The Barr campaign began their post-nomination media blitz with a trio of press releases today. The first has Barr taking a hard line on “national defense,” and criticizing John McCain for talking about nuclear-arms reduction and diplomacy with Russia.
Even Sen. McCain, in his recent speech on nuclear disarmament, called for negotiations with Russia, despite that government’s turn to authoritarianism. “By his own reasoning, shouldn’t that be considered appeasement,†asked Barr.
Barr calls for “negotiating from a position of strength” and a foreign policy “that defends America instead of everyone else.” The full release can be read here.
In another press release, sure to be less controversial among Libertarians, Barr defends the rights of homeschoolers.
And in the third release, he once again takes on Mike Huckabee, who has called libertarianism “un-American” and “callous economic conservatism.” Barr responds:
I am reminded of then-Governor Ronald Reagan saying “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” and that “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” The problem we face isn’t too much libertarianism, but not enough of it.
The full text of the third press release can be read by clicking here.
Rat tooth HickAbilly is at it again.
Will someone tell him to return to his cabin in the Ozarks, the race is over you LOST ?! And btw your CFR handlers don’t need you for VP at this time. PLEASE go AWAY…
No G. E.
Reagan called Russia the Evil Empire. Still, he and his negotiated, with a hard driving Gorbachev, at the same time.
Nothing wrong with talking. Far preferable to war.
It worked (please don’t consider this my endorsment of Reagan’s foreign policy).
Kennedy talked to EVERYONE and let EVERYONE know all we wanted to do was negotiate, OR ELSE (if you read the transcripts, and some of the oral history tapes are online too, you’ll see they were concerned globally, not with Cuba, but with Berlin). Kennedy brought in just about EVERYONE, private sector, long fired diplomats, nearly everyone BUT established, official power brokers, and he found a way to communicate more or less directly with Kruchev and with Kruchev’s committee people.
It’s best to walk softly and carry a Big Stick.
That doesn’t mean you use it offensively, no way. But it’s best to have that Big Stick if’n you need it.
Barr had no harsh words for Russia, aside from saying that country exists under an authoritarian rule, and I don’t know why you don’t recognize the truth of that.
I did not say you endorse GWB’s policies, I said you endorse his “axis of evil” rhetoric. You endorse Barr’s harsh words for Russia, so what’s the difference? What do harsh words hypocritically spoken by our political leaders get us? Nothing but ill will. That’s my point.
Go Barr! LOL
Never thought I’d say that, but gotta give it a try, just to see how it sounds LOL
No G.E.
I am not endorsing any GWB policies.
I happen to like the idea of having an effective defense.
When you accuse me of endorsing GWB…you prove my point.
The “radicals” in the LP (I use your term, the one bandied about at your last club meeting in Denver) you accuse your own church choir.
Do you need any more explanation as to why your “campaigning” for this or that person doesn’t work?
Why insult your base? Especially since, and quite demonstrably, I am one of the absolute most certain members of that VERY SMALL base.
And have been for nearly 3 decades now.
Russia’s “drift toward authoritarianism” is not a threat to me. What’s a threat to me is anti-Russian rhetoric used to restart the Cold War. “Negotiating from a position of strength” = code words for military build up.
I’m not asking for presidents and Congress to “know nothing,” I’m asking them to speak humbly. The audacity of an American political official — one who voted for the rape and murder of Iraqis — to criticize the internal politics of Russia is staggering.
You are endorsing the “axis of evil” rhetoric of GWB.
Words /= intervention, but they are the building blocks of future invasion.
The internal affairs of ALL nations certainly ARE our business…do you expect you can care or know nothing of what is going on around you and expect to be safe?
Can a President or any member of congress know NOTHING about a foreign nation and vote responsibly?
This is the kind of lingo which is twisted, wrong, and tells EVERY responsible American voter that Libertarians should not be listened to about ANYTHING.
I am a non-interventionist. So is any intelligent American. However, that doesn’t mean we say we don’t care and don’t want to know what is happening in other nations.
Barr news release on the subject has expressly stated, and perhaps in more detail than what Ron Paul was able to get across in debates and news interviews on this subject, that our nation should not interfere…NO LOGICAL PERSON suggests that we shouldn’t give a hoot what is going on in other nations.
COME ON.
G.E.,
Come on.
That’s why you so-called Radicals lose. I am a radical Libertarian…Murray was a namby pamby to me. I’ve helped put and personally have put Libertarians on ballots all around the country beginning in 1984. I even put the schmuck Harry Browne on the ballot despite the fact that I had respect for almost NONE of his staff.
Your voter turn-off comments are why decent radicals, like myself, don’t want anything to do with those who speak and don’t think…and that includes some of the people who lost to Barr.
Voters, including this one, DO NOT want a President who doesn’t realize that our nation is in peril, ALWAYS.
We want a president who will bring our troops home. We want congresscritters who will see to it that no Bush can override their duty to require a declaration of war before our troops are committed.
Most of all, we want a smart person as President.
Again, I do not consider Barr my dream candidate. But, I am a Libertarian…NOTHING in Barr’s release on the subject was non-libertarian.
NOTHING. You are making it up.
This is nonsense.
Barr is saying that if we accept McCain’s logic, then McCain is precisely the thing that he’s criticising. He’s proving the absurdity of McCain’s claim that discussion with other nations amounts to appeasement, not saying that McCain ought to be radically consistent with his stupid notion of ‘appeasement’.
The guy has lived in Iran, and is, as he endeavoured to point out during a breakfast meeting on his recent visit to the UK, much more familiar with the cultural and religious differences between nations in the middle east than his rivals. He discussed how fanatical anti-Muslim sentiment had seeped through certain political parties and was expressing itself in irrational interventionism. In the press release, he explicitly spells out that he wants an end to nation-building, an end to troops redundantly located throughout the world, an end to third world aid and a refocusing of US policy on *defence*. How anybody can read this as a sign of belligerence is beyond my comprehension.
His criticism of Russia is also accurate; whilst a libertarian shouldn’t advocate military intervention, this doesn’t mean you have to be an insular nationalist, concerned only with the affairs inside the borders of your own country. If anything, the libertarian should recognise the absurdity of ‘national’ borders and be personally as concerned with abuses of liberty ‘abroad’ as those that occur at home (whilst recognising the freedom of others not to value those ends, and so not to contribute in the advancement of liberty elsewhere): otherwise, you have to defend the proposition that one ought only to argue for the liberty of Americans, which seems rather to contradict the idea that “all men are created equal” &c. Hence, Barr’s personal view of Russia is spot on; it is an extremely authoritarian state, which, as we have seen, is willing to kill dissident journalists and to poison foreign dissenters. Nonetheless, Barr is absolutely explicit: he wants a foreign policy “focused on protecting the core interests of the United States and the American people,” not the Russians or the Iranians.
No. The internal affairs of other nations are NOT our business. The press release says McCain is calling for negotiations “despite…” as if negotiations should be premised on a country’s behavior.
I believe in free trade with all nations and allowing them to conduct their affairs as they see fit. The idea that the U.S. — the most morally corrupt of all — should be commenting on the affairs of other nations is the very definition of hubris.
No, G.E., not “good enough”.
Barr’s news release clearly states there is nothing wrong with talking.
The criticism of Obama and McCain is related to their support of one form of interventionism or another and, most importantly, it injects into the campaign the first strong non-interventionist statement by a ballot qualified presidential candidate.
It does so at a very opportune time as Obama and McCain have been carrying on a ridiculously malframed argument about who we should talk to and when we should talk all the while completely avoiding the fact that we have troops in well over 100 nations around the world.
The release clearly is anti-interventionist.
It IS our business when and where authoritarianism exists. We can and should be non-interventionist AND highly critical of authoritarianism.
The best criticism of authoritarianism is our being a good example of a non-interventionist nation.
And Barr is the only ballot qualified presidential candidate calling for this.
That’s exactly what I want a Libertarian nominee to do.
I just don’t agree. If you read the press release, he seems to be saying that Obama is wrong to want to talk to Iran and McCain is wrong to want to talk with Russia. I find that “controversial.” I also think he shut STFU about Russia’s “drift towards authoritarianism” — it’s none of his or our business. I’m the only libertarian to be troubled by criticism of Russia? I guess you don’t read LRC.
How about this: Bob Barr’s press release on foreign policy was entirely libertarian and consistent with Ron Paulism EXCEPT for the parts I highlighted, and I highlighted, and I highlighted them not to be a dick, but because I felt they were the most interesting.
Good enough?
With the possible exception of you G.E., I know of no libertarian (big or small l) who is bothered by criticism of Russia.
Exactly how do you come up with the phrasing “shoutdown of Russia”?
Where do you see “non-commitment to diplomacy with Iran”?
You seem to be reaching to be critical of Barr.
Iran is not specifically mentioned. Is that what bothered you? The release clearly refers to all nations (thus, it is inclusive of Iran), and specifically states there is nothing wrong in and of itself with talking.
Again, there is absolutely nothing in it which conflicts with any previous version of the Libertarian Party platform and absolutely nothing in it which anyone logically could construe as non-libertarian or pro-interventionist.
If either Ruwart or Kubby were to criticize Barr for this release I’d be surprised, and I’d find it objectionable.
Finally, you didn’t “point out” and “controversial” parts. You invented controversy where it does not exist.
Yes, I think the Barr press release would be somewhat “controversial” based on his shout down of Russia, his non-commitment to diplomacy with Iran, and seemingly negative thoughts on nuclear disarmament. The rest of the press release is pretty good. I pointed out the controversial parts because they’re the most interesting. Oh, and I think Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby and even Ron Paul would strike a MUCH different tone.
What does this mean?
“In another press release, sure to be less controversial among Libertarians, Barr defends the rights of homeschoolers.”
Coming right after your “hardline” definition of Barr’s foreign policy it certainly implies if not explicitly states that libertarians will find Barr’s foreign policy press release objectionable.
BTW, absolutely nothing in that press release is different than Ruwart or Kubby positions either.
LOL
I don’t think I worded it that way at all.
Why would Barr’s 1st position be at all controversial among libertarians?
The position he takes here is entirely consistent with the position taken by Ron Paul and is entirely consistent with the Libertarian Party platforms past and present.
I think you ought to reread the press release. The way you worded your article, you make it sound like Barr is taking some kind of interventionist approach.