 |
|
Add to My Group
|
May 27, 2008 at 08:16:57
Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr; John McCain's Ralph Nader? With Poll by Rob Kall Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
After a bruising, six ballot convention contest, Barr emerged the victor, giving Libertarians hope that this well known politician will expand their visibility.
But his election comes as a blow to Libertarian unity, as alternet writer Alexander Zaitchik reports, Even many Libertarians who welcome Barr's candidacy as a boost for the party's profile (and, they hope, their chances of spoiling the candidacy of that statist pretender to Barry Goldwater's throne, John McCain) admit they are left uneasy by Barr's long "anti-Liberty" record in Congress.
This record includes voting for the Patriot Act, staunch support for the war on drugs (Barr is a former federal prosecutor) and authorship of the Defense of Marriage Act. He has since renounced many, if not all, of his old positions, but the turnaround has been too recent and too sudden for many Libertarians to fully swallow his conversion story. In 2002, the Libertarian Party called Barr "the worst drug warrior in Congress."
Air American Radio host has observed that Libertarians are "right wingers who smoke dope and get laid."
The question is, will Barr's candidacy siphon off more votes from McCain or the Democratic candidate.
Barr says he will run in 48 states. He's already on the ballot in 28 states.
Andrew Malcolm, writing in the LA Times' Top of the Ticket blog, observes, "The Libertarians have been good for only around 3% of the vote in recent elections. However, 3% in a close election between the Republican and Democratic tickets could make the difference.
Much as Ralph Nader drew enough votes from Al Gore in 2000 to help George W. Bush win the White House, the little-known Barr could draw enough votes of dissatisfied conservatives to hurt Sen. John McCain's chances as the GOP nominee."
The Washington Post's Micah L. Sifry, observes, Sen. John McCain is champing at the bit to run against Sen. Barack Obama in the fall. But while the presumptive GOP nominee focuses on his likely Democratic rival, he should also worry about his own right flank. Bob Barr entered the presidential race last week as a Libertarian, in time for that party's nominating convention (which starts Thursday), and while the former Republican congressman from Georgia isn't going to become president, his run is no joke. Barr might well inherit the sizable support garnered by Rep. Ron Paul during his own run for the Republican nomination -- and leave McCain sputtering the sorts of epithets usually uttered by Democrats talking about Ralph Nader.
Right wing Weekly Standard editor Michael Goldfarb, citing Sifry, fantasizes that Barr will do no harm, speculating, in response to Sifry, They aren't going to vote McCain no matter what, but they might have voted Obama to punish their party and force a withdrawal from Iraq. If Andrew Sullivan is any indicator, supporting Ron Paul and Barack Obama are not mutually exclusive. In the absence of a third party run by Paul, or a Libertarian bid by Barr, these voters would have ended up in the Obama column. Instead we may have four anti-war candidates on the ballot--Obama, Nader, Paul, and Barr. And whatever protest vote exists within the Republican party is minuscule compared to the Democratic protest vote against Obama (see West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.).
Barr will give anti-war voters who bitterly cling to guns and religion another option in November. If he has any impact at all, and he may not given the nature of his early attacks, he seems likely to siphon votes from Obama, not McCain.
But Goldfarb seems to ignore what Sifry said next about Ron Paul, "...If Barr manages to capture the attention of Paul's base, it could spell real danger for McCain. ...While everyone has fixated on whether Ralph Nader cost Al Gore Florida, TV commentator Patrick Buchanan, running on the Reform Party banner, got enough votes in Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin to tip them out of George W. Bush's hands. Ron Paul may not be on the ballot this November, but his sizable grassroots movement will probably still be looking for a champion. Bob Barr won't be president, but he could still gore McCain.
Jonathan Martin of The POlitico reports that in his conversation with Ron Paul last month, Paul showed little enthusiasm for Barr.
Will Republicans, already unenthusiastic about McCain, jump ship for red-meat conservative Barr? Alternet's Zaitchik reports, Another sign that Barr is already opening the Libertarian Party's gates to an influx of disaffected conservative Republicans was the convention presence of legendary Republican fund-raiser Richard Viguerie, whose involvement in the Libertarian Party closely mirrors that of Barr's.
"The GOP has abandoned conservatives, who are off the reservation," Viguerie said in a keynote speech Saturday. "Technology is the key to making the Libertarian Party the new force in American politics. Become a blogger in the battle for America's soul. We don't need Wall Street Republicans when we have the tools of the new age."
1 | 2
Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 16 comments |
|
Barr will take more votes from McCain,...
particularly Christian fundamentalists who would never have dreamed of voting Libertarian, but trust Barr to do "the right thing." Such is their loathing of John McCain. Zooming out to the wider view, Obama will have Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney competing against him, and their effect on the left will mitigate Barr's effect on the right. The good news? Barr's effect will be mitigated by the other progressives, not neutralized. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM  (0+)
|
|
I Don't Think Barr Will Have Much Impact
Here in Georgia, when his seat was re-districted, Barr lost by a wide margin in the primary to fellow Republican John Linder in 2002. Barr is not all that popular amongst conservatives in his own state; why should he be popular among them nationwide? True, Barr did generate publicity with his early call for impeaching Clinton in the 90s. But that was over 10 years ago and memory of that period has faded. In the end, this is going to be a head to head battle of McCain vs. Obama. I don't think Barr or Nader or any third party will have much influence on the outcome. by Mike Mejia (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 11:09:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Vote for who?
Rob, You wrote: by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 11:23:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Barr Actively Raises Money for GOP Candidates to This Day
He is not a real Libertarian, in my view. by Mike Mejia (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 11:25:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Rob, the air america host has no clue, WHATSOEVER.
Air American Radio host has observed that Libertarians are "right wingers who smoke dope and get laid." I was told that I am no longer allowed to call ignorant statements ignorant, so I will simply say that your Air America Personality is grossly illinformed, and obviously has no desire to understand what Libertarians are. That is all I am going to say about that. Regarding Bob Barr... He is a POLITICIAN first, and a Constitutional Rights advocate second. as long as this is the case, he will NOT be a good representative of the Libertarian Party. I hear some dems complain about the "Blue Dog Democrats" Bear in mind that if they were the left wing politicians most on this board want, there would STILL be republicans holding the seats they now occupy, and that is not even debatable. If you try, I have two words... Bob Casey. Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 10:00:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The Air America Radio host is Thom Hartmann...
and what he said, on many occasions, is that he defines a Libertarian as a Republican who likes to smoke dope and get laid. It has always been offered as a humorous commentary on the Libertarian view that the government should regulate nothing. You may now chuckle. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 8:25:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Libertarians are capitalists, in favor of free-markets !!
Libertarianism is no solution for a nation with so many economic problems like USA and the world. Our only solution is a socialist, planed, protectionist economic system. And not libertarianism. Libertarianism is based on "the survival of the fittest", it is a system without welfare, food stamps, and social security. Libertarianism spells hunger, famine, and destruction of our society. The only solution for America is Socialism of the XXI Century. Like the Bolivarian Socialism model by LincolnMarx (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 86 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 10:31:27 PM (0+)
|
|
So the solution for the US is more FAILED policy?
This Endurance Athlete Libertarian does not find the joke about dope smoking republican very amusing.... Now regarding socialism of the XXI century... Take a look around this nation, and we are ALREADY DOING socialized medicine.. The difference is that we have insurance company paid gate keepers deciding what a doctor can and can not do as opposed to GOVERNMENT PAID gate keepers.. The end result is the same. Canadians are in their SUPREME COURT fighting for their very lives, in some cases, because the government stops paying for treatment after a while.... Sure, this country has some serious economic hardships, but these hardships were not caused by a FREE MARKET, they were caused by a market that is NOT free, but partially regulated, by our wise politicians, who make sure that those who can make huge donations to campaigns and political parties are set free to rape and pillage… We have socialism when it comes to education, in our country… What have we received from the ludicrously high priced public schools? Terrible performance. SO terrible in fact, that the tests were made easier to make the scores look better… Meanwhile, US students are being outperformed by foreign students at the University level… (Oh, Home Schooled kids, and the politician’s kids who are attending PRIVATE schools are doing much better at the secondary school level… ) The politicians who tell the rest of us to send our kids to the public schools….. Yeah, Socialism works very well… RIGHT? Libertarians want the solutions which have NOT EVER BEEN TRIED, in the US… Why haven’t they been tried? Because Unions, and BIG Corporate American donors don’t want the competition. In fact, neither do the Republican and Democrat “Parties” Which is why Libertarians are not permitted to be on the Ballot here in PA…. No competition has lead to huge failures every time it has been tried throughout history. It is one of the reasons why I wonder why it is that some of you socialists call yourselves “progressive,” when the title REGRESSIVE is more appropriate. by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 9:38:44 AM (0+)
|
|
Example of Bolivarian Socialism....
April 12, 2006: Things are not going well in Venezuela. The poor, who have expected so much for supporting president Chavez, have received little. _________________________________________________ This is what you advocate for the US? Well, at least in a dictatorship like Venezuela, we can't complain about our problems, so things will be better, right? No discussion of problems means no problems, right? Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 9:59:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: forgot to add link to the article..
by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 10:05:03 AM (0+)
|
|
HE'S THE BEST WE HAVE NOW!
by Alice Lillie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 72 comments [16 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 4:23:25 PM (0+)
|
|
THOSE WITH WEALTH CAN CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT
In a capitalist economy, there will always be those who are more successful and those who are less successful. And since it is easier to make more money when you have a lot of money, those who are more successful will become super rich. Steve complains about how the advantages the government gives to corporations precludes us from having a free market. But those who are wealthy will always lobby the government for special advantages and their wealth will enable them to lobby successfully. So successfully in fact that they will be able to control the government and be the ruling class. To consider just one of the means that wealth enable you to control the government, consider that you cannot even let the voters know your even exist without enormous amounts of money. 2008 is expected to be our first billion dollar election. And those who make these large campaign contributions are not just doing so for their health. They would not contribute if they did not expect to receive benefits in return. As for your remarks about Venezuela and Chavez, note that the electorate voted down his proposal to abolish the two term limit on his being the President. That shows there are still free elections under his alleged dictatorship. Robert Halfhill by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 10:45:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: FREE Elections in Venezuela....
I guess that depends on which side you happen to be on.... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 8:01:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Votes don't belong to any party
The whole assumption here is terribly wrong. The Republican and Democratic Parties don't own anyone's votes. Other candidates are not taking away votes that belong to the candidates of the two war parties. I think most of those who vote for Barr, Nader or other candidates are ones who wouldn't vote for the establishment candidates. by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 3:38:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Are you kidding?
The Democrats OWN the votes of the black community, the unions, and most lawyers.... it is called Core Constituency Republicans have it too... How many people have said "My Pappy was a Republican, My Granpappy was a Republican, and so am I!" These people have not the slightest clue what the "parties" stand for... In fact, I am not even sure that they actually DO stand for something other than furthering the party power, and influence, allowing members to become filthy rich in the process of adopting the corrupt policies they seem to enjoy pushing through congress..... Votes DO belong to the party, because the people don't know any other way... Ciao, CZ by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 8:08:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Phony poll
I see most people didn't take Rob's bait and vote for Establishment Assumption 1 or Establishment Assumption 2. There are less votes than comments. There is no option for those who don't buy into the militarist, corporatist establishment assumptions. What's the point of a service like this if it is just another way of pushing the establishment view? Don't we have the well-funded MSM for that? by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 4:59:28 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
