Zogby: Bob Barr is Polling at 6%

I have problems with McCain but will absolutely NOT support Barr while the alternative is Obama with a Dem congress who will appoint Liberal judges and push through nationalized health care.
Click to expand...

The problem with this outlook is that it is so shortsighted. I would rather vote for Barr, suck it up and deal with Obama for four year in order to send the Republicans a message that will lead to a good candidate on '12. Being a POW gets you a free ride into the Senate. Great lifetime healthcare, pension, all the connections that go with the position. It does not get you into the White House in my book. You have to be a competent diplomat and politician. Of course it is much better to get in off the POW ticket than the last name ticket like Bush did.

Suck it up and take the hit in '08 so the Republicans will have to run a decent candidate who is fiscally conservative and supports 2a in '12. Obama will be slow moving in his first term to make sure he gets a second. Give money directly to senators and representatives in your state so they can hold Obama at bay. Don't take the I am so scared of Obama, so I will continue to support a party that no longer shares any of my values approach. Give the Republicans a reason to change, please.
 
Suck it up and take the hit in '08 so the Republicans will have to run a decent candidate who is fiscally conservative and supports 2a in '12.
Click to expand...

Never mind the 20+ years Obama judge appointments will sit on Federal and even the Supreme Court.

Disregard that once Nationalize Healthcare hits you will never put the genie back in the bottle.

Assume you will get a real conservative who can win in '12.

Again, look at the good Perot did. After all he gave us 8 years of Clinton after which we got Bush...
 
One thing that gets ignored about Perot, is that he went "whacko" on us. Without that he would have gotten a lot more of the vote, some of which went to Clinton. I can verify one for sure.:eek:
Who knows what would have happened if he had stayed the course.
 
Oh, and let's quit blaming Perot for Clinton. We got Clinton because Bush the elder sucked at following "republican principles" and at keeping his word: "Read my lips...":barf:
Without that, Perot probably would not have taken the stage, and , if so, would probably not have drawn as much as he did.
With Bush I disgusting me, and Perot being Perot, where else could I go?
Of course this was before I bacame a Constitutionalist or I would not have voted for either Bush or Clinton
 
They might define what a Libertarian is, although that's a true stretch with Barr, who has been a staunch war-on-drugs supporter.
Click to expand...

Not true. Although he was a federal prosecutor and drug war supporter, Bob Barr teamed up with Henry Hyde to pass the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, reining in drug war abuses of the civil asset forfeiture laws. Those opposed to the passage of the bill included pretty much all agencies and individuals involved in or supporting the drug war.

The passage of CAFRA is one of the few good things I have to say about Bob Barr. I also happen to know he has a good sense of humor because I cracked him up one day when I called a TV show where he was the guest. I've voted for every Libertarian candidate since Ron Paul ran in '88, but I'm not sure what I'll do this time.
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
...I would rather vote for Barr, suck it up and deal with Obama for four year in order to send the Republicans a message that will lead to a good candidate on '12....
Click to expand...
And what evidence do you have that is likely to happen? We've heard a lot of the "take the hit and vote your principles today for a better tomorrow" rhetoric, but no one pitching it has demonstrated that it would be likely to happen. Indeed, based on past experience, it is not going to happen. TR and his Bull Moose Party split the Republicans in 1912, and we got two terms of Wilson. We got two terms of Clinton after the Perot debacle. And Nader sure didn't do the Dems any good in 2000. This theory is completely bankrupt.

johnwilliamson062 said:
Suck it up and take the hit in '08 so the Republicans will have to run a decent candidate who is fiscally conservative and supports 2a in '12....
Click to expand...
They will have to do no such thing. They, just like the Democrats, will run whoever manages to win enough delegates during the nomination process.
 
With a choice of 2 liberals and 1 conservative.... why on earth would I vote for one of the liberals?
Click to expand...
If you're calling Barr a conservative you obviously either didn't google "Bob Barr" + "David Duke" or you're a bit further to the right than the great majority of American conservatives.
 
hayek said:
With a choice of 2 liberals and 1 conservative.... why on earth would I vote for one of the liberals?...
Click to expand...
Because (1) the label "liberal" doesn't tell the whole story; (2) the conservative is not going to win, one of the men you call "liberal" will; (3) the only thing about the outcome of the election you can possibly influence is which "liberal" wins; and (4) if you think it doesn't matter which one wins, you haven't been paying attention.
 
And as has been told to you again and again and again, some of us are through, finished, done with voting for the least bad of 2 bad candidates on the "hope" that things will "change" for the better if we just keep doing what we have been doing. We have years of proof that that does NOT work.

Hey, kids, let's try something different for a change!
 
How do you figure that he showed us anything of the sort? He lost, and Clinton was elected. Get real.
Click to expand...

Yes we got Clinton, but we also got a Republican revolution in Congress in 1994 and the contract with America that put in him check.

However, I guess after the novelty of being in power and all wore off, they decided to break that contract and become typical politicians.

We need to take a nose dive into Hell to wake people up.
 
miboso said:
Hey, kids, let's try something different for a change!
Click to expand...
But what you're proposing isn't different. Aside from the obvious and high profile cases like TR or Perot, every election there's always a few groups who are going to "stand by their principles" and "not vote for the lesser of two evils." Every election some candidates scattered among various "non-mainstream" parties get some votes. That's never had any effect on anything either.
 
It's too bad that more folks don't catch a dose of pragmatism and start figuring our how to get things done in real life. Of course, the folks who know how to do things in the real world are the ones who have actually accomplished, and continue to accomplish, things and attend to the business of real life.
 
Am I to assume that you have already "caught a dose"? Can I further assume that since you "know how to do things in the real world" that you are accepting at least some of the blame for the way that things currently are in the real world?
 
miboso, we all play a part, even you. And we all contribute to the way things are. And we all can only work with what's out there.
 
The worst part of this entire discussion is that the conservative, anti-Obama, McCain supporters here all assume that Barr, and libertarians in general, pull votes only from Republicans when that is simply not true.

As a long-time member of the LP I can assure you that while the perception is that L's pull votes from R's the polling data tells a much different story and the votes come from both sides of the political aisle.

I would suggest to all those with this reflexive response either rethink it or look into the data yourself and make an informed decision, not one spoon-fed to you by a media establishment intent on maintaining the two-party false duality of, 'If not a democrat then a republican.'

If Barr wants to hit the magic 10% platform he should be beating the anti-war drum as hard and as loudly as he can. That is the ticket to his success, along with a reasonable stance on the energy situation. But if he just continues to beat a Harry Browne light campaign like he has, he'll get no more than 2%.

The war is the issue, and if you disagree with pulling out of Iraq then be my guest and vote for McCain. Obama's wavering on the issue will hurt him only if Barr embraces the war issue.

Ta,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top