What went wrong with the Libertarian nomination process in 2008?

[RCA]

Being non-political most of my life, I have to say that based on the last couple of decades of nominee choices of the major parties, the Libertarian candidates have pretty much matched my personal political philosophy. That being said, I'm reluctant to join the Libertarian Party solely due to the 2008 nominee, Bob Barr.

The previous Libertarian nominees for president (Badnarik, Browne, Browne, Marrou and Paul) were far superior than the other parties nominees during the same time period. So, the question remains, how did Bob Bar slip through the cracks and not Mary Ruwart?

[MRoCkEd]

he seemed viable
so much for that

[acptulsa]

Some claim it was a deliberate attack by neocons. Others believe it was merely a misguided attempt to move the party to center in search of more votes.

[RCA]

If the party made an honest mistake, I'm all for forgiveness. The question that remains is have they learned their lesson? If I believe that they have and won't let it happen again, then I'll join.

[revolutionman]

I'm kinda liking Root for 2012. A successful small business owner, a family man.

The only thing i don't like about him is that he is very arrogant and he talks too much and too fast.

I hope it gets back to him, maybe he will take it into consideration and hire a coach or something.

[acptulsa]

I'm kinda liking Root for 2012. A successful small business owner, a family man.

W.A. Root is far too much of a warmonger for my tastes. He's the biggest warmonger I've ever seen the LP run in a nationwide election.

[RCA]

I'm kinda liking Root for 2012. A successful small business owner, a family man.

The only thing i don't like about him is that he is very arrogant and he talks too much and too fast.

I hope it gets back to him, maybe he will take it into consideration and hire a coach or something.

I wasn't happy with the VP pick for 2008 either. I thought Barr and Root were neocons trying to take over the Libertarian Party.

[revolutionman]

Hmm perhaps i will have to look further into W.A.R. , and check out who else is on the scene before i make my choice, good thing there is a couple of years till it even matters.

[ARealConservative]

Being non-political most of my life, I have to say that based on the last couple of decades of nominee choices of the major parties, the Libertarian candidates have pretty much matched my personal political philosophy. That being said, I'm reluctant to join the Libertarian Party solely due to the 2008 nominee, Bob Barr.

The previous Libertarian nominees for president (Badnarik, Browne, Browne, Marrou and Paul) were far superior than the other parties nominees during the same time period. So, the question remains, how did Bob Bar slip through the cracks and not Mary Renuart?

The only guy running that Ron Paul talked up in his book was nominated.

If you are angry with Bob Barr winning the nomination, you need to be angry with Ron Paul for giving him so much positive press

[acptulsa]

The only guy running that Ron Paul talked up in his book was nominated.

If you are angry with Bob Barr winning the nomination, you need to be angry with Ron Paul for giving him so much positive press

Which book are you talking about?

[ARealConservative]

Which book are you talking about?

The Revolution, a Manifesto

[acptulsa]

The Revolution, a Manifesto

Do you really think enough copies had been released in the first twenty-two days to make that much of a difference?

[ARealConservative]

Do you really think enough copies had been released in the first twenty-two days to make that much of a difference?

yes. but it goes beyond that book. Word of mouth based on the book and other things said and done by Dr. Paul.

Until the press conference snubbing anyway, which was well after the nomination, Dr. Paul had nothing but glowing things to say about Barr.

[RCA]

I'll even admit that there was a brief moment when I considered voting for Barr until he showed his true colors when he pulled that press conference stunt. After that, I was voting for Baldwin.

[acptulsa]

I personally think Ruwart did more to harm Ruwart's chances than Paul. But, of course, there's no proving it one way or the other.

[ARealConservative]

the question is pretty silly in retrospect

1984 – 228,111
1988 – 431,750 ** Ron Paul
1992 – 290,087
1996 – 485,798
2000 – 384,431
2004 – 397,265
2008 – 523,713

You have to go all the way to 1980 to find a candidate nominated to the party that pulled in more votes. They could of done even better if people would of taken a more logical approach to casting a vote.

[gls]

You have to go all the way to 1980 to find a candidate nominated to the party that pulled in more votes. They could of done even better if people would of taken a more logical approach to casting a vote.

The percentage of the vote is much more relevant than the number of votes. Barr got 0.04%, which is not exceptional in the least.

Middle Eastern-based CIA agent, special drug war prosecuter for the justice department, Congressional "moral" crusader...what's not to like? :rolleyes:

[Galileo Galilei]

Being non-political most of my life, I have to say that based on the last couple of decades of nominee choices of the major parties, the Libertarian candidates have pretty much matched my personal political philosophy. That being said, I'm reluctant to join the Libertarian Party solely due to the 2008 nominee, Bob Barr.

The previous Libertarian nominees for president (Badnarik, Browne, Browne, Marrou and Paul) were far superior than the other parties nominees during the same time period. So, the question remains, how did Bob Bar slip through the cracks and not Mary Renuart?

Barr is no longer the LP nominee. Not backing the LP becasue of Barr would be like not backing Ron Paul because of Dick Cheney.

Barr as a person and as a candidate was far superior to McCain or Obama anyway.

Barr had by far the most name recognition of any LP presidential candidate. Paul in 1988, was not nearly as well known, for example. Harry Browne had some name recognition as well, but not much.

Barr won a very close vote, on the 6th ballot.

I prefered Dr, Mary Ruwart.

Barr won because the LP was hoping to get more media attention via Barr. Barr does very quality TV interviews, and is very well informed on nuts N bolts financial issues, unlike most other LP candidates. The fact is, Barr got way more national TV interviews than Badnarik.

I know Barr made an impact. For example, my dad happened to see Barr on TV several times and thought he was very professional and well-spoken and good on the issues.

Was Barr worth the roll of the dice?

Hard to say. With many people, he certainly raised the LP image.

Some people like to complain. However, I voted for Barr.

[ARealConservative]

The percentage of the vote is much more relevant than the number of votes. Barr got 0.04%, which is not exceptional in the least.

In 2004 they received a lower percentage, yet we are asked what went wrong in the 2008 nomination. Pretty silly to me.


Middle Eastern-based CIA agent, special drug war prosecuter for the justice department, Congressional "moral" crusader...what's not to like? :rolleyes:

Not once did Barr deviate from the Libertarian Platform. He simply received more media attention speaking on the same issues that previous nominees spoke of.

It’s this type of idiocy that is stifling the freedom movement. Every other party nominates skilled politicians good at acting a certain way to increase voter awareness and it works so well that they are slowly moving the country in a direction opposite of the one we envision while we fight over purity tests. This is exactly why I don’t bother with the Libertarian Party and people in it.

[Bradley in DC]

I voted for Reagan, then Paul and Browne (twice) but thought Badnarik was a joke.

Totally guessing here:
The Ds were excited about Obama and winning while the Rs were disillusioned and dejected. There were more votes to pick up among disaffected Rs than Ds so picking Barr-Root was a good--timely--strategic move (if that were the motivation, can't say).

Ruwart displayed absolutely terrible political instincts responding to (possibly unfair) attacks. Had she been the nominee and campaigned that way, it would have been a disaster. Many libertarians didn't want to spend their time explaining why it they were not promoting kiddie porn.

Barr was also clearly qualified to be president--more so than Obama. Had he been able to "break out" and get into the debates, who knows? There were millions who voted for McCain because they didn't think they had an alternative.

There are many (most?) in the LP more interested in making a point than winning elections...so they lose.

EDIT: I voted for Barr. Had he not been the nominee, I wouldn't have voted LP given the other choices.

[Galileo Galilei]

The best LP candidate for 2012 is Ed Thompson (Tommy Thompson's brother):

A Remarkable Man-Trailer

"Ed Thompson had been a boxer, professional poker player, tavern owner, construction worker, and salesman, but unlike his older brother, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, Ed hated politics. When his Monroe County supper club was raided for illegal gambling activities, Ed faced 8 years in prison and a $40,000 fine for paying an undercover agent $5 from a penny video poker machine. He was outraged. For the first time in his life Ed got involved in politics—and he got even. That's only the beginning.

Ed Thompson's story is about the determination of a not-so-ordinary guy who refuses to bow to injustice, battling for both himself and others against the forces of a powerful political machine. You can't help but like him. Ed is gregarious, witty, shrewd, lovable and compassionate—and he's one heck of a fighter."

YouTube - A Remarkable Man-Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsHemzcMMo)

Ed Thompson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Thompson

Ed Thompson for Wisconsin Governor
http://www.edthompson.com/

The Libertarian Alternative - Ed Thompson
The Libertarian Alternative - Ed Thompson (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1950101503201066375&ei=i40AStDaDZzE-gGtxKjmCA&q=ed+thompson&hl=en)

Ed Thompson is actually an even better candidate than Ron Paul. He is a master of campaign strategy, and is perfect at blending radical libertarian philosophy with practical solutions.

One of Ed's campaign managers now works as a legislative assistant in Ron Paul's congressioanl office in Washington.

libertarian ed thompson
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=libertarian+ed+thompson&btnG=Search

libertarian party ed thompson
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=libertarian+party+ed+thompson&btnG=Search

ed thompson rolf lindgren
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ed+thompson+rolf+lindgren&btnG=Search

ed thompson caucus scandal
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ed+thompson+caucus+scandal&btnG=Search

GO ED!

[Galileo Galilei]

In 2004 they received a lower percentage, yet we are asked what went wrong in the 2008 nomination. Pretty silly to me.



Not once did Barr deviate from the Libertarian Platform. He simply received more media attention speaking on the same issues that previous nominees spoke of.

It’s this type of idiocy that is stifling the freedom movement. Every other party nominates skilled politicians good at acting a certain way to increase voter awareness and it works so well that they are slowly moving the country in a direction opposite of the one we envision while we fight over purity tests. This is exactly why I don’t bother with the Libertarian Party and people in it.

I agree with this. You should check out Ed Thompson.

[ARealConservative]

I agree with this. You should check out Ed Thompson.

Being from Iowa, I am already familiar with him and would definitely vote for him.

I just won't waste my time campaigning for a Libertarian in the current political climate.

[gls]

In 2004 they received a lower percentage, yet we are asked what went wrong in the 2008 nomination. Pretty silly to me.

What's "silly" is just how much was compromised to receive that additional 0.01%.

Barr advocated intervention in Iran and South America.

He voted for the Patriot Act and supported its reauthorization.

He sent out a press release and saying that "something has to be done" [bail out] of Fannie/Freddie.

He does not support an individual's right to decide what they want to put in their own body.

He does not believe in private property rights, at one point suing a church for not including him in their debate.

The "party of principle" is a joke now, and it will remain so as long as those who pushed for his nomination are in control of the national office.

[Bradley in DC]

What's "silly" is just how much was compromised to receive that additional 0.01%.

Barr advocated intervention in Iran and South America.

He voted for the Patriot Act and supported its reauthorization.

He does not support an individual's right to decide what they want to put in their own body.

He does not believe in private property rights, at one point suing a church for not including him in their debate.

The "party of principle" is a joke now, and it will remain so as long as those who pushed for his nomination are in control of the national office.

Your mischaracterizations are a joke. You can search my posts on these topics if interested.

[ARealConservative]

The "party of principle" is a joke now, and it will remain so as long as those who pushed for his nomination are in control of the national office.

The “party of principle” was always a joke. The slogan itself attempts to assign individual traits to a collective, which is just silly.

[Galileo Galilei]

What's "silly" is just how much was compromised to receive that additional 0.01%.

Barr advocated intervention in Iran and South America.

He voted for the Patriot Act and supported its reauthorization.

He sent out a press release calling AIG "too big to fail" and saying that "something has to be done".

He does not support an individual's right to decide what they want to put in their own body.

He does not believe in private property rights, at one point suing a church for not including him in their debate.

The "party of principle" is a joke now, and it will remain so as long as those who pushed for his nomination are in control of the national office.

Barr voted for the Patriot Act when he was in the republican party. He changed his mind, based on the facts. That's why he joined the Libertarian Party.

What is the point of advocating liberty, if you jump all over the people who you have justed persuaded?

LewRockwell is a great site for getting facts and information. For campaign strategy and logic, they are insane.

99% of what Barr says is Libertarian. If you want to promote the 1% that isn't, then I question either your sense or your agenda.

If Ed Thompson ran for president, he would win the LP nomination on the first ballot hands down. It would not be close. He is thinking about it.

[Galileo Galilei]

Being from Iowa, I am already familiar with him and would definitely vote for him.

I just won't waste my time campaigning for a Libertarian in the current political climate.

Glad to hear to like Ed Thompson. If he decides to run, I will be posting updates on this site.

[gls]

Your mischaracterizations are a joke. You can search my posts on these topics if interested.

Sorry that the truth hurts but that doesn't change anything.

Barr advocated for intervention in Iran (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:l6bHI5hr8O8J:www.bobbarr.org/default.asp%3Fpt%3Dnewsdescr%26RI%3D890+rush+to+wa r+in+iran+at+our+own+peril&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) and South America (http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=931).

He voted for the Patriot Act and supported its reauthorization (http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=673).

He does not support an individual's right to decide (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350248,00.html) what they want to put in their own body.

He does not believe in private property rights, at one point suing a church for not including him in their debate. (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/08/15/barr_goes_to_court_to_demand_e.html#comments)

He supports using stolen money to bail out Fannie/Freddie (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/bob-barr-contradicts-lp-government-has-to-do-something-to-bail-out-fanniefreddie/)

Bob Barr's non-libertarian positions are well documented. If you think the solution to today's problems is more of the same, then you'll want to support Barr and the current incarnation of the Libertarian Party.

[Galileo Galilei]

The “party of principle” was always a joke. The slogan itself attempts to assign individual traits to a collective, which is just silly.

Slogans are very effective in political campaigns. You can chose to ignore them and let the republicrats run our lives and run the nation into the ground.

I choose to fight back.

[TonySutton]

It confuses me how so many people on this forum get upset because other people do not understand or agree with us, but when someone does wake up, (ie Barr) we can not accept it and continue to use their past against them.

If you are unwilling to take on converts our movement will NEVER grow!

[ARealConservative]

Slogans are very effective in political campaigns. You can chose to ignore them and let the republicrats run our lives and run the nation into the ground.

I choose to fight back.

We live in a two party system. Elections are winner take all, which always makes a third party irrelevant. The best they can hope to do is scare the two parties into adopting a part of their platform. The prohibition party won without ever winning a single election (or even topping 5% of the vote)

[RCA]

It confuses me how so many people on this forum get upset because other people do not understand or agree with us, but when someone does wake up, (ie Barr) we can not accept it and continue to use their past against them.

If you are unwilling to take on converts our movement will NEVER grow!

I think the problem with Barr was his present stances and refusal to renounce his past stances.

[ARealConservative]

I think the problem with Barr was his present stances and refusal to renounce his past stances.

I think you are fos

[Bradley in DC]

Sorry that the truth hurts but that doesn't change anything.

I see you cited and refuted my posts very well. :rolleyes:

[gls]

It confuses me how so many people on this forum get upset because other people do not understand or agree with us, but when someone does wake up, (ie Barr) we can not accept it and continue to use their past against them.

If you are unwilling to take on converts our movement will NEVER grow!

Until Bob Barr adopts small-government positions on foreign policy, monetary policy and social policy I wouldn't say that he has "converted" from anything.

[RCA]

I think you are fos

huh?

[Bradley in DC]

I think the problem with Barr was his present stances and refusal to renounce his past stances.

There are people who wanted the LP presidential nominee to campaign on 9/11 Truth, to ignore constitutional restrictions on the federal government in the war on drugs (Barr's stance was the same as Dr. Paul's--generally not a federal issue) and/or to relive the Vietnam war (based on responses I got to my Nolan chart writings). So, yeah, by that standard, Barr failed.

[Galileo Galilei]

Sorry that the truth hurts but that doesn't change anything.

Barr advocated for intervention in Iran (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:l6bHI5hr8O8J:www.bobbarr.org/default.asp%3Fpt%3Dnewsdescr%26RI%3D890+rush+to+wa r+in+iran+at+our+own+peril&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) and South America (http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=931).

He voted for the Patriot Act and supported its reauthorization (http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=673).

He does not support an individual's right to decide (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350248,00.html) what they want to put in their own body.

He does not believe in private property rights, at one point suing a church for not including him in their debate. (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/08/15/barr_goes_to_court_to_demand_e.html#comments)

He supports using stolen money to bail out Fannie/Freddie (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/bob-barr-contradicts-lp-government-has-to-do-something-to-bail-out-fanniefreddie/)

Bob Barr's non-libertarian positions are well documented. If you think the solution to today's problems is more of the same, then you'll want to support Barr and the current incarnation of the Libertarian Party.

Ron Paul called for intervention in Afghanistan. You are just trying to rip on Barr by twisting his words and taking them out of context.

Most voters have never heard of these supposed positions by Barr, so I question your intent at posting them here. Barr is no longer a candidate.

You write:

"He does not believe in private property rights."

That is a pretty sweeping statement, and false. Barr changwed his mind in 2003 on many issues. He has always been a privacy rights advocate. He relaized in 2003, that you can't defend privacy while at the same time, having a war on drugs.

Even before 2003, Barr was a cut above most republicrats, see:

WACO: The Rules of Engagement (1/2)
WACO: The Rules of Engagement (1/2) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4298137966377572665)

Barr and Ron Paul have been good friends and good friends on most issues for a long time. Please think before you post.

[Galileo Galilei]

We live in a two party system. Elections are winner take all, which always makes a third party irrelevant. The best they can hope to do is scare the two parties into adopting a part of their platform. The prohibition party won without ever winning a single election (or even topping 5% of the vote)

Not true. Jesse Ventura got elected. So did Abe Lincoln.

The two-party system is not permanent.

The poll numbers for third party show a steady increase since the 1950s, and the poll numbers of republicrats show a steady decline. This cannot go on for another 50 years without a shakeup.

[ARealConservative]

"He does not believe in private property rights."

That is a pretty sweeping statement, and false. Barr changwed his mind in 2003 on many issues. He has always been a privacy rights advocate. He relaized in 2003, that you can't defend privacy while at the same time, having a war on drugs.


He is saying this because of the lawsuit filed over exclusion from the church debate in the course of the election season.

[ARealConservative]

Not true. Jesse Ventura got elected. So did Abe Lincoln.

The two-party system is not permanent.

The poll numbers for third party show a steady increase since the 1950s, and the poll numbers of republicrats show a steady decline. This cannot go on for another 50 years without a shakeup.

I am speaking of the federal election system only. The Electoral College creates a winner take all mentality which will naturally skew voter sentiment into two parties.

I’m not sure why Lincoln is useful in the discussion as the GOP already supplanted the Whigs as the major party before 1856

[Bradley in DC]

Until Bob Barr adopts small-government positions on foreign policy, monetary policy and social policy I wouldn't say that he has "converted" from anything.

Let's see, he voted to get us out of the UN, introduced an amendment to get us out of the IMF and tried to keep social policies generally out of the federal arena...

[Bradley in DC]

RCA,

I hope you can see from the posts here, why the LP is dysfunctional and why people who agree with their views hold the party in low esteem. There is a place for groundless idealism--but that is not how one wins elections (ie, the purpose of parties).

[Johnsgoat]

I am speaking of the federal election system only. The Electoral College creates a winner take all mentality which will naturally skew voter sentiment into two parties.

I’m not sure why Lincoln is useful in the discussion as the GOP already supplanted the Whigs as the major party before 1856
The Electoral College does create a winner take all situation however when one of the two parties is on the decline as the previous poster mentioned it can create a vacuum for a third party to rise and take it's place.

[ARealConservative]

The Electoral College does create a winner take all situation however when one of the two parties is on the decline as the previous poster mentioned it can create a vacuum for a third party to rise and take it's place.

This is incredibly rare and is not something I would expect to see in my lifetime. The more likely effect is one of the two parties changes their platform to remain viable.

[Johnsgoat]

This is incredibly rare and is not something I would expect to see in my lifetime. The more likely effect is one of the two parties changes their platform to remain viable.

It's happened twice in our country's short history however you are correct in saying it probably wont happen in our lifetime. Although it will be interesting to see if the Democratic party can maintain the inroads in made in the south and the mid-west during the previous election. If this trend continues the Republican Party is a dead man.

[Bradley in DC]

Barr voted for the Patriot Act when he was in the republican party. He changed his mind, based on the facts. That's why he joined the Libertarian Party.

Barr always opposed (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=139957) the USA PATRIOT Act. He voted for it at the strong urging of the privacy and civil liberties groups so that we could get him on the conference where the real importance was.

See my sig. ;) and this thread
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=136012

[Galileo Galilei]

Here is the voting:

First ballot
After the first round, six of the eight candidates running moved onto the second round of voting. Mike Jingozian and Christine Smith were both eliminated due to their small percentage of votes. Jingozian endorsed Fmr. Sen. Mike Gravel, and Smith presented a speech attacking Bob Barr after the results were announced.

2008 Libertarian Party National Convention total vote count: Round 1 Candidate Total votes cast Percent of votes cast
Bob Barr 153 24.6%
Mary Ruwart 152 24.5%
Wayne Allyn Root 123 19.8%
Mike Gravel 71 11.4%
George Phillies 49 7.9%
Steve Kubby 41 6.6%
Mike Jingozian 23 3.7%
Christine Smith 6 0.9%
Daniel Imperato (write-in) 1 0.2%
Penn Jillette (write-in) 1 0.2%
Ron Paul (write-in) 1 0.2%
This box: view • talk • edit Color key: 1st place 2nd place 3rd place 4th place 5th place 6th place 7th place (tied)



[edit] Second ballot
After the second round, five of the six candidates running moved onto the third ballot. Steve Kubby, after receiving only 5% of the total vote, dropped out of the race and endorsed Dr. Mary Ruwart.

2008 Libertarian Party National Convention total vote count: Round 2 Candidate Total votes cast Percent of votes cast
Bob Barr 188 29.7%
Mary Ruwart 166 26.2%
Wayne Allyn Root 138 21.8%
Mike Gravel 73 11.5%
George Phillies 36 5.7%
Steve Kubby 32 5.0%
Stephen Colbert (write-in) 1 0.2%
This box: view • talk • edit Color key: 1st place 2nd place 3rd place 4th place 5th place 6th place (tied)



[edit] Third ballot
After the third round of voting, four of the five remaining candidates moved on to the fourth ballot. Dr. George Phillies was eliminated after receiving approximately 5% of the vote.

2008 Libertarian Party National Convention total vote count: Round 3 Candidate Total votes cast Percent of votes cast
Bob Barr 186 29.7%
Mary Ruwart 186 29.7%
Wayne Allyn Root 146 23.3%
Mike Gravel 78 12.4%
George Phillies 31 4.9%
This box: view • talk • edit Color key: 1st place (tied) 2nd place 3rd place 4th place



[edit] Fourth ballot
After the fourth vote, three of the four candidates went onto the fifth round of voting. Fmr. Sen. Mike Gravel was eliminated after not getting a sufficient number of votes, and subsequently announced that his political career was over.

2008 Libertarian Party National Convention total vote count: Round 4 Candidate Total votes cast Percent of votes cast
Bob Barr 202 32.1%
Mary Ruwart 202 32.1%
Wayne Allyn Root 149 23.7%
Mike Gravel 76 12.1%
This box: view • talk • edit Color key: 1st place (tied) 2nd place 3rd place



[edit] Fifth ballot
After the fifth ballot, the final two of three candidates continued on to the sixth ballot. Wayne Allyn Root was therefore eliminated, and after the vote, he made a speech endorsing Barr and stating that he would like to be Barr's candidate for Vice-President. Barr and Root then stated that they would run together.

2008 Libertarian Party National Convention total vote count: Round 5 Candidate Total votes cast Percent of votes cast
Mary Ruwart 229 37.1%
Bob Barr 223 36.1%
Wayne Allyn Root 165 26.7%
This box: view • talk • edit Color key: 1st place 2nd place 3rd place



[edit] Sixth ballot
With only Barr and Ruwart remaining on the ballot, Barr received 324 votes to Ruwart's 276 and 26 NOTA. Barr thus won the nomination with 51.8% of the final vote.[6]

Ruwart made a concession speech following the announcement of the results with her campaign staff on the stage.

2008 Libertarian Party National Convention total vote count: Round 6 Candidate Total votes cast Percent of votes cast
Bob Barr 324 51.8%
Mary Ruwart 276 44.1%
NOTA 26 4.2%
This box: view • talk • edit Color key: 1st place 2nd place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Libertarian_National_Convention

[ARealConservative]

It's happened twice in our country's short history however you are correct in saying it probably wont happen in our lifetime. Although it will be interesting to see if the Democratic party can maintain the inroads in made in the south and the mid-west during the previous election. If this trend continues the Republican Party is a dead man.

I see a couple issues that could prevent this from ever occurring again

1) The government did not control the educational system then. They do now
2) The Whigs and Federalists essentially got their platform enacted making themselves obsolete. Today, the two parties have learned to scare people into their cause without truly trying to solve the issue. Whether it is poverty, abortion, etc, etc. They will not address the issue because doing so makes them lose support.

[V4Vendetta]

One reason, and one reason only....

THE CIA AND FBI Have Infiltrated the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. The mere number of votes for Bob Barr and Alan Keyes, at both parties conventions proves this fact.

Alan Keyes was almost the nominee of the constitution Party, and he wanted to continue and spread the unconstitutional wars. Kind of a oxymoron to join the constitution party, and then disobey it, isn't it?

The shear number of votes he received at their convention was very disturbing, I mean how can delegates of "The Constitution Party" vote for someone that tells them he will disobey the constitution?????

Answer: Those delegates don't believe in the constitution, they are in the wrong party, or right party; if they are FEDS trying to destroy the third party movement.

J.F.K. was right - the CIA should have been shattered into a million pieces.

[RCA]

One reason, and one reason only....

THE CIA AND FBI Have Infiltrated the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. The mere number of votes for Bob Barr and Alan Keyes, at both parties conventions proves this fact.

Alan Keyes was almost the nominee of the constitution Party, and he wanted to continue and spread the unconstitutional wars. Kind of a oxymoron to join the constitution party, and then disobey it, isn't it?

The shear number of votes he received at their convention was very disturbing, I mean how can delegates of "The Constitution Party" vote for someone that tells them he will disobey the constitution?????

Answer: Those delegates don't believe in the constitution, they are in the wrong party, or right party; if they are FEDS trying to destroy the third party movement.

J.F.K. was right - the CIA should have been shattered into a million pieces.

This sounds interesting. Do you have any sources to back this claim up?

[ARealConservative]

One reason, and one reason only....

THE CIA AND FBI Have Infiltrated the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. The mere number of votes for Bob Barr and Alan Keyes, at both parties conventions proves this fact.

Alan Keyes was almost the nominee of the constitution Party, and he wanted to continue and spread the unconstitutional wars. Kind of a oxymoron to join the constitution party, and then disobey it, isn't it?

The shear number of votes he received at their convention was very disturbing, I mean how can delegates of "The Constitution Party" vote for someone that tells them he will disobey the constitution?????

Answer: Those delegates don't believe in the constitution, they are in the wrong party, or right party; if they are FEDS trying to destroy the third party movement.

J.F.K. was right - the CIA should have been shattered into a million pieces.

pure idiocy

[Original_Intent]

It seems like the LP went with name recognition over principle this go-round.

[Bradley in DC]

It seems like the LP went with name recognition over principle this go-round.

Right, because nominating someone from the LNC is selling out. :p

[Bradley in DC]

The Electoral College does create a winner take all situation however when one of the two parties is on the decline as the previous poster mentioned it can create a vacuum for a third party to rise and take it's place.

Technically, no.

The states determine how their EC votes are allocated. It's just that 48 of them award them winner-take-all, but it's not inherent in the EC no.

[Bradley in DC]

I will say this: Barr ran a much better campaign to get the LP nomination than he did to win the general (or that Dr. Paul did to win the Republican nomination). I was one of the ones "whipping" delegates (in my case those who didn't understand his role in the USA PATRIOT Act). It was a very professional and impressive campaign.

[ARealConservative]

Technically, no.

The states determine how their EC votes are allocated. It's just that 48 of them award them winner-take-all, but it's not inherent in the EC no.

good point

[Galileo Galilei]

One reason, and one reason only....

THE CIA AND FBI Have Infiltrated the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. The mere number of votes for Bob Barr and Alan Keyes, at both parties conventions proves this fact.

Alan Keyes was almost the nominee of the constitution Party, and he wanted to continue and spread the unconstitutional wars. Kind of a oxymoron to join the constitution party, and then disobey it, isn't it?

The shear number of votes he received at their convention was very disturbing, I mean how can delegates of "The Constitution Party" vote for someone that tells them he will disobey the constitution?????

Answer: Those delegates don't believe in the constitution, they are in the wrong party, or right party; if they are FEDS trying to destroy the third party movement.

J.F.K. was right - the CIA should have been shattered into a million pieces.

This is crazy. Barr was personally recruited into the LP by my friend Stephen Gordon.

http://gordonunleashed.com/blog/index.php

A person of Barr's stature is quite a coup for the LP. He got a lot of votes purely because the mass media does not give the LP much news coverage, and people felt he could get more.

Keyes got votes for the same reason, he is reletively well known for a third party candidate. He still got beat soundly by an unknown named Chuck Baldwin.

Delegates weigh many factors when voting, including name recognition, speaking ability, and party purity. Other factors include how well the candidate has hob-knobbed for votes and whether the delegates know the candidate personally. Delegates want a candidate who will work hard for publicity.

[V4Vendetta]

This sounds interesting. Do you have any sources to back this claim up?

yeah, common sense

[V4Vendetta]

Keyes got votes for the same reason, he is reletively well known for a third party candidate. He still got beat soundly by an unknown named Chuck Baldwin.


Chuck Baldwin was very known, he was Michale Peroutka's VP pick in 2004. And he has been writing columns for years. Not to mention, those active in the Patriot community know him very well.

By the way, I could care less who Bob Barr was introduced by. I am merely stating the FACT that the amount of Delegate votes he received from the LP Delegation was/is VERY DISTURBING!!

Maybe Bob Barr is a reformed NeoCon, I don't know. But he certainly talks better nowadays. But still, there were much better choices - MARY

[Kraig]

Didn't seem like he put much effort into it after he won.

[Bradley in DC]

Maybe Bob Barr is a reformed NeoCon, I don't know. But he certainly talks better nowadays. But still, there were much better choices - MARY

Do NeoCons vote against war (see Kosovo) and join Dr. Paul in a lawsuit against the president regarding his illegal bombing? Oh right, he was "reformed."

IMHO, Mary lost the nomination by demonstrating very poor campaigning skills (specifically the tone-deaf defense of kiddie porn).

[ARealConservative]

yeah, common sense

This is a good reason why we didn't do better in 2008.

For every four intelligent people out canvassing, we have one certifiably insane, or otherwise retarded person pretending to know what the hell they are talking about causing more harm then good in the process.

[Galileo Galilei]

Chuck Baldwin was very known, he was Michale Peroutka's VP pick in 2004. And he has been writing columns for years. Not to mention, those active in the Patriot community know him very well.

By the way, I could care less who Bob Barr was introduced by. I am merely stating the FACT that the amount of Delegate votes he received from the LP Delegation was/is VERY DISTURBING!!

Maybe Bob Barr is a reformed NeoCon, I don't know. But he certainly talks better nowadays. But still, there were much better choices - MARY

You have misunderstood what I said. Baldwin was well known in CP circles, and in fact he was their VP candidate in 2004.

But Baldwin was unknown to the voting public. Keyes, on the other hand, has national name recognition.

Most people who voted for Keyes at the CP convention felt that he could get more news coverage for the CP (whether it would be good coverage is another question). He did not come close at all to beating Baldwin.

As far as the LP convention, I preferred Ruwart. But that fact is, Barr got a few dozen national TV interviews. Ruwart would only have gotten a few.

Preaching to the choir does not build a political party, nor does it build a political movement.

The fact that Barr only got 25% on the first ballot, despite being a former congressman, and going up against people with zero national name recognition, is not disturbing at all. If he had put together a better set of issues and followed Stephen Gordon's campaign advice, he would have won on the first ballot.

Did you watch Barr in the Waco video?

[revolutionisnow]

It only takes a few dollars to co-opt or infiltrate a movement.

[Bradley in DC]

Chuck Baldwin was very known, he was Michale Peroutka's VP pick in 2004. And he has been writing columns for years. Not to mention, those active in the Patriot community know him very well.

Statistically speaking, no one knows who Chuck Baldwin is even after two national campaigns.


McKinney and Baldwin Not Factors
There remain very few polls that include McKinney and even fewer that include Baldwin. Therefore, there is not much statistical confidence in their numbers. The one August poll that put Baldwin's support at 0.1% nationwide grossly exaggerated the minor party support in their sample putting Libertarians as 4% of the general population and 1% of Americans as Constitution Party members (with Baldwin only getting support from 10% of CP members and no one else, presumably). McKinney's support has dropped from 0.3% in the October 25th Zogby tracking poll to 0.1% in the one released October 31st. In the same two Zogby polls, Nader fell from 2.2% to 1.7% while Barr rose from 0.8% to 1.1%. Baldwin has never demonstrated any measurable support. In an October Gallup poll that included him, he did not garner more than an asterik (not enough to round up to 1%). Since he is only on the ballot for just more than half of all Americans, it is unlikely he could be getting much more than 0.2% of the vote. While some Baldwin supporters claim the endorsement from US Rep. Ron Paul would be significant (exagerated claims varied), even when Ron Paul's name himself was included as a standard bearer for the Constitution Party nationally, the CP consistently got the same asterik in a DemocracyCorp tracking poll.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5359.html


Independent Ralph Nader fares best among the minor party candidates and has the highest name recognition. An August 21-23 Gallup poll put his favorability rating 29% favorable to 44% unfavorable to 16% unsure with only 11% saying they had never heard of him.

Libertarian Bob Barr is in the second-tier of candidates with Ralph Nader. His favorability ratio in the same poll as Nader is 10% favorable, 17% unfavorable, 56% did not recognize him and 17% were unsure.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5158.html

[heavenlyboy34]

Not true. Jesse Ventura got elected. So did Abe Lincoln.

The two-party system is not permanent.

The poll numbers for third party show a steady increase since the 1950s, and the poll numbers of republicrats show a steady decline. This cannot go on for another 50 years without a shakeup.

qft! The 2 party system is far too corrupt to be viable in the long term, IMHO. :cool:

[V4Vendetta]

This is a good reason why we didn't do better in 2008.

For every four intelligent people out canvassing, we have one certifiably insane, or otherwise retarded person pretending to know what the hell they are talking about causing more harm then good in the process.

Yep, I am insane, and I am responsible for turning 100 people off on Ron Paul. I should just stay home.

[dr. hfn]

I think the majority of the delegates wanted to make the party more viable and succesful so they voted for who they thought would get more votes and do better. That did work out to an extent, the Libertarian Party got 25% more votes than in 2004.
However, I believe the Libertarian Party needs to stay pure and not become corrupted like the Republican Party has. What good would a corrupted Libertarian Party do us?

[Galileo Galilei]

I think the majority of the delegates wanted to make the party more viable and succesful so they voted for who they thought would get more votes and do better. That did work out to an extent, the Libertarian Party got 25% more votes than in 2004.
However, I believe the Libertarian Party needs to stay pure and not become corrupted like the Republican Party has. What good would a corrupted Libertarian Party do us?

Barr's biggest problem is that he did excite people on the Internet, like Badnarik did. Or like Ron Paul did.