Did Bob Barr really make a mistake?

[Indy4Chng]

I went round and round on this yesterday, from being pissed at how Bob Barr could do such a thing... to finally coming around that I think he was right.

I mean is Nader and McKlinely really forwarding the cause for liberty. I think it would be great to break up the two party system, but Ron Paul isn't running for president, so that is easy for him to say, vote 3rd party... but Bob Barr is trying to run on liberty principles which two of the candidates obviously don't favor.

Now if it was Chuck Baldwin and Barr and he stiffed the press conference that would be totally different, or if it was a debate. But it was essentially a statement saying were all the same vote for one of us, cause were not the status quo, and obviously Barr feels there are some major differences, and on issues he is right.

So I think I will stay with Barr... for now.

[Truth Warrior]

Nope, Barr just made a "secret" deal with McCain to just "blow it" and then funnel the LP ( GOP ) votes back to him.<IMHO> :rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

I don't know for certain. Do you have any good reason to believe Nader and McKinney are tools for the state and the statists? Because, if this is just about suspicions, I think Barr looks as suspicious as any of them right now...

[Aratus]

its mckinney, not mcklinely or mckinley...
poor green-horn cynthia mckinney was lost
inside the fallout around this. ron paul actually
was not hurt or set back, ralph nader comes across
as sincere, chuck baldwin got some added publicity, and
also barr's ego is allowed to romp about happily and merrily...

[gls]

First of all, Bob Barr knew exactly which candidates would be there, confirmed he would be attending anyway, and then backed out at the last minute. This obviously was very important to Dr. Paul and Barr stabbed him in the back.

Second, the press conference was not how you characterized it. It was about bringing the disenfranchised electorate together under certain principles - empire, privacy, debt, and monetary policy - where there is a lot of overlap. These are the principles upon which Paul based his campaign, and which an alternative to the duopoly - with sufficient broad-based support - can latch onto and win. First we need to come together on the issues we agree in order to save the Republic that is quickly slipping away, then later we can argue about the details. But Bob Barr has too big of an ego for that, and remains under the delusion that he can win.

[Gertie]

I think there may be some truth to what several people have noted; Barr was thinking short term, Paul is invested in the long term.

Short term- makes sense, if you're angling for libertarian and sheeple votes, you don't want to associate with socialists and 'the fringe' on the eve of an election.

Long term- buddy up with the socialists and other disenfranchised folk, show the hypocrisy of the republicrats, change perceptions, and maybe you actually gain a bat's chance in hell of cracking the republicrat monopoly and making it possible for future Ron Pauls to spread the message of Liberty further.


IMO, Paul's strategy would be more successful. I do see why others may prefer Barr's though. Regardless, this difference in strategies doesn't excuse Barr's douchebaggery yesterday.

[dannno]

I mean is Nader and McKlinely really forwarding the cause for liberty.


Yes they are. You are wrong. Nader wants to end corporate subsidies and bring the troops home. Do you have any idea how much that will save in taxes??? That's just the beginning, he has a lot of great ideas. You should look into him as an alternative for Barr, cause Barr is a schmuck. But by all means vote for him if you really think he's your best fit.

Please listen to Ron Paul, he knows what he is doing.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes they are. You are wrong. Nader wants to end corporate subsidies and bring the troops home. Do you have any idea how much that will save in taxes??? That's just the beginning, he has a lot of great ideas. You should look into him as an alternative for Barr, cause Barr is a schmuck. But by all means vote for him if you really think he's your best fit.

Please listen to Ron Paul, he knows what he is doing. And Nader will do WHAT exactly with the money saved? Refund it to the taxpayers?

< ROFLMAO! >

[acptulsa]

And Nader will do WHAT exactly with the money saved? Refund it to the taxpayers?

Well, the world will never be perfect. I'd still rather have my money spent on "WARNING The water in this fountain can cause drowning and death if inhaled" stickers than war, death and making imperial enemies worldwide...

Not my first choice. Not my second choice. Not my third choice. Better than the powers that be, though.

[SnappleLlama]

Yes.

[Indy4Chng]

I think there may be some truth to what several people have noted; Barr was thinking short term, Paul is invested in the long term.

Short term- makes sense, if you're angling for libertarian and sheeple votes, you don't want to associate with socialists and 'the fringe' on the eve of an election.

Long term- buddy up with the socialists and other disenfranchised folk, show the hypocrisy of the republicrats, change perceptions, and maybe you actually gain a bat's chance in hell of cracking the republicrat monopoly and making it possible for future Ron Pauls to spread the message of Liberty further.


IMO, Paul's strategy would be more successful. I do see why others may prefer Barr's though. Regardless, this difference in strategies doesn't excuse Barr's douchebaggery yesterday.

Right I agree with your assesment. But if you were running as a libertarian candidate and they asked you to join up with a couple people who had opposite veiws that would be pretty tough to swallow.

But Barr handled the situation horribly, there is no denying that. Is Baldwin on the ballot in Oregon? I might vote for him, otherwise it is definentely Barr.

[Truth Warrior]

Well, the world will never be perfect. I'd still rather have my money spent on "WARNING The water in this fountain can cause drowning and death if inhaled" stickers than war, death and making imperial enemies worldwide...

Not my first choice. Not my second choice. Not my third choice. Better than the powers that be, though. It's not your choice with your money that I am concerned about or that bothers me. It's your choice with MINE that just really bugs the shit out of me. :p

[acptulsa]

It's not your choice with your money that I am concerned about or that bothers me. It's your choice with MINE that just really bugs the shit out of me. :p

And who would have expected anything different, TW?

[NewFederalist]

Let's just say "what we have here is a failure to communicate!" (Cool Hand Luke)

[smudboy]

This post clearly states Bob Barr's intention.

http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/11/principled-leadership-in-times-of-crisis/

There are difference between the parties, and I'm surprised they came to agree on the 4 big issues (although I'd like to know exactly to what extent.)

Bob Barr, or the Libertarian party, still seems like the best bet for supporters of the Campaign For Liberty. I don't know why RP hasn't endorsed him yet.

Although it's good and all that RP told the American people there are more then 2 options to vote, I'm sad that the press conference didn't involve RP using campaign funds and resources for housing 3rd party debates. That's what those 3rd parties need. (Online web/pod-casting debates, radio, tv, etc.) Heck, I think a debate with all the 3rd parties with RP around would be even greater then the Rally.

Part of me is also a bit confused: if we can get a socialist, an environmentalist, a religious constitutionalist, and of course a libertarian (whose views on the big 4 issues are the same as the campaign) to agree, what's stopping them from forming their own group and really giving the McBama campaign a challenge? Now that would be an easy and clear message to the status quo.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Nader and McKinney are stronger on liberty than a lot of backwoods paleocons claim to be

[RonpaulSupporter7777]

Nader would destroy the establishment if he was in office. He would expose all of the corruption by appointing decent no strings attached individuals to the executive branch.
The president of the United States would be on our side for a change.

[pinkmandy]

Yes, he made a mistake. I big, rude one imo.

He could have had a talk with Dr. Paul if he didn't want to go and explained he why. I don't think many people would have been so upset if he had handled it better and with the respect Dr. Paul deserves.