Townhall article with Bob Barr:

[wgadget]

He talks a lot about Ron Paul here.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2008/05/19/bob_barr_leaps_in_as_a_libertarian?page=full&comments=true

[John of Des Moines]

Bob Barr is a tool. Not worth a hill of beans.

[OhioMichael]

I will not be voting for Bob Barr. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Bradley in DC]

Bob Barr is a tool. Not worth a hill of beans.


My personal list of government and/or corporate disinfo agents and/or individuals who can not engage in an intellectual discussion on the Ron Paul Forums:

HAHAHAHAHA!

Engaging in intellectual discussion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I know you have a penchant for attention getting by claiming secret knowledge, but I'm awed by your clearly superior capabilities to "engage us in intellectual discussion" with your insightful reasoning, logic and powers of persuasion. :rolleyes:

[JMann]

Bob Barr war chest enhancement today.

Donate:

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

[jaumen]

I will not be voting for Bob Barr. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

What precisely do you have against Bob Barr? I ask because I am not really that familiar with him, but everything that I have read in the last few days has sounded pretty good. I would still prefer Paul, but we already know for a fact that isn't going to happen, so... I'm looking for an alternative that I can vote for. Right now, I think Barr is it, unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

[Bradley in DC]

What precisely do you have against Bob Barr? I ask because I am not really that familiar with him, but everything that I have read in the last few days has sounded pretty good. I would still prefer Paul, but we already know for a fact that isn't going to happen, so... I'm looking for an alternative that I can vote for. Right now, I think Barr is it, unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

More on Barr's background (actual facts, etc.):

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012

[SteveMartin]

A Paul/Barr or Barr/Paul ticket could WIN in the general election.

The question for all of us is, "How do we convince these two to run together??"

[Bradley in DC]

A Paul/Barr or Barr/Paul ticket could WIN in the general election.

The question for all of us is, "How do we convince these two to run together??"

I'm sure Barr would be amenable, but I don't see Dr. Paul having any interest in a general election fight. Not happy about it, I just don't see it. :( (Dr. Paul is not one easily convinced of things, if you haven't noticed, and the Barr camp--to their credit--wants nothing to do with the incompetents "managing" Paul's race.)

[JMann]

What precisely do you have against Bob Barr? I ask because I am not really that familiar with him, but everything that I have read in the last few days has sounded pretty good. I would still prefer Paul, but we already know for a fact that isn't going to happen, so... I'm looking for an alternative that I can vote for. Right now, I think Barr is it, unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

There are people that will only vote for people they think are pure. Don't worry much about them, they make up less than one percent of the voting population as demonstrated by what the purist LP candidates are able to get in the general election every four years.

Bob Barr is the only small government person that will be on enough ballots to actually win in November. That is provided the LP doesn't cut their balls off as usual and nominate some absolutely unqualified, known to no one out side of the party, asterisk candidate this weekend.

This isn't to say to stop working the Paul Revolution but Barr is the closet thing you will have in November that can potentially effect the November outcome.

[JMann]

I'm sure Barr would be amenable, but I don't see Dr. Paul having any interest in a general election fight. Not happy about it, I just don't see it. :( (Dr. Paul is not one easily convinced of things, if you haven't noticed, and the Barr camp--to their credit--wants nothing to do with the incompetents "managing" Paul's race.)

Dr. Paul has shown little interest in winning the nomination or participating in November since the beginning. I think Paul entered the race simply to get his issues out there without any real desire to be the next president.

If I'm wrong then he had the most incompetent staff around him known to the history of US presidential politics. If the campaign staff Paul would of been the kind of people Paul put around him as president it would of been a long and awful one term for the Doctor.

[LibertyEagle]

He talks a lot about Ron Paul here.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2008/05/19/bob_barr_leaps_in_as_a_libertarian?page=full&comments=true

The comments on TH sure have turned around since I last visited there. :eek: People seem to be waking up and that is wonderful to see.

[Join The Paul Side]

If I can't write in Ron Paul I may decide to vote for Bob Barr. I don't know what people seem to have against the guy, but he sure is better than voting McCain. :cool:

[LibertyEagle]

If I can't write in Ron Paul I may decide to vote for Bob Barr. I don't know what people seem to have against the guy, but he sure is better than voting McCain. :cool:

I personally like Chuck Baldwin better, but if he's not on the ticket, I'm voting for Barr. He's not as pure as Paul, but he's pretty darn good. (Of course assuming that we can't write Paul in).

Note: I've never seen a politician as pure as Paul. :) I don't think they exist.

[yongrel]

Talking only about Bob Barr as a candidate, I am ambivalent. His positions are decent, and while I'm a bit concerned about his past positions, his recent work hasn't been too shabby.

I just get miffed when "Yay Bob Barr" distracts from "I Donated to BJ Lawson, Vern McKinley, Amit Singh, and Murray Sabrin!"

[ARealConservative]

Bob Barr is a tool. Not worth a hill of beans.

Knock off the hyperbole, I know where you live. :eek:

Bob Barr is a very decent alternative choice for those that won’t have the opportunity to vote for Paul but still wish to send a message. So is Mary Ruwart, and even Mike Gravel. The only ploy not worth a hill of beans is sitting out the election altogether as a way to send a message – it doesn’t work.

If Barr would actually win the Libertarian nomination, I would have to reevaluate the utter worthlessness of that political party. It’s great that they wish to be the pure and educational political party, but I left college long ago and purity tests are quite childish to me.

[JMann]

Knock off the hyperbole, I know where you live. :eek:

Bob Barr is a very decent alternative choice for those that won’t have the opportunity to vote for Paul but still wish to send a message. So is Mary Ruwart, and even Mike Gravel. The only ploy not worth a hill of beans is sitting out the election altogether as a way to send a message – it doesn’t work.

If Barr would actually win the Libertarian nomination, I would have to reevaluate the utter worthlessness of that political party. It’s great that they wish to be the pure and educational political party, but I left college long ago and purity tests are quite childish to me.

Ditto's, you're a great American.

[born2drv]

It's too bad he didn't run in the republican party from day one in Iowa. Him and Paul being both anti-war with strong libertarian leanings could have significantly shifted the debates to these topics and added to each other's credibility.

[LibertyEagle]

If Barr would actually win the Libertarian nomination, I would have to reevaluate the utter worthlessness of that political party. It’s great that they wish to be the pure and educational political party, but I left college long ago and purity tests are quite childish to me.

I'm not sure if you were commenting on my mentioning Paul was pure. If you were, my intent was to say that I think we'll be waiting a long time to find another person like Paul and we shouldn't pass on good people in the meantime. I also think Barr may be better at communicating the message to the masses than Paul. There are pros and cons in everything.

[Bradley in DC]

I'm not sure if you were commenting on my mentioning Paul was pure.

No worries, LE, I think with the quotation cited it was pretty clear he was referring to John's sophomoric post. ;)

[mrchubbs]

I wrote on this very topic recently...

From:
http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/05/19/ron-paul-and-bob-barr-sittin-in-a-tree/1079/


Some ardent libertarian minded Ron Paul enthusiasts have chosen to not support Bob Barr in his effort to attain the Libertarian nomination for President. For the most part this seems to be about a lack of trust. Comparing every candidate to Ron Paul is like comparing an HDTV signal to a standard definition signal. No matter how much you fiddle about with the TV settings the picture will never look as rosy, crystal clear, and 3D-like as Ron Paul. I respect those purist Ron Paul supporters, but give Barr a break.

It is certainly true that Barr has a bit of a checkered past. Assuming he gets the Libertarian nomination (which is apparently not a foregone conclusion), he will be on the ballot. Ron Paul will not. On the issues in 2008 Bob Barr and Ron Paul are twins. Not many will argue that. The arguments are all about Barr’s congressional voting history and the fact that he once worked for the CIA. I can understand those that point to his voting history on such gems as the Patriot Act and the Iraq war authorization. Not supporting Barr solely because he once worked for the CIA befuddles me. That is merely reaching for an excuse.

Read the rest here:
http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/05/19/ron-paul-and-bob-barr-sittin-in-a-tree/1079/


Enjoy.