Marc Montoni has questions for Bob Barr. How about you?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am hoping to interview Bob Barr in Birmingham this weekend if he has time. If he doesn’t, he is always welcome to answer written questions when and if he does have the time. I have asked for input on what questions to ask if I do get the interview. Please add some suggested questions in the comments.

So far, the only set of questions I have received has come from Marc Montoni of the LP Radical Caucus. Here they are; I am posting them as-is with no editorial commentary. If anyone has other questions to ask, please do so here today. Personally, I find #11 to be an interesting question.


1. Mr. Barr, while a congressman, you supported a lot of pork, including federal cash for Gwinnett, Bartow, and Cherokee airports and transportation projects. You also steered business to Lockheed-Martin’s Marietta, GA plant for the C-130 cargo plane and the gold-plated F-22 Raptor fighter. How does this relate to fighting for smaller government?

2. Mr. Barr, you supported Bush’s military tribunals for Iraqis captured during the war (“Barr Stands Behind President on Tribunal Procedures” 3/21/2002). How does this relate to fighting for smaller government? And given that the Constitution doesn’t say its protections are only for citizens, how does your support of depriving individuals of their rights encourage government to properly respect the rights of people who are citizens?

3. Mr. Barr, you supported federal interference in assisted suicide (“Barr Praises Administration Stance Against Suicide Doctors”, 11/8/2001). How does this relate to fighting for smaller government? And have you ever sat at a patient’s bedside while he was writhing in agonizing pain for weeks on end, waiting to die, and explained to him why he couldn’t choose a dignified manner of death as the sole owner of his own body?

4. Mr. Barr, you supported federal meddling in contracts between HMO’s and their customers (“Barr Hails Passage of HMO Reform Legislation”, 8/2/2001). How does this relate to fighting for smaller government? What does abrogating the terms of contracts have to do with freedom?

5. Mr. Barr, you supported giving money to religious organizations for charitable programs (“Barr Hails Passage of President?s Faith-Based Initiative”, 7/19/2001). How does this relate to fighting for smaller government?

6. Mr. Barr, you supported a wholesale expansion of the fed into schools with your cosponsorship of H.R. 1 in 2001—“The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” (“Barr Cosponsors Bush Education Bill”, 3/22/2001). How does this relate to fighting for smaller government?

7. Mr. Barr, you supported a discriminatory ban on Wiccan expression in the military (“Barr Demands End To Taxpayer-funded Witchcraft On American Military Bases, May 18, 1999). How does this relate to fighting for smaller government?

8. Mr. Barr, you supported summarily evicting students from school for bringing a gun onto school property—seemingly forgetting that millions of young Americans did this right into the seventies—regardless of whether they were simply going hunting after school or not. You apparently wanted to forget that the Constitution doesn’t just protect the rights of adults, but children too (“Testimony of U.S. Representative Bob Barr on The Child Safety and Protection Act of 1999, Before The House Committee on Rules”, June 14, 1999). How does this relate to fighting for smaller government?

9. Mr. Barr, you voted with the majority to further socialize medicine by voting for H.R. 4680, the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2000 (June 28, 2000). How does this relate to fighting for smaller government?

10. Mr. Barr, you supported flag-waving nationalistic fervor by voting several times in favor of a constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States Flag; in 2000 it was HJ Resolution 33 (June 24, 1999). How does this relate to fighting for smaller government? What does the flag-worship cult have to do with liberty?

11. Will you or have you openly, publicly, and clearly repudiated all of these previous nanny-state actions of yours?

12. Why did you wait until you’re no longer in congress to repudiate them? Shouldn’t you have thought about all of that Leviathan-state-building you were doing while you were in congress and it actually mattered?

139 Responses to “Marc Montoni has questions for Bob Barr. How about you?”

  1. disinter Says:

    Mr. Barr - Do you really think you can ride Ron Paul’s coat tails after your cronies, and your party, were begging Ron Paul to loose months before the primaries by constantly insinuating that he would run as a third party candidate?

  2. disinter Says:

    *lose

  3. Tom Says:

    While in the CIA 1971-1976 did you play a role in the Phoenix program in Viet Nam? Did you play a role in the Congressional hearings about that program? Did you try to stop the Phoenix program? Did/do you agee with CIA policies to overthrow governments that the US didn’t like? Like Iran? Did you have involvement in Iran/Contra Arms for hostages?

  4. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Marc, you always were very good at getting right to the point! I see nothing’s changed! I am interested in Barr’s responses.

  5. silver Republican Says:

    Well, there’s all this talk about things that he did wrong in congress. I’d like to here what he NOW views as his greatest victory for small government.

  6. Paulie Says:

    Thanks, silver Republican! I would like to ask a balanced set of questions, not an ambush interview. Help from both Barr supporters and detractors is welcome - and, especially, the help of those on the fence.

  7. Roscoe Says:

    Did you or did you not cheat in the Third Grade election for Blackboard monitor? We don’t want a point by point interrogation do we? If he apologizes for all his shortcomings and can articulate an answer to the following question

    “To what do you attribute your “Road to Damascus” moment when you realized that your whole political career stood in opposition to the ideas you now purport to believe?”

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    Id like to hear Barr explain his decision to pay for his girlfriend’s abortion.

  9. Paulie Says:

    Did you or did you not cheat in the Third Grade election for Blackboard monitor?

    I wouldn’t equate that to asking him about his record in Congress and whether he specifically repudiates his recorded votes which helped shape our laws.

    “To what do you attribute your “Road to Damascus” moment when you realized that your whole political career stood in opposition to the ideas you now purport to believe?”

    Good question.

    Id like to hear Barr explain his decision to pay for his girlfriend’s abortion.

    Tough, but fair.

    Anyone have a good way to phrase impeachment-related questions? I hinted at it in KC (CNN played the audio of me asking the questions and video of Barr answering) and would like to follow up.

    Basically (paraphrase) I asked Barr whether he thought the abuses of the Bush administration were better, equal or worse than those of the Clintons.
    His response was that abuses had long been building up, but had gotten dramatically worse under Bush Jr. especially since 9/11.

  10. Melissa Says:

    Trent, that’s just ignorance on your part. Read the transcript. His ex-wife made the decision after being diagnosed with cancer. I guess he should have forced her to change her mind and risk both lives. Would that make you happy?

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    Melissa,

    I’v not passed judgement on Barr about this. I just want to hear him explain how he came to that decision.

  12. Melissa Says:

    Are you joking? You said “girlfriend.” You just ran with this rumor just like Flynt intended without bothering to check a fact when a real transcript exists on this. And what decision? The decision to allow his wife at the time make a decision to risk her life own life? I would say that was her decision.

    Whatever. Guys like you looking for a juicy tidbit will repeat any rumor you hear on the web. Between and Paulie, this site is headed in the dumps.

  13. Susan Hogarth Says:

    “To what do you attribute your “Road to Damascus” moment when you realized that your whole political career stood in opposition to the ideas you now purport to believe?”

    But according to Barr, he did not have such a ‘moment’. According to him, he was always fighting for smaller government - even when he was voting for it (ref: recent campaign release on USA PATRIOT Act and DOMA, stating that Barr voted for them in order to preserve individual freedoms). So I think what Marc wants to know - and certainly what I want to know - is how, for instance, his vote for an anti-flag-burning amendment was voting for the greater cause of individual liberty and smaller government. Maybe he voted for the amendment in exchange for a promise that flag-burners wouldn’t receive lifetime prison sentences. Maybe he’s a hero; a champion of the individual and a tireless fighter for smaller government.

    Or. Maybe. Not.

  14. Paulie Says:

    What is it that you have against my posts, Melissa?

    I don’t have a finalized list of questions, I’m just seeking input. If Trent’s question is factually incorrect, I would like to know before I ask it.

  15. Paulie Says:

    And by the way, whether it was his wife or his girlfriend is a factual matter, and I would like to have that right before I ask, but the main point of Trent’s question still stands.

    There are any number of ways to answer, one of which you have offered. Asking a question does not presume an answer.

  16. Nexus Says:

    I have one question I would like all candidates to answer.
    What, in your mind, should be the role of the federal government?

  17. Brian Miller Says:

    Do you really think you can ride Ron Paul’s coat tails

    Ignoring Barr’s positions for the moment…

    I don’t think Barr is planning to ride Ron Paul’s coattails. I suspect he’s rather planning to at least win his party’s nomination and appeal to more than 1% of the electorate.

    your party, were begging Ron Paul to loose months before the primaries

    In Barr’s defense, he wasn’t running around calling for the LP to go out of business in favor of the GOP, like the vast majority of Ron Paul advocates (including yourself) were.

    While documentation of Barr’s support for GOP candidates raises serious questions, the last people with a moral right to question Barr’s fiduciary commitment to the LP are Ron Paul supporters. These are people who worked actively to fracture, undermine and destroy our party for the benefit of the GOP yet never delivered anything of substance to the so-called “libertarian movement” other than rationalizing of unlibertarian positions on immigration, LGBT rights, the Bill of Rights in general, the rights of minorities, and medical privacy rights (including a woman’s right to birth control).

    The Ron Paul folks have said more than their share. They are in no position whatsoever to start issuing challenges to any candidate, Barr or otherwise, on the basis of his “purity” as a Libertarian.

    The fact they’re trying to do so makes them raging hypocrites of the highest order—and underscore why the LP needs to look beyond these people to grow in the short term.

  18. Jonathan Cymberknopf Says:

    I’m glad you brought up all three issues because I support all three of his votes. The more I learn about Bob Barr, the more I like him better than McCain.

  19. Paulie Says:

    Which three issues are those?

  20. Paulie Says:

    Susan, fair enough.

    Perhaps it wasn’t a Road to Damascus moment; more like a gradual evolution which is probably still taking place.

    If you have some questions that I can ask to sort that all out in a fair, non-hostile manner, I am looking for input on how exactly to ask the questions.

  21. Paulie Says:

    Brian,

    I don’t know of any likely opportunity that I will have to interview Ron Paul in the foreseeable future. I may (or may not) have the opportunity to ask Bob Barr questions tomorrow and/or the day after.

    Do you have any questions for Bob Barr?

  22. Gene Berkman Says:

    Bob Barr’s record in Congress IS important. If he wants to make up for that, he should run for Congress again, and get his record right. His record in Congress as it stands makes me unwilling to support him as a candidate for President on any ticket.

    I welcome his work for the Libertarian Party, and his lobbying work for the ACLU, the ACU and the Marijuana Policy Project. But it is premature to give him the nomination for President when his record speaks so loudly.

    I don’ t believe that the Libertarian Party has a candidate qualified to run for President this year. Let’s build our Movement locally and in the states, and maybe in 4 years (or 8) we can put a Libertarian/Constitutionalist/Antiwar coalition behind someone who brings a record of work for liberty to the table.

    This is not personal against Mr Barr, who is probably running because people have asked him. But I don’t feel comfortable supporting him this year.

  23. Paulie Says:

    Gene, I respect your opinion and share part of it. Not the part about running nobody, though.

    But, we get the chance to express our opinion on the candidates every day of every week.

    I may have a chance to actually ask the candidate questions. Do you have any questions you would like to ask him?

  24. Paulie Says:

    *Prospective candidate.

  25. bump Says:

    my question to Mr. Barr

    In recent interviews you have been a strong proponent of Federalism. Yet you voted for “no child left behind.” Would you still vote the same way now? If so, how is support of “no child left behind” consistent with Federalism?

  26. Susan Hogarth Says:

    If you have some questions that I can ask to sort that all out in a fair, non-hostile manner, I am looking for input on how exactly to ask the questions.

    I don’t like asking questions of people who have consistently failed to give anything resembling a clear and unambiguous answer, and Barr is definitely in that category. He’s had far more practice at avoiding a straight answer than I have had in designing a question that can’t be avoided by a professional politician, and I have better things to work on than such a Sisyphean task.

    So good luck to you, and I’m sure plenty of people will provide plenty of questions for Barr to avoid or obfuscate.

  27. Stefan Says:

    Meilissa: very good point. People can often jump to conclusions without considering the specific context. Being a pro-lifer, one could ask whether one should not make exceptions to the rule in the case where is woman is raped and/or where her live would be in danger and/or the child may be several disabled. Very difficult ethical questions.

    Questions to Barr are valid, but one should also keep in mind apart from Gravel and Barr, no other LP candidate has any voting record in congress and Barr could also not vote in congress since being associated with the LP. Although he joined officially in 2006, he has already endorsed Badnarik for president in 2004 and rejected Bush’s campaign. He approved the Patriot Act also ONLY after a clause that limit it validity and regretted afterwards voting for it in a time there was pressure by both parties to accept it. He does not have the same gold record as Ron Paul, perhaps one can say silver standard in conservative-libertarianism. Any politician can change his view. Apart from the disadvantage, there could be an advantage having such a candidate, as he can also gain trust to those that also voted this way initially and persuade them.

    Concerning the question about support for Bush’s military tribunals for Iraqis captured during the war, this is a security and judicial question and issue, and not one for smaller/limited government. National security is the responsibility of the federal government. Barr is a lawyer and these people should be tried and cannot be kept in prison indefinitely without any trial. You cannot use US judicial type of law with them.

  28. Michael Seebeck Says:

    I’ll ask Montoni a question about his own biases: Why does he consider the F-22 “gold-plated”? Has he ever seen one, read its specs or capabilities, or what it’s mission actually is? I can bet he hasn’t, and that’s typical rhetoric coming from someone who has no idea just how much proper tehcnology plays a crucial role in national defense and intelligence.

    Montoni ought to reword his questions to make them more objective. The substance is there, but his presentation sucks.

    One of these days the radicals will get a job behind the SCIFs and really learn what our defense and intelligence operations are all about. Until then I will just write that part of their position off as puerile, uninformed rhetoric.

  29. Ayn R. Key Says:

    I have to say those are excellent questions. These are serious issues that need to be discussed, and they need to be discussed by Barr. The only way he’s going to convince the doubters is by answering them. Sorry, Barr supporters, but if you want us won over these need to be answered. It’s the only way.

  30. Stefan Says:

    While some of the questions are relevant, some are clearly nonsensical. Flag waving has nothing to do with small or big government. It has to do with a strong, proud government. It cannot be necessarily be seen as a cult, this is common with all nations and has everything to do with liberty to display a flag.

    I could not find the proof that he voted for “no child left behind”. In case he voted for it, I suspect he would vote against that, and also not make that a state issue.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/GA/Bob_Barr.htm
    In the chart, he has moved from a hard-core conservative (with some libertarian leanings) to on a spot between conservative and libertarian, perhaps more libertarian than conservative? One should also differentiate on what his personal preference/decision is and what he would legislate, as this is not the same. For instance, one can personally never smoke and dislike it strongly, but vote against a federal smoking ban, as it is unconstitutional and the rights and freedoms of smokers should also be guaranteed.

  31. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    None of this matters. Bob Barr will win the Libertarian nomination and steal Republican votes to inaugurate the Christian Socialist Libertarian Obama revolution.

    Please pray for the pope and please pray for Barack Obama. Amen, alleluiah.

  32. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    I’d also like to refine question #7.

    Keep in mind, everyone, that Wiccans and other Pagans are a large but often silent minority in the Libertarian Party. I know at one Convention (I decline to say where or when) at LEAST (probably more) than 10 percent of accredited delegates were from some Pagan path. This was just an informal count done by about five of us who were talking among ourselves. So I feel it’s important to revisit his 1999 fiasco.

    In my mind, not only was the attempt to ban Wiccans from military service a major flub in terms of government intrusion, it also bespeaks of a potential flaw in Barr himself. Does he actually have a libertarian understanding of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment? Can he come to accept that Wiccans, Pagans, Buddhists, Jews, agnostics, and especially Atheists are the backbone of this Party? If we were to actually win, odds are that some of his Libertarian staffers would not be Christians. Would that be okay, or is he determined to insulate himself in a cloak of being holier-than-thou?

    Feel free to cut and paste from these questions but I do want to get a sense of where he stands o this.

    For the record, were I to win any sort of major office that required staffers, I would be happy to accept whoever was best suited for the position, regardless of personal uniqueness. Also for the record, I have no current plans to do so.

  33. johncjackson Says:

    How does ending tax-funded Wiccan expression have anything to do with opposing smaller government?

    The religious discrimination is wrong and can be argued on libertarian points but such discrimination is a step in the right direction, obviously.

    I also think Brian Miller is right-on concerning Bob Barr and Republican Ron Paul. While the “libertarian” love of Conservative “Constitutionalist” Republican Ron Paul does not have anything to do with Bob Barr’s shortcomings, I find it interesting/funny when they same people who worship Ron Paul find so much fault in Barr’s conservative background.

  34. Michael Seebeck Says:

    John Jackson, by that argument there should be no chaplaincy in the military whatsoever, for any faith. Is that what you are advocating?

    And as a LIBERTARIAN who also supports Dr. Paul, I think your attempt to separate the two groups when there is clearly a great deal of overlap (as Brian Miller, in his well-known hatred of Dr. Paul does regularly on other lists)—I think that attempt is fallacious and disingenuous.

    My problem with Barr’s background is that his big government, anti-freedom record is well-known and frankly, Lucy, he’s got sum ‘splainin’ to do. My wife’s problem with his record is his past hostility to minority religious groups, among other things.

  35. Susan Hogarth Says:

    He approved the Patriot Act also ONLY after a clause that limit it validity and regretted afterwards voting for it in a time there was pressure by both parties to accept it.

    To be fair to Barr, he actually says he voted for the patriot act in order to get the sunset clause, not for any other other reason. From his recent email:

    Sheer principle drives me to always take the path of liberty but it also drives me to be honest with myself to realize that sticking to principle means making lemonade when given a handful of lemons.

    I’ll give you a good example, which was my vote for the USA PATRIOT Act. As much it pained me, I cast an “aye” vote for the very piece of legislation that I oppose today. I could have easily voted against it and, believe me, I wanted to.

    At the time of the vote, a few weeks after the attacks of September 11th, it was clear that law enforcement had a need to quickly identify and confront additional terrorists threats. There was also a need to protect our liberties in the future, long after an immediate threat had passed.

    Rather than casting a no vote, I used the influence that I had with my fellow members of Congress and negotiated a sunset provision for some of the most intrusive aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act. This led to a requirement to reauthorize those provisions, which put those issues back on the table and up for debate long after I left Congress.

    I think this “I was really always a libertarian; let me explain how my vote for socialistic programme #32,000 was actually a vote for freedom in disguise” is a bad tack to take with Libertarians. Gravel pulled that crap, too, when he was in NC, and it sounded just as hollow. The truth, I suspect, is that both are opportunistic washed-up politicians with some (very welcome!) leanings toward libertarianism who happen to smell a spot on the ballot. As someone who’s busted ass to help get the LP on the ballot for past few years, I do in fact resent that. If their message actually was Libertarian, fine; I’d be all for them. But the truth is that neither is offering a particularly libertarian approach, and neither is willing to say “I was an enemy of freedom when I voted for X,Y, and Z anti-libertarian things in congress.”

    Both Barr and Gravel have had ample time and opportunity to demonstrate their suitability as Libertarian standard-bearers. Far form being hounded, both have been treated (for the most part) with courtesy and kid gloves. Neither has - to my way of thinking - really shown a fundamental change, or given anything more than lipservice to Libertarian issues. Both have actively pushed anti-Libertarian causes and candidates while trying to represent themselves as actual Libertarians.

    I did not work the past four years to put Barr or Gravel’s name on the ballot in NC. I worked to put a Libertarian candidate on the ballot.

    That is why I intend to support and vote for Mary Ruwart. I hope others will join me in selecting a Libertarian in May to represent the Libertarian Party in November.

  36. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    Barr’s proposed 1999 legislation would have gone far beyond merely not allowing Circles at Fort Hood, it would have made it illegal for a Wiccan to serve his/her country. That’s clearly not allowed.

    The whole issue of tax-funded religion in the military is especially thorny and probably beyond the scope of this thread as that is not what Barr’s legislation covered.

  37. LifeMember Says:

    Paulie, why all the biased questions? Everyone knows that Barr has changed since he left Congress except for the radicals who refuse to pull their heads out of the sand.

    Gordon, this was a blatant attack on Barr. I say you use TPW to go after Ruwart and Kubby and expose anything negative they’ve ever said or done. There’s enough in Mary’s book to ensure that no one in the mainstream media ever touches her. There’s enough on Kubby with the arrest and all to keep him in loosertarian status forever. If you show their dark sides, Barr can win. Come on, Gordon. Take off your gloves.

  38. Geoffrey the Liberator Says:

    Dear Mr. Barr:

    My humble advise to you sir is this—drop out now whilst you have the chance. I will personally call the Queen and have her issue you citizenship to the UK where we in the UK LP do not spend time beating ourselves up and instead focus on the big issues. You may then come over here where we will welcome you with open arms.

    Obviously, these people on the wrong side of the pond wish to keep their little party small and insure the D’s & R’s remain in power for a long time to come. They are not interested in growing their party in order to help their country go in a more libertarian direction.

    On the other hand, looking at your web site, you have raised a considerable amount in a very small time, I would gander more than your other opponents combined. Thus, there may be a silent majority who probably pay very little attention to what these little guppies are saying, in which case I would urge you to ignore them!

    The more they talk, the more I think people will support you just in spite.

  39. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Hey Geoffrey, don’t you have some security cameras to remove, like say, several million of them? Don’t begin to lecture us in the States when you in the UK are truly One Nation Under Surveillance…

  40. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Yes, Geoffrey, your attitude is reprehensible. We’re not on “the wrong side of the pond”. we just landad on the best land on earth, threw off your obsolete monarchy stuff, and became the greatest nation on earth, eclipsing your British Empire. Your arrogance hides your envy poorly.

  41. Geoffrey the Liberator Says:

    Yes sir we do—one of those big issues we are working on. In fact, your government is about to do the same in many cities (NY and DC already have). Perhaps this would be a good question for Mr. Barr: “How do you feel about the explosion of surveillance cameras in and around American cities & what is the best way to protect Americans while still preserving individual privacy and liberty?”

    See—instead of arguing with those that might disagree with your position, spend your time either asking relevant questions, or perhaps volunteering to collect petitions so whomever is your ultimate candidate can get on your ballot.

  42. stopdrugwar Says:

    Marc has excellent questions and I too would like to hear his answers. However, I’m guessing there is no answer he can give that will satisfy the many Libertarian purists dedicated to making a point rather than making a difference.

    That’s fine and as an anarcho-capitalist, I share their political philosophy. However, if we are going to continue to reject candidates because they are not strict adherents to our platform then we should stop using the Nolan charts and calling folks who score in the upper quadrant “libertarians”.

    That said, I recognize there is much in Bob Barr’s record that he needs to explain and apologize for, but please, my libertarian brothers and sisters, let’s also give him credit for the words and actions that he has put forth since leaving congress. At some point we need to forgive and forget and stop letting the possible good be the victim of the impossible perfect.

  43. Geoffrey the Liberator Says:

    “Libertarian purists dedicated to making a point rather than making a difference”—well said good chap! Before anyone posts they should say what they have done to expand liberty today. For example, I gave a hearty donation to The Freedom Association today. So to Mr. Seebeck, when was the last time you did anything (other than throw insults into the wind like the foul fart that you are)—for example, when did you last donate to your party?

  44. Paulie Says:

    Montoni ought to reword his questions to make them more objective. The substance is there, but his presentation sucks.

    No questions have been asked yet - at least, not directly to Barr, unless he comments here and answers them in the form they have been asked, which I don’t see happening. If you would like to propose different wording, I would love to see/”hear” it.

    Please shoot actual questions, as you would like to see them asked, in the comments.

  45. Paulie Says:

    I don’t like asking questions of people who have consistently failed to give anything resembling a clear and unambiguous answer, and Barr is definitely in that category.

    Fair enough. No one is obligated to participate in this exercise. But for anyone out there who does have a question for Mr. Barr, please put it in the comments here.

    All questions are welcome regardless of whether you like Bob Barr or not. I’ll try to sort them out to get a sampling of both.

  46. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Go back to your afternoon tea, Geoffrey. I am what some people in the LP call a “hyperactiviist”. I’ll hold up my creds against anybody in the LP. I’ve served in the LP at local and state levels in two states, and soon a third. I’ve run campaigns, volunteered on campaigns and been a candidate. I’ve done outreach that has reached a few dozen to a few hundred thousand. I’ve done media interaction, bylaws work, and forgotten more nuts and bolts of party infrastucture than I care to admit. about the only thing I haven’t done is run for a national LP office or be a county or state chair. In short, I have much more in the Party spurs department than Barr does.

    The “what have you done for Liberty today?” question is a bogus one because no matter how one answers it, it’s never enough. I won’t fall into that trap. Considering you are in a nation that is far more authoritarian and socilaist than I, it seems to me you have much more work to do than I.

  47. Paulie Says:

    Paulie, why all the biased questions? Everyone knows that Barr has changed since he left Congress except for the radicals who refuse to pull their heads out of the sand.

    I haven’t asked any questions yet. As I said in the original post, so far those were the only questions I got after having asked for input here and elsewhere. Yours are welcome as well, just as I told silver Republican in one of the first comments.

    Radicals are a large and important part of the party whose nomination Barr may be asking for. Thus, the questions of radicals are certainly welcome as well, but I would like to make sure that any questions I end up asking do not contain errors of fact and are not hostile in tone.

    Thus, I am attempting to vet them here with reader input.


    Gordon, this was a blatant attack on Barr.

    No, it was not. It was, and is, a sincere attempt to elicit the questions that members of the LP have in deciding whether Bob Barr should be our presidential nominee, if he in fact decides he wants to be.

    Your questions are more than welcome as well.


    I say you use TPW to go after Ruwart and Kubby and expose anything negative they’ve ever said or done.

    Please do. We need to vet out candidates carefully. I sincerely hope Steve and other people here, including you, take every opportunity to ask questions of Ruwart, Kubby and anyone else running for the nomination.


    There’s enough in Mary’s book to ensure that no one in the mainstream media ever touches her.

    Care to be specific?


    There’s enough on Kubby with the arrest and all to keep him in loosertarian status forever.

    Why would an arrest for breaking a law we oppose as unjust and evil be a mark against Kubby for our party’s nomination?

    Please, dear Member, go ahead and ask any questions you have of Mr. Kubby and Ms. Ruwart, as well.

    I can probably even get Kubby to answer them for you. Can’t make any guarantees on Ruwart - I haven’t even been signed up for her list yet, after several attempts.

  48. Michael Seebeck Says:

    “See—instead of arguing with those that might disagree with your position, spend your time either asking relevant questions, or perhaps volunteering to collect petitions so whomever is your ultimate candidate can get on your ballot.”

    It’s not the positions you have, it’s your attitude, and it’s crap.

  49. Paulie Says:

    “How do you feel about the explosion of surveillance cameras in and around American cities & what is the best way to protect Americans while still preserving individual privacy and liberty?”

    Thanks!

    I appreciate actual questions, rather than (so far, completely wrong) second-guessing as to why I am interested in asking questions.

    Your question is definitely one I may ask if given the chance.

    Got any others?

  50. Paulie Says:

    See—instead of arguing with those that might disagree with your position, spend your time either asking relevant questions, or perhaps volunteering to collect petitions so whomever is your ultimate candidate can get on your ballot.

    Thanks Geoffrey. Those so happen to be two things I am working on.

  51. Geoffrey the Liberator Says:

    Once again sir, you prove what a foul fart you are. It is very late here so off I go. But I commend you on what you have previously done—however, it is what you do today and tomorrow that will advance our cause. What you did yesterday got us to today. Please adjust your attitude as well and I bid you a goodevening.

  52. Paulie Says:

    let’s also give him credit for the words and actions that he has put forth since leaving congress.

    I’m all for doing that, and if you have some questions that would give him a good opening to talk about some of that, please by all means do not hesitate to ask them here.

  53. Geoffrey the Liberator Says:

    Mr. Paulie thank you for your help in making tomorrow better than today. Mr. Seebeck, please see above and follow Mr. Paulie’s example. Bye Bye.

  54. Bill Crain Says:

    Q for Mr. Barr:

    I’m pretty sure I heard you tell Sean Hannity that drug prohibition should be a state issue and Constitutionally no business of the federal government. I think, though, I also heard you say that faced with the state law question you would not personally vote to legalize crack cocaine.

    The phrase “crack cocaine” has a strong negative connotation and I’m sure Mr. Hannity’s intent was not to hear your answer, but to harm your credibility with his Republican audience. So let’s take that element out of the question and give you a real opportunity to clarify your position:

    Recognizing that it should be purely a state-law question and nothing to do with the office of the presidency, would you personally support decriminalization of the use of marijuana (or hydrocodone, or diazepam, if you prefer) for non-medical purposes by competent adults?

  55. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I believe that Marc Montoni’s questions are quite pointed, and not at all “biased”. I would however replace one word for nearly all one of them with one change. I would substitute “federalism” for “smaller government”.

    I don’‘t think that at this point that we can actually say that Barr is for smaller government, simply because being for “federalism” is only taking unconstitutional “powers” away from the federal government. As far as we know, Barr might be perfectly happy if the state governments took over every one of the “powers” that the federal government has shed as a result of a renewed commitment to federalism.

    In essence, I think we should first find out how Bob Barr responds to questions about his “epiphany” for federalism, given his votes in congress which Marc has pointed out, then we ought to find out if he believes that ANY level of government should take such responsibility over, or if such “authority is best left with people in their marketplace choices . . . essentially telling us if he is for “less intrusive government”. Obviously, (allegedly) running for and winning federal office does not put one in charge of foregoing such devolved powers at the state level, but I think Libertarians ought to know, just “how” libertarian is Bob Barr?

    I’d like to point out one positive point . . . returning to “federalism” is one STRATEGY to move the country closer to a libertarian one . . . government closer via localism is a positive step toward self government. . . the laws and authorities could then be further devolved to counties and cities, and then communities, etc.

    As I almost never fail to point out, Mary Ruwart’s history, record, speeches, books statements, career and life has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, she is beyond reproach regarding her being 100% committed to libertarianism, through and through.

  56. Paulie Says:

    Bill Crain,

    Great question! We need more questions along those lines.

  57. Paulie Says:

    Steve LaBianca,

    You’ll have to accept my pardon (or not), but I’m a bit lazy.

    If you would like to reword Marc’s questions, would you please actually do so, and pose the exact questions you would like to ask if given the chance?

    There is a good chance that I will like your wording better than Marc’s, if you but take the actual step of posing your questions exactly as you would like to see them asked.

  58. Bill Crain Says:

    Okay, thanks, here’s a follow-up that raises a subtly different issue:

    How about over-the-counter sales of “prescription” medications (not controlled substances) to competent adults who have not obtained the written permission of a licensed medical professional?

  59. Chuck Says:

    I can’t believe the obsession with drugs. It’s as though protecting our 1st and 2nd amendment rights, property rights, privacy rights and all the rest is irrelevant if our children can’t buy heroin at the corner store. Get your priorities straight.

  60. Paulie Says:

    Chuck,

    Do you have any questions? They don’t have to be about drugs.

    Immigration? Abortion? Military spending? Foreign aid? Freedom of/from religion? Gay rights? “Fair” tax? Intellectual property?

    Pick a topic, any topic.

  61. Bill Crain Says:

    Chuck, the second question was actually about professional licensing, cleverly hidden in a follow-up to a question about drugs.

    Nice response, though. I’m sure you’re trying.

  62. Stefan Says:

    A postitive question to ALL candidates is perhaps the best: we all know they are for lower taxes, more freedom etc. One could ask them how SPECIFICALLY do they plan to make the government smaller, e.g. which state departments, services etc. will they cut. Dr. Paul has indicated in quite detail how he would cut government in his campaign. The past history of candidates are not unimportant, but more important is the their current positions and their future plans.

    IMHO the candidates should focus on the main issues int he election campaign
    like the economy, war in Iraq, security, privacy etc. and less important issues, like webcam, how important it may be. One should always keep in mind to be balanced and not been seen as deniaers of new technologies. For instance RFID is widely used in logistics , wholesale market like WallMart etc. and a lot of money is saved eventually and the management information system is much better and more efficient. One can also use it to locate lost or stolen items. One would be against RFID in passports for instance. We cannot have TOTAL freedom, and fredom is also positive, e.g. not freedom from, but freedom to…

  63. Steve LaBianca Says:

    OK Paulie,

    here it is(though it is restating every question that Marc Montoni posed):

    1. Mr. Barr, while a congressman, you supported a lot of pork, including federal cash for Gwinnett, Bartow, and Cherokee airports and transportation projects. You also steered business to Lockheed-Martin’s Marietta, GA plant for the C-130 cargo plane and the gold-plated F-22 Raptor fighter. How does this relate to returning to federalism?

    2. Mr. Barr, you supported Bush’s military tribunals for Iraqis captured during the war (“Barr Stands Behind President on Tribunal Procedures” 3/21/2002). How does this relate to returning to federalism? And given that the Constitution doesn’t say its protections are only for citizens, how does your support of depriving individuals of their rights encourage government to properly respect the rights of people who are citizens?

    3. Mr. Barr, you supported federal interference in assisted suicide (“Barr Praises Administration Stance Against Suicide Doctors”, 11/8/2001). How does this relate to returning to federalism? And have you ever sat at a patient’s bedside while he was writhing in agonizing pain for weeks on end, waiting to die, and explained to him why he couldn’t choose a dignified manner of death as the sole owner of his own body?

    4. Mr. Barr, you supported federal meddling in contracts between HMO’s and their customers (“Barr Hails Passage of HMO Reform Legislation”, 8/2/2001). How does this relate to returning to federalism? What does abrogating the terms of contracts have to do with freedom?

    5. Mr. Barr, you supported giving money to religious organizations for charitable programs (“Barr Hails Passage of President?s Faith-Based Initiative”, 7/19/2001). How does this relate to returning to federalism?

    6. Mr. Barr, you supported a wholesale expansion of the fed into schools with your cosponsorship of H.R. 1 in 2001—“The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” (“Barr Cosponsors Bush Education Bill”, 3/22/2001). How does this relate to returning to federalism?

    7. Mr. Barr, you supported a discriminatory ban on Wiccan expression in the military (“Barr Demands End To Taxpayer-funded Witchcraft On American Military Bases, May 18, 1999). How does this relate to returning to federalism?

    8. Mr. Barr, you supported summarily evicting students from school for bringing a gun onto school property—seemingly forgetting that millions of young Americans did this right into the seventies—regardless of whether they were simply going hunting after school or not. You apparently wanted to forget that the Constitution doesn’t just protect the rights of adults, but children too (“Testimony of U.S. Representative Bob Barr on The Child Safety and Protection Act of 1999, Before The House Committee on Rules”, June 14, 1999). How does this relate to returning to federalism?

    9. Mr. Barr, you voted with the majority to further socialize medicine by voting for H.R. 4680, the Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2000 (June 28, 2000). How does this relate to returning to federalism?

    10. Mr. Barr, you supported flag-waving nationalistic fervor by voting several times in favor of a constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States Flag; in 2000 it was HJ Resolution 33 (June 24, 1999). How does this relate tor returning to federalism? What does the flag-worship cult have to do with liberty?

    11. Will you or have you openly, publicly, and clearly repudiated all of these previous “non-federalism” actions of yours?

    12. Why did you wait until you’re no longer in congress to repudiate them? Shouldn’t you have thought about all of that Leviathan-state-building you were doing while you were in congress and it actually mattered?

    Then Paulie, I would ask this one question, which relates to all the questions above, and them some. Mr. Barr, for all the infringements of federalism that the federal government engages in now, which laws and authorities which you would take away from the federal government in the name of federalism, would you wish to actually see enacted at OTHER levels of government, be it state or local?

    That about covers it. Is this clear?

  64. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Barr has stated that libertarians are for maximizing liberty, but his campaign theme, “federalism” doesn’t necessarily accomplish this.

    Paulie, I guess an additional question would be, if he is for federalism, and he does NOT want to see government at any other level pick up or accept various devolved authority, does this mean that he supports people, that is individuals having the authority and exercising it through their market choices?

  65. Joseph Marzullo Says:

    Mr. Barr,

    Why didn’t you choose the Constitution Party after you left the GOP? You were hard on personal liberties, so wouldn’t the CP have been more fitting? Have you really changed your beliefs?

  66. Bill Crain Says:

    Mr. Barr, I’d like to ask:

    How would you prioritize the following goals: (1) Reducing the tax burden; (2) Reducing federal spending; (3) Balancing the budget?

    If Congress were willing to approve the elimination of only one, which would you get rid of first: (1) Corporate income tax; or (2) Capital gains tax on individuals?

    Is there a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy?

    What would be your criteria in appointing federal judges?

    Okay, I admit it, because of my well-known obsession, I’d also like to ask:

    What are your favorite drugs?

    (If you think that last one is unanswerable, please feel free to leave it out; I’ll understand. Still, it’s not nearly as loaded as some of the others proposed so far.)

  67. Stefan Says:

    Bob Barr had a serious C Span debate with Viet DIng, one of the authors of the Patriot Act, about the lagity of it (in 2006, I think). I will see if I can get a videolink some time. So Barr has been actively debating against it on legal ground, which is his expertise, and not only declared he is now against this. This involves also a number of issues.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001799_pf.html

  68. Michael Seebeck Says:

    So long, Geoffrey, and don’t let the door hit you in your arrogance on the way out of here! (Foul fart, indeed!—If you’re going try to namecalling, at least get into A-ball!)

  69. Andy Says:

    How about asking him if he thinks that 9/11 was an inside job? If he says no how about asking him how WTC building 7 collapsed into its own footprint at near free fall speed even though it was on the opposite side of the WTC complex from the Twin Towers and was not hit by a plane? If he still says no ask him if he knows what the terms “false flag terror operation mean” and if he believes that the US government has ever engaged in a false flag terror operation?

  70. Marc Montoni Says:

    I can’t believe the obsession with drugs. It’s as though protecting our 1st and 2nd amendment rights, property rights, privacy rights and all the rest is irrelevant if our children can’t buy heroin at the corner store. Get your priorities straight.

    Put another way, “I can’t believe the obsession with guns, eminent domain, and taxes. It’s as though protecting our right to control our own bodies, the right to sleep with who we want, and the right to spend our money on bread rather than cheese and all the rest is irrelevant if our children can’t buy cheap guns, tax-free, at the corner store. Get your priorities straight.”

    All rights are important. Self ownership and the ability to freely choose one’s recreational activities is part of the overall package. This is NOT Republican Party Lite.

    I am no hippie. I dress conservatively for LP events; usually in a suit and tie. I really hope that someday, the LP’s conservative “let’s talk only about taxes, eminent domain, and guns” wing needs to find a heart for the millions of drug users who have had their lives viciously stripped away, and perhaps learn a bit of tolerance for those who want freedom to include ALL current victims, rather than just the ones victimized “on the right” side of the fence.

    I haven’t really solidified my choices for the presidential nomination yet. I offered those questions only because there is no way Mr. Barr’s previous decisions can be fully examined at the convention—there will never be enough time.

    I would suggest that those who have questions for any of the other candidates seeking the LP nod spend their time asking those questions in specific form now, as Paulie has asked.

    This is what “vetting a candidate” is all about.

  71. ElfNinosMom Says:

    Since the questions have all been posted on the site of someone who actually works for Barr, we will not be able to take his answers at face value. It’s easy to give the “right” answers if you know the questions in advance, after all.

  72. Andy Says:

    Ask him if he supports abolishing the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency.

    Ask him if he supports abolishing the CIA.

  73. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Andy:

    “How about asking him if he thinks that 9/11 was an inside job? If he says no how about asking him how WTC building 7 collapsed into its own footprint at near free fall speed even though it was on the opposite side of the WTC complex from the Twin Towers and was not hit by a plane.”

    Why ask him a question based on false factual claims? A collapse time of 3 hours and 20 minutes is nowhere “near free fall speed” (the collapse began around 2pm and completed around 5:20 pm), WTC 7 was not on the opposite side of the complext from the twin towers, WTC 7 was visibly hit by debris from one of the tower crashes, and even though it did collapse “into its own footprint” it did so asymmetrically rather than in the symmetric manner common to controlled demolitions.

    Not that the facts ever stop Andy from trying to get a knock in for his favorite completely unsubstantiated fairy tales.

  74. NewFederalist Says:

    Ask why he thinks his fundraising is going so poorly.

  75. Steve Newton Says:

    I apologize if somebody already asked this, but…

    “Why should gay/lesbian/transsexual libertarians/American citizens support your candidacy?”

  76. Libertarian Breaking News Says:

    Established:

    1. Barr is full of shit. You were all punked.

    2. Cannoli and Montoni have finely tuned bull shit detectors.

    3. Hogarth and the Seebeck are mega activists.

    Now let’s get down to business. Do you think Yank is anally fixated and is he going to be able to share the stage with Itch without a smack down? Itch has really worked through his issues. I don’t want some troll come lately to get him worked up over Kardashian’s ass.

  77. ChinaTownAnarchist Says:

    OK, this thread just convinced me. There is no hope for the LP. I’m probably more “radical” than most people on this thread, but I also realize marketing and how most people percieve things. I’ve actually made a few million from public perceptions—but no one here except Geoffrey and LifeMember seem to get it.

    You people are killing, by far, the best shot the LP has ever had over nuances, slightly-bigger-dick-in-a-very-small-dick-pond-ism, and an obviously outdated congressional track record.

    Fuck you all. Fuck the LP. Fuck Bob Barr and Stephen Gordon for giving me hope once again. Fuck especially Barr and Gordon, because I believed they could lead Libertarians into a bit of common sense.

    Geoffery the Liberator, what’s life like on the other side of the pond? I’ve not visited because they wouldn’t let me take my firearms. After these pukes, I’m ready to move, sans guns, to where libertarians with a bit of common sense live.

  78. Paulie Says:

    That about covers it. Is this clear?

    Yes, thanks.

  79. Paulie Says:

    How would you prioritize the following goals: (1) Reducing the tax burden; (2) Reducing federal spending; (3) Balancing the budget?

    If Congress were willing to approve the elimination of only one, which would you get rid of first: (1) Corporate income tax; or (2) Capital gains tax on individuals?

    Is there a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy?

    What would be your criteria in appointing federal judges?

    Excellent questions!


    Okay, I admit it, because of my well-known obsession, I’d also like to ask:

    What are your favorite drugs?

    :-)

  80. Paulie Says:

    How about asking him if he thinks that 9/11 was an inside job?

    Been there, done that.

    Barr’s answer paraphrased:

    Some of my friends say it was, and some say it wasn’t. I believe my friends are correct.

    (Las Vegas, Nevada, February 2008).

  81. Paulie Says:

    Since the questions have all been posted on the site of someone who actually works for Barr, we will not be able to take his answers at face value. It’s easy to give the “right” answers if you know the questions in advance, after all.

    I’ll count myself very lucky if I get any answers at all.

  82. Paulie Says:

    Ask him if he supports abolishing the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency.

    Ask him if he supports abolishing the CIA.

    Thanks. Making a note of it.

  83. Teddy Fleck Says:

    Getting us Libertarians to agree on anything is like herding cats. People ideaoligy changes mine did. We have a high profile name in Bob Barr to further our cause and all we here is desent.Give him a chance.

  84. Paulie Says:

    OK, this thread just convinced me. There is no hope for the LP. I’m probably more “radical” than most people on this thread, but I also realize marketing and how most people percieve things. I’ve actually made a few million from public perceptions—but no one here except Geoffrey and LifeMember seem to get it.

    Geoffrey had at least one good question. LifeMember on the other hand merely made incorrect assumptions about my intent. As I told silver Republican and LifeMember, please feel free to add questions that you believe will give Mr. Barr a chance to accentuate his positives, show that he is indeed a changed man, show how he has had a libertarian streak all along - I have no line of questioning that I am automatically rejecting.

    My intention is to ask as balanced a set of questions as I possibly can to address the concerns of LP members. Why is that wrong?


    You people are killing, by far, the best shot the LP has ever had over nuances, slightly-bigger-dick-in-a-very-small-dick-pond-ism, and an obviously outdated congressional track record.

    Perhaps the issues people are asking about here are nuances to you. Fair enough. They are not merely nuances to everyone.

    But in what possible way do they constitute killing Barr’s campaign? They are just questions.

    Do you seriously expect LP members to believe that Bob Barr can’t handle a few amateur questions? He’s a pro at politics.

    This may shock you, but I want him to do well. I would love to see Bob Barr prove that he is now an ideological libertarian. I would also love to see him make a real impact on the election.

    If he does start to make a real impact on the election - which is not a given - you of all people should know, given your background (I am assuming you are telling the truth), that these questions and much tougher ones will be asked by the media.

    You seem to want the LP to, let’s say, buy a car without kicking the tires just because we are being offered a once in a lifetime great deal by a car lot that is going out of business.

    All I want to do is see how the car actually runs before I put down my meager yet hard earned money. Why is that wrong?


    Fuck you all. Fuck the LP. Fuck Bob Barr and Stephen Gordon for giving me hope once again. Fuck especially Barr and Gordon, because I believed they could lead Libertarians into a bit of common sense.

    Yes, because common sense dictates that if we merely coronate Barr without asking tough questions at this stage, he will make a big dent in the election and avoid tough questions all the way through November. Does he walk on water as well?

    Strangely enough, bad guy that I am purported to be, I’m not the one saying “Fuck LP, Fuck Barr, Fuck Gordon” here.

    I have just a bit more faith in Bob Barr’s ability to handle these kinds of questions than you do, I guess. It would just seem to be a prerequisite to any actual presidential campaign to be able to answer questions like these.

  85. Paulie Says:

    Getting us Libertarians to agree on anything is like herding cats.

    I’ve not asked libertarians to agree on anything. I’m just asking them what their questions for the likely front runner should he decide he wants our nomination are. I’m taking all question suggestions from all different sides, including you if so inclined.

    People ideaoligy changes mine did. We have a high profile name in Bob Barr to further our cause and all we here is desent.

    My ideology has changed too. I used to be a liberal Democrat. After that, I was a minarchist.

    Of course, no one asked me to be the presidential nominee (nor could they, since I was not born in the US), or for that matter to sit on the LNC or give a keynote speech at the national convention.

    Naturally, some people are wondering if in fact Barr would further our cause. Some may indeed have concluded that he will not, but I am not one of them. I just have questions, and I am not always good at thinking of them on the spot, so I have asked for input from other people here. Including you.

    Give him a chance.

    I am in fact trying to give him a chance, that is actually what this is all about.

    A chance and a pass are two different things.

  86. Stefan Says:

    If abolishing the CIA is official LP policy, the party will not have much of a chance to attract either Republican, Independent or Democrat support. During the debates, they tried to ridicule Ron Paul on this, who ran in 1988. You have to qualify and say we need an intelligence organization like the CIA, you should drastically change it and strip it if ots subversive powers where governments are over thrown or poltiticians you do not agree with are killed. Either this or the CIA be integrated into military intelligence for instance and perform security and information duties from there. It is totally naive to just abolish it in total.

  87. Paulie Says:

    Somewhat off topic, but this is as good a place as any to tell you all about it.

    I finally met Christine Smith (in KC).

    I once tried to
    ask her some questions as well.

    Christine was wearing a red Mao suit (it made me think of two things; one was that she would start grabbing her crotch and doing the Michael Jackson dance from Thriller; and the other was that she would start denouncing party members for Bourgeois western dress styles and reading habits).

    I said “Hi Christine, I’ve been looking forward to meeting you.”

    She looked at my name tag, gave me a not-so-friendly forced smile (more of a wince, really) and said “Paulie…I’ve heard a lot about you.”

    Hopefully, I said “that’s good…” but alas, she slunk out the door without shaking my hand, much less engaging me in further conversation.

    Christine, if you are reading: I still am looking forward to really meeting you, as in actually having a conversation. I promise I don’t bite. Well, maybe if you liked being bit, were single, asked me nicely, and looked
    the way you did in the glamor shots, maybe I’d bite, but as it stands, no.

    Sorry for the diversion folks…mea culpa. Please do as I say, not as I do, and stay on topic.

  88. G.E Smith the Capitalist Dove Says:

    Stefan - The CIA was created by liberal New Dealers with Nazi war criminals to combat the non-existent Soviet menace. It was opposed by the Republicans of the day. Why is it that the “conservative” movement has to concede all ground that’s been gained by statists up until this point? The CIA is clearly unconstitutional. If the American public thinks it’s “crazy” to advocate that the government follows its own laws, then it needs to be educated, and until it is, there is no hope for liberty

  89. galaz Says:

    Would you run on a Ventura/Barr LP ticket?

  90. galaz Says:

    Mr. Montoni - if you kick the Wiccans out of the military, the military and therefore the government will be smaller.

    Hope this helps.

  91. Paulie Says:

    if you kick the Wiccans out of the military, the military and therefore the government will be smaller.

    Right. Because they would not find someone else to take those same jobs?

  92. Clark Says:

    Mr Barr, I’ve heard you blithering on the radio, etc. for years now!..

    You’ve had PLENTY of time to display any knowledge you might possess about our stinking, criminal money (issuance) system, the stinking, criminal, drug war, the CONTINUAL state of stinking worldwide war (yes, you Republicrat dopes, WAR) the US has been in for decades now..etc. ad nauseam..

    ..yet you’ve said NOTHING I don’t hear from any number of stinking, loud, ignoramus Republicans/Republicrats!..

    Why don’t you and your phony “Libertarian” supporters join ranks with the stinking “Constitution Party” or slink back to the stinking Republicans where you OBVIOUSLY belong?

  93. paulie Says:

    Clark,

    Aside from a rude and presumptive tone, your question adds nothing to the one Mr. Marzullo already asked

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/18/marc-montoni-has-questions-for-bob-barr-how-about-you/#comment-572394

    If I get to ask this question, you’ll have to pardon me (or not) for going with Mr. Marzullo’s version rather than yours.

  94. LifeMember Says:

    Why don’t you and your phony “Libertarian” supporters join ranks with the stinking “Constitution Party” or slink back to the stinking Republicans where you OBVIOUSLY belong?

    This will certainly help grow the party.

  95. paulie Says:

    Oops! too late…

  96. paulie Says:

    Screwed that one up -
    I don’t want some troll come lately to get him worked up over Kardashian’s ass.

    oops…too late

  97. Stefan Says:

    GE Smith: thanks for your response. Yes, understand what you mean. The CIA is a factual reality since decades now. One should make in constitutional with an amendment and strip it from its excessive powers, or integrate it into military intelligence of the Defense Force, which is constitutional. One can understand the needs for an intelligence gathering service. If they have really done their work properly and were streamlined with the FBI, 9/11 may well have been avoidable.

  98. G.E. Says:

    Stefan - You have too much faith in government. “If they had done their work properly” = impossible. Socialism does not work. The best thing the CIA could have done to help prevent 9/11 is not exist in the first place. The CIA’s illegal interventions in other countries is probably the #1 or #2 thing that provokes anti-American rage. And the CIA’s existence, even apart from its actions, is indicative of a philosophy of government that is going to provoke that rage.

    Really. Imagine a constitutional amendment sanctifying an agency that has already existed for over 50 years. I supposed we should get constitutional amendments to authorize Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, and the congressional delegation of war powers to the executive branch while we’re at it too, huh?

    Just giving up the fight on all fronts as to avoid appearing “radical” = totally pointless.

    Almost as pointless as advocating constitutional amendments to legalize illegal programs and agencies that have been operating illegally for decades.

  99. Flyer Says:

    Bob Barr is no Libertarian. He is your typical politician. He talks out both sides of his mouth. Yes I voted for said item but I didn’t mean to. I am for it but also against it.

  100. C. Al Currier Says:

    I want to abolish the CIA.

    I am willing to concede that we need the CIA if we are to perpetuate the EMPIRE. If we wish to ‘Restore the Republic’ (as Ron Paul & Co. advocate), then the cloak & dagger alphabet agencies can be de-alphabetized (abolished).

    Rather than ‘beat-around-the-bush’, my one question for Mr. Barr is this: Do you want to restore the republic?

  101. John Karr Says:

    If we could create a hybrid of Bob Barr and Mike Gravel we would have a perfect candidate. I feel that there are two versions of Bob Barr out there, and I want to know how real Bob Barr 2.0 is. And I want to know how much of a Political Chameleon he is, meaning the longer he works with a given constituency the more like them he looks. Out of our current candidate pool Bob is a giant in terms of his ability to be our messenger. The hard question is can we trust him as our messenger.

    If on May 24 I decide that I trust Bob Barr 2.0, then he has my full support. If I can’t believe in Bob Barr 2.0 then I will continue to support Root. Since Barr and Root play to the “Right” Political Culture, for Vice President we need the balance of a Candidate who appeals to the “Left” political culture. Mike Gravel would be perfect from a tactical perspective but I don’t think he will be ready to be a standard bearer by the end of May.

  102. Dave Williams Says:

    Mr. Barr,
    What would ‘Yank’ do?

  103. Andy Says:

    “Why ask him a question based on false factual claims? A collapse time of 3 hours and 20 minutes is nowhere “near free fall speed” (the collapse began around 2pm and completed around 5:20 pm), WTC 7 was not on the opposite side of the complext from the twin towers, WTC 7 was visibly hit by debris from one of the tower crashes, and even though it did collapse “into its own footprint” it did so asymmetrically rather than in the symmetric manner common to controlled demolitions.

    Not that the facts ever stop Andy from trying to get a knock in for his favorite completely unsubstantiated fairy tales.”

    LOL at Tom Knapp’s absurd ascertation that fire shot across the WTC complex and caused a 3 hour collapse of a 47 story steel structure building!

    Been trippin’ on acid again, Tom?

    Hey Tom, why don’t you start a demolition company? Who needs explosives when you’ve got the amazing, flying,
    super-duper hot Tom Knapp fire that can take down steel structure buildings. You’d have the only demolition company in the world that can do this. Just think of all of the money you could make.

  104. Andy Says:

    Here are some more questions to ask Bob Barr.

    1) Why didn’t NORAD fulfil its standard operating procedure and intercept the planes? Were NORAD intentionally confused by the wargames taking place on the morning of 9/11 or were they ordered to stand down?

    Flight 77 was known by NORAD to have been hijacked by 8:50am. Yet it is a full 48 minutes until any fighters are scrambled, as two leave Langley AFB just two minutes before Flight 77 hits the Pentagon at 9:40am.

    2) What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings. The passage is taken from testimony given by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.

    During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

    As the plane was not shot down are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?

    3) What was the cause of the collapse of WTC Building 7? The building wasn’t hit by a plane and yet it collapsed in the same manner as the twin towers. Why hasn’t Larry Silverstein offered a public explanation as to the meaning behind his comments on a September 2002 PBC documentary, America Rebuilds, where he admits the decision was made to “pull” the building. Pulling a building is the industry term for controlled demolition. The official FEMA report listed fire damage as the reason for the building’s collapse, even though photos taken before the collapse indicate minimal fires.

    How can the collapse of the building and also the twin towers be justified in light of numerous examples of high story buildings which burned for hours and even days without collapsing, such as the recent Windsor Building fire in Madrid?

    4) How did Rudolph Giuliani know that the south tower was about to collapse? Giuliani told ABC’s Peter Jennings, “We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse.”

    The World Trade Center was the first steel building to collapse from fire damage in history.

    Who told Giuliani the building was going to collapse and how did they know?

    5) In the days following September 11th, the FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers.

    At least four of these hijackers are still alive. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri ) was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

    He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

    Other so called ‘suicide hijackers’ who have come forward to protest their innocence (being alive is a good enough alibi) are Abdulaziz Al Omari , Saeed Alghamdi and Khalid Al Midhar.

    How can we take claims of paper passports that miraculously escaped the impact of the plane and the gigantic fireballs and fluttered mostly unscathed down to the ground seriously? At least a third of the victims were never identified and yet a paper passport survives. Was this an attempt to frame the very individuals the FBI would later blame for the attack?

    6) Who told a number of public officials not to fly into New York on the morning of 9/11 and why didn’t the people on the targeted planes get the same warnings?

    Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown was set to fly into New York on the morning of September 11. However, he got a call from what he described as his ‘airport security’ late September 10th advising against flying due to a security threat.

    Newsweek twice reported that top Pentagon officials had got a warning of the impending attack on September 10th, and cancelled their flights for the next day. This confirms that these officials knew both the locations of the imminent attack and the method of using jetliners as bombs.

    7) From July 4th-14th 2001, Osama bin Laden was being treated for kidney infection at the American Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. There, on multiple occasions, he met with CIA station Chief Larry Mitchell. Bin Laden gave Mitchell ‘precise information’ regarding ‘an imminent attack’ on the US. Bin Laden also met with numerous members of his family, who left the US by
    chartered flights after September 11th with the full blessings of the US government.

    A 2000 Clinton presidential executive order was still in effect and mandated that bin Laden should have been killed on the spot. Bin Laden was allowed to leave of his own free will.

    8) A record number of ‘put’ options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th. This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating ‘airline stocks set to fly.’

    9) Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls.

    The investigation as to which criminals benefited from advance knowledge of the terrorist attack led straight to Alex Brown/Deutsche Bank - chaired up until 1997 by executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard.

    Why wasn’t Krongard taken in for questioning by the FBI and who else was involved in this insider trading?

    10) Pakistan ISI Director General Mahmud Ahmad instructed Ahmad Umar Sheikh to hotwire $100,000 to the 9/11 lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta.

    On September 11th, Ahmad was a guest of former clandestine CIA officer and CFR member Rep. Porter Goss and Skull and Bones/CFR member Senator Bob Graham. Since September 4th, he had met with top brass at the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House, including Colin Powell, Richard Armitage, Joseph Biden and George Tenet.

    Condoleezza Rice lied in a May 16th 2002 press conference when she claimed ignorance of Ahmad’s visit and the $100,000 transfer. Ahmad had
    already resigned from the ISI and the FBI had confirmed the circumstances behind this. Rice stated “I have not seen that report, and he was certainly not meeting with me.”

    What was the money man behind the terrorists doing in the halls of the US government before, during and after 9/11?

  105. Susan Hogarth Says:

    It’s easy to give the “right” answers if you know the questions in advance, after all.

    Not as easy as you might think. In some ways it would be even more illustrative to get ‘prepared’ answers than to get the sort of off-the-cuff non-answers Barr is so good at. This way we can see just how far he is willing to go to please a Libertarian base. If it’s the lukewarm state-rights mush he’s been dishing out, we know he’s pretty hopeless for this go-round. If he really tries to speak to Libertarians in our own terms, that at least signals that he he wants to identify as a Libertarian - and ties him down (in some way at least) to a straightforward Libertarian message.

    I personally do not beleive he will seize this opportunity, but will be happy to be proven wrong.

  106. Susan Hogarth Says:

    let’s also give him credit for the words and actions that he has put forth since leaving congress.

    Those words have been largely nonlibertarian or downright antilibertarian.

  107. David Aitken Says:

    Mr. Barr: Approximately 80 percent of the mosques here in the United States are funded by Saudi Arabia and promote Wahabbism, a sect of Islam that advocates replacing our secular government with a theocracy, subjecting women to laws that permit or encourage honor killings and rape, slavery, and other practices that are in direct contradiction to libertarian principles. How would you deal with this issue?

  108. Susan Hogarth Says:

    How about over-the-counter sales of “prescription” medications (not controlled substances) to competent adults who have not obtained the written permission of a licensed medical professional?

    w00t!!My hobbyhorse issue - raised by someone else. Thanks!!

    http://picasaweb.google.com/hogarth/2007june1102/photo#5075009049881215378

    Legalize Penicillin!!

  109. Tom Blanton Says:

    Mr. Montoni asks some good questions and I hope Barr will answer them. I’d also like to know if Barr still works for the CIA or has any relationship with the agency now.

  110. Brian Miller Says:

    Brian Miller, in his well-known hatred of Dr. Paul does regularly on other lists

    I’m sorry that my call for consistency has been distorted by you—and you’ve chosen to ignore my points.

    Again, the idea of “libertarians” supporting Ron Paul decrying another candidate as insufficiently pure is distilled hypocrisy at its finest. No getting around it. Period.

  111. Brad Says:

    Although I was at first opposed to a Barr candidacy, after thinking about it, I’m now willing to support him. He has a chance of actually winning the White House and if he doesn’t win, at least he will derail that lunatic the Republicans are nominating (as bad as Clinton and Obama are, they aren’t as bad as McWar). I’d prefer that he repudiate some of his more awful votes from when he was in Congress and take Mary Ruwart as his running mate to balance the ticket. If you’re vehemently opposed to Barr, ask yourself whether it would be better for libertarianism for the LP to once again get .5% of the vote with an anarchist or borderline anarchist as the nominee and remain irrelevant or to either win or get a significant portion of the vote (possibly even costing the most militaristic candidate the election) with a candidate who deviates on some issues. I don’t really understand how a weak LP that can’t win anything is better for libertarianism than a strong LP that competes in elections and elects a mix of left-libertarians and right-libertarians, moderates and radicals to office.

  112. Brad Says:

    “Approximately 80 percent of the mosques here in the United States are funded by Saudi Arabia and promote Wahabbism, a sect of Islam that advocates replacing our secular government with a theocracy, subjecting women to laws that permit or encourage honor killings and rape, slavery, and other practices that are in direct contradiction to libertarian principles. How would you deal with this issue?”

    For some reason, I doubt the accuracy of claims that 80% of the Muslim places of worship promote Wahabbi. That sounds like ultra-right-wing paranoid anti-Muslim propaganda (similar to that awful Fitna movie that came out a few weeks ago). Most Muslims are moderate and reasonable people who are concerned about protecting their civil liberties from the discriminatory laws that the Bush Administration has been passing. Wahabbi is a small fringe cult that gained popularity in the Middle East because of our government’s policy of overthrowing democratically-elected governments in the region and sending occupying troops over there. If American foreign policy were to change to something less foolish, the support for the Wahabbi cult would disappear immediately. Yes, we need to firmly say no to any attempts by extremist Muslims to establish sharia law in the United States or to otherwise undermine freedom (and to prosecute any extremist Muslims who commit crimes, such as that Canadian Muslim who murdered his daughter because she refused to wear a hijab), but we don’t need anti-Muslim fearmongering.

  113. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Andy:

    “LOL at Tom Knapp’s absurd ascertation that fire shot across the WTC complex and caused a 3 hour collapse of a 47 story steel structure building!”

    “Fire” didn’t “shoot across the WTC complex” to hit WTC 7, because WTC 7 wasn’t “across the WTC complex” from the towers. The 47-story WTC 7 was separated from the north tower only by one seven-story building. Debris debris ejected from the collapse of the north tower visibly damaged the building, including taking out its southwest face from the 8th to the 18th floors, and creating a 10-story gash in the south face of the building extending at least 25% of the way through it.

    The first visible sign of collapse was noted at 2pm as the damaged southwest corner of the building began to bulge, and the collapse completed three hours and 20 minutes later.

    Those are facts. You don’t have to like them, but they’ll remain facts whether you like them or not.

  114. Clark Says:

    Life mumbler wheezed: “This will certainly help grow the party.”

    LOL! Hear me well, Republicrats! If all you dummies want is to merely ‘grow the (then totally meaningless/worthlittle) party’..PLEASE MERELY NOMINATE DAVID BECKHAM AND POSH, OPRAH, TOM BRADY, BRAD AND ANGELINA, etc. ad nauseam!

    .if you mental loafers want ‘a winner’ in ‘08 please co-nominate/endorse Hillbillary, O’blahblah, or McSame!..

    (it appears as though the “LP leadership” is infested with saboteurs, richardheads, etc. assorted loud creeps…) ;o)

  115. paulie Says:

    What would ‘Yank’ do?

    Yank, of course.

  116. paulie Says:

    Update on project status.

    Mr. Barr arrived at the Alabama LP Convention minutes before his speech, which started at 4 PM.

    There was a question and answer period, and I did get to ask one question. I asked whether the Bush administration has done anything that merited impeachment, and whether the LP should formally call for impeachment.

    Barr replied that the abuses of power by the Bush administration merit not only impeachment, but actual removal from office in his assessment. However, he does not believe the LP ought to call for impeachment, because it is too late to actually make it happen, and would only marginalize us to people who would otherwise be prone to considering our views.

    I did not get to ask any other questions because lots of other people wanted to ask questions as well. Barr took questions right up until the scheduled convention closing time for the first day of 5 PM. Chairman Gordon called us to recess until 10 AM this morning.

    After the close of the session I asked Mr. Barr if he would be interested in a blog or blog radio interview. He said he was looking forward to it and gave me a card for his staff member who is scheduling media. Unlike Ms. Smith, he shook my hand and treated me with respect, or at the very least the appearance of respect. During his speech, among other things, Barr said that he wants the acceptance of radical libertarians.

    After that, he had some catching up to do on his computer upstairs in his room, but he did come downstairs a couple of hours later and joined us for one or two drinks. I was not in any position to ask him any interview questions at this time, since we were in a group of about ten people socializing.

    After this everyone except me got in two taxis to go out to a restaurant. Someone - I think Barr, but I can’t remember for sure - asked me why I wasn’t getting in, a