Barr secures Libertarian Party nod; looks to affect ’08 election

When former Republican Rep. Bob Barr announced that he would seek the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination, many assumed he’d get the party’s nod. After all, he’s a fairly high-profile figure who’d be in a position to help Libertarians raise their profile and win some votes.

But Barr wasn’t about to get the nomination without a fight. For one thing, there are other party leaders who’ve been around a lot longer and who felt like it wasn’t Barr’s turn. For another, Barr isn’t entirely ideologically pure — he supports less government and lower taxes, but the Libertarian worldview/platform demands almost no government and practically no taxes.

It took a while — six rounds of balloting — but eventually yesterday, Barr won out.

Barr beat research scientist Mary Ruwart, who also sought the party’s presidential nomination unsuccessfully in 1983, on the final ballot. The vote was 324-276.

Barr endorsed Wayne Allyn Root, who was eliminated in the fifth round, to be his vice-presidential nominee. […]

The former Georgia congressman said he’s not in the race to be a spoiler.

“I’m a competitor and I’m in this to win. I do not view the role of the Libertarian Party to be a spoiler and I certainly have no intention of being a spoiler,” Barr said.

Barr said he expects the party to be on the ballot in at least 48 states and perhaps all 50 if the party can qualify in West Virginia and Oklahoma. Barr said he also expects to be invited to the national political debates by qualifying with poll support of 15 percent or more of registered voters.

Barr probably shouldn’t count too much on that debate idea, given that he’s going to have a very hard time getting to 15% in the national polls.

Nevertheless, the party is already on the ballot in 28 states, and is currently gathering petitions in another 20, and may actually be in a position to have an impact this year.

Noah Millman had an item last week in which he argued, “I’m becoming increasingly convinced that Bob Barr’s candidacy could have a significant impact on the 2008 election.” He makes a compelling case, not that Barr could actually win a state or electoral vote, but rather that Barr will be in a position to draw votes from John McCain by appealing to disaffected Republicans.

I’d just add two more angles to consider. First, this marks a key milestone for Bob Barr. Following up on an item from a couple of weeks ago, Dana Milbank reminded us of Barr’s 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.

And finally, it’s also worth noting that Barr was competing for the Libertarian Party nomination against former Democratic Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska, who is apparently retiring, telling reporters, “I just ended my political career.”

the Libertarian worldview/platform demands almost no government and practically no taxes.

I never got a clue from the Dem debates that Mike Gravel fit this worldview. Was I missing something?

  • I always thought that Barr was a nutcase. But if he drains away some McCain votes it’s OK with me.

  • Noah Millman had an item last week in which he argued, “I’m becoming increasingly convinced that Bob Barr’s candidacy could have a significant impact on the 2008 election.” He makes a compelling case, not that Barr could actually win a state or electoral vote, but rather that Barr will be in a position to draw votes from John McCain by appealing to disaffected Republicans.

    Now if we can get David Duke to run, he could peel away from McCain the votes of “hard working Americans, white Americans” that will make winning Pennsylvania and Ohio difficult for Obama.

  • Barr’s run worries me a little. Would he really peel off McCain voters, or would he actually peel off Obama voters? I mean, there are a lot of people out there who might vote for Obama because they oppose the war, but do not share the Democratic Party’s perspective on how to fix the economy. Demographically, who are the Barr voters who would otherwise go for McCain?

  • There are plenty of “peelable” voters to go around – more than 80% of America want change – certainly are not going to get it with mclame.

    If some of them break to 3rd party this year, its will not be the “big deal” it was in 2000. In fact, if that is where the ignorant racist vote wants to go (along with the shillarybots) that’s great.

    Barr cannot win and the Democratic Party needs to quit pandering to the most ignorant, bigoted, and non-progressive crowd anyhow.

    Historic opportunity to reshape the party – seize the moment.

  • The Caped Composer said:
    Demographically, who are the Barr voters who would otherwise go for McCain?

    They are the Ayn Rand worshipers, who believe that if government would just leave business alone, then we would all live in a capitalist paradise where everyone listens to classical music and electricity is produced from thin air.

    They are also the less cynical of Grover Norquist’s followers, who believe that the only things government should do is secure the borders and provide a minimal police force to protect citizens when they can’t protect themselves. In their happy little world, businesses would never cheat their customers, sell tainted products or dispose of toxic wastes in an unsafe manner.

    And they are the bizarre group called the Log Cabin Republicans — gays who agree with Republican economic theories and who believe they can change the party from the inside so it it more tolerant of them.

  • the Democratic Party needs to quit pandering to the most ignorant, bigoted, and non-progressive crowd anyhow.

    Bear, on that we agree. I’m sick of these hand-wringing witches saying they’ll not vote or they’ll vote McCain. I say to hell with them all. I maybe wrong but I don’t think we need ’em. They’re simply not that potent and or that vital and it’s my opinion, they’ll never vote for McCain no matter how loud they scream it now. And if they do let them reap what they sow.

    If the Black vote weren’t consolidated behind Obama already, this assassination bullshit should have done it. Let the racist/bigot vote go to Barr or McCain or a fucking fence-post for all I care. These assholes have held us back too long now.

    Mom back in NC turns 80 this year. Her white-haired cronies are all voting McCain. She’s always voted for the Democrat and voted for Clinton in the primaries, mainly because she couldn’t get passed the “muslim problem”. Then she started listening. She heard Obama and she heard the message. However, believe it or not, she fears speaking out because of the racist repercussions she may have to endure.

    I believe we can take the prize without these people. I’m not the biggest brain on the block but my gut tells me this movement is bigger than we can yet imagine. If it weren’t, why the hell are they so nervous?

    (white/female/53)

  • I’m changing my party affiliation to Libertarian. Government has become too large and in more control than the people. Federalism needs to end and if this is the party to bring back what was meant to be, I’m with them all the way.

  • MissMudd – they are loud, not potent. This is a unique opportunity. The repugs/neocons have had their way for 7 years – total mess and most of America sees it.

    We are better off without some voters because they won’t support change anyhow.

    People forget – winning the election is just a start – dur chimpfurher and his enablers have created a HUGE mess. We are not going to solve these problems by pandering to fools and bigots.

    Obama can win without them and then he owes them nothing.

  • Good idea – thomas – join them. Yes, chimpy and gang have shown us that their style of government is just about stealing and maintaining power. Its an awful thing.

    Course, the private interests you put on a pedestal are what created this bad government in the first place.

    But please, do as you say – then the newly elected leaders won’t owe folks like you anything too.

  • The naive position of the LP reflects the simple minded rantings of a very poor fiction writer. It is silly beyond belief to believe such a simple minded program–if one is chartiable toward their rantings a program–can have any support except the dumb Southners who are racist. Libertarians are actually Republicans who have given up hope that Republicans can win enough votes to impose racial solutions on the society.

  • libertarians are morons that believe that whatever THEY want is more important than anybody else on the earth. Its all about ME and if I harm you or take away your rights – that’s “Libertarian” and tough luck.

    It is not a rational paradigm because we don’t live in societies of MEs that all have the same interests and ambitions.

    Just gotta love the logic that says “if we just let the socio-economic interests that created bad government in the first place run amok without any rules, laws, or regulations, then we would be in a capitalist heaven.

    As if somehow the same forces that created current problems are somehow going to solve them.

  • I changed my party affiliation to Libertarian because I am sick of watching the government grow at such an alarming rate. I think it is crazy how so many Democrats and Republicans don’t even care. Republicans are supposed to support a limited government but I just don’t see that happening as the warfare/welfare/nanny state grows ever stronger. I don’t see myself living in this country 15 years from now because Lady Liberty is dead.

  • libertarian’s have no chance of winning, yet they stand for upholding our constitutional rights. Its a sad day when people just laugh them off. Have things rely gotten this bad?

    =>best of luck libertarian party

  • …but my gut tells me this movement is bigger than we can yet imagine.

    MissMudd, I deeply hope this statement ends up being true. I believe this is an opportunity for steps in the right direction.

    (white/male/43)

  • I am a registered Liberterian, and have been since 1990. I’ve voted for the Liberterian candidates is all past presidential elections. This time, I don’t think I will. I’m more likely to vote Democratic.

    Bob Barr, going from Republican to Liberterian is like some one going from Baptist to Unitarian. It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    As for Liberterians being part of the Ayn Rand cult, I don’t think that’s a fair analysis. While some say that Ayn Rand worships at the alter of Capitalism, one should remember that Capitalism is not a religion, nor a philosphy, it is an economic system, with the underlying ethics of fair exchange. Much damage has been done in the guise of Capitalism by unscrupulous people, who Rand would abhor for their unethical and immoral practices. Rand would despise the people at Enron, because they violated the most fundamental ideals of Capitalism. Rand’s ideal universe included virtues and virtuosity at it’s core. If you doubt this, read her novels.

  • Funny how folks like benjamin will proclaim, “republicans are suppose to…” despite all evidence that they don’t actually stand for smaller government at all.

    Republicans beleive in BIG government – crony capitalism where insiders loot the federal treasury for BILLIONS AND BILLIONS, largely unaccountable to anyone.

    They, because the uncritically accept the repug talking points, they decide that all government is bad.

    I am glad these folks have another party so that we no longer have to pander to them.

  • Apparently, if you have decided not to vote for Obama, you are a racist. That is brilliant.

  • they stand for upholding our constitutional rights.

    You mean like slavery and the 3/5th rule?

    ummmmmmmm…..

    Yeah, sure – it’s all about liberty….

    whatever…..

  • Nice try at lying, #18

    But if you proclaim the most uneducated white voters in Appalachia are more important than larger groups of millions of other voters around the country you are racist.

    If you support politicians that seek to use poverty to institutionalize racism (via economic, healthcare, military, and education…), then you are racist.

    But I am sure you wear that with a badge of pride.

  • hahaha…. very funny little bear. Do you even know which part of the constitution that is in?

  • this page is about the libertarian party not about mcain an obama/hillary so stop fighting about unrelated stuff.

  • Barr is the only candidate that can represent the White Conservative Christians as we were betrayed by the Republicans when they nominated the Panamanian McCain.
    Neither of the two communist Dems can do so, and McCain is a fake Republican, a travestied liberal, so Barr is a real Conservative Republican and we, the White Christian Conservatives will vote massively on him.

  • I can already imagine the new Hillary camp spin on why this Libertarian candidate makes her the better candidate with the “broader base”.

    This campaign has made me beleive that there are an “important base” of democratics, who have all but hung out a shingle over the presidency that says “colored need not apply”. And will not be disuaded even faced with McCain, who’s policies couldn’t be worse for their ignorant behinds.

    So yes, they may flock to this libertarian candidate and take comfort in his whiteness, and I say, let them get what they deserve. Split the republican vote, please. I still believe the enlightened outnumber the ignorant. And this year they appreciate the horrendous costs of their silence in the last 2 presidential elections.

  • I’ve been voting for Libertarians since 1988, but I can’t support Barr. Anyone who watched the convention this weekend knows the score. Barr is a failed Republican (lost his House seat in a primary) and saw political opportunity in the Libertarian Party.

    Libertarians have become, in the eyes of many, “Republicans who oppose the war.” Frankly, that’s what Barr is.

    Condemn and belittle the Libertarians all you want, but at least get it right. Their “nutty” right wing ideas have counterpart “nutty” left wing ideals. Barr is not representative.

    I have always voted Libertarian as something of a protest vote because I feel the two-party system is damaging to the nation. But now, the party of 0.3% has been co-opted by people who loved Bush in 2000 and 2004, but now find that rather inconvenient and embarrassing.

    At least Barr may make the Obama vs. McCain contest a bit more honest. Maybe Barr can offset the votes Obama has lost due to Hillary’s past two months of rabble-rousing and other egotistical madness. Regardless of who wins, it’d be nice if the election were decided by people who vote for reasons other than race or party.

  • The point isn’t what goals the Libertarians support, but the direction they would lead us in. No social spending and zero taxes may not be a realistic end, but many voters would like to move in the direction of a less intrusive government and a smaller welfare state.

  • Also significant is that the Libertarians split economic conservatism away from religious and nationalist conservatism. Libertarianism is secular. A lot of people are turned off by the religiousity of the Republicans.

  • I’m a Californian, and if it looks like Obama will comfortably take my state in November, I’ll vote for Barr. Getting the GOP out of power is just too crucial at the moment, although long term we need to break the back of the two party system. This Republican thinks the GOP needs to get its ass kicked for the next decade and have the corruption wrung out of it. I’ll happily vote Democrat or third party for the next ten years. I’ll even contribute to campaigns (as I did for Charles Brown).

    I should also say that it’s sad yet unsurprising to see the attacks on the Libertarian Party and the (small l) libertarian philosophy here. I have no idea where some of you get the idea that the Libertarians are the party of racists and hicks. I suppose it’s blind partisanship, the same behavior that got us George Bush. Whatever your party, knee jerk ideological responses are SOOOO much easier than thinking for oneself while keeping both an open mind and a healthy skepticism.

  • Ironically, Barr became more principled and serious after serving in Congress.

    I fail to see the irony.

  • Barr is a nutcase. Democrats are hoping that McCain votes will go to Barr. If Democrats embrace this guy, they will prove to America that they would hire an ax murderer to win an office. News Flash: Republicans are smarter than that.

    The only thing the Libs have in common with the Dems…Turn tail and run. Forget about honor. Let the Islam extremeists have and dash our hopes as a nation.

    I am undeclared. I thought the Libs had my attention until I read their national defense statement. It’s NO DEFENSE.

    Anyone want to run a Undeclared canidate? It’s about time. I’m sick of all the parties.

  • “jake moons” suggests that the LP could only appeal to “dumb Southners who are racist” and that “Libertarians are actually Republicans who have given up hope that Republicans can win enough votes to impose racial solutions on the society.” Nothing could be further from the truth. This may be a reference to Ron Paul’s disappointingly xenophobic position on immigration, but it’s not a position held by most libertarians.

    “little bear” believes that the libertarian position is that “if we just let the socio-economic interests that created bad government in the first place run amok without any rules, laws, or regulations, then we would be in a capitalist heaven.” It’s not that most libertarians think that society without the state would be utopia, it’s just that we simply disagree with you that the state is an effective response to societal problems.

  • Interesting that nobody has mentioned Congressman Ron Paul here. I’m sure his supporters will fallow Mr. Barr and the Libertarian party in droves now that it is clear even us that Dr. Paul can’t get the Republican nomination.

    Also, the coming July 12th “Revolution March” (See revolutionmarch.com) on Washington D.C. promises to further bring Libertarian ideas into the mainstream political discussion. Ron Paul and this “Revolution March” (and the whole grassroots “Revolution” movement) are big factors which could make number of peeled voters for Mr. Barr even greater. Perhaps even enough to make that 15% on the polls.

    Anyway, we’ll see.

  • little bear- just remember that the word slave is not in the constitution. 🙂
    free persons count as 1 whole person and all others count as 3/5 of a person. So technically supporting the constitution does not support slavery. (at least after the 13th amendment)

  • The Libertarian Party is having something of a split itself, old party, new party. Of course, how old can you be born in 1971? LP’s growing pains have to do with, shudder, electability!!! By definition, anarchists won’t or can’t govern. They’ve traditionally been useful to the sector that wants to de-regulate, which is everybody in heavy corporations and heavily depending on stock market profits and annual reports. Sorta the Exxon mobile group. Libertarians are useful to them. Still, I watched the convention with interest for there is a growing viability in a third party. Only trouble is, the Libertarians who want public office will have to govern. That gets the anarchist purist Libertarians confabulated. All they want is to be free of any and all regulation, taxes and government. I guess they drive on our roads but why should they help pay for them?

  • I watched the convention and didn’t think too much of Barr. The other leading candidate talked to a lot of people there and was very engaged with them. Mary should have been the nominee, Barr should have stepped down except that he is in it for himself. She would have actually had a chance to push their agenda forward and maybe even get invited to at least one debate. Like I said Barr is just a professional politician looking for some way to promote himself, the Libertarians missed their chance this year to have a candidate that would have mattered to them and their cause. Barr is just an old has-been republican politician who is a “fake” Libertarian. They missed their chance!!

  • Does anyone else find it ironic that a “libertarian” (cowl) would post comments seeking to limit free dialog?

    Doesn’t this just go to show what they are all about?

    How can a post about the ’08 election NOT make references to the larger context that this candidacy exists in.

    But, like has been pointed out, “libertarian” is just a catch-all for folks that believe they have no responsibilities and that no one else has any rights. In short – IT’S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEEEE!

  • Franky Edder-Dionne said:
    Much damage has been done in the guise of Capitalism by unscrupulous people, who Rand would abhor for their unethical and immoral practices. Rand would despise the people at Enron, because they violated the most fundamental ideals of Capitalism. Rand’s ideal universe included virtues and virtuosity at it’s core. If you doubt this, read her novels.

    I’ve read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Rand’s ideas are appealing — until you’ve gained enough experience in the real world to understand why they won’t work.

    Rand’s vision of unregulated capitalism won’t work for the same reason that communism failed — people suck.

    I’m not condemning all humanity. Individually and collectively, people are capable of great things. But there are enough people out there who are lazy, greedy or self-important that they will undermine the entire system if they aren’t constrained by regulations.

    You mention Enron. That is a perfect example. Under a libertarian system, Enron did nothing wrong — they just used supply-and-demand to maximize their profits and successfully hid in plain site the shakiness of their own financial health. Enron’s executive were brought down by their own excesses — but only after tens of thousands of people were hurt. And a few of those executives were punished, but only because they were convicted of violating the kinds of regulations that libertarians would like to eliminate.

    I agree with Milton Friedman — that the purpose of a corporation is to increase its profits. But SteveT’s corollary is that if you expect a business to do anything else — like produce a product that doesn’t kill people, in a workplace that doesn’t kill or maim their workers and using methods that don’t poison the surrounding environment — then you have to require them to do so.

    The idea that virtuous people will always prevail over those of little virtue is naive. By their very nature, the virtuous people (and businesses) are at a disadvantage. They follow the rules. The non-virtuous think nothing of bringing a gun to what is supposed to be a knife fight.

    And the idea that societal pressure will force the non-virtuous to conform to a virtuous lifestyle doesn’t work when the society is larger than a small tribe. In a small tribe, the possibility of being shunned is a genuine threat. If the society is large enough, there enough non-virtuous people that they can band together for support. And shortly thereafter they’ll simply take over.

  • Gaias Child – spot on – its an irrational group that dems shouldn’t pander to.

    They are just used by the neocon/repugs to further their agenda which is actually croney capitalism.

    But since these folks aren’t bright enough to understand rights means responsibilities, they are also not bright enough to see how they are being used.

    I am glad they have their own little party.

  • Now, why do I have to read this? Racist/bigot vote? I’m a Libertarian leaning conservative… and am offended, but suppose that I’m not going to rise up furiously to respond. I’m gonna be nice. Forget defining conservative or libertarian. Both of these are broad schools of thought. We need to be more careful of our politics, and speak carefully about them. I often disagree with people of both persuasions, but when I do I disagree with INDIVIDUALS, and I do so politely and appropriately. The labels work so great for you, and they fall out of the faces of people so full of hate that it betrays their self-described “liberal, progressive” viewpoints for what they are… the same crap we hear coming from hardcore neo-cons. Do you want to be part of a political movement, or part of a political hate group? Do you even know what liberalism originally STOOD FOR!? FIND OUT! Were it still so, more conservatives would be endeared to (or at least more tolerant of) the ideals championed by the party. Simply, we just don’t like big government.

    But no, we have people laying down ignorant/racist/bigot comments. Hell, my wife is a non-caucasian foreigner and half of my inlaws are Bosnian. My conservative family never hated my son for not being white. They love him because he’s ours. I’ve lived overseas for 20% of my life. But I suppose that all of this doesn’t excuse me from these broad ignorant/racist/bigot labels… My political philosophy qualified me before I left the gate. What was it that qualified the conservatives again? Gimme something specific, intelligent, and real that you can defend. Yeah, I invite my minority relatives to klan rallies because that’s what those who tend toward my political philosophy like to do after work and on holidays… right? Invite my minority family members to lynchins! That sounds about right.

    I swear, show me any American, gnashing his/her teeth and screaming labels like “bigot! racist!”, and I start to get chills. Like those cold chills you get with diarrhea, it makes me physically sick. Group, mob-mentality… that kind of hate is like an addiction. People can’t let it go. THAT is ignorance, ladies and gentlemen. It’s frightening to watch people fall so low. Show me an hardcore idealist American screamin’ “bigot, racist!”, NOT AT A RACIST GROUP, BUT AT A POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, blaming them for all the various ills of society, and I’ll show you a Nazi screamin’ “JEW!”. What’s next, you gonna want us to wear yellow patches with elephants on ’em?

    Can you see that when you look in the mirror? Can you see it in yourself? Take a deep breath and try to push out that hate… Then study about the different political philosophies… You’ll find that it’s not hard to have respect for all of them. THERE ARE ENCYCLOPEDIAS ONLINE!

  • Libertarianism works in a society of 100 individuals who all agree with the principles and voluntarily follow them. When one of them figures out that by dropping the principles he can fleece the other 99 before they know what is happening, Libertarianism stops working.

    Most Libertarians I know are permanent college sophomores.

  • SteveT, that was the best post I’ve read on the Internet in a long, long time.

  • I want to thank all the Libertarian concern trolls for their sterling effort in proving my points and demonstrating so clearly how computers are now so user-friendly that bipeds lacking frontal lobes and opposable thumbs can use them just like real people.

  • Another former Georgia Congressperson will most likely get the nomination of a third party. Cynthia McKinney is the favored candidate for the Green Party nomination, which will occur July 10th-13th in Chicago. McKinney has been a strong opponent of the war and the erosion of civil liberties and would make an excellent president. Please cover her candidacy and the Green nomination as well. With a strong conservative Libertarian candidate and a stronger progressive Green candidate, anyone who speaks of “spoilers” is just full of it. Vote for whichever candidate truly represents you and reflects your own positions. This is the year of third party! Vote Green ’08!

  • Many “libertarians” proclaim that they have to right to be racist because, it’s their rights – you know, they’re libertarians.

    So knock off the faux outrage that people notice how your crowd actually works.

    I don’t expect you to get it, however, cuz the idea that rights means responsibilities is too complex for your simple minds.

  • Libertarian Party platform calls for repeal of all drug laws. Please, no more dopeheads!

  • I am a registered conservative who has voted for the Libertarian in the last two presidential elections. MaCain is at lest someone who, I believe, recognizes the mess dropped on us and knows we can not ‘JUST LEAVE’ the mess for others to clean up.

    The Smaller Government philosophy of the Libertarian is correct at the federal level. Local tax dollars should be kept locally and if the peoples of one area don’t want to improve their lives thru tax supported programs, that doen’t make them anti anyone and not racist. How else can we rein in these Liberal spendthrifts?

  • … I liked Steve T’s post too. That’s how you disagree with somebody’s political philosophy without being a dick.

  • I have very little respect for the libertarian philosophy. It is easy to decry government services and taxation when you’re wealthy and don’t need to depend on those things. But telling everyone else that their only choice is to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps is, dare I say, quite elitist.

    When it comes to respecting rights and helping the people who need it, government has a much better track record than private industry. And under the libertarian ideal, businesses are allowed to run rampant without any regulations or checks on their power. We’re just supposed to trust the magical “free” (i.e. manipulated by monopolies and trusts, and therefore not really free) market to keep them under control.

    Not *this* little black duck, buster. I throw my trust to liberal (as opposed to conservative) government who actually have an obligation to care for the people. Say what you will about Europe, many of their nations, semi-socialist as they are, are much better off than we are.

  • The Libertarian is for the repeal of laws that can not be enforced. These laws such as those against the use of drugs are enforced SELECTIVELY and can not be enforced objectively.

    Stick to the laws that should be enforced like driving while under the influence. This is an act that affects other than the pot head and should be enforced with more vigor.

  • Shade Tail has also done well in appropriately and politely representing his own political philosophy, and presenting his disagreements with the other.

    Cheers, Shade. Others are having a hard time not being dicks about it.

  • boo-hoo, call the waaaaaambulance

    Did someone exercise their libertarian rights and post something less than positive about that sham libertarian philosophy and party?

    Did it hurt their little libertarian feelings? Does that prevent you from using your constitutional rights to pursuit of happiness? Is it unfair?

    Gosh – we libertarians don’t have any responsibilities to others…

    Do we?

  • lol wow wow wow :D. You’re a real dick, man! “waaambulance”? wtf?

    gosh, little bitch. you okay? I haven’t heard anybody as butthurt about a party that can’t win in a long time.

    Tell you what, I’m sure that I have no responsibility for you being retarded. Your momma’s the one we’ll have to go to about that.

  • Honestly I know nothing about the LP but have mostly considered it a vote wasted, much like the Nader vote. Could you please inform us of what the racial composition is for the LPs?

    There is most definitely a block of voters who are repulsed by an African American candidate, as much as they are with Hillary Clinton. That’s not a guess or a feeling. It’s as real as it ever was and just a day on this blog or any other political blog you see it smeared all over. If you’re not in Small Town South you may have been isolated from it. I grew up there and go back often. The division is real and the hatred is ripe and explosive. I was lucky though that I had a family who taught me to be charitable to all. My Mom and Dad were rare in those days. Their black friends were family to me and we knew them as Uncles and Aunts. Even further back, my Grandmother, who lived near a railroad always left a plate of biscuits and bacon on her back porch for the hobos coming through. We were poor and whatever I got was earned the hard way. Never took a bite of government cheese and never will. But I’ve never turned a blind eye to those who were less fortunate than myself. I certainly hope with your agenda for smaller governments, your platform includes an intention to replace those programs you seem to loathe with individual charity.

    To John in PA, thanks. I’m still audacious enough to believe some dreams come true.

    (white/female/53).

  • to: Miss Mudd
    from: Buck

    good question… here’s something

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf

    from the cato institute.

    Tell you what though. I’m pretty conservative and I have absolutely no problem with Obama as a candidate… especially reasonable considering that he has nowhere near the skeletons in his closet that H. Clinton has. Were I a Democrat and a betting man, I would find myself in his corner. The man is inspiring too. But please, please I’m begging now, neither the conservative nor libertarian ideals equates itelf to or is reasonably comparable with something as fully ugly as racism. Fellas like me cringe every time our political philosophy (a thing and an idea, as opposed to a hive-mind like misguided demographic to have our foreheads tattooed “EPSILON”) is branded as ignorant/racist/bigoted.

    As a matter of fact, the only fella in this small town that ever had the balls to call my wife a “nip” had his car parked at the Democratic precinct convention on caucus night. You notice that stuff in little towns like this. A fella like that isn’t in touch with the liberal ideal either, and I know that. He’s a farmer, and he’s voting for subsidies… maybe. I’m a bit of a fan of Classical Liberalism, as a matter of fact… which preached individual freedom and limited government… funny how that works.

    I do believe in small govt., and don’t agree with Obama’s political philosophy (or the current liberal/progressive political philosophy, as it were), but I respect those positions and hey, no problem with that he’s African-American. I grew up in Small Town U.S.A. (less than 600 ppl.). My wife and son constitute about 40% of the minority population in this town, the two of ’em. My sister’s husband and children are Bosnian-Muslims… and this hardcore, libertarian-leaning conservative (as opposed to neo-con) has no problem getting along with him or any of his friends and family, for that matter. They don’t give a damn that I’m conservative or christian… and if they do they let it be. I don’t spend my time with them talking about Jesus, either. Personally, I think that is what Libertarianism and small govt. conservatism are about, at least to me. Looking at people as individuals rather than as groups and demographics. And there’s always some good to be said about leaving folks to their own business Wishy-washy? I dunno. It works sometimes. Maybe the welfare state works sometimes too.

    little bear keeps tellling me that we don’t know about responsibility. That’s a broad accusation aimed at a large group of people, and is worthless… You could call it a s-t-e-r-e-o-t-y-p-e. How can it be said, here in the comments section of Carpetbagger, that I know nothing about responsibility simply based upon my political philosophies? It cannot.

    I really need people to give the racism/bigotry fingerpointing a break. It’s starting to split my head.

  • Simply put, Barr and Gravel are ***nuts!*** A 3rd party candidate can do nothing but serve as a **spoiler** to the Democratic or Republican candidate who would otherwise get the vote. Pulling a Nader is now pulling a Barr, – Nader and Barr have becomes political verbs, not true candidates. Anyone who’d financially support a 3rd party candidate is a “worse nut case” than the 3rd-party candidate himself. Fortunately, these “worse net cases” are less than 15% of the American voting public, – still, a surprising number of these crackpots are running around out there, e.g., somewho is against **all** taxes. Round these people up and put them in our publically financed zoos for all to laugh at.

  • Zoos? Man, are you serious? You’re talking about people. At least they care enough about their views and their country to get out and be active… just like the libs and cons and everybody else who wants to do something good.

    Strategically, yeah, spoilers. I’m with ya there. But so what? If conservatives cannot appeal enough to the portion of their constituency that is really serious about small government policies, then damn it, they’ll lose. If the Barrs and Naders know that they’re not playing to win, then let ’em go at it and do what they will. Even if it is just a political statement made in the form of “protest votes”.

    But Zoos?

  • There certainly is a lot of ignorance here. Not stupidty, just lack of knowledge. I’ll try to fill in a few blanks.

    Bob Barr and Ron Paul worked together very closely on many issues concerning civil liberties and asset forfeiture laws. See http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13262 The point is that, yes Bob Barr has changed positions in the last few years, although probably less so than Mitt Romney, but aren’t politicians allowed to change their mind in the face of new information?

    The LP has had zero success in its 47 year history because it his adhered to the purist philosophy of no taxation, etc. The purist libertarian philosophy may be obvious to you, or an anathema to you, but it will never result in winning elections, and for this the LP has rightly been considered to be a debating society, not a true political party … up until now. The Bob Barr candidacy is a real game changer. Barr/Root will be on the ballot in at least 48 states, and will probably take away a lot more votes from McCain than Obama. So IMO it assures the election of Obama.

    The Ron Paul Revolution will move on the Barr/Root campaign. Barr/Root will probably get between 5% and 10% of the vote, which will be the best showing by a real third party (Perot and George Wallace were not part of viable parties) in a long time. This may be the beginning of the end of the two party hegemony in the US.

    With regard to some of the philosophical posts here – a fundamental assumption that individuals should be subordinate to the good of the people is the main thrust of the Obama campaign. It is polar opposite to the fundamental assumption of individual sovereignty and individual responsilibity that libertarians and many Republicans adhere to, and what Bob Barr will espouse. Posters here are on both sides of this giant chasm – please recognize that whichever side you’re on, you won’t convince those on the other side to change. No amount of argument, logic, reason, emotion, whatever will change folks’ fundamental world views.

  • If the Libertarians can garner a decent vote (say >5%), then may be the elected governement will take the Libertarian views a little more seriously. Forget eliminating the taxes but what about reducing the individual tax form to one sheet of paper, with the form on one side and the instructions on the other side?

  • Hey, folks, at least we don’t have anyone posting their support for the Libertarian party/philosophy in ALL CAPS.

    SteveT, wow, I’m saving your comment to counter-punch the permanent college sophomores I know. (Yes, thanks Tom C).

    But, I sure would like a bunch of victimless crimes repealed.

  • Thanks, Buck, for your explanation and for the link. We have more in common than not. I will read and learn. Happy Memorial Day.

  • Don Wills said

    “With regard to some of the philosophical posts here – a fundamental assumption that individuals should be subordinate to the good of the people is the main thrust of the Obama campaign. It is polar opposite to the fundamental assumption of individual sovereignty and individual responsilibity that libertarians and many Republicans adhere to…”

    right on, right on. Just busts my balls that so many talk about this political position as if it were held by people who are no more than spunk throwin’ monkeys… and also that the concept of personal responsibility is, like as if by the power of The Father, and The Son, and of the Holy Spirit, bestowed upon Americans only once they have joined the Democratic party. Zoo jokes? C’mon now, I’m dying here. And I’m gettting a bit too defensive in the process.

    I liked what you said about the LP too. Debating society, huh? You said it better than I could have, so thanks for saying it and being objective about it. In that spirit, I’m not asking you who’d be prez if you had your druthers, but do you really think that “This may be the beginning of the end of the two party hegemony in the US”? That’s what I needed to ask ya, because I haven’t yet heard anybody willing to go quite that far.

    I don’t think that anybody in their right mind considers that they have a shot at the presidency, but given that Republicans haven’t done much to sate the small govt. conservatives and champion the small govt. principles that it preaches… who knows. Also, some of the Patriot Actish (I’d like to leave it at that, and not bust out the list) legislation that has come down the pipes in the past years, I think, has done a lot more to upset conservatives, be they veterans or evangelicals, than is suspected. I’m an OIF vet, and I have been appauled at some of the laws that have been passed in the name of defense and security. Yet it is assumed that a monopoly on civil/individual liberties is held by the democratic party as well. So, maybe you’re right. The constituency (the idealists and small govt. folks that obviously went for Paul) that they cannot satisfy will take those percentages right out of McCain’s ass. But I’m not sure that all of those were the “young folks” that Doc Paul kept talking about bringing into his campaign. From what I saw at the county, district, and state conventions, there were some older folks, a lot of homeschoolers, and farmers, etc. that turned out to vote for him, and did so enthusiastically.

    The beginning of the end of the two party hegemony in the US? I dunno.

  • But I agree that purist Libertarian philosophy will not win elections. That’s why conservatives have been preaching small government for as long as (at least I) can remembger.

    Anyway, I’m done kissin’ your butt with one last “Bravo!”. Really well said, man. Thanks again.

  • Thanks, SteveT, @39. The comparison to communism was my own immediate response on reading Franky Edder-Dionne’s posting.

    In theory, it’s a beautiful philosophy; it’s in practice — once you factor in the individuals and their quirks — that it falls apart. Communism, with its programmatic subjugation of the individual’s needs and rights to those of the community/state may look like the mirror image of libertarianism but both depend on the — faulty — humans to prop it up, voluntarily. And you’ll never get that.

    Oh, and BTW… Some of you, libertarians, might think that communism is perfect; we never had to pay any taxes, except for some part-time, contract work. That’s because all taxes had been calculated in *ahead of time*, and what we got handed in, on the 1st of each month, was net — our own money to spend as we wished. Saved a lot on ulcers, in comparison; I never was as appalled receiving my paycheck there (the amount of which was precisely the amount I agreed to accept) as I was here, where the amount I could bank was only about 65% of the amount printed on the check 🙂

  • One more thing, vis libertarianism. I’m all for personal responsibility and I’m all for relying on my own moral compass rather than having the government wasting its time (and my money) on peeping into the bedrooms of consenting adults. But. There also seems to be a “I’m not my brother’s keeper” component to the libertarian philosophy. It’s rather hard to forget who the first person to have said that was, and it’s hard not to draw the parallels…

  • Wait, I always thought the definition of a libertarian was a Repbulican how likes smoking weed?

    🙂

    just kidding!

    p.s. I finally made my way over here from Salon, I’m liking what I see!

  • I will vot for Barr if Barack doesn’t get the nomination. I was in despair because I can’t stand Billary and I won’t vote for a republican especially McCain. What has he done for Arizona…nothing!

  • libra-

    At the risk of sounding ridiculous, who did say that? “I’m not my brother’s keeper.” Who said it first?

  • Don Wills, in defense of my skepticism about whether or not this is a big change:

    The States’ Rights Democratic Party was a short-lived splinter group that broke from the Democratic Party in 1948. The States’ Rights Democratic Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and racial segregation. The party’s slogan was “Segregation Forever!” Members of the States’ Rights Democratic Party were often known as Dixiecrats.

    How’s that, Democrats? Like your party history?

  • If Barr was serious about expanding the libertarian base and having a lasting imapct on the two-party system, he would have taken Gravel as his running mate, and already announced cabinet positions for Paul AND Kirvorkian. All he’s really selling is warmed over social-conservatism in a new guise (lite), to the same old audience.

  • Steve T said:

    I’ve read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Rand’s ideas are appealing — until you’ve gained enough experience in the real world to understand why they won’t work.

    Rand’s vision of unregulated capitalism won’t work for the same reason that communism failed — people suck.

    Well that is the same reason big government with lots of regulations imposed by politicians doen’t work — people suck

  • Buck, @71

    Cain, shortly after having murdered his brother, Abel, when asked about Abel’s whereabouts. The exact words were; “Am I my brother’s keeper?” but the question was somewhat rhetorical, with the implied answer: “I am not”.

  • It is great that the Libertarian Party has ballot access in 48 states. Even though I am a Republican, it should be interesting to see if the Libertarian Party gains access to the Presidential debates in September 2008 and October 2008.

    It is great that the Green Party improved its ballot access from 17 states to slightly over 17 states. However, the Green Party still has a long way to go and does not have access to ballots in some of the big states.

  • BillG @ #74: The reason you are wrong about that is quite simple: unregulated capitalism is nothing more than a mob of individuals all competing with each other. Regulation by liberal government, on the other hand, is about creating a cohesive society.

    A mob of individuals is always fatally undone by people’s suckiness. Cohesive society, on the other hand, mitigates that suckiness and therefore isn’t nearly as vulnerable to it.

  • BillG said:
    Well that is the same reason big government with lots of regulations imposed by politicians doen’t work — people suck

    Sorry this is so late. I actually had to work this evening.

    The beauty of our current system of big government is that is takes into account that people suck, instead of pretending (or hoping) every person is virtuous.

    Big government has a system of checks and balances built in. No, not the ones they talk about in high school civics class — the ones in the real world.

    Politicians want to stay in office so they don’t have to actually work for a living. To do that they have to balance the interests of businesses, who want to be free to make money, and the interests of the voters, who expect a certain amount of protection from potholes, disease infested meat, bad doctors, etc. etc.

    The businesses pay bribes campaign contributions to the politicians to keep the regulations to a minimum. If the politicians pass too many regulations, the bribes campaign contributions dry up and they can’t afford to run in the next election.

    The voters provide the votes to keep the politician in office. If kids die from tainted Big Macs, or if a freeway overpass collapses, or if an insurance company cheats too many people, the politician soon has to look for a real job.

    This elegant system has been out of balance for the last seven years, because Republicans figured out ways to bypass one of the checks. They were able to keep enough of the wrong voters from voting and they were able to play games with the vote totals. With the voters neutralized, the Republicans were able to turn the government into a conduit for transferring taxpayer money to businesses while still collecting the bribes campaign contributions.

  • I’m sorry, but that’s a bit heavy.

    Power corrupts wherever it’s found, and government regulation is not free of this corruption. It does not perfectly and unquestionably serve the greater good. The same bribes you talk about can easily be applied in the other direction, to those who stand to benefit from govt. interventions.

  • Buck said:
    Power corrupts wherever it’s found, and government regulation is not free of this corruption.

    I agree. That’s why we have government as a check on the power of corporations. And we have elections as a check on the power of government. It’s a clunky system that was too slow, in my opinion, to get rid of the corruption of the Republican majority. But that’s finally happening.

    Where would the check on the power of corporations be without government? Lawsuits by individuals? That only occasionally works now, when individuals can point out in court that corporations violated government regulations. What happens when there are no regulations for corporations to violate?

    “The court is sorry your six year old died from eating a Taco Bell taco that was tainted with salmonella. The court acknowledges that 27 other children have died from eating salmonella-tainted meat at this Taco Bell. But the while the corporation may have had a moral responsibility to disclose the danger and change their practices, they had no legal responsibility to do so.

    “If you had concerns it was your responsibility to protect your child. You had many options. You could have tested the meat yourself. You could have hired a food taster. You could have fed your child only food that you grew.

    “But since you did not take any action to guard your child’s health, the court sees no reason to hold the Taco Bell Corporation liable. The court suggests that you turn this tragedy into something positive by working as an individual, at your own expense of course, to warn other families of the potential hazard of consuming food purchased at Taco Bell.”

    Yeah, that’ll work.

  • Ever wonder how the Patriot Act got passed? Seems like anyone who read it would never in a million years vote for it right? Do you know Congress doesn’t even READ the laws it passes? There is legislation being introduced in the House and Senate that would stop your freedoms from being trampled in the mud. It’s called the Read The Bills Act and it requires each law being passed in Congress to be READ OUT LOUD IN ITS ENTIRETY. Also, the law must be published on the web for 7 days before voting to give we the people time to comment on it. I know everyone’s very active politically this year and here’s something we can ALL agree on – we don’t want Congress sneaking around behind our backs! If you’re active politically, please be active in this – go to the link below and let your Congressmen know of your support!

    http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml

  • Steve T,

    So, we’re in agreement? Big government is just as bad as big business.

    Look man, I’m not a purist. But I often look at large govt. programs (much more than I do govt. regulations) and cringe. The worst of them work out like a Hollywood bad drug deal, with both sides squabbling with one another while the middle man gets off with the riches. It’s like Vegas – almost nobody walks away with what they put in. Not even close. That’s why you’re welcome until you start to win.

    Sorry to be so metaphorical about government bureaucracy, but most of us truly will never pull out what you put in, poor or not. I worked with a federal govt. budget before. You know what happens if you don’t spend everything? You fight to spend the rest of your budget on things YOU DIDN’T NEED in the first place to keep your budget up… you know you might need it next quarter and you’re hurting if it’s gone. This is how the government works at base level, within its various divisions and departments. Here is where it becomes necessary and critical that regulations, subsidies, welfare, govt. programs, and the entire spectrum be limited to moral and practical necessities, rather than binge spending. Frankly, as an American, I’m spending money now that my grandson is not gonna have!

    But not everything counts as binge spending. What should be spent? Conservatives binge now too. Who knows what to think. Methinks that this is the best place for conservatives, libertarians, progressives, liberals, centrists, whatever to meet in debate, rather than calling each other monkeys and idiots… That is hate mongering, truly, and there is way too much of it. And it is below anybody who isn’t just commenting on the subject for their own entertainment.

    I don’t believe that the absence of government and regulation is a wise or effective way to construct a just and productive society… but I do believe in strict (short of crippling) limitation on the powers of government. As a matter of fact, I think that it is a great thing that we have folks of the more liberal/progressive persuasion with their ears and eyes open, watchdoging those specific entities which they tend to scrutinize… For that matter, I feel that those who concentrate their energies on the watchdoging of government (the institution intended to give balance and fairness to our society, but which cannot do so without to goodness and moral compass of the individual American… garbage in, garbage out, right?) serve a purpose just as invaluable.

  • Comments are closed.