blog on ron paul supporters and bob barr

[BarryDonegan]

check it out guys, i wrote it for the highly alexa rated ezine Thegauntlet.com

read it and let me know what you think

http://www.thegauntlet.com/dangeroustruths/article.php?id=19

[Andrew-Austin]

My advice to those on the fence about this issue regarding Bob Barr, especially Ron Paul supporters who don’t know what to do is this: Bob Barr is not a secret plant put into the Libertarian Party by the CIA to spoil and ruin the Ron Paul movement. Bob Barr is a skilled politician who can get on a lot of news programs that other people cannot who recognizes that the Republican party has lost its way and lost its mind. He used to support some big government practices like prohibition of drugs and giving temporary war powers to the President, but now he does not. He has spent the recent years in Washington D.C. lobbying against the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs. He changed teams. On a team with the limited power of the Libertarian Party, you do not want to discourage others from having a change of heart. If other Washington politicians want to look in the mirror, freak out at what they’ve become, and join the liberty movement. So be it. Use their power to get your freedom, and they’ll use your principles to restore their souls.

I'd have to agree with that, well put.

[votefreedomfirst]

If Bob Barr wants the votes and money of Ron Paul supporters, maybe his PAC should stop the continued funding (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021631.html) of neocons like Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jeff Sessions.

Edit: It also would help if he ditched his VP, who has called Ron Paul "naive and weak" and said that he "sounds like the blame America first crowd." Oh he also gave $1000 to Joe Lieberman and called McCain/Lieberman 2008 a "dream ticket".

[BarryDonegan]

Edit: It also would help if he ditched his VP, who has called Ron Paul "naive and weak" and said that he "sounds like the blame America first crowd."

Bob Barr did not select his VP and is not allowed to.

the other issues are also good issues to bring to his attention, so that he can address them. However, as far as political candidates who are skilled and viable as far as bringing the overall message to the regular people on FOXNEWS CNN, etc, Bob Barr can get on these programs and talk the talk. He will not be president of the United States, but fully supporting the Libertarian candidate this year with its real ballot access and polished TV presentation could result in record general election percentages, opening the doors for the party 4-8 years from now.

obviously you cannot vote for John McCain or Obama, as they are 100s of times more corrupt than any of these issues you are talking about. writing in Ron Paul is not a vote, nor would it send a message as most voting systems do not even have a method for counting those types of votes. So clearly if you are going to vote for a set of ideals to send a future message to other politicians that you better start taking our issues seriously, the closest thing to a countable vote that could show a percentage of who exactly is sick of the same is a vote for Bob Barr. That could change who is elected in every level; many congressmen might vote differently if they felt they could get away with it. These votes can cause that change.

[votefreedomfirst]

Bob Barr did not select his VP and is not allowed to.

Bob Barr endorses Wayne Allyn Root (over Steve Kubby):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr7VJT4_xdc

You're right in that he won't be replaced, but I think people should know whom they are voting for for VP (a hyper-interventionist who has mocked Paul and said that "the war on terror has just begun").

[votefreedomfirst]

obviously you cannot vote for John McCain or Obama, as they are 100s of times more corrupt than any of these issues you are talking about. writing in Ron Paul is not a vote, nor would it send a message as most voting systems do not even have a method for counting those types of votes. So clearly if you are going to vote for a set of ideals to send a future message to other politicians that you better start taking our issues seriously, the closest thing to a countable vote that could show a percentage of who exactly is sick of the same is a vote for Bob Barr. That could change who is elected in every level; many congressmen might vote differently if they felt they could get away with it. These votes can cause that change.

So even though he operates a PAC that currently funds some of the worst necons in D.C., we're supposed to support him just because he has a "L" next to his name?

He also supports "increased political and economic pressure on Iran"...like that's going to help defuse the situation. :confused:

Yes, it's true that we need to take an incremental approach to changing the system. I'm far from convinced that Barr would be moving us "incrementally" in the correct direction. Are we supposed to be thrilled that Barr will only impose sanctions on Iran, not outright attack them?

[BarryDonegan]

I will say outright that I do not like the rhetoric of Wayne Allen Root. He is confused sounding and emotionally explosive. However, most of his TV time will be him being attacked for his position on the War on Drugs, and, lets be honest, a guy like him appeals to the beer drinking mindless american crowd on a certain level, and having him arguing against prohibition of drugs is a serious thing. same with Bob Barr.

I honestly would have rather had mary ruwart or someone to that effect be president, but it wasn't politically possible right now to have a person like that even win the party nod. The Libertarian party right now has a lot more power than before, and they want to put forward candidates that are moderate by their standards and electable. a part of the electability, unfortunately, of the candidates they have, are the fact that they changed positions. So did the American people, and the American people are changing positions.

Some of these politicians hold views that they hold because they don't know any better. You educate them and they change. I don't feel that Bob Barr would have supported ending the war on drugs without ron paul. I think he began to listen to him more and more as time went on, along with the libertarians in his district that worked to defeat him. hes new to the idea and probably thinks some things are too radical that he may eventually begin to believe.

same with mike gravel, he was a standard democrat on health care earlier this year because he bought the line that the "corporations will ruin it" if we deregulate. But a few hours of ron paul youtube vids under his belt and he flip flopped. While I'd rather vote for politicians who are know this from birth like ron paul, there are not enough of them. Mike Gravel is at least not a liar and he will flip flop towards the right thing if he hears a good argument for it.

I feel Bob Barr is an imperfect candidate in this way, he is learning as he goes along, and is a little late to the party. But he is definately a huge veteran pick up to the movement. He's a high profile candidate who dropped his party, not for political expediency, but because of an ethical change of heart. we can work on changing his heart more as time progresses.

[nate895]

Bob Barr endorses Wayne Allyn Root (over Steve Kubby):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr7VJT4_xdc

You're right in that he won't be replaced, but I think people should know whom they are voting for for VP (a hyper-interventionist who has mocked Paul and said that "the war on terror has just begun").

I'm sorry to inform you, but a Barr/Kubby ticket would have made as much splash as the Baldwin/Cassell one is making for the CP. Kubby can't get much credit from the American people when one of his qualifications for running is how much of a poster child he is for the medical marijuana movement. You can be a proponent of medical marijuana and be taken seriously, you just can't be a user.

I personally liked Root's performance in the debate, and he hit all the points of a Libertarian in the debate. He is also charismatic, which helps considering the fact that no other Libertarian in that debate had much charisma at all.

[BarryDonegan]

So even though he operates a PAC that currently funds some of the worst necons in D.C., we're supposed to support him just because he has a "L" next to his name?


we'd have to ask about the PAC, specifically. There could be tactical political reasons for doing that sort of thing that is his reasoning for doing it. That may not appeal to us, but he is a successful elected official and he is probably going to do successful elected official stuff. I'm not claiming that Bob Barr is a citizen politician going to reform washington as an outsider. he is a washington insider, and he will probably continue to do washington insider stuff. We should ask him why he is doing these things, and make it clear that it makes us uncomfortable. However, compared to other elected officials who successfully get into office, these are pretty minor offenses. Some people pander for certain endorsements of people that they absolutely despise because they know a certain area will turn in their favor if they do. I think this is a pretty despicable concept, but not everyone can be ron paul.

as far as the rhetoric on iran, i haven't heard him saying we should apply economic pressure on them, or what circumstances he was talking about.

[powerofreason]

If Bob Barr wants the votes and money of Ron Paul supporters, maybe his PAC should stop the continued funding (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021631.html) of neocons like Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jeff Sessions.

Edit: It also would help if he ditched his VP, who has called Ron Paul "naive and weak" and said that he "sounds like the blame America first crowd." Oh he also gave $1000 to Joe Lieberman and called McCain/Lieberman 2008 a "dream ticket".

I'm not an expert on the guy but I believe he used to be a neo-con but converted a while back. He sounded very libertarian during the debate on c-span. He has a blog as well, rootforamerica.com/blog.

[powerofreason]

I'm sorry to inform you, but a Barr/Kubby ticket would have made as much splash as the Baldwin/Cassell one is making for the CP. Kubby can't get much credit from the American people when one of his qualifications for running is how much of a poster child he is for the medical marijuana movement. You can be a proponent of medical marijuana and be taken seriously, you just can't be a user.

I personally liked Root's performance in the debate, and he hit all the points of a Libertarian in the debate. He is also charismatic, which helps considering the fact that no other Libertarian in that debate had much charisma at all.

Yep, Root's definitely charismatic. See his speech at the LP convention? Talk about energetic lol.

[votefreedomfirst]

I'm sorry to inform you, but a Barr/Kubby ticket would have made as much splash as the Baldwin/Cassell one is making for the CP. Kubby can't get much credit from the American people when one of his qualifications for running is how much of a poster child he is for the medical marijuana movement. You can be a proponent of medical marijuana and be taken seriously, you just can't be a user.

I personally liked Root's performance in the debate, and he hit all the points of a Libertarian in the debate. He is also charismatic, which helps considering the fact that no other Libertarian in that debate had much charisma at all.

Just because you have some inexplicable bias against somebody for taking life saving medication (and standing up for other's right to do the same), doesn't mean most people do. In fact I would think most libertarians would much prefer Kubby (a man of solid libertarian credentials who understands and can articulate the principles of the Party) over a neocon imposter like Root.

[BarryDonegan]

I'm sorry to inform you, but a Barr/Kubby ticket would have made as much splash as the Baldwin/Cassell one is making for the CP. Kubby can't get much credit from the American people when one of his qualifications for running is how much of a poster child he is for the medical marijuana movement. You can be a proponent of medical marijuana and be taken seriously, you just can't be a user.

I personally liked Root's performance in the debate, and he hit all the points of a Libertarian in the debate. He is also charismatic, which helps considering the fact that no other Libertarian in that debate had much charisma at all.

this is the whole point. the libertarian party has been held back for too long by its image of being a party of pot head maniacs who want to kill your children with by doing drugs, playing dizzy bat, then firing off firearms. I don't believe that the libertarian party should be viewed that way at all. I voted for Badnarik, and was turned onto it by harry browne. but it does not change the fact that the average person thinks that way, and Barr/Root will destroy that image. They are right on prohibition, they are right on foreign policy(if you consider Bob Barr as the leader on that one), and they are right on the size of government. The speed at which you tear that apart, and the extremity of the language used to motivate that is very moderate, but the bottom line is a vote for the LP this year is a vote for the sanity of ending prohibition and ending our cowboy foreign policy. Bob Barr and WAR will not become president, so their boutique concerns on little issues is of no real relevance.

[BarryDonegan]

in the short attention span blurb collective memory of the american people, the 2008 barr/root campaign can be looked at in 2012 as...

"remember how last year after ron paul ran for president all these republicans started leaving the party. even that christian conservative guy bob barr left and went libertarian and now thinks it would be better for crime prevention if we legalized drugs. hes a big congressman, maybe the libertarian party is getting big! we're sick of the two party system anyway."

This is the level of sophistication of that kind of person... and that is why it benefits to throw a vote for bob barr. an 11% showing by Barr in the General Election makes the Libertarians running for local, congressional, and senatorial seats far more valid. News coverage would be more realistic at that point.

its really a win-win when you consider your only two options are chuck baldwin, whose preacher-like rhetoric is just not something the average person can deal with, no matter how hands off they plan to be. (even my christian conservative family members didn't like huckabee because his rhetoric was "too preachery".) Baldwin will also not be on the ballot in many states, possibly including yours. and bob barr, who will be on the ballot everywhere more or less, and will be on the news and tv. when you tell your friends to vote for him, you can show them that he is in fact definately running for president. this may not be the case with a constitution party candidate.

[votefreedomfirst]

Bob Barr and WAR will not become president, so their boutique concerns on little issues is of no real relevance.

"Little issues"? Bob Barr continues to fund slimeball politicians who strongly support policies that run directly counter to those expoused by Ron Paul, and that's a "little issue." If you want to sacrafice your principles that much, so be it. But people have the right to know what they are getting into.

[votefreedomfirst]

Baldwin will also not be on the ballot in many states, possibly including yours. and bob barr, who will be on the ballot everywhere more or less, and will be on the news and tv. when you tell your friends to vote for him, you can show them that he is in fact definately running for president. this may not be the case with a constitution party candidate.

Do you not consider 40+ states to be "many states", because that is what the CP is predicting as far as getting Baldwin ballot access (with him registering as a write-in elsewhere).

[nathanmn]

I didn't know about that PAC and it's donations until today. It is very disturbing to see that he made contributions to horrible neo-cons after he joined the Libertarian Party! I thought it was hyperbole calling him a neo-con... but what type of person funds Lindsey Graham and Norm Coleman? Lindsey Graham= John McCain.

BTW, Root also personally donated to Lieberman's run. A liberal warmonger...

Not looking too good. I donated to Barr and am starting to wonder if I made the right decision. I wish I had given it to Lawson instead...

[BarryDonegan]

"Little issues"? Bob Barr continues to fund slimeball politicians who strongly support policies that run directly counter to those expoused by Ron Paul, and that's a "little issue." If you want to sacrafice your principles that much, so be it. But people have the right to know what they are getting into.


you don't feel that is a little issue, but I do. I think that sometimes people might support candidates for other reasons than the ones that an average citizen does. possibly bob barr might be giving contributions to people that he knows personally, as a friend. these are different circumstances. when the people have legitimate power and you want to influence them, you have to do what you have to do. i wouldn't want to do that or my perfect candidate, ron paul, wouldn't do things like that, but if you wouldn't vote for a candidate over that, you will not be voting for anyone who has held office, other than ron paul. thats fine if you are morally opposed for voting for someone who has ever given money to a political candidate which has views differing from you or their own viewpoints, however sometimes people might do that out of friendship or for tactical reasons. if prohibition were to end and our foreign policy be reigned in because someone donated to someone I don't likes political campaign an insignificant amount of money that wouldn't be responsible even for them being elected, then I think i could deal with that.

if you can't, so be it. However, I do not buy that he is motivated to give the money to these candidates out of a secret "neocon" motivation. If he was such a neocon, he would have not left the republican party, and continued to do republican stuff. you could make the same claims about ron paul, by being in the republican party, that he is party to the idealogical views of the rest of his party. That by supporting the party and promoting the party rather than leaving for a more principled 3rd party, that he is a sell out and a private neocon. that he would become president and turn and cackle and nuke china. however, we all know that he stayed in the party because he feels it makes him more electable, and that he can talk the republicans into thinking that he is actually more republican than they are.

that is why i feel it is little. I feel that it is more likely about friendships and favors which are used to help gain political ifluence than is it about a secret plot to undermine a third party and "turn it neocon"

[BarryDonegan]

The CP is on the ballot in 22 or so states and working on a few more, likely to get at least 5-10 more. but more than that is very questionable. they are claiming that they can, however even the ballot access petitions that they have the minimum numbers for can be rejected.

they have not in the past had the machinery for a full slate of ballot access.

the LP is closing in on 50 states.

but as far as a presidential candidate, explaining to your friends that a preacher who supported ron paul for president, who is a Constitution Party candidate for president should be their vote, someone who will garner limited mainstream media attention, is a tough sell to the average person.

not to mention the constitution party supports a lot of intervention and force in local and state government, which is unsettling to anyone with libertarian beliefs. Record numbers for the constitution party might empower local candidates who want to criminalize immorality.

[votefreedomfirst]

that is why i feel it is little. I feel that it is more likely about friendships and favors which are used to help gain political ifluence than is it about a secret plot to undermine a third party and "turn it neocon"

His motives don't matter. It's the result of his actions that concern me, and that result is fattening the campaign war-chest of the neocon scum who have set America off on a path of destruction. If these people are his "friends", that reflects poorly on him, but is excuseable. When he financially supports them (and by extension their policies) all the libertarian-sounding rhetoric in the world won't undo the damage it causes.

[votefreedomfirst]

The CP is on the ballot in 22 or so states and working on a few more, likely to get at least 5-10 more. but more than that is very questionable. they are claiming that they can, however even the ballot access petitions that they have the minimum numbers for can be rejected.

they have not in the past had the machinery for a full slate of ballot access.

the LP is closing in on 50 states.

but as far as a presidential candidate, explaining to your friends that a preacher who supported ron paul for president, who is a Constitution Party candidate for president should be their vote, someone who will garner limited mainstream media attention, is a tough sell to the average person.

not to mention the constitution party supports a lot of intervention and force in local and state government, which is unsettling to anyone with libertarian beliefs. Record numbers for the constitution party might empower local candidates who want to criminalize immorality.

The CP was on in 36 states in 2004. They have already attained ballot access in 4 additional states. The LP wants to get on in 49 states -- due to stringent laws, Oklahoma is impossible for any third party/independent.

I don't see the difference between Barr and Baldwin as far as local laws dealing with social issues. They are both strong culteral conservatives. You are right though that the Libertarian Party is supposed to support individual liberty at the local level.

[BarryDonegan]

the difference is that when the PARTY gains notoreity for the percentage points gained in the election, the party is who is empowered. Barr does not discuss or stump on social issues on the local level. The Constitution Party specifically endorses those types of views.

Barr will not define the Libertarian party as the party of social manipulation at the state and local level, to the contrary the discussion will not come up, and when people research the party more after seeing him on CNN or FOXNEWS, they will learn about non-aggression.

whereas when the people do not hear about chuck baldwin on these shows, as he will not appear on them, then they will luckily not find out about the party's view that the the local and state government should use force in regulating its population.

while I'm going to grant to you that there are definately some problems with Bob Barr that make him an imperfect candidate, the same is true of Chuck Baldwin. Both of them, to me, are a good person to give your vote to, considering the choices, but neither are my perfect choice. Between the two, I would like the tactical benefit of a Barr vote because it would empower the party of principle long term, in 2012 and further into the future. POTUS is less a power position and more a set-the-precedent position, so tactically speaking I would rather empower the LP with a candidate who is visible and could start a debate about the proper role of government with the right rhetoric, than have to work day in day out to justify setting the precedent of local theocracy bound together by a loose federal government. I still have to live in a local government, just because the federal government is off my back, doesn't mean the rest of it will be.

[syborius]

we'd have to ask about the PAC, specifically. There could be tactical political reasons for doing that sort of thing that is his reasoning for doing it. That may not appeal to us, but he is a successful elected official and he is probably going to do successful elected official stuff. I'm not claiming that Bob Barr is a citizen politician going to reform washington as an outsider. he is a washington insider, and he will probably continue to do washington insider stuff. We should ask him why he is doing these things, and make it clear that it makes us uncomfortable. However, compared to other elected officials who successfully get into office, these are pretty minor offenses. Some people pander for certain endorsements of people that they absolutely despise because they know a certain area will turn in their favor if they do. I think this is a pretty despicable concept, but not everyone can be ron paul.

as far as the rhetoric on iran, i haven't heard him saying we should apply economic pressure on them, or what circumstances he was talking about.

tactical political horseshit....the reasoning is power.

[votefreedomfirst]

I guess the difference is that I don't think people will research the Libertarian Party beyond Bob Barr. The vast majority will assume that the Party nominated a presidential candidate in line with its principles and platform.

I will stop arguing now though. I'm not even a LP member anymore, so what does it matter? I will continue the fight for freedom through the RLC. If I'm going to be a member of a Party that doesn't represent me, it might as well be one that has a chance of winning elections.

[BarryDonegan]

tactical political horseshit....the reasoning is power.

whether you like that stuff or not, it is the stuff that makes politics happen. its the very reason why we favor limiting the power those people can even use. To be good at it requires a knack for aquiring disproportionate personal authority. the way it is done is through associations. if we expect to overthrow the current system by not participating at all, we better go get some firearms and start making a life-or-death issue over every single infraction. If we don't feel thats the way to go, then we have to manipulate and influence the type of people who are being elected and the electoral system itself. This is what the Rockefeller types have been doing for decades, and its why they are winning and we are losing.

[syborius]

If Bob Barr wants the votes and money of Ron Paul supporters, maybe his PAC should stop the continued funding (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021631.html) of neocons like Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Jeff Sessions.

Edit: It also would help if he ditched his VP, who has called Ron Paul "naive and weak" and said that he "sounds like the blame America first crowd." Oh he also gave $1000 to Joe Lieberman and called McCain/Lieberman 2008 a "dream ticket".

Thank you good Sir for continuing to shine the light into the dark bowels of politics

That scum bucket did next to nothing for Ron Paul other than to introduce him at a few rally's, all purely motivated. He was waiting in the wings for the day Paul drops out for the very purpose of attaching himself to a movement he saw was on the rise. The people here have bought his horse manure at discount. I'm sorry, a zebra does not change his stripes that quickly, and evidence like this just reinforces my belief that this person is nothing more than a hack, no different than Obama, or Mccain for the two major parties. People here are truly naive and blind.

[The_Orlonater]

I kind of dislike this Root guy, but I trust Bob Barr, he has more power then Root though. Eh, lesser of a few evils this time.

[Hook]

I was going to write in Dr. Paul, but I just found out that Utah just passed a law that makes it so write-ins don't count unless the candidate pays a fee.

Funny that they just passed this about 4 months ago. I wonder why?

The Supreme Court has ruled all similar laws passed in other states Unconstitutional, but there isn't enough time this cycle to sue the Utah election board.

So I will probably vote Barr, even though he won't win either.

[syborius]

I kind of dislike this Root guy, but I trust Bob Barr, he has more power then Root though. Eh, lesser of a few evils this time.

Trusting and voting for Barr is the equivalent to trusting and supporting someone like Newt Gingrich if he suddenly decided to put an L next to his name. That's basically the scenario we have here.
Barr getting the nod from the Libertarian party is a catastrophe for all the principles the party stood for, but by all means, continue to support him, if Root doesn't work out maybe he can get Newt to run with him, just think about all the exposure that dynamic duo would get then, because it is ALL about exposure and publicity right, for the good of the party!