PDA

View Full Version : Libertarians seek Barr candidacy


Taco John
03-25-2008, 12:42 AM
I've never been a big Bob Barr fan, but I'm definitely willing to listen to what he has to say.



Libertarians seek Barr candidacy
By Ralph Z. Hallow
March 20, 2008
Former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia is considering a third-party presidential run a bid that could steal support from Republican John McCain and potentially offset the damage Ralph Nader"s candidacy is predicted to have on the Democratic candidate.



Mr. Barr, a House Republican impeachment manager during President Clinton's administration, yesterday confirmed his interest in running as a Libertarian but said he is unwilling to talk about any "polling we may have done or may do, not at this point."



"There is great deal [of] dissatisfaction with the candidates for the two major parties, particularly among conservatives, but also a great deal of Internet and other support for a candidate like Ron Paul who advocates libertarian and true conservative principles," said Mr. Barr, who is now a Libertarian.



Activists have started a Facebook campaign to draft Mr. Barr for the Libertarian Party nomination.



GOP presidential campaign pollster John McLaughlin said a Barr bid wouldn't be good for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee. It "takes more points from us than Nader takes from them," he said.



Pollster John Zogby agreed.



"Why should Democrats have all the fun worrying about Nader? Republicans can try to implode, too," Mr. Zogby said. "My gut sense is that Bob Barr can get some votes as a consistent libertarian who opposed the Patriot Act, budget deficits and gun control."



"In this election cycle, where red and blue states can get realigned, where race and gender are wild cards, it won't take all that many votes in some states to mix things up even further," Mr. Zogby said.

A Zogby poll this month shows that if the election were held now, Mr. Nader would win 6 percent of the vote, enough to throw the election to Mr. McCain by 45 percent to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton"s 39 percent. In a matchup with Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain wins 44 to 39 percent, with Mr. Nader getting 5 percent of the vote.



The McCain campaign shrugged off a possible Barr challenge.



"We certainly always expected there would be a Libertarian nominee," said McCain campaign senior adviser Charles Black. "Bob Barr is has been a distinguished public servant, but one of America's best-known conservatives, Pat Buchanan, did not poll as many votes running as an independent as did Ralph Nader in 2000. So who knows what the impact will be."



An aide to Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who remains in the Republican race, said his boss likes Mr. Barr and has talked to him about his prospects with Mr. Paul"s supporters. Mr. Paul broke Internet fundraising records in his run for the Republican nomination and has an e-mail list of 400,000 committed donors and activists that would be helpful to a general-election run by Mr. Barr.



Mr. Barr declined to say whether he has approached Mr. Paul.



The possible entry of another general-election candidate on the right presents a further challenge to the Republican National Committee, which has been working overtime on opposition research for the twin contingencies of an Obama or a Clinton nomination on the Democratic side.



Asked for a response, Republican National Chairman Mike Duncan did not mention Mr. Barr's name, saying instead that "John McCain is the presumptive nominee, and the Republican Party is uniting behind his vision for low taxes, strong national and fiscal responsibility."



"We look forward to engaging all elements of the electorate and working toward a victory this fall that will move our nation forward," Mr. Duncan said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080320/NATION/214024441/1002

Guru
03-25-2008, 12:54 AM
This election is going to be soooo ugly.

SNR
03-25-2008, 12:59 AM
Not even the 3rd parties can give me a candidate I like :banghead:

a1na2
03-25-2008, 01:01 AM
This election is going to be soooo ugly.

Taco has started pulling them out of the woodwork. It's been ugly for quite a while. have you seen the great pictures of Hillary? Makes ugly women look nice.

patteeu
03-25-2008, 06:05 AM
Not even the 3rd parties can give me a candidate I like :banghead:

You don't like Barr? Why not?

Reaper16
03-25-2008, 10:06 AM
You don't like Barr? Why not?
For me, the Defense of Marriage Act comes immediately to mind.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 10:09 AM
Just when you thought the Dems had shot themselves in the foot... The Repubs start looking for a way to **** up worse than them.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 10:30 AM
I saw this yesterday. He'll at least take votes away from McCain while Nader siphons off votes from the Dems. So a Barr campaign still helps.He has enough of the stands I feel strongest about.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 10:37 AM
I saw this yesterday. He'll at least take votes away from McCain while Nader siphons off votes from the Dems. So a Barr campaign still helps.He has enough of the stands I feel strongest about.

Helps who? He isn't going to get elected. He isn't going to get elected in the future (probably). It's unlikely he'll even effect policy.

There are enough real differences between McCain and Obama (Clinton isn't going to be the nom IMHO) that voting for the one closest isn't a futile effort. Yes McCain's a ****stick, but I don't like Obama's ideas either.

jAZ
03-25-2008, 10:41 AM
Does it bother you that Ron Paul picked re-election as a Texas Republican over being the best thing to ever happen to the Libertarian party maybe ever?

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 10:42 AM
Helps who? He isn't going to get elected. He isn't going to get elected in the future (probably). It's unlikely he'll even effect policy.

There are enough real differences between McCain and Obama (Clinton isn't going to be the nom IMHO) that voting for the one closest isn't a futile effort. Yes McCain's a ****stick, but I don't like Obama's ideas either.

Who said he was going to get elected? If you mean "Barr" here.
What is it that some people can't read and understand a post. I said he'd take away enough votes from McCain. Duh!

I will not vote for McCain. I think he's downright dangerous.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 10:43 AM
Does it bother you that Ron Paul picked re-election as a Texas Republican over being the best thing to ever happen to the Libertarian party maybe ever?

No it doesn't. Some power is better than none. There are about 5 other Paulies running between the senate and the house. One is Sabrin for senate in NJ.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 10:48 AM
Who said he was going to get elected? If you mean "Barr" here.
What is it that some people can't read and understand a post. I said he'd take away enough votes from McCain. Duh!

I will not vote for McCain. I think he's downright dangerous.

With Obama's spending ideas I worry about him too.

I hate, HATE, both of my choices. The idea of Carly Fiorina as VP makes me ill. Even if it doesn't happen. 3rd party candidates are counterproductive in our political system though. Instead of finding someone you like who has no chance, deciding which of the likely candidates would suck less. That would seem to me to be the most useful course.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 10:48 AM
Does it bother you that Ron Paul picked re-election as a Texas Republican over being the best thing to ever happen to the Libertarian party maybe ever?


Not at all. Ron Paul is still doing very important things in this presidential election, though not much of it is being reported widely. He may not be elected, but he's still going to have an impact.

Taco John
03-25-2008, 10:53 AM
With Obama's spending ideas I worry about him too.

I hate, HATE, both of my choices. The idea of Carly Fiorina as VP makes me ill. Even if it doesn't happen. 3rd party candidates are counterproductive in our political system though. Instead of finding someone you like who has no chance, deciding which of the likely candidates would suck less. That would seem to me to be the most useful course.

For the bad candidate that you are electing, you're being useful. To the good candidates who aren't getting the support of the establishment, you're being a fool.

If you want to continue getting bad choices, then continue throwing your vote away on a candidate "sucks less." But if you want to encourage people who might actually share your views, you only have one choice: vote for them regardless of whether you think they'll win or not.

wazu
03-25-2008, 10:56 AM
Does it bother you that Ron Paul picked re-election as a Texas Republican over being the best thing to ever happen to the Libertarian party maybe ever?

Yes.

SNR
03-25-2008, 10:59 AM
You don't like Barr? Why not?Defense of marriage act. That, and I did NOT support the Clinton impeachment.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 11:09 AM
For the bad candidate that you are electing, you're being useful. To the good candidates who aren't getting the support of the establishment, you're being a fool.

If you want to continue getting bad choices, then continue throwing your vote away on a candidate "sucks less." But if you want to encourage people who might actually share your views, you only have one choice: vote for them regardless of whether you think they'll win or not.

How many 3rd party candidates had an effect? A good one I mean.

It's one of the big problems with our system, 3rd parties will never get support and if they start to the closest major party moves that way, position-wise. You get the same re-hash, re-hashed just with a bit new hash.

It's mostly to protect someone's intellectual superiority, "I didn't vote for that sack-o-shit, my candidate would have been sooooo much better".

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 11:22 AM
How many 3rd party candidates had an effect? A good one I mean.

How 'bout the election of 1912 between Taft, TR and Wilson. If TR hadn't started a 3rd party Wilson may not have won. Then there's Perot hurting Bush Sr and who as a threat to possibly win. His dropping out and re-entering wasn't a smart move. The Nader was supposed to have helped Gore.

It's mostly to protect someone's intellectual superiority, "I didn't vote for that sack-o-shit, my candidate would have been sooooo much better".
Oh Boo-Hoo! I'm getting sick and tired of the GOP running liberals who use conservative rhetoric just to get elected. I'm tired of voting for worse of two evils and holding my nose. I think it's actually good for the party if they lose in the case with McCain because of the ME, who his advisors are but most of all his nasty temperment. An ill tempered person should not be president especially with his wanting more wars.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 11:27 AM
Here's an electoral map of 1912. Blue state was the state won by the GOP's man Taft. Green was the 3rd Party of TR. Red was Wilson.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/ElectoralCollege1912-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1912-Large.png

pikesome
03-25-2008, 11:34 AM
How 'bout the election of 1912 between Taft, TR and Wilson. If TR hadn't started a 3rd party Wilson may not have won. Then there's Perot hurting Bush Sr and who as a threat to possibly win. His dropping out and re-entering wasn't a smart move. The Nader was supposed to have helped Gore.

My recollection is that those results weren't beneficial for the people voting third party. The effect isn't what the people casting the vote want, that's the problem.


Oh Boo-Hoo! I'm getting sick and tired of the GOP running liberals who use conservative rhetoric just to get elected. I'm tired of voting for worse of two evils and holding my nose. I think it's actually good for the party if they lose in the case with McCain because of the ME, who his advisors are but most of all his nasty temperment. An ill tempered person should not be president especially with his wanting more wars.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you on any of this. I'm just anti-government spending which means a choice between Spend More or Spend Alot More. McCain is an ass but Obama has little experience and I'm not big on the "negotiate with anyone" plan. I'd love for one of them to do something to get me excited but the outlook is grim.

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for. McCain is slightly in my personal lead but that Fiornia VP talk is scary. Teddy's still looking like a better candidate and he's dead.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 11:35 AM
Here's an electoral map of 1912. Blue state was the state won by the GOP's man Taft. Green was the 3rd Party of TR. Red was Wilson.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/ElectoralCollege1912-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1912-Large.png

Anything that got Wilson elected is crap in my book, you should know how much I hate him.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 11:42 AM
My recollection is that those results weren't beneficial for the people voting third party. The effect isn't what the people casting the vote want, that's the problem.
It's not a problem for me or anyone who is realistic about their real chances. It's known as a protest vote. It's a strategy vote for me. I want the GOP out of the WH. Then if the Dem congress veers to far left, I hope for the GOP to take it back. I'd prefer that mix. We had that under Clinton.

pikesome
03-25-2008, 11:46 AM
It's not a problem for me or anyone who is realistic about their real chances. It's known as a protest vote. It's a strategy vote for me. I want the GOP out of the WH. Then if the Dem congress veers to far left, I hope for the GOP to take it back. I'd prefer that mix. We had that under Clinton.

I have serious doubts that the "protest vote" works. I'm not sure I can successfully argue my position on it though.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2008, 12:08 PM
I have serious doubts that the "protest vote" works. I'm not sure I can successfully argue my position on it though.

Huh? It doesn't work if you mean the person gets elected. What works is what works for an individual voter. I just can't vote for McCain. So it could work for me. I haven't actually decided. I only know that I won't vote McCain or Hillary. I am just going to wait and see how things develop.

Amnorix
03-25-2008, 12:13 PM
How 'bout the election of 1912 between Taft, TR and Wilson. If TR hadn't started a 3rd party Wilson may not have won. Then there's Perot hurting Bush Sr and who as a threat to possibly win. His dropping out and re-entering wasn't a smart move. The Nader was supposed to have helped Gore.


? err... hunh? Nader cost Gore the election...?

SNR
03-25-2008, 03:33 PM
Anything that got Wilson elected is crap in my book, you should know how much I hate him.BUT MRS. CHOKESONDICK IN FOURTH GRADE TOLD ME HE LED THE COUNTRY THROUGH WWI AND STARTED THE UNITED NATIONS!!!!!!!!!!1111 YOU MUST BE A RADICAL LUNATIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111ONe11one1eleven11!11!1!!1

patteeu
03-26-2008, 09:15 AM
Bob Barr has some competition for the Libertarian party nomination, it appears. Mike Gravel has left the democrats and is now interested in running for Prez as a Libertarian.

Turn the lights out, the life of the party is gone (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/809858.aspx)

Taco John
03-26-2008, 09:19 AM
That's actually good news. More publicity for the Libertarian party. I couldn't vote for Gravel. He's not my stripe of libertarian. But I would love to follow a debate between these two men.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 09:29 AM
Yuck! Gravel will trivialize things. I'd never vote for him.

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2008, 02:44 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0S2zkh6ZOGE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0S2zkh6ZOGE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
03-26-2008, 04:34 PM
What Gravel said in his announcement to his supporters of his intention to run is disturbing to me on a libertarian ticket. I mean wtf?

"The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism — all of which I find anathema to my views."

:shake:

FDR began the military industrial complex.

Logical
03-26-2008, 05:13 PM
How 'bout the election of 1912 between Taft, TR and Wilson. If TR hadn't started a 3rd party Wilson may not have won. Then there's Perot hurting Bush Sr and who as a threat to possibly win. His dropping out and re-entering wasn't a smart move. The Nader was supposed to have helped Gore.


Oh Boo-Hoo! I'm getting sick and tired of the GOP running liberals who use conservative rhetoric just to get elected. I'm tired of voting for worse of two evils and holding my nose. I think it's actually good for the party if they lose in the case with McCain because of the ME, who his advisors are but most of all his nasty temperment. An ill tempered person should not be president especially with his wanting more wars.I absolutely agree BEP

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2008, 06:54 PM
Here's an electoral map of 1912. Blue state was the state won by the GOP's man Taft. Green was the 3rd Party of TR. Red was Wilson.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/ElectoralCollege1912-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1912-Large.pngBULLLLLLLLLL MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE