Steve G.

Posts Tagged ‘Barr’

Barr on DOMA 12 years later

In Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitutional Rights, Law, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Personal Responsibility, Politics, US Government on January 5, 2009 at 2:57 pm

From the Los Angeles Times, 1-5-09:

No defending the Defense of Marriage Act

The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it’s time for his law to get the boot — but for political reasons, not in support of gays.
By Bob Barr
January 5, 2009
» Discuss Article
In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact.I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed.

The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation — like that of most federal laws — was a compromise.

DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus.

The Hawaii court was clearly leaning toward legalizing same-sex marriages. So the first part of DOMA was crafted to prevent the U.S. Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause — which normally would require State B to recognize any lawful marriage performed in State A — from being used to extend one state’s recognition of same-sex marriage to other states whose citizens chose not to recognize such a union.

Contrary to the wishes of a number of my Republican colleagues, I crafted the legislation so it wasn’t a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage.

However, we did incorporate into DOMA’s second part a definition of marriage that comported with the historic — and, at the time, widely accepted — view of the institution as being between a man and a woman only. But this definition was to be used solely to interpret provisions of federal law related to spouses.

The first part of DOMA, then, is a partial bow to principles of federalism, protecting the power of each state to determine its definition of marriage. The second part sets a legal definition of marriage only for purposes of federal law, but not for the states. That was the theory.

I’ve wrestled with this issue for the last several years and come to the conclusion that DOMA is not working out as planned. In testifying before Congress against a federal marriage amendment, and more recently while making my case to skeptical Libertarians as to why I was worthy of their support as their party’s presidential nominee, I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law.

In effect, DOMA’s language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don’t want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws — including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran’s benefits — has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions.

Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves.

In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, “Decisions about marriage should be left to the states.” He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.

Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party’s 2008 nominee for president.

Advertisements

Barr TV ad

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Media, Politics on October 5, 2008 at 10:55 am

Here is the one the campaign produced:

Proposed alternative Bob Barr campaign commercial from Marc Gallagher at Liberty Maven

Phillies: Barr did Worse than Keaton so Leave Her Alone

In Libertarian Party-US on October 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm

George Phillies makes the case that the accusations against Angela Keaton are mere trifles compared to Bob Barr’s alleged failure to declare his conflict of interest while serving on the LNC.

My defense is simple: Relative to the acts of other members of the LNC and their staff over the past two years, Keaton’s acts are the merest of peccadilloes.  Other members of the LNC and their staff were not disciplined for far more serious acts.  To discipline Keaton when those other persons went scot-free would clearly be unjust.

Dr Phillies claims that Congressman Barr never disclosed to the LNC the fact that he was raising funds for and contributing to conservative Republican candidates via his Bob Barr Leadership Fund, some of whom were running against Libertarians.

While a sitting member of the LNC, Bob Barr — through his Bob Barr Leadership fund — raised over a million dollars to support conservatives for their 2008 election campaigns. When you raise money from others, for a particular purpose, you have a duty to those others to spend their money on that purpose.

Barr’s duty to support electing conservative Republicans conflicted with the Libertarian Party’s interest in seeing every Republican defeated. Instead, Barr’s PAC actually supported Republicans.

Barr failed to disclose that he was actively disloyal to the party, namely he was trying to defeat our prospective candidates by supporting Republicans.

Furthermore, Barr’s PAC paid his son to carry out duties for the PAC. Barr thus had an economic interest that was contrary to the Party’s interests, namely, his family would thrive financially when the PAC did well by causing Libertarian Party candidates to lose, and, conversely, his family would do less well financially when his PAC’s candidates were defeated by Libertarian Party candidates.

Read the entire article at: TheDailyLiberty.com: In Defense of Angela Keaton, Part 2

Deadline for Barr extended in Maine

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Local Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates on August 13, 2008 at 2:20 am

Earlier, we reported that Bob Barr had missed the deadline to be on the Maine ballot. The signatures were due in to town clerks by August 8, and the LP had failed to submit enough signatures on time. However, Ballot Access News has updated its entry.

UPDATE: It appears that the Maine town and county clerks are using their discretionary powers and are accepting the slightly late filing by the LP. The actual state deadline is August 15, so the petitions will still meet that more important deadline.

The Barr campaign petitions now have 5,520 signatures, which should be enough to make the 4,000 valid requirement.

Thanks to Eric Garris for this news.

Barr misses Maine deadline

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics on August 12, 2008 at 11:17 am

Also posted at Independent Political Report

Hot on the heels of the failure in West Virginia (additional discussion at Ballot Access News and Last Free Voice), Ballot Access News reports:

On the deadline date of August 8, Bob Barr submitted a total of 3,200 signatures to various town and city clerks in Maine. State law requires 4,000 valid signatures to get on the ballot.

Over the weekend, petitioners obtained another 2,000 signatures, which they had hoped to turn in to the clerks on Monday. The signatures are not due at the Secretary of State’s office until Aug. 15. If the local clerks choose to take the late signatures, Barr could still qualify, since the additional signatures would potentially give him 5,200 total.

If the officials fail to accept and certify the late signatures, LP officials plan to go to court.

Maine joins Oklahoma, Massachusetts and West Virginia among states which the Barr campaign is suing to be on the ballot. The Barr campaign also raced to the deadline in Connecticut, as well as in New Hampshire, where the LP failed to qualify in 2004 and 2006 and where George Phillies will be on the ballot either alongside or instead of Bob Barr as a Libertarian Presidential candidate. The results of the last-minute pushes in Connecticut and New Hampshire are forthcoming.

Another possible concern for the campaign is the District of Columbia, which pre-nomination LP ballot access plans had written off (along with West Virginia and Oklahoma). According to the chart at Ballot Access News, with a week left to go, DC reports only 300 signatures gathered for Barr. Although the District requires only 3,883 valid signatures, petitioning in the district is made more difficult than in other places because non-DC residents make up a substantial portion of the DC workforce and nightlife, and because of the high prevalence of tourists, people who are disqualified (or believe they are disqualified) from voting by reason of a criminal record, and those who are not (or believe they are not) allowed to sign petitions because of their government job.

The LP has been on the ballot in 48 states or more plus DC in every election since 1992.

West Virginia Libertarian petition reportedly fails

In Green Party, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics on August 1, 2008 at 2:28 am

According to a field report by one of the Libertarian petitioners on the ground in West Virginia, as of tonight’s final turn-in of signatures by petitioners to the campaign, the LP gathered only around 12,000 raw signatures, falling short of the 15,118 required by state law. While additional signatures would be required to survive a challenge, the bare minimum required by law would have been enough if there was no challenge.

Richard Winger reports in Ballot Access News, “No other state is like Illinois, where even a petition with a number of signatures below the legal minimum is sufficient if no one challenges”.

If this field report is accurate, it would mean that Bob Barr can be on the ballot in at most 48 states, unless he wins his lawsuit in Oklahoma.

The Nader and Constitution Party petitions appear to have enough signatures, and the Green Party is on the ballot through its affiliate, the Mountain Party.

In another post at BAN, Richard Winger writes:

West Virginia and North Carolina are tied for having the nation’s second-highest presidential petition requirements (each requires a petition of 2% of the last vote in a presidential election year). Only Oklahoma is worse, at 3% of the last presidential vote.

Both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties are making a massive effort to finish their West Virginia petitions, which are due August 1. This newspaper story about the Libertarian petition says 40 to 50 circulators are working in the state. The story doesn’t feature the Constitution Party, but it also has many circulators in the state this week.

West Virginia was one of 4 states in which Ron Paul didn’t get on the ballot in 1988, when he was the Libertarian nominee. The Constitution Party has never been on the West Virginia ballot for president, but the party has more organizational strength now than it has ever had. In 2000, its presidential nominee, Howard Phillips, was only credited with 23 write-ins in West Virginia, but its 2004 presidential candidate, Michael Peroutka, was credited with 82 write-ins in West Virginia.

Nader did his West Virginia 2008 petition earlier in the year, collecting 30,000 signatures, double the requirement. The Green Party’s affiliate in West Virginia, the Mountain Party, has been ballot-qualified starting in 2000.

I’m a whore and a glory hole slut

In Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, Crazy Claims, Crime, Economics, Entertainment, First Amendment, Green Party, Humor, Law, Libertarian, Libertarian Convention, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics, US Government on August 1, 2008 at 12:24 am

— In lpradicals@yahoogroups.com, “Rachel Hawkridge” wrote:

Last nite, I was reading one of the blogs, and someone called paulie a whore for helping to get Barr on the ballot, when he’s not a supporter of the nominee.

I roared with laughter . . . paulie gets paid. I did it for free.

Guess that makes me . . . a slut? ;o)

BTW, paulie said “Thank you.”

p] Actually, I’m both a slut and a whore. For instance, I got Barr on the ballot in Arkansas for free. To make matters even worse, I didn’t even know it was for Barr at the time, since he wasn’t nominated yet and hadn’t even announced, so I guess that makes me a glory hole slut to boot, in addition to being a whore.

Also, I’m a pimp, in addition to being a slut and a whore, because I make part of my living collecting overrides for managing crews of petition gatherers sometimes. And I am in no ways faithful to the Libertarians. Right now I’m doing a three-way, and negotiating to add one or two more clients at the same time. And I’m not using a condom with any of them! I guess that makes me a dirty whore.

Not only that, but I kiss and tell: I offered to write either pro- or anti- Barr polemics to the highest bidder. I’m thinking of selling my vote, too, although I guess the buyer would just have to trust me that I stayed bought.

If this sort of thing turns you on, read all about it at

https://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/bob-barr-recants-position-on-wiccans-in-the-military/

This is a limited time offer. Operators are standing by….

In Economics, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics on July 30, 2008 at 3:11 am

Via disinter

Susan Davis reports:

In perhaps the most desperate sounding e-mail solicitation yet this election cycle, third party Libertarian candidate Bob Barr’s campaign manager sent out a plea today to supporters to raise $15,000 each day this week—or else.

Under the subject line, “Have I said or done something to offend you?” Russ Verney writes, “You see, I have to report that unless we receive and immediate cash infusion of $85,000, our progress will stop dead in its tracks. To be very blunt, I am presently faced with bills equaling our bank account balance, and I know there are many more expenses on the horizon.”

According to the latest report with the Federal Election Commission, Barr’s campaign had just $69,000 cash on hand at the end of June, and he raised just under $200,000 last month.

If you donate in the next 15 seconds, you can get a Bob Barr bumpersticker at no charge!

Bob Barr recants position on Wiccans in the military

In Big Brother, Censorship, Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights, First Amendment, Law, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Military, Minorities, Nanny State, Politics on July 30, 2008 at 1:41 am

From Nate Uncensored (excerpt):

Apparently someone did get around to asking Bob Barr some substantive questions when he made an appearance at Netroots Nation. Ed Brayton (Dispatches from the Culture Wars) asked Barr if he would now, as Libertarian candidate, repudiate his 1999 attempt to prohibit the practice of Wicca, a neo-Pagan religion, on military bases. Barr said that he has changed his mind, citing “reports” that the practice of Wicca was causing problems that are apparently not an issue now. Brayton writes:

I did ask him for any specific problems that were reported to him back in 1999 by these military leaders, but he said he didn’t want to get into specifics. I’m sure that’s because there are no specific incidents and those military leaders who complained to him did so out of bigotry, or because the problems it caused were really caused by bigotry against Wiccans. He likened it to his stance on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for gays, which he previously supported but now that it’s clear that allowing gays to serve doesn’t really cause any problems with unit cohesion and good order, he thinks it should be repealed and they should be allowed to serve openly.

Barr polls double digits in NH, closing in on getting ballot access

In George Phillies, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Media, People in the news, Presidential Candidates, Republican on July 24, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Reported in the Manchester, NH Union Leader newspaper:

Although he’s yet to secure a spot on the New Hampshire presidential ballot, Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr visited Manchester yesterday, drawing attention and, possibly votes, away from Republican John McCain.

Barr visited Murphy’s Tap Room in downtown Manchester, where about 90 people listened to his calls for small government and personal freedom, and nodded agreement to his notion that the country’s two major political parties are headed in the same direction.

“Americans have this sense about them — that we can take advantage of in this election cycle — that the system is not serving them well,” said Barr, a former four-term congressman from Georgia.

His New Hampshire visit comes the same day that John McCain visited the Granite State, which McCain has twice won in hard-fought Republican Party primaries.

McCain said he’s not discounting Barr’s potential impact on the November election.

“You take everything seriously, and it means I’ve got to campaign hard,” McCain said early yesterday. McCain said New Hampshire voters have a very independent streak.

But for Barr to do damage, he has to get on the New Hampshire ballot. He needs the signatures of 1,500 registered voters from each of the state’s two congressional districts, and state GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen said he’s yet to hear any reports of people gathering signatures for Barr.

But Rich Tomasso, media director for the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, said Barr has about 3,500 signatures in New Hampshire so far. He is shooting for a goal of 5,000 signatures before the petition period closes in two weeks, he said.

Barr said he had no idea McCain would be in New Hampshire the same day he was. He and Tomasso said Barr visited the state after scoring 10 percent of the New Hampshire vote in an Internet poll recently conducted by Zogby International. It was the highest percentage in the country for Barr, who has the Libertarian Party endorsement for president..

Another Libertarian, Massachusetts resident George Phillies, appears to be the closest to being certified for the New Hampshire ballot. The Secretary of State’s office said Phillies needs about 130 more signatures from the 2nd Congressional District to qualify.

Full article here.

Rasmussen: Majority of small l libertarians planning to vote for Obama

In Barack Obama, Democrats, Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics, Politics, Republican on July 24, 2008 at 10:14 pm


Rasmussen
reports that

Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters and they favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin. Three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate and 5% are not sure. These results, from an analysis of 15,000 Likely Voter interviews conducted by Rasmussen Reports, challenges the conventional wisdom which assumes that strong support for a Libertarian candidate would hurt John McCain.

In June, Rasmussen Reports asked 15,000 Likely Voters if they were fiscally conservative, moderate, or liberal and if they were socially conservative, moderate, or liberal. This created a total of 16 possible combinations (not sure was a fourth option for both questions). However, 87% of voters fit into one of seven combinations. Libertarians, defined as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, are the smallest of these seven combinations.

Rasmussen Poll Data

In Politics on June 16, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Here is where it gets tough for Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party.  Polling companies like Rassmussen are giving polls with the only options for President being Barack Obama and John McCain.   The poll among Arkansas voters show that 8% prefer “some other candidate.”

Why do people give such credence to polling firms?  I remember a class action lawsuit filed by the LPPA and LP candidates Richard Piotrowski and Betsy Summers against Quinnipiac College.  The college accepts federal money for student tuition and is supposed to be unbiased in politics.  Excluding candidates on the ballot constitutes as bias according to the law suit.  I haven’t heard anything about the suit since it was filed.

The longer polls exclude Bob Barr, the harder it will be for him (as well as for downticket candidates.)