Steve G.

Bob Barr: Statist, abortionist, homophobe, and now racist

In Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics on July 7, 2008 at 6:01 am

I have given Bob Barr every last possible chance to win my support. I have overlooked his part in the plot of smear Mary Ruwart. I’ve given him a semi-pass on his continued drug warriorism and love of big-government intervention. And I’m ashamed to say I even looked beyond his blatant homophobia.

But his July 4 press release in support of racist Senator Jesse Helms has pushed me over the line.

I will not vote for Bob Barr for president and, if by some miracle he wins the state of Michigan, I will not cast my electoral vote for him either.

It’s not just that Barr “sent condolences” to the family of racist dictator-lover Jess Helms. That would have been fine. No, Barr went so far as to call on ME to “give thanks to God” for the “life and work” — racist life and work — of Jesse Helms. That, I find completely outrageous and absolutely unforgivable.

Barr is a collectivist, anti-intellectual moron who does not understand that Communism was brought down under its own inefficiency — not the deficit spending and Fed-financed fascism of the disastrous Reagan administration. Barr is a pitiful disgrace to the Libertarian Party and libertarianism and I have diminished respect for anyone who continues to support him and call themselves a libertarian. Sorry.

Let’s take a look at Helm’s history:

Helms’s racist political activities began no later than 1950, when while working on a Democratic primary campaign, Helms helped create an ad that read, “White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races.”

Thirteen years later, Helms had this to say of civil-rights protesters: “The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that’s thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men’s rights.”

That same year, Helms also wrote, “Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced.”

In 1960, Helms worked on the unsuccessful Democratic primary gubernatorial campaign of I. Beverly Lake, Sr., who ran as a supporter of racial segregation.

Helms became a Republican and in 1972 was elected to the U.S. Senate. He gave support to Ronald Reagan — Barr’s political idol — in 1976 during his insurgent run against incumbent Gerald Ford.

In 1983, Helms opposed making Martin Luther King a national holiday not on constitutional grounds — but on the spurious grounds that King has “communist ties.”

Helms once purposely sought to offend Carol Mosely Braun, an African-American senator, by whistling “Dixie” and singing a song about the “good life” during slavery. “Watch me make her cry,” he said to a colleague once Braun was trapped in an elevator with him.

Helms was also a hardcore interventionist. He had ties to Salvadorian death squads and was an outspoken supporter of fascist dictator Pinochet of Chile.

This is a man Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr considers to be “one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress.”

It is clear that Bob Barr does not want my vote or my support and he shall have neither. It is also clear that Bob Barr does want my antipathy — and the antipathy of others like me — and that he shall have. Although I will continue to run Independent Political Report in as objective of a manner as I can, I will no longer hold back in any other forum or setting in exposing Barr for the racist, homophobic, baby-murdering thug that he is.

Baldwin/Jay/Nader/McKinney ’08.

  1. Welcome to the list of Non-Barr, LP Electors… Glad to hear that I’m not alone!

    I wonder how many more of us there are?

    It would be an interesting survey to see if Barr makes his mark in history by having the largest collection of electors that won’t vote for him…

    ART
    LPMA Presidential Elector – who won’t vote for Barr!

  2. As I can’t see myself voting for either McCain or Obama, I was wondering just starting to look into Barr, and, well, this statement of his is a deal-breaker for me.

  3. Since when is speaking ill of the dead supposed to be policy in the LP? No one is without mistakes or sins, but think of it, do you really want people to focus ont he negative things in your life, or would you rather like to be remembered for the positive things? While GE has referred to all the negative things about Jese Helms he could find, he has not mentioned one single positive things about him? Is this balanced?

    Are the founding father being remember for their practice of slavery or rather for the positive things and ideals, many of whom are the basis for the current LP as they were real libertarians?

    One note the failing to mention that Jesse Helms supported Ron Paul’s book about the gold standard more than a decade ago, he was one of the most fiscal conservative (a very libertarian idea) members in the senate. These are the sort of issues that Barr praises in Jesse Helms, the LP not? Does the LP not value principle? Barr knew Helms personally and knew about all his positive sides.

  4. Bob Barr can probably alienate the entire radical caucus of the libertarian movement and still smash LP vote totals … not that such a feat overcomes philosophical problems.

    Interesting to compare the performance of LP.ORG vs RNC.ORG vs DNC.ORG at Alexa.com

    Libertarians seem to be tied with the Democrats and beating the GOP.

  5. DD,

    Apologies – I removed your code for the Alexa widget from your comment, it was messing up the comment box (at least in my browser). Feel free to try again – I’m not technically competent enough to tell you what was wrong with the code, only the results it produced on my end.

    (BTW, Do people still take Alexa ranking seriously? I thought they had pretty much been exposed as largely a function of who downloads the Alexa toolbar.)

  6. GE I reposted this on Crazy for Liberty.

  7. Stefan, there is “not speaking ill of the dead” and there is going over the top to declare admiration for them as a “role model”…

    What Barr Said…
    “I was deeply saddened to hear of Sen. Helms’ passing and want his family to know they are in my heart and prayers at this time. Sen. Helms was one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress. As President’s Reagan’s right hand and ally, he helped bring down Communism so that nations might grow and flourish in freedom. He was a stalwart ally of freedom fighters around the globe, knowing that we are all diminished if we allow fascism to flourish. He was also the consummate gentleman, revered by colleagues, staff and friends for his unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism.”

    If he had stuck with the first sentence, no problem… He could have said something neutral like “Sen. Helms had a long and distinguished career in the Senate, and was never afraid to say what he believed in. His record will long be remembered”…. and continued on in that vein for a considerable length – not saying anything false, or ill of the man, but not talking about him as a positive role model to be emulated…

    It is not that Barr spoke politely of Helms that is the issue, it is that he was over the top in his praises and expressing PERSONAL ADMIRATION for the guy…

    ART

  8. No mention of Kent Snyder’s death by Barf, but deep mourning of Helmes???

    There’s your sign.

  9. One of the many things Barf and Helms have in common: they both switched parties (from Dem to Rep) for opportunist reasons.

  10. […] 7, 2008 by disinter G.E. writes: It’s not just that Barr “sent condolences” to the family of racist dictator-lover Jess […]

  11. PC,

    No worries about removing the Alexa code. It clearly didn’t take as I intended when I posted it. Folks can go to Alexa’s web site and create their own comparison.

    I’ve read too that Alexa only tracks data from those who download its toolbar, but it may be the same dynamic that is at work in voting — people may vote or not vote, or download the Alexa toolbar or not, for different reasons.

    The proportion (of traffic or votes) may be the same … or not (see the Wolfinger study suggesting that voter turnout does not affect the outcome of elections).

    Is there a better measure for web traffic out there?

  12. I didn’t hear anything about this from the mouth of Jesse Helms. However, I woudl like to think that Barr must be dumb or just plain ignorant of what Helms actually said.

    On the other hand, I think the author should make it a point to point out what Helms said and did while in the Senate to the Barr campaign. I am sure it would be an embarassment and Barr could or would retract this.

    The more I find out about Barr, the less I like.

  13. Further research on the internet points out much of the above allegations made about Jesse Helms might be false:

    http://www.jessehelmscenter.org/jessehelms/fictionortruth.asp#fic2

    However, I do recall hearing and reading about the Carol Mosely-Braun incident. I have sent an e-mail to the Barr campaign asking them to look into these allegations and retract the statement if the above allegations against Helms are accurate.

  14. Art:
    Yes, I see what you mean. The point I am making when you express your condolences, you mention positive things/praise and negative the negative things. This is just plain human knowledge. And the same with Barr. With his praise of
    Jesse Helms, I am very sure Barr did not refer to the negative issues/sins connected with Helms. And you know, I am have from someone who knew Helms quite well in a reaction to a LA Times article, saying Helms was not really so racist that many think he is/was. He referred to a dealing with Haiti and how nice and interested he was in the poor in Haiti etc. I read Helms was quite a gentleman as well.

  15. Wow, the Jesse Helms Center contests the less flattering facts about his life. The next thing you know, the Ayatollah Khomeini trust might start contesting the unpleasant facts about his rule, too, and we’ll have to reevaluate our entire view of his rule over Iran!

    Barr’s press release on this issue is pure pandering to the fringe hard-right nativists in this country.

    Claiming that praising Helms isn’t “referring to negative issues/sins” is as moronic as claiming the same thing about George Wallace or Lester Maddox. The reality is that Helms is innately tied to the racist Dixiecrat movement of the 20th century, because he was one of its leading proponents.

    This is a man who advocated a “state’s right” to disenfranchise voters based on their race.

    And now, the LP has a candidate celebrating that “courageous and principled stand” and advocating a “state’s right” to disenfranchise voters based on their sexual orientation.

    Lucky us.

  16. As a single thing, Barr’s press release is a weak peice of evidence… As part of a larger pattern it gains a lot more strength…

    We have Barr’s proven, well documented Anti-GBLT stance as author of DOMA, and his current support of it using the standard bigots “States Rights” codes… After Racism became a lost battle, Helms was also noted for his attacks on Gays… Perhaps this was what Barr was admiring?

    We have Barr’s past record of having addressed the “Council Of Conservative Citizens” – a group best described as an upscale version of the KKK… I found his “explanation” rather weak and unconvincing at best, but again, it’s part of the pattern…

    You are known by the company you keep, and his campaign chair, Richard Viguerie’s (who has a long history with Helms and other racist politicos) statement was even more effusive…

    Quote:
    Without Senator Jesse Helms, there may not have been a New Right. It was the New Right that energized and led the conservative movement in the 1970s and 1980s and our beloved leader was Senator Helms. Without the New Right, there would not have been a strong, vibrant, and effective conservative movement. Without a strong, vibrant, and effective conservative movement, there would not have been a President Ronald Reagan. And without a President Reagan, the Soviet Union would have lasted many more years and socialism would still dominate and impoverish the people of most countries. It’s the free market views, policies, and leadership of President Reagan, Jesse Helms, and Milton Friedman that have led the world to experience the greatest movement out of poverty in history. Jesse Helms was a conservative Horatio at the Bridge—leading conservatives in the 1970s to successfully oppose most liberal legislation and then in the 1980s to go on the offensive in Congress. His retirement from Congress was an enormous loss for the conservative movement. His departure from the Senate left a massive vacuum that has not been filled to this day. His death has saddened all of us who worked closely with him over the decades. All of us extend our deepest sympathies to his wife, Dot, and his family.

    As you can see, it isn’t JUST the one press release, it is a press release that is only part of a much larger pattern – one that some of us can see when it’s only drawn in part – others can’t see it even when their noses are rubbing in it…

    ART

  17. without a President Reagan, the Soviet Union would have lasted many more years

    This statement is a faux-truism that the hard right repeatedly advances — yet is utter poppycock.

    The government’s profligacy under Reagan had absolutely no detrimental effect on the Soviet Union. In fact, it enhanced the Soviet position for the time that the Soviets managed to keep the lights on, by heavily impoverishing the United States under a massive debt load and tax burden, while also forcing the United States to take sides (and become a party hated by large numbers of people) in virtually every conflict in the world.

    The Soviet Union was in decline from the 1960s onwards, because the Soviet “central planning doctrine” never worked. It was doomed to fail, and fail it did. It would have failed, at exactly the same time, regardless of who was in office or what the USA did, because the conditions leading to insolvency were purely a result of Soviet central planning theology.

  18. I don’t know a great deal about Jesse Helms. I mainly remember him from the 90’s, when all of the unconstitutional UN treaties, which would have been destructive of our sovereignty, were up for ratification. He played a significant role in making their contents known, and helping to keep them from being ratified. So I could find something good to say about him, too, and that doesn’t make me a racist.

    As Bob Barr served with Helms in Congress in the 90’s, I’m sure things like that were probably the basis of his praise, not the comments you “dug up” from the 50’s and 60’s (if they were even accurate). In 1950, Bob Barr was all of 2 years old.

    I don’t know whether or not Jesse Helms is racist or not, but it seems

  19. to be a common “smear” for those who are patriotic/associated with the freedom movement. You know how Ron Paul was called a racist on flimsy/drummed up pretexts. That doesn’t mean anyone who admired his principled qualities can be painted a racist. Yet you call Barr a racist on just such a pretext.

    Whenever I see an article/post such as yours that is heavy on name-calling, it’s obvious that is founded on emotions and not on logic.

  20. Lucky us.

    Yes, these are certainly interesting times we live in, and getting more interesting all the time.

  21. campaign chair, Richard Viguerie

    The campaign chair is Russ Verney. Viguerie has not made an endorsement as far as I know. Second hand sources say he is supporting Baldwin.

  22. Cathy – You are right that people part of the “freedom movement” are routinely smeared as “racists” by liberals and neocons (as if there were a difference).

    Problem here: Jesse Helms was absolutely NOT part of the “freedom movement.”

    Ron Paul is NOT a racist, is the farthest thing from it, and has made statements denouncing racism from a libertarian, not a PC, perspective.

    To compare a loathsome character like Helms to a heroic figure like Paul is truly deplorable.

  23. I don’t know a great deal about Jesse Helms.

    Had you stopped there, you would have been OK. Instead, you had to wander out and make up excuses, rather than read up on Helms’ odious history.

    There are lots of libertarian apologists, or libertarians-come-lately who are willing to cover for their favorite Republican celebrities despite “not knowing a great deal.”

    I wish some Libertarians would spend more time examining the history and philosophical bases of the Republican bigots they keep tirelessly making excuses for, rather than further destroying the moral equity of our movement by making apologies for bigotry.

    Ron Paul is NOT a racist, is the farthest thing from it, and has made statements denouncing racism from a libertarian, not a PC, perspective.

    Stuff like this is meaningless gobbledygook.

    There is no denunciation of racism that’s “uniquely libertarian,” and Ron Paul is far from a civil rights leader.

    He profited, to the tune of millions of dollars, from publishing his newsletters which made racist and other morally reprehensible statements, and never made a meaningful apology commensurate with the massive profits he made from pedaling bigotry.

    But since he’s a Libertarian hero, he gets a free pass, and anybody who points out inconvenient facts gets to alternate between one of two responses — outraged bloviating from Paul’s defenders, or tortured “logic” about how racism really isn’t racism when it comes from Ron Paul because only PC people think that politicians should be consistent in what they write, publish and say on such basic moral issues.

    The irony is that this is no different from ardent Clinton lovers in the Democratic Party or Reagan lovers in the GOP.

  24. disinter,

    Thanks for the siteanalytics.compete.com site!

  25. Brian Miller – Yes there most certainly a “uniquely libertarian” anti-racism — it’s called anti-collectivism, which you would not know about since you are an avowed collectivist.

    Ron Paul did not write those newsletters and everyone knows it. More of the libertine Statotarian smears.

  26. “The government’s profligacy under Reagan had absolutely no detrimental effect on the Soviet Union. In fact, it enhanced the Soviet position for the time that the Soviets managed to keep the lights on, by heavily impoverishing the United States under a massive debt load and tax burden, while also forcing the United States to take sides (and become a party hated by large numbers of people) in virtually every conflict in the world.

    “The Soviet Union was in decline from the 1960s onwards, because the Soviet “central planning doctrine” never worked. It was doomed to fail, and fail it did. It would have failed, at exactly the same time, regardless of who was in office or what the USA did, because the conditions leading to insolvency were purely a result of Soviet central planning theology.”

    Even though you’re almost always wrong, you are 100% right here. And this is what the apologists for Barr/Helms are not addressing. This is a MASSIVE DISTORTION of free-market economic principles being advanced by Barr that is actually much worse than his eulogizing of a vile racist.

  27. Even though you’re almost always wrong,..

    Not likely of any libertarian, whatever our factional differences. I wouldn’t even say this of E*** D****** R******* (pardon my language).

  28. Hyperbole, Paul.

    Interesting that you always jump on me when I defend myself against those who assail my credibility/sincerity.

  29. Not always.

    I try to be even handed to the best of my ability.

  30. Besides. I’m not jumping on you. My criticism is pretty mild compared to what you guys are flinging at each other.

  31. Mild but one sided.

  32. Brian,

    Have I ever criticized your statements?

  33. I don’t need to be lectured by a Green Party gadfly about “collectivism.”

    I do know that so-called “principled libertarian” Johnny-come-lately is blasting Barr over his DOMA position, but would utterly reject criticism of Ron Paul, whose position on DOMA is actually less libertarian — since Paul supports DOMA in its entirety.

    Of course, said faux-doctrinaire jackass will come back with some throwaway boilerplate about how Ron Paul isn’t homophobic because he supports pure DOMA for “non collectivist libertarian” reasons, while Bob Barr is a faggot-hater despite supporting only half DOMA.

    I do despise hypocrisy, and especially roll my eyes at supporters of right-wing Republicans like Ron Paul accusing others of being “collectivist.” Libertarian stalwarts like George Phillies have done more real work for individual liberties in the last four months than their critics have done in their entire lifetimes.

    I find it tragic that the libertarian movement has been reduced to such a sorry state. The irony is, the morons lecturing others about “principles” conveniently stash theirs in the garbage can whenever it’s convenient, and don’t even have a consistent test that they apply. The guy they hate is inconsistent and unprincipled, and the guy they like can burn Rothbard in public and they’ll claim that it was a holographic trick by the Zionists in the CIA. Hopelessly befuddled mooncalves, they are.

    Have I ever criticized your statements?

    I’m sure everyone has criticized something I’ve said from time to time. I don’t mind criticism.

  34. I don’t mind criticism.

    OK, here you go. Brian, you ignorant slut…

    This kind of stuff may be fun…

    Green Party gadfly

    faux-doctrinaire jackass

    throwaway boilerplate

    morons lecturing others about “principles”

    Hopelessly befuddled mooncalves

    …but it’s not productive, is it?

    “Can’t we all just get along?”

    or, since you are a Phillies fan:

    The enemy is not in this (room). It’s out there.

  35. No, Miller. Ron Paul is wrong about DOMA. I make no excuses for him being wrong. He is wrong.

    George Phillies shares Ron Paul’s other wrong position, on immigration, and he is also worse than Chuck Baldwin on trade. And yet you support him just because he wants to affirm your lifestyle through the machinery of the state. Why do you need the government’s approval? Did Daddy never love you?

    I think you need to look up the word “gadfly.” I joined the Green Party to run an anti-war campaign and was exposed to libertarianism through that campaign. What have you ever done to advance liberty beyond your own selfish pursuit of statist welfare benefits?

    The enemy most certainly is in the room and it is libertine Statotarian collectivists like Brian Miller and his Outright Libernazis.

    Word to Disinter.

    Like I said, I’ll apologize for views I had four years ago when I was 25 as soon as you actually become a libertarian and not a wannabe welfare queen demanding government sanction and benefits.

  36. Paul and anyone else who’s interested: I’d like to point out that welfare lobbyist Brian Miller began attacking me on this series of posts that he largely (if not entirely agrees with). Oh, and because I posed even the POSSIBILITY that libertarians might consider voting for Chuck Baldwin. We know that PC thought police like Miller do not abide any questioning that might violate liberal/libertine egalitarian demands. All I did was present the facts — some of them not at all flattering — of Baldwin’s positions and Miller then first accused me of being a conservative and then a shill. Well, he is a statist, a collectivist, and a “libertarian” who’s main goal seems to be growing government to benefit his own particular special interest group. So I say fuck him. He can stop stalking me in my posts any time.

    What my views were four years ago have very little relavence. In that time, I’ve had a child, moved twice, started several businesses, changed careers, gone back to and finished college, etc. People change during the course of life and I’m tired of apologizing for the hard work I put into an anti-war run for Congress that led me to libertarianism. Anyone who wants to give me shit for it can suck my cock.

  37. Whoops, my bad. Miller is a Barr supporter. I gave him too much credit.

  38. “What my views were four years ago have very little relavence. In that time, I’ve had a child, moved twice, started several businesses, changed careers, gone back to and finished college, etc.”

    Wow, you’ve been a busy guy. It’s amazing that you’ve had any time for politics.

  39. Hey G.E. we made Reason’s hit and run blog.

  40. From the above

    ChrisH | July 7, 2008, 6:52pm | #
    I’m no anti-Barrista, but I saw this item on his web site and my immediate reaction was “eee-yew!”

    I understand that if we’re going for vote totals this year (and… that’s a Good Thing), that it’s right to kind of make noises that will make unreconstructed conservatives comfortable — or, better, NOT make them UNcomfortable. Thus, something neutral about how he “sure was one Senator, all right” would be fine.

    What we got just seems like Barr has a total tin ear for Libertarianism.

    Now, for a good quote, see Weigel: “former Sen. Jesse Helms died at age 86. Americans started setting off fireworks. The two events were unrelated.”

    There. Now I’m ALL better…


  41. What my views were four years ago have very little relavence. In that time, I’ve had a child, moved twice, started several businesses, changed careers, gone back to and finished college, etc. People change during the course of life and I’m tired of apologizing for the hard work I put into an anti-war run for Congress that led me to libertarianism.

    Congratulations on all those (seriously). Yes, that includes the Congressional race.


    Anyone who wants to give me shit for it can suck my cock.

    Are you sure you want to say that to a gay man? LOL

  42. Folks who post here can speculate forever, as to just exactly what Barr meant and didn’t mean with regard to Jesse Helms.

    He is however, the LP nominee for president, and if he meant something other than full praise for Jesse Helms, he should clarify that. As it stands, the only prudent and proper way to read the press release is to take Barr at his word, that what is said is what is meant.

    The release only gives a glowing account of Jesse Helms . . . the man and politician. For Libertarians, since Helms stood for so many ideas, held so many positions, and voted so many times against what a libertarian would want, the only prudent thing for a libertarian to do is to denounce the press release as it praises (and ONLY praises) a man whom fought against so many libertarian ideals and goals. Barr is rightly chastised for this. Period.

  43. The idea that Helms was in any way “free market” is a big joke. So is the idea that some “libertarians” have been pushing: that Helms was right because he opposed affirmative-action, which is a lie. He supported his own brand of affirmative action and racial preferences.

    Helms= ugly ( yes I mean he looked like the retard from the Goonies, and I have no problem putting down the physical appearance of racists who claim to be superior but all look like inbred goblins), facist, protectionist asshole.

    Barr= fascist, racist white asshole ( who would have been suspected of having “negro blood” in many places at certain times).

  44. Barr’s campaign has already come out firmly against the racists…

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/06/02/barr-campaign-tells-haters-to/

    His press release for Helms was probably politically calculated to remind the majority of voters in NC who elected Helms for 30 years to the Senate that McCain ain’t no Helms when it comes to small government.

  45. Is there a better measure for web traffic out there?

    It has just been updated to include June:

    http://siteanalytics.compete.com/democrats.org+rnc.org+lp.org/?metric=uv

    Here’s another good one:

    http://siteanalytics.compete.com/bobbarr2008.com+ronpaul2008.com+johnmccain.com/?metric=uv

  46. Is there a better measure for web traffic out there?

    It has just been updated to include June:

    http://siteanalytics.compete.com/democrats.org+rnc.org+lp.org/?metric=uv

  47. I realize that getting in on the end of this thread maybe a waste of time, but the whole idea of this stuff is stomach churning. Most of the people don’t seem to understand that because they have little or no contact with the lower classes, but just use them to retain their grip on the levers of power. The laws that are and have been in place to keep African-Americans down and out also have a negative impact on whites. All one has to do is look at the development of the South prior to the Civil Right movement and afterwrds. While I don’t live in the South any more when I did far too often I heard, or was told that I needed to “know my place”. In other words Shut Up.

    MHW

  48. No Ku Klux Milsted coming to Barf’s defense?

  49. Isn’t praise of Jesse Helms quite a bit like praise for Stalin? In fact, we do expect people to say bad things about the dead, if the dead person is sufficiently evil.

    Nor is it at all clear to me that the votes are counted. So who is to say whether Jesse Helms was ever elected?

    What makes Jesse Helms deserving of consideration by libertarians? Not his views on segregation. Not his long history of Christian conservatism. So, what aspects of his economic interventionism and war hawkishness and jingoism and racism are we supposed to admire?

  50. Anyone who wants to give me shit for it can suck my cock.

    Are you sure you want to say that to a gay man? LOL

    He’s much too self-flattering if he thinks I’d want that cheesy little thing!😉

    GE, it’s easy to be against everything. Against Phillies, against Barr, against, against, against.

    Who (and what) are you for?

    We’ve already established you’re for Ron Paul, whose policies on many of the areas you criticize Barr for are WORSE than Barr’s own positions. So we can duly flush away your phoney-principled posturing.

    What *Libertarian* candidates are you for? How do you intend to bring the country in a Libertarian direction?

    (Incidentally, anyone characterizing me as “pro-Barr” obviously hasn’t listened to, or read, a single word I’ve written on the subject — but that’s OK. It’s par for the course for many of them.)

    I do think it’s funny that self-described “principled Libertarians” are complaining that a pro-DOMA states’ rights social conservative Republican from Georgia is unacceptable to them, when they were busy for the better part of a year singing the praises of a pro-DOMA states’ rights social conservative Republican from Texas.

    Principle? My ass!

  51. Oh, and by the way, one’s past actions and positions are certainly fair game in determining one’s level of ideological consistency, especially when the person being analyzed has made a habit of declaring himself the one and only true Libertarian, and that longtime party stalwarts like George Phillies “aren’t real.”

  52. Principled libertarians have supported Ron Paul for the Republican nomination without agreeing to support Bob Barr for the LP nomination. Bob Barr might even be a good candidate for a conservative party, such as the Constitution or Republican party. He’s not a libertarian. There’s nothing unprincipled about wanting the least authoritarian Republican, Ron Paul, to get the nomination of that party. There is something frankly sleazy about people who claim to be libertarians supporting a racist, sexist, bigot like Bob Barr – whose positions in support of gun control measures speak for themselves as to his true views on liberty.

  53. The preferred Republican candidate, in my opinion, though his nomination was highly unlikely, was of course Alan Keyes. A Keyes Presidential campaign ought to be adequate to put the Republican Party six feet under, measuring from the top of the trunk.

  54. Politicians pander, and get elected. Philosophers do not pander and do not get elected. It is possible to be a certain percentage of both, and to have different values and abilities, based on those percentages. This is a difficult concept for “libertarians” to grasp, but is less difficult to anyone who pays attention to the fact that not all people think like they do.

    Politicians have a knack for telling people what they want to hear, and playing damage control for alienating people who heard them say something they disagreed with. …This is what makes them electable.

    Libertarian philosophers have a knack for thinking correctly, and being right about morality. This is what makes them worth fighting for, to those who know (possibly .5% to 3% of the population).

    Of course, those who understand politics rarely approach 90% consistency in their political beliefs, and there’s a sharp drop off on the curve after one stops calling oneself a “libertarian”.

    I like philosophers, but not philosophers who can’t get anything done.

    …So I support Barr/Root in 2008, and Root in 2012, and 2016.

    Barr has serious problems. ( I prefer Hitchens’ eulogy for Helms http://www.slate.com/id/2194921/ ). But Barr has half a clue about how to win an election, and that’s what the LP needs more than philosophers who wake up late, and write really good books that will never be read by 99% of the electorate.

    Vote Barr in 2008!

  55. Hey G.E. we made Reason’s hit and run blog.

    Wow. You are featured in a neocon rag. Break out the champaign.

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: