Bob Barr becomes Libertarian '08 candidate

[Alonzo]

(CNN) -- Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr was officially nominated Sunday as the Libertarian candidate for president.

"We have only 163 days to win this election -- do not waste one single day," Barr told supporters at the Libertarian National Convention in Denver, Colorado.

Barr is best known for playing a prominent role in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

His candidacy has attracted more attention to the Libertarian Party, with some GOP observers watching to see whether Barr will draw votes away from the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, in the general election.

"We're not in this race to make a point, though a very important point will be made," Barr said.

On the sixth ballot at the convention, Barr won the nomination over research scientist Mary Ruwart. After going out on the fifth ballot, fellow candidate Wayne Allyn Root urged his supporters to back Barr and made his case to be Barr's vice presidential running mate.

Barr, 59, left the Republican Party in 2006, and announced in April that he would form a presidential exploratory committee. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1994 and represented a conservative district in the Atlanta suburbs for four terms.

After the House impeached Clinton over his attempt to cover up his affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Barr served as one of the "managers" who prosecuted the case in the Senate. Senators ultimately acquitted Clinton in 1999.

Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, faces Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

In his last term, Barr became an increasingly vocal critic of President Bush, particularly criticizing the administration's support of the anti-terrorist Patriot Act.

Like former Libertarian standard-bearer Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who sought the GOP presidential nomination this year, Barr supports a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Barr has said the 5-year-old war has resulted in "tremendous cost and only the most speculative of benefit."

He worked as an occasional contributor and analyst for CNN after leaving office.

The last two Libertarian candidates, Michael Badnarik in 2004 and Harry Browne in 2000, drew fewer than 400,000 votes each.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/25/barr.election/

0aBzYh1urRU

[NortheastCynic]

Oy.

-NC

[Buck Laser]

I think he's just a lovely candidate for the libertarians. Someone everybody can love, don'cha know?:madlaugh:

[PatrickHenry]

Reducing federal revenues and expenditures is essential for the continuity of government.

[micfranklin]

So there's a chance we might have 3 names on the ballot? About fucking time.

[hungarianflower]

So there's a chance we might have 3 names on the ballot? About fucking time.

Haven't we always?

I don't understand how Libertarians chose Bob Barr as their nominee. From what I understand, he's flip-flopped on just about everything ...

Wasn't the guy completely in support of the War on Drugs? Isn't that directly contradicting the Libertarian stance?

He also voted to go to war in Iraq (he's since changed his position).

He voted in support of the PATRIOT Act (he's since changed his position).

And he wanted to ban the practice of the Wicca religion in the military ... I mean come on how LIBERTarian is THAT?!

[Buck Laser]

Haven't we always?

I don't understand how Libertarians chose Bob Barr as their nominee. From what I understand, he's flip-flopped on just about everything ...

Wasn't the guy completely in support of the War on Drugs? Isn't that directly contradicting the Libertarian stance?

He also voted to go to war in Iraq (he's since changed his position).

He voted in support of the PATRIOT Act (he's since changed his position).

And he wanted to ban the practice of the Wicca religion in the military ... I mean come on how LIBERTarian is THAT?!
I think it just demonstrates that Barr is a whore who wants to get elected. He was one of those (I think) who blathered about Clinton's immorality until his own misbehavior came to light. Frankly the misbehavior doesn't bother me nearly as much as the self-righteiousness.

[PatrickHenry]

I think it just demonstrates that Barr is a whore who wants to get elected. He was one of those (I think) who blathered about Clinton's immorality until his own misbehavior came to light. Frankly the misbehavior doesn't bother me nearly as much as the self-righteiousness.Hmm.. for a guy who objects to a nasty label for your candidate, you sure are quick to sling mud at someone else...

Human nature, I guess.

OK, let me put this another way, Buck. Like right into your face:

If Barr's a whore, Obama is a traitor.

There! How does that grab ya?

[Alonzo]

Male whores get praised, traitors get shot.

Uh oh, the Obama police are going to arrest you pat!

[PatrickHenry]

Male whores get praised, traitors get shot.

Uh oh, the Obama police are going to arrest you pat!

Heh! I just said that to ignite Buck's notoriously short fuse about Obie!

I don't really hate him...don't arrest me!

[ViolaLee]

Good job! The Republicans have their very own Ralph Nader. Congratulations!

[Buck Laser]

Heh! I just said that to ignite Buck's notoriously short fuse about Obie!

I don't really hate him...don't arrest me!
It's the word traitor that I have a short fuse about, PH. You seem to use that term to describe anyone whose policies you disagree with. I don't recall anyone dying and delegating the power to decide who is a traitor and who isn't. Sorry, but treason is too powerful word to toss around so freely, IMO.

As to Bob Barr, you deserve what you got. :clapper:

[PatrickHenry]

It's the word traitor that I have a short fuse about, PH. You seem to use that term to describe anyone whose policies you disagree with...Nah, that's Osborn, not me. I am just jerking your chain grampaw...

[NortheastCynic]

I don't get it either Hungarian Flower. This libertarian however, does not welcome Barr to our party. I don't recognize him as a libertarian for the simple reason that he isn't one.

I've said it here and elsewhere before, Barr is a fraud.

It doesn't matter though, I've been committed for a few months now to vote for Lastings Milledge for President.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Northeast, the libertarian party is going through the process of "selling out". No one liked their old message, so they've adopted a new, non-libertarian leader to advocate a non-libertarian message in the hopes of getting more votes, and it will almost certainly work. Whether it will "work" in the sense of getting 1 or 2% of the vote, or more like 6-10% has yet to be seen.

Idealists have no place in politics, and idealist parties, such as the libertarians, tend to toss aside those people when they want to be taken seriously.

[PatrickHenry]

Northeast, the libertarian party is going through the process of "selling out". No one liked their old message, so they've adopted a new, non-libertarian leader to advocate a non-libertarian message in the hopes of getting more votes, and it will almost certainly work. Whether it will "work" in the sense of getting 1 or 2% of the vote, or more like 6-10% has yet to be seen.

Idealists have no place in politics, and idealist parties, such as the libertarians, tend to toss aside those people when they want to be taken seriously.
You're quite mistaken, and here we see the lies of the liberals that will be smeared upon the Libertarian Party's candidate in their desperation to grab the White House once again for their Democratic Party of Disaster.

[Alonzo]

Actually pat there isn't a better choice for the libertarian party. Obama isn't a good choice for democrats who actually want to win the election, so I'm glad to receive assistance in doing so from Bob Barr and the libertarian party. There's a good chance he'll need Barr to do well if he wants to beat McCain.

[PatrickHenry]

Actually pat there isn't a better choice for the libertarian party. Obama isn't a good choice for democrats who actually want to win the election, so I'm glad to receive assistance in doing so from Bob Barr and the libertarian party. There's a good chance he'll need Barr to do well if he wants to beat McCain.I see...that's why you immediately attack Barr... :sick:

[Alonzo]

Pat, I'm being honest. I was honest in post #15 with regards to the libertarian party, and I was honest in post #17 with regards to the democratic party. His nomination means different things to different people.

[SouthernLadyGA]

Bob Barr's Real Record (I)
A hurried attempt to shed some light on Bob Barr's alleged "anti-libertarian" record in Congress.by George Dance
(Libertarian)
Thursday, May 22, 2008

I. Barr the "anti-libertarian"

When Bob Barr announced his candidacy for the Libertarian presidential nomination on May 12, I wondered how long it would take for the "A" word to come out. By my best reckoning, it took exactly one week.
The first mention of it I read was from it was Susan Hogarth of the Radical Caucus (and in the running for a National Committee slot at the convention), who on May 9 released an Open Letter criticizing Barr's "antilibertarian congressional record and disinclination to fully repudiate it". Since then, many other voices have joined in to form a mighty crescendo; the libertarian portion of the web has been dominated with talk of Barr's "antilibertarian" record.

There is some substance to the charge, but far less than appears on the surface. Unfortunately, what is on the surface has been largely accepted uncritically; I fear that even Barr boosters now accept the line that Barr's entire record in Congress was one of attacking and suppressing liberty.

This article, and its companion, is a small attempt to set the record straight. Due to time constraints (the Denver convention starts tomorrow) it is written in a hurry; much of it could benefit from a few days' revision and better documentation. Rest assured, though, that I have researched the subject, and will be happy to pursue the subject at length at leisure if there is interest.

So, on to the first part: to examine the evidence for Barr's "anti-libertarianism" and seek clarity on what the radicals in the Libertarian Party like Ms Hogarth are now asking him to "repudiate". In order, with the most serious charge first:

Barr was a drug warrior
That is the most substantive charge, and the one that definitely distinguishes Barr from, for example, Ron Paul. Now, we are told, Barr has changed his mind. But on what? Not on drugs, for sure; he has not suddenly become an advocate of drug use. What he has changed his mind on, since 9/11, is the federal war on drugs. He now sees greater danger in giving the federal government the power to fight the drug war, than he does in ending the war.

That is not my position by any means -- I see little danger from ending the drug war -- but I can live with it. I recognize that a great many Americans have a phobia about drugs, and that traditional libertarian arguments have done nothing to sway them. Barr's advantage is that he can speak those voters' language; he may be able to recruit voters that would otherwise pay no attention, and enroll them in ending the federal Drug War. In that regard, his past record is a plus.

Barr voted for the PATRIOT Act
Many radical libertarians will tell you that Barr voted for the PATRIOT Act. What they will not tell you is that Barr initially opposed that Act, and took the lead in building the coalition that fought it. So why did he vote in favor? As part of a deal, in which he received two things: first, assurances that the Act would be used only in terrorism cases; and second, amendments under which the most onerous provisions of the Act would expire in five years unless re-authorized.

Sure, the assurances turned out to be bogus, and the Act has been re-authorized for another five years. But what would have been the better alternative? To have voted no, and had the Act pass with no such assurances, and no sunset? That may have made him feel good inside, but what else would it have accomplished?

Barr voted to use force in Iraq
The Iraq war was sold by lies: Lies not just about what Saddam Hussein planned to do, but about what George Bush was up to. The Iraq war was sold as a military operation to take out Hussein, declare "Mission Accomplished," and go home. Occupying Iraq, much less the neocon nation building going on there right now, were things Congress never authorized. Nor did Barr vote for either occupation or nation building; he has always opposed nation building, as does Ron Paul (and as did George Bush, on the surface, at the time).

Barr was anti-immigrant
On V-Dare.com, Marcus Epstein summarized Barr's immigration record quite nicely: "A look at his Numbers USA grades, shows only a few weak spots in supporting guest worker programs for nurses and agricultural workers. Even in this area, he cosponsored legislation to halve H-1B visas. In every other area, he took the lead in promoting sensible immigration policies. Barr co-sponsored legislation to end birthright citizenship, eliminate chain migration, and cut legal immigration to 300,000 people a year. On enforcement, Barr voted repeatedly to put troops on the border, signed a letter opposing Bush's amnesty when it was first proposed in 2001 and fought against 245(i) and other mini-amnesties."

Except for the proposals to cut legal immigration and put troops on the border, this could all have come from Ron Paul's 2008 platform. And Paul did support putting troops on the border (to replace the Border Patrol, which he wanted to abolish) at the time as well.

Barr was a homophobic bigot
Some of the strongest opposition to Barr comes from the sizeable gay bloc in the Libertarian Party, due to his authorship of the Defense of Marriage Act. Here is how Ron Paul described that Act in a Sept. 30, 2004 speech to the House:

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a "same sex" marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction.

But, Ms Hogarth asks, what about the other part of the Act, which defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of a man and a woman? Well, as Paul points out in the same speech, "government did not create the institution of marriage.... Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society." Within those customs and practices, marriage has always been defined as a man/woman union. Bob Barr did not make it up, nor did the federal government impose it. What DoMA did was recognize that traditional definition, and protect it from a redefinition by any future Supreme Court (which would have been an imposed one).

Of course, Paul also opposes a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) enshrining that definition in the constitution. Here is his take on that from the same speech: "I agree with the assessment of former Congressman Bob Barr, who authored the Defense of Marriage Act: "The very fact that the FMA was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington." Yes, "Bigot" Bob Barr also opposed the FMA. But you will not hear that from the gay Barr-bashers.

Barr was against freedom of religion
The evidence for this is a May, 1999, press release titled, "Barr Demands End to Taxpayer-Funded Witchcraft on American Military Bases," which I have not read, which Barr purportedly wrote after watching an episode of The O'Reilly Factor which I have not seen. Nor do I think that it deserves any serious investigation; the suggestion that a press release violates the First Amendment (which is how the story was treated) does not deserve to be taken seriously. The First Amendment applies to legislation; I have seen no evidence that Barr ever proposed any.

Barr was a racist
The single piece of evidence for this is that, in 1998, Barr addressed a meeting of the Council of Concerned Citizens, a group exposed (originally by the Southern Poverty Law Center) as a "neoconfederate" organisation. Really? What did he say? No quotes have been provided. One would expect some damning racist quotes to have been produced, if there were any. As for the SPLC expose of the group: I have read it, and it sounds very much like the similar SPLC expose of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. IOW, race-baiting pure and simple; something that all Ron Paul supporters are familiar with, thanks to Jamie Kirchick's efforts last January, and something I certainly hope that Libertarians (who have too often been the targets) will refuse to take seriously.

Barr was a Republican
That is undeniably true: Barr ran, and served as a Republican. Does that make him an "anti-libertarian"? For some, yes. For example, George Phillies, who explained his position in 2007, telling one newspaper that ""Ron Paul is a Republican. Ron Paul is lending credence to a party that is anti-libertarian".

Would all radical libertarians who are now using the same line against Barr also apply it consistently to Paul (the 1988 Libertarian nominee for President)? Or Roger Macbride, the 1976 nominee?

As importantly, would they say the same thing about any Republicans who, as a result of the Ron Paul rEVOLution, would join them today? Would they welcome those people as new libertarians, or bar the door to them? Which is more important to them: growing the Libertarian Party by welcoming new blood, or keeping that blood supply "pure" by keeping new members out?

Oh, but Barr (through his PAC) still gives money to Republicans. Yes, he does. Is there any American involved with the Ron Paul rEVOLution who has not given money to a Republican candidate this year?

That is certainly an offer that the rEVOLution can, and will, refuse.

[NortheastCynic]

Zo, I don't necessarily disagree with you. What we'll never agree on is this: libertarians aren't 'idealists'. Libertarianism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive.

-NC

[DANG]

Zo's article:Barr is best known for playing a prominent role in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.Thats not exactly a glowing endorsment. Wasnt that a collossal failure... politically and financially? MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars for a BLOW JOB?!? And slick willy was acquitted in the end. Way to Go Bob!!:thumbsup:

He had a perfect opportunity for a justifiable impeachment just recently.


This is funny. Borat interviews Bob Barr:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPn4mlFycpI
:clapper::lmao::madlaugh::clapper:

[NortheastCynic]

In addition, Zo. "No one liked their old ideas" is a bit strong for two reasons. One, I would be willing to bet close to a majority of our fellow countrymen have no idea what libertarians stand for on most issues. Two, the LP didn't change they're platform this year, they just selected an un-Libertarian candidate, huge difference. The Party's ideas are the same, its candidate's views just don't match up with it. I've been saying it for years, the LP needs to focus on electing a pro-liberty moderate to one Congressional district. It needs to slowly make the country comfortable with a Libertarian Congressmen [Americans don't like change, it makes me giggle that they've bullshitted themselves into thinking they do this election cycle] and then work from there. After we've had some time in gov't, then we can start 'libertarianizing' [making up words is fun].

-NC

[DANG]

Ron Paul running mate?

[hungarianflower]

Hmm.. for a guy who objects to a nasty label for your candidate, you sure are quick to sling mud at someone else...

Human nature, I guess.

OK, let me put this another way, Buck. Like right into your face:

If Barr's a whore, Obama is a traitor.

There! How does that grab ya?

What is UP with this forum? Why can't we talk about the real issues for once?
Why did you choose to ignore my post in order to bicker like this about a non-issue?

[hungarianflower]

SouthernLady, you have a point with the Patriot Act. I knew that Barr demanded amendments to the document but I wasn't sure what they were.

I'm having difficult understanding the whole rationale behind the Defense of Marriage act, though ... so he voted for it because he wanted to preserve state's rights? I guess I can see how that would benefit both sides.

[hungarianflower]

DANG, I had no idea that was Bob Barr in Borat! That is ... HILARIOUS!

[Alonzo]

In addition, Zo. "No one liked their old ideas" is a bit strong for two reasons. One, I would be willing to bet close to a majority of our fellow countrymen have no idea what libertarians stand for on most issues. Two, the LP didn't change they're platform this year, they just selected an un-Libertarian candidate, huge difference. The Party's ideas are the same, its candidate's views just don't match up with it. I've been saying it for years, the LP needs to focus on electing a pro-liberty moderate to one Congressional district. It needs to slowly make the country comfortable with a Libertarian Congressmen [Americans don't like change, it makes me giggle that they've bullshitted themselves into thinking they do this election cycle] and then work from there. After we've had some time in gov't, then we can start 'libertarianizing' [making up words is fun].

Ya, but how are you going to get there? Telling people all the things you won't fund doesn't go very far. Even Ron Paul knows that.

[NortheastCynic]

As I said, find one Congressional district that you believe would be the most likely to vote in a libertarian. Pour money into it [instead of deluding ourselves with national campaigns], campaign heavily, give people information, etc. etc. Baby steps. When a Libertarian gets elected [through this technique, it would happen, eventually], then you try to go national.

Libertarianism is a little more than 'things we won't fund' as well, Zo, you know that. Social/legal tolerance, pro-legal immigration, pro-flat tax etc. would go over well in several Congressional districts, especially after they've been educated as to what libertarianism is.

-NC