New at Reason
David Weigel chats with former Congressman Bob Barr about his plans for the Libertarian Party.
Comments to "New at Reason":
edna | December 18, 2006, 7:50am | #
love the duck 'n' dodge on the drug war.if i didn't 100% believe it before, i sure do now: the lp is hopeless.
Chris Grieb | December 18, 2006, 7:56am | #
I agree with Edna. What does Barr think about the war on drug users and sellers. This led to many of the worst violations of the Bill of Rights. Many of which have been docutmented on this blog.John C. Randolph | December 18, 2006, 8:09am | #
Oh, great. The LP needs this clown like we need another Howard Stern.Barr is an unmitigated hypocrite, and his only purpose in pretending to be a Libertarian is to try to get back into the public eye. I say, to hell with him.
-jcr
Duckman | December 18, 2006, 8:51am | #
If you look at the op-eds on his web site, and combine them with this interview, it is looking clear to me that Bob Barr's only libertarian value is his opposition to the Patriot Act and the excesses of the Bush administration since 9/11 when it comes to our basic rights. While that position is admirable and genuine, that appears to be the full extent of his libertarian feelings.Bob Barr would have had zero inclination to join the LP before 9/11, because as far as I can tell Bob Barr does share any of the values the LP stood for before 9/11. Only due to the excesses of George W. Bush do we have Bob Barr wanting to come onboard.
Bob Barr is a conservative who is concerned about post 9/11 privacy violations. He is not a libertarian. As such, I have a hard time supporting him. I am an LP member and I live in the region he will now be directing. This news has made me consider cancelling my monthly contribution to the LP. Perhaps I will give my money to Reason instead? They actually appear to support libertarian values.
tarran | December 18, 2006, 8:52am | #
Minor? Minor?The entire drug war violates the heart of the Zero Aggression Principle. It is behind most of the civil rights violations committed by the various gangs calling themselves local, state or federal governments.
If he thinks that the drug war is a "minor" issue then he's just another little socialist calling himself a "libertarian".
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.
thoreau | December 18, 2006, 9:07am | #
Yeah, the drug war is a many-tentacled beast that is just wrong on so many levels. It costs way too much money, it finds its ways into so many aspects of public policy (from law enforcement to education to foreign policy Afghanistan), it has led to the pre-9/11 erosion of the Bill of Rights, it fuels crime and even terrorism (Afghan opium), and on a principled level it violates the whole notion of controlling your own body.That said, lest anything think I'm insisting on too stringent of a purity test, I'd be willing to support a politician who simply said that drug policy should be left to the states rather than the feds. As un-libertarian as that may sound (endorsing violations of civil liberties at the state level) that sort of compromise gave us the 21st amendment and ended federal alcohol prohibition.
I don't know what to make of the fact that Barr is willing to work with the LP (which he knows to be an ardently pro-legalization group) when he's such a staunch drug warrior. Either he is slowly becoming more tolerant on the issue (which is a small sign of progress) or else the LP is getting ready to sell out on that issue.
I'm not big on litmus tests, but the Drug War has earned the status of a litmus test, in light of all the awful consequences.
Rimfax | December 18, 2006, 9:49am | #
About eight years ago, a local Libertarian ran for a legislative seat (U.S. House, I think) with three prominent signs in a very distinctive script. One said "Legalize Hemp" and I recall a large minority of LPers and sympathizers audibly groaning about campaigning on the drug war. They felt that it would further marginalize the LP in the eyes of the unaffiliated electorate, but it seemed to me that there was a large subtext that many of them agreed with the position taken by Barr.How times change.
Susan Hogarth | December 18, 2006, 9:50am | #
My understanding of the process by which Barr was selected:http://www.colliething.com/2006/12/bob-barr-appointed-to-lnc.html
"What this is about: The process by which Bob Barr was placed on the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) as representative of the Southeast (SE) region.
What this is NOT about: Bob Barr's suitability for the position he was appointed to.
Essence of the matter: The chairs of the SE region did not act against rules in the appointment of Bob Barr to the LNC, but they did act inappropriately."
I think it was a mistake to vault someone of very objectionable history while in a position of power to a leadership position in the LP. Barr could have been JUST as effective for the LP - nay, more, because it would have avoided this infighting - by simply volunteering for the Party and not accepting the 'representative' position so foolishly offered to him by.
The drug war is a dead political looser for libertarians. That sucks but sometimes life is like that. Here is the choice for Libertarians; contineu to use the drug war as a litmus test and banging your head against a wall hopeing someone will hear, or pick your battles and try to win where you can. Economic liberty, unlike the drug war is not a dead political looser. For example, look at the backlash against Kelo. That is one of the few real concrete libertarian political successes I can think of. If libertarians would continue to object to the drug war but concentrait their resources on issues that are winners like economic liberty and fighting bullshit like transfat bans and other restrictions on our everyday freedoms, they would be a lot better off. Go for the low hanging fruit to start with.
Cab | December 18, 2006, 10:14am | #
I agree with John, but would like to mention the fight against the drug war can be done "under the table" with proper Supreme Court nominees. If we had the right makeup of justices on the bench, the legalizing of marijuana would turn into a state issue. Like thoreau, I’d take that. When it turns to a state issue, the battle is pretty much over.In my mind "nominate strict constructionists" and "legalize hemp" are the same bumper sticker, one just takes longer.
Susan Hogarth | December 18, 2006, 10:46am | #
(1) The Drug War *is* an economic liberty issue!(2) Libertarian activists I know tend not to emphasize the drug war, as we other fish to fry (the WAR war, for one). But that doesn't mean we want a 'representative' who is apparently taking the anti-freedom side of a debate on medical marijuana use next month:
http://www.thesmithfamilyfoundation.org/event.cfm
The Donald & Paula Smith Family Foundation
Presents a debate:
Medical Marijuana:
Should the sick be able to smoke?
Featuring
Bob Barr
Former Congressman
21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union
V.
Ethan Nadelmann
Executive Director, Drug Policy Alliance
What side do you think Barr will take in this debate?
Barr seems to have been drifting in a libertarian direction for some time, both in terms of civil liberties and reducing the size of government. The drug war thing is disappointing, but he is the sort of high-profile figure who might have a shot at making the LP somewhat relevant. BTW, I totally agree about the "low-hanging fruit" argument. Jeezus, there are so many issues for libertarians to work on, that rejecting someone based solely on one disagreement makes no sense.
Susan Hogarth | December 18, 2006, 10:49am | #
It is comments like Cab's above that "[T]he fight against the drug war can be done "under the table" with proper Supreme Court nominees." that get Libertarians a reputation for trying to 'sneak up' ont he American public with our values. Our VALUE, rather: Freedom.We don't need to bang the drug-war drum every day, but we never should pretend it is NOT an issue for us.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | December 18, 2006, 10:52am | #
What boggles my mind is that anyone would actually want to have a leadership in the Libertarian Party... a fractious bunch of hairsplitting pedants with about the same influence on modern American politics as the Vermont Progressive Party. What Bob Barr thinks about the drug war doesn't matter because the Libertarian Party does not matter.Susan Hogarth | December 18, 2006, 10:53am | #
ChrisO says: "Barr seems to have been drifting in a libertarian direction for some time ..."It would have been nice to see him DRIFT a bit more before being shoehorned into a role as a *representative* of a bunch of folks who (1) HAD a representative (that's why we elect alternates), and (2) never even knew Barr was under consideration or were given the opportunity to nominate others for consideration.
andy | December 18, 2006, 10:58am | #
"Jeezus, there are so many issues for libertarians to work on, that rejecting someone based solely on one disagreement makes no sense."Having a libertarian rep who believes in the drug war is like having a Cardinal who doesn't believe Jesus is the son of God.
Warren | December 18, 2006, 11:12am | #
I agree with everything thoreau said (@9:07).Having a former congressman come on board is a big deal, but if it means selling out on (one of) our most important principals, then I say "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out".
Cab | December 18, 2006, 11:17am | #
Ms. Hogarth, my "under the table" remark was in reference to Rimfax's observation that a libertarian candidate had a "Legalize Hemp" sign during a local election campaign. I was attempting to imply that a sign outside of a church polling center on election day that says "Vote for me, Legalize Hemp" is stupid.The last thing I am trying to do is condone ‘sneaking up’ on anybody. I just think there are better ways to garner more than the traditional 2% of the vote the LP party normally gets. After all, if our ideas are so damn good, it has to be the way we express them than gets us nowhere.
Or, perhaps it is because the vast majority of us are pedantic over-reactionaries, but you wouldn’t know anything about that.
ChuckWalla | December 18, 2006, 11:30am | #
Does anyone really care about the National Libertarian Party. I gave up and quit them after Arizona's Libertarian civil war about 7 years ago.Kn@ppster | December 18, 2006, 11:32am | #
Quoth John:"The drug war is a dead political looser for libertarians. That sucks but sometimes life is like that. Here is the choice for Libertarians; contineu to use the drug war as a litmus test and banging your head against a wall hopeing someone will hear, or pick your battles and try to win where you can. Economic liberty, unlike the drug war is not a dead political looser. For example, look at the backlash against Kelo."
Wow, dude ... what have you been smoking?
Yes, let's look at the backlash against Kelo. Last month, 12 states carried remedy ballot initiatives and, if memory serves, nine of those initiatives passed.
Likewise, over the last 10 years, 12 states have passed medical marijuana laws. Last month, two states (Colorado and Nevada) polled over 40% for outright decriminalization, and 10 cities passed "make pot the lowest law enforcement priority" ordinances.
The drug war is an issue that Libertarians are making progress ... winning ... on. That has been increasingly the case for a decade, and the trend is positive. It was a loss-leader in the 70s, dead weight in the 80s, began gaining cachet in the 90s, and is now a big positive asset. It's an issue that more and more Americans agree with us on, and we are the only political movement representing that constituency.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Jose Ortega y Gasset | December 18, 2006, 11:45am | #
"Does anyone really care about the National Libertarian Party. I gave up and quit them after Arizona's Libertarian civil war about 7 years ago."Short answer, "no." Actually, the LP is like an Ayn Rand book club that meets every other Thursday at the Barnes and Noble on Fifth. They started by meeting at the public library on Sycamore, but there was a strong feeling among some members that this was a tacit approval of the State inconsistent with libertarian philosophy. Of course, a three-year debate ensued. After a scandal over the $2.53 coffee fund and the formation of two splinter book clubs, the three remaining members used a little known portion of the 1835-page charter to force the meetings to be held at a new location. After a badly needed revision of the Charter, the club expects to discuss an Ayn Rand book by 2008, and to assume complete control of local government by fall 2009.
Despite our stumbling towards a post 9/11 police state, libertarian ideas still matter. Libertarians do not... at least not in the real world of modern politics. Given my experience with some libertarians... I'm not sure this is an entirely bad thing.
Thoreau for Galatic Overlord!
B | December 18, 2006, 11:59am | #
It seems to me that the LP's embrace of Barr and a lot of people's reaction to it highlight the two fatal flaws of the LP (and perhaps the libertarian movement in general):1. L/libertarian "fundamentalists", for lack of a better term, that will cut off their noses to spite their face, and
2. People who just aren't fundamentally libertarian calling themselves "L/libertarian".
Let me be clear...I think both of these things are very serious problems. I am not, however, convinced that Barr is an example of the latter. Time may prove me wrong, but I'm willing to give the man a chance.
Ultimately, the choice for L/libertarians is between embracing incrementalism or irrelevance.
thoreau | December 18, 2006, 12:04pm | #
B-There's a difference between people who disagree on specifics but share the general outlook and people who are actively hostile on very significant issues.
My attitude is to wait and see. I don't want to commit mistake #1 just because I incorrectly jump to conclusions about mistake #2.
Geoffrey Allan Plauche | December 18, 2006, 12:06pm | #
I see everyone talking about Barr's stance on the Drug War, which I think any true libertarian should be against, but I don't see anyone talking about his stance on the FMA. He talks about the protecting the "liberty of citizens of each state on what basis they want to recognize marriage." But this is just a thinly disguised hijacking of the idea of liberty in the name of majority tyranny. That he advocates decentralized majority tyranny at the state level does not make negate the fact that it is majority tyranny. If he truly wished to protect the liberty of individuals to recognize marriage on whatever basis they want, then he would advocate getting the state out of marriage entirely. Let persons and churches and others decide for themselves on an individual and voluntary basis.Bleh, total nerf "Libertarian" who sounds just like the duopoly in trying to avoid the big issues by belittling them. We don't need GOP re-treads. The party already has a bad enough reputation as being dominated by former Republicans. This only cements that and makes reaching out to others even more difficult. The only career politicians the LP needs are those who have made a career of being _Libertarian_ not a shill for those who have attacked freedom in every form.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | December 18, 2006, 12:15pm | #
Thank you, Geoffrey, no further questions.The Prosecution rests, your honor.
B | December 18, 2006, 12:18pm | #
There's a difference between people who disagree on specifics but share the general outlook and people who are actively hostile on very significant issues.thoreau--I agree. But again, I don't think Barr is "actively hostile" at this point in time. He said himself that the drug war "didn't come up" which to me means "I'm not working on that right now b/c other things are more important."
And I don't think he has any reason to be disengenous about this--given the political status of the LP, there's no reasonable explaination for Barr's move other than he *really believes* in what they are doing, at least on the issues he cares about.
I mean, surely he doesn't see it as a savvy career move...
thoreau | December 18, 2006, 12:19pm | #
I mean, surely he doesn't see it as a savvy career move...Perhaps he has a thing for smurfs....
:)
James Anderson Merritt | December 18, 2006, 12:33pm | #
Too bad Reason asked the softball question on the drug war issue. Ask instead, "how does a prohibition on drugs jibe with any notion of individual liberty or soverignty?" Or "where, in the constitution, does it actually authorize a war on drugs, even to the point of saying that medical marijuana patients can't grow their medicine in their own back yards?"Barr cannot be allowed to duck such questions, although he will be able to do so if they are not asked at all.
I agree with what another contributor said above: if Barr wanted to help the LP, there are many ways he could have done it without becoming a "life member" and taking a leadership position. Just wanting to defend "constitutional rule of law" is not enough to take a step like that. Why not join the Constitution Party, which seems a far better fit for someone like Barr?
Call me cynical and even paranoid, but I think Barr's affinity for the LP has less to do with libertarian principle and more to do with our ballot access status and established organization, which are a definite, albeit presently small, threat to at least the GOP, and a prize that it is at least as valuable as the matching campaign funds Buchanan got to employ when his bunch "took over" the Reform Party. Otherwise, if the point is to use his "star" power and organizational skills to elevate a lucky third party to the "majors," why shouldn't Barr bestow that boon on the more compatible Constitution Party? For the LP's contribution to his electoral defeat, Barr has good motive to want to shut the LP down. The GOP has pulled some very dirty tricks against its opponents, especially the LP, within recent memory. Is it too wild to think that the tricksters may have provided some incentive to Barr to either sabotage the LP from inside, or perhaps act as a trojan horse, leading the way for a future takeover by the GOP or GOP refugees?
When Barr talks about wanting to defend the Constitution, it is very important to understand what his concept of the Constitution is. I have discussed gun control with people who maintained until the very end that they were at least as ardent of their defense of the 2nd Amendment as I was; they just saw the 2nd Amendment as protecting the state's right to have an armed militia, and saw no "individual" RKBA in the amendment at all. If Barr's conception of the Constitution admits the authority for our present-day War on Drugs, then I think it must also admit a host of other evils that I, as a Libertarian for the last quarter century, would not care to defend, or to have become associated with the Libertarian Party.
Barr did not actually come out and state his positions, relative to the Drug War, in the Reason mini-interview. So my jury is still out on whether he should be accepted as a "leader" of the LP. But this question must be addressed and answered soon. I'm not going to follow anyone, much less Barr, unless I am convinced that they have some idea of the direction, in which they want to lead, and that they are upfront in communicating to their potential followers where their path is likely to go.
Creech | December 18, 2006, 12:34pm | #
Seems to me Tom Knapp is correct - as the "End the Drug War" gains some momentum, it is not the time for Libertarians to ditch it. Are we willing to be leaders on unpopular issues, orsimply followers (who will, none the less, try to take credit in fund raising letters if it wins)? I'd rather the LP keep being the one to point out the emperor's nakedness, than pretend it's just his ungloved hands we object to.
John Rhoads | December 18, 2006, 12:35pm | #
I can think of very few issues that the lp supports that are more mainstream than pot legalization. We probably have 30-40% support for pot legalization right now, and this number will most likely only increase as the idea has much more resonance with the newer generations. Much like acceptance of gay marriage (we're realistically not going to get marriage privatization) pot legalization is one of the few policies I actually expect to see implemented in my lifetime. I don't think we have widespread support for legalizing say heroin, but pot legalization is certainly a far more politically feasable position, then say, abolishing the income tax.Jose Ortega y Gasset | December 18, 2006, 12:39pm | #
A political party interested in winning elections and shaping public policy would say, "Hey, here's a guy who has won some elections. Maybe we can use this to help further the goals of the party." The LP response (as predictable as the rising and setting of the sun), "Hey, this guy is not really a libertarian. Who let him in?"D.A. Ridgely | December 18, 2006, 12:42pm | #
Speaking as a libertarian and not a Libertarian, I don't care if Bob Barr joins the LP and I don't really care who calls himself a libertarian, either. Sure, I know, the occasional left-wing or right-wing nut job who calls himself a libertarian for whatever reason gives a bad public impression of libertarianism. But, what the hell? Real libertarians have been doing that for decades now anyway. The more the merrier.John | December 18, 2006, 1:30pm | #
How could the libertarian party actually accomplish something? I have an idea. If there were a block of say 10 reps and one Senator who were actually committed libertarians who voted as a block, they could wield a disproportionate amount of influence in what looks to be a very closely divided Congress for the foreseeable future. Could those ten reps and one Senator legalize drugs? No. Could they work with liberal Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus to do something about minimum mandatories? I think so. Could they hold hearings and exercise some actual oversight over agencies like the DEA and state and local SWAT teams? For sure. I think they also could drag the Republicans to the right on spending and more to the center on social issues. They could actually accomplish a few meaningful things and prove that there is a place for principled libertarianism in government.How could get that block? Find the right districts and have committed libertarians run in primaries as Republicans or Democrats with the endorsement of the Libertarian Party. Find districts where the voters would be amenable to libertarian ideas and the incumbent is either retiring or in trouble and fund the primary challenger big time. Granted, those races are hard to find, but you only need five or ten.
What would the candidates look like? Well, they couldn't be dirty hippies with nasty dreadlocks screaming that the pigs took their stash. Nor, could they be snot noised little bastards out of Northwestern who just got their big break writing for Reason and think exotic culture is people who live in Birmingham and eat at Olive Gardens. The candidates would have to be small business people and more average people who could identify with the electorate and had a common sense, low threat, anti-government agenda. Basically, the party would have to look more like John Stossel and less like burning man. I really think it could do it. Unfortunately, I don't think the dirty hippies or the urban hipsters would ever allow it, which means that the Libertarian Party will continue to be America's number one source of intellectual masturbation, which is a shame.
Fletch | December 18, 2006, 2:32pm | #
Is that two b's or one in "Babar"?James Anderson Merritt | December 18, 2006, 2:48pm | #
John | December 18, 2006, 1:30pm | #How could the libertarian party actually accomplish something? I have an idea.
...
What would the candidates look like? Well, they couldn't be dirty hippies with nasty dreadlocks screaming that the pigs took their stash. Nor, could they be snot noised little bastards out of Northwestern who just got their big break writing for Reason and think exotic culture is people who live in Birmingham and eat at Olive Gardens. ... Basically, the party would have to look more like John Stossel and less like burning man.
==========
This sounds like a stealth/fabian version of "the suit and tie approach." It has been tried by the so-called "Republican Liberty Caucus" for a while now, with extremely limited success. It has also been tried by state and local Libertarian parties, with even more limited success. (I am reminded of Judge Jim Gray's run for Senate as a Libertarian, which passed virtually unremarked by the mainstream media, at the same time they were lamenting in print about the boring nature of the race, between "lock-in" Demo Barbara Boxer, and "out of gas" GOP Bill Jones.) When the LP cannot dredge up more than half a million bucks for one of its own, highly committed legislative candidates, what makes you think that it would have -- much less fork over -- many times that amount to fund the "stealth" campaigns of libertarians in D or R clothing, even in the presumably less-expensive primaries? Indeed, who would need a separate party for that; what worthwhile function would the LP provide in your scenario? It would seem easier for libertarian minded folks to defect to the major parties and do their fundraising and agitating there. But again, refer to the lackluster success of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
John's strategy is also similar to the cross-endorsement strategy that the LP has used in some states back East. This hasn't been altogether unsuccessful. If I recall correctly, we got one or two state reps out of going down that road. But it hasn't proven to be an "Easy Street," by any means: getting to a "gang of 10" in DC by that route would seem a LOT more difficult than John's words make it appear.
I'm glad you had an idea, John, but before you label those who can't see and won't bow down to your wisdom as masturbators, take a moment to consider that, from their point of view, they may have already been there and done something very close to what you suggest. You need to explain how your idea differs from those that have been tried before and failed, and how the difference holds a chance of victory.
Kn@ppster | December 18, 2006, 2:52pm | #
Geoffrey,You write:
"I see everyone talking about Barr's stance on the Drug War, which I think any true libertarian should be against, but I don't see anyone talking about his stance on the FMA."
For obvious reasons, Outright Libertarians are concerned.
And, while I haven't talked about DoMA or FMN here, I have elsewhere.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
James Anderson Merritt | December 18, 2006, 2:55pm | #
Jose Ortega y Gasset | December 18, 2006, 12:39pm | #A political party interested in winning elections and shaping public policy would say, "Hey, here's a guy who has won some elections. Maybe we can use this to help further the goals of the party." The LP response (as predictable as the rising and setting of the sun), "Hey, this guy is not really a libertarian. Who let him in?"
===========================
As I have said elsewhere, the issue for me isn't whether we are rubbing elbows or linking arms with Mr. Barr. It is accepting him in a position of leadership, which allows him to use us, rather than the reverse.
If the LP were a company, we ought to be hiring Barr as a contractor, or entering into a business consortium with him. But making him an Exec and giving him stock options? That's the difference at issue here, and J O y G well knows it. But he wouldn't be him, without exploiting every opportunity to take cheap shots at the Libertarians. Perhaps he is really Ann Coulter under a pseudonym...? Hell hath no fury, and all that.
John | December 18, 2006, 3:12pm | #
James,I think you have to go nationwide, not just back east. It has to be coordinated and you have to pick just the right districts, which combine the right voter and just plain dumb luck in the incombant shooting himself in the foot. Perhaps it wouldn't work. I think it would still be a better strategy than running a lot of candidates who are viturally gaurenteed to loose.
Robert | December 18, 2006, 3:44pm | #
I agree with John, but would like to mention the fight against the drug war can be done "under the table" with proper Supreme Court nominees. If we had the right makeup of justices on the bench, the legalizing of marijuana would turn into a state issue. Like thoreau, I’d take that. When it turns to a state issue, the battle is pretty much over.In my mind "nominate strict constructionists" and "legalize hemp" are the same bumper sticker, one just takes longer.
That's just wrong. It was the states that started prohibitionism, for both alcohol and other substances, not the feds. Take away the federal role now, and all you have is some states where patients and their caregivers gan legally grow their own; otherwise it's all the same.
So it's really the other way around. Take the states out of the equation and the feds become practically irrelevant.
Creech | December 18, 2006, 3:53pm | #
Doesn't Ron Paul already have a bloc ofLiberty Caucus (or some such named) congressmen? Didn't Rep. Rohrabacher get a dozen or more Republican congressmen to vote to deny federal funds to chasing medical marijuana users in states that legalized it?
Can anyone provide a list of these critters?
That's a good bloc for the LP and its members to start urging to sponsor and support libertarian legislation.
huh | December 18, 2006, 4:03pm | #
Take the states out of the equation and the feds become practically irrelevant.WTF !?
Eric Dondero | December 19, 2006, 9:15am | #
Deja vu all over again.Weren't any of you all around in 1987/88 in the Libertarian Party? Am I the only here who was at the famous LP National Convention in Seattle Ron Paul v. Russell Means.
The same exact things that are being said today about Barr's position on Drugs were said back then about Ron Paul's pro-life position on abortion.
"Ron Paul is pro-life, he can't possibly be a Libertarian..." "How can he run for President and represent the Libertarian Party and be pro-life."
It was vicious. You should have seen Justin Raimondo screaming a the top of his lungs in the foirer of the Hilton at Ron Paul in front of hundreds of delegates. Got right up in his face and yelled at him and his wife flailing about, waving some sort of position paper in his hand.
And then there was the infamous Carol Moore, of "Pro-Choice Libertarians," who vowed that she would die before Ron Paul ever got the nomination of the Libertarian Party. For months after, we Ron Paul for President staffers had to put up with her calling our offices on the hour, every hour singing God-awful tunes to us, with lyrics thrown in on how RP was "murdering women..."
What will happen is Barr will go quiet on the War on Drugs issue, just as RP did on abortion. He will seek the LP Nomination for President, and he will win. Just like Ron Paul.
Only this time, we have a new media that won't shut him out like the liberal media did to RP in 1988.
Barr may turn out to be the very best Libertarian Presidential candidate of all-time.
And speaking as a former 6-year top Congressional staffer, I don't buy his denials of intentions to run for President for one minute.
Eric Dondero, Self-appointed Chairman
Republicans for Bob Barr for President!!
Anyone care to join me?
www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Susan Hogarth | December 19, 2006, 11:34am | #
Eric says I don't buy his denials of intentions to run for President for one minute.Eric Dondero, Self-appointed Chairman
Republicans for Bob Barr for President!!
Dondero wants to work for Barr *because* he (Dondero) thinks Barr is lying. Bizarre.
Jeff Riggenbach | December 19, 2006, 12:42pm | #
"The drug war is a dead political looser [sic] for libertarians. That sucks but sometimes life is like that. Here is the choice for Libertarians; contineu [sic] to use the drug war as a litmus test and banging your head against a wall hopeing [sic] someone will hear, or pick your battles and try to win where you can. Economic liberty, unlike the drug war is not a dead political looser [sic]."And, of course, the drug war is not a violation of "economic liberty." It merely prohibits the manufacture and sale of products people want.
JR
Jeff Riggenbach | December 19, 2006, 12:52pm | #
Jose Ortega y Gasbag writes:"A political party interested in winning elections and shaping public policy would say, 'Hey, here's a guy who has won some elections. Maybe we can use this to help further the goals of the party.' The LP response (as predictable as the rising and setting of the sun), 'Hey, this guy is not really a libertarian. Who let him in?'"
Winning elections with candidates who don't believe in our principles and would not work to incorporate those principles in public policy is not a "victory." It isn't worth a dime.
JR
The issue is not drugs or gays,although these are important bellweathers.The big picture is the overall direction the LP is heading.The LP has been drifting more and more to the right in recent years.Badnarik was an outright conservative.The support for the war,and the rewriting of the platform,after the '04 election indicates the LP seriously wants to reposition itself as a party of the right.There are a lot of insiders in the leadership of the LP.They have seen the direction that the GOP is headed in,and the GOP is clearly headed for self-destruction,and the LP has made it clear by their actions,they want to be a place for conservative ex-Republicans to go to.
Eric Dondero | December 20, 2006, 9:41am | #
Roger, the LP has been "Right" for quite a while, for very good reason. Libertarians ARE Right-wing, along with our partners the Conservatives. Liberals are the enemy of the Libertarian.Just ask any libertarian petitioner of 2006 who were blocked by vicious Liberals from gathering signatures for libertarian petitions.
And you say the LP has been "moving Right..."
What about Ron Paul in the mid to late 1980s? He was so rightwing he was practically a member of the John Birch Society, and the LP nominated him as a Presidential candidate. That was 20 years ago.