Lower the Barr?

Nothing, not even my vote

32 (57.1%)

Nothing except my vote

10 (17.9%)

Less than $10 (and my vote)

0 (0%)

$10 or more

1 (1.8%)

$20 or more

0 (0%)

$30 or more

0 (0%)

$50 or more

2 (3.6%)

$75 or more

1 (1.8%)

$100 or more

2 (3.6%)

$200 or more

1 (1.8%)

$300 or more

0 (0%)

$500 or more

1 (1.8%)

$1000 or more

0 (0%)

$1500 or more

0 (0%)

$2000 or more

0 (0%)

The legal maximum

1 (1.8%)

I'm ineligible to donate / vote in U.S.

5 (8.9%)

Total Members Voted: 24

[Taors]

That's why you force him on the ballot.

[Alex Libman]

Let's kidnap his granddaughters and rape them repeatedly until he agrees to run third party! 

[trollfreezone]

I don't like Barr's rationalizations for voting yes for evil shit.  He's just that much less libertarian than Ron Paul.  If you want a popular libertarian candidate that's not really libertarian, go for Jesse Ventura or something.  (Don't get me wrong...Barr's not the worst of Republicans--at least lately--but no cigar.)

I'll probably either write in Ron Paul.






Change: Struck through word left from an edit.

[Alex Libman]

Another e-mail from the Barr campaign -- A Running Start --

Dear Friend,

As the media focuses on Pennsylania's results and the trifecta of "main-stream"candidates who will do nothing to further the cause of Liberty, we want to thank you for such strong early support of Bob Barr and update you on the progress of our efforts online.

Since Bob's announcement, we have continued the transparency in our fundraising success. With four weeks until the Libertarian National Convention in Denver, we are closing in on our second milestone: $41,500. These funds will jump-start a full campaign staffed by the best minds from the movement.

Bob is excited by the opportunity to campaign alongside the talented volunteers who are actively working towards his nomination should he choose to run. Incredible people from the Reagan '80, Perot '92/'96 and Paul '08 campaigns are eager to continue the revolution with Bob.

Liberty deserves such experienced leadership. Our moment is now.

With your energy and support we can assemble an influential campaign aimed directly at the authoritarian establishment.

Help Bob enter the race for President of the United States with a running start.

Please take one of the following steps today:

• Spread the message. Forward this email to 5 friends or invite them to join Bob using our online tools.

• Make a contribution. $100. $50. Even $25 will help us reach our next milestone and advance our effort to build a national campaign to support Bob's candidacy.

Towards Liberty,
BobBarr2008.com Staff

When I just checked Barr had 299 friends on MySpace (which I personally am boycotting), and 10 MeetUps with 68 members.

[One two three]

If Ron Paul doesn't win in the GOP, Bob Bar wins the LP nod, and comes out clearly against the Iraq War; then, I'll look towards him with more interest.

[Alex Libman]

Just curious - does "get the Iraqis to vote on it, then, if they don't want us there, set an 8-month withdrawal plan" fit your "comes out clearly against the Iraq War" criteria?  Because Ron Paul wasn't ever very serious about "just come home".  There'd be a second Iran-Iraq war in an instant, with Iraqi Shits switching sides.

[One two three]

Are you saving the US created Civil War would spread outside of Iraq?  It already has on some levels with what is going on in Iran and Turkey but I also think it will continue to spread.  I don't see a way of stopping it.  The longer the US is there, the worse things get for those living there and the rest of the world.

[Alex Libman]

Yes, but the "just come home" strategy is unelectable.  LP needs to learn to balance ideology and practicality.

[Taors]

Yes, but the "just come home" strategy is unelectable.  LP needs to learn to balance ideology and practicality.

That's what they've been doing, and that's why they suck.

[Alex Libman]

Good people being pragmatic isn't bad.  Under the circumstances.

[Alex Libman]

From the official Bob Barr campaign blog -- Barr Polled With ‘Frontrunners’ --

In Zogby's latest survey, Bob Barr beat Ralph Nader in a match-up against John McCain and Hillary Clinton, as well as in a match-up against John McCain and Barack Obama.

The survey (link here) included 7,653 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.1 percentage points.

Not too shabby for a pre-nomination poll and considering that Barr 2008 is still in exploratory committee mode.

[PLEASE DIGG]

[libertylover]

Actually for a web poll those are horrible numbers.  Badnarick got like 10% on web polls which turned into like 1.5% on election day.

Granted Barr could have had a change of heart and is now more Libertarian that what is comfortable for him to identify himself as a Republican.  And his candidacy leads to these two divergent points.  On one hand he hasn't had enough time in the party to gained enough credibility to become the standard barer for the LP.  On the other hand he is a public figure an will attract more media attention than any of the other potential LP candidates.  And no mater who the LP runs they in all likelihood will not win the general election.  However in places like NC were ballot access is dependent on the percentage of the vote for President, Senator and Governor, 2% means the world to the Libertarian Party of NC.  This may very well be true in other states.

As for the FSP I guess you have to hope to influence current law makers or go to some sort of market based protest.  Because with the 20k Massholes moving in every year it is doubtful you will be successful winning any elections.  If NH was a Liberty oriented sort of place  Dr. Ron Paul would have had a much better result in that election primary.  I was only attracted to the FSP if there was any hope that the population had the political make up to elect Libertarians to congress or upper offices.  It seems to me that states like NV and ALaska have a better shot.  Places where Ron Paul had a much better political showing.  I can only attribute his poor showing to the influx of those who are escaping the socialism of Mass.  I will keep my eye on the NH elections and see if anything noteworthy happens there to change my mind.  But it would have to be that a Libertarian wins a significant race like Governor, or Congress.

[One two three]

Actually for a web poll those are horrible numbers.  Badnarick got like 10% on web polls which turned into like 1.5% on election day.
...As for the FSP I guess you have to hope to influence current law makers or go to some sort of market based protest.  Because with the 20k Massholes moving in every year it is doubtful you will be successful winning any elections.  If NH was a Liberty oriented sort of place  Dr. Ron Paul would have had a much better result in that election primary.  I was only attracted to the FSP if there was any hope that the population had the political make up to elect Libertarians to congress or upper offices.  It seems to me that states like NV and ALaska have a better shot.  Places where Ron Paul had a much better political showing.  I can only attribute his poor showing to the influx of those who are escaping the socialism of Mass.  I will keep my eye on the NH elections and see if anything noteworthy happens there to change my mind.  But it would have to be that a Libertarian wins a significant race like Governor, or Congress.

I thought Badnarick got less than 0.5% on election day.

Ron Paul didn't do a lot better in NV and AK than NH.  He did worse, from what I can tell.  You should keep in mind that the majority of the voters who leave MA for NH vote Republican, not Democrat.  A Libertarian has never won a significant race except for Ron Paul.  However, the former Governor of NH was as libertarian as the current Governors in SC and ID.

[libertylover]

Actually for a web poll those are horrible numbers.  Badnarick got like 10% on web polls which turned into like 1.5% on election day.
...As for the FSP I guess you have to hope to influence current law makers or go to some sort of market based protest.  Because with the 20k Massholes moving in every year it is doubtful you will be successful winning any elections.  If NH was a Liberty oriented sort of place  Dr. Ron Paul would have had a much better result in that election primary.  I was only attracted to the FSP if there was any hope that the population had the political make up to elect Libertarians to congress or upper offices.  It seems to me that states like NV and ALaska have a better shot.  Places where Ron Paul had a much better political showing.  I can only attribute his poor showing to the influx of those who are escaping the socialism of Mass.  I will keep my eye on the NH elections and see if anything noteworthy happens there to change my mind.  But it would have to be that a Libertarian wins a significant race like Governor, or Congress.

I thought Badnarick got less than 0.5% on election day.

Ron Paul didn't do a lot better in NV and AK than NH.  He did worse, from what I can tell.  You should keep in mind that the majority of the voters who leave MA for NH vote Republican, not Democrat.  A Libertarian has never won a significant race except for Ron Paul.  However, the former Governor of NH was as libertarian as the current Governors in SC and ID.

Lets see Ron Paul got 8% of the vote in NH.  He got 17.2% of the vote in AK and he got 13.7% of the vote in NV.  Seems to me that Ron Paul faired far better in AK and NV than he did in NH.  I stand by my original statement NV and AK are far more Libertarian minded than NH right now.  Paul also got 24.5% of the vote in Montana and the Governor there told the Federal government to get bent on implementing real ID.  It really doesn't mater if the influx of MA socialist put an R or a D next to their names they are still socialist.

You are correct on Badnarick's actual numbers.  But the point was that he was polling much higher online than what Barr is claiming now and it translated into a significantly lower vote in the actual election.

[Alex Libman]

From The Philadelphia Inquirer -- Is this man John McCain’s worst nightmare? --

Bob Barr, former GOP congressman from Georgia, is an all-but-announced presidential candidate - as a Libertarian.

The possibility of a run by Barr has sent shudders through the mainstream of the Republican party.

Barr, who will probably not declare his intentions for several days, has already been labeled a "spoiler."

In an interview with the Inquirer, Barr dismissed those accusations as whining.

"The notion that Republicans see a third-party candidate as spoiling their chances simply illustrates the arrogance of the two-party system," Barr said. [The full text of the interview is below.]

Republicans may have good cause to worry.

A run by Barr could be to John McCain "what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore - ruinous," wrote George Will in Newsweek. Some party experts believe Barr could siphon off essential conservative votes from Sen. John McCain, about whom many rightward voters have been less than enthusiastic.

Right-talking radio hosts - Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter - have expressed reservations about McCain or have been downright dismissive.

The American Spectator editorialized last month that "conservatives see the choice of McCain or the Democrats as analogous to picking between being punched in the stomach or kneed in the groin."

Enter Bob Barr, who rose to prominence during the 1990s as a Republican party pit bull.

He led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton, wrote the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (which said states did not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states), and was a self-appointed four-star general in the "war on drugs." All impeccable conservative credentials.

But after losing his House seat in 2002, Barr underwent a conversion of sorts.

Barr shocked many Republicans when he became a paid consultant for the American Civil Liberties Union specializing in privacy issues.

He has renounced the war on drugs.

He's become a thorn in the side of Bush administration, criticizing what he perceives to be abuses of power and the Patriot Act.

Hipsters will know Barr best from his appearance in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, in which he eats a piece of cheese "from Kazakhstan" offered by Borat.

In 2006, he joined the Libertarian Party. He spoke with The Inquirer this week about why he's running.

Inquirer: If you decide to run for president, why?

Barr: To win.

Inquirer: What do you hope to accomplish?

Barr: I want to move the agenda of smaller government and increased individual liberty forward; help the Libertarian party to become a major, consistent player on the national political scene; raise the level of debate; bring the issues of smaller government back to the table, and cut government spending - that's at the root of all the issues facing the American people. I want to end the artificial control of the economy and end burdensome taxation; take a hard look at cutting cabinet positions; reduce the cost of the occupation of Iraq by beginning the process of removing the security blanket from the Iraqi regime . . . return respect for habeas corpus; reinstate the rule of law; stop the warrantless surveillance of American citizens; and remedy the abuses of the Patriot Act. . . .

Inquirer: As a Republican congressman, you were among the most visible and vocally conservative. What caused you to suddenly switch parties two years ago? Did you have a Paul-on-the-road-to-Damascus experience that led to your conversion?

Barr: What laid the groundwork for my epiphany was the result of six years of the Bush administration.

They claimed to be Republicans and for a smaller government. Instead, with a complicit Republican Congress, they moved to dramatically expand the size, power and scope of the federal government. I concluded that the party I had been associated with for decades was no longer that party I had joined and no longer had an interest in smaller government. They no longer had an interest in increasing individual liberty and showed no signs of changing in my lifetime. I looked for a political venue for what was important for me. The only party out there that advocates and practices moving to smaller government and increased civil liberties was the Libertarian Party. . . .

Inquirer: Do you believe there may be other Republicans attracted by the Libertarian Party?

Barr: I'm sure there are. There are some libertarian-leaning Republicans in the House; Ron Paul [R., Texas] of course . . . . Then there's Chuck Hagel [R., Neb.] on the Senate side, Larry Craig [R., Idaho], John Sununu [R., N.H.], I think there are a number that share a large part of the libertarian philosophy. Whether they've ever considered joining, I don't know. But there are a number in both houses that from my experience care very deeply about the libertarian philosophy and principals.

Inquirer: You've made some radical turnabouts from many of your previous positions. Once a foe of any drug use, you recently said the Federal government should butt out. Haven't you also changed your stance on same-sex marriage? . . .

Barr: Since 9/11, there has been unprecedented growth in government power and the ascendancy of this notion that, because they are fighting terrorism, the government can do whatever it wants regardless of law. That has forced me to go back and take a look at areas that in prior times I could afford to support because we had a certain amount of freedom in other areas. It's no longer the case. We have to be much more zealous in protecting ourselves against government power. Once it may have made sense, been even acceptable to allow the government more leeway. With same-sex marriage, it's a decision states ought to make. That has always been my position. Over the past few years I have testified at the Federal level and state government level against the federal marriage amendment.

Inquirer: What about marijuana laws?

Barr: I believe it's important to turn that decision back to the states. If California voters decide in a referendum to recommend the use of medical marijuana, it should be respected by the federal government.

Inquirer: Abortion?

Barr: I'm pro-life. I have always been pro-life. I say get the federal government out of it. Leave it up to the states to decide.

Inquirer: Monetary issues?

Barr: I'm focused on what I'm focused on. I would dramatically reduce the size and cost of government, and that will strengthen the value of our currency at home and abroad.

Inquirer: What is wrong with the two-party system?

Barr: The two-party system has become stale and a state-controlled monopoly. I think it has removed an important element of choice for the American voter and led to a dumbing down of political discourse in America. I would like to see the people be able to go into a voting booth and not have to pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.

Inquirer: How do you feel about John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate?

Barr: He's a candidate. But I don't think he espouses anything resembling the philosophy of smaller government that I support. Anyone whose signature piece of legislation is destructive of the First Amendment can hardly call themselves a conservative. His view of civil liberties is very much in the Bush administration mold. I have major disagreements with him. His position of a lengthy occupation of Iraq is well known. I would disagree with him there also.

Inquirer: A Zogby poll this week has you outpolling Ralph Nader. What do you think that signifies?

Barr: I think it indicates that there there [sic] is legitimate support for a third party candidate.

Inquirer: What base would a Barr candidacy draw from? Could you match or exceed the support received by Ross Perot during his bid for the White House?

Barr: I think there is a very significant base of support out there. If I choose to be the candidate and the Libertarian nominee I would surpass by far any prior Libertarian nominee and stand a very good chance of outpolling Perot's '92 numbers.

The votes would come from a variety of sources: libertarian-leaning Republicans not inclined to vote for McCain and other big-government Republicans. Others would include civil-libertarian Democrats. But most importantly, the votes would come from the significant number of young people who have become very involved in this election cycle. Many of them are not wedded to the two-party system to the same extent their parents and grandparents have been.

Inquirer: Did you consider yourself a Reagan Republican?

Barr: I was a very strong supporter of Ronald Reagan.

Inquirer: You've had years of experience in the federal government. You worked for the CIA, served as a congressman and as U.S. Attorney. What's the most important lesson you learned during your tenure?

Barr: That the government has a great deal of power. It doesn't need more power. It has too much power, and that power is frequently abused. The use of government power to effect social change is beyond the intent of the Constitution, the role of Congress and beyond the framework of our constitutional representative democracy.

Inquirer: Pundits have called a Barr candidacy a possible spoiler for Republicans.

Barr: I'm no more a spoiler for John McCain than John McCain could be a spoiler for me. The notion that Republicans see a third-party candidate as spoiling their chances simply illustrates the arrogance of the two-party system. Republicans and Democrats have come to view themselves as the only ones with a God-given right to choose a president. I want to offer voters something they will not get from the two major parties. If my platform polls well, it will be because the voters contrast it with McCain and whatever Democrat senator wins the nomination. If my platform polls well, its because the agenda I espouse is preferable. By offering a choice, it's something the other candidates should embrace rather than whine about.

[I ADDED IT, PLEASE DIGG]