PDA

View Full Version : Investigating Baldwin... Investigating Barr... Both, Neither or ???




WRellim
06-01-2008, 01:41 PM
Many seem to come to the equation with some inherent bias for Barr and against Baldwin -- or conversely -- for Baldwin and against Barr.

That may be true of some, but it was not true of me. I figured I would just write-in Ron Paul and then continue with the long-term tasks in the GOP (which for the most part is what I will be doing).

But as people have been pushing one or the other as THE WAY of "continuing" the influence of the movement at large, I decided to do some digging on both of the men (and some additional digging on the Constitution party, as I was less familiar with them than I was with the history of the LP); and see if there was any value to supporting either (or possibly even both) men; or neither.

So I was NOT even seeking to make a choice, and could have just as easily discarded (or supported) both of these men and their parties.



Investigating Chuck Baldwin

My initial mindset was actually to be quite leary of Baldwin... if anything, being a Quaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends) purist (but sans the hat!) after a long spiritual journey (and being "burned" by many corrupt and unethical clergymen), I have an inherent "built-in bias" against all salaried preacher/pastors. I view them mainly as a parasitic form of life -- pulling together congregations of people, pushing them to donate (and worse "tithe") to THEM rather than to God and charity, and then using the funds to build their own little personal "tax-free" castles and empires... well you get the picture.

But as I checked into Baldwin, I did NOT find what I was fairly certain that I would see. I found that he was indeed a man who "started" a local congregation and built a big building (that pretty much goes without saying) -- but what I did NOT find was a man who was using that as a means of personal "empire building." The dude is NOT some "political empire" wannabe like Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson. Nor is he a "monument/monstrosity builder" like Oral Roberts, Robert Schuller, or Bill Hybels. And he is not a "commercial empire" builder in the Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, or Jim & Tammy Bakker mode (yes, he publishes a few small books and probably makes a modest amount from them -- but more in the mode of the way Ron Paul writes and publishes books, to provide resources for people to read and research, NOT simply to make money. Indeed, much of his writing is freely available online).

Instead, I found a man who seems MUCH like Ron Paul -- a man of pretty SOLID character. Who worked his way through schooling years (Bible as well as BS and MS degrees) did a lot of charity work in jails (following after his father -- and BTW, other than for Chuck Colson, jail ministry is NOT a way to fame or fortune). Married relatively young, but with his wife, built a sound family life (married for 35 years... to the SAME woman, remind you of someone?), father of 3 grown children (who all have similar good character... no "Huckabee wackos" here), and with several grandchildren as well.

In addition, Mr. Baldwin -- like Ron Paul -- seems to strive to LIVE according to the principles he PREACHES (What a concept!) And while he IS a member of the "Christian Right" he is NOT a pandering brown-noser, and is very willing to stand firmly on what he believes to be true, even if he must stand alone in the midst of a hurricane, to wit the following statement regarding said "Christian Right" and George W. Bush (who he did NOT vote for in EITHER 2000 or 2004!):

Unfortunately, it has been the Christian Right's blind support for President Bush in particular and the Republican Party in general that has precipitated a glaring and perhaps fatal defect: the Christian Right cannot, or will not, honestly face the real danger confronting these United States. The reason for this blindness is due, in part, to political partisanship or personal aggrandizement. Regardless, the Christian Right is currently devoid of genuine sagacity. On the whole, they fail to understand the issues that are critical to our nation's--and their own--survival. (cf http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin417.htm)

In short, I found nothing to indicate that he was all that AMBITIOUS on a personal basis -- nor did I find ANY indication that he would desire to "impose" his religious beliefs on other via some "theocratic" form of government -- indeed the opposite, he knows that intertwining government and religion is a path to religious PERSECUTION, and his involvement in politics is from a CITIZENSHIP basis rather than as some "religious calling" (i.e. the false apocalyptic BS that GWBush claims).

Ok, so much for Chuck Baldwin... but what about Bob Barr?



Investigating Bob Barr

I actually did NOT come with a mind "set" in any way for or against Barr -- I suppose there might have been a slight bias for him based on Ron Paul's occasional statements. And of course he was a politician of some note to the media circus (though I did not really recall anything of WHY he was "known").

And as per normal I went digging... starting with his early life and career. Much of this was somewhat difficult to find (much less verify), as it seems a lot of "vandalism" as well as a significant amount of "scrubbing" and "whitewash" has occurred with his various "bios" online. (Which at a minimum indicates he is a controversial character).

Childhood was spent as a military "brat" (by which I simply mean that like McCain he moved from base to base), became a California college frat boy, had a political "epiphany" and became a "Young Democrat" (?). Graduated BA in 1970, but apparently after significant conflicts and problems, rebellious enough that his parents cut off his college funds (never a good sign... he claims this was because his "political involvement" with the Dem. Party did not sit well with GOP parents, but there is evidence that other problems were the primary cause -- what parent disowns their child over politics? Drugs, drinking, arrests, etc. yes... But politics? Hmmm, odd). Apparently some time during his college years he got married and shortly thereafter separated from his first wife (literally NO data on this beyond divorce date).

He then moved to Washington D.C. and took a job with the CIA, who then apparently paid his salary while he pursued MA and law degrees (!) from the Beltway GW University. Met and began dating the woman (also on CIA payroll) who, immediately following his divorce, became his SECOND wife while going to school and collecting that CIA paycheck. Purportedly left the CIA almost immediately after finishing law school (?!?) and moved to Georgia where he had the second of his political "epiphanies" and joined the Republican Party... with the apparent goal of securing either election or appointment to a public salaried office (his private practice apparently NOT doing very well -- poorly enough, in fact that they had no health insurance when his wife became pregnant again in 1983). There are differing he-said, she-said accounts about what happened, but his wife aborted the pregnancy (valid mainly because of the discrepancies of the accounts versus his later positions and claims).

While running for Congress (unsuccessfully) his wife was undergoing chemotherapy for Breast Cancer -- again more he-said, she-said, but regardless he certainly did NOT stop campaigning for her health (he apparently expressed a politically ambitious desire to become both President AND ultimately a Supreme Court Justice -- both far more important to him than his family commitments). Shortly thereafter, he left his second wife (and their two small PRE-SCHOOL children) for another woman (later his THIRD wife). Several years later, his second wife would need to file suit to attempt to cover (relatively minor) medical expenses for his two children; notable as a matter of character in his apparent ambivalence (at least) to his parental responsibities.

His initial attempt at achieving elected office being unsuccessful, he did manage to squeak an appointment as a federal US Attorney, a position he only managed to hold onto for four years. Once again, we run into another he-said, he-said series of accusations -- this time of neglect of his duties and abuse of office (though nothing was prosecuted, not unusual for US Attorneys they seldom shoot their own, not good for PR you know.) But notable among the many "accusers" were the comments from various judges, especially regarding Mr. Barr's "innovation" of being the FIRST US Attorney to send out Press Releases (something unprecedented in 200 plus years).

A second attempt at elected office -- this time seeking the higer position of US Senator -- was again unsuccessful (though the vote was apparently close). With his third attempt in 1994 he finally got his foot on the political ladder, being elected Congressman of Georgia's 7th District in 1994.

Once in office, Mr. Barr seems to have concentrated on taking "popular" positions that would place him prominently in the public's eye, and therefore aid his ambition -- including expanding and increasing the size and scope of the "Drug War"; by attacking the social sphere with his "Defense of Marriage Act" (ironic from a twice-divorced, 3 time married man who rather obviously and hypocritically placed little value in marriage per se); and placing himself directly in the public's eye by leading the impeachment of then President Bill Clinton.

Seen in the light of his grandiose ambitions of becoming BOTH President AND a US Supreme Court Justice (something only achieved by William Howard Taft) -- Mr. Barr's choosing "controversial" issues, legislation, various political "epiphanies" (which parallel changes in political winds) and his recent stands against various Bush administration policies -- all take on a slightly different light. These are all the marks of someone who wants to "climb the ladder" and who is becoming increasingly desperate to gain noteriety to that end.

So additionally, his THIRD political "ephiphany" -- and his lateral transfer to the "Libertarian Party" -- are also apparently in that same vein. There is little evidence that Mr. Barr has ever actually been "moved" by some empathy for the plight of individuals; nor that any of his political positions have been driven by a solid character-based philosophy.

There is even more... but to me that is MORE than I need to know regarding this man.

He most emphatically is NOT similar to Ron Paul in any way shape or form. While he may currently (and temporarily) profess certain similar political viewpoints, it is rather clear that these are held onto in the same way that a Remora attaches itself to a whale.

Likewise, understanding Mr. Barr's past (essentially failed) political career, go a long way to explaining why he would be willing to work as a "tool" of Richard Viguerie and Russ Verney in their attempt to takeover and makeover the Libertarian Party (or rather his attempt to use both RV's as HIS "vehicles" in that regard). Big fish stand out in little ponds -- and if nothing else, Mr. Barr like to STAND OUT, so doubtless this was an attractive aspect to (what is obviously otherwise a desperate political career move in) once more changing parties and "colors".

Given his past, it is unlikely that this will be Mr. Barr's last "epiphany" or his last change of parties and colors. And much like his lack of concern for his children's welfare -- doubtless he will be unconcerned about the Libertarian party if it ceases to be of use or interest to him.

All in all, a disgusting human being. One I would not want to associate with even as a neighbor or coworker, much less the leader and "banner bearer" of a movement or candidate for high office.


Conclusion...

Well, the conclusion is fairly obvious isn't it.

To those who say "but it is not about the MAN, it is about the message"

REALLY?

What attracted YOU to the "message" and convinced you of it's solidity? Was it not in significant part the STELLAR CHARACTER of the MAN in Dr. Ron Paul?

It is BOTH the "Man AND the Message" -- and the character and sincerity of the message -- WILL be judged by the character of the man (or men) bearing it.

We have had more than enough frauds and ambitious political career office-seekers. The message must NOT be lost in the reprobate character of another such parasite.

The message must NOT be compromised -- neither in the character OF the message, nor the character of the one's bearing it. THAT is the whole point of the movement -- to END the machinations, manipulations of government -- to hold elected AND appointed officials to a HIGHER STANDARD -- to make them be ACCOUNTABLE and RESPONSIBLE. And in order to achieve that, we need to NOT select or support men who are merely ambitious and flattering -- we need to select and support men who are of a CHARACTER that is inherently ACCOUNTABLE and RESPONSIBLE.

Governments, even a government under the Constitution, is still a government of men -- it will be as corrupt and ambitious, OR as humble and noble, as the men who are in it.

So... going forward, it is BALDWIN, and most definitely, positively not Barr!




I am, and remain, a Man Of Common Sense.

.

literatim
06-01-2008, 01:51 PM
Bob Barr is just scary.

Meatwasp
06-01-2008, 01:56 PM
Barr was CIA? So was Bush .Ugh!You can't hide your baggage anymore. LOL

literatim
06-01-2008, 02:02 PM
I want to know why the CIA would pay his way through college and then allow him to leave after he graduated? My guess would be that he never left the CIA.

HenryKnoxFineBooks
06-01-2008, 02:09 PM
Last week, you posted:All you Barrbots Have fun with that now.... A statement i find highly offensive, and coming many days before this calm, reasoned post of you going in with an unbiased mind. Or as you say:"So I was NOT even seeking to make a choice, and could have just as easily discarded (or supported) both of these men and their parties." or " I actually did NOT come with a mind "set" in any way for or against Barr -- I suppose there might have been a slight bias for him."

Something does not quite fit...

WRellim
06-01-2008, 02:15 PM
I want to know why the CIA would pay his way through college and then allow him to leave after he graduated? My guess would be that he never left the CIA.

To clarify, I don't know that they "paid his way" through college... only that the years he claims to have worked for the CIA coincide with the years that he attended college obtaining his MA and JD.

And yet it puzzles me too, because I don't see know how you can obtain those two degrees in the time frames he did (BA in 1970, MA in 1972, JD in 1977 -- CIA from 1970 to 1978) while working a "normal job" in any sense of the word. (In other words it would be virtually impossible to go to school "part-time" and earn those an MA in 2 years, and a JD in 5).

Yet if he DID have his schooling somehow "subsidized" by the CIA... then how did he "pay it back" by working for them for only a year (77 to 78)? Puzzling.

BTW, from his Congressional Bio (http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000169 reformatted as bullet list for easier reference ):

BARR, Bob, a Representative from Georgia;

born in Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, November 5, 1948;
graduated, Community High School, Tehran, Iran, 1966;
B.A., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1970;
M.A., George Washington University, Washington, D.C., 1972;
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., 1977;
Central Intelligence Agency, 1970-1978;
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, 1986-1990;
anti-drug coordinator for Department of Justice, Southeastern United States, 1986-1990;
head, Public Corruption Subcommittee for United States Attorney General, 1987-1988;
president, Southeastern Legal Foundation, 1990-1991;
unsuccessful candidate for the Republican nomination to the United States Senate in 1992;
elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Fourth and to the three succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1995-January 3, 2003);
one of the managers appointed by the House of Representatives in 1998 to conduct the impeachment proceedings of President William Jefferson Clinton;
unsuccessful candidate for nomination to the One Hundred Eighth Congress in 2002.


P.S. In case someone is wondering, note that the reason his Congresional Bio does not include his failed run for Congress in 1984 was that he lost in the primary (and the bio only lists people who run in general or special elections, not failed primary bids).

WRellim
06-01-2008, 02:21 PM
Last week, you posted:All you Barrbots Have fun with that now.... A statement i find highly offensive, and coming many days before this calm, reasoned post of you going in with an unbiased mind. Or as you say:"So I was NOT even seeking to make a choice, and could have just as easily discarded (or supported) both of these men and their parties." or " I actually did NOT come with a mind "set" in any way for or against Barr -- I suppose there might have been a slight bias for him."

Something does not quite fit...

The answer is actually simple, I did my main research (on Barr) several weeks back. (Prior to Barr's "official" announcement that he was seeking the LP nomination -- but at which point he was already {at least so deemed by the media AND lots of people on RPF} the presumptive LP nominee.)

Research on Baldwin started at the same time as Barr, but finished later, as there is not as much online about his actual life (although significantly more of his writings and viewpoints).

And when I first approached the subject, I *was* very objective and completely uncommitted. (If anything, I have an inherent bias against clergy, whether they are seeking office or not.)

Rather obviously, I am not uncommitted any longer, but that is a RESULT of what I found, not a creator of it. But go digging for yourself. Everything I wrote has factual references (and in Barr's case is well documented online -- you can verify a huge amount without leaving your computer).


P.S. By "Last Week" I assume you mean my post from 3 days ago (5/29) here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1483324&postcount=1

pinkmandy
06-01-2008, 02:50 PM
Character is everything to me. A person who does what's right because of conviction can be trusted to do what they truly believe is right (even if we don't always agree). An inconsistent person has not based his life decisions on strong convictions/morals and imo that sort of person shouldn't be trusted. I love and respect Dr. Paul because he has walked the walk, in the face of adversity and scorn. Chuck Baldwin has done the same and has been very critical of the Christian right. It has been a lifestyle for them. They just do what's right because that's who they are.

I don't trust Barr. I've been trying to keep an open mind but I just don't trust the guy- not that I think he's evil. He's infinitely better than the current crop of frontrunners. Too many inconsistencies for my taste, though, when I have what I feel is a better choice. I can vote CP in VA so that's where my vote is going. I'm not a Christian, btw nor am I a member of the CP.

amy31416
06-01-2008, 02:54 PM
With all due respect to a Baldwin supporter, wrellim, haven't you been against Barr from the time he got the LP nomination?

Perhaps you're letting your own bias paint Barr to be worse than he really is? Not that I'm a Barr supporter, it's looking like Baldwin for me, but I don't think you're impartial.

Unspun
06-01-2008, 02:56 PM
I actually did NOT come with a mind "set" in any way for or against Barr

I laughed and stopped reading after that line. Your bias is so pungently obvious against Barr--based on your previous posts--that I don't think it's possible for you to be objective.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 03:32 PM
With all due respect to a Baldwin supporter, wrellim, haven't you been against Barr from the time he got the LP nomination?

Perhaps you're letting your own bias paint Barr to be worse than he really is? Not that I'm a Barr supporter, it's looking like Baldwin for me, but I don't think you're impartial.

Actually I had completed my research and determined against Barr BEFORE he received the LP nomination (which occurred only on May 25th, less than a week ago).

Perhaps you were not paying attention, but various people were advocating for these two men LONG before Barr secured the LP nomination, and even before Baldwin secured the CP nomination (on April 26th), and it was around that time that I began doing my digging (shortly after the April RPPCC FEC Report was released). And I make no claim to being impartial any longer -- simply that I was BEFORE I began my research into them.

What I have cited is basically just a biography of each of these people (with a few scattered comments on what each item in their bios signifies to me).

The facts of their life events, choices and actions have not changed within the past week or two, and certainly were not "created" or even influenced by me. (I have had nothing to do with Chuck Baldwin's faithfulness to his wife, nor did I have anything to do with Barr's leaving his 2nd wife and two children, etc. These are simply factual things relating to their character. Baldwin is essentially boring -- like Ron Paul; Barr has led a much more *ahem* shall we say "colorful" life.)

Go ahead and say that character doesn't matter to you.

But it speaks VOLUMES to me.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 03:35 PM
I laughed and stopped reading after that line. Your bias is so pungently obvious against Barr--based on your previous posts--that I don't think it's possible for you to be objective.

Believe what you want.

My bias against Barr is a RESULT of my research, not a precursor to it.

amy31416
06-01-2008, 03:44 PM
Actually I had completed my research and determined against Barr BEFORE he received the LP nomination (which occurred only on May 25th, less than a week ago).

Perhaps you were not paying attention, but various people were advocating for these two men LONG before Barr secured the LP nomination, and even before Baldwin secured the CP nomination (on April 26th), and it was around that time that I began doing my digging (shortly after the April RPPCC FEC Report was released). And I make no claim to being impartial any longer -- simply that I was BEFORE I began my research into them.

What I have cited is basically just a biography of each of these people (with a few scattered comments on what each item in their bios signifies to me).

The facts of their life events, choices and actions have not changed within the past week or two, and certainly were not "created" or even influenced by me. (I have had nothing to do with Chuck Baldwin's faithfulness to his wife, nor did I have anything to do with Barr's leaving his 2nd wife and two children, etc. These are simply factual things relating to their character. Baldwin is essentially boring -- like Ron Paul; Barr has led a much more *ahem* shall we say "colorful" life.)

Go ahead and say that character doesn't matter to you.

But it speaks VOLUMES to me.

Hey, if I'm going third party, it's absolutely Baldwin for me, I don't like Barr and never have. But if someone else here does like him and is planning on voting for Barr, it has the same effect as me voting for Baldwin.

You have the right to your opinion, but I'll take what you say about Barr with a grain of salt because of your bias.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 03:53 PM
Hey, if I'm going third party, it's absolutely Baldwin for me, I don't like Barr and never have. But if someone else here does like him and is planning on voting for Barr, it has the same effect as me voting for Baldwin.

You have the right to your opinion, but I'll take what you say about Barr with a grain of salt because of your bias.

In other words you will presume that I have somehow lied or misled you with what I have written and dismiss all of it because you are too lazy to disprove (or corroborate) any of it?

Pretty sad. If you truly believe I am lying or somehow otherwise distorting his life, then you really should do some research and defend Mr. Barr.


And BTW, I don't think that people voting for Barr will have the SAME effect at all, I think it will have a significantly LESSER effect because of the whole "mixed bag of perceptions" that a Barr/Libertarian candidacy consists of.

Meatwasp
06-01-2008, 04:33 PM
Everyone keeps saying Barr has the right to change. Yes he does but zeez a change of three wives, from democrat to republican and now from republican to libertarian, for the war, now against the war Plus ROOT
I just don't trust Flip Flaps

amy31416
06-01-2008, 04:51 PM
In other words you will presume that I have somehow lied or misled you with what I have written and dismiss all of it because you are too lazy to disprove (or corroborate) any of it?

Pretty sad. If you truly believe I am lying or somehow otherwise distorting his life, then you really should do some research and defend Mr. Barr.


And BTW, I don't think that people voting for Barr will have the SAME effect at all, I think it will have a significantly LESSER effect because of the whole "mixed bag of perceptions" that a Barr/Libertarian candidacy consists of.

Relax, I never said you were lying. And I choose not to do research on Barr one way or the other because I won't be voting for him, and that's because I don't find him to be a particularly savory politician--he's quite opposite of RP as far as character goes.

I'm focusing on attempting to figure out who's on the ballot in my state and if a write-in will be counted here. I don't need to research Barr anymore, done enough to know he won't be getting my vote.

familydog
06-01-2008, 05:16 PM
So, after read all these posts suggesting the OP has bias, is there anything that was stated about either candidate that isn't true?

WRellim
06-01-2008, 05:18 PM
Relax, I never said you were lying. And I choose not to do research on Barr one way or the other because I won't be voting for him, and that's because I don't find him to be a particularly savory politician--he's quite opposite of RP as far as character goes.

I'm focusing on attempting to figure out who's on the ballot in my state and if a write-in will be counted here. I don't need to research Barr anymore, done enough to know he won't be getting my vote.

I'm not taking offense. I'm being quite serious.

If you sincerely believe there is a chance that I am purposefully or grossly distorting some aspect of Mr. Barr's life, then I believe you really SHOULD do more than just "take a grain of salt" but should actively research it and if necessary, refute it.


The problem to me is that THIS type of information -- which truly DOES go to the character of a person -- goes completely unreported by the media. Oh they like salacious "gossip" -- but likewise they do massive CYA for politicians little "peccadilloes" far more frequently.

And, truly, I have REALLY TRIED to frame it all in a fairly straight-forward and objective fashion... I could have included a LOT of nastier stuff {quotes from sitting federal judges regarding his years and "work" as a US Attorney for example}, or used a lot of more colorful words in describing his marital "situations" {using quotes from deposition by his second wife, etc} -- all of which I specifically did NOT want to use because I feel it is unnecessary to go there. Bad enough to my mind that he LEFT his second wife and two children, only to marry a 3rd woman within months... no need for the sordid details.**

** By that, I have no desire to make all "divorced" people into second class citizens. But I do believe that a person who LIGHTLY casts aside their marriage vows (especially when done not merely once, but twice) -- has provided ample testimony to the fact that they do NOT believe taking a "vow" or an "oath" should constrain them in any fashion. (BTW, a TRUE "Defense of Marriage Act" would IMHO, preclude people from divorcing more than once -- or would at least deny them the ability to get a legally recognized marriage after the 2nd divorce... they have shown themselves to be "scofflaws" in regard to marriage.)

amy31416
06-01-2008, 06:12 PM
I'm not taking offense. I'm being quite serious.

If you sincerely believe there is a chance that I am purposefully or grossly distorting some aspect of Mr. Barr's life, then I believe you really SHOULD do more than just "take a grain of salt" but should actively research it and if necessary, refute it.


The problem to me is that THIS type of information -- which truly DOES go to the character of a person -- goes completely unreported by the media. Oh they like salacious "gossip" -- but likewise they do massive CYA for politicians little "peccadilloes" far more frequently.

And, truly, I have REALLY TRIED to frame it all in a fairly straight-forward and objective fashion... I could have included a LOT of nastier stuff {quotes from sitting federal judges regarding his years and "work" as a US Attorney for example}, or used a lot of more colorful words in describing his marital "situations" {using quotes from deposition by his second wife, etc} -- all of which I specifically did NOT want to use because I feel it is unnecessary to go there. Bad enough to my mind that he LEFT his second wife and two children, only to marry a 3rd woman within months... no need for the sordid details.**

** By that, I have no desire to make all "divorced" people into second class citizens. But I do believe that a person who LIGHTLY casts aside their marriage vows (especially when done not merely once, but twice) -- has provided ample testimony to the fact that they do NOT believe taking a "vow" or an "oath" should constrain them in any fashion. (BTW, a TRUE "Defense of Marriage Act" would IMHO, preclude people from divorcing more than once -- or would at least deny them the ability to get a legally recognized marriage after the 2nd divorce... they have shown themselves to be "scofflaws" in regard to marriage.)

Okay man, truce. Like I said, I'm not willing to research Barr because I'd consider it a waste of my time. I'm sure someone from the Barr side will though, let 'em have it.

You just came off as being very biased, and I'll concur that it's possible that you were not and Barr really is as bad as you say. I'm sure there's gotta be something good about him though.

Alex Libman
06-01-2008, 06:56 PM
Barr is more libertarian than theocrat Baldwin, but we do need a third choice... Hope someone like Mary Ruwart will run as independent.... If not, Barr FTW!

MMolloy
06-01-2008, 10:10 PM
Barr is more libertarian than theocrat Baldwin, but we do need a third choice... Hope someone like Mary Ruwart will run as independent.... If not, Barr FTW!

LOL... always one for pointing out facts :rolleyes: and of course you never acuse others of what you are guilty of... NEVER :D


There's no room for ad hominem attacks in the liberty movement.

WRellim
06-01-2008, 10:17 PM
So, after read all these posts suggesting the OP has bias, is there anything that was stated about either candidate that isn't true?

I have not yet had even one person identify a single thing that was not an accurate, factual statement.


All we seem to get against Baldwin is an ad hominem of labeling him a "theocrat" (which is just weird, being as it was Barr that authored DOMA, etc.)

And all we seem to get with Barr is assertions that "he's a libertarian" or "he's MORE Libertarian than Baldwin" etc.


So apparently no one (other than me?) is willing (or even interested?) to do any actual research into their candidates -- instead they all just want to reiterate the talking points they've been furnished.

And yet everyone complains about the MEDIA being nothing but press-release driven... SADLY, I think the same is true of the population.

Maybe the RNC has it correct with their new slogan: "The Change you DESERVE."
(Although to me that sounds more like a threat than a campaign slogan.)



.

MMolloy
06-01-2008, 10:44 PM
I have not yet had even one person identify a single thing that was not an accurate, factual statement.


All we seem to get against Baldwin is an ad hominem of labeling him a "theocrat" (which is just weird, being as it was Barr that authored DOMA, etc.)

And all we seem to get with Barr is assertions that "he's a libertarian" or "he's MORE Libertarian than Baldwin" etc.


So apparently no one (other than me?) is willing (or even interested?) to do any actual research into their candidates -- instead they all just want to reiterate the talking points they've been furnished.

And yet everyone complains about the MEDIA being nothing but press-release driven... SADLY, I think the same is true of the population.

Maybe the RNC has it correct with their new slogan: "The Change you DESERVE."
(Although to me that sounds more like a threat than a campaign slogan.)



.

Anybody that doesn't dig after reading that Barr was with the CIA for 8 years is living in fantasy land... or more likely HAS MADE AN IDOL OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

WRellim
06-02-2008, 01:59 AM
Anybody that doesn't dig after reading that Barr was with the CIA for 8 years is living in fantasy land... or more likely HAS MADE AN IDOL OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

It's not exactly a secret... its in his Congressional Bio:
http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000169

And on the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr

And the same with the (concurrent to CIA employment) dates of his MA and JD degree grants.

I believe a LOT of libertarians simply listened to the media "buzz" about Barr -- said "WOW we got media attention! " and voted according to that (along with being "charmed" by Barr's purported apology rhetoric, "maneuvered" by Verney, and "wined & dined" by Viguerie).

End result: they picked a candidate in the same way that the Dems and GOP normally do... without bothering to think (or research).

In short, they were seduced into abandoning their principles for a (rather pragmatically poor) "electable" candidate (similar to the Dems in 2004 -- Kerry was actually chosen by the media FIRST, then rubber-stamped by the party members). :(


And even more sadly IMHO, many now of the more vocal people in the larger group -- those who "identify" with the Libertarian party but are not nationally "active" members (at least in the sense of attending the LNC) -- have (apparently) decided to simply follow the party's "talking points" (again, much like the establishment of the DNC and RNC). :(



BTW, did you go digging? Did I get anything factually wrong? (I *am* human and capable of error.)



.

Bro.Butch
06-03-2008, 07:58 PM
I wanted to say THX for digging, you added truth to this most important decision.

berrybunches
06-03-2008, 10:48 PM
wow good post.

I encourage everyone to read it all the way through.
My heart has been saying vote Baldwin and you reaffirmed this.

(although I would like to see a big showing for a 3rd party candidate, even if it is Barr - just to make knock some sense in the GOP.)

WRellim
06-05-2008, 03:13 PM
wow good post.

I encourage everyone to read it all the way through.
My heart has been saying vote Baldwin and you reaffirmed this.

(although I would like to see a big showing for a 3rd party candidate, even if it is Barr - just to make knock some sense in the GOP.)

Thing is that I think a vote for Baldwin is an "easy sale" to disgruntled GOP members -- the ones who will otherwise "stay home" out of disgust with McCain -- we can at least "temporarily" bring them aboard the "Constitution Bandwagon" and then they MIGHT learn a few things -- like the importance of the CONSTITUTION -- that they take BACK into the GOP with them (helpful to those of us IN the GOP for the future "rebirth" of a true REPUBLIC-an party.)



You see, despite the naive dreams of "pragmatism" from the Libertarians I don't think THOSE folks (GOPers who HATE McCain) will take more than a glance at Bob Barr (and once GOP'ers see the "L" for Libertarian -- which to these people equals "LIBERTINE/GAY/ABORTION/PRO-DRUGS" -- they will run for the exit).



But Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party will NOT bring up ANY of that negativity... not to disgruntled GOP'ers anyway. (In fact, I think the only people who REALLY take exception to the Baldwin/CP campaign are "democrats" and the (miniscule) faction of "militant atheists" -- who will likely vote LP/Barr anyway, which is fine ...so long as they don't destroy the RP movement in the process.)


.

OceanMachine7
06-05-2008, 03:29 PM
Thing is that I think a vote for Baldwin is an "easy sale" to disgruntled GOP members -- the ones who will otherwise "stay home" out of disgust with McCain -- we can at least "temporarily" bring them aboard the "Constitution Bandwagon" and then they MIGHT learn a few things -- like the importance of the CONSTITUTION -- that they take BACK into the GOP with them (helpful to those of us IN the GOP for the future "rebirth" of a true REPUBLIC-an party.)



You see, despite the naive dreams of "pragmatism" from the Libertarians I don't think THOSE folks (GOPers who HATE McCain) will take more than a glance at Bob Barr (and once GOP'ers see the "L" for Libertarian -- which to these people equals "LIBERTINE/GAY/ABORTION/PRO-DRUGS" -- they will run for the exit).



But Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party will NOT bring up ANY of that negativity... not to disgruntled GOP'ers anyway. (In fact, I think the only people who REALLY take exception to the Baldwin/CP campaign are "democrats" and the (miniscule) faction of "militant atheists" -- who will likely vote LP/Barr anyway, which is fine ...so long as they don't destroy the RP movement in the process.)


.

How do you explain him polling in the 6% range then? That support has to be coming from some segment of the voting population that hasn't considered the LP in the past.

WRellim
06-05-2008, 04:18 PM
How do you explain him polling in the 6% range then? That support has to be coming from some segment of the voting population that hasn't considered the LP in the past.

I explain it that polling this early is utterly meaningless. (And BTW, "early" polls tend to use a VERY small number of respondents simply as a cost factor).

If early polls were correct, we would be looking at Giuliani (or Romney) VS Clinton... where are they now? :rolleyes:

Besides, unless I see HOW the questions were phrased (and who paid for the poll), I have no idea what KIND of poll it was or if it has any accuracy to it at all (you can "poll" and get whatever answer you want if you phrase the questions in certain ways). Potentially the 6% is the equivalent of "NOTA."


Once people find out who Barr is, and/or realize he is running as Libertine... that 6% will disappear in a "poof" of smoke.

OceanMachine7
06-05-2008, 04:25 PM
Once people find out who Barr is, and/or realize he is running as Libertine... that 6% will disappear in a "poof" of smoke.

That doesn't make any sense. For that to happen, they'd have to be drawn innately to libertarian politics, and specifically, radical libertarian politics beforehand.

WRellim
06-05-2008, 04:29 PM
That doesn't make any sense. For that to happen, they'd have to be drawn innately to libertarian politics, and specifically, radical libertarian politics beforehand.

Nope. The opposite. The 6% is probably GOP'ers who REMEMBER him as a GOP'er... once they find out he's running under the banner of the "Gays & Pot Party" they will say "No Way!"

tonesforjonesbones
06-05-2008, 04:31 PM
The Constitution Party won't gain much ground...it's pretty polarized in the religious spectrum. I don't understand why someone would vote a party represented in only 25 states? How can that be effecting anything? I like Chuck Baldwin..but I dont' see any reverend getting elected in the USA. IT's a shame...but it is true in 2008.

OceanMachine7
06-05-2008, 04:33 PM
Nope. The opposite. The 6% is probably GOP'ers who REMEMBER him as a GOP'er... once they find out he's running under the banner of the "Gays & Pot Party" they will say "No Way!"

Just as likely is that they'll remember him as a GOP'er back when the GOP believed in small government.

Name recognition means something. Bob Barr has it, and Chuck Baldwin doesn't. But, if you don't care about growing the movement, maybe that doesn't matter to you.

Is Bob Barr a "perfect Liberarian"? No, and I don't care. Because I want smaller government, and nominating people that have a smaller chance of bringing people into the cause won't make that a reality.

To do otherwise is simply to be afraid of success.

crazyfingers
06-05-2008, 04:59 PM
http://www.libertymaven.com/category/bob-barr/

Colbert: Libertarians usually vote for the Republican Party. Why don't they vote for the Libertarian Party?

Barr: Well we haven't had a good candidate. This year is different.

Apparently Barr doesn't consider Paul a "good candidate", probably because of his kooky ideas like ending the drug war and pursuing a foreign policy of nonintervention.

familydog
06-05-2008, 05:22 PM
http://www.libertymaven.com/category/bob-barr/

Colbert: Libertarians usually vote for the Republican Party. Why don't they vote for the Libertarian Party?

Barr: Well we haven't had a good candidate. This year is different.

Apparently Barr doesn't consider Paul a "good candidate", probably because of his kooky ideas like ending the drug war and pursuing a foreign policy of nonintervention.

That pretty much sums it up.

WRellim
06-05-2008, 08:30 PM
Just as likely is that they'll remember him as a GOP'er back when the GOP believed in small government.

Most people will be "Barr who? ...what are they barring people about?"



Name recognition means something. Bob Barr has it, and Chuck Baldwin doesn't.

But, if you don't care about growing the movement, maybe that doesn't matter to you.


Name recognition is a part of the equation... but certainly not all of it (as Rudy learned) -- and Barr does NOT have name recognition outside of the Beltway.

Having a candidate with solid platform, and who is known for having a good, consistent CHARACTER (instead of 100's of skeletons and policy flip-flops in the closet) is also important, as it is part of being someone who can be trusted to actually MEAN what they say.

But hey, if you don't care about the movement getting co-opted, divided and decimated by some slick "flip-flopper" politician and his party-hijacking money backers... well, maybe that doesn't matter to you.

And, BTW, the "movement" was never a Libertarian Party movement to begin with -- it was (and IS) a GOP movement. The LP is just trying to hijack it (mainly because Viguerie sees $$$) and the LP people because it's bigger than anything the LP has EVER been able to accomplish in its entire tortured history.



Is Bob Barr a "perfect Liberarian"? No, and I don't care. Because I want smaller government, and nominating people that have a smaller chance of bringing people into the cause won't make that a reality.

To do otherwise is simply to be afraid of success.

I wasn't even aware that Barr was from Liberia.

Oh, you meant Libertarian -- yeah he's definitely not a "perfect" libertarian... from what I can tell he's really not a libertarian at all.

BTW, nominating and campaign for Barr won't actually accomplish anything at all.

And with the Libertarian party, there has never been and will never BE any "success" to be afraid of... I mean seriously, if you're going to use the old "my party right or horribly wrong" as your MAIN argument you may as well be a McCain staffer. :rolleyes:


As I have already said (and I know this from experience speaking with a LOT of the GOP'ers) -- they ALWAYS HAVE and ALWAYS WILL see the Libertarian Party as nothing but a wacko bunch of "Gay-pushing, abortion-Loving, Pot-Smoking Anarchists" (it was their PRIMARY reason to reject Ron Paul) -- and Bob Barr won't change that (GOP'ers will just {rightly} figure that he's desperate enough to try anything).


But with Chuck Baldwin, we can at least get them to start looking at the Constitution and along with that, a host of additional RP issues in a "package" that will be very attractive to them.


But of course, since you are NOT in the GOP {and were likely never interested in helping that anyway -- you just wanted RP to run Libertarian again, despite his statements that THAT wasn't going to happen} -- it really doesn't matter what you think -- none of the GOP'ers will be anywhere near you to listen anyway.

OceanMachine7
06-05-2008, 09:23 PM
Most people will be "Barr who? ...what are they barring people about?"





Name recognition is a part of the equation... but certainly not all of it (as Rudy learned) -- and Barr does NOT have name recognition outside of the Beltway.

Having a candidate with solid platform, and who is known for having a good, consistent CHARACTER (instead of 100's of skeletons and policy flip-flops in the closet) is also important, as it is part of being someone who can be trusted to actually MEAN what they say.

But hey, if you don't care about the movement getting co-opted, divided and decimated by some slick "flip-flopper" politician and his party-hijacking money backers... well, maybe that doesn't matter to you.

And, BTW, the "movement" was never a Libertarian Party movement to begin with -- it was (and IS) a GOP movement. The LP is just trying to hijack it (mainly because Viguerie sees $$$) and the LP people because it's bigger than anything the LP has EVER been able to accomplish in its entire tortured history.




I wasn't even aware that Barr was from Liberia.

Oh, you meant Libertarian -- yeah he's definitely not a "perfect" libertarian... from what I can tell he's really not a libertarian at all.

BTW, nominating and campaign for Barr won't actually accomplish anything at all.

And with the Libertarian party, there has never been and will never BE any "success" to be afraid of... I mean seriously, if you're going to use the old "my party right or horribly wrong" as your MAIN argument you may as well be a McCain staffer. :rolleyes:


As I have already said (and I know this from experience speaking with a LOT of the GOP'ers) -- they ALWAYS HAVE and ALWAYS WILL see the Libertarian Party as nothing but a wacko bunch of "Gay-pushing, abortion-Loving, Pot-Smoking Anarchists" (it was their PRIMARY reason to reject Ron Paul) -- and Bob Barr won't change that (GOP'ers will just {rightly} figure that he's desperate enough to try anything).


But with Chuck Baldwin, we can at least get them to start looking at the Constitution and along with that, a host of additional RP issues in a "package" that will be very attractive to them.


But of course, since you are NOT in the GOP {and were likely never interested in helping that anyway -- you just wanted RP to run Libertarian again, despite his statements that THAT wasn't going to happen} -- it really doesn't matter what you think -- none of the GOP'ers will be anywhere near you to listen anyway.

That's it. I have no time to argue with people that don't want to listen to reason. I'm done. Have fun getting ANYONE to pay attention to Chuck Baldwin.

familydog
06-05-2008, 09:25 PM
That's it. I have no time to argue with people that don't want to listen to reason. I'm done. Have fun getting ANYONE to pay attention to Chuck Baldwin.

Yet you take time to post and complain :p:D;)

OceanMachine7
06-05-2008, 09:26 PM
Yet you take time to post and complain :p:D;)

Damn right I'm going to complain about people that purport to believe in the small-government message but don't really want to see it actually get out beyond it's current 0.5% market share.

You need media to do that.

TurtleBurger
06-05-2008, 09:35 PM
I've been hot and cold on Barr, but I have to give him this: he looks like he knows what he's doing. He's already found an experienced campaign manager, a good team, and he's playing up to the media. I think he's learned from the tactical mistakes of the Ron Paul campaign, and he should be a force in November.

WRellim
06-05-2008, 09:55 PM
That's it. I have no time to argue with people that don't want to listen to reason. I'm done. Have fun getting ANYONE to pay attention to Chuck Baldwin.

What "reason" -- do you mean your "pragmatism" of the lesser of three evils?

Do you mean "trusting" some new "convert" and ignoring his ENTIRE voting history, and his entire CHARACTER?

Is THAT what qualifies as "reason" these days?


No! 100 times NO! You should vote for the person you can TRUST (based on evidence... not your "gut feel") and a person whose BELIEFS (based on past actions and character... not your party's "choice") agree with your own.


GET SOME COMMON SENSE!

OceanMachine7
06-05-2008, 10:08 PM
What "reason" -- do you mean your "pragmatism" of the lesser of three evils?

Do you mean "trusting" some new "convert" and ignoring his ENTIRE voting history, and his entire CHARACTER?

Is THAT what qualifies as "reason" these days?


No! 100 times NO! You should vote for the person you can TRUST (based on evidence... not your "gut feel") and a person whose BELIEFS (based on past actions and character... not your party's "choice") agree with your own.


GET SOME COMMON SENSE!

We have three candidates getting any degree of media exposure. Two advocate larger government. One advocates smaller government. That's my only criterion. I'm not going to nitpick issues or voting history. We cannot afford do that. The focus needs to be on the big picture. That is getting the public used to the idea that there is a small government alternative. We can argue about which candidates are more small government than the other LATER. We don't have that luxury at this point in time. Right now, the only goal in mind should be getting across to the maximum number of people in the general public that there is a small government alternative, and one that can gain the attention of the media. Because that is all that 99% of the voter base cares about. That is reality. Most people pick candidates based on who's closest to their beliefs and has a chance. Bob Barr has an opportunity to fill a gap there, but Baldwin, as sincere as he may be (and I'm not doubting that or criticizing his beliefs. All else equal, I'd probably prefer his beliefs over Barr's), simply will not be able to reach people on a mass scale. Barr has a good combination of general ideals, campaign strategy, and media exposure to reach a large number of people. He may not be perfect on any one. But you cannot succeed in politics without some of all three.

The LP and the CP have been electing candidates based solely on ideology for as long as they've been around. And they've never made any impact on the 20% of the libertarian population that currently is sympathetic to the Republican Party. As the quote goes, "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and magically expecting the results to change".

And another point, how can a movement succeed if people who "convert" in good faith are ostracized in this matter?

God, and I said I was done arguing this with y'all..

WRellim
06-06-2008, 03:50 AM
We have three candidates getting any degree of media exposure. Two advocate larger government. One advocates smaller government. That's my only criterion. I'm not going to nitpick issues or voting history. We cannot afford do that. The focus needs to be on the big picture. That is getting the public used to the idea that there is a small government alternative. We can argue about which candidates are more small government than the other LATER. We don't have that luxury at this point in time. Right now, the only goal in mind should be getting across to the maximum number of people in the general public that there is a small government alternative, and one that can gain the attention of the media. Because that is all that 99% of the voter base cares about. That is reality. Most people pick candidates based on who's closest to their beliefs and has a chance. Bob Barr has an opportunity to fill a gap there, but Baldwin, as sincere as he may be (and I'm not doubting that or criticizing his beliefs. All else equal, I'd probably prefer his beliefs over Barr's), simply will not be able to reach people on a mass scale. Barr has a good combination of general ideals, campaign strategy, and media exposure to reach a large number of people. He may not be perfect on any one. But you cannot succeed in politics without some of all three.

The LP and the CP have been electing candidates based solely on ideology for as long as they've been around. And they've never made any impact on the 20% of the libertarian population that currently is sympathetic to the Republican Party. As the quote goes, "The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and magically expecting the results to change".

And another point, how can a movement succeed if people who "convert" in good faith are ostracized in this matter?

God, and I said I was done arguing this with y'all..

See, you are so certain that Barr has converted in "good faith" -- whereas I am equally certain that based on his character, he has not converted at all, and is simply using (yet another) false "face" in order to further his own ambitions.

And as far as "ostracizing" -- no one is talking about ostracizing anyone. I have not said that Barr should NOT have been welcomed into the LP -- just that y'all should have been so stupidly anxious to hand over the keys to the castle to the newest "convert" as soon as he asked for them. Some type of purgatorial penitence should have been served first to provide some actual evidence of his "good faith" and his ability to endure in his newly converted state for more than a season. But nope... y'all snapped at the bait as soon as it was offered to you, and swallowed the it hook (Barr), Line (Viguerie) and Sinker (Verney).

Best of luck with that... even WITH the "sideshow" media attention. (And that is ALL it will ever be, a "sideshow" for entertainment when there are slow news days. Colbert just proved it with the "freakshow" he used Barr as, played Barr like a fiddle and made him look like a fool.)

BTW, one can hardly compare the nearly 40 year history of non-accomplishment of the LP with the relatively short (< 20 year) history of the CP (which is only over 8 years if you include its previous named incarnation).

And the LP has NOT always chosen "pure" candidates -- in fact the current "pragmatism" was tried several times before in different forms -- once with another former Republican Congressman, Ron Paul in 1988 (and do I remember the hoot and holler about THAT how he was NOT a real Libertarian, but one of those disgusting Republicans, etc). -- another non-pure ticket was MacBride back in 1976 (he was a Republican) but achieved "hero" status (and the nomination) because he was the Faithless elector in 1972. -- and probably the most successfull run the LP ever had (or will have) the Clarke/Koch ticket in 1980 (where there was a hullaballoo because Koch "bought" his way onto the ticket quite literally; and the "impure/liberal" politics of Clarke caused the split-off of the Rothbard faction).

So jeepers, learn your ACTUAL party history before you go swallowing all the "myths" about why it fails so consistently.

Personally, I think the L party FAILS because it keeps trying to "grab the throne" instead of building the party with a wider base and from the bottom up. It seems that when LP'ers DO succeed in getting elected, they cannot seem to stomach it {compromises & all} and so they either lose or drop out, and then they do NOT try for higher office (in some ways I respect that as they are NOT being career pols... but it is NOT a recipe for success).

Long term, the CP has a much better plan, and each year is running MORE candidate for MORE offices, and is succeeding in building a base of candidates in a much wider number of local offices, and with more campaigning experience... in time they will gain more successes and then will begin to climb the ladder.)

Oh, and as far as Constitution Party history of "purity" goes -- the first three cycles really don't count as it was always the EXACT same guy, the US Taxpayer Party founder, Howard Phillips (so of course he was "pure"). Only with the last election cycle (2004 and of course now in 2008) did they even have a DIFFERENT man as the top candidate; so really the "party" is only in it's second (or third if you count 2000) unique national ticket; and I think this year they are likely to more than double (possibly treble) the number of votes they receive. Baldwin won't get much NATIONAL media (MSM) but that does NOT mean he won't be on local media (especially christian radio stations and shows, which cover a significant amount of the country, and a significant AND UNIQUE market segment) -- so the word will spread via venues that neither Barr nor any other candidate can tap. (And if you think that is a joke... then you are clueless about how Huckabee worked the local Christian media with HIS campaign... Baldwin can do likewise).