It’s official: Barr to run for LP prez nomination
USA Today story here.
I’m sure TPW publisher Stephen Gordon will offer more details as soon as humanly possible, either in an edit to this story or a full separate piece—this is just the “news flash!” version. Feel free to take it away in comments, though.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
About time Bob.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Score one for the retard caucus.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
HURRAY !! please donate today, a bunch of us spread the word to donate on the announcement day. Let’s kickoff this announcement the right way. Bob Barr will be the best chance for the Libertarians to break the one million votes barrier. www.bobbarr2008.com if only $25 please
May 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Bob Barr doesn’t get one cent of my hard earned money unless he wins the nomination
May 12th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Why this announcement couldn’t have come months ago escapes me. The delay only antagonized people. A very bad way to begin. And now we should all hurry up with the contributions, Jonathan? Come on now.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
For what it’s worth, from Politico:
Paulville? Count Ron Paul out
The founders of Paulville recently announced the purchase of the first 50 acres in West Texas on which they plan to build one of their “gated communities containing 100 percent Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty.”
One man who won’t be moving there anytime soon: Ron Paul.
“I don’t think that’s the solution,” says the still-running Republican presidential candidate. “You want to spread out and be as pervasive as possible.”
The driving idea behind Paulville—that likeminded lovers of liberty should band together—is not a new one. In 2003, thousands of libertarians vowed to move to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. Paul was no more sanguine on that effort, saying that population spillover from Massachusetts had overwhelmed it.
“They outnumbered us, the liberals leaving Massachusetts,” he says. “They wanted to pay less taxes, but then again, they wanted more government and they outnumbered the ones who wanted less government.”
Paulville, meanwhile, is much less likely than New Hampshire to attract Massachusetts liberals. But it does boast some green possibilities that a Northeast liberal might like. Snuggled deep into West Texas, the plot, according to Paulville.org, was chosen for its high amount of sunshine—the better to power solar panels and keep off the grid.
The community is structured as a co-op; freedom-loving denizens can purchase plots as small as one acre and are not required to use the co-op’s water or energy supply.
But dropping out and creating an isolated community isn’t the answer, says Paul, a congressman from Texas. “You don’t want the ideas to be centered in one place,” he says. “But it shows how desperate people are for freedom.”
Consistent with his beliefs in liberty, however, he doesn’t outright oppose Paulville. “I don’t see that as a solution, but it can’t hurt anything either,” he says.
Paul’s non-endorsement of Paulville comes at what seems to be a perilous time for the infant community. On Monday, just days after the announcement of the land purchase, the Web site Paulville.org went out of existence. No contact information had been on the site when it was live; phone calls and e-mails to the site administrator over the last several days have gone unreturned.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
As far as I can tell, Bob Barr will lead the LP in precisely the WRONG direction. Right not left. I estimate the potential leftist vote is over TWICE the Libertarian Vote, 27%>13%. We need a nominee who will do more than passive appeal or old style outreach. We need a direct address at the GP convention. We need a separate entity with website to coordinate the inclusive Green & Libertarian vote. To the best of my knowledge I am the only candidate to promise this; although Kent Mesplay has written me expressing an interest. I also suggested this to Jesse Johnson & of course I encourage ALL the LP candidates to promise this. This strategy has the potential to ACTUALLY WIN, not just be a McWar spoiler in favor of the democrat. The convention is coming soon & libertarians must speak up & support this strategy NOW! If libertarian support went to ME instead of Bob Barr there is a much better chance of this happening.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
http://www.paulville.org/index.html
May 12th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Robert Milnes is a deluded megalomaniac nonentity who is on an ego trip. If the LP wants to attract votes from the left and greens, it should put Mike Gravel on the ticket.
May 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Has there been any more word about a possible late Ventura entry, or an effort by delegates to urge him to enter the race? Or was that just some musing-out-loud by Ventura that isn’t going anywhere?
May 12th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Kenny, Gravel has to the best of my knowledge not said anything about this strategy. At best he could passively appeal to leftists. & there is a 7% crossover no matter who the candidate is. But all potential or inclusiveness is lost if there is no deliberate attempt at this strategy & most leftists wind up voting dem, most rightists rep on election day.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Mr. Milnes,
After reading what the Greens would do in the first 100 days(http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=58), I want nothing to do with them.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Robert, I’ve done outreach to the left.
I’ve done so without waiting for anyone’s permission, approval, endorsement, or financing.
Instead of you just sitting there whining about how the LP should support you, how it should do this, and do that—you should just do it!
You don’t need to be the LP’s presidential candidate to engage in activism, or outreach to whichever group you want.
But instead of doing anything, you just sit there and whine about all the LP “losers” who are not supporting you in your endeavors.
Yes, I know you’re in bad financial straights. So focus on that. Or focus on outreach. But stop complaining about how others aren’t doing your outreach for you, or supporting your plan, or following you as their leader.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
The most interesting angle of Barr’s announcement, to me, is his decision to position himself as “McCain-lite” on Iraq.
It’s like the guy is BEGGING people—in and out of the LP —not to support him.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Bob Barr is everything the LP is not. This would be a huge mistake to nominate this man for President. A drug warrior who twice voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. The man is a complete joke who hopped onto the LP to try to make a name for himself. No real Libertarian could support this man.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Nexus, the strategy gets the LP executive ticket elected & about 1/2 LP & 1/2 GP ballots elected. Nobody has to change party or adopt the green plan or become a socialist or progressive. Teddy Roosevelt did not advocate or try socialism. The choice is politics as usual & greens & libertarians & progressives lose or try to win & get both greens & libertarians elected. & GO FROM THERE as actually elected people not stuck with dems & reps again & HAVE TO work in & through them in other words get just about NOTHING; lip service MAYBE.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Bob,
No, the strategy gets NO ONE elected—at least not as you’ve laid it out.
The “executive tickets” of the LP and the GP routinely receive less than 1% of the popular vote each, and sometimes less than 1% combined.
In down-ticket partisan races, LP and GP candidates routinely poll single digits, occasionally low double digits, and VERY occasionally win a seat at the state legislative level or lower.
If you expect anyone to believe that merging their tickets will create some synergy that boosts less than 2% of the presidential vote to a plurality, and the rare down-ticket victory to a 50/50 chance, you’re going to have to explain how you expect that to happen, not just assert that it will.
None of this is meant to be advocacy for nominating Barr, btw—the LP does need to move left rather than right. It’s just that you’ve not made a convincing case for how it might do so successfully.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I LOVE getting attacked for being in the “no compromise” camp when it is all of the “pure” libertarians that have been running around saying that “no real Libertarian could support this man.” Even if Barr himself is not adequate to represent the LP, this group think about “no real libertarian” can be or do X or Y needs to STOP.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Mr. Milnes,
Are you trying to tell me the Greens would support a ticket that wouldn’t implement their agenda? I don’t buy it. I just don’t see any kind of LP/GP fusion working. LP/CP maybe, but the only man who stood any chance of uniting the two parties is staying with the GOP.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Knapp: Your interpretation of Barr’s statement on Iraq is wrong. He isn’t “McCain-lite” if he advocates a troop draw down. His statement about a timetable is to keep from alienating the right like Paul did.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
John, you obviously have not seen the Cspan hearing with Barr against the Patriot Act (around 2005 I think) and do not consider his work witht eh ACLU and his turn-around on medical majiuana etc.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Thomas M. Sipos, have you ever experienced major clinical depression? For years? I’m whining about the LP conference because it is an opportunity about to be lost. Your outreach on the link is great. The common cause in that instance was the anti-war movement, right? & by the way, I have been wrestling with what to do about the flag lapel pin. I figured a balancing pin would be better than no pin (Obama). Looks like your porcupeace pin might just be it!
May 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I LOVE getting attacked for being in the “no compromise” camp when it is all of the “pure” libertarians that have been running around saying that “no real Libertarian could support this man.”
All? You have a census of ‘pure’ libertarians? I’d surely like to see it; I could recruit them
this group think … needs to STOP
Absolutely.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
DR,
In explaining his “100 years” remark, McCain posited that Iraq would become like Japan, Germany or Korea, i.e. that it would be pacified but require a long-term US troop presence.
In saying that “only a fool” would set a deadline or timetable for getting out of Iraq, Barr is saying that the US must expect to have a perpetual presence, however small, in Iraq. When troops move, they move on a schedule (that’s a timetable). When they’re supposed to be somewhere, they’re supposed to be there at a particular time (that’s a deadline). If you say it’s foolish to get out of Iraq on a deadline or timetable, you’re saying it’s foolish to get out of Iraq. And if you’re saying it’s foolish to get out of Iraq, presumably you’re saying we shouldn’t do it.
So … how is Barr’s statement that there should be a perpetual US presence in Iraqsubstantively different from McCain’s statement that there must be a perpetual US presence in Iraq? It isn’t. It may differ in degree—maybe McCain would keep 100,000 troops in Iraq while McCain would only keep 50,000—but it doesn’t differ in substance.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Wow, see … even I’m already getting McCain and Barr mixed up!
May 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Zogby poll: Barr 3%, Nader 1%. Is this what we want?
May 12th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
There is only one way your sure to lose and that is not to try.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
To the delegates: Barr may not be a perfect libertarian candidate, but Utopia is not an option. He represents the LP’s best chance at having an impact on this election, and hopefully progressig the Ron Paul Revolution through it. Having suffered through the last several prez elections at
May 12th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
PRAISE JESUS.
But don’t praise the Wiccans, because they are violent witches. Or the secular humanists. Quoth Barr less than a decade ago. Pissing hate and brimstone on two of the most empathic, spiritual religions out there.
Great. “The guy who tried to impeach Clinton while being guilty of practicing infidelity himself” is running for president.
Mr. NARC himself, proselytizing that marijuana is the seed of the devil.
What a great tagline to attach to a candidate. Really projects the image of consistency and integrity that Libertarians want.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Thomas:
I do disagree with your depiction of Barr’s position on Iraq as being “McCain-lite”,
although I do understand what you mean. There is a difference between McCain and Barr, not just in scale, but “categorical difference”. McCain believes in interventionism and will stay in Iraq indefinitely, 50- 100 years. Barr, on the other hand do believe in non-interventionism and consider the nation-building as problematical. I think what he means is that it is not possible for a presidential candidate to set a specific date, as the president would first have to discuss with the military strategists – who should follow orders – who knows better about the situation on the ground, to devise a plan on the logistics and planning for the event e.g. you cannot completely withdraw in a week just like that, it does take some time and planning. What is important is that the Iraq war/invasion should be seen as a mistake and it is now in a quagmire. Once a LP candidate (hypothetically) takes office, he would have to draw up a plan and see in which time framework it is practically feasible to withdraw, in stages. The date of final withdrawal do not need to be (and should not) pre-announced, say on 1 January, but one can and should give an indication, as Nolan has said that within a year – for instance – all troops would be home. The best strategic plan would be to announce that a withdrawal will take place say within a year, and then plan a date with the military, but not announce the date and then work towards this schedule and then announce all troops have been withdrawn after it has happened.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
To the delegates: Barr may not be a perfect libertarian candidate, but Utopia is not an option. He represents the LP’s best chance at having an impact on this election, and hopefully progressig the Ron Paul Revolution through it. Having suffered through the last several prez elections at less than half a precent, inspite of the valient efforts of Browne and Badnarik, I believe Barr gives us the best shot at effecting this election. Doing the same thing and expecting different results …. Need I say more?
May 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
If Barr cannot commit himself in the way Paul did to a withdrawal from Iraq, he can kiss my vote goodbye, period, end of sentence. Obama promises the anti-war voter more, for God’s sake, but he’d kill every unwanted baby he could get his hands on. With Baldwin you’ve got to accept both ostentatious displays of religiousity and a faulty notion of the role of Church vis-a-vis state in order to get us out of Iraq and keep our children out from under the murder knife. Is no one simply for life and peace without equivocation or baggage?
May 12th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Big name barr/Nader & big $ Perot/Bloomberg, only go so far. We need a strategy that changes the DYNAMIC. The best performance third party/independent was TR in 1912-27% second place. Some variation of what he did & do it a little better 8% is what we need. Hint: the socialist Debs got 6%.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Bob,
Obviously, 3% is not what the LP wants.
However, clicking our heels together three times and saying “Bob Milnes is right” over and over won’t magically change that number.
The truth is that there probably are no silver bullets, that:
– The LP will have a chance to win a presidential election once it has a substantial number of serving congresscritters and governors.
– That the LP will have a chance to elect a substantial number of congresscritters and governors once it has a substantial number of serving state legislators.
– That the LP will have a chance to elect a substantial number of congresscritters and governors once it has a substantial number of serving county sheriffs, county commissioners, mayors, city councilpersons, etc.
– That the LP will have a chance to elect a substantial number of county sheriffs, county commissioners, mayors, city councilpersons, etc. once there’s an active LP organizer in every precinct, anactive Libertarian Club in most communities, etc.
There may be silver bullets, but they’re like four-leaf clovers. We can’t make them, we have to find them, and doing so is generally a matter of dumb luck. If we do get lucky, fine. Until we do, the more productive path is the path of real political work.
That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t run a presidential campaign, but it does mean that the purpose of the presidential campaign at this time isn’t to hope for a flash in the pan that brings us a few more votes, but nowhere near a victory.
Rather, the logical purpose of the presidential campaign at this time is to show the flag—the LIBERTARIAN PARTY flag, not the IF YOU’RE PISSED AT MCCAIN, WE’RE YOUR WHORES flag or the KINDA SORTA LIKE THOSE OTHER GUYS, BUT NOT QUITE AS ROTTEN flag.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
This is all very exciting, but Bob Barr still voted for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. For those two reasons, above all other, he is unfit to be president and unfit to carry the Libertarian party name!
May 12th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Just saw the post-announcement Bob Barr interview on Fox news. I wish I was more impressed.
It seems to me what we most need short-term is someone who has the best shot of getting into this Fall’s Presidential debates, and who could perform there even better than Ron Paul (if that’s even possible).
What I most like about Bob Barr is the idea that he might be able to poll high enough, and raise enough money soon enough, to get into the Presidential Debates.
But I was utterly unimpressed with Congressman Barr’s performance on Fox a few minutes ago.
There were technical issues (really horrible, Dracula-like lighting on Mr. Barr), but there also just wasn’t the energy or excitement coming from him that I’ve felt listening to Ron Paul, Andre Marrou or others. It fell flat.
I’m left right now, looking forward to the LNC in Denver, and listening carefully for who I get will best serve to advance the cause of Liberty long term—who has the best chance to get national media attention AND best articulate a message that will move Liberty forward.
Bob Barr may have the best shot at getting an invitation to the Presidental debates, but based on what I’ve seen so far, especially today on Fox, as well as in his youtube videos, I don’t think he’d perform well there—might do more long-term harm than good.
Mike Gravel—released Pentagon Papers and filibustered the draft, has probably done more for Liberty than anyone else who has served in Congress in the past 50 years (Congressman Mr. Paul included). I feel he’s earned my admiration and support. I admire his guts in releasing the Pentagon Papers and saving me from even having to register with the Selective Service (unlike my son who will have to do so, God Forbid, in 4 years). But I don’t yet get he’s the best choice. I want to see him debate, not dance with the Obama girl. I want to hear a pure Libertarian message, not National Health Care.
Mary Ruwart—if we had guaranteed access to the debates, she is who I would most like to see take on Obama and McCain. I believe, she’d leave then in shreds. Although I’m not at all clear how she can educate folks on her real Libertarian position through all the media mud over the child porn issue that will be there if she were a serious threat to McCain, or start polling high enough to be considered for the debates.
Alden Link. I don’t know why but I really like this guy’s website. Maybe it’s being 80 and going for your dreams full out that I find inspiring. I hope he’s in Denver. I’d like to shake his hand. And I wish we could get 600 privately insured nuclear plants built in the next 5 years to be energy independant.
Baldwin? I’m confused. I don’t get how the Constitution Party holds Libertarian views. I’m opening to listening, but feel ill at ease at best.
Ventura. I hope he shows up in Denver. I hope he runs for the Senate in Minnesota this year and wins, then runs for the LP nomination in 2012. That I could get excited about, at a level far beyond anything I see possible for the LP this year.
Joe
May 12th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Ipmeister:very true. Ron Paul – the strongest anti-war candidate along with Kucinich (and Gravel) never named a possible date for withdrawal from Iraq either, apart from saying we marched in, we can march back again. as a matter of saying. Being asked about the subject, he mentioned one cannot withdraw in a week or so, and that a withdrawal schedule would have to be planned together with military strategists. Them same with Barr. You have to see about the logistics as well as concrete situation on the ground, and this can be dynamic. Certain promises has been made and you have to honor this also, to a certain extent before you can finally withdraw. One can stop with “nation-building” however quite soon.
Also: a true libertarian president understands the limits and constraint and that he just cannot decide anything and it will be delivered. It does not work so in politics and the real world.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Stefan,
If he was against the Patriot Act why did he vote to approve it twice?
And I don’t like him because he has suddenly flipped on every issue he was once for. Seems a little to convenient for me.
Joseph,
I don’t think we want Ventura anywhere near the LP debates. He has become a conspiracy nutcase. We don’t need someone like that being associated with the party.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Gravel said we can get out in 120 days. Considering that he served in the military and the Senate when wars were going on, I’m inclined to trust him.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Bob Milnes:
my friend touting your left-wing drive, perhaps you should define “left wing”. The Greens do not have an economic policy that is attractive to Libertarians (yet). Now have you seen this site, about Independent conservative Greens?
http://www.votejoinrun.us/ The want to draft Bloomberg-Paul for a joint ticket, so it seems you would be a little late with your idea? It would be a good idea to work together with such a group, as well as the CP. There could be more similarities than you think.
May 12th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Ross,
As things are, I agree.
On the other hand, if Barr was willing to come right out, say “I was wrong, here’s why, and now I want to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem,” he could be a very powerful candidate.
Instead, he equivocates, excuses, diverts.
Iraq was a “mistake,” but “only a fool” would undo it.
The Patriot Act was defective, but nobody’s to be blamed for wanting to do something, anything when America is under attack—it need not be the RIGHT thing, and we can just tweak it later.
We shouldn’t amend the constitution to gay marriage, but the states have a “right” to maintain an apartheid system and if they don’t do so the federal government should just not recognize what they DO do.
The feds shouldn’t be fighting the drug war at home, but the states should, and the feds should bundle up a bunch of used M16s and unmarked Ben Franklins to give to Colombia to fight it overseas.
At least when Root panders, he takes it right over the damn top. He may not be believable, but he’s entertaining and it’s always gratifying to be sucked up to.
Barr, on the other hand, is relying on a combination of “I’m willing to move a quarter step in a Libertarian direction, but only if I don’t think America will notice,” and “I’m Bob Barr, famous Bob Barr, serious Bob Barr, Bob Barr, Bob Barr, Bob Barr.”
May 12th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Stefan,
Honestly, I think anybody saying ‘immediate withdrawal of troops’ or asking for a hard unmalleable timetable is grandstanding. Of course we’ll have some deadlines, and currently there are deadlines for progress reports thats why you have Petraeus testifying before Congress. But everybody understands that if military leaders say its a bad idea to withdraw, we’ll have to wait to do so. Thats why, imo, Republicans are more right than Democrats on this issue.
I’m saying this as someone who is not a libertarian. Also as someone who thinks changing some foreign and trade policies can avert conflicts in the future, but that going to war was an inevitable result of a course of policy over decades, and the people who supported the war did so in good faith.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
John,
yes I kow his history, but his conversion is pure and genuine. Also, he had objections at the time against the Patriot Act and only voted for it after certain provisions and assurances. He did say later that he regretted the decision strongly
and would do anything to get it repealed and he has travelled to DC etc and lobbied for its repeal. It is not an issue of convenience for him. He testified against it in 2005 in congress etc , more than a year before officially joining the LP and endorsed the Lp nominee in 2004. There is no Romney like convenient change on several issues when the timing was right.
I understand from how judge Andrew Napolitano mentioned the issue is that initially members were given only 155 minutes, or a very short time to go over a very comprehensive document. They wanted to steam-roller it through. Of course Paul had the best judgement and Barr acknowledged this also, listen to his FFF speech last year. This year Paul, Barr, Kwiatkowski and many others will again deliver speeches at the FFF. Barr considers Paul his mentor.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Is a timetable / deadline possible and practical?
Yes, it is.
A Libertarian who was elected president would have more than two months between his election and his inauguration to plan transition matters, and that would include meeting with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the commander of CENTCOM, et al.
During those transition meetings, he would be able to explain that he intended to withdraw US troops from Iraq ASAP and that these guys should be working on the details, in the full expectation that on inauguration day the new President would take his hand off the Bible, turn around, walk over to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chief of Naval Operations and say “you have 90 days to report to me that the last American troop has left Iraq soil. Hit it.”
Military troops move from Point A to Point B on a schedule and with a deadline all the time, including when in hostile territory or under fire. The notion that they couldn’t leave Iraq pursuant to a reasonable deadline/timetable, or that a presidential candidate shouldn’t run on the intention of giving them such a deadline/timetable, is absurd.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Knapp is just a spinner. He is spinning against Barr.
Knapp often comes close to lies in this spinning.
It is really a shame.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Thomas,
I’m not talking from the perspective of keeping American troops safe, but also making sure we don’t create problems in Iraq that we will be fully responsible for, because of a result of our decision to go to war. The Iraqi government currently supports the American military staying to aid them. Iraq doesn’t want us out.
Of course, I’m probably talking from a different viewpoint than you are.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Steve Kubby still has my first round vote. If Kubby is not an option, I’ll vote for Mary Ruwart.
If it comes down to, say, Root vs. Barr, at this point I am still not sure what I would do.
I’ve attempted to schedule an interview with Congressman Barr. He told me he was looking forward to it and handed me a card for his office.
I followed up with both a call and an email.
So far, they do not appear to be interested.
No skin off my back if they do not respond; I’ll just accept it as proof that they have no interest in my vote or that of other LP Radicals.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
The Iraqi government currently supports the American military staying to aid them. Iraq doesn’t want us out.
“Iraqi government” is not the same as “Iraq.”
May 12th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
paulie,
According to polls done in Iraq the majority of people there don’t want Americans to do a complete, immediate withdrawl; even if they would like an eventual phase out. The militants in Iraq who oppose us are not “the Iraqi people” either.
But anyway, my point was that the Iraqi government is the current stable regime in Iraq, and our interest is not having the country fall apart as soon as we leave.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Bill,
Me, a spinner? I’ve never denied it. I have not hidden my candidate support leanings from anyone, and I am going to advocate for the candidates whom I support and against the candidates whom I oppose.
The difference between you and me is that I lay my cards out on the table and say what I mean, while you play the losing “oh, I am so reasonable, let me work a little dig in here while I posture about how reasonable I am”
That candidate and advocate approach is what cost Bill Bradley the 2000 Democratic nomination, Al Gore the 2000 election, and every other candidate who has used it any fight against an opponent who was willing to come out fighting.
Politics is a fight. You win a fight by throwing your punches, not by jumping out of the ring screaming “Did you see that? Did you see that, guys? He … he … he tried to HIT ME! He’s a BIG MEANIE!”
May 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
According to polls done in Iraq the majority of people there don’t want Americans to do a complete, immediate withdrawl; even if they would like an eventual phase out. The militants in Iraq who oppose us are not “the Iraqi people” either.
1) What polls? What was their methodology?
2) Why would you think accurate polls could be conducted under an occupation government?
3) Even if it were true that Iraqi people wanted the US government to keep occupying their country, which sounds far fetched, why would they have any say so in dictating how US taxpayers money should be spent?
May 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
redfish,
Starchild has in the past accused me of being a “nationalist,” and in a way I guess he’s right. Frankly, I don’t give a tinker’s damn what the alleged “government of Iraq” wants or expects. They’re not picking up the damn check.
The American taxpayer is paying a financial price for the US occupation of Iraq. The American soldier is paying a similar cost, only in blood. The all-we-care-to-eat shit buffet has been paid for in spades, and we’re perfectly entitled to decide that we’re full and ready to go home any time we like.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I heard the news on NPR this morning. My stomach made a slow lurch. I thought I was prepared, but it still hit me. I changed channel to ClearChannel and heard it there, too.
So now Barr has aready received more news than all the other candidates combined.
Now I have to spin to my gay friends, and pot head friends, and my antiwar friends how Barr has changed everything he ever stood for. Don’t know how that will work.
FWIW, I do believe that Barr has seriously changed. But can I convince others?
PEACE
Steve
May 12th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Knapp channels Barr:
This totally goes into the Vintage Knapp file.
Well, I don’t really have one, but if I did… it would!
May 12th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
As of today (it may change by convention time), my first round vote goes to Mike Gravel.
If it comes down to Root, Barr, and Ruwart (as it likely will), I’ll go for Ruwart. Enthusiastically.
If it’s down to Barr vs. Root (oh dear!), I’ll pick Barr. Unenthusiastically.
Barr’s growth has been measured and gradual, hence, believable. But I don’t trust Root. I don’t believe that anything he says pre-nomination indicates what he may say post-nomination. I don’t like Root’s business dealings, as
unearthed by Thomas Knapp.
_
No, Robert, I’ve never been “clinically” depressed. But I have been depressed. I find that getting out, meeting people, doing stuff, is a great uplifter of spirits.
Maybe you should leave your laptop and do some actual flesh-and-blood activism with real people, instead of being cooped up wherever you are. Find some local groups in your area, find a like-minded Meet-Up group, and do stuff.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Honestly, I think anybody saying ‘immediate withdrawal of troops’ or asking for a hard unmalleable timetable is grandstanding.
You say ‘grandstanding’ like it’s a Bad Thing. It isn’t, necessarily.
The point (one point) is to give voice to those who are not saying “Gee, we should maybe-sorta-thinkabout getting out of Iraq. Someday.” but to those who are saying “Get out NOW!”
May 12th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Thomas,
And if you can get enough people to support that proposition than you can do that. But even from a different Libertarian line of argument, if you argue that we have enemies because of our foreign policy, a quick withdrawl from Iraq will both create more enemies—who will blame the US for the resulting problems from the withdrawl—and provide a base for existing enemies. So thats why most Americans who were against going into Iraq and support withdrawing, don’t want immediate withdrawl, and think its ‘foolish’ as put by Bob Barr. Then again, most people aren’t libertarians.
And paulie, I’ve read about the situation in Iraq, and your portrayal of it as an occupation government are just not accurate. At any rate, doing a quick search on the BBC ssite, here is one poll result which talks about post-surge numbers (Sept 2007):
“Since the last BBC/ABC News poll in February, the number of Iraqis who think that US-led coalition forces should leave immediately has risen sharply, from 35 to 47%, although that does mean that a small majority – 53% – still says the forces should stay until security has improved.”
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6986993.stm )
Here is a more complete breakdown—showing all the poll options—with graphs:
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983027.stm )
May 12th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Who’d a thought – that with 15+ candidates running for the Presidential Nomination NOTA might just win!
May 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Tom Knapp – I agree, Barr panders and equivocates. He is the kind of man that would, well, vote for the Patriot Act if it furthered him politically. But Gravel on the other hand risked his entire political career when he filibustered the draft and released the Pentagon Papers. The Democratic leadership didn’t want him to do it, and neither did any other leadership at the time, but he did it because he knew it was the right thing to do. He showed more courage in those two acts than Barr could ever show, just judging by those two votes against Gravel’s two actions.
Something that scares me about Barr is his political flexibility. If he could endorse a useless war for political expediency, would he sell out his party (that is, the LP) in order to gain some ground? I’m not even talking about Libertarian principles here – I’m talking about ethics. The Democratic and Republican parties operate in extremely unethical and in many cases illegal ways, and do this to ensure their power. Would Barr be willing to turn the LP into that kind of a party for his own political gain?
Joe Buchman – Gravel does debate, and Gravel is a serious person, but in the Obama Girl video he was just having some fun. You can check out his website http://www.gravel2008.us and his Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/gravel2008.us for some of his more serious stuff.
And remember everyone – there’s a mass donation day for Gravel’s birthday tomorrow! http://www.gravel2008.us/donate_now
May 12th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
And remember everyone – there’s a mass donation day for Gravel’s birthday tomorrow!
I’m sending him a toy submarine instead. He can put toy nukes inside of it and zoom it around the bathtub, explaining how that makes him the ‘peace candidate’.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Susan,
You’re one crazy bitch. Mike Gravel has done more for the peace movement than Dr. Ruwart has done or will do.
Perhaps you should take that toy submarine and shove it up your ass.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
>>Joe Buchman – Gravel does debate, and Gravel is a serious person, but in the Obama Girl video he was just having some fun. You can check out his website http://www.gravel2008.us
May 12th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Joseph, why did you post that again?
And again, people – why all the hostility?
May 12th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Susan—
You demented, autistic Libtard.
If you want to make crayon doodles of rainbows and happy peaceful people with the other Ruwarchists, fine.
Gravel been out there, actually getting his hands gritty doing battle with the Military-Industrial-Complex.
Did you get a pinky swear from Mary that she’ll make the sub nukes go poof? I’m sure the military personnel will be happy to obey and cooperate, haha. Go back to playing paddycake and write your playground rhymes about what an evil man Gravel is.
Gravel iz no pazifist
he luv nukes
peace h8tr
May 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
John,
>>Joseph,
I don’t think we want Ventura anywhere near the LP debates. He has become a conspiracy nutcase. We don’t need someone like that being associated with the party.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
BARR/GRAVEL ticket would really get some attention and put a real scare into both parties. I know the Republicasn are already scared.
Please donate $10 to fuel this campaign and help it get kickstarted
May 12th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Ross,
Sorry. Was not being hostile. It seems that when you use greater than or less than signs to quote something, the BBS here deletes the rest of the post.
So what you wrote was
“Joe Buchman – Gravel does debate, and Gravel is a serious person, but in the Obama Girl video he was just having some fun. You can check out his website http://www.gravel2008.us”
And what I tried to post but that got deleted was:
Thanks Ross, I’ll check it out. I am reading his book (updated from the 1970s) and am favorably impressed. I saw his helter skelter video some months ago and that put me off. Will check out his other videos before Denver.
Like I said, as far as anyone I can see who has actually done something to earn my vote by advancing Liberty—disclosing the Pentagon Papers at some (perhaps even great) personal risk, as well as ending the draft has gotten my attention.
But my dad is an MD. I’ve witnessed the destruction of health care (with the emphasis on caring) up close. We need a free market here, not more nationalization.
Joe
May 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I’d support that Jonathan. I’d prefer to kick it around, but hey, that’d be cool with me.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
redfish
“Methodology:
The poll was conducted by D3 Systems and KA Research Ltd for the BBC, ABC News, and NHK of Japan. Some 2,112 Iraqis were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods across all the 18 provinces of Iraq between August 17 and August 24, 2007. The margin of error is + or – 2.5%. ”
Sorry, inadequate explanation. How were they questioned? By phone (many Iraqis do not have working phones)? On the street (many Iraqis are afraid to go on the street)? What about the literally millions of Iraqis who have fled Iraq since the US led invasion and occupation?
Did people responding to the poll feel safe in expressing their real views? How do we know?
You also note that the percentage of Iraqis wanting the US to exit quickly went up by 12% (I did not check from what starting point) til Sept 2007. If that trend continued, it could easily be a majority – even by YOUR cited poll’s (suspect) methodolgy – by now.
None of this answers what right Iraqis have to lay claims on US taxpayers money.
It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That’s how it all begun.
We were—knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, “Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?”
“Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
‘Bout a mile above this place.
It’ll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We’ll soon be on dry ground.”
We were—waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
The Sergeant said, “Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim.”
“Sergeant, don’t be a Nervous Nellie,”
The Captain said to him.
“All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I’ll lead on.”
We were—neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.
All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain’s helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, “Turn around men!
I’m in charge from now on.”
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.
We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn’t know that the water was deeper
Than the place he’d once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
‘Bout a half mile from where we’d gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.
Well, I’m not going to point any moral;
I’ll leave that for yourself
Maybe you’re still walking, you’re still talking
You’d like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We’re—waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man’ll be over his head, we’re
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!
May 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
crazy bitch
sigh
The level of “dialogue” in the LP is getting embarrassing.
Especially the misogyny on display.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Rule #1 when you are stuck in a ditch:
quit digging.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“BARR/GRAVEL ticket would really get some attention and put a real scare into both parties. I know the Republicasn are already scared.
Please donate $10 to fuel this campaign and help it get kickstarted”
Gravel has already ruled out VP.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Gravel wanted to be McGovern’s running mate but he won’t be Mary Ruwart’s?
May 12th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Jerry and Ross,
I like Gravel.
I particularly like the fact that nominating him would, in one swell foop, undo much of the past 24 years of “we’re sort of like the Republicans, only better in some unspecified way” LP positioning.
I also respect the fact that instead of trying to smooth over and distract from his differences with the “standard LP line,” he just is who he is and lets it rip.
But, there are those dealbreakers—“Fair” Tax and health care—and for now that means I’m sticking with the candidate(s) who in my opinion best and most consistently represent that “standard LP line.” I’ll vote for Kubby. If Kubby is eliminated, I’ll vote for Ruwart.
If we reach a point where neither Kubby nor Ruwart are in the balloting—something I don’t expect to happen—then I’m not sure what I’ll do.
Until Root’s “anarchy and child porn and age of consent, oh my” explosion, he was a very distant third for me (no “Fair” Tax problem), but now he’s simply not an option. I’d have trouble working up the enthusiasm to piss on him if he was on fire, let alone trust him with the job of representing the LP in the general election.
Gravel or Barr, Gravel or Barr? At this point, in a two-way, I’d have to lean toward Gravel. But I don’t see it coming down to that choice. I think the last two candidates standing will be either Kubby and Barr or Ruwart and Barr.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Joseph – I wasn’t talking about you when I was talking about hostility, I was talking about some of the other people here.
Gravel’s book is a good insight into the man. From what you’re reading, you can tell that the Ni4D is the main issue to him, and all others are really secondary. Once the people have the freedom of power over themselves (and they don’t have to give up their sovereignty to the government anymore), they will be able to control whether they get national healthcare or not.
I really wonder if Gravel would refuse a VP spot if the situation came up.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
John,
You wrote:
“I don’t think we want Ventura anywhere near the LP debates. He has become a conspiracy nutcase. We don’t need someone like that being associated with the party.”
(apparently the rest of my post was cut off by using greater and less than signs to indicate the quote above).
The rest of what I tried to post was:
I guess I’m a nutcase or “someone like that” then too.
I watched Ventura on Hanity call for a renewed investigation on why WTC 7 fell as it did. That doesn’t land as “nutcase” to me. I’ve not read his book yet. Perhaps there’s more there.
But, given conversations I’ve had with good friends who are pilots, one who flys trans pacific routes, I’m concerned because they tell me there is no way a commercial jet could fly into the Pentagon as the radar indicates it did. No way the engines would not scoop up dirt and grass before hitting the building at the first floor windows.
I’m also with Dr. Steven Jones, formerly of BYU, on his call for and work towards a new investigation.
It seems to me a Vigilant perspective on our government—as an entity that is overblown, power hungry, self-preserving—at any cost, including gross misrepresentation and lies (see: Remember the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, What Is, is, etc . . .) is fully consistent with Libertarian Principles. A Vigilance that Jefferson urged us to maintain. One the mainstream media have largely abandoned, and one which I believe does resonate in the hearts of Liberty loving an defending Americans, and tyrant fleeing people of all nations.
I’m glad Libertarians for Justice will be in Denver.
And while I find some of Richard C. Hoagland’s conclusions regarding mile high glass domes on the moon, and cities on Mars, a bit to way out there, I’m also glad he will be there. I join him and Dr. Edgar Mitchell (6th man to walk on the moon) in calling for Congress to regain Constitutional control over black budget and out of control executive branch spending, lifetime protection of whistle blowers based on the amount of fraud, waste and crime they reveal, the elimination of all secrecy oaths that might prohibit such whistle blowing testimony – including the ET and 9/11 issues.
Joe
May 12th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Thomas,
If you think that Kubby is going to make it to the final round of balloting, I want what you’re smoking. It’s certainly a helluva lot more powerful than what Steve gave me.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Come, peaceniks. Let’s not go Dondero on each other.
Gravel or Ruwart (or Kubby or Phillies) would each make fine candidates. Take your pick on first ballot, then support the last one standing.
I’m voting for Gravel, but I’m still voting for Susan Hogarth for LNC.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
You’re one crazy bitch.
That’s my cue. If you are interested in the LP Women’s Caucus, email me at (my first name) AT Liberatedspace Dot Com.
For those of you capable of understanding detailed discussions of foreign policy, you might wish to listen to Scott Horton’s interviews of Barr, Gravel and Ruwart on Antiwar Radio. Antiwar.com/radio.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I wasn’t saying that as sexist. I’m saying it as my opinion. Susan Hogarth is one crazy bitch. I’m not saying that she’s a crazy bitch who needs to get to the kitchen to make me a sandwich, I’m saying she’s psycho and an asshole.
Guess I should’ve said that to be more PC.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I’d vote Susan Hogarth for the loony bin.
Only one place for such twittery. She can subsidize her stay by herself, with some SILENCE.—————
Peter Orvetti—
What a dumb, naive statement. McGovern sabotaged Gravel’s VP candidacy in ‘72, it’s not as though he was in his back pocket. Just as now, most Democrats were pussies with respect to ending Vietnam, minus Gravel.
but hey, PRAISE MARY!——————
pop quiz, Libtards:
What’s the only “Fair” Tax out there?
NO TAX, duh!!
Anarchy for everyone, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
May 12th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Ross,
“Joseph – I wasn’t talking about you when I was talking about hostility, I was talking about some of the other people here.”
Thanks. Sorry for misreading that.
Some of the apparent hostility is probably from the other parties. Some may just be folks having fun. Some may be real, but I doubt it.
I try not to take it seriously, sometimes I’m not very good at that.
As for Gravel, I appreciate your pointing to things to help get to know his positions better.
While I worked hard to earn a PhD at Indiana University (focused on mass communicaitons, media, and Strategic Management over in the School of Business), I believe the education I’ve gotten since filing to run for a seat in Congress on March 17th—less than two months ago—has been far more demanding and valuable.
This is the perfect crucible to gain an answer to the question: What do I really Believe? What do I truly feel would make the biggest positive difference?
Everything here, even the anger, is priceless and extremely valuable for that.
Joe
www.BuchmanForCongress.com
May 12th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Barr for President
Gravel for Vice-President
Anything else is just dumb.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Make the LP the party of Dondero.
Vote Barr 2008.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I’m voting for Gravel, but I’m still voting for Susan Hogarth for LNC.
Thanks!
May 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Thomas;
What ever happened to the Boston T Party?
Do they have a candidate?
May 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
diddelly dee d d d d dud dee d ! Who will it be ? Time to contact all your delegate friends and lobby as you have never lobbied before. STOP whoever needs to be STOPPED, please…
or should I say
diddelly dee d d d d dud dee d ! Who will it be ? Time to contact all your delegate friends and lobby as you have never lobbied before. Nominate the best candidate for the LP in 2008 and beyond, please…
May 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
@Rolf,
They’re running the same candidate as the Party Party and the Toga Party.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Have you seen the news ou there? CNN is going wild with it and so is everyone else. No ther candidate could do such a thing for the Libertarians. GO BARR please make your donations today to show your support. The money bomb is going well, his best day yet. Bob Barr represents the best chance for the Libertarian Party to sign up new voters and have it’s best showing in a Presidential election. I love it. If you go to Barr’s web site it will tell you all the shows he is appearing later today
May 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Austrian Economist,
Dude, I was just joking. Chill.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Actually, 3% IS what the LP needs…
Considering that all but 1 of their Presidential candidates have gathered less than 1% of the vote, 3% would be a huge boost. Consider that Nader gathered 2.7% in 2000, and the media obsessively covered him.
If you nominate Mary or Root or any of these other clowns that nobody knows, it will be another less than 1% year!
May 12th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Jerry,
You write:
“If you think that Kubby is going to make it to the final round of balloting, I want what you’re smoking. It’s certainly a helluva lot more powerful than what Steve gave me.”
I hate to break this down into bloc/faction terms, but there’s really no other way to do it. Please accept in advance that when I use the terms in question, I am using them as markers to denote the existence of a bloc, not opining either way as to whether or not the members of that bloc are “real libertarians,” etc.
In my opinion, there will be two large voting blocs in Denver.
One of those blocs will be what I’ll call the “radical libertarian” bloc, and most of it will line up behind Ruwart and/or Kubby. Probably more behind Ruwart than behind Kubby, but two weeks can be a long time in politics, and performance at the convention can change the dynamic. If Ruwart stumbles, or if Kubby distinguishes himself in the candidate debate, or whatever, it is indeed possible that Kubby will emerge as the “radical libertarian” frontrunner.
The other bloc will be what I’ll call the “seeking mainstream credibility” bloc. That bloc has been lining up behind Root or Gravel, or waiting on Barr, so far, and presumably will line up mostly behind one or two of those three in Denver. My bet would be that Barr will get the lion’s share of that support, but I could be wrong.
I expect the total “radical libertarian” vote to be in the 40-45% range, and the total “seeking mainstream credibility” vote to also be in the 40-45% range, on the first ballot.
It may be Ruwart 30, Kubby 15 on one side, Barr 30, Root 15 on the other, or whatever.
There will be 10-20% smattered over the “also-rans,” whom we might count in one of those blocs (Smith for the “radicals,” Phillies for the “seeking mainstream credibilities,” etc.), but I’m not sure we can rational speculate as to the ratio of bloc in that “also-ran” vote.
In any case, I expect the balloting eventually to come down to one “radical libertarian” and one “mainstream crediblity seeker” candidate. It will be Ruwart or Kubby on one side, Barr or Root or Gravel on the other. The odds RIGHT NOW are probably Ruwart v. Barr, but like I said … things can change.
What happens after that? If I knew, I’d be talking to my bookie, not to you.
Since the VP candidates aren’t stellar (nothing against them, I just don’t see them making enough noise to have strong bases in Denver), and since there will be a lot of presidential candidates at loose ends, I won’t be surprised to see one of the presidential candidates accept a VP draft … but I suspect we’ll see ideological affinity, not ideological balance on such a ticket. It won’t be a Ruwart/Barr ticket or a Gravel/Root ticket.
I would be ecstatic about a Kubby/Ruwart ticket.
I would be enthusiastic about a Ruwart/Kubby ticket.
I could probably be reasonably happy with a number of other combinations that do have “balance” instead of “affinity” (Barr/Kubby, Gravel/Kubby, Barr/Ruwart, Gravel/Ruwart).
But I’m going to fight for what I want, not just wait around to take what I get.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
There is currently no mention of Barr anywhere on the front page of CNN.com, by the way. There is a story about a woman losing 75 pounds, and a story about the new popularity of cupcakes in Los Angeles.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Tom and Robert,
I disagree with you both. The LP doesn’t need to lean more left or more right, it needs to lean libertarian. Libertarianism cannot be described as socialism nor military fascism. These are, respectively, what left and right have come to represent in modern times. The LP went so far as, when founded, to include the word libertarian in its name. There are places where no clear libertarian answer exists, and people can agree with the “right” or the “left” on these – for example, abortion – but that is individuals seeking answers to questions which there’s no clear libertarian answer for. Nothing more and nothing less. When the LP leans to the right or the left instead of libertarian, we have problems. The LP is no longer a libertarian party, it becomes a right-leaning or left-leaning party. Remember the old saying: “when you’re not being called a radical leftist, you’re being called a radical conservative.” We represent the most sane, common sense solutions to every problem in our own opinion. It’s up to us to convince others of that, that libertarianism is the most common sense answer, by advocating at the grass roots level.
So the answer… my answer… to whether the libertarian party should lean right or left is simply “no.” It should remain staunchly libertarian.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Fine,
Let the Party remain staunchly Libertarian, and continue to garner .5% of the vote and 1-2 seats in Congress.
Sounds good to me.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
94 comments !! That’s what Bob Barr can do
! no, really ! this is a small example of what somebody special can do, the same thing is going on Cable TV right now with this announcement. This is huge for the Libertarians !! Last poll showed him at 3% beating Nader and he was not even running which is huge. We have to let our petty differences behind and come together. You will never find a perfect candidate, but we have one where McCain is crapping his pants right about now. Please make a $10 donation and spread the word. www.bobbarr2008.com
May 12th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Jonathan,
You’re the biggest asshole I’ve ever seen on here.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Jerry Baner- you haven’t been here very long!
May 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Good point.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Jerry, I guess you don’t believe in free speech or respect other people’s opinion. Let me guess you are either a teenager or a memebr of the Nazi Party
May 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Karsten,
You write:
“Actually, 3% IS what the LP needs…”
Okay, feel free to explain why. Do we get a free set of steak knives for 3% or what?
We might get 3% by nominating Bob Barr. We could almost certainly get 3% by nominating ROSEANNE Barr.
How will nominating either one of them, and collecting that hypothetical 3%, bring us closer to implementing our policy goals? I’m not saying it won’t, but I’m asking how YOU think it will, and more importantly how it will do more for us than 1% with another candidate might.
Vote totals, by themselves, mean nothing.
They mean something if they mean you win.
They may mean something if they mean you changed the outcome of an election and thereby gained influence for or consideration of your party’s policy prescriptions.
But unless 3% means we win, or affects the outcome in a way that helps us change policy, or boosts down-ticket candidates to victory or relevance, 3% versus 1% is just a feel-good metric that is not my top priority.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Just saw RP & BB mentioned on Hardball.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
So after destroying any chances he had of winning the nomination by supporting the FraudTax, and then failing to raise any real money during his excretory committee phase, how the hell could Barr make the decision to run? So far, it’s gone as badly as anyone could possibly expect. This guy is a blithering idiot. He should be sent to Gitmo or, better yet, artificially implanted in an elpephant’s womb and aborted like the baby he murdered in the 80s.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Jonathan Cymberknoph- Geez! Lighten up! Jerry Baner does not seem a Nazi to me. A teenager… maybe but a Nazi… nah!
May 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I’m a teenage member of the Nazi Party.
Wait a second, did you just insult my right to speak freely about you being a dick?
I didn’t try to censor you, I just called you a dick. You must be legal counsel to the Bush administration.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Once again, the all-knowing Thomas Knapp gets it wrong.
Would Knapp, as a former Marine, hold a press conference to inform the people pointing guns at his platoon of the precise details of their retreat?
May 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Didn’t make me hard at all.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Sounds like Barr is more Hillary-lite rather than McCain-lite on Iraq. Of course, all three voted for the War and the Patriot Act, so the difference is really a qualified one. Cynthia McKinney is the only one to be on the right side of this (and many other) issues in terms of her actually voting record.
There’s only one way really effective to stop the war right now in Iraq (and prevent a war in Iran). Cut off the financial spigots to the Pentagon, CIA, Halliburton, etc, and pass a law barring Blackwater & friends from fighting our battles for us.
As for Barr, he’s the only chance to the LP to get anything better than 5th place in this election, aside from a last minute Ron Paul defection to the LP.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I’d rather see a libertarian candidate get 3% than not even have the opportunity to vote for a libertarian candidate. Jerry, what you’re advocating is giving up on libertarianism. At that point, we’ve already won just about every election, because most elections aren’t won by libertarians right now – we may as well just vote for the Republicans or Democrats and win plenty, if winning is more important than being libertarian.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
I have always been open that I fully support Mike Gravel , and if Gravel does not win the LP Nomination I will look at who the Reform Party gives their ballot lines too.
My main question is with a lot of you LP Members is(I am going to say this simple) is there ever an okay type of nationalization of healthcare. If I remember reading correctly in “Citizen Power” is that his system seems to put the two worlds together. Yes, it’s universal. No, it’s not the gov’t program, but the private companies still. That keeps jobs, advertising dollars to keep media alive(sometimes sadly haha), and continues for the indusry to keep fighting for customers.
You would decide on the way that each individual corperation treats you basically.
My question is would that be a system that some members would agree on?
Second, A lot of people comment on how Bob Barr is the media man and how he has been all over the news. Go search Bob Barr in the youtube and watch his Lib. themed videos and he is usually at 1/4th of what Gravel is getting.
You also forgot how for just a funny video Gravel was mentioned on news sources through out the country and also on Fox News and CNN.
I would like to add one more point in something I find funny. I keep reading on how the LP hates to be considered an offshoot of the Republicans or Republicans with more values or traditions. It would be interesting to bring an EX-DEMOCRAT in the mix and not a former Republican party member.
This reminds me of 2000. A lot of attention towards Reform Party and then Nader starts to slip under the radars and then KABAAM!
Gravel, Root, Barr debate on Friday should be great.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Once Libertarians are elected, they can advance Libertarian views.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
So funny: all of the fundamentalists accusing others of being oppressors. You cannot reason with a fundamentalist of any stripe: not a Christian fundamentalist, not a Muslim fundamentalist, not Richard Dawkins, not an Objectivist, and certainly not an anarchist.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“YouTube” doesn’t count as media.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Green, you’re wrong on that.
Ron Paul, a Republican, likewise has a very favorable voting record.
Former Senator Gravel, a Libertarian, also has a very good voting record on a very similar issue (the war in Vietnam, in his case, as opposed to the more-modern war in Iraq).
McKinney is downright scary in so many other ways. The Greens have some much better choices available to them than McKinney. I’ve actually had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Johnson, and while we (obviously – I’m a staunch libertarian!) have some differences of opinion, he comes across as a genuine human being and a professional, he speaks well, and he doesn’t have the whackjob-baggage of McKinney. I would be surprised if the Green party made it through an election with McKinney as their nominee without being embarassed. Repeatedly.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Old Guard,
As a former Marine, I can attest that platoon tactics and national strategy are not the same thing.
The US armed forces are quite capable of conducting a withdrawal by echelon from Iraq on the basis of a publicly announced political decision.
Presumably that publicly announced political decision would not include the statement “1st Platoon, Bravo Company, 1st Marines will step off at 0400 on 30 January from Mosul to rendezvous with the rest of their regiment for a convoy movement to Kuwait City.”
That political announcement would simply be—paraphrased, of course—“the policy of the United States is complete, unconditional, unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, to be completed no later than April 19th, 2009. And don’t even think about fucking with us during this withdrawal unless you want us to send your head and ass home to your mother in separate boxes.”
Jerry,
I’m surprised, and quite frankly a bit hurt, not to win your biggest asshole award.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
With McKinney, it’s not a whackjob, it’s a WHACK!job.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Jerry, so you advocate what then? Abandoning libertarianism for a while until we start winning, then picking it up again? Or getting some candidates up there who make false promises of an extreme wealth redistribution agenda, then seek to enact a libertarian agenda once they are elected and forget all of those free-money promises?
May 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
In regards to that “Pauliville” deal out in West Texas, just a hunch but did Chuck Geshlider of Oceana and Free State Project fame have anything to do with it?
Let’s remember that one of Geshlider’s “homes” is in West Texas.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Meh. I’m not a Libertarian, I’m with the Reform Party.
If I were you guys though, I’d nominate Gravel or Barr. With Gravel, Nader drops out and endorses him. With Barr, he gets into the debates as a vote stealer from McCain.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Google Bob Barr.
Read the coverage.
There is a little bit on his positions.
What anti-libertarian positions are
being promoted.
The story is he has turned against the
republicans because of civil liberties and
iraq.
IThe reporters are saying he supports immediate
troop cuts.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Jerry Baner- Reform Party? I didn’t know it still existed. When is the national convention?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Guys, I was driving around Alvin, Texas, 15 miles from my home, just south of Houston, and 740 KTRH Houston’s News Station led their News on the Hour with Bob Barr announcing his candidacy.
Cool huh?
More, came home, and turned on Fox while eating some dinner. 10 minutes into the show, Bill Hemmer has a blurb on Barr’s announcement.
You can’t friggin’ get away from Barr today, even if you try!
I agree with the poster above: Bob Barr has now officially received more press coverage in one single day than all other LP candidates combined. Perhaps even in the 36 year history of the LP.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Jake Z,
As far as the healthcare thing goes, the question becomes one of implementation. Are the corporations forced to provide care? Are people forced to pay one of those corporations? Can people opt out if they just don’t care for modern medicine? If you’re advocating something like Romneycare, I’d imagine that any true libertarian would be opposed to it, as it requires the initiation of force against individuals who don’t wish to spend their hard-earned money on it.
With regard to being an offshoot of Republicans and whatnot, I think it’s a bit silly. I’d welcome someone with the passion, guts, brains, and senatorial record that Senator Gravel brings to the table regardless of what party they came from.
With regard to the reform party and ballot lines, I don’t believe they have any. Besides that, Senator Gravel has made clear that the rest of his career will be spent in the LP, and working on NI4D.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Oh, this is sooooo sweet. Just a few weeks ago right here at TPW, stridently Anti-War Libertarian Eric Garris, Lew Rockwell’s official Webmaster, and Co-Editor of Anti-War.com posted a big article about Bob Barr being “hardcore Anti-War.”
Now, another hardcore Anti-War Libertarian, Thomas L. Knapp, says that Barr is “McCain Lite” on the War in Iraq.
Splitsville amongst the Anti-War Libertarians I take it?
Tom, not agreeing with your buddy Garris on this?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
No convention, the National Party endorsed Ron Paul.
That’s why I’m [mostly] supporting Gravel. If he gets the L nod, he’ll have my vote.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Eric,
Every time you notice a candidate getting media, you blast in with this “it’s official, X got more media today than any other candidate has in the whole cycle, maybe as any LP candidate ever has in an election cycle.” (see, I can spinningly paraphrase, instead of directly quoting, you just like you do me).
Thing is, you’re almost always wrong.
Barr got a lot of media today.
He probably got as much or more than he did the day he announced his exploratory committee.
He probably got about as much as Gravel did the day he announced that he was switching from Democrat to Libertarian in his presidential race.
He probably didn’t get as much today in one day as Wayne Allyn Root has in the last 16 months, let alone all the other candidates combined in the nearly two years that some of them have been running.
Hype is nice, but no need to get stupid about it. Barr is getting a lot of media today. That’s all that needs to be said.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Eric (Dondero),
I’m not sure where you got the impression that Eric Garris is “my buddy.”
I have a great deal of respect for Eric and the rest of the crew at AntiWar.Com—including but not limited to Justin Raimondo and Scott Horton—but that doesn’t mean I agree with them all the time, or that I look to see what the AWC line is and then toe it, such that not doing so is some kind of big news.
In point of fact, if you search AntiWar.Com, you’ll find at least one letter from me excoriating Raimondo on the subject of Israel. If you look at my blog, you’ll find an article in which I take apart Raimondo’s argument for supporting Ron Paul. And right here on TPW, I referred snidely, although as an aside, to Raimondo’s candidate/party hopping propensity. We disagree all the time.
At the end of the day, if someone said “name one site that I can go to right now and expect to find sane, sound foreign policy material,” I’d name AntiWar.Com without hesitation. But the only site that I expect to see 100% agreement with me from is my own personal blog.
I also suspect that Eric Garris may adjust his opinion of Barr in light of Barr’s latest comments … but I won’t assume that. He speaks for himself, just as I speak for myself.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I haven’t finished reading all the comments since I last left, but I have two things to say:
“There is currently no mention of Barr anywhere on the front page of CNN.com, by the way. There is a story about a woman losing 75 pounds, and a story about the new popularity of cupcakes in Los Angeles.”
Best comment I’ve read all day. Truly speaks to the potential of all third party candidates in the media. Look, Gravel got a lot of media from the Democratic debates and from his switch to Libertarianism, and even got some coverage on CNN and FOX and a few other channels for his Obama Girl video. Barr is having his fifteen minutes right now. Let’s let this news cycle finish and not get overly excited…
Jonathan – I’m a teenager and I’m one of the most respectful people here. I resent that comment of yours!
May 12th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Ross,
Real Clear Politics is running the AP newswire release.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
As for the major networks, Barr has yet to be nominated by the LP, so it’s not that big of a story, yet.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I just want to point out that, obviously, the Green Party is not interested in any kind of “joint ticket” with the Libertarian Party. There are simply to big of ideological differences between these two parties for that to ever happen. The Greens are also quite happy with their, likely, presidential candidate this year: Cynthia McKinney.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
That AP newswire story says the real reason that Barr is getting so much media: he is being viewed by the MSM as McCain’s “Nader.” That is, a spoiler for the Republicans.
You can argue whether that’s true or not, but that’s why he’s getting covered.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
I’d say he is also getting covered because a number of political pundits have decided that the “libertarian” voter bloc is the largest “open” group of voters this season. Not the LP members, of course, but the self identified people we can’t seem to reach, yet.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
On the surface I can see the appeal of a Barr/Gravel ticket. However, I have to wonder what Gravel brings to the ticket. He barely made a scratch in the democratic primary. His fund raising was almost non-existent, he had very little grassroots support, and polled near zero. How many democrat voters would he really bring to our side? Don’t get me wrong. I respect Mike Gravel and hope he sticks with the LP and helps grow the party. I just wonder if Gravel as our President or VP nominee would really make that much of an impact.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Fairly or not, media coverage of Gravel tends to treat him as a joke—a crazy old man who makes weird YouTube videos. It’s ageist and ignores the real achievements of his career, but th