The big pow-wow: Ron Paul’s gathering of the tribes

Third-party circles have been abuzz for days about the “major press conference” Ron Paul scheduled for the National Press Club this morning. “Dr. Paul will announce his intentions for the fall presidential election and will be accompanied by several special guests.”

First I learned that Chuck Baldwin would be one of those special guests. Then Bob Barr. Then Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader too.

First it was defined purely as a press conference. Then I got a “special invitation” by email stating that “because of the importance of the event, we have rented their ballroom, which will have room for about 200 supporters.” And: “Your presence to cheer on Dr. Paul and add your energy and excitement to the day would be greatly appreciated.”

What the heck was going on? Was this a press conference or a rally? Was Ron Paul going to announce his support for one of the other presidential candidates? (Not likely.) Or were they all going to unite behind Paul in some sort of Right-Left Armageddon rapture? (Even less likely, but fun to contemplate!)

An amazing coalition

It turned out that the good doctor had put together a Right-Left coalition agreeing on broad but specific statements about foreign policy, privacy (civil liberties), the national debt, and the Federal Reserve. See the posting below (‘We Agree’) for the text. For his own reasons (see this posting below), Bob Barr didn’t attend but let it be known that he agreed with the statement.

In his somewhat meandering style, which we all love and appreciate, Dr. Paul let it be known that yesterday (September 9) he had received his very first phone call from the McCain campaign asking for his support “with the argument that McCain would do less harm than the other candidate.” Fat chance. He talked about why presidential campaigns “turn out mostly to be a charade”—important issues (such as the ones agreed to by this coalition) are ignored in favor of trivialities, and the two major parties pretend to be polar opposites when they really agree on fundamental collectivist assumptions.

Dr. Paul turned the podium over to the others, and Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, thanked him for bringing this group together. She recalled that “it took 72 years of struggle and sacrifice, from the beginning of the women’s suffrage movement, for women to get the right to vote. I believe today we are starting a new movement of independence from the orthodoxy of our day.” (Let’s hope it doesn’t take 72 years to achieve most of this group’s goals!)

Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate, said “the real issue in 2008 is not between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, but between globalists and constitutionalists. McCain and Obama are globalists. Baldwin is a constitutionalist.”

McCain, Baldwin said, always refers to the U.S. as an “interdependent nation.” “But the Founders didn’t sign a Declaration of Interdependence. We are fighting for the preservation of our very form of government, and that’s why what Ron Paul is doing today is so important, and why our coming together today is so important.”

And, as Baldwin always reminds his audiences: “I supported Ron Paul. It’s because the GOP rejected Ron Paul that I’m here today as a candidate.”

Ralph Nader, the Independent candidate for President, seemed the most enthusiastic and optimistic about Paul’s coalition. “I think when McKinney, Barr, Baldwin and Nader agree with Ron Paul on these four major areas—I think that’s the beginning of a realignment in American politics.” And later: “I’m very proud that we’ve been able to put aside our differences on other subjects—such as health and safety regulations [chuckles from the audience]—to come together on these four important subjects.”

As for campaign trivialities, Nader lit into the furor over flag lapel pins: “As long as we’re dealing with symbols, I prefer to put next to my lapel the Constitution. The flag can take care of itself, but we have to preserve the Constitution.”

61 Responses to “The big pow-wow: Ron Paul’s gathering of the tribes”

  1. SayNO2008.com Says:

    Say NO to McBama!

    Say NO to Republicrats!

    Say NO to Establishment media outlets!

    Say NO to bipartisan trashing of the Constitution!

    Cast a protest vote for a 3rd party presidential candidate of your choice.

    Tell everyone why you will vote against the lesser of two evils.

    Tell everyone who you will vote for.

    Tell everyone what you think.

    Be heard: http://SayNO2008.com

    “The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two party system… This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates.” – Ron Paul

  2. Joseph Oddo Says:

    I was impressed with Cynthia Mckinney’s impassioned appeal for people to vote their values. Politics today is about conformity and control. The big two parties allocation some values to public policy sometimes, but most values hardly ever.

    She likened the gathering to the small gathering of 260 women and 40 men declaring their independence 160 years ago in advocating for women to be permitted to vote. It took 72 years of sacrifice and struggle to achieve success.

  3. Jonathan Says:

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article4570.html

  4. Joseph Oddo Says:

    Chuck Baldwin presents an interesting member of this unlikely coalition. Coming from the Moral Majority in the Reagan years, he relates that members of his flock now labor between choosing between the evil of two lessors.

    His summary, “We all sense that if we don’t bring together our forces – our form of government will cease to exist.”

  5. PainfullyAware Says:

    There Are Many Fronts And Many Battlefields.

    Anyone Advocating A Return Toward The Constitution Is An Ally.

    We Can Argue The Details Later.

    The Complexity Of Corruption Is Vast.

    Focus On Our Similarities Rather Than Our Differences.

  6. John Lowell Says:

    Bob Barr is a schlemeil. And he just shot himself in the foot but good. Every Paul vote that ever there were ought to denounce this arrogant patzer. He’s detritus from the Republican Party and has that unmistakable system odor to him. Barr is an eel, a weasel. Like Tom Dewey, he looks like the groom on a wedding cake. He should do as well as Dewey.

  7. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    It seems John Lowell is as good as the Republicrats at spreading false propaganda.

    Unfortunately your posts rarely deal with the truth.

  8. Sivarticus Says:

    Barr screwed up really bad. I was strongly leaning toward voting for this guy. Not anymore, not after his staffers are publicly attacking the Good Doctor. Adam Kokesh is right in rescinding his support of Barr, and I will follow his lead, barring a public apology or major twist from Barr.

  9. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    Sigh,

    The Ron Paul sheeple just don’t get it.

  10. Jonathan Says:

    wow the bloggers here are behind the times, they listen to a few untruths spread by barr haters and they run with it.

    Barr paid tribute to Ron today PEOPLE he offered the VP and even Mr. Root said he would give it up for the good of the Party. No one is dissing Dr. Paul.

    BTW, Unlike Dr. Gonzo, Dr. Paul is a real Doctor.

  11. Joseph Oddo Says:

    Then Ralph Nader so eloquently summed up one of Ron Paul’s main constructs calling the Federal Reserve the first real outsourcing of federal government.

    On the question of whether the four major minors should debate, Ralph said that would allow the big two to continue with their rationing of the debates excluding those who mathematically qualified for enough state ballots to gain an Electoral College majority. To get outside of the presidential commission on debates, he said the networks should hold their own. Veterans groups have offered. Google offered. Nominees of the big two declined to participate.

    In Naderesque form he rattled off violations that the congress and the executive branch from both establishment parties have allowed to take place…

    – the Constitution in different parts is being disregarded, twisted;
    – declaration of war is done;
    – equal protections have shrunk;
    – the takings clause via eminent domain knows no limits;
    – the Bill of Rights is seriously violated;
    – people are incarcerated with no charges, no adhesion to habeas corpus;
    – wars are being declared whenever and where ever;
    – signing statements are a violation of the constitution with even the 400,000 member Bar Association signing a white paper asking the Administration to stop.

  12. Joseph Oddo Says:

    Then Barr. Probably the second most lamentable thing of the 2008 election. The first being that Paul did not bolt the big party once the nominee was declared and really ignite the third party world. Leaving us with an arrogant Barr who falsely thinks he can assemble anything close to Perot 92 or Paul 07.

  13. Teddy Fleck Says:

    Kudos to Bob Barr its about time people stop following Ron Paul like Lemmings. You would think Dr. Paul would stop playing his silly games.
    Though I argreed with many of his views all he is doing is playing the other parties against each other. Great Job Mr. Barr.

  14. Anthony D. Says:

    John Lowell,

    I’d rather support detritus FROM the Republican Party, rather than detritus STILL IN the Republican Party, namely, one cranky old kook who allows racist diatribes to go out in an eponymous newsletter, comments he first claims were taken out of context then later says he was not aware of, like that makes it okay.

  15. Mason Caste Says:

    It’s obvious our only realistic but far fetched hope is that all of us who are fed up with the 2 party charade, stick together and pull for one of the 3rd party candidates. Barr is out. I don’t know who the right choice is except for RP but with the choices we have, I’ll go with Chuck Baldwin. Sure it’s not perfect fit, but if we don’t pull together and choose together, we are just spinning our wheels at the starting line.

  16. John Lowell Says:

    Anthony D.

    Don’t be mislead. I have no truck with Paul and have denounced him here and even today for his lack of courage in preferring a Republican sincure to an independent candidacy. But Barr is uniquely detestable, a man who holds himself out as “pro-life” yet is unwilling to deny the fact that he wrote a check to some murder factory to dispatch one of his own children. Only a very peculiar kind of father would not hasten to deny such an allegation and Barr never has, Anthony. That alone makes him reptilian, Anthony, but this affront to Paul, supposedly a “friend” of his, just confirms that judgement. That Paul was self-serving to remain a Republican doesn’t make Barr any less of a slug for his eel-like cageyness about his ex-wife’s abortion. And only a sociopathic conscience would ever allow him wiggle room on that one. Barr is a farbrecher, Anthony. He deserves no pedestal because Paul doesn’t. Please.

  17. MPM Says:

    John Lowell,

    Did you or did you not in fact sign a check for the abortion of the biracial baby you had with Alan Keyes in 1996?

  18. John Lowell Says:

    MPM,

    Cross your legs, your breath smells.

  19. Anthony D. Says:

    John,

    I am moderately pro-choice, so I could care less about whether or not Barr paid for an abortion. Additionally, that tiresome issue has been covered with political horse manure for so long, its angles so totally worn-out by a myriad of politicians, I do the exact opposite of what someone like yourself does: I totally ignore what any politicians says about it or says what his position on it is. I ignore it completely, hoping in vain it will go away.

    And I will add that I do believe Mr. Barr deserves a pedestal for taking on the thankless task of running for President as a Libertarian, knowing full well of the wingnut swarm that surrounds and infests the party, gnats so obliviously self-involved, they put the Democrats to shame when it comes to self-destructive behavior.

  20. EVIL DICK Says:

    John Lowell is a shitebrick little puussyy arssed faaggoott. And he should just shoot himself in the fockin face but good. Every Paul vote that ever there were ought to denounce this arrogant fartknocking double inverted nad twisting fudgepacker. He’s a dingle berry hanging from the Boston Teabagger Party and has that unmistakable brownhole system odor to him. Lowell is an eel, a weasel who takes it up the ‘ole shite chute like a pro & it’s “usually greaseless” reports his longtime friend and confidant “Knapps Annall Gerbil”, of whom was on loan from actor ‘Vin Diesel’. Like an everyday flamer codepink guy, he looks like the groom on a gay wedding cake. He should do well massaging Diesel’s nads.

  21. EVIL DICK Says:

    Anthony,

    Don’t be mislead. John Lowell is a felcher. He deserves no quadrapeds servicing his love tunnel. Lowell is uniquely detestable, a man who holds Vin Diesels nads upon a higher pedestal than Tom Knapps. He is unwilling to deny the fact that he wrote a check to some gerbil factory to dispatch one of his own cute living love toys. That alone makes him reptilian, Anthony. Please.

  22. EVIL DICK Says:

    MPM,

    Did John Lowell speak, or did a dog fart?

  23. EVIL DICK Says:

    John Lowell is really the lamest TROLL on the net…as you can plainly see my cock is squarely down his kandy arsed throat.

  24. John Lowell Says:

    Anthony,

    Oh, I care very much about whether Bob is a murderer, Anthony, and the fact that you couldn’t care less, well, as I say, only a sociopathic conscience would allow him wiggle room on that one. Wish I could be more generous, Anthony, but you’re really not helping me very much. Politicians are known for their bathroom morals, but does Bob have to be quite this, well, political? Its absolutely amazing how uncomfortable this whole question can make Barr’s supporters. For all their talk of “liberty” they’re even willing to censor their blogs to keep the matter from consciousness. What do you think about that, Anthony? I mean if murder doesn’t move you, in some kind of strange inversion, does censorship? If he ever became president, can you envision good old “liberty Bob” closing down a few newspapers that would raised this question? I can.

  25. Mike Says:

    Say what you want about Barr, he’s not going to win anyways so if he’s flawed he can be flawed outside of politics.

    He simply represents the best available protest vote. Should he somehow win he’s at worst McCain which is the only other option I have.

    The protest vote is best used at the lower levels where your third party vote has more impact so don’t think simply making a statement at the top of the ticket is good enough. If you accidently vote for a spendaholic on the school board you defeat yourself.

  26. Jason Says:

    All of this and still no one really cares!!

  27. Tom Bryant Says:

    Dividing up the Paul supporters between a bunch of minor candidates does not make any sense.

    If each candidate got 1% of the vote, the liberty agenda would not advance. If one candidate got 4% of the vote, the liberty agenda would be the king-maker. The loser would chalk up the loss to being spoiled by the liberty candidate, and have to move in our direction.

    In Michigan, our candidates are sometimes believed to be the king-makers. We have had both Republicans and Democrat come to us attempting to make deals. One such deal resulted in Michigan scrapping out its bad ballot access laws in favor of one written by the Libertarian Party.

    Bob Barr is absolutely correct that we need to make an impact on the general election. Ron Paul has guaranteed that no third party will be able to do that this year.

    And finally…the thought of Ron Paul encouraging people to vote for Nader/McKinney is incredibly hard to swallow – I still can’t believe he actually did that.

  28. Allen Says:

    We do need to make an impact this year. There really is only two candidates that can do that, Barr and Nader. They will be on enough state ballots to make a difference. I’d much rather vote for Barr then Nader.

  29. Larry Breazeale,Msgt.(ret.)USAF Says:

    I think Ron Paul did the only thing he could do. I think he did it greatly!
    At least the American people, mostly the other Ron Paulers out there in the masses, across the country, will rally behind Chuck Baldwin, without a doubt. Chuck Baldwin will be the main guy with the majority of support from the Ron Paulers. It is already happening now. Bob Barr again, made a mistake not appearing at the National Press Club with the others. I will NOT shed a tear. It is just as well. YOU SNOOZE, YOU LOSE!

    Chuck Baldwin also appeared on the LOU DOBBS SHOW tonight, along side Monica Ramos, the wife of one of the imprisoned border patrol officers (Ramos/Compean). It only lasted about THREE MINUTES but, Chuck got his foot in the door and his name (and the Constitution party name) OUT THERE, prime time, on a major news network (CNN) finally!
    Lou Dobbs treated him very well and said , after what Chuck said, “with that said, I can sure support you”. Hopefully, Chuck will be on AGAIN, in the near future.
    THIS exposure, has put Chuck squarely in the “anti-illegal immigration camp” and in the hearts & minds of fellow Americans that are outraged on this issue. This issue ’ with this presidential candidate, is strictly his issue alone! GREAT JOB CHUCK! Now we need to push for GLENN BECK!
    Larry Breazeale, Msgt. (ret.) USAF
    Nat.Chrm. National Veterans Coalition…www.nvets.org

  30. nader paul kucinich gravel Says:

    FRUITION.

    nader paul kucinich gravel
    mckinney ventura
    perot charts
    rage

    Right now it’s time to;
    Right now it’s time to;
    Kick out the jams “Brothers & Sisters”

  31. Stefan Says:

    Tom: Ron Paul’s appeal was not for the Ron Paul supporters to be divided between four candidates (most of them would vote for either Barr or Baldwin), but rather for Independents, some disillusioned Rs and Ds and people that do not normally vote, to vote and inspire them to make a difference and open up the political landscape.

  32. MS Says:

    Does this mean Robert Milnes was right? Yikes….

  33. Red Phillips Says:

    “I think Ron Paul did the only thing he could do.”

    I agree MSgt B. While I would have liked a straight Baldwin endorsement, I can understand why he didn’t do that. Had he done so he would have alienated a large part of his unique conservative/libertarian coalition. I don’t really know what people expect of Paul. He could never do anything that would make everyone happy.

  34. DebbieKat Says:

    Some of the diatribe on this board is surprising to me. Despite the appeals made at this press conference, you are still arguing with each other and divisive. Save your energy to fight against the real enemy (the two major parties). In case you didn’t understand the message (and I didn’t even have the opportunity to watch the entire thing yet), yes, they don’t agree on everything, but all of these candidates agree on the major problems this country is facing including the destruction of our constitution and loss of civil rights and liberties, the federal reserve, war. Yes, Nader and Paul are opposites on subjects of social policy, but not when it comes to adhering to the constitution and civil rights. See the bigger picture please. ALL of these candidates need our support.

  35. David Englert Says:

    This is a sad day, probably should have seen it coming, but sad non the less. Liberty had two respectable (and flawed to some degree, but they are politicians after all), who had a chance to make some in-roads and all we seem to do is fracture the liberty vote even more. When I left the major parties I was worried about joining up a with a group that was more anarchist vrs Constitutionalists (for lack of a better term), and now there seems to be more and more fractures, the anarchists made it clear they were taking their ball and going home, as did a good deal of Ron Paul supporters. I have spent more money and time than I ever have on campaigns and cause, and it has turned out to be a waste. Liberty had a perfect storm, we had socialist Barack Obama, and and almost indistinguishable John McCain facing off, a very dissatisfied American people, and all we can do is bicker about who is the most pure, have forums with the Green Party and Ralph Fricken Nader? I had a great deal of hope for Ron Pauls Campaign for Liberty but if that what its all about you can take me off of that list, why not invite the socialist and communist party candidates, its practically the same thing.

    I think I will just finish out this elections season, continue with the events I already paid for (out of my own pocket), and then just go back to supporting candidates and issue groups (NRA, GOA, Center for Individual Rights, CATO, etc) that may prolong the inevitable onset of Socialism long enough that my kids will never have to see it. I can’t get Libertarians involved with out a purity test, and Ron Paul’s supporters will only get involved if you or the event kisses the ring.

    Just look at the discourse on this thread, no wonder why the majority of America doesn’t take us seriously, look at how we treat each other. We truly deserve our failure.

    Shame on us supporters of Liberty, while we indulged our pettiness we messed up a golden opportunity.

  36. David Gaines Says:

    I listened to the entire press conference and found Chuck Baldwin’s tirades against the so-called “New World Order” very annoying. Nader, McKinney (both of whom must have been internally rolling their eyes), and, for that matter, Paul all spoke in rather vague tones, having obviously decided ahead of time to focus solely on the things on which everyone onstage could agree. By the way, that was quite a nifty idea by Ron Paul and I wish it had gotten more mainstream press coverage. Apparently, though, the good reverend didn’t get the complete memo and couldn’t resist shoehorning his ultra-conservative rhetoric into the occasion.

    Comic relief was, as usual, provided by Carey Campbell, who runs like a magnet to the National Press Club everytime there’s any kind of 3rd party-related news conference there with working microphones near which he can plant himself. Despite the clear request that only credentialed journalists ask questions (and occasionally posting notices to this website, as wonderful an outlet as it is, doesn’t qualify him, me, or anyone else as a “credentialed journalist”), Carey managed to figuratively elbow genuine reporters who were there doing their job out of the way to get in a question about sponsoring 50 debates in 50 days (which produced a round of smirky laughter).

    I almost fell out of my chair when I heard him say (presumably with a straight face), as if he had nothing to do with the group, “I have it on good authority that the Independent Greens of Virginia would be willing to sponsor the first two.” As the dear leader of said organization, he would certainly be in a position to know.

  37. David Gaines Says:

    {{ Just look at the discourse on this thread, no wonder why the majority of America doesn’t take us seriously, look at how we treat each other. We truly deserve our failure. }}

    Speak for yourself. Referring to Barack Obama as a “socialist” and referring to Ralph Nader as “Ralph Fricken Nader”, among your other verbal gems, won’t exactly endear you to your left wing brothers and sisters in the 3rd party world, Mr. Englert.

  38. Anthony Says:

    As a moderate, I have to admit, the purists and Paulbots were right on this one. Barr has been an unmitigated disaster. We need to do whatever it takes to get him off the ballot as a Libertarian and replace him with someone more qualified, someone more appealing to the average voter

    Now, quick, does anyone know a pot smoker, a cranky old soft-core racist who hides in the Republican Party or a kiddie porn sympathizer who thinks age of consent laws are usless that we can get to take LP nod? Those are the sorts of people we want representing the LP, not a candidate with actual experience in politics who actually has the guts to be a Libertarian.

  39. David Englert Says:

    Mr. Gaines:
    I could care less about third parties, just because they are third parties, I was speaking to the Liberty vote, I thought I made the clear, but in case I didn’t let me spell it out, those who want the trend of government control in our lives reversed, and when I say that the third party types (not restricted to official third party types), I mean Libertarians, Constitution Party, Ron Paul supporters, libertarian leaning conservatives. Thank you on picking up on the fact I don’t wish to endear myself to parties or people who wish to increase government control over my life, the major parties will do that for the Greens, Socialists, Communists, It may not be as much regulation and control as they may want but its trending their way.

    I will be clear here as well Mr. Gaines, I will be happy to call my self a brother of an advocate of Liberty and if they happen to be a member of third party, then so be it. If however you Believe that the human condition is best severed by being bound to government in a ever increasing amounts, then you are not someone whom I would consider my brother, my friend, that includes in my experience “Progressives,” and all that the Progressive movement gave birth to, including socialism, Communists, brands of Fascism, and the modern day variety Liberal (modern day meaning,) Democrat, and Big Government Republicans, would be included among those. I am third party only because thats where the advocates of Liberty are, I am not third party for third party sake.

    I hope this makes thing clearer for you Mr. Gaines

  40. John Lowell Says:

    Want some heavy hitting takes on the Barr meltdown? Lew Rockwell’s blog continues its reporting on developments with this entry:

    “September 11, 2008
    Libertarian Endorsement of Bush
    Posted by Lew Rockwell at September 11, 2008 12:50 PM

    Who said this?

    “In times of crisis, strength in leadership requires boldness of character, clear direction and firm resolve. As we witnessed after the attacks of September 11th, President George W. Bush showed incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America.”
    John McCain?

    No, Barr campaign manager Russ Verney, in today’s Barr Campaign Update… (Thanks to Daniel)”

    Barr is such a schmegeggie! And Verney, Oy!

    Here’s Lew’s website:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com

    The blog is on the right side of the home page.

  41. Anthony Says:

    At first, I thought Barr not showing up at the press conference was a bad move. No matter the situation, I figured, just show up and stand there saying nothing, at the very least, to secure the Paul votes of course.

    Now with the purists so up in arms and going bonkers, I am not so sure. Anything that pisses them off is probably a good idea.

  42. Anthony Gregory Says:

    Hey Anthony, we purists ARE the Paul voters! There are more purists than “moderates” in this movement, and if an LP candidate can’t win the vote of the radicals, he’s not that great a politician.

    I voted for Harry in 2000, and Michael in 2004.

  43. Anthony Gregory Says:

    Also funny that we “purists” are being attacked when we’re the ones advocating ecumenicism. It’s wonderful than Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader were able to agree on the most important issues of our day, and to do so from a libertarian perspective. This is wonderful reaching out. But Barr has been too sectarian, putting the LP label above freedom, while also being too philosophically squishy, putting the LP label above libertarianism.

  44. Geoffrey the Liberator Says:

    We Brits like our bets. So who wants to take odds that Sir Barr gets more votes (I would gander perhaps twice) than the good doctor received in the primaries?

  45. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Anthony Gregory makes an excellent point.

    The Reform faction says we must be a “big tent” and “grow the party,” yet they don’t want to reach out to Greens, Constitutionalists, Nader independents.

    Radicals are the true big tent/principled faction.

    Barr/Root want to exclude most Americans, and shrink the party into collecting whatever scraps fall of the Republican’s table.

    My guess is Root is merely using the LP in hopes of securing a radio or TV talk show, perhaps on Fox News.

  46. Anthony Gregory Says:

    Paul got like 1.2 million votes. No way that Barr will get 2.4 million votes.

  47. Anthony Gregory Says:

    Thanks Thomas. I’m all about the big tent. The Ron Paul rally last week was very big tent, and yet a core of 10,000 people cheered a radical platform of opposing all aggressive war, drug prohibition, the income tax, the Fed, socialism, welfarism, corporatism, gun control, secret prisons, etc. The “moderates” were the radicals. But the paleocons and liberals did not mind being there too. It was a great sight.

    And of course we need a big tent. But the LP has been trying to be big tent in a way that alienates the principled faction. Without the libertarian soul of the party, the tent has no foundation and will collapse.

    If it’s “big tent” for Barr to praise fascist Jesse Helms and give him credit for ending Soviet Communism [!], certainly McKinney and Nader should fit in the tent, too. The tent should not only be opened rightward. (Although good rightists, like many in the Constitution Party, are allies, as far as I’m concerned. But not neocons.)

  48. A.G. Says:

    Although I’m going to vote for Barr, I do think it was a poor decision of him not to show up for this rally, especially when so many of his potential voters are Paul supporters.

    It was expected that Paul wasn’t going to endorse any one person. He’d alienate too many people.

  49. Anthony Gregory Says:

    Paul’s endorsement was right on: Anybody but McCain or Obama.

  50. LaineR Says:

    Barr’s campaign is dead, he has no chance at all of breaking a million votes without Paul’s support. The fact that Paul is appearing on television shows with Nader rather than Barr says a lot. Given Barr’s support of the Defense of Marriage Act, the War on Drugs and the Clinton impeachment I would say, Nader is more of a Libertarian than Barr.

  51. Jonathan Says:

    Here is a newsflash: Ron Paul is supporting all Third Party candidates.

    Bob Barr was awesome tonight on Lou Dobbs. You could tell Lou was happy to have him and enjoyed him more than when Lou had Nader in the previous segment
    Go Barr Go.
    It’s time for Libertarians and Americans to unite against the Two Party system. We have like 53 days left and we have rasied $892,000 and counting. I’m proud to say we Floridians have been donating a lot.
    Please make your donation to make these final days count.

  52. Anthony D. Says:

    Anthony Gregory’s point misses the point.

    “There are more purists than “moderates” in this movement,”

    Know what? There are MILLIONS more moderates in the electorate than there are purists. Playing to the purist base has resulted in almost total failure for the LP. And thats the problem with the purists. They think the party exists for their gratification, rather than as a vehicle to get votes in an effort to move this country in a libertarian direction. We are asking the american voter to vote LP, we have to appeal to them.

    Radicals want no part of a big tent. Radicals stand at the door of the tent, and reject ANYONE that doesn’t agree with them on 100% of the issues.

  53. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    AMEN to that Anthony.

  54. Mike Says:

    Has anyone seen this petition to remove Barr as the lp nominee? I didn’t know that many people stood so strongly against him.
    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RemoveBobBar/index.html

  55. Anthony D. Says:

    “I didn’t know that many people stood so strongly against him.”

    584 people is a lot of people to you, mike? You have to get out more often, dude. It took 62 million votes for George W to win the 2004 election. No party that actually wants to win elections can be concerned with what 584 malcontents think.

  56. jONATHAN Says:

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article4570.html

    give it a thumbs up and send a message to nolan chart who are a bunch of barr haters ( well the same handful every time)

  57. Derek Says:

    Barr really screwed up by not showing up for Paul’s announcement. What Libertarians need to understand is that we need to reach out to all Americans. Millions are moderates or independents and wouldn’t mind pulling the Libertarian lever down but we can’t hope for miracles if we don’t try to reach out to them. Paul didn’t lose yesterday, on the contrary, he’s gained respect.

  58. Mike Says:

    Hey Anthony, you jackass, it is alot of people for a little discrete petition no one really knew about. Go back to campaigning for Barr, he really needs it. More and more people are starting to stand against Barr, and he has to really prove himself if he wants the continued 3 or so percent in the national polls he’s been getting.

  59. Alex Merced Says:

    I’ll probably still vote Barr due to my alternatives, but I’m not liking Russ Verneys handling of the press conference and the letter mailed out. He made it sound too much about Barr and not so much about the country.

    I still like Barr, but it’s not about Barr and I think more people would be willing to vote for him if he embraced a more hopeful message that, “Bob Barr is the answer”.

    Kudos to Ron Paul, nothing but respect for his reaching across many aisles.

  60. jONATHAN Says:

    I just signed the petition to remove Barr 3 times under different names. As long as you put different email addresses you can make up anything. I just wanted to prove to myself this petition was a joke which it indeed was. BTW, of course I’m voting for Barr, I’m not a masochist. Why would I want the Libertarian Party to fail and ruin their chances for 2012. Say what you will about Barr, he will get enough votes that automatic ballot access and matching funds can be a reality in 2012.
    To those ideological teenagers who blogg: It’s easy to critisize strategies sitting down from your computer and it’s another thing being involved

  61. Brian Holtz Says:

    Thomas Sipos wrote:

    TS) The Reform faction says we must be a “big tent” and “grow the party,” yet they don’t want to reach out to Greens, Constitutionalists, Nader independents. (TS

    Reformers say the LP should have a tent big enough to include all libertarians—but not necessarily all non-conformists regardless of their principles. We’re the Party of Principle, not the Party of Iconoclasm. Even so, the reformer Platform that the Denver delegates adopted is more friendly to “Greens, Constitutionalists, and Nader independents” than the Restore04 platform that you petitioned them to adopt.

    TS) Radicals are the true big tent faction. (TS

    Yeah, and war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, etc.

    Anthony Gregory wrote:

    AG) The Ron Paul rally last week was very big tent (AG

    Really? The Rally FOR The Republic included no hint of tolerance for you anarchists, at least not in the speeches by Ron Paul and this guy named Lew Rockwell. Also, the TV and radio ads of the Paul campaign were embarrassingly right-wing—even to me. Ah, but Pope Ron Paul can do no wrong….

    AG) the LP has been trying to be big tent in a way that alienates the principled faction (AG

    Pretending there is only one “principled faction” is how your faction has been alienating all the rest. Sorry, but now all the principled schools of libertarianism get to sit at the grownups’ table.

    AG) Without the libertarian soul of the party, the tent has no foundation and will collapse. (AG

    A pole tightly wrapped in canvas is not a tent, and won’t stand anyway if its foundation is no wider than the pole itself.

    AG) If it’s “big tent” for Barr to praise fascist Jesse Helms and give him credit for ending Soviet Communism [...] (AG

    Strawman. Way to engage the ideas of LP reformers, Anthony. How intellectually courageous of you. Bravo.

    AG) The tent should not only be opened rightward. (AG

    The tent should be open to all who want both more personal freedom and more economic freedom.

Leave a Reply