Liberty MavenBob Barr Follows Ron Paul Again: To Be On Glenn Beck
May 31st, 2008 1:06 pm | by Marc Gallagher | Published in Activism, Bob Barr, Election, Media, Politics, Ron Paul, Television | 12 Comments
In an article that perfectly describes some of my own feelings on the whole Ron Paul, Bob Barr thing Robert Stacy McCain also reveals that Barr will appear on Glenn Beck’s TV program this week, although he doesn’t provide a link or an actual date.
This coming week, Barr will show up on Glenn Beck’s CNN show and on “The Colbert Report.”
Keep in mind, now, that Barr only officially declared his candidacy on May 12. As “tough” as it may be for Barr “to reach double digits in the polls” (though, remember, he’s starting at 6%) does all this media attention look like the campaign of “a relative unknown”?
Over and over, radio interviewers have asked me what I think of Barr’s chances in November. I say two things:
- First, I don’t have a crystal ball. Who knows what can happen? We’re more than five months away from Election Day. Five months is a long time in politics. Five months ago, Hillary Clinton was still the odds-on favorite to win the Democratic nomination.
- Second, people close to the Barr campaign keep using the phrase “perfect storm.” Congressional approval is at 19%, and 79% of Americans say the country’s headed in the wrong direction. Gasoline is at $4 a gallon, and no major-party candidate — neither Obama, Clinton nor McCain — is over 47% in head-to-head polls. Such omens of deep discontent in the electorate certainly could indicate the kind of political environment in which a third-party campaign might catch fire.
The rest of the article describes how there are already many movers and shakers in the Ron Paul movement who are also supporting Bob Barr.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:40 pm (#)
Dear Marc,
I would like to state for the record, I too appreciate your opinion and our ability [freedom] to agree to disagree.
Though you said, you’ve grown weary of the pure Libertarian vs. Bob Barr arguments, [IMHO] the debate needs to, it [must] continue. When voters begin to listen closely to Barr, they will form their own opinions. All an exchange like ours might provide is an invitation for people to participate in the debate and maybe it will appeal to their desire to continue to self educate.
You said the article I referenced in http://www.redpills.or/?p=1162 … “is certainly interesting, some facts are there, but there is also much in the way of conjecture. Much of it seems like sour grapes for their chosen candidate not winning.”
• The definition of ‘conjecture’ see: http://dictionary.reference.com to conclude to suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability
Though you never indicate which part of the article you believe is conjecture, you nonetheless, expect me and your readership to accept that Barr represents libertarianism, when it in fact what he now espouses, is nothing more than pure conjecture; and, we have his voting record to prove it. [Are you equally weary discussing Barr’s voting record?]
Once again, I think we will agree to disagree! However, I will leave you with a few parting thoughts.
I believe with the nomination of Barr the Libertarian Party is sending its worse message to its constituents and to people like me who were on the cusp of joining the party. Although, I honestly think the problem is more complicated than that.
If you believe as I do, that the “establishment’s” dream has always been 2 identical major-party candidates, they are now pretty close to getting it. However, the cost of having 2 identical major party candidates is voter dissatisfaction with the choices. When you combine this scenario, particularly this year with the Ron Paul candidacy, [who we all know ran in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket] the result is likely to be a lot of third-party votes. So, Third Party(s) and their supporters had to be either prevented, or made meaningless.
IMHO…This is why Barr went to the LP This way, the LP can get any number of votes, [as you have been claiming all along] BUT, it WILL NOT be taken seriously as a protest, when votes are cast for a former CIA agent who supports interventionism and opposes private property - and voted for the Patriot Act.
The Barr nomination is indeed a sad day for liberty. Though it will not end the Ron Paul Revolution, it has already fractured his supporters. What better way to fracture Paul’s support…Position Barr to run for President, align him with what Paul honestly represents; get Barr to parrot Paul’s beliefs; dress him on Paul’s platform; and sucker Ron Paul supporters to buy in..
According to an article by Richard C. Cook, “Has the Battle for America Begun? He said, “Barr will doubtless be awarded handsomely for his trouble in helping defuse Dr. Paul’s movement.” Looks like MSM aka CFR is already awarding/rewarding Barr with interviews taking place or scheduled to take place with CNN, ABC and Fox, etc. etc.
• I WILL NOT become one of those Ron Paul supporters who carelessly throw their support behind Barr.
• I WILL NOT support Barr, because I’ve been lead to believe Barr will help to further Ron Paul’s message of peace, liberty and prosperity…
Remember, it wasn’t all that long along GW won the Presidency because he told Americans he believed in a humble foreign policy, no nation building, and no policing the world… Look where we are now!
This election, I plead for voters to carefully study who they will be casing their vote for…Let’s not put ourselves in a position where we fid ourselves pining for G.W. Bush.
Stay focused…As Ron Paul so often inferred “There are no short term solutions.
Stay the course…Study long and hard before you cast you vote.
Our future depends upon it!
Regards,
Donna
May 31st, 2008 at 6:24 pm (#)
Donna,
I’ve only grown weary because we both keep making the same arguments over and over again and nothing is going to change our minds on Barr. I support him. I believe he has changed for the better. I believe he is a sincere libertarian. Even some pure/radical libertarians agree with me, Thomas Knapp, Steve Kubby, Steve Dasbach, etc..
I don’t believe that he has evil motives for winning the nomination. I don’t believe there was any kind of wrangling for the nomination outside the rules. I trust Thomas Knapp when he says this.
Unless you are Bob Barr himself it is all just conjecture on whether or not he is sincere in his transformation to libertarian ideals. My belief is that he is. Your belief that he is not is also quite fine. There is evidence to support both sides of the argument. We both have presented that evidence. We can continue trading links and quotes from other sources, but I listen to Barr when he makes his media appearances. I read his media releases. He sounds nothing like a neo-con warmonger. He is spreading Ron Paul’s message. I applaud him for it and he gets my support because of it. If this makes me naive as you have suggested than so be it. In the coming years we may or may not see the truth come to light, if there is anything sinister going on.
The bottom line is I believe he has seen the evil of his former ways and is a true libertarian now. Nothing in his current day rhetoric suggests otherwise. You believe he is still a neo-conservative shill who may be trying to reform the party to split the Ron Paul movement which will help the GOP. We disagree and nothing is likely to change that for the time being.
I’ve become weary of the argument, yes. It goes on and on like this:
1 - You call Barr unforgivable because he voted for something 5 or more years ago. You provide a quote from someone about it supporting your position.
2 - I say Barr is forgiven because he’s spreading the message of liberty in his rhetoric today. I provide a quote from someone that supports my position.
3 - Go back to #1 and start over again.
That grows tiresome to me. I do appreciate your opinion and I completely understand it. I just have a different one.
I will continue to post quotes and articles to LM supporting my position. Feel free to comment (if the dang spam thing is fixed), if I feel compelled I’ll join in the discussion again.
Thanks for your views,
Marc
May 31st, 2008 at 7:15 pm (#)
Marc,
I THINK YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD…You said, unless I myself were Barr, it’s all conjecture on whether he’s sincere or not…
In Pauls case, there was never ANY CONJECTURE AND WE NEVER NEEDED TO QUESTION HIS SINCERITY, BECAUSE OF HIS VOTING RECORD!!!
We’re as close as I ever to a nation of sheeple. I would think our discussion would be a welcome way for your readership to form their own opinions. I am sorry, [since I'm not a member of your choir] that you’ve grown weary of the debate.
I too am weary. If you indeed have the faith in Barr that you claim, I JUST WISH YOU WOULD LET BARR SUCCEED OR FAIL ON HIS OWN MERIT…
I’ve grown weary of you using Dr. Ron Paul’s stellar record to help a politician like Barr and his sagging career.
Regard, Donna
Regards, Donna
May 31st, 2008 at 10:29 pm (#)
Donna,
Plenty people questioned Ron Paul’s sincerity when the racist newsletters article appeared. Some even quit supporting him because of them. I took him at his word when he said he didn’t write them and he didn’t know who did, much like I’m taking Barr at his word today on his transformation.
My readership will form their own opinions of course. I don’t have the power to change minds directly anyway. If I did you’d be supporting Bob Barr by now.
Barr will succeed or fail no matter who I compare him to, so I have no power in that regard either. I call things as I see them. And to me, Bob Barr is very similar to Ron Paul on the issues. There is ample evidence that most Ron Paul supporters agree with me (several polls on RPF, the number of members at bobbarrforums talking about how they support Paul, the Robert Stacy McCain article, the people in my area Ron Paul meetup groups, my circle of friends who supported Paul, etc..)
I’m not the only one using Ron Paul to help Barr. Ron Paul himself is. They are friends. Ron Paul effectively endorsed both Barr and Baldwin by saying he likes them both. Ron Paul’s record is not being used to help Barr, it’s his dedication to the libertarian message. Barr shares that message. To me (and many others, including Paul himself) it is only a small stretch to call them twins in liberty. Barr me be the ‘once lost’ twin because of his voting history, but he is still preaching the libertarian gospel today to all who will listen. And apparently people are listening, including the media; therefore, I wouldn’t characterize Barr’s career as sagging. After all he is the LP nominee for President of the United States. He is set to appear on the Colbert Report and Glenn Beck this week, hardly evidence of a sagging career.
Thanks again for your viewpoint. It looks like the blog spam catcher has released you since I didn’t have to moderate your latest comment. That is good news. I don’t want you to think I’m blocking your views from being seen/heard. I really do appreciate all views on things except when they devolve into personal attacks. Thank you so much for keeping our disagreement on the high ground of issues rather than the low ground of attacks.
Enjoy,
Marc
June 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am (#)
Hello Marc,
I agree re: I will do my very best to continue taking the high ground when I provide comments on your site.
I don’t disagree with you on the ‘newsletter’ issue. However, whether or not you agree it’s now a mute point, in a career that spans 30+ years, it is the only thing ‘they’ve’ been able to question, and did nothing to deminish Paul’s stellar voting record. Additionally, the newsletter issue, never put America and Americans in a position to have less civil libery. Nor did the ‘newsletters’ legislatively deteriorate our freedom and liberty by putting more power in the hands of the President, ultimatly giving less voice to the people. You can’t say the same for Barr.
I’ve read that Paul may consider Barr a friend, but as you well know even good friends will draw a line when political issues are at stake.
I’ve also read that Paul will most likely not endorse Barr. I think no endorsement from Paul is PROOF he CAN NOT or WILL NOT put his CONSIDERABLE weight behind Barr.
I believe it’s much more than a ’small stretch’ to consider Barr and Paul “twins in liberty’! Rather, I consider this suggestion, to be a HUGH LEAP OF FAITH. As you’ve noted, this is exactly what you are asking your readership to do.
All I’m asking is for people not to rely upon only one source or website for their information. It’s our civic duty to do the necessary homework (and that requires information gathering from many sources and websites) to be able to make an educated decison on how to cast our vote in the general election.
Based upon your recent post, regarding the general election and write-in votes, you advise your readership to ignor their conscience, SINCE in some instances, if they vote their conscience, their vote may not be counted. You futher advise them to take a HUGE LEAP OF FAITH and vote for Barr, even if it GOES AGAINST THIER CONSCIENCE, because at least their vote will be counted.
Once again, we agree to disagree!
Regards, Donna
June 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm (#)
Donna,
I believe most people, especially those who regularly read this site, will not rely only on one site to make their decision on whom to vote for.
I advised my readership to vote for Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr in that article. I gave my reasons for supporting Barr. Then I mentioned that I was voting for Barr. What I was trying to say was that people should vote for LIBERTY. My way of doing that is voting for Barr.
On the endorsement front, I won’t try to guess what Ron Paul really means when he says he supports both Baldwin and Barr. Ron Paul, for the most part, has been pretty forthright about things, as you know. If he’s going to endorse someone he will do it. He specifically refuses to endorse Barr or Baldwin at this time. Suggesting he is doing otherwise is wishful thinking right now.
I’m guilty of the same thing a bit because I see his refusal to officially endorse either means that he equally supports both, and doesn’t want his endorsement to hinder that support. Also keep in mind Ron Paul HAS officially endorsed at least one Republican who supports the Iraq war (Paul Broun). He endorses him no doubt because Broun (on other issues) is a true limited government Republican interested in liberty.
Is Ron Paul sacrificing his principles in this case? If Ron Paul can see the importance of supporting someone who has an overall record of spreading liberty, but disagrees on one of the most fundamental issues of RP’s platform, why can’t his supporters give the same leeway to Barr?
Enjoy,
Marc
June 1st, 2008 at 3:41 pm (#)
Marc,
From what I’ve been able to find, and I haven’t looked that hard, at least Broun doesn’t support the Patriot Act! Unlike Barr who actually put our liberty at risk by voting for this INSIDIOUS ACT
Barr PROVES by his voting record that HE DOES NOT HAVE AN OVERALL RECORD OF SPREADING LIBERTY or, he would have, like I’m asking voters to do now, done the necessary homework.
Regards, Donna
June 1st, 2008 at 4:04 pm (#)
Donna,
You are misrepresenting Barr’s position on the Patriot Act. He is against and has been against it even before joining the Libertarian Party. A former aide to Congressman Ron Paul wrote an article describing Barr as their man on the inside. In order to have the ability to put in the sunset provisions forcing a vote on it every 5 years Barr had to vote ‘yes’ on it back then. Barr did so and put those provisions in. If not for Barr, the Act would be permanent.
Indeed in 2005 he testified AGAINST the Patriot Act and denounces it in just about any interview these days. In a recent interview in “American Conservative” magazine Barr said his vote for the Patriot Act was his worst vote. And he would never vote for it again, if he had the chance.
So, feel free to selectively choose your sources on denouncing Barr, but please don’t misrepresent his position on the Patriot Act. Saying he supports it, is simply a lie.
Here are some sources for you:
Jansen (former Ron Paul staffer)-
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13262
And “Barr’s Real Record” at the Nolan Chart, ends with this:
“In summary (and again I have to mention that this has been after a hasty, cursory examination), the evidence of Barr’s “anti-libertarianism” rests on one solid charge (his Drug Warrior past), two misrepresented events (his votes for the Iraq invasion and the PATRIOT Act), one overblown affair (his press release on Wicca), one smear (his CCC speech), and a few issues (DoMA, immigration, and the GOP) on which his positions seem little different from those of Ron Paul.”
Here is the link:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3852.html
Enjoy,
Marc
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:28 am (#)
Marc,
I don’t think it will take much of leap of faith for your readership to face the facts about Bob Barr.
Every day, with the way you try to minimize Barr’s personal actions and voting record, along with his continued support of Republican candidates who are currently running against Libertarians candidates(follow his money), in addition to your attemps to compare him to Ron Paul, you bring the truth about Barr’s actions and voting record to the forefront.
Barr does not hold the Libertarian Platform near and dear to his heart and mind. From every indication, though he’s quite successful at speaking from both sides of his mouth, he never was, and never will be a Libertarian.
At best, Barr is a very poor representation of Ron Pauls 30+ years of showing people the value of the Libertarian Platform. And every day, regarldess of how you try gloss over Barr’s actions and voting record, you misrepresnt Ron Paul; and, you do a great disservice to your readerhship and to your journalist credibility.
You trust that Barr will not win the Presidency, yet you fail to realize that every vote for Barr [you are trying to win for him], will be a vote for his “Drug Warrior past, his support for the Iraq invasion and the PATRIOT Act, one overblown affair and his press release on Wicca etc. etc.
Ultimately, a vote for Barr will indeed disseminate every plank on the Libertarian platform.
Regards, Donna
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am (#)
As I see it, the reason for libertarians and for Christian conservatives to support Bob Barr is not that he is either a libertarian or a Christian conservative, but because he is a credible alternative to the Democrats and Republicans who have generally been getting the votes of these two consituencies. These two constituencies are usually in violent opposition to one another on such issues as drug use, abortion, gay marriage and other “social” issues. But both need to face the fact that the two major parties have been taking them for a ride, supporting their positions with lip service, but, in fact, never resolving them. They could resolve them by doing what both Ron Paul and Bob Barr advocate, Barr belatedly, by letting the question of legalizing or making criminal such behaviors be left to the states, each to decide for itself. This is, after all, what is dictated by the text of the U.S. Constitution.
Meanwhile, the two major parties have used the votes of libertarians and Christian conservatives to build their political monopoly dedicated to Big Government, foreign and domestic, the Imperial State, the “welfare-warfare” model of the American empire, from which only a concerted effort by those outside the mainstream of American politics can cause us to break free.
This is not the year to debate abortion and gay marriage. Christians and libertarians need both to be concerned with a government and a government mentality in the American public that wants to take away their civil liberties. They want to take away the children of members of the FLDS church because they are a “cult”. Well, it won’t be long before every serious Christian Church will be called a “cult”. We see that already in the condemnations coming down from both sides against Jeremiah Wright and John Hagee for daring to say that God might actually be visiting punishment upon the United States of America. Nobody is allowed to contradict this current “theological” orthodoxy - that which worships as sacrosant the American State.
Neither libertarians nor Christian conservatives can afford either to support the “lesser” of the two evils that constitute the major parties. But neither can they throw away their votes and efforts on another in a string of “no name” candidates perenially put forward by the Libertarian and Constitution Parties who are lucky to garner one or two percent of the vote and are totally ignored by the media outlets most people watch or hear.
Bob Barr is the one candidate today who is both a credible candidate for President who could tally some real votes among those not so politically oriented, and is someone who is sounding the call that both libertarians and Christian conservatives need to heed and respond to.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 am (#)
wrdalton,
Very insightful. Thank you.
-Marc
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm (#)
The ONLY reason RP is not officially endorsing a 3rd party candidate like Barr or Baldwin is b/c he is STILL running for the Republican nomination. If he were to endorse someone other than McCain at this point, he’d never live that one down and never get a voice at the convention, which is his primary goal right now. My guess is that he will give a more official endorsement if not an outright endorsement after the RNC is over.