Live from the LP Convention: Things to Do in Denver When You're Libertarian

I've started uploading photos from the Libertarian convention here: There are captions for everything, some more explanatory than others. The lighting down in the Exhibit hall, where these were taken, is fairly lousy, but I'm correcting for that from here on in.

You'll notice a lack of "DRAFT TUCKER CARLSON" memorabilia. That's because that story has taken most people here by surprise. Radical and reform delegates alike are confused by the rumor, the only evidence for which seems to be shadowy polls sent to NC LP politico Michael Munger. There's more support for a Ron Paul draft than for anything Tucker... but I want to hear Carlson's response to this.

In case you're wondering about the anti-Barr movement (there is no other anti-candidate movement), I've posted the "CALL TO ACTION" flyer making the rounds. Libertarians are classier than the scum who run dirty campaigns at the Conservative Political Action Conference, so there's no hidden agenda. The radical caucus is pushing these.

For other breaking LP coverage, I'd suggest reading ComicsPundit, Thomas Knapp, and Third Party Watch. The latter blog in particular is breaking news and putting up fast responses to swirling controversies.

Comments

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | May 23, 2008, 9:42am | #

It is seeing dichotomies like the one in that picture that make libertarian events so interesting.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | May 23, 2008, 9:43am | #

Not that there is anything wrong with that

Episiarch | May 23, 2008, 9:50am | #

Dave: chicks plz thx

Warren | May 23, 2008, 9:54am | #

I thought I made myself clear about this Dave, I want to see funny hats. F U N N Y H A T S

ed | May 23, 2008, 9:59am | #

A picture is worth a thousand piercings.

jj | May 23, 2008, 10:15am | #

I know that the picture was supposed to show the silliness of the libertarian party, but that is what I like about it. For all the complainings about Ron Paul's nuts, he actually DID bring together a diverse coalition of people from vastly different walks of life, all centered on freedom. Seeing Conservative Barr and Mr Biker Man discussing civilly and probably agreeing on much makes me proud to be a libertarian.

Colin | May 23, 2008, 10:15am | #

And Barr thought he had it bad when he had to speak with Borat.

poof | May 23, 2008, 10:17am | #

Borat is an idiot (a funny one) who added no decent discourse. Anyone can shit on the most distinguished person and make him look bad. Barr was civil and gentlemanly to Borat. Nothing else required.

Boston | May 23, 2008, 10:17am | #

Eppy: non existent

J sub B | May 23, 2008, 10:21am | #

It is seeing dichotomies like the one in that picture that make libertarian events so interesting.

QFT. Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a lifestyle.

Episiarch | May 23, 2008, 10:22am | #

Eppy: non existent

Just waitin' for Dave to say so.

Cracker's Boy | May 23, 2008, 10:22am | #

What IS that on the end of the biker's nose; a melanoma?

CB

J sub B | May 23, 2008, 10:24am | #

I know that the picture was supposed to show the silliness of the libertarian party, but that is what I like about it. For all the complainings about Ron Paul's nuts, he actually DID bring together a diverse coalition of people from vastly different walks of life, all centered on freedom. Seeing Conservative Barr and Mr Biker Man discussing civilly and probably agreeing on much makes me proud to be a libertarian.

Also QFT.

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | May 23, 2008, 10:26am | #

"Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a lifestyle."

True. And it is the philosophy that is most accepting of different lifstyles. That is what makes these events interesting.

J sub D | May 23, 2008, 10:26am | #

Yeah, I know about the typo in my name. Fixed.

ed | May 23, 2008, 10:28am | #

It's his preferred method of expression.
'Cause nothing says libertarian like self-mutilation.

Mitch Port | May 23, 2008, 10:30am | #

I'm as pure a libertarian as they come and fully support Barr even though he is FAR from my ideal candidate.

Barr is certainly the best person to spread the libertarian message. He has name recognition, speaks well, has been in Congress and has experience in politics, is polling much better than any LP candidate I've ever seen, and has show that he can raise much more money than any of the other LP candidates. He is probably the only candidate who get 1% of the votes.

Although most of the other candidates (especially Mary Ruwart) have better positions and records, they will do very little to spread the message of liberty which is what its all about at this point. Barr will obviously not win and so I'm not concerned about what he would actually do in office but just how he will present the message of liberty. I think he can do a pretty good job in this respect and give the mainstream a taste of libertarianism (although watered down) that could lead them to look into it more. He may even be able to get his way into some debates.

It would really be foolish for the LP to nominate anybody else, even if they hold better positions. The LP needs to change course or they will continue to have the same miserable results they have had in the past. Just look at how somebody like Ron Paul can spread the message because of his credentials (although RP is MUCH better and was working within the Republican Party).

JW | May 23, 2008, 10:31am | #

QFT. Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a lifestyle.

I dunno, leaving other people the fuck alone sounds like a lifestyle choice to me. At least around the DC environs, the inverse of that is a sport.

It's both a desert topping and a floor wax!

Warren | May 23, 2008, 10:38am | #

Barr is certainly the best person to spread the libertarian message.

Maybe, if he wanted to. Problem is, Barr isn't spreading the libertarian gospel. He's preaching paleo-conservatism.

I could get behind Barr in four years perhaps, after I've seen him smoke a joint and hug a homosexual.

JW | May 23, 2008, 10:38am | #

I second what Mitch said. The sad truth about politics is that you either need to be a charismatic celebrity or a professional leech to be successful. Nominating "Who?" for a national 3rd party ticket is the kiss of death, unless your whole point is to confirm "fringe nutjob" in the masses' heads.

You wanna win, or hell, just not finish dead last again? Stop running no-names and dog catchers, no matter how much they carry the banner and stay on message.

Barr doesn't stand a chance in hell in the Novemeber election, but he stands a better chance than any of the other LP candidates.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 10:48am | #

I could get behind Barr in four years perhaps, after I've seen him smoke a joint and hug a homosexual.

lol!

Agreed.

I'm new to Libertarian Party politics, but after looking at each of their bios/platforms, i'm most impressed by Ruwart, Phillies, and Kubby. Root seems okay, but a little too plastic if that makes sense, too much self-promotion. Though i do like that he's into gambling and homeschooling.

I hope to god that no one is taking Gravel seriously.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 10:51am | #

Barr doesn't stand a chance in hell in the Novemeber election, but he stands a better chance than any of the other LP candidates.

You know who stands an even better chance to win? McCain! Or better yet Obama!

Electability is only a part of the equation, and the most important, id rather have someone who stayed on message.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 10:52am | #

sorry, i meant electability is not the most important factor...

Ayn_Randian | May 23, 2008, 10:53am | #

Maybe, if he wanted to. Problem is, Barr isn't spreading the libertarian gospel. He's preaching paleo-conservatism

oh Warren...and how exactly does that differ from your "Knight in Shining Armor" Ron Paul, again?

I could get behind Barr in four years perhaps, after I've seen him smoke a joint and hug a homosexual.

Why is this a requirement?
Libertarianism!=libertinism

Plant Immigration Rights Supporter | May 23, 2008, 10:55am | #

"I could get behind Barr in four years perhaps, after I've seen him smoke a joint and hug a homosexual."

I am no Barr supporter but I do want to point out that I have never smoked a joint but am very libertarian. I defend the right of others to do so. I have hugged homosexuals but only in a platonic way.

Warren | May 23, 2008, 11:00am | #

oh Warren...and how exactly does that differ from your "Knight in Shining Armor" Ron Paul, again?

Ron Paul has said things that make libertarians wince. However, his record as a congress critter is overwhelmingly libertarian friendly. That is in stark contrast to Barr who prioritized the oppression of drug users and homosexuals.

Bingo | May 23, 2008, 11:03am | #

Agreed with the other posters, that is a great picture :)

Big J | May 23, 2008, 11:04am | #

This is nothing new, the Onion did this story eight years ago:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/l_a_efficiency_chosen_as_site_of

Gene Trosper | May 23, 2008, 11:08am | #

David Weigel: you may also want to c heck out the newest website called independentpoliticalreport.com

They have a VERY interesting report about Gravel at this location:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/05/report-starchild-calls-out-gravel/

Zevatron | May 23, 2008, 11:09am | #

David, well done with the caption for the photo:
i.e. "Bob Barr (right)". It's the little things I appreciate.

Ayn_Randian | May 23, 2008, 11:09am | #

That is in stark contrast to Barr who prioritized the oppression of drug users and homosexuals.

Yes, because no one can change his mind and decide he made a mistake.

Thank goodness for that, because we have enough libertarians in this country. best we don't change anyone's mind or encourage new members. Goodness no.

MP | May 23, 2008, 11:15am | #

Yes, because no one can change his mind and decide he made a mistake.

Do you think it's unfair for Warren to expect proof beyond platitudes?

For me, just him showing up the LP convention is all the proof I need that he's serious. But I respect Warren's preference for more tangible evidence.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 11:17am | #

Yes, because no one can change his mind and decide he made a mistake.

Has Barr admitted that DOMA was a mistake?

Warren | May 23, 2008, 11:17am | #

Yes, because no one can change his mind and decide he made a mistake.

I would be thrilled to have Barr change his mind. But the thin lip service and his blatant carpet-bagging have done little to convince me that he has. He did a great deal of damage to freedom in this country as a congressman. I need more than a simple "sorry" to forgive him, and he hasn't even given that.

Jennifer | May 23, 2008, 11:18am | #

Yes, because no one can change his mind and decide he made a mistake.

Forgetting to carry the two when you're adding this week's grocery bill is "a mistake." Barr's "legislative career spent actively going after harmless drug users and gay people" strikes me as a bit too dedicated to be merely "a mistake," but I'll admit I've not been following Barr's fortunes lately. Has he abandoned his mistake of thinking that, for example, using the power and resources of the state to destroy the lives of harmless folk like medical marijuana users is a fiscally conservative and/or pro-liberty stance?

Steve | May 23, 2008, 11:19am | #

and he hasn't even given that.

Exactly.

John C Jackson | May 23, 2008, 11:20am | #

Sorry, but the "latter blog" TPW went downhill when it was sold and "fired"/removed press credentials from all it's contributors that did not support Barr.

I thought Gordon did a great job with it, regardless of his support for Barr. But to say Third Party Watch is now doing anything worth reading is just not true.

Warren | May 23, 2008, 11:25am | #

Has he abandoned his mistake of thinking that, for example, using the power and resources of the state to destroy the lives of harmless folk like medical marijuana users is a fiscally conservative and/or pro-liberty stance?

Mostly. Barr has said that Med MJ should be a state issue and the feds should keep out of it. (This is indeed a significant shift in his position while serving on the Task Force for a Drug-Free America). However "pro-liberty" isn't really a club in Barr's bag. He has never said anything along the lines of "People should be free to pursue happiness by using drugs if they want to".

sage | May 23, 2008, 11:25am | #

This is nothing new, the Onion did this story eight years ago:

Wow, that was funny the first eleventeen times it was posted this week, and in some zany backward way it just keeps getting funnier.

BakedPenguin | May 23, 2008, 11:27am | #

...I want to see funny hats...

He was listening. Didn't you see the anti-Barr protester?

svf | May 23, 2008, 11:29am | #

He has never said anything along the lines of "People should be free to pursue happiness by using drugs if they want to".

Maybe that's because Barr is aiming higher than getting 0.5% of the vote.... which seems to terrify a remarkable number of Libertarian Party "activists."

Jennifer | May 23, 2008, 11:29am | #

Thank goodness for that, because we have enough libertarians in this country. best we don't change anyone's mind or encourage new members. Goodness no.

If all that matters is the willingness to call oneself a 'libertarian' regardless of how much respect for liberty one actually shows, then all of us (especially you, Ayn Randian) owe Eric "Real libertarians unthinkingly support the government's war on Islamofascism" Dondero a huge apology. And perhaps a spot on the LP ticket. Dondero for Veep, maybe?

Warren | May 23, 2008, 11:32am | #

Libertarians are classier than the scum who run dirty campaigns at the Conservative Political Action Conference, so there's no hidden agenda. The radical caucus is pushing these.

My decoder ring isn't parsing this out for me. What was the dirty CPAC campaign, and what was it's agenda? And "radical caucus"? Is that a euphemism for "truthers"?

BakedPenguin | May 23, 2008, 11:33am | #

Jennifer, why not go straight to the source and get his Republican Libertarian hero, Rudy Guiliani?

Steve | May 23, 2008, 11:35am | #

there is a difference between a long time supporter/activist/politician who has stayed with the party and worked for the growth of the party (or even just the ideas, Libertarian or libertarian) despite difference with the party bigwigs or even differences with the party base (McCain and the GOP come to mind) being your nominee, and someone coming from outside the party and trying to infuse the ideas and platform he wishes his old party still professed into yours.

robc | May 23, 2008, 11:35am | #

in some zany backward way it just keeps getting funnier.

Standard comedic rule. Something moderately funny becomes stupid if repeated a few times. If repeated enough (enough being well past the point any normal human would have stopped) though, it becomes much funnier than it originally was.

See the rake bit from The Simpsons for a perfect example.

Bingo | May 23, 2008, 11:36am | #

BP I'm taking issue with your assurance of the hot crazy chicks being at libertarian events! The Ron Paul speech yesterday was a fucking sausage fest.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 11:37am | #

And "radical caucus"? Is that a euphemism for "truthers"?

no, please google "Libertarian Party" + "Reform Caucus" + "Radical Caucus"

Basically Purity vs Electability.

robc | May 23, 2008, 11:37am | #

The Rakes

Unfortunately, it doesnt have the last rake, from later in the episode.

Ayn_Randian | May 23, 2008, 11:37am | #

If all that matters is the willingness to call oneself a 'libertarian'

That's not all that matters:

-Working with the MPP (as Taktix keeps pointing out to you people and you keep conveniently missing it)
- Being an LP delegate
- Stating that "we're better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare"
- Advocation of streamlining the immigration process (routine background checks), but NOT advocating for closing the borders (a la Ron Paul)

I don't know what you people want Barr to do: bust out the sackcloth and ashes? Flagellate himself on stage?

However "pro-liberty" isn't really a club in Barr's bag. He has never said anything along the lines of "People should be free to pursue happiness by using drugs if they want to".

Did you ever stop to think that he's running for President, not as the Dictator for Life over all 50 States? It's important for liberty that we maintain the separation of powers and revert to the mechanics of government originally promulgated by the Constitution.

Jennifer | May 23, 2008, 11:38am | #

Barr has said that Med MJ should be a state issue and the feds should keep out of it. (This is indeed a significant shift in his position while serving on the Task Force for a Drug-Free America).

Yeah, I vaguely recall hearing about that, but I've not yet seen any reason to think he's sincere. If he is, I personally don't want him to "apologize," but to explain. How exactly did he come about this change of heart? Did he previously believe that medical MJ users needed to be imprisoned for the good of the Republic, and if so, what made him change his mind and decide they're not such a threat after all?

Or is his change of stance simple political whoredom on his part: "My previous willingness to bend over and spread 'em in order to shove Republican anti-drug and anti-gay hysteria up my ass did not result in the personal political gain I'd hoped for. Perhaps having the LP behind me instead will give my career the thrust forward it needs? Hell, I'll speak against Mom, apple pie and prosperity if that's what it takes."

Steve | May 23, 2008, 11:40am | #

I don't know what you people want Barr to do

Leave.

And you haven't answered my questions, has Barr admitted that DOMA was a mistake?

Jennifer | May 23, 2008, 11:41am | #

That's not all that matters:

-Working with the MPP (as Taktix keeps pointing out to you people and you keep conveniently missing it)
- Being an LP delegate
- Stating that "we're better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare"
- Advocation of streamlining the immigration process (routine background checks), but NOT advocating for closing the borders (a la Ron Paul)

Eh, Dondero's libertarian resume is just as impressive:

- passing out pamphlets barefoot in the snow
- being an LP member back when young whippersnappers like you were still in diapers
- stating that abortion and drug use are not matters where the government should enforce its standards upon individuals
- hookers, hookers, hookers.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 11:51am | #

-Working with the MPP (as Taktix keeps pointing out to you people and you keep conveniently missing it)
- Being an LP delegate

I'll dismiss the last 2 points as "stating this or that" means nothing.

What exactly has Barr accomplished while "working with" the MPP?

Almost anyone can be a delegate, the biker dude in the picture is a delegate but i'd need to know a bit more about him before i would agree to have him as the party nominee...

JW | May 23, 2008, 11:53am | #

Electability is only a part of the equation, and the most important, id rather have someone who stayed on message.

No, it's not the most important thing, but perception is reality.

I'd settle for a little bit more traction in the national scene and shedding the fringe image more. You aren't going to make any headway unless you at least project a sense of respectibility. Running no-names will just keep you at sidekick status.

Is Barr libertarian *enough*? Dunno, but I'd like to think he's seen the error of his ways and wants to make amends, rather than that he's going to the only people that will have him.

Ayn_Randian | May 23, 2008, 11:54am | #

Almost anyone can be a delegate, the biker dude in the picture is a delegate but i'd need to know a bit more about him before i would agree to have him as the party nominee...

Don't play. you just said you want Barr to leave, meaning there isn't anything he can do to convince you.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 11:58am | #

Don't play. you just said you want Barr to leave, meaning there isn't anything he can do to convince you.

I want him to leave because he isn't doing anything to convince me.

And neither are you.

Can't make the effort but want to be the party nominee? Vanity Candiday or attempted party takeover are the most obvious conclusions to draw, and because of that i'd rather he leave.

You still haven't answered my questions btw...

ed | May 23, 2008, 11:59am | #

What makes you assume he's a biker? Is it the uniform (piercings, tatts, black shirt)? It's always ironic when you see conformity in the name of individualism.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:01pm | #

AR-

Has he admitted DOMA was a mistake or does he still stand behind his vote?

What has he accomplished while "working with" the MPP?

Given his track record why should his statement be enough for our support over other candidates who haven't had such a worrisome past?

robc | May 23, 2008, 12:01pm | #

I dream of the day when we can complain about there being too many LINOs in congress.

Jennifer | May 23, 2008, 12:02pm | #

I'd like to think he's seen the error of his ways and wants to make amends, rather than that he's going to the only people that will have him.

I'd like to think that too, but he has to actually DO something to make people think that.

If he's really changed his mind on things like the drug war then he could be a great spokesperson: arguments from a former hardcore drug warrior will carry more weight than identical arguments from a pot-smoking hippie. And a straight guy once bigoted enough to support DOMA could better argue gay rights than a fabulous couple wishing to wed.

But if all Barr will do is shrug off his past in a "let's not go there" sort of way, that adds more weight to the "he's just whoring for a new john" theory.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:03pm | #

What makes you assume he's a biker? Is it the uniform (piercings, tatts, black shirt)? It's always ironic when you see conformity in the name of individualism.

my own unexamined prejudices most likely. I grew up around southern ohio, the only people of that age with beards, tattoos, and piercings are bikers (family members). My bad for assuming, but it seemed a reasonable assumption, nothing negative was meant by it.

BakedPenguin | May 23, 2008, 12:04pm | #

Sorry, Bingo. That was meant as a joke. I thought you were supposed to be tutoring Honoria's brother anyway.

JW | May 23, 2008, 12:05pm | #

I'd like to think that too, but he has to actually DO something to make people think that.

Agreed. And by "I'd like to think", that means keeping my mind open to the possibility, not simply being wishful.

BakedPenguin | May 23, 2008, 12:07pm | #

Didn't Barr backslide on the WoD on Hannity & Holmes?

The Wine Commonsewer | May 23, 2008, 12:11pm | #

Weigel, I gotta LOL at that picture.

Bill Woolsey | May 23, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Barr's standard explantion of his change in
views is that after 911, the government began to greatly restrict privacy rights. This caused him to reassess his view of the proper role of government.

This would include his view about the Federal government seeking to prohibit states from legalizing medical marijuana.

As for DOMA, he favors the repeal of that part of DOMA that creates a federal definition of marriage. He continues to support that part that allows each state to determine what sort of marriages will be recognized in that state.

He recently made a statement supporting the
recent California decision allowing for gay
marriage. Though, in the end, he basically
explained that this is an example of each
state making its own policy.

I think it is clear that Barr will run on cutting Federal spending, getting out of Iraq, and defending Constitutional rights to privacy.

He will not run some kind of Buchanite "culture
war" campaign. Generally, he has tried to avoid those issues. When pressed regarding the
difference between his social conservative record and what (thankfully) people understand to be the libertarian views on these matters, he gives his general speil about reassessing the role of government after 911.

There are next to no libertarian public officials. We need converts.

Barr says, "I changed my mind." He gives a
plausible reason. And, most importantly, he is running on a libertarian program.

Personally, I don't think this is the best time to run on ending drug prohibition, allowing gay marriage, or even abortion rights.

I think the LP needs someone who repeats the more popular parts of the Ron Paul message.
(smaller government and against the war.)

And who is ready to pick up the support of
Republicans discouraged by the out of control spending and the failed Iraq war.

I believe that Barr's personal interest in
civil liberties covers the "personal liberty"
angle adequately. The Bush administration
has shredded the Bill of Rights in order to
get terrorists. Barr has been fighting that
for about 5 years now. Well, that isn't a
"conservative" attitude. Concern for the
rights of suspected criminals has not been
a traditional conservative concern.

Anyway, if Barr wins the nomination, his
exposure will mostly be, "will he spoil it
for McCain." And there will be a little bit
of information about what he is running on.

If that information is about cutting goverment
spending and getting out of Iraq (like it has been,) great.

If they keep on with the "old" Barr who was
the social conservative and how that contrasts
with libertarian views.. Great. That tells
everyone that the "old" Barr's social views
weren't libertarian.

The message is fine.

Wake up.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 23, 2008, 12:12pm | #

It's his preferred method of expression.
'Cause nothing says libertarian like self-mutilation.

Well, that, and eating our young.

Ayn_Randian | May 23, 2008, 12:13pm | #

Everyone feel free to read Bob Barr's Wikipedia Page and see if that satisfies you.

Steve, it even describes in greater detail his lobbying work for MPP. Not that you're to be convinced; I can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason your way into.

And kudos to Bill Woolsey for some common sense on this.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:16pm | #

Wake up.

That part wasn't neccesary but thanks for the info, after some research into it, i might have a change of mind as well.

Still about 95% certain i'll be voting for the LP nominee.

MP | May 23, 2008, 12:16pm | #

But if all Barr will do is shrug off his past in a "let's not go there" sort of way, that adds more weight to the "he's just whoring for a new john" theory.

When the john is the LP, the whoring is charity work.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:18pm | #

I can't reason you out of a position...

Your reasoning seemed to consist of "but Ron Paul..." and "People change".

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:19pm | #

damn tags...

Ayn_Randian | May 23, 2008, 12:22pm | #

Your reasoning seemed to consist of "but Ron Paul..." and "People change".

The Ron Paul comments were addressed to RP supporters.

And yeah, people change. I guess not all of us sprung from the head of Ayn Rand as Fully-Formed Pure Libertarians®.

Randolph Carter | May 23, 2008, 12:22pm | #

AR, libertarians are supposed to spring full-formed from their parents' heads, Athena-like, without any ideological impurities troubling their snowy white souls.

Seriously. What the hell does Barr have to gain from running for president on the LP ticket? Why would he do it unless he was sincere about the party's platform?

Maybe we need 2 different organizations - the Libertarian Party, whose job it is to WIN ELECTIONS god damn it, and the Philosophical wank-around club, where we can talk about how pure our ideology is to the 15 other people who agree with us.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 23, 2008, 12:24pm | #

Still about 95% certain i'll be voting for the LP nominee.

Anybody the LP puts up, even the carpet bagging Bob Barr, is going to be better than any of the other options.

svf | May 23, 2008, 12:26pm | #

he also eloquently argues against "don't ask, don't tell" here. (June 13, 2007)

True conservative political philosophy respects the principles of individual freedom and personal privacy, particularly when it comes to what people do in private. The invasive investigations required to discharge a service member are an unconscionable intrusion into the private lives of American citizens. Worse, while supporters of don't ask, don't tell claim the policy only regulates behavior and not identity, the distinction is disingenuous. A service member could be discharged for being overheard remarking that, "I can stay later today since my partner will be taking the dog for a walk."...

There is little reason left to believe gays openly serving would break the armed forces. Americans want strong, moral leadership, and they are quick to sniff out pandering and expediency. It sure would be nice if the presidential wannabes were as quick to realize this.

Bingo | May 23, 2008, 12:26pm | #

Sorry, Bingo. That was meant as a joke. I thought you were supposed to be tutoring Honoria's brother anyways

Yes, I should probably get back to that, she is a dear. It's too bad the halfasian at work rejected my offer of quartasian babies, it appears that being a libertine does have its drawbacks in some circles.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:26pm | #

And yeah, people change. I guess not all of us sprung from the head of Ayn Rand as Fully-Formed Pure Libertarians®.

Has anyone? lol

I'm not looking for a pissing match, i just think if someone says they've changed they shoudl should go the extra mile to show the change that's been made and to make amends for past wrongs. Thats what the alcoholics i know say anyway.

Maybe i'm being too hard on Barr, but his past stances made more of an impact than his current. And i still don't agree with some of his positions. That's not saying i will not vote for him if he is the nominee, it's just saying i wish we had a nominee who had a past i was more comfortable with.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 23, 2008, 12:28pm | #

AR, libertarians are supposed to spring full-formed from their parents' heads, Athena-like, without any ideological impurities troubling their snowy white souls.

One of the fascinating things about libertarian culture is that for many years very few of us had kids. Then, there was a baby boom of sorts. It will be interesting to me to see if smart kids raised by libertarian parents end up in the fold or rebel like so many repressed church kids.

Hopefully, we've got a generation of classical liberals coming of age in the next decade or so.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:29pm | #

Anybody the LP puts up, even the carpet bagging Bob Barr, is going to be better than any of the other options.

True, the 5% of me that isn't certain wants to stay home and get some sleep that day.

Ayn_Randian | May 23, 2008, 12:32pm | #

AR, libertarians are supposed to spring full-formed from their parents' heads, Athena-like, without any ideological impurities troubling their snowy white souls.

Damn man...parallel posts at the same time.

Get out of my head, RC!

Still about 95% certain i'll be voting for the LP nominee.

Me too...but this Truther-sympathy thing has me doubting.

Warren | May 23, 2008, 12:34pm | #

Unlike Steve, I don't want Barr to leave. I even want him in a leadership role. However, he does not deserve to be, nor do I believe we will be well severed if he is, our spokesman.

He hasn't put the time in. And more to the point, he doesn't walk the walk. I'm convinced, that he is just using the LP to make a name for himself so he can return to the GOP as a conservative.

Some laugh at the idea of using the LP to springboard a second act in politics. However, the LP has succeeded in putting it's nominee on the ballot 45+ states (including all fifty three times) for the past six elections.

Barr could bring more success and notice to the LP than it has ever managed before. But I think he will take it all with him when he goes. The cult of personality will not serve us any more that it served the Reform Party or the Green Party.

Frankly, I think a string of ideological sound candidates, that keep on message, is a much stronger foundation to build on.

I want Bob Barr and all the disenchanted Republicans he can bring with him, but only if they can accept that freedom works for them. The last thing we need is an influx of people that think freedom is the answer for the environment and school choice, but for gays and hippies.

Randolph Carter | May 23, 2008, 12:39pm | #

Warren,
Barr's campaign so far relies far less on the "cult of personality" than Ron Paul's did, so no worries there. Barr isn't some sort of charismatic figure or messiah, but his name is more recognizable to the voting public than any of the others. With some well-made ads about why he currently believes in the LP platform (or at the very least the intellectual underpinnings of libertarianism) he could be a cogent and solid "conservative" voice that people would listen to.

As for Barr leaving and taking the "fame" of the nomination with him, where would it get him? A job at the Heritage Foundation? Commenter on Fox News? I just don't see any worthwhile endgame for him.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:40pm | #

Thanks for disassociating from me and then agreeing with what i've said. smooth.

I'm not purist. What i've said and keep saying is that our NOMINEE shouldn't be a paleo who has done a 180. i'll vote for the nominee even if it is Barr, but i wish we had someone a bit more inspiring regarding the libertarian message.

John | May 23, 2008, 12:41pm | #

This nomination fight is the best thing to happen to the Libertarian Party in years? Drew Carey/Penn Jillette 2012!

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:43pm | #

Barr's campaign so far relies far less on the "cult of personality" than Ron Paul's did, so no worries there.

To be fair, i don't think that was Paul's doing, at least at first.

i heard on Fox that there is a Ron Paul Village of somesort being set up somewhere. that kind of creeped me out.

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:44pm | #

Drew Carey/Penn Jillette 2012!

If only! I'd volunteer for that campaign.

Can you imagine the state of the union with magic tricks and stand up jokes? beautiful.

Randolph Carter | May 23, 2008, 12:45pm | #

Oh yeah, RP never intended to be like Jim Jones but he had greatness thrust upon 'im.

Joshua Corning | May 23, 2008, 12:52pm | #

I could get behind Barr in four years perhaps, after I've seen him smoke a joint and hug a homosexual.

I hate pot and hate hugging people even more.

Is there no room in the LP for little ol me?

Barr maybe conservative in libertarian clothing but I think the lack of gravity hits and touching strangers is proof of nothing.

Note: I think I want Root to get the nomination.

Taktix® | May 23, 2008, 12:52pm | #

What exactly has Barr accomplished while "working with" the MPP?

Legal council and lobbying, which is what a lot of politicians do when out of office, namely lend your influence to those who need it.

As stated before, it was the actions of the federal government after 9-11 that (ostensibly) made him change.

Remember, back in 2000 and 2001, the GOP was still following the limited government mantra, with Bush needing heavy Democrat support for his expansions. I've seen him renounce his PATRIOT Act vote as early as 2005, on Penn and Teller's Show.

And not to rely on this, but I think Penn Jillette can smell a rat.

Now look. I know Barr is not even close to perfect. But think for a second about how the world is today. You can't openly advocate the legalization of drugs for recreational use. It turn too many people off before you can even explain why.

It's not how I'd want it, but that's the way the world is.

Same with gay marriage. Barr is a fucking dufus on this issue, but the states are going right ahead with it anyway, so what does it really matter.

I'm be against gay (or strait) couples filing joint income tax returns, because it's a form of Federal behavior control, but that doesn't make me a biggot.

I mean honestly, if you want to find a candidate that appeals to every member of the most independently-minded group in the country and speaks well and has experience and has money, good luck. I won't hold my breath.

But I will settle for a guy who's 80% right (or at least talks that way, and if it's an "educational" campaign, what's the difference between talk and belief?), and has experience, money, a few favors on capital hill, and doesn't come off to the press like a total nutjob.

Fuck, even the fact that he's getting press should be a benefit. When's the last time an LP candidate garnered this much publicity?

Taktix® | May 23, 2008, 12:56pm | #

Please insert: "Barr wasn't even around when the GOP went all big-gub'ment." before the phrase "I've seen him renounce..."

Steve | May 23, 2008, 12:59pm | #

Please insert: "Barr wasn't even around when the GOP went all big-gub'ment." before the phrase "I've seen him renounce..."

i'm sorry, but didn't Barr vote for the Patriot Act?

Not saying he hasn't had a change of heart, but don't get all revisionist..

Chris Potter | May 23, 2008, 1:02pm | #

Bob Barr's Super Secret Plan:

1. Leave a party that actually gets people elected

2. Start working for an organization hated by everyone you know (MPP)

3. Join the LP and piss off all your old political allies

4. Run for the nomination so you can either:
(a) get 0.5% and be a laughingstock
(b) get 5% or more, cost McCain the election, and have your old friends consider you a traitor

5. ??

6. PROFIT!

Taktix® | May 23, 2008, 1:03pm | #

i'm sorry, but didn't Barr vote for the Patriot Act?

Not saying he hasn't had a change of heart, but don't get all revisionist..

Yes, but he was gerrymandered out of a district the following year.

Elemenope | May 23, 2008, 1:04pm | #

Is there no room in the LP for little ol' me?

No. You *must* want hugs. Otherwise, no card.

Chris Potter | May 23, 2008, 1:05pm | #

Barr's "legislative career spent actively going after harmless drug users and gay people"

So now wanting the gay marriage decision to be made by each state individually, rather than having Massachusetts decide for the whole nation, constitutes "actively going after gay people"? Exaggerate much?

Taktix® | May 23, 2008, 1:05pm | #

i.e. before the Iraq War, which is the point I mark as being when the GOP completely abandoned it's small-government principles.

Barr also claims he led the fight to get sunset clauses in the PATRIOT Act, but I don't know if I totally believe him on that...

Ayn R. Key | May 23, 2008, 1:08pm | #

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com

It is the new Third Party Watch.

Chris Potter | May 23, 2008, 1:09pm | #

i'm sorry, but didn't Barr vote for the Patriot Act?

Over 90% of Congress from both parties voted for the Patriot Act.

Yes, they should have demanded more time to read and consider it, but it was a month after frickin 9/11. We should be willing to forgive those who voted the wrong way and realize their mistake later on.

svf | May 23, 2008, 1:22pm | #

i'm sorry, but didn't Barr vote for the Patriot Act?

Not saying he hasn't had a change of heart, but don't get all revisionist..

THIS is the most informative article I've seen on the whole Barr/PATRIOT ACT matter. You should read it.

True to his libertarian instincts, Barr was initially skeptical of President George W. Bush's anti-terrorism proposal and earned the ire of Karl Rove for speaking up against it. He worked with a broad coalition of groups -- including conservatives, libertarians, leftists, privacy activists, and even drug policy reform groups -- to protect our civil liberties in the debate.

And here's the important part: He voted for the bill in the Judiciary committee because we needed him to. Only members who voted for it could be on the conference committee that "reconciled" the House and Senate versions...

The USA PATRIOT Act conference committee suffered the stubbornness of Bob Barr fighting the worst of it and enacted some provisions to sunset some compromises in exchange for his support.

Sure, fellow Republicans Ron Paul and Bob Ney joined "Butch" Otter who spoke eloquently against its passage on the House floor and voted against the final passage, but none of them were on the Judiciary committee. None of them had the opportunity and responsibility to fight over the devilish details.

Thankfully, we had a former CIA agent and prosecutor on our side who knew the ins and outs and the ramifications of the proposals to fight for our privacy and civil liberties. He was our "man on the inside" for us to share our proposals. Some of those proposals were adopted and became law...

etc.

joshua corning | May 23, 2008, 1:29pm | #

No. You *must* want hugs. Otherwise, no card.

The LP have cards?!?!

Where do you get em?

Plus I want a button.

Weigel take photos of the buttons.

The Wine Commonsewer | May 23, 2008, 1:30pm | #

I hate pot and hate hugging people even more.

I used to be completely against hugging until I had a girlfriend with 8 sisters, all of whom were the huggiest babes you ever want to meet. I got over my phobia after a while and now count myself a recovering hug hater.

Today? Hell, I'll even hug guys. Even gay guys. FYI, hugging chicks is better.

Last time I saw my dad I even hugged him. Something I hadn't done since I was 11 years old.

ChrisH | May 23, 2008, 1:31pm | #

It's his preferred method of expression.
'Cause nothing says libertarian like self-mutilation.

Well, that, and eating our young.

No, no, TWC. THIS is the program:
1) purge the heretics;
2) shoot the wounded;
3) eat young for dessert.

Everyone's always rushing straight to dessert.

robc | May 23, 2008, 1:41pm | #

i.e. before the Iraq War, which is the point I mark as being when the GOP completely abandoned it's small-government principles.

Huh, I mark it at "caving into Clinton on the government shutdown".

robc | May 23, 2008, 1:44pm | #

Chris Potter,

Yes, they should have demanded more time to read and consider it, but it was a month after frickin 9/11. We should be willing to forgive those who voted the wrong way and realize their mistake later on.

Sure, but the month after 9/11 isnt a good reason. Well before that, I created the rule that no laws should be passed that relate to a traumatic event until at least 1 year has passed.

Declarations of war and emergency stuff excepted. The Patriot Act doesnt fit any exception.

I will forgive him for voting wrong. I wont forgive him for refusing to wait another 11 months before voting.

Elemenope | May 23, 2008, 1:44pm | #

FYI, hugging chicks is better.

Well, no shit.

They have front pads, for comfort.

JW | May 23, 2008, 1:47pm | #

5. ??

Volume, volume, volume.

joshua corning | May 23, 2008, 1:51pm | #

Libertarian disclaimer:

I believe pot and hugs should be perfectly legal and the state has no interest in regulating either.

JW | May 23, 2008, 2:03pm | #

The LP have cards?!?!

Where do you get em?

Hell, I lost mine in the wash some years ago. So yeah, I wuz a card carrying pinko.

Elemenope | May 23, 2008, 2:07pm | #

I believe pot and hugs should be perfectly legal and the state has no interest in regulating either.

There was a time when I thought that the notion of regulating hugs in this modern age was patently absurd, but then I read an article in Reason a little while back which exposed schools attempting to regulate and quash random displays of affection.

Now my ridiculous meter is stuck on broken. Thank you, Reason!

Jennifer | May 23, 2008, 2:29pm | #

So now wanting the gay marriage decision to be made by each state individually, rather than having Massachusetts decide for the whole nation, constitutes "actively going after gay people"? Exaggerate much?

Take quotes out of context much? What I wrote was that Barr had a "legislative career spent actively going after harmless drug users and gay people."

Now that Barr's out of office he says "let the states decide." Oh, goody for him. But when he was an actual legislator, with actual power to vote on legislation, he supported DOMA, did he not? If you're a legislator who thinks its vitally important for the government to codify semantics into law to make sure gay people can't have weddings then yes, I'd say you're actively going after them.

prolefeed | May 23, 2008, 2:30pm | #

"I could get behind Barr in four years perhaps, after I've seen him smoke a joint and hug a homosexual."

I would not, however, advise holding your breath waiting for Barr to smoke a homosexual's joint.

MP | May 23, 2008, 2:50pm | #

I would not, however, advise holding your breath waiting for Barr to smoke a homosexual's joint.

He might smoke a fag though.

ChrisH | May 23, 2008, 4:00pm | #

Drew Carey/Penn Jillette 2012!

If only! I'd volunteer for that campaign.

Can you imagine the state of the union with magic tricks and stand up jokes? beautiful.

State of the Union? I hope they have Teller delivery it -- you know, just standing there, saying nothing.

joshua corning | May 23, 2008, 4:54pm | #

Just for the record I know lots of pot smoking, hugging socialists...point being that smoking pot and hugging are terrible libertarian proxies.

Chris Potter | May 23, 2008, 4:55pm | #

If you're a legislator who thinks its vitally important for the government to codify semantics into law to make sure gay people can't have weddings then yes, I'd say you're actively going after them.

Well then you'd be wrong. That's not "actively going after them" in any sensible meaning of the phrase.

Chris Potter | May 23, 2008, 4:55pm | #

actively going after <i> tags is another matter

joshua corning | May 23, 2008, 4:59pm | #

Which also brings up a wider point...

It seems fairly easy to me to be a conservative and a libertarian...ie conservative life style but holds the political belief that the state should stay out of peoples life styles.

but it seems hard as hell to be a socialist and a libertarian.

I don't know if Barr has seen the light or is just fishing around for a third party endorsement....but i think it is actually possible for him to be a libertarian while I think it is near impossible for Gavel to be one.

Warren | May 23, 2008, 5:14pm | #

but it seems hard as hell to be a socialist and a libertarian.

It's impossible to be a socialist and a libertarian. They are mutually exclusive political doctrines. However, it's just as easy to be a liberal libertarian as a conservative libertarian. That is one can believe that a minimal state will best serve political goals of education, poverty, and the environment.

Gravel does not believe this, ergo Gravel is not a libertarian. If Gravel gets the nomination, I'm moving to Cana... New Hamp... aw crap.

svf | May 23, 2008, 5:35pm | #

I'm moving to Cana... New Hamp... aw crap.

... Paulville...?

joshua corning | May 23, 2008, 5:36pm | #

Gravel does not believe this, ergo Gravel is not a libertarian. If Gravel gets the nomination, I'm moving to Cana... New Hamp... aw crap.

His name is Gravel, not Gavel?

Double crap.

War eagle | May 24, 2008, 10:44am | #

I've always thought Barr was actually a Brother, and I hope that he gets to play Jeremiah Wright in one of the Obama movies.