Bob Barr sounding better n better....

He does not just use, but has himself become, an oxymoron!
Consider:

Last paragraph... "If we do nothing, “government will further expand and more of our liberties will be lost..."

Second to last paragraph... "...as president I would establish... a new office tasked with tracking and reviewing..."

Ho Hum, tweedle dee and tweedle da ... it is as if he has just discovered the duties of President, to accept or reject by signature, the bills passed by Congress, and that to PRESUMABLY include analyzing such Bills for content, quality, for Constitutionality, for Liberty's and for his Oath's sake!!

Sadly this is more, either ignorant or neocon, rhetoric. It is of the nature of rhetoric which, with little difficulty now due to their wonderfully increased Constitutional savvy, the Liberty Generation, "ThatGeneration", will dissect rapidly and tear to shreds!

May we be spared another such 'summer sunshine patriot'!

"Suspicion is a Virtue, if in the interests of the good of the people." Patrick Henry

"We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power... the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone - it is to the

PATRIOT ACT SUPPORTING DOUCHE-BAG!

When the LP nominee is much less Libertarian than a GOP primary candidate, something is wrong. Barr supports interventionism, plain and simple. He doesn't strongly attack the Fed and the income tax, which are at the core of statism in America. He has a terrible track record on the War on Drugs, and I sincerely doubt his constitutionalism.

That being said, while the Libertarian community, and Ron Paul crowd are likely to reject him, he may fetch 5-8% in the election, which is huge compared to years past. This is both good and bad. It sends a signal that the American people are beggining to look for a liberty friendly alternative, but it also sends the signal that Barr embodies that change.

In New Hampshire George Phillies will be on the ballot with the LP too. So I'll vote for him or write in Dr. Paul, depending on my mood.

Barr is charismatic, and has a lot more electability than past nominees, it's a shame he's not a libertarian, even when one uses a loose definition. He would have made a better GOP nominee than anyone with the exception of Ron Paul. Paul would have arguably been a great choice for the LP nomination. Funny how these things work out.

I think that in the highly unlikely scenario that Barr were to be elected, he would be better than Mccain or Obama, but he wouldn't restore the republic, just buy it 4-8 more years. Maybe he'd even be principled enough to zero government growth, but not to do the things so vital to saving our nation.

Let's get the ball rolling with REAL pro-liberty candidates for Congress, and state races. We can get good people elected to lower offices this year, in fact I have no doubt that a few will make it. Frankly Dr. Paul is advanced in years, and if he is still with us in 4 years, he may very likely be too old to seek the presidency. We need to start a farm team, that is get Ron Paul Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists into lower offices, where they can start proving their commitiment to the constitution.

Imagine If we had 5 congressmen who were as consistently constitutional as Ron Paul. There would be no need to consider nominating people like Bob Barr then.

I'm really happy for you that you can admire a man who took a dump on the very document he swore an oath to defend.

Bob Barr voted YES to pass the USA (un)Patriot Act. What about that makes him a good choice for any public office in your opinion? Is it because he says things you like? Here, lets try an excercise...

Puppies....sunny days....pay raises...you're a f'ing moron...a free lunch....winning a couple hundred bucks on a scratch ticket... Oh wait, what's that? Something was in there that you didn't like? Oh, gee, well, it was only a mistake. I only said it so I could appologize for it now and say a few more things you like...

Think about it.

I said,"Chuck Baldwin is sounding better all the time"
on another forum post....
The Message - The Constitution - Freedom - Liberty - Non Intervention
www.baldwin08.com

see you in September!

look forward to hearing all about July 12 ...

Ron Paul - commonsense - wisdom - cured my apathy.

"Chuck Baldwin opens his mouth and Ron Paul falls out."

about Bob fucking Barr. And if I wanted to know more, I'm sure that I could go find it at BobfuckingBarr.com.

If Ron Paul thinks that Bob Barr has changed his views for the better and is encouraging Bob Barr's campaign, why should we try to put Barr down and oppose his campaign? Haven't all of us become more libertarian over time? Bob Barr has, too, and is standing up to Obama and McCain. I supported Ron Paul as far as he could go in the Republican nomination race. Now is the time to encourage Bob Barr like Ron Paul told Wolf Blitzer that he is doing. See www.bobbarr2008.com

Go to an Obama or McCain site please.

Funny, the more I hear and learn about Bobbarr, the LESS I like him!

let's see:

1) Against ending the War in Iraq? Nope

2) Against repudiating our interventionistic foreign policy? Absolutely not!

3) Against ending the so-called "War on Drugs"? Weaseled out of that one too.

4) For the abolition of the Federal Reserve? Not a word to be heard.

5) Against the income tax? Maybe, as long as it's replaced by ANOTHER tax!

Need I go on?

The man is no libertarian, and anyone calling themself a Libertarian who voted to nominate him is a sellout or a traitor to everything the Libertarian Party USED to stand for.

Nothing to see here

www.dvds4delegates.com the newest and possibly the greatest weapon the Revolution now possesses.

Please don't let this be another Bob Barr infiltrator, I hope out of respect to all of us still devoting our time and money to Ron Paul that this is your last post about Bob Barr. Geez!

for the Libertarians. He would not have won had he not repudiated his former anti-libertarian views.

In late June 2008, Ron Paul was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN News and was asked what he thought of Bob Barr. Here is Ron Paul's reply:

"Well I think he's running a very important race, and I'm encouraging him. I haven't endorsed him, but he's saying the kind of things I like to be heard and said. I hope he does real well. But, we also have Chuck Baldwin who runs on the Constitutional Party. His views are very very close to mine, and he worked very hard in my campaign. So for me to pick one over the other is not easy. I hope they both together get a lot of votes."

If Bob Barr is good enough for Ron Paul to encourage him, he is good enough for me to encourage, also. If Ron Paul was going to be on the General Election ballot, I would vote for him. Since he is not, I will gladly vote for Bob Barr. Compared to Obama and McCain, Bob Barr is much preferable.

Go Bob Barr!

George Whitfield
Organizer, Seoul Ron Paul and Bob Barr Meetup Groups

Supported federal mandates on gay marriage (which should by all freedom-centric logic be a states' rights issue)...

Supported/supports(?) the costly and ineffective "War on Drugs", including the federal-level marijuana illegality (again, a states' rights issue)...

VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT! Are you kidding me? Just because you 'publicly regret it' doesn't mean you didn't help pass the most significant freedom-curtailing legislation we've seen in our lifetimes!

Sorry, Barr, but I would never vote for ya.

We have a better chance of reforming the Republican party back to its classical roots of limited federal power, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedoms than we do of getting ANY Libertarian Party candidate in the Oval Office anyway.

Just my two cents...

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.

Note: For more information on Barr's positions, please see the website BadBarr2008.com, which is replete with Barr quotations on these and other vital issues.

May 13, 2008

Joshua Katz, NREMT-P [send him mail], is the Libertarian Party of Connecticut's candidate for State General Assembly in the 23rd district. A member of the faculty of Oxford Academy in Westbrook, Connecticut, his areas of interest include mathematics, philosophy of mind, and the use of the synthetic a priori. He enjoys a glass of port and a wedge of Brie as an after-dinner treat.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Bob Barr defended our Constitution and our individual liberties well in the interview. He explained how neither Obama or McCain will do so but yet the big Government politicians think we are obligated to vote for one of them. Here is the YouTube link: http://kr.youtube.com/wat...
I was an early Ron Paul backer and he did a fantastic job of waking people up to the crisis in America with our loss of freedoms. Unfortunately, McCain will be the Republican nominee. I am so glad that the Libertarian Party will have Bob Barr on the ballot in 48 or 49 states so we can have a choice for peace, prosperity and liberty. Go Bob Barr!

George Whitfield
Organizer, Seoul Ron Paul and Bob Barr Meetup Groups

Did you forget who his VP candidate is?

All this arguing over Baldwin or Barr has made me have to ask. If somehow Paul is on the ballot in november you will all abandon your Baldwin and Barr votes and cast for the Dr. right? Id hate to see us fall apart.

affirmation: President Paul 2008
Please...this is a site for Dr. Paul; I'm so tired of reading about Bob Barr. Go post on his site. This is my busy time on the farm and so I am here infrequently and MOST CERTAINLY do not want to read about Bob Barr - He's not the real deal.

I was so glad that I supported Ron Paul to the max during his campaign for the Republican nomination. Now I am happy that I have a candidate for President, the Libertarian Bob Barr, who will speak out for and defend our Constitution and our liberties. I cannot vote for McCain or Obama. Watch Barr's interview on ABC News with George Stephanopolous: http://uk.youtube.com/wat...
Bob Barr is breaking down the Democrat and Republican duopoly. Go Bob Barr!