Bob Barr media wrapup

The AJC’s Political Insider, John Martin at Politico, CNN’s Mark Preston, Reason’s David Weigel and others report that Bob Barr will be holding a press conference on Monday. According to Martin and Preston, inside sources have confirmed that Barr will announcing a presidential race. It’s no big secret that I’m a campaign insider, but I’m neither confirming nor denying that Barr will launch a presidential bid.

Weigel covered comments from a couple of Barr’s adversaries. Self-described SOB Wayne Allyn Root claimed that Barr is too much of a Washington insider and insinuated that Barr hasn’t been responsible for creating any jobs, handling payroll, etc. Mary Ruwart accused Barr of not believing in liberty: “If our standard bearer doesn’t believe in liberty, how can we convince the American people to do so?”

Joe Windish, Joshua Kucera and Sarah Wheaton talk about Barr taking a disproportionate amount of vote from the Republicans.

Over at the LA Times, Jenny Jarvie takes the opposite side of the argument:

To appease Libertarian critics, Barr openly admitted that he regretted voting for the Patriot Act. Since 2002 he has worked as a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project, a cannabis policy reform group, and in 2004 he testified before Congress against an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Many of Barr’s views would not appeal to Republicans, political experts say.

“To the extent that there is broader dissatisfaction with McCain, that people are hungering for a different kind of Republicanism, Barr isn’t the man to capture it,” said Roy L. Behr, a political consultant and coauthor of “Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure.” “He is absolutely unpredictable to most Republicans.”

The Philly Inquirer had a great interview of Barr. Here is a short sample:

Inquirer: You’ve made some radical turnabouts from many of your previous positions. . . .

Barr: Since 9/11, there has been unprecedented growth in government power and the ascendancy of this notion that, because they are fighting terrorism, the government can do whatever it wants regardless of law. That has forced me to go back and take a look. . . . We have to be much more zealous in protecting ourselves against government power. Once it may have made sense, been even acceptable to allow the government more leeway . . .

Inquirer: What is wrong with the two-party system?

Barr: The two-party system has become stale and a state-controlled monopoly. I think it has removed an important element of choice for the American voter and led to a dumbing-down of political discourse in America. . . .

Inquirer: How do you feel about John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate?

Barr: He’s a candidate. But I don’t think he espouses anything resembling the philosophy of smaller government that I support. Anyone whose signature piece of legislation is destructive of the First Amendment can hardly call themselves a conservative. His view of civil liberties is very much in the Bush administration mold. I have major disagreements with him. His position of a lengthy occupation of Iraq is well known. I would disagree with him there also.

Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy find third party presidential runs irrelevant:

The delusions of relevance held by third parties is again before us. This time they’ll make a difference in deciding who’s President. Nader is running again from the Left, former Georgia GOP Congressman Bob Barr is running as a Libertarian from the right. It won’t matter…

...So would the minuscule vote totals gotten by Nader and all other third-party candidates. To believe they would have somehow voted en masse for any one candidate absent the choice they made and somehow changed the outcome of anything defies logic and history.

65 Responses to “Bob Barr media wrapup”

  1. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Steve,

    I believe that your statement above, “Mary Ruwart accused Barr of not believing in liberty: ‘If our standard bearer doesn’t believe in liberty, how can we convince the American people to do so?’” is conjecture IMO.

    As there is no specific reference to Barr in the Ruwart piece “Do you Believe in Liberty?”, I think Mary’s point is directed to the delegates to reflect upon, in supporting any presidential candidate, is that candidate’s perceived vote total potential really as important as the message of promoting liberty.

    I also find it interesting that Barr, in distinguishing himself from McCain, says “His position of a lengthy occupation of Iraq is well known. I would disagree with him there also.” Though this is conjecture on my part, a Ron Paul statement in this regard would very likely not be “I would disagree” . . . he would be something on the order of “I absolutely disagree with McCain on this.”

  2. Stefan Says:

    Mary Ruwart has indicated that she would be willing to be Barr’s running mate/VP
    in case he gets the nomination. She has expressed a nuanced opinion of Barr from her side and commented positively about Barr’s libertarian credetials. They would have different emphasis. One wonders whether one should drive such a sharp contrast between the “reformer” libertarian Barr and the “radical” libertarian Ruwart. (She has of course a lot longer record of consistency and practicality).
    Barr is a “radical” for privacy and Ruwart is a “reformer” in terms of being passionate but soft-spoken.

    Both are very articulate and well-measured and would not attack the person of competitors, unlike some others and would wage a positive campaign. A Barr-Ruwart ticket would be a very good way to keep the party enthusiastically united and create harmony between the newly libertarians and the long-term hard-line libertarians. The fact that Barr is personally pro-life and Ruwart personally pro-choice would also help to make both pro-lifers and pro-choice people in the LP feel welcome and can identify. Both of them have a strong connection to Paul. They can complement each other ideally in more than one way and reach out to conservatives, moderates and liberals, and cement a perception of the LP as a centrist party with strong principles (no compromises, and accommodative for differences in choice of freedoms/liberty). Barr could appeal to the “Washington-insider” people who like someone with name recognition, while Ruwart would appeal to “Washington-outsider” who like the “rebel”to the status quo appeal, while both would appeal to a lesser extent to the “other side” as well with their openness.

    One doubts that Barr’s announcement tomorrow would be to declare he would not be running, as he could simply have released a youtube and a PR statement in that case. While one has seen/read heated exchanges or attacks from one side between Root and Ruwart, Root on Barr, Phillies on Barr, differences pointed out by Phillies on Ruwart etc. one has not seen any strong differences or potential for heated excahnge between Barr and Ruwart. Ruwart has indicated that the fair tax (which involves an elimination of the IRS) issue may be a “problem” as the LP has traditionally advocated an elimination of the IRS and replace with nothing, but Barr “relativized” his stance, showing opneness towards other options and inviting inputs and convincingly stated that the overall framework would be much smaller government. One could go on in trying to contrast theoretical differences, but the reality is in practise there would not be a big difference, if any, at all: The deficit would first have to be reduced and debt paid off before one can talk about the abolishment of the IRS.
    The government would first have to be much smaller, which will take take and by that time, it may be possible to abolish the income tax and the fair tax could be seen as simply an intermediate step, or not, with the same goal. One would first reduce the taxes step by step (rather than abolishing the iRS from day one) and at the end the IRS would become obsolete.

    The LP could/should also make some innovative ideas: what about allowing states to create economic free trade zones, with open access and zero taxes and easy company registration with less regulations? This could be seen as an “experiment’ on small scale, and gradually built bigger. Certain others countries have adopted such strategies. With regard to the US, this could involve certain areas (at/near coast) within a state, or perhaps encompassing parts of more than one state together.

  3. Richie Says:

    @Stefan - I think your views about a Barr-Ruwart or a Ruwart-Barr ticket are spot on. I’m a registered Libertarian. I’m not an anarchist, but I find that I side with anarchists more than moderates like Barr. If Barr gets the nomination without a radical balancing out the ticket, I’m going to vote for Baldwin. I simply feel that between Barr and Baldwin, Baldwin is the stronger candidate. If Ruwart is on the ticket, that ticket will get my vote. As somebody who voted for Ron Paul, I can tell you that a lot of Ron Paul supporters feel this way as well. We put principle over party, which is obvious considering the fact that a good portion of us are staying registered Republicans (not me, though). If the LP wants the Ron Paul vote, than they had better put together a ticket that appeals to us Ronulans as well.

  4. Craig Says:

    I could see Barr getting 2 or 3 percent of the vote in November, with any other LP candidate getting the customary 1 percent or less.

    What difference would it make?

    The LP’s only chance to make a significant impact on the election is to nominate Ron Paul at the LP convention, and make him decide whether to accept or not.

    A stimulus-check money bomb might help him make up his mind.

  5. Peter Orvetti Says:

    Does anyone have any insights as to why Paul does not want to continue as a general election candidate in a party other than the GOP? He has already said he will not be supporting McCain. Is it just about staying in the House?

  6. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I could see Barr getting 2 or 3 percent of the vote in November, with any other LP candidate getting the customary 1 percent or less.

    I don’t see that. Barr is an uninspiring speaker with a horrible legislative past (that he’s proud of, no less!) and a very unclear formulation of libertarianism that sounds more like warmed-over states’ rights (or ‘federalism’ as they like to call it now) than individual rights.

    Ron Paul’s calls for decentralized government and constitutionalism are inspiring because they are made in the name of increasing individual liberty. Barr’s calls for greater decentralization and constitutionalism do not, to my ears at least, have the same convincing ring.

  7. John Lowell Says:

    Craig,

    Paul doesn’t want to have anything to do with the LP nomination. He’s quite happy as a Republican legislator and with the attention he gets as a kind of kook. The first allows him both the personal financial comfort and the security that come with being a Congressman, the second to engage the illusion that he’s a thinker and a maverick of sorts when in reality he’s just a system player like all the rest of them. In a word, Paul is a poseur; he’s a coward and a self-seeker. The test of his sincerity came when he eschewed an independent bid and ran beneath Republican skirts. Why would you want to offer the nomination to a man who’s ashamed to identify himself as a Libertarian? Only the most patently naive would remain oblivious to the fact that Ron Paul simply is taking care of Number One. There’s nothing particularly “revolutionary” about that. That’s de regeur for a politician, eh? We need another “politician”?

  8. Susan Hogarth Says:

    In a word, Paul is a poseur; he’s a coward and a self-seeker. The test of his sincerity came when he eschewed an independent bid and ran beneath Republican skirts.

    He’s done the ‘independent bid’ thing (actually, LP), so it’s hardly fair to call him a coward, I think.

    He’s trying a different strategy. I wish him luck. Now let’s get to work making the LP as strong and effective and with as clear a message as possible.

  9. Rob Hodgkinson Says:

    question is: “I could see Barr getting 2 or 3 percent of the vote in November, with any other LP candidate getting the customary 1 percent or less.

    What difference would it make?”

    Answer: It would help down ticket, meaning that a state party can grow on the new/additional impetus that the new voters would create.

    In a state like Kansas that is a big republican state - yet very, very wary of a McCain - A Bob Barr could pull off a vote percentage similar to what Perot did in KS (19+%) but it would take a candidate with the credibility/respectability of a Bob Barr to make it happen ** we have a Democrat governor as proof Kansans will walk differently than in lockstep with the majority political party **

    Any double digit vote counts for the president candidate in any state would make big news nationally and that state LP party had better be ready for an influx of new people—Welcome them, then teach the whys/or details of libertarianism on different subjects. No purity tests to start if you want to stay politically relevant to/thru the 2010 elections.

  10. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I believe that the Paul campaign has been very successful. Of course,
    it didn’t come close to victory, but it has had more of an impact than
    other libertarian political efforts in the past.

    And, of course, Paul himself has been able to have a pretty hardcore
    voting record and win reelection in the U.S. House. While he hasn’t
    accomplished much there, I think it is pretty successful as libertarian
    political activities go.

    Put 2+2 together. Paul wants to expand this appoach. Elect more
    libertarians as Republicans. Run more long shot libertarian races in
    the Republican primaries.

    I know that the Paul campaign is encouraging his supporters to
    get involved in the Republican Party organiation. Precinct chairs,
    county committees, etc.

    We can see that he is encouraging his supporters to run for office
    as Republicans. He is trying to identify candidates and channel his
    supporters to them. These are people seeking the Republican nomination.

    I expect that he is hoping that there will be a libertarian seeking the
    Republican nomination in 2008.

    Those who advocate that Paul endorse McCain in the general election
    are proposing something consistent with the strategy. They
    will expect the rest of the Republicans to support libertarians when
    they win the primaries for various offices too.

    There is certainly a chance that the Republican Liberty Caucus “strategy”
    will become more effective now than it has been in the past. That Paul’s
    Presidential effort has created enough support that it can be maintained.

    And, of course, their is the question of how the other Republicans will
    respond.

    If Paul endorses a third party candidate, or runs himself, then the
    Republican Liberty Caucus startegy will surely fail. (Or at least,
    it will receive consistent conserted opposition from the rest of the
    Republicans on partisan, as well as, ideological, grounds.

    I suspect most of us who are (more or less) LP partisans (or CP,
    I suppose) would find it difficult to carry this out. I think Paul, himself,
    has much the same problem. And so, he probably won’t endorse
    McCain. But I expect that unless there is an obvious effort to purge
    all Paul supporters from the Republican Party… or, for example, the
    Republicans disavow the candidacies of everyone Paul supports in
    the general… you know. .... proof that it is too late… I think he will
    stay neutral and give this Republican Liberty Caucus strategy a chance.

  11. JT Says:

    I agree with Susan’s post above. Ron Paul already ran as the Libertarian presidential nominee in 1988, and he doesn’t want to do it again. He now thinks he can do more for the cause of liberty as a U.S. rep. and failed GOP pres. candidate who uses his status to push for drastic policy change in the Republican Party than he can as a failed Libertarian pres. nominee. That’s his prerogative. But I guess until the convention happens and a Libertarian other than Paul is nominated, some people are going to continue to discuss him as a potential nominee.

  12. Steve Newton Says:

    But doesn’t Barr’s stance on Iraq, as highlighted over at Dondero’s Libertarian Republican (go find it, every time I put in a URL my message gets deleted) throw a monkey wrench in the whole matter?

    Barr just set one of those vague “the Iraqis need to stand on their own but I’m not setting a timetable for withdrawal” standards that, from my perspective ought to be a deal-breaker for just about any potential running mate except Root.

  13. Susan Hogarth Says:

    In a state like Kansas that is a big republican state - yet very, very wary of a McCain - A Bob Barr could pull off a vote percentage similar to what Perot did in KS (19+%) but it would take a candidate with the credibility/respectability of a Bob Barr to make it happen

    One problem with this assertion is that Barr doesn’t have credibility/respectability as a libertarian. Frankly, I don’t think he has much credibility or respectability at all. I think ‘conservatives’ will by and large do what they always do when confronted with what will surely be billed as ‘the most important election EVER’ (i.e. every election), and that is they will suck up and vote for the Republican candidate. I don’t see barr as a Perot figure - for one thing, Barr has about 5% of the personality and passion of Perot, and for another, he has about 1% of the funding of Perot.

  14. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Barr just set one of those vague “the Iraqis need to stand on their own but I’m not setting a timetable for withdrawal” standards that, from my perspective ought to be a deal-breaker…

    Yeah, I read his comment to that effect in the VV interview. It sounded oddly Johnson-esque to me :-/

  15. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Stefan,

    In my view, Mary Ruwart is first and foremost, a respectful person. Even in disagreement, she respects and makes attempts to get along with those whom she considers allies. Also IMHO, even with perceived detractors, she deals with them honestly, openly and graciously. It probably takes a lot to get her to speak harshly, but I believe that W.A.R. deserved all she gave him, and (again IMO ) then some.

    As far as how you know that “Mary Ruwart has indicated that she would be willing to be Barr’s running mate/VP in case he gets the nomination . . .”,
    I am curious as to when and where she said that. Can you provide a link or reference?

  16. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Bill Woolsey Says:
    May 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    But I expect that unless there is an obvious effort to purge
    all Paul supporters from the Republican Party…

    Expect it. Evidence of it is very clear here in Hillsborough County, Florida, and many other places as well. Republicans don’t want any “reduce the state” influence. They like their position of reaping the benefits of statism.

    Just one more reason not to Reform the LP into Republican lite. Following the Republicans down the statist road.

  17. Eric Dondero Says:

    If the LP were to nominate Ron Paul the Party would lose the Pro-Defense Libertarian vote. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of disgruntled Republicans who are “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant” yet strong on defense could vote for Barr or Wayne Root, but not for Ron Paul.

  18. Eric Dondero Says:

    Steve Newton, I’ve had the same problem here with links. If it’s a new policy from Stephen Gordon not to allow links, that’s fine. But he ought to say so.

    And thanks for visiting my site. You’re welcome to post there and participate any time.

  19. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Dondero: “If the LP were to nominate Ron Paul the Party would lose the Pro-Defense Libertarian vote. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of disgruntled Republicans”

    They’re voting for McCain anyway, just like you. Especially if it the November polls are close between McCain and whichever Democrat.

    But what about losing the Pro-Defense/Antiwar vote? “Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions” of disgruntled Antiwar Libertarian voters who are fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. You don’t want to lose them by nominating Root, now, do you?

    Silly question. Of course you do.

  20. David Aitken Says:

    I spoke with Wayne Root last Friday (3/9, he’s calling all the delegates) and he’s got the same anti-war stance as all other Libertarians. He also has no credible plan to deal with political Islam. Of course, neither do any of the other candidates.

  21. Susan Hogarth Says:

    He also has no credible plan to deal with political Islam. Of course, neither do any of the other candidates.

    I’m too worried about ‘political US-ism’ (i.e. empire) to worry about ‘political Islam’. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, I am afraid, the US government is much more a threat to my peace and freedom than any other government I can think of.

    As for middle easterners of all religions: I sure hope as many move here as quickly as possible. Their music and their food are wonderful.

  22. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I did a bit of research about those polls. Nothing, as far as I could
    see about Phillies name recognition. And, the 12% is in the context
    of a Giuliani/Clinton race with a blurb about Phillies. Phillies
    explained all this at the time. I forgot the details.

    “Okay…suppose you had a choice between Republican Rudy Giuliani, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Libertarian George Phillies, who promises to end the War in Iraq, secure the borders and restore civil rights. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Rudy Giuliani, Democrat Hillary Clinton or Libertarian George Phillies?”

    Here is a second hand report about the poll Barr commissioned:

    According to the latest poll, Barr enjoys 36 percent name recognition. When questions were asked reminding voters about Barr’s role in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, and about the reasons why Barr left the Republican Party to join the Libertarian Party, Barr’s seven percent rose to nine percent against Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain. He polled at eleven percent against Hillary Clinton and John McCain….

    So, the 7% is without being “reminded” about Barr. After the blurb,
    he increases to 9% against Obama and 11% against Clinton.

    So, Phillies 12% and Barr’s 7% cannot be compared.

    Even Phillies 12% and Barr’s 11% percent against Clinton
    cannot be compared, since the third person in the race was
    Guiliani for Phillies and McCain for Barr.

    But, as I mentioned before in the other thread, Barr is the only
    candidate whose message is going to receive much coverage.

    The 4% result in the Zogby Poll was a 4 way race including
    Nader and was against Clinton. Barr only did 3% against
    Obama.

    This was “no-blurb” and actually, close to the margin of error
    for the earlier result (but barely.)

  23. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I checked about Barr’s remarks regarding Iraq that were supposedly on Dondero/Rittberg’s blog.

    Well, it was just a quote from the Village Voice story.

    Barr called for removing troops from Iraq immedidately upon taking office. He said that he opposes creating a time table (so many troops out
    by various dates, I guess.) But given the context of his other remarks,
    I saw no reason to interpret this as opposition to a prompt, total
    withdrawal. The general context was opposition to nation building,
    that this is costing too much money, and that it is the Iraqi government’s
    repson

  24. John Lowell Says:

    Susan and JT,

    He’s done the ‘independent bid’ thing (actually, LP), so it’s hardly fair to call him a coward, I think. He’s trying a different strategy.”

    That was 20 years ago and he had no issues that were of such broad appeal as is the anti-war issue today. I mean someone campaigning nationally then on such narrowly parochial libertarian questions as legalizing marijuana simply couldn’t compare to the possibilities inherent in a full throated anti-war campaign today. Paul was obscure and guaranteed even more obcurity in 1988. Today he might have drawn 10% of the vote from a fairly broad-based coalition of right side anti-war voters, perhaps he might even have teamed up somehow with Nader on an anti-war fusion ticket and drawn even more. But that would have required moral courage, courage of the sort third party and independent candidates like Debs, La Follette, Wallace, Perot etc. have so frequently evinced in the past. But not Paul. He ducked for cover when the opportunity for service was the greatest and now rationalizes it from within the comfort of his Republican House seat, musing as he does on such fantasies as “boring within” and the like. That’s self-centered cowardice my view, not heroics; capitulation not “revolution”. Like Robert Ringler of some decades back, Paul’s Washington life has taught him how to take care of Number One and he’s doing just that. Anyone buying into the Liberty Caucus ca-ca is simply too credulous. If the Libertarian Party is to “get to work making the LP as strong and effective and with as clear a message as possible” as you suggest it should, it will need to do it with
    courageous people, people very unlike Ron Paul. Its time for the LP to turn his picture to the wall.

  25. Michael Seebeck Says:

    One of these days Dondero will realize what people like Thomas Sipos and myself (me actually being IN the defense business) have been saying all along—pro-defense is not the same as pre-emptive, first-strike, imperialistic, aggressive war. Pro-defense actually means having a strong defensive military that can whip anyone’s ass in the world, if need be. Policy. Pre-emptive war means actually seeking out enemies that aren’t there and then attacking them, not responding in self-defense. Implementation. Dondero can’t tell the difference, so blinded is he by his hatred of peace, libertarians, and Dr. Paul.

    But that’s rehashing very old ground. Dondero doesn’t belief in “just cause” war, he believes in “just because” war. His comments here, bordering on laughable, bear that out.

  26. Susan Hogarth Says:

    That’s self-centered cowardice my view, not heroics; capitulation not “revolution”.

    Whatever. From a Libertarian party perspective, it’s really pointless to be either building shrines or pyres for Ron Paul just now, I think.

    You can play the mind-reading game all you want. But frankly I don’t care if Paul is staying in the Republican Party because he thinks it’s the best strategy for liberty or because he wants to keep getting a paycheck. Whatever good he can do for the movement, I welcome. Beyond that, the LP has its own business to deal with and its own contributions to make.

    Move on.

  27. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Michael Seebeck Says:

    One of these days Dondero will realize [that] pro-defense is not the same as pre-emptive, first-strike, imperialistic, aggressive war.

    And THAT, friends, is the definition of an optimist!

  28. susan santarini Says:

    Oh Erika

    Erika Dumbdildo!

    You said you had photos of you in a uniform. Where are they?

    You don’t have them do you?

    Shame on you Erika Dumbdildo, you were never in the Navy, WERE YOU?

    YOU ARE A FAKE, ERIKA, PRETENDING TO BE A SAILOR BOY.

    The men all bought your bullshit, but I saw right through it!

    Now I have PROVED that Erika Dumbdildo is a fraud!

    You were NEVER in the NAVY or any other military service, because no one will have you.

    BTW, you never responded to my charge that Rood won’t talk to you or have anything to do with your sorry ass.

  29. Devious David Says:

    Amen, Susan.

    Sean Vanity and all the others are going to be talking about how THIS election is “too important” blah blah. And Republicans will predictably respond in kind… by believing it and eating it right up, like they always do. Rah rah sis boom bah.

    I almost think we outta give the nomination to Barr just so that the reformistas can be shut up once and for all. Although, they are stubborn Republicans and nothing could shut them up. Ever. It would still be the LP and it’s “purist” faction’s fault for not catapulting Barr directly and immediately into the Whitehouse then. The mantra will be “THEY ruined the campaign”.

    The disgruntled Republican vote isn’t going to come, folks. No matter what. There aren’t any disgruntled Republicans of any intelligence that aren’t already voting this way. If Ron Paul didn’t prove that to you, nobody and nothing can. Look at the demographics! Old people. No old person, especially a stubborn old Republican one, is going to vote for Barr. Especially since they want some bombs dropping on brown continuously, forever.

  30. Stewart Flood Says:

    Having lived outside of the *north for the past 20 plus years, I hate to have to say it, but they just can’t drive in the rain! It took almost as long to get from Richmond to the hotel I’m at outside of DC as it took to get to Richmond from Charleston! Three and a half hours to drive 80 frik’n miles on I95. These people do not understand that a drizzle does not constitute a problem. I wonder what they do if it really rains?

    Regardless, I’ve arrived and I’ll be taking the metro in to DC in the morning to watch the press conference.

    *in the context of this discussion Virginia is considered to be north, and they sure as heck can’t drive in Virginia in the rain

  31. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Hey, Susan, I said “one of these days”. I didn’t say “soon”. LOL!

  32. susan santarini Says:

    “Michael Seebeck Says:
    May 11th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
    Hey, Susan, I said “one of these days”. I didn’t say “soon”. LOL!”

    Yeah, Tom Knapp and Pauli Canoli bought Dumbdildo’s bullshit story, but I was the one who saw through it. Dumbdildo only had to come up with ONE PHOTO of himself in uniform, which he said he had, and he couldn’t. That’s because it’s all a fraud and he was NEVER in the NAVY or any other military service!

  33. John Lowell Says:

    “Beyond that, the LP has its own business to deal with and its own contributions to make. Move on.”

    Yes, indeed, and leave St. Paul to his Republican reveries.

  34. David F. Nolan Says:

    If Barr announces tomorrow that he is actually running, he’d better come across as a real Libertarian, not a nerfy “NeoLib.” That means coming out foursquare for ENDING the “War on Drugs” (not just turning it over to the states), a RAPID exit from Iraq (less than one year), cutting Federal spending enough to eliminate the personal income tax, completely disavowing DOMA, etc. Why? Because the compromisers within the LP already support him, and he can’t win the nomination without picking up at least some of the more radical delegates. If Barr gives an inspiring, strongly Libertarian presentation tomorrow he has a good chance of winning the nomination. If he avoids, equivocates, and takes “weenie” positions, he’s toast. It’s that simple.

  35. Flyer Says:

    The Libertarian candidate will get the usual 400,000 votes or less. Barr is a waste and would never get 3% of the vote. Independent voters vote for the best candidate. The lemmings vote Republican or Democratic. The voting majority are robots when they go to the polls. As long as Domino’s delivers on time most Americans are happy. They seek more of the same.

  36. Eric Dondero Says:

    If Barr announces tomorrow he better not come out as an extremist to pacify the Leftwing Anarchists in the Party. He has a great deal of support right now across the libertarian political spectrum. He needs to continue to steer a middle course between all the various libertarian factions.

    If he starts coming out for legalization of heroin and cocaine, surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq, and significant downsizing of the Military, he’ll lose all credibility, and tons of support amongst libertarian-leaning Republicans who are tempted to vote for him.

  37. Eric Dondero Says:

    Alas, Nolan and I finally agree on something. David Nolan says Barr shouldn’t take “weenie” positions. Absolutely right! If Barr endorses Surrender in the War on Al Qaeda he’ll be a complete sell-out to the Weenie Girlie Man faction of the Libertarian Party.

    Be a real man Mr. Barr. Don’t emasculate yourself and give up your manhood to the cowards who loathe the Military, and oppose Victory in the War on Al Qaeda.

    In short, like David Nolan, Founder of the LP says, DON’T BE A WEENIE!

  38. Eric Dondero Says:

    One of these days Susan Hogarth will come to understand that pacifism and non-interventionism is completely equal to surrender.

    Cowardice in the face of evil leads to nothing less than totalitarian rule and death.

    May take her having to be forced to wear a Burka by some Muslim men there in North Carolina for her to finally realize it.

  39. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Michael Seeback, what good is all that “kick-ass Military” if you never use it?

    Maybe you’re one of those Defense Industry guys that just wants the American taxpayer to spend trillions of dollars every year on weapons systems, but never have the Military actually use them outside of a test run in an open field.

  40. Eric Dondero Says:

    Sipos, funny you should say that the “Anti-War position is popular.”

    The Ron Paul State Coordinator for Washington State just got caught in a huge scandal breaking out all over the web, saying precisely the opposite.

    Her name is Mareen something. She produced a Manual instructing Ron Paul delegates to the upcoming WA State GOP convention to lie about them being Ron Paulists. Among other things she said in the Manual, “The War in Iraq is very popular… So don’t tell fellow delegates that you oppose the War.”

    It’s all over political websites now: Reddit.com, Sound Politics, ect…

  41. susan santarini Says:

    LOOK HOW ERIKA DUMBDILDO PRETENDS SHE HASN’T BEEN EXPOSED AS AN IMPOSTOR SAILOR BOY.

    ALL YOU NEED IS ONE PICTURE TO PROVE YOU WORE A UNIFORM.

    BUT YOU CAN’T PRODUCE ANY PICTURE OF YOU IN UNIFORM, ‘CAUSE YOU LIED!!

  42. disinter Says:

    Does anyone have any insights as to why Paul does not want to continue as a general election candidate in a party other than the GOP?

    Because he is an old man and it would be a HUGE waste of his time?

  43. disinter Says:

    If the LP were to nominate Ron Paul the Party would lose the Pro-Defense Libertarian vote.

    That is odd, considering that Ron Paul is pro-defense.

  44. Hugh Jass Says:

    “If he starts coming out for legalization of heroin and cocaine, surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq, and significant downsizing of the Military, he’ll lose all credibility, and tons of support amongst libertarian-leaning Republicans who are tempted to vote for him.”

    So, if Barr announces that he’s a libertarian tomorrow, he’ll lose all credibility?

    “Be a real man Mr. Barr. Don’t emasculate yourself and give up your manhood to the cowards who loathe the Military, and oppose Victory in the War on Al Qaeda.”

    What war on Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, therefore it seems to be impossible to fight a war against them. Also, you neglect to mention how our interventionism boosts their recruiting numbers.

    “One of these days Susan Hogarth will come to understand that pacifism and non-interventionism is completely equal to surrender.”

    Which explains why Gandhi failed in everything he did. (Note that I am not endorsing pacifism, I am just pointing out the absurdity of Dondero’s statement)

    “Her name is Mareen something. She produced a Manual instructing Ron Paul delegates to the upcoming WA State GOP convention to lie about them being Ron Paulists. Among other things she said in the Manual, “The War in Iraq is very popular… So don’t tell fellow delegates that you oppose the War.””

    Within the GOP. Everyone else opposes it.

  45. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    Dondero writes: “One of these days Susan Hogarth will come to understand that pacifism and non-interventionism is completely equal to surrender.”

    Eric you need to get a dictionary and two you need to simply understand that much of the U.S. military is involved in providing welfare to other nations.

    MHW, Navy brat, veteran and 28 year member of the LP

  46. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Dondero blustered:

    “Hey Michael Seeback, what good is all that “kick-ass Military” if you never use it?

    “Maybe you’re one of those Defense Industry guys that just wants the American taxpayer to spend trillions of dollars every year on weapons systems, but never have the Military actually use them outside of a test run in an open field.”

    First of all, learn to spell, or at least copy and paste, when you type. It’s a skill my five-year-old has mastered. Are you smarter than a 5-year-old? Apparently not.

    Second, I never said don’t use it. I’ve said here many times, use it only in self-defense. You seem to employ this “He hit me back first!” mentality when it comes to military use. Lemme enlighten you, stupid: A true warrior knows how to prevent a fight from happening in the first place. That means you have the tools to not only know what the OpFor is doing, but also the tools to counteract it, and you let them know it. Didn’t you learn anything from the Cold War buildup under Reagan? Apparently not.

    Third, of all, most of the weapons and intelligence systems that are either in play or being developed are things that you wouldn’t even understand the basic concepts, let alone get anything resembling a clearance to try to figure them out. It’s not a “welfare state” to make sure that we have the best equipment and intelligence to make sure our troops, when called upon for LAWFUL and DECLARED WAR combat, have the advantage. There’s no such thing as a fair fight, after all. Test in an open field? You mean like the F-117, B-2, Global Hawk, F-22, Hunter, Bradley, MOAB, J-SOW, JDAMS, SM-3, Mark 50, I could go on, but you get the point: PLENTY of R&D to firing line developments for the troops, most of which are so far over your head you couldn’t find the bottom. Do you understand the concept of the product lifecycle in these areas? Apparently not.

    Make fun, buddy. You are an ignorant fool.

  47. Anal Libertarian Says:

    Something has to change.
    Un-deniable dilemma.
    Bob Barr’s not a burden
    Anyone should bear.

  48. Anal Libertarian Says:

    Finger deep within me, Rep. Bob Barr.
    Show me that you love me and that we belong together.
    Relax, turn around and take my hand

  49. Andy Says:

    “The Ron Paul State Coordinator for Washington State just got caught in a huge scandal breaking out all over the web, saying precisely the opposite.

    Her name is Mareen something. She produced a Manual instructing Ron Paul delegates to the upcoming WA State GOP convention to lie about them being Ron Paulists. Among other things she said in the Manual, ‘The War in Iraq is very popular… So don’t tell fellow delegates that you oppose the War.’”

    The war on Iraq is popular - WITH NEOCONS, as in the type of people who will show up at a Republican convention and vote for John McCain. However, among the rest of the public, the war in Iraq is not popular.

  50. Andy Says:

    Eric Dondero said: “Cowardice in the face of evil leads to nothing less than totalitarian rule and death.”

    I agree, which is why I’m 100% opposed to the neo-cons and want to expose 9/11 as an inside job.

  51. Anal Libertarian Says:

    Knuckle deep inside me Rep. Bob Barr.
    This may hurt a little but it’s something you’ll get used to.
    Relax. Slip away.

  52. Stefan Says:

    Steve LaBianca:

    Yes, I get the exact same impression of Mary Ruwart as well, she impress me every time when I hear her in an interview or read an article, like for instance her interview last week on antiwar.com She would be able to work well with any LP candidate, whether she is on the top of the ticket or the VP nominee (except with Root IMHO. I also think Root would not go well with many other LP candidates). Ruwart is an absolute team player.

    As to the quote/link you were looking for:
    www.reason.com/blog/show/126404.html

    “Ruwart didn’t rule out running as a VP candidate to Barr “if I felt it would be good for the party.”

    BTW: I very much doubt she would same the same about Root.

  53. Brad Says:

    If Barr is the nominee, I won’t vote for him unless he convinces me that he isn’t going to use the government to discriminate against those groups which it is still politically correct to discriminate against (gays, atheists, minority religions etc.), that he supports ending the War on Drugs, and that he is a consistent anti-war and pro-civil liberties candidate. If I wanted to vote for a Neo-Con or a Theo-Con, I’d vote Republican. I absolutely cannot vote for Root as I don’t believe he is actually a libertarian (nobody who is even remotely close to a libertarian would ever consider donating to Lieberman; those who donate money to pure statists are very unlikely to do a complete 180 in a few months). I guess I could vote for Gravel (I’m not really as concerned with fiscal issues), but I don’t think he is a libertarian (I don’t really understand how somebody who is anti-free trade and pro-government healthcare can be a libertarian) and I don’t think anybody is a worse debater (if you’re wondering what I’m talking about, go look up the Democrat Youtube debate and watch his answer to a question he received from one of his supporters).

    If the LP nominates a candidate who is too right-wing, I’m probably voting for Nader. I don’t like Baldwin’s erroneous historical belief that America was founded as a Christian nation or his opposition to the right to immigrate (although he is definitely alot better than Keyes). Although Nader’s economic policies would be extremely bad (except for ending corporate welfare), he can definitely be trusted on social policy and on foreign policy.

    However, more to the point, I deny the existence of such a thing as “pro-defense” libertarians (meaning libertarians who support the Imperialist foreign policy of the Republicrat regime). The whole idea of a libertarian supporting a war in which 1 million Iraqis have died is an oxymoron, as is the idea of a libertarian who supports overthrowing the governments that people in other countries have chosen and replacing them with puppet governments that do whatever DC tells them. Libertarianism is a ideology that is based upon opposing the initiation of force, so it is absurd for libertarians to support the initiation of force against foreigners.

  54. Stefan Says:

    One could describe Root as a “neolibertarian” in a certain sense

  55. Stefan Says:

    Barr, the LP and the drug war:
    Barr has already campaigned strongly with the ACLU etc. on the legalization of medical mariuana.
    Barr’s mission is to attract the maximum amount of voters to the LP and make the LP an attractive option for them, specifically to fiscal and social conservatives and he would best of the candidates to convince them and to “educate” liberty to them. One should keep in mind it takes a lot of time for some for a “conversion”.

    With the opposition to the “war on drugs” the LP should be aware of the perception that it is a libertine party, and party of people who loves drugs, prostitution, 100% pro-abortion. I can imagine there are many conservatives and others who just love the fiscal conservatism and financial policy, as well as peace party, but are put off by the perception of being a libertine party. This does not mean the party is a libertine party, but the perception is there and this
    is not easy to combat.

    Drugs are used by a small minority of people. The LP would IMHO make a big mistake if it ONLY treats the use of hard drugs for “recreational/non-medical purposes) as a liberty issue, e.g. the liberty of those people to use the drugs, and the LP as its advocate. The LP would do much better in portraying the limits of laws and treating the hard drug issue as a medical PROBLEM, e.g. not as a
    “liberty”, but also as a “problem”. The usuage of drugs does or could affect the liberty of other people who do not use drugs, e.g. drug addicts are a minority and taking drugs affects one’s health, and could also affect those of your family and friends and in some cases it can lead to (or act as a catalist) rape, theft and violent behaviour. In such a sense it does affect the society and it problematical. With this being said, one should differentiate and take into consideration t hat some individuals simply use it in their own home in privacy and having no negative affect on anybody else, if taken by balance, and not in overdoze. For children especially taking it in overdoze, it could lead to death, not liberty!

    I think, if Barr wants to be concrete on the drug war issue, he could announce he would release those people, drugg smugglers that were improsined and given multi year sentences, without stealing or doing other harm. Those that did other’s harm int he process, should remain in prison. He could stress the positive effect on the family life, e.g. reuniting with family of many people affected, as well as the economy (e.g. the prisons would not be so overcrowded and the whole administration process would be reduced). This would be another financial savings measure as well.
    It is IMHO a good idea to leave the drug-policy issue over to the states, just like prostitution. The federal government does not have the power. The LP should take into account that the war of drugs issue was strongly advocated under the party that make “civil liberties” currently their mann issue: the Democrats. There is uspport for the war on drugs not only from conservatives, but also from liberals, under CLinton for instance and some of the most liberal judges, like Ginsburg etc. (as they so assure the power of the federal government over the state). By making the drug-issue a state issue, as it was and should be, Barr should make it more/also acceptable to both social conservative as well as social liberals. The advantage of the state issue also is that a state could “experiment” and chance can be achieved step by step, (rather than no change at all). Certain states could decide to outlaw certain hard drugs, while allowing medical mariuana, some could decide to outlaw any drug, some could decide to allow any drug, some could decide to allow some or any drugs while taxing them very high as a measure to restrict the use and/or allow pharmacies etc to sell the drugs, and in this way “regulate” it. The whole country could then see in which state it works the best, the “fears” of some could be addressed and the state where the policy works the best, could be an example to the others to follow, whereby the policy would be streamlined again with most states over time.

    In short: I do not think Barr should call for any sort of drug to be allowed anywhere in the country as a way to end the “war on drugs”. There are other ways as well to work towards more freedom responsibly and so opening up to make the LP a feasible alternative/opposition. If the LP ONLY opposes the status que radically and act as a “pressure group”, it would never gain any mainstream success and without mainstream success/inroads, it would NEVER be able to implement or pressure for the changes that some of the “radical Libertarians” would like to see. With individuals in the public sphere (not private phere at home) the liberty of one does affect the liberty of another and there is sno “absolute” liberty. For example, a restaurant should be allowed to impose a smoking ban in a part of the whole of a restaurant. SMokers could use the smoking area or go to a restaurant where smoking is allowed. Smokers who use their liberty of smoking (all the more so with smoking pot), does affect the liberty of other individuals, who perhaps hate just the smell of smoke and their liberty rights should also be adhered to.

    These remarks are intended to be a contribution in reaching consensus/agreement and unity among Libertarians, while allowing for differences of opinion on certain matters.

  56. Susan Hogarth Says:

    There is support for the war on drugs not only from conservatives, but also from liberals, ... By making the drug-issue a state issue, as it was and should be, Barr should make it more/also acceptable to both social conservative as well as social liberals.

    First, it is not not at all clear to me that saying ‘it should not be a federal issue’ is the sort of policy panacea that many folks would like it to be. Voters want to know where their candidates stand, and saying “I stand for not having an (official) opinion on this issue” is weak. You might get away with it on an issue or two, but as a general policy it basically sounds like the candidate is avoiding taking a stand in a vain attempt to please multiple constituencies (which, in this case, I’d say was true).

    Second, “mak[ing] it more/also acceptable to both social conservative as well as social liberals” is NOT the goal - the goal is representing and recruiting Libertarians. We aren’t striving for some hypothetical mush int he middle of conservativism and liberalism; we’re striving for libertarianism.

    Third, ending the War on Drug Users means ending prohibition. Period. It can be done fast or slow, but it’s silly to pretend that the Libertarian position is anything else than ending prohibition. It’s not a question of finding the position that is most palatable to most voters and running with it - that’s the game of the R/D Party, and they have that territory well staked out. Our role as the Libertarian party is to recruit and represent libertarians.

    We can’t be all things to all people. People who hate freedom - or even simply fear it - will not vote Libertarian until they are persuaded that freedom is the best way to go. Pretending that we aren’t exactly pro-freedom, or positioning ourselves to agree with anti-freedom elements, will not win us votes. Anti-freedom voters already have a political Party (in a choice of flavors!). What the Libertarian Party is is a political party for those who want freedom, not just-a-bit-more freedom.

  57. Robert Capozzi Says:

    BRAD: If Barr is the nominee, I won’t vote for him unless he convinces me that he isn’t going to use the government …

    ME: I’d suggest you’ve made an error here in this premise. Barr, or any L prez contender, isn’t going to use the government for anything, for he or she won’t win. Thinking thoughts don’t make things happen. This is a classic example of psychological projection.

    Who builds the LP the best? Who introduces Americans to L ideas best?

    The LP is in a marathon, not a sprint. Along the way, we need to build the Party and supporters, else our ideas will be confined to the Ivory Tower.

  58. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The LP is in a marathon, not a sprint.

    Absolutely. This is exactly why we need to remain steadfast in our presentation of libertarian principles and policies, rather than moving the LP closer to some hypothetical majority of voters.

    We’re here to change American politics; not be changed by it!

    Along the way, we need to build the Party and supporters, else our ideas will be confined to the Ivory Tower.

    Right. But we need to build support for actual libertarianism, not ‘conservativism’, as Mr. Barr keeps suggesting.

  59. Bill Woolsey Says:

    The benefit of a Barr candidacy is that he will get attention
    as a potential spoiler for McCain.

    He is already getting more attention than any of our other potential
    candidates.. than any of our past candidates.

    Three of his four major issues are great. Rolling back the federal spending increases imposed by Bush, rolling back the attack on the
    Bill of Rights and the separation of powers imposed by Bush, and
    repudiating the preemptive war and nation building imposed by Bush.

    The problem area is immigration. He appears better than Paul on this
    issue. (And I certainly don’t want a candidate fighting for open borders
    at this time.)

    I think that Barr has a great opportunity to gain the votes of libertarians—people who are fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. We have
    seen polling that shows that our voters are turning away from the
    Republicans. How many will turn too the Libertarians?

    While I see “immigration” as a question mark in terms of emphasis, Barr’s
    greatest weakness is on “the social issues.”

    I actually think that his explanation of how he changed his mind is fine. Deflecting questions as “that is a state and local issue,” is OK too.

    As long as the context is “There are other issues that are more important.”

    The problem, however, is that the right wing press will try to pin him down on these issues as an attack to protect McCain. And even the libertal press will bring it up. From the mainstream perspective, every issue is national, the libertarian party is identified with radical stances on personal liberty, and Barr has a reputation as an extreme social conservative.

    But, even if we suffer through more of the “I wouldn’t vote to legalize heroin and crack” in my state, we don’t have to fear that Barr willl potificate on what libertarians think… “libertarians beleive that crack
    should be illegal.”

    I also believe that we don’t have to worry about getting a flood of social
    convervative fanatics into the LP. I

  60. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Dondero: “If he starts coming out for legalization of heroin and cocaine, surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq, and significant downsizing of the Military, [Barr] ’ll lose all credibility, and tons of support amongst libertarian-leaning Republicans who are tempted to vote for him.”

    It’s the LP’s job to represent the libertarian message; “libertarian-leaning Republcians” and “libertarian-leaning Democrats” and “libertarian-leaning Libertarians” can vote for whoever they like. It’s not the LP’s job to cater to the non-libertarian views of “libertarian-leaning” voters.

    Dondero: “what good is all that “kick-ass Military” if you never use it?

    One of your dumbest statements, among many dumb statements.

    That’s like saying, what’s the use of having all that kick-ass Fire Dept equipment if we never use it? No fires this year? Damn, let’s burn down some buildings so our fire engines don’t go to waste.

    Or, what’s the use of having all those kick-ass Hospitals if we never use them? No sick people this year? Let’s break some legs so the emergency rooms will have something to do.

    Or, what’s the use of having all those kick-ass Police Depts if we never use them? No crime this year? Let’s murder some people so the cops will have something to investigate.

    You moron! It’s a good thing not to have to use the military. The military exists to defend us from harm. If it can do that without going to war, so much the better. If we’re safely at peace, it’s doing its job.

    But you apparently think, no nation attacked us? Let’s blow up some civilians so our bombs don’t go to waste.

    Even as a conservative, you should appreciate that those bombs will cost money to replace (I know you don’t care about the deaths of innocent civilians.

    And to repeat Susan Santarini’s request, let’s see your Navy photos?

  61. JT Says:

    Dondero: “what good is all that “kick-ass Military” if you never use it?

    Sipos: “One of your dumbest statements, among many dumb statements.

    That’s like saying, what’s the use of having all that kick-ass Fire Dept equipment if we never use it? No fires this year? Damn, let’s burn down some buildings so our fire engines don’t go to waste.”

    Damn! I was going to make the same point, Thomas, but you beat me to it. Well done.

    The police are there to respond to crimes, or to act while crimes are being committed (of course, they should be real crimes, not victimless ones). The police are not there to act in advance of crimes (i.e., preemptively). The same principle applies to the military.

  62. Michael Seebeck Says:

    JT and Thomas have it correct. The concepts of freedom and liberty and Justice all require “innocent until proven guilty” and require reactive instead of proactive force, It’s one of the things that separates this country from the totalitarians like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.

    Dondero, who doesn’t even explain what he thinks “Surrender to Al-Qaeda” is, seems to prefer proactive police states over freedom.

  63. Stefan Says:

    Thomas: Spot on. Eric’s dummest comment ever and of course he will disappear and not respond, as he knows he has been thoroughly beaten. It would not surprise you that his colors for McCain is coming out on his blog now once again.
    He was never going to consider voting for Barr or any other LP candidate (except Root) in any case.

  64. Stefan Says:

    Susan:
    With “conservatism” Barr means fiscal responsibility, smaller government (which involves slashing of federal governments) etc. , thus very much the same as libertarianism. As someone in the Reagan tradition he would consider the essence of conservatism, libertarianism, e.g. freedom to choose. In practise you will find there are many lines of agreement between “conservatism” and “libertarianism”, an 80% “intersection”.

    We are never “absolutely” free, and one should not portray the main parties as being “unfree”. One could say the LP is the most principled and consequent on how the principles of freedom should be applied.

    What I want to say with regard to the drug war is that, though important, it would be a mistake to make the “drug-issue” the main issue in the election.
    The context of the drug-war, like with other moral-ethical issues should be values in society as well. I said I think the LP should treat the drug issue as a medical problem, not a legal problem (e.g. that it should be outlawed by the federal government). It would be problematical to treat the use of hard drugs (for non-medical usuage) as being only an issue for liberty to those that want to use it (drug addicts), and NOT to stress that hard drugs could be an enormous PROBLEM in society and society should also be encouraged to combat this issue. The percentage of people who want to use drugs is quite small, so this issue should not be blown up beyond proportions.

    In politics perception plays a very significant role. If someone has a negative perception about you/your party, you can argue with him/her till you blue in the face and present him/her with compelling rational arguments, he or she will still not be easily persuaded because of the negative perception, some partly due to the media that gave the wrong impression, some partly due to the LP as well, e.g. the perception people have of the LP as being “libertine”. Ron Paul has made this remark recently in a Bloomberg interview and cited these two reasons: the “conspiracy” by the two main parties to block out third parties and also by the LP’s own making, the impression of a “libertine partine”. Most of the people would never vote for a party they portrays itself or they have the impression of being “anarchist”. This also means even the “anarchists” among the LP, would never experience their “anarchist revolution” democratically.
    WHat I also mean to say is that it would take a lot of time and power to steer the Titanic, one cannot make a 180% degree turn-around on some issues overnight.
    The LP would be wise to survey the issues of freedom or liberty which affects the overall majority of people, and that involves, economic freedom, judicial freedom, more possibilities to choose with orientation etc. and the “freedom to use a specific hard drug” is quite low on the list of many.

  65. paulie Says:

    Santarini,

    P-A-U-L-I-E

    And while I have graduated college, I have no picture to prove it at my disposal, and if I did, I don’t have a scanner, so I would not be able to provide it to you.

    So I suppose that means I never went to college?

Leave a Reply