Liberty MavenBob Barr To Ron Paul Supporters: You Should Be Disappointed
September 27th, 2008 1:35 am | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Bob Barr, Education, Election, Libertarianism, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Politics, Religion, Ron Paul | 21 Responses
The final question that was posed to Bob Barr during the live debate event at Reason Magazine’s headquarters in Washington DC was regarding the snub of Ron Paul and Paul’s endorsement of Chuck Baldwin.
10:48- Bob Barr: [Responding to, "Final question: You had a very public falling out with Ron Paul. What went wrong? And what would you say to Paul supporters?"] They ought to be disappointed in Ron Paul. Endorsing a theocratic candidate makes little sense whatsoever. What we’re trying to do is what we hoped Ron Paul would have done, which is to provide true focused leadership.
As hard it is for me to admit, I think Bob Barr is right here to a certain extent. I think there were many who were disappointed in Ron Paul. Of course there were also many who were disappointed in Bob Barr as well. As I’ve written before, I am disappointed in both.
While I don’t believe Baldwin wants a theocracy as Barr accuses, Baldwin’s historical statements on policy backed by religion worry me greatly. So it matters little to me that Ron Paul is endorsing Chuck Baldwin now. I will not vote for him.
Bob Barr’s type of “true focused leadership” is likely different than Ron Paul’s type of leadership. Paul is focusing on education and activism. Barr is all about furthering his own standing in the election and propping up the Libertarian Party as legitimate.
Now after the Barr snub, Paul chooses to endorse Baldwin, more or less. This comes off as a bit like a couple of stubborn kids arguing over toys when what we lovers of liberty need is a bit of unity. Unity is no longer in the cards when it comes to voting for liberty this year.
I’m disappointed in both Barr and Paul, but the real travesty is the wasted potential for spreading the freedom message to the masses. Paul blew it when he originally chose to help his own party’s nominee by endorsing no individual candidate. Barr blew it by over-reacting to Paul’s decision.
They are equally culpable, but because Barr will be the one on the ballot in my state he will get my vote and Ron Paul will get my support for his educational and activist efforts.
If they won’t show unity themselves, I will bridge their differences with my own advocacy.
Follow LM on Twitter
September 27th, 2008 at 2:42 am (#)
Well said.
I disagree with one point. If we support Bob Barr, then we can expect more Bob Barrs from the LP. We have one disastrous election coming up where libertarians have no one to vote for, don’t doom us to more of this in the future. Please.
No one cares how many votes the LP party gets this year. It will mean nothing. You might was well write in none of the above. Both will be viewed as other. At least with the latter, you don’t show approval to a terribly misbehaving organization.
I voted libertarian for years. I will not endorse their idiocy or their idiotic candidate who can’t stop whining like a teenager because her so-called best friend, just asked Susie from Math class to be her BFF instead.
And to hell with the LP party, Barr could care less about how much damage he does to them with every word he utters.
Now just in case he hasn’t already alienated every single Ron Paul supporter, he is trying to best to reach them all. Look, moron, if I, as a Ron Paul supporter choose to think he made a mistake, fine. But don’t you tell me what I should think. How dare you? You might as well come out with some “your mama” comments.
Do you really think the more you trash Ron Paul, the more endearing you become? Because Mr. Barr, I have news for you, I am writing articles and reaching as many as I can to tell them all that you are a snake in the grass. I hope the LP goes down in flames for picking you. Perhaps something REAL will rise out of the ashes.
The beltway libs took what could have been the best year in history and chose to attack the member who was doing them the most good. They went after Ron Paul and shot themselves in the foot over and over. They are continuing to do so. More interested in petty in-fighting than actual liberty.
A party like that should go down just like WaMu. Neither are solvent or run on any kind of rational business model.
I will not give them my approval for this kind of childish stupid behavior with a vote. Not a chance.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:48 am (#)
P.S. I have finally figured it out. I know why I hate Barr. He uses words like “provide true focused leadership.” Hey, moron, us libertarians don’t want leaders.
If you want reality, replace the word leaders with the word rulers and that is what you have in Washington. We need LESS leadership, not more. You idiots don’t know what WE need. Libertarians in general know this. Perhaps you should learn something about the platform you profess to endorse.
Mr. Barr, you are a fraud.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:44 am (#)
Due to the accursed ballot access laws, the number of votes which the Libertarian Party receives this year will indicate how many states need to spend much time, energy and money to regain ballot access. So, it does mean something important.
I agree with Liberty Maven that both sides have committed serious errors, including Bob Barr’s statement that Chuck Baldwin is promoting theocracy.
A more serious criticism of many members of the Baldwin faction in this controversy which only aids the Enemy is that too many Constitution Party members have insufficient faith in God and doubt that He has the ability to punish sins such as prostitution, obsession with pornography, gambling (according to some)and gluttony and therefore misdirect their faith to the civil government.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:52 am (#)
This comes off as a bit like a couple of stubborn kids arguing over toys when what we lovers of liberty need is a bit of unity. Unity is no longer in the cards when it comes to voting for liberty this year.
I just love it! What a bunch.
There has been, is not, and never will be any unity in the third parties. You all are a bunch of kids fighting over the toys, as libertyforone’s statements yet again serve as another example. And without that unity, or rather, with that infighting, you will never win–the Paul policy of education and activism is a road leading if not nowhere, then off a cliff.
“libertyforone” Interesting moniker–liberty for one, as in I alone, leave me alone, I will not agree or join, as in, no unity for me, no sir.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am (#)
A first step toward an independant or third party having a legitimate chance of defeating the Democratic and Republican duopoly could have happened at Ron Paul’s press conference.
Bob Barr decided to decline this opportunity. I think that this was a great opportunity lost. I also believe it was a very dirty trick for him to do a 180 and shkip it on short notice.
After having been stabbed in the back like this, I do not blame Ron Paul for deciding to endorse someone who had endorsed him.
I will vote for Chuck Baldwin this November. I respect Bob Barr for appearing to reform his political ideology to something more libertarian compared to his right-wing position earlier in his career, but his current candidacy is coming across more as a focused payback to the Republican Party than anything else, mixed with a Malcolm X “by whatever means necessary” mentality.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am (#)
You libertarians seem to always want to play the anti-God card. Just because a man knows what he believes and isn’t afraid to acknowledge it, doesn’t mean you should just right him off. Baldwin endorsed Paul. He agrees with Paul. He is a born again Christian(Christ says that’s the only kind there is btw..) but that doesn’t mean he will make America a theocracy. Heck, there is no way he could even if he tried. Most Americans are running full speed away from Christianity the way it is. Vote for Chuck and you will get what you had with Paul and more. Barr is a Neocon like Bush, McCain, etc.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:07 pm (#)
Pretty much nobody out there seems to get it while their tunnel vision is focused on the word “snub” and the way in which that word alone serves to frame the entire debate, and they’re essentially bashing Barr because somebody else “told” them to. So I’m going to take the time to spell it out for you once-and-for-all. Make sure you absorb this fully, and don’t filter it through the word “snub” and all the talk you’ve been digesting that included that word from people that had an axe to grind against Barr long before he ever became a candidate in this race:
- Bob Barr agreed to attend the press conference in the belief that it was going to be focused entirely on the “Four Key Positions.”
- Ron Paul’s staff didn’t get the specific details of the press conference into the hands of Barr’s campaign staff until sometime in the middle of the night the night before the press conference. Presumably most or all of them were ASLEEP, so it can be reasonably assumed that they didn’t actually “get” this information until the next morning.
- Barr’s staff realized that the focus wasn’t going to be on the “Four Key Positions” (and the implications of those positions alone), but rather the entire event was going to culminate in Ron Paul calling for people to vote for the equivalent of “anybody, or nobody” even though some of those at the event (Nader/McKinney) are diametrically opposed to what everyone thought Ron Paul advocated, and even though others (Baldwin) couch much of what they do agree with us on in details that are the equivalent of marketing asterisks and fine print. Buyer beware.
- When Barr talks about “true focused leadership” he’s not tooting his own horn (although, at times, this is in reference to what he would’ve done differently if he were in Ron Paul’s shoes). The key word is FOCUSED, and the leadership relates far more to a particular political party called the Libertarian Party. Barr understands that the only way for an alternative party to make any headway ANYTIME THIS CENTURY is for the voters of various third parties, disgusted former D/R status quo voters, voters that aren’t wedded to any particular party (swing/independent voters), protest voters (C4L, etc.), and BOTH principled and apathetic non-voters alike to bring the big guns to bear on a single party to catapult it onto the national stage sooner rather than later. Barr is well-aware that as soon as a third party gets in the debates again things will get shaken up REAL quick. Barr is well-aware that as soon as a third party gathers significant vote totals again things will get shaken up REAL quick. Barr is well-aware that as soon as the public’s perception that a third party “can never/will never” win changes this political charade we have in this country right now will come to an end REAL quick.
You truly should be disappointed in Ron Paul. Sure, he may have stirred up some dissent and gotten people interested in the alternatives IN GENERAL, but four parties each gathering 0-5% of the vote probably won’t even make news other than when they’re singled out for blame by whichever buffoon loses. Then four years from now we’ll all be back to square one as we’re scraping for ballot access and whining over the lack of widespread media coverage, lack of debate participation, lack of attention other than when they deride us for being spoilers, lack of principles in Washington, lack of money in the Treasury, and lack of freedoms in the Land of the Free.
Wake the hell up.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pm (#)
I think this article is on point. For those who believe Libertarians are against God because we are suspicious of clerics, let me point our just one example that defends our suspicion. The Libertarian Party and it’s many candidates running for office oppose the Real ID, or National ID card complete with it’s radio frequency chip (RFID). There is no objection of this “marking” of Americans, coming from the Evangelicals, or Religious Right. I find that disappointing. To better understand my opposition, find a Bible and look in back to find the book of Revelations. Read Revelations chapter 13 verse 16 and 17. Is the national ID the “mark”? No, but it is it’s predecessor. Many Libertarians are Christian. I’m a Libertarian in part, because it is my only moral choice.
September 27th, 2008 at 12:33 pm (#)
As a side note:
Barr also understands that the Libertarian Party is the best alternative to move up first. The fact that it has been around for awhile and has a fairly solid apparatus constructed is part of the reason for that, but the real reason is the debate society aspect of the party itself! The same one it gets made fun of for!
Libertarians can’t even agree amongst themselves what, exactly, they want. All they know is that the emergency brake needs to be thrown on this thing YESTERDAY. It’s time to turn around and head back toward our roots. It’s not about the destination for most Libertarians at this point, it’s about the journey away from big government and toward more freedom. While the other third parties have a grocery list of things they definitely intend to do to our country–new programs to implement, new laws to pass, new avenues of tyranny to unleash–Libertarians tend to just want to do away with existing things, and often can’t really agree on what or how. It’s the debate itself that makes boosting Libertarians to the forefront so appealing. Our policies aren’t quite so set-in-stone, only the direction they’re pointing toward of them is, and the debate we will foster in our nation will be VERY healthy and VERY refreshing after decades of dealing with the moronic political discourse that has been promoted by the D/R duopoly.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm (#)
Anonymous, I can accept that crossed wires the morning of the press conference may have led to a decision for Barr to bypass that which he had already agreed to do. But I don’t see any excuse for Barr and Paul not getting together since that time and mending their fences. Bob Barr, who has been accused by many in the LP of not being truly “libertarian” seems to have shot himself in the foot by trying to be a “holier than thou” libertarian.
The key to a third party arising to challenge the Democrats and Republicans is that it NOT be an ideological party, either libertarian or Christian, but that it combine both streams of political thought that have been ignored or exploited by the Republicrats. This was the year for the Libertarian and Constitution Parties to combine forces and nominate the same ticket, and Bob Barr was the obvious candidate (in the absence of Ron Paul) to be their joint standardbearer. Having failed to do that, Ron Paul’s idea of having the public associate both their slates of candidates, together with Nader and the Greens, is the next best alternative. Granted, the LP and CP will never build a common platform with committed socialists, but from the standpoint of having the same foreign and military policy goals, as well as an opposition to the conventional wisdom from Wall Street, the four have the opportunity to build a sensible coalition, in the way many European governments are built by coalitions among parties with conflicting planks in their separate platforms. By putting all four candidates together in the mind of the American electorate, the vote totals of the four tickets could be combined to look at their total impact upon the polling on election day. None of them are going to win any state’s electors, but building a united front in the public mind gives the coalition movement a far greater opportunity to build for the future.
Remember the Ross Perot candidacy, which was non-ideological, but gathered together a lot of folks dissatisfied with the two major parties? That opportunity was squandered because the “libertarian” heirs to that campaign, most prominently represented by Jesse Ventura, bad-mouthed the paleo-conservative wing of the party, represented by Pat Buchanan. We really don’t need Bob Barr repeating the same mistake.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:44 pm (#)
My good Americans,
How does anyone expect to make any progress towards liberty with this much arguing? We are prevented from addressing the issues that us, as Libertarians, care about because of the current two-party (pretty much one-party) system dominates all politics. While third parties certainly differ on the issues in many ways, they also share viewpoints on others that need to be focused on in order to get anything done. The first accomplishment we need to complete (referring to all third party supporters) is to have as much of a voice as the Republicans and Democrats do. I’m sure you all agree that accomplishing that is a HUGE task in itself, all other issues aside. If we cannot accomplish this, the rest does not matter. The main reason the majority laughs at third parties is because even though barely anyone is listening, what they do hear is arguing and bickering about issues that are insignificant when compared to the one issue we all share.
We do not have voices, and we are not on the ballots in every state like we should be, and therefore WE DO NOT HAVE A CHANCE. Seriously, it’s time to be realistic.
After getting on the ballots, after getting people to listen, then talking about how the views of various third parties differ will be constructive….until then it is a complete waste of time.
Ron Paul tried to do more than anyone has in a long time to recognize this and unite the third parties under this common issue that must be addressed before anything else can happen. Bob Barr chose to be different. Maybe he was misinformed, who cares, grow up. If he cannot join other candidates with this one common goal, then why even pretend to be running. I honestly cannot believe he is able to call himself a “presidential candidate” with a straight face. To even call himself that just gives Republicans and Democrats more reason to laugh at the entire party. Why even run if you aren’t going to be on the ballots in all 50 states and in the debates? I say that to all third party candidates….really, you’re making fools of yourselves.
There are two presidential candidates:
1. John McCain
2. Barak Obama
Until the third parties are taken seriously, they need to stop claiming to have “presidential candidates.” Why not work on third party congressmen to start? In the meanwhile fight for ballot access. We all have differences; focusing on those differences will not lead to progress. If we focus on what we have in common, and work together, maybe we can get somewhere.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm (#)
I’d imagine they haven’t gotten together for the following three reasons:
1. For many this isn’t about mending fences or creating alliances. It’s about staking out turf and gathering market share for competing factions. Some of Ron Paul’s staff, already hostile toward Barr long before these events unfolded, were able to spin the entire affair (along the same lines as what I mentioned earlier about how the word “snub” serves to frame the debate long before rationally weighing the facts even enters the equation) as “proof positive” that their “dire warnings” of Bob Barr’s “poisonous effect” on Ron Paul’s “virtuous agenda” were true. This undoubtedly pulled any staffers that were on the fence off, and staffers that were indifferent toward Barr on. Couple this with the feud that was sparked between both camps, and now I’m sure there’s a sizable mined “no man’s land” between both.
2. Ron Paul’s decision to scatter the voice of dissent “to the four winds” at the press conference disappointed Barr, and likewise Barr’s no-show disappointed Paul. There may not be a conciliatory spark in either man, even without the influence and involvement of the staff.
3. Ron Paul’s decision to parlay the spin and the whispered counsel of those that have his ear into an endorsement of Chuck Baldwin probably locked closed whatever avenues of reasonable discourse still remained, and Barr’s comment that Ron Paul’s supporters should be disappointed in him surely threw away the key.
You said:
“The key to a third party arising to challenge the Democrats and Republicans is that it NOT be an ideological party, either libertarian or Christian, but that it combine both streams of political thought that have been ignored or exploited by the Republicrats.”
No. The two “streams of political thought” that need to be wedded are the “right-conservative” and “left-liberal” streams, and that is accomplished by libertarian philosophy under the banner of libertarianism. The “two parties” (which are essentially one) are doing the same thing, except they’re wedding the two under the banner of authoritarianism. Take a look at the “Nolan Chart” for a good view of what I’m talking about.
Christianity is not a political ideology, but rather a religious ideology. This highlights one of the significant differences between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party. Libertarian philosophy is extremely inclusive of people from many walks of life and a variety of faiths, and it is broad inclusiveness that is needed to garner the amount of votes necessary for an alternative party to succeed. The Constitution Party clearly appeals primarily to Christians. It attracts others, to be sure, but I’d imagine this is either by virtue of the word “Constitution” in its name or because–for whatever reason–those individuals chose not to support another cause. Many Christians that have faith in the laws of God and his sole authority to judge us for our sins, not the laws of men and a notion that they have secondary authority to administer punishment for disobeying God, find a happy home in the Libertarian Party.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pm (#)
Please read this articel and give it a Thumbs Up
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5004.html
Vote Third Party and let’s get the vote out
September 27th, 2008 at 4:33 pm (#)
KProctor,
You are so right about the silence of Evangelicals on important issues like the real id, globalism…etc. This is the result of a powerful political alliance called: “The Religious Right”. Leadership from the top down has changed the entire paradigm and led Christians on the path of supporting the establishment at every turn. Just look at the deceptive voting guide that makes John McCain look like an angel.
What you need to know is that Chuck Baldwin and most members of the Christian members of the Constitution Party are not in-line with this alliance. We see the hypocrisy and apostacy and it is outrageous. They are as guilty as the liberal left in working to increase the size and power of the federal government. Chuck Baldwin has been railing AGAINST the Religious Right since his eyes became opened in the late 90’s. Just review the archive of his column. Here are some to consider:
The Religious Right is Wrong – January 4, 2002
The Religious Right Has Huge Blind Spot – August 16, 2002
Is The Religious Right Gullible, Naive, or Willingly Ignorant? – March 11, 2005
The Religious Right Has Fled The Battlefield! – June 09, 2006
Why Do Evangelicals Ignore Ron Paul? – February 27, 2007
Have Christians Become Dupes? – April 10, 2007
Christian Right Just Doesn’t Get It – December 07, 2007
Why Does The Establishment Hate Ron Paul? – January 08, 2008
The Religious Right Is AWOL From The Real War – July 23, 2008
Chuck Baldwin is about following the Constitution and honoring his oath of office. The issues that cause concern for many non-believers and libertarians (abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, war on drugs….etc.) are those that Chuck Baldwin recognizes as properly within the jurisdiction of the states. He is a sctrict Constitutionalist and the allegiance he has to the law of the land is what makes the difference between him and the Religious Right.
For those that don’t understand why Ron Paul would endorse Chuck Baldwin because you think he is a Theocrat, an understanding of the Religious Right might help explain why you’ve gotten that mistaken impression. There is a whole movement of Christians who believe in the Constitution — the rule of law.
Ron Paul endorsed him because he is a Constitutionalist and so is Chuck Baldwin. That is the measure we should be using to elect federal officers.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:50 pm (#)
Third parties could come together if they all had faith in the Constitution — in the Supreme Law of the Land. If they all agreed to only elect representatives that understand the Constitution and would truly obey their oath of office to follow it.
How ridiculous is it that we elect leaders and tell them “it’s O.K. if you don’t want to follow the law sometimes. If you think you have more wisdom and better ideas…etc.”
If we could unite on this principle, then we could UNITE to overcome the political monopoly in our land.
How about it Libertarians? Can you agree to only elect Constitutionalists to office? Or is it better to be pragmatic and support a candidate who won’t follow the Constitution, but talks about small government, civil liberties and small government?
It has nothing to do with a person’s moral or religious convictions. It is about what the Constitution allows for or restricts.
Chuck Badlwin wrote an article about this in 2006 called Can Constitutionalists Ever Come Together? http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2006/cbarchive_20060523.html
September 27th, 2008 at 5:43 pm (#)
Vote Third Party! That’s what counts this election.
Bob Barr’s nomination has done NOTHING but disrespect Ron Paul and his supporters and cause division. I severely questioned the suspicious nature of so many anti-Ron Paul/pro-Bob Barr trolls smearing Ron Paul.
Mission accomplished, now shut the hell up about your disappointment in Ron Paul — who has never disappointed me. His predictions and sage advise on the economy, foreign policy, following the Constitution and backing up his talk with actual votes is all I need to remain a loyal supporter.
VOTE THIRD PARTY as a protest of the corrupt 2-party system. It is a huge step towards change.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:39 pm (#)
Leave it to the big “L’s” to jack everything up again. We’ve go pro abort L’s, pro war L’s, pragmatic Ls. Baldwin a theocrcat? Give me a break. Some of you get about as deep into the issues as an Obama groupie.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:20 pm (#)
Baldwin may or may not be a theocrat. I’ll leave the “what if’s” of that to an episode of Sliders where he wins this election in some alternate reality.
The Constitution Party itself, on the other hand, is what’s really in question. There are many in its ranks that would happily embrace theocracy. The religious references in the Constitution Party’s platform all refer to “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” unambiguously, as this is declared in the first sentence. The number of religious references in the Constitution Party’s platform, about 30, reaches the point of absurdity. There’s only about 3 religious references in the Declaration of Independence, and they refer to “Nature’s God” with some ambiguity, which could mean anything.
The course of our nation’s history has taught us that creative interpretation of the language of our Constitution can allow for unintended side-effects. I light of this fact, and the nature of Constitution Party’s platform, I find cold comfort in their pledge to adhere to it. Some Democrats and Republicans are convinced most or all of their hare-brained schemes are in compliance with the Constitution as well, and just look where that’s gotten us.
September 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pm (#)
So why is the Great Bob Barr not leading massive Libertarian protests in all cities in America against the $700 billion bailout?
Leadership?
Well?
September 28th, 2008 at 6:23 pm (#)
It is unlikely that this year will have any effect other than education.
Bickering over labels and Party Doctrine has hamstrung any opposition as usual.
Divided We Fall, Again.
I suggest a “Third Party Congress” to create a new party.
The Mission – Create a new charter for a combined party.
Nothing goes into the charter that is not approved by 3/4 of the convened congress. Result – Only similarities are accounted. We can argue the details and who best represents later.
I have watched a great many Fools argue Party Doctrine As Religion this election cycle. I have not seen many, if at all, arguments based upon individual character or action.
Do not be so foolish as to be ruled by emotion.
The future of America is on thin ice; The need for cohesion has never been greater.
Do not sacrifice what your forefathers left in your care out of arrogance and skepticisms.
Danger Close.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:11 pm (#)
PainfullyAware, I hate to seem rude because I’m not trying to be anything more than informative (and maybe slightly clever), but your suggestion makes it seem like you are:
- Painfully unaware of the ballot access and state-to-state recognized/unrecognized party status implications of your suggestion, and how much further that would set us back than the present situation does.
- Unfamiliar with coalition parties in other countries where the various parts of the whole, and their beliefs, are virtually destroyed in the merging process. You’re left with a coalition party that has no agenda, no cohesive platform, and no ability to accomplish anything due to the need to fight amongst yourselves to define your goals before you can actively begin fighting against the rest of the government to accomplish them.