Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Why do a hit piece on Bob Barr?

posted at 9:35 am on August 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Maybe Bob Barr should count himself lucky that the Washington Post would cover him at all, as a Libertarian Party candidate in a presidential race.  Unfortunately, Libby Copeland spends the first part of her report on Barr ridiculing him rather than treating him seriously, and it’s difficult to understand why.  Rather than focus on his actual political philosophy or the impact of his policies, we get halitosis and Borat:

“I still plan someday to do a book on Bob Barr’s laws of the universe,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president.

The rules of Bob Barr’s universe are many and fascinating. Several have to do with his libertarian principles, like “No matter how much power government has, it never has enough.” Others are more holistic, like “The world is full of idiots.” There are deeply personal ones: “The most difficult thing about politics is dealing with people with really bad breath.”

Really?

“You wouldn’t believe,” Barr explains in his deathly serious way. “Some people — just awful halitosis.”

Is there any human being on the planet more committed to his seriousness than Bob Barr? The 59-year-old Barr is so into the Founding Fathers that most of his phone numbers, including his cellphone, end in “1-7-7-6.” He only reads weighty books, his wife says, like “George Washington on Leadership.” He talks about himself in the third person. In his office, he keeps a photo of himself as a Republican congressman — calling for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Even Bob Barr’s mustache is serious.

Unfortunately, Copeland isn’t.  Barr doesn’t have the same kind of recognition that Barack Obama and John McCain enjoy with American voters, so the context of this profile is very strange.  Before poking fun at Barr, maybe the Post would have done better to give him a more straightforward treatment in its coverage, instead of waiting for a full third of the article to pass before reporting on his positions.

Oddly enough, once Copeland gets to Barr’s policies, we find out that he isn’t actually a joke.  He believes in limited government and wants to pare down the federal bureaucracy.  That view is hardly non-mainstream, among Republicans as well as Libertarians.  In a shift that Copeland calls “bizarre”, Barr even believes that marijuana should be decriminalized at the federal level, which may be controversial but is no longer a fringe thought these days.

Jazz Shaw, a Barr supporter, takes warranted umbrage at Copeland’s treatment of Barr:

The author continues a long tradition of MSM outlets trying to paint any third party candidate as being non-serious, perhaps comical, or “whacky.” She makes repeated references to Barr’s “rules of the universe” which he will occasionally quote in lighter moments. I’ve now had the chance to speak to the Congressman and his staff on several occasions and I can tell you that Barr is a very serious person, but he does have a lighter side. His universal rules are reminiscent of the collected wisdom of Lazarus Long by Robert Heinlen. (Lazarus dryly noted that “small change can often be found under seat cushions.” Bar observes that, “The most difficult thing about politics is dealing with people with really bad breath.”)

When given the opportunity to examine whether or not the candidate will be able to enter the debates with Obama and McCain, she chooses instead to dwell on a private moment between Barr and his wife. Jeri was asking about an opportunity to go see “Wicked” which was on the same day as one of the debates, which seems to fascinate Copeland to no end. Scant attention is paid to Barr’s more serious proposals regarding foreign policy, reduction of the size of government and tax reform, but she managed to return no less than three times to observations on the fact that Bob Barr has… dimples.

I’ve participated in one Barr teleconference, and hope to do more as time permits.  Barr has never given the impression of falling into the lunatic fringe, as some other Libertarian Party candidates have at times.  I don’t necessarily agree with all of Barr’s positions and I think his presidential run is a bad idea, but he has always struck me as a serious, thoughtful man and candidate, and his policies rational and intriguing.

It’s a shame that the Post and Copeland couldn’t have offered its readers a more honest and objective look at Barr.  Copeland seemed determined to find and make Barr an object of ridicule, perhaps to damage his credibility.  Instead, both the Post and Copeland have damaged their own.


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:

I don’t see how this makes sense. Wouldn’t Barr take votes from McCain, thus help Obama? Why would the Left media want to torpedo someone who could help their candidate? I would have thought they would want to promote Barr to try to torpedo McCain.

Michael in MI on August 18, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Cueing “honest and objective” comments on Barr and his bid from HA=ers in 3 . . .2 . . .1 . . .

Grow Fins on August 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Bob Barr & ACLU are buddies. ACLU & dems are buddies. ACLU & Republicans – opposite pole. Anyone helping in dividing Obama’s votes are enemies of the media. They were angry @ Ralph Nadar, never @ Pat Buchanan.

Anita on August 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM

I suspect that it has something to do with that most reporters believe that anyone who doesn’t think that govt is the source of all that is tgood, is serious.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM

They are not that intelligent. The dimocrats will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They just keep giving.

trs on August 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Yeah, I think Barr has dove into the Ron Paul Tin Foil Pool with both feet. He gets what comes with that.

AYNBLAND on August 18, 2008 at 9:45 AM

I believe that there is a chance, that the Libertarian party could replace the Democrats as America’s second party, if their positions on most issues were accurately portrayed to the American people.

From the polls I’ve seen, 2/3rds or more, have never even heard of them.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Anita on August 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM

Okay, well if what you say is true (that Barr would take from Obama’s base somehow), then it makes sense for the mass media to go after him and try to make him irrelevant. But I thought Libertarianism was closer to conservatism in most areas than it was to liberalism/progressivism? I thought libertarians were kinda like ‘extreme’ conservatives. In which case Barr would take from some conservatives disaffected (to say the least) with McCain.

Michael in MI on August 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Libertarians are to the right of Democrats on economic issues, and to the left of Republicans on social ones.

The Libertarians seem to be emphasising their opposition to the War on Terror this year, which would siphon voters from the left this time.

In most years, the Libertarians emphasis the small govt portion of the message.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Michael in MI on August 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM

May be, but fact is that if it were not for Buchanan, Florida would have been easier even with Nadar. Media “reported” otherwise. They live in their own fools’ paradise.

Anita on August 18, 2008 at 9:51 AM

He believes in limited government and wants to pare down the federal bureaucracy.

Just as along as he doesn’t have to vote for it. Then he votes for massive government spending (Medicare Part D), expansion of spying powers (Patriot Act), and the war in Iraq. Oh, and partnering with the liberal ACLU.

amerpundit on August 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM

I’ve participated in one Barr teleconference, and hope to do more as time permits. Barr has never given the impression of falling into the lunatic fringe, as some other Libertarian Party candidates have at times.

his current views on National Security are pretty out there, granted he is playing to the nuts in the LP and is likely alot more sensible but who knows. Still not good to have him calling our troops “Occupiers” and all the empire rhetoric.

plus of course his siding with the ACLU, Andrew McCarthy smoked him in a debate last year on Terrorist Surveillance.

in a world with sleeper cells living within the US and plotting attacks(many of which thwarted so far), something we know for fact. Barr’s position is extreme and I’d argue very Anti-Liberty.

Libertarians do not beleive in Community Rights(i.e. National Security) and the balance it must have with Individual Rights. To them Individual Rights are all that are and is(its an Idol to them) and they completely reject the intersection of the two. Not helpful at all in the current age we live in.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Libertarians are to the right of Democrats on economic issues, and to the left of Republicans on social ones.

The Libertarians seem to be emphasising their opposition to the War on Terror this year, which would siphon voters from the left this time.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM

Thanks. Now it makes complete sense why the mass media would want to make Barr irrelevant.

Michael in MI on August 18, 2008 at 9:55 AM

^”Community Rights”: i.e. “cant scream fire in a crowded theater” the difference between raw Freedom and Liberty. We have a right to live in the community, go to the mall and not have a Suicide bomber or worse pop off and kill us. When that threat is there and you ignore with realistically dealing with it behind the guise of “Individual Rights”(and a misreading of the 4th Amendment), your nothing more than a theoritical crank, and dangerous.

the Andy McCarthy video on NRO TV about his book is a must see.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM

Barr is also Pro-Life like Paul was, or atleast in rhetoric. They are moving the Libertines that direction or trying. Which is also bad for GOP because some foolish evangelicals will go that way as long as they are pro-life on abortion, because Theologically they beleive that we are intended to have a very Libertarian Govt., Christian “theocracy” is very Libertarian and limited(biblically) on the Civil Govt. side, they want a return to that and the LP meet the rhetoric for it, or so they think ignoring the reality of the way the world is and whats required to make a Libertarian system realistic. something they should understand, but don’t.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

plus of course his siding with the ACLU, Andrew McCarthy smoked him in a debate last year on Terrorist Surveillance.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Completely off topic, but I have been a huge fan and admirer of Andrew McCarthy’s work at NRO for a while now and I think he would make a great pick for Attorney General in a possible McCain Administration. Granted, if I remember correctly, he was a huge critic of the McCain torture bill, so he’s probably on McCain’s list along with anyone who criticized him on Amnesty. So probably a pipe dream on my part.

Michael in MI on August 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

so the pro-life part may be what the Post/libs don’t like about Barr….plus don’t forget the Clinton impeachment angle.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM

A few samples from Barr’s Wikipedia page–

There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief… ”–May 13, 2002

There might be “legitimate medical uses of marijuana and we ought not have this knee-jerk reaction against it, and people ought to be allowed to explore,” he said.

—Bob Barr, April 30, 2007

…In Congress, he also controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military

Barr was “guilty of king-size hypocrisy”; the outspoken abortion foe had acquiesced to his then-wife having an abortion in 1983. Investigators also found invoked a legal privilege during his 1985 divorce proceeding so he could refuse to answer questions on whether he’d cheated on his second wife with the woman who is now his third

jgapinoy on August 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM

Michael in MI on August 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM

McCarthy should hold some position, he’s uniquely qualified for our current threats and the legal challenges they present.

the Left would oppose him with the same sort of hate that Ashcroft received.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM

good post Ed

ThackerAgency on August 18, 2008 at 10:17 AM

Unfortunately, Libby Copeland spends the first part of her report on Barr ridiculing him rather than treating him seriously,

What a shame.

Not treating him seriously.

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Please explain how a “community”, can have rights that individuals do not?

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Please explain any position of the founding father’s that differs from standard Libertarian philosophy?

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM

if barr ends up draining votes from Mc, he’s a bitter, harmful tool.

jimmer on August 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM

if barr ends up draining votes from Mc, he’s a bitter, harmful tool.
jimmer on August 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Either that, or he’s a:

Great American patriot for doing his part to keep McTraitor away from the whitehouse where he will destroy the republican party and hate conservatives!/

Depending on your point of view.

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Grow Fins on August 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Refreshing to see you guys realize that McCain sucks so bad; otherwise why be so insecure when another candidate, however unlikely, is mentioned? Even Ed, who is very supportive of McCain manages to be fairminded to Barrwhere you two clowns can’t even tolerate his name being mentioned.

jimmer on August 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM

The only one draining votes from McCain, is McCain. The whole point of a campaign is to persuade people to vote for you. Any failure to persuade is his own.

austinnelly on August 18, 2008 at 10:37 AM

*hugs austinnelly for the much needed ‘case of the mondays’ that has her/him in a bad mood*

… there now …. there now …. feel better?

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Why do a hit piece on Bob Barr? Scenario:

Editor: Our business is driven by readership. If you want to work for WaPo, you need to develop an angle that will generate buzz!

Writer: Well, let me see. There’s a candidate who has a mustache and dimples, that’s real different. Oh! and he’s got this thing against bad breath. I’ll write that down, and that’ll get ‘em talking!

Editor: Be sure to include something about his actual policies.

Writer: Sure, sure, sure. Look! Right here in the thesaurus there’s a synonym for bad breath! Halitosis!

RushBaby on August 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM

Please explain how a “community”, can have rights that individuals do not?

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM

I did briefly, and these rights are connected to Individual Rights is my larger point. There is a balance, always has been. 9/11 is an easy example where Govt. failed us, Individual Liberties took a direct hit that day. Both Economic Liberties(the economy as a whole took a $1 Trillion estimated hit) and of course the “Right to Life” that we all hold, to all those attacks. Not to mention the intended chaos and fear it invoked.

you have a Right to go out in public, “Train, bus, street, trip to mall and Work” without having a terrorist attack, an Act of War, hit you. It intersects on how far you go with Individual Rights to make sure that doesn’t happen and we are protected. always have, the Founders even passed and signed the ALien and Seditions Acts early on in the nation. They purposely placed the word “unreasonable” in the 4th Amendment, and gave the Executive Implied powers.

This is why, in the 2nd Inaugural the President said:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion:

The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.

The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

as long as you have fruitcakes out there willing to commit Suicide, bombs, etc. in an attempt to establish a Global Islamic/Sharia Caliphate these things, in a Globalized world no less….we are going to have these problems and things like the Patriot Act to thwart them before they materialize.

we can’t let buildings, citys, Infrastructure, etc. just be blown to way(and in process our Individual Rights) all under the guise of an Absolutist approach to Individual Liberty. It sucks, but its also the calling of our time to deal with and defeat.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM

I’d also argue that the Libertarian fruitcakes(Paul, Rockwell…and extended to Alex jones) all know this on some level and are in complete denial over it. So they try to find something to justify absolute Individual Rights and their anti-Govt. agenda. This is what leads many of them to claiming “We make them attack us” and if we get rid of our military we can sing Kumbaya with them….and then the other extreme: 9/11 Trutherism.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 10:54 AM

So as long as the govt claims to be protecting us, it can do whatever it wants.

Please explain again how this position differs from Putin’s.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM

I’m not wild about Bob Barr, but he has every right to run for President. He left the Republican party some time ago so his bid for the Libertarian nomination is not merely a ploy to prolong sour grapes like Pat Buchanan going to the Reform Party. As for Mr. Barr’s affiliation with the ACLU, he has long been known as a proponent of individual privacy rights (with the exception of support for legal abortion). He went to work for the ACLU very briefly after stating that they didn’t agree on a lot, but he did agree with them on privacy matters and they’d agreed to work together on just that narrow point. He is by no means a Democrat or a supporter of the Democratic party tenets.

Jill1066 on August 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM

Please explain again how this position differs from Putin’s.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM

you’ve got to be kidding me, unlike Russia, America gives power to its leaders by the “consent of the governed”

what its not different than is things the Founders did to protect Liberty. Alien and Seditions Acts is easiest to point to, also controversial at the time. well after it was politicized, like the PA anyway. popular originally.

its the hardest thing our leaders have to figure out, how to balance these rights out given current day real world Reality. This is very different than textbook Idealism the Socialist and Libertarians propose, both of which reject Reality and based on paper theory

jp on August 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Because we elect our leaders, that gives the govt the right to do whatever it wants, so long as they claim to be doing it for the common good?

I might add that Putin was elected, and he claims that what he does is for the good of the Russian people, that their needs and wants come before the needs and wants of any other people.

Much like the rhetoric coming from many so called conservatives in this country.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 11:14 AM

You don’t understand, the ACLU is so irredeemably evil, that any association with it contaminates one for life.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 11:15 AM

This is very different than textbook Idealism the Socialist and Libertarians propose, both of which reject Reality and based on paper theory

I say the same thing about your reflexive answers to questions of what the govt is allowed to do.

That they sound good in a political speech, but spell disaster when tried out in the real world.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM

And before you get so high up on your horse that you get nosebleeds, I am not saying that there is no difference between the US and Russia.

I am saying that there is no difference between the rhetoric you use to justify what the US does, and the rhetoric Putin uses to justify what Russia does.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM

My question is why waste print on a non-entity like Bob Barr?

I’d rather read last Tuesday’s Olympic synchronized diving scores, than anything about the completely irrelevant Bob Barr and his fringe “libertarian” party.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Russia is not acting on the basis of protecting Liberty, its an Autocracy based on Raw power and nationalism.

Putin is also “Prime Minister for Life”, hardly elected at this point. the KGB runs the place like a mafia outfit, one party rule. Dissent is crushed, literally…Eastern Bock countries leaders are poisoned and now he’s doing ethnic cleansing in Georgia. A place that has “Free Markets” and some Classical Liberalism and share Western Values.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 11:27 AM

To assume that there is a right and left to many libertarian issues is to ignore the fact that most libertarians want our government out of social issues all together. Personally I was a Goldwater type Republican before the big Government social issue corporate run Democrats fled the socialist left and took over the GOP. Still I consider myself an independent conservative rather than libertarian and would suggest that since the GOP has set the big tent on fire they better get used to not being in power anytime soon.

Buzzy on August 18, 2008 at 11:33 AM

so the pro-life part may be what the Post/libs don’t like about Barr….plus don’t forget the Clinton impeachment angle.

jp on August 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM

We have the two-part answer on why the hit piece was done. Getting revenge for the impeachment of Clinton is more important than anything else for the Left.

steveegg on August 18, 2008 at 11:37 AM

I would have thought they would want to promote Barr to try to torpedo McCain.

Michael in MI on August 18, 2008 at 9:41 AM

The leftists have worked long and hard at creating the pathetic state of today’s Republican Party and they would have to start all over again if a new party rose in its place. Think of the success of the early Republicans as the Whigs petered out. The Democrats realize by that history lesson that it is to their benefit to keep the opposition party in a weak but breathing state.

Buddahpundit on August 18, 2008 at 11:41 AM

Didn’t we once have another candidate who talked about himself in the third person and ran a remarkably ineffective campaign?

whitetop on August 18, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Oh Ed, lighten up. I’m a diehard Barr supporter. Even quit my job to galavant across the US – 7 different states – to get him on the ballot.

I found the Washington Post piece this morning to be quite positive for our boy Bob, admittedly colorful, but a positive none-the-less.

Like Bob’s taste in music – Pink Floyd and Bob Marley.

This was a piece on Bob Barr the Man (and his lovely wife). Not a boring-ass policy wonker article. I’m sure the WP will do much of that in the weeks to come.

Eric at Libertarian Republican blog

ericdondero on August 18, 2008 at 11:45 AM

I’d rather read last Tuesday’s Olympic synchronized diving scores, than anything about the completely irrelevant Bob Barr and his fringe “libertarian” party.

That “fringe” Libertarian Party you talk of Donkeyboy, has just gotten on the ballot in 48 states.

Further, Over 500 elected Libertarians serving in public office nationwide, including Mayors, Town Councilmen, and County Supervisors. That’s twice as many elected officials as all other minor parties combined.

I’d hardly call that “fringe.”

ericdondero on August 18, 2008 at 11:49 AM

That’s twice as many elected officials as all other minor parties combined.

Yeah. Such as the communist party. And the Socialist party. And the Socialist workers party. And the Peace and Freedom party. In the last election, the libertarian party got 0.32% of the vote. But I wouldn’t call that “fringe.”

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 11:57 AM

Putin was elected, and is now appointed by the man who was elected to replace him.

You still haven’t explained why it’s ok for you to use the same rhetoric that Putin uses.

MarkTheGreat on August 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Wouldn’t Barr benefit should McCain follow through with putting another liberal on the ticket or even drafting Lieberman? Hard to believe that the WP is interested in helping McCain but this is the kind of story that might help keep conservatives in line if/when McCain puts another unpalatable candidate on the ticket.

highhopes on August 18, 2008 at 12:49 PM

I’m sorry, but I really can’t take Barr seriously either. The ULTIMATE flip flopper. One of the main focuses of his campaign is fighting against legislation THAT HE VOTED FOR as a Congressman. Kind of pathetic. I wouldn’t be ridiculing an actual Libertarian running for actual Libertarian votes (there are a lot of them in this country, as Dondero points out, that I’m sure normally forgo the R and D candidates for the LP candidate), but Barr is just a former Republican who flip flopped on 75% of the issues in order to run a campaign that only exists because of Ron Paul’s leftovers and is attempting to gain normally conservative Republican votes by trying to pretend his platform is conservative when in reality it’s far from it. I use to think we had to worry about this phony being the spoiler for Barack Obama in what should be a close election, but now I don’t think we need to worry about Barr getting any more votes than what the LP candidate usually gets.

Further, Over 500 elected Libertarians serving in public office nationwide, including Mayors, Town Councilmen, and County Supervisors. That’s twice as many elected officials as all other minor parties combined.

Are these people that ran under the LP banner or are they mostly just Republicans that you are calling Libertarian. Because most of the “Elected Libertarians” listed on your website with names I recognize are actually Republicans. There’s a big difference between holding some small-l libertarian views (like I and a lot of Republicans do) and actually being a member of the LP. The LP holds a lot of views that many of the Republicans listed on your website would probably deem “fringe” (like on immigration and national security). I don’t think it’s right to say that anybody who holds any small-l libertarian views is automatically a de facto member of the Libertarian Party.

malan89 on August 18, 2008 at 1:14 PM

malan89 – exactly, thanks for saving me the effort.

Barr’s candidacy in a single sentence would be, “I was a terrible Congressman, which is why I’m now running for President.”

I consider myself somewhat a libertarian but now that they’ve elected Barr simply to steal votes from the Republicans in order to elect a Marxist President, makes me hostile to the party. I won’t even slightly consider Libertarian candidates anytime in the future.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2008 at 1:28 PM

Barr’s positions and I think his presidential run is a bad idea, but he has always struck me as a serious, thoughtful man and candidate, and his policies rational and intriguing.

Having lived close to his congressional district, I’m sorry to say that your impressions are incorrect. The guy really is almost as embarrassing as Cynthia McKinney.

funky chicken on August 18, 2008 at 1:51 PM

malan89 on August 18, 2008 at 1:14 PM

great post

It’s kinda amusing to see people say they are voting for Barr because he wants to seal our southern border. Er, that’s what he said in 1999-2001. Today’s Barr is way more into the open border than McCain, and possibly even more than Obama. The LP stance on the border is that we shouldn’t have one because borders only restrict the free flow of people.

crazy

funky chicken on August 18, 2008 at 1:55 PM

Roberto Barrio is for McShamnesty?

Ay, currumba!

NoDonkey on August 18, 2008 at 2:17 PM

In which case Barr would take from some conservatives disaffected (to say the least) with McCain.

Michael in MI on August 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Conservatives disaffected with John McCain? The most conservative Republican candidate since, since, since … … … well since George W. Bush. How can that be? Oh, say it ain’t so Michael.

MB4 on August 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Nope. There’s your huge mistake. There’s hardly any difference whatsoever in being a member of the Libertarian Party and being a Republican at the same time.

Used to be. I admit. Throughout the 1990s the Party was controlled by a bunch of Anarchists like Harry Browne and Michael Emerling.

But in the last few years, since 2005, the LP has mainstreamed quite significantly.

Many of us are working diligently to blur the lines between Republican and Libertarian. Yes, many of those listed at MainstreamLibertarian.com are both Republicans and Libertarians. And that’s PRECISELY how it should be!

ericdondero on August 18, 2008 at 3:42 PM

“Many of us are working diligently to blur the lines between Republican and Libertarian.”

How, by bolstering the Democrat Party in order to make the Republican Party as irrelevant as the Libertarian Party?

Why must the strategy be to defeat the party most reflective of libertarian views, in order to punish the American people by putting a bunch of Marxists/statists/nanny state lunatics into office? Whose “work” on behalf of making us all slaves to the state will take decades if not centuries to undo?

If Bob Barr and the Libertarians succeed in drawing enough of the vote away from McCain and to Barr, therefore electing Obama, I and many conservatives who have many libertarian views will end us despising the libertarian party. This is not the way to build your membership, it’s just a cheap ploy to get publicity.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM

Good question. Let me answer precisely.

Because the Republican Party has completely ignored libertarian concerns. What libertarian issues has the GOP championed as of late? Tax Cuts? Property Rights? Marijuana Legalization? Repeal of Seat Belt Laws? Ending Affirmative Action?

And McCain, worse than any of the GOP primary candidates has ignored libertarians. Though admittedly, not like Huckabee who went out of his way to bad mouth us.

I personally contacted the higher-ups in the McCain Campaign immediately after he clinched the nomination. I suggested that he consider making an appearance at the Libertarian Party National Convention. At first I got a curious but positive response. Then they came back a week later with a “no” with no explanation.

Since, McCain has done absolutely nothing to reach out to libertarians. No meetings with the heads of the Cato Institute. No Editorial Board meetings with Reason Magazine. Not even a phone call to the Republican Liberty Caucus.

He is clearly not interested in reaching out to libertarians, even libertarians within his own Party.

So, how should libertarians react? Support him anyway?

We might have done this if the Libertarian Party had nominated a far-out extremist as they’ve done in the past. But this time they’ve made a giant leap towards the mainstream with Bob Barr and Wayne Root.

So, you’ve got McCain and the Republicans ignoring Libertarians. Meanwhile, you’ve got the Libertarian Party moving to the middle.

If you were a Libertarian Republican what would you do?

Eric Dondero, fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul 1997-2003
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus
20 year member of the Republican Party

ericdondero on August 18, 2008 at 5:34 PM

If the GOP had nominated a more libertarian-friendly candidate like Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, things would be a lot different right now. There’d be much less support for a 3rd party effort.

As it is, the Republican Party chose ho-hum John McCain, who is far from being a libertarian.

Tell me Mr. Donkey, why should any libertarian be excited about McCain for President?

ericdondero on August 18, 2008 at 5:36 PM

NoDonkey, you will end up despising your fellow Republicans too. Because a great many of us GOPers are voting for Bob Barr. It’s not just the Libertarian Party.

ericdondero on August 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM

“US Congressman Ron Paul 1997-2003″

Conversation over. Troother. ‘Nuff said.

NoDonkey on August 18, 2008 at 8:20 PM

NoDonkey, you will end up despising your fellow Republicans too. Because a great many of us GOPers are voting for Bob Barr. It’s not just the Libertarian Party.
ericdondero on August 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Do you think that you’ll get more than 397,265 votes this time?

I’m thinking maybe up to 600,000. Nationally.

wise_man on August 18, 2008 at 9:38 PM

I recently heard an interview with Barr on NPR (was on a road trip and it was the only station I could pick up). He actually sounded fairly reasonable. Some of his stuff was not my cup of tea but he sounded anything but whacky. He deserves a fair shake from the press so we could hear more of his thoughts (who knows, he might be nuts or not) so we can make up our own minds and not be swayed by a MSM hit job.

Big John on August 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM

PS. I didn’t say I was voting for him though…

Big John on August 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.