Bob Barr Conference Call
posted at 2:50 pm on July 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Normally, I participate in John McCain campaign conference calls, but today I had the opportunity to join Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr’s first blogger conference call. The invitation explained that “Bob Barr loves bloggers, [and] values your role in informing the public,” and their outreach appears to confirm that attitude. The invitees went beyond the Libertarian/Ron Paul Internet nexus, which indicates that Barr’s team wants some traction across the Internet spectrum.
Bob Barr joined us after a few minutes. He’s in Washington, in the middle of a tough travel schedule. He thanked us for our efforts, and acknowledged that he doesn’t have a great deal of knowledge of the blogosphere, but said it was a “fantastic” way to communicate on politics. He asked for ideas on how to communicate his ideas and policies most effectively.
I asked him what he hoped to accomplish in his run. Barr replied that he felt that politics had become overwhelmingly sour; 86% now say the country is on the wrong track. People recognize that the current system does not serve them well, and that provides “fertile ground” for a new party. That’s just an opportunity, of course, but the Libertarian Party has matured, and with himself as a credible candidate, they have a chance of winning in a three-way race.
Another reason: he wants to free America from the artificial restraints of the two-party system. Also, he wants to recast the current issues in a manner more consistent with the Constitution. FISA reform is one area that Barr wants discussed in real, substantive terms, and not just slogans. Eliminating earmarks will not dismantle Leviathan, and we need to grasp the realities of a $3.1 trillion budget.
Jazz Shaw asked about the elimination of the Department of Education, and where else Barr could make reductions in the federal government. Barr talked about what Presidents can do on their own, and what needs Congressional approval. He wants to institute a 10% reduction in executive-branch staffing and budget to set an example for Congress. Afterwards, he wants to work with Congress to pursue similar reductions. A Libertarian could negotiate between Republicans and Democrats to make those changes, and voters would join in the pressure to accomplish it. He would veto appropriations that raised spending at all over the previous year.
Barr says that he would follow the path of the Grace Commission in reducing the costs of government and eliminating abuse. He would clearly identify the cost-benefit and Constitutional standing of every department in the federal government, and anything that didn’t pass muster would get axed. DoE would probably be at the top of the list for closure. Department of Commerce would be next, followed by most of the Department of Energy.
James Joyner wondered what states Barr thought he could win. He referred James to the campaign’s manager, who also managed Ross Perot’s campaigns. They have a complex campaign strategy, and prioritization of scarce campaign resources will be key. The mountain West states might be strong for Barr. New Hampshire has a clear sympathy for libertarian impulses, as does Barr’s home state of Georgia.
James reminded Barr that Perot didn’t win any Electoral College votes, but Barr says the political landscape has changed quite a bit. That 86% dissatisfaction gives a real opportunity for people outside the two-party system. They’ll need to get poll numbers up to qualify for the national debates, which would give them credibility. It will take 15% to qualify.
Jazz asked about Israel and Iran. Barr committed to a strong alliance with Israel, but he doesn’t want expanded hostilities in the region. Barr used to work at the CIA, and from “everything I’ve seen”, Iran isn’t close to posing a threat from either nuclear or missile weapons. It’s a concern, but it’s not an imminent threat. He wants to take advantage of “all sorts of other opportunities” to work with elements in Iran to reduce the threat. Iran, he says, wants better relations, and we should work in that direction.
Barr, it should be emphasized, sounds eminently more reasonable and competent than Ron Paul. Even on issues where I’d disagree, Barr gave reasoned, thoughtful answers, as opposed to the kind of conspiracy-theory kookiness Paul spouted at debates and in interviews. The Libertarian Party has its most credible candidate in years, if not ever. However, unless he suddenly finds a way to organize Libertarians and convince vast swaths of Americans to start pitching money into the kitty, his best hope will be to influence the major-party candidates to start addressing some of the legitimate concerns of the Libertarian Party.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I suspect that many of them have fire on their schwanzes.
Jaibones on July 18, 2008 at 1:33 AM
You make several good points, especially regarding McCain’s apalling treatment of Rumsfeld, whom I adore and respect. As for Reagan, my only point was that his 1986 amnesty for illegal aliens and his failure to control spending both put him left side of McCain in those issues, so it might be best to take a long view of this election.
Reagan inspired the change in my understanding of the world, from the liberal college kid I was when he got shot, and I mean him no disrespect. I also believe McCain deserves better than he gets here from some commenters, despite his many flaws.
Plus his wife is hot.
Jaibones on July 18, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Barr for ambassador to Laputa.
profitsbeard on July 18, 2008 at 2:03 AM
You write that and after writing something like this:
Wow. From what I can tell from your arguments here is you are voting for McCain, with whom you largely disagree on the issues, only because he is not Obama. Furthermore, you then disparage those who choose not to exercise the high-degree-of-difficulty mental gymnastics in order to vote for McCain. I stand by the assertion that your kind of argument has a better home at the HuffPo or DKos. You certainly are not alone on this board though, which is troubling.
I would love to hear, issue by issue, from the McCainiacs, who better represents Conservative principles – Barr v. McCain.
The Republicans will NEVER get a good conservative candidate if candidates like McCain win the Presidency. But by all means, vote for McCain because he is not Obama.
King of the Britons on July 18, 2008 at 8:41 AM
I suspect that many of them have fire on their schwanzes.
Jaibones on July 18, 2008 at 1:33 AM
ha ha ha You must be fromn Ohio or thereabouts. I haven’t heard that word in quite a while.
DfDeportation on July 18, 2008 at 10:37 AM
You seem to enjoy wasting your time, eh “wise man?”
I will say this, you ARE wasting your time by name calling and insulting obviously very intelligent people who have strong views that differ from yours. Believe it or not, nobody is 100% correct in everything they believe, including you.
MadisonConservative is a well known conservative on this blog, and you aren’t. In fact, you regularly use tactics that resemble Kos-like behavior. Project much?
fossten on July 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM
According to your logic, then:
Hey, that’s odd. McCain espouses many of the positions that the Democrats do. In fact, he’s allied himself with many Democrats over the years to foster liberal legislation. So if you’re voting for him, you are wanting the exact-same-thing as what the Democrats want, wise_man.
fossten on July 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM
fossten, you see to be laboring under some false impressions. Perhaps I can help to correct you on these.
You see, there was a republican primary, and now that it has ended, John McCain got the most votes to clinch the nomination. Just like Obama, it is now just a formality, and we have moved beyond the stage of picking a candidate on both sides, and this race between two people will finally be decided in 4 months. It is down to McCain, or Obama.
And as such, we have these two choices. Barack Obama, who is the most liberal senator in 2007. This should be no surprise, but he is now doing and saying things to the general public that presents himself as a centrist, not the far left liberal that he actually is.
Recently, the American Conservative Union rated the republican candidates, and it was reported here on HotAir that McCain got a score of a “B.” While not the very far right conservative that many had hoped would win, McCain is very honest in portraying himself as who he is – a more centrist small “c” conservative.
There is a tremendous difference between the two, and yet some people here want to attempt to convince themselves and others that McCain is just as bad as Obama, and we shouldn’t vote for him.
And as far as third parties are concerned, a little history is in order. Please look up the previous presidential elections and you will find in the footnotes the third party candidates such as Ralph Nader. These people were a protest vote against a candidate that the democrats didn’t like, and had the reverse effect of benefiting the republican candidate. In 2004, the democrat’s lawyers went from state to state to kick Nader off the ballot, because they saw the danger he was to a Kerry win.
And as such, this Bob Barr person is also a unintelligent choice for republicans and conservative who want to send a message. They will have the exact opposite effect, as the people who study elections – such as the demographics of the voters and what issues they say is important … these people are ignored because thy are political dead-enders. It doesn’t matter what they think, because their vote is meaningless. Whoever votes for a third party candidate will be guaranteed to fail, their candidate will get zero electoral votes, have a zero chance of being elected president as the democrat or republican will get millions of votes, while the third party candidate will range in the tens of thousands.
I present these obvious facts, and some people are either too stupid to be able to figure this out, or in some cases, they may not be as they claim, and want to foment more democrat ‘operation chaos’ onto us, in the hopes of defeating McCain to the direct benefit to Barack Obama.
They use a kos-like mentality to discredit McCain, lie about his record, and among other things, ultimately help the democrat to win. I’ve offered my opinions as to why they do this, why they would want the democrat to win, not the republican. It’s odd, that on a website that has as its members conservatives and republicans, that these people would like to sabotage the republican candidate and help the democrat to win. I have heard none of them with a straight face claim that Obama would be a better candidate – yet. Maybe they want a scorched earth policy of destroying the country for 4 years, punish McCain for winning over their candidate who lost all in an effort to help a more conservative candidate to be elected in the republican primaries in 4 years. For that, there is no guarantee.
Yet here they are, advocating against McCain, daily, hourly, and just as the democrats who want Obama to win, now that the republican primary is over, the only result of not supporting McCain is to help Obama win. Like these people, the democrats want the same. I oppose the democrats, and I oppose these people. Because what they advocate is the same.
Pretty simple.
wise_man on July 18, 2008 at 12:06 PM
McCain was right. Rummy was wrong.
rightwingprof on July 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Barr has a monumental task – that of purging the holocaust denying anti-semites from the LP. Until he does that he’ll have little credibility and no significant support.
He says: ” committed to a strong alliance with Israel, but he doesn’t want expanded hostilities in the region”. What an asinine thing to say. What with Hezbollah lobing missles in from the north and the plo from the west. Israel nor the U.S. want hostilities!! We’re not starting the hostilities but at times we must respond militarily. So must Israel. What is Barr proposing? Just let the terrorist/jihadists do what they will? Who wants hostilities? But sometimes they’re necessary.
Israel is a true friend and most of the rest of the world disapproves our relationship with them. Because of our relationship with our true friend, it causes strained relations with other countries. The LP and Paulpods want us to abandon our friend just so we can get along w/other nations a little better. Throw Israel under the bus. Americans aren’t build that way. Or we shouldn’t be. DD
Darvin Dowdy on July 18, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Bob Barr reminds me of someone, who is it?
el Vaquero on July 19, 2008 at 9:44 AM
A Bond Villain.
Or a Bond Villains …. banker.
Or certified public accountant.
wise_man on July 20, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3