PDA

View Full Version : Barr's official stated reason for missing the conference




KewlRonduderules
09-10-2008, 11:20 AM
Libertarian candidate Bob Barr just wrapped a combative press conference down the hall from the Ron Paul presser. It took some time for the latter event to end. Paul and the candidates retreated from their main room to a side room with a mix of reporters and people who just wanted to take pictures with them. Max Anthony, the head of the Cecil Chesterton Society, confronted Paul on why he'd written the introduction to a Chesterton anthology that included anti-Semitic footnotes and jokes about Jews. "The best economists are Jewish!" Paul laughed. "Ricardo was Jewish! Von Mises was Jewish!" Anthony pressed the issue. "I'm not familiar with this," Paul said. "I'm not going to get caught in that trap." Nader got almost as much attention as Paul, and posed together for cameras. "The best event we've ever done," said one of his staffers.

Out in the hall, third party candidates for various and sundry offices handed out literature and buttonholed journalists. The buzz was what the hell Barr was up to. "I heard he's dropping out!" "He wanted Ron to endorse him." "He doesn't want to share a stage with Baldwin." Barr arrived at 11:50, and I saw Iraq War Veteran Against the War and Barr backer Adam Kokesh walking towards his room, looking purposeful and pissed off.

Barr opened with a statement on how he'd gotten to this point, and why he'd not attended the Paul event.

- In December 2007, he authored the LP's statement of intent to nominate Ron Paul for president if he lost the GOP nomination. Paul turned it down.

- Yesterday Barr sent Paul a letter (which I have a copy of, and I'll scan in a bit) asking Paul to run as Barr's vice presidential nominee. Wayne Allyn Root agreed to step aside if Paul wanted the job. Paul turned this down.

- Barr signed onto the statement of principles that Nader, McKinney and Baldwin signed, and stands by it. But he declined the offer to appear this morning.

"This is no reflection, certainly, on the tremendous and positive leadership that Ron Paul has provided to the liberty movement over the years. He recognized, for example, the strength of that movement, which has to come from the outside, back in 1987," when he left the GOP. What Barr is offering voters is...
bold, focused, specific leadership. That is not the amorphous kind that says "any of the above" or "none of the above." That's not leadershp. What is leadership is what I, and our campaign, and the LP are doing. Putting before the American people not a wish list, not a menu of things you can pick and choose, not a group of candidates, but a candidate for president, Bob Barr, who stands for very specific programs and policies and direction for this country.

Some of Paul's supporters, sitting in the back of the room, snickered at this. Barr pushed on. "The primaries are over" and the only measure of libertarian success will be how many votes the LP gets.

The print press asked for more details on Barr's offer to Paul and details on what Barr supported from the message of that earlier event. Kokesh raised his hand and started talking; Barr campaign chairman Russ Verney asked him to identify his media organization. "I'm an independent blogger," Kokesh said. Verney and Kokesh talked over each other for about 30 seconds, Verney trying to move on, Kokesh explaining what had made him so angry. "Leadership is not just about knowing when to lead, but knowing when to follow," Kokesh said. "You failed that test today and I retract my endorsement of you."

There were more harsh questions (is Barr a Republican agent trying to destroy the LP?) but nothing quite that harsh. The conference emptied out and Barr's staff kept on message: All respect to Ron Paul, but "support one of these nice candidates" is not a libertarian campaign. "Dr. Paul is allowing the Ron Paul Revolution to wither," said Barr aide Shane Cory.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128719.html

It is clear IMHO that there appears to be an attempt to dismantle the revolution as this article alludes to. Not going to happen any time soon.

ARealConservative
09-10-2008, 11:25 AM
this movement died today as far as I'm concerned.

People just can't see the forest through the trees and it is a waste of my time and energy to hope this will ever change.

Truth Warrior - sign me up. I'm finished with politics for good.

acptulsa
09-10-2008, 11:27 AM
So, he was basically refusing to share the stage with non-libertarian conservative candidates. Idealism is his excuse, I guess. It isn't about learning how to vote for someone other than the Demopublican bull, but learning how to vote LP period. Sweet.

I'm with Dr. Paul on this one. Bad move, Barr. We need everyone, not just us, to reject the status quo.

Menthol Patch
09-10-2008, 11:31 AM
No, any doubt that Bob Barr was a neocon died today.

angelatc
09-10-2008, 11:31 AM
Herding cats.

orafi
09-10-2008, 11:35 AM
so then are you done with your country's last hope- us?

Kotin
09-10-2008, 11:35 AM
this movement died today as far as I'm concerned.

People just can't see the forest through the trees and it is a waste of my time and energy to hope this will ever change.

Truth Warrior - sign me up. I'm finished with politics for good.

oh that is complete and utter bullshit you troll.

georgiaboy
09-10-2008, 11:37 AM
Bob Barr played politics today and it backfired, as it should.

I'm still voting for him, warts and all.

SLSteven
09-10-2008, 11:39 AM
this movement died today as far as I'm concerned.

People just can't see the forest through the trees and it is a waste of my time and energy to hope this will ever change.

Truth Warrior - sign me up. I'm finished with politics for good.


This movement just got more focused

TruthisTreason
09-10-2008, 11:40 AM
I think Barr missed the point. The point Ron was making is, here are the other candidates, any and all are better options on these 4 points he outlined, than Obama and McCain. :cool: Barr could have picked up my vote today, I'm on the fence on who I'm voting for. By not showing, he lost that chance.

Bradley in DC
09-10-2008, 11:40 AM
Yesterday Barr sent Paul a letter (which I have a copy of, and I'll scan in a bit) asking Paul to run as Barr's vice presidential nominee. Wayne Allyn Root agreed to step aside if Paul wanted the job. Paul turned this down.

:(


Barr signed onto the statement of principles that Nader, McKinney and Baldwin signed, and stands by it.

:)


But he declined the offer to appear this morning.

:confused:

svf
09-10-2008, 11:40 AM
I know BobBarr's pissed most of you off for good at this point, but I have to grudgingly agree with his refusal to participate in a Ron Paul "any of the above" quasi-endorsement of theocrat Baldwin, socialist Nader, and even mega-Marxist Cynthia McKinney for f***'s sake.

If Ron Paul REALLY wanted to shake up the system and fight the good fight against the status quo NOW (not 10-20 years later), he could have accepted the LP nomination that was offered to him on a silver platter. No, he wouldn't win but he could have achieved 49-50 state ballot access and spread the liberty message far more effectively than anyone else this election cycle (especially with a credible VP pick such as Gary Johnson, Ventura, or... perhaps even Bob Barr.) No doubt it would have been the best 3rd party vote total since Ross Perot and established a solid foundation for a political force to be reckoned with in the years ahead.

Instead, it appears he prefers to "play nice enough" with the GOP to preserve his Congressional standing while continuing to take pot-shots from the sidelines and encourage folks to "explore all 3rd party alternatives".

All due respect for the man, but that's not active leadership -- it's passive "spokesmanship."

PatriotOne
09-10-2008, 11:41 AM
"Leadership is not just about knowing when to lead, but knowing when to follow," Kokesh said. "You failed that test today and I retract my endorsement of you."

Well said Adam!

CasualApathy
09-10-2008, 11:41 AM
this movement died today as far as I'm concerned.

People just can't see the forest through the trees and it is a waste of my time and energy to hope this will ever change.

Truth Warrior - sign me up. I'm finished with politics for good.

You're leaving?! promise?

SLSteven
09-10-2008, 11:42 AM
I know BobBarr's pissed most of you off for good at this point, but I have to grudgingly agree with his refusal to participate in a Ron Paul "any of the above" quasi-endorsement of theocrat Baldwin, socialist Nader, and even mega-Marxist Cynthia McKinney for f***'s sake.

If Ron Paul REALLY wanted to shake up the system and fight the good fight against the status quo NOW (not 10-20 years later), he could have accepted the LP nomination that was offered to him on a silver platter. No, he wouldn't win but he could have achieved 49-50 state ballot access and spread the liberty message far more effectively than anyone else this election cycle (especially with a credible VP pick such as Gary Johnson, Ventura, or... perhaps even Bob Barr.) No doubt it would have been the best 3rd party vote total since Ross Perot and established a solid foundation for a political force to be reckoned with in the years ahead.

Instead, it appears he prefers to "play nice enough" with the GOP to preserve his Congressional standing while continuing to take pot-shots from the sidelines and encourage folks to "explore all 3rd party alternatives".

All due respect for the man, but that's not leadership -- it's passive "spokesmanship."

Dr Paul still tells the truth. He has said about a million times that he would not run third party.

ARealConservative
09-10-2008, 11:43 AM
You're leaving?! promise?

have we met?

acptulsa
09-10-2008, 11:45 AM
I know BobBarr's pissed most of you off for good at this point, but I have to grudgingly agree with his refusal to participate in a Ron Paul "any of the above" quasi-endorsement of theocrat Baldwin, socialist Nader, and even mega-Marxist Cynthia McKinney for f***'s sake.

If Ron Paul REALLY wanted to shake up the system and fight the good fight against the status quo NOW (not 10-20 years later), he could have accepted the LP nomination that was offered to him on a silver platter. No, he wouldn't win but he could have achieved 49-50 state ballot access and spread the liberty message far more effectively than anyone else this election cycle (especially with a credible VP pick such as Gary Johnson, Ventura, or... perhaps even Bob Barr.) No doubt it would have been the best 3rd party vote total since Ross Perot and established a solid foundation for a political force to be reckoned with in the years ahead.

Instead, it appears he prefers to "play nice enough" with the GOP to preserve his Congressional standing while continuing to take pot-shots from the sidelines and encourage folks to "explore all 3rd party alternatives".

All due respect for the man, but that's not leadership -- it's passive "spokesmanship."

There's something to what you say. No doubt about it. I, too, would rather he played less nicely with the G.O.P. But after years of seeing this crap, seeing the Demopublicans own the elections and people natter on about wasted votes, I do understand where he was coming from. Now, and pretty suddenly, independent party wins are starting to look like a real possibility, and it is a shame Ron Paul didn't get on board. That said, this is a recent development, and while Ron Paul's crystal ball has become somewhat legendary it seems to show only economic future events, not political ones...

KewlRonduderules
09-10-2008, 11:45 AM
I know BobBarr's pissed most of you off for good at this point, but I have to grudgingly agree with his refusal to participate in a Ron Paul "any of the above" quasi-endorsement of theocrat Baldwin, socialist Nader, and even mega-Marxist Cynthia McKinney for f***'s sake.

If Ron Paul REALLY wanted to shake up the system and fight the good fight against the status quo NOW (not 10-20 years later), he could have accepted the LP nomination that was offered to him on a silver platter. No, he wouldn't win but he could have achieved 49-50 state ballot access and spread the liberty message far more effectively than anyone else this election cycle (especially with a credible VP pick such as Gary Johnson, Ventura, or... perhaps even Bob Barr.) No doubt it would have been the best 3rd party vote total since Ross Perot and established a solid foundation for a political force to be reckoned with in the years ahead.

Instead, it appears he prefers to "play nice enough" with the GOP to preserve his Congressional standing while continuing to take pot-shots from the sidelines and encourage folks to "explore all 3rd party alternatives".

All due respect for the man, but that's not active leadership -- it's passive "spokesmanship."

So basically Barr was getting even because Ron Paul refused the LP nomination? He just put himself out on a limb actively encouraging others to vote third party. You really think that the Republicans want to play nice with him?! Gimme a break! I doubt he wanted to play nice. If anything, he alienated them.

jabrownie
09-10-2008, 11:45 AM
It is this type of myopic thinking that has gotten us where we are. Minor factions fighting for the left over tablescraps instead of joining together, standing up and taking back what is rightfully ours.

I can now see that Barr = pathetic, puny little man. He just lost my vote today for creating yet another pointlessly stupid rift within our group over nothing more then his foolish pride.

CasualApathy
09-10-2008, 11:45 AM
have we met?

Well, we've both been here from the start.

pauletteNV
09-10-2008, 11:45 AM
this movement died today as far as I'm concerned.

People just can't see the forest through the trees and it is a waste of my time and energy to hope this will ever change.

Truth Warrior - sign me up. I'm finished with politics for good.

You keep posting your disappointment and that you are leaving. The door is open.

acptulsa
09-10-2008, 11:47 AM
It is this type of myopic thinking that has gotten us where we are. Minor factions fighting for the left over tablescraps instead of joining together, standing up and taking back what is rightfully ours.

I can now see that Barr = pathetic, puny little man. He just lost my vote today for creating yet another pointlessly stupid rift within our group over nothing more then his foolish pride.

Anyone who would get his panties in a knot because Ron Paul is smart enough to see that liberals--even socialists--want to take this nation back for the people and address these individuals with respect is less a politician than a fool.

jabrownie
09-10-2008, 11:48 AM
[QUOTE=svf;1665792]
If Ron Paul REALLY wanted to shake up the system and fight the good fight against the status quo NOW (not 10-20 years later), he could have accepted the LP nomination that was offered to him on a silver platter. No, he wouldn't win but he could have achieved 49-50 state ballot access and spread the liberty message far more effectively than anyone else this election cycle (especially with a credible VP pick such as Gary Johnson, Ventura, or... perhaps even Bob Barr.) No doubt it would have been the best 3rd party vote total since Ross Perot and established a solid foundation for a political force to be reckoned with in the years ahead.
QUOTE]

Sore loser laws in many states prevent someone who ran in a major party primary and lost from appearing on the ballot as a third party in the general.

Shotdown1027
09-10-2008, 11:48 AM
Good for Adam Kokesh, I respect him SO much.

svf
09-10-2008, 11:54 AM
Sore loser laws in many states prevent someone who ran in a major party primary and lost from appearing on the ballot as a third party in the general.

Actually that's not true in almost all cases for presidential candidates. This has been mulled over extensively before, for the details see this Ballot Access News post (http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/). Texas presents a potential problem, but there's an easy way around it.

Truth is, Ron Paul just didn't want to keep running for President. He wasn't very interested in the first place, really -- we're the ones who took him for a ride he never expected. He's off the bus but we're still driving it (hopefully not off a cliff....)

afmatt
09-10-2008, 11:54 AM
"Leadership is not just about knowing when to lead, but knowing when to follow," Kokesh said. "You failed that test today and I retract my endorsement of you."

Thanks for telling it like it is Adam.

ARealConservative
09-10-2008, 11:55 AM
You keep posting your disappointment and that you are leaving. The door is open.

:rolleyes:

Mental Dribble
09-10-2008, 12:09 PM
I know BobBarr's pissed most of you off for good at this point, but I have to grudgingly agree with his refusal to participate in a Ron Paul "any of the above" quasi-endorsement of theocrat Baldwin, socialist Nader, and even mega-Marxist Cynthia McKinney for f***'s sake.

Instead, it appears he prefers to "play nice enough" with the GOP to preserve his Congressional standing while continuing to take pot-shots from the sidelines and encourage folks to "explore all 3rd party alternatives".

All due respect for the man, but that's not active leadership -- it's passive "spokesmanship."

You just dont get it man. Ron Paul was not giving any "Quasi-endorsement". What he was doing was highligthing the hypocrasy and strangle hold the two party system imposes. Ron Paul stood up there today to announce that ALL LEGTIMATE THIRD PARTIES / INDEPENDANT Candidates deserve a spot on the medias agenda and at the debating forums. Once again he has shown himself to be the BIGGER MAN by saying, look, we don't agree on EVERYTHING but we are bound by the common thread of oppresion from the presidential debate commission and the national media and if we want to fix this we have to work together. Vote for who trully represents you, is what Ron spoke about today. He happens to be a believer in freedom and realizes not everyone agrees with his stance but that doesn't warrant their exclusion from a fair and legitimate process.

What Barr did is no better than what the two big parties do. ME OR NO ONE is what Barr painted on his donkey end today.

Very very sad.

and yes, I was at the press conference.

CasualApathy
09-10-2008, 12:10 PM
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

BLuegreengrey
09-10-2008, 12:22 PM
So, he was basically refusing to share the stage with non-libertarian conservative candidates. Idealism is his excuse, I guess. It isn't about learning how to vote for someone other than the Demopublican bull, but learning how to vote LP period. Sweet.

I'm with Dr. Paul on this one. Bad move, Barr. We need everyone, not just us, to reject the status quo.


thank you

pilby
09-10-2008, 12:26 PM
Yesterday Barr sent Paul a letter ... asking Paul to run as Barr's vice presidential nominee.

If Barr had any idea of his own importance and credibility compared to Dr Paul, he would have offered to step down himself and offer Dr Paul the presidential slot. Instead, he's gracious enough to kick Root out in order to offer a biscuit to Paul.

Real cool, Bob.

dawnbt
09-10-2008, 12:39 PM
you just dont get it man. Ron paul was not giving any "quasi-endorsement". What he was doing was highligthing the hypocrasy and strangle hold the two party system imposes. Ron paul stood up there today to announce that all legtimate third parties / independant candidates deserve a spot on the medias agenda and at the debating forums. Once again he has shown himself to be the bigger man by saying, look, we don't agree on everything but we are bound by the common thread of oppresion from the presidential debate commission and the national media and if we want to fix this we have to work together. Vote for who trully represents you, is what ron spoke about today. He happens to be a believer in freedom and realizes not everyone agrees with his stance but that doesn't warrant their exclusion from a fair and legitimate process.

What barr did is no better than what the two big parties do. Me or no one is what barr painted on his donkey end today.

Very very sad.

And yes, i was at the press conference.

+1000

Carole
09-10-2008, 02:13 PM
Dr. Paul tried the Libertarian route once and found it nearly impossible to climb that mountain. I am libertarian-minded (with a small "l"), but I have read a few things with which I have disagreed in that party. Thus, I never left the Republican party for the Libertarian party. If anything I might consider becoming Independent, disassociating myself with any party.

I have also read that former Congressman Barr does have a large ego. I neither know nor care. I do care that if one gives his word that he will do something, he should follow through.

It would have been a small thing for Barr to have kept his word today. He complains about not being invited to such and such. Was he not just at the Rally for the Republic?

He may have used poor judgment in staging the separate press conference today and eschewing the RP press conference. But I will defend his right to do so, even if I disagree.

It seems disrespectful to Dr. Paul.

V3n
09-10-2008, 03:16 PM
What Barr is offering voters is...
bold, focused, specific leadership. That is not the amorphous kind that says "any of the above" or "none of the above." That's not leadershp. What is leadership is what I, and our campaign, and the LP are doing. Putting before the American people not a wish list, not a menu of things you can pick and choose, not a group of candidates, but a candidate for president, Bob Barr, who stands for very specific programs and policies and direction for this country.

I don't know how many times I've read on this site that Ron Paul supporters are looking for "some direction", "some endorsement", someone who will LEAD.

So here Bob Barr says (IMO) 'I'm not going to share the stage with the others and say vote for any one of us and you're cool - I want my own stage and say Vote for Me'' He wasn't snubbing anyone, he signed the agreement, he was just being a leader.

Dorfsmith
09-10-2008, 03:18 PM
I don't know how many times I've read on this site that Ron Paul supporters are looking for "some direction", "some endorsement", someone who will LEAD.

So here Bob Barr says (IMO) 'I'm not going to share the stage with the others and say vote for any one of us and you're cool - I want my own stage and say Vote for Me'' He wasn't snubbing anyone, he signed the agreement, he was just being a leader.


That's no excuse for saying you are going to show up and not showing up. That's called a liar...not a leader.

V4Vendetta
09-10-2008, 03:34 PM
wow, it looks more and more like Barr is a plant.
I suspected that the Libertarian party was infiltrated months ago, because of the sheer number of votes for Gravel and Barr.

However since Baldwin wasn't going to be on the ballot in my state, I was going to vote for Barr. Well now, I am not!

This is another tactic to destroy this movement. And the CIA is doing a damn good job of it.

ceakins
09-10-2008, 04:02 PM
You know what, I think Ron Paul was wrong today. By not endorsing the LP candidate and just saying vote for whomever you want, or don't vote, he assured that one of the two parties will get elected. By guiding people to a single candidate, this would have increased the spotlight on that candidate, getting more votes. Ron Paul has just effectively watered down the votes for all the candidates. I came to this conclusion before seeing the fracas about Barr. I'm rather saddened by the lack of leadership in this regard, and wonder why I thought there would actually be real change, as apposed to faux change.

Arklatex
09-10-2008, 04:37 PM
You just dont get it man. Ron Paul was not giving any "Quasi-endorsement". What he was doing was highligthing the hypocrasy and strangle hold the two party system imposes. Ron Paul stood up there today to announce that ALL LEGTIMATE THIRD PARTIES / INDEPENDANT Candidates deserve a spot on the medias agenda and at the debating forums. Once again he has shown himself to be the BIGGER MAN by saying, look, we don't agree on EVERYTHING but we are bound by the common thread of oppresion from the presidential debate commission and the national media and if we want to fix this we have to work together. Vote for who trully represents you, is what Ron spoke about today. He happens to be a believer in freedom and realizes not everyone agrees with his stance but that doesn't warrant their exclusion from a fair and legitimate process.

What Barr did is no better than what the two big parties do. ME OR NO ONE is what Barr painted on his donkey end today.

Very very sad.

and yes, I was at the press conference.

+1

mmink15
09-10-2008, 04:43 PM
So did Bob Barr's press conference have any point to it, other than to give his reasons for skipping the press conference that had took place a couple of hours ago?

acptulsa
09-10-2008, 05:01 PM
You know what, I think Ron Paul was wrong today. By not endorsing the LP candidate and just saying vote for whomever you want, or don't vote, he assured that one of the two parties will get elected. By guiding people to a single candidate, this would have increased the spotlight on that candidate, getting more votes. Ron Paul has just effectively watered down the votes for all the candidates. I came to this conclusion before seeing the fracas about Barr. I'm rather saddened by the lack of leadership in this regard, and wonder why I thought there would actually be real change, as apposed to faux change.

I hear you. But I believe that Ron Paul was attempting to get some liberals--and, yes, even socialists--to get their own movement going and/or get behind Nader and/or the Greens. And that cannot be done with a conservative group.

Nate
09-10-2008, 05:09 PM
You know what, I think Ron Paul was wrong today. By not endorsing the LP candidate and just saying vote for whomever you want, or don't vote, he assured that one of the two parties will get elected. By guiding people to a single candidate, this would have increased the spotlight on that candidate, getting more votes. Ron Paul has just effectively watered down the votes for all the candidates. I came to this conclusion before seeing the fracas about Barr. I'm rather saddened by the lack of leadership in this regard, and wonder why I thought there would actually be real change, as apposed to faux change.


No! He is trying to break the 2 party stranglehold on the political process. If you think that a 3rd party candidate is going to win in '08 then you are an idiot. This was about reaching out to the other marginalized groups in American politics and trying to build a coalition that can inject truth into the debates. Besides as a sitting REPUBLICAN congressman he can not officially endorse a candidate from another party because he would then lose position and status within the Republican block in the congress and lose his seats on important commitees that he needs to be on in order to push the freedom agenda from his position as an "inside man" for this movement.
This is abut the BIG picture of taking liberty back in this country over the next decade not the small picture of getting Barr and the "Libertarian" Party a few more votes in '08. As a true libertarian Dr Paul wants to see everyone participate and have an equal opportunity not just Bob Barr. If you think that we are just going to all unite behind a former neo-con just because he fools the "Libertarian" Party into nominating him then you are a fool.

georgiapeach
09-10-2008, 05:10 PM
I don't care what his official stated reason is. The fact remains, by failing to show up he showed a lack of character. He had commited himself to it and he backed out because he felt slighted. It was childish petulant behavior on his part. It may sound insignificant to some people, but I was iffy on his voting record already. Personally, I'm happy he pulled this little stunt today, so I know what he is about. I even sent a message via his campaign website to thank them for it.

Gin
09-10-2008, 05:11 PM
I know BobBarr's pissed most of you off for good at this point, but I have to grudgingly agree with his refusal to participate in a Ron Paul "any of the above" quasi-endorsement of theocrat Baldwin, socialist Nader, and even mega-Marxist Cynthia McKinney for f***'s sake.

If Ron Paul REALLY wanted to shake up the system and fight the good fight against the status quo NOW (not 10-20 years later), he could have accepted the LP nomination that was offered to him on a silver platter. No, he wouldn't win but he could have achieved 49-50 state ballot access and spread the liberty message far more effectively than anyone else this election cycle (especially with a credible VP pick such as Gary Johnson, Ventura, or... perhaps even Bob Barr.) No doubt it would have been the best 3rd party vote total since Ross Perot and established a solid foundation for a political force to be reckoned with in the years ahead.

Instead, it appears he prefers to "play nice enough" with the GOP to preserve his Congressional standing while continuing to take pot-shots from the sidelines and encourage folks to "explore all 3rd party alternatives".

All due respect for the man, but that's not active leadership -- it's passive "spokesmanship."

So Barr's "if you won't run on the Libertarian ticket you aren't good enough for me to support... that is utter and complete BS!!! He's acting like a little kid...

Ron Paul has expressedly stated that he WILL NOT jeapordize his seat in congress as a Republican. I personally applaud him... what would running as Barr's VP really do for him besides get him demoted in Congress??? NOTHING.....

He has too much to lose and the likelihood of Barr winning is very slim at best.... so again... what would be the point?

Barr is being totally childish

Micah Dardar
09-10-2008, 05:13 PM
BarrrrF

jblosser
09-10-2008, 05:18 PM
You know what, I think Ron Paul was wrong today. By not endorsing the LP candidate and just saying vote for whomever you want, or don't vote, he assured that one of the two parties will get elected. By guiding people to a single candidate, this would have increased the spotlight on that candidate, getting more votes. Ron Paul has just effectively watered down the votes for all the candidates. I came to this conclusion before seeing the fracas about Barr. I'm rather saddened by the lack of leadership in this regard, and wonder why I thought there would actually be real change, as apposed to faux change.

He assured nothing of the kind--it was already assured one of the two parties will get elected. Have you been paying attention? Ron Paul doesn't have a magic wand to wave in the direction of one candidate and have them win. He can at best point those of his supporters that are looking for orders instead of independent thought in one direction, and he's wise enough to know that's not enough to change anything from previous cycles.

So instead he did what he often does and found a course that's both full of integrity and practicality and asked both his supporters and other disaffected voters to at least unite behind a set of principles and make those the issue. All of the not-those-two-parties voters will not get behind one candidate, but if they'll agree to do *something* it's possible for it to mean something. It may at least produce numbers that shake the foundation of the duopoly for the future.

Barr is a dunce. He's on one of the largest other party stages out there and the one that at least still looks the most like what Ron Paul ran on, and showing up at this would have gotten him what basically amounts to an endorsement since he's the option most of Paul's supporters would have gone for.

ARealConservative
09-10-2008, 05:18 PM
wow, it looks more and more like Barr is a plant.
I suspected that the Libertarian party was infiltrated months ago, because of the sheer number of votes for Gravel and Barr.

However since Baldwin wasn't going to be on the ballot in my state, I was going to vote for Barr. Well now, I am not!

This is another tactic to destroy this movement. And the CIA is doing a damn good job of it.

your full of shit of course

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1546106&postcount=41

RedLightning
09-10-2008, 05:23 PM
Bob Barr should have just gone to conference and none of this would have happened, but no he had to be a little baby.

me3
09-10-2008, 05:30 PM
I don't know how many times I've read on this site that Ron Paul supporters are looking for "some direction", "some endorsement", someone who will LEAD.

So here Bob Barr says (IMO) 'I'm not going to share the stage with the others and say vote for any one of us and you're cool - I want my own stage and say Vote for Me'' He wasn't snubbing anyone, he signed the agreement, he was just being a leader.
Ron Paul supporters keep looking for a messiah or someone to train them because they are still new to all of this, riding the emotional highs and lows, not really understanding what Dr. Paul has been trying to tell everyone for months now.

Do not vote McCain. Do not capitulate to the GOP if you are going to try and take it back. Do not give in to evil. Voting for the lesser of evils (even Barr) is still voting for evil.

Barr had a chance to stand up to the FED today, and he ran away. He is, in all honesty, a bitch. The LP campaign wants to play electoral games, Ron Paul is waging a personal philosophical battle with all of his sacred honor to restore liberty and freedom.


You know what, I think Ron Paul was wrong today. By not endorsing the LP candidate and just saying vote for whomever you want, or don't vote, he assured that one of the two parties will get elected. By guiding people to a single candidate, this would have increased the spotlight on that candidate, getting more votes. Ron Paul has just effectively watered down the votes for all the candidates. I came to this conclusion before seeing the fracas about Barr. I'm rather saddened by the lack of leadership in this regard, and wonder why I thought there would actually be real change, as apposed to faux change.
You're out to lunch. No 3rd party candidate was going to get elected. The idea is to advance that agenda. By Barr not showing solidarity, and now trying to divide up the Paul support by challenging Paul to quit his party and go LP (which will alienate a lot of Paul support), proves that Barr from day 1, has been working to undermine the Revolution, maybe because that was a larger plan, maybe because he can't raise any money and will be on less ballots than Nader.

bojo68
09-10-2008, 05:55 PM
I just want to point out that how many times does RP have to say something to get through some ever so self centered and impenetrable heads that he's NOT running independent?? Now if Mr Barrf wants to play snot nose and get out of joint because RP rejected what I'm sure Barrf thinks is a GREAT OPPORTUNITY(to be associated with BOB BARRF) that RP had already rejected thousands of times previously, so be it. It's not RP's fault Barrf is dense.

dannno
09-10-2008, 06:01 PM
you just dont get it man. Ron paul was not giving any "quasi-endorsement". What he was doing was highligthing the hypocrasy and strangle hold the two party system imposes. Ron paul stood up there today to announce that all legtimate third parties / independant candidates deserve a spot on the medias agenda and at the debating forums. Once again he has shown himself to be the bigger man by saying, look, we don't agree on everything but we are bound by the common thread of oppresion from the presidential debate commission and the national media and if we want to fix this we have to work together. Vote for who trully represents you, is what ron spoke about today. He happens to be a believer in freedom and realizes not everyone agrees with his stance but that doesn't warrant their exclusion from a fair and legitimate process.

What barr did is no better than what the two big parties do. Me or no one is what barr painted on his donkey end today.

Very very sad.

And yes, i was at the press conference.


+1776

mcgraw_wv
09-10-2008, 06:07 PM
Barr, and the LP's excuse as to say that scattering support to the four winds is worthless... I say to that, if the LP is only about centralizing support to the LP, then they are just a Dem Party / Rep Party in the making...

The ultimate goal, and what most of us are looking for, is not 3 parties looking to centralize power to a small group of inner party members... What we want, is choice, Not more power among the few.

The LP is blaming the other interests in not growing the LP platform...


What to do with all of us, in all our parties...
We do need to group up under one party, to be able to compete with the big two... but it needs to be a true umbrella party that can attract all people from all these 3rd parties and the support from people like Ron Paul...

Pete
09-10-2008, 06:14 PM
Deleted

V3n
09-10-2008, 06:49 PM
Ron Paul supporters keep looking for a messiah or someone to train them because they are still new to all of this, riding the emotional highs and lows, not really understanding what Dr. Paul has been trying to tell everyone for months now.

Guilty as charged!

But after more reflection I'm brought back to something I've told myself several times over the past year "Ron Paul's been in this game a long time, the man knows what he is doing."

The election is 2 months away, far too late to change this country's leadership in 2008, but not too late to change this country's discussion. (and definitely not too late to start planning for 2012!)

With Ron Paul's press conference (and please watch the CNN interview from today) - he has already started to change the discussion, and I think that will continue for the next two months (and next four years). And if finding common ground and sharing a stage with Nader and McKinney earns him some respect in their follower's eyes - then he just expanded his own base as well.

(I'm reserving judgment on Barr to see what comes out over the next couple of days.)

porcupine
09-10-2008, 06:52 PM
Truth Warrior - sign me up. I'm finished with politics for good.

Then you should check out http://www.freekeene.com/

ARealConservative
09-10-2008, 06:54 PM
Well, we've both been here from the start.

were you a district or precinct leader to where we have actually met in person?

Peace&Freedom
09-10-2008, 07:59 PM
Let me declare that Both Barr and Paul were right today in what they intended, and both wrong in the way they went about it. It would have been far better for Barr to have attended the event, and from there or afterward issued his altogether correct criticism of it (that it was an indecisive gesture that led to nowhere). Yes, Paul wanted to expand the public's awareness beyond the two parties, but the strongest way to do this would have been to have used the occasion to announce C4L would sponsor an inclusive, nationally televised Presidential debate for the four candidates, with Paul serving as host. This would have been especially meaningful since his group has the funds to do so, and would have been a superb vehicle for positively promoting the C4L. What he did do was put together a non-event event of a press conference that made Paul look good, but will be utterly forgotten by the public in a week---assuming they even took notice of it today. So who ended up being more selfish here, Paul or Barr, in the long run?

Yeah, maybe Barr should have kept his promise about attending the Paul press conference, instead of not delivering---and maybe Paul should have fulfilled his promise to make a truly 'unprecedented announcement,' instead another weak generalized solidarity statement on behalf of third parties, that did exactly nothing to concretely further any of them. Folks, when we started last year it was specifically about getting Ron Paul elected President, based on his specific liberty agenda. It was not about furthering third parties just for the sake of promoting third parties (as the Ron Paul Republicans keep reminding us), or even about cultivating a cult around Paul that worships his every statement or gesture, to the exclusion of every other interest in the liberty movement.

What, Paul has the right to insist on maintaining his current Republican status, but Barr has no right to insist on his Libertarian one? We should respect Paul's right to choose not to give up his seat, but Barr has no right to choose not to give up his nomination? Paul can choose to not endorse a candidate, but Barr absolutely has to endorse Paul's press conference? Is it all Paul, no one else matters? By Paul not putting his group's funds into any follow-up measure that specifically would help the third party candidates beyond the words, yet another opportunity is lost to maintain momentum---as was lost when the campaign pulled out of organizing the July 12 rally, and when it set up a multi-million dollar C4L that, strangely, is not legally structured to provide badly needed funds on behalf of Paulite candidacies.

I challenge the presumption that Paul's approach today represented the better "long view" while Barr was being shortsighted. For better or ill, the LP provided the strongest platform to further the liberty agenda outside the two major parties, and its improved ballot status (state by state) via a Paul candidacy would have been the strongest specific advance we could make short of Paul actually winning. Instead, Paul's team has drifted towards generalized education versus structural electoral progress, and the pattern has been (thus far) lots of rhetoric leading to stillborn events and no specific progress. Barr basically called Paul on it today, and does it from the authority of having helped to provide several chances for Paul to make specific progress that would be lasting.

V3n
09-11-2008, 07:33 AM
I think it just boils down to a missed opportunity.

Like a kicker missing a field goal to move their team ahead at the end of the 3rd Quarter... but there's still a quarter left in the game.

If Barr had gone, he could have strengthened both his own campaign, and the liberty movement. He blew that opportunity, made a lot of people mad at him, but there's still 2 months before the election.

If you take all emotion out of it, the policies he lists on his website and the things he talks about in interviews are still the closest thing we have to Ron Paul.

speciallyblend
09-11-2008, 07:43 AM
I think it just boils down to a missed opportunity.

Like a kicker missing a field goal to move their team ahead at the end of the 3rd Quarter... but there's still a quarter left in the game.

If Barr had gone, he could have strengthened both his own campaign, and the liberty movement. He blew that opportunity, made a lot of people mad at him, but there's still 2 months before the election.

If you take all emotion out of it, the policies he lists on his website and the things he talks about in interviews are still the closest thing we have to Ron Paul.

barr lost my vote for good and my wifes and many others, damage has been done,lil too late

speciallyblend
09-11-2008, 07:45 AM
Let me declare that Both Barr and Paul were right today in what they intended, and both wrong in the way they went about it. It would have been far better for Barr to have attended the event, and from there or afterward issued his altogether correct criticism of it (that it was an indecisive gesture that led to nowhere). Yes, Paul wanted to expand the public's awareness beyond the two parties, but the strongest way to do this would have been to have used the occasion to announce C4L would sponsor an inclusive, nationally televised Presidential debate for the four candidates, with Paul serving as host. This would have been especially meaningful since his group has the funds to do so, and would have been a superb vehicle for positively promoting the C4L. What he did do was put together a non-event event of a press conference that made Paul look good, but will be utterly forgotten by the public in a week---assuming they even took notice of it today. So who ended up being more selfish here, Paul or Barr, in the long run?

Yeah, maybe Barr should have kept his promise about attending the Paul press conference, instead of not delivering---and maybe Paul should have fulfilled his promise to make a truly 'unprecedented announcement,' instead another weak generalized solidarity statement on behalf of third parties, that did exactly nothing to concretely further any of them. Folks, when we started last year it was specifically about getting Ron Paul elected President, based on his specific liberty agenda. It was not about furthering third parties just for the sake of promoting third parties (as the Ron Paul Republicans keep reminding us), or even about cultivating a cult around Paul that worships his every statement or gesture, to the exclusion of every other interest in the liberty movement.

What, Paul has the right to insist on maintaining his current Republican status, but Barr has no right to insist on his Libertarian one? We should respect Paul's right to choose not to give up his seat, but Barr has no right to choose not to give up his nomination? Paul can choose to not endorse a candidate, but Barr absolutely has to endorse Paul's press conference? Is it all Paul, no one else matters? By Paul not putting his group's funds into any follow-up measure that specifically would help the third party candidates beyond the words, yet another opportunity is lost to maintain momentum---as was lost when the campaign pulled out of organizing the July 12 rally, and when it set up a multi-million dollar C4L that, strangely, is not legally structured to provide badly needed funds on behalf of Paulite candidacies.

I challenge the presumption that Paul's approach today represented the better "long view" while Barr was being shortsighted. For better or ill, the LP provided the strongest platform to further the liberty agenda outside the two major parties, and its improved ballot status (state by state) via a Paul candidacy would have been the strongest specific advance we could make short of Paul actually winning. Instead, Paul's team has drifted towards generalized education versus structural electoral progress, and the pattern has been (thus far) lots of rhetoric leading to stillborn events and no specific progress. Barr basically called Paul on it today, and does it from the authority of having helped to provide several chances for Paul to make specific progress that would be lasting.

look ron paul did nothing wrong yesterday ,except expecting barr to show to something he confirmed to go to, barrs mistake alone period. when you try to explain away yesterday ,you only dig the hole deeper. no one is buying this BS well barrs long-term plan assured i will not support the lp until they dump barr ,yeah great long-term plan,the shit is getting deeper

angelatc
09-11-2008, 07:55 AM
And was Barr hoping that Ron Paul would accept the invitation to run on the VP ticket, and thus make Paul's conference about Barr?

It seems the entire event was staged to try to grab the spotlight. It didn't work - Barr managed to marginalize himself, thus saving the major party from even needing to acknowledge him.


The timing on that deal is awful. I know some people were hoping that Barr had scheduled a conference to discuss "the endorsement" that came during Paul's conference. What a shock that must have been.

I really don't think there was any infiltration, except by disenchanted voters. Libertarians are notoriously disorganized, but they have ballot access, making that party prime for takeover.

Heck, Barr should have offered Nader the VP slot.

Dianne
09-11-2008, 08:02 AM
There is no way Paul should have gone for second place on the LP ticket. I would have been furious if he did that.

Number 1 on the LP ticket would have been something else. Paul could have stayed in the race and continued to spread his message far and wide.. So for that reason, I am disappointed Paul did not accept the LP nom as no. 1. But to be neocon Barr's VP is totally out of the question.

Peace&Freedom
09-11-2008, 06:51 PM
look ron paul did nothing wrong yesterday ,except expecting barr to show to something he confirmed to go to, barrs mistake alone period. when you try to explain away yesterday ,you only dig the hole deeper. no one is buying this BS well barrs long-term plan assured i will not support the lp until they dump barr ,yeah great long-term plan,the shit is getting deeper

The self-delusion is getting deeper. That's a full-tilt Cult of Paul type answer that ignores every other issue I raised, and thus confirms my point. Again, if this conference was so monumental and beneficial to third parties, present to me the poll numbers showing how aware the average voter was of this event. It didn't broaden the general public's mind beyond the two parties---they know more about the MacBama 'lipstick' remarks than what happened at the conference. Folks, the only people actually arguing over this thing are us.

Knightskye
09-11-2008, 07:42 PM
Libertarian candidate Bob Barr just wrapped a combative press conference down the hall from the Ron Paul presser. It took some time for the latter event to end. Paul and the candidates retreated from their main room to a side room with a mix of reporters and people who just wanted to take pictures with them. Max Anthony, the head of the Cecil Chesterton Society, confronted Paul on why he'd written the introduction to a Chesterton anthology that included anti-Semitic footnotes and jokes about Jews. "The best economists are Jewish!" Paul laughed. "Ricardo was Jewish! Von Mises was Jewish!" Anthony pressed the issue. "I'm not familiar with this," Paul said. "I'm not going to get caught in that trap." Nader got almost as much attention as Paul, and posed together for cameras. "The best event we've ever done," said one of his staffers.

Out in the hall, third party candidates for various and sundry offices handed out literature and buttonholed journalists. The buzz was what the hell Barr was up to. "I heard he's dropping out!" "He wanted Ron to endorse him." "He doesn't want to share a stage with Baldwin." Barr arrived at 11:50, and I saw Iraq War Veteran Against the War and Barr backer Adam Kokesh walking towards his room, looking purposeful and pissed off.

Barr opened with a statement on how he'd gotten to this point, and why he'd not attended the Paul event.

- In December 2007, he authored the LP's statement of intent to nominate Ron Paul for president if he lost the GOP nomination. Paul turned it down.

- Yesterday Barr sent Paul a letter (which I have a copy of, and I'll scan in a bit) asking Paul to run as Barr's vice presidential nominee. Wayne Allyn Root agreed to step aside if Paul wanted the job. Paul turned this down.

- Barr signed onto the statement of principles that Nader, McKinney and Baldwin signed, and stands by it. But he declined the offer to appear this morning.

"This is no reflection, certainly, on the tremendous and positive leadership that Ron Paul has provided to the liberty movement over the years. He recognized, for example, the strength of that movement, which has to come from the outside, back in 1987," when he left the GOP. What Barr is offering voters is...
bold, focused, specific leadership. That is not the amorphous kind that says "any of the above" or "none of the above." That's not leadershp. What is leadership is what I, and our campaign, and the LP are doing. Putting before the American people not a wish list, not a menu of things you can pick and choose, not a group of candidates, but a candidate for president, Bob Barr, who stands for very specific programs and policies and direction for this country.

Some of Paul's supporters, sitting in the back of the room, snickered at this. Barr pushed on. "The primaries are over" and the only measure of libertarian success will be how many votes the LP gets.

The print press asked for more details on Barr's offer to Paul and details on what Barr supported from the message of that earlier event. Kokesh raised his hand and started talking; Barr campaign chairman Russ Verney asked him to identify his media organization. "I'm an independent blogger," Kokesh said. Verney and Kokesh talked over each other for about 30 seconds, Verney trying to move on, Kokesh explaining what had made him so angry. "Leadership is not just about knowing when to lead, but knowing when to follow," Kokesh said. "You failed that test today and I retract my endorsement of you."

There were more harsh questions (is Barr a Republican agent trying to destroy the LP?) but nothing quite that harsh. The conference emptied out and Barr's staff kept on message: All respect to Ron Paul, but "support one of these nice candidates" is not a libertarian campaign. "Dr. Paul is allowing the Ron Paul Revolution to wither," said Barr aide Shane Cory.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128719.html

It is clear IMHO that there appears to be an attempt to dismantle the revolution as this article alludes to. Not going to happen any time soon.

Good explanation. Can't wait to see the letter.

acptulsa
09-11-2008, 07:44 PM
The self-delusion is getting deeper. That's a full-tilt Cult of Paul type answer that ignores every other issue I raised, and thus confirms my point. Again, if this conference was so monumental and beneficial to third parties, present to me the poll numbers showing how aware the average voter was of this event. It didn't broaden the general public's mind beyond the two parties---they know more about the MacBama 'lipstick' remarks than what happened at the conference. Folks, the only people actually arguing over this thing are us.

Uh huh.

Did it occur to you that we'll never know how much good this press conference might have done, and the reason why is Barr's completely distracting sabotage?

Sandra
09-11-2008, 07:47 PM
The self-delusion is getting deeper. That's a full-tilt Cult of Paul type answer that ignores every other issue I raised, and thus confirms my point. Again, if this conference was so monumental and beneficial to third parties, present to me the poll numbers showing how aware the average voter was of this event. It didn't broaden the general public's mind beyond the two parties---they know more about the MacBama 'lipstick' remarks than what happened at the conference. Folks, the only people actually arguing over this thing are us.

There hasn't been a poll taken yet. Give it some time. It got loads of coverage as well as interviews.