Steve G.

Why I’m Voting Barr-Root, And Why You Should Too

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US on June 15, 2008 at 12:19 am

I am a Libertarian Party partisan.

What does it mean to be a Libertarian Party partisan?

It means having a sincere, facts-based belief in the platform of the LP — and a strong belief that LP candidates, broadly speaking, are better for America than the candidates of other parties: Democrat, Republican, Green, Constitution, etc.

It also means understanding the unspoken agreement of the Libertarian Party — that as a party, we have our internal debates and discussions, work them out in convention, and then unite around our candidates and the values of the platform that they stand for.

In Denver, we had a number of improvements to our party platform, including strengthened language on sexuality/gender/parentage and the role of government in abortion (nil.) These were victories for liberty, and for Americans everywhere.

We also nominated Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root as our presidential and vice presidential nominees.

I intend to vote for the Libertarian ticket, and promote it over the candidacies of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and Constitution Party, because in election 2008, the Barr-Root ticket is indisputably the best choice for America.

I am perfectly aware of the objections to the candidacy. I am aware of the concerns that many Libertarians have against the individual candidates, and I share them. But I could hardly expect the LP to unite around my preferred candidate, George Phillies, if I’m not prepared to have the same attitude to other Libertarian candidates.

Similarly, how could Ruwart, Kubby, Gravel, or Smith supporters have expected Libertarians to support their candidate if they’re not willing to extend the same courtesy to those who they otherwise don’t support?

The reality is, they couldn’t.

In America today, we have a Republican candidate castigating the Supreme Court for ruling that the government may not indefinitely detain individuals without charges or court hearings. We have a Democrat who thinks that energy prices are too high, and so we need to make them higher through tax increases on oil companies (and at the pump). We are in a disastrous and pointless war in Iraq, with casualties reaching difficult-to-contemplate levels. Government deficits spin out of control, and the answer from the old parties is that we’re not spending enough. Culture warriors use government power to remove books (and courses) they disapprove of from schools; transform legislative and judicial buildings into venues to display religious artifacts; and wage war against Americans who are the wrong gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, or other category.

With all these unpredecented predations inflicted on our citizenry, we’ve got nothing better to do than get into an argument about whether or not *any* of the Libertarian presidential nominees presented in Denver — including Mssrs. Barr and Root — aren’t an improvement?

Seriously?

Look, Bob Barr’s platform isn’t purely where I want to go. I don’t think it’s where most Libertarians want to go. But it represents the best platform in election 2008.

And I will work to help lobby the Barr/Root campaign to take more Libertarian positions whenever I can, just as I did with Bob Barr when he was an LNC member and I explained the effect of his DOMA law on average gay Americans. Barr changed his view as a result, and I applaud and respect that willingness to re-examine the issues and migrate to a more libertarian stance.

Here’s the record of our Libertarian ticket today. If Bob Barr becomes president, he’ll end the Iraq War, curb government spending, oppose efforts to nationalize health care, downsize military bases abroad, oppose the USA PATRIOT Act (and veto extensions of that), work to repeal the federal definition of marriage imposed on states in DOMA, work to end our foreign entanglements, oppose federal snoops in our e-mail and bedrooms, and carry the platform he’s cultivated at the ACLU to the White House.

That’s a Libertarian agenda.

Obama and McCain? Libertarians advocating their candidacies are camping in the middle of Bedlam, and cannot claim to have a serious place at the LP table when they’re willing to abandon the party in favor of those two statist nightmares.

Ron Paul? He is not a serious candidate, will not appear on the ballot, and has significant anti-libertarian stances himself that resemble many of the criticisms that his loudest purist supporters direct against Barr. He’s also a Republican with explosive positions on social issues — and an unwillingness to strongly denounce the unsavory political organizations (such as Stormfront) that have thrown their support behind him. (Incidentally, that issue is far more explosive than the “child porn” non-issue smear against Dr. Ruwart from last month).

Chuck Baldwin is a radical theocrat whose positions on the issues, and party platform, is diametrically opposed to the Libertarian Party’s platform on almost every issue. Anybody proposing that his platform is “more libertarian” than the LP ticket’s is camping out in another section of Bedlam.

Let’s face it — casting a “protest” vote in this election for any of those jokers (or worse, writing them in) means that you’re dropping out of the meaningful liberty movement — that you’re not serious about moving closer to liberty with the strongest resources that we have at our disposal today.

Is Bob Barr the radical’s dream, or the centrist’s perfect choice? No. Was I overjoyed when he was nominated? Many people at the convention who spoke with me can answer that question for me — I was undoubtedly concerned.

But the most important question from now until November is this: is Bob Barr the most Libertarian choice on the ballot in November? The answer is “undoubtedly.”

Regardless of where on the LP ideological spectrum you fall, ensuring a successful candidacy for our party’s candidates at all levels — including a strong Barr-Root turnout that is carried downticket to excellent candidates for state and local office — builds a stronger Libertarian Party.

And we can come back in 2010 to debate the future platforms, who we’d like to see as our presidential candidate, our mistakes as a party, and whether or not the 2008 candidacy was a “good move.” But it’s important that those of us who demand a place at the Libertarian table are willing to accord similar spots to those of us who might be newer, or disagree with us on certain issues — rallying around the values that unite us as well as debating the values where we disagree. Without that commitment to open debate and healthy partisanship, we cannot call ourselves a serious force in American politics.

I’m standing shoulder-to-shoulder with my fellow Libertarians to put up a fight against the big-government, nanny-state (and police state) platforms of the Democrats, Republicans and Constitution Party. I invite all who are concerned about these big questions of our time to join us in the upcoming fight of our political lives.

  1. I just finished watching the You Tube video of Ron Paul’s rally in Texas, as he has ended his campaign for president. In watching it, I remember why, although Paul is not a 100/100 libertarian, I supported him. I also got the distinct impression that when he speaks, there is so much Mary Ruwart in his style and rhetoric, and so much Ron Paul in Mary Ruwart’s as well!

    I am reminded of the famous line that Lloyd Bentsen at the 1988 VP debate, saying that Dan Quayle was no Jack Kennedy . . . when I think of Bob Barr. I can very confidently, say Mr. Barr, you are no Ron Paul!

    It is sad really . . . Ron Paul tapped into the libertarian sentiments of a lot of people, running as a Republican. The sad part is that it is Bob Barr who is left to carry that torch. Barr will fail miserably, simply because he is no where near as principled a libertarian as Ron Paul is, no where near as charismatic, no where near as believable and no where near as honest and gracious a man. Ron Paul has been a libertarian for more than 30 years. Barr is a very poor torch carrier of the Ron Paul Revolution. Barr is a politician . . . a PROSECUTOR . . . AN APOLOGIST FOR THE STATE! Mary Ruwart would have been SO MUCH BETTER TO CARRY ON THE REVOLUTION I am sad indeed. So this is why I say . . .

    That my, friends, even as a Life Member of the LP, is why I cannot in all good conscience vote for Bob Barr. Forget W.A.R. He is a total abomination.

    God help the LP. We’re gong to need it! The repercussions of upholding liberty will be something we will feel, and be treading water for years to come because the Barr/W.A.R. campaign totally turns libertarianism on its head. We have tough times ahead. Be ready for the “blowback” of a Barr neo-libertarian campaign.

  2. This essay “Why I’m Voting Barr-Root, And Why You Should Too” is purely apologetic in its tone. Very sad indeed. We are now choosing the LP presidential and vice presidential candidates as the lesser of three evils. Very sad, and a very poor excuse for voting for two conservatives in Libertarian clothing.

  3. Brian Miller is selling his principles and soul to the devil by voting for the Barr/Root ticket. Then again, did Mr. Miller have principles in the first place?

  4. I have been a member of the LP for only a few months, and I have already about had it with the Crybabies! ie; ‘My candidate didn’t get the nomination. so to hell with the party’ GROW UP, and support the party! Better luck with YOUR perfect candidate next convention! I have never seen such childish bickering and name-calling!
    There is NO PERFECT CANDIDATE! As this post states, Bob Barr is by far the best candidate for our Liberty, and for America, but, I’m sure that the Crybabies will continue to cry, forgetting who the real enemy is!

  5. The real enemy is within our party…the neo-libertarians and the reform retards who hijacked our party to make it Republican-lite.

  6. I find it amazing how many Ron Paul supporters, who demanded that I compromise on his numerous unlibertarian positions (including the socially conservative elements of his “revolution”) have morphed into purists. If Ron Paul had won the LP nomination, none of the whiny crybabies slamming me would have accepted my criticisms of Paul’s numerous unlibertarian stances on issues important to many of us.

    I like to work with people with whom I disagree, as well as people with whom I agree, on common areas of agreement. People who refuse to pull in the Libertarian direction, and choose false purism, are doing the movement no favors and tend to view the LP as a platform for their own “radical self-expression” rather than as a political party.

    As for my alleged “lack of principles,” I was in Denver stumping for my candidate (who was not Bob Barr). If all the critics of Barr were in Denver, rather than posting whiny comments on blogs, the outcome would have been significantly different. If the “principles” were so important to them, they’d have found time to actually demonstrate those principles in Denver. Their whining about the natural consequences of their own laziness is tiresome.

  7. My sentiments are with Chris and Steve. I was never one to vote for a lesser of 2 evils and, I’m not a party person, by which I mean that I will not vote for somebody based on their party affiliation. I will vote for person, not for the party ie: voting for Ron Paul in the primary felt so good, despite the fact that he was under the “republican” label. He has been consistent with voting towards liberty and freedom, and that is the bottom line of what matters to me. I think he is 95% libertarian, and many of his beliefs resonate will with libertarians, especially pro-life libertarians like me. Mary Ruwart & Kubby were the only candidates that could have ushered in the Paulians, and now, I’m afraid that the LP will be unable to excite his supporters.

  8. I have a problem with the old LP position on abortion and immigration because I think there are true libertarian positions on both sides. Ron Paul is a lot better than Bob Barr…in fact the Barr ticket wouldn’t look so ugly had Root not been the VP choice but the delegates in Denver were duped by Root’s snake charming, used car salesman personality. I don’t expect the Barr ticket to get more than 750,000 votes and the Barr supporters will do exactly what they wanted to do to the LP…send it back about 20 years or so. Principles before the Party not the other way around.

  9. Each individual is entitled to his own opinion, but I can boil the Ron Paul partisan argument, as expressed in the comments, down to: “Bob Barr isn’t pure enough for me, but that purism doesn’t matter with regard to Ron Paul because I like Ron Paul.”

    That’s fine and good, but please don’t lecture folks on “principle” when Ron Paul doesn’t meet the Libertarian Purity Test himself.

  10. Steve L writes, “Be ready for the “blowback” of a Barr neo-libertarian campaign.”

    The problem with that is that so far Barr has been presenting libertarian positions. Get out of Korea, Japan, etc. Talk to Iran, not bomb, bomb, bomb. Declaring the war on drugs a failure. Repealing at least part of DOMA.

    And so far he’s getting better press coverage than I can imagine Ruwart or Kubby getting, as much as I admire both of them

  11. I never said I was a purist did I? If you feel that your principles equate to voting for Bob Barr who openly said that he would continue incarcerating heroin and cocaine users, then so be it. I don’t trust Bob Barr especially someone who was previously a prosecutor and CIA agent. I just can’t vote for “THE MAN” at all.

  12. >>I never said I was a purist did I?<>If you feel that your principles equate to voting for Bob Barr who openly said that he would continue incarcerating heroin and cocaine users, then so be it.<<

    So what other choice do I have to support a presidential candidate who will ratchet DOWN the Drug War, rather than ratchet it UP or keep it at the same level?

    Throw away my vote with a write-in vote for someone else?

    Not vote at all?

    Refuse to lobby Barr for progress on that front as well?

    You and your cohorts didn’t show up at convention to provide enough votes to provide a better candidate. Why should I listen to your demands that I waste my vote when you didn’t have enough faith in those principles to show up in Denver? It’s not as though the date and venue was unknown.

    I’m going to do what Ron Paul partisans called for for so long — vote for a candidate who will move us closer to liberty. The irony here is that said vote will be for Bob Barr, and not for faithful Republican, 20-year federal employee and racist newsletter publisher Ron Paul. Barr basically stole your thunder and your strategy, and you’re too blind to your guy to see it.

  13. Oh don’t cram the “you didn’t show up at Denver” shit down my throat! I spent 2 months on the road as a VP candidate (which I got very little support in which caused me to drop out, plus finishing my last semester of college) unemployed basically living off what money I did save. The money I had saved for Denver wound up fixing my wife’s van so we could keep it running for another year. Besides I’m not going to starve my children and be homeless for the LP. You may have that kind of dedication but I don’t! Going to a convention or two every 4 years does NOT make an activist. It goes deeper than that and you of all people should know that!

  14. ‘The real enemy is within our party’?

    What!?! What part of McCain’s and Obama’s agenda don’t you understand?
    Guess you forgot who are members of the CFR, and forgot about their globalist agenda, not to mention the Bilderberg Group!
    Our economy, sovereignty, and, most of all, our freedoms and liberties will be gone.
    Our only hope is to support a candidate that is not part of the above, with Libertarian values. or, for the judgemental purists, more Libertarian values than the other parties. There is no comparison between the agenda of the 2 major parties, and the LP, and Bob Barr’s agenda.
    If we don’t support our candidate, and our party, we get what we deserve!

  15. It doesn’t matter if you vote anyways because the voting machines in most states are rigged. Change the voting system and maybe just maybe we might be able to regain our freedoms back. Maybe Richard Boddie was right: In another 6-7 years I might become an anarcho-capitalist!

  16. Chris
    I am a purist and i helped barr get the nod. I have went with the pure (badnarik) it did not get us any where. A kubby Vp? It should have been but the purist ran out of the room when ruwart lost and root won by a few votes. The reformers beat the purist on tactics and that is how they game is played.Ruwart could have been vp that was her choice. barr has been doing a good job with the info he is putting out there. I agree I wish Barr was pure I wish I was a billionaire. We have a chance to move forward and grow the party and move towards freedom. Lokk thier are a lot of Libertarian campaigns going on this year work on those. but you know what I bet you get more press this year on those smaller races than ever before and more money and volunteers because the party is getting more press. We will bring in new members it is up to us to get them onto the pure path. Also Barr’s race will be up in just a few months (5 months) and we will see how this washes out. I bet we hit over a million votes and at least two states we will get more than the difference than the vote totals between the two big candidates.I do not want to lose anyone but if Mike gravel had have won I would not leave the party I would just work harder to get a better candidate next time.
    Thanks everyone who works toward our common goal of Liberty and freedom.

  17. Re: “It also means understanding the unspoken agreement…”

    Congratulations on having reinvented the Leninist concept of democratic centralism. Who gets to ice-pick Tom Knapp?

  18. I haven’t left the party…..I have unfinished business that needs to get taken care of before I ever bolt.

  19. How is “the lesser of three evils” better than “the lesser of two evils”? I am not trying to cause dissent; I am seriously curious.

  20. don’t cram the “you didn’t show up at Denver” shit down my throat

    Sorry to hear about your economic problems, Chris, but there are lots and lots and lots of people complaining endlessly about the outcome of the nomination process who weren’t at Denver. They can’t all be broke and about to starve.

    Many of us sacrificed to get there, and if most of those criticizing had put their energy into getting into Denver rather than blasting everyone who was there, the vote outcome would have been significantly different. Those are the facts.

    the Leninist concept of democratic centralism

    Ah, the Libertarian equivalent of Godwin’s Law! I must be a commie because I am noting that those who supported other candidates would have expected the party to get behind their candidate, had he or she won, just like the party’s getting behind the actual nominee.

    Silly me, I call that professionalism.

    It also begs the question for the rest of us committed to the success of the LP — if you are going to take your ball and go home when you don’t get your own uncompromising way, then why should others who don’t agree with every item of your agenda work with you? This is a political party, not a debate society. None of us is going to get everything we want, all the time. Walking out in a tantrum is only going to destroy the political capital of all of those who are doing it, right now.

    How is “the lesser of three evils” better than “the lesser of two evils”?

    Because I don’t see the LP as “evil.”

    Your mileage may vary, of course, but the LP is literally the only entity in this election calling for smaller government, an end to the PATRIOT Act, etc., etc., etc.

    The alternative is throwing one’s vote away, or blogging endlessly about it. I’m not happy with everything going on in the LP, but I also don’t delude myself into thinking I can change it (or help America) by walking out the door, pitching a tantrum, or skipping the convention and then complaining when my guy loses because… I skipped the convention.

    I also reject the whole “purist vs. reformer” argument around the nomination. I know a number of purists who voted against Ruwart and for Barr/Root in the final ballots, and a number of prominent reformers who were alarmed over the prospect of an unbalanced ticket and supported Kubby in the VP slot.

  21. This essay “Why I’m Voting Barr-Root, And Why You Should Too” is purely apologetic in its tone. Very sad indeed. We are now choosing the LP presidential and vice presidential candidates as the lesser of three evils. Very sad, and a very poor excuse for voting for two conservatives in Libertarian clothing.

    Agreed, 100%.

  22. Then again, did Mr. Miller have principles in the first place?

    Only those of the socialist welfare queen variety.

  23. GROW UP, and support the party!

    What a dangerous mentality to think that just because someone is part of a certain group, that all members of that group must support that candidate.

    I intend to vote for candidates based on their individual merit, no matter what group they claim to be a part of.

    I will probably vote for Libertarians for all other offices, but I there is no way in hell I would vote for Barf. I would rather write in Daffy Duck.

  24. I was in Denver stumping for my candidate (who was not Bob Barr).

    Urkel is just as bad, if not worse.

  25. “Bob Barr isn’t pure enough for me, but that purism doesn’t matter with regard to Ron Paul because I like Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul didn’t vote for the patriot act. Ron Paul didn’t vote for illegal wars of aggression. Ron Paul didn’t voted against freedom of religion.

    Barf did.

  26. Besides the platform.

  27. And so far he’s getting better press coverage than I can imagine Ruwart or Kubby getting, as much as I admire both of them

    Which is detrimental to the LP. Average voter: “Isn’t that the guy that had a hard-on for Clinton’s impeachment for getting a blowjob, yet hasn’t said a word about the much more notorious criminal Bush? Isn’t that the drug warrior guy?” Barf is doing nothing but selling the LP as another Repug party.

  28. Thanks everyone who works toward our common goal of Liberty and freedom.

    Yes, thanks to everyone that does NOT support statists like Barf.

  29. How is “the lesser of three evils” better than “the lesser of two evils”? I am not trying to cause dissent; I am seriously curious.

    Very good question.

  30. Barf/Puke ’08

  31. Why I’m Voting Barr-Root, And Why You Should Too

    Leave it to the Outright Liber-Nazis to try to tell everyone who they should vote for. Typical fascists.

  32. Don’t let Root rape your mother.

  33. I am undecided, but I will probably vote for no one or not vote at all.

    I do think much of the bickering goes back to the whole “‘debate society vs. political party” thing. While I am no fan of Barr ( and consider myself a purist/reformer), I also do not fool myself into thinking that Ron Paul is a charismatic political figure on the national stage or that ANY “purist/radical” would have much chance of doing any better than Badnarik. Politics is the sewer, yes the dirty shit of society and it is what it is. If you choose to engage in politics at all you are playing a game that requires certain ( strategic, at least) compromise. Personally, I would prefer such compromise to be in the opposite direction of Barr, but that’s what it is.

    My thought is that the “Revolution” will live on beyond Ron Paul and the LP will somehow manage to live beyond Barr/Root. If Barr/Root prove to be opportunistic screw-ups, we will move on mostly unscathed. They won’t be the first or last to give Libertarians a bad name.

  34. I do think much of the bickering goes back to the whole “‘debate society vs. political party” thing.

    Nonsense. That is what political parties do – well, except for in Ms. Miller’s fascist fantasy world where all members of a party are simply brain-dead lemmings. If any of the morons that make this “debate society” claim would bother to observe what goes on within the Republicrat party they would see that there is just as much “bickering”, if not more.

  35. or that ANY “purist/radical” would have much chance of doing any better than Badnarik.

    I can’t figure out what a couple hundred thousand votes more than Badnarik is going to accomplish. Can any resident barfers please explain?

  36. I knew it would only be a matter of time before the Head Crybaby (disinter) would get in his 2 cents of crying.
    Lets keep up the crap of who is Libertarian enough, and keep ignoring the real issues and real threats to our country, which includes our owm government.
    My only hope is that there are actually very few crybabies in number, and most will have the sense to actually support and vote for the only candidate with the best interests of our country at heart. Barr is the one that isn’t for the SPP/NAU, and the NWO/One World Government.
    I personally wanted Mary to win, put I am not crying about the outcome. I am moving on, and am looking at what is best for our country.

  37. I would say Ron Paul is about as pure in his positions as a libertarian can get. You don’t have to be a libertarian to have principle. He proves this time and time again. If Barr doesn’t meet the purity test, that is fine, but the TRUTH of the matter is that he is VERY INCONSISTENT with liberty. If that doesn’t make you question his motives then I don’t know what will.

    And for the record, I really liked Badnarik, he had my support. Although media coverage is nice, we all know that the candidates that are truly good and honorable rarely if ever get their 2 minutes on television. I’m not about ready to sell out to get on tv.

    And for those of us who could not make it to Denver, you have no right to judge. You have no idea what others are going through or what they have to deal with in their personal lives. Good for you, you were able to go while the rest of us tuned in at home. Those of us who did not go are still entitled to our opinions.

  38. All those supporting Barr/W.A.R. can disagree, but my viewpoint is that with a contrived attempt at sounding Libetarian, Barr and W.A.R. come across as completely disingenuous, and not at all sincere. Add in the fact that both Barr and W.A.R. have changed their minds so much (allegedly), how can we trust anything they say, especially if the supposed influx of media coverage starts to get tough. Will Barr react as her did on Hannity and Colmes . . . by taking a totally non-libertarian position on hard drugs? When called to the mat, will Barr repudiate the COMPLETE Patriot Act, or just a few of the most egregious provisions he has been against? Will Barr talk about the “provisions” in the DOMA Act that he would eliminate (see the C-Span “debate) or would he eliminate the whole Act? When asked by media interviewers, will W.A.R. say he is for a foreign policy of non-aggression, or show exuberant support for the invasion of Kuwait to “liberate” them from Saddam Hussein? Will W.A.R. support the idea of getting tough on terrorism, or admit that the great majority of terrorist acts are “blowback”?

    Will Barr cave in on the cutting spending enough to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing, or will he support once again, a NEW tax (WOW-an “alleged” Libertarian supporting NEW taxes!!!) to uphold the government’s intrusion into American’s wallets? How will Barr and W.A.R. reconcile W.A.R.’s “stay the hell out of your wallet” slogan, with Barr’s support for a national sales tax?

    See, the problem here, is that the LP’s candidates shouldn’t be formulating their positions DURING the campaign, their libertarian positions should have been embraced WAY before. Flip-flopping, is rightfully a major problem ala Mitt Romney.

    Can we say this about Kubby or Ruwart? OF course not. If either Steve or Mary did any flip-flopping, it would have been many years ago, before their cohesive embrace of libertarianism.

    It is a complete embarrassment that our presidential ticket is in the formulation stage of their views, and have changed over the last two years and are changing their views seemingly every time I hear them! If I am confused, what will the average informed voter think?

    My non-support for the ticket is not “sour grapes”; it is a reasoned and well thought out rejection of the flip-flopping, support for non-libertarian positions, and the confusion the ticket will instill about just what does the LP stand for?

    In the short run, the ticket may get some additional media coverage, and possibly a few more votes. In the long run hopwever, the LP is going to be dealing with the conservatism of the 2008 LP ticket as libertartianism when it is not. I can hear the questions (now-during the campaign and for years to come) – why is it that the LP supports foreign wars (W.A.R. on Desert Storm)? Why is it that the LP supports the War on Drugs at the State level?
    Why is it that the LP supports NEW taxes? Why is it that the LP supports letting in certain immigrants (who bring “skills”) over other immigrants? Why is it that the LP supports the federal government supporting education? why is it that the LP supports federal involvement in private contractual relations i.e. marriage?

    This ticket is bad news, and neither Barr nor W.A.R. is Ron Paul, nor is a rightful heir to the “rEVOLution”.

  39. Yeah, I’m sour. Spent 20 years bustin’ ass for the “L”(C)P and now it’s being used as a tool to throw a new tax on me that could screw up my retirement!

    http://www.jpfo. org/filegen- a-m/fairtax. htm

    L. Neil Smith: “…Bob Barr, an interloper, carpetbagger, scavenger, and parasite who latched onto the Libertarian Party to salvage his failing political career and will no doubt hand it back when it has served its purpose, a drained, broken, lifeless wreck.”

    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle471-20080608-02.html

  40. “Ultimately, we must regain control of the Libertarian Party and cleanse it, which is to say, employ our principles to render it uninhabitable by anyone who isn’t a real libertarian. Then we can let Barr and his friends crawl back under the Republican rock they came from.”- L Neil Smith

  41. My position is very simple: if a candidate doesn’t “get” the First Amendment, then he doesn’t “get” my vote, period, party label be damned.

    Barr doesn’t “get” the First Amendment:

    – DOMA (free association, free exercise of religion, impairment of contracts)
    – Fort Hood (free exercise of religion)
    – PATRIOT ACT (free speech)
    – Clinton impeachment (free association)

    He can say he’s reformed all he wants, but he has to APOLOGIZE and admit he was WRONG. He has done little to none of both.

    If he can’t understand the fundamental basis of our nation, then WTF is he doing running to lead our nation???

  42. Man there is a lot of whinning. I am about as pure a Libertarian as they come and L Neil Smith can kiss my ass. I have ran for office twice and ran a few campaigns for hard core Libertarians. The party has not had that much success with the badnariks of the world. I know Barr is not perfect but niether was Ron Paul. Bob barr has been doing a great job in the interviews he has been doing. he will bring more people to the party and yes some will be the people we as Libertarians hate (right wingers) but once i get in church I will get a chance to preach the good word. The hard core stuff. How many of us started down this road no so pure? it is talking with people like you guys that has given me a better understanding of Libertarianism. How many people will now read Rand of vist our websites that never would have? The big question is will we be better off 1 – 2 -3 years from now because of Barr’s campaign. I believe better off.
    Also if you dont like the candidates we have than do something about it. I gave George phillies about $800.00 by buying his first round of bumper stickers and lapel stickers. How many here helped Steve kubby’s campaign. Maybe if you would shut your pie hole and had worked on his campaign he would have been the VP candidate. I was at the convention and I helped barr win the nomonation. But if he had not won I would have worked as hard for any of our candidates if they had won which I did for Badnarik.
    Oh yeah I used to be hard core right winger but I was introduced to a man name Ron Crickenburger who helped me get on the path. It is time for some of you guys to step and be the next Ron Crickenburger and grab that new guy who Barr brings to the party and walk him down that path
    Yours in Liberty Doug Craig who still says L Neil can kiss my ass.

  43. You know Doug I went to college and is now 20K in debt thinking that I was going to help the LP elect real libertarians to office. I once remember Barr saying that his candidacy will not help downticket Libertarians but Downticket Republicans! If Barr wants to start acting like a Libertarian he needs to stop supporting Republicans especially with his Leadership PAC. If Barr wants to be a Libertarian he needs to start reaching out to both the right and the left during the election season. If Barr wants to be a Libertarian he should openly apologize for all his sins as a CIA agent, prosecutor and congressman. Maybe then maybe I might trust the guy. If I do anything this election season it will be for the LP and not the presidential ticket. And things don’t suceed..there’s always the Boston Tea Party.

  44. Bob barr has been doing a great job in the interviews he has been doing.

    So has McSame. Should we nominate him too?

  45. he will bring more people to the party

    What evidence do you have of this? Has membership grown since Barf was nominated?

    Barf will bring Repug voters that hate McSame, then they will go right back to the GOP after November. In the meantime, Barf is scaring away people from all other political persuasions that Ron Paul so successfully attracted.

  46. Doug Craig Says:
    June 15, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    How many here helped Steve kubby’s campaign. Maybe if you would shut your pie hole and had worked on his campaign he would have been the VP candidate.

    I supported Mary Ruwart’s campaign, both monetarily, and as a staffer. Stop apologizing for the Barr/W.A.R. campaign, and stop whining about those who don’t support the conservative ticket the LP delegates (actually-less than 1/2 of the credentialed delegates voted for Barr on the 6th ballot, or W.A.R. on the 2nd!) elected.

    Regardless of how many votes or TV interviews Barr/W.A.R. do, the wrong message is broadcast . . . the conservative message is not libertarian . . . libertarianism is NOT a subset of conservatism. If you don’t understand this, then you aren’t a libertarian yourself. Hopefully, Barr, W.A.R. and you will someday understand the libertarian message . . . non-aggression, and action by the state which is rightfully understood as initiation of force is anti-libertarian. Apply this basic principle and you’ll see just how anti-libertarian Barr/W.A.R. are. Alas, since you are probably blinded by the promise of “votes, exposure, viability” (as if viability follows from protest or conservative votes!), I don’t expect you to change your mind.

  47. Kevin Barrett on barf:

    “Barr opposes impeaching the Constitution-shredding Cheney regime; Barrett demands impeachment, conviction, and treason trials. Barr is willing to keep the U.S. spending more on the military than every other nation on Earth combined; Barrett wants to end the empire, return to a defend-the-borders posture, and cut military spending by at least 90 percent. Barr will not endorse Ron Paul’s call to abolish the private money monopoly known as the Federal Reserve; Barrett strongly supports abolishing the Fed. Barr is unwilling to end the bogus “war on drugs” and the even more bogus “war on terror”; Barrett will work to expose and end both of these horrific, government-bloating hoaxes.

    Barr could become a real Libertarian — and a force in the presidential race — just by adding an “-ett” to his name.”

    http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/291455

  48. Barr needs to talk more about the bipartisan attempt to completely control heterosexual marriage, not gay marriage.

    The 2005 revision of VAWA with its outrageous IMBRA provision need public discussion.

    VAWA makes it hazardous for an American man to get married because he falls under much more jeopardy of false abuse charges than if he stayed single. The law was designed to destroy heterosexual marriage…but the village idiot Sam Brownback convinced his zombie-like Republican colleages in the Senate (including McCain) that it somehow strengthened marriage by providing males with a hard and straight path of “treating your wife properly”.

    IMBRA makes it illegal for a website to introduce an American to a foreigner for dating purposes unless the foreigner first reads and signs the American’s criminal background check.

    The media, including so-called libertarian journalists like Dimitri Vassilaros of the Pittsburgh Tribune…are being told by their owners (publishers) not to rock the boat on these laws by mentioning to the public that there is opposition to them…from a certain minority group called “males”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: