Bob Barr 2008 (?)

[cannon_fodder]

Bob Barr was announced as the Libertarian candidate for president in 2008.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr

Born in Iowa City.  Raised in Iran (dad was US Military), graduated from USC, a masters from George Washington, and his JD from GW also.  Worked for the CIA, then as the US Attorney for Northern Georgia, then a stint for a legal foundation (1 year) before running for office.  Her served in the house (R-GA) for 7 years before losing his seat in a redistricting battle (opposed by the Libertarian party in favor of the other incumbent Republican).

Other points of interest:
- Sits on the board of the NRA
- Supports the fair tax
- Authored the Defense of Marriage Act
- House Manager for Clinton Impeachment
- Larry Flynt exposed extramarital affairs during the impeachment
- Block medical marijuana in DC in spite of a Congressional vote in favor of it (69% favored)
- Heavy supporter of the war on drugs
- Drafted a ban on Wicca in the US Military
- Voted in favor of the patriot act (now regrets it & fights against it)
- Wrote a book in 2004 about Bill Clinton


I must say I'm disappointed. Supports the war on drugs, opposes medical marijuana (which also allows research), authored "defense of marriage," wants to ban certain religions in the military, and a lifelong employee of the government (for the most part).  That is certainly enough stuff to give me pause, just by looking over the Libertarian website much of that runs apart from the stated positions.

Positives: fair tax, NRA, feels the patriot act erodes our rights and thinks government is way too big and out of hand.

Not that it matters in Oklahoma since all parties but Democrats and Republicans are essentially banned anyway.  I'm not even enthused about a 3rd party candidate I can't vote for...

[Gaspar]

He's not a Libertarian, just thinks he is.  Ross Perot is managing his campaign.

This is a deceptive attempt.

[tim huntzinger]

Say, CF, as a L[l]ibertarian, who was your candidate for POTUS?

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Bob Barr was announced as the Libertarian candidate for president in 2008.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr

Born in Iowa City.  Raised in Iran (dad was US Military), graduated from USC, a masters from George Washington, and his JD from GW also.  Worked for the CIA, then as the US Attorney for Northern Georgia, then a stint for a legal foundation (1 year) before running for office.  Her served in the house (R-GA) for 7 years before losing his seat in a redistricting battle (opposed by the Libertarian party in favor of the other incumbent Republican).

Other points of interest:
- Sits on the board of the NRA
- Supports the fair tax
- Authored the Defense of Marriage Act
- House Manager for Clinton Impeachment
- Larry Flynt exposed extramarital affairs during the impeachment
- Block medical marijuana in DC in spite of a Congressional vote in favor of it (69% favored)
- Heavy supporter of the war on drugs
- Drafted a ban on Wicca in the US Military
- Voted in favor of the patriot act (now regrets it & fights against it)
- Wrote a book in 2004 about Bill Clinton


I must say I'm disappointed.

I saw nothing on his current platform that he now supports all of these things that you're disappointed about.

If he's still supporting the war on drugs, that would go completely against the grain of the Libertarian Party. Is there any evidence he has the same stance now?

Isn't it possible that his views have, um, evolved since his GOP days?

[Goodpasture]

There is only one thing the GOP can to to recover. Get Hillary in the white house and making her such a failure that the democrat controlled Congress and Administration won't last more than one term.

Barr's only goal is to split the Republican vote to ensure a Democrat President, making it possible for Newt to run successfully in 2012.

[cannon_fodder]

rwarn, some of his views might have evolved to be sure. But he was in Congress until 2003.  So it's not like those actions were part of ancient history.  As recently as 2003 the Libertarian party actively fought against him.

When it comes to politicians, I'm afraid I put a lot more stock in what they do vs. what they say.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588


Isn't it possible that his views have, um, evolved since his GOP days?

I don't think Bob Barr believes in evolution... he's got a 100% rating with the Christian Coalition to protect... [}:)]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588


Isn't it possible that his views have, um, evolved since his GOP days?

I don't think Bob Barr believes in evolution... he's got a 100% rating with the Christian Coalition to protect... [}:)]

Clever post of the week.

[we vs us]

I'm not sure how Libertarians can put together a credible political party (and to me, credible means "much more effective than it currently is").  Not that the ideas behind the movement aren't valid in and of themselves, but the problem is that the ideas are antithetical to government on a large scale.  So, Libertarians, who believe in a severely limited government, would, in order to limit it, have to play the big government game in order to get control of it.  Somewhere along the way you'd think the compromise of principles would be just too massive.

[cannon_fodder]

Wevus, we (Libertarians) are not at all opposed to the numbers of representatives in government.  It is the spending and scope of government we are concerned with.  We don't need to spend $4,000,000,000,000.00 or control 834 Executive agencies to limit the size of government.

Size means spending and scope, not quantity of representatives.  So I really don't see a conflict.  But I agree that the problems are daunting.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wevus, we (Libertarians) are not at all opposed to the numbers of representatives in government.  It is the spending and scope of government we are concerned with.  We don't need to spend $4,000,000,000,000.00 or control 834 Executive agencies to limit the size of government.

Size means spending and scope, not quantity of representatives.  So I really don't see a conflict.  But I agree that the problems are daunting.

I think the biggest problem is finding out what to do with thousands of government workers that will no longer be necessary.  

Unfortunately their past work experience makes them qualified for absolutely nothing!

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wevus, we (Libertarians) are not at all opposed to the numbers of representatives in government.  It is the spending and scope of government we are concerned with.  We don't need to spend $4,000,000,000,000.00 or control 834 Executive agencies to limit the size of government.

Size means spending and scope, not quantity of representatives.  So I really don't see a conflict.  But I agree that the problems are daunting.

I'm with you as far as the goals go, but I still don't think the central conundrum is solved.  How do you run an effective national campaign by promising to take benefits away from people on a large scale?  (I know that "taking benefits away" isn't entirely true, but use it because that's what Joe Voter is going to think when Libertarian Presidential Candidate A starts talking about shrinking government.)  

[we vs us]

This article has been showing up lately, and was even cited by a Fox News commentator on-air.  I can't find much more about it on the web, but the idea at least seems to have staying power in certain circles.

quote: Ron Paul's forces quietly plot GOP convention revolt against McCain

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.

. . . .

In the last three months, Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upward of a million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.

. . . .

They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a long-term revolution for control of the Republican Party.

[cannon_fodder]

Ahh, I see what you are saying:

Without throwing promises of handouts to people and/or telling them big brother will no longer hold their hand - they will have problems GETTING into office.  I thought you were saying it is inherently inconsistent to be part of a large government.

With the no giveaways-no election, I'm afraid I agree.  Which is the inherent problem of a democratic system - the people are free to vote their nation into bankruptcy (currently more than 50% of the population are net-takers from the system, so changing the ruels would be damn hard).  Unfortunately, the two major parties are more than happy to comply so long as it keeps them in power.

What can change that is a widespread realization among the voting patricians that the plebs demands for more bread will soon bankrupt the empire (credit to Shadows on that one).  At which point services will have to be curtailed or taxes raised.  With the smack of reality a third party could actually emerge...

and frankly, the current pattern of spending and entitlements simply can not continue as a matter of fact.

[mrhaskellok]

CF

My fear (as a labled Lib) is that the Libertarian Party or any other "decent" party will mature in time and a already existing sentiment not yet seen in the form of a party will dominate the agenda of our nation.  Ergo, I fear a socialistic takeover.  The Libertarian Party must work very hard to bring credibilty to itself if it is going to be positioned to have much effect in the 2012 election...BUT, if Newt runs in 12, then I feel like the Libs will at least have a place at the table and will be granted more credibility amoungst the Republicans and Conservative Dems.  Currently, at every Rep. meeting I have been to, they have been nothing short of fearful if not out right hostile toward the Libs.  

Crossing my fingers and hoping for the best.