Bob Barr for Georgia's 14th?

[J. W. Evans]

Former GOP Rep. and Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee, Bob Barr, who seems to be imitating Ron Paul from his earlier days in a few ways, is apparently considering an attempt at returning to Congress.
He'd be challenging the 2010 Tea Party favorite, Tom Graves, as well as another candidate in the primary, Steve Tarwin.

"As a Republican, Barr was a fervent barn-burner – and helped lead the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. But after leaving Congress, he joined the Libertarian party, becoming its presidential nominee in 2008.

In the process, Barr campaigned against what he saw were excesses of the Patriot Act, and has argued for an end to the Defense of Marriage Act – which he once sponsored, and which allows states to ignore the marriages of gay couples permitted elsewhere." (Source)

So the question is, has Barr changed enough to be considered a true Liberty candidate?

[Kludge]

Even as the LP candidate in 2008, he snubbed Ron Paul's endorsement due to a "scheduling conflict" his campaign apparently didn't bother telling Paul's people about, apparently visibly pissing Ron off. IIRC, Ron ended up only endorsing Nader and the Green Party candidate after they agreed to sign his four-point Major Issues statement. Already considered a "compromise candidate" when he was nominated by the LP in '08, with a poor showing (even by LP standards), and with a Tea Party candidate running already, I suspect he'll have a lot of trouble finding even a niche of voters.

[Enforcer]

Bob Barr voted for the so - called "Patriot Act." That was my sole reason for voting against him when he tried to run for Congress after they cut up my district and put him up against John Linder.

When Barr went to work for the ACLU, to his credit, he spoke out publicly when the government attempted to use the so - called "Patriot Act" against me. I don't know that I could say I would now vote for or against him, but in order to earn my vote he would have to admit having voted for the so - called "Patriot Act" without having read it and give us his solemn word to never vote on any bill that he does not read and hear debate on.

[PatriotOne]

No. Bob Barr is ex-CIA and I am convinced he is a infiltrator in the Libertarian Party more to control it and get inside info more than to help the cause. One just has to look at his voting record to see how he votes..and THEN talks about regrets after it is too late.

[Aratus]

he's headed BACK to the gop? facinating!

[erowe1]

I don't like him. But I would consider supporting him for this.

[erowe1]

give us his solemn word to never vote on any bill that he does not read and hear debate on.

That's impossible. Neither Ron Paul nor anyone else in Congress does that. And if he did make that promise, it could easily be used by the leadership by bringing things to a vote before he's had a time to read them if they think he wouldn't vote their way.

[Enforcer]

That's impossible. Neither Ron Paul nor anyone else in Congress does that. And if he did make that promise, it could easily be used by the leadership by bringing things to a vote before he's had a time to read them if they think he wouldn't vote their way.

Ron Paul has consistently voted against bills he did not read and he has always said if a bill took longer than five minutes to read, he would most likely, vote against it.

[emazur]

So the question is, has Barr changed enough to be considered a true Liberty candidate?

I consider Barr '08 as a true Liberty candidate, just not in the same league as Ron Paul, who is the gold standard of liberty candidates.

Barr's platform was at least as good as Rand Paul's. You can and should complain about his non-libertarian votes in Congress, but people can change. Barr endorsed Michael Badnarik for President in 2004, several years before making a run for LP prez himself.

[Imperial]

It is worth noting that Graves has some decent credentials himself. He was one of the skeptics on Libya and the Patriot Act.

[erowe1]

Ron Paul has consistently voted against bills he did not read and he has always said if a bill took longer than five minutes to read, he would most likely, vote against it.

But if he didn't vote on them he wouldn't be able to vote against them.

Plus, he sometimes votes yes, but that doesn't mean he read the bill.

What matters is whether they vote the right way, not whether they read the bill or not.

[Enforcer]

A lot of congresscritters thought they voted the "right" way after 9 / 11. We were told that the so - called "Patriot Act" was a response to a terrorist attack on the U.S. What a load of horsesh!+!

You are expected that a 342 page piece of legislation was written, researched, shepardized, proof-read, rewritten so that every portion would no conflict with some other statute OR, if it did, repeal it.... And all that was done in 42 days! But, that wasn't the case. So, how could you vote the "right way" if you didn't know what the bill contained? What you suggest sounds like Nancy Pelosi's speech on some legislation wherein she said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can see what's in the bill"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

every legislator needs to read the legislation, hear debate or some feedback on both sides in order to find out the pros and cons of any piece of legislation. The so - called "Patriot Act" repealed the Bill of Rights simply because our congresscritters didn't read it.

[Zap!]

Bob Barr was one of the top three House members. The other two being Ron Paul and the late great paleo-con champion, Helen Chenoweth.

[nobody's_hero]

I would consider putting him back in the House but I don't understand why he wants to run against Tom Graves (probably the best Republican from Georgia in the U.S. House at the moment). He should run against the rino senator Saxby Chambliss, next up for re-election 2014.

I think Barr has always had a bit of an ego problem, so he probably cares more about getting back in than looking at who he is replacing.

[1836]

Barr in '08 was a different guy than Barr from Congress.

I'd suggest that if he goes forward with this, we offer him our grassroots support.

[Zatch]

He can get into congress in 2012 and run for senate in 2014. We really need to boot out Saxby.

[gerryb]

I would much rather support Karen Kwiatkowski in Virginia's 6th.

[Imperial]

As others have noted, the problem is that Rep. Tom Graves is pretty good. He is an ally with Amash in Congress. I would love to see Barr run for office again, but this House seat being contested by him would just waste our resources where it is not needed.

[Nathan Hale]

Bob Barr is totally harmless and a perfect candidate by any standard a movement of our size and tactical ability should expect to sustainably hold. All of these criticisms, from the tin foil hat $#@! to the genuine policy disagreements, have been adequately addressed numerous times in the past.

Yes, he's genuinely reformed. He didn't suddenly reform and run for office. He has campaigned at the core of many organizations close to the policy positions he's criticized for being duplicitous on.

No, he's not some sellout moderate. He's realistic. He's not an ancapper Randroid so the LP politerati were morally wounded. His policy recommendations are pretty much Rand Paul's. As the old sexual analysis goes, I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.

Yes, he's tactically worthwhile. The tea party candidate could be a Marco-$#@!ing-Rubio for all we know. And besides, Bob Barr in that race instantly locks him into the top tier.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Nope, gotta support Graves.

[ryanmkeisling]

$#@! Bob Barr.

[Zap!]

Barr is awesome, him in the House would instantly put him in the top three to five. So him and Ron Paul don't like each other. So what?

[J. W. Evans]

In an article where every major conservative group seemed to bash Bob Barr, it also stated that Barr was preforming powerfully in some polls (I can't find them though )
and it seems Graves' new district moved North a little and added 35% of Barr's old district.

[trey4sports]

bump. I'd love to have a LP member in Congress. Even if he runs as a (R) that'd be great too.

[dustinto]

I know Barr and he has changed. He is a liberty candidate.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

The local Tea Party got Graves elected, and he is one of the best. Why this district?

[kylejack]

No more Bob Barr. He used to be drug czar. Absolutely not.

[georgiaboy]

it's a nice choice to have. Wish every choice were of this degree.

The big gov't types must love all their nuanced choices they get to make between D's and R's. In the end, it's gettin' bigger anyway, win win, whoopee!

[Occam's Banana]

Barr in '08 was a different guy than Barr from Congress.

I'd suggest that if he goes forward with this, we offer him our grassroots support.

I would much rather support Karen Kwiatkowski in Virginia's 6th.

+rep for gerryb

To hell with Barr. Even if his "conversion" is for real, it's too little, too late. He's damaged goods.

[Nathan Hale]

To hell with Barr. Even if his "conversion" is for real, it's too little, too late. He's damaged goods.

His conversion is real. Since he's been out of Congress he's been working for liberty issues. It's easy to jest about him from the cheap seats, but if you've ever been in the field watching him pitch for NORML and other pro-liberty groups you can't deny his convictions. And, damaged goods or not, in a Congressional race I'd take a good guy with a bad past better than a nobody who passes all the litmus tests and guarantees us a primary loss (or worse, a third party run).