0 votes

Rhino: Barr admits to committing to the press conference and then backing out. Many updates to this post, you need to rehash.

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:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/60943
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.
.
.
.

UPDATE:

From RonBarr:

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.

My response:

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.

RonBarr's response:
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?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sometimes it's difficult to

Sometimes it's difficult to know who to trust. We've seen people stab Ron Paul in the back many times over the course of the past year. These are people who for whatever reason say one thing and do another.

Bob Barr and his staff are trying to talk their way out of this mess that they put themselves in. But we cannot always trust in just words as we have seen this all before.

I want to see action. Actions speak louder than words. Bob Barr's action yesterday was to turn his back on Ron Paul and his supporters. And now he simply wants to talk about it.

If Bob Barr refuses to be supportive of our r3volution, then maybe we should not be supportive of him, either.

And about The_Producer being kicked out, maybe Ron Paul and his staff know something that we do not. Maybe there was good reason for him to be kicked out of the press conference.

...

Oh now I get it ...

You mean kicked out of the hall way just prior to the press conference.

Sorry about that.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

CAN WE PLEASE STOP THE BARR THING NOW???

~peace

~peace

Stop supporting Barr? Sure

Stop supporting Barr? Sure thing.

...

I think this thing needs to be hashed out ...

This is where the devide is, and we need some clarification.

This post is not an attack on Mr. Barr.

I have stated that I probably will still vote for Mr. Barr.

This is the market place of ideas.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

Agreed.

+1


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Let me state for the record ...

That I have every intention of voting for Mr. Barr here in Ohio if I do not write in Dr. Paul, but I think this battle is important.

Barr offers freedom to the masses.

Paul is saying "Wake Up" so that down the road I can sell you on the idea of freedom.

Let me clarify, this in no way is an endorsement. The only reason that I am voting for Mr. Barr is because I know he can not win and I wish to further the cause of freedom.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

holding my nose

I have to admit that Barr's neocon past and the idiocy he and his staff displayed over the last two days will require me to hold my nose very tightly in order to vote for him, but that neocon thinking is, as far as I can tell, in the past.

Chuck Baldwin's wingnut religulousness, on the other hand, is current, so even holding my nose very tightly wouldn't be enough to allow me to vote for him.

So I guess I still think that of all the available choices, the most effective vote for furthering the message of liberty is one for Bob Barr. Choke, choke. I'm with you that knowing that he cannot win makes that choice a more palatable.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

How would we catagorize such a vote ...

The most least of the least of evils?

So much for Nader's justification.

LOL.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

My guess is that Barr is

My guess is that Barr is returning to the GOP. That was the reason for the no-show.

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

If we look at Barr's action

If we look at Barr's action yesterday in terms of how it could benefit him, I think you might be right. Going against RP could definitely score Bob Barr some points with the GOP.

...

Revenge for 2002?

Or covert ops for RNC to take down the LP from the inside?

In any event:

If you live in Oklahoma, you have no choice. Write-in Ron Paul.

If you live in Montana or Louisiana, rejoice! You get to vote for Ron Paul!

If you live in New Hampshire, please vote for George Phillies (the other Libertarian).

If you live in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, The Dakotas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, or Wyoming vote for Chuck Baldwin.

If you live in Arizona, California, The District of Columbia, Kansas, or Maine, you have my condolences. You may as well vote for Cynthia McKinney or Bob Barr.

If you live in Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Texas, you have my deepest condolences. You’re stuck with Ralph Nader or Bob Barr. Sorry.

If you can’t abide my recommendations, then, your State permitting, you could write in Ron Paul, your mom, your dog, or even Bob Barr.

But never Never NEVER vote for McBama!

This decision is rather painful for me, as it will be the first Presidential election for me (since 1976) in which I will not be voting for the Libertarian. It looks as though the Barr Campaign has burned that bridge, and it likely won’t be rebuilt until at least 2010.

For all our talk of supporting Dr Paul and being strict Constitutionalists, why don’t we read the Constitution and realize that Dr Paul can be elected President without appearing on a single State ballot?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

HOLY CRAP, LOOK AT THE LATEST UPDATE FROM THE ...

BARR CAMPAIGN, POSTED ABOVE.

THEY ARE LISTENING TO US. (OR AT LEAST I THINK THEY ARE)

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

The Barr people has limited their campaigning to this site ...

That is speculation, but there is quite a bit of evidence to back this up.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

"Bush showed incredible leadership"

Barr’s campaign manager Russ Verney said this in today’s Barr Campaign Update:

“In times of crisis, strength in leadership requires boldness of character, clear direction and firm resolve. As we witnessed after the attacks of September 11th, President George W. Bush showed incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America.”

Even Bob Barr

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.

This is a great post ...

I included it in my OP.

Thanks.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

Name calling doesn't cut it

I got an email from their campaign (subsequently requested removal from their list) with their lame explanations. It all goes down to whose interests are you willing to serve, yours or the whole movement away from the two parties that are ruining our country. Sure, I do not like what Nader and McKinney stand for but there are a whole lot of liberals who would. Barr's campaign doesn't get that there are a lot of people who will NEVER sign up for their agenda. But they might sign up for Nader's or McKinney's over Obama's. That would be a winning situation because at least one thing will be accomplished - getting votes away from the Republicrats and helping others believe 3rd party candidates are viable.

I don't like the name calling - a theocrat, give me a break. You mean a man with principles? Hmmm.

Healthnut4freedom

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5,6

Healthnut4freedom

The lip of truth shall be established forever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment...Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight. Prov 12:19,22

Exactly - good point Healthnut4freedom

Barr's campaign doesn't get that there are a lot of people who will NEVER sign up for their agenda. But they might sign up for Nader's or McKinney's over Obama's. That would be a winning situation because at least one thing will be accomplished - getting votes away from the Republicrats and helping others believe 3rd party candidates are viable.

That's exactly right and well stated, Healthnut4freedom. Because the more others are helped to believe 3rd party candidates are viable, then more who are open to the message of liberty will be exposed to it. If 10% vote 3rd party -- any 3rd party -- this time, maybe 20% will be open to it next time... and some percentage of those will be open to the LPs message of liberty. Let it spread!

As far as "the theocrat" being namecalling - well, knowing who they mean by it speaks volumes. But I don't think that it's inappropriate to suggest that Chuck Baldwin would be fine with having at least certain religious leaders in charge of the government.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Bob Barr is an idiot

"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." - Barr staff member

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.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track