I noticed the platform points on his site mention nothing about ending the war in Iraq.
Right. Purely economic issues. The silver lining, however, is the real
possibility that Barr will draw enough support from McCain to elect
Obama.
Barr also offers two-for-one. One of his stated goals is to destroy the
Republican Party, and he may well do some damage. But the more
successful his candidacy is, especially in terms of drawing new members,
the more damaging it will be to the LP, which will have become, once and
for all, a conservative party. Steve Kubby is wisely aligning himself
with Barr in hopes of keeping a focus on the war on drugs, but I will be
impressed if he and his supporters can recruit enough new members,
especially under the new ticket, to outnumber the conservatives drawn by
Barr.
I've been listening to Bob Barr interviews hoping to find he's better than I think, but I'm only discovering he's worse. )-:
Best, Michael
A few non-economic issues Barr is sound on:
1. abolishing the Patriot Act immediately,
2. ending the Federal prohibition on medical marijuana immediately.
Unfortunately, this is all I could find. The rest are liberty-sounding but vague platitudes (at best), with no specific, immediate implications for policy.
Best, Michael
I noticed the platform points on his site mention nothing about ending
the war in Iraq.
The Issues section of his site seems anemic.
Best, Michael
Does anyone have any idea how Bob Barr won the nomination?
I really was surprised, shocked, that the LP would select Bob Barr.
Who were the nominating delegates?
Has the LP been infiltrated and taken over by non-libertarians?
What happenned?
What were the delegates thinking?
I voted for Barr...and speaking for myself only, I was looking for a credible, mainstream candidate who has the potential to attract many more votes and recruits into the LP than we've ever had before. Every other candidate there was either totally insane, an anarchist (or borderline anarchist), or the same old losing strategy the LP has been trying with its presidential candidates for the past couple decades. It's time for something new, and while I understand the concerns about Bob Barr, I will take a "wait and see" attitude...if the predictions about media attention, fundraising capacity, and vote total turn out to be false promises, I will publicly apologize for my vote at the convention in November. Hopefully, for all of us, that won't be necessary.
As a sidenote, I randomly ran into Barr and his family at the airport in Denver on Monday afternoon. He said he had been talking to Rob Power about coming to Pride in San Francisco and was going to try to make it. We shall see if this pans out.
Jeremy
The short answer is: politics.
We repeatedly run candidates who are better or worse with libertarian
ideals, and better or worse at communicating those ideals, but generally
we are small-time at politics.
Bob Barr was canny (if annoying) in the timing of his announcement;
canny (if annoying) in placing himself above the other candidates by
skipping the unofficial debates, running big-ticket fundraisers, having
a placard parade through the convention, telling the media he was the
presumptive nominee... His nominating speeches were dynamic, positive,
and rousing; other speeches were flat, scolding, or uninspiring, or
combinations thereof.
I strongly disapprove of shenanigans on the convention floor for things
like platform debate or national committee elections. But when we are
selecting a candidate to compete in the national arena, it is hard to
disapprove of a concrete demonstration in effective politics.
I don’t think it’s so much that non-libertarians have infiltrated
(though there are arguably a few of those), it’s that Bob Barr gives a
very convincing impression — accurate or not — of having repented and
moved a lot closer to becoming a libertarian.
Check <URL: http://reason.com/news/show/126682.html > for a good
analysis.
~Chris
Dear Chris,
You made my day recently when I received an lpsf-discuss message from you in the body of an email and not as an attachment (this one came to me as an attachment).
Should you have a choice in which you send, my vote is for the usual email message format and against attachments.
Best, Michael
Michael:
I tend to agree, although I haven't been seeing many interviews yet. I saw the convention debate, and the nominating speeches on C-SPAN's website (currently in Europe, no C-SPAN here). I have yet to get around to seeing the actual delegates vote and have their votes be counted.
Barr was certainly not my first choice. I tend to a more "Radical", Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist (aside: then why are you interested in the machinations of a political party, or even belong to one? That's a subject for another message; in any case please accept my apologies for the digression!)
At first I was drawn to Kubby, who seems relatively "radical" if a bit spaced out at times. Besides, he's from California! Can't get any better than that.
Later, when more candidates threw their hats into the ring (what did we have, 14 candidates, 6 of them "serious"?) I did a very small amount of research on the? internet (tubes, indeed!) and, considering the fact that medical marijuana is only legal in 11 states (or is it 12? I'm too lazy to look it up right now - it doesn't really matter) I began to worry that Steve (I've never met him, but with his excellent campaign videos and his fine internet radio program, which are of course all available in all 50 states, I feel he has done as good a job campaigning as someone in his state is capable of.
etc. etc. I would have voted for Mary Ruwart, who wrote her much-praised book "Healing Our World" a dozen or so years ago (I downloaded a copy free on the internet, but haven't yet gotten around to ordering the new, expanded and updated version from Amazon. Although I haven't even read most of the book yet (!?!) I still feel she was the purest voice of the radical libertarian message. I believe I even read a comment from David Nolan to that effect. And since the (co-)Founder is so rarely mistaken, that's how I would have voted were I a delegate, which I am not. Heck I'm not within 1,000 miles of Denver!
Post far too long, apologies to all. Hopefully I can now just shut the f*ck up!
DRJ
Barr also offers two-for-one. One of his stated goals is to destroy the Republican Party, and he may well do some damage.
I'm skeptical.
But the more successful his candidacy is, especially in terms of drawing new members, the more damaging it will be to the LP, which will have become, once and for all, a conservative party. Steve Kubby is wisely aligning himself with Barr in hopes of keeping a focus on the war on drugs, but I will be impressed if he and his supporters can recruit enough new members, especially under the new ticket, to outnumber the conservatives drawn by Barr.
My concern is that Paul made liberals think "huh, these libertarians aren't just Republicans that don't want to pay taxes - they actually care about liberty" but Barr would confirm their initial prejudices.
Btw, I don't understand why Libertarians always focus on winning Republicans. It seems to be based on the idea that those that agree with you on means are better allies than those that agree with you on goals. It seems to me that it's easier to change someone's choice of means than their choice of goals.
I think I might understand some of what you are getting at. So maybe we're going down, but we aren't the only ones heading for a fall. A neutron bomb dropped by us on our own headquarters also takes out the Pentagon!
DRJ
I think the focus has been opportunistic. A random disaffected
Republican has a pretty good chance of being a small-government believer
who feels the Rs have gotten away from those ideals; he or she is a
likely candidate for Libertarian recruitment. A random disaffected
Democrat is more likely to feel that the Ds have sold out and aren’t
using government power properly; he or she is not a likely candidate for
Libertarian recruitment. Unfortunately, those we recruit from the Rs
tend to be, at best, accepting of social freedoms, and so, as
Starchild’s very apt metaphor put it, we list to starboard and take on
water, increasing our list and taking on even more water...
With a slow influx of new members — either conservative-leaning or
liberal-leaning — we can educate them as they come in. Not berate or
correct them, but help them to understand the implications of the
principles that brought them into the party to begin with. The
conservatives can’t truly have financial liberty without supporting
others’ rights to live their own lives; and the liberals can’t truly
have social liberty without working against the government’s power to
distort the economy.
A massive influx of conservatives could seriously disrupt the party.
Fortunately, we currently have a principled, if detail-light, platform,
and a competent and principled national committee. I am not
enthusiastic about the weekend’s results, but they are acceptable.
~Chris
It does no such thing.
?
DRJ
I think I might understand some of what you are getting at. So maybe we're going down, but we aren't the only ones heading for a fall. A neutron bomb dropped by us on our own headquarters also takes out the Pentagon!
DRJ
That's fine, but then is it accurate (or honest) to claim to be "The Party of Principle"?
I’ve actually always thought that was a stupid slogan; the Communist
Party of the USA is as much The Party of Principle as we are, just a
different principle.
But in any case: the principles are what will preserve us, if anything
does. Our statement of principle survived yet another attack (through
some really shady procedural shenanigans) and our platform came out
reasonably strong, if light on detail. Our National Committee has many
strongly principled members, and the authority and responsibility to
hold the presidential campaign to the platform. The Judicial Committee,
the last resort in case the NatCom needs to act, is also full of
strongly principled members.
So while Barr’s politics convinced the delegates that he is the best
candidate to deliver our message, our principles and the mechanisms in
place to preserve them will — or at least can — ensure that he delivers
our message in keeping with our ideals.
~Chris