Can Raimondo “come out” for Bob Barr?
Okay, I’m coming out of the closet, and admitting I’m one of you. There, I can say it, at last, out loud and proud: I’m a conservative-paleo-libertarian with a man-crush on Obama.
While I don’t totally agree with Raimondo about Obama and I’m simply not predisposed to any sort of “man-crush” for anyone of the XY variety, I’ll be the first to admit that I certainly understand the motivation behind his article. Obama is a good speaker and he’s at least less hawkish than überhawks John “Hundred Years” McCain or Hillary “the Hawk” Clinton.
Raimondo explained his rationale:
I have to say that the turning point, for me, was when Rep. Paul’s presidential campaign seemed to go into suspended animation. An attempt to derail the Revolution by challenging Paul in the GOP congressional primary necessitated a tactical shift, and Chris Peden, the challenger, was crushed, 70-30. Oh, it was a great day: you could practically hear Roger L Simon sobbing and I’ll be damned if I didn’t hear the faint echoes of Jamie Kirchick’s furious shrieks (“I’m melting! Melting!“).With the GOP presidential sweepstakes over, the antiwar voter – that is, the single-issue voter who conditions his support on the candidate’s generally pro-peace foreign policy stance – was left with a single choice, and that is Obama.
However, Raimondo also noted the following:
There are rumors that Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia, will launch a third party challenge on the right: Barr opposes the Iraq war, and has been part of a coalition of conservatives, liberals, and libertarians who oppose the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and similarly authoritarian measures recently imposed by the Bush regime and its Democratic enablers. A meeting between Barr and Ron Paul has been reported, but, as yet, nothing definite seems to have solidified – and the hour grows late.
Since Raimondo seems to favor “a coalition of conservatives, liberals, and libertarians who oppose the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act, and similarly authoritarian measures recently imposed by the Bush regime and its Democratic enablers,” I’m wondering if his Obama fetish would wane if Barr were to suddenly announce his intention to run for president. Barr certainly has a significantly greater level of the paleo and libertarian credentials that Raimondo has supported in previous campaigns.
While it’s no big secret that I’m hoping that Barr jumps into the presidential arena, I think some additional disclosure is necessary at this point: I’m currently actively seeking people who would be willing to donate enough money to conduct an initial survey to see how viable a potential Barr campaign might be, as well as to come up with a viable time line and business plan for such a campaign. If interested, contact me here.
“The system is in crisis,” Raimondo wrote. “We simply can’t afford to police the world, and we’re going bankrupt in the attempt. At the present rate of deterioration, the economic foundations of American imperialism are approaching collapse – and we’re looking at a very short time-frame, as such things go.”
If Raimondo doesn’t wish for us to police the world and to halt the current deterioration of our economic foundations, I’ll suggest that yesterday the last possible solution in either major party provided us with Suspended Animation, Part II. Perhaps he does, but I no longer trust the Democrats or the Republicans to fix the serious problems our country is now facing. Right now, the best hope for American seems to be a serious Bob Barr presidential campaign.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I enjoy reading Raimondo’s work, as well as posts on this site.
That being said, I’m disappointed to see him admit a man-crush on Obama. I think that I was probably guilty of a slight man-crush on Ron Paul, but I’ve gotten over that.
I figured out that even Ron is an actor. He’s a good one, though.
http://www.ballsnews.com/federal-reserve-and-revenue-acts-unconstitutional.html
March 7th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I was disappointed to see Raimondo falling for Obama.
Obama ran for US Senate partially on his opposition to the war. Since being elected, he’s voted for continued funding of the war every time it has come up. Now he’s running for president partially on his opposition to the war. Who the hell would trust him on that a second time?
The same goes for LP candidates who swing from “Iraq war—yeah, baby!” to “Iraq was the wrong war—Iran is the right war!” to “what is it I have to say to get you to nominate me? Oh, yeah—Iraq war BAAAAD!” between one Super Bowl and the next (bracketed by the swing from “Yeah! McCain-Lieberman 2008!” to “I can win the votes of Republicans who can’t stomach McCain”).
March 7th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I’ll admit that Bob Barr does have some appeal, but I’d hate to see him as the LP standard bearer until he states clearly, unequivocally, and in detail EXACTLY where he stands on the major issues of the day. Does he now favor a complete end to the War on Drugs, and immediate release of everyone imprisoned for the “crime” of drug possession? Is he 100% opposed to U.S. global interventionism – in Iraq, Iran, and wherever the next tinpot dictator rattles a saber? Is he committed to cutting Federal Gov’t spending by at least 50%? Will he campaign to end the Federal personal income tax and replace it with nothing (as Harry Browne did)?
We have at least one credible, consistent Libertarian (Kubby) running for President already, and another (Ruwart) allegedly giving it serious consideration. Until and unless Bob Barr demonstrates that he is as committed to Libertarian principles and policies on all issues as are Kubby and Ruwart, I see no reason to get excited about him.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
ABsolUTEly!
March 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Raimondo’s article was a bit rambling, but (speaking as a liberal rather than a conservative) where I agree with him is this—if the biggest federal problem we have is runaway defense spending, interventionist wars, and the domination of the military-industrial complex—-then Obama is clearly the best choice we have left. That is, the best realistic choice. Given that, voting for Obama seems like the patriotic thing to do (which is why I voted for him Tuesday).
We will see what will happen with Barr but so far I don’t believe he will be able to attract the kind of broad coalition that Paul has mustered. With the exception of blue-dog Dems or DLCers who will do anything to smear him, Paul is generally well-respected on the left for his principle and courage. Barr on the other hand is much more of a creature of the political Right with a very partisan past behind him, so at the outset his appeal will be primarily to conservatives who can’t stomach voting McCain. If he runs it will be interesting to see him walk the tight rope between appealing to principled Libetarians and appealing to right-wing activists of the Constitution Party variety.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
David,
Very good points, but it seems to me that the problem is self-solving in certain respects.
If Barr declares, then unless every other candidate of any stature whatsoever drops out, he’s going to be invited—and expected—to participate in debates with those other candidates, and he’s probably going to get (by LP standards at least) a LOT of media. He’s going to be asked the questions. I don’t think that even his “big name” status will allow him to get nominated without answering them.
Will his answers satisfy a majority of delegates to the national convention that he’s our best bet? I don’t know. I rather suspect that his name recognition, etc., will tempt many of those delegates to cut him some ideological slack if he needs that, but right now it’s anyone’s guess how a Barr candidacy would play out.
I’ve already got a candidate of strong preference, of course, and I’ll be sticking with that candidate. But I’m willing to give Barr the rope to either hang himself with or tie things together with.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
One point I omitted in the previous post. It’s true that Paul, like Barr, is more of a “right” Libetarian conservative—ie he leans right on social issues. But his appeal is still strong enough that writers in publications like Counterpunch have suggested backing Paul as part of a broad right-left electoral coalition. Can you imagine anything like that being written about Barr?
Of course, that isn’t to say that Barr wouldn’t be a fine standard-bearer for the Libetarians.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I’ll admit that Bob Barr does have some appeal, but I’d hate to see him as the LP standard bearer until he states clearly, unequivocally, and in detail EXACTLY where he stands on the major issues of the day. Does he now favor a complete end to the War on Drugs, and immediate release of everyone imprisoned for the “crime” of drug possession?
To begin, I don’t see the War on Drugs anywhere on this list.
Also, I’m not even sure where Barr sits with respect to the overall WoD issue—his positions are developing (in a more libertarian direction) faster than I can keep up with them.
However, I do know how he stands on medical marijuana—working with MPP to defeat what’s known, ironically, as the Barr Amendment. I’d rather 100 million people hear him speak about medical marijuana issues than for 100,000 people to hear some other Libertarian candidate speak on the issue.
Beside, quite a few LP candidates have chosen to deal only with the medical marijuana issue. To quote Aaron Russo, “I’d rather not lead with my chin.”
Is he 100% opposed to U.S. global interventionism – in Iraq, Iran, and wherever the next tinpot dictator rattles a saber?
He’s been clear about Iraq and Iraq. I can’t imagine him wanting to send troops to Darfur.
Is he committed to cutting Federal Gov’t spending by at least 50%? Will he campaign to end the Federal personal income tax and replace it with nothing (as Harry Browne did)?
He hasn’t presented a campaign tax/spending issue statement. However, I know he’s firmly opposed to egregious Republican spending. I can’t imagine he wouldn’t present some ambitious tax reduction plan.
Until and unless Bob Barr demonstrates that he is as committed to Libertarian principles and policies on all issues as are Kubby and Ruwart, I see no reason to get excited about him.
This looks like an example of the Libertarian Purity Police preference for perfect political obsolescence.
In addition to Barr, I’m pushing Ruwart to run. I’ll certainly support Kubby if he wins the nomination—and may well vote for him if neither Barr nor Ruwart jump into the race. I consider all three of them personal friends.
This said, I’d much prefer for millions and millions of people to hear a few libertarian positions than for a few thousand to hear them all.
A standard bearer is one who does two things: 1) Lead and 2) carry a banner mounted on a big stick. I’d prefer to have a standard bearer who has leadership experience and the largest possible stick.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
That depends on how you (or David Nolan) define “Libertarian principles and policies.”
It’s entirely possible that Barr’s stated principles and policy positions, Kubby’s state principles and policy positions, and anyone else’s stated principles and policy positions might be different from each others’ to significant degrees—and that all of them might fit within any particular person’s definition.
IMO, it’s an order of precedence:
– If a candidate’s principles and policy positions are sufficiently libertarian, then that candidate might be a good Libertarian candidate. The more and better effort, name recognition, charisma and money the person stacks on top of those sufficiently libertarian principles and policy positions, the better the prospects for his or her candidacy.
– If a candidate’s principles and policy positions are not sufficiently libertarian, then all the effort, name recognition, charisma and money in the world won’t make that candidate into a good Libertarian candidate. Maybe a good candidate for a party with which his or her principles and positions are more in synch, but not a good Libertarian candidate.
You don’t have to be libertarian to be a good candidate. You do have to be libertarian to be a good Libertarian candidate. That’s not “purism,” it’s common friggin’ sense.
Barr is obviously a good candidate—he’s been elected to Congress four times. Whether he’s a good Libertarian candidate remains to be seen.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
The strength of the Ron Paul campaign comes from his record in Congress, which reflects his strong commitment to limited government and international peace.
Bob Barr’s record in Congress was mixed. If he runs for President on the Libertarian ticket, he will be running against positions he stood for in Congress, and it just does not have the same resonance.
I think Bob Barr may be a suitable Libertarian candidate for Congress or Senator from Georgia, or Governor, maybe. He can prove his commitment to liberty in a race like that.
Of course, I still don’t think any of the other Libertarian hopefuls have the qualifications that would convince someone to vote for them as anything other than a protest candidate.
If not NOTA, When?
March 7th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Wow, I had a tremendous amount of respect for Raimondo until now. Is he really that naive to think that Obama isn’t one of them? Good grief.
“A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.”
http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007
Not to mention he is pro-war.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Yeah, Obama’s a douche even without Dondero’s crazy crypto-muslim hype. Sad that Raimando’s trying for a lesser-of-three-evils approach (and thinks Obama could burn a party he’s the darling of). But cool that he linked TPW from his column.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I’m confident Bob Barr would strongly win the LP nomination if he was willing to run and lots of people like me would decide he’s worth putting in the extra effort for throughout the year.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Sherlock Holmes Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Don’t blame Mr. Dondero.
He just feels a very special stirring of patriotism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXIGwiVg8s0
BillTX Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Is there video of Dondero tossing Root’s salad?
March 7th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
How “libertarian” of Raimondo to support a guy who has a 100 percent approval rating from the Americans For Democratic Action. First Nader in 2004 and now Obama in 2008. I think Raimondo and Dondero both should stop calling themselves libertarians especially Raimondo.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Knappster: – If a candidate’s principles and policy positions are not sufficiently libertarian, then all the effort, name recognition, charisma and money in the world won’t make that candidate into a good Libertarian candidate. Maybe a good candidate for a party with which his or her principles and positions are more in synch, but not a good Libertarian candidate.
Me: Of course, we need to define what “the libertarian position” is for this to work, Tom. I’d refine this to say that his positons should be in the libertarian direction. Does anyone seriously think that, say, meth will be legalized tomorrow? In 4 years? What a candidate position’s are should be plausible ones, else I’d suggest he or she is running for philosopher king, not president. There’s such a thing as appropriateness in politics. Why should libertarians NOT be appropriate? What’s the imperative to not be appropriate? What do you mean by “sufficient”? Of course, the convention will consider whether our standard bearer is “good enough” on the issues.
March 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Raimondo is quoted: “We simply can’t afford to police the world, and we’re going bankrupt in the attempt.”
What is annual federal spending on Homeland Security and the so-called “War on Terror” (including Iraq)? $170 billion.
How much does that figure go up if one claims that fully half of the REST of the DoD budget is for “policing the world”? $240 billion.
What is annual federal spending on entitlements and “human services”? $1.6 trillion. (Apportioning federal debt service only tilts the needle more toward the welfare state and away from the warfare state, given the recent spike in world-policing costs.)
What is the unfunded liability for the current path of federal entitlement spending? $50 to $100 TRILLION dollars.
So who does Raimondo say is the remaining candidate who can save America from going “bankrupt”? Why, the one who advocates making our healthcare system even more socialized than it already is.
Healthcare entitlements will still be pushing America toward bankruptcy in 10, 20, and 30 years, but in that timeframe our spending on Bush’s wars will be comparable to the current levels of spending on Clinton’s Balkan war (remember it?) that Raimondo founded antiwar.com to oppose. Justin needs a t-shirt that says: “I surfed an antiwar movement that crested with the Sunni-Shia fighting of 2006, and all I got was socialized medicine.”
American public finance over the next few decades will be about one issue: healthcare entitlements, stupid.
March 7th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Bob,
You write:
“Of course, we need to define what ‘the libertarian position’ is for this to work, Tom.”
No, not really, at least if what you mean is “we need to AGREE on the definition of ‘the libertarian position’ for this to work.”
I need to define what constitutes “sufficiently libertarian” for myself.
You need to define what constitutes “sufficiently libertarian” for yourself.
I need to decide which candidate, in my subjective judgment, offers the best mix of “sufficiently libertarian” principles/policies and those other political assets.
You need to decide which candidate, in your subjective judgment, offers the best mix of “sufficiently libertarian” principles/policies and those other political assets.
If we agree, fine. If we don’t, well, we’re in good company—I don’t recall a single LP presidential candidate ever having been nominated by a unanimous delegate vote.
The rest is simply a matter of those whose preferred candidate lost deciding whether this is something they can accept and try to “correct” to their liking next time around, or whether they’re in the wrong party.
It’s awful sometimes, I know, but that’s how a political party works. There’s never going to be a moment when everyone in the party is completely happy with everything about the party. Constant agonizing re-appraisal is the norm, not an aberration. No normal human being would put up with for two minutes. Political people aren’t normal human beings, we’re junkies, and politics is a typical drug. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Raimondo ceased being anything close to a libertarian a long time ago.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
All the Bob Barr coverage is just polite courtesy =)
March 7th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I’m supporting the near 100% libertarian guy for President: Wayne Root.
Raimondo seems to be supporting the 100% authoritarian guy for President: Barack Hussein Obama.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Unless I am wrong ( actually I believe everyone else is) Raimondo was not saying Obama is any kind of “’libertarian.” He was merely stating that on ONE Issue ( which many people consider THE most important issue) Obama is the least worst of the remaining viable candidates.
“the antiwar voter – that is, the single-issue voter who conditions his support on the candidate’s generally pro-peace foreign policy stance –”
And even if Obama isn’t great on this issue, I would say it’s likely he is better than McCain or Clinton.
He is certainly no libertarian, but he is the best of the worst on at least a few issues libertarians tend to find important.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Jesus, I can’t keep track of Raimondo’s incarnations from Radical Causus to Pat Buchanite, to conservative, to Rothbardian, now Obama supporter. His politics are about as stable as he is.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:18 am
“Neither party will cut government in a way that is desperately needed. Instead, they offer a left- or right-tinged Americanized socialism or fascism. One promises domestic expansion and foreign reduction; the other promises foreign expansion and domestic reduction. The inevitable compromise: expand both domestically and internationally.”
http://www.mises.org/story/2910
March 8th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Steve Gordon, you should be jumping with joy about Raimondo’s man crush on Obama. You have already described how a Bob Barr run would take votes from McC to Obama. That might get cancelled out by Billary voters going FOR McC. Nevertheless the bottom line would be an Obama/Dem victory. This begs the question: Why don’t you support the LEFT libertarian victory strategy? The progressive alliance strategy? Instead of the paleo-dinosaur right libertarian LOSING strategy?
March 8th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Unless Bob Barr comes out as a left libertarian and/or supports the progressive alliance strategy, the Barr/Paul/paleo-conservative strategy is to be a loser & spoiler in favor of the democrat. On the other hand, the progressive alliance strategy has the potential to make the libertarian nominee, whoever that might be-the next president.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:18 am
Libertarians, think about that before you cavalierly hand over the great prize-the libertarian nomination-to Paul/Barr OR W.A.R.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Tom Knapp, if you go along with Steve’s Barr/paleo strategy, your guy (Kubby) is out. Either Barr or W.A.R. is in. I know you cringe at that & it sticks in your craw. BUT, if you join me & support the progressive alliance strategy, your guy at least is in the running.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Brian Holtz, the progressive alliance strategy can get you rid of your green nemesis & a pretty good chance to win your congressional seat.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Carl M., your “upper left party” is equivalent to the progressive party. Why bother to create a new party when you already have the LP & GP?
March 8th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Chris M., aka myopic physicist Chris, can you adjust your tunnel vision lenses?
March 8th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Fred C., have you grown up yet & given up playing with toy dinosaurs?
March 8th, 2008 at 5:43 am
G.E., why don’t you celebrate Ron Paul suspending campaigning with Fred & Wilma over some drive-in bronto burgers & ribs?
March 8th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Apologies TPWers, I just woke up with a hard-on.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:45 am
Knappster,
Yes, we do each make subjective assessments of a candidates positions, and whether we as individuals believe that a specific candidate represents the LP well or not.
But I prefer to look at the prospective candidate from a broader perspective. I weigh a variety of factors. Will he or she represent the LP well? Do I think he or she will be able to raise funds to have a stronger campaign with greater reach? Does he or she have an impressive resume? Does he or she look presidential, i.e., project a credible image? Does he or she seem comfortable with the issues of the day? Is he or she one-dimensional, or can he or she frame issues from a variety of perspectives?
And, yes, does he or she take positions that I support, on balance? There may be a few that I don’t. Barr, for ex., is pro-life. But I overlook that one.
Badnarik and Browne took far outside the mainstream positions that I probably support in theory, but I do not support for a PRESIDENTIAL campaign. If we keep running outside the mainstream candidates, we doom ourselves to the fringes, and get tuned out by the vast majority. Why bother? It might be more effective for us to pool our money, reprint millions of copies of FOR A NEW LIBERTY, hand them out, and see if the populace buys into the theory that fetuses are “parasites.”
Running hard-core Rothbardians or cloaked nonarchists over and over again reminds me of the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Brian H.
I’ve no quibble with your numbers, but entitlements are at least Americans funding Americans, for the most part. And no one is killed in the process.
Personally, I’d suggest that our candidate be for exiting Iraq in concrete, explicit ways. I’d be for mentioning that the expense of keeping US forces in places like Germany and S. Korea should also be re-thought, as that’s quite expensive as well. I’d suggest that serving as a “trip wire” is effectively using our military as pawns in a game that the US should not be playing.
I’d also suggest that entitlement reform needs to be done, the sooner the better. It’s a ticking time bomb. But, in the short term, the budget should be cut in the discretionary, corporate welfare, and non-defense military spending areas.
The LP’s Chicken Little routine ain’t working, though.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Thomas M. Sipos, I know of some beachfront property for sale near Coney Island. Owner in mortgage default & credit card debt. Interested?
March 8th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Robert Capozzi, my Iraq exit plan has been on my campaign website for a long time virtually unchanged.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Robert M.
My take is suggesting Iraq should be returned to Baathist control—or any Iraqi faction’s control—is TOO detailed. I’d prefer to see the LP’s candidate simply state:
March 8th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Robert C., what you said is what is in my website-in other words. Just “...TOO detailed.” Oh. Sorry.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:10 am
It’s just that when “...US policy makers should take into consideration input from all sides…” is accomplished through negotiations, it will probably work out that way more or less. The 2 MAIN belligerents are the new Shia dominated government installed by U.S. & the previous Sunni dominated government deposed by U.S. If about 25% goes Kurdish(northern) & 25% goes Shia (southern) that still leaves about 50% Sunni(central & western) + the possibility (most ironically) of federation with Kuwait(mixed Sunni & Shia). I of course support ALL U.S. troops out of Iraq. If federated that would include Kuwait. Withdrawal could be accomplished while cease-fire & negotiations are in effect.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Robert M.
Sorry if I sounded dismissive. As a general proposition, the LP has a tendency to get TOO detailed in evolving stories. The Iraq Exit Strategy comes to mind.
This to me doesn’t ring true. I think the LP should position itself as relevant but above the fray. If we get too detailed, our message of liberty gets a bit lost. And, being TOO detailed sounds grandiose. We’re not in office, and we’re not likely to get in office anytime soon. Getting THAT specific starts to feel delusional to me.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Holy shit! Robert Milnes, calm down on the posts dude. We all appreciate your comments at TPW and your insights. But friggin’ 14 (
) posts in a row?
Dude, chill.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Yes, JohnJackson, libertarians do find the issue of the War on Al Qaeda to be very important, perhaps the most important.
But we REAL LIBERTARIANS SUPPORT VICTORY IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, SOMALIA AND OTHER AL QAEDA BASTIONS, NOT RETREAT AND SURRENDER
Leftwing libertarianism that opposes the War on Al Qaeda does not define the entire libertarian movement. It only represents a segment: Admittedly a loud and obnoxious segment, but only a segment none-the-less.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Robert Milnes is shit-grinning silly over his “Leftwing Progressive – Libertarian Party alliance” proposal. I guess hoping that libertarians will follow Raimondo’s call to support Obama over the War on Al Qaeda.
Fine by me. That would only serve to keep right-wing libertarians in the GOP fold. If that were to happen, if the LP were to move hard-left, do you think right-wing libertarians would follow?
Not only NO, but HELL NO!
You’d be hard-pressed to find a single Republican Liberty Caucus member for instance, who has anything good to say for Obama, even the few RLC members who lean Anti-War.
Club for Growth? Sam Adams Alliance? Americans for Limited Government? Even Cato Institute guys. You think any right-wing libertarian would be happy with an LP-Obama or LP-Progressive Alliance?
The libertarian coalition is already falling apart. This would just be the death knell.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Bob,
You write:
“Tom Knapp, if you go along with Steve’s Barr/paleo strategy, your guy (Kubby) is out. Either Barr or W.A.R. is in. I know you cringe at that & it sticks in your craw. BUT, if you join me & support the progressive alliance strategy, your guy at least is in the running.”
Neither you nor your strategy are, so far as I can tell, a factor. That’s not to say that a “progressive alliance” strategy never could gain supporters, but your version hasn’t and isn’t going to.
I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to Steve’s “Barr/paleo strategy,” unless you are referring simply to the fact that Steve would like to see Barr throw in for the LP nomination.
If that’s what you’re talking about then no, I’m not “going along” with that “strategy.” Barr will jump in or not jump in, and so far as I know his decision on that will have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I “support” whatever “strategy” you’re referring to. I’ve met Barr twice, talked with him for a total of maybe five minutes. I’d be astonished if he could identify me in a police lineup, let alone if he considered my opinion relevant to his decisionmaking process.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Tom, yes, the Barr/paleo strategy is simply Barr entering the LP nom. race. But it is not so simple. If he does, it is practically a done deal. Unlike me which seems to be an uphill battle. & it implies a whole strategy of Ron Paul/paleos dragging the LP right. This seems to be calculated to be some sort of long-term gop reform effort & to take votes from McC acting as spoiler in favor of the democrat. Is that what you want? Esp. when there is a clear alternative which you say might work someday? Why wait till someday? Even Obama spoke of the urgency of NOW for his reason to get in. & look at him now!
March 8th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Eric Dondero, I don’t see how you have me supporting the Raimondo/LP/Barr/Paul/paleo strategy which would tend to take votes from McC in favor of the dem Obama/Billary. Quite the contrary. The left libs/progressives are anti-war in their own way. Not allying/ supporting/needing/Obama/Billary. They would tend to take votes FROM the dem in support of McC. EXCEPT they COULD get enough votes to actually win. That is because the left is a huge ass voting pool that would otherwise go to the DEM. Losing many right lib, gop & dem votes in favor of getting leftist votes. This is the choice libs have this year.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Tom, I’m telling you, this could catch on. Esp. if enough people like you get on board.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Eric Dondero, wouldn’t you think a FAIR solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict would take a lot of steam out of the Al Qaeda movement? LP/Obama/Billary =LP/Raimondo/Paul/Barr/paleo. NOT LP/progressives.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Bob,
You write:
“Tom, yes, the Barr/paleo strategy is simply Barr entering the LP nom. race. But it is not so simple. If he does, it is practically a done deal.”
Well, there’s your story right there. I agree that if Barr enters the race he immediately becomes the frontrunner and likely nominee. I’m not saying he’s unbeatable, but I’m not going to try to spin away the fact of his formidable position in such a situation.
You’re suggesting that (or at least asking if) I’m on board with him entering the race. I’m not … but that doesn’t matter, because so far as I know I have no way of influencing his decision. I’m not one of his advisors, nor do I expect a “Tom, should I run?” phone call from him.
“Unlike me which seems to be an uphill battle. & it implies a whole strategy of Ron Paul/paleos dragging the LP right.”
I agree that a Barr candidacy would tend to drag the LP to the right and put it back in the shadow of the GOP which it has been trying to escape for 36 years. I agree that that would be a bad thing (although there might also be positive aspects to a Barr candidacy).
“This seems to be calculated to be some sort of long-term gop reform effort & to take votes from McC acting as spoiler in favor of the democrat.”
On the contrary, I don’t think it’s calculated or takes a long-term view at all. Over the last decade or so (the only period I’m familiar with), the LP has definitely had a “go for the low-hanging fruit” mentality that translates into hyper-opportunism with little or no thought to long-term consequences.
This year, the low-hanging fruit seems to be conservative voters who don’t much care for McCain. It’s true that if that low-hanging fruit can be picked, it will result in bigger vote totals for the LP presidential ticket this November. It is my belief that most Libertarians are willing to stuff themselves on that low-hanging fruit rather than take the time to climb the tree and get the bigger and sweeter harvest (the large constituencies that might be PERMANENTLY brought into the LP’s sphere of influence if we’re willing to ignore our growling stomachs and do the necessary work).
In a different comment, you write:
“Tom, I’m telling you, this could catch on. Esp. if enough people like you get on board.”
That’s the problem, though, isn’t it? Not many people seem very interested in getting on board, and it’s numbers that count in these kinds of processes. I’m all in favor of a “progressive alliance,” rightly understood, but even I don’t see the merits of your particular version of the idea.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Tom, so you admit that a Barr candidacy goes for the “low hanging fruit” i.e. disenchanted McC voters. >Barr=spoiler in favor of the democrat. The long term gop reform is Ron Paul’s-to get the gop back to the old Goldwater type conservatism. No? Barr would be feeding into that along with Paul via CPAC-right in front of our faces! Whereas, if I & you & others promote the alternative-the progressive alliance strategy-it should catch on & gain support making Barr’s lock a contest at the convention. By the way, what’s wrong with my formulation of the strategy?
March 8th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Bob,
“Tom, so you admit that a Barr candidacy goes for the ‘low hanging fruit’ i.e. disenchanted McC voters.”
That’s the obvious EFFECT of a Barr candidacy. It’s also the obvious APPEAL of a Barr candidacy to those Libertarians who are looking for short-term gratification rather than long-term efficacy. Whether or not it would be the INTENT of a Barr candidacy, I can’t say.
“Barr=spoiler in favor of the democrat.”
Maybe, maybe not. That depends on how close the election is.
“The long term gop reform is Ron Paul’s-to get the gop back to the old Goldwater type conservatism. No? Barr would be feeding into that along with Paul via CPAC-right in front of our faces!”
I don’t know if Barr’s agenda is Goldwater-leaning reform of the GOP, or if it’s finishing off the GOP entirely. Personally I think that the former is impossible and the latter desirable, but I’m sure if either Barr or the LP has the gas to get it done.
“Whereas, if I & you & others promote the alternative-the progressive alliance strategy-it should catch on & gain support making Barr’s lock a contest at the convention. By the way, what’s wrong with my formulation of the strategy?”
You and I don’t even agree on what a “progressive alliance” strategy could or should entail, and I’d extract my own intestines with a fork before I’d promote your version of it.
I’ve been telling you what’s wrong with your formulation of the strategy for what, three years now? If you haven’t listened before, why should I expect that you’d listen now?
March 8th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Tom, I guess I did not find your explaination of what is wrong with my formulation of the strategy very persuasive or memorable.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Tom, try explaining how I’m wrong to TPW readers & see if they get it.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Bob,
TPW readers have already “got” it, but for the nth time:
– Your “progressive alliance” strategy requires two political parties to give up and/or put at extreme risk ballot access gains that have cost them a lot of time, money and effort to achieve. In some cases—for instance in Missouri, where a balloted party has no control at all over whether or not anyone files for office—it isn’t possible for those parties to sign on to your plan even if they wanted to.
– Your “progressive alliance” strategy requires at least one of those two political parties (the LP) to either amend or break its own bylaws in order to do something that its members do not, at this time, seem inclined to do.
– Your “we can win” claim is based on data that doesn’t support your hypothesis. The Cato study and other similar studies attempt to classify voters by policy/issues criteria and do not take party affiliation or reasons for party affiliation into account.
– As a candidate, your platform does not even attempt to unite Libertarians and Greens on the limited common ground they share (for example, ending the war in Iraq and opening the borders). Rather it expects both parties to set aside their own principles in order to seek alliance for no particular reason, in support of a platform that most Americans would probably find even more odious than they find either of those parties’ existing platforms—a platform that does not match the Cato data, etc., that you incorrectly believe makes your idea workable.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Tom, oh yeah. Now I remember. You got it all messed up so I slogged ahead without you.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Tom, I’ll try point by point but you didn’t number them. As for the parties hard earned ballot access-it’s covered. We could concentrate on Oklahoma, the only one that isn’t covered but nooooooooo. LP & GP could proceed with ballot access but as long as one or the other has it, it’s covered. D.C. & one or two others could be added to the LP by the GP. As for Missouri-that’s the beauty of the Honor System. Setting up a friendly competition gets ALL ballots taken
promptlyso as to deny as much of them as possible to the other. Once taken, however, both parties would be honor bound to not put another on the ballot & support or at least not contest it. I do not know what you are referring to with your amend the LP bylaws item. As for the Cato study etc. OK. It is not guaranteed. However there certainly is enough data & hypothesis to at least TRY. & then your criticism of my campaign. REGARDLESS of MY campaign,it still could be tried. In other words, it is not a valid argument against the strategy that MY campaign is “odious…unworkable…” etc. That’s MY take & I have that perogative. I disagree. I think my campaign is pretty right on. & you can’t have it both ways with your criticism of my campaign. BOTH the libertarians & greens are negative about it AND most of the American people? Come on, it is not THAT bad. Quite the contrary. Most Americans want border security FIRST. I think when I explain my position to the greens & the libs for that matter that it has to do with making amends to native americans that they will concur. & my proposal for Iraq is by far THE BEST. It is close to Biden’s which was the best of the dems & reps. & my position on abortion is close to Giuliani’s, which was the best of the dems & reps. No overturn of R v W & do everything to make abortion less a need. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies, options including but not ONLY abstinence, various reproductive programs etc. On most of the knee jerk lib positions I’m on board. Most leftist programs could be made acceptable to libs by making them voluntary etc. If I didn’t have the Teddy Roosevelt progressive precedent to point to, maybe you could criticize. & maybe if you weren’t stuck on Kubby you could objectively criticize MY campaign. But nooooooo…So, have fun with Bob Barr & the paleos.March 9th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Ron Paul/Bob Barr/LP = CPAC/paleo/losertarians.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:26 am
In all fairness, we are all awaiting Steve to further clarify &/or Bob Barr.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Just for the record: I am NOT a conservative-paleo-libertarian with a man-crush on Obama.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Clarification: For the record: I am NOT a conservative-paleo-libertarian AND I do NOT have a man-crush on Obama.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Justin Raimondo, I submit that My proposal to end the war in Iraq is FAR AND AWAY the best of ANY candidate AND I have a strategy to win the White House AND Congress. Further, then to appoint progressive judges. What say you to THAT?
March 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Bob,
You write:
“Tom, I’ll try point by point but you didn’t number them. As for the parties hard earned ballot access-it’s covered. We could concentrate on Oklahoma, the only one that isn’t covered but nooooooooo. LP & GP could proceed with ballot access but as long as one or the other has it, it’s covered. D.C. & one or two others could be added to the LP by the GP. As for Missouri-that’s the beauty of the Honor System. Setting up a friendly competition gets ALL ballots taken promptlyso as to deny as much of them as possible to the other. Once taken, however, both parties would be honor bound to not put another on the ballot & support or at least not contest it.”
I’ve tried and tried to explain this to you: Your “honor system” won’t work ESPECIALLY in Missouri, because in Missouri the balloted parties have precisely zero control over whether or not anyone runs on their ticket. Basically you’re denying the existence of people who want to run for office and don’t care what their putative party thinks about it.
“I do not know what you are referring to with your amend the LP bylaws item.”
The LP’s bylaws forbid nominating the candidate of another party for president or vice-president. Those bylaws also forbid any state affiliate to endorse the candidate of another party. So, even if you could put together a ballot-split situation with another party, the LP would be forbidden to actually support is putative allies on the other side of that split.
“As for the Cato study etc. OK. It is not guaranteed. However there certainly is enough data & hypothesis to at least TRY.”
At least try WHAT? There’s no data at all that supports your contention. There’s some data relating to policy/issues data, but that data is not supported by data showing any willingness to leave the two-party system for a third party, an alliance of third parties, etc. And the other data (Pew Foundation, for example) that DOES show desire for a “third party” is both unlinked to policy/issues and unsupported by action proving the data’s soundness.
As far as your campaign goes, you offer a number of reasons why people SHOULD like and support it. I happen to think that those reasons are silly, but that’s neither here nor there: The fact is that no matter how much you rail about how people SHOULD like and support it, I don’t know of anyone other than yourself who DOES like or support it. “Should” doesn’t get the job done even if it is true.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Robert, no, I don’t think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a great affect on Al Qaeda.
Radical Islamists hate us for our culture; our support for Israel and our foreign policy are of secondary importance to them, if at all.
Until we get rid of Rock music and Hip Hop videos, flatten Hollywood, outlaw all marijuana and ban alcohol from our society, force our women to at least cover their heads in public, massively exterminate all our pet dogs and cats, and start censoring our newspapers, tv, radio and internet to ensure that nothing gets printed negative about Muhammed and the Islamic religion, they will never be happy.
March 9th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
“Until we get rid of Rock music and Hip Hop videos, flatten Hollywood, outlaw all marijuana and ban alcohol from our society, force our women to at least cover their heads in public, massively exterminate all our pet dogs and cats, and start censoring our newspapers, tv, radio and internet to ensure that nothing gets printed negative about Muhammed and the Islamic religion, they will never be happy.”
It sounds like the “Islamo-fascists” have a lot in common with a lot of people in the Republican Party.
March 9th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“The system is in crisis,” Raimondo wrote. “We simply can’t afford to police the world, and we’re going bankrupt in the attempt. At the present rate of deterioration, the economic foundations of American imperialism are approaching collapse – and we’re looking at a very short time-frame, as such things go.”
The first part of bourgeois monopoly-capitalistic imperialism to go (if the Revolution does not begin before) will be the Republican Party. For the past few years, I have been writing that the GOP will be a minor-sized party by the year 2012. I think that things are right on schedule!
March 10th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Phil,
I think you may be too optimistic. The GOP has probably seen its last congressional majority, but unless something changes it will probably not slide into third place in a two-party system until 2016 or 2020.
March 10th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Tom, I think YOU may be too optimistic. Just what party do you see replacing/displacing the republican as second in a then three-party (dominated)system?
March 10th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Tom, as for Missouri et al, it is not necessary for the other side to endorse and/or support each other. It should be good enogh that the party endorses ONE candidate as that party’s “official” candidate thus hopefully thwarting interlopers from getting much support. Silence towards the other should be sufficient. Sure, SUPPORT for the other in exchange for corresponding support elsewhere would be great-ideal even. But if LP bylaws forbid that-oh well.
March 10th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I, for one, would appreciate a response from Justin Raimondo to previous question.