining the LP or running for office as a Libertarian?
February 12th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Editor’s note: I just deleted a couple of comments because someone just tried to spoof me and “James Madison.” I know who “James Madison” is and he’s a frequent poster here.
If you are going to use an anonymous nickname, that’s fine. If you are going to use a satirical one (such as EricDondero’sMustache), that’s fine.
However, comments I see which misrepresent people’s true identities won’t be tolerated on this site.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Sorry about the spoof identities. Steve, you know who I am,too. MY FAULT and it won’t happen again.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Jim,
No problem. I guess I need to post some commenting guidelines.
Will you be in Birmingham tonight?
To make it clear: Only Eric Dondero may use “Eric Dondero,” anyone can use “EricDondero’sMustache.”
February 12th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Steve’s laying down the law. That’s manly. I respect that.
Dudes, you got any scoop on Scratch’s death? You all gotta to come clean dudes. He was a crazy ghey boofer but poisoning an old man is not cool. You don’t want Imperato in the race, that’s cool but you can’t be killing off dudes to get your way. Now you got some chick’s period commenting. That’s messy. I don’t get that.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Susan,
Can we know upfront how far Barr has to come for you to acknowledge that he’s a L. (If I recall, Susan, I’m not a L in your eyes, because given the choice between only Locke and Hobbes, I lean to Hobbes.)
Would Barr have to take Rothbard’s position on voluntary juries? Immediate pullout from American Somoa? Support the notion of Acme Defense Co.? Perhaps even subscribe to his collaborative work with Rockwell on the idea of “rough justice”?
It would be good to have your series of litmus tests upfront, for the sake of efficienct conversation.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Chuck,
I’m liking the Penny concept. You’re the Vice Chair…go for it!
February 12th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Not a Unity 08 fan, but a combo of Penny and Barr or Johnson uses the Unity 08 formula, but substitutes a libertarian direction for mere “centrism.”
If Barr doesn’t want to be drafted, perhaps he should be the emissary to Johson and Penny.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Steve, Barr has possibilities, OK? If you can get him to specifically agree to the progressive alliance strategy, that could put him somewhat comparable to Teddy Roosevelt. I like that. That’s manly. The closest I can come is to get the LP nomination & then go to the National Forest to try to alleviate my depression & get into shape. Communications via Dish & Starband (or Hughes). As it was I had to go up the ridge a couple of thousand feet to get a cellphone to work. & I’d want an advisory position WITH TOP CLEARANCE.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Tom K.,
I wasn’t too active during the Harry Browne years, but wasn’t there some self-dealing-type stuff going on in those years as well?
Near as I can tell, Browne was not Republican, much more of a nonarchist, yes?
Politics, even libertarian politics, tends to let off oil spills. I hate that shit, but I’ve come to accept it.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Can we know upfront how far Barr has to come for you to acknowledge that he’s a L. (If I recall, Susan, I’m not a L in your eyes, because given the choice between only Locke and Hobbes, I lean to Hobbes.)
Interesting way of putting it (Locke/Hobbes), but not my way of putting it.
The issue isn’t whether I recognize Barr as a Libertarian – it is Barr representing the positions of the Libertarian Party. In order to do that, he would have to well, you know, actually represent the positions of the LP. I know everyone has some issue with the Platform, but I’d like to see Barr unequivocally endorse at least one platform plank before he is asked to be our representative by the membership. Then a second. Then a third. That would be a good start. But let’s at least start with one issue. Barr’s written and spoken publicly a lot – perhaps someone can show me something he’s written that is in substantive agreement with at least one of our platform planks. I’m not a student of his writings, so doubtless I have missed something.
It would be good to have your series of litmus tests upfront, for the sake of efficienct conversation.
Let’s start with the platform, as I suggested above. But it’s interesting that you mention the idea of a litmus test, because I’ve been kicking around this idea of what a reasonable Lib litmus test might be, and I’m thinking about this: Does the candidate support decreases in spending for every single government program? I like this as a litmus because it allows people to select representatives who will always work to reduce government and not fall into the ‘ratchet trap’, where two politicians trade approval for spending for ‘vital’ government programs, and government grows while being run by a bunch of putatively ‘small government’ politicians.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Bob,
You write:
“I wasn’t too active during the Harry Browne years, but wasn’t there some self-dealing-type stuff going on in those years as well?”
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.
The word “self-dealing,” to me, means feathering one’s personal financial nest. I haven’t accused Paul of that. I haven’t spent a lot of time in his FEC reports, but to the extent that I’ve looked at them, there’s nothing especially shady going on. Yes, he contracts out his printing to a company owned by a close associate’s family … but I don’t believe he made up that printing for the purpose of doing so. He needed printing, and he sent his business to a friend rather than to some faceless company he didn’t know. No problem.
I’m not closed to the possibility that the last few million bucks in Paul’s treasury may get siphoned off in ways that provide comfortable retirements rather than effective campaigning, but I haven’t really seen that happening. I’ve got no complaints there.
Nonetheless, we should be careful not to conflate a candidate’s interests with a party’s interests. They’re not always the same thing, and when toting up what a candidate has done “for the party,” things he’s done that benefit him exclusively, rather than the party, shouldn’t be included, and things he’s done that benefit him AT THE EXPENSE of the party certainly should be included.
What Paul has done for the party is certainly more than nothing. He speaks at LP events and such. He hasn’t just blown us off.
However, it is largely a one-way street in other areas, especially financially.
Paul has used the LP to expand his fundraising list, but ask anyone at LPHQ whether they’ve ever been able to get him to loan or rent HIS list to US.
Paul is happy to have the support of Libertarians when he runs as a Republican, but when was the last time you heard Republican Ron Paul endorse a Libertarian candidate? On the contrary—in 2000, he signed a letter mailed to registered Libertarians in two US House districts in California, urging them NOT to vote for the Libertarian candidates, but for the Republican incumbents.
This isn’t about Paul lining his pockets. It’s about Paul plucking the LP to feather his political nest, while shedding a lot less of his own plumage to feather ours.
Now, back to Barr:
I happen to have taken a personal liking to Bob Barr when I met him. He passed the “kid test”—my 9- and 6-year-old can spot a fake a mile away and won’t have anything to do with one. They were all over Barr. When he spoke from the podium, and when I spoke with him personally, he seemed very genuine.
But … genuine isn’t enough:
It’s incumbent upon us to establish that he substantially represents what our party stands for before we put him in a position of leadership or nominate him as a candidate. I’m not saying he doesn’t, although like Susan I’d like to see more from him on the issues.
Regardless of how “bad” or “good” he is in terms of representing our positions, whether or not we should have people who become famous in other parties represent us as candidates is a point of strategic consideration. I’m not saying we should never, ever, ever do it, and it’s not personal with Barr—but when we constantly identify ourselves with Republicans and former Republicans, we ARE going to be tarred with the brush of “oh, those guys—they’re just the other Republicans.”
I’m not a “silver bullet” guy. I don’t believe that doing or not doing some single X is the magic key to success. However, I do believe that libertarianism and the Libertarian Party desperately need to establish their own identities separate and distinct from concepts such as “conservative” and “liberal” and from party labels like “Republican” and Democrat.” Barr is well-known, and he is generally known as a “conservative Republican.” To the extent that we choose him to represent us, we are choosing to identify ourselves with “conservative Republicanism,” even if he’s gone some kind of Super Duper Spiritual Libertarian Conversion recently. That’s a cost. It may not be a deal-breaker, but it should be weighed in the balance against the benefits.
February 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Whatever your view is on RP, his campaign has generated a historical opportunity for the LP - and proven libertarian ideas are capable of generating big bucks. In order to exploit this chance however, the candidate must have at least minimal credibility in terms of experience such as “former congressman” or “former governor”. If Paul doesn’t want the LP nomination Barr seems a logical choice to pick up where he leaves off particularly if Ron officially endorses him. Gary Johnson would be a great choice too.
I’m not so concerned about “purity” issues. The LP has been pure for years and see what it has gotten us. I’m more concerned about scams, like Browne apparently pulled.
A strong LP ticket in this election building on the support and interest generated by the Paul campaign would put the LP on the (real) map and probably cost McCain the election. Blowback is hell.
Regards. PHK
February 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
McCain is going to lose the election without the LP’s help.
There’s no plus in having a “former congressman” if his record as a congressman was abysmal. “Most improved” is certainly a plus for Barr within the LP, but as a representative of the LP, Barr’s congressional record would be an embarrassment to the Party.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Susan,
Would you prefer to have someone with 90% on message to whom people will listen or someone 100% on message about whom no one will even care?
February 12th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Gordon has a good question. I’ve got two more for Hogarth:
1) Would you vote for yourself for president?
2) Would you get as many votes as Milnes in a presidential nomination bid?
February 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Stephen,
Do you have someone who is 90% on message to suggest?
I think folks who like to rub shoulders with politicos way overestimate how much real value attaches to names of ex-pols like Bob Barr. And unfortunately, to the extent that the name would trigger associations, they would all be pretty much negative from a Libertarian standpoint.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I think folks who like to rub shoulders with politicos way overestimate how much real value attaches to names of ex-pols like Bob Barr.
When I start seeing Steve Kubby, George Phillies or Christine Smith regularly on national television programming, major stories in major newspapers, etc., perhaps we can have the argument about “real value.”
Until then, there is no point of comparison and I’d rather move in a generally proper direction than to not move at all.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Susan: I actually agree with you about “associations”. His CIA experience alone would undoubtably freakout a large part of Ron’s more consiratorial following. I don’t think leading the fight to impeach Clinton is all that great a recommendation either. My point is for the MSM, contributors or ex-Ron supporters not versed in the nuances of the LP to take a candidate even half seriously they need to have done something exceptional. And I don’t mean hosting a radio call-in show.
For now, unless someone can get to Gary Johnson, it looks like Barr is the best we’ve got.
Regards. Paul
February 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Steve, I will assume you are referring to me & I’ll take that as a compliment.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Steve, I’m trying to give your guy a fair consideration. What is it, you think he can’t measure up to a comparison to Teddy Roosevelt? I have my reservations also, as expressed here by others. For all I know, BB could be a CIA plant.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Susan, I fail your litmus test, then. For a while, I would not advocate Social Security cuts, although I’m open to taxing all SS benefits, in a sense a cut. Does taxing back SS benefits make me L enough? I am of course for gradually transitioning away from SS.
You make sense to me to the extent that former Congressmen (Barr and Penny) or former Governors (Johnson and Ventura) is not quite enough for me to support any of these draft candidates. From the little I know of all of them, it’s worthy of exploration, in my book.
I like to think outside the box. I am a L, after all! All things haven’t been considered…we’re just brainstorming here, as I see it.
If I had a litmus test, it would be: Will this candidate articulate a message that sounds something like a net increase in liberty, without any major deviations from that message. I’d carve out my pro-choice bias, because I respect—but disagree—with the pro-lfe position. I would not, however, want the LP prez candidate to be a strident pro-lifer. If he or she was for national parks, say, I’d overlook that one.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Steve,
You write:
——-
When I start seeing Steve Kubby, George Phillies or Christine Smith regularly on national television programming, major stories in major newspapers, etc., perhaps we can have the argument about “real value.”
Until then, there is no point of comparison and I’d rather move in a generally proper direction than to not move at all.——-
Actually, there IS a point of comparison:
Google News search on “Bob Barr”—32 results returned
Google News search on “Steve Kubby”—26 results returned
Bob Barr is a member of a former congresscritter, a member of the LNC, and the subject of a year-long near-constant propaganda campaign from LPHQ, and he just spoke at the biggest national conservative political event of the year.
Steve Kubby is a declared presidential candidate, which makes him one of a group that the LNC and LPHQ have done their damnedest to ignore and marginalize over the last year.
Does the fact that Barr barely tops Kubby reflect poorly on Barr, on Kubby, on both, or on the LPHQ/LNC which has invested so much fruitless effort in exploiting his excongresscrittership for publicity it is obviously not getting?
February 12th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Stephen,
Do you have some sort of formula including ‘% on message’, ‘media exposure’, ‘negatives’, etc.? If so, please share it. Because otherwise your point seems to be just that Barr’s exposure/notoriety is greater than that of (for instance) Steve Kubby. One might say the same of many people that are unsuitable to represent the LP as a presidential candidate.
There are things that Barr has said and done very publicly that are not only not on-message, but are very off message. I’m not sure how his greater exposure will be a net positive under those circumstances.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Susan, I fail your litmus test, then.
I’m so shocked.
February 12th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Tom K.,
First, let me say I really enjoy discussing issues with you, even when we don’t agree. You’re thoughtful, which is a rare quality that we could use a lot more of in the LP.
I used the term “self dealing” as a short-hand catch-all. I’m not sure what is the appropriate financial relationship between a campaign and the Party. It appears that candidates view their list as proprietary, and I can’t think of a reason why that’s incorrect.
I like your thinking on Barr. At this point, I’m merely intrigued with the idea. In some ways, I like the concept of Penny or Ventura more, and possibly Johnson, too. Barr, however, has risked quite a bit of his political capital with the LP and is a member and NatCon rep, which says to me the guy is serious about Liberty.
I’m not a silver bullet guy either, and none of these 4 draft prospects represent a silver bullet, as I see it. The LP is a single or double A team at the moment, and the best I can imagine is jumping up to triple A, which was a spot the Reform Party briefly achieved. Absolute best case is the majors in 2012.
I definitely prefer that Ls come across as something other than “real conservatives.” We’re not that, that would be false advertising. For the masses, I prefer fiscal conservative/social liberal/war averse/reasonable green as our positioning.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Susan,
And I’m shocked that you would either excommunicate me or send me to re-education camp.
Still, I don’t want Ma and Pa Kettle eating cat food…silly me!
February 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Stephen,
When you have a free moment, I would appreciate the Iraq position of Barr’s – I’ve had trouble nailing down his position on this.
A position on ending the occupation of Afghanistan would be a bonus.
I did see where he suggests the US government should meddle in the affairs of Iran (“Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone …? Of course not.”), and where he seems to be advocating economic sanctions against Iran (“Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran”), but I still can’t nail down his positions on Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m hoping you can help.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
...you would either excommunicate me or send me to re-education camp…
I don’t want Ma and Pa Kettle eating cat food…
Exaggerate much?
February 12th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
OK, guys (and gals):
The debate (and remaining questions) are interesting, but I’ve got a meeting, a long teleconference, and another meeting to go to—all of which are LP or future-of-Ron-Paul-movement related.
I’ll get back to answering questions either late tonight or early in the morning.
Perhaps I’ll have a “magic” formula developed by then, too.
Steve
February 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Los Angeles,CA—Political Gadfly Dick “Itch” Masterson checked into Promises Malibu Alcohol and Drug Rehab Treatment Facility reports TMZ.
Next: Has Third Party Watch Jumped the Shark?
February 12th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Susan,
In re: the Locke/Hobbes dichotomy, I’ll take a page from your friend and mine, Brian Holtz, our exchange April 10, 2007 was:
Bob: As an orthodox libertarian in recovery, I know that most rely on locke and the mixing of labor with the soil thing…an interesting and somewhat helpful abstract construct. i guess i’m more of a hobbes man, myself.
Susan: That much is appallingly clear.
I’ve even had the audacity to suggest that Bastiat’s approach may not bring us to the Promised Land. But, hope spings eternal for me, as I was always a fan of Spooner’s take on the meaning of “We, the people….”
I love you, Susan. You keep us honest. And I AM paying attention, even when we don’t agree.