Dave Weigel writes about "liberal bloggers" eager to back Bob Barr as an anti-McCain spoiler. You can sign me up. There's a certain number of people who aren't going to be on board for John McCain's vision of authoritarianism (in support of endless war) at home, and endless war (in support of authoritarianism) abroad but who also just aren't going to be very sympathetic to Barack Obama. If push comes to shove, I think Obama can get most of those people to vote for him. But I'd rather push didn't come to shove -- give traditionalist, small-government, small-r republican conservatives their Bob Barr to vote for and the Obama will win and the GOP might shift in a more product direction over the medium term.
« The War Matters | Main | Straight Talk Means Lying Constantly »
Bob Barr
20 May 2008 11:41 am
Comments (22)
If he could get so much as 1%, it would be tremendous.
Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, He successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59 -- the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998"
He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized.
In Congress, he also controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military.
An outspoken foe of abortion, the Georgia lawmaker had acquiesced to his then-wife having an abortion in 1983. And he had invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he'd cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third.
Barr is best known for his role as one of the House managers during the Clinton impeachment trial. It was Barr who first introduced a resolution directing Judiciary Committee to inquire into impeachment proceedings— months before the Monica Lewinsky scandal came to light.
All references courtesy Wikipedia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, a real gem, Matt. Nice guy. Fuck him.
the Obama will win
I love this. It's like how Dave Letterman says, "Hey Paul, did you see the HBO last night?"
Obama isn't going to win my home state of Georgia without Barr, so count me in as enthusiastic about Barr running. I still don't think Barr will pull enough from McCain to let Obama eke out a victory with roughly 40% of the vote but he could make it at least slightly interesting here.
Here I am trying to convince my mom that Obama supporters aren't a cult and you're telling me he's "the Obama."
On the other hand (though I mostly agree with your implicit assumption about The Math), if Barr does run and siphon off McCain votes, then even when The Obama wins, there's a two-pronged pall of "illegitimacy" over his first term: 1. as with Clinton (and, to a lesser degree, Bush), The Obama will be seen as owing his election to the spoiler and the split opposition vote; 2. more importantly (in terms of optics), The Obama will lose an opportunity to continue his "new, non-partisan politics" campaign, and won't be able to capture the Barr voters to get them to think of The Obama as "my President" -- he'll remain "their President."
I assume MY means "a more productIVE direction"
Given the winner-take-all structure of our presidential elections, each party would be stupid to not try to manufacture an attractive third-party option for the opposing side. It was sound strategy when conservatives funded Ralph Nader, and it is just as sound now for liberals to give Barr a helping hand. Any time you can splinter the opposing party's vote, even just a bit, victory is almost assured. It's a stupid electoral system, but it is what it is.
Given that the Libertarians are so divorced from the GOP at this point I worry that he's going to hurt Obama more than help him.
On the other hand (though I mostly agree with your implicit assumption about The Math), if Barr does run and siphon off McCain votes, then even when The Obama wins, there's a two-pronged pall of "illegitimacy" over his first term: 1. as with Clinton (and, to a lesser degree, Bush), The Obama will be seen as owing his election to the spoiler and the split opposition vote; 2. more importantly (in terms of optics), The Obama will lose an opportunity to continue his "new, non-partisan politics" campaign, and won't be able to capture the Barr voters to get them to think of The Obama as "my President" -- he'll remain "their President."
The Libertarians may be divorced from the GOP at this point, but if they nominate Bob Barr it'll be like makeup sex.
Bob Barr could be our first African-American President.
the GOP might shift in a more product direction
Brylcreem stocks just skyrocketed...
Now, here's the part of Barr's positions that MattY would never understand. Last I checked my email - yesterday - I still hadn't received a reply to my request for his full policy nor a reply to my request for an interview. Maybe MattY could give it a go, I'm sure he'd ask Barr some perceptive questions.
Steve duncan, you just gave a list of position Bob Barr held when he was a Republican. He's made a complete 180 on medical marijuana and the drug war, for one, and gay marriage, for another. And it's not exactly an opportunistic shift, to move to positions that are way out of the mainstream. It seems like a sincere, gradual conversion.
Nominating Bob Barr won't make the GOP kiss and make up with the libertarians. Barr is anti-war, anti-Patriot act, anti-drug war and a bunch of other stuff that's totally out of the question for today's GOP. He'd probably do slightly better than Ron Paul in a GOP primary, because he's not a kook, but only slightly.
Steve Duncan says: "Yeah, a real gem, Matt. Nice guy. Fuck him."
Maybe I'm misreading you, Steve, but I don't think Matt was saying anything positive about the Barr in this post, nor do i think Matt was saying the Barr is a good choice for president. He is only saying that he welcomes the Barr as a spoiler. The GOP moving in a more product[ive] direction would be a result of denying the neocons another term in the White House, not because of the Barr himself.
That said, I'm imagining a great campaign slogan: The Barr has been raised!
I find Bob Barr's conceit a little interesting. The idea that he ever stood for anything noteworthy, to justify reinventing himself as a Libertarian, is ridiculous.
Bob Barr is an entirely non-descript, partisan Republican foot soldier. His claim to infamy is impeaching Bill Clinton, and that's as un-Libertarian as one could get.
I find Bob Barr's conceit a little interesting. The idea that he ever stood for anything noteworthy, to justify reinventing himself as a Libertarian, is ridiculous.
Bob Barr is an entirely non-descript, partisan Republican foot soldier. His claim to infamy is impeaching Bill Clinton, and that's as un-Libertarian as one could get.
On the other hand, Barr could singlehandedly make Bill Clinton, who only won with the unintentional help of Ross Perot, relevant again! How ironic.
Until I see some useful polls to the contrary, I continue to suspect that Barr could siphon independent voters from Obama just as much as he will siphon moderate or "libertarian" Republicans from McCain.
The REAL question, however, instead of Matt masturbating over "libertarianism" again here, is what will happen if Bush launches a military attack on Iran before the election.
And we all know Matt can't comment on that.
Neither has any other Democrat ever even mentioned the possibility, even though Josh Bolton said back in 2006 that "The Dems will lose over Iran."
The Iran war is "the threat that must not be named by Democrats."
What's unlibertarian about impeaching a president for perjury? Other people go to jail for it. Libertarians presumably think the masters of th state should be subject to the same rules as the plebs.
Going to war against Serbia without congressional authorization and vapourizing the Branch Davidians was worse, of course, but they got Capone for tax evasion.
Comments closed June 03, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
the GOP might shift in a more product direction over the medium term
A more [what] product direction?
Posted by Antid Oto | May 20, 2008 12:10 PM