Zogby: Bob Barr is Polling at 6%

[Bruxley]

Barr proposes to cut big spending, increase and restore individual liberty, secure our borders and properly use our military.

That must be a post ten year stint in Congress perspective. He seems to have a tendency to change his principles to conform to the views of people that might take him seriously. He has more 'I supported this before I denounced it' examples then John Kerry. If John McCain had such a record you would be yelling hypocrite from the rooftops.

I can see him now in the debates should he become a viable candidate,

"I was for the War of Drugs before I was against it"
"I was against medical marijuana before I was for it"
"I was for the Patriot Act before I was against it"

The list goes on.

He should just say "I was a far right Republican until I couldn't get re-elected so now I'm the Spite Candidate"

I thought conservatism was a philosophy not a cloak.

Seems Unregistered has accurately summed him up.

HARDLY a principled choice given his lack of them.........

 

[nate45]

Ok Brux you asked for it

If John McCain had such a record you would be yelling hypocrite from the rooftops.

McCain Sets a New Record: 10 Flip-Flops in Two Weeks

1. Social Security Privatization. John McCain has apparently learned the lesson that the more President Bush spoke about his Social Security privatization scheme, the less popular it became. On Friday, Mr. Straight Talk proclaimed at a New Hampshire event, “I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.” Sadly, McCain and his advisers like ousted HP CEO Carly Fiorina are on record declaring fidelity to the idea of diverting Social Security dollars into private accounts. On November 18, 2004, for example, McCain announced, “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.” And in March 2003, McCain backed his President, declaring, “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines that President Bush proposed.”
   
2. Raising - and Slashing - Defense Spending. As Steve Benen noted Friday, John McCain was also for boosting American defense spending before he was against it. In the November 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, McCain argued “we can also afford to spend more on national defense, which currently consumes less than four cents of every dollar that our economy generates - far less than what we spent during the Cold War.” But facing the $2 trillion budgetary hole the McCain tax plan is forecast to produce (a sea of red ink even the Wall Street Journal noticed), Team McCain changed its tune. As Forbes scoffed in amazement:
   
   “McCain’s top economic adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, blithely supposes that cuts in defense spending could make up for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% and the subsequent shrinkage in federal revenues. Get that? The national security candidate wants to cut spending on our national security. Wait until the generals and the admirals hear that.”
   
3. First Term Balanced Budget Pledge. With its on-again/off-again/on-again promise to balance the budget by January 2013, the McCain campaign executed that rarest of political maneuvers, the 360. During a February 15th rally in La Crosse, Wisconsin, “McCain promised he’d offer a balanced budget by the end of his first term.” But just days later, McCain’s senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin announced a deficit-ending target of 2017. In mid-April, Holtz-Eakin proclaimed, “I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction.” McCain, too, signaled the retreat from his first-term balance budget commitment, explaining to Chris Matthews on April 15th that “economic conditions are reversed.”
   
   Apparently economic conditions have improved dramatically since then. On June 6, Holtz-Eakin squared the circle, announcing, “That plan, when appropriately phased in, as it has always been intended to be, will bring the budget to balance by the end of his first term.”
   
4. The Media’s Treatment of Hillary Clinton. No doubt, John McCain suffers from recurring bouts of selective amnesia. And some episodes take only days to manifest themselves. During his disastrous “green screen” speech on June 3, McCain reached out to Hillary Clinton’s supporters by proclaiming, “The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received.” But by June 7, McCain denied to Newsweek that his media critique never passed his lips, “I did not–that was in prepared remarks, and I did not–I’m not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage or not coverage.”
   
5. The Estate Tax. Just days before his contortionist act on Social Security, John McCain reversed course on the estate tax as well. On June 8, 2006, McCain on the Senate floor expressed his agreement with Teddy Roosevelt that “most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax” and “in my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.” But after years of battling Republican colleagues dead-set on dismantling the so-called “death tax” and instead promoting a $5 million trigger, on Tuesday John McCain sounded the retreat. Now, he insists, “the estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books.”
   
6. FISA, Domestic Surveillance and Telecom Immunity. When it comes to the Bush administration’s program of domestic spying on Americans, McCain has performed similar logical gymnastics. On December 20, 2007, McCain suggested to the Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Charles Savage that President Bush had clearly crossed the line. As Wired’s Ryan Singel noted:
   
   “I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is,” McCain said. The Globe’s Charlie Savage pushed further, asking , “So is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?” To which McCain answered, “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law.”
   
   But on June 2, McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin put that notion to rest, telling the National Review:
   
   “[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.”
   
   Pressed to explain the glaring inconsistencies, John McCain on June 6 played dumb, deciding that cowardice is the better part of valor. As the New York Times reported, McCain now believes the legality of Bush’s regime of NSA domestic surveillance is unclear and, in any event, is old news:
   
   “It’s ambiguous as to whether the president acted within his authority or not,” he said, saying courts had ruled different ways on the matter. “I’m not interested in going back. I’m interested in addressing the challenge we face to day of trying to do everything we can to counter organizations and individuals that want to destroy this country. So there’s ambiguity about it. Let’s move forward.”
   
   As for immunity for the telecommunications firms cooperating with the White House in what before August 2007 was doubtless illegal surveillance, there too McCain’s position has evolved. On May 23, campaign surrogate Chuck Fish announced that McCain would not back retroactive immunity “unless there were revealing Congressional hearings and heartfelt repentance from those telephone and internet companies.” Subsequently, the McCain campaign swiftly backtracked, claiming its man supports immunity unconditionally.
   
7. Restoring the Everglades. On June 5, John McCain traveled to the Everglades to win over Floridians and environmentally-minded voters. There he proclaimed, “I am in favor of doing whatever’s necessary to save the Everglades.” Sadly, as ThinkProgress documented, McCain not only opposed $2 billion in funding for the restoration of the Everglades national park, he backed President Bush’s veto of the legislation in 2007. “I believe,” he said, “that we should be passing a bill that will authorize legitimate, needed projects without sacrificing fiscal responsibility.”
   
8. Divestment from South Africa. During his June 2 speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), John McCain called for the international community to target Iran for the kind of worldwide sanctions regime applied to apartheid-era South Africa. Unfortunately, McCain’s lobbyist-advisers Charlie Black and Rick Davis each represented firms doing business with Tehran. Even more unfortunate, John McCain was frequently not among those offering “moral clarity and conviction” in backing “a divestment campaign against South Africa, helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid.” As ThinkProgress detailed:
   
   Despite voting to override President Reagan’s veto of a bill imposing economic sanctions against South Africa in 1986, McCain voted against sanctions on at least six other occasions
   
9. Fighting Job Losses in Michigan. During the run-up to the Michigan primary, John McCain cautioned workers there in January that he didn’t want to raise “false hopes that somehow we can bring back lost jobs,” adding that it” wasn’t government’s job to protect buggy factories and haberdashers when cars replaced carriages and men stopped wearing hats.” But after getting trounced in Michigan by Mitt Romney and watching the economy deteriorate further, McCain has had a change of heart. As Bloomberg noted on June 5:
   
   Nowadays, the party’s presumptive nominee is singing a different tune, striking a populist pose and saying “new jobs are coming”… …Over the past few months, however, McCain has taken a lesson from Romney, acknowledging recently that “Americans are hurting.” Returning to Michigan last month, the Arizona senator told a local television station that he would fight for new jobs and the state wouldn’t “be left behind.”
   
   Perhaps the good people of Michigan, as John McCain suggested to a Kentucky audience in April, can make a living on eBay.
   
10. Opposing Hurricane Katrina Investigations. During a June 4th town hall meeting in Baton Rouge, John McCain answered a reporter’s question regarding Hurricane Katrina and the failure of the New Orleans levees by announcing:
    
    “I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I’ve been here to New Orleans. I’ve met with people on the ground.”
    
    As it turns out, not so much. McCain’s revisionist history neglects to mention that in 2005 and 2006 he twice voted against a commission to study the government’s response to Katrina. He also opposed three separate emergency funding measures providing relief to Katrina victims, including the extension of five months of Medicaid benefits. And as ThinkProgress pointed out, “until traveling there one month ago, McCain had made just one public tour of New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina touched down in August 2005.”
    
    And so it goes. As surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west each day, so too will John McCain change positions. (Like that other law of nature, McCain’s flip-flops are literally becoming a daily occurrence. Since this piece was originally drafted on Saturday, McCain added two new policy turnabouts - on phasing out rather than repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and on requiring a litmus test for his judicial appointees - to his litany of reversals.) As the Pew Research Center recently found, the word Americans now most frequently use to describe John McCain is not “maverick,” but “old.” Given the dizzying pace of his reversals, “opportunist” may soon top that list.

 

[MeekAndMild]

and McCain will become just another statistic in presidential campaign history

and then all Barr's supporters will be the ones to whine when they get whacked by Barack.

 

[nate45]

Pretend I'm on a roof

McCain is a flip-floping Hypocrite

 

[Bruxley]

OH I see, Barr is as bad as McCain so he's safe. Or ..........Sure Barr is a hypocrite but I don't think he's as bad as McCain.

GREAT definition of an uber conservative, principled choice.

Wanna try again on what it is about Barr that makes him the uber conservative, principled alternative????????

AND:

By the way 'us' should read 'me', because I only speak for myself.

What you meant was 'me' eh. Again along with the juvenile word antics you (like Barr) can't seem to show consistency.

Come in, I don't expect Barr to win, but you have to start somewhere. If he gets double digits and gives those unhappy with McCain and Obama a place to cast their ballots, that will be sufficient this election cycle.

Sufficient for what

Sufficient to demonstrate that the Republican Party can't win without us.

So what you MEANT to say is is that even though you don't expect Barr to win if he gets enough votes it will be sufficient to let the Republican Party know they can't win without YOU?

Nah. You either have a WILDLY exaggerated sense of self importance or your a spite voter. Intentionally working to make Obama President.

These 'us' people all have the same mantra. Always laced with bitterness and implications that others are stupid/nonconservative/unpatriotic. They love to put on aires of righteous indignation and love the juvenile word antics. Their 'true conservative, principled alternative' is a washed up Republican they would call a 'neocon' when he could still hold office and has changed his principles as he can't get elected as a Republican anymore so he can look 'libertarian'. He changes his entire philosophy the role of government and his spite votes yell 'true principled conservative' while McCain changes his mind slightly and they use out of context editing and more comment then quote to make a partial paragraph read how they like and yell 'hypocrite'.

Don't forget the 'us' people loathing of these tactics when they are in 'righteous indignation' mode. The 'too stupid' to see message too.

The gig is up 'us' people, your spite voting for a wash up not 'voting for the principled conservative alternative'. From here forward that will be pointed out when you put up more righteous indignation threads and fain 'uncompromising motives'.

EDIT TO ADD: Are legal abortion, gay marriage, legalized drugs, and quitting in Iraq conservative issues? They are (now) Barr's positions. Is that an the uber conservative principled alternative.......nope.

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

What are you guys arguing about. McBush is going to lose. Big Time!!!!

You should prepair yourself for that!!! As far as conservative's go. The only one was Ron Paul. Deal with it!!!

 

[Fremmer]

And as ThinkProgress pointed out

Yeah, "ThinkProgress" seems to have a lot to say about McCain. "ThinkProgress", huh? Oh sure, think about legalizing heroin and meth. And allowing the unfettered murder of unborn children. And isolationalism combined with a disasterous foreign policy. I'm waiting for the MoveOn.Org to start proclaiming that McCain is not a "true" conservative Republican. Then again, maybe MoveOn.Org has already spoken here.

6% of what? Incarcerated inmates in the federal pen? So what? Who cares? So much discussion to try and convince neo-libertarians to like McCain. Let 'em vote for Barr, folks. A few democrats will vote for the green party, so everything will even-out in the end. Regardless, Libertarians do not define what a conservative Republican is. They might define what a Libertarian is, although that's a true stretch with Barr, who has been a staunch war-on-drugs supporter. I agree with Barr's consistent votes to support the war on drugs, and his sincere intention to force states to support the Federal war on drugs. But hey, if that's what they want....

The neo-libertarians have taken over the Libertarian party, which is sad, because now everything is unconstitutional (even the Constitution is unconstitutional), and everything involves a vast right-wing conspriracy, a vast left-wing conspiracy, a vast geo-global conspiracy, a vast-Jewish conspiracy, and you might have to remind me if I left out some other vast conspiracy. The huge majority of non-affiliated middle-ground Americans totally ignore Libertarians and their whining. Which is why it is so amusing when they whine and complain and cry about a Republican candidate.

 

[Musketeer]

Right, the "War on Drugs" has gone so well the NeoCons needed to have a "War on Terror."

Those wacky Libertarians and their strange ideas about personal responsibility and freedom.

 

[hayek]

fremmer
The huge majority of non-affiliated middle-ground Americans totally ignore Libertarians and their whining. Which is why it is so amusing when they whine and complain and cry about a Republican candidate.

First, I hear most of the whining coming from the crowd who bashes and whines about every conservative who chooses not to vote for McCain.

Second, 6% is an early number. In 1992, Ross Perot was polling at 7% in July of 1992. He ended up with 21% of the vote, I believe.

Third, the Libertarian Party typically polls at 1% of the vote in presidential election. This year, it is already polling at 6% in some polls. This should be very troubling to McCain and the Republican party which has chosen a path of courting liberals rather than shoring up its conservative base. Quite simply, McCain made a huge blunder in his campaign strategy in thinking that he could win without the conservatives. His campaign will go down in history as being as poorly run as that of John Kerry. Possibly, that is where he is getting his political advice from.

 

[hayek]

unregistered
His main attraction is that he is not Obama or McCain, and is a way to stick it to the Republican Party for nominating McCain (of course, this cuts your own nose off to spite your face, but thats not the point).

I guess some people cannot fathom that, to some conservatives, McCain is a very, very bad choice and many conservatives will not vote for him out of principle. Is their spite voting going on? Probably some. But I believe that it is principle which is driving conservatives away from McCain and to the more conservative Bob Barr.

If the GOP and its supporters fail to realize what is happening with its base (leaving in large numbers), then the GOP will not win a presidential election for years to come. The conservatives in this country must have a voice in the political process. They are not liberals whom will support anyone with a "D" next to their name in Congress. Conservatives are conservative because they are ideologically principled, most of them anyway.

 

[sasquatch]

the Libertarian Party typically polls at 1% of the vote in presidential election. This year, it is already polling at 6% in some polls.

No offense, but those are probably the most meaningless statistics I've ever seen posted on these forums. Really. You use them to prove what?

This argument about how "meaningful" the Libertarian Party is brings to mind the Presidential aspirations of a man name Harold Stassen. Stassen was a perennial candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President, seeking it nine times.......1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992. He got lots of votes on "principle" along the way, but he was never elected President. And now he is nothing but the answer to a trivia question.

 

[hayek]

sasquatch
No offense, but those are probably the most meaningless statistics I've ever seen posted on these forums. Really. You use them to prove what?

Maybe you don't like the statistic, but the statistic is certainly not meaningless. My contention is that (1) McCain is not a conservative and is a poor choice to lead the Republican party into this election. (2) Bob Barr has been in the race less than 2 months and is already polling at 6% in a Zogby poll.

Meaning? The conservative base... the backbone of the Republican Party, is not happy about McCain and their support is already going to Barr in substantial numbers. Considering that Ross Perot got 21% of the vote in 1992.. and he was at 7% in the polls in July, just a percentage point above Barr. Consider that many conservatives did not consider George Bush Sr. a conservative. Put it all together, and you have problems for the GOP.

It is my opinion that the GOP should choose conservative candidates if it intends to win presidential elections. I believe that message is clear.

 

[sasquatch]

Considering that Ross Perot got 21% of the vote in 1992

Actually, in the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote. By doing so, he managed to come in third, in a race of three. Not bad. He really showed 'em, didn't he?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...to some conservatives, McCain is a very, very bad choice ...

So you're saying he's a worse choice than Obama? You are effectively choosing Obama by voting for a third party candidate.

...The conservatives in this country must have a voice in the political process....

And you really think conservatives will have more voice with Obama in the White House than with McCain?

The bottom line is that you are willing to throw conservative access to the White House under the bus because your dream candidate couldn't win the Republican nomination.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Hmmm...try googling "Bob Barr" +"David Duke". You libbies are welcome to this loon. I just wish the door out of the Republican party was one way and locked when it closed.

 

[hayek]

sasquatch
Actually, in the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote. By doing so, he managed to come in third, in a race of three. Not bad. He really showed 'em, didn't he?

Yes, he did. God bless his 5 foot 4 inch, 125 lb soul. He showed us that we don't have to tow the line for political parties and organizations whose policies bring ruin and decay to our political process. Democrats = Republicans. Republicans = Democrats. Oh sure, there are minor differences on policy here and there, but the truth of the matter is, under George Bush, our spending has been higher than under any past Democrat administration. The differences have been blurred because the Republican Party leadership has chosen a path of liberalism. That is why we have John McCain, a liberal, running as a Republican for president.

Clearly, if a political party nominates a liberal for president, then the party policies are also liberal. Today, we have two liberal parties in control of our political process. Democrats and Republicans. Ross Perot showed us 16 years ago that, if we stop wasting our votes on Dems and Reps, we can change things for the better.

God bless Ross Perot.

 

[hayek]

fiddletown
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayek
...to some conservatives, McCain is a very, very bad choice ...

So you're saying he's a worse choice than Obama?

I did not say that. I also cannot use the word "better" to describe McCain because I don't find redeeming qualities in those that follow a liberal path. They are both bad. You decide if one liberal is better than the other. I see liberals as "bad" and that is the bottom line.

fiddletown
You are effectively choosing Obama by voting for a third party candidate.

I find it interesting that McCain supporters always come back to that statement. It is the only thing McCain has to offer... "he's not as bad as the other guy.". Do you understand how screwed we are as a country this year?

My position on my support for Bob Barr is this. I have looked at Obama. I have found him to be a liberal. I have looked at McCain. I have found him to be a liberal. I have looked at Bob Barr. I have found him to be a conservative.

With a choice of 2 liberals and 1 conservative.... why on earth would I vote for one of the liberals? Saying that one liberal is worse than the other is like saying some dead guy is more dead than another dead guy.

Any vote for a liberal is a wasted vote, IMO, even if that liberal has an "R" next to his name on C-Span.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...He [Perot} showed us that we don't have to tow the line for political parties and organizations whose policies bring ruin and decay to our political process....

How do you figure that he showed us anything of the sort? He lost, and Clinton was elected. Get real.

...I see liberals as "bad" and that is the bottom line...

Which simply means that you have a poor grasp of reality. Once you have chosen to label someone as liberal, that's as far as you go. But it's never that simply in the real world. And politics is never about one man. It's about alliances and coalitions.

BTW, there was a lot I liked about Perot. But it's about results, and he couldn't win. Voting for him only produced a bad result.

 

[Musketeer]

With a choice of 2 liberals and 1 conservative.... why on earth would I vote for one of the liberals? Saying that one liberal is worse than the other is like saying some dead guy is more dead than another dead guy.

Any vote for a liberal is a wasted vote, IMO, even if that liberal has an "R" next to his name on C-Span.

Liberal as McCain is he is not as bad as Obama. Obama with a Dem legislature will do far more damage than McCain. McCain is moderately better on a couple issues (and INFINITELY BETTER ON THE 2A), than Obama. Barr is a non-issue since he has no chance of winning, will not force change from the outside and can only serve to help get the lesser of two evils into the White House.

 

[Musketeer]

Originally Posted by hayek
...Ross Perot showed us 16 years ago that, if we stop wasting our votes on Dems and Reps, we can change things for the better.
....

Hi there. I was dumb enough to vote for Perot. He showed us nothing of the sort. We got Clinton. After Clinton we got Bush 41 who has us tied up in nation building, skyrocketing debt through overspending, vast expansion of Federal powers, unprotected borders with rampant illegal immigration and the bloated prescription drug program.

Now we have McCain (a liberal republican) and Obama (a marxist). What is it again that Perot managed to do?