Dear friend,
I want your opinion and guidance.
What progress can a president make in four years? How about eight? Will the change be lasting?
Those are some of the questions that I wrestled with when developing my issue stances as part of my presidential exploratory committee.
I asked similar questions of myself while in Congress, especially when faced with a tough vote.
Sheer principle drives me to always take the path of liberty but it also drives me to be honest with myself to realize that sticking to principle means making lemonade when given a handful of lemons.
I'll give you a good example, which was my vote for the USA PATRIOT Act. As much as it pained me, I cast an "aye" vote for the very piece of legislation that I oppose today. I could have easily voted against it and, believe me, I wanted to.
At the time of the vote, a few weeks after the attacks of September 11th, it was clear that law enforcement had a need to quickly identify and confront additional terrorists threats. There was also a need to protect our liberties in the future, long after an immediate threat had passed.
Rather than casting a no vote, I used the influence that I had with my fellow members of Congress and negotiated a sunset provision for some of the most intrusive aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act. This led to a requirement to reauthorize those provisions, which put those issues back on the table and up for debate long after I left Congress.
The same situation applies to the Defense of Marriage Act, which I authored in order to short circuit the Republican Party's powerful move to ban gay marriage on the Constitutional level. My plan worked. States maintain their rights in relation to same-sex marriage and civil unions.
In a perfect nation, the government would have no role at all in marriage. It is a private, personal contract between two consenting adults to be recognized by the church and society. . . not the state.
In a perfect nation, there would also be no personal taxes and everyone would agree to play nice and respect the privacy, property and life of another.
The pressing reality is that the perfect nation and the perfect government do not exist. It is something that lovers of liberty must fight for, step-by-step and day-by-day.
As a libertarian, I believe in maximum liberty. You should be free to live your life as you choose. You should be free to make decisions, right or wrong, in the way that you see is best for yourself and your family. That freedom should be sustained as long as you do not use force or fraud against another.
Libertarianism is a simple philosophy that balances peace and responsibility. I do believe that one day we can live under such a society. However, we have a long and rocky road ahead to get there.
That is why it is important that we always choose the path of liberty. We will be faced with blocks and hurdles but even if inching forward, we must make progress down a road to freedom.
That is why I have formed the Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee. The choices offered by the two major parties are steps away from freedom, not toward freedom.
We need a better choice for America.
In my opinion, a strong libertarian candidate is that better choice.
I ask that you help me decide on entering this race by showing your strong support for a potential presidential run.
I passionately feel that the time for real change is now and I am confident that a strong Libertarian presidential campaign will have a lasting impact for liberty in our nation.
It is up to you to show me if that is possible.
Please send me a message so that I can send them in a message of liberty in 2008.
Visit BobBarr2008.com (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/) to let your voice be heard and to make a generous donation (https://www.bobbarr2008.com/donate/) today. Also please take advantage of the features of my web site to tell your friends (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/spread-the-word/) and family about this effort.
I deeply appreciate your time and your support.
In Liberty,
(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket/BobBarr-signature.png)
BobPaid for by Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee.
Federal law requires us to report the name address, and name of employer and occupation for any individual whose aggregate contributions total over $200 in a calendar year. Corporate contributions and gifts from foreign nationals are prohibited. Personal Credit Card gifts only. Contributions are not tax deductible for income tax purposes. Limit of $2,300 per person per election and $4,600 per couple if signed by both parties and drawn on a jointly held bank account.
Sounds like a Republican to me. I'll save money for someone who wants to cut the size of government. Hint: he doesn't.I think he does want to cut the size of government, incrementally. He would be a great LP presidential candidate that could put in a real strong showing in the national election. I like him and WAR.
Sounds like a Republican to me. I'll save money for someone who wants to cut the size of government. Hint: he doesn't.I think he does want to cut the size of government, incrementally. He would be a great LP presidential candidate that could put in a real strong showing in the national election. I like him and WAR.
Dear Friend,
The time is drawing near for me to make a final decision on whether or not I will seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party and run against John McCain and the Democrat candidate.
This decision does not come easy.
If I decide to run, not only will I be affected by the events of the next six months but my family, and those for whom I care, will be forced to sacrifice a great deal in their lives. Indeed, whatever the outcome of the election, my decision will impact the lives of my family for many years to come.
Powerful people and parties will do all that they can to discredit and discourage me and those close to me. As a matter of fact, this pressure has already started to a significant degree.
Just the other night, I discussed this matter with my friend, Russ Verney, who will be managing my campaign if I choose to run. Russ ran the campaigns for Ross Perot and witnessed firsthand what can and does happen when a credible, third party candidate enters the presidential arena.
Russ was completely candid with me and did not hold back on the tactics and strategies that will be used against me and my family.(http://www.bobbarr2008.com/img/widgets/300x250.jpg) (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/)
This is both discouraging and infuriating, but it is a reality in today's political climate. Anyone who dares to challenge the establishment, two-party system is bound to pay a price for such audacity.
While this factor alone hardens my resolve to seek the nomination, it also gives me pause in making a final decision.
In choosing my future path, I've thought back and imagined what some of my personal heroes would do in a similar situation.
One man I admire answers also to the name, "Bob." He was a person possessed of a gift that allowed him to speak to and lift the spirits of other men and women with his words and music.
When watching a film one evening, I was reminded of an event in his life and how he inspired so many with what would normally have been an easy decision.
In December 1976, this other Bob, along with his family and friends, were rehearsing for an upcoming concert when gunmen burst into his home and opened fire.
Bob was wounded, with a round entering his chest and passing though his arm. His wife, Rita, had been struck with a bullet in the head while fleeing with their five children.
Both survived and were rushed to the hospital, treated and released a day later.
The following evening, the concert went on but, out of fear of further violence, without many of the acts that had been scheduled to play. Despite a realization that the main performer and others would most likely not appear, a crowd of 85,000 people managed to gather for the concert.
Not to be discouraged, Bob raced to the concert at the last minute and rushed onto the stage.
Wounded and more than likely staring at his own gunman in the crowd, Bob Marley promised the joyous audience, "just one song." He and his wife Rita, wrapped in bandages, took the stage for 90 minutes.
Later, Bob was asked why he would go through the effort to perform just two days after being attacked. He answered simply, "The people who are trying to make this world worse are not taking a day off. How can I? Light up the darkness."
I take faith in the brave words and actions of that man and his wife.
We live in increasingly dark times as the flames of liberty diminish with each new grasp at power by those who attempt to control our lives and our nation.
We have a responsibility to ensure that those flames burn brightly for others to see despite the overwhelming challenges that we face.
Because of those odds, it will take more than one man to carry a torch for liberty. It will take the tireless efforts of all of those who truly cherish freedom.
Only then can we light up the darkness.
In 2008, we will face a choice between two candidates, both of who seek to move us further away from freedom and toward increased government power.
Instead, I want to give our nation a choice for liberty.
My time for a decision is now, and I need to hear from you and know that I have your support today and when times get tough down the road.
Please go to my web site, BobBarr2008.com and, if you can, donate generously (https://www.bobbarr2008.com/donate/?c=web0419). Also, please use the many tools on my site to help spread the word and help the cause.
In the coming days, call up a friend or talk to a neighbor to tell them about this race and the need for a pro-liberty candidate.
Not only do we have an opportunity to make in impact during this election year but I also believe we have an obligation to do so.
However, I cannot do this without your help.
Please do all that you can -- and together -- we can carry a light of liberty to the people.
Thank you,
(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket/BobBarr-signature.png)
BobPaid for by Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee.
Federal law requires us to report the name address, and name of employer and occupation for any individual whose aggregate contributions total over $200 in a calendar year. Corporate contributions and gifts from foreign nationals are prohibited. Personal Credit Card gifts only. Contributions are not tax deductible for income tax purposes. Limit of $2,300 per person per election and $4,600 per couple if signed by both parties and drawn on a jointly held bank account.
Wow, you are kidding yourself. The only thing that can make any difference in the American freedom movement is getting more people to join the FSP and get active in NH.
Great, so vote NOTA for president and run candidates for offices that we can win.
Which part of "Barr can get into POTUS debates with McCain and Obama / Clinton" did you not understand?!
It might be dead to you, but it's still the best shot libertarians have for getting people elected and/or on TV.
It might be dead to you, but it's still the best shot libertarians have for getting people elected and/or on TV.
You're saying Ron Paul didn't do anything good? Imagine if he was on the ballot in November and his momentum continued...
You're saying Ron Paul didn't do anything good? Imagine if he was on the ballot in November and his momentum continued...
Yeah, Ron Paul did good. I don't know what that has to do with the Faggotarian Party though.
Ruwart '08
Support him for what?
You do understand that the primary process is an internal party thing, and, ultimately, the party bosses can nominate whoever the hell they want? And, aside from that, Ron Paul isn't running for anything else.
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 (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/media-center/play/54/), 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 (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/spread-the-word/). Forward this email to 5 friends or invite them to join Bob using our online tools.
- Make a contribution (https://www.bobbarr2008.com/donate/?c=te0422). $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 (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/) Staff
Yes, but the "just come home" strategy is unelectable. LP needs to learn to balance ideology and practicality.
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 (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1490)) included 7,653 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.1 percentage points.(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-election-matchup-20080428.png) (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1490)
Not too shabby for a pre-nomination poll and considering that Barr 2008 is still in exploratory committee mode.[PLEASE DIGG (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Zogby_Barr_beating_Nader)]
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.
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.I thought Badnarick got less than 0.5% 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.
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.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Bob_Barr_John_McCain_s_worst_nightmare)]
Dear Friend,
What a week! Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have continued to duke it out over the Democratic Party nomination in North Carolina and Indiana, making for great TV of little substance. Meanwhile, John McCain parades around his presumptive "nomination" and ignores our friend Dr. Paul, who is working tirelessly to win over delegates and continues to garner support. Ron's grassroots success with 15% of the vote in the Pennsylvania primary is proof that America is eager for the message of Liberty.
Bob and our team of volunteers are hard at work to deliver it to them!
We invite you to check out and spread our new series of videos featuring Bob speaking to the real concerns facing our country: taxes, the economy, civil liberties, and the need for limited government. These are powerful statements from an experienced leader ready to shake up establishment politics. Bob also talks about his departure from the GOP and why he has worked tirelessly over the past two years for the Libertarian Party. Discover more at our YouTube channel:
www.youtube.com/BobBarr2008 (http://www.youtube.com/BobBarr2008)
Our online efforts are growing by the day and we need your help to keep building the momentum for Bob's entry into the race. Read commentary and track how the media is responding to a Barr nomination at blog.bobbarr2008.com (http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/?c=te0505) and join our conversation by submitting your personal blog to our Blogroll (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/submit-a-blog/?c=te0505). Keep tabs on Bob's Audio and Video in the Media Center (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/media-center/?c=te050), and our "Jump Start the Campaign (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/?c=te0505)" tracker! Together we are making great strides toward a full campaign, allowing our staff this week to visit potential office spaces for a national headquarters.
There is still much more to accomplish before the Denver Convention. Help us grow the revolution by taking action today:
- Spread the Message (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/spread-the-word/?c=te0505). Forward this email to 5 friends and invite them to watch our new videos on Youtube.
- Subscribe to our Youtube Channel (http://youtube.com/bobbarr2008). Help spread Bob's message virally so that more citizens may learn about and meet Bob Barr.
- Unite Libertarians (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/media-center/play/77/?page=2&c=te0505). Call any friends who are delegates and tell them about Bob possibly running for President!
Towards Liberty,
BobBarr2008 Staff(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-youtube-email.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/BobBarr2008)
Bob Barr looks too much like Teddy Roosevelt for me to vote for him.
Former US congressman Bob Barr on Monday announced plans to run for president on the Libertarian Party's ticket, in a move some analysts say could hurt Republican presumptive nominee John McCain.
"My name is Bob Barr and I'm a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America," said the former Republican lawmaker, who played a key role in the congressional impeachment of former president Bill Clinton.
Barr said he was running because there was not "currently or anywhere on the horizon" any candidate who understood the principles of fiscal conservatism and basic principles on which he said America was founded.
The former Georgia congressman, who announced his plans at a press conference here, must first win the Libertarian Party's nomination before throwing himself into the 2008 field for real.
The 59-year-old said he was not concerned about the prospect of damaging McCain, possibly among conservative voters whom the Republican candidate has had trouble courting.
"If Senator McCain ... does not succeed in winning the presidency ... it will be because Senator McCain did not present, and his party did not present, a vision, an agenda, a platform and a series of programs that actually resonated positively with the American people."
Barr believes spending by the US government is running out of control and says federal authorities have seized powers not granted by the constitution, and believes US forces should be brought home from Iraq.
The Libertarian Party stands for non-interference by the US government in the personal and business lives of Americans, and advocates lower taxes, a smaller government and more individual freedom.
Independent and third parties have faced a tough task in modern US election history of breaking the dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties, though several candidates have played a spoiler role.
Many Democrats still blame consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who has already announced a 2008 run, for depressing former vice president Al Gore's vote in 2000, and helping George W. Bush to capture the presidency.
Some Republicans also blame businessmen Ross Perot, whose idiosyncratic run in 1992 captured 19 percent of the vote, for helping Bill Clinton unseat the first president George Bush.[ADDED TO DIGG (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/It_s_official_Libertarian_Barr_announces_run_for_president)]
Barr said he was running because there was not "currently or anywhere on the horizon" any candidate who understood the principles of fiscal conservatism and basic principles on which he said America was founded.
While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America. This task force was established in 1998 by then Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs." The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to "win the War on Drugs by 2002".
...
In Congress, he also controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military.
...
Since joining the Libertarian Party, Barr has reversed his previous stance on medical marijuana and is now a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project. Barr still opposes legalization of recreational drugs, but advocates the federalist ideals of State legislation and enforcement over Federal control.
While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America. This task force was established in 1998 by then Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs." The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to "win the War on Drugs by 2002".
People change. Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically? :lol:
Dude he said he's a Federalist on it, like Paul is on abortionPeople change. Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically? :lol:
People can change, but people can also stay the same. I'm not willing to give some career bureaucrat the benefit of the doubt just because he claims to be all libertarian and stuff now.
And the LP nominee, for better or worse, is the public face of libertarianism that the rest of the country sees. If Barr is still a statist on such a basic issue as ending the War on Drugs, he has no place within 500 feet of the LP, much less as its primary spokesperson.
I still haven't contributed funds to any LP candidate. I would have contributed to Mary Ruwart if most of her supporters weren't all like "let someone else do the work of getting her nominated, then we'll think about voting for her, maybe". If Barr gets the LP nomination, who else are you going to vote for in November? The anti-Barr mudslinging you do now only helps Obama & McCain.(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-down.jpg) (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/03/post-midnight-lp-photoshop-of-the-day/)
If Barr gets the nod, then I will either not vote or write in Scooby Doo.
Dude he said he's a Federalist on it, like Paul is on abortionPeople change. Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically? :lol:
People can change, but people can also stay the same. I'm not willing to give some career bureaucrat the benefit of the doubt just because he claims to be all libertarian and stuff now.
And the LP nominee, for better or worse, is the public face of libertarianism that the rest of the country sees. If Barr is still a statist on such a basic issue as ending the War on Drugs, he has no place within 500 feet of the LP, much less as its primary spokesperson.
BARR: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean.
Dude he said he's a Federalist on it, like Paul is on abortionPeople change. Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically? :lol:
People can change, but people can also stay the same. I'm not willing to give some career bureaucrat the benefit of the doubt just because he claims to be all libertarian and stuff now.
And the LP nominee, for better or worse, is the public face of libertarianism that the rest of the country sees. If Barr is still a statist on such a basic issue as ending the War on Drugs, he has no place within 500 feet of the LP, much less as its primary spokesperson.
"Leave it to the states" is the biggest cop-out in the motherfucking world. I'm not happy about Ron Paul's usage of it, but it's not as despicable as Barr using it, since abortion is something that libertarians can disagree on and still be principled - it boils down to a metaphysical argument, rather than a political one.
The War on Drugs, on the other hand, is completely cut-and-dried. It's the quintessential victimless crime in today's society. The fact that Barr still supports it shows that he does not grok the non-agression principle, and is not truly a libertarian.Quote from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/bob_barr_on_hannity_colmes.htmlBARR: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean.
Bob Barr supports the initiation of force to achieve political and social goals. He either lied or completely misunderstood when he signed the LP Statement of Intent. He is not a libertarian, so he should not be chosen to represent libertarianism to others.
How is he?
How is he?
Fine, thanks for asking.
How is he?
Fine, thanks for asking.
Can he walk after you've done with him? Or is the blood gushing from his asshole not stopped yet?
What are YOU doing to reduce government force?
What are YOU doing to reduce government force?
Not voting for Bob Barr.
What are YOU doing to reduce government force?
Not voting for Bob Barr.
Does McCain like to slap your butt while you french him?
What are YOU doing to reduce government force?
Not voting for Bob Barr.
Barr already said he didn't support any of those things at the Federal level.
Barr already said he didn't support any of those things at the Federal level.
He doesn't oppose them, either, though. The LP candidate should be whoever can most effectively draw new people into the liberty movement - think of all the people there are now who were introduced to liberty from Harry Browne's campaigns.
Then in 2004, Badnarik won the nomination, although he was considered the underdog before the convention, based mainly on his performance at the debate. People saw that he was effective in communicating liberty, and voted to nominate him.
Ron Paul, although I disagree with him on a lot of things, was pretty goddamn effective at getting people to follow him. A fair number of them will be burned-out after the 2008 campaign, but at least of a few of them will become libertarians in the long-term.
We won't get that with Barr. People will see another fucking politician spewing useless fucking rhetoric, and not telling them anything they haven't heard before. The LP candidate will no longer be a stand-out who attracts people who finally realize "wait a minute, this is fucking retarded". He'll be just another talking head in a sea of talking heads.
People change. Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically? :lol:
Bob Barr? BOB BARR?!
This may be the first time in over 30 years I have not voted for the LP candidate.
I'm wondering if this isn't a Republican plot to keep the Libertarian voters from splitting the ticket. The LP usually takes votes away from the Republicans. But many libertarians have stated that they will not vote for Barr.
Barr's campaign manager looks like Satan.
You people don't understand the difference between libertarian philosophy and libertarian politics. The goal of LP shouldn't be to offer voters an instant libertarian utopia - which most Americans will react to by grabbing their pitchforks and putting the D&R socialists back in power.
35 minutes from Barr's nomination to the first apologist post. I expected a better response time from you, Alex.
Alex how long have you been involved in the LP? Since when has the LP's goal EVER been to offer instant libertopia?
Fortunately, the "realists" didn't win the day in 1776.
We can continue Ron Paul's momentum, take a big-ass bite out of McCain, and maybe get SEVERAL TIMES more votes than LP has ever received before!
Congrats LP, you've destroyed yourself.
Fortunately, the "realists" didn't win the day in 1776.
Yes they did.
Congrats LP, you've destroyed yourself.
The only party being destroyed is the Republican Party.
We would have had a second Libertarian Party dedicated to 100% no-compromise zero-government anarcho-capitalism, but all of the potential supporters of such a party (myself excluded) don't seem to want to get their hands dirty.
So in November the choice will be Obama (presumably), McCain, Barr, some Constitution Party theocrat, some Green Party nutcase, and a few more socialists. Who you gonna pick?
maybe get SEVERAL TIMES more votes than LP has ever received before!
maybe get SEVERAL TIMES more votes than LP has ever received before!
That...is why you fail.
Votes are meaningless. The goal of the LP is not to get as many votes for Libertarian candidates as possible. Its goal is to create more libertarians. If they're successful at this, getting more votes will be a natural side-effect, but it is not the primary goal.
The biggest reason the LP is fundamentally flawed is that as a political party, people think the measure of its success is how many votes they get, how many candidates get elected, and how much money they raise. In the drive to maximize these things, they throw out their principles, because principles are "un-electable" and not "mainstream".
We can continue Ron Paul's momentum, take a big-ass bite out of McCain, and maybe get SEVERAL TIMES more votes than LP has ever received before!
Bob Barr is not Ron Paul
I'm gonna bookmark this one. C'ya in November.
But the National Review collective recently editorialized against the "new Barr," saying that he is a "non-interventionist anti-government purist committed to a thoroughgoing civil libertarianism."
HANNITY: What would your vote be? Would you vote to legalize heroin and crack?
BARR: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean. We've talked about this. You keep coming back to it.
Ah, so that's what it's all about...
OK, I'm sure Obama and McCain are grateful to you for your support.
OK, I'm sure Obama and McCain are grateful to you for your support.
OK, I'm sure Obama and McCain are grateful to you for your support.
HANNITY: All right. But — so then if you take 3 percent of the vote away from Senator McCain in a close election, and then Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama get elected. And that means that you're going to get Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court, you're going to get higher taxes, you're going to get nationalized health care, you're going to get open borders. You're not going to feel guilty the morning after election night?
Who are you going to vote for if not Barr - that is the question.
When the opponent expand, I contract, When he contracts, I expand, And when there is an opportunity, I do not hit - it hits all by itself. -- Bruce Lee |
Who are you going to vote for if not Barr - that is the question. Not voting at all clearly supports McCain / Obama. Writing in someone who isn't running is just as pointless. No one supported my "Free State Party (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15223)" pitch. So, what else is there?
You won't like the Constitution Party, their platform states (click for context) (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Drug%20Abuse): "We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.".
Have you ever thought about voting Green or Socialist? Those parties clearly fit your ideology best.
This failure to unite pisses me off to no end... :x
This failure to unite pisses me off to no end... :x
I'm pissed that the LP chose not to run a libertarian this year.
Who are you going to vote for if not Barr - that is the question. Not voting at all clearly supports McCain / Obama. Writing in someone who isn't running is just as pointless. No one supported my "Free State Party" pitch. So, what else is there?
Have you ever thought about voting Green or Socialist? Those parties clearly fit your ideology best.
This failure to unite pisses me off to no end... :x
I just realized something... Ian is French! :lol:
We shouldn't let "perfect" become the enemy of "good".
Bob Barr is good when compared to Obama and McCain. That's all he's for, to hurt those assholes, so by badmouthing him you are only helping them!
If you want to pursue political perfection (oxymoron?), we need to run an uncompromising protest candidate of our own (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=21469)...
I personally am not seeking perfection, but Bob Barr fails to meet even the basic standards. Why should I vote for Bob Barr, and let the party bigwigs think someone like Bob Barr is what I want? A vote for Bob Barr will only strengthen the thinking people like him. No thanks.
If you want to [do better than Bob Barr], we need to run an uncompromising protest candidate of our own (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=21469)...
are you kidding me with the Art of War?
should I read Pig Will Pig Won't next?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61PT2DAEEpL.jpg)
OK, who are the 14 (out of 44) people who voted on this poll that they'll vote for Barr if no one better is on the ballot in November? Why am I the only one defending him?In the about 45 days since the poll started, 15 of them have come to their senses.
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...
Porcupine
Friendly, neighborhood, eater of statist souls
FTL AMPlifier Silver
*****
Online Online
porcupine_in_newhampshire
View Profile WWW Personal Message (Online)
Ignore
Re: Lower the Barr?
« Reply #167 on: Today at 11:11:53 AM »
Reply with quote
Wow, the guy is abrassive and all, but is he that bad? I know he supports the Federal Reserve, which is bizarre, but outside of that he seems like a principled libertarian to me.
Report to moderator Logged
Destiny is the rising sun
Oh I was born 6-gun in my hand
Behind a gun
I'll make my final stand
That's why they call me
Bad company
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...
Phederal Reserve Phillies is part of the problem...not the solution...
I wouldn't piss on Phillies if he was on fire...
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...
Phederal Reserve Phillies is part of the problem...not the solution...
I wouldn't piss on Phillies if he was on fire...
He seems like a fine man to me. He bought Liberty Forum tickets (I think), put ads on FTL, and is generally for much smaller government.
Some of you anarchist are way too picky.
"picky"!?!?!
How is it picky to demand that everyone leave everyone else alone and all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries "cease and desist" or be immediately subject to being repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...forever...
"picky"!?!?!
How is it picky to demand that everyone leave everyone else alone and all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries "cease and desist" or be immediately subject to being repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...forever...
I think you just defined picky.
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...
Phederal Reserve Phillies is part of the problem...not the solution...
I wouldn't piss on Phillies if he was on fire...
He seems like a fine man to me. He bought Liberty Forum tickets (I think), put ads on FTL, and is generally for much smaller government.
Some of you anarchist are way too picky.
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...
Phederal Reserve Phillies is part of the problem...not the solution...
I wouldn't piss on Phillies if he was on fire...
He seems like a fine man to me. He bought Liberty Forum tickets (I think), put ads on FTL, and is generally for much smaller government.
Some of you anarchist are way too picky.
No, dude...Phillies sucks. I can't support someone (especially a Libertarian) who's for the Federal Reserve.