im not voting for barr!im voting ron paul

There is much excitement in some libertarian circles over the entrance of Bob Barr into the race for the Libertarian Party’s nomination. Even the mainstream media has been reporting his candidacy, as well as that of Mike Gravel. Based on the way these men are covered, you would have thought that the party had previously planned not to run a Presidential candidate, or that it hasn’t run a candidate in every Presidential race since it’s founding. Nonetheless, many are thrilled with the idea that, if we nominate Bob Barr, this press coverage could continue. Others see the Barr candidacy as an opportunity to continue the energy of the Ron Paul campaign. I believe the excitement over the Barr candidacy is misplaced, will lead to disappointment, and that Barr should not receive the LP’s Presidential nomination.

While Barr seems, in some ways, to be among the more libertarian-leaning conservatives, he is not a libertarian on the most important issue of our time – foreign policy. I have yet to hear an unambiguous commitment to immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Unlike Paul, he also has not promised to remove our troops from the other 150 countries in which they are stationed. Barr's campaign website uses the rhetoric of non-intervention, but a perusal of the articles available on that same website gives the lie to any idea that he opposes foreign intervention.

In these articles, Barr argues for intervention in both Iran and South America. He affirms the US as a "stakeholder" in Iranian political decisions, and supports sanctions. Regarding South America, he says that troops should be sent from Iraq to South America in order to stop the flow of illegal drugs. This demand makes sense on only two assumptions: that the war on drugs is right, and that the United States owns the world. He arrogantly refers to current American policy in the region as "benign neglect," under which the citizens allegedly "chafe." It is hard to know where to begin criticizing this claim – with the fact that benign neglect is a term applied to British imperial policy toward its colonies, that the colonies liked benign neglect and rebelled because it ended, or with the observation that, in fact, we already intervene plenty.

Barr calls for the use of foreign aid – money stolen from Americans – to achieve better drug enforcement – forcing Americans to pay in order to be foiled as consumers. He has praised Bush for the surge, which "is working," supported the use of military tribunals, and argued for reauthorization of the Patriot Act – an act for which he voted. He used his article to express his regret when crazed neocon John Bolton stepped down as US Ambassador to the UN, praising him for pushing for American security. No mention is made of the security of those nations which Bolton advocates invading.

Much is made about Barr’s libertarian voting record in the US Congress. Yet the man who claims to be for privacy, who runs the Privacy Watch List, voted for what was, at its time, the most egregious violation of privacy on the books. Even if he now says he regrets this vote, what does it say for his judgment, for the positions he will take in the future? Besides, to what extent can he truly regret voting for the Act, if as recently as 2005 he was advocating for its reauthorization? The Patriot Act was not a difficult decision, and he made the wrong call on it. As President, he will face more subtle and difficult decisions. He has given us little reason to trust him.

Ron Paul argued for the elimination of the income tax, to be replaced with nothing. Barr argues for the elimination of the income tax – to be replaced with a revenue-neutral national sales tax. Just a few years ago, the Republicans ran a candidate who promised "no new taxes." Are the Libertarians now to run one who promises to push for a new tax?

Barr is said to have the greatest name recognition, estimated at 36%, and is polling at 7%. Members of the House of Representatives do not earn 36% name recognition outside of their districts unless they are associated with a particular issue or event. Barr has both – he is known nation-wide as one of the strongest advocates of the war on drugs, and is associated with the Clinton impeachment. Will running a famous drug warrior build understanding of the libertarian message? It is true that Barr has repented this position. It is also true that he now advocates for medical marijuana – hardly a radical libertarian position. Consider his appearance on Fox news on April 10, 2008, in which he clarified that he would not support an outright legalization of all drug use. Do we wish to tell the world that this is the face of liberty?

On the other hand, participation in the Clinton impeachment is a good thing, isn’t it? Most libertarians would agree that all recent Presidents deserved to be impeached. However, there are some questions to be asked here. For one, just why is it that Barr hasn’t expressed any interest in impeaching Bush? Under what reasoning can Barr believe that Clinton was worthy of impeachment, as he surely was, but not feel a need to impeach a President who authorized torture, lied the country into war, and who publicly admits violating federal law to spy on citizens? Some could argue that they oppose impeachment on principle, but that answer is surely not available to Barr.

There is also a strategic question to be raised as regards the Clinton impeachment. For many years now, the libertarians have played mostly to the right. Those on the right who have an interest in liberty are aware of what libertarians have to say – and those with a commitment to it have already exited the Republican party, or perhaps stuck around to support Ron Paul. Particularly since 2001, it seems unlikely that there are significant numbers of libertarians identifying themselves as Republicans. Ron Paul pulled 10% of the vote, showing that at most 10% of the party opposes red state fascism. To further the message, and interest more people in learning about libertarianism, it is necessary to target the appeal to independents and Democrats. Ron Paul, a relatively unknown Congressman, was able to do that. He carried very little right-wing baggage, and so liberal-leaning independents and Democrats were willing to look at him and learn what he had to say, particularly once they realized he was the most anti-war candidate in the race. Bob Barr cannot have this effect. No independent or Democrat approaches the man with an open mind, which means Barr will have little ability to change minds on the left. Do we really wish to alienate the left and the middle from the get-go?

The idea that Barr’s position as a former Congressman will pull more press attention, and allow his campaign to continue at least part of the Paul energy, discounts relevant facts about the political landscape. Most importantly, Paul ran as a Republican and was in almost every debate. Barr will not be in the debates, and will not receive even the modest coverage that Paul did. It is highly unlikely that Barr will ignite the same intensity and passion that Paul did. Also, the Democratic race is now down to 2 candidates; anti-war enthusiasts have made their peace, so to speak, with that party. They will not cross the aisle again – particularly if they are not presented with a solid anti-war position.

The Paul campaign, and its level of success far higher than any previous liberty-oriented campaign in recent days, should have taught us a few things. For one, Paul succeeded as well as he did not in spite of his radical positions, but because of them. In fact, I believe that his unapologetic radicalism, together with his personal demeanor, was the most important factor in his success. Barr brings the same conservatism as Paul, but none of the radicalism. If he is a libertarian, he is a moderate one at best – or, as he describes it, a "grown-up" libertarianism, a phrase I can only take to refer to an abandonment of any consistent application of principle. Paul also raised a crucially important issue – the Fed and monetary policy – which Barr does not seem interested in raising. We learned that the Fed actually does excite people – it was an unfamiliar issue, one on which the debate was not yet poisoned by the mainstream media. Barr doesn’t mention it in his literature, and even if he did, could not do it justice the way Paul did, as Barr shows no evidence of familiarity with Austrian economics.

The Ron Paul campaign opened many people to hearing about freedom – the LP must now run a candidate who can continue to feed this interest, in addition to attracting more. To do this, the candidate must be uncompromisingly radical – people can only be inspired by a candidate able to present, in a convincing way, the hope of a world without coercion. It is imperative that the LP put forward a consistent, principled libertarian, one well-versed in the libertarian scholarship, in order to continue the educational task. Every day, I meet people who are reading Bastiat, Mises, Hoppe, Rothbard, and Menger because of Ron Paul. I have students who are asking questions about liberty, and about Mises, because they saw my Ron Paul poster and looked him up. A Republican retread, who is moderate on issues which require radicalism, will not attract the same interest. To nominate Barr now would be to prioritize short-term concerns – a doomed attempt to win the Presidency, an attempt to influence the race between the two major parties, or a desperate play for votes – over what should be our primary focus: the long-term return of freedom to our nation.

I do not think that he can beat Ruwart. The LP, even at its best, will most likely not even get 1% of the vote, no matter who is selected. The Constitution Party gets even less. If the Doc is not on my ballot, I'll vote for the LP nominee, like I have for a long time.

I'm not sure if his draconian stance on the drug war, or if it is that he voted in favor of the Patriot Act (even though he now says it was a mistake), his support for the Fair Tax, or supporting the Clinton impeachment while having his own marital fidelity issues. It just smacks of hypocrisy, and it's just otherwise ridiculous that of all the Clinton crime family dirty deeds to go after, he picks Clinton's bj. That tells me, he is just like all of the other politicians who is just out to score a political victory. If he were truly committed to the BS war on drugs, shouldn't he have gone after the Clintons for coke dealing in Arkansas?

Someone really needs to send Barr a copy of "American Drug War"

For the most part, I think he would certainly be a better choice than McCain. However, I am more than a little concerned that Barr's run is insurance for the elites in case Ron Paul ends up with the Republican nomination. Between Barr and Baldwin, they could ultimately act as spoilers.

But, I don't even know what the point of this is anyway, because everyone knows that Obama's going to win in 2008. Everyone knows that Mike Huckabee is God's candidate and the evil Hussein Osama has to make things so horrible to pave the way for His (Huckster's) return in 2012.

In all seriousness, I think it is a great time to be a libertarian. Ron Paul has the #1 book on the bestseller list, and I think that Bob Barr is a big name that will help the Libertarian party gain some much needed recognition.

FOLKS! do you not see what is happening? it took 30 years for the democrats to infiltrate and take over the Republican party! Ron Paul has made a serious threat to the esablishment.. they know they are losing the hearts and minds of true freedom loving, liberty loving Americans! they know there will be millions flocking to 3rd parties!... so what do they do? they send neo-con allan keys to the constitution party to hijack the CP. then they send Barr and Gravel to the libertarian party to hijack it.. My hat is off to the Constitution party for recognizing what they were trying to do. Chuck Baldwin is the next best candidate next to Ron Paul! its time FOR ALL OF US TO PUT ASIDE PARTY LABELS! WE MUST CONCENTRATE OUR FIREPOWER.. UNTIL THERE IS NO WAY TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL. THEN THE NEXT BEST MAN IS CHUCK BALDWIN HANDS DOWN.. to hell with party affiliation.. do what is best for your COUNTRY!

as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD

barr isn't even a pimple on Ron Pauls ARSE! BARR WILL NOT HAVE THIS RON PAUL REPUBLICANS VOTE.. if and when all Ron Paul vote options are eliminated.. this Ron Paul republican will vote for Chuck Baldwin!

as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD

..

If the GOP powers-that-be see Barr as a threat to McCain because he may "steal" some otherwise Ron Paul votes, they will be forced to consider treating Ron Paul supporters with more respect, maybe even inviting Ron Paul to speak, if they want to win them over.

Problem is, Ron Paul won't compromise on his positions, so McCain may have to change some of his.

Certainly, they will have to consider being fair to the Ron Paul supporters at conventions, for fear of losing them. Should be an interesting negotiation and I can't wait to see whether the GOP bosses start playing nicer..

Of course, Barr is not the nominee, only one of many prospects, but he does get media attention, and is considered a serious threat.

IMissLiberty

i said it before and i'll say it again..the only way i'll vote for anybody but Ron Paul is.........non-existent...

Won't get my vote either. He carries a weight of negative baggage in my opinion. As I read somewhere, if I have to engrave a Diebold Machine with his name, Ron Paul is the only Patriot who get my vote. I have just had a bit of a tiff with a dear friend who is going to "hold his nose and pull the ballot bar for McCain." I told him to get ready then, because I will hold him responsible for his act. That's the problem, people are conditioned to believe they cannot make a positive difference. If we unite, as we saw in Nevada, we do make a huge difference. They are still scratching their collective, insider heads down in Las Vegas trying to decide to handle this "little problem." I'm waiting for my reconvene orders...willing to go anywhere in the State to make my voice heard.

IT'S DOABLE

Barr Voted for the Patriot Act and supported the war. Nuff said.