Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2008 > May > 27 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USBarack, Billary or Barr?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr did get the Libertarian Party nomination over the Memorial Day weekend.
I’ve declared my intentions never to vote for a third party candidate. They’re spoilers. If they get hot and become well-financed, they pull in the teens. If not, it’s single digits, usually low single digits, often under 1 percent. That spells spoiler at best.
Barr expects the party to be on the ballot in 49 of the 57 states, though work remains to get on the ballot in about 20. Barr thinks his candidacy puts Georgia in play — and it could. Depending on the race and the candidate, Georgia can go either way, Democratic or Republican.
But through the summer doldrums leading up to Democratic and Republican national conventions, I will listen to Barr define the Libertarian Party. He took some flak over the weekend because some party purists insist he’s not really a Libertarian because he doesn’t buy into the entire party agenda, including legalization of all drugs and ending federal taxation.
Barr, who announced his candidacy just three weeks ago, says that “I am a competitor and I am in this to win. I do not view the role of the Libertarian Party as spoiler and I have no intention of being a spoiler.”
While waiting to see whether the Democratic convention’s rules committee will do “justice ” by Hillary( I love it when I can use the word “justice” just as the lefties would) and seat the Florida and maybe the Michigan delegates, Barr’s on the radar.
The question is whether Barr can define the party in such a way that it appeals to a broader audience or whether the purists in his party will hold him to a platform — drug legalization, for example — that will keep Libertarians on the fringe nationally. I don’t like Big Government, but I do want one that inspects the poultry plants and performs other necessary health-related functions.
Comments
By Copyleft
May 27, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
The question is whether Republican media flacks will give their viewers and listeners explicit marching orders about “Voting for the GOP candidate, no matter what,” or if they’ll be more subtle in undermining freedom of choice.
By The Truth
May 27, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
Barr. We need more third parties and less of democrats and republicans.
By a real conservative
May 27, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
You say you declared your intentions never to vote for a third party candidate. Fine, that’s your right to think that way. But voting for McCain when he’s more liberal than conservative and has demonstrated a disregard for the first two amendments to the Constitution among other things, just doesn’t seem like “Common Sense Conservatism” to me as your column is titled. Barr is not my first choice, Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) is, but until Americans shift their thinking away from voting for the lesser of two evils, we will continue down our path to big government and socialism.
By TW
May 27, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
Sad that a real conservative can no longer run as a Republican.
Compliments to Bob Barr for taking the initiave to find another avenue for the imperative conservatice voice.
Bob Barr ‘08 For the first time in nearly two decades, there is a true fiscal conservative on the ballot.
By peter
May 27, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
Jim, you don’t like BIG Government…
I would be interested in knowing what we currently have today…..according to you of course.
By Jim Wooten
May 27, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
peter @ 1:39. We have Big Government now. The task is to wean people from it.
By Brian
May 27, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
There’s 57 states?
By ron
May 27, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
Good afternoon,If Barr is in this to win,he’s a fool.That’s plain enough.I have as good a chance as he does and I’m not even running.The libertarians ,like the other parties have a few good solid planks in their platform,but they also have some that need replacing if they expect me to cross that bridge.They’re on the fringe as far as the rest of America goes.They may pull enough to punish the GOP,time will tell.
By Fossil Fool
May 27, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this
“…inspects the poultry plants….”
Great stuff, Jim. Truly funny, funny material. Of course wasted on nimcomchickencooppoops
By peter
May 27, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this
Jim, How is that done today?
With the even of 911, we got even Bigger.
What part of the government would you make smaller?
By lesley gore
May 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
It’s Bob’s party and he’ll lie if he wants to, lie if he wants to, lie if he wants to. You would lie too if you had nothin to do.
By getalife
May 27, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
In yet another sign of his pivoting toward the general election, Senator John McCain said at a roundtable with business leaders here today that comprehensive immigration reform er amnesty should be a top priority for the next president.
You got punked by McCain.
Bwa.
By getalife
May 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Yeah Jim,
We need to wean the gop out of government.
By John Campbell
May 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
People like you are the reason we get the kind of government we get.
By Louis Nardozi
May 27, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
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!
Donwnsize DC
By Ayn R. Key
May 27, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
Bob Barr is running on the LP ticket, so it would be nice if he were to be a libertairan. Unfortunately he isn’t. I wish there was a libertarian running this term.
By Me
May 27, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this
Barr expects the party to be on the ballot in 49 of the 57 states, though work remains to get on the ballot in about 20.
While there is voting in the territories, I believe there are still just 50 states.
By Butler T. Reynolds
May 27, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this
That’s really what it comes down to — we either accept the warfare/welfare state or the free market will deliver us contaminated chickens! :-)
I just love it when conservatives join in the old song that the market would deliver us tainted food if not for the government.
That stuff used to be just for lefties.
By Fred C Dobbs
May 27, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
You should vote for Bob Barr. You both have a lot in common - out of touch with reality.
By modestd
May 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
Much like Jim I vowed to never vote (for a certain party) Republican again after ‘04 and would never vote for a Democrat….ever. So that leaves me with the third party that I have always had the most in common with. The Libertarians. Another point. The other week when Cali courts allowed gay marriages the “Republicans” freaked out after Barr supported it. The “Republicans” do not like States making their own laws if they do not go along with their values. I thought republicans were about States rights and smaller Guvment. Democrats and Republicans are about the same now anyways. Big Government to support their wants.
By George
May 27, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this
Barr is a conservative creep. Running on the LP ticket tarnishes the LP’s image. Barr is defintely no libertarian.
By David Wooten
May 27, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
The deck is currently stacked in favor of Dems and Repubs owing to their automatic ballot status and to the fact that voters only want so much change - as long as they have something left to lose. However, an empire funded with fiat money debt will eventually collapse. “Eventually” may have finally started to arrive. Hopefully, the libertarians will be there to pick up the pieces.
By Time for an Overhaul
May 27, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this
I like the idea of an option to the Democrats and Republicans. We need someone who will tackle the tough issues and actually do something instead of singing whatever the “party” song is.
The Dems wants to tax and spend and make government bigger, create more entitlement programs - the last thing we need is the governement in charge of healthcare - God help us all!
The Repubs are stuck in a rut and arent’ dealing with our domestic issues. We need to plan our exit from Iraq and focus the spend on our own country!
We could start making the Gov smaller by:
Just some immediate ideas that come to mind….
By peter
May 27, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
Well it seems no third party can actually win an election until we get rid of the silly concept of the “Electoral College”.
Really why do we have that in place anyway?
If it was not there then in “Reality” each vote would actually count, and the winner would be the person who received the MOST Votes!
Can anyone here actually tell me why the Electoral College is still in play today?
By Time for an Overhaul
May 27, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
Answer to Electoral College - it’s still in play today because like many other brilliant ideas of their time, once implemented, they were never decommissioned. They became somebody’s little empire (either from a monetary or a power perspective). It serves some special interest - most definitely not that of the general public.
By Sue
May 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
I don’t understand why you belittle yourself and your opinion by resorting to names such as Billary. You don’t have to like her; you could at least respect her. She is a United States Senator.
By Thor
May 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
Placing the blame at the politicians is too easy, just the same as blaming the parties.
In the end, its the people who need to change. Until they tune in, all of you will still be writing your silly left/right comments.
We need to change our electorate; they stink!
By Steve Dasbach
May 27, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this
I’ve been active in the LP since 1979. I’ve been a delegate to every national convention since 1981, been involved in some way or another with every presidential campaign, and served stints as the party’s national chair (1993-1998) and executive director (1998-2002).
IMO, Bob Barr is a libertarian. He’s not as hard core as most of us who have been involved for decades, but has evolved to advocate positions similar to those of Dr. Paul (who has certainly held those views for a lot longer).
By ron
May 27, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
It doesn’t seem necessary to hold Libertatian views.So few people want them that I think you could let them run free and not have to fear that anyone would take them.
By Dusty
May 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this
Barr is Barr-B-Q on a stale ol’ bun.
Wants to be tasty but appeals to no one.
Full of pork and ‘dying’ to run,
Ol’ Barr-b-que just aint no fun.
So I ask “Why, under the sun,
Would anyone vote for such a one?”
(The answer will really make you numb.!)
Because they are extra ordinarily DUMB!
By peter
May 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this
By Time for an Overhaul
May 27, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
Answer to Electoral College - it’s still in play today because like many other brilliant ideas of their time, once implemented, they were never decommissioned. They became somebody’s little empire (either from a monetary or a power perspective). It serves some special interest - most definitely not that of the general public.
Well what is written here was kind of my thoughts…….. maybe a educated guy like JBMLAW would help us us here !
Hey JBMLAW……. any reason to keep the Electoral College?
By David
May 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this
If you want to decrease the influence of the Democratic and Republican parties at this stage, you need to start framing things in terms of independent representation, i.e. non-partisan. Furthermore, stop running for U.S. President and start running for local office. Run for offices elected by people in your local district, and for Christ’s sake support full public campaign financing.
By David Wooten
May 27, 2008 5:45 PM | Link to this
The Electoral College was instituted as part of what is called Federalism - the division of government power between the national government and the state governments. The President is elected by the states - not by the people. The division of powers was a good thing. Unfortunately, more government power has been placed in the national government than was originally intended. Getting rid of the Electoral College would make things worse.
By Josh
May 27, 2008 5:47 PM | Link to this
Fidel Castro has endorsed Barack Hussein Obama for president. Looks like we have ourselves a winner here folks.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/castros-stinging-endorsement/
By peter
May 27, 2008 6:00 PM | Link to this
Hi David Wooten………please explain how getting rid of the Electoral College would make things worse…..
And why should the states elect the president, and NOT the people?
Thank you!
By Fossil Fool
May 27, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this
So what, Josh, Hitler endorsed you for moron.
Obwama 08. He wont say bwa, but I will.
BWAAAA!
By Disgusted
May 28, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
The reason for the electoral college is simple, as any student in 8th grade civics can tell you—or perhaps it’s not taught any more: to prevent the large states from dominating the small states in presidential elections. To balance the scales a bit, the founding fathers set up a system that tipped the scales toward the small states. Without the electoral college, you would likely see California and New York deciding presidential elections.
The thing that tips the scales is allowing college electors according to each state’s US senators in addition to the number of representatives of each state. Thus, a sparsely populated state like Wyoming gets two electoral votes for its senators, even though its total population is less than the City of Atlanta’s.
And before you get ready to change purely to popular vote to determine the presidency, keep in mind that Georgia, now the 9th-largest state by population, was once sparsely populated. Its representatives to the Constitutional Convention argued vociferously for the electoral college as a means of preventing total domination by large-population states in the election of a president.
By Ray
May 28, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
Time For An Overhaul
Best post of the day. It is amazing to me that gov’t has such a low opinion of the people who vote and think that the Chuck Schumers and the Charlie Rangles are better at making decisions for us than we are. There are 545 people in our gov’t who should find another job…..100 senators, 435 congressmen/women, 9 supreme court justices and one president. We need to clean house and start all over again!!
By JK60
May 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
By Tom
May 28, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this
The Electoral College serves two very important purposes:
It affirms the U.S. as a federal republic. We are a federation of 50 individual states as opposed to one state with 50 provinces. The electoral college reminds us that we elect the president on a state-by-state level.
It removes the possibility of a national recount. If you think Florida was messy, imagine if the margin of victory in the popular vote was within 0.5 percent - that is about 500,000 votes or less. Literally every jurisdiction would be faced with recounts like what we saw in Florida with court cases stacking one upon another. Our electoral system would stand still for months.
By GayGrayGeek
May 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
If nothing else can prove to his lackeys and buttbussers that Jim has no business trying to portray himself as a “thinker”, it’s that 57 claim.
Count much, Jim?
By JK60
May 28, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
To those questioning Jim’s state count…He was just quoting the presumptive Democrat nominee.
By Bubba
May 28, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Thing is, Jimbo, conservatives have done their best to make the Republicans a third party. You say drugs, I say Terry Schiavo. TSA. Honestly, I can’t “afford” a conservative agenda. It’s just Big Government with different seasonings.
Barr is running because “conservatives” are too drunk on their own Kool-Aid. Vodka or Whiskey, Woot. Schnockered is still schnockered.