Bob Barr on Your World w/Neil Cavuto

49 Responses to “Bob Barr on Your World w/Neil Cavuto”

  1. LifeMember Says:

    Root is no longer the self crowned king of LP media

  2. Mike Gillis Says:

    Well, it’s good to know that Republicans whine just as much as Democrats when it comes to “having their votes stolen from them.”

    The arrogance underneath that statement really just boggles my mind. We’ve created a political environment where voters feel indentured to politicians instead of the other way around. We bow to their will so that they won’t lose instead of them having to bow to the will of voters and give us something worth winning.

    No politician is entitled to our vote. We give it to the candidate that EARNS it.

    But as a Ralph Nader supporter, I say to my Libertarian friends…. welcome to the club.

    And don’t worry, the major party whining is a sign that you’re doing something right. The only thing you should worry about is their silence in the face of your candidacy.

    I disagree with you on a lot, Congressman Barr, and I won’t be voting for you, but give ‘em hell.

  3. hueylong Says:

    Ummm…sorry Neil but Clinton in 1996 and W in 2000 didn’t get 50% either. hell W didn’t even get the most votes. You would think Cavuto could have done the slightest amount of research before asking the question.

  4. Viverrid Says:

    Cavuto: What have other Republicans said to you, congressman?

    Barr: Well, I’ve heard mostly good things from OTHER REPUBLICANS who are very upset at not having a real choice…

    Me: Umm…not a good choice of words if you want Libertarian support.

  5. Laine Says:

    Ya I was wondering about his choice in words as well. It seems like we have a few Dems and Republicans seeking refuge and ballot lines after their own parties rejected them. McKinney, Gravel and now Barr amongst them. Not to say that they don’t have anything to add to the discussion but I hope they have a genuine interest in these parties more than just taking over their ballot lines.

  6. Mike Gillis Says:

    I think it was a verbal slip that he didn’t intend, but I don’t get the impression that Barr is just sniffing after ballot lines.

    If he was, why would he join four years ago and do work through the LNC? If this was a Buchanan style take over, he’d just swarm the party with a large crew of his own and just take the nomination.

  7. Laine Says:

    I suppose so but what do you make of Gravel and McKinney’s entrance into third party politics?

  8. Laine Says:

    It seems to me a lot of Libertarians are fairly open to the idea of gay marriage, and isn’t the War on Drugs about as big government as it gets? Talk about war agains the people but I thought Libertarians were for civil liberties.

  9. Mike Gillis Says:

    Gravel’s party change feels opportunistic and is an ill-fit, ideologically. He’ll get some half decent coverage and will be mentioned in any story about the LP primary or Bob Barr, but he won’t win the nomination.

    With McKinney, she didn’t go third party until it was clear that she wasn’t going to win her seat back in Congress again, and had nowhere else to go. She’s got very little credibility left, even among much of the left willing to consider third party options.

    Even the vast majority of the press ignores her, while they view Nader and Barr as threats with potential bases of support and will give them coverage. She wasn’t even mentioned in that collage of announced and potential third party candidates that Cavuto put up.

    All in all, I like when higher profile folks go third party, but Barr’s changeover feels the most genuine of the three. He went third party BEFORE he got presidential ambitions and still has some decent political clout with organizations like the ACLU and the NRA.

    In the general election, the only third party nominees likely to get any mainstream press and attention will be Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.

  10. Brent Burk Says:

    So, Republicans can’t support Libertarians? Didn’t the LP start out as a splinter party from the Republicans? They were upset with the GOP and the final straw was taking us off the Gold Standards and introducing price regulations.

    Anyways, I like him so far. I want to hear him have awesome speeches like Dr. Paul though. He is an articulate speaker, I just don’t see 5,000 people at a rally cheering his name though. Maybe I am wrong. I never heard him in a situation like that.

  11. Mike Gillis Says:

    “It seems to me a lot of Libertarians are fairly open to the idea of gay marriage, and isn’t the War on Drugs about as big government as it gets? Talk about war agains the people but I thought Libertarians were for civil liberties.”

    Barr reversed his position on drugs a few years ago and has done a lot of lobbying with anti-drug war groups since then. As for same sex marriage, I believe he has the same position as Paul, he opposes it, but also opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning it and thinks it should be left to the states.

    (Barr people correct me if I’m wrong)

  12. Jerry S. Says:

    BOB BARR on

    Restoring National Defense

    1*For far too long and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored.

    2*Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world’s police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.

    3*The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.

    hmmm, sounds libertarian enough to me…

  13. Stefan Says:

    Mike, I agree with you. About the “other Republicans”, Cavuto should not have used that term in the first place and I think Barr was simply using his term to refer to the potential voting block for the LP with a possible Barr nomination. Barr has potential to the “left” also, and certainly moderates, with his insistence on civil liberties and his working together with the ACLU, being a member of the ACU. He is a genuine politician, saw a youtube yesterday of someone mentioning a person convicted wrongly and asking Barr about it and Barr actually took over the legal case for the person after that.

    Barr is described as one of the most conservative with a libertarian streak, also as congressman (in the GOP). It is also an interesting phenomenon that among the GOP, those that are often the most conservative, are also the most libertarian (not with all of course), like with Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, Mark Sanford, Jeff Flake etc.
    Barr also seems to not aggressively announce his candidacy, but more a start cautiously and does not want to confront anyone in the LP, seeking consensus. He has done a lot for the LP all over the country. Gravel has indeed some past libertarian practices and a record, but he has not been much politically active the past 20 years until recently again. He provides more stature and marketing to the LP. His political style does not seem so “libertarian”, e.g. more confrontational speaking his mind not in a diplomatic way, perhaps more in an authoritative way? He certainly has many qualities and good experience. One wonders why he has not decided to join the LP a few weeks earlier, when it was clear he is not making any traction with the D. Barr has welcomed him when he decided to join the LP, but he seems to be quite critical of Barr. Need time to work together in a team…

    Your candidate Nader is already polling at 5 or 6% at the polls, not true? I do not think the GP would be so successful this year.

  14. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Wow! Sure, we could parse Barr’s words til the cows come home, but is it not obvious that he’s a 10? This is a man who could drive millions to the LP with a reasonable, articulate message of less government across the board.

    Barr/Gravel could change everything, and take the LP off the fringes and into the mainstream. Are we ready for that?

  15. NewFederalist Says:

    Rather disappointing how little Neil seemed to understand about how a president is elected. His misstatement about plurality was not only incorrect but showed his lack of knowledge. Every president since 1824 won a majority… in the Electoral College where it COUNTS.

  16. paulie Says:

    Barr and Gravel, if that’s what ends up being the LP ticket, have a lot of good ideas, and I would certainly find them by far the lesser of three evils in the race - and that remains true with (for example) Keyes, McKinney and Nader also in the race.

    Unfortunately, the way government works, if you have nine good ideas (good being defined as making government smaller), and one bad idea, your one bad idea is the only one that passes.

    Government is like an organism. It has a natural desire to survive and grow. It is a parasite, but parasites like to grow too. I like to compare it to a cancer cell.

    The one very, very, very bad idea that Barr and Gravel share is the fraudulent “fair” tax. For details, see

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2006/12/30/first-of-the-lpa-reposts-the-fraud-tax/

    http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/immigration-hysteria-fair-tax-police-state-ussa/

    please also read the links inside those articles.

    Tom also summarizes some of the problems here

    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/tom-knapp-attacks-the-fair-tax/

    Steve Kubby received a message from the future about this trojan horse virus masquerading as tax relief.

    This is a message from the future. I am using outlaw technology to go back in time to tell you that the Fair Tax is the curse we live under and we blame the Libertarian Party for this horrible reality. Honestly, did you think giving the government the chance to stick it to us at the sales register was going to end all the other taxes? Fools! Now we pay 30% federal sales tax AND 30% income tax. Oh, those government checks that were supposed to be part of the deal? That’s only for folks who agree to regular drug testing and have been issued a Class A national ID card. This message is to tell you to end this nonsense NOW, before the LP goes down in history for the biggest tax hike of all.”

    As George Phillies pointed out yesterday,

    “The welfare check is no rebate. It’s not tied to paying a tax. It’s a monthly check like social security, except most people get Social Security because they paid into the system. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent, for sure that universal welfare check will go up and up and up.”

    Americans have long been exposed to proposals for universal welfare—everyone gets money. The 1960’s version of universal welfare was the Negative Income Tax. The NIT replaced all other welfare payments. Its advantages were that it had minimal administrative costs and that it eliminated extremely large effective tax rates on poor people created by many welfare arrangements. The most recent Universal Welfare scheme goes under the name ‘Fair Tax.’

    Citing the on-budget budget deficit of half trillion dollars a year and the costs of these “prebates,” Dr. Phillies said he finds this proposal unworkable. “Uncle Sam is already broke… Adding additional welfare payments, sure to be increased in later years, is simply unaffordable. Worse, the universal welfare system teaches a peculiar belief. Universal welfare teaches people that because you are a citizen, you are entitled to a government check. That belief in a guaranteed income, however small, is subversive of every notion of self-responsibility.

    Barr and Gravel have many good ideas, as I said - non-interventionist foreign policy, no domestic spying, no torture, no detentions without trial, keeping the feds from interfering with states that have legalized medical marijuana.

    Individually they also have some other good ideas - for example, Gravel would end the drug war (and Barr might as well, although he has not said so, at least in public), support marriage equality and end immigration quotas, and Barr would greatly cut back the regulatory and spending monstrosity that is today’s federal regime.

    Gravel has a few bad ideas too, like nationalized health care, but if he is the VP candidate, it’s unlikely that the LP will get any significant share of the blame when (if) nationalized health care passes.

    Ideologically, they are not my top choices for the LP nomination, those being Steve Kubby or Mary Ruwart. But I grant that having former members of Congress on the ticket may be an allure that the LP will not be able to resist as a shortcut to added credibility, coverage and vote totals.

    I just hope there is still time to change their mind on this evil poison pill of a FraudulentTax proposal, before that becomes the LP’s real legacy.

    Full article on the Heartland Conference coming up in a couple of weeks. (I had a media pass, and took lots of notes, so I’ll try to make good, but I have to concentrate on paying work right now).

  17. paulie Says:

    The “Fair Tax”: A Trojan Horse for America
    By Claire Wolfe & Aaron Zelman

    You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.—Lyndon Baines Johnson, U.S. President

    http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/fairtax.htm

    Also see

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/08/fair-tax-is-welfare-scam.html

    and

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2006/09/fair-tax-redux.html

  18. Richie Says:

    I can’t disagree more with those who want a Barr/Gravel ticket. We need a VP that will bring the radicals in the party together. How about Barr/Ruwart?

  19. johncjackson Says:

    He did say “other Republicans.” However he DID make it a point when talking about himself to say ” Well, THIS LIBERTARIAN …...”

  20. johncjackson Says:

    ^ I watched it live on TV ( didn’t watch the vid) so I am going by what ) I clearly heard and remember from the show.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Bob,

    You write:

    “Wow! Sure, we could parse Barr’s words til the cows come home, but is it not obvious that he’s a 10? This is a man who could drive millions to the LP with a reasonable, articulate message of less government across the board.”

    No, it’s not obvious that he’s a “10.”

    “Parsing words” is an important part of evaluating a candidate … and the evidence so far seems to indicate that Barr’s message isn’t “less government across the board,” but rather remains a fairly standard GOP-style message of “talk smaller government in general while advocating big government in detail.”

    Barr talks non-intervention and anti-drug-war in general, while advocating intervention in Colombia versus “narco-terrorists.”

    While in Washington, Mr. Uribe asks certain things of our government. Assisting Colombia in meeting those needs is as much a component of our national interests as it is Colombia’s. ... As the world’s largest producer by far of cocaine, Colombia occupies a pivotal position in the U.S. effort to stem the tide of illicit drug trafficking in our country. ... Recognizing Colombia’s essential role in our country’s campaign against illicit trafficking in cocaine, the Bush administration and prior Congresses have responded to Mr. Uribe’s efforts by funding “Plan Colombia” to the tune over its seven-year lifespan of more than $5.0 billion. While critics interpret the fact that Colombian-processed cocaine stills arrives in our country as evidence Plan Colombia should be defunded or dramatically reduced, in reality this support for Colombia’s efforts will continue as an essential component of our anti-drug program. If Congress truly wants the plan work better, the solution would be not to dry up funding but to provide more flexibility for its implementation.

    The above wasn’t written in 1998 or 2002 when Barr was a Republican congresscritter. It was written last year when Barr was a Libertarian National Committee rep. And he reiterated that position last month.

    It would be wonderful to have a well-known, big-name, “credentialed” presidential candidate. Wanting to have one is no excuse for ignoring what a prospective candidate is actually saying.

    Barr’s foreign policy position paper lacks detail and specificity … which means we must look elsewhere for that detail and specificity. And the closer one looks, the uglier it gets.

  22. dodsworth Says:

    Thomas:

    Very troubling. I was warming up to the Barr, especially after the comparatively reasonable immigration comments, but this stuff is hard to explain away. He has moved in the right direction but I fear that he still doesn’t get it. I am beginning to think he is like Obama: generally good on Iraq, but not so good in a general sense on foreign policy. Still, I would take him over Wayne Root any date of the week. If only Gary Johnson had run.

  23. Jim Lesczynski Says:

    The above wasn’t written in 1998 or 2002 when Barr was a Republican congresscritter. It was written last year when Barr was a Libertarian National Committee rep. And he reiterated that position last month.

    That’s some good investigative reporting there, Tom. The piece from last month is at least as troublesome, although for different reasons. What the hell business is it of the U.S. whether Colombia and Venezuela blow each other to smithereens?

    I hate being wrong, but I’m getting a lot less enthusiastic about a Barr candidacy with each passing day. But I guess it’s better to have buyer’s remorse now rather than after the nomination.

  24. Mike Gillis Says:

    “Your candidate Nader is already polling at 5 or 6% at the polls, not true? I do not think the GP would be so successful this year.”

    He is indeed. He also polled at 4%, several months back, before he’d even announced an exploratory committee and with Ron Paul also included in the poll as a Libertarian.

    I suspect that he and (if the LP nominates him) Bob Barr, will be the only third party candidate of any note in this cycle.

    (Well, perhaps Alan Keyes, as well, if he manages to capture the CP nod, but not likely, since they seem hard pressed to pretend he doesn’t exist and he’s gotten even less press than Gravel did as a Democrat near the end.)

  25. Mike Gillis Says:

    “He has moved in the right direction but I fear that he still doesn’t get it. I am beginning to think he is like Obama: generally good on Iraq, but not so good in a general sense on foreign policy.”

    Except that Obama isn’t generally good on Iraq. Listen to what Jeremy Scahill has to say about the Obama/Clinton stance on the war that speaks only of scaling down “combat troops” and leaving a “residual” force of what would amount to 20,000-60,000 troops to do “police action” and “strike at terrorists”, while keeping over 100,000 contractors in place there (including mercs like Blackwater). Those troops seem to stay there indefinitely in their plans according to Scahill and the Center for Progress (a Dem thinktank).

    Not to mention Obama’s hawkishness on Pakistan and Iran, or his past hawkishness on Iraq from 2004-2006, where he voted for every appropriation bill to fund the occupation, voted against every timetable for withdrawal and when he ran for the Senate in July 2004, told the Chicago Tribune, that his position on Iraq “isn’t that different from George Bush’s position.”

    He’s a phony and he’s marketing himself to a increasingly anti-war electorate, and the fact that he’s been able to duck alot of important votes on the war (like the authorization vote) and hide behind an antiwar speech made in 2003 to paint himself as anti-war.

    He lies.

    He didn’t “oppose this war since the beginning”, he opposed it AT the beginning, and flipped back when the political winds reversed direction.

    Just the same way he reversed course on NAFTA. I believe it was Alan Keyes came out against NAFTA in a debate in Illinois in 2004 and Obama that defended it. Now he’s positioning himself as more anti-NAFTA than Hillary (and telling the Canadians “wink wink, I’m just saying that to get votes”).

    The guy is a charismatic person, a skilled orator and a very handsome man. But he’s also a fraud and outside of his empty calls for “change” and “hope”, he’s not saying much of anything at all.

    Vote third party.

  26. Frank Says:

    Ritchie or a Gravel/Jingozian or Barr/Jingozian

  27. dodsworth Says:

    Except that Obama isn’t generally good on Iraq,

    Certainly, he isn’t compared to the likes of Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart. I was speaking in comparative terms. Obama is much better than McCain and Clinton on Iraq. Having said that, given Barr’s comments on Latin America, there is reason to ask whether Barr is any better than Obama on Iraq. Let’s not forget that he actually voted for the war. Has Barr taken a firm stand, for example, that he will withdraw all troops from the Middle East?

  28. Mike Gillis Says:

    No, Obama’s stance is comparable to Clinton’s. Their plans are practically identical on that front.

    I’m not going to defend Barr on Iraq because I’m not backing him and I don’t know what his official position is.

    But I reject the notion, “well at least Obama is better than McCain”. Everybody is better than SOMEONE on any given issue. That doesn’t make them good. Third party folks should know that better than anyone.

    I’d argue that Ted Bundy isn’t as bad as Jeffrey Dahmer, but that doesn’t say much good for Ted.

    Hell, saying you’re better on Iraq than John McCain is like saying you’re a better gymnast than Stephen Hawking. You can clear a bar like that even if you trip over it.

  29. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Jim,

    Actually, I didn’t do the investigating—it was passed on to me. Since I’m not sure whether the person who did the background work wants to be publicly named or not, I won’t do so at this time.

    I made two big mistakes with Barr:

    - Waiting for him to announce (or, as it turned out, announce that he’s thinking about announcing), on the assumption that his position papers, etc., would have “the beef” on the issues so that he could be judged on where he is now rather than where he used to be; and
    - Provisionally accepting the word of some people who know him better than I do that he’s “come a long way and is damn near a radical libertarian” (composite paraphrase).

    So, I sat back and didn’t look closely, making the dangerous assumption that when Barr came out, he’d look “reasonably libertarian.” Maybe not libertarian enough that I could personally go hog-wild in support of his candidacy for the nomination, but libertarian enough that I wouldn’t be mortified to have him up-ticket from me on the ballot under the same label, especially given his very real political assets and the “road to Damascus” angle.

    So far, I still wouldn’t call it a complete bust. He’s getting some media that overall positively portrays the LP. That’s not a bad thing, it’s a good thing, especially to the extent that it has overshadowed/pushed out Root’s schmaltzy sideshow hokum. Can’t say I care much for the “GOP linkage” image that it includes, but Gravel’s balancing that out some.

    That’s the positive side. The negative side is:

    - His position papers are gutless, non-specific crap. I ended up curled up in the corner in a fetal position laughing my ass off when Gordon snarked about “the reality of political campaigning.” The first reality of political campaigning is that if you want to run for President of the United States, you had better be damn good and ready to take firm stands on specific issues.

    This isn’t an ideological complaint—if Barr had taken positions I disagreed with, I could respect that. Instead, he went as far as possible to avoid taking any positions at all. People don’t respect that, and people don’t respond to it. You may get hammered when you take a stand—but you have to. Name rec and novelty are only good for a short free ride.

    - I’m beginning to think that the reason his position papers are gutless is that his positions aren’t going to have much support among Libertarians—that he’s hoping to get the nomination on name rec/novelty. I don’t trust that. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that if Barr is allowed to take the nomination without being specific, we may find out that “the new Barr” looks a lot like “the old Barr” ... and I don’t know about you, but “the old Barr” isn’t my idea of the ideal LP ticket-topper.
    - Barr’s potential is starting to look perhaps a little overblown. His “exploratory committee” web site came pre-loaded with $7k in contributions. Five days in, with the media honeymoon in full swing, he’s raised another $15k. That’s pretty damn good by normal LP standards … but a big part of Barr’s alleged appeal is that he would “raise the Barr” by bringing in the big media, the big bucks and the big votes.

    He’s delivering reasonably well on the media end (although not especially more so than Gravel did in the same honeymoon week, but I give him extra credit for preempting the Wayne Root Circus & Medicine Show among GOP-leaners). On the money end, underwhelming. And if his positions aren’t noticeably different, in a libertarian direction, from those of “the old Barr,” I don’t think he’ll deliver the votes, either.

  30. dodsworth Says:

    Third party folks should know that better than anyone.

    Which “third party folks?” Barr? I’m not voting for or defending Obama! The issue here is whether Barr is any better on Iraq than Obama. I don’t see any evidence that he is. This relates directly to your concern since Barr is now the probable front-runner for a third party.

  31. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Good to see people taking a closer look at Obama on Iraq.

    I was talking to an acquaintance the other day who used to be one of the most active Greens in my area, and was surprised to hear him say he was supporting Obama “because the war is the most important issue.”

    My response was pretty simple, but it left my acquaintance not very happy: When Obama was running for his Senate seat, he was against the war. Since winning that Senate seat, he has voted yes on every bill to continue the war. Now he’s running for president and says he’s against the war. Since he lied through his teeth to you last time, what the hell makes you think he’s telling the truth this time?

  32. Mike Gillis Says:

    Well, the worst case scenario I see is that Barr is SLIGHTLY better than Obama on foreign policy, given that he recently put out a piece about non-internventionism and Obama’s been vocally hawkish on Iran and Pakistan.

    How GOOD Barr is… that’s an open question that demands an answer.

    I mainly disputed that Obama was “generally good” on Iraq. He’s not. He’s established that well enough.

    Barr’s a question mark on Iraq and his record of voting for the invasion is disconcerting. He isn’t a consistent opponent of the war in the way that, say, Nader, Gravel and Phillies have been.

  33. Mike Gillis Says:

    Thomas, I’ve seen the same thing with Greens and progressives I know. Obama has this almost magical ability to shut peoples’ brains off.

  34. dodsworth Says:

    Well, the worst case scenario I see is that Barr is SLIGHTLY better than Obama on foreign policy, given that he recently put out a piece about non-internventionism and Obama’s been vocally hawkish on Iran and Pakistan.

    Again, I was speaking in comparative terms, that’s all. I can blast Obama’s foreign policy flaws and hypocracies with the best of them. As to Barr, on what basis do you base this “worst case scenario?” Sure….he can mouth generalities about non-interventionsm being a good thing, but so can some extreme hawks that I know. That doesn’t prove much. What about specifics? Has Barr, for example, gone on record for pulling all troops out the region. If not, your worst case scenario becomes much more dubious.

  35. dodsworth Says:

    Also, in fairness to Obama, he has come out against using nukes in Pakistan. Has Barr?

  36. Mike Gillis Says:

    Which is precisely why we shouldn’t use comparative terms to determine a candidate’s worth. “Better” and “worse” and not synonymous with “good” and “bad”.

    Sure, Obama said we wouldn’t “nuke” Pakistan, but he’s totally open to a unilateral preemptive invasion on a country that didn’t attack us simply because it served our perceived interests.

    It’s essentially rationalizing a terrible policy by creating a worse alternative - and a worse alternative always exists.

    That’s the equivalent of defending Bush’s Iraq policy because he didn’t call for nukes either, had their been neocons (and I’m sure there were) who wanted the use of nuclear weapons to remain on the table.

  37. Mike Gillis Says:

    “As to Barr, on what basis do you base this “worst case scenario?”

    I’m basing this on the fact that Obama doesn’t even mouth the rhetoric of non-interventionism. In fact, he does the opposite when talking about situations other than Iraq.

    He limits his anti-war rhetoric to Iraq alone and seems quite willing to openly continue the Bush Doctrine in countries like Iran and Pakistan. He provides cover for himself by creating a false moral high horse over the issue of whether nuclear weapons should be used in our preemptive wars.

    Back to the Jeffrey Dahmer/ Ted Bundy comparison. Both were vicious serial killers, but Bundy didn’t eat his victims. Dahmer did.

    While Dahmer is clearly worse, Bundy’s still a bad guy.

    There’s always a lower rung on the moral ladder and its easier to point to someone that’s worse than yourself than it is to justify your own place on it on its own inherent worth.

  38. Mike Gillis Says:

    I’m not trying to jump down your throat. This discussion began when you stated that Obama’s position on Iraq was “generally good”. I disagreed and then we got into a comparative argument, which I think is irrelevant to any candidate’s position.

    Barr’s rhetoric, at least, is willing to take a stand against future preemptive wars of aggression. Obama’s isn’t. That’;s the justification I use for my “worst case scenario”.

    Barr’s stance on the war is much shakier than many other Libertarian hopefuls’ like Kubby or Phillies. Here’s hoping that he doesn’t use the comparative argument against someone like Root (who is historically much more hawkish and pro-war) to create the illusion that he’s more anti-war than he actually is.

  39. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    Mike, your absolutely wrong, Obama is the greeatest president that will ever be. He is just trying to get the majority of our trogledyte country by appearing more moderate than he really is. Ralph Nader should be arrested for treason for his crimes against humanity for getting Bush elected. I am a big supporter of Mike Gravel, but he needs to run with Bob Barr as a libertarian, to balance out the spoiler effect. Politicians from the Democrats and Republicans are the main ones there, we do owe them our votes, especially when we have a great oen like Obama who is bringing about the Catholic Trotskyite socialist revolution.

  40. Laine Says:

    LOL Nader crimes against humanity lol? You are a lunatic sorry. What next, are you going to round up the 250,000 registered Democrats who voted for Bush into a concentration camp?

  41. dodsworth Says:

    Mike:

    I could have chosen my words better. I think we essentially agree. Barr has left me pretty lukewarm so far but I am ready to be persuaded.

  42. Fidell Says:

    new forum online
    bobbarrforums.com

  43. Mike Gillis Says:

    Laine,

    Not to mention the 7-10 million Democrats nationwide that voted for Bush, or the fact that Gore ran a lame campaign, or that he chose a hawkish morality cop as his running mate (who is now campaigning for McCain), or the Supreme Court stopping the recount, or the Gore campaign not asking for a full state recount, or the uncounted overvotes that would have thrown the election to Gore, or the thousands of black voters wrongfully disenfranchised, or the butterfly ballot that accidently gave some Gore votes to Buchanan.

    That’s a lot of folks to toss into the gulag.

  44. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Knappster,

    Oh, I’m sure Barr has taken MANY positions I’d disagree with. Of course, I disagree with Badnarik, too, on many things…drivers licenses come to mind.

    Barr seems to have evolved mightily. Are his positions “ideal”? Of course not. It’s the wrong question. The right question is: Can he put L ideas into play better than anyone else?

    Yes. He’s articulate. He’s credible. He’s a 20 on compared with the rest.

    Gravel adds balance. And credibility.

    What more is there to say?

    The alternative is Hogarth/Nolan.

    Politics is poetry, not science, IMO. Image actually IS everything.

  45. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Here’s a transcript, just fyi…

    CAVUTO: As Obama, Clinton, McCain, they keep pushing ahead, now word that a new name could be entering this race—my next guest forming an exploratory committee to run as a third-party candidate.

    With us now, former Republican Congressman from Georgia Bob Barr.

    Congressman, good to have you.

    BARR: Neil, it is always a pleasure to be with you.

    CAVUTO: John McCain does not cut it for you?

    BARR: No, John McCain does not cut it for this libertarian. And he’s not going to be able to cut it for an awful lot of Americans out there that see in John McCain more of the same old problem, Washington insider, status quo, big government, that Americans have come really to look very, very disdainfully on.

    CAVUTO: All right. What have other Republicans said to you, Congressman?

    BARR: Well, I have heard mostly good things from other Republicans who are very upset with not having a real choice, of being faced with a very closed system.

    Some Republicans certainly are upset, because they feel that anybody that would dare try and play in their game—that is, a game that has been controlled for 150 years by just two parties—is somehow un-American. But most people that I have talked to and that have communicated with me are very excited about the possibility.

    CAVUTO: All right.

    But there is that—and you have heard this before, I am sure, sir, that you’re going to take votes away from John McCain, presumably. And it could change, but that would probably hand the White House, in that event, as we look at all the ones who are considering or have announced a third-party run—which I guess in this case would be a fifth-, sixth-, seventh, or eighth-party run—that it’s going to hand the White House to a Democrat.

    What do you say?

    BARR: Well, frankly, I would worry about John McCain siphoning votes away from my candidacy, if I run.

    (LAUGHTER)

    But I’m not going to whine about that.

    CAVUTO: Good point.

    BARR: Really, the sad state of affairs is, if you have two major-party candidates, and each one of them simply whines that they might lose the election because somebody else might get into the race on their side or against them, it really ought to cause those two parties, and particularly Senator McCain and the Republicans, to take a long, hard look at why their platform is so weak, why their candidate might be so weak, that they would have to worry about… (CROSSTALK)

    CAVUTO: Well, it’s a very good point, Congressman. But since I’m Italian by heritage, I think, if—this is how Italy does elections. You know, they have half-a-dozen people running, and they—for the ultimate winner, it’s really just a plurality.

    So, do you think that, if you all run—and I was showing Ralph Nader and Gravel, if he goes in there, and on and on—that—that the ultimate winner is going to get really just a plurality of the vote, which I think the last time that has happened would be Bill Clinton in ‘92, with Ross Perot taking a large chunk of the vote? What do you think?

    BARR: What I’m concerned about is opening up our political system, so that it is no longer dominated by the two-party status quo monopoly.

    And the voters really are very upset, not just with the system, not just with the candidates, but with some of the issues that they’re not really hearing debated, particularly on the Republican side, about really cutting government spending and the size of government.

    We just heard from my good friend Vito Fossella, who’s talking about, Well, we really shouldn’t throw billions at the problem, but, if we are going to, let’s do it according to my plan.

    CAVUTO: OK.

    BARR: That is not really smaller government at play there.

    CAVUTO: All right, Congressman, very good seeing you.

  46. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Hell, saying you’re better on Iraq than John McCain is like saying you’re a better gymnast than Stephen Hawking. You can clear a bar like that even if you trip over it.

    Thank you. It’s been a while since I’ve had this good a laugh.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Bob,

    You write:

    “The right question is: Can he put L ideas into play better than anyone else?”

    Okay, great. I can agree that that is the question.

    The answer to the question is, “in order to put L ideas into play better than anyone else, he has to put L ideas into play.”

    So far, I’m not seeing much evidence that the ideas Barr has been putting into play since coming to the LP are, for the most part, L ideas; nor have I seen any evidence of a sudden change toward L ideas on his part since the launch of his exploratory committee.

    Federalism and Constitutionalism are interesting procedural concepts. They are not, however, “libertarian ideas.” They can be used for libertarian purposes or non-libertarian purposes, and Barr made it pretty clear on Hannity & Colmes last night that he’d prefer to see them used for conservative, not libertarian, purposes. I wouldn’t rate that particular outing a “20” unless you put a negative sign in front of it.

  48. Yank Says:

    Gravel is a prune. He hasn’t nutted off since the Reagan years. Except when Kim Kardashian is on tv. Watch out Senator.

  49. paulie Says:

    LOL @ Yank

Leave a Reply