Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

The problem with America is that some people are party faithful, Regardless of who the party favors. I think the best MAN should win..........The best candidate period. But That is not the way it works, But that doesn't make it right either.

It really seems that the lesser of 2 evils has taken on a whole new meaning.
I will vote for the best, of the lesser of two evils , even though the best candidate still sucks.

 

[talonap]

Utter nonsense. You seem to be all for people's right to choose, as long as their choice accords with your own. Not duty, not honor, not morals, not conscience, not love of country - none of these obliges me to vote for whichever unflushable turd the Republicans throw at me. McCain has already made a mockery of his oath of office on repeated occasions. No thank you. Let the Republicans nominate a worthy candidate, not McCain/Feingold/Kennedy/Kyoto John, and then, perhaps, I'll vote "R." Until then, I will vote for the candidate duty, honor, morals, conscience, and love of country do oblige me, presuming such can be found.

As I said, I do believe in people's right to choose - I'm just venting on the fact that some people choose to waste their right and obligation to vote for someone who has no chance of winning - thus putting the worst possible candidate in office. Don't get all, "High Horse", with me about, "Duty, honor, morals, conscience, and love of country". I spent 14 years in the Navy and know first hand about these things. I feel it's my, "Duty" to help put the best person available in office with an actual chance to win. Yes it's MY OPINION and MY right to express MY FEELINGS without being put down because YOU don't agree. And if you don't find your perfect candidate, you also have the right not to vote.

 

[LoneStranger]

talonap and others, I find that your whining about people "wasting their vote" when they decide to vote for the person that they feel is most qualified to be somewhat selfserving.

FACT: The only way that you can waste your vote is to fail to exercise it!!!

Any statement about winners, losers, viable, real, or any other adjective put in front of a candidate is strictly about political correct posturing.

If you have problems with the way things work out then you should look to those in the Republicrat/Demopublican parties who in the past passed the laws which bring us to the problems your whining about.

 

[Danzig]

Actually..if you were all to think about this logically..then if McCain loses..it will be because the Republican party nominated him as their candidate instead of somebody who would have drawn the votes needed to win the election. If McCain fails..it will be because he is a lousy politician and because the Republican party could find the heart to choose somebody better.

Don't blame those of us who will not vote for him..blame those who either could not offer us a better candidate or who chose not to nominate a better candidate.

Those are the people who handed the White House to the Democrats.

 

[STAGE 2]

Nice try.........not!

I'll take that to mean 'not' as in you don't want to directly address this point because its both correct and irrefutable. The fact is that conservatives have a better chance to A) make policy and B) reject liberal policy with McCain in the whitehouse. Thats simply the cold hard truth.

So while not voting for him might make you feel good, practically speaking you are doing the nation more harm because you are going to send us further down the river than we otherwise would be.

So according to your philosophy, if we had a Hitler running against a Stalin, we should vote for one of them because we are powerless? Is there any candidate your "party" could put forth that you would not vote for? Or, will you vote for whoever they put forward regardless of their political positions?

Reductio ad absurdum. Hitler and Stalin aren't running (though the 2 dems are arguably close). Furthermore I am not espousing any philosophy. I am saying in this case with these candidates, its better to have McCain in the whitehouse than Hillary and certianly Obama.

Let me get this straight. You believe that voting for a liberal (McCain) is better than voting for a conservative (Barr). I guess that is fine if you are a liberal, but not fine if you are conservative. Stage 2, your logic makes my head want to explode.

Because you call him a liberal does not make him such. Thats just a poor argumentative tactic. McCain might not be Barry Goldwater, but he's far from the liberal politician that you try and paint him as. If every member of congress had his record on firearms, we wouldn't need Heller because we wouldn't have any of the ridiculolus laws we are fighting against right now.

But to return to your statement, the logic is so simple its deafening. Its beneficial to vote for the most conservative viable candidate. Paul wasn't viable. Barr isn't viable. A vote for them is a wasted vote and often times results in liberals being elected.

Can we now let this horribly stupid argument die an ignoble death?

No because you didn't bother to present it correctly. People who vote libertarian are overwhelmingly on the conservative end of the spectrum. If they were to support one of the two main parties, it would be the republicans. In fact, many of the votes that libertarians get are from frustrated republicans as has been seen in this thread and many others.

By having people like Barr, the conservative vote is dilluted, making it easier for a democrat to win. Every poll indicates that this election is going to be very close. That makes this very likely.

 

[wayneinFL]

"The problem with America is that some people are party faithful, Regardless of who the party favors. I think the best MAN should win..........The best candidate period. But That is not the way it works, But that doesn't make it right either."

I've been NP (non partisan) on my voter registration card since 1989. I am not "party faithful". Not to any party. If I had to belong to a party, it would be Libertarian.

Unfortunately, with our system the way it is, if conservative split their votes between a moderate republican candidate, and a conservative, as they did with Perot and Bush, a liberal democrat gets into office. United we stand and divided we fall. If conservatives don't put their votes behind one candidate, then the liberals win.

The best thing to do is to change the system by which our votes are counted. There are plenty of ideas out there- numbering our choices, for example.

When and if we get our system changed, vote your conscience. Until then we have to unite behind one candidate.

Bottom line is that if you don't want to lose your guns you will vote for McCain. I'll concede he's not the best choice from an idealist's perspective. But Obama would be such a disaster for Second Amendment rights that we have to do whatever we can to prevent him from getting into office. Even if it means voting for McCain just because he can beat Obama.

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

I'll take that to mean 'not' as in you don't want to directly address this point because its both correct and irrefutable. The fact is that conservatives have a better chance to A) make policy and B) reject liberal policy with McCain in the whitehouse. Thats simply the cold hard truth.

So while not voting for him might make you feel good, practically speaking you are doing the nation more harm because you are going to send us further down the river than we otherwise would be.

If it makes you feel better blaming me. Glade I could help.

Because you call him a liberal does not make him such. Thats just a poor argumentative tactic.

and your comments aren't?

No because you didn't bother to present it correctly. People who vote libertarian are overwhelmingly on the conservative end of the spectrum. If they were to support one of the two main parties, it would be the republicans.

and how do you know that? Most libertarians will vote for the best candidate. That's why they are libertarians. That's a hint. If the republican party was that great. There wouldn't be a libertarian party.

In fact, many of the votes that libertarians get are from frustrated republicans as has been seen in this thread and many others.

By having people like Barr, the conservative vote is dilluted, making it easier for a democrat to win. Every poll indicates that this election is going to be very close. That makes this very likely.

and the problem is our fault the republican party can't pick a viable candidate? Better buy a boat, the river is rough down river

 

[wayneinFL]

Winston, I have a serious problem with the idea of allowing Obama to be elected president simply to teach the GOP a lesson. We are nearly certain to face gun bans as a result. We would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

Do you think it's worth the loss of our freedoms to teach them a lesson?

 

[thallub]

"and the problem is our fault the republican party can't pick a viable candidate? Better buy a boat, the river is rough down river"


+1

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The fact is that conservatives have a better chance to A) make policy and B) reject liberal policy with McCain in the whitehouse. Thats simply the cold hard truth.

So while not voting for him might make you feel good, practically speaking you are doing the nation more harm because you are going to send us further down the river than we otherwise would be.

+1

...I have a serious problem with the idea of allowing Obama to be elected president simply to teach the GOP a lesson Do you think it's worth the loss of our freedoms (the loss that would result from an Obama administration) to accomplish this?

+1, again

 

[miboso]

Do YOU think that if we lose enough of our freedoms that we might actually DO something about it? (Think 1776)

 

[wayneinFL]

Are you going to revolt over an assault weapons ban? You didn't on the first one, did you?

Think 1994. You're going to suck it up and take it.

They'll continue to chip away a little at a time. Except with Obama and a Congress controlled by Democrats it will be bigger chips and more of them.

 

[miboso]

I take it that your answer is no. In that case we are lost, and it really doesn't matter anymore. Vote for Pee Wee.

 

[STAGE 2]

If it makes you feel better blaming me. Glade I could help.

Don't dodge the issue. Is it not the case that Paul and other conservatives will have a harder time getting legislation through with a liberal president.

and your comments aren't?

No they aren't.

and how do you know that? Most libertarians will vote for the best candidate. That's why they are libertarians. That's a hint. If the republican party was that great. There wouldn't be a libertarian party.

Please don't pretend to be that dense. The libertarian party is far closer to republicans than democrats. Furthermore many people who vote libertarian are in fact republicans. Libertarians pull votes from republicans just like the green party pulls votes from the democrats. Those are just the facts.

and the problem is our fault the republican party can't pick a viable candidate? Better buy a boat, the river is rough down river

The republican party didn't "pick" anyone. If a candidate didn't make it its their own fault. Case in point Ron Paul. Even if I were to agree that all of his ideas were great, his delivery and presence were terrible. The message might have been fine, but the messenger was wanting.

What you and others seem to forget is that what matters is winning elections. You don't win elections by appealing to a minority, you do it by appealing to the majority. You may not like it, but thats life.

If you keep waiting for the perfect candidate, the bus is going to pass you by for the rest of your life. Personally I'd rather be in the game with the chance to make some changes even if its not with my favorite quarterback.

 

[wayneinFL]

I take it that your answer is no. In that case we are lost, and it really doesn't matter anymore.

In a way we are lost. Look at your home state. There's no mass of people standing up and challenging the law there. There's no reason the rest of the country won't turn into one big California.

 

[miboso]

you do it by appealing to the majority

Then maybe McCain ought to be doing something to appeal to the majority. Of course that probably won't help me because, whatever he does, limiting government won't be it. Unfortunately, I believe that there is not a majority that really wants that. "Goodbye, sweet America".

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

Do YOU think that if we lose enough of our freedoms that we might actually DO something about it? (Think 1776)

I hope so.

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

Don't dodge the issue. Is it not the case that Paul and other conservatives will have a harder time getting legislation through with a liberal president.

It hasn't happened with this Republican president

What you and others seem to forget is that what matters is winning elections. You don't win elections by appealing to a minority, you do it by appealing to the majority. You may not like it, but thats life.

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He hasn't appealed to a majority. If he did, this would be a slam dunk!!!

 

[wayneinFL]

It hasn't happened yet. They can take whatever freedoms we have as long as they do it a little at a time.

What we need in this country are some libertarians, but to do so we need some good candidates and a system that allows people to vote for a third party candidate without losing to some far left whacko.

Unfortunately, getting such a system in place is difficult for two reasons. First, there are two parties in congress that don't want the competition. Second, it's just such a radical idea that most Americans would not support it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Do YOU think that if we lose enough of our freedoms that we might actually DO something about it? (Think 1776)

What do you have in mind? And in case you haven't noticed, the Great Middle (without which no election gets won) doesn't seem to appreciate their freedom quite as much as some of us do.

...we need in this country are some libertarians, but to do so we need some good candidates ...

Indeed we do. We need candidates with a conservative/libertarian perspective who have charisma and who can inspire, and not scare away, the Great Middle. We need candidates who can communicate and sell the message of freedom, opportunity, personal responsibility for your life and self reliance; and it's a lot tougher and less palatable than the "we'll fix it and take care of you all" message that the liberals sell. And we've sure had a tough time finding candidates who fill that bill.

...we need in this country ..a system that allows people to vote for a third party candidate ...

But I don't see how that can happen, at least without a major change to the Constitution. Third (and fourth and fifth, etc.) parties work (sort of, sometimes) in countries with parliamentary systems where the prime minister is elected by a majority of the legislative body, so that if the legislative body is sufficiently Balkanized because of third (fourth, etc.) parties, a coalition is needed to qualify a prime minister.