Liberty MavenBob Barr Campaign Responds To Ron Paul Endorsement Of Chuck Baldwin
September 22nd, 2008 11:43 pm | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Bob Barr, Election, Libertarianism, Liberty, Philosophy, Politics, Ron Paul | 4 Responses
Bob Barr’s campaign manager answered a few questions from Reason Magazine regarding Ron Paul’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin.
reason: What’s your reaction to Paul’s statement?
Verney: That’s what leadership is all about: Making decisions. On election day Bob Barr’s going to offer a mesage that appeals to Ron Paul’s voters, and we’re confident we’ll win them.
reason: Are you disappointed to lose Paul’s endorsement like this?
Verney: No, and this should have been a long time ago if Ron Paul wanted to help Chuck Baldwin. The time to do this was right at the Rally for the Republic, when there was focused attention on what Paul was doing, right in front of the doors of the Republican convention.
reason: Do you regret skipping Paul’s press conference and holding your own? That was clearly the impetus for Paul’s decision.
Verney: No, it wasn’t a mistake. We stand by our position. This is all about liberty, and liberty-minded voters need to know that concentrating their support in the Libertarian Party.
So the Barr campaing stands on principle, however inconvenient it is. This certainly calls into question whether Barr will receive enough votes to beat the record for a Libertarian presidential candidate.
Loading ...
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 am (#)
Ron Paul was pretty persuasive in arguing that standing on the same stage with non-Libertarians when jointly espousing principles and objectives all of you share advances the cause of liberty. I fail to see what principle Bob Barr is standing for in this instance. Perhaps he is trying to hold the support of his party’s rank and file. But does he not lose more than he gains by doing so?
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 am (#)
[...] http://www.libertymaven.com/ Bob Barr’s campaign manager answered a few questions from Reason Magazine regarding Ron Paul’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin. [...]
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 am (#)
When I found out Barr was the candidate I was excited… until I learned about him.
Finally, last week, I took my LP membership card, cut it up, and mailed it to the party headquarters with a note that said “I will rejoin the party when Barr and his ilk are gone”
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm (#)
What a bunch!
One of you fails to see what principle Barr has for not standing with Paul and those others–well, think on this: Those others, such as McKinney and Nader, are hardly in tune with Paul on the Constitution or on economic policy.
Hey, McKinney and Nader are of the socialist type.
And the other–who tore up his LP card because Barr and his ilk are in the LP? How naive. The LP had to bring in Barr (or someone like him) as the LP had bickered itself into a corner wnere no LP candidate was palitable–Mary Ruwart, not hardly. Besides, this isn;t the first time that the LP has imported a Republican–does the Ron Paul LP candidacy for President in 1988 ring any bells? And this isn’t the first time that the LP has had a seemingly certifiably unqualified candidate running as the VP or indeed, as a candidate for any post–A Las Vegas bookie is not a very good resume, and neither is the resume of a Druid priest or an animal righst advocate for ferrets.
But you people have a problem that cuts you all into two parts–the first part wants nothing to do with government, as it is evil, qhile the second part thinks that it may be a good idea to get a LP member elected to more than mere school boards and small city councils. From this conflict, and with the help of those oh so moderate and reasonable LP members–you know the type-who shout down any proposal or any candidate, even their own–its a wonder that the LP can even keep its office rents paid.