Will Ron Paul supporters jump to Bob Barr?

Ron Paul set out to influence the political debate in the presidential election, and he’s definitely succeeded in one sense - all the candidates want his supporters to get behind them. Bob Barr is making a pitch to Paul’s voters, claiming that his views are more in line with Paul’s than any other candidate. Barr’s efforts are paying off with some of Paul’s folks, as this piece from the Kansas City Star indicates. Notable tidbits include:

“Just because the major parties have chosen real stinkers as candidates, that doesn’t mean I should vote for the lesser of two evils,” said Noble, 23, a Columbus software developer who also serves as the Franklin County chairman for the Libertarian Party of Ohio.

And,

Barr is on the ballot in 31 states so far but not Ohio. The Libertarian Party has sued the state, arguing that its requirements for a party to qualify for the ballot are unconstitutionally strict. In case they are unsuccessful, Barr supporters are gathering the roughly 5,000 signatures that are necessary to place him on the ballot as an independent.

132 Responses to “Will Ron Paul supporters jump to Bob Barr?”

  1. djl Says:

    Some will, some won’t. I won’t, but I guess I can sort of understand people who do. shrug

  2. Richard Winger Says:

    The Ohio Libertarian case also argues that since the old law was declared unconstitutional and the legislature never passed a new law, the state has no authority to keep any party with a modicum of voter support off the ballot.

  3. Eric Dondero Says:

    Former Perot voters are 20 times more important than Paul supporters.

    Bob Barr should be reaching out to the vast “blue collar libertarian” vote, mostly males who work 40 to 50 hours a week so they can pay taxes to support Welfare Queens, have their smoking rights taken away, and get pulled over by cops for not wearing their seat belts. These guys just want to be left alone by government. They’re not screwball intellectuals like the Paul supporters.

  4. Chuck Says:

    I can’t understand why any Paul supporter who pays attention to issues wouldn’t support Barr. Their positions are nearly identical. To the extent they are different, Barr is inches away from Paul and McBama are miles away. And to be honest, Barr is simply a way better mouthpiece to the media than Paul. Paul was always kind of weird and awkward in interviews where Barr is right at home. If Barr could just get some backing he could get the message out to many more mainstream people.

  5. Robert Capozzi Says:

    We have almost no data on who the RP supporters actually were/are. I suspect it was Ls, constitutionalists, and unaffiliated anti-war people, mostly. Profiling them seems to be slippery conjecture, however.

    The anti-war people seem to me an interesting constituency for Barr. I’d hope he’d get a nice share of Ls and some constitutionalists. But I kind of agree with Eric that the former Perotistas are the single largest potential constituency, probably mostly Reagan Ds. Add to that disaffected conservatives who already lean L, and we’re talking about a BIG universe.

    I’d say getting the RP voters early seems like a good idea, as they seem most likely to tell a pollster they support Barr. IF his numbers start to approach double digits, that starts to become real for the broader constituencies, in virtuous circle fashion. Every mention of Barr in hard news is another reason to vote for him.

  6. Lars Says:

    Everyday I see more Paul supporters jumping
    on the Barr wagon. It will happen. Baldwin will not
    be on the ballot in every state and will not get the
    attention that Barr will get.
    We should all get behind the one guy that can
    change America. Thats Bob Barr!
    -LarsS
    http://bobbarrforums.com

  7. Joseph Cornwell Says:

    Speaking of Perot voters, he’s up to the old charts again. While I disagree with him on several issues, I still respect the man, and found some of his brand new charts quite useful.

    perotcharts.com

  8. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    Please make sure Barr meets the goal of $88,000 by july 4th
    Please donate today

  9. C. Al Currier Says:

    Perot supporters
    “They’re not screwball intellectuals like the Paul supporters”. ... Eric Dondero says

    Many of those ‘screwball intellectuals’ were computer geeks and stuff. Not much to worry about (unless you’re on a computer).

    Maybe you can find the Perot supporters using snail mail or land-based-phone-lines. They’re around somewhere…...

  10. Freeman Says:

    I know some prefer Baldwin..

  11. GO_MCBAMA Says:

    On June 25 Bob Barr website passed Ron Paul website in webtraffic according to Alexa. June 25:

    http://www.barrhq.com/forums/news-about-the-official-campaign/bob-barr-overtakes-ron-paul-in-webtraffic/page-1/

  12. Stefan Says:

    The Ron Paul supporters are a wide diversity. I suspect many of them supported Perot, e.g. not the very young ones, some voted for Bush, some for Clinton and some for Obama. The RP support is easily 3 million IMHO. Many could not vote in the primaries, but in case the primaries were held now, Paul would definitely receive much more support. The enthusiasm generated is unmatched in decades.
    They will probably be split between Barr and Baldwin, I do not care too much, as long as they vote for either of them and engage. I suspect many are working on getting Ron Paul candidates elected, actions like the revolutionsmarch and the RNC. Paul has received a lot of support from intellectuals.I am sure if he were to go 3rd party in a general election, he would get 10% plus of the total vote.

    The CP and LP should not waste their time and money to see who can get the most RP support, but rather see how they can expand the support.

  13. Cork Says:

    “I can’t understand why any Paul supporter who pays attention to issues wouldn’t support Barr. Their positions are nearly identical.”

    No, they aren’t. For all his faults, Paul opposes the war on drugs and has said repeatedly he would pardon all non-violent drug offendors as president. Can you imagine Barr ever doing such a thing? When questioned by Stossel on whether a state government should regulate heroin or prostitution, Paul said no. Compare that to Barr, who supports the war on drugs and other victimless crimes (opposition to which has always been a crucial part of libertarianism).

    Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. Barr wants to invade Latin America (to expand the war on drugs) and antagonize Iran. Barr has also criticized Obama for wanting to talk with foreign leaders.

    Paul wants to eliminate the income tax. Barr just wants to shuffle it around, with the FraudTax. Barr talks a good game on civil liberties, but Paul has the record to back it up. I could go on and on. The point is, Barr is nowhere even close to being as libertarian as Ron Paul, even with Paul running as a damn Republican!

  14. Eric Dondero Says:

    HUGE NEWS BREAKING

    Bob Barr is featured in the latest edition of Vanity Fair magazine on-line.

    Former Clinton Spokesperson and VF Contributing Editor Dee Dee Meyers has a lengthy opinion piece on Barr’s candidacy. She says that Barr is a little “nutty” but that political strategists would be “nuts” to ignore him. She goes on to say he could have an enormous impact on the elections, and that he will be on many more ballots than Ralph Nader who gets most of the attention.

    The piece is linked too and excerpted at:

    Libetarian Republican blog

    (click on link at my name)

  15. arlene Says:

    We need to make history this election cycle. I’ve never heard so many people say “we don’t have a choice”. Yes, we do. We have an excellent choice in Bob Barr. Wonder if Ron Paul would consider the VP slot. That would be a great ticket. I had been a lifelong Republican until learning about libertarian idealogy. I’ve always been a patriot and am a veteran of the Army Nurse Corps. We need to tap into the military votes. Many of them don’t like McCain and absolutely fear Obama. Other groups would be senior citizens who are angry at both parties for taxing their SS income, young people who are idealistic and have a great stake in the country’s future, and don’t forget independents. Let’s use the Internet to get the message out and shock the R&Ds on election day.

  16. Nexus Says:

    I’m a Ron Paul supporter and I’m backing Barr. He is certainly no Ron Paul, but I consider him a step in the right direction.

  17. disinter Says:

    Your right. Bob’s our last best hope.

  18. Ricky Martin Says:

    $83,000 so far @ 4:09 pm $5,000 to go by July 4th Please donate today, write emails, and blogg like there is no tomorrow because the truth is there is no tomorrow the US is going banckrupt and fast.

    By the way the Mayans claim the earth will cease to exist Dec 21st 2012

  19. Galileo Says:

    Alex Jones endorsed Chuck Baldwin, so Barr loses half the RP support right there. Barr does not have a sterling record on economics or the fed, so that is another weakness. And Christian conservatives don’t vote Libertarian, some might drift to Baldwin as he is networking with churches on the Internet, like Huckabee did.

  20. GoNolzOhio Says:

    Baldwin is more sympathetic to the cockamamie 9/11 troofer and fed reserve conspiracies, which Alex Jones makes a living from and RP supporters have a crack-like addiction to. Check out any of the Paul forums on the net, and you will find substantial numbers who believe RP can still win the Republican nomination, still might run as an independent, or are committed to writing RP’s name in, even after finding out that vote won’t be counted.

    My experience in working in the R3VOLution, was that RP supporters, by and large, unbelievably hard-working, dedicated and fervent supporters of liberty…and totally, 100%, certifiably, nuts.

  21. Stefan Says:

    Seems like the 88 000 target may be still achieved today, the 3rd. One hopes tomorrow’s moneybomb will be really big, 1 million plus? but it is difficult to set a target in tough economic times and with relative low exposure. 500k-1 m would probably be very good already, but one hopes for 1-2m…which will certainly generate some media attention and higher polling over time.

  22. Stefan Says:

    GoNolzOhio: you clearly do not understand libertarian thought yet, as it is impossible to generalize and make such sweeping statements about RP supporters. Any movement has its “kooks” or “strange people” but they are in the minority. You cannot name the 9/11 “troofer” and Fed issue in the same sentence, it is two very different things. The Fed issue has been researched since decades by well known Jewish academics and intellectuals like Murray Rothbard and pointed out. AJ simply recites it.

  23. GoNolzOhio Says:

    Stefan,

    I don’t know what libertarian thought has to do with it, but it is possible to “generalize” about any group of supporters. That doesn’t mean EVERY member of a particular group feels the same way, just that members of a group may have similar traits. For example, liberals are generally pro-choice. See?

    Now, I was a member of the Cleveland, Ohio, Ron Paul Meet-up group, and of the 200 or so members, nearly every single one of them subscribed to some or all of the 9/11 conspiracy movement. Certainly less than 10% of that group believed the truth of 19 hijackers financed by bin Laden. My time spent at Ron Paul forums, where conspiracy theories in reference to 9/11, voter fraud, and North American Union junk were common topics of discussion, only further solidify the “RP supporters are generally nuts” theory.

    Furthermore, when I referred to fed conspiracy theories, I was talking about the more outlandish fictions, where inner groups of “Elders of Zion” who run the fed reserve have meetings in the woods where they sacrifice owls and take oaths and so forth. These were common discussion at RP meetings I went to.

    The fact that you need to refer to “Jewish” academics in your post leads me to believe that you probably buy some portions of the “Jews run the world” claptrap, and if you are/were a RP supporter, you only prove my point. Namely, that Ron Paul supporters were, by and large, nuts.

  24. GREEN DAD Says:

    $3,000 to go .

    What money bomb for tomorrow? I have not seen anyhting on any web site if you which one has it, please post it, but i go everywhere and if there is one for July 4th , I don’t think it will be successfull

  25. John Says:

    In a word NO.. Doctor No votes principle not politics. You have to remember that McCain is not eligible to be president under Article II Section I clause 5. The Senate resolution sponsored by McKaskill, Obama and Clinton is illegal under Article V of constitution. Paul is plain and simple an Austrian economics policy guided. As a Ron Paul supporter I resent being called nuts. I am a free market anti war person. In fact the nut label for 911 supporters is a smear. The civil war was unnecessary as every major nation of the world stopped slavery without killing 800,000 people. You have a Gulf of Tonkin made up war. Am I nuts for thinking 6.2 million prisoners in the US mostly from some chemical dependency related problem. I don’t care if it the legal industrial complex, the military industrial complex, or the media propaganda cartel opposing them is not nuts but Patriotic. The neo-con’s and Likud ideas are very unpopular by 70% or more of the population.

  26. John C. Jackson Says:

    Bob Barr can’t even break $30,000 on a Money Bomb. Maybe he has around 1/20th of paul supporters

  27. will Says:

    all i know is the greens are in real trouble. mckinney has very little support, i dont know if ill vote for barr or nader. i really would just like to see someone break through the 5% .

  28. Eric Dondero Says:

    Enough of the Ron Paul supporters already.

    Ross Perot received 20 million votes in his third party bid for President in 1992.

    Ron Paul received 435,000 votes in his third party bid for President in 1988. (Disclosure - I served as Ron Paul’s Travel Aide in that 1988 race.)

    20 million vs. 435,000. Which constituency is more important for the Bob Barr Campaign to reach out too?

  29. will Says:

    eric get over your anti ron paul bullshit, i dont even like ron paul, but your sour grapes add nothing to a rational debate on the topic

  30. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘McCain is not eligible to be president under Article II Section I clause 5.’

    The relevant phrase is ‘natural born Citizen’, not ‘born in the United States’.

    A person born to American parents who are abroad in the service of the country is a ‘natural born citizen’. This is supported by precedent and common sense. Google will yield a wealth of discussion.

  31. Stefan Says:

    Eric sits on two chairs: he is promoting both McCain and Barr, although their positions on several basic issues are so far apart: Patriot Act, FISA (civil liberties), Iraq and Iran, cutting in spending, energy (drilling in ANWR) etc etc. You just cannot believe it. Paul would have received much more in 1988 if he had the same amount of money than Perot. Paul has raised 35m plus and still has ca. 4,7 m left, while Hillary CLinton is ca. 20 m in debt. Perot performed much worse in 1996 than in 1992. And I think most of the RP supporters (minus the first time young voters) voted for Perot decades ago. In the primaries (minus Dems and Indys that could not vote and Diebold-influence) Paul’s support was 1,2 m plus all the caucus states plus all the people that have in the meantime joined and you have easily 3 million people…

  32. Sivarticus Says:

    I like Barr, but Dondero is one example of that candidate’s nutty supporters. Wanting a neo-con foreign policy and sliming Ron Paul is insane. Using Paul’s 1988 third party run as some kind of bar of measurement is just laughable. Way to ignore the one million plus votes for Paul in 2008! Not to mention the regrettably halved votes for Perot in 1996.

    Best thing that can happen in this election: Barr gets as high a percentage as possible, Baldwin eclipses Nader and Mckinney, and McCain goes down in a jaw-splitting defeat, leaving the GOP crippled and embarrassed (I’m talking nearly 1984 bad, if he loses enough southern states due to Barr and blacks voting). This way, both the Constitution and Libertarian parties will be strengthened, the leftist third parties put on the backburner (Nader, Greens), and the neo-cons in the GOP demoralized, broken, and ripe for takeover.

  33. cow Says:

    I’m a RP supporter and LP supporter for quite a while. I do not plan on voting for BB. You do not go from anti drug, supporting the patriot act, voting for war in Iraq, and anti libertarian views on religion and marriage, to seeing the light. He has done more harm than good in his political career, as it’s ending, he has a sudden change of heart and there is no way he is getting my support. Take a stand and don’t just support the LP because any fool can just start spouting the principles. I want to vote for someone who has had a backbone, who actually understands and believes in the issues. No wonder nobody takes the LP seriously.

    Good for them whatever their reasons, I see a lot of RP supporters blindly jumping on board, “oh he sounds just like RP” “Oh you can have a change of heart”. The libertarian party is supposed to be THE PARTY OF PRINCIPLE. Screw Bob Barr, screw the LP.

  34. GREEN DAD Says:

    looks lik esomeone has mad cow disease

  35. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    Here is a newsflash:

    everyone here is nutty and don’t necessarily represent the views of the LP.

  36. GoNolzOhio Says:

    If Ron Paul had switched parties, from the GOP to the LP, prior to the Republican primaries and just ran as a Libertarian (or Constitution Party, for that matter), he would be an unknown congressman pulling the same sort of disappointing moneys Bob Barr is now.

    The only thing the Ron Paul movement proved is that, unless you have a multi-billion dollar personal fortune, the press and the public are going to ignore any third-party/indy run.

    In this country, if it ain’t on t.v., it don’t matter. Sad to say. Long live American Idol.

  37. GoNolzOhio Says:

    If Ron Paul had switched parties, from the GOP to the LP, prior to the Republican primaries and just ran as a Libertarian (or Constitution Party, for that matter), he would be an unknown congressman pulling the same sort of disappointing moneys Bob Barr is now.

    The only thing the Ron Paul movement proved is that, unless you have a multi-billion dollar personal fortune, the press and the public are going to ignore any third-party/indy run.

    In this country, if it ain’t on t.v., it don’t matter. Sad to say. Long live American Idol.

  38. Jonathan Says:

    $86,000 and counting only $2k to go
    pretty good streak since July 26th

    Support is growing but it’s up to us or at least some of us here to keep spreading the word, write editorials to our local newspapers, blogg, send emails , and proudly place our bumper stickers on our cars.

    Barr will be on ABC this Sunday at 11:00am and so the fight must go on !

  39. Jonathan Says:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/thjefferson1776

    Please donate on the 4th of July

    TOMMORROW

  40. Steven R Linnabary Says:

    cow Says:
    July 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 pm

    I’m a RP supporter and LP supporter for quite a while. I do not plan on voting for BB. You do not go from anti drug, supporting the patriot act, voting for war in Iraq, and anti libertarian views on religion and marriage, to seeing the light. He has done more harm than good in his political career, as it’s ending, he has a sudden change of heart and there is no way he is getting my support. Take a stand and don’t just support the LP because any fool can just start spouting the principles. I want to vote for someone who has had a backbone, who actually understands and believes in the issues. No wonder nobody takes the LP seriously.

    I worked with the Mark Noble in the article above this past weekend petitioning and working an OPH/LP booth at the Community Festival in Columbus. This festival included the annual “Pride Festival” and parade. The Pride parade here is the third largest in the US, outside San Francisco and New York.

    One thing I found was that very few gays or marijuana activists remember Barr from his Congressional days…thankfully. Of thousands of folks that came by the booth, maybe six knew who he used to be. Unless Barr starts getting some real traction, his past will never catch up with him.

    You say you want to vote for somebody with backbone. I hope that you do. But I want you to remember that you won’t be voting for the Presidential candidate himself, but rather for the electors that are pledged to him. And you can bet that an awful lot of Libertarian electors have backbone. I’d be willing to bet that Ron Paul could get more electoral votes this year than he got in ‘88!

    PEACE
    Steve

  41. Jonathan Says:

    ron paul couldn’t do shit under the LP that’s why he did it under the Republican Party. My gosh , it couldn’t be any more clear. But who cares, why play the what if game , that’s for losers.

    We have Bob Barr who is better than any choice out there, he left the Republican Party a few years ago and he is here to spread the word on Liberty & freedom. Let’s support him, if not the Libertarian party will forever be a bunch of freaks.

    Even if Barr gets 3% which he is polling the Libertarian party will benefit because we will automatically qualify for state ballots that otherwisae we would have to petition again.

    Tomorrow, even if the goal is met by morning , please show your support and donate

  42. cow Says:

    I didn’t see the booth, but I was at comfest.

    Still bleh, I don’t want to “protest vote” I want to vote for someone I believe in. I’ve always been the one saying, vote libertarian, don’t just not vote. I had even been telling Ron Paul supporters, join the libertarian party, at least when Ron Paul is out of the race there could be a continued effort. What can I say, I don’t think as a grown intelligent man, he can just change positions, in a manner of a few years, on some very substantial issues. I am very disheartened by it all. It will take quite a bit on his part to convince me he really believes in the cause.

  43. Scott Harmon Says:

    At this point, I’d vote for Tiny Tim, dead or alive, to make a change in this stagnant politico-economic system. Sorry, Dondero, I like Paul and his philosophies. But, I’ll concede that you are right about the intellectualism that has been emanating from the Paul campaign for some time. Intellectuals and America don’t mix very well, as evidenced from the current crop of “leaders” and Congressional “apparatchiks” we have. Yes, Barr, Baldwin, or someone else should really target the hand-to-mouth voters out there who might not be well-read enough to understand that McManiac or Obama mean more of the same (i.e., repeating what doesn’t work). The next President is going to have to get America out of the sand traps in the mideast and focus on preserving what’s left of the American economic system. Mostly, that means reducing the FED drastically and restructuring the tax system to nothingness. Paulson’s got his hand out, but it’s being bitten off; we’ll soon be a haggling mass of 50 states clamoring to remove the FED girdle. One way or another, that girdle has got to come off.

  44. Craig Says:

    I was a Ross Perot supporter (and voter), AND a Ron Paul supporter (and voter, twice.) I guess I would qualify as a “screwball intellectual”, America’s standards being what they are.

    I will most likely vote for Bob Barr, for lack of anyone better on the ballot. I’ve considered the anarchist theory on just not voting, but it doesn’t seem to have much in the way of effectiveness. If another 30% join the current 50% who don’t vote, the powers that be will just call us lazy and keep on putting the “winners” in office and tightening the screws on the populace.

    If 30% start voting for the most pro-liberty candidates, we will elect them.

    Ron Paul had supporters from across the political spectrum, but his voters in the primaries were almost entirely registered Republicans—it’s why he only earned 1.2 million votes, when he could have pulled 8 million, and won the nomination. That would only be 4% of the adult population, and it would have beaten McCain.

  45. MikeB Says:

    I keep hearing LP members saying they won’t vote for Barr because he doesn’t represent ALL of their views. Does any presidential candidate of the DP and RP represent ALL of the views of everyone in those parties? Definitely they do not, nor can they do so. It is impossible. If LP members demand that everyone who joins the party support everything in the platform, the party will never grow beyond what it has been. The development of factions is a sign the party is moving toward a greater level of maturity. It must and will become a “big tent.” Personally, I am a recent convert to the LP. I have been a conservative Republican for the last two decades, but I have been moving more and more in the libertarian direction with each passing year. (And with each passing POTUS election) I can honestly say I agree with somewhere between 75 to 85% of the LP platform. That’s probably as much of the RP platform I agreed with. Oh, I can already hear the LP “purists” out there: “Come back when you’re 100%—till then don’t bother us!” Well, my vote counts the same whether I’m 80% or 100% in agreement with the platform. If LP members tell me they don’t want my vote till I’m 100%, then they obviously would rather sit around with other like-minded libertarians and look down their noses at others not exactly like them. That’s not the way you win elections. I really hope the LP can rise above this kind of “thinking.”

  46. Sivarticus Says:

    I think having a far worse maggot under him—in the form of Wayne Allan Root—makes Barr harder to swallow for most Ron Paul people. Root is a guy with a history of attacking Ron Paul on several occasions. He donated money to Lieberman and wrote an article just a year or two ago supporting the idea of a McCain-Lieberman ticket for the VP to boot.

    I must say, however, that it’s heartening to see Barr push him under the rug. It also leaves some lingering hope that the campaign might replace him, if it begins gaining some traction over the summer.

  47. End the Empire Says:

    Ministry of Lost Republicans
    Scott E. Crawford

    http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/scrawford_20080628.html

    Ben Adler of “The Politico” brought to light a very significant question concerning the upcoming presidential election. Where will Ron Paul Voters Turn? This question is particularly important when you consider the impact Paul had during this past primary season. Nation-wide, he garnered well over one million votes. Impressive as that figure is, it was the fact that Paul became a fund-raising juggernaut that turned heads, as he raised millions of dollars and out-competed all Republican competitors during the last quarter of 2007. Although Paul’s supporters don’t number as high as those of John McCain or Barack Obama, they exceed them in their enthusiasm, whether their on an Internet forum or at a political event. No matter where you live, there is a good chance you will see a Ron Paul campaign sign near your home. Thus, there is no doubt that these displaced voters will be invaluable to any campaign.

    Unfortunately for the two major parties, it is highly unlikely that many of Paul’s supporters will turn to Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama. People often forget that Paul was a relatively obscure candidate until his infamous and highly-publicized debate with Rudy Giuliani last May, in which Paul not only emphasized his opposition to the War in Iraq, but also criticized U.S. involvement in the Middle East over the past half-century. Shortly thereafter, he garnered the support of the anti-war right. These voters are not likely to support McCain’s aggressive foreign policy at the polls. However, Paul’s positions on economics, health care, social security, education, and social issues differ vastly from that of Sen. Obama, making Obama equally unattractive to Paul’s supporters.

    Thus, it is the third party candidates who stand to reap the benefits from Paul’s supporters. Libertarian Bob Barr has stances similar to Paul’s on many issues. Anti-war Independent Ralph Nader is also likely to draw some consideration. However, it is Dr. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party who is the most logical choice.

    One merely has to look at Baldwin’s campaign platform to see that he is a faithful disciple of Dr. Paul’s brand of politics. You will find that Baldwin has adopted Paul’s stances on nearly every issue, from the economy to foreign policy, to abortion and immigration. Ron Paul is frequently mentioned on Dr. Baldwin’s campaign website (one endorsement category is titled “Ron Paulers”). In fact, Baldwin has announced that he will be speaking at the Revolution March and Rally in Washington D.C. on July 12th, an event that was organized by supporters of Rep. Paul. The Baptist minister and former vice-presidential candidate is also attractive to disenfranchised Republicans due to his past association with the GOP: Baldwin himself was a Republican until 2000, and worked on both Reagan campaigns. He has not only reached out to Rep. Paul supporters…he has embraced them.

    Dr. Baldwin is no Ron Paul, and the Constitution Party might not be the ideal standard-bearer for the so-called “Ron Paul Revolution.” When analyzing the candidates in the race, however, Baldwin is by far the closest thing to Rep. Paul out there. Barring a major scandal, he is more than worthy to take the “Revolution” to the polls come November and help continue the movement. The long-term goal for Ron Paul and his supporters is to reform and restore the Republican Party. In the short-term, however, a candidate is needed to represent Paul’s supporters that were displaced by the Republican primary. Where will Ron Paul voters turn? The answer is obvious. XXX

    As for Ron Paul “Nuts”, some folk’s state school mascot proves they are nuts. Not only can you people NOT play football, some of you are lifetime MUSHROOMS that are politically naive. You bemoan the media’s action, yet you have NO clue who controls and owns the media. Hence their actions! You don’t believe there is a plan by the Council on Foreign Relations to create a North American Union!? When it has been displayed on their website for years. You are truly in the dark and SWALLOW the meals fed to you daily! If you would spend more time researching and less time attacking people in the freedom movement you would hopefully improve your understanding of the world you live in!

    If “nearly everyone” of a meet-up believes in 9-11 truth then the math says most of those go for the candidate who is most sympathetic to their cause. However, as stated WHY worry abt 1% when you should worry abt much higher numbers…

  48. Stefan Says:

    Sivarticus: very much so. Barr is a traditional conservative libertarian - like Paul - and a grounded person. He has read Ayn Rand while/after leaving college under influence of his mother, so he has limited government and civil liberty history he can fall back on. Since 2003/2004 he has genuinely become more “libertarian” as they say after deep thought and reflection. This is a genuine swift in position and not a flip-flop.

    Root on the other hand is more like a loose cannon and a wild card. While Barr’s history is clearly to be seen, Root is still very much unvetted, just like Obama. He is actually quite similar to Obama in that he has his slogans and personal ambition, but one does not know how principled he really is. Root calls himself “Ron Paul on steroids”, but he has not contributed a single dollar to the Ron Paul campaign nor openly came out in support of him (only later when it was convenient). It seems as if he wants to do a TV show about his run, I heard on one radio station, one wonders how serious he really is.

    As you say, I think under the line Barr and his campaign is very much aware and
    try to ignore him mostly, as they should. One wishes he can be replaced. Mary Ruwart has unfortunately not declared her available for the VP position and I think Kubby would also not necessarily be the best choice either (nothing against him). I personally think Dr. Karen Kwiatkowski as VP would be the optimal: it would attack the Ron Paul supporters and she is already well known, can attract female voters, was active in the Paul campaign, a well known speaker and I think in positions closer to Paul and Barr than Ruwart… She has been a LP member since 1995, so the traditional LP members would have confidence in her. Some people wanted her to run. a Barr-Kwiatkowski ticket would be optimal IMHO.

  49. Dan Blueth Says:

    I doubt I will even vote in November. Barr is too much of a politician, Baldwin is too much of a fundamentalist for this atheist who has a sister-in law who is Jewish, and Nader is too much a socialist. Needless to say McCain and Obama aren’t even an option.

  50. James Patterson Says:

    I tried to donate money to the Barr campaign two days ago.

    But my finger would not press the submit button.

    You see..he keeps using the “states rights” excuse to avoid saying how he himself would vote if he were a state legislator.

    I want to hear him at least say “I would not ban strip clubs in my community if I were a municipal leader” or “my Supreme Court nominee would, first and foremost, uphold first amendment rights such as anonymity on Internet social interactiion sites and pornography”

    I am not hearing such warm and fuzzy comments from him.

    This is too bad because the MALE vote is up for grabs, and most males want their strip clubs and their porn.

    All males with any manhood would be against laws like IMBRA that force men to be background checked before being allowed to talk to foreign women online.

    While Obama and McCain go after the FEMALE vote, someone who goes specifically after the male vote can be President.

    And there is a growing Men’s Rights Movement out there that is far from nutty. Check out www.mensnewsdaily.com or www.glennsacks.com.

    The RP People mostly ignored what I am talking about, preferring instead to support nutty ideas like:

    1) The RP people said that the Iraq War was undebatably a mistake (in fact, if you go to www.strategypage.com, that war was probably NOT a mistake and it certainly is debatable). Dondero is correct when he notes that RP should have shut up about the Iraq War (McCain beat him mainly on this issue).

    2) The LP oriented RP people often felt that using heroin was equal to seeing a prostitute. I would say that 99% of those who would find prostitution OK would NOT think using needles to inject heroin is OK.

    There is a huge difference between the large amount of people who want to legalize stripping and lapdancing and the small amount of people who want to legalize the injection of hard drugs. So why is the online presence of the latter louder than the former?

    It is astonishing to see people equate the two…especially when the worst thing about prostitution laws in the USA today is that males can be arrested for simply showing interest or being clients (this is an outrageous anti-male twist to traditional anti-prostitution laws which were not so bad when only pimps and prostitutes themselves could be arrested)

    3) Many of the religious RP people were not really libertarians at all. They backed RP because of the states rights excuse that people use when they see that they are losing in the national battle of ideas but want local pockets of totalitarianism. There were some honest Christians who agreed that strip clubs were OK at the local level…if that is what other people wanted.

    Bob Barr thought he was being cool when he condemned the recent SC decision that said that men could not be executed because they might be falsely accused of rape.

    It irritated me that Barr failed to repeat Justice Anthony Kennedy’s argument that too many males these days are being falsely accused of rape and abuse in a corrupt gynojustice system.

  51. Stefan Says:

    James : LOL So this is issue no.1 for you (and Eric Dondero) in the campaign? and you think he can attract most men vote so…well, why not go further and demand the legalization of “men strip clubs for women”, then he has access to the women vote as well, and women constitute 56% of the voters…

  52. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Made the goal of $88K! It’s tough sledding to raise money as a 3rd party candidate, but Barr 08 is breaking all the rules!

    As to all this interesting discussion here, many of these issues are minutiae. The 80:20 rule applies in politics, too. On the big issues that affect most Americans, Barr is solid, very solid. Where does arguing about the last 20 get us? Nowhere, I submit.

  53. Stefan Says:

    Exactly, Robert. 88k was avery good ideal to state and a boost that the goal has been achieved. Judging from a limited base: e.g. mostly Libtertarians, that says a lot. Barr is very solid indeed and reaching out to his traditional “constituency” as a base. It seems to some Libertarians the say 15% they disagree with Barr is more important than the 85% they disagree with McCain and Obama… You have to idealogically pure on the basic things like non-interventionalist foreign policy, limited govt., lowers taxes, civil liberties etc. and on all those issues Barr is top notch. You have to “sell” libertarianism to the masses and know there will always be some disagreement on some issues. I have a MA in Philosophy and think some Libertarians are associating LP with being “libertine”, disregarding that the roots, classical liberalism (of which the Constitution & Bill of Rights are the products) means freedom to choose, but this is connected with values and a value-system. People choose differently based on their faith and value-system.
    Sometimes I get the impression some “libertine Libertarians” think religious and social conservatives cannot be “libertarians”, which is nonsense. In socialogy terms they have a contractarian view of society and ignore those who have a communitarian approach. There is a crucial difference between a rugged individualism and an extremist individualism that does not want to accept any laws, values etc.

    The Barr campaign should make use of the perotcharts.com also. The campaign can really only take off now only. The grassroot enthusiasm is needed.

  54. Eric Dondero Says:

    James, it’s getting worse than you even say. Immigration officials are now cracking down on American men seeking Female companions, wives and girlfriends from the Phillipines, and other Southeast Asian locations. They are rejecting Visa applications by the tens of thousands for Filipina women wanting to emmigrate to the States to marry American men.

    I know a Libertarian petitioner who recently went through this nightmare to get his Filipina wife over here. They had to jump through enormous hoops, but got lucky in the end.

    It’s a simple case of American women trying to cut off the competition from sexier, better looking, more slender and much more easier to get along with Asian women.

    You are correct: The Men’s Rights Movement in the US is a greatly undertapped constituency, and Bob Barr ought to do everything he can to emphasize issues that will reach these guys.

  55. Jonathan Says:

    Keep it coming !! we met the official goal set but we need your support !

    All we did is average $10,000 a day for 9 days ( since July 26th ) granted that’s the best streak we’ve had but we need a lot more for ballot access in West Virginia, District of Columbia and for lawyers and courts for Oklahoma, we need money for events like NASCAR, and others, we need money to set up a first class headquarters, we need money to spread the word and educate America on Freedom, we need real money to place commercials.

    Please help TODAY, this Independece Day !

  56. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Sivarticus: “having a far worse maggot under him—in the form of Wayne Allan Root—makes Barr harder to swallow for most Ron Paul people. ... it’s heartening to see Barr push him under the rug. It also leaves some lingering hope that the campaign might replace him, if it begins gaining some traction over the summer.”

    I’m not aware that Barr can dump Root.

  57. Stefan Says:

    Eric: yes, I have read it is to difficult for a foreigner from another continent to get a visa for the US, while it is so easy for an illegal immigrant to come from Mexico. And some LPs apparently do not want to secure the border and start with slashing the welfare state, like Barr, Paul and others…quite hypocritical, it seems to me.

    Interim solution: the SE Asian women should first fly to Mexico city, enter the border illegally and then they can be hassle-free with your future husbands, get welfare and then marry and then they are legal and do not have to go through all such bureaucratic problems.

    There you have an example of a libertarian solution: creativity of the individual to use loopholes in the system.

  58. Jonathan Says:

    The VP cannot be replaced. However, The Libertarian Party should adopt what the Two-Party system has in place in the future. You should be able to choose your VP . The only thing wrong with Root is he comes off being a used car salesman. He used to be a Republican but those years are passed and cannot be held against him as he has worked hard to serve the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party will continue to grow with ex-Republicans, ex-Democrats and that’s the way it should be.

  59. Cork Says:

    “I keep hearing LP members saying they won’t vote for Barr because he doesn’t represent ALL of their views.”

    You don’t understand. BARR SUPPORTS THE WAR ON DRUGS. This has been a huge issue for libertarians, for decades. This isn’t some petty issue to us. If you don’t understand that, then you are really, really new to libertarianism.

    The Libertarian Party running a drug warrior is like the Socialist Party running an Objectivist.

  60. Cork Says:

    MikeB,

    I responded to the beginning of your message before reading the rest of it. Welcome to libertarianism. You should understand that if Barr took a firm stance against the war on drugs (which many would call the LP’s signature issue), and was less wishy-washy on foreign policy, most libertarians IMO would gladly put their differences aside and go along with him.

    It’s just that the guy is making zero attempt to reach out to actual libertarians, or to distinguish libertarianism from conservatism.

  61. Jonathan Says:

    AGAIN, the war against druge, that was then this now. Bo Barr is on record saying he was wrong and that it was a failure. Again this is when he was a Republican. he did not leave the Republican party yesterday and decided to run for President under the Libertarian Party like GRAVEL. He has seen the light, repented adn is working hard serving the Libertarian Party, he is working hard so the Libertarians achieve automatic ballot access the next election, he is working hard to educate through media appearances on what the libertarian party is all about. He is working hard to spread freedom He is working hard to restore the writ of Habeas Corpus. he is working hard against FISA, something both McCain and Hussein approve of. he is working hrd to bring the troops home, he is working hard to push the agenda to drill for oil, something McCain finally has flip flopped on due to pressure put forth by the Barr campaign.
    If Barr is not pure enough for you just write in JESUS CHRIST when you vote. People tell me he was pure and I also doubt that as well.

  62. Joe Says:

    To all of you wannabe novelists exchange addresses and write to each other to your hearts content. As soon as I see anything more than 8-10 lines I scroll past it. You have a very small drum but you are banging it as hard as you can. Get over yourselves!

  63. Jonathan Says:

    $90,000 and counting …..........................................................

    that’s an average of $10,000 a day for 9 days since July 26th.

    Let’s keep it rolling…............ If you are sitting at home and it’s raining like it is in South Florida here, write emails to TV talk shows, radio shows, blogg, write editorials to newspapers, and most important write emails to friends and family. We need money, we need your support to compete !

    www.bobbarr2008.com

  64. Jeff Wartman Says:

    Alex Jones endorsed Chuck Baldwin, so Barr loses half the RP support right there.

    Which is a good thing. The Alex Jones bloc of uneducated weirdos can go off and define the Baldwin candidacy.

  65. timothy west Says:

    wheres lowell with the abortion BS? Where’s disinter calling Barr Barf? Where’s Clark with his money lectures?

    July 4th means nothing to any of them, why are they taking a holiday? Get back in here you worms.

  66. James Patterson Says:

    [James : LOL So this is issue no.1 for you (and Eric Dondero) in the campaign? and you think he can attract most men vote so…well, why not go further and demand the legalization of “men strip clubs for women”, then he has access to the women vote as well, and women constitute 56% of the voters…]

    Come to think about it, Barr would steal a significant amount of young women away from Obama if he went that route. A few days ago I was surprised to talk to a group of American college coeds in Austria who said, in support of Ron Paul and Obama, that they had a right to be prostitutes if they wanted to be (they then said they did not want to be). :-)

    Many foreign women would say the same. Saying you want a right does not mean you want to do what you have a right to do.

    Libertarianism is not about getting to do what you want to do (what you call libertinism) but about stopping the government from believing it can mess with you at all where the Constitution does not say it is allowed to.

    Protecting expressions of sexuality is not the number one issue for young people nor is the number one issue for Men’s Rights advocates, but it is in the top 5 and it is suicide to come out in favor of laws that would hem in heterosexual behavior.

    Bob Barr is toast if he believes what someone just said about libertinism differing from Libertarianism. Anyone who supports Barr but doesn’t think that porn is protected free speech: Leave LP politics immediately because you will only destroy the LP.

    So what is the #1 issue for Bob Barr going forward and beyond his miserly 3%?

    The #1 issue is that he needs to attract the male vote. In the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) strip clubs are a very minor issue, mainly because this industry and the porn industry have enough money to take care of themselves legally.

    Example: A minor issue would be that the socons of Texas joined with the radical feminist left wing women of Texas to tax strip club patrons $5 to fund “rape prevention centers”. This law has just been struck down because it tries to make a connection between the club patrons and rape…which is a radical left wing theory that social conservatives never had any business getting into.

    Now the larger MRM issues wrap around the disastrous marriage between the socons and the feminist left regarding Domestic Violence (DV). The socalled Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) should have been actively opposed by the socons and representatives in Congress. But Sam Brownback listened to feminist Christian women who said that American men dated and married foreign women because they wanted “power and control” and wanted to “abuse”. Brownback also made a deal with Maria Cantwell for her to stop the filibuster on Alito if he delivered the Republican senators over to her feminist social engineering projects.

    Once Brownback made his deal with the Dems over Alito, the Dems added elements of the vicious IMBRA law to VAWA, which state that American men have NO fundamental liberty interest to contact with foreigners. All American men now have to be background checked in order to say hello to foreign women online (large corporations like Match.com are temporarily exempt and so are politically correct dating sites like Muslim dating sites or feminist or gay dating sites).

    Even worse, because foreign women now have to sign in writing that they read the background check of the man trying to say hello, initial phone contact or snail mail letters or telegrams are now ILLEGAL to send to foreign women via a dating site.

    Now, whoever said that this kind of stuff falls under 80:20 “Minutea” better NOT be connected to the Bob Barr Campaign or think they represent Bob Barr’s thinking in any way.

    I am very glad that Eric Dondero (a powerful voice) recognizes that Bob Barr needs to tap into the enormous men’s rights voting bloc.

    Any of you males who disagree (or who haven’t noticed the feminist takeover of the Republican Party) are clearly eunuchs singing in the castrati choir.

    I and others are very active on the net and, if Bob Barr snubs men, and YES, we represent real men as opposed to pro-feminist eunuchs, then real men will be reminded often in comments sections like this that Barr is NOT worth supporting.

    We are not going to put up with 4 months of BS about drug rights and gay rights and we certainly don’t want to hear garbage about how Bob Barr “wants the women’s vote” when both the Dems and the Reps are beating each other up about who supports feminism more.

    Why would I give a damn about marijuana smokers if they don’t provide me the same courtesy as somene who prefers kissing a woman to smoking a joint?

    Why would I give a damn about gay rights if the gays who support Barr don’t care about maintaining men’s rights to say hello to women online?

    Why would I give a damn about the rights of heroine injectors if they think that the right to date online without background checks is 80:20 minutiae?

    Eric: regarding those having a hard time bringing foreign spouses into the USA: any man who doesn’t have the brains to walk into a courthouse and submit a pro se challenge to IMBRA, doesn’t deserve to bring his spouse into the US. We are supposed to attack the problem (this new law) rather than jump through the hoops of the law hoping to get “lucky”.

    I would never lower myself by trying to beg the State Department for a visa for a girlfriend or wife. Better to get the woman a business visa and completely bypass the intrusive questioning about your private life (yes, IMBRA forces people to explain how they met).

    Men are not supposed to put up with a feminist government making their married lives a nightmare because they didn’t choose the politically correct mate. And I have every moral right to bring my Russian girlfriend into the USA to meet my parents without having to promise to marry her via the nonsensical “fiance visa”.

    Stefan’s joke about forcing our college educated, upper middle class girlfriends into running across the Mexican border…only accentuates what little power American males have in their own country now. The joke illustrates what should be the 80 in the 20 of Libertarian discussion this year.

    I don’t want to hear more about how a war was bad, whether it was a war on Islamofascists or a war on drugs. Ron Paul fizzled out over these minor issues. If we want Barr to top 15%, he has to start discussing issues that American men care about while Obama and McCain continue to completely ignore men.

  67. Cork Says:

    “Bo Barr is on record saying he was wrong and that it was a failure.”

    That’s BS. Barr has said repeatedly (and on national television) that he supports the war on drugs on the state level. He refuses to pardon non-violent drug offendors and has called for US military action to wage a more effective drug war. At best, he has made some very tame criticisms about some apects of the federal war on drugs (mostly of how it “isn’t working,” rather than how it is evil)m but that is it. I doubt he’s sincere even about that, since the guy is such a chameleon.

    Barr is no libertarian.

  68. NewFederalist Says:

    I believe the LNC could replace Root as the VP nominee much the same as the DNC replaced Eagleton as McGovern’s running mate in 1972. The big catch is Eagleton withdrew when it surfaced he had undergone electroshock therapy as treatment for depression. The media began the “he must be nuts” crappola and he pulled out to try to save the ticket. (Yeah, THAT worked!) The DNC went through a painful process and finally decided on Sargent Shriver. Question: would Root even consider withdrawing for any reason? Question #2: would Root consider electroshock therapy?

  69. Karsten Says:

    The goal of $88,000 is pretty lame. It just shows how Barr could never dream of raising 6 million in one day like Ron Paul did.

  70. James Patterson Says:

    Bob Barr could get the young American woman vote because they hate socons who want to call them sluts. He needs to distance himself from that attitude.

    If you want the young women’s vote, you don’t imply that young women are sluts for doing what they want to do. Queen Victoria went down that route and it did not work to make any women happy except the insecure among them who wanted hubby to have no chance to cheat. The old queen wanted to hem in young women sexually because she was afraid Prince Albert might cheat on her if she didn’t repress them.

    Republicans have been making a terrible mistake in the Bush years by trying to revive Victorianism (such as with government funded abstinence programs - what the heck was that all about?).

    Also, we witnessed how younger women behind Obama achieved victory over the older women behind Clinton. That showed that there is reason to believe that these groups are natural enemies.

    So many “Obama girls” have told me that they cannot stand the older Clinton Baby Boomers.

    Bob Barr could split younger women away from older Baby Boomer feminists, by talking more about the weird attitudes of Baby Boomers who are now in Congress.

    He could win the election by isolating older Clintonites as being weird and outdated.

    Certainly, John McCain will NOT disparage Clinton in the next few months because McCain is actively courting the Clinton voters.

    Who among us isn’t well aware that the antipathy to Clinton isn’t red meat to the American male?

    Democrat males voted overwhelmingly for Obama because they cannot stand Clinton. Republican males crossed over to vote for Obama in the primaries.

    Now that Obama and McCain feel they have to make nice to the Clintonites, it would be a perfect time for Bob Barr to get those Democrat and Republican males over to his side.

  71. Jonathan Says:

    Karsten Says:

    The goal of $88,000 is pretty lame. It just shows how Barr could never dream of raising 6 million in one day like Ron Paul did.

    $90,000 in 9 days is pretty good for a Third party candidate.
    If you want a candidate to raise 6 million in one day join the Democratic Party or Republican Party.

    Let’s not forget that when Paul ran us a Libertarian for President he did not raise anything substantial and only garnished about 400,000 votes.

    I bet Barr gets more votes than Paul’s 400,000 votes and raises more money than Paul did in 1988

    But again I get duped into responding to posts that are not factual,constructive, positive or have any reedeming value.

    We should be uniting and thinking and planning how to best spread freedom, how to get the word out, and how to raise more money.

    Please donate at www.bobbarr2008.com

  72. GoNolzOhio Says:

    While pardoning all nonviolent drug offenders may give some libertarians an erection, it is political suicide. It is unfortunate, because I agree that they should be pardoned. But politics is the art of compromise, and Bob Barr’s position on the drug issue (returning it to the states) is about is close to complete drug legalization as most Americans are willing to get. So, its the position we have to take. If that sort of compromise makes you sick, then politics is not for you. There are plenty of other ways the “small l” libertarian movement can use you, but if that sort of compromise is unacceptable to you, then get out of “big L” Libertarian politics.

  73. Jonathan Says:

    You tell them Gonzo, You are like the only sane voice in this place.

    $91,000 and rolling….................. I like it I like it a lot

    Bring Freedom to every TV set this Sunday, everyone email someone you know Bob Barr will be on ABC at 11:00 am

    Raise the Barr ! Let freedom grow !

  74. Wellsie Says:

    Why all the talk about who to vote for as President? One of the two corrupt parties will win, as usual. Duh. The members of Congress are the culmination of evil - they need to be swept out and replaced by those who do not allow money to rule their lives. Run as one of the two parties, then when we have enough normal people there, we can readjust the process back to normality.

  75. Cork Says:

    “While pardoning all nonviolent drug offenders may give some libertarians an erection, it is political suicide.”

    Funny, Ron Paul did it, and it didn’t hurt his campaign one bit. But then Ron Paul had an actual spine (which Barr lacks).

    Ending slavery was also considered “political suicide” at some point. Compromise your way to tyranny, see what I care. I just wish you would do it in Republicrat party, which has already taken pragmatism and compromise down the same old road to hell it always leads to. I could care less how “radical” or “scary” these ideas are to the idiot sheep (who, as history shows, are always wrong about everything). Alcohol prohibition was bullshit. The war on drugs is bullshit and every day we fail to act is a day that the insane war claims more innocent victims.

  76. Cork Says:

    BTW, it’s quite funny that anyone would worry about a 3rd party candidate taking stands that would be “political suicide.” How much more suicidal can you get?

  77. Jive Dadson Says:

    This Ron Paul supporter is going to pass. I cannot bring myself to vote for McCain, Obama, Barr, Nader, or that other guy. Besides, the way the system is set up, either McCain or Obama is going to win. Choose your poison. The presidential race is lost. Focus on battles that can be won. Join the Campaign for Liberty. CampaignForLiberty.com

  78. Cork Says:

    If I vote, it’ll be for the Boston Tea Party. I have had it with the conservative slime that has hijacked the LP. The reformers greatly resemble the venom in Spiderman 3. They find a host, latch onto it, then corrupt it. lol

  79. Clark Says:

    ...sorry i’m late in providing your daily dose of CLARK, west..(CLARK is a volunteer fireman who was on-hand tonight as many drunken republicrat notwits ooh’ed and ahh’ed like cavemen at the first bonfire…btw, rumor has it that CLARK is well-known to the local girls as ‘handy with the hose!’..) ;o)

    ...anyway…..one wonders how some
    (phony) ‘Libertarians’ can get worked up/excited about barf..after all, i believe even just a little research would prove barf’s last-known voting/legislative record practically mirrors that of the STINKING REPUBLICAN GEORGE BEAVIS WALKER BUSH’S!!

    ...while stefanie and jonathong, etcetercrats, appear to have gorilla-glued their lips to barf’s arse!..

    ...also, a little hint for you apparently hopelessly naive republicrats here: ..political elections/campaigns are a complete FRAUD..

    ..”the competition of ideas about government,” aka ‘politics,’ is DOMINATED by the cheerleaders, announcers, etc. fluff..

    I assert that little-leaguers are put through more of an ‘honest tryout’ than the LARGELY apparent god-damned fools who win office in Republicrat ‘competitive politics’..Notice how the announcers and cheerleaders dominate ‘the action’ in ‘politics’ whilst the actual Republicrat candidates/competitors/participants tend to hide from honest, frequent, candid, etc. debate/competition..

    ..it’s OBVIOUS these FRAUDULENT Republicrat elections/’competitions’ CERTAINLY aren’t decided as to who has the best ideas about ‘government’..

    ..Consequently, over time, it seems we have created a heritage of the worst god-damned fools, etc. in society tending to migrate into ‘politics’..it appears attracting decent, intelligent people to ‘clean up,’ etc. that STINKING mess is going to be a daunting challenge…

    ...and so it appears ‘the Libertarians’ have said ‘fuck it’ too!..and foisted ‘Libertarian’ boob barf upon us..

    ...i would love to see the institution of the ‘negative vote’..i.e. instead of being forced to cast a ‘positive vote’ for any number of stinking Republicrats..we could take one vote away, if we so choose, from the worst of these republicrat pricks..then maybe you stooooooooooooooopid, giddy, horserace republicrat cheerleaders might finally grasp just how much your stinking republicrat ‘politics’ is HATED

    ...but have a good day anyway..and west, follow my every word CLO$ELY…you may learn $omething of great value!..

  80. Nemo Says:

    Barr doesn’t represent any of the consistent ideas Ron Paul has supported. I’ll never vote for Barr. I’m gonna’ write-in Ron Paul in November and will sleep well knowing I did the right thing and didn’t do some kind of stupid “strategy voting” scheme the neocons like Barr encourage.

  81. Eric Dondero Says:

    Funny, all these Anonymous posters here posting under bogus names like “Nemo,” and “Corkie” are blasting Barr, and saying that they won’t vote for him. (Could all these posters be just the same person?).

    Yet, a brand new poll out of Georgia has Barr at 3% statewide. That matches his nationwide polling from Zogby and Gallup.

    Let’s see now. 3% translates into roughly 2.8 million votes on election day out of the expected 120 million to be cast.

    Libertarian Ed Clark received 920,000 votes - all-time high for the Libertarian Party - in 1980.

    That means Bob Barr is already tripling Clark’s vote total.

    And we should be concerned about a few disgruntles Anarchist Leftwinger ‘V’ for Vendetta types going on chat boards, claiming that they “won’t vote for Barr.”

    Ahem, I dare say, Barr is doing just fine without them.

  82. Eric Dondero Says:

    As for Wayne Root, if Barr were to somehow “dump him to replace him with Ron Paul,” he’d lose a heep of supporters. There are many Root supporters who were somewhat skeptical of Barr, yet have recently signed on, because Barr picked Root as the VP nominee. Many of them are in California.

    Root was the perfect VP choice for Barr. Pro-Defense Libertarians are quite comfortable with Root. And if he were to somehow get sacked from the ticket for an Anti-War Lefty Libertarian, you’d see Barr’s support plummet.

    Of course, this is highly unlikely, for word on the street is that Barr and Root have become good friends and close political allies.

    Barr/Root, THE ABSOLUTE BEST LIBERTARIAN PRESIDENTIAL TICKET OF ALL-TIME!!

  83. Eric Dondero Says:

    James, thanks for the compliments. But I don’t think you’ll have any problems with Bob Barr ignoring the “Men’s Movement.” He was in the movie Borat, after all. And you don’t get any more Pro-Man and Masculine values than that movie.

  84. GoNolzOhio Says:

    Cork,

    Like many libertarians, your main concern is keeping the Libertarian Party small, so that you can run your little debate club. Thus, you snipe at whoever the candidate happens to be. Apparently, you are unaware of what your hero, Ron Paul said about the War on Drugs. Apparently, you just make up his positions to agree with yours. Here’s what Ron Paul said in a Q&A, though:

    Q: In your 1988 campaign you said, “All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults.” Is that still your position?

    A.This war on drugs is totally out of control. If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level. That’s where I stand on it. The federal government has no prerogatives on this.

    Q: But you would decriminalize it?

    A: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there.

    source: http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

  85. BillWoolsey Says:

    In my opinion, if Ron Paul wants to be on the LP ticket, and all of these problems with ballot status don’t become much worse, then Barr and Root should resign their positions on the ticket, and the LNC should put Paul for President and Barr for Vice President.

    But this would require that Paul want to do this and that Barr be willing to resign from candidate for President and bcome VP. And that Root drop out altogether.

    I think the first won’t happen. Perhaps Barr would be willing to do it. I think he is doing this for the good of the Party (and perhaps win the top slot again in 2012.) Root, I worry about a bit.

    But, the key problem is that Paul isn’t interested.

    So, it is almost certainly Barr/Root through November.

    Personally, I think Barr has some strenghts vs. a vs. Paul. But, I think the key goal of this campaign, for the LP and the libertarian movement in general, is to build on the support Paul received in the spring.

  86. Cork Says:

    “Like many libertarians, your main concern is keeping the Libertarian Party small, so that you can run your little debate club.”

    In other words, taking stands that are actually libertarian will keep the party small. Do you realize how big an issue this has been for the LP? Once the party endorses the war on drugs, that’s basically the end of libertarianism. At this point, I hope the party just dies. Even more bizarre is that they would sell out on this issue at a time when the libertarian stand on it has become very popular.

    “Apparently, you are unaware of what your hero, Ron Paul said about the War on Drugs.”

    In the first place, he’s not my hero. We’re on a thread where the subject is whether Barr will get his supporters, which is why I am explaining how they differ. Secondly, your example is weak, because:
    1) Paul still advocates decriminalization at the state level, and
    2) Paul said repeatedly he would pardon non-violent drug offendors.

    Neither one can be said for Barr (and Barr is running as a Libertarian, not a Republican!).

  87. James Patterson Says:

    I hope that Bob Barr is listening closely to Eric Dondero.

    Eric worked with Ron Paul but fell out mainly because of the anti-war rhetoric after 9-11.

    Eric was right all along that Ron Paul was, this past winter, alienating a huge constituency of potential male voters with all the left wing kind of anti-war rhetoric (there is a thin line between left wing anti-war talk and conservative anti-war talk and Ron Paul regularly swung wide over that line).

    Root seems to think like I do about the war but I hope he feels a little bit ashamed by his willingness (before the LP convention) to paint Mary Ruwart as someone who believed in child molesting simply because she had pointed out something that has actually been dealt with in state legislatures over the past four years (the need for Romeo and Juliet laws so 17 year old males don’t go to jail for being with their 15 year old girlfriends).

    I will believe it when I see it if Bob Barr becomes the first politician in 10 years to go after the male vote.

    It shouldn’t be too hard. Only ten years ago, Republicans were constantly condemning feminism (the ideology that does NOT believe in equality, but in special privileges for one gender and regulations and jeopardy for the other gender).

    Then again, the LP only two years ago marketed itself (at least on the West Coast of the US) as the “Rainbow Party” for gays, lesbians and feminists.

  88. James Patterson Says:

    Rule #1: Never base a third party candidacy on striving for constituencies that the other parties already have locked in.

  89. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    Rule#1 ? in whose book? Ross Perot went for the same constituencies and did pretty well

  90. JT Says:

    Cork: “Even more bizarre is that they would sell out on this issue [ending the war on drugs] at a time when the libertarian stand on it has become very popular.”

    I’m not saying that libertarians should quit calling for an end to the destructive war on drugs. But if you think re-legalizing drugs like heroin and cocaine is a “very popular” stand, you need to get out more often and talk to people who aren’t libertarians or radical leftists. True, more people today oppose the drug war than when the DEA was created in the 1970s. But a strong majority of Americans still don’t want to re-legalizing hard drugs. So the libertarian position on this issue certainly isn’t “very popular.”

  91. Cork Says:

    JT,

    Legalizing a drug like meth may not be popular, but legalizing marijuana certainly is (and that’s the only drug most people are going to be interested in). Even if legalizing the other drugs isn’t popular, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. That being said, I am fine with putting an emphasis on marijuana if that makes ending the WoD easier for the public to swallow (pun intended?).

  92. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘Yet, a brand new poll out of Georgia has Barr at 3% statewide.’

    Down from 8%. If the trend continues, Barr will get negative votes on election day.

  93. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    Hey you can try to unmotivate and manipulate all you want David Tomlin but good is stronger than evil. Positive is stroner than negative.
    You will not win this fight. Freedom naturally grows .
    Every person deserves to be free.

    The Libertarian Party will have a strong showing and qualify for automatic ballots acces next time around in many states we would not otherwise. The Party will double and triple in membership. And we will push the agenda.

    Bob Barr will be on ABC at 11:00 am and at 10Pm on CNN tomorrow. You cannot stop the Freedom express David Tomlin

  94. Scott Harmon Says:

    Root and a few of the posters here have me worried, since they don’t apparently understand the concept of “defense.” The terms, “defense” and “self-defense” cannot be used as catch-all terms to justify aggressive measures against an actor (state, nation, or person) we don’t agree with, or that we perceive is working against our interests or livelihood. By that measure, I could presume that every police officer on the highway is intending to arrest me on a false charge (therefore, I should take him out before he tries to do damage to my person). Well, why should I be fearful? Consider that a man who stops your car and approaches you with handcuffs and a holstered gun is not exactly interested in your odometer reading. No, this act is an assault, because we are left to the “mercy” of this officer NOT to pull his gun and use the handcuffs. We obey only because we believe the LAW will give us a fighting chance. But, if the LAW is stilted, somehow fudged against us, then we have no intellectual reason to comply—better to defend oneself. To take action against a police officer who approaches you with handcuffs and a holstered gun would be an act of self defense. It is only an institutionalized, and reinforced, story theme that has brainwashed us to lower our defense against such an assault, and to accept that the LAW is the supreme judgment. Fine. But, now, when a government such as the U.S. approaches every renegade society and tries to force them to submit, then we have to wonder about the LEGALITY of this intrusion. If the state which we are trying to occupy does not comply, or does not submit to the doctrine we proscribe, then what is the resolution? The resolution is, we force them to comply. We tell them, your government stinks, and we are here (in your country) to tell you how to run your government differently. And how do we justify this meddling? By saying that these actions are necessary for self-defense (owing to this “rogue” government’s actions or lack of actions to control “terrorism”). Well, all of this is simply offense, and aggression. After a decade of bombing Iraq, I don’t think any rational person could say the U.S. was acting defensively.

    No, to act defensively is not to shoot the cop before you think he will arrest you, not to bomb a country before you think some rogue elements will act against you, and so forth. To act defensively is to REACT to an action, or an activity, that is more than a threat, but less than a direct assault. If I were to accept the Bush Doctrine of a perceived threat, many people that I encounter would not be alive today. The law would not support this. So why should we?

  95. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Scott,

    Yes, pre-emptive war is generally a bad idea. I would cede to interventionists that wars among nations are quite a bit more complicated than your cop-approaching-the-car example, though. In some ways, nukes changed everything, for they are inherently threatening. Terrorism is, too.

    That’s why I supported the action to stop al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan at first, at least. But I didn’t and don’t support the Iraq War.

  96. Eric Dondero Says:

    Scott Harmon:

    Iraq attacked us first. Don’t you remember the USS Starke incident in 1987, when 37 US Sailors were killed by an Iraqi missile?

    At the time there was no response.

    President George W. Bush, God Bless him, responded to that attack and other aggressions by Saddam in the 1990s, admittedly many years later. But at least he responded.

  97. Eric Dondero Says:

    There’s a brand new poll, covered by Hedgehog Report, statewide in Georgia that has Barr at 4%.

    So, the sum total of his GA numbers so far, have been everything from 3% to 8%. Truth is probably somewheres in the middle: Barr at 4.5 or 5%.

    Folks, if you take that nationwide, that translates to 4 million some votes on election day.

    Ed Clark got 1 millioin in 1980.

    That means Bob Barr is poised to get at least 4 times as many votes as the all-time Libertarian record. This is utterly amazing!!

  98. Eric Dondero Says:

    James, I’m flattered by your continued praised of me here at TPW.

    Might I invite you personally to become a regular participant and contributor to the Libertarian Republican blog, which I moderate?

    I think you’ll find a comfortable home that matches your “fiscally conservative/socially tolerant” yet Pro-Defense views.

    Simply click on the link above. Come on over…

  99. disinter Says:

    Bob Barr is making a pitch to Paul’s voters, claiming that his views are more in line with Paul’s than any other candidate.

    Umm, Barf voted FOR the patriot act, FOR illegal wars of aggression, FOR the drug war, FOR the creation of the Dept of Homeland Insecurity, AGAINST freedom of religion, was a drug war prosecutor for nearly 10 years and worked for the CIA.

    Ron Paul didn’t none of those. Bob Barf is the complete ideological opposite of Ron Paul. Bob Barf’s views are MUCH more compatible with the Republicrat’s.

  100. disinter Says:

    The anti-war people seem to me an interesting constituency for Barr.

    Yea, especially considering Barf voted FOR both of the recent illegal wars. Not to mention he is still pro-war.

  101. disinter Says:

    Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. Barr wants to invade Latin America (to expand the war on drugs) and antagonize Iran. Barr has also criticized Obama for wanting to talk with foreign leaders.

    Yep.

    Paul opposes the war on drugs and has said repeatedly he would pardon all non-violent drug offendors as president. Can you imagine Barr ever doing such a thing?

    Nope.

  102. disinter Says:

    My experience in working in the R3VOLution, was that RP supporters, by and large, unbelievably hard-working, dedicated and fervent supporters of liberty…and totally, 100%, certifiably, nuts.

    You just admitted you are 100%, certifiably nuts.

  103. disinter Says:

    Seems like the 88 000 target may be still achieved today, the 3rd. One hopes tomorrow’s moneybomb will be really big, 1 million plus?

    Good god the barfers are still delusional.

  104. disinter Says:

    Bob Barr can’t even break $30,000 on a Money Bomb. Maybe he has around 1/20th of paul supporters

    Not even close to 1/20th.

  105. disinter Says:

    he is promoting both McCain and Barr, although their positions on several basic issues are so far apart:

    Actually their records are identical.

  106. GoNolzOhio Says:

    disinter,

    Don’t be an idiot. The nutty people I am talking about are the non-Libertarians who got involved in the 2008 campaign via the Ron Paul cult. The through-and-through RP supporters, in other words. Not Libertarians who came over to Paul’s campaign as long-time supporters of liberty and freedom. If you were involved in the RP campaign, you would know those are two pretty distinct groups.

    And Barr, despite not even coming close to the Ron Paul Money Bombs, probably has raised about twenty times what Ruwart would have raised, and gotten ten times as many significant media appearances. You really think Ruwart would have been on This Week this morning? Ron Paul did not run for the Libertarian nomination. If he would have, I would have supported him. Not because he is the perfect candidate, but because he would have been the best available candidate considering the circumstances. And we can say the same thing about Barr.

    Mary Ruwart, or any other Purist candidate, would be a nonentity at this point, with zero media coverage and much less financial support than Barr.

  107. disinter Says:

    And Barr, despite not even coming close to the Ron Paul Money Bombs, probably has raised about twenty times what Ruwart would have raised,

    Barf hasn’t even raised as much as Badnarik raised. People know he is a fraud, except for idiots like you.

  108. disinter Says:

    Mary Ruwart, or any other Purist candidate, would be a nonentity at this point, with zero media coverage and much less financial support than Barr.

    Earth to NoNutzOhio - Barf will NOT win whether the media loves him (which should be your sign) or not.

  109. George Phillies Says:

    Ruwart through end of May, total receipts $29 974

    GoNolzOhio Says:
    “...And Barr, despite not even coming close to the Ron Paul Money Bombs, probably has raised about twenty times what Ruwart would have raised…”

    Barr has raised about $400,000, according to his web pages, which is a bit more than ten times as much, assuming that Ruwart would have raised nothing in June, which seems unlikely.

    Getting Press appearances to espouse the racist Jim Crow “States Rights” doctrine is not positive for the Libertarian Party.

  110. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    Barr did an excellent job on Sundays ABC appearance. It is a proud day for all Libertarians

  111. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Yep, Bob did a great job on This Week. I liked his “epiphany” discussion.

    It probably won’t satisfy those with are picking over every syllable of what Barr says, but then if he read quotes from A NEW LIBERTY, I suspect EVEN THAT would not satisfy those persistent contrarians.

    It really does take all kinds.

  112. Cork Says:

    “It probably won’t satisfy those with are picking over every syllable of what Barr says”

    You mean like when he’s advocating an invasion of Latin America?

    Why does Barr have such a hard-on for that kind of thing?

  113. Cork Says:

    “but then if he read quotes from A NEW LIBERTY, I suspect EVEN THAT would not satisfy those persistent contrarians.”

    Which part of For a New Liberty called for a global war on drugs, enforced by a military empire? I must have missed that chapter. Maybe it’s in Rothbard’s basement somewhere.

  114. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Cork, you misunderstand my point. Were Barr to base his campaign on each and every word of FOR A NEW LIBERTY, I wonder whether some might STILL object to the Barr campaign. Notice the construction of my sentence: “...IF he read quotes from A NEW LIBERTY….” It’s in subjunctive tense, I do believe.

    Take it further: If Barr adopted FOR A NEW LIBERTY, except the “fetuses are parasites” passage, imagine the firestorm!

    In my observation, these perennial carpers will just complain for complaining’s sake.

    Is that not your observation?

    Political parties are NECESSARILY coalitions, as is all collective action. (The only alternative is, perhaps, the Borg!) Individuals disagree in coalitions. They always have SOMETHING to disagree about, yes?

  115. Eric Dondero Says:

    Disinter says “Bob Barr is still Pro-War.”

    Well, that seems to be the correct position these days. If you hadn’t heard yet, the London Times just reported that the last remnants of Al Qaeda - 1,200 of them - are surrounded in Northern Iraq, and about to be crushed by Iraqi and American forces.

    Also, John Murtha himself admitted over the weekend on an obscure TV station in Western PA, that the Surge has worked, and the War is essentially won.

    It’s over!!

    Bush was right!!

    All the Leftists and even the Anti-War Libertarians were horribly, horribly wrong. What an embarrassment for them. Remember them saying back in 2003, if we invaded Iraq, “we’d need hundreds of thousands of body bags for all the dead US Soldiers and Marines.”

    Time to call them on it. Time for Pro-Defense Libertarians to gloat. We were right. Anti-War Libertarians were ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

    Hah!! I’m giggling my mother-fucking ass off this morning.

    Eric Dondero, Veteran
    United States Navy 1981-85
    & Proud Pro-Defense Libertarian

  116. <li cl