Steve G.

Bob Barr to sue church, while lying about polling at 6%. Quick, what’s wrong with that picture?

In Libertarian on August 15, 2008 at 6:28 pm

According to pollster.com, Bob Barr is actually polling nationally at an average of 2.3%, which is only about a third of what he claims to be polling, and only 15.3% of the nationwide 15% support he needs to show in order to participate in the debates.  That same provably false assertion was made yesterday as well, by LP Media Director Andrew Davis.

Yet Barr is going to sue a church, for not including him in a debate for which he is not even close to being minimally qualified, and which is being held on private church property.

I’m sure Saddleback Church is shaking in their pews right about now.  From laughter.

**********************************************************************************************************

Dear Friend,

Going for the GoldI would not ask for your help if the circumstances were not so dire.

No, those are not my words; those are the words of John McCain in a letter he sent to supporters this week, despite having raised $27 million in July.

If Sen. McCain thinks his situation is dire, he would not get out of bed in the morning if he were dealing with our situation.

– We’ve raised less than $1 million
– We’re blocked from upcoming debates
– We’re polling at 6% nationally

No, John McCain could not handle our situation.

But our man, Bob Barr, isn’t slowing down and now he’s fighting mad.

This Saturday, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain will take the national stage for their first combined national event.

It will take place at Saddleback Church in Orange County, California.

For the past several weeks, we have put in requests and phone calls to the church’s pastor, Rick Warren, who was quoted this week in Time Magazine as saying, “I want what’s good for everybody, not just what’s good for me. Who’s the best for the nation right now?”

Unfortunately, Pastor Rick Warren doesn’t care to know the true answer to that question as he has willingly excluded Bob Barr and other candidates from his forum on Saturday.

After weeks of negotiations and calls to Saddleback Church from leaders from every corner of the political spectrum supporting Bob Bar’s inclusion, we’ve been left out in the cold.

The only people getting into the event are Obama, McCain and those who reportedly paid $500 to $2,000 to the church to sit in the audience.

Yesterday, I reported to former Congressman Barr that we’ve exhausted every avenue.  I told him, “We’ve had calls placed to Pastor Warren from very powerful leaders from the left and the right, we sent in our personal request, and placed numerous phone calls that have not been returned.  You are not going to be included.

“Our only option left is to threaten to file an temporary injunction as our attorney’s believe they are in violation of the law.”

Bob responded by saying, “No, don’t threaten to do that . . .  Just do it.”

As you read this, our attorneys are filing an injunction against Saddleback Church to include Bob Barr in their forum this Saturday.

You are the first to hear about this.

The complaint is based upon a violation of McCain/Feingold campaign finance legislation.

While we’re no fans of that legislation.  However, we don’t write the rules, we’re just forced to play by them.  In this case, we’re using McCain/Feingold to our advantage.

The reason I am disclosing so much to you is because this is just the beginning.

At every way you look at it, we’re at a disadvantage.

–    We are being blocked from the national stage by the media, debate commissions and now even groups like Saddleback Church.
–    Both the campaign and our party have put most of its manpower and money into getting on the ballot in every state.
–    And we have our hands tied behind our backs by laws like McCain Feingold that benefit the two major parties.

But none of that matters.

We have a candidate who is worth fighting for and that’s is exactly what we’re going to do.

One way or another, Bob is going to get his message of liberty out to our nation.

We now have lawsuits active in Oklahoma, West Virginia, Massachusetts and now California to challenge the obstacles thrown in our way by the two-party system.

We’re also waging media battles as Bob continues his Midwest tour in Chicago and St. Louis this weekend that will be interrupted by a trip to Orange County, California.

And we’re not slowing down.

The only way to break through the two-party strangle hold is to fight them at every opportunity.

I need your help to continue our efforts.

Our ballot access battles have left our coffers nearly dry and I need you to make a donation today.

Please make a donation right now and help us continue our efforts and fight with every step that we take until Election Day.

Please make your most generous donation today and give as much as you can up to the maximum limit of $2,300.

Thank you for your loyalty, your generosity and for your commitment to liberty.
Sincerely,

Russell Verney
Campaign Manager

P.S.  According to campaign finance law, our campaign is still in “primary election” season and donations made before the Republican Convention will be counted against the primary limit of $2,300.  You can give another $2,300 for the general election.  If you can, try your best to reach or get close to the $2,300 limit today or at least before the Republican Convention. If you want to know how close you are to the limit, please call us right now by dialing 1-800-Bob-Barr.

  1. Whoa, whoa, the 15% thing is the CPD debates. This is just some church, not the CPD.

    I’m not saying the Barr campaign has done great work overall, but I think they’re right on this one. Unfortunately they filed their suit at the last second, which allows a judge to say “sorry, you can’t file for injuctions at the last second.”

    As I recall, a similar thing happened on the Badnarik campaign, when Badnarik was shut out of a debate held on public university property in Arizona. The judge invoked some legal thing about not being able to demand injunctions at the last second.

  2. Lying about 6%? If the e-mail had said along the lines of Barr averaging 6%, then you could call it a lie without looking like a fool.

    It just so happens that Zogby came out with a poll today with Barr a 6%. Who is lying, you or the campaign?

  3. Here is a site that says Barr is polling at 14% of independent voters: http://www.thecharlottepost.com/index.php?src=news&refno=1059&category=News

    Why all the hate Elfman?

    Love not War baby that’s what we say in these hills!

  4. As I said on IPR…

    Let me boil down this story to its essence:

    Bob Barr wants to use the government’s guns to force his way into a private debate.

    Disgrace

    Not surprising for a lifelong THUG of the state.

    Shame on all of you who voted for this statist a-hole.

  5. DiBianca – You think the campaign is “right” to use government force to mandate their inclusion in a PRIVATE debate?

    Bubbloo – Love not war… There’s nothing loving about a statist parasite using the courts to force his way into a private event. That is an act of WAR against freedom.

    ENM = courageous reporting and truth-telling, as always.

  6. Ah, Barr’s inspired defense of free speech (which to him apparently means he can force others to provide a free forum for his speech) makes me PROUD – that I DUMPED him and the party he rode in on!

  7. Is it really a “private debate”? It’s on 3 networks. And it’s not even called a debate.

    If you call it a debate, Bob is perfectly in his rights.

    Also, is it a church when it is being used for propaganda by the democrats and republicans?

    I hope they have a confessional in this church for these liars to use after the debate?

    You know both of them are going into the house of the lord to spread more lies!

  8. Bruce West – Bob Barr does not have a RIGHT to attend a debate. A church does not have an OBLIGATION to invite him to a debate.

    Please tell me you’re not a “libertarian” when you’re espousing Communist views like those above.

    A Church is a PRIVATE organization. It can do whatever it wants so long as it does not initiate force.

    What kind of completely assinine logic are you applying by saying this isn’t a PRIVATE debate just because it’s being covered by TV?

    You clearly have no understanding of PRIVATE PROPERTY, the basis of libertarianism.

  9. And since when did churches start charging $500-$1000 for tickets to their “private” events?

    And if it’s a “private” event, why are their media passes being issued? Why is the secret service providing security?

    I think the person that should be ridiculed is a pastor who wants to get publicity for himself and his church using this tax exempt status to expand his own political and personal gains!

  10. I would say the same thing about renting and watching video tapes….. If you watch it by yourself, it’s private, if you charge admission invite the world to view it, it’s not private!

    Private property is not the issue here. The issue is that a pastor is using his influence to promote candidates that he feels are best qualified for the event.

    There is no way that you can claim this is a private event when its advertised. The pastor was even quoted as saying this was a national event. He even said that he wanted the world to see where the candidates stood on the issues and he was using this “conversation” as a means of getting the word out. The only people saying it is a private debate are the ones that are upset about it.

  11. Zogby poll released 8-14-2008 shows the following
    Obama
    43%
    McCain
    40%
    Barr
    6%
    Nader
    2%
    Other/Not sure
    9%

    Is anybody else amazed that the 2 major candidates are only pulling in 83%?

    17% of the votes are up for grabs.

  12. IT’S ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, therefore it’s a PRIVATE event, you fucking Commie.

  13. Oh goodie, someone wants to play the poll game. Okay, I’ll play.

    Harris:

    August 1 – 7 Initial question
    Obama 42
    McCain 34
    Nader 2
    Barr 1
    Other 3
    Not sure 17

    With follow* up “leaner” question
    Obama 46
    McCain 37
    Nader 3
    Barr 2
    Other 4
    Not sure 9

    July 3 – 11 Initial question
    Obama 43
    McCain 33
    Nader 2
    Barr 2
    Other 3
    Not sure 18

    So not only is Barr polling at most only 2% on Harris, he seems to have lost half of what little bit of support he had when he was first included.

    Let’s play again, shall we? This time, let’s use Zogby Phone Polls, since you used the Zogby internet poll, even though we all know that internet polls are not as reliable since they can be manipulated.

    Zogby Phone Polls

    Aug. 1

    Obama 41
    McCain 42
    Barr 2
    Nader 2
    Other/Not Sure 13

    July 13

    Obama 47
    McCain 40
    Barr 3
    Nader 3
    Other/Not Sure 11

    June 18

    Obama 45
    McCain 40
    Barr 3
    Nader 3
    Other/Not Sure 10

    May 18

    Obama 47
    McCain 37
    Barr 4
    Nader 4
    Other/Not Sure 10

    As you can see, Barr is again not polling anywhere near 6%, and again, has actually lost half of what little support he had in the first poll published with him included.

    I could do this all day, and still show the same kinds of results. The truth is, Barr chooses to ignore polls which don’t suit his purposes, even if those polls are more likely to reflect reality. The only two polls showing him at 6% were an internet poll, and a poll specifically for third parties.

    Even in the Rasmussen poll for third parties, in which Barr polled at 6%, only 5% said their impression of Barr was very favorable. Of those who had an opinion about him, the majority viewed him unfavorably.

    The other 20+ polls listed all show him in the 2% range. So no, he is not polling at 6% nationally. He’s actually polling at 2% nationally, even if you average in the 6% polls.

    Of course, I could sit here and explain that until I’m blue in the face, and the trolls hired by the Barr campaign to bully detractors into silence will still claim I’m lying. LOL

  14. And since when did churches start charging $500-$1000 for tickets to their “private” events?

    Churches charge for attendance at private events every single day. It’s called “tithing”, and many churches require it. You seem to forget, many churches are open only to members, and not the general public. Those which don’t require tithing guilt attendees into doing it anyway, through a little public humiliation trick called “passing the donation plate”.

    Churches also put on all kinds of events for which they charge, whether it be bake sales, talent shows, etc. It’s called “fundraising”. Many churches do charge admission for special speakers, too. This is just a giant bake sale in a wealthy neighborhood, and the “church ladies” are selling ideas instead of brownies.

    No matter what type of event it may be, churches always, without exception, have the absolute right to decide who will speak at their pulpit. This is certainly no exception even in light of laws which forbid tax-exempt churches from promoting candidates or parties, because they are not promoting any one political view to the exclusion of all others.

    The only people saying it is a private debate are the ones that are upset about it.

    The only people saying it’s not a private debate are the ones who think Barr should be able to bully others into doing what he wants.

    Apparently you think that if I have a barbeque in my back yard and invite Obama and McCain to debate there, call the newspaper and local TV news to cover it and put up signs on telephone polls advertising a $5 admission charge (babies free), I should have to also invite Bob Barr if he decides he wants to debate.

    No sir, that’s not the way it works in a free country. I can tell him he is not welcome, and I can even have him arrested for trespassing if he refuses to leave. There is no difference between my backyard barbeque debate and the church debate, except size. Both are on private property, both are political events, neither is being paid for by public funds, both charge admission, both invite the public and press alike, both will have the Secret Service there since they follow major party candidates everywhere for their own protection, and both have the right to exclude anyone they want, for any reason they want.

    I’m not sure why you think those who oppose Barr’s actions are upset about the debate; frankly, if not for Barr’s latest embarrassing litigation hissy fit (which actually brings to mind his silly $30 million lawsuit against Clinton and Larry Flynt for allegedly harming his reputation, after he had dragged Clinton’s reputation through the mud in front of the entire world in his failed impeachment attempt), I wouldn’t care about it at all. I just think this church should be able to invite whomever they want to speak, and not be forced to invite someone they don’t want to speak. It’s being held on private property, and it is not being paid for by public funds. They can invite Bob Barr, or not invite Bob Barr. It is their choice, not his, and I personally find it obnoxious that Barr thinks he should be able to force his way into any private event, but especially one being held by a church. I wonder if he crashes weddings in his spare time too.

    But let’s take it from your viewpoint, and pretend for a moment that this is a public debate.

    If a court forces this church to invite Barr, it is also going to force them to invite Nader, since Nader has more national support than Barr even though he doesn’t have the backing of a political party. In turn, Chuck Baldwin will also demand to be included based upon Constitution Party ballot access, and of course Cynthia McKinney will also demand to be included since the Greens have major party status in some states. It will snowball from there, with even candidates no one has ever heard of before demanding to be included based upon some factor, either real or imagined. Before you know it, you’ve opened up an endless can of worms as candidates, with little if any support and absolutely no chance of winning, begin filing lawsuits to demand inclusion in everything imaginable.

    The end result will be that polling firms, including those who do polls for major media outlets, will stop including third party and independent candidates at all, for fear of being drawn into costly litigation. Eventually even television shows would be wary of inviting candidates on the air, for fear of being sued by some no-name candidate for not also being invited to speak, and so on and so forth, until third party and independent candidates are completely ignored by everyone due to fear of litigation. Why would anyone in the third party and independent political movement ever want that to happen?

    I believe the courts have enough common sense to realize what would happen, and enough intelligence to understand that the third party system serves an important purpose in this country. I therefore do not believe any court would ever rule in Barr’s favor, nor should they. It’s a complete waste of donor funds to even pay the filing fee.

    Of course, we are dealing with a man who has a history of resorting to frivolous litigation. The difference is that this time, he’s embarrassing all libertarians rather than just himself, and spending other people’s money rather than his own in order to pursue his asinine complaints that someone is picking on him.

  15. Though ElfNinosMom’s articulately expressed views are appreciated, being appraised of the facts could have saved her the need of an explanation. Of the 5000+ seats that were available, less than 250 seats were sold. That is, 95% were given FREE to Saddleback Volunteers. I was one of the fortunate ones to be given a FREE ticket.

    The mere 250 seats that were sold were reserved almost exclusively to outsiders, and done so for the sole purpose of helping to defray a portion of the enormous costs in making this forum available to a national news feed.

  16. So what?

  17. Hi, Mark, and thanks very much for letting us know about that. 🙂

    Prior knowledge of that information probably wouldn’t have helped much though, since these particular people would argue with me even if I said the sky was blue, LOL.

    Have a good time at the debate! 🙂

  18. Hey G.E. and ElfNinosMom:

    If you hold a candidate forum on your private property, and invite some candidates but exclude others, that’s fine with me. However, it’s been repeatedly ruled (I think) that your forum will constitute an in-kind campaign contribution to the candidates you invite.

    The issue here is that campaign contribution. In many cases, corporations are not allowed to make contributions to candidates’ campaigns. And tax-exempt organizations are never allowed to make contributions to candidates’ campaigns. That’s one of the rules they agree to when they voluntarily file for privileged tax-exempt status.

    As I expected, the judge ruled against Barr’s demand basically because it was brought too late. However, the Barr campaign is right that the church has violated the law in at least one way, maybe more.

    “Prior constraint” is probably not the answer, but I would love to see the IRS strip this church of its privileged tax-exempt status.

  19. ElfNinosMom:

    I appreciate and respect your views. You’ve made some very good points.

    As far as the polls go. I do not disagree that the polls are not accurate. The only reason I posted the Zogby poll was because of the title of this blog. Bob Barr did not lie when he said he was polling at 6%. Regardless of how accurate the poll was, it was published and he is perfectly accurate in his description that he had a poll at 6%.

    Another thing your polls show is a consistent 15~20 percent of voters are not committed to voting for either of the two major parties. Why is this not mentioned anywhere? That is almost 1 out of 5 voters are not satisfied with the choices given. If you look at this way, only 2 out of 5 people support either candidate. Granted, this is still 8 times what any of the minor candidates are polling.

    Here is my problem with this entire episode. The 2 party system is broken. The cadidates are avoiding the issues and both of them are playing up their faith in front of the national media to debate who is the better Christian? I am a Christian and I believe in faith, but should we really be using this as a debate question? People are considering this a debate, but what are they debating?

    I would ask also what this church is trying to accomplish on this event? Are they using this event to boost thier pastor’s ego? Is it for political gain? I have never been to a church that would even think of having to people go to the pulpit to explain why they are a better Christian than their opponent.

  20. Arthur – Corporations should be allowed to make as large of contributions to candidates as they like. I don’t care what dictators in black robes say about the matter. Churches should be able to do the same.

    Do the above actions initiate force?

    NO.

    So only statists support those laws are their enforcement.

    Bob Barr is a statist and lifelong thug for the state.

    It’s none of your business what the church is trying to accomplish. They don’t have to justify themselves to you or to your totalitarian government.

  21. Cheering on the IRS versus a church = VERY “libertarian”

    What a scumbag.

  22. GE…. can you make any arguments withou personal attacks? Fking Asshole.

  23. Again, the above is obviously not me.

    Making a personal attack is a lot more honorable than advocating aggression.

    Sticks and stones, sissy.

  24. One G.E.?
    Two G.E.’s?

    Three?

    Are we cloning Libertarians now?

  25. Bob Barr did not lie when he said he was polling at 6%. Regardless of how accurate the poll was, it was published and he is perfectly accurate in his description that he had a poll at 6%.

    I still disagree, Bruce. He said he was “polling nationally” at 6%, yet only two atypical polls (one on the internet, and one specifically for third parties) showed him at that number, while no other national poll has ever shown him above 3%. He is therefore actually “polling nationally” at 2.4%, which is less than half of the 6% he is claiming. That’s a very serious problem, because it is dishonest and Barr is running for what is arguably the most powerful office in the world. Nobody wants a dishonest President.

    Of course, had he said that he polled 6% in “a national poll”, 6% in “more than one national poll”, or even 6% in “the latest national poll”, it would have still been misleading, but at least it would not have been a lie.

    Another thing your polls show is a consistent 15~20 percent of voters are not committed to voting for either of the two major parties. Why is this not mentioned anywhere?

    It is mentioned, in the poll results I posted. Since it is not germane to the issues at hand – whether Barr lied when he said he was polling 6%, and whether Barr should have sued a church because they didn’t invite him to the debate – I saw no reason to discuss it. I still see no reason to discuss it, since Barr is not going to win over enough of those undecideds to even get into the official debates, especially now that he has sued a church.

    Here is my problem with this entire episode. The 2 party system is broken. The cadidates are avoiding the issues and both of them are playing up their faith in front of the national media to debate who is the better Christian? I am a Christian and I believe in faith, but should we really be using this as a debate question? People are considering this a debate, but what are they debating?

    I would ask also what this church is trying to accomplish on this event? Are they using this event to boost thier pastor’s ego? Is it for political gain? I have never been to a church that would even think of having to people go to the pulpit to explain why they are a better Christian than their opponent.

    I agree, the two party system is broken. However, Barr’s lawsuit is not going to help fix that; it will only make it worse. Lawsuits of this nature only serve to harm the third party and independent movement, by making the Republicans and Democrats look better than they otherwise would, in comparison (i.e., “I can’t stand McCain, but at least he didn’t sue a church like Barr”). It’s very damaging for any candidate to sue a church, especially given how many people in this country profess faith.

    I have no opinion with regard to whether the church is correct in debating faith-related issues, or what their motive may be in holding the debates. Again, it is being held on private property, so they can debate anything they want, for any reason they want. It is simply not my place to judge anything that anyone does on their own private property.

  26. Please, don’t duplicate someone else’s user name when making comments. It leads to unnecessary confusion for those reading the forum.

  27. Damn, it’s hard to argue with someone who actually makes sense, well spoken and makes good sense.

    I guess the only alternative to admitting defeat in this argument is to turn int GE and call you a name and leave.

    But I don’t think I’ll do that.

    My last question would be this (and this isn’t to argue, I really want to see your answer.)

    If the president of a major oil company or a labor union did the same thing, would there be as much outrage? I know this is a church and there is some argument about suing a church, but would the same people have been upset if this was a large corporation doing the same thing?

  28. I know this is a church and there is some argument about suing a church, but would the same people have been upset if this was a large corporation doing the same thing?

    YES. I do not like churches in general or Rick Warren’s church in particular. That’s NOT the point. The point is that a church, a corporation, or an individual should be free from aggression and free to do whatever they want so long as they don’t inflict aggression.

  29. If the president of a major oil company or a labor union did the same thing, would there be as much outrage? I know this is a church and there is some argument about suing a church, but would the same people have been upset if this was a large corporation doing the same thing?

    The answer to your question depends upon the basis for the person being upset.

    I think that some people would be upset either way, but most would always be more upset that a presidential candidate sued a church, than if an oil company or labor union president did the same thing. This is for the simple reason that we hold our presidential candidates to a much higher standard than anyone else in the country, as well we should. When elected, the President wields an incredible amount of power, arguably more power than anyone else in the world, and with technological advances, arguably more power than anyone else in human history.

    This is not a simple question of McCain/Feingold though, no matter what we are led to believe by the Barr campaign. This behavior by Barr boils down to his belief that his rights are more important than the rights of anyone else.

    He believes that he has a right to associate with whomever he pleases, whenever he pleases, but that others do not have the right to not associate with him. He believes he has the right to tell others what they can and cannot do on their own private property, and that he has the right to enter their property even if he is not wanted or invited, and force them to listen to him. He clearly believes that no one is entitled to freedom of association, one of our most basic rights, but him.

    That’s not just a gross misunderstanding of constitutional rights, it’s a perversion of basic human rights.

    While that behavior is tolerated to some degree with oil company executives and labor leaders, since it is understood that their job is to serve only their own interests and that of a very small segment of society, it is never to be tolerated at all in a presidential candidate, whose job it is to protect the rights of all US citizens.

  30. I’m skimming, so maybe I’ve missed it, but from other articles it looks like Barr’s claim was that the church was giving publicity to the D/R candidates, and that should be considered a campaign contribution. Therefore the church would have the option of losing it’s 501(c)3 status and going as a PAC, or of canceling the event.

    If that’s the case – and I’m not going to go into the ethics of the whole argument right now – I’m not sure what Barr was after. Shutting the event down? Because if that WAS his argument, then he obviously wasn’t interested in having the church *as a church* include him, but only of making it ‘obey the law’, that is, cancel the event.

    So what was the point?

  31. Ah. A quick glance at BAN makes it more clear:

    “Anyone is free to sponsor any debate and invite whom they choose, except that a tax-exempt organization, or an organization that takes tax-exempt donations from corporations to pay for the event, must have objective criteria in place as to whom is being invited. Saddleback Church did not have any pre-announced objective criteria. Thus, in effect, the church was using an indirect government subsidy to assist the campaigns of Senator Obama and Senator McCain.”

    Interesting. the concept of ‘objective criteria’ is so vague as to be meaningless, of course.

  32. It’s pathetic to argue that allowing a church “tax exemption” is equivalent to giving them money; and thus, the entire argument falls apart. This is like saying that tax resisters are welfare recipients.

  33. G.E. : What the hell are you saying? Do you have a point or are you just making comments to be making comments? I didn’t see anybody mention that the tax exemption is a contribution.

    TO THE OTHERS:
    So, let me get this straight. If this is considered a debate, then Barr had a right to sue them to stop the debate because they are a tax exempt organization holding an illegal debate, however, they called it a forum and not a debate. The candidates were not on the stage at the same time, so it was not a debate. Therefore, the lawsuit has no merit because of the classification of the format?

    I’m sorry, I’ve heard the arguments and to me, it sounds like the offensive part is the fact it was a church that got sued. However, to me, this church was not acting like a church at the time, so I do not have the same objections as others. Once a church becomes this interested in politcs, they are in my opinion no longer a church, but a PAC. Though the candidates were not on the stage at the same time, I think it should be considered a debate. Recently, debate formats have changed, so in essence, anytime two candidates are allowed to go head to head to contrast thier views in front of a public audience, it is a debate.

    I think if it was Exxon or Shell held an nationally telelvised event to show other oil companies which candidate was better for their business and they only invited Barr and Obama to speak, McCain would have sued. He would be a fool not to because this is an opportunity for these two candidates to stand infront of the nation and express how thier opinions are better than his with no chance to defend himself or his views.

    It is a sad day though when a Libertarian presidential candidate sues a church and the media doesn’t even pick up on that. Luckily for Barr they didn’t pick it up because this could be a CLM (career limiting move)

    But at the same time, Barr’s campaign contributions skyrocted this weekend compared to his previous rates(which are still substantially lower than the others). And the kicker is he didn’t get any media attention out of the ordeal. Only news of this happening was on blogs like this one.

  34. I’m sorry, I’ve heard the arguments and to me, it sounds like the offensive part is the fact it was a church that got sued. However, to me, this church was not acting like a church at the time, so I do not have the same objections as others. Once a church becomes this interested in politcs, they are in my opinion no longer a church, but a PAC. Though the candidates were not on the stage at the same time, I think it should be considered a debate. Recently, debate formats have changed, so in essence, anytime two candidates are allowed to go head to head to contrast thier views in front of a public audience, it is a debate.

    It’s not not offensive because a church in particular got sued. It’s offensive that Barr sued to force himself on ANY private event which was taking place on private property, and which was not being paid for out of public funds. Like I pointed out, it could be held in my backyard, and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. It would be equally offensive.

    The title of this post included the question, “Quick, what’s wrong with that picture?” Let me quickly explain what’s wrong with it.

    All practicing libertarians understand and follow the concept of “no force or fraud”, since it is the very essence of libertarian philosophy. However, Barr was using both: force by using the courts to push his way into a private event to which he was not invited, and fraud because he misrepresented his polling percentages in the included fundraising plea, in order to pay for his attempt to force his way into a private event to which he was not invited.

    Yet it should have been a no-brainer for Barr, as the Libertarian nominee, to comprehend this action as inherently wrongful, if in fact Barr were indeed a practicing libertarian, as the nominee should be.

    See, force and fraud by someone representing the Libertarian Party are what’s wrong with the picture. The church part of the equation just made it offensive to a very large and more powerful segment of society, quite beyond and apart from the libertarian movement.

    I think if it was Exxon or Shell held an nationally telelvised event to show other oil companies which candidate was better for their business and they only invited Barr and Obama to speak, McCain would have sued. He would be a fool not to because this is an opportunity for these two candidates to stand infront of the nation and express how thier opinions are better than his with no chance to defend himself or his views.

    Of course McCain would sue. That’s just one of the many reasons why practicing libertarians don’t support McCain either.

  35. Bruce – Do you have a mental deficiency?

    The argument is that, as a tax exempt organization, the church gets “government support.” Secondarily, corporations who make tax-deductible contributions to the church are seen as funneling money to McCain and Obama.

    This is Barr’s argument. Unless you’re saying Barr is “no one.”

  36. I just received the same fundraising letter again in two separate email accounts, dated today at 1:05 and 1:12 pm.

    Was this just an error on the campaign’s part, to send out something they’ve already sent? Or is the campaign milking this for all it’s worth, without bothering to tell donors that the injunction was already denied, and the debate has already taken place?

    At this point, nothing would surprise me.

  37. Maybe your on the “to annoy” list.

  38. The latest from Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

    Bob Barr, the former Georgian congressman and now Libertarian candidate for president, filed suit to force Saddleback Church in California to include him in its presidential forum this evening with John McCain and Barack Obama.

    The effort failed. But it is exceedingly strange to have a supposed Libertarian using the federal courts to try to force church doors to open to him.

    How embarrassing, for the Libertarian Party nominee to be referred to as a “supposed Libertarian” even in his hometown newspaper.

  39. […] UPDATE: Last Free Voice’s ElfNinosMom says: […]

  40. I can’t say that I agree with you here GE. This debate is for a PUBLIC office and I’d be willing to bet that at least some tax payers money is involved. Barr is going to be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election and should be included in the debates. The same goes for Nader, Baldwin, and McKinney.

  41. How are all of you doing? Iam doing excelent I joined this forum because am bored at work…..ZZZZzzz costumer support is so boring. But all that aside how are you do you like my cat?

    [IMG]http://www.picgifs.com/graphics/c/cute/graphics-cute-671650.jpg http://www.bluedevilphotos.com/selecting-a-reliable-computer-repair-company/148/ alt=”computer repair”[/IMG]

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: