Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian
- Thread starter FireMax
- Start date
I don't want to convince you, I just want to know the why. The assertion was that he got less media attention than all the other candidates. I've listed you all the outlets that Paul had. I don't recall seeing Romney or McCain on Leno. I don't recall McCain sitting down with Glenn Beck for an entire hour.
What am I missing here that is so obvious to you.
Stage2,
I saw a chart somewhere; media mentions on LexisNexis. I'll see if I can find it again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j28utVC6W1w
1 minute in
FireMax,
I agree with Seeker. Running for the Libertarian nomination does not make one a libertarian. Barr's history is anything but libertarian. If anything's ironic, it's that the Libertarians worked to get Barr ousted (and succeeded) back on '02.
But I agree that he's not a neo-con either.
I saw a chart somewhere; media mentions on LexisNexis. I'll see if I can find it again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j28utVC6W1w
1 minute in
Red commentary and emphasis mine.
FireMax,
I agree with Seeker. Running for the Libertarian nomination does not make one a libertarian. Barr's history is anything but libertarian. If anything's ironic, it's that the Libertarians worked to get Barr ousted (and succeeded) back on '02.
But I agree that he's not a neo-con either.
As has been beaten to death, this is not the election of the Libertarian Party. Obama or McCain will be the next president just as sure as the turning of the Earth.
The LP must find a future candidate with some charisma. His vision is counter to mine but Obama has more of it than anybody I have seen in politics since Reagan.His ideas are not what draws his crowds of 70,000 people. Hell, they don't even know what his ideas are.
You can't be a leader without it, and Paul simply had no presence and his ideas as articulated came off as wacko to the vast middle. Barr is too late in the process to be much more than a distraction.
I would like to see the Libertarian Party expand in to significance , but they are going to have to find somebody better to carry the torch.
The LP must find a future candidate with some charisma. His vision is counter to mine but Obama has more of it than anybody I have seen in politics since Reagan.His ideas are not what draws his crowds of 70,000 people. Hell, they don't even know what his ideas are.
You can't be a leader without it, and Paul simply had no presence and his ideas as articulated came off as wacko to the vast middle. Barr is too late in the process to be much more than a distraction.
I would like to see the Libertarian Party expand in to significance , but they are going to have to find somebody better to carry the torch.
ZeroJunk:
+1
Could not be said better. Obama has that something, but no one knows exactly what. Paul is viewed as a wacko by 90% of the people. If the LP wants to do anything they have got to get one VIABLE cantidate and start early. If Fred Thompson had started early he could have been the next POTUS but starting late killed his chances from many different angles.
+1
Could not be said better. Obama has that something, but no one knows exactly what. Paul is viewed as a wacko by 90% of the people. If the LP wants to do anything they have got to get one VIABLE cantidate and start early. If Fred Thompson had started early he could have been the next POTUS but starting late killed his chances from many different angles.
BoringAccountant
New member
ZJ,
That is about the best summation I can think of when it come to the LP...great post.
That is about the best summation I can think of when it come to the LP...great post.
Yes, we need a leader, someone to follow, a Lemming Leader, as it were. It just wouldn't do to insist a leader follow certain principles, better to find someone who sounds good, even if what he says is hogwash.
I heard one of Obama's speeches a while back, and thought, he is very good. That was on an emotional level. My logical brain said, Everything he wants to do violates my principles.
But, yes let's find someone with charisma and principles. Until then, let's just vote for John McCain, who is zero for 2.
I heard one of Obama's speeches a while back, and thought, he is very good. That was on an emotional level. My logical brain said, Everything he wants to do violates my principles.
But, yes let's find someone with charisma and principles. Until then, let's just vote for John McCain, who is zero for 2.
+1
Yes, getting 1% of the vote per presidential election cycle is down-right embarrassing for the LP. The same voices in the LP saying the same things over and over again are not going to change anything. IMO, the LP should be willing to marry its ideas with conservatism. It is a natural fit. If they continue with lackluster candidates willing to bow to the leftists in their midst, they will continue doing the same thing every 4 years.... nothing.
Bob Barr is the best bet for the LP. If they want to get above 1% for once, he's the man.
A quote from Bob Barr in the American Spectator magazine.
So the hill that you and others are going to die on is the fact that even though Paul was there on stage for 2 hours what railroaded his campaign was the fact that he didn't get his 5 minutes in the post debate interview (which is partially incorrect as every Fox debate save the one he wasn't invited to as well as a couple of CNN ones he was interviewed afterwards with the rest)?
As far as his name being mentioned are you going to suggest that the media should report on the weakest candidate as much as the strongest? Huckabee was all over the news after Iowa but then vanished from the news a couple of states afterwards except for people asking the question "when's he gonna leave".
The bottom line is that Paul's access to the media far exceeded his numbers. If you look at the corresponding democrats like Mike Gravel, Kucinich, Dodd an some of the others, Paul was a media darling even though his numbers were about the same.
Stage 2,
You asked a question and I answered it. Any inferences beyond that are yours, not mine.
Poll numbers are driven by media mentions and media mentions are driven by poll numbers. Whether it's intentional or not, the media has a huge influence on elections and the media's influence worked in a way to "disappear" Paul.
You take a look at Dodd's, Kucinich's, or Gravel's numbers on the ground and explain to me how they were anywhere in the same ballpark. My senility may be kicking in again, but I don't recall any of these people pulling down 5 million dollars overnight or pulling rallies in the tens of thousands. Did they and I just missed it?
Long-short Paul didn't get the media attention that he should have. Nevertheless, he's got a massive war chest and a huge ground army that he wouldn't have had otherwise.
You asked a question and I answered it. Any inferences beyond that are yours, not mine.
Over the course of that time frame, how could the media (or anyone else) have determined who was the "strongest candidate"?
Poll numbers are driven by media mentions and media mentions are driven by poll numbers. Whether it's intentional or not, the media has a huge influence on elections and the media's influence worked in a way to "disappear" Paul.
You take a look at Dodd's, Kucinich's, or Gravel's numbers on the ground and explain to me how they were anywhere in the same ballpark. My senility may be kicking in again, but I don't recall any of these people pulling down 5 million dollars overnight or pulling rallies in the tens of thousands. Did they and I just missed it?
Long-short Paul didn't get the media attention that he should have. Nevertheless, he's got a massive war chest and a huge ground army that he wouldn't have had otherwise.
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
the 3 stooges are still at it
alert!!!
Wildalaska
Moderator
Of course not...the entire electorate but for the select view who support Paulbarr are ignorant fascists
WildandpuppystompersyeswestomponpuppiesnadhatetheconstitutionAlaska TM
Not at all. It's just that it is difficult to give up that which would benefit you, or that you agree with, in order to follow the constitution. It takes some effort and thinking about what the constitution actually says, and leaving emotion behind.
Most people do not make the effort. Some actively do not want to follow the constitution.
Most people do not make the effort. Some actively do not want to follow the constitution.
Last edited:
Another option : Chuck Baldwin.
/too religious for my tastes.
/too religious for my tastes.
Nah, you shouldn't portray Ron Paul supporters like that. That is very harsh and inaccurate..
The truth is, RP supporters, in general, don't believe the average citizen is a fascist. In general, we believe that many of the most powerful people in power in our government are Fascists or Fascist enablers/apologists. The people are not fascist and not ignorant so much... rather they are "oblivious" to what is happening within their own government.
Nothing a little honest education can't correct.