Third Party Media Watch

According to Google News…

Top tier

“Bob Barr”: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,143 for Bob-Barr
“Ralph Nader”: Results 1 - 10 of about 928 for Ralph-Nader

Second tier

“Mike Gravel”: Results 1 - 10 of about 188 for Mike-Gravel
“Alan Keyes”: Results 1 - 10 of about 185 for Alan-Keyes
“Cynthia McKinney”: Results 1 - 10 of about 169 for Cynthia-McKinney

Less than one hundred tier

“Chuck Baldwin”: Results 1 - 10 of about 81 for Chuck-Baldwin
“Wayne Allyn Root” plus “Wayne Root” (includes duplicates): Results 1 - 10 of about 46 for Wayne-Allyn-Root plus Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for Wayne-Root
“Christine Smith”: Results 1 - 10 of about 52 for Christine-Smith
“Mary Ruwart”: Results 1 - 10 of about 50 for Mary-Ruwart
“George Phillies”: Results 1 - 10 of about 28 for George-Phillies
“Steve Kubby”: Results 1 - 10 of about 21 for Steve-Kubby
“Jesse-Johnson” Green: Results 1 - 10 of about 26 for Jesse-Johnson Green
“Kat Swift”: Results 1 - 10 of about 20 for Kat-Swift
“Kent Mesplay”: Results 1 - 10 of about 16 for Kent-Mesplay
“Daniel Imperato”: Results 1 - 5 of 5 for Daniel-Imperato
“Jingozian”: Results 1 - 8 of 8 for Jingozian
“Robert Milnes”: Results 1 - 3 of 3 for Robert-Milnes
“Alden Link”: Results 1 - 2 of 2 for Alden-Link

This comparison isn’t totally fair because of search parameters, common names, use of middle names, etc. I tried to do the comparisons in the fairest manner possible and showed the search strings used for the results provided. I’m sure some of you will have great suggestions to improve upon the mechanisms I attempted. Keep in mind that for the lower tier candidates, Third Party Watch is the major (and in some cases, the only) news source indicated.

Of course, Third Party Watch just gave each of these candidates an additional media hit with this analysis. :)

The first comment on this thread reminds me that I forgot to disclose that I am working with the Barr campaign. My bad. The only excuse I’ll provide is that I was wearing my TPW hat when I wrote this.

78 Responses to “Third Party Media Watch”

  1. Mike Theodore Says:

    Lovely Gordon. You’ve swept everyone but Barr under the rug. Sure, you can say that the inclusion of Nader and McKinney are third party related, but your part of the Barr campaign. Nice neutrality. Saying simply that Barr is our main man, shiney shiney happy face.

  2. Wes Benedict Says:

    Mike, how are the bumper stickers?

  3. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Mr. Theodore,

    How would you suggest that I improve upon the Google News search results?

    Regards,

    spg

  4. Mike Theodore Says:

    Wes,
    I love them. Unfortunately, I have no bumper. It’s silently and patiently waiting for one to rest on. Now I was extremely happy to get the second one. I added it to my little bookshelf of campaign stickers, right next to my autographed Gravel bumper sticker.

  5. Mike Theodore Says:

    Stephen,

    Well, maybe if they had a point I’d be all over them. Would you have posted it if Barr was in the lower tier and lets say Alden Link (horrid example, as not to ignite flames) was the top tier?
    I’m just finding it a little funky that all this “neutral”, yet positive Barr media is floating around a heavy Barr supporter that I believe works on the campaign (correct me if I’m wrong).
    Google search counts? Is this what we’re resorting to? Didn’t this party start up ideologically?

  6. mdh Says:

    Barr has definitly done a better job than the others in managing the media. Of that there has been little doubt as it stands, anyway.

  7. Mike Theodore Says:

    Well, a candidate needs to bring more than a media firestorm.

  8. Wes Benedict Says:

    Mike,

    If it’s OK with you, I’d like to offer a 48-hour “9 FREE STICKERS MIKE GOT NO BUMPER AND WES’S WEBSITE DON’T WORK RIGHT EITHER BUT HE DON’T GOT TIME TO FIGGER IT OUT” special to Third Party Watch media enthusiasts. Usually the orders come through even if the website kicks back an error afterwards.

    Buy none, and get nine free! You can’t beat that price!
    http://freelibertarianstickers.com/

    Alls you got to do is type “9 for MIKE GOT NO BUMPER” in the comments section of the ONE FREE LIBERTARIAN STICKER order form and I’ll send 9 for free.

    So far, I’ve lost a lot of money on this venture. I hope to make it up on volume—and free media.

  9. disinter Says:

    Google News is obviously biased in that it primarily includes only mainstream “news” sources.

    As far as I am concerned the less controlled media a candidate gets, the better the candidate.

  10. disinter Says:

    Well, a candidate needs to bring more than a media firestorm.

    “The idea that Barr’s position as a former Congressman will pull more press attention, and allow his campaign to continue at least part of the Paul energy, discounts relevant facts about the political landscape. Most importantly, Paul ran as a Republican and was in almost every debate. Barr will not be in the debates, and will not receive even the modest coverage that Paul did. It is highly unlikely that Barr will ignite the same intensity and passion that Paul did. Also, the Democratic race is now down to 2 candidates; anti-war enthusiasts have made their peace, so to speak, with that party. They will not cross the aisle again - particularly if they are not presented with a solid anti-war position.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j28.html

  11. Liberty Woman Says:

    Gordon is a neocon smearbund artist. If I make it to the LP convention, I am going to spit in his face for making Bob Barr a candidate and for his vote as a state chair to put him on the LNC. Then I am going to spit in his face again for making people who question the 9/11 commission answers about 9/11 look stupid.

  12. Mike Theodore Says:

    I was using the word firestorm lightly, disinter. ( ;

  13. disinter Says:

    Wow! That’s a lot of spit.

  14. disinter Says:

    How would you suggest that I improve upon the Google News search results?

    Do a blog search?

  15. disinter Says:

    This is a good indication of a candidate’s popularity:

    http://siteanalytics.compete.com/gravel2008.us+bobbarr.org+rootforamerica.com/?metric=uv

  16. David F. Nolan Says:

    Nothing very surprising here, although I suspect that most of the “Christine Smith” hits were for the Playboy centerfold, and not for the Colorado Libertarian. The question still remains, however: which is more important - media coverage, or clear, consistent articulation of libertarian principles and policies?

    If Barr had a chance of actually winning the election, then I’d be cheering him on. He’s a “soft” libertarian in my book, but way, way better than B.O. or McLame. Unfortunately, Barr has no more chance of winning than Kubby or Ruwart, and I’d rather get 1% for a solid Libertarian than 2% for a semi-Libertarian. (Or 1% vs. 0.5%) And realistically, that’s the kind of trade-off we are looking at.

  17. Mike Theodore Says:

    Also, these are news sources. Type the names in Google itself. Then come back with those numbers. I did, and I am quite pleased.

  18. disinter Says:

    Unfortunately, Barr has no more chance of winning than Kubby or Ruwart, and I’d rather get 1% for a solid Libertarian than 2% for a semi-Libertarian.

    I agree.

  19. Flyer Says:

    Barr is no friend of liberty. He is still toeing the Republican line. The mainstream voter in America has no use for Barr. He will be ignored. He will not be included in the debates.

  20. disinter Says:

    A regular google search and a google blog search return FAR more hits for Mike Gravel than Barr, yet he is placed in the second tier?

  21. Mike Theodore Says:

    Are you as pleased as I am, disinter?

  22. Stephen Gordon Says:

    David,

    My apologies. I forgot about the porn star. I’ll try to readjust this tomorrow.

    Wiping spit off my face for being one of the first people in the LP to speak out against the Iraq War.

    Going to bed now so I can fight for liberty again tomorrow.

    spg

  23. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “Gordon is a neocon smearbund artist.”

    Excuse me! Mark it zero. Next frame. This is not Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.

  24. johncjackson Says:

    google image search for “christine smith” is the best google.

  25. Daniel N. Adams Says:

    disinter,

    In your link above, you had bobbarr.org. His candidate site is bobbarr2008.com. This result is probably a more accurate picture:

    http://siteanalytics.compete.com/gravel2008.us+bobbarr2008.com+rootforamerica.com/?metric=uv

  26. disinter Says:

    Daniel - oops! Thanks for the correction.

  27. Liberated Woman Says:

    Liberty Woman threatened to spit on Gordon. yuck!

    “Her” name is too close for comfort. For the record, I did not write that threat. I keep my spit to myself!

    LW

  28. Mike Theodore Says:

    Excellent eye, Daniel. I commend you. It seems in website views, as of recently, Barr and Gravel are at a close tie. Guess we just might have to pick between ideologies after all.
    ohhhh….shucks!

  29. disinter Says:

    Is Wes drunk again?

  30. mdh Says:

    Hey Wes, hit me up if I can help with your website not working thing. You have my number and/or email address.

    There are a lot of women in this thread. I may have to hang around here some more. One of them even seems pretty feisty. ;)

  31. Craig Says:

    It’s not really fair to accuse a reporter of bias for reporting unbiased facts, so why bother? We all know that Bob Barr gets more media coverage than the other libertarian candidates. If media attention is your main criterion for electing a candidate, he’s your guy.

    Obviously a lot of other things matter too, so take this as one piece of the puzzle in selecting the best candidate.

    I still think the LP’s best bet is to offer the nomination to Ron Paul.

  32. Mike Theodore Says:

    Craig, he won’t take it. Also, an outsider mentioned this to me. It would kill his credibility. He’d look like Alan Keyes, jumping from one loss to another. He’s good where he is: congress.

  33. Fred Church Ortiz Says:

    “Google News is obviously biased in that it primarily includes only mainstream “news” sources.

    As far as I am concerned the less controlled media a candidate gets, the better the candidate.”

    Absolutely, we should run a candidate for our own gratification, not for anyone else to see or hear about. For that matter, we probably ought to stop messing with this ballot access thing. Let’s refocus on write-ins, those of us that read the blogs know will know who to vote for.

  34. Yank Says:

    I need ass. Going to get ass in Denver.

  35. Yank Says:

    Can Barr bring home the ass? Can he deliver ass? Where’s the ass in this party?

  36. Arthur DiBianca Says:

    I did a Google News search for “free libertarian stickers” but I got no hits.

    Does anyone have any advice? Why is the media blacklisting these beautiful (and sometimes free) libertarian bumper stickers?

    http://freelibertarianstickers.com

    Does Wes need to hire Steve Gordon as a media consultant to get his own slice of the Google pie?

    [ Disclaimer: I work for Wes even though he won’t send me a free libertarian sticker because I live in Texas. However, Texans can get a free Texas Libertarian bumper sticker by going here: http://www.lptexas.org/membership.shtml ]

  37. Eric Dondero Says:

    Well, this doesn’t say much for Mary Ruwart now does it? She’s way down the list.

    Ruwart nominated by the LP? Watch for a disastrous 220,000 votes ala David Bergland, 1984.

    Would you Anarchist Ruwart supporters be happy with that vote total?

  38. Eric Dondero Says:

    David Nolan calls Bob Barr a “soft libertarian.” That must make Nolan a flaming Anarchist.

    It all depends upon your perspective Nolan. From the mainstream libertarian view, Barr seems hardcore. From your flame-throwing standpoint, he appears more moderate.

  39. Eric Dondero Says:

    David Nolan:

    Do you really wish to limit the Libertarian Party to just an exclusive club for Anarchists?

    Tell us please, why would any mainstream libertarian in their right mind be attracted to the LP if you had your way, and Barr or Root doesn’t win the nomination, in favor of some extremist Anarchist like Ruwart or Kubby.

    Go ahead. Make the pitch. I’d be interested to know how you would sell an all-Anarchist Libertarian Party to a real world Libertarian.

    Think London-style red phone booth, Nolan. For your vision of the LP would fit right inside.

  40. Susan Hogarth Says:

    It’s too bad that when Barr does get media time, he spends so much of it whining about what a bad conservative McCain is. People might start getting the idea that Libertarians are just disgruntled Republicans.

    And it’s really too bad that he says stuff like what he said on Charlotte radio station WBT last Tuesday:

    Republicans ought to embrace my effort, because we’re going to be pulling people out to vote who otherwise wouldn’t be voting and some of them might vote for Republican candidates on the down-ballot.

    He said this in a ten-minute interview where he completely failed to mention any support he might be able to give for Libertarian down-ballot candidates. He’d be a much more effective force for the LP if he, you know, spent more of his time talking about the LP than the RP.

    Details and the audio clip here:

    http://www.colliething.com/2008/05/bob-barr-republicans-ought-to-embrace.html

  41. Hmmmm.... Says:

    Seems funny how Steve Gordon was a praised when he was supporting Ron Paul, but now that he supports Bob Barr, all of a sudden he’s a “neocon”?

    Even better is the fact that Paul’s Platform is pretty similar to Barr’s. Some libertarians seem pretty blind to that fact.

  42. Kenny Says:

    The big difference between Paul and Barr is the Paul voted against the Iraq War and Patriot Act. Barr supported both.

  43. Jonathan Says:

    I commend the author for being fair and for his clear disclosure

  44. Susan Hogarth Says:

    The big difference between Paul and Barr is the Paul voted against the Iraq War and Patriot Act. Barr supported both.

    Do not forget that Barr favors imposing an entire new tax (national sales tax) at the national level. Interesting interpretation of ‘federalism’.

  45. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I strongly disagree with Nolan’s position that if you aren’t going to win anyway, you may as well develop a message that excites the current membership of the LP. (Well, he actually said, a solid libertarian rather than a semi-libertarian.)

    I believe that the key purpose of a race where winning is more or less
    impossible is to communicate to the 10% to 20% of voters who are libertarian that there views are libertarian and, further, that the Libertarian
    Party is a political party for people like them.

    I think that the best way to communicate this is for the libertarian candidate to take positions that cover each “leg” of the tripod of
    of issues that make up libertarian thought—personal liberty, free market
    economy, and peace. This positions can involve some reduction
    in undesirable government activity, or opposition to some
    expansion of goverment being advocated by the major party opposition.

    Making a major campaign issue a position that involves a major expansion of government activity in any area destroys the purpose
    of the campaign.

    I think that it is most important that the positions on the issues be popular
    with the 10 to 20% of voters who are libertarians. But, having them
    popular with everyone else is good to.

    Given those restrictions, the more attention, the higher favorability ratings among libertarians (the 10% to 20%), and the more votes, the better.

    The purpose of all this is to build a libertarian base—self-identified
    libertarians who are open to supporting a Libertarian Party candidate.

    Barr, it seems to me, meets the criterion. He is running on issues where he takes libertarian positions. He is covering each leg of the tripod. He is not proposing any increase in government activity (so far.) His “problems” are that he does not support changes in a libertarian direction on issues that he isn’t running upon.

    As someone who appears likely to get more attention and more votes, on a libertarian message, he is the best choice.

    (By the way, 2% is twice as many votes as 1%. Further, I
    think that the reality is more likely to be .5% again vs. as much as 5%,
    so that it could be 10 times as many votes.)

    This would be my usual analysis of the situation. But, there is
    a tremendous complication—the Ron Paul “revolution.” This
    year, that should be our key concern. And, I think that
    Bob Barr is our best choice for that reason as well. More, later.

  46. Clark Says:

    ....i’ve googled barf several times looking for even more dirt..he appears a dirtbag.. ;o)

  47. Jonathan Says:

    4 days to go to the convention. The Libertarian Party will shine when Barr is announced. Wait and see how the media will be all over it and I can’t wait for the poll taken after Barr is the candidate. Finally the Libertarian Party has arrived ! Please make a kind donation to www.bobbarr2008.com We are over the $100,000 mark

  48. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I strongly disagree with Nolan’s position that if you aren’t going to win anyway, you may as well develop a message that excites the current membership of the LP.

    But that is not what David said at all. He said “I’d rather get 1% for a solid Libertarian than 2% for a semi-Libertarian,” and “The question still remains, however: which is more important - media coverage, or clear, consistent articulation of libertarian principles and policies?”

    Taking those two comments together, what I understood from it is that he (Nolan) would rather see what coverage there is for a race we are not going to win be focused on a clear and consistent Libertarian message, not a “soft” libertarian message. He didn’t address ‘exciting the current membership of the LP’ and certainly did not (here) identify it a as priority.

    I think you’re reading too much into what David wrote. But he can doubtless add more clarity himself.

    I believe that the key purpose of a race where winning is more or less
    impossible is to communicate to the 10% to 20% of voters who are libertarian that there views are libertarian and, further, that the Libertarian
    Party is a political party for people like them.

    Nothing David says contradicts that. Although personally I think you are too optimistic with the 10-20% figure. I am more of the mind that most voters are 10-20% libertarian than that 10-20% of voters are libertarian :-/ Frankly I think it makes our task much harder in many ways, but that’s the way I see it.

    Making a major campaign issue a position that involves a major expansion of government activity in any area destroys the purpose
    of the campaign.

    Right. This is (one reason) why the national sales tax is such a horrendous idea for Libertarians to push. And yet Barr showcases it on his website.

    I think that it is most important that the positions on the issues be popular with the 10 to 20% of voters who are libertarians.

    With the difference I mentioned above, I think it’s important to speak to the 10-20% of most people that is libertarian. Get them agreeing with you on one issue and thinking about issues where you’re ahead of them. Push them to think. Yes, difficult. But rewarding.

    Equally as important is to stand for and awaken the 1-2% of folks who are more strongly libertarian, and to let them know that they aren’t alone and that there is a group of folks engaged in a grand and difficult and wonderful struggle to make freedom really happen.

    Barr might be a good tool for the first part above except for the negative baggage of disgruntled Republicanism that he wears like a shroud. His message is essentially negative: “Vote against McCain”. We want an essentially positive “Vote FOR freedom” message. For the second part above, Barr would be a disaster: he’s less Libertarian than one of the Republican candidates, for heaven’s sake! How is that supposed to fire the base?

    This would be my usual analysis of the situation. But, there is
    a tremendous complication—the Ron Paul “revolution.” This
    year, that should be our key concern. And, I think that
    Bob Barr is our best choice for that reason as well.

    I hear Ron Paul Libs talking about voting for Baldwin if Barr is the LP nominee. Barr is really pretty far from Paul, politically as well as personally. Paul inspires with his constancy and truth. Barr weasels by calling his support for the PATRIOT act and DOMA libertarian(!?). It’s bad enough that he has those votes to repudiate; the fact that he has not DONE so is really the final straw for those of us wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  49. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    “David Nolan calls Bob Barr a ‘soft libertarian.’ That must make Nolan a flaming Anarchist.”

    No, it makes Nolan a honest standup guy. He’s neither a bullshitter nor a spinmeister, particularly when he’s the telling the truth, even if it’s done so at the cost of his convictions.

    Better than that, he doesn’t go out of his way, being a gadfly or even a shill for the Republican Party…..unlike someone to whom I’m responding.

    “It all depends upon your perspective Nolan. From the mainstream libertarian view, Barr seems hardcore. From your flame-throwing standpoint, he appears more moderate.”

    Let’s cut through the handholding, ok?

    What you call “perspective” is what Nolan, many others on his side, and I deem facts. The fact is that Bob Barr IS a “soft” libertarian. He’s inconsistent in his ideological thinking and is MORE along the lines of a traditional conservative than a true-blue libertarian. Plus, Barr’s record on the War on Drugs has been horrible, not to mention unjustifiable.

    My objections to Barr are of the following:

    *His record as a drug warrior (although he claims to have renouncing his old position to a “certain extent,” but his recent TV appearances on Fox News and his press statements certainly show the opposite);

    *His support for the Drug War in Colombia (I think he owes the LP member base a plausible explanation for that);

    *His recent “only-a-fool” statement regarding setting a time table to withdraw from Iraq (which makes him sound more John McCainesque than Ron Paulesque);

    *His conservatoid position on immigration (which doesn’t make the remaining purists in the LP pleased on that issue);

    *His old position on gay marriage (still harbors that conservative position on gay marriage, even though the government should remove itself from that sphere);

    and finally,

    *His anti-Pagan and Wiccan stands regarding Wiccan and Pagan soldiers who are in the military, who are vocal about their beliefs in the Military, and his attempts to remove those religions being recognized in the military as being legitimate because he views them as “not real religions.” (He’s a prick for even pushing that back when he was in Congress.)

    Barr is no Ron Paul, and he doesn’t even come close to being Ron Paul. His record isn’t anything like Ron Paul, especially his loopy and ridiculous support for the Fair Tax (a position which he shares with Gravel as well).

    Plus, Barr wasted too much time getting into the presidential game, especially when many pro-liberty activists have been turned off by the shoddy campaign that he’s running. And, trust me, it IS shoddy. Moreover, he’s far less likely to win the nomination, no matter how bad his supporters want him to secure it and how hard they work for it.

    Root is a liberventionist who’s been groomed well by you, Eric. (Especially when you did it before you jumped on the Rudy “I-love-wearing-a-dress” Ghouliani campaign that lacked more substance than the ingredients of a McDonald’s Big Mac. But I digress.) And more to the point, he’s employing Ron Paul’s anti-Iraq War position to get purist votes, even though he doesn’t mean it and is not serious about it to begin with.

    As for Kubby and Ruwart, at least they are trying to keep the LP honest. What’s your excuse?

    Barr and Root make the LP look totalitarian and statist. Kubby and Ruwart make it look reasonably sane. Again, what’s your excuse?

  50. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    By the way, I almost forgot, Eric:

    Barr and Gravel are washed-up politicians who are trying to relive their glory days in Washington. They’re hardly worth the label libertarian.

    Watching them debate on the issues is like watching a poorly produced episode of MTV’s “Punk’d”. Or even “Candid Camera.”

    If either Root, Barr, or Gravel get the LP nomination, the LP will slit its own political throat the same way the GOP slit its own throat by handing a victory to McCain. Either way, no matter which way the wind blows, the LP will be signing its own death warrant.

    It’s just interesting that you admitted to Chris Bennett on here that your goal in the LP is to destroy it.

    And you’ve seen to that at every opportunity made available to you.

    Nobody takes what you say seriously, Dondero. You’re a loser and a lightweight. Accept it or don’t accept it.

    It’s your choice.

  51. Doug Craig Says:

    Susan

    Mary Ruwart would get more press time as a VP for Barr the as the Presidential candidate. Bob Barr is not as hard core as most of us but he will get more people to join the Lp than any other candidate. It will then be up to us to get them further down the path of purtity. I started here in Georgia as a Bible thumping neo con before I got on the path and it took me years to get were I am at. Bob Barr WILL bring in my fresh blood than any other candidate and then it will be up to us to make sure they get on the path . I live here in Georgia were we have one of the strongest parties in the nation and Bob barr has been part of that.If you want to to see the LP take off then put up a Barr/Ruwart .

  52. disinter Says:

    Would you Anarchist Ruwart supporters be happy with that vote total?

    What is the difference between 200,000 votes for Ruwart and 500,000 votes for Barr - other than the fact that Barr isn’t even a Libertarian?

    You idiots seem to think Barr is going to propel the LP to some sort of victory.

  53. stevec Says:

    Hey Gordon - Let’s take about the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM…..

    I notice that nowhere in your “searches” did you include the name ALDEN LINK…..

    Talk about something being conspicuous by its absence…..

    If your gonna be a self - appointed gatekeeper at least don’t be so blatant about what your doing…I’m sure I’m not the only one who noticed this sleight…buit I guess at they are with other campaigns they decided not to bring it up - ala competing merchants in restraint of trade…

  54. disinter Says:

    Absolutely, we should run a candidate for our own gratification, not for anyone else to see or hear about.

    You have this bizarre delusion that the controlled media is going to take Barr seriously, that he will be invited to the debates and that he would magically win. You people really need to pull your heads out of your asses because if Barr is the nominee, you are in for a major wake-up call.

    I would take someone that understands and can communicate Libertarian ideology (Ruwart) over some brain-dead opportunist (Barr) any day.

  55. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Bob Barr is not as hard core as most of us but he will get more people to join the Lp than any other candidate.

    In your judgment. Judgments differ, of course.

    It will then be up to us to get them further down the path of purtity. I started here in Georgia as a Bible thumping neo con before I got on the path and it took me years to get were I am at.

    Thank you for reiterating one of the strongest cases against Barr.

    The presidential campaign trail is NOT the place for an education in the fundamentals of libertarianism. Sending someone who is shaky on libertarian principle to speak to the press and the people (not necessarily in that order) will result in some pretty crazy situations - like Barr indicating he would not support ending prohibition in his own state. That will hardly either attract or educate budding libertarians.

  56. Brian Miller Says:

    I would certainly hope that a Congressman with 12 years of career during the birth and mainstreaming of the Internet would receive more “hits” as a result of his activities during those 12 years than recent Libertarian candidates for president who have lived much of their lives in the private sector.

    Of course, a great deal of the media hits for both Barr and Gravel are less than flattering—especially on issues of the drug war and gay rights (Barr) and health care markets (Gravel).

    I suppose one could say that they’re not only the most-mentioned candidates, but also the most-criticized. That double-edged sword cuts both ways…

  57. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    “Well, this doesn’t say much for Mary Ruwart now does it? She’s way down the list.”

    Wrong, Dondero. It says that there is an extremely unfair bias on Google News’ analysis of the candidate search counts. That is largely due to the search parameters (which are very arbitrary and not really reflective of who’s searching who), the keywords people employ to get these kinds of search results, etc. In a nutshell, the data string parameters can be manipulated to be what the pollsters want it to be, not what they actually are.

    Therefore, I find Google News’ results to be very much apocryphal.

    As for Ruwart being “way down on the list,” so is your candidate Wayne Allyn Root (that is, if he’s still your candidate….unless you’re secretly throwing your hat to John McCain, which is what Root has been doing all along to the party). Not that I took these search results seriously (since I think they are being easily manipulated, spun, and doctored), but if there is any indication, Root isn’t already being perceived as being the savior of the Libertarian Party, let alone the pro-liberty movement.

    He’s not the savior of the movement, and neither are you. Trying to play the role of a “mainstream libertarian Republican Jesus Christ” in the LP and the movement is hardly impressive in my book.

  58. disinter Says:

    Picking a candidate solely on his/her perceived ability to get “media attention” is the equivalent of buying a used car based on it’s looks. The car may not even start, but you don’t care as long as it has been washed, waxed and appears pretty to others. In the end you are left with your 5 minutes of fame and no way to get home.

    Earth to the retard caucus.

  59. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    “You have this bizarre delusion that the controlled media is going to take Barr seriously, that he will be invited to the debates and that he would magically win. You people really need to pull your heads out of your asses because if Barr is the nominee, you are in for a major wake-up call.”

    Disinter, you’re absolutely right on the button here.

    The idea that, if Barr secures the LP’s presidential nomination, he’ll get loads of media coverage and secure a winning vote in the White House, is pure unadulterated bullshit. Even if he gets 2% of the electoral vote (which I doubt he’ll even come close to it), he’ll present a half-assed watered-down message which will be the absolute opposite of what Ron Paul campaigned on and will make the LP look very hypocritical…not to mention a flip-flop.

    At a time when Americans are slowly but surely becoming more disenfranchised with the war, the already-weakened yet deterioriating dollar, the Fed, the economy, their government’s own foreign policy of interventionism, the Drug War, and many issues that they passionately concerned about, it would be a huge mistake, not to mention a disaster, if the LP coronates Root or Barr at the Denver convention. An about-face on our principles—just to transform the Party of Harry Browne and David Nolan from the Party of Principle to the Party of Personalities and Opportunism—would spell the end of the Party. If Root, Barr, or even Gravel wins (I doubt the latter though), the Party can kiss its own future good-bye, because the base will say “Bye bye” faster than you can say “cut and run.”

    That’s the way the cookie will crumble if it comes to that.

  60. Green in Brooklyn Says:

    Interesting analysis. Of course Barr is going to get more hit, because he just announced a week or so ago. I’m sure if you did this in the February, Nader would be had and shoulders above everyone else. Similarly, the winner at the Lib convention next week will get a nice press boost, as will McKinney after the July Green Party convention in July, especially when the Obama-Hillary race fades into the distance and the press starts to actually cover the GE.

  61. Flyer Says:

    No Barr in 2008. He still spouts the Republican line on everything. He in no way puts forth Libertarian thoughts. Crawl back in your hole. Go away. Start your own party of RepublicanRejects. Send Barr packing at the National Convention.

  62. Ross Says:

    I think those analytical graph things should be done again once the initial excitement over Barr’s candidacy is over.

  63. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Google Hits does not a frontrunner make.

    Therefore the entire topic, except for Todd’s excellent analysis in the posts on Barr, is a waste of electrons.

  64. Steve LaBianca Says:

    The fact that Barr is at the top of this list is intended to make it appear that he and he alone BY FAR AND AWAY has had, and by extension WILL CONTINUE to get the media coverage, and that nobody else will

    I can’t but help think that if another candidate wins the nomination (as likely or more so than Barr winning in my estimation) how the media will “cover” that!

    Imagine Mary Ruwart, Steve Kubby, or even Phillies winning the nomination?

    How is it that a former congressman, AND a former Senator LOST to one of these candidates?

    Again, this “media coverage” isn’t necessarily any indication of votes that will be received. Neither are polls. Remember Michael Badnarik polling 5% in New Mexico. He ended up with about 1/10 of that.

    Once again. the biggest point of the media coverage and votes is simply this: does the candidate represent Libertarian values well?

    If the media says that Barr (who allegedly represents the LP well) is against ending drug prohibition, ending foreign interventionism, replacing the income tax with the “UnFair” tax or a national sales tax, that the federal program, No Child Left Behind and Barr’s Defense of Marriage Act ARE in fact Libertarian positions the voters will be absolutely so confused that they won’t know what they are voting for or against.

    It is one thing to campaign on three or four “issues” which hold to Libertarian positions. It is quite another to have as THE ISSUES of the campaign, positions which are not. This is why Barr, “Google News ”
    champion or not is the wrong choice for LP nominee.

  65. Kent Anthony Says:

    Mr. Gordon,

    Shame on you.

    Kent

    http://www.Baldwin2008.com

  66. Kent Anthony Says:

    Eric Dondero

    Ron Paul back-stabbing “Eric Dondero” ?

    LOL

    (spit)

  67. Todd Andrew Barnett Says:

    Michael:

    Thank you so much for your kind and warm comments on my analysis of Barr’s presidential prospects. I appreciate them.

    I just hope that Barr’s campaign fizzles before it reaches the convention floor. But I’m not naive to believe this will happen. Barr will get some support; I’m just not inclined to believe in his so-called concern for civil liberties and that crap he talks about.

    Besides, his talk of “limited government” reminds me of one of those wind-up dolls that say silly, childlike things. lol

    Anyhoo…..

  68. stevec Says:

    MEA CULPA! MEA CULPA! I failed to see Alden Link’s name mentioned at the bottom of the page. Please forgive my incorrect, imprudent, and innapropriate comment Mr. Gordon. Alden Link is receiving unbiased coverage by your benevolence. I hope you can find some small space in your heart to allow me the forgiveness I am but unworthy to receive….

  69. Bill Woolsey Says:

    I believe 10% to 20% of the American voters are libertarian.

    But, of course, by libertarian I mean a set of general attitudes about
    the proper role of government. Fiscally convervative and socially liberal? We can describe it in various ways. But that is the general
    idea.

    Of course, I make no claim that they feel some sort of affinity
    for any simple principle, much less something like the nonagression
    “axiom.” Or, that they believe that all of their political positions should
    be deduced from any principle. Much less that one.

    I am not very interested in trying to convince people to become Rand/
    Rothbard libertarians. I am interesting in building a political movement
    that is pro-peace and personal liberty without becing anti-capitalist.
    I am interested in building a political movement that is pro market economy without being devoted to the enforcement of traditional moral
    values or occupying the middle east for 100 years.

    What Nolan describes as a “soft” libertarian is probably exactly in the
    middle of where the movement needs to be.

    What Nolan describes as a solid libertairan is on the fringes.

    I find Barr imperfect, but acceptable. He is running on libertarian positions on issues covering all three legs of the stool. He is not running on expanding government or restricting liberty anywhere relative to the
    status quo.

    “Solid” libertarian simply means calling for larger changes in more areas.

    Well. it is foolhardy to campaign on more than a handful of issues. Sadly,
    voters have limited attention.

    And fewer voters will support or find credible more extreme changes in any area.

    You all admit this. Just as Nolan said in 1996. It is better to get 1/2% for
    abolishing the income tax than 1% for cutting income tax rates in half.

    Just as Nolan said again that he would rather get fewer votes for a “solid libertarian” than a “soft” libertarian. (1% is 1/2 of 2%.)

    To me, as long as the candidate is any sort of libertarian at all, the more votes the better. The only problem is if the candidate is not a libertarian.
    Or is campaigning on positions on issues that increase the size of goverment or reduce personal liberty.

    I measure success as more attention and more votes. (And even more “positives” from people who end up voting for another candidate
    for strategic reasons.)

    I consider the, “if we can’t win, so what if we get only half as many votes” to be foolish.

    Anyway, I think Ruwart will get the attention and votes somewhere between Browne and Badnarik. So, we are looking at .5%. 1%
    would be a miracle.

    I think Barr will get between more like 2%. 5% would be a miracle.

    So, choosing Ruwart is at best sacrificing 50% of the votes. It could be
    90% of the potential votes. And, the attention, and the numbers of people who prefer the libertarian, but don’t vote for them because they
    can’t win… Barr will do much better.

    The fundamental problem is that Ruwart will be ignored. Barr will
    get attention for a libertarian message.

    The sort of details of this message, that is, the distinctions between the
    candidates… most people won’t know. Most voters will have only a
    superficial understanding of Barr. Get out of Iraq, cut government spending, protect the Constitituion… if we are lucky. And they will
    have never heard of Ruwart.

  70. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    I haven’t read all the comments yet so maybe this has been mentioned already, but all of Robert Milnes’s Google News results are actually from this site! About half of Imperato’s are from this site too, and probably a lot of the other candidates have a lot of their mentions from this site.

    I am glad that at least Bob Barr is so far defeating the fascist/stalinist criminal Ralph Nader. Come on Gravel and Baldwin!

  71. Bill Woolsey Says:

    The key goal of the LP Presidential campaign in 2008
    should be to attract the votes and support of those
    energized by Ron Paul’s Republican primary campaign.

    By far, the best candidate to do this would be Ron Paul.

    The next best would be a candidate exactly like Ron Paul.
    We don’t have anyone close.

    Anyway, I think it is important that our nominee tone down
    the Libertarian partisianship. Paul remains a Republican,
    has endorsed some Republicans running for federal office,
    and is encouraging his supporters to get involved in the
    Republican Party organizations.

    The current attacks on Barr, that he is too close to Republicans,
    is not the right way to go.

    As for message, it is important to judge what attracted voters to
    Paul.

    It is a mistake to focus on the “groupies.” The people who would
    travel from various states and attend mulitple speaches. These are
    the same people that dominate the meetups. They probably make up
    many of the volunteers.

    Many of those people still believe that Paul will win the Republican
    nomination. When he doesn’t, and doesn’t endorse anyone in
    November, maybe we will have a short at some of those 100k votes.
    Maybe some will volunteer or contribute to our candidate. But, we
    will have to compete with Baldwin, with people planing to write Paul
    in, writing his name accross a paper ballot, etc.

    The actual people we need to be looking for is those who voted for
    Paul, said that they would vote for Paul (but didn’t,) or had a favorable
    impression of Paul.

    There is a lot of evidence that Paul’s broader support was based upon
    his opposition to the Iraq War combined with his support for smaller
    government.

    You know, I think Barr’s message “Out of Iraq, cut goverment spending,
    constituional rights, and defend our borders,” touches on all the themes
    popular with Paul voters.

    Candidates like Ruwart are not going to attract this broader group
    of Paul voters because they won’t hear about her.

    As for the Paul groupies, they will certainly hear about her. And
    there will be plenty of Baldwin supporters pointing out her more
    controversial positions. You know, she is nothing like Paul. She
    opposes the Constitution, being an anarchist, she supports child
    pornography, she will let to mexicans take us over… Of course,
    Barr will be slammed for his bad record in Congress. (And that
    he is a CIA agent still working for the international bankers conspiracy.)

    But I really think the best chance for Barr, especially, but probably
    the others as well, is not the die hard Paulites. It is rather those
    that were active, but realize the campaign is over. And those who
    who just voted for Paul and where never activists.

  72. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Most voters will have only a
    superficial understanding of Barr. Get out of Iraq, cut government spending, protect the Constitituion… if we are lucky.

    I agree about ‘superficial impression’, but I think it will be more along the lines of “states’ rights, more-right-winger-than-mccain” rather than peace and constitution…

  73. Rob Latham Says:

    To Bob Barr’s credit, his Alexa.com web site rankings also top the other announced LP presidential candidates.

    /*

  74. disinter Says:

    I believe 10% to 20% of the American voters are libertarian.

    I have a feeling that nearly 100% of people are born Libertarian, but become programmed/brainwashed into worshiping the state.

    Kinda like being born gay but staying in the closet all your life out of fear that someone might think you are different or “uncooperative” with society. People have been taught that nonconformity is a bad thing. So it doesn’t matter if you talk to every single voter in the US and explain to them what the LP is about, they will still vote Republicrat.

    be afraid, watch tv, consume, obey, shut up, be happy

    What an insult to humanity.

  75. W G Says:

    I caucused for Ron Paul. I’m not a groupy. I didn’t follow him anywhere.
    I understand his campain is over. I am a mature man. Old enough to be a Viet Nam vet.
    I would never vote for Barr. I see nothing about him similar to Paul.
    I don’t understand how anyone could compare Barr to Paul.

  76. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I have a feeling that nearly 100% of people are born Libertarian…

    Ha. I think children are natural Libs - among their first words are typically ‘no!’ and ‘mine!’. Unfortunately the socialization process is too often corrupted into a ‘don’t question authority’ process :-/

  77. Jerry S. Says:

    W G Says:

    May 18th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
    I caucused for Ron Paul. I’m not a groupy. I didn’t follow him anywhere.
    I understand his campain is over. I am a mature man. Old enough to be a Viet Nam vet.

    “”“”I would never vote for Barr. I see nothing about him similar to Paul.
    I don’t understand how anyone could compare Barr to Paul.”“””
    (***)

    Thanks W.G., it’s what I’ve said for months too !

    Baldwin is closer to Paul. Baldwin will get part of the Paul supporters and Ruwart,Kubby,Smith or Burns would get a larger portion of them than Barr.

  78. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Woolsey seems to think that Barr is just like Ron Paul.

    On:

    Foreign Interventionism - they’re very different;

    War on Drugs - Extremely different;

    On Taxes - World’s apart;

    On ending the Current Wars - major differences;

    Even on “federalism” - Barr allows for many unconstitutional functions of the federal government.

    Barr and Paul are VERY different.

    Here’s Woolsey on votes, “Candidates like Ruwart are not going to attract this broader group of Paul voters because they won’t hear about her.”

    Even if this “broader group” might vote for Barr as our nominee, will they stay in the Libertarian camp in 2012? Fleeting support is all that it would be.

    A principled candidate (like Ruwart or Kubby) would get support that “stays”.

    FORGET the fleeting nature of Barr! It has virtually no value, except for the proverbial “15 minutes of fame”.

    This only serves to make the “fleetingly famous” feel better.

Leave a Reply