Barr: Obama and McCain the real spoilers

[Alonzo]

(CNN) – Former Rep. Bob Barr, the newly-selected Libertarian presidential nominee, rejected suggestions Monday that he could spoil his former party's chances of holding onto the White House.

"There are two folks that are out to spoil the race here — it's Senator Obama and Senator McCain. They're setting out, I think, to spoil our chances," he told CNN's "American Morning."

He added, "There are millions of voters out there that are not going to vote for Senator McCain, and we aim to reach those voters with the message of smaller government and more individual liberty."

For years, Barr was a prominent Georgia Republican in the House. He played a leading role in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

His positions on some issues have left some Libertarians unsure about his candidacy. He opposed legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, supported the Patriot Act, and co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act.

While the Defense of Marriage Act was backed by opponents of gay marriage, and allowed states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, Barr told CNN Monday that it was a "very sound individualistic and states' rights policy."

And he said he has been working for five years "to either amend or repeal the Patriot Act because of the way it has been used and abused by the Bush administration to curtail the civil liberties of American citizens in this country. We can defend America without taking away civil liberties and privacy rights of American citizens, and we ought to be doing that."

He also supports U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

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.

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

The last two Libertarian presidential candidates, Michael Badnarik in 2004 and Harry Browne in 2000, drew fewer than 400,000 votes each. But Barr is a more prominent political figure, and his selection Sunday at the Libertarian National Convention in Denver is drawing more attention to the party.

He told CNN Monday he hopes to have his name on the ballot in all 50 states, and vowed, "We are going to launch a very vigorous campaign all across America."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/26/barr-obama-and-mccain-the-real-spoilers/

I think this is great. Of all the people running Bob Barr is the least likely, of all of them, to draw liberal votes away from the democratic party and the most likely, of all of them, to draw conservative votes away from the Republican party. He's going to help make up for the lack of appeal Obama has with more conservative democrats and independents.

[ViolaLee]

Here's the Republican's Ralph Nader! Congratulations!

[Osborn F. Enready]

The whole "spoiler" theory is bullshit, and comes directly from entitlement mentality.

These people act as if we should vote for them defacto.... as if there is no choice, a picture they try VERY hard to present.

Individuals vote, and they are all individual votes....nobody is "entitled" to those votes, and there is no such thing as a "spoiler" vote.

Newsflash....

There are over 70 officially recognized political parties in the U.S.

How can 2, 3 or 4 canidates claim ANYONE is a spoiler among them when there are 60+ parties not represented at all in most any given election?!?!?

If anything, politics has been spoiled by the 2 major parties, basicly outlawing any valid competition to them..... but God forbid anyone notice the reality when the pundits and talking heads have so much more drama and backstabbing involved in their "spoiler" and "less of two evils" voting philosophy which they play to and espouse 24-7 on their bought and sold news networks.

[NortheastCynic]

Amen Osborn. The arrogance of the two parties is astounding. I wonder, what percentage of the vote would third party candidates win if everyone who doesn't vote 3rd party because it's 'throwing their vote away' voted their conscience.

-NC

[Wndrtch]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/26/barr-obama-and-mccain-the-real-spoilers/

I think this is great. Of all the people running Bob Barr is the least likely, of all of them, to draw liberal votes away from the democratic party and the most likely, of all of them, to draw conservative votes away from the Republican party. He's going to help make up for the lack of appeal Obama has with more conservative democrats and independents.

{sigh}

I have to agree with you, you're right. Bob Barr will pull-off pissed-off conservatives.

This is the weirdest election cycle I've ever seen. The Dems started off like it was theirs to loose, and it's like they've been trying to do just that for months. So, the republican nominee, who wasn't even on the radar a few months ago, is starting to gain momentum against the DNC rival, yet now we have Mr. Barr (a former republican and a conservative kind'a guy) coming out to spoil the RNC chances!

It's like both parties are in a race to see who can loose the election in the biggest way!

WTF!! :help:

[Alonzo]

Amen Osborn. The arrogance of the two parties is astounding. I wonder, what percentage of the vote would third party candidates win if everyone who doesn't vote 3rd party because it's 'throwing their vote away' voted their conscience.

-NC

No third party is broad enough to present a serious challenge to the main two. They're too ideological and focused on their base, and if they were not they would loose their current base.

But, ok, if what you suggested were to happen it would kill the presidential chances of the closer party. So, for example, if the greens were to be a strong party then the democratic party would be dead in the presidential elections, all but assuring the republican party victory election after election. If the libertarian party were large it would likely do the same to the republican party, assuring the democrats are elected year after year.

Neither party would ever overtake the democrats or republicans, but they would destroy their ability to win a national election.

[NortheastCynic]

I don't recall saying they'd win the Presidency, Zo. The two-party system and its structural support [electoral college] would have to be reformed in order for a third party candidate to have a chance in a Presidential election.

-NC

[Wndrtch]

I don't recall saying they'd win the Presidency, Zo. The two-party system and its structural support [electoral college] would have to be reformed in order for a third party candidate to have a chance in a Presidential election.

-NC

Personally, I would go with a "No-party" system. Get rid of party affiliation entirely, and have a simple run-off primary to narrow down to the top two candidates. Then, the electorate would have to focus on candidate issues and policies, instead of running with whatever name is in front of the "R" or 'D".

This "team-spirit" crap is what's ruining our Republic.

[NortheastCynic]

I agree, Wndrtch. Get rid of the party system and instant run-off would be a good alternative. Sadly, it would require major party candidates willingly loosening their strangle-hold on American electoral politics. Both are entirely too corrupt to do so.

-NC

[Wndrtch]

I agree, Wndrtch. Get rid of the party system and instant run-off would be a good alternative. Sadly, it would require major party candidates willingly loosening their strangle-hold on American electoral politics. Both are entirely too corrupt to do so.

-NC

I bet you could get it done, if we do something similar to the "Contract with America". Detail a platform around the idea of over-hauling the political process. Then, find candidates in every state that want to run for Congress/Senate, and sign the platform charter. Then run a National campaign and direct people to your website where voters can see who to vote for in their states. As these politicians go out in their communities and speak, so long as they all have the same message, you should be able to make some gains.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Wndrtch said:
Personally, I would go with a "No-party" system. Get rid of party affiliation entirely, and have a simple run-off primary to narrow down to the top two candidates.

I agree. Did anyone here watch the Libertarian Party nominations? They use a run-off type of system in the nomination process and it works very well. I would love to see, and have and will continue to support IRV with verifiable paper receipts for national and local elections.

This however, would work directly against the two-party monopoly the two major parties have worked so long and hard to put in place, so expecting their help and support is like wishing in the wind. People have to get together and demand it be done before it will be done.

Wndrtch said:
Then, the electorate would have to focus on candidate issues and policies, instead of running with whatever name is in front of the "R" or 'D".

I agree. Hell, you should see how bad Ohios voting system is messed up.

If you are registered as a particular party, the ballots ONLY SUPPLY YOU THE OPTION to vote for that party in any contest that that party has a canidate in. I am non-partisan, but I registered this year as Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary. Since I did that, my ballot only showed Republican candidates, unless none were running for that office in question......

Its criminal, and unfairly, unjustly limits choice to benefit the two party system.

Wndrtch said:
This "team-spirit" crap is what's ruining our Republic.

Most of it was created and foisted on the public by the same two parties that have controlled every aspect of this nations legal system and government for the past 158 years, from the gerrymandering and ballot access restrictions to the blatant denial to assure fair voting, equal representation to all parties who field candidates, or any valid attempts at vote reform.

Both parties are tore-up from the floor up, and now their partisan appointments fill the court and threaten our original intent, our constitution and most importantly our bill of rights, and they should all (republican and democrats) be evicted from office through impeachment or any legal means necessary for failing to speak out on the corruption if they have not AND not been complicit.

[Wndrtch]

I agree. Did anyone here watch the Libertarian Party nominations? They use a run-off type of system in the nomination process and it works very well. I would love to see, and have and will continue to support IRV with verifiable paper receipts for national and local elections.

This however, would work directly against the two-party monopoly the two major parties have worked so long and hard to put in place, so expecting their help and support is like wishing in the wind. People have to get together and demand it be done before it will be done.



I agree. Hell, you should see how bad Ohios voting system is messed up.

If you are registered as a particular party, the ballots ONLY SUPPLY YOU THE OPTION to vote for that party in any contest that that party has a canidate in. I am non-partisan, but I registered this year as Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary. Since I did that, my ballot only showed Republican candidates, unless none were running for that office in question......

Its criminal, and unfairly, unjustly limits choice to benefit the two party system.



Most of it was created and foisted on the public by the same two parties that have controlled every aspect of this nations legal system and government for the past 158 years, from the gerrymandering and ballot access restrictions to the blatant denial to assure fair voting, equal representation to all parties who field candidates, or any valid attempts at vote reform.

Both parties are tore-up from the floor up, and now their partisan appointments fill the court and threaten our original intent, our constitution and most importantly our bill of rights, and they should all (republican and democrats) be evicted from office through impeachment or any legal means necessary for failing to speak out on the corruption if they have not AND not been complicit.

Holy shit! WE'RE AGREEING! WOW! :shock:

Ok, so how do we go about getting this done? You and me, baby, we'll fix the Republic so we can all be as proud to be an American as Michelle!

(sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation to throw that out there :evil:. It's not because I vote republican/conservative, but because I'm a humorist that I do what I do.)

[Alonzo]

I agree. Did anyone here watch the Libertarian Party nominations? They use a run-off type of system in the nomination process and it works very well. I would love to see, and have and will continue to support IRV with verifiable paper receipts for national and local elections.


So you support delegates electing the nominee and not the people?

Interesting.

[PatrickHenry]

An ideologically strong third Party will begin to ram potent ideas into the body politic.

The time for smaller, less intrusive government is upon us.

Regardless that there are still big government advocates stalking the land, there are majorities beginning to groove to the message.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Hey Alonzo, did you notice WHY I asked if you saw the nomination? I was talking about the RUNOFF method, nothing else.

Why assume the extreme in my case so often, when so often your wrong in doing so?

Wndrtch said:
Holy shit! WE'RE AGREEING! WOW!

;) It has been rare lately, hasn't it...

Wndrtch said:
Ok, so how do we go about getting this done?

Stop voting for either party, start pestering those who sit in office to do their jobs, or demand they be held accountable, impeach those you can, and attempt to get those who can be brought around to the gravity of the problem to work together with like minds to demand accountability from those who sit in office, or seek the method to remove them.

It ain't easy, but nothing thats worth doing ever is. ;)

We have a Libertarian Radio Host in Toledo, Ohio now on NewsTalk 1370 that is has been making great strides in bringing people out to demand action from their elected officials. Brian Wilson, is rightfully so, destroying Mayor Carty Finkbeiners creditbility and electability due to his flawed logic, ill decisions, ignorance or denial of public input, and terrible examples of his public policy and enforcement of same.

http://www.brianwilson.net/




Wndrtch said:
You and me, baby, we'll fix the Republic so we can all be as proud to be an American as Michelle!

LOL....

[Alonzo]

Hey Alonzo, did you notice WHY I asked if you saw the nomination? I was talking about the RUNOFF method, nothing else.

Why assume the extreme in my case so often, when so often your wrong in doing so?

I saw the reports, I heard Gravel was pissed.

But why don't you ever criticize the Libertarian for the anti-Democratic way they have of electing their nominee?

[Osborn F. Enready]

You assume because I haven't here, I never have?

I am non-partisan, for one thing.

I have many griefs with the Libertarian Party, but none equate to an ant hill compared to the griefs and provable corruption within the two major parties, so I don't see it as "relevant" enough to make a big deal about when there are many, exponentially bigger fish to fry.

Things won't change unless you, the people, speak up.

[Alonzo]

The libertarian party, the party of freedom, not allowing the voters to determine the nominee is not "relevant enough"?

[Wndrtch]

An ideologically strong third Party will begin to ram potent ideas into the body politic.

The time for smaller, less intrusive government is upon us.

Regardless that there are still big government advocates stalking the land, there are majorities beginning to groove to the message.

IMO, I don't think adding a third party will help anything, and may just compound the problem further. Mostly because the divide-down is spread across three groups, instead of just two.

[PatrickHenry]

The question is, Wndrtch...how do ideas that resonate with the public make it into political discourse?

I want to talk about smaller government.

Who is my candidate?

[Wndrtch]

The question is, Wndrtch...how do ideas that resonate with the public make it into political discourse?

I want to talk about smaller government.

Who is my candidate?

The same way it does now. If there is truely voter support for an idea, then there is an opportunity for a politician to be it's standard-bearer. Once that person brings it to Washington, the "No Party" system would make it easier for other politicians to support it, because they will not be hyper-focused on "team-spirit" "D" & "R" BS.

Let's say I were a politician, and the issue of Gay Marriage comes up. Eventho I may be a republican, I may feel differently about this issue and want to support the gay community. In the current system, because there are two massive organizations that control most of the money for individual politicians, I'm told to vote a certain way, or loose party support the next time I'm up for re-election.

In the No Party system, there would be no large RNC/DNC controlling the money. Responsibility would fall to the individual politician to raise his own cash. Then, he would be in control of his own fate, because no one could threaten to hold back funding.

[bishop]

the only republican in the primaries who truly supported small government was ron paul... only problem was that the rino's can't give up their thirst for war.

[Wndrtch]

the only republican in the primaries who truly supported small government was ron paul... only problem was that the rino's can't give up their thirst for war.

The problem with Ron Paul is he's a nut-case.

Even a nut-case can be right on a subject or two, but they are still a nut-case

[PatrickHenry]

The subject he was talking about is the CENTRAL issue, however.

And the other candidates avoid it like the plague.

So the only way it can be addressed is through a third party candidacy.

Unless you are prepared to reveal the mechanism by which the dominant party apparatus can be demolished.

[bishop]

calling him a nutcase is definitely the most intelligent counter-argument to paul's candidacy - and one i've seen quite often on this forum....

[Osborn F. Enready]

WndRtch said:
The problem with Ron Paul is he's a nut-case.

Wow, compelling case you have there, and it is obviously backed up with solid evidence and sources....... pffft.

What a shame that political dialogue is reduced to hollow insults with no proof whatsoever.

[Truth_and_Power]

I bet you could get it done, if we do something similar to the "Contract with America". Detail a platform around the idea of over-hauling the political process. Then, find candidates in every state that want to run for Congress/Senate, and sign the platform charter. Then run a National campaign and direct people to your website where voters can see who to vote for in their states. As these politicians go out in their communities and speak, so long as they all have the same message, you should be able to make some gains.

So all we have to do is elect non-Demopublican senators/reps from all 50 states and then a non-demopublican president, and we can change the system. Wow, now that you put it that way, it sounds easy!

[namguy]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/26/barr-obama-and-mccain-the-real-spoilers/

I think this is great. Of all the people running Bob Barr is the least likely, of all of them, to draw liberal votes away from the democratic party and the most likely, of all of them, to draw conservative votes away from the Republican party. He's going to help make up for the lack of appeal Obama has with more conservative democrats and independents.

He doesn't have a shot.

[AlanC]

Personally, I would go with a "No-party" system. Get rid of party affiliation entirely, and have a simple run-off primary to narrow down to the top two candidates. Then, the electorate would have to focus on candidate issues and policies, instead of running with whatever name is in front of the "R" or 'D".

This "team-spirit" crap is what's ruining our Republic.

This continues the myth that we have an electorate and that was intended to vote for the president.

The orginal way would still be the best if we hadn't kept trying to butcher a system that was brilliant in its construct.

A slate of candidates presented to the states and then the electoral votes counted. The man with the most votes wins the presidency and the man with the second most becomes the vice president.

That is a system of checks and balances that was a hedge against the capture of political power that we see now.