PDA

View Full Version : The Libertarian Party Is Done




PeterWellington
05-20-2008, 11:59 PM
And maybe it has been for a while now, I just started following politics again after a long layoff.

Gravel a potential presidential candidate? Are you kidding me?! How is someone who would actually increase the size of government even being considered?

And it seems Barr has a lot of people fooled, but take a look at his voting record http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22028 ...the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, look at all of those "Y" votes. I don't care what he flip flops on now, his record speaks for itself, he can't be trusted.

I don't know enough about the other people they're putting up but seeing these two in the mix makes me not want to waste my time. The party's been infiltrated. It's done, what a shame.

Kludge
05-21-2008, 12:02 AM
Gravel will NOT win.

Barr is a great "compromise" candidate, and most of his "bad" votes were because he felt it was the right of the independent state to decide on the issue. He really belongs in the GOP, but he has some libertarian thoughts and a lot of experience... *shrug*

Mary Ruwart is a solid choice and is a very pure libertarian with a decent shot at winning (or being VP to Barr at least).

The party hasn't been "infiltrated", the LP is open to new ideas.

mdh
05-21-2008, 12:39 AM
Hi there Rayzer.

Alex Libman
05-21-2008, 01:01 AM
Gravel is a joke. What pisses me off is how poorly the idealist candidates (i.e. Ruwart, Phillies, etc) are doing compared to Republican Lites. Maybe it's because of people who keep whining about the LP being "done" instead of trying to save it... But the convention starts this week, and it's too late. Barring a miracle, Barr will get the nom...

PeterWellington
05-21-2008, 02:14 AM
Gravel is a joke. What pisses me off is how poorly the idealist candidates (i.e. Ruwart, Phillies, etc) are doing compared to Republican Lites. Maybe it's because of people who keep whining about the LP being "done" instead of trying to save it... But the convention starts this week, and it's too late. Barring a miracle, Barr will get the nom...

Do you think it can realistically be saved? Once an organization compromises its principles, the writing's on the wall. You're going against the current trying to bring it back.

LibertyOfOne
05-21-2008, 02:53 AM
And maybe it has been for a while now, I just started following politics again after a long layoff.

Gravel a potential presidential candidate? Are you kidding me?! How is someone who would actually increase the size of government even being considered?

And it seems Barr has a lot of people fooled, but take a look at his voting record http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=22028 ...the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, look at all of those "Y" votes. I don't care what he flip flops on now, his record speaks for itself, he can't be trusted.

I don't know enough about the other people they're putting up but seeing these two in the mix makes me not want to waste my time. The party's been infiltrated. It's done, what a shame.

Eric Dondero (the pro war neocon) is supporting Barr for the LP nomination. That alone says volumes about who this Barr character is.

Bradley in DC
05-21-2008, 05:57 AM
Eric Dondero (the pro war neocon) is supporting Barr for the LP nomination. That alone says volumes about who this Barr character is.

It says nothing about Barr. You sound like the people smearing Dr. Paul because of some of the less popular supporters he's attracted.

constituent
05-21-2008, 06:02 AM
It says nothing about Barr. You sound like the people smearing Dr. Paul because of some of the less popular supporters he's attracted.

true that, but in this case it might be the kiss of death (though i have no idea how reviled dondero is in "other" circles, i'm pretty certain the cheese stands alone).

IRO-bot
05-21-2008, 06:57 AM
Gravel will NOT win.

Barr is a great "compromise" candidate, and most of his "bad" votes were because he felt it was the right of the independent state to decide on the issue. He really belongs in the GOP, but he has some libertarian thoughts and a lot of experience... *shrug*

Mary Ruwart is a solid choice and is a very pure libertarian with a decent shot at winning (or being VP to Barr at least).

The party hasn't been "infiltrated", the LP is open to new ideas.

What new ideas? The ideas of less freedom and civil liberties? The ideas of government force and coercsion? SWEET count me in!!! :rolleyes:

JosephTheLibertarian
05-21-2008, 07:23 AM
Gravel is a joke. What pisses me off is how poorly the idealist candidates (i.e. Ruwart, Phillies, etc) are doing compared to Republican Lites. Maybe it's because of people who keep whining about the LP being "done" instead of trying to save it... But the convention starts this week, and it's too late. Barring a miracle, Barr will get the nom...

Phillies? lol. He's a PROTECTIONIST. And a fucking geek

IRO-bot
05-21-2008, 07:28 AM
Phillies? lol. He's a PROTECTIONIST. And a fucking geek

Woah...... You're offending geeks there. I am a geek and take offense to that statement.

PeterWellington
05-21-2008, 01:14 PM
Gravel will NOT win.

Barr is a great "compromise" candidate, and most of his "bad" votes were because he felt it was the right of the independent state to decide on the issue. He really belongs in the GOP, but he has some libertarian thoughts and a lot of experience... *shrug*

Mary Ruwart is a solid choice and is a very pure libertarian with a decent shot at winning (or being VP to Barr at least).

The party hasn't been "infiltrated", the LP is open to new ideas.

New ideas are great if they're in line with the overall principles of an organization, but what we're seeing with the Libertarian Party would be like the Catholic Church considering a rabbi for Pope ("But look, he has so many similar beliefs!")

ARealConservative
05-21-2008, 01:20 PM
The Libertarian Party has been a joke for quite some time.

For every intelligent person with a grasp of reality, you have 50 idiots with an inflated ego that doesn't want the party to grow because they like being big fish in an ever shrinking mud puddle.

Kludge
05-21-2008, 01:34 PM
The Libertarian Party has been a joke for quite some time.

For every intelligent person with a grasp of reality, you have 50 idiots with an inflated ego that doesn't want the party to grow because they like being big fish in an ever shrinking mud puddle.

The LP has been growing at amazing rates, and has been opening themselves to the previously excommunication-worthy philosophy of conservatism as opposed to strictly pure libertarianism.

yongrel
05-21-2008, 01:36 PM
Eric Dondero (the pro war neocon) is supporting Barr for the LP nomination. That alone says volumes about who this Barr character is.

Dondero is a putz, but it's wrong to try and blacken Barr's name with that association.

crazyfingers
05-21-2008, 01:39 PM
The LP has been growing at amazing rates, and has been opening themselves to the previously excommunication-worthy philosophy of conservatism as opposed to strictly pure libertarianism.

Yeah who cares about sound money, non-intervention, religious freedom, and personal responsibility? As long as the LP can get a few more votes by running a "conservative" it doesn't matter if the nominee doesn't support those notions.

Just as long as it helps to defeat McCain...because Obama is so much better.

Kludge
05-21-2008, 01:42 PM
Yeah who cares about sound money, non-intervention, religious freedom, and personal responsibility? As long as the LP can get a few more votes by running a "conservative" it doesn't matter if their nominee doesn't support these notions.

Just as long as it helps to defeat McCain...because Obama is so much better.

I can't imagine anything being more dangerous to our movement then the confusion of the conservatism of Ron Paul and the Neoconservatism of Ronald Reagan and John McCain.


I also don't believe the LP is narrow-minded enough to care which of the two collectivists win the G.E., the LP has never had a shot at winning. It's about trying to spread the message of individual liberty and responsibility in the most effective manner possible.

crazyfingers
05-21-2008, 01:53 PM
I can't imagine anything being more dangerous to our movement then the confusion of the conservatism of Ron Paul and the Neoconservatism of Ronald Reagan and John McCain.


I can. People confusing Ron Paul's true conservatism and integrity with Barr's faux conservatism and opportunism. If you think Ron Paul is "foolish" for wanting to immediately start withdrawing troops from Iraq, you should support Bob Barr.

Kludge
05-21-2008, 02:00 PM
I can. People confusing Ron Paul's true conservatism and integrity with Barr's faux conservatism and opportunism. If you think Ron Paul is "foolish" for wanting to immediately start withdrawing troops from Iraq, you should support Bob Barr.

??? When has Barr called immediate troop withdrawal "foolish" or even promoted continued troop presence in Iraq?

Edit: From Barr's Website (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/17/2007-ends-on-a-few-good-notes/) (Jan. 2, 2008) "Regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq — and I am among those believing the invasion and continued occupation of this Middle Eastern nation ("nation building," if you will) was and remains ill-advised"

Almost all of the bills libertarians criticize Barr over on these forums are issues Barr voted the way he did because he didn't feel it was the federal government's place to decide on the issue. And for the PATRIOT Act, he has already apologized for the vote he was forced to make after an unreasonably short time was allowed to read the bill.

Anti Federalist
05-21-2008, 02:08 PM
I'm neither pro nor con on Barr.

That being said, why do we engage in all the mucking about and hell raising?

A: To get the "sheeple" to take the red pill and awaken to the ideas of freedom and liberty.

So now someone comes along who does, and everybody says he can't be trusted.

:confused:

Kludge
05-21-2008, 02:13 PM
I'm neither pro nor con on Barr.

That being said, why do we engage in all the mucking about and hell raising?

A: To get the "sheeple" to take the red pill and awaken to the ideas of freedom and liberty.

So now someone comes along who does, and everybody says he can't be trusted.

:confused:

Many Revolutionaries join as disenfranchised GOP/Dems. who are fed up with government corruption and the games politicians play. Skepticism is a positive trait, and it's great that we're having discussion on skepticism over Barr's intentions.

crazyfingers
05-21-2008, 02:37 PM
??? When has Barr called immediate troop withdrawal "foolish" or even promoted continued troop presence in Iraq?

Edit: From Barr's Website (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/17/2007-ends-on-a-few-good-notes/) (Jan. 2, 2008) "Regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq — and I am among those believing the invasion and continued occupation of this Middle Eastern nation ("nation building," if you will) was and remains ill-advised"

Almost all of the bills libertarians criticize Barr over on these forums are issues Barr voted the way he did because he didn't feel it was the federal government's place to decide on the issue. And for the PATRIOT Act, he has already apologized for the vote he was forced to make after an unreasonably short time was allowed to read the bill.

From the transcript of Bob Barr's annoucenement: (http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/05/14/bob-barr-announcement-transcript/)


Q Could you be a little more specific about what you would do about Iraq? Are you going to pull out immediately? I think you have said you would. And secondly, what about these bases? Will you pull out of all the bases — (inaudible) — in South Korea, in Germany — (inaudible)?

MR. BARR: The American people, as do I, do not believe in precipitous action. I believe in responsible action. First of all, you don’t signal to your adversary, regardless of the circumstances that brought you into that adversarial relationship, what your future plans and future timetable are. That is foolhardy, and only a fool would signal to whatever our adversaries are, whoever our adversaries are, exactly and how and when we would be drawing down our troops.

But I do believe that it is extremely important and in the best interests of America’s defenses and our security and our relationship with our allies that we do begin immediately setting in place a plan to draw down, dramatically decrease the military, the economic and the political footprint that we maintain in Iraq.

Currently there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for the Iraqi regime, the Iraqi government, to assume responsibility for its own economic affairs, for its own political affairs, for its own security affairs. So long as they have the American people and the taxpayer dollars that are being used to prop up the government as their security blanket, guess what: They take advantage of the security blanket.

And we actually are in the worst of both worlds over there, because not only are we providing the security blanket for the Iraqi economy, the Iraqi political system, such as it is, and the Iraqi security forces, such as they are, but we offer to them deadlines and benchmarks that then, when they are not met, they are simply changed or moved back. So that creates, I think, a very serious loss of credibility, not just with regard to the Iraqi situation, but with regard to others as well.


It sounds to me he wants to have it both ways. It'd be "foolhardy" to establish clear timetables, yet he admits there is currently no incentive for the Iraqi government to assume responsibility over its own affairs. Maybe I'd have a little more patience for his obfuscation if he didn't vote for the war in the first place. Personally, I think the excuse that he was fooled by the bad “intelligence” is incredibly lame. One would have had to been blinded by their own interventionist worldview to not have seen the incredibly vague and cherry-picked nature of that information.

itshappening
05-21-2008, 02:53 PM
Barr is the LPs best chance of getting national attention and he will advocate smaller government principles and the party platform, effectively enough as well.

if they dont nominate him it's their loss and they will get their usual 1% with an unknown candidate

ARealConservative
05-21-2008, 02:58 PM
The LP has been growing at amazing rates, and has been opening themselves to the previously excommunication-worthy philosophy of conservatism as opposed to strictly pure libertarianism.

we shall see. I really do hope you are right. If I seem bitter or skeptical, it is because I am.

Here is how the Libertarian party has fared in presidential elections in my lifetime


2004 .32%

2000 .4%

1996 .7%

1992 .3%

1988 .5%

1984 .3%

1980 1.1%

1976 .2%

1972 0%

JosephTheLibertarian
05-21-2008, 03:12 PM
The Libertarian Party has been a joke for quite some time.

For every intelligent person with a grasp of reality, you have 50 idiots with an inflated ego that doesn't want the party to grow because they like being big fish in an ever shrinking mud puddle.

Why does everyone like you always point to the Radical Caucus as the only voice of the LP?

Bradley in DC
05-21-2008, 03:16 PM
if they dont nominate him it's their loss and they will get their usual 1% with an unknown candidate

I'm not sure the others could get that.

mdh
05-21-2008, 03:44 PM
I'm neither pro nor con on Barr at this point either, but I do wish he'd answer Susan Hogarth's open letter. If he did so honestly and in good faith, a lot of us would probably be pro.

Truth Warrior
05-21-2008, 04:18 PM
LP done? Can the libertarians have their name back now? :D

JosephTheLibertarian
05-21-2008, 04:22 PM
I'm neither pro nor con on Barr at this point either, but I do wish he'd answer Susan Hogarth's open letter. If he did so honestly and in good faith, a lot of us would probably be pro.

Susan is a nutjob. but she's smart

AmericaFyeah92
05-21-2008, 04:27 PM
we should start a movement to get Ron Paul as his VP. It would be perfect - two people relatively well-known on the LP ticket for once