Bob Barr for VP? Why not?

[No Free Beer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Ron Paul very fond of Mr. Barr? Why not he? I think he would make a great match...

[freedom-maniac]

Another small-time liberatarian politician (with questionable libertarian credentials, let's be honest), isn't going to help.

[amy31416]

I take it you didn't follow the 2008 primary?

[No Free Beer]

What happened?

[acptulsa]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/removebobbar/signatures

Barr pissed off most of his potential supporters, that's what.

As the New Yorkers say, fuggedaboudit.

[muzzled dogg]

L
m
a
o

[No Free Beer]

but what exactly did he do?

[LibertyEagle]

I take it you didn't follow the 2008 primary?

+1

[amy31416]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/removebobbar/signatures

Barr pissed off most of his potential supporters, that's what.

As the New Yorkers say, fuggedaboudit.

Damn...my memory fails me, did I start that petition? I think I might have...

Either way, Barr totally screwed up, but that's par for the course in the LP, it seems.

[ItsTime]

He is going to shock the world and ask Nader. ha!

[amy31416]

but what exactly did he do?

He dissed Ron Paul and tried to enact a "coup" of sorts.

[No Free Beer]

Well lets change the question, who is Paul's VP?

[acptulsa]

Well lets change the question, who is Paul's VP?

If Romney has enough class to not name one until he has won the nomination, why would Ron Paul lack it?

The question is beyond premature. Only the candidate needs a running mate.

[heavenlyboy34]

Bob Barr is a tragicomedy.

[amy31416]

Well lets change the question, who is Paul's VP?

I think Walter Williams is a classy fellow, but if you're looking for someone younger, I like Judge Napolitano.

[polomertz]

Barr snubbed him at the "we agree on these things" press conference with Nader, McKinny, and Baldwin. He said he would be there and didn't show at the last minute because he said he wanted to set himself apart. Ron was clearly pissed. I've never seen him with more ire in his eyes. Not to mention voting for the patriot act.

[Guitarzan]

RP scheduled a press conference with the McKinney (G), Nader (I?), Baldwin (CP), and Barr (L) to tell his supporters to support a third party candidate. Barr got pissed because he thought RP was splitting up the liberty vote and thought that RP should endorse him...and he canceled at the last minute.

Not long after that, RP endorsed Balwin and that was that.

Barr's not anything special anyhow...former Republican crusader turned 'libertarian'.


Where have you been? lol

[hillertexas]

Another reason not to be a Bob Barr fan:

September 25, 1996: Mere days before Congress adjourns for the year, Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) introduces H.R. 4170, the "Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996." Within a few days, the bill attracts a coalition of 26 Republican cosponsors. The legislation demands either a life sentence or the death penalty for anyone caught bringing more than two ounces of marijuana into the United States. The bill ultimately dies a well-deserved death.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.4170:

Cosponsors:
Rep Barr, Bob [GA-7] - 9/26/1996
Rep Bliley, Tom [VA-7] - 9/26/1996
Rep Bunn, Jim [OR-5] - 9/26/1996
Rep Canady, Charles T. [FL-12] - 9/26/1996
Rep Chenoweth, Helen [ID-1] - 9/26/1996
Rep Christensen, Jon [NE-2] - 9/26/1996
Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-9] - 9/26/1996
Rep Dornan, Robert K. [CA-46] - 9/26/1996
Rep English, Phil [PA-21] - 9/26/1996
Rep Fox, Jon D. [PA-13] - 9/26/1996
Rep Hilleary, Van [TN-4] - 9/26/1996
Rep Hutchinson, Tim [AR-3] - 9/26/1996
Rep Kim, Jay [CA-41] - 9/27/1996
Rep Martini, William J. [NJ-8] - 9/27/1996
Rep Molinari, Susan [NY-13] - 9/26/1996
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 9/26/1996
Rep Nethercutt, George R., Jr. [WA-5] - 9/26/1996
Rep Parker, Mike [MS-4] - 9/26/1996
Rep Paxon, Bill [NY-27] - 9/26/1996
Rep Portman, Rob [OH-2] - 10/2/1996
Rep Sensenbrenner, James, Jr. [WI-9] - 9/26/1996
Rep Solomon, Gerald B. H. [NY-22] - 9/26/1996
Rep Stump, Bob [AZ-3] - 9/27/1996
Rep Tate, Randy [WA-9] - 9/27/1996
Rep Waldholtz, Enid Greene [UT-2] - 9/26/1996
Rep Watts, J. C., Jr. [OK-4] - 9/27/1996

[Dr.3D]

I believe Chuck Baldwin would be a better choice over Bob Barr.

[freedom-maniac]

Another reason not to be a Bob Barr fan:

He also voted for the Iraq War and the PATRIOT Act

[Meatwasp]

Chuck Baldwin is the man.

[freedom-maniac]

I don't think it's productive to continue these conversations about Dr. Paul's potential VP, when he has not even come close to securing the nomination yet. Let's spend our time working on assuring that first, and then think Veeps.

[R3volutionJedi]

Chuck Baldwin/Andrew Napolitano/Jessue Ventura

[Austin]

I don't think it's productive to continue these conversations about Dr. Paul's potential VP, when he has not even come close to securing the nomination yet. Let's spend our time working on assuring that first, and then think Veeps.
+rep

Chuck Baldwin/Andrew Napolitano/Jessue Ventura

I don't think Baldwin would really help the ticket, and I'd rather see Napolitano on the SCOTUS. I don't want Ventura anywhere near Ron's campaign.

EDIT: I like how I commend freedom-maniac, but then go on to continue the discussion.. haha

[Eric21ND]

Lol @ Bob Barr...dude is a joke and johnny-come-lately to libertarian values. He had his shot in congress and blew it pretty disastrously. Serious contenders for VP are: Walter Williams, Judge Napolitano, Jim Demint, and Tom McClintock.

[AJ Antimony]

Why not? How about you make a case for VP Barr that's more than 1 sentence long

[sailingaway]

We don't know who his VP would be. Who do you think it should be? But not Bob Barr.

[libertybrewcity]

This guy is a Libertarian, not a Republican. Ron Paul is running as a Republican, remember?

[trey4sports]

Chuck Baldwin/Andrew Napolitano/Jessue Ventura

Ok/too old/too kooky

[trey4sports]

I like Mike Lee.

[jake]

Napolitano too old?? what

[trey4sports]

Napolitano too old?? what

Yes, he's 61. He brings nothing new to the ticket, and hes not even a FNC regular.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I don't think it's productive to continue these conversations about Dr. Paul's potential VP, when he has not even come close to securing the nomination yet. Let's spend our time working on assuring that first, and then think Veeps.

You're missing the obvious. We just can't hope to get the GOP nomination WITHOUT the neo-con vote which forms a pretty big chunk of the GOP; it's nearly impossible, we just can't turn so many pro-war people into anti-war people, most just aren't going to listen, it's not going to happen in such a short time till the primaries [continued]


Napolitano too old?? what

Yes, he's 61; with Ron being so old he needs to choose a much younger candidate for VP as a lot of voters might fear Ron might die before completing his term, not to mention we need someone who's not only libertarian-leaning but also can establish himself as strong presidential candidate for 2016

Please care to read this little exposition on WHY VP is so important to a candidate like Ron (not so much to Romneys & Obamas of the world) to even secure the GOP nomination - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?297287-POLL-Ron-Paul-s-VP&p=3330465&viewfull=1#post3330465

[Billay]

This thread sucks

[LibertyEagle]

You're missing the obvious. We just can't hope to get the GOP nomination WITHOUT the neo-con vote which forms a pretty big chunk of the GOP; it's nearly impossible, we just can't turn so many pro-war people into anti-war people, most just aren't going to listen, it's not going to happen in such a short time till the primaries [continued]

Here's what you are not getting. VPs are not chosen until AFTER the primary. If we don't win that, we are dead in the water.

Secondly, to say that the majority of Republicans are neocons is completely false. Sure, there are some big government folks. Both the old "Rockefeller Republican" types and some neocons. These people aren't going to vote for Ron Paul anyway. They are leftists.

The others, the ones who think of themselves as small government conservatives, we have a real chance with. Especially since Dr. Paul is finally talking about God; that may open their ears to hear the other things he is saying. You're right that some of them were led astray about our foreign policy, but that does not a neocon make.

[sailingaway]

You're missing the obvious. We just can't hope to get the GOP nomination WITHOUT the neo-con vote which forms a pretty big chunk of the GOP; it's nearly impossible, we just can't turn so many pro-war people into anti-war people, most just aren't going to listen, it's not going to happen in such a short time till the primaries [continued]


Yes, he's 61; with Ron being so old he needs to choose a much younger candidate for VP as a lot of voters might fear Ron might die before completing his term, not to mention we need someone who's not only libertarian-leaning but also can establish himself as strong presidential candidate for 2016

Please care to read this little exposition on WHY VP is so important to a candidate like Ron (not so much to Romneys & Obamas of the world) to even secure the GOP nomination - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?297287-POLL-Ron-Paul-s-VP&p=3330465&viewfull=1#post3330465


A neocon VP? No. There are other kinds of conservatives to reach out to. Neocons belong in the big government party.

61 is not too old, but spreading beyond what is viewed as libertarian is probably a good idea.

Rand works for me. :p

Someone along De Mint's line might work but the patriot act vote is a real issue to me. I think that should be anathema to any Constitutionalist.

[Jonathon]

Deleted.

[Jonathon]

Deleted.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Here's what you are not getting. VPs are not chosen until AFTER the primary. If we don't win that, we are dead in the water.

You should've read the given link then you'd've realized that others don't need to declare their VPs early for one reason or another but because Ron's blocks are so small that he needs someone else who can attract GOP-votes that he himself can't; if he can't do that then we're in dead water too, that's why he needs a VP that can bring in as much of the GOP vote as he can & Rand seems like the best possible choice for that purpose.

We'd be kidding ourselves if we think that Ron's going to win the nomination ON HIS OWN without the support of the media & the GOP-machine; we need help to broaden the appeal to GOP masses in order to secure the nomination.


Secondly, to say that the majority of Republicans are neocons is completely false. Sure, there are some big government folks. Both the old "Rockefeller Republican" types and some neocons. These people aren't going to vote for Ron Paul anyway. They are leftists.

The others, the ones who think of themselves as small government conservatives, we have a real chance with. Especially since Dr. Paul is finally talking about God; that may open their ears to hear the other things he is saying. You're right that some of them were led astray about our foreign policy, but that does not a neocon make.


A neocon VP? No. There are other kinds of conservatives to reach out to. Neocons belong in the big government party.

61 is not too old, but spreading beyond what is viewed as libertarian is probably a good idea.

Rand works for me. :p

Someone along De Mint's line might work but the patriot act vote is a real issue to me. I think that should be anathema to any Constitutionalist.

Look, maybe I've a much broader definition of "neo-con" than you guys; to me, "neo-con" is anyone who's NOT close to "libertarian", "old conservative/right", "paleo-con" or whatever you'd want to call it; these labels are approximations anyway. So by that definition, neo-cons would be a pretty big chunk of the GOP.

Now, it's likely that you guys have a definition of "neo-con" which is less encompassing than mine but that's not the point; THE POINT IS that Ron's main support-blocks are pretty small & that's why he needs a VP who has enough GOP appeal on the national stage to broaden his appeal otherwise Ron's chances of getting the GOP-nomination are pretty much non-existent (considering he's still polling ~10% & it took him years to get there) & in that sense, I think Rand fits the bill better than most as he's not GOP-establishment but still appeals to segments of GOP that wouldn't go for Ron; on the other hand, Rand is "conservative" enough to not turn off Ron's own support-blocks as might be the case with Palin, DeMint, Cain, etc

[acptulsa]

Well, I figure the odds are roughly zero that the man will announce a running mate without having the nomination in hand. And, I figure the odds are roughly zero that he'll be as obnoxious as McCain and stand up on the stage of the RNC hand-in-hand with a non-Republican.

So, I guess we're free to speculate all we want. And this is good, as it means those concentrating on coverting Republicans to the cause can speculate about DeMint and those trying to get liberals re-registered so they can vote for a peace candidate can speculate about Kucinich...

[Johncjackson]

i just wrote a long reply but this place ate it and said my message was too short. so whatever.,

[ValidusCustodiae]

Bob Barr is a stinking pile of refuse. He is *NO* libertarian. Let's not forget that he was the golden boy of the war on drugs.

[libertarian4321]

I believe Chuck Baldwin would be a better choice over Bob Barr.

If we have to resort to EITHER of those guys, we are in big trouble.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Well, I figure the odds are roughly zero that the man will announce a running mate without having the nomination in hand. And, I figure the odds are roughly zero that he'll be as obnoxious as McCain and stand up on the stage of the RNC hand-in-hand with a non-Republican.

The question is will he ever get the nomination on his own? Keeping my emotions aside & speaking OBJECTIVELY, I don't think he would considering how low he's on polls while media & GOP will keep hindering his popularity from growing & will likely succeed; it's too much to ask in a few months time, it may happen but there's a more than a good chance it might not.


So, I guess we're free to speculate all we want. And this is good, as it means those concentrating on coverting Republicans to the cause can speculate about DeMint and those trying to get liberals re-registered so they can vote for a peace candidate can speculate about Kucinich...

The thing is they might speculate & speculate but GOP masses that don't see Ron as their first choice will NOT vote for him in the primaries if someone representing their support isn't with Ron, & thus, primaries will be a lot harder for someone like Ron than the general election itself.

The idea that we can convert so many people in such a short span of time for Ron to win the primaries on his own seems pretty chimeric at the moment.

[acptulsa]

The idea that we can convert so many people in such a short span of time for Ron to win the primaries on his own seems pretty chimeric at the moment.

I agree that the task at hand is monumental. The thing is, the alternative is unconscionable. So we had better figure something out. And, no, a running mate won't save us...

Read your own sig. The crisis is occuring, and it's almost unprecedented. So don't rule us out yet.

[teacherone]

Bob Barr for VP? Why not?

His stupid mustache?

[chudrockz]

This guy is a Libertarian, not a Republican. Ron Paul is running as a Republican, remember?

Ironically, however, Ron Paul (imo) is FAR more "libertarian" than Barr will ever be.

As an aside, I've been a member of the Libertarian Party for many years, and the 2008 election is the first time in a long time I did NOT vote Libertarian for President. Bob Barr and the ultra racist Wayne Allan Root. SHEESH.

[ChrisDixon]

If we have to resort to EITHER of those guys, we are in big trouble.

Agreed. I voted Baldwin in 2008, but he would be bad for Paul's VP. He has said and written a lot of things that would alienate potential liberal/progressive and Independent supporters. These things would also be perfect material for the media to run with and combined with the "racist letters", they could really run with it. It would be a nightmare.

Barr is self-explanatory. He's as libertarian as Glenn Beck.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I agree that the task at hand is monumental. The thing is, the alternative is unconscionable. So we had better figure something out. And, no, a running mate won't save us...

Where have I said that "VP would save us" or anything to the tune that "VP would DEFINITELY win us the nomination"? I haven't said anything like that, it's just that whatever Rand might bring in will DEFINITELY help; it'll increase the CHANCES of getting the nomination by some % which is better than not running with a VP & thereby NOT getting those additional votes in the primaries, that could easily turn out to be the difference between winning & losing.


Read your own sig. The crisis is occuring, and it's almost unprecedented. So don't rule us out yet.

Where have I ruled out anything? I'm talking about % CHANCE of us getting the nomination & doing as much as we can to increase it & Rand might just give us what we need to "get over the line".

We're not in Romney's position where we can just sit back & HOPE & be happy with whatever votes we might get in addition to what we already have; we MUST take some risks & be innovative otherwise there's a good chance that 2012 will just turn out to be a "better version of 2008"; this is our best opportunitiy, we mustn't squander it by just sitting back & hoping to get by on whatever votes we'd get, we must exploit all avenues to maximize them even if it means making some unusual decisions.