Attacks on Barr Begin to take Shape

Over the weekend, the Atlanta Journal Constitution released a hit piece on Libertarian frontrunner, Bob Barr. The author, Cameron McWhirter (best known for his involvement in the Chiquita scandal that cost his publisher a rumored $14 million), took aim at the Bob Barr Leadership Fund:

Over the years, the federal candidate who received the most contributions from Barr’s fund has been Barr himself — $10,000. The fund gave $12,000 to the Libertarian National Committee.

The letter made no mention of Barr’s recent campaign for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president, in which he has criticized many Republicans in Congress. Libertarians will choose their candidate at a convention this week in Denver.

Not to be outdone by the AJC, the National Review piled on yesterday with their editorial, “Skip this Barr.” They concluded with the following:

In a close presidential race, every vote is important. The press is speculating that Barr could be John McCain’s Nader. We doubt it. It will probably be Barr’s fate to be ignored, and those libertarians who care about the credibility of their cause should be glad of it.

Jumping on the top of the pile was VDare, who took shots at Barr’s immigration policy:

Barr’s recent statements on immigration suggest that he is slowly moving away from his excellent record on immigration towards these empty open borders bromides of the Libertarian Party.

Expect more to come throughout the week.

91 Responses to “Attacks on Barr Begin to take Shape”

  1. Nexus Says:

    When was Barr declared the front runner and by whom?

  2. David F. Nolan Says:

    Reading the articles linked here, it becomes obvious that Barr’s greatest weakness is his “ominously vague” stance on any number of issues. Instead of taking stands that are clearly libertarian or clearly conservative, he tries to “split the difference” or obfuscate. More and more, it’s looking like Barr’s candidacy is simply a vehicle for Richard Viguerie and Russ Verney to build their political influence by “acquiring” the Libertarian Party.

  3. CT Says:

    By Barr himself, back when he joined the lp in ‘06.

  4. Denver Delegate Says:

    This is the first time I’ve ever seen the establishment go after an LP presidential candidate BEFORE the convention. In all of my years in the LP, I’ve never seen the GOP try to influence the outcome of a Libertarian Convention.

    Karl Rove and John McCain must be running pretty scared right now.

  5. disinter Says:

    When was Barr declared the front runner and by whom?

    By the LNC, Shane Cory, Gordon and the retard caucus at large.

  6. disinter Says:

    This is the first time I’ve ever seen the establishment go after an LP presidential candidate BEFORE the convention.

    Kinda like the LNC did to Ruwart recently?

  7. Justin Grover Says:

    The Nolan wrote:

    “More and more, it’s looking like Barr’s candidacy is simply a vehicle for Richard Viguerie and Russ Verney to build their political influence by “acquiring” the Libertarian Party.”

    Mr Nolan:

    Not to bash my own party, but what, exactly, do you see the LP currently influencing, aside from a SMALL group of individuals who fight each other more than a sack full of angry tomcats?

  8. Nexus Says:

    Justin,
    I think the concern is the LP would suffer the same fate as the Reform Party(i.e. a quick and painful death). For the record, I don’t think that will happen. The LP has an identity whereas the RP was a cult of personality. My concern is the LP may share the fate of the Socialist Party and fracture. There are 4 or 5 Socialist parties in the US all seperated by minor differences. I’d rather the radicals stay with the LP than adopt a ‘my way or the highway’ mentality.

  9. Kenny Says:

    There is no evidence that Barr is the frontrunner, just the candidate of the Racist Caucus and their cronies on the LNC.

  10. Stefan Says:

    A way for the LP to unite: stipulate what constitutes the essense of libertarianism and look for a common denominator among all the candidates,
    and build a radical platform on that, agree to disagree on other issues that will also play a role, but more in the outer sphere of the radical libertarian nucleus.

    One can be distinctive, outspoken and radical about the issues all agree on, thus no “dilution” of the message, and be accomodative (vague?) about the other issues. Obviously there will be different interpretations to the “right” and to the “left”. On this basis a strong ticket can be built where the vice presidential candidate can “counter-balance” some of the “secondary positions” of the presidential candidate (e.g. different emphasis) and ensure a good “central” position.

    There are two big parties, and there is a big opportunity for limited government rhetoric. In some issues the LP could be more to the right than the other parties and in others perhaps more to the left. The terms right and left are problematical. The LP can unify on a balanced position, if not, there seem to be pressure building to tear the party apart…?

  11. Red Phillips Says:

    The Racist Caucus? Oh Good Lord. Spare me the PC protests.

    VDARE is correct about Barr on the immigration issue. He is moving left. A good reason for conservatives to support Chuck Baldwin instead.

  12. NewFederalist Says:

    Red Phillips- I agree with you about conservatives and Baldwin. Who would you recommend libertarians support? (I am not trying to be cute here.)

  13. johncjackson Says:

    I don’t know anything about a “racist caucus” but to defend racism as “anti-PC” is stupid.

  14. johncjackson Says:

    I recommend libertarians support Ruwart. Conservatives can fuck-off.

  15. johncjackson Says:

    FWIW, it IS very obvious that racism plays a part ( I won’t say it is the only issue) in the hysterical anti-immigration/protectionist movement.

  16. disinter Says:

    I’d rather the radicals stay with the LP than adopt a ‘my way or the highway’ mentality.

    Umm, the radicals aren’t the ones calling for a purge. The retard caucus is.

  17. Justin Grover Says:

    Nexus Wrote:

    “I’d rather the radicals stay with the LP than adopt a ‘my way or the highway’ mentality.”

    I agree.

    Disinter drooled:
    “mumble, mumble retard… something”

    Dude, the reformers certainly aren’t the only ones making people feel unwelcome. I know you won’t read this and think, for even two seconds, bt it is the truth.

  18. Devious David Says:

    After seeing this and the events of the weekend, Barr stands to make Georgia an unsafe prospect for McCain in November. Ruwart/Barr might still have advantages of a Barr ticket, while mitigating the damages.

  19. Nexus Says:

    “Disinter drooled:
    “mumble, mumble retard… something”

    LOL!
    That just brightened my day Justin.

  20. Nexus Says:

    Devious David,
    I’m good either way(Barr/Ruwart or Ruwart/Barr). However, Barr at the top of the ticket would generate more media exposure. Either way, I think they would break LP records for vote totals and funds raised.

  21. Kyle B Says:

    I wouldn’t say the AJC piece was a hit piece on Barr since the 4 days before they ran that story they ran four very positive Bob Barr stories all on the front page of the paper. In fact today on their website they published a reply to the story from Barr’s campaign manager. So don’t think you can claim the AJC is out to get Bob Barr. Overall they have given him very positive press and a lot of it

  22. Nexus Says:

    Barr has raised almost $109,000 so far. Where will this money go if he doesn’t win the nomination?

  23. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Barr has raised almost $109,000 so far. Where will this money go if he doesn’t win the nomination?

    I’d guess the same place it’ll go if he does win the nomination: to his friends and relatives providing ‘campaign services’ at insanely inflated prices.

    That, or Starbucks.

  24. Steve Trinward Says:

    Given that this site has already rescinded posting rights for at least one noted libertarian (of impeccable credentials, and revoked press credentials for him and two others to the LP convention … It’s hard to see how this is relevant to anyone seeking info on the Libertarian Party. (Also, did we learn nothing from the last time someone sucked money out of our pockets to fill those of his cronies and minions, and spent about zero on public outreach ?)

  25. Nexus Says:

    I’m going to take a shot in the dark here and guess Susan isn’t a Bob Barr fan….

  26. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    That, or Starbucks.

    Oh, snap!

    Most candidates go to their friends for campaign services—because most candidates’ friends are people who provide campaign services.

    Many candidates also go to relatives for campaign services. Nepotism? Yes, but not always as malignantly so as it might seem. The children of political types grow up immersed in politics. It’s a fair bet they’ll go into politics, and a fair bet that they’ll be good at it. Ditto for spouses, who are often the chief envelope-stuffers, etc., from the start of political careers. Why wouldn’t candidates help family members expand their political knowledge with more campaign work? And if they’re going to pay someone to do campaign work, why not Junior, if Junior has the chops?

    My sons, 9 and 7, have probably already participated in more political events than I had participated in when I was 25. They’ve marched in demonstrations. They’ve done lit drops. They’ve worked polling places and fair booths for the party. They’ve met more presidential candidates than most people will meet in their entire lives. They’ve each attended two or more LP national conventions. If either of them goes into politics and I’m hiring work done, you bet your ass they’ll get an interview.

    If the prices are inflated, that’s a legitimate complaint from a contributor/supporter standpoint, of course.

  27. Brooke Says:

    www.lastfreevoice.com
    Bob Barr bussing in supporters to ATTEMPT to be seated as delegates to vote—and then turn around and go home.

  28. Brooke Says:

    www.lastfreevoice.wordpress.com
    sorry—my mistake

  29. Brad Says:

    Barr is definitely the frontrunner (unfortunately), but I am glad that the conservatives are already attacking him. Unfortunately, being conservatives, they get it backwards like always. Barr’s positions on immigration are anti-immigrant, he remains pro-drug war, he defended the miscarriage of justice in the Genarlow Wilson case (while on the Libertarian National Committee), he is Imperialist on foreign policy (though less so than McCain), and he is planning on raiding the LP treasury so that he can take more money for his PAC to give to Republican politicians.

    I’ve said it for the last week or so, but if Barr or Root comes out of the nomination as the Libertarian nominee, I’m voting for either McKinney or Nader (I’m ideologically closest to Phillies, but I think Ruwart is the strongest nominee). Barr definitely should not be presidential candidate (he simply isn’t even remotely libertarian), nor should he be vice presidential candidate (on the unlike event that the ticket wins, that would give the establishment motivation to assassinate the president to put the safer Barr in that office instead).

  30. Kenny Says:

    This article is classic triangulation. By using attacks from the racist Vdare and neo-cons, the Reform Caucus is trying to position Barr between them and the radicals in the LP. As Vdare notes, Barr was anti-immigration conservative and, with the help of the caucus, is trying to rebrand himself as a libertarian conservative (an obvious oxymoron). I want a real libertarian to be LP candidate rather than a rebranded conservative.

  31. Donny Ferguson Says:

    disinter writes: “Umm, the radicals aren’t the ones calling for a purge. The retard caucus is.”

    No one is calling for a purge. The majority of Libertarian Party members are sick of losing and want to expand the party’s appeal to the 20-30% of the electorate skeptical of government interference in their lives. That’s why both radicals and reformers are working together to pass the compromise language of the Platform Committee draft.

    Here’s a question for the small group of dissident radicals opposed to any efforts to modernize the Platform, that has yet to be answered—How do you plan on winning back our liberty with our current performance, 0.34% of the vote?

  32. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I’m going to take a shot in the dark here and guess Susan isn’t a Bob Barr fan….

    Darn. I’ve been discovered.

  33. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The majority of Libertarian Party members are sick of losing and want to expand the party’s appeal to the 20-30% of the electorate skeptical of government interference in their lives. That’s why both radicals and reformers are working together to pass the compromise language of the Platform Committee draft.

    Here’s a question for the small group of dissident radicals opposed to any efforts to modernize the Platform, that has yet to be answered—How do you plan on winning back our liberty with our current performance, 0.34% of the vote?

    You question contains the untenable implication that changing the platform will result in an expansion of the Party’s appeal to 20-30%. It also seems to imply that those people will then start voting Libertarian, because the LP ‘appeals’ to them.

    But. That. Is. Not. How. It. Works.

    Haven’t any of you guys studied the consequences of a two-party system?

  34. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Many candidates also go to relatives for campaign services. Nepotism? Yes, but not always as malignantly so as it might seem.

    Point taken. But why spoil a perfectly good snark? Killjoy!

  35. Robert Milnes Says:

    Milnes/Ruwart. That is if you want to try to actually win.

  36. NewFederalist Says:

    “Milnes/Ruwart. That is if you want to try to actually win.”

    Win what?

  37. Donny Ferguson Says:

    Susan,

    That IS how it works. When I ran for the House of Delegates there—literally—was not a day when I didn’t come across a voter who knew about the Libertarian Party because they looked at our Platform. These may just be many, many isolated cases, but it’s hard to convince people to vote for your when your party Platform tells them you want to have sex with their kids and let their neighbor own private nuclear weapons.

    In fact, I can’t even get LIBERTARIANS to support the Libertarian Party because they list every goofball thing in the Platform as the Party isn’t serious about winning. Why give your time and money to a Party whose central founding document reads like a science fiction novel?

    And I am VERY familiar with the two party system. The reason we’re on the losing end of the “wasted vote” argument is the fact the Libertarian comes across as the weaker choice because he or she is always weighed down by a party Platform that terrorizes the average voter.

  38. disinter Says:

    Barr has raised almost $109,000 so far. Where will this money go if he doesn’t win the nomination?

    “Most of the fund’s spending — $3.3 million, or about 78 percent of all gifts from donors — paid for raising more money, including mailing lists, postage and telemarketing.”

    http://www.ajc.com/search/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html

    Susan is correct, he would basically pocket it.

  39. disinter Says:

    and revoked press credentials for him and two others to the LP convention …

    Thomas Knapp and Paulie’s credentials were stolen from them by the LNC and given to Shane Cory and Robert Stacy McCain from the Washington Times.

    Connect the dots.

  40. disinter Says:

    I want a real libertarian to be LP candidate rather than a rebranded conservative.

    Me too.

    Ruwart.

  41. disinter Says:

    How do you plan on winning back our liberty with our current performance, 0.34% of the vote?

    How does the retard caucus plan on winning back our liberty by converting the LP into another Republicrat party?

  42. g brian Says:

    donny ferguson says “In fact, I can’t even get LIBERTARIANS to support the Libertarian Party because . . .” why is this . . . because

    this is a reflection on how poorly donny is at persuading. he just doesn’t want it to be so hard . . .waaaaaaa

  43. disinter Says:

    the Libertarian comes across as the weaker choice because he or she is always weighed down by a party Platform that terrorizes the average voter.

    Hmm, so the Republicrat’s platforms actually advocate terrorism (drug war, offensive wars against tiny little countries, war on private property, you name it) while the LP’s does not, yet you buy into the irrational logic given to you by the same idiots that believe that shit?

  44. Kenny Says:

    “t’s hard to convince people to vote for your when your party Platform tells them you want to have sex with their kids and let their neighbor own private nuclear weapons”

    Straw man bullshit from from the GOP Caucus!! The paltform has never said that. The neo-con entryists are getting desperate because they have been rumbled.

  45. Donny Ferguson Says:

    “Most of the fund’s spending — $3.3 million, or about 78 percent of all gifts from donors — paid for raising more money, including mailing lists, postage and telemarketing.”

    That is very, very common and is the case with virtually every political fund. Direct mail fundraising and telemarketing require up-front investment. Most groups don’t even net money until their third or fourth year. Barr’s doing better than most in that regard.

    However, every political party and nearly every candidate makes that investement because the large up-front costs grow into very successful long-term net gains. That’s how groups like the Heritage Foundation, Sierra Club and others have become so large and effective.

    And even in the beginning, if it weren’t for that 78 percent the other 22 percent would never have existed. Direct mail also has benefits beyond the dollars coming back. It’s an amazing way to inform millions of people about your organization and also to organize them to lobby Congress on behalf of your issue.

    There is absolutely nothing whatsoever going on with the Barr PAC that doesn’t happen with every 501©3, (c)4 and 527 out there.

    And ironically, virtually every critic of direct mail fundraising and telemarketing has given to an organization through the mail or over the phone :)

  46. Bill Woolsey Says:

    It isn’t like a fundraising operation has 1.7 million and then spends all of it on fundraising. It is rather, they spend all of this money mailing lists and the postage, and hardly any of those asked give money. The amount
    you get only covers the cost of fundraising. I’m sure they would have
    prefered that more people responded and had given more money.

    Perhaps the people to whom they sent the letters didn’t find the
    causes described appealing.

    Raising money to help elect Republicans to protect our Constitutional
    rights? Maybe the people who gave money to stop the Clintons just
    don’t find that appealing. (Really, I have never received a solicitation
    from the Bob Barr Leadership fund, so I don’t know how they
    try to convince people to send money.)

    It is possible, I suppose, that the fundraising costs were excessive.
    The money paid to Barr’s familiy, however, wasn’t significant relative
    to the amount raised.

  47. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I found the Epstein article (from Vdare) heartening.

    I hope Barr sticks to his more libertarian position on
    immigration.

  48. Donny Ferguson Says:

    Kenny and disinter,

    Obviously you don’t spend several hours each day speaking with voters. Voters are aware of the Libertarian Party and many of them read our Platform. When it comes to third parties, Libertarians have very high voter familiarity.

    But there are millions of voters out there who are fiscally conservative and socially progressive who refuse to even consider the Libertarian Party because we have a small group of dissidents who have spent two decades taking pitchforks and torches to anyone not advocating anarchy.

    So what is YOUR plan to win back our liberty?

  49. Donny Ferguson Says:

    “It is possible, I suppose, that the fundraising costs were excessive.”

    The fundraising costs are right in line with other organizations, if not less.

    And overlooked is the fact a very young leadership PAC run by a congressman out of power, that gives $12,000 to the Libertarian Party, is perfoming that well.

    One of the reasons the media run stories like this is that direct mail competes with the media, directly informing millions of readers without running it through the media filter. Same reason they savage every independent Internet media organization.

  50. Kenny Says:

    I am an Objectivist, not an anarchist. I advocate a minimal state funded by voluntary means, non-interventionist foreign policy, drug and prostitution legalization and free migration. Barr, Root and Gravel are exactly the type of statists that I have spent my life fighting.

  51. Kenny Says:

    $12,000 out of millions raised by the PAC is peanuts. It has given more to Republicans than Libertarians.

    Harry Browne allegedly ran a similar direct mail scam. Bumper Hornberger saw through his bullshit before many others.

  52. disinter Says:

    And overlooked is the fact a very young leadership PAC run by a congressman out of power, that gives $12,000 to the Libertarian Party, is perfoming that well.

    I have personally given more than $12k to the Libertarian cause, it it didn’t take me $4 million in overhead to do so.

  53. Susan Hogarth Says:

    ... but it’s hard to convince people to vote for your when your party Platform tells them you want to have sex with their kids…

    No wonder you have troubles with electability. You really and honestly beleive that the LP’s platform says that you want to have sex with other people’s kids?

    I think you have other issues than the platform.

  54. Steve Dasbach Says:

    According to “The Project for Excellence in Journalism”, which has been tracking election coverage since late 2007

    • “Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, who announced his candidacy on the Libertarian ticket, appeared as a significant or dominant factor in 2% of last week’s election stories.”

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003805577

    I’m pretty sure no previous LP presidential candidate has gotten anything close to this level of media coverage, pre or post nomination. And this is pre-convention coverage.

  55. Kenny Says:

    Steve, the coverage is for a conservative, not a libertarian, who is running for the LP nomination. Newt Gringrich would have got more coverage than Barr. Would you want him to get the LP nomination. Put principles before expediency!!

  56. Donny Ferguson Says:

    No Susan I don’t believe that for a minute. But that’s what I hear from voters who read the old Platform and that the reality we have to deal with.

    A major failing of the dissident radicals is their failure to realize there’s an entire world out there that exists outside of their own heads, and that millions of voters don’t read the Platform they same way they do.

  57. disinter Says:

    World’s Smallest Political Platform

    http://www.petitiononline.com/wspp2008/petition.html

  58. Susan Hogarth Says:

    No Susan I don’t believe that for a minute.

    Then why did you write it? Have you considered that part of the problem may be that you have communication problems? Because you did write “it’s hard to convince people to vote for your when your party Platform tells them you want to have sex with their kids…”

    But that’s what I hear from voters who read the old Platform and that the reality we have to deal with.

    Strangely enough it doesn’t appear to be the reality I have to deal with – and I do a fair bit of outreach in my state. I’ve never encountered someone who said anything about concerns that Libs “want to have sex with their kids”. Perhaps you could provide an actual example? or maybe it’s just that people think you want to have sex with their kids.

    A major failing of the dissident radicals is their failure to realize there’s an entire world out there that exists outside of their own heads, and that millions of voters don’t read the Platform they same way they do.

    If you think millions of people read the LP’s platform, I will agree that one of us has issues with reality, but I won’t agree that it is me. If you think that millions both (1) read the LP platform, and (2) think it says that Libs “want to have sex with their kids”, you’re in Milnes territory (sorry, Robert).

  59. Donny Ferguson Says:

    No Susan, that’s what I hear unsolicited from voters.

    I heard it many times going door to door as a candidate and I hear it from libertarians who refuse to join a party they think is run by people with no clue how to win. You can throw in “abolishing all money” with that.

    The inescapable fact is the Libertarian Party has a serious image problem that prevents people from even considering it, and much of it starts with a Platform written by people who think anyone not preaching anarchy is part of a conspiracy to enslave them.

    Anyone who thinks 55 million voters are holding out for a president who will repeal age of consent laws and abolish their money needs to wake up and realize we’re losing our liberties because we’re handing elections to the statists.

  60. Kenny Says:

    “Abolish their money”? Since when?

  61. disinter Says:

    You can throw in “abolishing all money” with that.

    Only in your demented mind. Neither the 04 nor the retard ‘06 platform suggest that.

  62. disinter Says:

    Ferguson – maybe you should stop and try to understand what libertarianism is all about before you continue making an ass out of yourself in front of potential voters. Your door-to-door scheme must really be humiliating.

  63. Kenny Says:

    It is clear that the Reform Caucus-Barr campaign is now in full swing. Their ridiculous allegations, lies and scare-mongering defy belief. These morons must not be allowed to hijack the LP. Restore 04 and vote Ruwart!

  64. TERRY HOLTZ Says:

    I would ask each of you to ask yourself a simple question:

    Will rejecting Bob Barr this week, make it more likely … or less likely ….for established Democrat and Republican politicians to defect to the Libertarian Party?

  65. Jared Callanan Says:

    Susan Hogarth Says:
    May 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
    Barr has raised almost $109,000 so far. Where will this money go if he doesn’t win the nomination?

    I’d guess the same place it’ll go if he does win the nomination: to his friends and relatives providing ‘campaign services’ at insanely inflated prices.

    That, or Starbucks.

    Care to back that up with any Susan or is that just you speaking for the lunatic fringe again?

  66. Darcy G. Richardson Says:

    “Will rejecting Bob Barr this week, make it more likely … or less likely ….for established Democrat and Republican politicians to defect to the Libertarian Party?”

    Hopefully, less likely. Who wants the established politicians from the two major parties, the same folks who have made such a mess of things while saddling future generations with a $9.4 trillion debt? On the other hand, rejecting Barr—- a rubber-stamp for Bush when it really mattered—- could elevate the Libertarian Party in the minds of thousands of independent-minded Democrats and Republicans, those who are truly seeking a party of principle.

  67. charlie Says:

    You have to love the dig at the AJC reporter for his role in the 1998 Chiquita story revealing the company’s role in attacking labor activists—allegations the the company never denied. Of course, Chiquita was caught last year paying right-wing death squads in Colombia to… kill labor activists.

    Boy, what shoddy journalism that turned out to be! If his reporting on Barr is anything like his reporting on Chiquita then that’s only another reason to reject this “true conservative” who voted for the Iraq war, the PATRIOT act, and once pondered jailing those he advocated drug legalization.

    I also find it interesting that, like Chiquita, Barr (and his partisans at TPW) don’t deny the actual facts of the story.

  68. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    I’D JUST LIKE TO THANK THE GORDON/VIGUERIE/CORY REFORMIST FACTION OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY FOR HELPING BARR GET THE NOMINATION, AND ALSO RED PHILLIPS AND TRENT HILL FOR HELPING BALDWIN GET THE CONSTITUTION PARTY NOMINATION. THIS IS VERY HELPFUL TO THE OBAMA CATHOLIC TROTSKYIST REVOLUTION. I DON’T KNOW IF THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT THEY WANT, BUT I AM STILL HAPPY FOR THEIR HELP. YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB WITH THIS SITE, AND DON’T LISTEN TO THOSE RADICAL LIBERTARIANS WHO ACTUALLY THINK THEY CAN WIN. OBAMA WILL WIN WITH YOUR HELP, AND THE WORLD SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT WILL BE USHERED IN. YOUR ONLY HOPE IS TO SUPPORT THE FRINGE ALLIANCE STRATEGY, WHICH i POSTED ABOUT ON THE NADER THREAD, AND WILL POST AGAIN LATER.

    PLEASE pray for Catholic Trotskyist Revolutionary General Ted Kennedy, and his adopted son Barack H. Obama.

    Glory ot God in the highest, and peace to God’s people on Earth. Please don’t purge anyone. Amen.

  69. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    disinter,

    You write:

    “Thomas Knapp and Paulie’s credentials were stolen from them by the LNC and given to Shane Cory and Robert Stacy McCain from the Washington Times.”

    My press credentials weren’t “stolen” by anyone. The ownership of Third Party Watch changed. The new management apparently decided they didn’t want me covering the convention on their behalf. Therefore they withdrew their request for press credentials for me to do so.

    Why would LPHQ issue press credentials for a publication which doesn’t want them and for a writer which that publication isn’t assigning to cover the convention?

    When I subsequently applied for credentials pursuant to covering the convention for my own publications, complete with readership stats, etc., the credentials were promptly and politely approved by LPHQ.

    While I do suspect that Viguerie and Barr still have their claws in LPHQ, this particular incident wasn’t indicative of that.

  70. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    With apologies to Donny, but it’s just too apropos:

    DONNY: What’s a pederast, Walter?

    WALTER: Shut the fuck up, Donny.

    If you have no idea what that means, you can find out July 11th and 12th at Executive Strike & Spare in Louisville, Kentucky.

  71. Pepe Johnson Says:

    “I want a real libertarian to be LP candidate rather than a rebranded conservative.”

    Well, most folks would have considered me liberal before, but now I more precisely call myself libertarian. I was a registered Democrat before becoming a registered Libertarian just before Bob Barr joined the LNC.

    How long must I wait if I were to run for president before it would satisfy you that I meet the party seniority requirements to run for office? This smells much like the labor union of which I used to be a member. And never mind that “converts” have tendency to be the most loyal members, even if they haven’t quite adopted every tenet. Of course, much of the Barr-bashing reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition – my family survived that, so I guess I will survive this as well.

  72. Pepe Johnson Says:

    “I want a real libertarian to be LP candidate rather than a rebranded conservative.”

    Well, most folks would have considered me liberal before, but now I more precisely call myself libertarian. I was a registered Democrat before becoming a registered Libertarian just before Bob Barr joined the LNC.

    How long must I wait if I were to run for president before it would satisfy you that I meet the party seniority requirements to run for office? This smells much like the labor union of which I used to be a member. And never mind that “converts” have tendency to be the most loyal members, even if they haven’t quite adopted every tenet. Of course, much of the Barr-bashing reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition – my family survived that, so I guess I will survive this as well.

  73. Jonathan Says:

    2 days to Victory ! Bob Barr will lead this nation

  74. TERRY HOLTZ Says:

    Love The Big Lebowski
    But the lines that fit here is:

    Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
    Walter: No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there’s nothing to be afraid of.

  75. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Pepe,

    It’s sometimes convenient to break everything down to one issue, but it doesn’t always serve the truth.

    It’s not JUST that Bob Barr only came to the LP a short time ago. It’s also what he did BEFORE he came to the LP, and how he’s comported himself SINCE coming to the LP.

    So, you used to be a Democrat. Whoop-de-doo … me to.

    Were you a US Representative?

    If so did you, while serving in the House, sponsor legislation forbidding the federal government to treat same-sex couples in the same way that it treats heterosexual couples?

    If so did you, while serving in the House, sponsor legislation to keep the District of Columbia from passing a medical marijuana bill by forbidding the counting of the votes?

    If so did you, while serving in the House, attempt to establish a religion in the US Armed Forces by prohibiting the practice of alternatives to that religion on military bases?

    Did you vote for the war on Iraq, Congressman Pepe? How about the Patriot Act? How about Medicare Part D, the largest federal entitlement expansion since LBJ’s presidency?

    If any of the above, have you subsequently repudiated your former positions on those issues, or are you still making excuses for those positions and trying to recast them in faux “libertarian” terms?

    After leaving the House and the Democratic Party, Congressman Pepe, did you maintain your Leadership PAC? After coming to the Libertarian Party and accepting a seat on its national committee, did you continue to operate that PAC so as to direct contributions to Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

    In seeking the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, Congressman Pepe, have you publicly stated that you deserve support because your candidacy will drive votes to Democratic Party’s congressional candidates?

    There’s a LOT more than “how long Barr has been here” involved.

  76. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Terry,

    Actually, I considered that line, but decided the direction in which it was pointed might be too vague.

    The Dude abides.

  77. g brian Says:

    susan is right here. most libertarians have never read through the lp platform!

    donnie, stop the whining, and the fibbing. only in your dreams is the general voter reading the lp platform!

  78. DP Says:

    Who cares what party anyone came from… I thought Libertarians were for individual freedoms and having the government as small as possible and create the least amount of interference on our daily lives so that we can determine what is best for us. I watched Bob Barr make a few speaches and 90% of what he says is very in line with Libertarian principles. I think it is good to get the PR for a 3rd and a 4th party to actually have a presence in the political system. Go ask Ron Paul about 3rd parties and how until now it has been legislatured out of any possible to compete by the only 2 teams in town.

    Remember it is not a persons own free choice and opinion on any particular liberty it is how they allow others to indulge in it as long as it does not interfere with others. Remember we need to protect the vises not get each other fighting about them. Go out and shoot your guns, hunt and fish, smoke your cigarette, smoke your dope, home school your children, chose your own doctor, burn wood, watch porn on the internet, be gay, have a puppet show in public or do what you want withought having the fear of being turned into a criminal.

    Speak your mind if you dare and if you still have the guts to!

  79. dj28 Says:

    I just think our country is now at the point where we need to take action. We are sliding further into statism and we need to capitilize and build on the interest in libertarianism that Ron Paul and others have created during this election cycle. We need to run Barr, even if it means leaving a bad taste in our mouths. He’s polling at 6% right now, if he can get that up a few points he can get on the debate stage with McNazi and Comrade Obama. Just think about the libertarian message being beamed out to millions on national TV. He still will not win the presidency, but he will create interest in our cause. It’s a no lose proposition. Put Ruwart (my personal fave) in the VP slot and run with it. Interest in Barr will create curiosity about Ruwart and her message. The long term benefits far outweigh the current discomfort. We can no longer sit on our high horses and laugh while our freedoms go down in flames. It’s time to act

  80. Justin Grover Says:

    Most people whom I have spoken with that had heard about the LP before, and did the least bit of studying on the party, have tried to read the platform. None of those people had ever said to me “You know, the platform was _____” Substitute any nice word in for the blank. Universally, they seemed to question it, or had broken off trying to understand us because of it, or had disagreed with the tone and or tempo.

    Fewer words, Better. Even that one liner that someone was pushing.

  81. Pepe Johnson Says:

    “It’s not JUST that Bob Barr only came to the LP a short time ago. It’s also what he did BEFORE he came to the LP, and how he’s comported himself SINCE coming to the LP.”

    That’s exactly my point, some of the folks making comments here have raised legitimate points regarding whether or not Mr. Barr would be an accurate representation of the LP, but many others spin their arguments on petty points like this.

  82. Pepe Johnson Says:

    “You question contains the untenable implication that changing the platform will result in an expansion of the Party’s appeal to 20-30%.”

    I would suggest that if your goal is to recruit new members, the image of the LP needs to be changed more than the platform. An acquaintance of mine, very active in local Democratic politics, one told me,”Libertarianism is a nice philosophy, but most of us have to live in the real world.” We talked a little more and he is thoroughly convince that libertarianism and the LP are a waste of time because it simply won’t work. Get people to believe that it will work and they will begin taking the LP seriously. And part of getting it to work is to get candidates successfully elected to office, or at least to make a decent showing.

  83. Pepe Johnson Says:

    “Fewer words, Better. Even that one liner that someone was pushing.”

    Which one liner is that?

  84. Clark Says:

    ...nap, i don’t say this very often to ‘money dummies’ ;o) but you’re (apparently) alright..

    ..g brian and susan are right about ‘the platform,’ doony…and it appears most republicrats are functionally illiterate anyway..(btw, it appears your reading/comprehension skills could stand lots of improvement too!) ;o)

    FLASH****EXCITING NEW FEATURE***
    FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT****”CLARK’S MONEY TIDBITS”..

    Hello, Republicrats! Today, a little ditty about ‘dollars’..apparently, once upon a time people referred to ‘DOLLARS’ OF GOLD AND SILVER in the same sense as modern Republicrat peckerheads refer to ‘OUNCES’ OF MARIJUANA, ‘POUNDS’ OF CAKE, ‘QUARTS’ OF BEER, etc..

    ...but somehow, somewhere, Republicrats have been duped, for example, into using the phrase ‘SILVER DOLLAR’..attributing to a term of measurement (‘DOLLAR’) the faculty of being an entity!

    It is as if you Republicrats consume ‘MARIJUANA OUNCES,’ ‘BEER QUARTS,’ ‘CAKE POUNDS’ etc!.. (this money tidbit brought to you by CLARK)

    “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits.” – (attributed to Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920’s)

  85. MARY/NAMBLA '08 Says:
    1. johncjackson Says:
      May 20th, 2008 at 10:57 am

    I recommend libertarians support Ruwart. Conservatives can fuck-off.

    YES! YES! YES! WE WANT MARY! WE WANT MARY!

  86. Brad Says:

    “Will rejecting Bob Barr this week, make it more likely … or less likely ….for established Democrat and Republican politicians to defect to the Libertarian Party?”

    Less Likely. However, by nominating Barr, the Libertarian Party would lose the possibility of nominating Democratic voters (name recognition is almost entirely on the GOP side; Democrats are of course highly familiar with the Green Party). There are a large number of socially liberal and anti-war Democrats who basically have no strong economic ideology (because they don’t understand economic issues). I was among them until a few years ago. These Democrats are younger and therefore realize just how bigoted and discriminatory age-of-consent laws are (I’m 18). They also don’t compromise on Iraq or Iran and tend to support granting immigrants their basic human rights. Nominating Barr might strengthen the LP’s appeal to the authoritarians on the right, but it would destroy any potential appeal to the anti-authoritarian side (the left). To send a 17-year-old honor-roll student to jail for 10 years for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old is so disgusting and so morally bankrupt that only a right-winger would think of it.

  87. Bill Woolsey Says:

    Donny Freguson claims that he has done substantial
    door-to-door work. He claims that at least one time
    a day, he spoke to someone who has heard of the LP,
    and further, will state that Libertarians favor some
    extreme policy. His example was the most extreme
    in my view—some simple deductions of the “children’s
    rights” doctrines that have been the platform from time
    to time.

    From his remarks, I saw no evidence that he did anything
    wrong. He didn’t describe his door-to-door regime. I
    imagine he handed out a brochure, introduced himself, and
    said something about the specific policies he would promote
    in the state legislature. However, somewhere in this approach,
    he states his partisan affiliation. Perhaps it is on his brochure.
    Perhaps he mentions it.

    Anyway, he states that upon hearing Libertarian, a least one
    time a day, someone tells him that Libertarians support, and then
    something they don’t like that is highly unpopular from the platform, (though perhaps garbled.)

    So, perhaps a voter says, “Libertarian? you all like child pornography.”
    While I realize that people whose political experience is limited to name
    calling on the internet might think that the proper response is to get
    all huffy and call the voter dishonest for taking things out of context,
    this isn’t what a candidate needs to be doing.

    Those of us who actually go door to door and speak to voters would
    prefer to not ever have that sort of situation come up.

    If it is not something that we want to bring before the voters now,
    it should not be in the platform. If you don’t think getting the
    proper relationship between children, parents, and adults is something
    that needs to be fixed now, and that it is so important that we need to be
    campaigning on it, then why have it in the platform?

    (Because we want to have our vision of libertopia outlined in the platform,
    and how children relate to adjusts is part of life, and it must be resolved
    in the best libertarian way. You see, I put no value on this activity.)

    Anyway, I gave out about 7,500 peices of literature in 2000. Most of
    those were door-to-door. Usually, I manage to talk to about 50% of
    the households. (Leaving the literature at the other 50% because no
    one is home or answers the door.)

    Generally, I would hit one person a day who was a Libertarian. I ran
    into many more who knew of the Libertarian Party. I recollect a good
    number of people who would get a kind of “smirky” look on their face.

    Most people would take my brochure, listen to my speil, and that would
    be it. But I have always been bad at “will you vote for me?” And never
    would go on to, “No? Why not?”

    Frankly, I don’t remember anyone bringing up extremist stuff. What?
    You are a libertarian? Don’t you believe in ….. Perhaps… But,
    if they did, I would say, no, I don’t believe in…. Or, maybe.. I think
    we should… and then give my position.

    I think anyone who believes that our candidates should all be able to
    discuss hardcore libertarian theory like Ruwart before they go door to
    door, is crazy.

    I will note, however, that when I have gone door-to-door without the
    LP name (for nonpartisan town council and school board positions)
    people respond much better. They ask questions about me and
    my positions. Share their opinions, and so on. So, there is something
    about the LP label that is a turn off to many people.

    I covered much more ground as a partisan LP candidate than as a
    nonpartisan candidate. (Door-to-door as an incumbent is horribly
    slow. Come on in… let me chat with you for 1/2 hour. I have never
    been very good about saying, sorry, I have got to cover 50 houses this
    evening…)

    Anyway, I think we should take very seriously the testimony of
    our frontline candidates. Nearly all of my experience is nonpartisan.
    But I have great respect for those who are willing to campaign hard
    for a partisan LP seat.

    If you are not going door-to-door and talking with the voters… you
    are not campaigning hard.

    Hogarth’s ugly remarks to Ferguson proves to me that she is unsuitable
    for any party office.

  88. Pepe Johnson Says:

    Interesting insights, Mr. Woolsey. Thanks for sharing them. In my experience, average citizens have never heard of the LP. Sometimes if they think long-and-hard, they may have heard of it a long, long time ago. Today, if I mention the LP, more often than not, people ask me if I support Ron Paul. Ron Paul – even though he’s not running in the LP - is what many people think of when they hear “libertarian.”

    If the person is a politically aware D or R, they will often tempt to discredit the LP as some nutty fringe group. To me that is evidence that we have something they are afraid of: they know our basic principle of live-and-let-live is attractive to a lot of people so they have to make us look like extremists to try and keep people away.

    If the person is not politically aware, it more often goes something like this:

    “Oh, you’re a libertarian! I used to have a card, but I buy most of my books now from Amazon.com.”

  89. Red Phillips Says:

    New Federalist, sorry, I didn’t see your question.

    “Red Phillips- I agree with you about conservatives and Baldwin. Who would you recommend libertarians support? (I am not trying to be cute here.)”

    Not Ruwart, because the country is not ready for an anarchist standard bearer, and I believe as a system of thought it is hopelessly blinded by its own ideology. Not Barr or Root, because neither is sound on the War and foreign policy. I don’t agree with them on everything, but I actually thought both Browne and Badnarik were pretty unobjectionable from a rightist perspective. (Other than abortion, of course.) Someone in that mold. Stressing constitutionalism in addition to pure libertarian theory. Whoever the nominee is needs to avoid the appearance of being a libertine and should be respectful of tradition, religion, etc. This is what makes Lew Rockwell tolerable to rightists but usually Reason is not.

    Who fits that mold?

    Also, the casual tossing around of the r word (racism) drives me nuts. VDARE is not racist. Please show me one thing they have ever published that indicates overt hate. Or is racism something other than hate? Is it any hint of unegalitarian wrong think? That’s what it seems some of the PC line towers believe. VDARE, for example, is concerned about demographic change. Is that racist? If someone thinks it is then he has clearly drunk the PC Kool-Aid. I think a lot of people throw around the r word just to prove to others they aren’t. It gets SOOO old.

  90. jwpegler Says:

    [How do you plan on winning back our liberty with our current performance, 0.34% of the vote?]

    This really is the salient point. I was involved in the LP in 88 because of Ron Paul. I quickly left because the party was obviously not serious about actually winning elections and affecting real change. The reality is that the LP is not a political party. It’s a social club or a debating society—someone recently said that it was more like a church that provides a sort of sanctuary for the true believers.

    I am paying attention again 20 years later because of Barr. I was never a huge fan of his when he was in Congress, although in all fairness he was probably among the best Republicans in the House on a bunch of issues. On other issues, he was very bad. However, after 9/11 he started to change. The GOP as a party changed after 9/11 as well, but in the wrong way.

    Back to your question to the faithful—some people believe it’s more important to be “right” than to get things done. That’s why LP Presidential candidates have struggled to get even half of the votes that Ed Clark won in 1980.

  91. redmailredst Says:

    global pets university right google me are dog jhon

Leave a Reply