Bob Barr flip flops on Defense of Marriage Act overnight

[Alonzo]

Some pundits have observed that former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr, now running for the presidency as the Libertarian Party candidate, could siphon off votes from John McCain. But could he turn out to actually take some votes that might have gone to the Democratic nominee?

And just how did Barr go -- in a time span of roughly 48 hours -- from defending the Defense Marriage Act, which he wrote in 1996, to vowing to push for its repeal?

On the Friday afternoon before last (May 23), Barr came on my radio program to talk about his run for the presidency. The Libertarian Party was convening that weekend in Denver, and he was hopeful that he would get the nomination.

We spent some time discussing DOMA, which he authored and sponsored in 1996 and which Bill Clinton signed into law. He'd come out a few years ago against an amendment to the U.S. Constitution barring gays from marrying, largely because he felt DOMA took care of the problem: states would not have to recognize gay marriages from other states if they didn't want to do so. On the show, he supported the California Supreme Court decision of two weeks ago based on the fact that California exercised its sovereign right and that other states would not have to recognize the marriages because of DOMA. We went back and forth about DOMA, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, and how, in my view, his position just didn't gel with libertarian principles. Nonetheless, he staunchly defended DOMA.

Then, two days later, in his acceptance speech after snagging the Libertarian Party nomination, Barr vowed that he would work to repeal DOMA!

What the hell happened? According to Brian Miller, a Libertarian Party member and a member of Outright Libertarians, an LGBT group, Barr was told he wouldn't get the nomination unless he changed his position on DOMA. Outright Libertarians led the charge with the leadership to pressure Barr; Miller is a listener to my show and heard me comparing audio clips showing Barr's turnaround, and called in last week to explain what happened behind the scenes at the convention.

Listen in to the clip below of Barr on my program. And then watch the vid-clip of him accepting the Libertarian nomination two days later to see the flip-flop for yourself.

http://signorile2003.blogspot.com/2008/06/bob-barrs-curious-flip-flop-some.html

To see what he said on the 23rd click the link above, the embedded audio is halfway down the page.

This is what he said on the 25th:

pz-VZgVTJdQ

On May 25th he argued for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and he points out he argued this the previous night, meaning May 24th. But on the 23rd he argued for the DOFA act, meaning between the 23rd and 24th, overnight, he flip flopped on the issue.

[PatrickHenry]

Likely he has been rethinking it in light of some values he prioritizes presently.

[Alonzo]

In one day?

[PatrickHenry]

Maybe there were some provisions he has rethought.

[Alonzo]

Like getting the nomination?

What the hell happened? According to Brian Miller, a Libertarian Party member and a member of Outright Libertarians, an LGBT group, Barr was told he wouldn't get the nomination unless he changed his position on DOMA. Outright Libertarians led the charge with the leadership to pressure Barr; Miller is a listener to my show and heard me comparing audio clips showing Barr's turnaround, and called in last week to explain what happened behind the scenes at the convention.


And that's repeated elsewhere:

But according to Brian Miller, a Pennsylvanian active with Outright Libertarians, an LGBT caucus within the party, Barr had to endure considerable re-education, including on matters of gay rights. Miller, who first began to talking to Barr about DOMA a year ago, said the former Republican knew he could not lead the Libertarian Party if he wasn't willing to change on some long-cherished positions.

Libertarians don't think government should be in the business of marriage at all, but also recognize that as long as the institution exists, it must not discriminate, Miller explained. So, there was Barr on Sunday, already a new convert to legalizing marijuana, in front of a crowd of Libertarians in Denver making a barnstormer of a speech against the Defense of Marriage Act.

http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19729874&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=569342&rfi=6

The libertarians finally got the whore they've always wanted.

[PatrickHenry]

The libertarians finally got the whore they've always wanted.Translation: libertarians are whores; good Democrats are not whores... :ecstatic:

[Alonzo]

Never said that. Libertarians just finally realized what they've always been missing, a good whore who will say whatever he needs to say to get ahead. Major parties have them, and now the libertarians have one too.

[NortheastCynic]

As I've been saying since the beginning, Bob Barr is a fraud.

He's doing a good job of proving me right.

I understand what the LP was trying to do, but a faux-libertarian, GOP politician is the wrong move.

-NC

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree NEC.

[bishop]

of course, the thing that zo doesn't seem to realize is that libertarians aren't lining up to vote for these sorts of "whores" - unlike the mindless sheep who consistently vote for the two-party establishment.

and speaking of whores, anyone catch obama's speech to aipac? only one who could've beaten him in pandering to israel would've been dear old hillary.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree Bishop.

Thats another thing most people don't notice....

McCain, Hillary and Obama are all PRO-CFR, PRO-Israel WELFARE FUND, etc, etc, etc,.

A constant state of denial, the sheeple lives in. (as Yoda would say)

[bishop]

i take issue with the overt hypocrisy of the whole thing (i.e. this thread). i don't see where someone who openly supports political whores can complain about other politicians who do the same. talk about having zero credibility or a leg to stand on...

[Alonzo]

i take issue with the overt hypocrisy of the whole thing (i.e. this thread). i don't see where someone who openly supports political whores can complain about other politicians who do the same. talk about having zero credibility or a leg to stand on...

The distinction is that I don't rail against them and demonize politicians for every little purely political statement. Notice that the bulk of my criticism is of the hypocrisy of his libertarian supporters, and less of the flip flop itself.

[bishop]

where's the hypocrisy of his supporters? are there even any people here who support barr?

sure seems like you're grasping at straws.

[4Reaganomics]

Why doesn't the LP simply let members vote on the nominee? At that point we would get to see who the majority of Libertarians identify with.

I'm beginning to think that they aren't going to vote for anyone that they don't agree with 99% of the time.

[NortheastCynic]

Zo asked the same question. A: We don't have the money for a national primary. B: Our candidates are frequently unknown, nobodies who lack the funds to campaign, making an informed decision making process difficult and necessitating party elites to select candidates.

-NC

[4Reaganomics]

Maybe the kind of exposure Barr will get the party will lead to a national primary.

I think the LP could be really successful, the only need one wealthy candidate to leave the private sector and use 100 million plus on a national campaign

if a third party starts, it will have to be through nominating a wealthy candidate in my opinion

[Alonzo]

Maybe the kind of exposure Barr will get the party will lead to a national primary.

I think the LP could be really successful, the only need one wealthy candidate to leave the private sector and use 100 million plus on a national campaign

if a third party starts, it will have to be through nominating a wealthy candidate in my opinion

I agree. I'd love to see another Ross Perot.

He was a great guy, wasn't he reagan? :D

Maybe some rich philanthropist can help turn Bob Barr into the Ross Perot of 2008?

[4Reaganomics]

lmao good for you

I still love the whole "vacuum sucking sound" theory

95% of economists knew his trade policy was BS, the issue is people in Iowa had no clue what an Economist was or what the hell comparative advantage meant

they just wanted the factory to stay open

[Phyxius]

Never said that. Libertarians just finally realized what they've always been missing, a good whore who will say whatever he needs to say to get ahead. Major parties have them, and now the libertarians have one too.


+1 :clapper:

[Mark L Hamburger]

Why doesn't the LP simply let members vote on the nominee? At that point we would get to see who the majority of Libertarians identify with.



You just have to go to the convention, delegates are selected at a state level, same as the other parties, just without the hoopla of primaries. The reason Barr was selected was because those at the convention thought he would be the best candidate, and with him polling at almost 7% only 2 weeks into his campaign, it seems that he's definitely not hurting the party.


I'm beginning to think that they aren't going to vote for anyone that they don't agree with 99% of the time.


The only libertarians that won't vote for him are the hard-core, "everything he believes has to be what I believe" people. Most libertarians don't agree with everything in the platform, same as other political parties.

That's one thing that ticks me off with people. When I talk about the LP, people always say "I agree with everything the LP stands for, except ____", to which I always ask, "do you agree with everything in the GOP/Dem platforms?" The answer is always no...

[bishop]

personally, i could give a damn less whether/not gays are allowed to marry. stacked up against all the other issues, this one is utterly unimportant as far as i'm concerned.

[Milton Bradley]

personally, i could give a damn less whether/not gays are allowed to marry. stacked up against all the other issues, this one is utterly unimportant as far as i'm concerned.


I agree. Hell, I rather address the issues that motivate gays to want official recognition of their traditional "marraige".


That course of action would please a lot more than just the gays.