Write in Ron Paul’s name on ballot?

Ron Paul himself doesn’t like the idea of supporters writing in his name on the November ballot: “I don’t think that’s very productive.”

Liberty Maven agrees, and gives a host of reasons to vote for Bob Barr, but is not happy about the results of a poll asking “who will you vote for?” on the Ron Paul Forums website. Over 200 have voted, with Barr getting 39%, 34% writing in Paul’s name, and 21% voting for Chuck Baldwin.

Says Liberty Maven:

Ron Paul’s penchant for bringing together a wide political spectrum of supporters is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing when the candidate is Ron Paul. Once Ron Paul exits the race, his free thinking voters split apart. They can unite behind a message, but veer apart when deciding who should carry that message.

93 Responses to “Write in Ron Paul’s name on ballot?”

  1. John Lowell Says:

    It is a measure of the insanity that has characterized the Paul campaign that there are those who would write in his name when he, himself, has indicated that such an approach would not “productive”. Kind of like the Japanese soldiers that had fought us on isolated islands in the Pacific that held out and surrendered in the 1950s, and 1960s. One wonders, of course, what it was that was “productive” about the Paul candidacy from the point he made a decision against an independent run anyway. Paul is a schmegeggie and his thirteen year old, die-hard supporters more an embarrassment than an asset. Please go away Ron Paul, please.

  2. Jonathan Says:

    RON PAUL has been very straight forward he wants to work within the system that’s why he chose not to run for the Libertarians and he wanted to change the Republican Party. Therefore, ofcourse he is against writing his name in since that goes against his campaign. Ron Paul wants people to choose the right candidate for them be it Barr or Baldwin, as these two candidates are working within the system. Why waste your vote for a write in candidate who does not want to be a write in candidate , Paul is not a registered write in candidate, it would be like writing in Mickey Mouse which people do. You might as well help break this duopoly system and help out a third party by casting a vote that will count. In my case, it is for Bob Barr, please donate www.bobbarr2008.com for Oklahoma Ballot access today, the deadline is almost here and it is due to rain up there the next few days making it harder to collect signatures

  3. 1440 minutes Says:

    You tell them, John. America needs real leaders who will lie to the American people, destroy the Constitution, ignore the $9 trillion national debt, pretend that we don’t have $55 trillion in unfunded liabilities, wage undeclared wars, and drive the country into bankruptcy. Let’s destroy people like Ron Paul who want to save America. All good things must come to an end, right, John?

  4. John Lowell Says:

    1440 minutes,

    “All good things must come to an end, right, John?”

    Now, we’d sure be grateful if the Paul thing would come to an end, fella, that’s certain. Can you help with that? Please, help with that, please.

  5. ephil Says:

    Actually, I will write in Ron Paul because I will never vote for McCain and if I simply remained at home, it could be interpreted as apathy. I am not apathetic. I want the GOP to get the message—-I don’t like what they have done to my party and I don’t like the way they treated Ron Paul’s supporters—-I refuse to shut up and sit in the back of the GOP BUS.

  6. Dan Says:

    A write-in vote for Paul, in almost all states, will be tantamount to not voting at all—because the write-in vote will not be tabulated. If you want to vote, vote for Barr (or, if you must, for Baldwin). Cast a vote that will be tabulated.

  7. Donna Says:

    If you want to end the Bush/Cheney UN-constitutional privatized war for profit, you will vote for Baldwin.

    If you want to vote for someone who will stand solidly for we, the people, and will not switch parties every few years, vote for Baldwin.

  8. John Trowell Says:

    Please pay attention to me, please.

  9. C. Al Currier Says:

    RE: staying home on election day

    In November, there will be an election that includes the POTUS, along with other lower offices and ballot issues (local initiatives and/or referendums).
    Pouting about POTUS isn’t an ultimate solution for anything.

    (By the way, go NOTA 4 POTUS, go NOTA 4 POTUS!)

  10. Sean Scallon Says:

    Unfortunatley we knew this was going to happen once Paul left the scene and no obvious successor came forward. This will be the challenge that the freedom movement will have over the next four years is deciding which way to go and its decision may very well be to go in in several directions depending on one’s preference.

  11. Anti-Corporate Says:

    Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty should organize debates between Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and perhaps also other candidates that are actively courting RP supporters!

    Paul wants to take over the GOP from within. I think he may be able to do it by 2012, actually.

  12. Roscoe Says:

    As many posters indicate, votes are counted, not weighed. No one in the GOP is going to tote up protest write-ins for Ron Paul. So don’t waste your time trying to send a message that way. They may, however, especially if McCain loses, tote up the vote for Bob Barr. Then they will have to deal with the fact that some sizeable minority - that can cost them future elections - is being ignored or not taken seriously by the GOP. Listen to your hero and don’t waste your protest vote on your hero.

  13. Mickey Bennett Says:

    I like the idea of CfL organizing debates. There should be several, each in different cities and should include US Senate and US House debates as well.

  14. John Lowell Says:

    Anti-Corporate,

    “Paul wants to take over the GOP from within. I think he may be able to do it by 2012, actually.”

    With all personal respect, the above is the kind of lunacy to which I was referring in the first post in this thread. And Paul encourages this kind of lunacy from the very comfortable vantage point of a Republican - repeat - Republican seat in Congress. Had he the personal honesty to have contested his seat as a Libertarian or an Independent as did Bernie Sanders one could respect him. But he’s playing the deal, enjoying all the perks of being a US congreesman without any of the risks. This guy ought to be selling “Rolexes” on street corners from inside a trenchcoat and there you are buying the package! Oy gevald!

  15. Thomas J. Says:

    You’re not sending any message to the GOP through a write-in vote. Not only will the votes not be tabulated, they won’t count. The GOP is soulless, and would not care about any stand unless it represented a threat. Since write-ins are not a threat, they will just be laughing.

  16. Carol Says:

    John Lowell,

    Please tell us how productive your efforts at spreading the message of freedom have been. Where are your leagues of young voters listening and then rallying to your cause—instead of stepping in line with the same old statism to remain entrenched there for likely ever…?

    I lament that the libertarian movement is mostly filled with curmudgeons who confuse billigerence and bad temper with individualism, and who would prefer to self-righteously wait for the Second Coming of Ayn Rand to actually doing something.

  17. Erica Says:

    I don’t really blame Ron Paul for trying to work within the Republican Party instead of the Libertarian Party. Many Libertarians have some sort of doubly redundant self-destruct death wish going on. It seems that they kinda like being a small club of radicals and don’t really want people to change their minds on the issues. If people rallied to the cause, they would cease to be superior….

    I’m going to try to make my way within the Libertarian Party, but I’m not sure they want to accomplish anything.

  18. Carol Says:

    Donna,

    I think Baldwin is a good guy, but the Libertarian Party simply does have the best 3rd party ballot access out there. If we want to get this message widely broacast in the debates, it would be better to coalesce around the same candidate to get the requisite polling numbers. Now, I don’t really care if that is Barr or Baldwin—I just think the LP is better equipped to actually have their candidate on the ballot.

    This site lists the CP’s current ballot status:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/ba_stats.php

    As you can see, they have a long way to go.

    The LP current ballot status is here:

    http://www.lp.org/ballot-access

  19. John Lowell Says:

    Carol,

    But the onus isn’t on me to spread “the message of freedom” in the sense that you mean it, Carol. I feel no such obligation. The kind of freedom which I’d consider of the essence isn’t ideological anyway. So, no, developing cadres of young enthusiasts to the peculiarities of personality cult isn’t something likely to engage my interest even though it may engage yours. If you’re looking for someone with those skills, I’d recommend your looking to someone with an inclination toward Stalinism. Now there would be an authentic curmudgeonism for you, one replete with lots of bad temper and belligerence. And there’d be no waiting for Ann Rand whatever enduring importance she’s be most unlikely to have.

  20. agnes fekete Says:

    i also will write in ron paul. write in votes are legal in wyoming.

  21. Wellsie Says:

    “Once Ron Paul exits the race, his free thinking voters split apart.”

    Uhhhh, isn’t that the point of freedom? We can do anything we want, right?

    John Lowell, why are you wasting your time? Don’t you have a McCain website to troll around in?

  22. Carol Says:

    Wellsie:

    Yeah, free thinking voters do that, but maybe they could freely think long-term for a minute—and what it would mean if Paul’s supporters were to have a candidate in the debates….

    John Lowell:

    K. You feel no obligation to spread the message of freedom. Fine. But you do want its most successful proponent to “go away.” ???

  23. Gene Trosper Says:

    Sadly, it’s this kind of debate that convinces me a Ron Paul “Revolution” to remake the GOP is fruitless. If Paulians are willing to enage in worthless activities on the deluded notion that it will send a message, then they are dead meat when dealing with the smart and shrewd GOP political machine. They’ll be eaten alive.

  24. John Lowell Says:

    Carol,

    “K. You feel no obligation to spread the message of freedom. Fine. But you do want its most successful proponent to “go away.” ???”

    Yes, Carol, I do want Ron to go away, I almost feel inclined to pray for Ron to go away, truthfully. Can we enlist what I suspect would be your very able assistance in this connection? Think of what it would mean: There would be among other things no more imbecilities from die hard supporters of a kind that would liken Paul to Jesus Christ, no more fantasic claims as to the certainty of some magical transformation of the Republican Party from National Socialism to democracy, and no more phoniness that treats an interest in having a lifelong tenure in Congress as something to be considered essentially altruistic. Paul’s just like all the rest of them, Carol, and I wish they’d all just go away.

  25. Brad F Says:

    I wish John Lowell would go away. Just Go Away John, GO AWAY.
    Go AWAY Hillary, GO AWAY OBAMA, GO AWAY McCAIN.

    I bet it won’t work when I try saying it about you, either.

  26. Jonathan Says:

    John Lowell Says:

    “Paul wants to take over the GOP from within. I think he may be able to do it by 2012, actually.”

    Sorry Pal, Ron is as old as they get. He ain’t running in 2012, he’ll be lucky if he walks. But the contribution and the revolution Dr. Paul has started is priceless.

    On a different note, please I urge you to contribute to www.bobbarr2008.com FOR BALLOT_ACCESS

  27. Bill Lussenheide Says:

    Most states have a procedure where the “write in candidate” must have already pre-registred with the Secretary of State, paid a fee, or have a certain amount of nominating signatures.

    Just plain writing in a persons name generally is worthless and will NOT be counted.

    Chuck Baldwin was a Ron Paul supporter, and had him on his radio program. Baldwin is more closely aligned with Paul’s philosophy than Barr IMHO.

  28. John Lowell Says:

    Jonathan,

    You say:

    “John Lowell Says:

    ‘Paul wants to take over the GOP from within. I think he may be able to do it by 2012, actually.’”

    This quotation would be just swingingly impactful but for the fact that John Lowell didn’t “say” what you said he did. The proper attribution is to Anti-Corporate, Jonathan.

  29. John Lowell Says:

    Brad F.

    I know its painful to have your hero held to anything but the most lax standards, Brad. Ron gets away with just about anything in these precincts. But the fact remains that Ron is a Libertarian parasite living off of the Republican name, holding out false hope to little boys and girls about boring from within and all the while never taking the risk that honest people like Bernie Sanders do and running as an Independent. If Paul had any integrity he’d quit milking the Republicans and stand on his own two feet. The more I learn about Paul the less I respect him. And while the imbecile enthusiasm of youth excuses at least some of the excesses of his adolescent followers, a good bit of it is toxic, the serious comparisons that are made to Jesus Christ and the like. Paul, as is typical of him, does nothing to stem these kinds of absurdities, all of which makes one suspicious that he grooves on them. Yeah, I’ll be glad to see him go and his entourage as well. Please go away Ron Paul, please!

  30. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    please go away John Lowell

  31. GREEN DAD Says:

    Diamond Dave you are too kind with ignorant morons like John Lowell,
    Get the fuck outta here John Lowell !

  32. Jonathan Says:

    Let me try it Green Dad.
    John Lowell you are one stupid fuck !

  33. disinter Says:

    Screw voting for Barf. I would rather write in Ron Paul or Daffy Duck or vote for Baldwin. Barf goes against everything Ron Paul stands for.

  34. Carol Says:

    disinter wrote:

    “Barf goes against everything Ron Paul stands for.”

    Umm, Ron Paul doesn’t seem to think so. And he thinks writing in his name is pointless. I know it would feel good emotionally, but that will pass, leaving no hard number for the Republicans to ponder as to why they lost….

    Anyway, there’s still some time for everyone to get their bearings and think about the most effective route to take.

  35. disinter Says:

    Barr simply can’t be trusted to fully represent the ideals of liberty and freedom

    freedomfighterradio.net/?p=759

  36. John Lowell Says:

    Jonathan,

    You’re close to the Barr campaign, you solicit funds for them, tell me, do you think Barr will ever manage the courage to answer whether or not he signed a check in payment of the abortion his ex-wife is said to have had? About ten years ago he shucked and jived on Larry King Live about the check, some reason for that? Why would it be that Barr would be so reluctant to give a simple yes or no answer to that question? Something holding him back?

  37. Ken Says:

    I’ve voted for the Libertarian candidate in every national election since 1992. That being said, I was terribly disappointed when Barr/Root took the nomination this year.

    With all due respect to John Lowell, I’m less interested in whether Bob Barr paid for an abortion than in finding out why he so suddenly reversed himself on so many of his previously held positions - positions he pushed aggressively during his tenure in Congress.

    If elected, would BB grant a presidential pardon to all the nonviolent recreational drug users he put into prison as a federal prosecutor and as the Anti-Drug Coordinator in the Justice Department?

    He authored and cosponsored the Defense of Marriage Act - which he now claims to regret - but will he now support the right of same-sex couples to marry?

    He blocked Initiative 59 (medical marijuana) and even successfully blocked the release of the vote tally! Since he is on the record as saying there’s no use for medical marijuana, what event or insight caused him to change his mind?

    In short, he’s reversed himself on SO MANY issues in order to run as a Libertarian candidate that I don’t feel comfortable supporting him without finding out a lot more about what caused him to change his mind.

  38. Matt Washington Says:

    John Lowell, we get it; you don’t like Ron Paul. Whoop de shit. You want him to state that he’s a Libertarian and not a Republican. Boo hoo. The fact of the matter is that he shares a lot of the same values as Republicans (at least what they used to be before the neo-conservative movement) and since it is impossible for a presidential candidate to win the position unless being associated with one of the two main parties, I’d say he did a noble thing: actually trying to get elected. Even now that the nomination has gone to McCain, Paul has accomplished more than he expected. He “cured” a lot of voter apathy and spawned ideas within enough people that, when enough time passes and these people get into the political system, you will be hearing a lot of Paul’s ideas again. Quit crying and get used to it.

  39. Al Says:

    What needs to happen here, is Ron Paul needs to endorse a candidate. I to have the same concerns about Barr. Baldwin is much closer to Paul on issues, however he needs to tone down the religious stuff and stick to the constitution and bill of rights issues.

  40. Freeman Says:

    An endorsement from Paul would influence my decision a lot. I see why he might be reluctant to do any such thing this time around though. I’m tentatively writing in Paul cuz Wisconsin tallies write-ins… just aint taken a shinin to Barr/Root so far. .. . and “Constitution” Party religiopolitics really rubs me wrong.

  41. John Lowell Says:

    Matt Washington,

    Share with me if you will why it is that Sanders can manage the personal honesty to run as an independent but Paul can’t. And while you’re at it, kindly, please enlarge upon “and since it is impossible for a presidential candidate to win the position unless being associated with one of the two main parties …” with some very considerable attention to why it is that that you’re here at a site called Third Party Watch and posting on its blog.

  42. Clark Says:

    1440 WROTE: “the $9 trillion national debt, pretend that we don’t have $55 trillion in unfunded liabilities…and drive the country into bankruptcy.’ (END)

    ..as one brilliant, handsome stud put it: ...”maybe sometime before we get to working our potato chip holes about ‘illion$’ we might acquaint ourselves with some basic ‘monetary realism’..i.e. somewhat precisely, what is ‘IT’ we use as ‘money’?...how does ‘IT’ originate?..by whom?..how?..how many of ‘them’ are there? etc….”

    ..i personally know only a handful of enlightened people who can honestly and knowledgeably answer/respond to the above questions..and it appears the$e few enlightened folk$ don’t waste much breath babbling about the next fucking phony, rigged, etc., republicrat $election$ amongst handpicked monetary ignoramusses whom are certainly no threat to the exi$ting $tinking order and/or ‘orderers’.. ;o)

    ..and you can shove bobo barf, etcetercrats galore, where the sun don’t shine, republicrats, faux ‘Libertarians,’ etc… ;o)

    ..but have a good day anyway..

  43. Hardy Macia Says:

    Ken,

    Go watch some youtube videos of Barr talking about these things. Head over to the bobbarrforums.com to read about them. Barr would support the right of people in states to decide if they want same sex marriage. Barr has been working with MPP lobbying to repeal Initiative 59.

    He talks about his turn around on CNN, Fox and several other interviews. Barr was part of the group working to put the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act and needed to vote for it so the group would have someone on the conference committee to further work to get additional civil liberty protections in the bill that he wouldn’t have been able to do if he voted no.

    I donated to the ad the LP ran against Barr which helped boot him from office. I’ve researched Barr’s stances. I’ve talked with Barr. I believe he was fairly libertarian on many issues, his lost for office gave him time to reflect on his overall ideology and he took another step further into libertarianism.

    He’s the best candidate we’ve run. He needs our support. We want the media interviewing him and asking why he changed his stance on issues. Donate to Barr’s campaign today. http://www.bobbarr2008.com

  44. John Lowell Says:

    Hardy,

    Yes, but, Hardy, why is it that Barr won’t deal forthrightly with the check question? I mean the question is certain to be raised again and again during the campaign, particularly so if it looks as though McCain might be meaningfully damaged by Barr’s presence. The Republican Party is not likely to sit idly by while Barr nudges them out of contention in important states without trying to attract pro-life voters to McCain’s side in large numbers. Barr’s not being forthcoming about the check could hurt him with such people. What’s the story on the check? Was there one? Did he sign it? If you’re going to come here with a solicitation don’t you think that contributors have a right to an answer to these questions?

  45. gaoxiaen Says:

    Well, McAin’t isn’t getting my vote.

  46. gaoxiaen Says:

    I’d write my own name in before I’d vote for Bush III.

  47. Spudly Says:

    It’s simple. Barr will not win. Baldwin will not win. Nader will not win. Paul will not win. So, it doesn’t matter if any of them would be a good president. It’s about sending a message. Writing in Paul doesn’t send the message because the write-ins will be ignored. The Libertarians have the best ballot access, the best organization and the best chance for getting enough votes that people will pay attention to the message.

    Only choice is to vote Libertarian and that happens to mean Barr this time around. The Libertarians should have chosen a real Libertarian as their candidate, but what is done is done. Vote for Barr, strenghten the Libertarian party and just maybe, someday there will actually be a true third party.

  48. Freeman Says:

    It’s the wording “true third party” that doesn’t work. Someday there will be a new party, a true challenger/upstart/straightshooter/badass/.../... party. To go around callin it “third party” defeats it before it can begin. This site needs a new name.

  49. Ayn R. Key Says:

    Some of the Paul supporters feel they have nowhere else to go. The CP is too theocratic, and the LP has a compromised candidate. I’m trying to build up enthusiasm for Barr, but he’s not making it easy.

  50. coolman Says:

    Why are we all so vicious about this? Ron Paul is better than McBush, we can all agree on that, I think. Just go ahead and vote for anyone you want (except McBush). As long as the republicans don’t get your votes, and McBush loses to Obama, that will send the message to the GOP. Even better, vote for Obama. I know you guys don’t want to, but the best protest vote would be one that actively makes McBush lose.

  51. coolman Says:

    Oh, and Ron Paul should not go away, but we shouldn’t gang up on John Lowell. We must be kind to retarded people…

  52. Ron Moss Says:

    John; Please take John Hagee with you the next time you go to Iraq. He seems to be the Champion of the Antichrist syetem of Government you represent

  53. John Lowell Says:

    Ayn R. Key,

    The Paul supporters never had a place to go because Paul never intended his candidacy to be anything more than an ego trip. If he’d been sincere, he’d have launched an independent bid. As to the rest, the CP as too theocratic - I’d say too exclusively Protestant and ostentatiously religious - and the LP as having a compromised candidate, I’d have to agree. Trying to build enthusiasm for Barr among Paul’s pro-life supporters has to be a thankless task, particularly with this check business.

  54. Silence Dogood Says:

    This debate that we are having in the posts, is the exact reason that the third party is always sidelined. I would love for nothing more than a different view point to make its way into the Oval office, but alas people like John Lowell are dividing the already small faction even further. John, Ron Paul not running in the independent column is not the end of the world, seriously get over it, perhaps you should listen to his words rather than focus on the I, D, or R after his name. Just a suggestion…

  55. Paul K. Says:

    Who will Ron vote for is the real question. Judging from his statements to date, I think the answer is Bob Barr, warts and all.

    The write-in stuff is worse than useless. What’s the point?

    A vote for Baldwin is a vote for theocracy. I mean no disrespect to our CP brothers and sisters but some of the rhetoric is downright scary.

    I respect Ron’s belief that the Republicans can be reformed, but I think he is dreaming. They drank the Kool Aide long ago. But hey, I could be wrong.

    For this election however I think Ron Paul’s supporters should coalese around Bob Barr and the LP for both pragmatic (ballot status, name recognition etc.) and ideological (LP much closer to American liberty ideals). If they do, Barr can cost McCain the election. The Republicans (and Democrats for that matter) will take that as serious as a heart attack.

  56. JT Says:

    Some people seem to be looking at Barr in a vacuum. For anyone who’s remotely libertarian, the choice between voting for McCain, Obama, Barr, Baldwin, and writing in Paul’s name (which won’t even be counted), should be a no-brainer. Barr certainly isn’t a pure libertarian, as others have pointed out. So what?? He’s obviously the only candidate on most state ballots who wants to seriously reduce the federal government. Electoral politics isn’t about getting exactly what you want, people. It’s about choosing among the available alternatives.

  57. blakmira Says:

    I agree that staying home would be akin to apathy. And we do realize our votes for Ron Paul won’t count—just like they didn’t count in the primaries when he was on [some] ballots.

    But we refuse to vote for an imposter spouting liberty rhetoric whose recent past as a CIA member, supporter of the war on drugs and anti-freedom of religious choice is downright scary. If we just wanted good rhetoric with a really bad record and no proof that he means what he says, we’d be voting for Obomba.

    Since the Libertarian Party has committed an unforgiveable sin by selling out and allowing the enemy within its own ranks, I will probably vote Constitution Party. Or I may just write Ron Paul’s name in magic marker across the Diebold screen (is that a felony?).

    And until we all acknowledge that something is very wrong with our voting system and demand change, it doesn’t even matter which little button you push on the Diebold touch-screen or which little box you check on the opti-scan machine this coming election. Those memory cards have executable programs on them—and these programs have nothing to do with properly counting votes.

    When you’ve watched the primary votes being tallied up in “real time” on CNN and witnessed hundreds of votes for Ron Paul disappearing and subtracting, you know something is up. And since the primaries were rigged, don’t you think the winner in November has already been selected? (HBO’s Hacking Democracy—watch it.)

  58. JT Says:

    Blakmira: “...no proof that he means what he says, we’d be voting for Obomba.”

    No proof?! Where have you been for the past five years? Barr has been actively lobbying and speaking against the bad laws he previously supported! That certainly does qualify as proof, though it doesn’t satisfy some libertarians (who are impossible to satisfy anyway unless you don’t have a single blemish on your record).

    Blakmira: “Or I may just write Ron Paul’s name in magic marker across the Diebold screen (is that a felony?).”

    I don’t know. But it would definitely be an immature and retarded thing to do.

  59. Nexus Says:

    Ron Paul stated in his interview with CNN that he may endorse someone later this year. That won’t be easy for him since he considers both men personal friends. Don’t expect anything to happen before the GOP convention.

  60. blakmira Says:

    JT - look up the word “proof” in the dictionary. I don’t believe it mentions anything about “talking, speaking, blowing air out of your mouth, etc.”

    Then look up the words “former CIA member, currently pro-War on Drugs and infiltrator of the Libertarian Party” and you’ll see a picture of Bob Barr.

    Once you’ve come across a man like Ron Paul, whose actions speak much louder than words, you can smell imposters and phonies like Barr a mile away.

    So, are you paid to promote Bob Barr? If you are not on his payroll and are simply a gullible, hoodwinked volunteer cheerleader, then look up in the dictionary another word you mentioned—“retarded.”

  61. Matt Washington Says:

    John Lowell, let me try to reiterate this so you can understand: Paul is a Republican. He holds similar beliefs to Republicans and has labeled himself thusly. One need not follow 100% of the party tenets to consider oneself a member. Get over it. As for being a third-party proponent and understanding that unless one has an “R” or “D” behind the name, he or she cannot win the presidency, what’s hypocritical about realizing the truth? It’s called being a realist. Or perhaps you’d like to regale me with the names of all the third-party nominees who’ve led our country as President? No? Didn’t think so. Thanks for playing though.

  62. blakmira Says:

    Paul K:
    If you “respect Ron’s belief that the Republicans can be reformed, but think he is dreaming”—why do you think Bob Barr with his years of anti-liberty voting, anti-freedom actions and pro-Big Brother stances can be “reformed”? Looks like you’re the one who’s dreaming.

    You’re not fooling any of us, either. We know there is a segment of the Libertarian party that is anti-Ron Paul and pro-Bob Barr. Which is why the Libertarian party is DEAD to us. RIP

  63. blakmira Says:

    John Lowell:
    Ron Paul was on an “ego” trip?? Are you jealous that he became so massively popular? Ron Paul is one of the most ego-less, humble men in America. You’re deluded.

    What trip are YOU on, promoting a Big Brother shill like Barrf and his VP-buddy Rude-Root?

    And you think those Ron Paul supporters who are repulsed by Bob Barr only support Ron Paul because of “pro-life” position?

    You need to read the Constitution. Ron Paul is one of the few men in politics who not only understands it but follows it.

    Keep shilling for Bob Barr and making disparaging remarks against Ron Paul, though. You’re only making us loathe and distrust BARRF even more.

  64. disinter Says:

    In short, he’s reversed himself on SO MANY issues in order to run as a Libertarian candidate that I don’t feel comfortable supporting him without finding out a lot more about what caused him to change his mind.

    In short, the local janitorial service wouldn’t trust barf enough to hire him. And barfers want this man to be president?

  65. Paul K. Says:

    “We know there is a segment of the Libertarian party that is anti-Ron Paul and pro-Bob Barr.”

    Normally, I don’t feed trolls, especially ones as ignorant as blakmira. Since he chose to direct the above statement to me however…

    My anti-Ron Paul activities, if you must know, consisted of sponsoring a high level reception in DC to convince him to run in ‘88; twisting arms to get the last few delegate votes that put him over for the LP nomination; acting as his “entourage” for 3 days, including his Larry King appearance. I further sabotaged his efforts by my work as LP Finance Chair during the campaign in conjunction with my arch-conspritors on the LP National Committee. During this campaign, my anti-Paul activities consisted of contributing money, signing up as a precinct chair and attending meetup groups and demonstrations.

    I don’t know Barr and knew little about him until a few months ago. I happen to believe in the Christian doctrine of redemption. It seems to me that he has been working overtime the past few years to undo his evil deeds as a dupe of the neo-cons.

    While I would vastly prefer Ron as the candidate he has decided otherwise. I respect his decision even if I do not agree with his judgment in the matter. If you have decided to support the Republicans, good for you (and for us). In my experience, you get in bed with them and you get more than a good nights sleep.

  66. John Lowell Says:

    Matt Washington,

    “Paul is a Republican. He holds similar beliefs to Republicans and has labeled himself thusly. One need not follow 100% of the party tenets to consider oneself a member.”

    Similar beliefs? Now look, Ron Paul might be a phoney but he’s not a National Socialist, Matt. Can we give him that much?

    “As for being a third-party proponent and understanding that unless one has an “R” or “D” behind the name, he or she cannot win the presidency, what’s hypocritical about realizing the truth? It’s called being a realist.”

    No, no, Matt, the point was never the Presidency. If that were the case, and if Paul were an honest man, he would be running as an Independent or as a Libertarian right now. Rather, the point was the Congressional seat. Paul had primary challenge on his hands in Texas. What better way to gain notoriety for oneself - and to raise cash for re-election - than to run a campaign for President? It was never a question of realism, Matt, it was more a question of cynicism. No “realist” with Paul’s views would ever have run for the Republican nomination for President. His treatment in the debates and the primaries ought to have convinced you of that.

  67. Bill Wood Says:

    Barr to appear on Fox News at 4:20
    June 18th, 2008 by Jason Pye
    Bob will be a guest on “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on Fox News at 4:20 this afternoon. Video will be posted on the Campaign website as soon as it is available.

  68. John Lowell Says:

    blakmira,

    This’ll be fun.

    “Are you jealous that he became so massively popular?”

    Damnit, blakmira, I’ve been trying to conceal the jealousy for months now and there you go outing me right here at the Third Party Watch blog! Truth be known, at the Petraeus hearing a couple of months ago, Paul led us all to an understanding of just how it might be that you could sound like someone in the midst of a manic attack that had somehow gotten their hands on a helium inhaler. And I’ve envied his profound pedagogical skills for it ever since. Just don’t tell anybody else, though, OK?

    “What trip are YOU on, promoting a Big Brother shill like Barrf and his VP-buddy Rude-Root?”

    “Keep shilling for Bob Barr and making disparaging remarks against Ron Paul, though. You’re only making us loathe and distrust BARRF even more.”

    The trip is all yours I’m afraid, blakmira. I’ve never once promoted Bob Barr here and would defy you to produce a post that would indicate that I had. I’ve frequently questioned whether or not Barr, while holding himself out as pro-life, signed a check paying for an abortion said to have been had by his former wife, however. You count that as shilling for him, do you?

  69. Matt Washington Says:

    John Lowell, yes, we can agree that Dr. Paul is not a National Socialist. Now that we’re in agreement on something, is the world going to end? Hahaha!

    Secondly, I don’t claim to understand the reasons Paul ran for President and I will grant the possibility that it was to garner funds and popularity for a re-election, although my personal belief is otherwise. Paul does consider himself a Republican, so I cannot understand why you continue to harp on the issue that he should be running as a third-party candidate; party association is all subjective anyway. Sure, Paul didn’t think he would win the Republican nomination, but he has stated that his objective wasn’t necessarily to win (I realize how bad this sounds, but I cannot find another way to put it). Instead, his message reached enough people and became popular enough that, in the future, we will see a lot of his policies discussed by “Paul-iticians.” He has sown the seeds that could possibly change the direction America takes and, in the end, isn’t that what one would attempt to accomplish as President? His revolution is just beginning so don’t expect to see these ideas fade.

  70. shassyphants Says:

    [A write-in vote for Paul, in almost all states, will be tantamount to not voting at all—because the write-in vote will not be tabulated. If you want to vote, vote for Barr (or, if you must, for Baldwin). Cast a vote that will be tabulated.]

    I disagree, Dan.

    Our votes are owned by paperless electronic voting machines, proven to be hackable by a literal MONKEY.

    Our votes will NOT be tabulated, no matter WHO we vote for…
    Quite the pickle, eh?

  71. Jennifer Russo Says:

    well I can’t vote for Obama, I’ve been to his web site and what he proposes is REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME and higher taxes. I might as well vote for Hugo Chavez, been there done that, I know better now. I can’t vote for John McCain, well, because he is really a Democrat, he believes in big government, more spending, supports the war, McCain - Feingold ring a bell? He is on the wrong side of the issues including immigration. So with 2 Democrats running for President in 2008, the choice is clear- BOB BARR for President, the only conservative running who gets it. He wants out of the war, wants to cut down our spending, wants to drill for oil, wants to lower taxes, abolish the patriot act and return civil liberties to Americans. www.bobbarr2008.com is a good web site . See where he stands on the issues. Please remember RON PAUL supporters are doing the first money bomb for Barr July 2nd. Please make your pledge and donate for ballot access. This web site is http://www.barrbomb.com/

  72. Jennifer Russo Says:

    New 4-Candidate Presidential Poll
    June 18th, 2008
    Zogby released a presidential poll on June 18, with these results: Obama 45%, McCain 40%, Barr 3%, Nader 3%, other or undecided 9%. When Barr and Nader are omitted, the results are: Obama 47%, McCain 42%, other or undecided 12%. Thanks to IndependentPoliticalReport for this news.

    If the Libertarian Party did poll 3% for president in each state, it would attain qualified status in some states in which it has never before been qualified. Those states are Arkansas, Connecticut (for presidential status in 2012 only), District of Columbia, Iowa, and Kentucky.

  73. Alex Peak Says:

    Here are the various options available to us lovers of liberty.

    A) Don’t vote

    - This is always a valid option, don’t let anyone guilt-trip you into thinking that it’s some sort of civic obligation to vote

    B) Casting a Blank Ballot

    C) Voting for “None of the Above”

    - If this option is not available to you, as not all states include it, you can write it in

    D) Voting for the Libertarian Party candidate

    - After all, it’s still the biggest libertarian party around
    - If this option is not available to you, as the LP is not currently on the ballot in all 50 states, you can write it in the candidate’s name

    E) Voting for the Boston Tea Party candidate

    - If this option is not available to you, as the BTP is not currently on the ballot in all 50 states, you can write it in the candidate’s name

    F) Voting for Ron Paul

    - If the Republican Party makes the suicidal mistake of not nominating Ron Paul at its convention, thereby making this option is not available to you, you can still write it in the candidate’s name

    G) (It seems that the Personal Choice Party renominated Charles Jay in July of 2007, and that the Boston Tea Party nominated him for the first time in 2008. Is he running under both parties? I’ve no clue.)

    Those are really the only options for liberty-loving people, it seems. We certainly can’t vote for McCain or Obama. Voting for either McCain or Obama would be wasting your vote.

    For me personally, it’s either going to be a vote for Barr or a write-in for Paul. I don’t foresee myself choosing any other option besides those two.

    Donna writes, “If you want to end the Bush/Cheney UN-constitutional privatized war for profit, you will vote for Baldwin.”

    You’re looking at it all the wrong way. Yes, certain businesses are benefitting from the war and the military industrial complex in general. But there is nothing—absolutely nothing—private about the war. It’s not government being privatised, it’s the risks generally associated with business being socialised.

    Ken writes, “If elected, would BB grant a presidential pardon to all the nonviolent recreational drug users he put into prison as a federal prosecutor and as the Anti-Drug Coordinator in the Justice Department?”

    Tell y’all what. If any of you can get Bob Barr to publicly state that he will pardon all non-violent victimless-criminals that he is constitutionally permitted to (not only drugs but also tax evasion), I’ll give him my vote hands down. :)

    I know Ron Paul would do this if elected. Hopefully Barr would, too.

    Cheers,
    Alex Peak

  74. JT Says:

    Blackmira: “JT - look up the word “proof” in the dictionary. I don’t believe it mentions anything about “talking, speaking, blowing air out of your mouth, etc.”

    So exactly how would you like Barr to prove himself? By tattooing the Bill of Rights on his back? Look, if lobbying against the bad laws he once supported alongside the ACLU and MPP doesn’t prove anything to you, then nothing would.

    Blakmira: “Once you’ve come across a man like Ron Paul, whose actions speak much louder than words, you can smell imposters and phonies like Barr a mile away.”

    And Ron Paul considers Bob Barr an ally. He has said so publicly. Why does Ron Paul consider him an ally, but you and some other libertarians don’t?

  75. Clark Says:

    ...you republicrat dummies who insist that people ought to ‘vote for’/affirm any of these republicrat dildoes ought to be ashamed of yourselves!!

    ..and you ‘Libertarians’ who would have us ‘vote for’/affirm Barf..don’t you get it?..by supporting barf, you send the message that Republican fucks are welcome as candidates in the LIBERTARIAN party..

    THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN IS BARF ‘DOING WELLTHIS NOVEMBER..as this will/might lead to other stinking republicans as libertarian standard-bearers..(if brains were marijuana these barftards wouldn’t have enough for a bong hit!)

    but enough of this republicrap…AND NOW, BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND….A BRAND NEW LIVE EDITION OF THE ONE, THE ONLY..CLARK’S MONEY TIDBITS..

    ...today, a little ditty i peeled from the website of the world’s foremost monetary historian..enjoy..

    http://www.monetary.org/hughdowns.htm

    ODDER THAN OZ

    Copyright 1998 by Mr. Hugh Downs

    Following is a transcript of Mr. Downs radio presentation, which he has graciously allowed us to reprint.

    What do you suppose Alan Greenspan, Judy Garland, and the American Civil war have in common? Give up? They are all connected to turn-of-the-century U.S. monetary policy, of course! Not so obvious? Let me explain….

    ...People who already had money, that is rich people, didn’t want any more money added to the supply because an inflated money supply, devalues savings. Inflation is always bad for people with money because their money becomes less valuable. But people without money, especially poor farmers, were clamoring for the government to print more. Inflation always helps the poor because debts can be repaid in cheaper dollars and money becomes more available for loans, investments, for everything. By 1874 a new political party called the Greenback Party demanded that the government mint unlimited amounts of coin, print more paper money and give $50 to every U.S. citizen. Poor farmers were demanding an inflationary monetary policy…

    ...The Free Silver Movement wanted the government to add silver as yet another standard, in addition to gold. Having two standards would allow the government to inflate the money supply and provide relief to farmers. The price of crops had plummeted but debts still had to be paid in gold backed currency.

    On July 8, 1896, during the Democratic national convention, a young 36 year old congressman named william Jennings Bryan gave a brilliant rhetorical flourish to the crowd’s sentiments. Bryan exclaimed: “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold.” The ecstatic crowd elected William Jennings Bryan as their presidential candidate.

    The “cross of gold,” of course, referred to the single standard; the rigid link between gold and money. The gold standard, favored by Eastern bankers and financiers, was also known as the “hard money policy.” Bryan and his friends championed bi-metallism instead. With two standards, the government could create and back more money - a policy known as “easy money.” Farmers were burdened by bank mortgages on their farms. They were forced to borrow gold backed notes. But the price of gold continued to go up, while the price for crops continued to go down. If U.S. monetary policy eased the money supply, farmers might have a chance to survive.

    William Jennings Bryan lost the 1896 election to William McKinley. He lost again to McKinley in 1900 and then, in 1908, Bryan lost yet another presidential election to William Howard Taft. But the dream of a looser money supply, and hatred of Eastern bankers lingered on. The Democratic and Progressive Parties, and others, adopted some of the economic principles forged in the Greenback and Populist Parties. Most interesting, though, is that the spirit of the Free Silver Movement and its resentment for Eastern bankers found its way into one of America’s most original fairy tales: the Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

    In 1900, Frank Baum, the author of the Wizard of Oz, was a staunch supporter of the Free Silver Movement and, like many Americans at the time, he distrusted the East coast banking establishment. And now we learn a fascinating story told to us by anthropologist Jack Weatherford. Weatherford tells us, in his new book THE HISTORY OF MONEY, that Baum’s tale of Oz is a thinly disguised parable of turn-of-the-century monetary policy. The Wizard of Oz is the wizard of the gold ounce, the abbreviation of ounce is, of course, oz.

    Dorothy, the lead character made famous in the screen version by Judy Garland, represented the average rural American. Dorothy, says Weatherford, was probably modeled on the populist orator Leslie Kelsey who was known as “the Kansas Tornado.” Dorothy, and Toto, are flung by the tornado to the East where they discover the Yellow Brick Road - meaning a gold road. The road leads to Oz “where the wicked witches and wizards of banking operate.”

    The Scarecrow is the American farmer. The Tin Woodman is the American factory worker, and the Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan. Weatherford says: “The party’s march on Oz is a re-creation of the 1894 march of Coxey’s Army, a group of unemployed men led by … Jacob S. Coxey to demand (a) public issue of 500 million greenbacks…for (the) common people.” The Wizard himself represented Marcus Hanna who controlled both the Republican Party and the McKinley administration. The Munchkins “were the simpleminded people of the East who did not understand how the wizard … pulled the levers … that controlled the money, the economy, and the government.”

    The simpleminded residents of Oz were required to wear green tinted glasses fastened by gold buckles. Off to the West, the Wicked Witch of the West had enslaved the yellow Winkies, which Weatherford explains, “is a reference to the imperialist aims of the Republican administration, which had captured the Phillipines from Spain and refused to grant them independence.”

    At the end of the story the Wizard and the Witches are exposed as crude fakes. This dramatic revelation makes everything better. The scarecrow, who represents the farmer, discovers that he is really intelligent and not stupid. The Cowardly Lion, who is really William Jennings Bryan, finds courage. And the Tin Woodman, actually the American factory worker, “received a new source of strength in a bimetallic tool - a golden axe with a blade of silver.”

    In the original edition of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Dorothy returns to Kansas by clicking the heels of her silver slippers together. The moviemakers decided that red looked better on screen than silver and that’s the way most of us remember the tale. As you can see, and thanks to Jack Weatherford for pointing it out, most of us have completely forgotten the secret story behind the Wizard of Oz.

    Today, the Federal Reserve Bank determines America’s monetary policy, but the Fed wasn’t created until 1913. The modern equivelent of the Wizard of Oz - or Marcus Hanna - is, of course, the ever-charming Alan Greenspan. So now you know. The Civil War, Judy Garland and Alan Greenspan, really are connected.”

  76. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘So exactly how would you like Barr to prove himself?’

    Who says Barr has to be able to prove himself by November? That’s one of the points that critics of Barr have been making. His record is so bad there just hasn’t been time for him to live it down.

    ‘Look, if lobbying against the bad laws he once supported . . .’

    It’s not like he’s been lobbying against all the bad laws he supported - only a fraction of them. He’s worked for medical marijuana, not an end to drug prohibition.

    ‘Why does Ron Paul consider him an ally, but you and some other libertarians don’t?’

    I don’t know. I don’t speak for Ron Paul. I’m not aware that Ron Paul has addressed many of the specific criticisms that have been made of Barr.

    I don’t consider Barr an ally because I see nothing shameful about oral sex. Barr has declared himself out of sympathy with people like me. For me to support Barr would be to spit in my own face.

  77. disinter Says:

    Tell y’all what. If any of you can get Bob Barr to publicly state that he will pardon all non-violent victimless-criminals that he is constitutionally permitted to (not only drugs but also tax evasion), I’ll give him my vote hands down. :)

    I know Ron Paul would do this if elected. Hopefully Barr would, too.

    Highly doubtful, since Barf is personally responsible for putting a large number of those folks in government cages.

  78. ACUTS Says:

    I can vote for neither Barr or Baldwin.

    Barr is a beady eyed opportunistic egomaniacal weasel and Baldwin is to socially conservative. I understand what Paul is doing, but most of us, would rather write him in, why? He still is the only person who makes sense and is honest and consistent. Why bother voting for another scumbag, a religious zealot, a panderer, and a hypocrite. The other choice is Nader, simply because he has been consistent, but I only agree with his foreign policy, but would still make a better president than most. I may have to vote for him or write in Paul. Really though, I may not vote at all. I am pretty embarrassed for my country. Right now living in Canada, I feel like, I would rather stay here, than step back in the fascist wing nut society that is the United States.

  79. JT Says:

    Tomlin: “It’s not like [Barr has] been lobbying against all the bad laws he supported - only a fraction of them.”

    Yes, and they’re exactly the one’s that libertarians seem to have the biggest problem with—Patriot Act, medical marijuana, Defense of Marriage.

    JT: “‘Why does Ron Paul consider him an ally, but you and some other libertarians don’t?’”

    Tomlin: “I don’t know. I don’t speak for Ron Paul.”

    Of course you don’t (and Ron Paul should be glad). But it’s very telling when the great Ron Paul himself publicly says Bob Barr is an ally, yet he’s not good enough for you.

    Tomlin: “I don’t consider Barr an ally because I see nothing shameful about oral sex.”

    Um, what?! I’m not aware of Barr expressing an opinion on oral sex per se. But even if he doesn’t personally approve of the practice, what does that have to do with his policy agenda as president? This is as weird a comment as I’ve ever read about Barr by a libertarian. Are you looking for a presidential candidate who supports all of your personal proclivities?

  80. disinter Says:

    JT - Ron Paul saying nice things about Barf and endorsing him are two completely different things. Ron Paul says nice things about all his enemies, he’s just a nice guy.

  81. JT Says:

    Disinter: “Ron Paul saying nice things about Barf and endorsing him are two completely different things. Ron Paul says nice things about all his enemies, he’s just a nice guy.”

    Yes, Ron Paul is a nice guy. But Paul doesn’t say his enemies are his “allies”. Paul doesn’t say that his enemies are “saying the right things.” Paul doesn’t say that his enemies can have a “positive effect” on the presidential race. Ron Paul, the consistent defender of the Constitution, has said all of these things about Bob Barr, even though he hasn’t formally endorse him (and probably won’t). I’m inclined to believe that Paul’s perception of reality is more accurate than that of some other libertarians.

  82. David Tomlin Says:

    http://www.conservative.org/columnists/barr/070704bb.htm

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    July 4, 2007

    ‘When Oral Sex Gets ‘em More than 15 Minutes of Fame—not Shame’

    The author of this column is a creepy cultist whose values are antithetical to mine.

    Above I was alluding particularly to the passage in which Barr declares that a young man serving years in prison for getting a blow job is ‘a not-terribly sympathetic figure’. I infer that there are no circumstances in which Barr wold hold me in sympathy either, and I would be a fool to support him for any office.

    To the best of my knowledge Barr has not repudiated this column.

  83. David Tomlin Says:

    JT: ‘[The laws Barr has been lobbying against are] exactly the one’s that libertarians seem to have the biggest problem with—Patriot Act, medical marijuana, Defense of Marriage.’

    It sounds like you don’t know many libertarians. We differ widely on what laws we ‘have the biggest problem with’.

    To pick a nit, DOMA doesn’t belong on the list since Barr only recently came out against (part of) it.

    ‘But it’s very telling when the great Ron Paul himself publicly says Bob Barr is an ally, yet he’s not good enough for you.’

    I respect Ron Paul, and I disagree with him about a number of things, including Bob Barr. I don’t see what’s ‘telling’ about that.

  84. John Lowell Says:

    Tomlin,

    Fascinating! Here I am trying to get the Barr campaign to answer a question as to whether or not he had signed a check paying for an abortion his ex-wife is alleged to have had so as to determine whether he’s been formally complicit morally in an act of murder, and there you are concerned with his opinion regarding random acts of fellatio! Truly remarkable! May I suggest that we get the murder question resolved first so that if he is to be consided complicit we can lend added force to your evaluation of him as an absolute rotter? :-)

  85. JT Says:

    Tomlin: “It sounds like you don’t know many libertarians. We differ widely on what laws we ‘have the biggest problem with’.”

    You dropped the context of what I said. I was referring to the context of Bob Barr’s candidacy, not which laws libertarians have the biggest problem with overall. And in almost every libertarian objection to Barr’s candidacy I’ve seen, it’s Barr’s congressional actions on medical marijuana, gay marriage, and warrantless search and seizure that are cited by libertarians opposed to him. And those are exactly the issues on which Barr has been lobbying for the past several years in conjunction with the ACLU and MPP.

    Also, I read the column you cited. Nowhere in it does Bob Barr say that oral sex in itself is “shameful,” which is a gross misrepresentation. His point was that state laws against legal adults having oral sex with legal minors should be followed. I certainly don’t agree that anyone deserves 10 years in jail for that, especially a 17yo guy who who videotaped himself with a 15yo girl. But that’s a different matter.

    The bigger issue for libertarians is which presidential candidate on most ballots with the largest campaign will work to seriously reduce the federal government if elected. And Bob Barr is the clear answer.

  86. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘Nowhere in it does Bob Barr say that oral sex in itself is “shameful,” which is a gross misrepresentation. ’

    I was assuming Barr approved the title. But that’s often not the case, so fair point. But I think the title is a pretty fair representation of the sentiments expressed by the article.

    ‘The bigger issue for libertarians is which presidential candidate on most ballots with the largest campaign will work to seriously reduce the federal government if elected. And Bob Barr is the clear answer.’

    What’s clear to me is that Barr is a vicious, irrational, dishonest person. I would sooner trust Obama in the White House.

  87. John Lowell Says:

    Tomlin,

    “I would sooner trust Obama in the White House.”

    Is this judgment being rendered in advance or in arears of Obama’s breaking his promise earlier today concerning campaign funding? :-)

  88. David Tomlin Says:

    I’m not a fan of election campaign socialism.

  89. John Lowell Says:

    Tomlin,

    The question had to do with “trust” - at least that’s the way you put it - not whether its OK to break your promise as long as it involves less “election campaign socialism”. You called Barr a “vicious, irrational, dishonest person” - which he very well may be as far as I know, and a murderer as well, a question as yet to be determined it would seem - but egad, man, trust Obama more than any “vicious, irrational, dishonest person” after his AIPAC grovel? All that proves is that you’re prioritizing our national fellatio initiative over Middle East policy and we simply can not have that here at Third Party Watch. I know, I know, you’re young and everything ….

  90. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘I know, I know, you’re young and everything . . .’

    I’m pushing fifty, actually.

  91. Rich Says:

    I’ll be voting Libertarian, because the media cannot follow long trains of thought. They will look at the votes which are cast for the Libertarian candidate, they will count them up, and they will say “this is how much support the freedom movement has in America”. If the number is low, we go back into the wilderness for another couple of decades. If the number is high, we start getting some attention, as the media wants to make money, which means to attract viewers, which means to cover things in which the viewers are interested.

    It doesn’t matter whether Barr would actually govern like a Libertarian, since Barr will not be governing. What matters is that he can spread the freedom message, attract new minds into the Libertarian movement, and advance the party to the next step.

    The freedom campaign is not an election campaign, it is a fight for the hearts and minds of America. We need to gather as many “fellow travellers” as we can, and we need to get them into a single place, where they can stand up and be counted. The only logical place I can see is the Libertarian Party.

  92. John Lowell Says:

    Rich,

    “We need to gather as many “fellow travellers” as we can ….”

    Yes, but will Comrade Stalin understand when the term ‘fellow travellers’ is being used of Libertarians? He’s comfortable with it when its used of Harry Dexter White or Vito Marcantonio, but Libertarians? Egad, man.

  93. stevenclean Says:

    home are apple man tom black trust deliver home man global red yes site

Leave a Reply