Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian

[PT111]

Message From Denmark
A message from a friend in Denmark...

We in Denmark are very confused by your election.

On one side, you have a known liar and lawyer, married to a known liar and lawyer . . . And, an elitist radical lawyer who is married to another elitist radical lawyer.

On the other side, you have a war hero and dedicated public servant who is married to a gorgeous looking woman with extraordinary intelligence and owns a beer distributorship.

Why are you even holding this election?

LMAO and totally agree.

In 1960 I asked my parents why the voted for Kennedy. They said because he was a Democrat. It wasn't long before the South learned that being a Democrat was't what it used to be and thing started slowly changing. After Kennedy and Johnson Southerners learned not to trust Democrats until Jimmy Carter broke them of that habit. The constant bombardment of negativity about Republicans has again caused the Southerners to forget Johnson and Carter and consider a Democrat. Once again they will be reminded of what happens when you listen to the media.

 

[FireMax]

fiddeltown
And the guys in your camp haven't ventured a new idea in months.

As opposed to McCain who hasn't had a new idea in years. Oh, wait, I'm wrong. His new idea is to tax American businesses to combat global warming. Oh, and there is that whole anti-freedom of speech bill McCain-Feingold. My bad, McCain does have new ideas.... new liberal ideas.

Bob Barr 2008.

 

[thallub]

As opposed to McCain who hasn't had a new idea in years. Oh, wait, I'm wrong. His new idea is to tax American businesses to combat global warming. Oh, and there is that whole anti-freedom of speech bill McCain-Feingold. My bad, McCain does have new ideas.... new liberal ideas

Exactly right. Please remember that Juan McCain wants to close the non-existent "gun show loophole." In his interview published in the June American Rifleman McCain stated: "As you have mentioned, I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows."

This is a statement made for the enjoyment of his anti-gun supporters. It leaves the impression that NCIS checks are not being done at gun shows. Sadly, Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox did not challenge McCain on this idiotic statement.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...what he's accomplished, ....Dr. Paul's "Revolution" has already begun the "transformation" of the "Republican party into a breeding ground" for the next standard-bearer.

That's not an accomplishment. An accomplishment is something that you can measure. Saying he's "begun the transformation" is like your teenage son saying, when you ask him in July what he's accomplished over summer vacation, "I've thought about getting a summer job."

Unfortunately, the current leadership doesn't want this transformation. ...

But it's the burden of the candidate to win. He needs to demonstrate by performance that he can succeed. He just couldn't get the votes.

 

[Epyon]

This guy is an idiot...

Banning gay marrige? Banning the practice of Wicca in the military? Voting for the Patriot Act? Advocate on the War on Drugs? Wow this guys a right-wing nutcase. Hey, whatever happened to personal liberty? Oh right, I forgot we all need to be under the rule of the morality police because we can't take care of ourselves. Because that pot smoking, magick casting, gay guy is going to ruin my peachy keen straight marrige with my wife and 2.3 children and white picket fence right?


Epyon

 

[STAGE 2]

That's what he's accomplished, and that's the important part. It has nothing to do with "almost winning" (Goldwater did not "almost win". He lost in an epic landslide) Dr. Paul's "Revolution" has already begun the "transformation" of the "Republican party into a breeding ground" for the next standard-bearer.

Except that Goldwater actually won the nomination. He also was reelected to the senate several times. Paul has failed miserably in both these endeavors. Thus comparing Paul to goldwater is a completely irrelevant comparison.

There will always be people who "support the cause". As one of those I submit that you greatly exagerate the impact the Paul campaign has had. By your own statements, the Paul supporters are people who won't vote for the republicans. Therefore if McCain wins (which he is likely to do) then that will only solidify the notion that republicans don't need to pander to the Paulistas.

 

[GoSlash27]

But it's the burden of the candidate to win. He needs to demonstrate by performance that he can succeed. He just couldn't get the votes.

Nonsense. Goldwater got his butt handed to him in '64, hence his ideas were obviously failures. Not. And getting the nomination and then failing miserably to win the general election would, if anything, be a harsher indictment.
The point is to get the word out, get people interested, motivated, and organized to effect the change. He has done that.

There will always be people who "support the cause". As one of those I submit that you greatly exagerate the impact the Paul campaign has had.

Likewise, there will always be people who hate the cause. As one of those I submit that you greatly downplay the impact the Paul campaign has had.

I suppose we'll know down the road.

By your own statements, the Paul supporters are people who won't vote for the republicans.

But they would vote for a real conservative. You do the math. It's not them that's out of touch, it's the Republican party.

Are you suggesting that there's some benefit to turning away voters?

Therefore if McCain wins *snip* then that will only solidify the notion that republicans don't need to pander to the Paulistas.

I agree here. If you consider following policies like limited government, lower taxes, personal freedom, and strict adherence to the Constitution to be "pandering". I submit that this is what the Republican party is *supposed to be* about. Do you disagree?

 

[STAGE 2]

Likewise, there will always be people who hate the cause. As one of those I submit that you greatly downplay the impact the Paul campaign has had.

I suppose we'll know down the road.

I don't hate conservativism. I hate that people think that in order for further the conservative cause, they need to roll out the codgy old relic. Being savy and appealable isn't mutually exclusive to conservative ideals.

In otherwords I hate the fact that many conservatives are naive enough to think that ideas alone can win elections.

But they would vote for a real conservative. You do the math. It's not them that's out of touch, it's the Republican party.

Are you suggesting that there's some benefit to turning away voters?

I keep hearing this. Its McCains fault that he didn't reach out to really conservative voters but its the voters fault that they didn't support Paul. Seems a wee bit hypocritical to me. If McCain is responsible for not reaching out to everyone, then certianly Paul is responsible for his dismal performance as well.

Being president is about leading the nation, not just a single voting bloc. Reagan knew this. He, like McCain, was willing to work with the other side of the aisle. Paul seems to have missed this.

I agree here. If you consider following policies like limited government, lower taxes, personal freedom, and strict adherence to the Constitution to be "pandering". I submit that this is what the Republican party is *supposed to be* about. Do you disagree?

Yes, the republican party is supposed to be about those ideals. However they could be for anything and it wouldn't matter if they aren't in power.

 

[miboso]

And if they were for just anything, then it wouldn't matter if they WERE in power.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well GoSlash, I did err in mixing Nixon in 1960 with Goldwater in '64. But Goldwater still won the nomination. And after Kennedy's "martyrdom", nobody could have beaten Johnson in '64.

 

[GoSlash27]

Goldwater still won the nomination. And after Kennedy's "martyrdom", nobody could have beaten Johnson in '64.

As I said upstream, immaterial. Goldwater would have had the same effect even if he didn't win the nomination.

Stage2,
I agree that you can't win an election on ideals alone, but the flip-side is that you can't win on charisma alone either and even if you could there's no point in winning without them.
You need both.

So now how do you propose to get the party back on track if McCain does win? You just said yourself that it'd give the Republican party more motivation to abandon conservatism.

I hate that people think that in order for further the conservative cause, they need to roll out the codgy old relic. Being savy and appealable isn't mutually exclusive to conservative ideals.

That "codgy old relic" happens to be the only Jefferson/ Goldwater conservative running for president. You name someone who's "savvy and appealable" who's running and fits the mold and we'll back them.

 

[ZeroJunk]

The Republican party was "on track" when Newt and Bill had their little face off on the budget and the voice of the people effectively shut "the contract" down. Remember "the Newt That Stole Christmas"? What exactly do you think Bob Barr or any other Libertarian is going to accomplish. Nothing. The majority is against you no matter how right you think you are. In a democracy that means you are screwed.

 

[FireMax]

Zero Junk
The Republican party was "on track" when Newt and Bill had their little face off on the budget and the voice of the people effectively shut "the contract" down.

Clearly, there is much "suspect" revision of history on a typical web forum day to day. However, this one, I can't let go.

The voice of the people shut down the Contract With America, eh? Of course, you do realize that 9 of the 10 items in the Contract with America were passed with a democrat president at the helm. That's right, the hero of the left Bill Clinton signed them all into law.

Even if your delusion that "the voice of the people shut the contract down" were remotely true (it's not), your premise is negated with your choice to leave the real facts out.

 

[GoSlash27]

I agree with FireMax. What really killed the "contract" was Republican hubris and corruption. This was in direct opposition of the "voice of the people".

And incidentally I have found someone with more savvy and appeal to back.

Doug Stanhope for President!

 

[FireMax]

There will always be people who "support the cause". As one of those I submit that you greatly exagerate the impact the Paul campaign has had.

On the contrary, I believe that republican party supporters greatly underestimate the impact the Paul campaign has had. That of course is not hard to believe as we witness a confused GOP in full tail-spin, having even gone as far to put forth a liberal for the nomination of the republican party. The GOP has failed to see the forest for the trees. It is now grasping at straws, while it still refuses to see the root of its demise.... socialism from within its own ranks. Rather than reject it in an attempt to right itself... the GOP seems to continue to embrace it.

 

[FireMax]

BoringAccountant
Why would Barr enter the race so late if he is claiming to be in it to win it? Where has he been the last year or so, even the last 8 months he could have gotten in and garnered some support.

That's easy to answer. The LP nomination process is not the same as the GOP and the Democrat party. The republicans and democrats will actually "nominate" their candidate later than the Libertarian Party. The LP will be the first of the these parties to actually name their candidate.

So, if you are wondering why Bob Barr did not announce his candidacy earlier... he didn't have to as he was not running as a republican or a democrat. On the other hand, announcing his candidacy when he did, at a time when conservatives in the republican party are getting a good dose of John McCain's liberalism... was a brilliant move.

Conservatives will have 3 choices in November;

1. Vote for a liberal (Obama)
2. Vote for a liberal (McCain)
3. Vote for a conservative (Barr)

Like him or not, Bob Barr will be a major player in this years election. True conservatives have no where else to go in November, aside from writing in Ron Paul. Don't blame Barr or the conservatives for this. Thanks belongs to the republican party and their poor decision to put their weight behind a liberal who is despised by conservatives.

 

[Hawg]

Like him or not, Bob Barr will be a major player in this years election.

Maybe as a spoiler to help put Obama in, nothing more.

 

[ZeroJunk]

I guess you guys don't remember the showdown where the Republicans were effectively portrayed as villains for shutting down the government over the budget. Like it or not that was the end of the trend. If you like you can explain anything enduring from the 9 out of 10 you think so boldly of.


The point is that the libertarian dream is inplausible in a society with as little self discipline and downright immorality as the one we live in. Plus a larger majority of the electorate wants the government cradle to the grave coddling. Get used to it, or go beat your head against a wall. The same thing will come from it.

 

[miboso]

So, zerojunk, you are saying that we should just give up, accept living in a "government cradle to the grave coddling".
If we are going to accept that, why would we vote for McCain, rather than acknowledging full acceptance and voting for the strongest government cradle to grave force? Heck, why should we bother voting at all? Why don't we all (libertarians and McCain supporters alike) "Get used to it, or go beat your head against a wall. The same thing will come from it."
Your latest reasoning supports just accepting the Democratic big government philosophy.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Maybe as a spoiler to help put Obama in, nothing more.

Truly sad: The recent years of how and who to vote for is based on what the general public's "deer in the headlights" decision to nominate a candidate that ultimately doesn't actually represent the party's philosophy. (Sorry about the run-on sentence)

Even worse: The mentality of most people in this country thinks they have to vote for the candidate that "represents" their party of choice. Otherwise, the opposition gets elected. History has proven my point on this.

However, at what temperature is America's boiling point? Where is the line in the sand that one no longer votes the same as the sheeple? The very thought of voting only so that the opposition doesn't get into office will be watered down as such as the party that you hold your nose to vote for isn't any better. By then, the people have sold out their own party.

Has it occured to some people that maybe a dose of Obama would wake up the sheeple in time to truly elect decent congressmen?

At this point, I'm sick and tired of this mentality....not voting FOR my candidate.

A business doesn't know any better if their products and service are good for their patrons if they keep buying their stuff only because it's marginally better than others. The patron has the obligation to provide feedback to the business owner.