Bob Barr Media Appearances
Watch for him on Wednesday, June 4, when he will appear on “The Colbert Report,” which airs at 11:30 EDT Comedy Central. Thursday, June 5, he will appear on “The Glenn Beck Program” on CNN Headline at 7:00 EDT. Glenn Beck has had him on several times over the past few weeks and has devoted the full hour-long broadcast exclusively to Bob! He will also appear on “Night Talk” with Mike Schneider on Bloomberg Television later Thursday evening at 10:00.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Amazing the LP candidate is getting this much national attention. This is truely a real sign the two party system is about to end.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:28 am
How about Mancow? Let’s get our guy Bob on the Mancow show.
And Tammy Bruce?
What about Larry Elder’s show too?
June 4th, 2008 at 7:30 am
DrGonzo, all Barr needs to do is to start polling Perot-like numbers in the high teens and then low 20s.
As soon as that happens – and I’d say a few weeks from now – all shit will hit the fan. It will indeed be a 3-way race – Obama/McCain/Barr. And as soon as that happens, anything could happen… even President Bob Barr.
I’m starting to feel real giddy indeed.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Please explain to me the rationale for Barr doing a radio interview yesterday with Theocon John Lofton wherein Barr expressed an extremist position that abortion is murder, the implication being that States legitimately could legislate it as a capital offense. I want clarification on this matter from the campaign.
Thank You.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Barr expressed an extremist position that abortion is murder, the implication being that States legitimately could legislate it as a capital offense.
This issue is not even close to agreed upon within the LP. I think abortion is technically murder. When you take away the right to live from another human, that is murder.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:16 am
I’m not sure how more clarification is going to help you. Bob Barr is pro-life. He doesn’t believe it is a federal matter, but he believes there should be state laws against abortion.
How can it get any more clear?
June 4th, 2008 at 8:25 am
C’mon Eric, in what fantasy land is that going to happen? Let’s be realistic and be happy if Barr even approaches 5% in the polls, let alone on Election Day.
June 4th, 2008 at 8:33 am
“Please explain to me the rationale for Barr doing a radio interview yesterday with Theocon John Lofton wherein Barr expressed an extremist position that abortion is murder, the implication being that States legitimately could legislate it as a capital offense. I want clarification on this matter from the campaign”
Is this interview posted anywhere so we can judge for ourselves?
June 4th, 2008 at 8:48 am
The reason abortion is so dicey within the LP is that it entirely depends upon when you define the fetus as ‘alive’. Some base it upon birth, others quickening, some on when the fetus is viable outside the womb (23 weeks gestation or so), and others upon conception.
The libertarian position to prevent the initiation of force and protect individual rights depends upon when the fetus is ‘baby’ and has rights. So it is entirely possible to be extremely prolife (don’t destroy embryos) or prochoice (abortion okay up to birth) and be libertarian.
It is probably much more reasonable to keep it a state issue as they are the ones who define murder and are charged with mitigating justice by cultural or societal standards which vary from one part of the country to the next.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:10 am
ka1igu1a,
Libertarians can believe abortion is murder as well and that states can handle it. To protect liberty one must protect life.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:16 am
“Chris Moore Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 8:16 am
I want clarification on this matter from the campaign.
I’m not sure how more clarification is going to help you. Bob Barr is pro-life. He doesn’t believe it is a federal matter, but he believes there should be state laws against abortion.
How can it get any more clear?”
Didn’t Bob Barr once pressure his wife into getting an abortion?
June 4th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Bob Barr did take his wife for an abortion. Has he publicly repented? The Libby Platform is pretty clear they don’t care what your sexual orientation or if you are pro-death, so why should Libbys care?
Barr voted for the un-constitutional Bush/Cheney Privatized War for Profit in Iraq. Do the Libbys care about this?
Barr is weak on Guest Worker/Amnesty – but if the Libbys open borders, why should that matter?
Barr voted for the Patriot Act.
Is Barr and the Libbys going to bring us more of the same global-oney???
June 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Enrique,
“The reason the question of abortion is so dicey within the LP is that it entirely depends upon when you define the fetus as ‘alive’. ”
And the reason for this confusion is that some wish to treat other human beings as something less than they are, perhaps only as 3/5 of a human being as was our style with African-Americans, so as to rationalize their abuse or destruction of them. The dehumanization of those we wish to exploit or destroy has been endemic throughout history. In the Nazi era it was Jewish “filth” that were dehumanized, they were the “ferment of decomposition in peoples” as Hitler put it. Today, to the Hitlery Clinton inspired feminists of our age, its a “fetus”, a “potential” person, not the fully-alive-on-its-own-from-the-moment-of-conception human person that it actually is.
I think the time’s come to take the bull-hockey out of this argument. There are just a very great many of us that are simply too irresponsible to want to take responsibility for themselves sexually. And they are not above murder in their quest to escape it. “Choice” is the great lie of the age.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I do not know.
I never claimed the man wasn’t a hypocrite or hadn’t changed over the years or anything else. All I was pointing out is that Barr’s current position is very clear.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:50 am
The interview with the theocon is here:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1096&PHPSESSID=631305f4edcc150ea7a832f6f6664afb
The interviewer is a total asshole, and frankly Bob does a great job deflecting the obvious agenda of this prick.
Barr does come out stongly pro-life, with the Ron Paul-ian “leave it to the states” position.
He also comes out in favor of the death penalty, which threw me for a bit of a loop and will also surely ruffle plenty of libertarian feathers. I wonder if he at least opposes death penalty for federal crimes…
To his credit, Barr also flat out refuses to be drawn into the host’s obsessive gay bashing, and repeatedly resists mixing politics and religion.
It’s painful to listen to but Barr comes out the winner. He must not have had any idea what he was getting himself into…
June 4th, 2008 at 10:53 am
and moments later, Reason is posting about this interview too…
http://reason.com/blog/show/126853.html
let the comments shit-storm begin in 3… 2… 1…
June 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Donna,
“Bob Barr did take his wife for an abortion.”
I’m not sure this statement is true. From what I’ve been able to learn, Barr “may” have paid for a former wife’s abortion – which would make him complicit, of course – but that assertion was made by that never-have-an-axe-to-grind, paragon of virtue, Larry Flint. I’d love to know the truth concerning this matter. I could never vote for someone who’s been an accomplise to murder. Anyone have reliable information on the Barr abortion allegation?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:14 am
not that it should really matter, but this seems to be the only credible reporting online on the whole Bob Barr-Larry Flynt-abortion dust-up…
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/12/flynt.01/
June 4th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Donna says “Bob Barr did take his wife for an abortion. Has he publicly repented?”
Bob Barr’s wife had cancer. He opposed her decision, but supported her anyway (driving her to the doctor).
The abortion was for medical reasons.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
LOL! Yes.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
How can you claim his current position is clear, or even believable, when he has changed virtually ALL of his positions in the past year to con Barfers like yourself into donating to his “campaign”.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:42 am
First, I can read and listen and comprehend. Whether I believe what he says is a different matter.
Second, I have never donated money to Bob Barr. I did not support the man for the LP nomination.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Sparky,
Did he pay for his wife’s abortion or did he simply drive her to the murder facility? Do you know anything about the truth of the payment claim? Its one thing to deny encouraging an abortion with you mouth but to assist in bringing one about with your resources. That’s too slick by half. Anyone have the truth here?
June 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
“svf Says:
The interviewer is a total asshole”
There is an understatement. Your right about Barr coming out on top though.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
” According to an affidavit filed by Barr’s second wife Gail Barr, Bob Barr paid for and did not object to her having an abortion in 1983. This is rather amusing for two reasons: first of all, Barr was a member of the pro-life caucus. The fact that Barr did not discourage her from having an abortion is rather interesting in light of his strong pro-life stance. Second of all, Barr, in divorce court in 1986, stated that he did object to the abortion. Gail Barr’s affidavit, if true, proves that he committed perjury in divorce court. Barr, however, considered Clinton’s “sin” of lying about where and when he touched Ms. Lewinsky to be an impeachable offense. He, himself, did not resign as he claims all the charges against him were false.
Bob has been divorced twice, failed to pay child support to the children of his first two wives and while married to his third wife was photographed licking whipped cream off of a few chesty strippers at his inaugural party.. this guy is deciding that a whole segment of the population is less moral than him and is unfit to claim marriage benefits? ”
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/Barr/barr1.html
June 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
disinter,
So while Barr denied encouraging the abortion verbally, he didn’t deny paying for it? Was he deposed on this latter point or only on the verbal aspect, do you know?
June 4th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
“When Herr Barr was still married to wife number two, his wife decided to have an abortion. Herr Barr, Mr. Anti-Abortion himself, not only allowed his wife to have the abortion, he drove her to the abortion clinic and after the abortion, he paid the medical bill. ”
http://home.att.net/~vlaszlo/bob_barr_1.htm
June 4th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Not sure, but it doesn’t sound like it. That would be interesting to know.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Exes (and stuff):
I would gladly take Mr. Barr’s word for it, being a libertarian and all, except for one thing:
1) He is a lawyer.
When it comes to lawyers, I always side with the exes, even in Texas.
I’ve been ‘luvvved’ by lawyers before, and that kinda luvvvvin’ jus’ don’ in-ca-luuude a kiss (if you know what I mean).
June 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
disinter,
Since the question of the check seems the critical point – I’m prepared to accept his formal statement on the verbal encouragent rather than hers – and since nothing terribly reliable about the matter is to be found on the web, I’ve raised the question at the Barr blog:
http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/06/03/libertarian-barr-urges-iraq-withdrawal/#comment-981
If there has been no check that Barr signed, there should be no problem in his issuing an unequivocal denial. If there is no response from the site, I would consider that suspicious, that there very well may have been a check which Barr signed paying for the abortion. Joint accounts require one signature and if Barr’s is the only one on the check, that’s damning. Lets see how they treat the question.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Al Currier,
All of this is like living once again through the Ron Paul denials of newsletter racist statements when he’d taken no action for years to supervise the people involved and, when he did, fell into a kind of passive “they-told-me-I-couldn’t-do-anything-about-it” sond and dance. In my view, Barr should be given the benefit of the doubt but if he can’t make an unequivocal denial about paying for the abortion, anything less should be treated as lawyerly obfuscation.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
He needs to be on the Chris Mathews and on Meet the Press.
June 4th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I saw alot of info on bob barr that I wasnt aware of. Wayne Root? What exactly qualifies him to be a VP? Here is a site with info you wont find on any of the Campaign sites. Go to this link and read. Got some useful info there. this site is obviously not related to any officail campaign site. But has lots of info on it.
www.BarrRoot08.com
June 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
No, using language that “abortion is murder” takes this beyond a simple of federalism argument if Barr is amenable to states executing woman for having abortions . That idea that women having embryonic abortions(which most abortions are) could be subject to the death penalty is a ludicrous position for a Libertarian Candidate to be espousing. To be fair, it was an overtly hostile interview and it wasn’t clear if Barr was going that far or not. Hence, my original post asking for clarification from the campaign. I ask this as a LP member who is considering donating funds to the campaign. But I cannot and will not support a candidate who takes such an extremist position on this issue. No one forced Barr to appear on that wingnut’s radio broadcast. But he did, and it has raised some issues with me that need to be clarified.
Thank You.
June 4th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
But I cannot and will not support a candidate who takes such an extremist position on this issue.
Man some of my fellow Libertarians are strange people.
Criminalizing the murder of an unborn human = extreme
Not wanting to outlaw child porn = normal
June 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
let’s all donate again even $10 to www.bobbarr2008.com I’m seeing a lot of McCain and Obama bumper stickers , please get your Barr bumper stickers
June 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
1) I do not believe that Ron Paul is a racist.
2) I do not believe that Ron Paul was a racist.
3) The racist statements in his newsletter did not strike me as original stuff. They reminded me of the same racist statements I read in the MSM (LA Times and talk radio) in the LA area at the same time periods. Some of those racist statements about blacks were make by blacks and concerned racist events such as riots in a racist place, Los Angeles. Mr. Paul’s newsletter did not mince words, but were not original either.
4) More ado was made about those newsletters than what they deserve.
5) I think the actual source of the newsletters (the writer) is a prominent LP’er and Mr. Paul is smart in keeping a certain distance from the LP and it’s racist factions.
RE: Lawyers
I have an deep hatred for lawyers. “Distrust’ just is not a strong enough a word.
My advice to lawyers:
Don’t ever get divorced, or I’m gonna side with your ex, even if it hurts.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Man some of my fellow Libertarians are strange people.
Criminalizing the murder of an unborn human = extreme
Not wanting to outlaw child porn = normal
the lp is the house of extreme. They created it so they could have a place to play.
Shane increased membership 25% year over year, and yet gets fired because he calls for increased communication between law enforcement to help put child sex predators behind bars, the very definition of criminal FORCE and victim.
and LP nutz respond by almost nominating Ruwart, who defends child-adult sex as a personal choice and somehow believes – really believes, that little kids are capable of making an informed decisions about such matters, and that the nomination of someone who believes this is somehow “principled” rather than scary as hell.
It’s just bizarre.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
In 1973 I was an EXTREME-anti-amtrak-democrat looking for EXTREME political party to stop the EXTREME subsidies to autos, highways and pavement that come from the D&R’s. What I found was a LP party that wants to teach me how to be an atheist and quote really, really dead Greek floss-fers like ha ha Heir Stot Tull.
The Green Party noticed that in Denver this year, Dr. Ruwart had practical answers to these kind of problems (transportation), but the LP bloggers, for the most part would rather sensationalize dumb stuff than look for practical solutions to our everyday problems.
As the price of gas goes up Mr. West, get scared. Very scared.
While you scrounge for money for gas, I’ll now just quote ha ha Heir Stot Tull with ee, ee, eekwaaashuns like, well ah ah A eekweels ah ah A.
Of course I agree with you as you say It’s just bizarre!
June 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I thought the smearing of Mary Ruwart would take a rest after she lost the nomination. I should have known better.
This has already been argued endlessly, at this site and elsewhere. For the record, Timothy West’s characterization of her views is a tendentious distortion.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Nothing difficult to understand about this Barr-abortion business, for anyone who’s actually been married. Wives do things you disagree with; once it’s done you support them. He couldn’t stop his wife from getting an abortion, and if they’re married they’re jointly responsible for the bill. Cheating the hospital after the thing was done wouldn’t improve his moral position.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I listened to a few minutes of the interview, until I got bored with Barr’s long-winded blather. I thought the interviewer was asking serious questions and Barr was evading them.
It’s interesting to note that Ayn Rand would have agreed with the interviewer about the relationship between political and metaphysical philosophy. Barr’s position, that he agrees with Rand’s philosophy of government and doesn’t care what she thought about the existence of God, is exactly the kind of thing Rand criticized about libertarians.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am
“Wilson committed acts that the people of Georgia had determined through their lawful, elected representatives across the state—Republican and Democrat, black and white, rural and urban—should be punished.”
The act? The 17-year old Wilson got a blow job from a 15-year old girl. Barr was upset because a judge reduced Wilson’s 10-year sentence.
http://www.conservative.org/columnists/barr/070704bb.htm
Barr was so upset by this that he wrote 2 articles about it in the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution – continually referring to Wilson as
a “child molester” and his “hedonistic sex acts”. This case and many
others like it are just a reminder why Mary Ruwart was right about “age
of consent” laws.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:25 am
hf,
“Wives do things you disagree with; once it’s done you support them.”
That’s rather facile. If your wife drowned your kids in the bathtub, you’d support her?
“... and if they’re married they’re jointly responsible for the bill.”
Its a question of who signed the check, not some abstract consideration of banking law. Come on now, get serious, there are people here honestly concerned that they may be voting for someone that’s been an accomplice to murder.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:49 am
John-
Support the drowning, no. Pay the water company, yes.
The point is that the check for medical services (or murder if you prefer) isn’t relevant. You know that any court, including one run by Judge Ten Commandments himself, would say that the hospital needs to get paid, because currently the service if pefectly legal.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Or to put it in a less contentious way – a person can’t walk into a business, order up and accept a legally offered service, and then turn around and say they have a moral objection to paying. Should we allow the dodge of “my husband has the checkbook and he has a moral objection”?
Everytime you or I send in our tax bill we are “signing the check” for torture camps, the Waco raid, etc. Perhaps your theory is that the percentage of the check that goes to the immoral purpose makes the critical moral difference? We’re obligated to pay, so was Barr.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Let’s not forget that Wayne Root is Bob Barr’s running mate. Wayne Root is solidly Pro-Choice.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
hf,
With all respect to you personally, I repeat, you manage to wrap yourself up in a whole series of irrelevant abstractions. Again, the question here is not one of legalities or entitlements but one which moral theology reduces to a question of formal cooperation in the sin of another. If Barr signs the check paying for the abortion, he’s formally cooperative, if he doesn’t, he isn’t, its that simple. I couldn’t give a hoot less about what’s “legal” or what some institution’s expectations might be, I’m concerned about what’s moral. I won’t vote for a man who’s found formally cooperative in an act of murder, its that simple.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
To anyone that had been interested,
The inquiry I made yesterday at the Barr blog concerning whether Barr actually paid fot the abortion undergone by his former wife has gone unanswered. While a non-response isn’t conclusive of payment it doesn’t clear the air either. For me, no denial means no vote. Looks like I’ll be staying home on election day.