Bob Meets the Press
David Weigel | September 10, 2008, 1:13pm
Libertarian candidate Bob Barr just wrapped a combative press conference down the hall from the Ron Paul presser. It took some time for the latter event to end. Paul and the candidates retreated from their main room to a side room with a mix of reporters and people who just wanted to take pictures with them. Max Anthony, the head of the Cecil Chesterton Society, confronted Paul on why he'd written the introduction to a Chesterton anthology that included anti-Semitic footnotes and jokes about Jews. "The best economists are Jewish!" Paul laughed. "Ricardo was Jewish! Von Mises was Jewish!" Anthony pressed the issue. "I'm not familiar with this," Paul said. "I'm not going to get caught in that trap." Nader got almost as much attention as Paul, and posed together for cameras. "The best event we've ever done," said one of his staffers.
Out in the hall, third party candidates for various and sundry offices handed out literature and buttonholed journalists. The buzz was what the hell Barr was up to. "I heard he's dropping out!" "He wanted Ron to endorse him." "He doesn't want to share a stage with Baldwin." Barr arrived at 11:50, and I saw Iraq War Veteran Against the War and Barr backer Adam Kokesh walking towards his room, looking purposeful and pissed off.
Barr opened with a statement on how he'd gotten to this point, and why he'd not attended the Paul event.
- In December 2007, he authored the LP's statement of intent to nominate Ron Paul for president if he lost the GOP nomination. Paul turned it down.
- Yesterday Barr sent Paul a letter (which I have a copy of, and I'll scan in a bit) asking Paul to run as Barr's vice presidential nominee. Wayne Allyn Root agreed to step aside if Paul wanted the job. Paul turned this down.
- Barr signed onto the statement of principles that Nader, McKinney and Baldwin signed, and stands by it. But he declined the offer to appear this morning.
"This is no reflection, certainly, on the tremendous and positive leadership that Ron Paul has provided to the liberty movement over the years. He recognized, for example, the strength of that movement, which has to come from the outside, back in 1987," when he left the GOP. What Barr is offering voters is...
bold, focused, specific leadership. That is not the amorphous kind that says "any of the above" or "none of the above." That's not leadershp. What is leadership is what I, and our campaign, and the LP are doing. Putting before the American people not a wish list, not a menu of things you can pick and choose, not a group of candidates, but a candidate for president, Bob Barr, who stands for very specific programs and policies and direction for this country.
Some of Paul's supporters, sitting in the back of the room, snickered at this. Barr pushed on. "The primaries are over" and the only measure of libertarian success will be how many votes the LP gets.
The print press asked for more details on Barr's offer to Paul and details on what Barr supported from the message of that earlier event. Kokesh raised his hand and started talking; Barr campaign chairman Russ Verney asked him to identify his media organization. "I'm an independent blogger," Kokesh said. Verney and Kokesh talked over each other for about 30 seconds, Verney trying to move on, Kokesh explaining what had made him so angry. "Leadership is not just about knowing when to lead, but knowing when to follow," Kokesh said. "You failed that test today and I retract my endorsement of you."
There were more harsh questions (is Barr a Republican agent trying to destroy the LP?) but nothing quite that harsh. The conference emptied out and Barr's staff kept on message: All respect to Ron Paul, but "support one of these nice candidates" is not a libertarian campaign. "Dr. Paul is allowing the Ron Paul Revolution to wither," said Barr aide Shane Cory.
I asked Barr specifically if he thought Paul was squandering the momentum of his presidential run. That seemed to be the message, not buried too deep in subtext. But Barr repeated that presidential primaries and a third party run were not the same thing. "The votes you get on election day influence policy," he said. "Ross Perot's 19 percent of the vote in 1992 influenced policy. It made the 1994 Republican revolution possible."
Seth | September 10, 2008, 2:04pm | #
While I too regret that Ron Paul will not be on a national ballot this fall, Barr's actions this morning demonstrate clearly that Paul's unwillingness to share a ticket with him was precisely the correct choice.
What Barr did today was reprehensible. It consisted of the following: He tried to bribe an endorsement by offering a VP slot, and possibly attempted to extort it through the threat of undertaking this action today.
This is "hardball" Washington politics as usual, exactly the kind of crap that libertarians of principle are supposed to be fighting against.
Further, what Barr fails to understand, is that Paul's efforts are not about himself, or about winning a specific election, but rather about undertaking the best, strategic, long-term plan for undermining our corrupt anti-Constitutional government. And as far as that goes, creating a coalition is something that should have been undertake a long time ago.
Instead, Barr, apparently acting unilaterally, without the LP's knowledge or permission, chose to undermine that coalition by perpetrating a fraud. He apparently claimed that he had joined the coalition by agreeing to participate in this press conference, when in fact he had no intention of doing so, and instead used his last-minute withdrawal to grandstand and marginalize the efforts of the other minor parties.
How exactly is this going to win the Libertarian Party friends or respect? What part of not committing force or fraud does Mr. Barr not understand? Instead of demonstrating those libertarian principles, Barr has established himself as a shining example of libertarian hypocrisy for all to snear at.
At this point, unless the LP takes the strongest of remedial actions to repair its reputation, I dare say they should just pack it up and go home.
Michael Seebeck | September 10, 2008, 3:06pm | #
So let’s get this straight:
Barr asks Paul to replace Root as his running mate, which would effectively take Paul off the ballot for his Congress seat, and throw under the (short) bus the man he cut an endorsement deal with at Denver to secure the nomination.
Paul smartly refuses.
In the process Barr disses the Campaign for Liberty and chucks all LP credibility and alliances with that movement out the window, and probably cost him a large chunk of votes. That genius Cory then calls the C4L “withering” when it dwarfs the LP. Real smart, genius, and your boss, too!
Root, meanwhile, fresh on the heels of his own “Million Dollar Challenge” Ted Dibiase moment, issues his own statement that he would welcome being cast aside, which would effectively kill his own professed 2012 aspriations in the process. What planet is he on?
Then Davis, in whatever Kool-Aid-induced trip he’s on, calls Barr a “major player” in the election after all of this?
Maybe only if the TX suit succeeds. Otherwise, FUGGEDAHBUDIT!
I see the McFly locomotive going into Eastwood Ravine, and the DeLorean won’t hit 88 MPH. Quick, disconnect the rest of the cars, and everybody off, now!
For those of you in Denver who voted for these fools: Thanks for nothing!
Mad Max | September 10, 2008, 7:09pm | #
"Chuck Baldwin stands for exactly what the Republican Party stood for over the past couple decades: Religious Right Conservatism."
If you mean they're Christian and pro-life - but the Repugnican leaders tend to see these issues as boob-bait, while CP leaders actually mean it.
On other parts of their platform - like repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments - I'm not aware of Bush, DeLay, Newt or McCain supporting those.
Then there's this from the CP platform - I missed the parallel provisions in the Repug platform:
"One of the greatest contributors to deficit spending is war. If the country is to get rid of debt, these United States cannot become gratuitously involved in constant wars. Constitutional government, as the founders envisioned it, was not imperial. It was certainly not contemplated that America would police the world at the taxpayers' expense.
We call for the systematic reduction of the federal debt through, but not limited to, the elimination of further borrowing and the elimination of unconstitutional programs and agencies.
"We call upon the President to use his Constitutional veto power to stop irresponsible and unconstitutional appropriations, and use his Constitutional authority to refuse to spend any money appropriated by Congress for unconstitutional programs or in excess of Constitutionally imposed tax revenue.
"The debt could be more rapidly eliminated if certain lands and other assets currently held by the federal government were sold, and the proceeds applied to the debt. This policy should be employed, and funds from the sale of all such assets should be specifically applied to debt reduction."
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
Andy Craig | September 10, 2008, 7:35pm | #
"If you mean they're Christian and pro-life - but the Repugnican leaders tend to see these issues as boob-bait, while CP leaders actually mean it"
They are not just "Christian and pro-life", they're theocratic and authoritarian. It's people like them who have destroyed the reputation of Federalism by using it to hide their agenda of state-level tyranny.
Also from their platform:
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
...
We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.
...
The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted
...
[We] affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior.
...
We oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.
...
We oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.
...
Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country.
...
We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States
...
We particularly support all the legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.
We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.
...
Pornography, at best, is a distortion of the true nature of sex created by God for the procreative union between one man and one woman in the holy bonds of matrimony, and at worst, is a destructive element of society resulting in significant and real emotional, physical, spiritual and financial costs to individuals, families and communities. We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.
With the advent of the Internet and the benevolent neglect of the previous administrations, the pornography industry enjoyed uninhibited growth and expansion until the point today that we live in a sex-saturated society where almost nothing remains untainted by its perversion. While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards
..............................................
The idea that any libertarian or liberty-minded person could support these people (who tend to be *more* extreme than the platform lets on) as a matter of "principle" is absurd.
Mad Max | September 10, 2008, 9:12pm | #
Andy Craig,
I did not mean to suggest the CP are libertarians. My point (replying to you) was that they're not like the Repugnicans. For better or worse (I think mostly better), their position is distinguishable from what Repugs have advocated over the past several decades. The Repugs agree with the CP on a small # of issues issues - see the stopped-clock principle.
I'm afraid that not all your CP platform quotes due justice to the (dare I say) *nuances* of their position. Except for the porno plank, which you quoted fully.
A key paragraph in the immigration plank says (you quoted the first phrase about the moratorium):
"We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration." That's quite similar to Dr. Paul's position.
The drug paragraph you quoted, about a ban on drug imports and considering retaliation against foreign source countries (where the CP is no worse than the duopoly) is followed by this:
"At the same time, we will take care to prevent violations of the Constitutional and civil rights of American citizens. Searches without probable cause and seizures without due process must be prohibited, and the presumption of innocence must be preserved."
Try and find *that* in the duopolist drug planks. Does Barr actually disagree with the CP on drugs?
The family plank does, indeed call for support for the evil patriarchal family, but it also contains the following:
"We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process."
As to the gambling plank, here is the full thing (preferable to the federal-oppression model promoted by the duopolists):
"James Madison said: 'The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.' (Federalist Papers #45) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).
"Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states."
(they could have added that many professional gamblers have questionable morality, but they obviously didn't want to insult Wayne Allen Root).
And check out the Social Security plank - McBama would *not* approve.
Sean Scallon | September 10, 2008, 10:41pm | #
So, Bob Barr was willing to sign a statement of common principles along with theocrat Baldwin, the socialist Nader and the mad Marxist McKinney but unwilling to be in their presence because he had better things to do. That's about as credible an explanation as the Gnostic gospels.
As the irrepressible Dave Weigel reports, Barr is ticked off at Paul because he wouldn’t give him his sole endorsement? Paul stated clearly in Minneapolis, this is bigger than just one party and those who share his ideas or give them credit can share in his support no matter what their ideology or party. He will not be pigeoned holed or put into an ideological or political ghetto. This was the whole point to his campaign, the what he spoke in favor of was powerful enough to united persons of different ideological and political and social backgrounds into a common cause. This is why he eventually wound up with more delegates votes at the RNC than Rudy Guliani, Mike Huckbee, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romeny combined. What do you think would have happened to RP's camapaign if it relied on just Republican support? It would ahve died in August of last year.
Ron Paul isn't about controlling anyone's votes or actions. He's not about micromanagement or dictation. He truly lives as a libertarian would expect to live. This is why the whole newsletter issue took place. This is why he hasn't endorsed just one candidate or party. Amazing isn't it that so many people around here call themselves libertarians and yet can't recognize libertarianism in action when it's right in front of their faces.
And after what McCain’s goons did to Paul’s delegates in St. Paul, dis anyone honestly think Paul was going to endorse McCain? Despite the fact that several writers from Reason were at the convention, not one of them has seen fit to write a report about how the First Amendment was repealed on the floor of the RNC. Ron Paul's deleagtes and alternates were treated as if though they were in North Korean, being followed around and chaperoned, having signs and DVDs confiscated, being threatened with expulsion if they so uttered the name Ron Paul. Nope, not a thing from either Weigel, Welch, Cavanaugh or Gillespe even thought they were right in the middle of it.
But never fear, Conservative Heritage Times has copied reports from several Paul delegates on their harassment by McCain's prison guards and offers it to you here: http://conservativetimes.org/?p=2172. Needless to say Paul wasn't openly happy at their treatment which is probably why he was willing to support the major third party camapaigns of 2008 we hadn't done so in the past.
Until Barr made an ass out of himself.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
