United Liberty
Bob Barr Is Not Worth Your Vote
Thu, 10/30/2008 - 2:44pm | posted by Michael O. Powell
When I first heard about Bob Barr’s Libertarian Party run, I actually looked at his past as a Republican congressman as a positive. Most people don’t join independent parties first crack out of the box, and I certainly didn’t. I found myself defending him against attacks that he was a “neo-con” or a pol seeking to advance a dying career.
That began to change as I heard more from him. The various news appearances he made were filled with canned rhetoric. He sounded like the stereotypical politician. It was hard to really tell if he believed what he was saying, or if he had just decided to leach onto the movement started by Ron Paul’s candidacy.
One of my favorite commentators, Dan Carlin, who has two podcasts, Common Sense and Hardcore History, which have been frequently featured on iTunes’ main page, claims that he has been constantly rebuffed when requesting interviews with the Libertarian candidate.
Carlin doesn’t have a dog and pony show. He has had Pat Buchanan, Jonah Goldberg and historian James Burke on his shows. All three of those guys carry more weight than Bob Barr does or will. What’s he afraid of?
Barr’s demands that Ron Paul join his campaign and his refusal to debate anyone other than Ralph Nader added to my disillusion with the man. In an election where “change” is the catchphrase, a vote for Bob Barr seems less like a vote for change than a vote for a tired hack of the old Republican Party establishment.
It was just a stupid Ron Paul meeting OMG let it go..
None of this crap is true..
Ron Paul stole OUR message and is a member of our party….an ran as a Libertarian president candidate…..twice
BTW he is debating now
http://fms.uakron.edu/applications/city_club_of_cleveland/live.htm
ftr, the “Libby” above does not speak for libhotties.com, though she contributed to the site in the past. I’m noticing traffic from this page, so I thought I should make that clear.
I was pulling for Ruwart, and was disappointed that Barr got the LP nomination. I’m not strongly pro-Barr, or even all that pro-LP (I refer to myself as a small-L libertarian), but I do appreciate that Barr has drawn attention to the LP platform. That lawsuit in Texas made me smile.
I’m going to vote for him anyway, but Barr is certainly no Ron Paul.
I was both shocked and appalled that the Libertarian party chose this man as their candidate. They had an excellent chance to pick up where Ron Paul’s campaign left off, and they blew that opportunity.
I disagreed with that sentiment initially, but now I have to say that you’re right.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
LIbby, it’s not stealing if you believe in the message. Ron Paul is much more popular than anyone in the LP. If you want respect for the party stop trashing Paul.
And the reason people are piling on Barr about the press conference (not a Ron Paul meeting) is that Barr acted like a diva about it, and tried to upstage it with his own conference.
Honestly, I would expect a supporter of the LP to be a little less intellectually dishonest.
and I just wanted to add that if you think the philosophy of Classical Liberalism is somehow the property of the LP (“our message”?), you really need to do some historical research (also some political research as Ron Paul’s views don’t entirely correspond to the LP platform). Educate yourself a little.
I don’t think that your post is enough evidence to support its title. Bob Barr not showing up to a Ron Paul conference, and not interviewing with a commentator you like might have been his campaign managers decisions, and not his own. Please give a better example of why Bob Barr is not worth our vote. Thanks
Jessica, hat’s not all I mentioned. I also mentioned Barr’s refusal to debate with anyone other than Nader, his canned rhetoric and a campaign that was generally hard to be enthusiastic for. I think if Barr was a man who was running out of pure personal convention, in the way that Ralph Nader and Ron Paul have, he would be a far better candidate. Instead, he seems like another politician who latched onto the libertarian movement. Thanks.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
While I agree with your premise and the majority of your points, Michael, Barr is debating both Nader and Chuck Baldwin tonight.
Keith, I heard that from several sources, including the NY Times: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/still-to-come-the-third-pa…
I wasn’t aware he had agreed to debate Baldwin. Is the debate available?
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Do you have any cite for the claim about Barr refusing to debate anyone but Nader? I’ve looked, and all I’ve been able to find is an unattributed statement in the NY Times blog, apparently made by Nader Raider Christine Tobin.
As for the reason some people are piling on Barr, I suspect the major one is that (like Ms Tobin) they’re supporters of other candidates trashing the competition.
“supporters of other candidates trashing competition” -
That may be the case in many instances though it is not the case with Michael.
Ditto what Shana said. Thanks!
I can see how my being hard on Bob Barr can seem like piling on, but please take it from me: If I believed in the Libertarian Party candidate, I would be strong in my support for him or her. I simply don’t trust that this guy is for real. Even a piece in Liberty magazine which endorsed him noted that he was a tried and true pol who viewed things through that perspective. I’ll vote third party in order to vote for something new, not the same old thing with a libertarian sticker pasted on.
“Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson