D'oh! Mary Ruwart launches new campaign website after losing nomination?

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/05/mary-ruwart-launched-new-campaign-site/

[JosephTheLibertarian]

So much for party unity lol the radz have controlled the direction for 37 years, let's give the reformers a chance. gheeze

[IRO-bot]

So much for party unity lol the radz have controlled the direction for 37 years, let's give the reformers a chance. gheeze

Yes!! Let's sell out our principles and our soul so we can become like the GOP!! SIGN ME UP!!!!!


R.I.P. Libertarian Party
Barr '08

[yongrel]

Well, there's certainly no way that this could ever end badly. Never. Ever.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yes!! Let's sell out our principles and our soul so we can become like the GOP!! SIGN ME UP!!!!!


R.I.P. Libertarian Party
Barr '08

Sell out what principles? If we were meant to be a debating society and not win elections, someone forgot to tell me. I'm in it to win. We need not only principled candidates but principled and CREDIBLE candidates. Barr and Root are both credible and both espouse libertarian stances on every issue everyday. I don't see what the problem is? Blame Ruwart for dropping the ball on the unity ticket, don't blame the victors.

[IRO-bot]

Sell out what principles? If we were meant to be a debating society and not win elections, someone forgot to tell me. I'm in it to win. We need not only principled candidates but principled and CREDIBLE candidates. Barr and Root are both credible and both espouse libertarian stances on every issue everyday. I don't see what the problem is? Blame Ruwart for dropping the ball on the unity ticket, don't blame the victors.

Barr = Republican
W.A.R. = Republican

Neither believe in the non-agression axiom. Neither espouse real libertarian thought and principles. Neither have a libertarian voting record. Quasi, maybe.

Bradley don't pull out your, "You don't know his whole record" crap. Barr voted for many things a Libertarian would NEVER EVER vote for. It's crap.

[Bradley in DC]

Barr = Republican
W.A.R. = Republican

Neither believe in the non-agression axiom. Neither espouse real libertarian thought and principles. Neither have a libertarian voting record. Quasi, maybe.

Bradley don't pull out your, "You don't know his whole record" crap. Barr voted for many things a Libertarian would NEVER EVER vote for. It's crap.

And your preferred choice for president is? :confused:

[Bradley in DC]

Less Antman // May 27, 2008 at 5:53 am

At least she’s planning ahead this time. Only 3 years and 364 days to the nomination.

[IRO-bot]

And your preferred choice for president is? :confused:

Good question. Since the LP decided that media is more important than Morals and Principle... I need to look around some more.

Who else is out there. I like Chuck alot but the CP is way to theocratic.

[Bradley in DC]

Good question. Since the LP decided that media is more important than Morals and Principle... I need to look around some more.

Who else is out there. I like Chuck alot but the CP is way to theocratic.

In that case, I ask only that you keep an open mind with Barr. Look around some more on what he wants to do as more important than what's done (or you're heard he's done).

The next few months should be fun. :)

[pahs1994]

So what is Ruwarts voting record?

[IRO-bot]

In that case, I ask only that you keep an open mind with Barr. Look around some more on what he wants to do as more important than what's done (or you're heard he's done).

The next few months should be fun. :)

Here is the problem Bradley. Here is a man who was a moral crusader against drugs. Voted for the Patriot Act. Basicly everything agianst freedom. His popularity dies off. He becomes a nobody. Ron Paul comes along and brings a resurgence of Libertarian conservative thought. All of a suden Barr comes out of nowhere....says he will continue the Revolution. Please....he is an opportunistic politician looking to get back into the lime light. Thats one of my problems with him. It's a tall hurdle to jump over.

[yongrel]

Here is the problem Bradley. Here is a man who was a moral crusader against drugs. Voted for the Patriot Act. Basicly everything agianst freedom. His popularity dies off. He becomes a nobody. Ron Paul comes along and brings a resurgence of Libertarian conservative thought. All of a suden Barr comes out of nowhere....says he will continue the Revolution. Please....he is an opportunistic politician looking to get back into the lime light. Thats one of my problems with him. It's a tall hurdle to jump over.

To be fair, Barr was an active member of the LP for a long while before Ron Paul was even rumored to be a candidate.

[pahs1994]

Barr joined the party in 2006 i belive. Atleast watch the debate or look into something he has done since his change of heart before you decide on the guy. When i heard about the patriot act and the whole thing about wicca I said there was no way i would vote for this guy.
But you have to actually belive people can change. I was a democrat. I voted for Kerry in 04. I changed.

[ARealConservative]

It's ironic.

The Barr faction won the Libertarian Party, and all those griping sound like the Neo Cons in Nevada.

Sorry guys, political parties are won and lost by the members in them. Barr won - he is the face of the Libertarian Party for now.

And I say kudos. The Libertarian Party finally shows some growth!

[Bradley in DC]

Here is the problem Bradley. Here is a man who was a moral crusader against drugs. Voted for the Patriot Act. Basicly everything agianst freedom. His popularity dies off. He becomes a nobody. Ron Paul comes along and brings a resurgence of Libertarian conservative thought. All of a suden Barr comes out of nowhere....says he will continue the Revolution. Please....he is an opportunistic politician looking to get back into the lime light. Thats one of my problems with him. It's a tall hurdle to jump over.

If you're looking for Ron Paul on the November ballot, I share your disappointment.

Barr was certainly a drug warrior--and at the federal level. I always found that at odds with everything else I knew about him (and even teased him gingerly on it--he was a congressman, I was a lowly staffer in another office). It was the subject of much discussion in the DC drug policy community how Barr could always come down on the side of privacy even in the drug war and try to square the circle.

Even though he had supported Forbes, not Bush, as the R nominee, I think (conjecture here) that he wanted to trust Bush and gave him the benefit of the doubt at first. Bush had said many of the right things as a candidate, as Dr. Paul has pointed out many times.

In that hectic, terrible time after 9/11, the whole country did come together, Bush's approval ratings were skyhigh. Barr went along with Bush on the war not knowing he was being lied to--hindsight is 20/20.

As I've explained, Barr gets a bum rap on the USA PATRIOT Act vote (see my sig). Many privacy advocates (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1478443&postcount=7) (myself included) who worked on that issue in the trenches then have come to Barr's public defense for leadership for us during those fights (before any presidential run--this was not partisan or political). Not one has contradicted us.

He was fighting for freedom with Dr. Paul nearly all of the time--often alone (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1476961) with him like on the Know Your Customer issue (my baby) and other issues (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012). He supported Badnarik in 2004 (I certainly didn't), switched parties and joined the LNC long before Dr. Paul contemplated a presidential run. There are reports (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12640), more than one (http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/03/31/barr-to-announce-presidential-bid-next-week/), (I cannot confirm) that when it was clear Dr. Paul would not get the Republican nomination that he got Barr to run.

[LibertyEagle]

Geez Bradley, I must be missing the place in those articles you linked to that says that Ron Paul talked Barr into running, nor do I see any evidence that Paul will endorse him, as you have stated before.

[IRO-bot]

If you're looking for Ron Paul on the November ballot, I share your disappointment.

Barr was certainly a drug warrior--and at the federal level. I always found that at odds with everything else I knew about him (and even teased him gingerly on it--he was a congressman, I was a lowly staffer in another office). It was the subject of much discussion in the DC drug policy community how Barr could always come down on the side of privacy even in the drug war and try to square the circle.

Even though he had supported Forbes, not Bush, as the R nominee, I think (conjecture here) that he wanted to trust Bush and gave him the benefit of the doubt at first. Bush had said many of the right things as a candidate, as Dr. Paul has pointed out many times.

In that hectic, terrible time after 9/11, the whole country did come together, Bush's approval ratings were skyhigh. Barr went along with Bush on the war not knowing he was being lied to--hindsight is 20/20.

As I've explained, Barr gets a bum rap on the USA PATRIOT Act vote (see my sig). Many privacy advocates (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1478443&postcount=7) (myself included) who worked on that issue in the trenches then have come to Barr's public defense for leadership for us during those fights (before any presidential run--this was not partisan or political). Not one has contradicted us.

He was fighting for freedom with Dr. Paul nearly all of the time--often alone (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1476961) with him like on the Know Your Customer issue (my baby) and other issues (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012). He supported Badnarik in 2004 (I certainly didn't), switched parties and joined the LNC long before Dr. Paul contemplated a presidential run. There are reports (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12640), more than one (http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/03/31/barr-to-announce-presidential-bid-next-week/), (I cannot confirm) that when it was clear Dr. Paul would not get the Republican nomination that he got Barr to run.

Really, he didn't know about being lied to about the war? Why don't you look up Ron Paul's speech on December 19, 2001 against HJR 75. How is it Ron is the only one who knows that the evidence is bogus?

[rancher89]

[QUOTE=IRO-bot;1479140]Barr = Republican
W.A.R. = Republican

QUOTE]

so

Paul = Republican
Paul = W.A.R


?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????

[IRO-bot]

[QUOTE=IRO-bot;1479140]Barr = Republican
W.A.R. = Republican

QUOTE]

so

Paul = Republican
Paul = W.A.R


?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????

Ron Paul wasn't running on the Libertarian ticket. Oye.

Not to mention they don't follow the Libertarian platform.

[rancher89]

Barr joined the party in 2006 i belive. Atleast watch the debate or look into something he has done since his change of heart before you decide on the guy. When i heard about the patriot act and the whole thing about wicca I said there was no way i would vote for this guy.
But you have to actually belive people can change. I was a democrat. I voted for Kerry in 04. I changed.


I've changed also, flaming socialist to died in the wool constitutionalist. People deserve a break for taking the red pill and waking up. Don't forget, we've all believed, at one time or another, in the lies told to us....

[Bradley in DC]

Really, he didn't know about being lied to about the war? Why don't you look up Ron Paul's speech on December 19, 2001 against HJR 75. How is it Ron is the only one who knows that the evidence is bogus?

I'm not going to argue Barr is better than Paul. He's not.

As I said, I don't know what was going on in Barr's head and he and I have never discussed the war vote. My guess, as I said, is that he wanted to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Even Dr. Paul voted for the authorization in Afghanistan so obviously there was a judgement call. Part of the problem, as we've learned later, was the sheer incompetence of the Bush people--part of it wasn't lies as much as them believing things that weren't true.

But no, I wish Barr had voted against the Iraqi war opposition. No question. I'm immensely proud of Dr. Paul for voting against it.

Back in the day, when Dr. Paul, and a few others, were mobilizing against Clinton's illegal bombing in Kosovo and Iraq, Barr stood with Paul when few others would.

Barr, like most of the country, gave Bush (too much of) the benefit of the doubt. I think that that might actually be our strongest selling point with the general population. While many voters were turned off by Dr. Paul's alleged isolationism, I hope that most Americans will be able to identify with Barr.

But I can be something of an idealist sometimes. :)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Barr = Republican
W.A.R. = Republican

Neither believe in the non-agression axiom. Neither espouse real libertarian thought and principles. Neither have a libertarian voting record. Quasi, maybe.

Bradley don't pull out your, "You don't know his whole record" crap. Barr voted for many things a Libertarian would NEVER EVER vote for. It's crap.

Why do people like you always think that every Libertarian has to be a hardcore libertarian? It's a POLITICAL PARTY for god's sake, not a debating society. what the hell. You can't win anything if you want to campaign as a nutjob.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Good question. Since the LP decided that media is more important than Morals and Principle... I need to look around some more.

Who else is out there. I like Chuck alot but the CP is way to theocratic.

Maybe the purists should all join the Boston Tea Party and get out of our way. Hey, I'm a purist, but I like to be pragmatic, the American people need a viable alternative in the LP.

[IRO-bot]

Why do people like you always think that every Libertarian has to be a hardcore libertarian? It's a POLITICAL PARTY for god's sake, not a debating society. what the hell. You can't win anything if you want to campaign as a nutjob.

Whatever man. Principles don't matter in this day and age. Who the crap is a nutjob?

[rajibo]

Why do people like you always think that every Libertarian has to be a hardcore libertarian? It's a POLITICAL PARTY for god's sake, not a debating society. what the hell. You can't win anything if you want to campaign as a nutjob.

I guess those people also agree that Ron Paul is not a Republican. They are doing the exact same thing to Bob Barr as the Republicans are doing to Ron Paul.

[IRO-bot]

Maybe the purists should all join the Boston Tea Party and get out of our way. Hey, I'm a purist, but I like to be pragmatic, the American people need a viable alternative in the LP.

Or maybe you should get the heck out of the LP and make your own party. Call it the "quasi-sellouts of the LP" see how well you do jackoff.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

So what is Ruwarts voting record?

haha good point.

*no political experience

*no mainstream credibility

*nothing...just empty handed rhetoric

why do we want to run a person like this as POTUS? I bet she couldn't win a congressional seat, let alone the highest office in the land!

[IRO-bot]

I guess those people also agree that Ron Paul is not a Republican. They are doing the exact same thing to Bob Barr as the Republicans are doing to Ron Paul.

Last time I check Ron Paul is a republican. He also hold the core values of the Republican party. Nothing amiss in the situation.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I guess those people also agree that Ron Paul is not a Republican. They are doing the exact same thing to Bob Barr as the Republicans are doing to Ron Paul.

These people here are right-libertarians (or paleocons?) bashing right-libertarians. It's funny. The best part is that Ruwart wants open borders, something that Ron Paul doesn't want.

[IRO-bot]

haha good point.

*no political experience

*no mainstream credibility

*nothing...just empty handed rhetoric

why do we want to run a person like this as POTUS? I bet she couldn't win a congressional seat, let alone the highest office in the land!

So what. Your argument is weak. Why not let anyone who has a record in the LP as long as they are well know. Heck if Hitler was alive, let's put him in!!!
Everyone knows him!!!/sarcasm

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Or maybe you should get the heck out of the LP and make your own party. Call it the "quasi-sellouts of the LP" see how well you do jackoff.

I'm the one sticking to the party while you're still shopping for another candidate. I'm the one that voted for Badnarik in 04 even though he was a bum. I don't whine

[IRO-bot]

These people here are right-libertarians (or paleocons?) bashing right-libertarians. It's funny. The best part is that Ruwart wants open borders, something that Ron Paul doesn't want.

Actually if you dig into his record he would be in favor of open borders if

A. The economy didn't suck and we were a producing nation.

B. The left the middle east alone so there would be no threat from terrorists.

[IRO-bot]

I'm the one sticking to the party while you're still shopping for another candidate. I'm the one that voted for Badnarik in 04 even though he was a bum. I don't whine

I'm the one who voted for Bush is 04'. I'm the one who stuck with the party. I think I will vote for McCain. He is the party winner!!!

See, again, your argument fails.

(note - that was satire, I never voted for Bush!!! :D)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

So what. Your argument is weak. Why not let anyone who has a record in the LP as long as they are well know. Heck if Hitler was alive, let's put him in!!!
Everyone knows him!!!/sarcasm

Hitler would be a liberal if he was alive today. He loved creating government programs. Why not let anyone? uh, no. I believe that Bob Barr's transition is sincere. If you check out his libertarian rating in the House, he voted more libertarian the longer he stayed with higher percentages every year.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3852.html

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Actually if you dig into his record he would be in favor of open borders if

A. The economy didn't suck and we were a producing nation.

B. The left the middle east alone so there would be no threat from terrorists.

so? but he's not for open borders right now lol. I think every GOP says that. "if only our economy were better" when government is the one messing up the economy in the frst place. ah well, I don't care. Illegal immigration is a non-issue for me, I'm more concerned with the decriminalization of marijuana.

[IRO-bot]

Hitler would be a liberal if he was alive today. He loved creating government programs. Why not let anyone? uh, no. I believe that Bob Barr's transition is sincere. If you check out his libertarian rating in the House, he voted more libertarian the longer he stayed with higher percentages every year.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3852.html

I know, I've read that. My problem is a trust issue. Plain and simple. People like Marry and other who have been active a long time and have a sound philisophy of libertarianism I feel I can trust. Hell is someone like Walter Block or Thomas Woods decided to ran I would be drooling because those guys rock.

[IRO-bot]

so? but he's not for open borders right now lol. I think every GOP says that. "if only our economy were better" when government is the one messing up the economy in the frst place. ah well, I don't care. Illegal immigration is a non-issue for me, I'm more concerned with the decriminalization of marijuana.

Illegal immigration is a pretty big issue for me. I live in Florida. Illegals has taken alot of peoples jobs.

Yeah but this is coming from Ron, so you can trust that. I don't agree with Mary on everything, same as Ron.


BTW, decriminalization of marijuana is a big issue too. I think hemp would greatly help to turn around our floundering economy.

[Nathan Hale]

Yes!! Let's sell out our principles and our soul so we can become like the GOP!! SIGN ME UP!!!!!


R.I.P. Libertarian Party
Barr '08

No!!! Let's retardedly demand anarcho-capitalism and insure that we'll spend the rest of our lives warming the bench in politics!!!!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I know, I've read that. My problem is a trust issue. Plain and simple. People like Marry and other who have been active a long time and have a sound philisophy of libertarianism I feel I can trust. Hell is someone like Walter Block or Thomas Woods decided to ran I would be drooling because those guys rock.

ok. I understand that. I guess I'm just tired of everyone ignoring the LP. Seems like we're all in our little "prison" in the LP while the statists are ruining this country. I think that we should have a strong internal "re-education" system for newcomers. I think that's how we can become a "big tent" party without losing our principles.

The radicals did win a lot of power within the LP. Mary Ruwart is now on the LNC

I always thought that the party's leadership should be radicals while we run reformers, otherwise we don't win anything. The American people are scared of radicals.

[IRO-bot]

No!!! Let's retardedly demand anarcho-capitalism and insure that we'll spend the rest of our lives warming the bench in politics!!!!

You are right. Freedom sucks. My bad. *bows down to masters*

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Illegal immigration is a pretty big issue for me. I live in Florida. Illegals has taken alot of peoples jobs.

Yeah but this is coming from Ron, so you can trust that. I don't agree with Mary on everything, same as Ron.


BTW, decriminalization of marijuana is a big issue too. I think hemp would greatly help to turn around our floundering economy.

Yeah, but the so-called "progressives" prefer to subsidize ethanol and keep hemp illegal. So much for liberals

[Nathan Hale]

So what. Your argument is weak. Why not let anyone who has a record in the LP as long as they are well know. Heck if Hitler was alive, let's put him in!!!
Everyone knows him!!!/sarcasm

You're creating this false dichotomy. Advocating a big tent is not advocacy for the elimination of the tent entirely. You seem to think that we either need total purity (which is a waste of time) or total openness (which is also a waste of time). Look at the Nolan chart - libertarianism accounts for 20% of the total chart. Yet "big L" libertarianism insists on people adhering to politically-irrelevant philosophical statements that force them to accept extremism in policy. The Libertarian Party's tent MUST (not "should", MUST) be big enough to allow that 20% of the electorate to safely identify with it. Only then will it be able to reach in among the centrists and become a credible party.

On the same token, experience IS necessary. I hate when Libertarians run for President who haven't served as either a General, Admiral, Congressman, Senator, Governor, CEO of a major corporation, or Vice President. The people want some form of experience, either experience as an executive in a huge bureaucracy (ceo, gov, gen/adm, VP), or experience legislating in Washington (rep/sen). As a matter of strategy, if you're not one, you're not qualified. The American people demand experience in their candidate, and it's true test of credibility in the eyes of the media. Just look at how much media attention Bob Barr is getting - because he has credibility in the media.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You're creating this false dichotomy. Advocating a big tent is not advocacy for the elimination of the tent entirely. You seem to think that we either need total purity (which is a waste of time) or total openness (which is also a waste of time). Look at the Nolan chart - libertarianism accounts for 20% of the total chart. Yet "big L" libertarianism insists on people adhering to politically-irrelevant philosophical statements that force them to accept extremism in policy. The Libertarian Party's tent MUST (not "should", MUST) be big enough to allow that 20% of the electorate to safely identify with it. Only then will it be able to reach in among the centrists and become a credible party.

On the same token, experience IS necessary. I hate when Libertarians run for President who haven't served as either a General, Admiral, Congressman, Senator, Governor, CEO of a major corporation, or Vice President. The people want some form of experience, either experience as an executive in a huge bureaucracy (ceo, gov, gen/adm, VP), or experience legislating in Washington (rep/sen). As a matter of strategy, if you're not one, you're not qualified. The American people demand experience in their candidate, and it's true test of credibility in the eyes of the media. Just look at how much media attention Bob Barr is getting - because he has credibility in the media.

Yes, and the hardcore Libertarians do have a place within the LP. As an active block, they can keep the Party from ending up like the GOP.

[revolutionary8]

Barr = Republican
W.A.R. = Republican

Neither believe in the non-agression axiom. Neither espouse real libertarian thought and principles. Neither have a libertarian voting record. Quasi, maybe.

Bradley don't pull out your, "You don't know his whole record" crap. Barr voted for many things a Libertarian would NEVER EVER vote for. It's crap.

As a Republican I object.
WAR endorsed McCain- does that make him a Neolib or Neocon? :cool:
Barr, I won't go there for fear of the blowback. :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

As a Republican I object.
WAR endorsed McCain- does that make him a Neolib or Neocon? :cool:
Barr, I won't go there for fear of the blowback. :D

Again with the old bs. He already debunked that

[Nathan Hale]

You are right. Freedom sucks. My bad. *bows down to masters*

Grow up. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT a watershed ideology for this movement.

[Nathan Hale]

Yes, and the hardcore Libertarians do have a place within the LP. As an active block, they can keep the Party from ending up like the GOP.

You assume that hardcore libertarians are needed to serve as an anchor. If they control the party's rhetoric and platform then the party will never grow large enough to be relevant. I don't mind extremists in the party, but they wouldn't (and shouldn't) control party policy or strategy.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You assume that hardcore libertarians are needed to serve as an anchor. If they control the party's rhetoric and platform then the party will never grow large enough to be relevant. I don't mind extremists in the party, but they wouldn't (and shouldn't) control party policy or strategy.

I meant that they should keep the Party from swaying off of the libertarian message not control the platform and return to the 04 platform.

[revolutionary8]

Again with the old bs. He already debunked that
he did?
You assume that I know this. Please post the debunk so I can stop making a fool of myself. :D Not that I won't/don't make a fool of myself otherwise. lol.
Gee, no one can have fun around here, can they? :D Everything is sewwww serious. :D

[JS4Pat]

Barr = Republican
W.A.R. = Republican

Neither believe in the non-agression axiom. Neither espouse real libertarian thought and principles. Neither have a libertarian voting record. Quasi, maybe.

I don't think they have to be perfect and I believe in redemption, but his Iraq War vote explanation doesn't cut it. Needs to speak to the fact that he transferred his constitutional responsibility to the Executive Branch and that pre-emptive war is never justified. Instead he talks about the same old "being sold something" crap that Kerry and Hillary drag out to cover up their unconscionable votes.

I don't think Barr is really with us on this most important issue.

[Nathan Hale]

I meant that they should keep the Party from swaying off of the libertarian message not control the platform and return to the 04 platform.

Cool.

[RevolutionSD]

Sell out what principles? If we were meant to be a debating society and not win elections, someone forgot to tell me. I'm in it to win. We need not only principled candidates but principled and CREDIBLE candidates. Barr and Root are both credible and both espouse libertarian stances on every issue everyday. I don't see what the problem is? Blame Ruwart for dropping the ball on the unity ticket, don't blame the victors.

Yeah! To hell with principles. If we have to sacrifice a couple hundred thousand people a year because our candidate is a drug warrior, so be it! As long as we have a chance to WIN, that's all that matters!

[Alex Libman]

I'd like to see her continue running as an independent. She could probably get on the ballot in a few most libertarian states.

[Kludge]

This is not a "new" website.... I quoted the issues section during the LNC here to combat disinformation.

Edit: Actually this website is a couple months old.

Why the disinfo Bradley? Please edit your OP...

[Kludge]

Yeah! To hell with principles. If we have to sacrifice a couple hundred thousand people a year because our candidate is a drug warrior, so be it! As long as we have a chance to WIN, that's all that matters!

These people aren't being put to death.... They're going to relatively cozy prisons to catch up on their reading/smoking/anal rape.

[G-Wohl]

I viewed this site when I googled Ms. Ruwart weeks ago - far before the LP nominations took place.

This is exactly the kind of lying and deceit that the political process needs to end. PLEASE edit your original post, or delete this thread - we don't need to be spreading lies around here. We have enough of that already happening with the LP '08 nominees that are supposedly libertarian.

[Nathan Hale]

Yeah! To hell with principles. If we have to sacrifice a couple hundred thousand people a year because our candidate is a drug warrior, so be it! As long as we have a chance to WIN, that's all that matters!

Barr has a poor record, but its also not his current philosophy. Not all of us have been libertarians from birth, and (more importantly) not all of us are tip-of-the-diamond extremist libertarians who base our entire social philosophy around a single axiom. There is need to have diversity in the libertarian party if we are to ever win a major election.

Somebody who is 80% an extremist's friend and 20% an extremist's enemy belongs in the party - because that's what a political party IS - a group of individuals who compromise among themselves for the purpose of electing people to office. The goal in their compromise is to build a coalition capable of winning the offices they hope to contest. There is no such thing as a party of principle - in fact the concept is a contradiction in terms.

[FireofLiberty]

I was leaning to voting for Barr, but after the comments made by WAR regarding foreign policy and the "war on terror" I simply cannot do it.

[SeanEdwards]

B. The left the middle east alone so there would be no threat from terrorists.

This is a fantasy. There's always going to be violent nuts in the world looking to make a statement. They don't need to be provoked. They're violent nuts. It's what they do.

[rockandrollsouls]

Barr has a poor record, but its also not his current philosophy. Not all of us have been libertarians from birth, and (more importantly) not all of us are tip-of-the-diamond extremist libertarians who base our entire social philosophy around a single axiom. There is need to have diversity in the libertarian party if we are to ever win a major election.

Somebody who is 80% an extremist's friend and 20% an extremist's enemy belongs in the party - because that's what a political party IS - a group of individuals who compromise among themselves for the purpose of electing people to office. The goal in their compromise is to build a coalition capable of winning the offices they hope to contest. There is no such thing as a party of principle - in fact the concept is a contradiction in terms.

I agree. People are not perfect, and they can change. He has made it clear where he stands now and I respect that.

I also couldn't agree more about the political party statement. Not everyone will agree on every single issue...the party is there to push some common ideas. In the Libertarians case it is liberty and freedom.