Rhino: Barr admits to committing to the press conference and then backing out. Many updates to this post, you need to rehash.Submitted by rhino on Thu, 09/11/2008 - 12:33
The_Producer is on Mr. Barr's staff and he posts here at the dailypaul. He has admitted that he was the Barr staff member that was kicked out of the hall way just prior to the press conference.
Let me first say that Mr. Barr can do as he pleases and I still consider him part of the third party alliance and should be voted for if you have no other choice for president.
I would also like to say if you wish to speak with your wallet, I would recommend Nader over Barr. (I can't believe I just said that.)
Here is what I posted on one of Mr. Peterson's (aka The_Producer) threads.
First let me say that these statements all have merit and are ligitimate reasons for Mr. Barr to have pulled out of the Press Conference.
Having said that ....
Why did Mr. Barr make the commitment to attend without qualifying his committment with the above statements?
He was asked for a committment and he said yes. He did not say "only under the following circumstances will I attend".
That is really the only issue in my mind.
And here was his response:
I guess I'm not sure how to answer that question exactly. I don't know the inner workings of his mind and why he didn't qualify them, but I have to say in the end, it was probably the right decision to make. Ron Paul telling people to vote for any of the above was bad for us. Now look at this state of affairs we are in. It's a net loss for all of us, but it was the best press that the two socialists and the theocrat could ask for.
UPDATE, UPDATE, UPDATE:
Let it be known that this thread was started prior to this statement being released. I do not assume "importance" to this thread, but it makes one wonder:
From Bob Barr (or at least from his #1 slave http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/11/principled-l...):
Today our campaign is being criticized by a few people for my decision to not attend a press conference sponsored by Ron Paul’s political action committee. I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I made that decision.
It became evident to me after meeting with Ron Paul’s staff that this media event was not about promoting the liberty agenda; it was about promoting a man. That’s not what we’re in this for.
After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race – just to hype the event – I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul’s staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.
When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul’s prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.
His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded ‘non-voters’. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.
I made the decision that attending that news conference was not consistent with Bob Barr’s principled leadership for the Liberty
For the record the only speculation that I offered on the subject was this:
Which clearly states that I thought that the Constitution Party candidate would step down.
Oh, I forgot, I deleted that speculation after the press conference. I sure hope someone saved that version.
If you are advocating that people give money to Barr over Nader
then the proves the claims that Dr. Paul's press conference would water down the movement. If the press conference is causing us to support socialists, the movement is collapsing.
The least you could do is stay focused on what the movement was supposed to be about and advocate giving money to Baldwin over Barr. To advocate giving any money at all to Nader is counterproductive.
The movement is to wake people up to the important issues.
Then and only then, after they exist, can you convince them of freedom.
Click on my post below. This was actually posted in February, but Mr. Nystrom changed the date when he posted it on the front page.
The Libertarians have tried unsuccessfully to do it the other way around for 4 decades. They have tried to sell freedom to non humans. It can't be done under the current political structure.
Paul is attempting another path. That is all.
I wish to give a #1 post award to Minarchist, he says:
If Bob Barr and his campaign view the two socialists and the theocrat as the main competition, they're idiots. Even if they got all of the votes going to those three, that would be a drop in the bucket compared to those they can potentially gain by getting people currently leaning towards McBama to seriously look at 3rd party options in general, and eventually Barr in particular.
If Ron Paul had made sure they were all on board, or Bob Barr figured it out on his own, and Bob Barr joined them in a united coalition of 3rd party candidates against the 2-party tyranny, it could easily have grown into a huge net gain for all them, and, ultimately, the biggest gain for Bob Barr.
Consider that the LP candidate usually gets from 1/2 to 1 percent of the vote, and nothing in the Barr campaign indicates his results will be any different. To his credit, if Ron Paul had accepted his offer to be his VP instead of Root, that probably would have helped. A lot. That aside, a coalition of 3rd party candidates per RP's idea would have a chance of getting more people to seriously look at 3rd party candidates. Perhaps it would have worked modestly well, and, say, 10% ended up voting 3rd party. If Barr got half of those, that would be 5% - a huge LP record, and a major accomplishment.
But Bob Barr just squandered his chances, apparently thinking his main competition is the other three 3rd party virtual unknowns. What an idiot.
It would not have helped Barr to attend the press conference.
Dr. Paul is the one that made the strategic mistake here. We have limited resources. If we spread our resources among several candidates, including socialists, then no one is going to get in the debates. If Dr. Paul simply would have endorsed Barr, money would have poured in his campaign, and there is a good chance Barr could have reached the polling necessary to get in the debates. What Paul did ensures that none of the 3rd party candidates will get in the debates. He made a mistake, and he probably realizes it now.
Minarchist's response to that is:
I agree Ron Paul probably erred, but not in the way you say ...
Okay, so saying Bob Barr is an idiot was internet hyperbole. Sorry about that.
But, Ron Paul ran as the LP candidate in 1988. He knows how that went. He also knows how much more successful he was as a candidate in the GOP primary saying the exact same things. He understands that the much bigger problem - the one that must be solved before any 3rd party candidate can succeed - is getting many more people to reject the 2 party system in general.
My elderly mom, an Obama supporter, is reading Ron Paul's book, and she asked me to explain how it is that Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist and yet opposes the two-party system. The two-party system is so ingrained she believed it was in the Constitution. I don't think my mom is all that unique in this respect. We have to crack that nut first.
I understand your frustration. But you can't blame Ron Paul. I don't fully understand why he won't endorse Bob Barr, or run as his VP, but I think it's very likely the same reason he wouldn't run as a 3rd party candidate again after his 1988 experience. He understands that it's currently not a politically viable way to go. That for any 3rd party candidate to ever do significantly well (unless he's a billionaire or a rock star of some sort), we have to crack that nut first. So he wants to focus on that. It's his prerogative. It might very well be the best course for liberty in the long run, and might even be the best approach for Bob Barr in this election too. If Ron Paul erred, it's in not explaining his reasoning, whatever it is, to Bob Barr to Bob Barr's satisfaction.
Instead of fighting over the insignificant scraps with the two obscure socialists and the theocrat, consider joining them, along with Ron Paul, in a coalition against the two-party system. The more you work with Ron Paul, the more likely you are to get him and his supporters on your side. And hopefully significant numbers of McBama supporters too. Good luck. It's not too late.
A great post by rlcmcallen:
Even Bob Barr should be able to understand that in order to get someone to vote for him they first have to be freed from the two-party lesser-or-two-evils notion. That he wasn't willing to take the step of participating in that movement to emancipate the public from the thrall of the two-party system tells me that he isn't serious about breaking down that monster.
I offer this as my last question:
Now, who is being the realist and who is being the radical?