GMM,
I hadn’t seen it posted, but I’ve been really out of it. I just came across it in today’s news on google.
Doug,
I’m not defending him, and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you (although I always appreciated Barr), but a lot of folks are really fed up with things. Calling them names doesn’t change things.
The scary prospect would be if Barr united the Ron Paul voters during a general election, along with the anti-McCain folks (no point in not admitting that there are folks on the right who are explicitly anti-McCain). That could seriously cause problems.
Based on the ideology scale by Pew that Doug posted here, this comes as no surprise. Anyone to the right of 55 on a scale to 100 is without a candidate in this election unless they can stomach McCain. Barr will just be the first of many to try and fill that 55-100 hole.
The question becomes will these candidates be like Nader in 2000, or Nader in 2004? Or, perhaps like Perot in 1992?
Yawn. Wake me if/when the Libertarian Party gets close to 1% (hasn’t happened since 1980, I think). Bob Barr is a nobody — even most political junkies don’t recognize the name — and he’ll make as much of an impression as most Libertarians.
But he’ll probably finish ahead of Alan Keyes, who’s running on the Constitutional Party ticket.
A lot can change between now and November. However, as it stands today, it looks as if Obama will be the nominee. His running mate will make a lot of difference I believe on how strong he is. The degree by which the Dems are able to mend their wounds will depend a lot on Hillary. If Hillary tries hard to get behind him, and bring her supporters on board, it will, unfortunately, take back a huge number of those that are currently polling for McCain if Obama is the nominee. If the number of Hillary supporters that refuse to vote for Obama reduces to single digits, we have a huge problem on our hands to beat him. In my view, the only possible chance we have to win is to satisfy the conservative end of our party. As has been pointed out above, there are many unhappy campers at this point, who want to vote Republican, but who will refuse to take another poke in the eye from McCain. Millions, I repeat, millions of conservatives will vote for a third party candidate like Barr just to make sure that the party will never again treat them as though they are no longer needed.
Newt Gingrich said essentially the same thing about two hours ago on Fox news. He thinks the Republicans are in trouble unless McCain nominates a conservative VP, and begins to act like a conservative Repubican on the campaign trail.
“The scary prospect would be if Barr united the Ron Paul voters during a general election, along with the anti-McCain folks (no point in not admitting that there are folks on the right who are explicitly anti-McCain). That could seriously cause problems.”
I think Ron Paul voters would be more apt to be McCain voters anyway, so I don’t see candidates stealing those votes from McCain. Actually I could see Ron Paul voters being more for Obama being more for Obama than McCain. Therefore, I think a Ron Paul type canidate may actually help McCain.
#13 I don’t know about your last remark. Isn’t Obama about as far away from a strict Constitutionalist as you can get, which is what Paul’s supporters seem to hang tightest to? Its just that their interpretation of that is to be an isolationist nation, therefore they align with Obama on the war. But, I think that’s about their only alignment.
Before everyone hits the panic button, it should be noted that Bob Barr is a social conservative (on abortion and other issues), and voted for the Iraq war resolution (which the Libertarian party opposed from the beginning), so Barr has his work cut out for them to convince the party to back him as the nominee. Yes, he would be able to attract more voters than the typical unbalanced fruitcake stoners the party usually throws against the wall, but the Libertarian Party has never been known for making compromises to further their agenda before and I really don’t see them starting now.
14, Yes, But both McCain and Obama are so far away from them on economic issues, that I don’t know that they would see much difference. Obama’s way closer to them on foreign policy, and probably about the same on Social issues, so in the end Obama comes out ahead. Even if I’m wrong and they split for McCain 50 - 50 the damage is equal. Alot of them are probably so far from both candidates they’re probably staying home or voting third party. So the 5% of Ron Paul voter are split three ways between Obama, McCain and staying home, that doesn’t leave many McCain voters for a Paul like candiate to steal.
The real danger would be if a reasonable three legged stool canidate ran, but I don’t see that as too likely. The only people that want to jeopardize their political career on a third party run are people for whatever reason could never get the presidency. This means they’re not too likely to be big vote grabbers.
#19, yes, some of you may remember at the time Mitt was dropping out, that he could have whispered in McCain ear that he is to either be VP or run third party. The only problem is that Mitt has too much integrity to do that kind of thing.
A genuinely competitive Libertarian Party would be a wonderful thing. The problem is that there is no way to get there from here without conceding a lot of elections to the Left. So a lot of us Libertarians or semi-Libertarians wind up voting Republican every election while the country continues to concentrate additional power within the single authority of the Federal Government.
I’m with you, Dave. I would like a credible libertarian party. But Duverger’s Law says that it will never happen, so the sensible thing for a pragmatic person of libertarian leanings to do is to vote for the party that is least offensive, which for me is generally (almost always) the Republicans, and work to make it less offensive. As part of a coalition party, however, a pragmatist also has to accept that compromise is necessary to make the coalition work.
20, Yeah I’d had speculated about Mitt Romney not backing out unless McCain gave him the VP spot. Romney may have been able destroy McCain, While it would have been very unlikely for him to have won the nomination, he could have done what Hillary is doing to the Democrats, only it would have been much worse because the Republicans naturally have a deeper ideological divide.
27, I’m all for personal freedom. People should be allowed to have their own slaves ( afterall if you don’t care enough to defend your freedom why should the government care) and everyone should be allowed to murder whoever they choose that way murder can be safe legal and rare.
27, I’m all for personal freedom. People should be allowed to have their own slaves ( afterall if you don’t care enough to defend your freedom why should the government care) and everyone should be allowed to murder whoever they choose that way murder can be safe legal and rare.
Do you even understand what libertarianism is?
Being allowed to do as you please so long as you don’t impose force upon another individual?
Of course pro-choicers don’t view at as murder. I don’t actually think you guys are pro legalized murder. But this goes both ways. I could say that you guys genuinely don’t get it too, as you accuse us of being anti personal liberty, that would indicate that you don’t get that we think its murder. I’m for all for a serious discussion, saying were against personal liberties isn’t didn’t indicate that you wanted one though.
Not everybody talks like lawyers. No its not first degree murder. Yes its killing of a human being and should be illegal. Like, all homocide cases there are mitigating facotors. A serious mitigating factor for Abortion would be the fact that culture doesn’t view it as wrong, therefore, women don’t see themselves as doing the great wrong that they are. Of course Rape is a huge mitigating factor, for obvious reasons.
The only sensible way to reach any consensus on this issue is not to talk about murder of zygotes or the right to abort a 9-month old baby.
It’s the classic gray area of human morality, and the only way consensus will ever be reached is about debating at what point during pregnancy, and/or set of circumstances is the point at which we draw the line.
Then the debate can be about 20 weeks vs 25 weeks vs 30 weeks.
39, I didn’t say it was okay, its still wrong. But yes if your existence was seriously damaging the life of your mother through no choice of her own, and through a tramatic experience she was less able to make a good decision - that should be considered as far as punishing her.
I have to leave, but someone should calculate how many abortions there are per family per generation, so we can know what percentage of Americans have been involved in an abortion, or someone in their immediate family has.
That would be a very high number. You’re not going to get anywhere by labeling most people and/or their loved ones as murderers. Can’t you see that?
Obviously that’s irrelevant as to whether or not it is homocide. There was a high percentage of slave holders in this country at one time too. As far as the pragmatic approach of using the word murder you might be right, but then how are the libertarians going to get anywhere by accusing all pro-life people of wanting to infringe on personal liberty? There’s charged language on both sides.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I think this has been public knowledge for about 6 weeks. Am I mistaken?
May 7th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Bob Barr is just an Obama stooge. No conservative in their right mind would help to elect Obama.
I didn’t like Bob Barr even when he was a Congressman. Something about him rubbed me the wrong way.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
GMM,
I hadn’t seen it posted, but I’ve been really out of it. I just came across it in today’s news on google.
Doug,
I’m not defending him, and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you (although I always appreciated Barr), but a lot of folks are really fed up with things. Calling them names doesn’t change things.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Not calling him a name. I’m describing what he is.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
The scary prospect would be if Barr united the Ron Paul voters during a general election, along with the anti-McCain folks (no point in not admitting that there are folks on the right who are explicitly anti-McCain). That could seriously cause problems.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Based on the ideology scale by Pew that Doug posted here, this comes as no surprise. Anyone to the right of 55 on a scale to 100 is without a candidate in this election unless they can stomach McCain. Barr will just be the first of many to try and fill that 55-100 hole.
The question becomes will these candidates be like Nader in 2000, or Nader in 2004? Or, perhaps like Perot in 1992?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Yawn. Wake me if/when the Libertarian Party gets close to 1% (hasn’t happened since 1980, I think). Bob Barr is a nobody — even most political junkies don’t recognize the name — and he’ll make as much of an impression as most Libertarians.
But he’ll probably finish ahead of Alan Keyes, who’s running on the Constitutional Party ticket.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
He announced this a long time ago.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Bob, Keyes lost that nomination.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
A lot can change between now and November. However, as it stands today, it looks as if Obama will be the nominee. His running mate will make a lot of difference I believe on how strong he is. The degree by which the Dems are able to mend their wounds will depend a lot on Hillary. If Hillary tries hard to get behind him, and bring her supporters on board, it will, unfortunately, take back a huge number of those that are currently polling for McCain if Obama is the nominee. If the number of Hillary supporters that refuse to vote for Obama reduces to single digits, we have a huge problem on our hands to beat him. In my view, the only possible chance we have to win is to satisfy the conservative end of our party. As has been pointed out above, there are many unhappy campers at this point, who want to vote Republican, but who will refuse to take another poke in the eye from McCain. Millions, I repeat, millions of conservatives will vote for a third party candidate like Barr just to make sure that the party will never again treat them as though they are no longer needed.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Newt Gingrich said essentially the same thing about two hours ago on Fox news. He thinks the Republicans are in trouble unless McCain nominates a conservative VP, and begins to act like a conservative Repubican on the campaign trail.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Gotta say I’m with Illinoisguy on this one.
Nicely said, except for the fact I have no idea who Barr is.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
“The scary prospect would be if Barr united the Ron Paul voters during a general election, along with the anti-McCain folks (no point in not admitting that there are folks on the right who are explicitly anti-McCain). That could seriously cause problems.”
I think Ron Paul voters would be more apt to be McCain voters anyway, so I don’t see candidates stealing those votes from McCain. Actually I could see Ron Paul voters being more for Obama being more for Obama than McCain. Therefore, I think a Ron Paul type canidate may actually help McCain.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
#13 I don’t know about your last remark. Isn’t Obama about as far away from a strict Constitutionalist as you can get, which is what Paul’s supporters seem to hang tightest to? Its just that their interpretation of that is to be an isolationist nation, therefore they align with Obama on the war. But, I think that’s about their only alignment.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
My immediate reaction is “who’s Bob Barr?”
I suspect most others will feel the same.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Before everyone hits the panic button, it should be noted that Bob Barr is a social conservative (on abortion and other issues), and voted for the Iraq war resolution (which the Libertarian party opposed from the beginning), so Barr has his work cut out for them to convince the party to back him as the nominee. Yes, he would be able to attract more voters than the typical unbalanced fruitcake stoners the party usually throws against the wall, but the Libertarian Party has never been known for making compromises to further their agenda before and I really don’t see them starting now.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Does it matter?
May 7th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
14, Yes, But both McCain and Obama are so far away from them on economic issues, that I don’t know that they would see much difference. Obama’s way closer to them on foreign policy, and probably about the same on Social issues, so in the end Obama comes out ahead. Even if I’m wrong and they split for McCain 50 - 50 the damage is equal. Alot of them are probably so far from both candidates they’re probably staying home or voting third party. So the 5% of Ron Paul voter are split three ways between Obama, McCain and staying home, that doesn’t leave many McCain voters for a Paul like candiate to steal.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
The real danger would be if a reasonable three legged stool canidate ran, but I don’t see that as too likely. The only people that want to jeopardize their political career on a third party run are people for whatever reason could never get the presidency. This means they’re not too likely to be big vote grabbers.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
#19, yes, some of you may remember at the time Mitt was dropping out, that he could have whispered in McCain ear that he is to either be VP or run third party. The only problem is that Mitt has too much integrity to do that kind of thing.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
old news
May 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
> “Bob, Keyes lost that nomination.”
Did the Constitution Party manage to find somebody even nuttier?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
A genuinely competitive Libertarian Party would be a wonderful thing. The problem is that there is no way to get there from here without conceding a lot of elections to the Left. So a lot of us Libertarians or semi-Libertarians wind up voting Republican every election while the country continues to concentrate additional power within the single authority of the Federal Government.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I’m with you, Dave. I would like a credible libertarian party. But Duverger’s Law says that it will never happen, so the sensible thing for a pragmatic person of libertarian leanings to do is to vote for the party that is least offensive, which for me is generally (almost always) the Republicans, and work to make it less offensive. As part of a coalition party, however, a pragmatist also has to accept that compromise is necessary to make the coalition work.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I’m looking into Barr. If he’s more conservative than McCain and not pushing amnesty, I’m all over it.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I consider libertarianism (at least the pro-abortion kind) nearly as dangerous as liberalism.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I consider libertarianism (at least the pro-abortion kind) nearly as dangerous as liberalism.
Wouldn’t want to go letting people have personal freedom, now!
May 7th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
20, Yeah I’d had speculated about Mitt Romney not backing out unless McCain gave him the VP spot. Romney may have been able destroy McCain, While it would have been very unlikely for him to have won the nomination, he could have done what Hillary is doing to the Democrats, only it would have been much worse because the Republicans naturally have a deeper ideological divide.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
27, I’m all for personal freedom. People should be allowed to have their own slaves ( afterall if you don’t care enough to defend your freedom why should the government care) and everyone should be allowed to murder whoever they choose that way murder can be safe legal and rare.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
27, I’m all for personal freedom. People should be allowed to have their own slaves ( afterall if you don’t care enough to defend your freedom why should the government care) and everyone should be allowed to murder whoever they choose that way murder can be safe legal and rare.
Do you even understand what libertarianism is?
Being allowed to do as you please so long as you don’t impose force upon another individual?
May 7th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
30, Of course. Problem is killing people is imposing force. Get it?
May 7th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
…Um, yes. So why exactly is that an argument against libertarianism?
May 7th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
It’s an arguement against pro-choice libertarianism.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Why are so many pro-lifers unable to have serious discourse about the issue?
You genuinely are confused as to what pro-choicers think about abortion.
It’s just flat-out murder to you guys. Do you consider, ever, that pro-choicers don’t view it as murder?
May 7th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
It’s not even murder to them, since they leave an exception for incest and rape, and refuse to prosecute mothers for premeditated murder.
They just like throwing verbal bombs (and sometimes real ones).
Some day, some of them may grow up.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Of course pro-choicers don’t view at as murder. I don’t actually think you guys are pro legalized murder. But this goes both ways. I could say that you guys genuinely don’t get it too, as you accuse us of being anti personal liberty, that would indicate that you don’t get that we think its murder. I’m for all for a serious discussion, saying were against personal liberties isn’t didn’t indicate that you wanted one though.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Right — if it’s murder, why not prosecute the women and the abortionists?
Honestly, now.
Is it first-degree murder or is it not?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Not everybody talks like lawyers. No its not first degree murder. Yes its killing of a human being and should be illegal. Like, all homocide cases there are mitigating facotors. A serious mitigating factor for Abortion would be the fact that culture doesn’t view it as wrong, therefore, women don’t see themselves as doing the great wrong that they are. Of course Rape is a huge mitigating factor, for obvious reasons.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Obvious reasons? It’s OK to kill me if my dad was a rapist?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
The only sensible way to reach any consensus on this issue is not to talk about murder of zygotes or the right to abort a 9-month old baby.
It’s the classic gray area of human morality, and the only way consensus will ever be reached is about debating at what point during pregnancy, and/or set of circumstances is the point at which we draw the line.
Then the debate can be about 20 weeks vs 25 weeks vs 30 weeks.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
39, I didn’t say it was okay, its still wrong. But yes if your existence was seriously damaging the life of your mother through no choice of her own, and through a tramatic experience she was less able to make a good decision - that should be considered as far as punishing her.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
39, I don’t believe there will ever be consensus on the issue.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I have to leave, but someone should calculate how many abortions there are per family per generation, so we can know what percentage of Americans have been involved in an abortion, or someone in their immediate family has.
That would be a very high number. You’re not going to get anywhere by labeling most people and/or their loved ones as murderers. Can’t you see that?
May 7th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Obviously that’s irrelevant as to whether or not it is homocide. There was a high percentage of slave holders in this country at one time too. As far as the pragmatic approach of using the word murder you might be right, but then how are the libertarians going to get anywhere by accusing all pro-life people of wanting to infringe on personal liberty? There’s charged language on both sides.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Fabulous, the old “everyone’s doing it, so it must be okay” argument comes out.