Bob Barr on "Fox News Sunday"
Submitted by tajitj on Sun, 06/29/2008 - 17:53
From today June 29th.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TbHtWQ-Hj04
Digg It!
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Libertarian_Bob_Barr_on_FO...
Here is a CNN interview where they discuss Dr. Paul and what Barr is doing to win us over.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DBD7LsQOYFQ&feature=user
»
a shill
for the Democrats. That is all. I'm sure he's being paid handsomely.
The Campaign For Liberty is Screwed
It was a nice dream....
Bob Barr on Fox News Sunday
Bob did a great job on the interview. He answered the questions with articulation and explanation. I am so glad that he is upholding our Constitutional rights and that I will be able to vote for someone for President who can restore peace, prosperity and liberty. I will be ordering bumper stickers and buttons today from Cafe Press. I will be happy when the official Barr campaign store is open on his website www.bobbarr2008.com
Would you stop and rethink that statement for a moment?
You said in your post above "I am so glad that he is upholding our Constitutional rights..."
The US Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US SO MUCH AS A SINGLE RIGHT. OUR RIGHTS ARE GRANTED TO US BY OUR CREATOR. OUR GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS, AND THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN TO SPELL OUT SPECIFICALLY WHICH RIGHTS OUR GOERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT..
Furthermore, Mr. Barr voted YES to pass the USA (un)Patriot Act, which stripped us of the protections of our rights which the US Constituition was written to ensure.
Bob Barr is part of the problem, not part of the solution. He had his chance to stand up and speak loudly in defense of our liberty, but he did not.
My take on Barr's interview
Having just watched this it's my view that one of Barr's key strengths is his calm, considerate, and thoughtful tone. It's mature and reasoned, and plays to some elements of presidential confidence that the electorate seeks. He's nearly perfect on television and doesn't sound as preachy or academic as Obama, and certainly doesn't carry any hint of the stumbling or faked passion that McCain often exhibits. Barr is very clean.
As a libertarian supporter of Paul since first voting for him in 1988, I often listen to these interviews to see if Barr is going to say enough to energize the libertarian party base. I'm probably hoping for the wrong thing, since this shouldn't be his goal. If I was ever asked by a pollster about Obama, McCain, Nader and Barr, I don't think there's any question which I would indicate. Barr's goal is to move the poll numbers among those dissatisfied with McCain or those who think Obama running to the right on Middle East policy, FISA, corporatism, and other issues (which he is).
1. Barr framing the Defense of Marriage Act as a states' rights issue is perfect for FoxNews, but falls far short of what libertarians want to hear. There's plenty of other states' right issues that federal legislators like Barr never addressed, which means that DOMA is the kind of tactic that would have been used by the religious right like Vitter and Craig today.
2. On the Patriot Act, Barr seems to get some deference from Wallace for first voting for this act, and Wallace never even questions a very strong statement from Barr on the abuse of this act by this administration. I thought this answer would please libertarians, and might be tolerated by the FoxNews audience since it doesn't upset Wallace at all.
3. On medical marijuana, Barr is clever enough to elude this entirely, despite it being mentioned three times to the audience (once on screen, and twice by Wallace). I'd have to check, but I'm not clear if Barr even endorses the party platform on drug legalization. Ron Paul was far stronger and substantially more transparent on the issue.
My conclusion is that Barr is very comfortable in this format and is going to run a campaign that may have a more consistent presidential tone than either Obama or McCain. This will help him over time, and may even get him into some debates or formats that other third party candidates will be denied. I also think he will continue to enjoy strong press access, which is what many at the Libertarian party convention were probably hoping for in supporting him. It does seem to be paying off, despite that fact that Barr is clearly not presenting a textbook libertarian viewpoint when he appears on forums like these.
Clever indeed.
Clever enough to make you have to find out for yourself.
http://www.mpp.org/states/district-of-columbia/news/marijuan...
Commission on Presidential Debates - http://www.debates.org/pages/sitesel.html
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocracy.com/
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
Black Box Voting - http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."
A Libertarian...
That introduces a bill against medical marijauna, is no libertarian.
Now, where is that Chuck Baldwin video?
Bob Barr sucks. His support
Bob Barr sucks. His support of government being involved in moral issues proves that he does not understand the real meaning of liberty.
Libertarian or not.
Barr voted for the patriot act which is in direct opposition to the CONSTITUTION. With that in mind I consider him a treasonus traitor to the Republic. He will not get my money, time, or vote because of this. PERIOD.
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Once again, let's not cloud the issue with facts
This is by far the most common criticism of Bob Barr, yet it is thrown around as a black vs. white criticism when the truth lies in the details. Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act so he could put a sunset clause in it to force it to expire every 5 years. This clause requires that the Act pass a legislative vote to continue. If Barr did not vote for the Patriot Act his sunset clause would likely not exist. It would be permanent. It was going to pass with or without Barr’s vote so Barr’s strategic decision was to vote for it so he could shape it by adding the sunset provision. This is Bob Barr jumping on the grenade to save liberty. He testified against the Patriot Act in 2005 when it came up for renewal. He has spoken out against it in just about every interview since its passage. Yes, Barr voted for the Patriot Act, but there is more to the story than just the vote.
"Yes, Barr voted for the
"Yes, Barr voted for the Patriot Act, but there is more to the story than just the vote."
No, the vote is all I really need to know about Barr. The spin is just spin. I couldn't care less about the Sunset Provision. Most of the evils of the legislation were unaffected by the Sunset Provision.
He's running for the job of Commander-In-Chief, not Postmaster General or city councilman. I once voted for Bob Dole. Then I developed principles. I refuse to vote the lesser of two evils again.
I demand more from a President.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Wow that sucks you voted for
Wow that sucks you voted for Dole. You know Ron Paul probably voted for Bush at least the first time around right?
Commission on Presidential Debates - http://www.debates.org/pages/sitesel.html
National Ballot Access - http://www.directdemocracy.com/
Voters for none of the above - http://nota.org/
Black Box Voting - http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."
I didn't vote for Bush. By
I didn't vote for Bush. By that time I was awake.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Huh...
"The spin is just spin."? No, those are the facts. Spin would be not taking the whole issue into concern, and just picking and choosing individual facts that work for your argument. That is spin, and you are the one spinning the facts. So it doesn't matter to you that the bill was going to pass anyway, and Barr was the man who put the clause in to make sure it wasn't permanent? Are you even remotely happy that Barr was the man that put the clause in to help make the Patriot Act not permanent?
No, none of what you
No, none of what you mentioned is relevant to the issue.
Barr voted for a bill he should have rejected on constitutional grounds. The excuses about its circumstances are irrelevant. Dr. Paul did not vote for the Patriot Act. He had principles to uphold.
Barr did not uphold his Oath of Office. I actually respect the stupid ones, who said they voted for the Patriot Act without reading it, more than Barr.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Interesting...
So you would have rather Barr voted against the act so there would have been no sunset clause addition which in turn would have made the Patriot Act permanent?
I would not vote for someone
I would not vote for someone who voted for the Patriot Act for any reason.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
According to the Liberty
According to the Liberty Index he does "ok" on personal liberties according to the Republican Liberty Caucus
http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/cg_legis.asp?key=bab02
Although, a lifetime score of 68% is shitty, it's better than a lot of people in the Republican Party. His economic score of 85% is decent. Libertarians often lean more toward the Republican Party than the Democratic Party because they feel economic liberty is more important than personal liberty. Obviously, libertarians and Ron Paul want both economic and personal liberty. The Republican Party (economic liberty) and the Democratic Party (personal liberty) force voters to sacrifice one for the other. Unfortunately, we end up loosing both when we are forced to choose.
Oh Brother
We all know Bob Barr's past conservative positions and his subsequent conversion to libertarian ideas. Quit blaming him for acting like a conservative when he claimed to be a conservative. He has seen the light. Isn't that a good thing...?
Or are you trying to keep Liberty a very small and private fringe club that has no intention of actually accomplishing its stated goals...?
Barr left the GOP officially
Barr left the GOP officially in 2006. (Wow! Two whole years of "seeing the light!")
His neocon running mate Root "converted" to Libertarianism in March 2007 ...at least according to his blogs on "millionairerepublican.com".
A real libertarian would see through these two individuals, at least enough to be skeptical about them as presidential ticket nominees. One reason I oppose them and go with Baldwin is because I've been a libertarian for a long time, and I smell a rat.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I thought Chuck Baldwin
I thought Chuck Baldwin supported the War on Drugs.... Because thats what Jesus would do right?
http://bobbarrforums.com
Interesting...
I'm curious where does he currently stands on the issue? Huh...What is this I found on the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) website?
http://www.mpp.org/states/district-of-columbia/news/marijuan...
You don't have to read it though, I'm sure it's just a Neo-con conspiracy anyway...let's not cloud the issue with facts.
I watched the video
He seemed to have dodged the marijuana question at least 3 times. If the project held a tea and cookies party for him, he should have shouted that to the interviewer.
After listening to Ron Paul over that last year, Barr dosen't sound like the guy who will save our country.
If RP says he backs Barr, I will vote for him without question. If not, I'll wait until the very last minute to decide.
I have generally found that
I have generally found that those who use sarcasm and the word "conspiracy" in combination are attempting to float a sinking argument.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Here is is once again, I
Here is is once again, I came to this tread to see how people honestly though Barr did and I see the same old nonsense. Yeah... maybe I should just post endlessly why I won't vote for Baldwin - hmmmm would that make this site better. I mean I don't need to watch anything he's for or against, I can just call him a Jesus Freak
JESUS FREAK - gee that sound good... yeah that's what I'll do and that will go a long long long way to restoring liberty in this country... yeah!
Seriously, all you endless Barr bashers on this site really make me wonder if liberty is ever possible. For one, you won't give it to anyone (and to have it you have to give it) and second, you act like children.
If you don't want to support Barr - DON'T. but please stop bashing those on here that do.
Now...so honestly, how did he do? I just watched it online and I was curious what others thought. I don't think he did that great, but he did say some good things. He's a lawyer so his strength is with the words he uses, but lacks passion. RP ion the other hand is not good with words but has all the passion. If only we could combine them two!
YOU SAID...
"Seriously, all you endless Barr bashers on this site really make me wonder if liberty is ever possible. For one, you won't give it to anyone (and to have it you have to give it) and second, you act like children.
If you don't want to support Barr - DON'T. but please stop bashing those on here that do."
Supporters of Bob Barr and his stance on illicit drugs make me KNOW that liberty is never possible...
Maybe your guy is getting bashed here because this is not a Bob Barr forum...? Maybe also because Bob Barr is only kinda ok when it comes to protecting liberty...?
Do you have any idea how
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? You declare that liberty is not possible cause some people are supporting a person that is moving towards it? Is that really your stance? I personally think its great to see someone improve and admit they were wrong.
As for this not being a Barr forum, that is correct, but its also not a Baldwin one, so let me say Jesus Freak ten more times!!! Why not? This site is also not a bible forum either!
What this used to be was about Ron Paul when he was running for President. Last time I checked, he lost that race and he acknowledged that. I would have done EVERYTHING to support him if he wanted to run a third party campaign, but he choose not too. So like many other, I am seeking alternatives.
So let me say it again as this helps us get liberty JESUS FREAKS JESUS JESUS JESUS JESUS FREAKS Thank the lord that there are JESUS FREAKS
Do we have more liberty now?
More Christophobes. I find
More Christophobes.
I find it disgusting that there are so many who would support a betrayer of the constitution over a preacher.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I think, and please respond,
That if we don't have RP on the ballot and need to elect a "liberty minded" candidate, we really need to dig deep and ask, "can they stand up to threats and pressure?" I know RP could and I know Chuck Baldwin could (he would never sell his sole to evil, I know he would die for liberty) but do you REALLY think Barr would? I think he would buckle like Reagan and give in. That's what I think.
Constitution party information, be sure they're on your state ballot:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/ba_stats.php
Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
I'm willing to give him a try
First off, I don't think he did that well this morning on Fox, unfortunately. But in the CNN interview, I thought he did a great job to redeem himself a bit. HAHA I think your right on the money. If we could combine RP's passion with Bob Barr's speaking ability we would have ourselves a winner!
Secondly, to the "can they stand up to threats and pressure" question. There's no doubt in my mind RP could, Baldwin I think could, but it's really irrelevant in my mind because he has no chance to win. No one knows who the man even is outside of our circle, so you might as well substitute my name in for Baldwin's because there honestly is no chance this man could win. I think Barr could stand up to it, and he's the only like-minded candidate that has a chance to win and get in on the debates, albeit slim, but our best chance none the less. I'll take my chances on Barr because he's the only one who plausibly could win the election. I'm willing to see if he's up to the challenge. I JUST DON'T WANT MCCAIN OR OBAMA BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO SUCK!