Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian

Will you consider voting for Bob Barr for President?

  • Yes

    Votes: 64 45.4%
  • No

    Votes: 77 54.6%

  • Total voters
    141
WildAlaska
LOL...another I didn't know defense....thats the type of guy we need a President LOL

Yeah, well, sometimes "I didn't know" means "I didn't know". But alas, in comparison to this false claim against Barr, we have McCain who was investigated for taking bribes. You did know that, didn't you WildAlaska... that the man you support for President of the USA was investigated for taking bribes? It was known as the Keating Five scandal. Let me refresh your memory in case you have forgotten...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

In 1989, the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, Calif., collapsed. Lincoln's chairman, Charles H. Keating Jr., was faulted for the thrift's failure. Keating, however, told the House Banking Committee that the FHLBB and its former chief Edwin J. Gray were pursuing a vendetta against him.

Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $300,000 (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating. McCain received $112,000 by 1987 from Keating and Keating's relatives and employees to McCain's Senate campaign, more than any of the other Senators. [1] In September 1987 National Thrift News was the first media outlet to break the story.[2] In October 1989 The Arizona Republic reported that in addition to campaign contributions, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental Corporation (parent of Lincoln) jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.

After months of testimony revealed that all five senators acted improperly to differing degrees, the senators maintained they were following the status quo of campaign funding practices. In August 1991, the committee concluded that Cranston's, DeConcini's, and Riegle's conduct constituted substantial interference with the FHLBB's enforcement efforts and that they had interfered at the behest of Charles Keating. The Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn's and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal.[5] The committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."

I guess McCain's idea of "following the status quo of campaign funding practices" is flying around on an indicted criminal's jet. Questionable conduct indeed. Did you also know that the other 4 members of the Keating Five were democrats? Even back then, McCain was buddies with democrats in high places.
 
I just came across a Rassmussen poll from last week that shows Barr is already polling 7% of the Republican vote. At the time this poll had been taken, Barr had been in the race, what, 2 weeks..... and he is already polling 7%? That doesn't bode well for McCain. At the very least, Barr's presence in this race will force McCain to think twice about pulling further to the liberal side of the spectrum as he has been inclined to do.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...rd_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_race

Sunday, May 18, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll has shown a very close race between John McCain and Barack Obama. For most of the past week, they have been essentially tied with typically 4% of voters saying they prefer some other candidate and a similar number remaining undecided.

A separate survey found slightly different results when third-party candidates were mentioned by name. In a four-way race, Obama earns 42% of the vote, McCain 38%, Bob Barr 6% and Ralph Nader 4%. Given those options, 11% were undecided. Barr and Nader were mentioned as candidates of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party respectively.

Barr picked up 7% of the Republican vote, 5% of the Democrat vote, and 5% of the unaffiliated vote
 
Yeah, well, sometimes "I didn't know" means "I didn't know

LOL...avoid the question

But alas, in comparison to this false claim against Barr, we have McCain who was investigated for taking bribes.

Tu quoque is the last resort for those who have nothing else

That doesn't bode well for McCain.

Thats the essence of the Barr-the-hypocrite's campaign...give us a Democrat for President.

But the thread reflects your avoidance of the clear questions.

WildthisthreadhasaboutreacheditsterminusAlaska TM
 
miboso: Here's an article about Trent Lott and Bob Barr relative to the CCC. I don't know how accurate it is but here's the link:

http://www.adl.org/mwd/ccc.asp

I have suspicions about a group called the "Militia Watchdogs". Might be as extremist as the people they are going after?
 
At the very least, Barr's presence in this race will force McCain to think twice about pulling further to the liberal side of the spectrum as he has been inclined to do.


He might see it in the opposite way and push further to the left.

I wouldn't be suprised to see McCain pick Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidental nominee.
 
He might see it in the opposite way and push further to the left.

I wouldn't be suprised to see McCain pick Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidental nominee.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. McCain wouldn't be the first Republican to go down to defeat because he thought the Republican base had no place else to go, so he was free to outrage them. Bush the Elder in his bid for reelection, Dole...

Zerojunk, I've seen a few Libertarian races, (Not Presidential, of course.) which were close enough that having the funds wasted on ballot access available to spend promoting the candidates would likely have made the difference. What the discriminatory campaign laws did was kill the LP's growth, by starving the LP for funding, and forcing them to spend most of those funds on activities other than promoting their candidates.

Now, I'm of the opinion that the LP probably would never have managed more than plurality level support, managed to be one of three roughly equal parties. But, as I said above: When two of the runners in a three man race get together and lock a ball and chain on the leg of the third, you might be right in saying that it didn't matter, he was going to lose anyway, but it's not going to be very persuasive.

After all, why would they even have bothered putting that ball and chain on him, if they'd agreed with you about that? The strongest argument that the LP had a chance to make a difference, IMO, is that the major parties took a look at them, AND THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH IT TO PASS LAWS TO MAKE SURE THEY COULDN'T.
 
Some support for your argument.

The Libertarian Party of North Carolina has been certified eight times, often spending nine months and $100,000 on the effort, only to start again after the gubernatorial election.
 
WildAlaska
Thats the essence of the Barr-the-hypocrite's campaign...give us a Democrat for President.

Don't be angry WildAlaska... Barr is also pulling 5% of the democrat vote at this time.;)

Quite honestly, Barr would be a non-issue to the republicans if McCain were not so liberal. As it is, the GOP should be worried, and I guarantee you that they are. Like I mentioned before, you may not like Barr, but you should thank him if you are conservative because the presence of a strong, pro-2nd amendment conservative in the race makes it much more difficult for McCain to ignore the conservative base by continuing to court liberals as he did with his ignorant speech on Global Warming.

cool hand luke
He might see it in the opposite way and push further to the left.

That would be typical McCain... go to where he is most comfortable. But it would ensure his defeat.
 
The larger portion of the electorate in this country is sick of the Republicans and their conservative agenda.

I doubt Reagan resurrected could win in this enviornment so fouled by Republican incompetence.

And you think McCain should act more Republican so the 45% base will come out. In election terms 55/45 is a landslide.
 
I doubt Reagan resurrected could win in this enviornment so fouled by Republican incompetence.

The lack of "Reagan-like conservatives" in the Republican party is exactly why the GOP is in the shape it is in. This is not all John McCain's fault... John McCain is simply a symptom of a much larger problem in the GOP. The GOP seems to have embraced liberalism.... voila! You get John McCain, Mr. Global Warming himself.
 
Heck, Rush Limbaugh is now saying (facetiously) if the Republicans are going to pursue liberalism, go all the way and support Obama.
Where did I hear that previously? Oh, I know, I said it.:D
 
Yep. Heard him say that too. It's about time Rush got on the right side of history and rejects the liberalism of McCain outright.
 
Dang. I've got to get used to these forum buttons.

I am a republican and will not vote for Mccain this year. For the first time in my life, I am voting libertarian instead of republican. Mcain is just too far left for my tastes.
 
While I agree that we should toss out McWeasel and the neocommunists in the party, my question is WHY THE HECK DIDN'T WE DO THAT EARLIER?!?!?! :mad:
 
While I agree that we should toss out McWeasel and the neocommunists in the party, my question is WHY THE HECK DIDN'T WE DO THAT EARLIER?!?!?!
Scratch that. The question is "How do we do that now?"
 
That question is the answer to his question: We didn't do it earlier because there's hardly any way to do it! The people you'd want to get rid of run the party machinery, and taking it away from them is virtually impossible.

About the best we can hope for is to replace them as they die off. Which gives you some notion of how long it's going to take.
 
While I agree that we should toss out McWeasel and the neocommunists in the party, my question is WHY THE HECK DIDN'T WE DO THAT EARLIER?!?!?!

Most voters haven't been paying attention until now. People like Ron Paul are brining the message to all that will hear, but even his success was not possible until after years of mismanagement of our government by the liberal republicans. People are slowly becoming fed up. It is as if they are in a pot that has been on slow boil. Someone has turned up the heat.
 
About the best we can hope for is to replace them as they die off.

That doesn't give me much hope. I run a business and my wife runs a business and I swear, every year it seems harder and harder to find young people willing to work. It's as if they have had it so good they want to keep having it handed to them on a silver platter.

I speak in generalities of course, but I don't like what I see from much of the younger generation that will follow us... or will follow me anyway.
 
Back
Top