Looks like former congressman Bob Barr is going to get in the race as a Libertarian. I think it's safe to say that he won't be elected president. That said, I think there will probably be a bunch of voters who don't much like the McCain Perpetual War agenda but who also think that at the end of the day Barack Obama's a liberal and they're not not. In theory, at least, there's room for a sort of John Anderson figure and you could see Barr playing that role.
« Weird Iraq Fact of the Day | Main | The Snitchin' Candidate »
The Bob Barr Era
04 Apr 2008 09:46 am
Comments (32)
This Barr thing really bugs me. I know the LP is continually hard up to find some kind of figure that has any national recognition, but...Bob Barr? The guy was a solid drug warrior, voted for DOMA, consistently pro-life, voted for the Patriot Act and was targetted by the LP itself for his ridiculous behavior during the Clinton BJer scandal.
And he, as you mentioned, doesn't even have that much national recognition to begin with. And, frankly, I'm not sure how much I believe in his recent "conversions" of philosophy.
At least with Badnarik, I knew where he stood.
Yes, he was loony, but at least I knew that...
In my wildest dreams, he hits McCain constantly for not being a devout enough social conservative...
Pluhease!
Bob Barr is not a Libertarian. The "Privacy" issue alone does not qualify him. His views run counter to many Libertarian views:
Barr is pro-life (Libs are against govt involvement)
He voted for The Defense of Marriage Act (Libs want this repealed)
He was heavily involved in the "war on drugs" and strongly opposes things like medical marijuana (Libs don't want govt. regulation)
He doesn't hold a "non-interventionsit" view on foreign policy as the Libs do.
And so on, and so on.
If voting was as easy as sending an email, I could understand writing in "none of the above" or "Mickey Mouse". But walking across the street to vote for Barr or Nader? Whatever. I guess that's what iPods are for - so the time is not completely wasted.
he's not going to come close to anderson vote levels: anderson, after all, didn't run as a "libertarian." he ran as a moderate alternative to reagan for those who felt that carter must go but couldn't vote as far right as reagan.
This sets up a thrilling Barr vs Gravel race for the Libertarian nomination. I can't wait!
As others have pointed out, most Libertarians are really just Republicans with a few anti-institutional fetishes. The GOP plutocratic wing finds them generally useful, and feeds them occasional "small government" rhetoric.
Barr wouldn't make much of a difference, though whatever difference he did make would be to McCain's detriment. So run, Bob, run!
The same internets that embraced Ron Paul as their candidate seem to think that Mike Gravel would be an admirable 2nd choice. Besides the obvious hilarity that is their extreme difference in proposals, I don't understand wanting to elect a guy who hasn't been on the national scene in decades and whose economics background is declaring bankruptcy twice.
Sorry Mikey G., I love ya, you're the good kind of crazy. But still crazy.
I reckon most ex-John Anderson supporters are for Obama this go-round.
I am glad that Bob Barr is going to run as a Libertarian Party candidate for President. People who believe in the US Constitution as well as peace, prosperity and freedom will support him. The active and generous people who supported Ron Paul need someone to rally with and Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party can be in that position. I know I will support him.
The active and generous people who supported Ron Paul need someone to rally with and Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party can be in that position. I know I will support him.
If you care about Libertarian values, Barr is the last person you want to vote for.
If he's enough to flip Georgia to Obama (by siphoning off a lot of Republican protest vote) that could be enough to matter.
Do he and Gravel actually run off? Or just run in their own states, and no one frets too much? Or maybe this could be a Hillary venue as well, and the Libs can put forth 3 candidates in November?
1) I admit to having a warm place in my heart for an alumnus of the CIA who once sent a letter to
Army Secretary Louis Caldera and Lt. Gen. Leon S. LaPorte, commander of Fort Hood, TX, demanding an end to "TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES".
Barr was arguing that soldiers should not be allowed to practice the Wiccan religion. This prompted a counterattack from the Military Pagan Network (I'm NOT kidding) in defense of their religious rights.
Ref: http://www.religioustolerance.org/burn_aw2.htm
2) I recently checked the entrails of a goat and they say Barr doesn't have a chance. Hey, it's the same method Mark Penn uses.
Timing would be good. Consider a Barr ticket with Jesse Ventura who is also thinking of running. He does know how to raise an audience. Obama would take it in '08 but by '12 they could gather other worthies of the Unity '08 genre: Independent/Libertarians like Angus King, William Weld . . . not to mention Mike Bloomberg and California's Governator (soon to be out of a job), who is friends w/ Jesse "The Body" Ventura and put him in movies - all of these people have played with innovative new paradigms and are not bound by traditions but by management and organizational principles.
Bob Barr has moved substantially towards libertarian views on issues like the war on drugs and DOMA. He has been lobbying on behalf of the Marijuana Policy Project and has stated that if legislation to repeal DOMA is introduced in Congress, he will work to help get that legislation passed.
I also believe he has moved closer toward Ron Paul's views on foreign policy.
Barr has served on the national committee of the Libertarian Party for a couple of years. I think there is a very good chance that if Barr runs, he will win the Libertarian nomination.
Re DDP's comment "[Bob Barr] voted for the Patriot Act "
-----------
This is not an honest depiction of Barr's record, in my opinion. Barr has probably fought the hardest against the Patriot Act of any politician out there -- certainly more than the vast majority of Democratic members of Congress. Ask the ACLU.
Barr voted for the first Patriot Act only AFTER Congress agreed to add his SUNSET clauses. He has since said that he regrets even that compromise. Certainly he fought the Act when it was brought up for renewal.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Political_positions and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Post-congressional_career
Barr will probably be the odds-on favorite to win the nomination over Root and Kubby (Gravel will not be a factor). He could definitely use some sort of nod from the Paul camp, if not an explicit endorsement.
The biggest roadblock is Barr's congressional record, which is anything but Libetarian.
I doubt he gets anywhere in the general, but hopefully he'll weaken McCain in Georgia and other Southern states.
RE: Don Williams
I don't dispute that Barr had fought for sunset clauses regarding the Patriot Act, but he should have seen that he was being taken for a fool. Why vote for sweeping federal powers, even if for a short time, if you don't think the government should have such powers? I can see the pragmatism in his move, but not the power, influence or bravery to force real change.
Plus, as a libertarian, I would love to have a LP candidate who wasn't, you know, a Republican.
Plus, as a libertarian, I would love to have a LP candidate who wasn't, you know, a Republican
And Mike Gravel doesn't count.
It should also be noted that, while he did support DOMA, Bob Barr went to Capitol Hill to testify against the FMA.
He's far from the Libertarian ideal (whatever that may be), but the Libertarian Party could certainly do a whole lot worse (and has, in the past).
Given that the Republican nominee is John McCain, I certainly think it's plausible that there are going to be a decent number of disaffected Republicans out there who will be looking for an outlet -- and Barr is actually probably a pretty good candidate to unify some of the distaste felt not only by social conservative Dobsonites but also by war-hating Paulies.
Obviously he's not going to win the election... but given the poor state of the country and some of the tepid support (and outright hostility) seen in the Republican primary, there are some voters out there that could be attracted to him in the same sort of way that some of Gore's attributes as a nominee fed into Nader's support.
Even if Barr only ends up getting something like 5% (which is certainly in reach given what I've outlined above), that's pretty significant and could hurt McCain in a couple of states.
Bob Barr running would ensure McCain loses. There would be no chance that prior republican voting, libertarian minded voters would come out for McCain at the last minute in response to an anti-individual liberty democrat. It would also dry up discretionary funding to the Republicans.
In short, it would ensure the RNC failing big time and absolutely imploding. Nice, couldn't happen to a nice group of self serving cleptos.
With the economy entering a severe recession caused by the Federal Reserve, the key issue, besides the Iraq war, ought to be the continued existence of this 'bank'. Obama has been pandering to it, offering it more power while believing it could make him president, as it did FDR. Most Libertarians oppose it because the 'Fed' makes it easy for the government to borrow and spend money. I know Ron Paul spoke against it and the LP candidate Wayne Root has not. Where do the other candidates, including Barr, stand?
Re DDP's comment "Plus, as a libertarian, I would love to have a LP candidate who wasn't, you know, a Republican"
------------
Bob Barr is not a Republican -- he's a former Republican who was screwed like a dog by the Republican party/Bush for his opposition to Bush over civil liberties.
In my opinion, Barr is thirsting for revenge against the Republican leadership. Probably one reason why he is running as a spoiler against McCain.
Re DDP's comment "Why vote for sweeping federal powers, even if for a short time, if you don't think the government should have such powers? I can see the pragmatism in his move, but not the power, influence or bravery to force real change."
-------------
Then you are not thinking very well.
After 911, the Republican-controlled Congress was moving to make Bush dictator. And a fair number of Democrats, like Joe Lieberman, were helping them.
Barr could not stop the first passage of the Patriot -- he could only ensure that it would be a short-lived condition that would have to come up for reapproval.
That's FAR better than having the Patriot Act enshrined as a PERMANENT LAW which can be changed ONLY if the Congress can overturn a Presidential Veto.
Deborah,
Do [Barr] and Gravel actually run off? Or just run in their own states, and no one frets too much? Or maybe this could be a Hillary venue as well, and the Libs can put forth 3 candidates in November?
Most state ballot access laws limit parties to one candidate per elected office, a candidate to one party (if any), and have rules and case law that guide political parties towards meeting those limits. These same rules also determine the threshold for being recognized as a party.
Per the Libertarian Party bylaws, I *think* the delegates can nominate and vote for whomever they wish if no one with previously pledged delegates wins the first ballot.
Upshot: Barr and Gravel and whoever can be nominated at the LP convention, and only one candidate will result.
If a particular state's Party organization decided to blow off the convention's decision and put their own choice on the ballot, the national party would most likely take them to court, and based on existing case law, win. IANAL, but I can play one on blogs.
Who the hell cares?
Look at the history of the Party here:
LIBERTARIAN PARTY HISTORY
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/libertarian_history.html
The highest vote total they ever got is around half a million votes. Locally, they've done high percentages in certain states and districts, but nationally they're a joke. Harry Browne argues for running Presidential campaigns as a form of outreach, but the likelihood that the Libs will EVER get more than one to five percent of the vote is SO improbable that it's a waste of time talking about.
I really don't know why Matt brings this stuff up periodically, other than as anti-Libertarian snark.
The Libs will have almost zero impact on McCain. Bob Barr doesn't have even as much chance as Ron Paul to achieve anything here.
Even though it would be nice to have their numbers for a season, I can't imagine what would possess a disaffected socially conservative evangelical to head this direction. I have no intention of ever legislating their version of morality, even if I happen to personally agree with some of it.
On the other hand, the Mormons that the Republicans worked overtime to offend right out of the party are theologically libertarian to the core. Agency is the Prime Directive of their whole dang church. Coercion, even for a good cause, is the plan of Satan....
And as we sit here legions of the aformentioned Christian Right are out re-opening the anti-Mormon/anti-Romney wounds and pouring in some salt and lemon juice. They are sending out well publicized petitions threatening McCain with their wrath if he should choose Romney as his VP.
A few nice LP invitations on message boards throughout the Intermountain West might be in order.
I'd support Barr for President over McCain. I'd rather see McCain win than Clinton or Obama, but not enough that I could ever vote for him. But the LP hasn't decided on a candidate yet... my fingers are crossed for Mary Ruwart to get the nomination. In the end, though, it's just a protest vote so I'll go for pretty much whoever gets the LP nomination.
Comments closed April 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
In theory, at least, there's room for a sort of John Anderson figure and you could see Barr playing that role.
Yeah, in Cobb County. Which might be enough to make a difference, but I doubt it. Barr just doesn't have the national stature to matter.
Posted by Gabriel | April 4, 2008 9:58 AM