PDA

View Full Version : What does Bob Barr mean to the revolution?




hayeksrevenge
05-18-2008, 08:10 AM
I am noticing Bob Barr is starting to make the news. I have read his views and I know about him since he is from a state I have lived in for many years. He is strongly conservative, a strong pro-gun advocate and he speaks against the government's continuing attempts to remove our privacy.

Yes, I realize he signed the Patriot Act, but he has since said he has re-thought this position on the PA and it was a bad thing. (Incidently, he did help get the Sunshine provision in the PA that made the PA expire and have to be re-voted on).

So, what does the Ron Paul community think about him? Will you personally support his candidacy as a Libertarian? Will you actively work against him? More importantly, what does his candidacy mean to the revolution? Should we welcome Barr as another one of us, or not?

MozoVote
05-18-2008, 08:33 AM
It could serve as a "wake-up call" like Ross Perot's 1992 run did. The GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 and the "Contract with America" grew out of the dissatisfaction people felt about incumbents back then.

Bradley in DC
05-18-2008, 08:48 AM
It's no secret I'm a fan of Bob Barr's and went public in his defense (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012)against idiotic LP attacks six years ago. I'm a fan because I know him and have worked with him defending market economics and civil liberties/privacy and against multilateral organizations.

*If* he is the LP nominee, the LP would get my vote. The others don't particularly interest me. The CP will not be on the ballot where I live.

thx1149
05-18-2008, 11:23 AM
Bob Barr historically hasn't been much of a libertarian.

* He has spoke out against same sex marriage and authored legislation that would work in that direction. While the legislation did leave it up to that states to make exemptions, it specifically said that marriage was between a man and a woman.

* He was a drug warrior. He said things like, "There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief."

* He voted for the patriot act.

* He was upset that the military considered Wicca a religion and wrote letters trying to get them to stop recognizing it.


Right now he is wearing the libertarian costume. He is a good speaker, and he talks like a libertarian. It seems like he is taking an enormous amount of influence from Paul and trying to grab some of his base.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Barr. Paul is an amazingly pure candidate, and we rarely have the opportunity to vote for such a person. Barr has a poor record as a libertarian. Maybe he really has seen the light, but can we as voters be certain of that? He hasn't been a libertarian very long.

Still, if he is on the LP ticket, and it's a match-up between Obama and McCain, I'll probably vote for Barr. If the polls are too close I might vote for Obama, not out of support, but out of fear of McCain. Otherwise Barr will get my symbolic vote for the libertarian principals. Since it is a long shot that Barr can win I am willing to overlook his flaws and vote for the libertarian party itself.

I'd be curious to hear more people's views of Barr. If anyone has more firsthand information on his conversion to libertarianism that would be great to hear about. Also if any interviews or speeches talk about his past actions that were very non-libertarian and how he views them now, please share any links.

Bradley in DC
05-18-2008, 11:34 AM
Bob Barr historically hasn't been much of a libertarian.

I'd be curious to hear more people's views of Barr. If anyone has more firsthand information on his conversion to libertarianism that would be great to hear about. Also if any interviews or speeches talk about his past actions that were very non-libertarian and how he views them now, please share any links.

Read the link in my post. ;)

ThePieSwindler
05-18-2008, 11:36 AM
Bob Barr historically hasn't been much of a libertarian.

* He has spoke out against same sex marriage and authored legislation that would work in that direction. While the legislation did leave it up to that states to make exemptions, it specifically said that marriage was between a man and a woman.

* He was a drug warrior. He said things like, "There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief."

* He voted for the patriot act.

* He was upset that the military considered Wicca a religion and wrote letters trying to get them to stop recognizing it.


Right now he is wearing the libertarian costume. He is a good speaker, and he talks like a libertarian. It seems like he is taking an enormous amount of influence from Paul and trying to grab some of his base.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Barr. Paul is an amazingly pure candidate, and we rarely have the opportunity to vote for such a person. Barr has a poor record as a libertarian. Maybe he really has seen the light, but can we as voters be certain of that? He hasn't been a libertarian very long.

Still, if he is on the LP ticket, and it's a match-up between Obama and McCain, I'll probably vote for Barr. If the polls are too close I might vote for Obama, not out of support, but out of fear of McCain. Otherwise Barr will get my symbolic vote for the libertarian principals. Since it is a long shot that Barr can win I am willing to overlook his flaws and vote for the libertarian party itself.

I'd be curious to hear more people's views of Barr. If anyone has more firsthand information on his conversion to libertarianism that would be great to hear about. Also if any interviews or speeches talk about his past actions that were very non-libertarian and how he views them now, please share any links.

Yes, because everyone that changes their mind on sometime through introspection and much thought is always just "wearing the clothes". Its good to start out with the rght views, but theres nothing wrong with coming into them much later in a political career. Bob Barr does alot more than just talk like a libertarian.

tremendoustie
05-18-2008, 11:40 AM
If we're not going to trust that anyone can be convinced of the ideas of liberty -- no one's going to "get it" that doesn't already -- what's the point? I'm going to take Barr on his word about what he believes, and it looks good to me. If worst comes to worst and he is just posturing, it will still be clear to all what those who voted for him were supporting: his stated platform.

But, as I say, I believe the guy, and I think he's a great choice, as is Baldwin. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt after all -- do we really want to go around excluding people who havn't always believed in these ideas?

berrybunches
05-18-2008, 11:55 AM
I have I mentioned in a couple previous posts that Ron Paul specifically calls out Bob Barr in his book. This is the only candidate Ron Paul even mentions in his book and he does so negatively. I see no reason whey he would even bother unless he was warning us about him. Ron Paul is no fan of Barr's, he obviously does not trust him.
Baldwin is, by far, more consistent than Barr - this is who I will probably support.

ClockwiseSpark
05-18-2008, 12:03 PM
I listened to Barr's interview and I don't believe him for a second. He stumbled when asked about pagans in the military and said only valid religions should be recognized. When pushed on that he couldn't say who determines what religions are valid.

As far as I'm concerned he's just an opportunist trying to capitalize on this movement.

He supported all the neocon platforms and views until he changed his mind. Incidentally, he had that epiphany after seeing Ron Paul's fund raising prowess.

I won't be supporting the guy.

Bradley in DC
05-18-2008, 12:11 PM
I have I mentioned in a couple previous posts that Ron Paul specifically calls out Bob Barr in his book. This is the only candidate Ron Paul even mentions in his book and he does so negatively. I see no reason whey he would even bother unless he was warning us about him. Ron Paul is no fan of Barr's, he obviously does not trust him.
Baldwin is, by far, more consistent than Barr - this is who I will probably support.

Dr. Paul has said in interviews that Barr is a friend, that he doesn't expect to endorse McCain, that his supporters are gravitating to Barr and Baldwin and he's okay with that.

yongrel
05-18-2008, 12:15 PM
I think it's nice that some of us can go to Barr, but I get irritated when he distracts from efforts that actually have a chance of succeeding. Too many folks it seems have an obsession with the presidency at the expense of the other 535 elected offices in DC. If only people would devote the same energy to candidates like BJ Lawson, Vern McKinley, Amit Singh, and Murray Sabrin that they do to Bob Barr.

jbuttell
05-18-2008, 12:27 PM
Bob Barr historically hasn't been much of a libertarian. Still, if he is on the LP ticket, and it's a match-up between Obama and McCain, I'll probably vote for Barr. If the polls are too close I might vote for Obama, not out of support, but out of fear of McCain. Otherwise Barr will get my symbolic vote for the libertarian principals. Since it is a long shot that Barr can win I am willing to overlook his flaws and vote for the libertarian party itself.

You know, believe it or not, people voted for Bush out of fear that Kerry might get into office. How are they to say how the immensely complicated chain of world events would unfold? They simply didn't and still don't know. So why play this game? Why not just take your stand now - and vote for Obama if you're so worried about McCain going in. What purpose does it serve us for you to be dangling your vote between Barr and Obama? I hope it isn't just to make you feel better about yourself, considering that you *may* not have to vote for one of the 'top' candidates.

carter5434
05-18-2008, 12:32 PM
Bob Barr historically hasn't been much of a libertarian.

* He has spoke out against same sex marriage and authored legislation that would work in that direction. While the legislation did leave it up to that states to make exemptions, it specifically said that marriage was between a man and a woman.

* He was a drug warrior. He said things like, "There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief."

* He voted for the patriot act.

* He was upset that the military considered Wicca a religion and wrote letters trying to get them to stop recognizing it.


Right now he is wearing the libertarian costume. He is a good speaker, and he talks like a libertarian. It seems like he is taking an enormous amount of influence from Paul and trying to grab some of his base.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Barr. Paul is an amazingly pure candidate, and we rarely have the opportunity to vote for such a person. Barr has a poor record as a libertarian. Maybe he really has seen the light, but can we as voters be certain of that? He hasn't been a libertarian very long.

Still, if he is on the LP ticket, and it's a match-up between Obama and McCain, I'll probably vote for Barr. If the polls are too close I might vote for Obama, not out of support, but out of fear of McCain. Otherwise Barr will get my symbolic vote for the libertarian principals. Since it is a long shot that Barr can win I am willing to overlook his flaws and vote for the libertarian party itself.

I'd be curious to hear more people's views of Barr. If anyone has more firsthand information on his conversion to libertarianism that would be great to hear about. Also if any interviews or speeches talk about his past actions that were very non-libertarian and how he views them now, please share any links.


This sums up what I am going to pretty much do too.

tremendoustie
05-18-2008, 12:52 PM
You know, believe it or not, people voted for Bush out of fear that Kerry might get into office. How are they to say how the immensely complicated chain of world events would unfold? They simply didn't and still don't know. So why play this game? Why not just take your stand now - and vote for Obama if you're so worried about McCain going in. What purpose does it serve us for you to be dangling your vote between Barr and Obama? I hope it isn't just to make you feel better about yourself, considering that you *may* not have to vote for one of the 'top' candidates.

Obama? Why would anyone want Obama to win? He's for huge invasive government, and he's not going to be bringing the troops home from around the world anytime soon, nor is he going to talk about monetary policy ....

I really don't understand why any RP supporter would vote for any of the "big 3". Vote for someone you believe in, otherwise you're just playing the stupid shell game that has kept these two sorry excuses for parties in power for way too long.

You rightly point out that people were foolish to vote for Bush just to keep Kerry out, since they could not know how the chain of world events would unfold. You then go right on to say people should vote for Obama to keep McCain out .... huh?

jbuttell
05-18-2008, 01:59 PM
[QUOTE=thx1149;1461837]Bob Barr historically hasn't been much of a libertarian. Still, if he is on the LP ticket, and it's a match-up between Obama and McCain, I'll probably vote for Barr. If the polls are too close I might vote for Obama, not out of support, but out of fear of McCain. Otherwise Barr will get my symbolic vote for the libertarian principals. Since it is a long shot that Barr can win I am willing to overlook his flaws and vote for the libertarian party itself.QUOTE]

You know, believe it or not, people voted for Bush out of fear that Kerry might get into office. How are they to say how the immensely complicated chain of world events would unfold? They simply didn't and still don't know. So why play this game? Why not just take your stand now - and vote for Obama if you're so worried about McCain going in. What purpose does it serve us for you to be dangling your vote between Barr and Obama? I hope it isn't just to make you feel better about yourself, considering that you *may* not have to vote for one of the 'top' candidates.

yaz
05-18-2008, 02:11 PM
I heard Fox News say that pretty much Barr or Gravel will get the LP nomination. Then they suggested a Barr/Gravel (or visa-versa) ticket. I definitely do not want to vote for Gravel or a /Gravel ticket.

G-Wohl
05-18-2008, 02:26 PM
Let's give people the benefit of the doubt

Can we really afford to do this when we're talking about the President of the USA?

jbuttell
05-18-2008, 02:32 PM
Obama? Why would anyone want Obama to win? He's for huge invasive government, and he's not going to be bringing the troops home from around the world anytime soon, nor is he going to talk about monetary policy ....

I really don't understand why any RP supporter would vote for any of the "big 3". Vote for someone you believe in, otherwise you're just playing the stupid shell game that has kept these two sorry excuses for parties in power for way too long.

You rightly point out that people were foolish to vote for Bush just to keep Kerry out, since they could not know how the chain of world events would unfold. You then go right on to say people should vote for Obama to keep McCain out .... huh?


You misunderstand me. I admit what I said didn't come across very clear. Let me hopefully state this more clearly - I do not think people should vote for Obama or McCain. What bothers me is the idea that some people maintain - that they're somehow doing what's best by voting for 'the lesser of two evils'

As unpopular as it was where I live (Los Angeles - hollywood) I voted for Bush out of concern that Kerry might get into office - similar to what people like thx are proposing to do with Obama. I have some regrets, not so much because it was a vote for Bush (I didn't particularly like him either), but because I strayed from voting for who I felt best represented our Constitution. I did what I don't want to do ever again - vote for the lesser of two evils. In retrospect, I would have voted for the LP ticket as I did in 2000 and will likely do for the foreseable future. I'm not convinced that Democrats would do any better with regards to our fight for freedoms.

With that said, theres a part of me that would want to support the republican candidate for the slim chance that they might not increase taxes. But there's no chance in hell I will with McCain at the wheel or any of the other Republican candidates that were campaigning. I will not support the Republican Party's corrupt 'big-governement' candidates any longer - they've become everything I hate about Democrats.

thx1149 stated that he might vote Obama out of fear that McCain might be elected. If that's how thx feels, I think he/she should quit the political posturing and commit to the candidate who they really support.

Are we to sympathize with voters claiming to support Ron Paul/Libertarian philosophies - that are actually prepared to vote Democrat (swap with Republican other than Ron Paul if you'd like) as soon as they feel threatened that their famililar party may loose?

itshappening
05-18-2008, 02:41 PM
Bob Barr will be on the ballott and will serve as an effective protest vote for many conservatives, if he's committed to campaigning and getting his name out then I dont see why anyone disgusted by the traitor McCain or the socialist Obama should not support him....

as for changing his mind and the inconsistancies, yes, there are many when he was a bit of GOP careerist but the fact is he is out of the house now and is standing and advocating for a platform that will be attractive to many, I think he can be a huge asset to the LP if he is their nominee, he has some national name recognition and is a known conservative that can outflank McCain and act as an outlet for protest.

he isnt perfect by any means but he'll do for many people I suspect.

itshappening
05-18-2008, 02:45 PM
I heard Fox News say that pretty much Barr or Gravel will get the LP nomination. Then they suggested a Barr/Gravel (or visa-versa) ticket. I definitely do not want to vote for Gravel or a /Gravel ticket.

Gravel is a socialist *sigh* also he's a terrible communicator, hope Barr' wins.

hayeksrevenge
05-18-2008, 02:52 PM
If we're not going to trust that anyone can be convinced of the ideas of liberty -- no one's going to "get it" that doesn't already -- what's the point? I'm going to take Barr on his word about what he believes, and it looks good to me. If worst comes to worst and he is just posturing, it will still be clear to all what those who voted for him were supporting: his stated platform.

But, as I say, I believe the guy, and I think he's a great choice, as is Baldwin. Let's give people the benefit of the doubt after all -- do we really want to go around excluding people who havn't always believed in these ideas?

Those are interesting points. I think you're right. If someone says "they get it", then we should respect that.

mdh
05-18-2008, 03:25 PM
I'd say we're doing ourselves a disservice to judge Barr based solely on his years-old voting record in congress. The fact is that he's been on the LNC for a while now and by all accounts has been a good member thereof.

That said, there are some outstanding issues. These were address in an open letter to Congressman Barr by Susan Hogarth (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/17/open-letter-to-bob-barr-some-questions-by-susan-hogarth/). If he answers all of this satisfactoraly, then I'd say he's in as good standing among libertarians as one can be.

MMolloy
05-18-2008, 04:08 PM
I think it's nice that some of us can go to Barr, but I get irritated when he distracts from efforts that actually have a chance of succeeding. Too many folks it seems have an obsession with the presidency at the expense of the other 535 elected offices in DC. If only people would devote the same energy to candidates like BJ Lawson, Vern McKinley, Amit Singh, and Murray Sabrin that they do to Bob Barr.

Couldn't agree more. Don't get too fixated on the presidency. We need more RPs in the House and Senate.

RonPaulVolunteer
05-18-2008, 04:24 PM
I still remember what Bush ran on...

DjLoTi
05-18-2008, 04:25 PM
I think Bob Barr's cool because he's just again another example of how someone does not believe in the red state/blue state politics and believes for the points for America.

qh4dotcom
05-18-2008, 05:12 PM
If I can't write-in Ron Paul's name on the Diebold...looks like I MAY have to vote for the lesser of THREE evils (McCain,Obama,BARR)

Minestra di pomodoro
05-18-2008, 05:20 PM
I think Bob Barr's cool because he's just again another example of how someone does not believe in the red state/blue state politics and believes for the points for America.

Barack Obama :D

mdh
05-18-2008, 05:27 PM
If I can't write-in Ron Paul's name on the Diebold...looks like I MAY have to vote for the lesser of THREE evils (McCain,Obama,BARR)

Barr still hasn't received the LP nomination.


Barack Obama :D

Is a classic example of a typical business-as-usual politician. Indeed.

Minestra di pomodoro
05-18-2008, 05:29 PM
Is a classic example of a typical business-as-usual politician. Indeed.

Ending the red state/blue state divide is not business as usual.

yongrel
05-18-2008, 05:29 PM
Ending the red state/blue state divide is not business as usual.

:rolleyes:

Sentient Void
05-18-2008, 05:30 PM
I *MAY* utilize Barr as a protest vote only.

I will not support him unless Ron Paul endorses him. I trust Ron Paul's opinion, sicne his voting record reflects his views - this makes him an honest man.

I have trouble trusting politicians, many times they'll say what's needed to get into office, lying about them in reality, and in the end not executing on what they said they would

I find it an important note that Ron Paul has not endorsed him or stated he could be used as a legitimate protest vote, or any kind of support for him.

I don't like Barr's voting history / past, it makes me not trust him.

He'll have to do soemthing amazing IMO for him to have my support. Like legitimately call out the status quo, legitimately shoot them down or something along those lines, and for me to watch him do it to see if I believe him.

Body language, the words one uses, etc can tell you a lot about the honesty of a man in the act.

crazyfacedjenkins
05-18-2008, 06:03 PM
Barack Obama :D

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Who the hell keeps programming these bots? Sucks when they get on forums meant for humans.

Cleaner44
05-18-2008, 06:23 PM
I have I mentioned in a couple previous posts that Ron Paul specifically calls out Bob Barr in his book. This is the only candidate Ron Paul even mentions in his book and he does so negatively. I see no reason whey he would even bother unless he was warning us about him. Ron Paul is no fan of Barr's, he obviously does not trust him.
Baldwin is, by far, more consistent than Barr - this is who I will probably support.

This is sound reasoning to me. If Ron Paul is wary of Barr, then I think we should be too.

LibertyEagle
05-18-2008, 06:42 PM
He did let Barr introduce him at an event not too long ago. Barr did an excellent job too. If he didn't like him, he wouldn't have done that.

That said, I doubt there is anyone that totally meet Ron Paul's standards. He's about as principled as any person can possibly get. That doesn't mean that someone else is a bad 2nd pick. Plus, Barr is good at communicating the message.

itshappening
05-18-2008, 07:38 PM
Bob Barr is polling at 6% in Rasmussen !

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/will_third_party_candidates_tip_the_presidential_r ace

kombayn
05-19-2008, 12:51 AM
If Bob Barr just sticks to his "Leave up to the states, reduce Government, cut Taxes and get the hell out of Iraq!" status right now, he'll get a good percentage of the vote for a 3rd party candidate. I'm starting to become interested in who his running mate will be.

thx1149
05-19-2008, 01:21 PM
Read the link in my post. ;)

That was a good link, and I hope other people will go and read that for a view on Barr. While Barr may still be better than most politicians, I still have trouble with the things he hasn't done right. Someone in another thread said that they view the drug policy as a sort litmus test for a candidate, and I kind of agree with that. If it was just drug policy maybe I'd look the other way, but things like his attacks on pagans in the military are outrageous. I can't comprehend where he is coming from at all. What is he trying to accomplish? Who are the victims he is protecting? Is it his own religious sensibilities that are driving him to do such things? And if it is, should we really have a candidate that will push for stopping things that violate his religious ideals? Until the answers to these sorts of questions about his past actions are clarified Barr doesn't seem like a very libertarian choice to me. He may be more libertarian than most, but I find his past non-libertarian actions very difficult to overlook.

thx1149
05-19-2008, 01:38 PM
Yes, because everyone that changes their mind on sometime through introspection and much thought is always just "wearing the clothes". Its good to start out with the rght views, but theres nothing wrong with coming into them much later in a political career. Bob Barr does alot more than just talk like a libertarian.

Does he? I understand some of his positions are along side the libertarian positions. What about all the other issues? What about his opinions on drugs and religion and willingness to push for enforcement on those issues? I am a pretty trusting person, but Barr has not given us much reason to trust that this new role for him is real. I wish he would openly discuss his past actions that are a controversy to libertarians and explain why he believed it, what he believes now, and how he came to change his beliefs. We have a guy who even in recent history has allowed his beliefs to try to limit others rights in committing "crimes" without victims. He is claiming to be a libertarian now, but he has some explaining to do about his past before many of us can take him seriously.

I think it's great for people to change their beliefs and I think we should welcome all people (and even politicians) with open arms to the libertarian ideals. I am glad Barr has come over and entered the libertarian party. I am thankful for some of his past civil liberties work. To get my vote though, he'll have to actually prove he is libertarian. Not on a few issues, but as an ideology. I don't expect people to be perfect, but Barr's track record is very far from it.

Andrew-Austin
05-19-2008, 02:26 PM
Ending the red state/blue state divide is not business as usual.

Friend, Obama ranting about "uniting" America is meaningless.

The majority of politicians today use buzz words like "unification" and "bi-partisan", but even if they exemplify these words, it does not mean their policy-making will be better. Democrats and Republicans in Congress can agree that interventionist foreign policy is good, and they would call this a bipartisan agreement. In this case they would be united behind a steaming pile of crap, and it is the same for most things they agree upon.

The other guy was saying Barr would be good because he would add a different perspective to political thinking, and you seem to be implying that Obama is good because he would magically unite the two different juggernaut parties which are already in agreeance with rotten policy stances.

And if you happen to think that Obama can spiritually unite average Americans under his platform, then all I can do is laugh. Have someone else explain you why that is bunk.

IRO-bot
05-19-2008, 02:37 PM
I think it's nice that some of us can go to Barr, but I get irritated when he distracts from efforts that actually have a chance of succeeding. Too many folks it seems have an obsession with the presidency at the expense of the other 535 elected offices in DC. If only people would devote the same energy to candidates like BJ Lawson, Vern McKinley, Amit Singh, and Murray Sabrin that they do to Bob Barr.

Word Yongrel. This is where the power is folks!! This is what matters most! Not some "NO-CHANCE" attempt at the presidency. We need to focus our efforts on the parts that counts. Getting Ron Paul some friends!!!!

Todd
05-19-2008, 02:43 PM
IMO. One of the best things that can come of Barr and any other third party candidate is to weaken the two party system. The more viable options there are out there during the election...the better it is .

Printo
05-19-2008, 04:05 PM
I like Barr. He exemplifies a more traditional conservative/libertarian ideology. Clearly voting Barr is a protest vote. I think its necessary to send a message to the GOP to get their shit together because what the neocons have done is inexcusable.

As for Ron Paul endorsing one of those 3, I seriously doubt he will endorse anyone. He seems to want his supporters to vote for themselves.

As for Gravel. He is in NO WAY getting the LP nomination. He is near last in fundraising. Barr will be the candidate. I also hope Gravel is not put on the ticket. He does have name recognition but he is a globalist socialist and Im not having that.

And if the LP receives over 5% in the election, then they will receive equal federal funding as the GOP & Dems in the following election. Thats enough to matter. Possibly the LP could give the GOP a run for their money.

MMolloy
05-19-2008, 04:47 PM
I have I mentioned in a couple previous posts that Ron Paul specifically calls out Bob Barr in his book. This is the only candidate Ron Paul even mentions in his book and he does so negatively. I see no reason whey he would even bother unless he was warning us about him. Ron Paul is no fan of Barr's, he obviously does not trust him.
Baldwin is, by far, more consistent than Barr - this is who I will probably support.

Agree 100%
If Ron was going to endorse anyone it would be Chuck Baldwin over Bob Barr, but HE WON'T BE ENDORSING ANYONE (for President)



Chuck has a better understanding of the issues and has been much more vocal in his support of Ron
http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=c84pJ6E7BYg
... hmmm I'm having trouble finding Bob Barr's endorsement of Ron Paul :rolleyes:

His timing (Nov '07) and analysis of Mike Huckabee was right on the money: CHRISTIANS NEED TO BEWARE OF MIKE HUCKABEE
http://www. newswithviews. com/baldwin/baldwin411. htm

and later in Nov '07
More Reasons To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
http://www. chuckbaldwinlive. com/c2007/cbarchive_20071127. html

and then again warning us observantely of the what his foreign policy might be like on Jan 4, 2008: We Desperately Need The "Confessing Church"
http://www. chuckbaldwinlive. com/c2007/cbarchive_20080104. html

where he states: "Huckabee is Bush on Steroids–a Man Globalists Can Trust"

There are just too many articles to reference where Chuck reports insightfully about all of the other candidates... taking specific aim at Romney, McCain etc.

Jeremy
05-19-2008, 05:08 PM
I think Bob Barr is a good candidate for POTUS. A lot of people here are expecting to find somebody as close to "perfection" as RP... but Ron Paul is seriously unique. I understand the issues that anti-Barr people bring up, but I think these people are living in the past.

Watch Barr's introduction of Ron Paul at CPAC... that's when I realized that he was in fact in this revolution. Chuck Baldwin is as well... see his endorsement video from the beginning of the campaign.

hypnagogue
05-19-2008, 05:16 PM
I keep seeing people say, "but he's changed!" but what I want to know is what he has done since 'changing'. Can anyone direct me to projects he's been involved in which would lend some credibility to his conversion.

What I've personally found is only the things which he did while in Congress. I gotta say, they're horrible.

stevedasbach
05-19-2008, 05:26 PM
I am noticing Bob Barr is starting to make the news. I have read his views and I know about him since he is from a state I have lived in for many years. He is strongly conservative, a strong pro-gun advocate and he speaks against the government's continuing attempts to remove our privacy.

Yes, I realize he signed the Patriot Act, but he has since said he has re-thought this position on the PA and it was a bad thing. (Incidently, he did help get the Sunshine provision in the PA that made the PA expire and have to be re-voted on).

So, what does the Ron Paul community think about him? Will you personally support his candidacy as a Libertarian? Will you actively work against him? More importantly, what does his candidacy mean to the revolution? Should we welcome Barr as another one of us, or not?

I've maxed out to Bob Barr (as I did to Ron Paul) and will be working to help him gain the Libertarian Party nomination in Denver this coming weekend. I definitely think his campaign deserves our support.

stevedasbach
05-19-2008, 05:28 PM
I keep seeing people say, "but he's changed!" but what I want to know is what he has done since 'changing'. Can anyone direct me to projects he's been involved in which would lend some credibility to his conversion.

What I've personally found is only the things which he did while in Congress. I gotta say, they're horrible.

* Working with ACLU defending civil liberties and opposing the Patriot Act.

* Lobbying on behalf of the Marijuana Policy Project.

Bradley in DC
05-19-2008, 05:32 PM
I keep seeing people say, "but he's changed!" but what I want to know is what he has done since 'changing'. Can anyone direct me to projects he's been involved in which would lend some credibility to his conversion.

What I've personally found is only the things which he did while in Congress. I gotta say, they're horrible.

The "conversion" argument is in large part silly. He started working with the ACLU to defend privacy and civil liberties in war concerning terrorism starting with the 1996 anti-terrorism legislation. People throwing out the "neocon" and other canards are either willfully ignorant or just plain lying.

Bradley in DC
05-19-2008, 05:34 PM
I've maxed out to Bob Barr (as I did to Ron Paul) and will be working to help him gain the Libertarian Party nomination in Denver this coming weekend. I definitely think his campaign deserves our support.

Wow. For those who don't know Steve, he's been a long-time LP activist and national party leader.

Printo
05-19-2008, 05:40 PM
Clearly we all want Ron Paul, but we are not going to get him to run or to get a clone just like him to run. Bob Barr is the closest thing we got to make a major impact on this election.

He is what we are, a pissed off Conservative seeking some kind of libertarian reform in the GOP. He's polling pretty well already & could make a major impact this election. Maybe enough to catapult the LP into talks as a major (I mean really major) third party. With over 5%, the LP would get federal funding in the following election.

Bush destroyed the GOP and we dont have all the kings knights and all the kings men to put the GOP back together again. Perhaps people will take the LP seriously following this election if Barr makes a significant impact, which I think he will.

dannno
05-19-2008, 05:49 PM
* Working with ACLU defending civil liberties and opposing the Patriot Act.

* Lobbying on behalf of the Marijuana Policy Project.

Yes, I believe he has converted..

I don't think he's quite Ron Paul, but he may be our best option... and not a lesser of two "evils" so to speak..

kigol
05-19-2008, 05:49 PM
IMO. One of the best things that can come of Barr and any other third party candidate is to weaken the two party system. The more viable options there are out there during the election...the better it is .

lets hope.

JMann
05-19-2008, 06:14 PM
I just hope the LP has enough sense to nominate Barr so there will be a legitimate third option.

mdh
05-19-2008, 06:40 PM
I'm still hoping that Barr will make a lot of us happy and answer Susan Hogarth's open letter. :)

They're not difficult questions to answer, and even if he doesn't think we'd like the answers, we'd appreciate the honesty and candor regardless. I have a lot of substantive disagreements with Gravel but I still like the guy a lot based on his honesty, guts, and personality in addition to the policy points where we agree. Most intelligent folks realize they're not going to agree with a candidate 100%.

constituent
05-19-2008, 06:59 PM
I'm still hoping that Barr will make a lot of us happy and answer Susan Hogarth's open letter. :)

They're not difficult questions to answer, and even if he doesn't think we'd like the answers, we'd appreciate the honesty and candor regardless. I have a lot of substantive disagreements with Gravel but I still like the guy a lot based on his honesty, guts, and personality in addition to the policy points where we agree. Most intelligent folks realize they're not going to agree with a candidate 100%.

+1000, though i'm no libertarian.

thx1149
05-19-2008, 09:05 PM
Thank you to the people that mentioned Susan Hogarth's letter. Her letter and her blog do a decent job of summing up the problems that I and many other libertarians have with placing our support behind Barr. Please take a look:

Letter (http://www.colliething.com/2008/05/open-letter-to-bob-barr-some-questions.html)
Her Blog (http://colliething.com/)

Alex Libman
05-19-2008, 09:13 PM
Bob Barr means to the revolution what hemorrhoids mean to anal sex.

mdh
05-19-2008, 09:30 PM
Thank you to the people that mentioned Susan Hogarth's letter. Her letter and her blog do a decent job of summing up the problems that I and many other libertarians have with placing our support behind Barr. Please take a look:

Letter (http://www.colliething.com/2008/05/open-letter-to-bob-barr-some-questions.html)
Her Blog (http://colliething.com/)

An example of a mature and intelligent post.


Bob Barr means to the revolution what hemorrhoids mean to anal sex.

And... yeah.

kylejack
12-14-2011, 06:44 PM
Bob Barr is dead to the Revolution. Hopefully he'll never get another dime for endorsing Gingrich.