A neutral Bob Barr report/article comes from The New Yorker magazine. It is a very interesting read and has some new bits of information regarding the so called “snub” by Barr of Ron Paul.
The article is also quite long as it traces Barr’s history, checkered and otherwise.
In the nineteen-nineties, Barr, then a Republican congressman from Georgia, led the charge to impeach President Bill Clinton and argued on the House floor that “the flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society.” The Christian Coalition gave his voting record a perfect rating, and he became so well known for his dour, ultra-conservative image that he told the voters in his district, “You don’t send me to Washington to smile.” But in the past few years, Barr says, he has profoundly changed. He now devotes himself to the advance of personal liberty and no longer cares to play the role of law-and-order conservative and culture warrior. After all, America is a free country, or at least this is why Barr says he is running for President: to abolish as many laws as society can bear to lose, to cut away the sinews of federal power, to “get the government out of it.”
Bob Barr kicked of his big media day with his appearance on FOX Business News this morning. The interviewer asked Barr a few interesting questions, one of which was regarding his view of the role of the Federal Reserve.
He continued his mantra that it is an unelected private organization that has the power to control our economy. He, of course, didn’t say that he advocates abolishing it outright even though he believes that should be the ultimate goal (according to a recent interview in Reason magazine).
Once again Barr shows that he is the better liberty and freedom candidate than the major party twins.
Famous and well liked Republican Colin Powell has endorsed liberal Democrat Barack Obama, or do I repeat myself? My “lefty” father was excited and quick to tell me the news yesterday. In return I retorted, “So now that Colin Powell is on your side he can be forgiven for pounding the Iraq war drum to the world five years ago?” Or perhaps I was off base. Maybe this endorsement tells us more about Obama than it does Powell.
There should be no question now about the nature of Obama’s foreign policy. He’s an interventionist. He always was an interventionist, but for some reason he was labeled the “peace” candidate. The only disagreement between McCain and Obama on foreign policy is which far off land gets a visit by the American military first.
In the endorsement Powell called Obama “a transformational” figure. It seems he forgot to put the word “fake” in there. Then again, the truth was never something Colin Powell worried too much about. If he wanted to endorse a truly “transformational” candidate he would have endorsed Ron Paul in the primaries and Bob Barr today. Obama is no more transformational than… well.. John McCain.
Suddenly it becomes a bit more difficult for the Obama camp to attack McCain with their “Bush twin” argument. It wouldn’t shock me to hear McCain use the Powell endorsement to help refute that argument. As in, “My friends, here is a little straight talk for ya, Obama likes to compare me to Bush, but I’m not the one who received the endorsement from Bush’s former Secretary of State! No, my friends, I’m a real maverick”. This tactic by McCain backfires easily if anyone looks at the list of his own endorsements. The McCain camp may not care though. After all McCain actually called himself a “federalist” during the last debate. I waited for the laugh track that never came.
At this point it looks like McCain may be an afterthought come January 20th, 2009. Powell’s endorsement may or may not have something to do with that future. I’ll leave talk of the effect of the endorsement to the pundits.
I view it as just further confirmation that we live in a country ruled by one party with two names.
On Monday, October 20th, Bob Barr is going to be a very busy and visible candidate on your television and radio. His campaign events page shows him on FOX Business News channel at 8:05am (EST), CSPAN’s Washington Journal from 8:30am to 9am (EST), Air America Radio from 12pm to 12:20pm (EST), and he caps off his media day by appearing on the well regarded PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer at 6pm.
Barr is certainly maximizing the opportunities to spread the liberty message for a single day. Since it is highly unlikely he will come close to winning these are the kind of media appearances libertarians should be happy about.
No matter how you feel about the man himself, the message is still liberty.
According to the Miami Herald, the debate between third-party candidates on Sunday has been canceled:
The troubled presidential debate for third-party candidates scheduled for Sunday at Columbia University in New York was canceled Friday after none of the four candidates had committed to the event.
“Due to circumstances beyond our control, several of the candidates decided not to participate in the debate at the last minute,” said Lauren Salz, a student with the Columbia Political Union, which was hosting the debate.
Independent Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin were expected to participate in what was billed as a “historic” event.
Barr claimed a conflict while McKinney opted for an online debate originally scheduled for that evening. Baldwin was reluctant to travel to New York. Nader was willing to participate, aides say, but, seeing the debate falling apart all week, held back.
McKinney, it turns out, also had another reason for staying in her hometown of Atlanta, said her running mate, Rosa Clemente. McKinney is attending the Black Panther Party annual reunion.
It’s a shame. I would have at least liked to see either Balwin or Barr (if not both) up on stage spreading the message of liberty.
Bob Barr, in a Townhall.com published column, puts forth his own ideas for economic reform. He says no more bailouts and let the free market do what it is designed to do.
After several huge, government bailouts, and other measures placing trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk, the nation’s financial system remains far from stable. There is much more work that needs to be done before the economy will return to its growth path, but it cannot be more of the same, heavy-handed government mandates that have failed us time and again.
The ongoing financial crisis demonstrates why, first, we must limit political interference in the economy. It was sustained federal pressure to increase mortgage lending, through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as the Community Reinvestment Act, which helped generate the huge economic bubble that just burst at great cost to every American.
Limiting political interference in the economy also requires limiting the ability of the Federal Reserve to manipulate the currency for political purposes. The Fed’s “easy money” policy over the last decade greatly contributed to an artificial increase in lending and property values. Unfortunately, it is the drop in those values which is the basis of today’s crisis. The ill-advised loosening of SEC regulations that had been in place to insure solvency and transparency in the operation of major investment firms, also contributed to the current financial crisis.
Apparently, there has been some misinformation being spread by blogs and news organizations regarding Sunday night’s Third Party debate. I heard yesterday on CNN from Wolf Blitzer himself that the debate was being held and all third party candidates would be showing up except Barr.
The only confirmed participant is the moderator. So everyone, myself included, may have been a premature with criticism of the Barr campaign regarding this event.
WASHINGTON — Just a few days after seeming to agree to appear at a third-party presidential debate, none of the candidates is actually committed to attending the event Sunday at Columbia University in New York.
Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney is a definite “no,” saying she’ll participate that night in an online debate, appearing remotely via Web cam. The Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin didn’t get the invitation until Thursday afternoon, and his campaign manager isn’t promising anything. Libertarian Bob Barr was a no-show from the start, saying he had a scheduling conflict, and independent Ralph Nader, the biggest draw, is hedging his bets.
In fact, the Barr campaign has reiterated that they are open to the idea of participating in an event like this, but it needs proper timing and planning. Again, from the Barr campaign blog:
We are open to the idea of a third party debate if Bob’s schedule permits and it is organized properly with details laid out clearly to the campaign more than a few days before the debate is supposed to take place.
Perhaps some of the recent criticism of Barr and the campaign was unwarranted.
Andrew Davis, on the Libertarian Party HQ website addresses why Barr will not attend the third party debate scheduled for Sunday evening.
…official invitations for the debate just went out this week — mere days before the event is to take place. Given that the proposed event is intended to take place less than 16 days before the election, it is a little absurd to assume that candidates, in the peak of a presidential campaign, have time to drop all pre-scheduled activities and run off to New York for a hastily planned event.
The Barr campaign, which has a very fast paced travel schedule, had already made campaign commitments in other parts of the nation that can’t, and won’t, be dropped for an event that another campaign put together at the last minute without prior coordination. There is good reason why the Commission on Public Debates puts out their schedule well in advance; it gives the campaigns a chance to put it on their calendar.
Contrast that with the fact the invitations to this hastily conceived event are still in the mail.
All along, the Barr campaign has said it would be willing to debate any third-party candidate if the debate was going to be at the national level. Otherwise, the Barr campaign has a campaign plan and they are going to stick to it.
Please understand that we cannot help the events surrounding the organization of this debate. Bob will continue to do as he has been doing for the last few weeks, visiting battleground states and spreading the message of Liberty.
Looking at the comments to the blog entry from the Barr campaign, It looks like Barr is losing some formerly staunch supporters over this decision. Others are heartened by the decision and view the debate as an opportunity to preach to the choir rather than campaign for new votes.
I can see both sides but I must admit I lean on the side of wanting Barr to participate in the debate. Although this desire could be more selfish than practical because I think Barr could earn some votes by actually campaigning face to face.
This is equivalent in strategy to shunning your base while seeking new votes. That is a balancing act in any campaign, but I think for Barr it is a particularly dangerous strategy when a good portion of his base isn’t already completely devoted to him. In the end he could lose more votes from his brittle base than he gains from courting the undecided.
Bob Barr appears on CNN’s American Morning with John Roberts and talks about the debate last night and laments that America is no longer a leader for free market capitalism in the world, but instead we are being led by Europe’s “bastion” of socialism. On this point he echoes some of Ron Paul’s own recent rhetoric on nationalizing financial institutions.
Barr goes on to describe his poll numbers in various states and his relevance in the election.
For the Ron Paul supporter living in Louisiana or Montana you are somewhat lucky. Ron Paul will be on your ballot on November 4th so you can vote for him. For the rest of us who reject the write in of Ron Paul as truly a wasted effort the decision comes down to two candidates: Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. Anyone who reads Liberty Maven regularly knows I’m supporting Bob Barr, but my goal is to make this comparison unbiased. Continue reading to see if I’m successful.
First and foremost, if you believe in true liberty your only choices for President are Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. Ralph Nader is not a viable choice. He is far too anti-free market. Cynthia McKinney is also not a realistic choice. She is more socialist-leaning than Obama. I also reject the write in of Ron Paul because doing so is the equivalent of staying home on election day, writing ‘Ron Paul’ on a piece of paper, then throwing it in the trash. Of course, there is also a good argument to be made that voting for Barr or Baldwin will have little effect since neither is going to come close to winning, but unlike a write-in at least their vote totals will be registered no matter how minuscule they end up being.
Now that the choice is narrowed down to our two liberty candidates, which is the better choice? Let’s find out.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
