Former Rep. Bob Barr, as Dana Milbank reminds us, developed a colorful reputation during his four-term tenure in the House.
As a Republican candidate for the House in 1994, he rose to national attention when reports alleged that he had licked whipped cream off the breasts of two women at a charity event.
As a congressman from Georgia, the thrice-married Barr returned attention to the whipped-cream episode when, speaking in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, he argued that “the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundations of our society.”
As one of the managers of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, Barr gained enough prominence to attempt a run for the Senate in 2002. But that effort fell apart at about the time Barr accidentally fired a .38-caliber pistol through a glass door at a fundraising reception.
Ironically, Barr became more principled and serious after serving in Congress. After departing Capitol Hill, Barr became disillusioned with what had become of his Republican Party. He was nearly apoplectic about Bush’s conduct in the NSA warrantless search scandal, suggesting the president “deliberately order[ed] that federal law be violated,” and “ignored” the Constitution. Shortly thereafter, Barr agreed to introduce Al Gore at an event in which Gore blasted the president’s “excessive power grabs.” He was also highly critical of the Bush administration in the prosecutor purge scandal.
About a year ago, Barr left the GOP altogether and began talking to the Libertarian Party, calling for a “multidecade effort” to build a movement to make the party nationally competitive. He added that many “real conservatives” have become disheartened with Republicans. “They are eager for a philosophical home,” Barr said. “There are enough of them out there that a significant number can be weaned away” from the GOP.
Is Barr right? His presidential campaign, announced formally yesterday in DC, should be an interesting test.
One assumes Republicans will condemn Barr as a spoiler, running to undermine John McCain’s chances. For his part, Barr actually seems to dislike McCain enough to wear the label with some pride. When a reporter at yesterday’s kick-off speech at the National Press Club asked, “What’s your problem with McCain?” Barr turned to his campaign manager, former Ross Perot adviser Russ Verney. “How long do we have here, Russ?”
Barr took issue with McCain’s Iran policy. “I’m not going to go around making up songs about such a serious matter as going to war with a sovereign nation, as Senator McCain did,” the former congressman said, tut-tutting McCain’s “Barbara Ann/Bomb Iran” episode.
He quarreled with McCain’s Iraq policy. “These troops need to be brought home,” he offered.
He ridiculed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which, he said, means McCain “cannot ever lay legitimate claim, at least with a straight face, to … being labeled as a conservative.”
He put down McCain’s plan to do away with pet-project earmarks, claiming it “would make barely a drop in the bucket with regard to the national debt, the deficit.”
And he disparaged McCain’s fiscal policy, saying “there are some legitimate questions that have been raised over whether Senator McCain is simply a Johnny-come-lately to the modest tax cuts.”
So, will any of this matter on Election Day? Are there enough Libertarians out there to affect the outcome? Josh Marshall argued that there are a few scenarios in which Barr could “draw non-trivial numbers away from McCain,” specifically in a few states where “drawing off a few points in one direction could make a state competitive where it otherwise wouldn’t be.” (Josh points to some Mountain states as the region to keep an eye on.)
Conceding, of course, that third-party candidates rarely have any influence at all, Barr is certainly worth watching. There’s some Republican discontent with McCain, and Barr will be fanning the flames with every opportunity. He’ll also get plenty of chances to hammer his message home, by virtue of his status as a media darling.
The one thing I’d add to Josh’s analysis is the question of Ron Paul, who also ran for president on the Libertarian ticket a few cycles ago. Paul continues to express reservations about endorsing the McCain ticket, and will likely find a great deal in common with Barr. Might Paul throw his support to Barr and encourage his followers to back him? It wouldn’t surprise me at all.
The point isn’t that Barr is seriously going to be in a position to win a single state; he clearly won’t be. But it’s hardly a stretch to think Barr might be able to put a few percentage points together in some competitive states, with a coalition of Paulites, libertarians, and disaffected Republicans.
In a close contest, in which a percentage point here or there might matter, could Barr matter? I don’t see why not.