Steve G.

Motion for Removal of Bob Barr as LP presidential nominee

In Activism, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Protest on September 12, 2008 at 4:15 pm

The following is a draft Removal Motion for the LNC’s consideration. Please feel free to suggest changes or improvements in comments.  Incidentally, I didn’t personally write it.

Should the LNC remove Barr from his position as LP presidential nominee?


WHEREAS, Article 12, Section 5 of the Libertarian Party’s bylaws provide for the suspension of the party’s presidential candidate by the Libertarian National Committee; and

WHEREAS, said bylaws provision requires a 3/4 vote of this body;

BE IT KNOWN that Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s 2008 presidential nominee, is hereby suspended on the basis of the following causes:

– Failure to appear, with little or no notice, at a major media event to which he had been invited and to which he had committed to appear;

– Vicious public attacks by his campaign staff on the character and reputation of the event’s host (1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Ron Paul) and sponsor (Campaign For Liberty);

– The disrepute and discredit which the aforementioned misbehaviors have brought upon the Libertarian Party.

The committee advises Barr that he has seven (7) days to appeal this action to the party’s Judicial Committee. Absent a successful appeal, his nomination will be deemed null and void and he will be replaced as the party’s presidential nominee.

  1. There are 17 members on the LNC.

    It only takes one to make this motion.

    Listen to your constituents if you want to be re-elected, LNC reps.

  2. LNC: Put your egos aside and listen to what your constituents are saying. This is serious.

  3. should be a wild weekend on the blogs now.

  4. Bubba has read the blogs and the news media and the various releases and as dumb as Bubba is, Bubba know Barr did not agree to appear. If you’re pissed off about the LP in general, the simple thing to do is join the BTP like I did cause you ain’t ever gonna support Barr no matter what he did or did not do — admit it! If you area Jesus luvin individual, perhaps the CP is your best bet. — but in my opinion, you should quit your bitchin and make the switch today – BTP all the way!

  5. We need to send an official but hush-hush-ish apology to Ron Paul and simultaneously launch a grassroots-ish effort to bring the party back to its roots. We need a campaign for transparency in the operations of the LP.

    Radicals who value transparency in party operations need to get a majority at the 2010, 2012 and future conventions so we can vote out of the LNC people who are obsessed with secrecy and anything that’s counterproductive to building a real libertarian political movement.

    Trashing Barr publicly is suicide. I like what Mr Nolan said over at We need to keep this from becoming an unmitigated disaster for the LP while stepping up to make sure it doesn’t happen again. If Barr does alright, we stand to benefit from savings on future ballot access. At the same time, we can’t let him claim that he earned those votes or that he or his minions deserve the nomination again in 2012.

  6. When people can tell the difference between political tactics and philosophical differences, maybe the LP will quit with the crap and get something accomplished.

    Removal is not going to fly. It never was going to, no matter what the membership thinks, because there is enough votes on the LNC to not get the 3/4 need to do it. There are that many officers and reps that will not respect the calls for removal, and who they are is pretty obvious at this point.

    Censure may fly, but it may not, for the same reasons, but it may be more palatable to the LNC members on the fence.

    But both are political tactics, based in the philosophical agreement that Barr screwed up.

    Yet some people insist on going for removal, when it’s a tilted windmill. Trying to hit the homerun causes more strikeouts than just trying to make good contact.

    But this motion for removal basically says that Barr should be removed because he acted like an asshole.

    I’m nowhere near a Barrfly, but I’ll say this: So what?

    The fact is, HE BROKE THE BYLAWS! and that’s grounds for removal!

    In either case, the goal is to get the LNC on record as to where they stand.

  7. And personally, if it were June or early July, I would agree with removal, but this late the ballot access problems for downticket in some states creates a lot more problems that we already have or need.

    He should not be removed, not for his sake, but because of the side effects downticket, and only becuase of timing issues, not because his offense was not egregious enough to warrant removal (it was).

    That’s tactics, not philosophy.

  8. If it were just about Barr, he should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. That may not be very libertarian, but it is very deserving.

  9. Actually, to the author of this motion: perhaps you should mention his attempt to replace his vice-presidential candidate without going through proper channels.

  10. I thought W.A.R agreed to “resign” IF RP said yes. Now who on this LNC would NOT vote to replace W.A.R with RP? If the VP resigns then the LNC can replace him. Obviously if RP said yes, then W.A.R would have dropped out leaving a vacancy and a willing person to fill it. Would any one of you want anyone else to fill this when RP says yes? I don’t think so and I am a dumb redneck!

    If not RP then who? Mary? Perhaps yes, but to choose her over RP, heck I’d rejoin the LP for RP! Thus, ain’t no use complainin — simple answer — show them you have PRINCIPLES, resign today and join the BTP.

  11. Michael – Name ONE STATE where the LP removing it’s official endorsement of Barr will cause problems for down-ticket candidates?

    We already have reports from at least one candidate of having had DIRECT NEGATIVE effects from Barr Remaining as an endorsed candidate.

    As far as I’m concerned a censure motion on it’s own is meaningless handwaving. If it follows a failed attempt at removal (and I do tend to agree that there aren’t enough honest people on the LNC to pass it, let alone the question of any with the testicular fortitude to INTRODUCE a removal motion) then I’ll consider it as a “best we could do” attempt.

    On the e-mail overload circuit you talk about winning the war – failing to TRY to get removal is surrendering without even firing a shot…

    LPMA Presidential Elector, NOT substituting Barr!

  12. Like I have said numerous times (and like David Nolan said in his article): let the Barr campaign die. Just withdraw your support. It’s easy and doesn’t cause unneeded drama.

  13. Jill, that is the Bylaws violation I was referring to, and would be much stronger grounds than Barr just acting like a jackass.

  14. Remove Barr because he’s not a libertarian- not because he dissed Paul. Paul is not GOD. He was my congressman, and as such he was worthless.

  15. Barr did not violate the bylaws. He invited Paul to be his VP candidate. There’s no bylaw against doing that. Of course, had he tried to FULFILL the invitation upon its theoretical acceptance without Root having withdrawn and the LNC having selected Paul, THAT would have been a violation of the bylaw.

  16. I thought so, but I thought I’d point it out (great minds think alike!)

  17. Not my department, Art.

    National Ballot Acces is Redpath, not me.

    Part of fighting a war is knowing when to not fight as well, knowing your battelfield and opponents as well. I will not do a Pickett’s Charge over removal when I know how many Union guys are on Cemetary Ridge waiting for me.

    Removal is a losing battle before it begins. I’ve explained that repeatedly offline, and those who can’t tell the difference between political tactics and radical libertarian philsophy just will not get it.

  18. Ask Root if he wanted to step down. Find out if his statement in the Barr release was his own words, or were they put in his mouth. That tells the tale.

    BTW, Root is conspicuous by his absence in all of this…he should make his own independent statement about it.

  19. Except that he has no authority to do that, Tom. Picking a VP lies with the delegates or the LNC, and replacement lies with the LNC. Whomever is selected, he’s stuck with, until others say otherwise.


    Of course W.A.R agreed to this — he loves the publicity. But who gives a flying crap anyhow — join the BTP and get real. Quit the LP today.

    Well time for another Bud before the storm.

  21. Michael,

    Precisely. That’s why it’s not a violation of the bylaws for him to prattle about it.

  22. I second the motion as former dues paying, campaign donor, and campaign volunteer of the Libertarian Party and in memory of Ron Crickenberger who defeated this neocon the first time in 2002.

  23. Remove Bob Barr because he does not advertise he is a Libertarian nor does he embrace Libertarian ideals. Remove Bob Barr because he has knowningly damaged the Libertarian Party ticket because of his actions in the Ron Paul scandal for no reasonable cause. Remove Bob Barr because he is a highly suspect Republican plant meant to damage the Libertarian Party during a critical election. Remove Bob Barr because he has been a damage to the Libertarian Party with many Libertarians removing their endorsement, declining to vote for Bob Barr on a ticket that historically gets less than a half a million votes, and choosing to end their Libertarian Party membership because of Bob Barr.

  24. NOTA has and always will be a Libertarian option. When the choices are 1. Bob Barr and 2. NOTA, NOTA is a viable winner for the Libertarian Party.

  25. If we Americans can’t clean up the neocons in the Libertarian Party, how can we expect the Democratic and Republican Parties be cleaned up of neocons?

  26. BTW, I’m Keith Gardner, the volunteer who built the Web site for Carole Ann Rand to defeat Bob Barr in 2002 as part of the Ron Crickenberger “Incumbent Killer Strategy.”

    Nice to see you Thomas Knapp being engaged in this important issue.

    I can’t believe Steve Dasbach fell for this of all these people. I can understand Rob Kampia in that Bob Barr is his employee. I trusted Steve Dasbach’s nomination and is the only reason I didn’t protest before and tried to support his campaign.

    However, because of Bob Barr’s past, I found it difficult to campaign for him. Most people don’t trust Bob Barr. They didn’t have the trust in Steve Dasbach as I had.

    I certainly don’t have faith in Redpath after this scandal.

  27. His Ron Paul press release where he boasted of leadership reminded me of his campaign in 2002. He is the same person. He thinks he is a stallion. He is a delusional neocon. He has no place on the top of the Libertarian Party ticket.

  28. Ron Crickenberger has been rolling in his grave since June.

    Trying to usurp LNC authority is NOT a Bylaws violation, Tom?

    Then WTF is???

  29. I think the LNC should find it a higher priority to issue a resolution affirming support for Paul’s/C4L’s four principles

    than worrying about spanking Bob Barr first.

  30. Michael,

    You write:

    “Trying to usurp LNC authority is NOT a Bylaws violation, Tom?

    “Then WTF is???”

    I can run around the room singing “I Believe I Can Fly” all day long, and I guarantee I won’t be violating the law of gravity.

    I can sit in the car in the driveway pretending I’m racing in the Indianapolis 500 all day long, and I guarantee I will rack up not a single speeding ticket.

    Bob Barr can send letters to Ron Paul, Pope Benedict, Britney Spears and Homer Simpson asking them to be his running mate all day long, and I guarantee he won’t be violating the bylaws.

    Talking is not acting. Talking about things you are not doing and have no power to do is not doing those things.

  31. A better resolution would be to call for the head of Russ Verney, the supposed “brains” behind the Barr campaign and the man calling the shots.

  32. I agree with both Hogarth and Knapp.

    Michael, the Barr/Root campaign obviously has the power to create a vacancy in its VP spot, and as a non-brain-dead LP insider Barr knows perfectly well that the LNC (of which he recently was a member) would rubber-stamp any Paul interest in the VP spot. Barr’s public offer to Paul was wrong not because of some imaginary Bylaws violation. It was wrong because it was a deliberate (or unforgivably naive) insult to Paul and his many fans.

    Gene, the LNC definitely needs to spank Verney, but doing it publicly is not in the best interests of the LP. If I were an LNC member interested in re-election, I would right now be creating a private record of such a spanking, that I could point to after November.

  33. Susan’s suggestion is utterly ridiculous. The C4L and Ron Paul supporters will be absolutely inflamed by a bogus “resolution” to “affirm” their principles — after our candidate slapped them in the face and continued the slapping for two days. A resolution affirming the four principles is trying to have it both ways. Typical duplicity one has come to expect from the LP, which has thoroughly proven itself to be a pointless organization in the wake of this fiasco. This is the “radical” solution? Not even two people on the LNC care to stand up for their constituents for fear of angering or looking bad in front of the “respectable” cabal of statists who control the party. Pathetic!

  34. On the ballot access problem, I ask this question: in how many states will the LP have ballot access after Barr receives his 1% of the vote – even in his home state of Georgia he is polling only 3%, down from 8% earlier?

    The fact is that the Barr campaign – especially after this week – is not going to preserve or win any ballot access beyond what the LP had before. And the damage done to down ticket candidates will probably interfer with their ability to preserve and win ballot access as well.

    So, come 2010 and 2012, the LP will be faced again with the burden of either meeting onerous ballot access requirements or suing states to challenge those requirements. It seems to me that in the past – including this year – the socialist Green Party and Naderites have been valuable allies, particularly in the lawsuits challenging prohibitive ballot access laws. How are those parties going to respond when the LP approaches them in the next election cycles? I think I know how I would respond. I would probably borrow a phrase from Shane Cory. But, hey, that’s just me.

  35. […] those who wish to see Barr off the ballot and a more palatable candidate inserted, I wish you luck. For those who have […]

  36. Brian, and Tom, you don’t get it.

    Sending the letter was making the offer to PUT HIM ON THE TICKET, not ASK THE LNC to put him on the ticket.

    BIG difference!

    If he had done the latter, no violation because no usurpation of authority. Doing the former as was a violation because it tried to usurp LNC authority.

    And since Brian is engaging in his usual meaningless coulda-shoulda games, what would have happened had Paul accepted and the LNC refused? Do you honestly think there would have been the 2/3 needed to do it? I don’t..

    Rules violations are not based on what the probable or possible outcome would be, Brian. That’s a stupid presumption. They are based on actual actions.

    And Tom, Barr could have mooned Paul at his press conference and it would not have been a Bylaws violation, and been a better example of what you are tyring to claim. Saying he’d like to put him on the ticket is not a violation. But actually making the offer–violation.

  37. Brian: I’m not suggesting we spank anyone publicly (spanking is best left to candle lit bedrooms). What I’m saying is that if the LNC does *anything*, it should focus on the real problem: Russ Verney.

  38. I note with enthusiasm that the BTP national committee has voted to use the C4L four point program as its own program, to be adopted in convention by the party’s members in October.

  39. the proper response from the barr campaign would be a complete apology and firing of the campaign manager. he could probably get a better one for free. but barr isn’t interested in playing libertarian politics. he is more interesting in playing the politics that got him soundly defeated in 2002.

    the point is that bob barr is not a changed man. he is an opportunistic at the least and a bad politician at that. he is a bad politician that is bad for the libertarian party.

    anything at this point will be destructive for the LP whether removed or not. i lean towards at least preserving the integrity of the libertarian party, one of the few things it has. we can learn from this in the future and nominate a proven libertarian leader like dr. mary ruwart in the future. heck, we can still nominate a moderate so long he is a proven statesmen, like jesse ventura.

    the nomination of bob barr makes us look like we are desperate for neocon support. we need to stop farming the neocons and start farming the independents.

  40. jeepndesert: I keep hearing this word “neocon” being used. Could you please define what “neocon” means?


  41. neocon: someone who rubber stamps the bush imperial empire and the destruction of our rights because of 9/11 fears. someone who supports paying interest on 9 trillion in national debt to the federal reserve. someone who supports the police state.

    bob barr is an embarassment to the libertarian party, libertarians, and the libertarian word itself. i’d rather now be called an independent than a libertarian. libertarian has lost it’s coolness.

    the libertarian party can only restore confidence in the party and the word libertarian itself by removing bob barr.

    i also retract. russ verney should quit to protect his own career. this has classic bob barr written all over it. he calls himself a true libertarian and black stallion as he snubs and squanders the greatest libertarian movement in history of the libertarian party, the ron paul revolution, while he tries to align himself with the bush regime by sending mixed messages.

    i know classic bob barr and bob barr v2.0. i live in his district. i campaigned against him in 2002 and tried to campaign for him in 2008 until I gave up about a month ago. bob barr v1.0 and bob barr v2.0 is the same bob barr.

    he is delivering mixed messages in order to win over the “neal boortz libertarian”, which really isn’t much different than a george bush republican and barack obama democrat. he isn’t going to win over george bush supporters. they’re going to pull the lever for mccain. he should be going after the independent vote, which incidently rejected him from the start.

    it was just a bad choice for the libertarian party. we tried to convince ourselves it is worth a try. we learned our lesson. bob barr was not a good choice, and he would definitely lose at the convention if the vote was held again after the ron paul snub.

  42. my mom use to even work around bob barr. she laughs at bob barr and feels sorry for him. she calls him stupid.

  43. i should delete that last comment. that was probably a low blow.

    i’m not completely ready to jump into the camp that bob barr is a republican plant.

    the point though is that the bob barr brand is ruining the libertarian brand that the libertarian party has worked so hard over the years to promote. the ron paul snub just snubs the libertarian party brand that much more.

  44. I don’t like independent as a term for myself. I like going to parties. Boston Tea Party-goer, that’s me!

  45. Feel free to sign the petition:

    We’d like to get this to them ASAP with as many signatures as possible, so feel free to promote where you deem appropriate.


  46. Michael, a motion nominating Ron Paul would easily sail through this LNC in the event of a vacancy for either spot on our ticket. Paul would get at least 13 out of 17 votes, and quite possibly all of them. Barr’s offer does not mean he thinks a letter from him is in itself sufficient under our Bylaws to put Paul on our ticket. If Barr had made the equivalent offer to, say, Chuck Baldwin or Jesse Ventura, that too would not have been a Bylaws violation, any more than me offering to levitate is a violation of the law of gravity.

    By the way, I bet the Barr campaign loves the smokescreen of Bylaws-violation charges, since it helps hide their real mistake here, which was to insult Paul and his fans with the VP offer while skipping Paul’s press conference.

    P.S. Is “usual meaningless” and “stupid presumption” the standard of conduct you really want to be setting here? Given all the serious and valuable work you do for the LPCA, I would expect better from you.

  47. Brian, you are still stuck in the coulda-woulda-shoulda game.

    Whether or not such a nomination would “easily sail through this LNC” is getting the cart before the horse. The fact remains that he had no authority make such an offer in the first place, no matter who would make such a motion.

    Barr’s offer simply means that he didn’t read or understand the Bylaws while on the LNC or simply doesn’t give a damn about them. Either case is inexcusable. It also means he could care less about a “smoke-screen”. And the real problem isn’t being hidden anyway-hence the LNC apology motion being discussed and blocked by Starr et al.

    I’ll ignore your egotistical P.S. except to say this: Barr was a mistake that I and many others in the LP forewarned people about. Nobody listened. And here we are.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: