Regarding Barr / Paul dustup of Sept. 10th

Someone else put it pretty well, and the bottom line is this:

Is it better to

#1 Put the "small" amount of people already comitted to the cause under one person, and still be ignored,but unified in ignoredom

or

#2 start a unified movement and go after the REST of the people (the 60%ers) and convince them that there is a 3rd party that fits their beliefs.

In the grand scheme of things, there is way more to be gained by ALL 3rd parties including Barr by #2, than by #1. I think that is the point that is lost by Barr's group, and what he is going to miss out on.

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.”

http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/09/11/principled-l...

The Barr campaign could have embraced taking away MANY votes from Obama and McCain instead of fearing losing a FEW votes to Nader. McCain and Obama are obviously bigger threats.

Even if 100% of Paul's 1.2 million supporters go to Nader and 'non-voters' (VERY unlikely if Barr would have simply attended), Barr winds up with a better shot at getting in debates as Barr's percentage calculates higher with less support for McCain and Obama.

And Ron Paul was able to get Nader to sign a statement of agreement regarding 4 issues important to the message of Liberty. That is a major victory the Libertarian party should have celebrated.

With respect to the following:
"2) Being equated to Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin. The Libertarian Party is not comparable to the Green or Constitution Party because it has more members, more candidates, more ballot access, and a more legitimate claim to the attention of the voters and the media than those fourth-parties or Nader's independent movement."

So in other words, the LP doesn't believe as Ron Paul does, that all parties deserve a place at the table. Wow. So much for an open debate and so much for a free exchange of ideas. Not very libertarian of you!

In other words, only the LP deserves to be taken seriously. Wow. How arrogant.

I think the most correct thing you said in this message was:
"In many ways, the LP is more like the Democratic and Republican Parties than it is like these minor players."

Yup. You are exactly like the Democratic and Republican Parties: corrupt to the core and full of a bunch of whiners who feel entitled to the world.

As I have said before, the LP ought to just put its 2012 nomination up for bid on eBay, since you've already sold out anyway.

RIP LP.

ya, this isn't helping me think better of Barr.

I was going to vote for him up until all this trash talk from his campaign and the LP that Paul is "breaking up the movement," "doing it for money," "has been a failure" etc. etc. etc.

I want no part in a campaign that says that about the person who has done the most for this cause.

IT, WOULD HAVE HELPED THE Libertarian party. HELL THERE IS A TON of people that DONT KNOW YOUR PARTY. FREE PRESS COVERAGE is good for you. Principled party my ass. This would have been the first time I know of with every third party players on the same stage(short of keyes).

ITS ABOUT UNITY AGAINST THE DEMS AND THE REPUBS.... YOUR CHILDISH BEHAVIOR IS NOT WHAT IS NEEDED NOW... AND the explanation of such IS INSUFFICIENT.

Grow up...

Were doomed 08

I was a bit disappointed that Dr. Paul endorsed essentially, none of the above, at the same time, ALL of the above. Not Barr, not Baldwin, NOT Nader (as some try to imply), not Mckinney. Geez, I'm left scratching my head, a bit flabbergasted , abandoned? Not that an endorsement would have changed my decision regarding my "second pick". I had the impression that Paul was more of a "stand up kind of guy" in comparision to most today. Just was not expecting such a "nominal" stand after all the hype.

Some of his posts are signed like this one, T. Evan Fisher - Former Chair, Libertarian Party of Dallas County

Others are signed Austin Petersen Volunteer Coordinator - Libertarian National Committee

or higher in a number of states - particularly the northeast, and we don't know how many of Barr's poll numbers were from RP supporters. To say that Barr stands out from the others (particular without the RP voters) is foolish - if he stands out at all it is because of the RP voters.

To claim that the LP's typical 0.2 % of the vote is better than The greens 0.1 % is really silly.

the News conference was to get the 4 pillar issues in the public eye, and really push hard on them, to get the disgusted voter to vote again, and to pull our resources toi get access to the system.

Barrs arrogant little stunt showed working for liberty that this is a short term objective, part of his own personal goals for advancement, while RP showed it was for him a long term Goal.

This entire article is spin. The whole thing reeks of Damage Neo-Con-Troll. Bob Barr was slimey before and he has just proven the validity of that accusation.

If he wanted to stand alone, he should never have been seeking Ron Pauls supporters money, time, and effort.

If he truely cared about this country he would abandon his pre-doomed, selfish bid for a few percent of the vote (cause he won't see the White House unless his masters that he serves invites him), and would have helped show unity in the message of what is really facing this country.

And lastly if he thinks that he is going to get anyone to come over to him because he alone is leading the movement, then he needs to fire his staff and use that money to buy time with a shrink. The movement will never stand behind Bob Barr. Never.

Aku Soku Zan

Great post. Ron Paul has decided to continue on with the Republican party in his efforts to work within the system. I will continue supporting him but I am not ready to concede the coming election to the two party oligarchs who have hi-jacked our country.

We must be pragmatic in asking ourselves who gives us the best chance to break the tyranny in Washington? Let's not be too quick to throw out Barr and the Libertarian party.

Ron Paul did not made any endorsements, he endorsed the 4 point paper, that the 4 candidates all subscribe to and this already constitute a great achievement by Paul to move especially Nader and McKinney to be more libertarian, especially more fiscally conservative.
If Paul would formally endorse Barr, he would practically have been kicked out of the GOP and will in any case loose his strategic role to affect change. Paul made a recommendation to vote for Barr and Baldwin.

To say the CP does not represent limited government and individual liberty is downright FALSE. One could argue that on a few points they are not as radical libertarian, but alltogether they are very much conservative-libertarian and constitutional.
All the other three third parties are also parties of principle, it is really NOT only the LP that is a party of principal. On a logical level, the Socialist Party is also a party of principal, sticking to their socialist principles.
Barr cannot unilaterally replace the VP position, it is a decision for the LNC, as the delegates decide over the VP in the case of the LP, and not the presidential candidate (as with the R & D).
The CP also offered the VP slot to Paul.
If Paul were to accept/assume the VP slot, he would be only till December in politics, as he would have to give up his congressional seat and then have NO political influence anymore. Is this relaly what the LP want? Can it think beyond November?? Frankly, I would think a Paul/Barr ticket would make more sense, if you want, with Barr the attack dog role of the VP.
Paul is encouraging disillusioned Democrats and people that normally do not vote, to vote for Nader...not the Ron Paul supporters so much.

I frankly think Barr missed a chance. If he attended the meeting, he would have received news coverage and may well also have joined the TV interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN. It should also be noted that Paul did get some votes from "the left", e.g. voters who would normally vote for Nader, Gravel, Kucinich and also Green Party members. Barr has to earn those votes, if he wants them, Paul cannot "transfer" his votes to another candidate. Nader is a major third party candidate and is polling higher than barr in certain states and also has more money and will be on the ballot in 45 states, while Barr in 46/47 states (the Barr campaign
"messed up" in Maine, Louisiana and West Virginia).

While I am unaware of the actions of Ron Paul staffers, the writing of Mike Ferguson to accuse Paul of only acting in his own self interest and for fame and money and not the cause of liberty is as nonsensical as you can get. He as well as Shane Cory should be seriously reprimanded for their actions by Barr, if not fired.

The cause of liberty is NOT only advanced by members of the LP. As Barr said, inside the heart of every American there is some libertarian streak, also in the heart of McKinney and Nader and appearing together with them and influencing them to become more libertarian is indeed a breakthrough for the cause of liberty.

Barr and Root will also appear with Baldwin, Clymer and others at the Conservative Leadership Council. Barr does not appear to object there sharing the stage at the same event with Baldwin...with whom he had an interview a few years ago on the Patriot Act.

I sincerely hope Barr can sort out the issue with Paul personally and take some action and bold leadership.

I think you are just promoting Bob Barr.
Why do you think, voters wouldn't have voted for Barr because he attended the press meeting?

WHY DIDN'T BOB BARR ATTEND?

The four points of the platform were the main aspects/ the main topics of this press meeting, in my opinion.

So you seem to try to only distracting dailypaulers from these important issues.

The Bob Barr-candidacy and the LP are PEANUTS referring to these issues!

Ron Paul's plan was obviously to put the American people/country first (that is who Paul is trying to help--YOU-Evan) and jumpstart the debate on the four critical issues that will not be dicussed by the McBamas.

And Bob Barr--he decided to put his party first.

Nuff said.

By voting libertarian we can concentrate our protest vote and make it count...

Barr isn't going to win..

The Libertarians have laid a lot of groundwork getting on all the ballots..

I love Dr. Paul. I don't think he snubbed anyone or Barr snubbed anyone...

"In many ways, the LP is more like the Democratic and Republican Parties than it is like these minor players."

pretty much says it all.......

I salute your efforts and at the same time let me propose an exciting idea that can make your ticket a winner in November.
In case Ron rejects offer of VP how about his son Rand Paul as VP ?
We perhaps all of us Ron's supporters would rally around such a ticket.
While on the campaign trail often Rand would speak while Ron was absent.Same thing during many straw polls...
Bob Barr/Rand Paul 08

God Bless you

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57925480@N00/2660779139/sizes/l/

Just because Paul didn't accept Barr's request for Dr. Paul to enter the Libertarian nomination, that doesn't mean Dr. Paul "snubbed" him. That's a strong word. Dr. Paul simply prefers to work for liberty throught the Republican Party. We should respect that choice.

Likewise Paul supporters should respect Barr's choice to work within the Libertarian Party and not to attend a 3rd party communal press conference if he doesn't want to.

--------
"Just like Alex Jones will do; he'll try to put words in my mouth... You try to put words in my mouth too, just like Alex Jones does." - Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watc

Correction, "had more members." Not today, of course. But as the memberships lapse, the renewal rates will drop. Call me Kreskin.

Ron Paul endorsed taking down the two-winged republicrat bird of prey by starving it. That is all

Any minor party that thinks it has a chance at winning this year is just plain living in a fantasy, and that includes the Libertarians. They should get with Ron Paul's program. After all, he was their first choice for leader this time around. What has happened that suddenly they won't listen to him?

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.

I now have one more question ...

Yesterday you said you were on Bob Barr's staff, today you say you are not, which is it?

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

"In many ways, the LP is more like the Democratic and Republican Parties than it is like these minor players."

Well then...I'm glad Mr. Fisher cleared that up...

http://www.lawsonlibertyfund.com/

Here are my thoughts . . .
The purpose of Ron Paul's conference was not to endorse anyone or tell anyone who to vote for. What he was saying is that if people voted their conscience, just in shear numbers, the 3rd parties would no longer be marginalized. Most people vote for the lesser of 2 evils. He was trying to stress that if we all vote for someone, not against someone, the country will be much better governed. Only 16% of the people vote for someone.

By having multiple parties represented, he was not equating them as equal but he did want to show that any of these candidates, agreeing to the 4 points would be better for the country than McCain and Obama.

I think Ron Paul used his media clout and following to bring to light that the American people have been duped and they have the numbers to make real change. It doesn't have to be just 2 parties or just 3 parties.

I understand the Barr campaign trying to do the best for the Barr campaign but this press meeting was not about the libertarain party being equal to or less than any other party. It was a call to the American people that we can restore the replublic if we each choose according to conscience. Let the market place decide who will be on top in the end.

I am glad that he used the suspense and anticipation to get more media attention. He is spending this clout wisely in my opinion.

Let's be clear here folks. the_producer is a paid staffer for Bob Barr and is still here trying to bash Ron Paul and the message. BARR IS FINISHED and who the hell is Barr to say he is for liberty LOOK AT HIS VOTING RECORD HE IS A NEOCON. Just because he is saying things people in this revolution liked doesn;t mean that he means it. G.W.B said the same types of things before he was elected too.

This revolution isn't about Barr or the (L) party it is about the American people and this damn country and he decided he was bigger than all of it.

My vote is going to Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr is finished here.

2 state chairs of the (L) party have already come out publically and has stated Barr had discraced the (L) Party and there will be more by the end of the week.

Barr is our and Chuck Baldwin is in.

www.buckforchuck.com

www.whokilledtheconstitution.com

www.revolutionbroadcasting.com

Dr. Steve Parent

Over the last fifteen minutes, I've had difficulty containing my laughter.

"We can endorse these principles, but we also think it is important not to dilute our message."

This has got to be the single most ironic statement of the decade. Here we have a man who, only a few months ago, still thought it a cool idea to lock people up in cages for possession of hard drugs, stating that he's worried that appearing at the press conference with Ron Paul might dilute his message?

He can't be serious.

"The goal is to amass as large a percentage of votes as possible to affect policy."

So, in order to amass a bunch of votes, he figured he'd commit to attend the press conference with Ron Paul, bail at the last minute, have his national field director write a blog bashing Ron Paul and his fans, and then claim it was because he didn't want to dilute his oh-so-pure libertarian message. Sounds to me like he was borrowing a bit of stratergery from George W.

Meanwhile, the fuming Ron Paul fans referred to in the article have started collecting signatures to de-Barr the Libertarian Party. Said petition calls for Bob Barr to step down as a candidate of the Libertarian party or for the Libertarian party to renounce their support for Bob Barr. I have no idea what will come of this, and I seriously doubt that Bob Barr would voluntarily step down under any circumstances, but it certainly makes it clear that Paul fans are very upset over this.

its the message. And its apparent he is not in full agreement with the importance of the message like the other candidates, since they showed up.

Good points, T., but they can each be summarized by ONE word--EGO. Barr thought he was "above" this unity display. Bob thought it would "hurt" his candidacy to align in this way. He made a mistake. He knew RP could not accept the VP thing and it was a ploy. He is in it for the power, and the WIN, for himself, and cares less about The People than he would have you believe. I know this is true, but I will not knock your decision to continue to stand by him.