My friend Dave Weigel's one of the best political reporters in the country in general. And when it comes to a story like the Libertarian Party convention with its seven ballots before Bob Barr prevailed, his account is the definitive one.
« Frozen Fries | Main | Mars »
Barr Wins
26 May 2008 12:02 pm
Comments (21)
I read up to here:
But a large, swing vote is gettable for Barr
A large, swing vote? Skip to the end and Barr wins 324-276. That's a HUGE swing vote! Immense!
I can't remember the last time a political blog post made me laugh as hard as this one, mainly because of this line:
"I've seen Barr chatting with Gravel and Ruwart delegates, making the electability case."
The funniest thing I've read in ages: "I've seen Barr chatting with Gravel and Ruwart delegates, making the electability case."
I tend to go easier on Weigel than MattY because it's like beating up the nerdy kid. But, his "analysis" is frequently more than a bit off; for instance, see my ("Click 'n' Learn") comment here:
reason.com/blog/show/125483.html#936121
In the current case, there's actually a way that Barr could have a major impact or even win, but don't expect him to be able to figure it out or Reason to suggest it as an option. Those Beltway cocktail parties are just too inviting.
Obama Speaks to Veterens in Puerto Rico
Want to know the difference between Clinton and Obama supporters
And Find out What has been bothering me
This and more on…
Obama Speaks to Veterens in Puerto Rico
Want to know the difference between Clinton and Obama supporters
And Find out What has been bothering me
This and more on…
TLB
assuming the argument is right, and that this year immigration will turn out to be the single most important issue in the election, and that Barr is able to mount a cogent, appealing position on it--doesn't the argument that he could win assume that more than half of the electorate actually reads the leaflet he sticks under their windshield wipers?
Oh man, I LOVE TLB's idea. This election needs a third party candidate committed to cultural demagoguery. As a committed Obama supporter I can honestly say I would consider sending Barr money to fund his campaign if he would commit to running as a Know Nothing.
dan: that's cute, but the three major candidates are incredibly vulnerable on this issue. They've repeatedly lied, misled, and offered half-baked schemes. The reason you don't know about it is because the MSM - and mainstream bloggers like MattY - are completely corrupt.
The solution is for average citizens to go to public appearances by the candidates and ask them real questions, then upload the responses to video sharing sites.
So, for instance, someone could go to a BHO appearance and ask him one of these. If someone really presses him on one of those, I half expect him to start crying and run off the stage. I only know of one instance where he was asked real questions (about Rezko) and in that case he got a bit "testy".
Now, if Barr wanted to mount an insurgent campaign and - unlike Tanc and RP - actually take on his opponents, he could send people - for instance, campaign volunteers who are trial lawyers or others used to asking "prosecutorial-style" questions - to BHO's appearances and really press him on this issue.
A few hundred thousand or maybe even millions of views later, BHO isn't going to have much of a chance at the presidency.
For weak examples, BHO was unintentionally stumped recently:
youtube.com/watch?v=gGZbgMQZATs
And, a weak questioner asked McCain something that was weak:
youtube.com/watch?v=tIK9ZawRMlg
If someone more adept had asked a better question McCain wouldn't look too very good at all and it would have gotten many more views.
MattY can relax at least as far as Barr is concerned, since he appears to be little more than an establishment hack whose goal is probably something like selling books.
Bob Barr: Our first African-American President!
If someone really presses him on one of those, I half expect him to start crying and run off the stage.
Ah, the wonders of projection. If 'if's and 'and's were pots and pans, Whack O'Mole would be Sur La Table rather than Sous Le Lit. Obviously, people are scared to confront his truth-telling, and not at all treating him like a crazy shut-in xenophobe.
All that 'if someone would ask...' -- stop fucking whining and do it yourself, Kelly, or admit that you prefer blogwhoring for pennies because you shit yourself hollow whenever you go outside in LA.
On a more amusing topic, no post on Libertarian convention is complete without this Onion link.
TLB:
If a tree falls in a forest, and there's no one around to hear it, does it matter what its immigration policy is?
In many states, Ron Paul has been picking up 10-15% of the primary vote. If Bob Barr were able to siphon off a few percent from McCain in some swing states, he could really wreak some havoc on the R's.
TLB hallucinates as follows:
"So, for instance, someone could go to a BHO appearance and ask him one of these. If someone really presses him on one of those, I half expect him to start crying and run off the stage."
The questions referred to:
"Question 1: You stated that Lou Dobbs supports mass deportations, but that's not his position.
Question 2: You've repeatedly offered a 'false choice', claiming that we need to choose between mass deportations and a massive legalization program. Yet, others support what's called 'attrition', where we enforce our immigration laws now and cause many or most illegal aliens to leave voluntarily over time. If you don't support attrition, could you tell us why you think it won't work?
Question 3: You threw your support behind the recent illegal immigration marches, yet some of the key organizers of those marches are linked to the Mexican government. One key organizer of the Chicago marches - including the one you spoke at in 2006 - is an official with a Mexican political party. Other marches were organized by a former Mexican consul general. Will you be investigating this foreign meddling in our internal politics?"
Yeah, right, I'm sure these will cause him to start crying...NOT.
The Comments section of the site referred to contains this reposte which pretty well answers TLB:
Mon, 05/19/2008 - 8:35am — thrillho
sorry to burst your bubble...
but Obama would not have any difficulty answering these questions. They are not very difficult, and he is much smarter than you (this much is clearly true after reading just a few of your posts). While you may think that people would be disappointed with Obama's honest answers to these questions, you are wrong. Nobody really cares that much about this issue. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. Immigration (legal or otherwise) causes big problems for some people, but in the aggregate it is such a minor issue for our country compared to the other challenges we face. That's why no one asks him these questions."
Correct. Nobody gives a shit.
Now, I would like a chance to challenge Obama on his "Iran is a threat" crap. I could rip him a new one on his bullshit on that subject.
Not to mention his Israel pandering.
And his ignorance about Afghanistan and Pakistan.
There are good reasons to not like Obama, but immigration is the least of them.
And again, on Barr, let's not forget that he can siphon off some independent votes from Obama. And with Hillary sabotaging the Democrats right through the election, and Bush starting an Iran war, Obama is going to need all the votes he can get.
[slightly modified from a comment I left at Reason in reply to a highly similar comment]
I'm not surprised that ___Richard Steven Hack___ can't understand how that question would work.
First, I nice-d it up: I'd just come right out and call him a liar.
But, even in it's nicer form it would help show how Obama is a liar. And, since it would be on video, it would show up on at least one TV show. Hint: it gets over a million viewers.
I wonder: do they put prospective ___Obama supporters___ in a box and kick them out of the movement if it takes less than a half an hour for them to get out of it?
4th place on the Libertarian ballot? Man, Mike Gravel can't get no respect.
3:26: Gravel on why he didn't give a concession speech: "That's not my style."
Is the Reform Party still around?
Ah, Whack O'Mole's just writing his own bigot erotica. How sad.
Gravel did pretty well for not being a Libertarian.
Well, TLB, just email me when Obama loses the election over one of your questions.
See ya.
Barr isn't a Libertarian either, by that standard. He and Gravel both switched their registrations in the last couple months.
Comments closed June 09, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
That's better than a Simmons draft day diary.
Libertarians are weirdos.
Posted by Woody Bombay | May 26, 2008 12:42 PM