Says Nick Bradley of LRC:
He’s double-booked with NeoCon Salman Rushdie that night, and Pat Buchanan is on the following night. Hopefully, Barr can reach out to Colbert’s Paulite-heavy audience.
Does anybody think that Mary would be going on Colbert if she won? In my opinion, it was precisely his ability to get media exposure (the media loves to trot out disgruntled republicans) that pushed him past the far more libertarian Ruwart.
GE – don’t forget Gravel stopping the subsidizing of new nuclear plants! And he stopped nuclear testing in the north Pacific.
But what’s done is done. Now us Gravel supporters are just working to spread the word about the National Initiative. I believe an Ni4D caucus is starting up in the Libertarian party. If you’re interested, head on over to http://www.gravel2008.us/forum
Can I get a Cliff’s Notes version of JPS’s posts?
Kubby too, only Kubby just takes it right from the till, the others are a bit more sophisticated.
Oh, and I personally ran two state ballot drives for Harry in 1996 (despite despising him and the people around him PLUS all of National).
I also ran partial state efforts in 3 other states. The two I ran got on and the other states all got on.
I did those all for a song or nothing, closer to nothing.
Harry kept on chugging, kept on making the bucks. THAT is what it was about.
Learn THAT, and you’ll know something of the history of the LP.
Ruwart is ONE of those.
Let me tell you someday how I consider Harry “the original con man of libertarianism” the first sign that the LP was in trouble.
Hell, someone has to know of that man’s actual past. It’s not like he ever actually did anything politically. The slob never registered to vote before he ran for president.
Kinda like some of our recent bunch of candidates.
When your time in the LP is long enough, you get to know some people even if you don’t hang with em.
Harry Browne did more to loot our party, more to destroy our party, more to install the current “regime” than anyone.
THAT is what Harry Browne did more of….oh, and of course, he made money too.
We tangled, but I’m glad to have you posting here John P. Thanks for your contributions.
Having stamina is one way to win elections. Try and spend your time with candidates who have that, you’ll be happier and you and I might find ourselves on the same team, instead of arguing the rather slim merits of the types of people we’ve been discussing (EVERY Libertarian presidential candidate from 2008) 🙂
Okay, I give in, JPS. You have more stamina than me. You win.
Wrong again G.E.
Vietnam was LONG over by the time Barr got into congress. LOL.
I am the person who RAN Gravel’s National Ballot Initiative in what was and remains (to the best of my knowledge) the ONE state where it was circulated to get on the ballot—MO, in 1994, if memory serves.
(btw, it was a piece of statist junk…with some good thought in general behind it, and totally unconstitutional both in MO and in the nation as a whole). Oh, and we completed that one for him and his nutty crew.
I too have respect for Mike Gravel’s opposition to the Vietnam War and for all he did to help end it…and indeed he was one of the few in elective office who made a difference.
Gravel had a track record, yes, but I omitted him because the actual thought of my party nominating Mike Gravel NEVER has occurred to me.
I am so, so, so very sorry that people calling themselves actual radical Libertarians ever could consider pulling THE lever for Mike Gravel.
I respect him. I’ve personally worked on his major issue (again, the ONLY time, I think, it ever was a state ballot issue, I did the drive).
I do campaigns professionally. I do less of the petition stuff nowadays and more of the direct voter contact as it relates to getting votes.
I NEVER would support a Gravel because of philosophies…mine vs. his.
I’ll help to put ANYONE on the ballot but it doesn’t mean I’d vote for ’em. That’s because I am a ballot access guy…and I’m damn good at it. Most of us who came from the LP’s early days are…we had to be, we learned to do it WITHOUT any real money.
That’s why it amazes me to watch these continually STUPID and BORING LP conventions.
NO sense of marketing. Free nationwide coverage on CSPAN, and someone like Bill Redpath actually looks like the intelligent and responsible person in the room?
COME ON!
No excitement, no research to discover what people want to know…That’s the ticket. That’s how you do things. TELL people what is good for them, TELL them what they must know, never ask! hehe
Unless and until Libertarians learn something about meeting and greeting voters, well, there is no hope for the LP.
It’s no to be found in magic like Ron Paul ran into (did you notice, Ron Paul had NO CLUE what to do when the “phenomenon” happened. He NEVER had a chance cause he NEVER had been in that position before. People actually were listening to him, and, STUPIDLY, he KEPT people like Lew “let my denounce EVERYONE” Rockwell around him.
MY GOD. The LP is like that. Dysfunctional in the extreme.
It could have been different today. Denver could have made a difference. Why the LP’s “intelligent” delegates fired Moulton, well, I do not know (just seemed to me he was one of the only honest people the LNC has seen in more than two decades—I say that as someone who has had to deal with that bunch).
Why the convention delegates couldn’t see that Hancock and Bennet HAD to get together, well, maybe they just don’t like one another. But my god, when Hancock was dropped, why did so many “intelligent” delegates go to Redpath?
Some people want power. Usually, you can tell cause they are the people who want a title. Now, that is MOST Libertarian delegates.
They are not there to do anything good, it’s a game to them.
When the public sees this they say “what yokels”. The falseness of the people shines thru.
EVERYONE sees that…everyone except another deluded LP “activist”.
I think you understand my point about Ruwart and Kubby not having a track record.
Gravel MIGHT have had a chance if he’d not taken his first chance to speak to delegates to explain to them the merits of public education.
LOL.
That shouldn’t need explaining.
Hell, again, I didn’t want Barr, I didn’t even feel good when he got it. I woulda felt a WHOLE lot worse if DO NOTHINGS like Kubby or Ruwart got it.
That doesn’t mean I respect or admire Jingozian or Root. I don’t know either and don’t believe in either.
I simply have decided to roll the dice with Barr and will continue on that belief until he does something which tells me I can’t support him.
Then, I’ll keep looking at the down ticket races for those Libertarians who want to win and I’ll do my best to help ’em…as a pro and as a volunteer.
It’s just become very, very clear that the LP is a waste of time and effort UNLESS you ignore EVERYONE with a title and ACTIVELY fight against any idiot state chair (not all state chairs are idiots, just more than 40 of them for sure) and every other official LP title.
It is THAT simple.
I’m sorry. I kind of thought that former Senator Mike Gravel also had a track record. And unlike Bob Barr, Gravel had actually done some libertarian things while in office — i.e. single-handedly stop the draft, release the Pentagon Papers, work to end the travesty in Vietnam (for which you can bet Barr was a cheerleader).
Bob Barr will not win the presidency and him getting a bunch of votes by appealing to disgruntled conservatives will do nothing for liberty, at least not in a positive sense.
Mary Ruwart is the most effective communicator of libertarian ideas alive today. By making her our nominee, we would have spread the ideas of true libertarianism to a greater degree than we ever have before. I know a lot of people who came to libertarianism through Harry Browne. He was a great communicator. But he was no Mary Ruwart. And Bob Barr is no Harry Browne, not even by a longshot.
I hope Bob Barr does well. But he will not carry the libertarian gospel like Ruwart would have, because it is not something he believes in to begin with.
No.
Mary Ruwart DOES NOT and NEVER HAS spoken to voters.
That is THE POINT.
Campaigns consist of two general areas of expertise, broken down into countless subsections.
The two main areas of EVERY campaign are Voter ID and Get Out The Vote (GOTV).
Ruwart doesn’t do this, never has, and same can be said for ALMOST if not all of her “supporters”.
You plot a campaign by identifying your supporters (and, to the extent possible, your possible supporters and your opponents); then, you get your likely supporters to the polls.
EVERYTHING else flows from these two concepts.
Unless, of course, you are a Libertarian. Then, well, you make sure you have purchased the latest L Neil Smith book, you reread Ayn Rand’s books (or pretend to) etc. You do ANYTHING BUT actually get out and meet voters.
You whine and moan about how much money the other guy has instead of concentrating on the LP’s greatest strength. The Ron Paul phenomenon showed all what it is…and there are many, many prior examples.
Ron Paul got support from the masses. Independently of his campaign. Most dollars raised were independent of his campaign.
Why? Because he got a libertarian view to the masses. (obviously, he had help, he was in nationally televised debates).
Libertarians don’t do the obvious…AND they WILL NOT WIN until they do the obvious. The obvious is that since all of our candidates start out on roughly the same page, all of our candidates should approach voters for the purpose of doing Voter ID and GOTV.
At least half of our campaign districts overlap with another Libertarian running for other office.
Even a low budget campaign, even a low budget state and county party system eventually can build a reliable database of ALL voters in their area, EXTENSIVELY cross-indexed for purposes of VOTER ID and GOTV.
THAT IS THE ART of politics. Actually, it’s more hard work than art. Libertarians, instead, probably will spend the next four years debating whether to try and invite Neal Boortz to our next convention, or to invite Jon Stewart.
What nonsense. Get out their and press some flesh. Meet and greet some voters. THAT is how campaigns are won.
Remember George from Seinfeld…he finally decided to do the opposite of what he’d always done, and he got great results.
Libertarians need to do the opposite of what they always have done.
NO MORE science fiction tables at conventions. How is that for starters? No more talk about colonizing space. No more “press secretaries” dressed as a fictional character from a movie.
Just good old fashioned RETAIL politics.
ALL politics is local. Really, it is, and it IS cheap. It just takes ALOT of work.
That’s why Libertarians do so badly at election time.
They DO NOT actually campaign.
Barr was the ONLY presidential aspirant with a track record…AND, his particular track record at getting votes from the electorate (as opposed to preaching to Ruwart’s choir) FAR exceeds the acumen of ANY previous Libertarian presidential nominee.
His guides to the LP, the longer term LPer’s you saw at his side, have NO actual campaign experience (though some have listed it on resumes, blogged about it, etc—-all bs…those former and current HQ staffers…what jokes).
Still, Barr, using such inferior help, stomped all his opposition. Stomped them GOOD. They blew up REAL GOOD! LOL
Cause, well, who in their right mind would want to get behind a Mary Ruwart (let alone a Kubby) presidential run?
That’s nothing personal against Mary Ruwart, just an observation from someone who doesn’t know her personally and only once met her in passing.
How is spreading the message of liberty not “work”? What is the f-ing point of the Libertarian Party? My belief is that it is to spread the message of liberty. What does this have to do with “going to meetings”? Who’s talking about “going to meetings”? Only you. Mary Ruwart is a spokesperson for liberty. That is the real WORK of libertarians.
If Ruwart “converted” thousands, too bad she didn’t keep a Rolodex and turn out a small percentage of those to beat Barr.
Fact is, HOGWASH. Ruwart talks, some do. Plain and simple.
It’s not all that impossible to beat the D’s and R’s, but we sure gotta actually try.
Some go to meetings…some work.
Mary Ruwart converted me to libertarianism. That’s what she’s done. I’m one of several thousand who can probably say that.
Bob Barr’s efforts put thousands more in jail for victimless crimes.
I’ll take Mary’s record.
Ok, what exactly was it Ruwart did…AT ANY TIME.
I’m gonna leave it open-ended here.
I’ve done maybe a few dozen states in past yeasrs (since 1984) putting LP candidates on the ballot all over the friggin country. Some states multiple times. Never met Ruwart except at convention in ’96 (and I ONLY was there because the party owed me money and I had to go there to get it so I could get on to running their next state’s ballot access—WHO in their right mind thinks attending meetings is politics?).
See, that is your problem. You think the art of politics is attending meetings, holding conventions, etc.
I do direct voter contact campaigns. There aer SOME Libertarians who can claim actually to have campaigned when they “ran” but the sad and awful truth is, MOST Libertarian campaigns are not campaigns at all.
Ruwart is an example. Same with Kubby. I’ve said what I think about the rest (those Barr opponents who never have run).
So, tell me, what exactly is it that Ruwart has DONE?
“Little effort.” “They beat you bad, LOL.”
You are exposing yourself here.
Nobody beat my candidate “bad, LOL.” It took SIX BALLOTs. “Little effort?” Were you there? It took a tremendous effort to defeat Mary Ruwart.
It’s easy for people who weren’t in Denver to talk trash. I don’t think a single Barr person would say it took “little effort” or that they beat the competition “badly.”
I didn’t have “candidates,” but one candidate. And she’s done almost as much for liberty as Bob Barr has done to destroy it. But not quite that much.
G.E.,
You wrote: “Barr…needed to run a much better campaign in order to barely beat a candidate with a fraction of the resources. And he would not have been able to pull that off if not for the smear people within his organization and LPHQ orchestrated. You say I need to “move on,†but you keep bating me!”
Not baiting you G.E. I am asking you to consider why your candidates could be taken, almost with NO effort.
It’s not like Barr was surrounded by genius…at least half the so and so’s I saw who supported Barr have NO track record AT ALL in actual campaigns, unless you count LOSER LP campaigns and have inflated resumes to boot (consider the LP staff, current and former, who appeared for Barr…what do nothings).
Still, they beat you, and they beat you bad. LOL.
Just asking you to consider the facts. Barr’s campaign had all of a few weeks to get going.
Phillies, Kubby, Jingozian, Root, and Smith ran for well over one year…they did, collectively, about squat.
Now, taking away Jingozian and Root from that bunch, and you are left with Phillies, Smith and Kubby.
Kubby DID NOT campaign. Phillies tried, spent alot of personal money, but if anything did less than expected as he’d already repeatedly lost his campaigns for National Chair.
Ruwart was working for Ron Paul instead of running (I have no clue what she did on behalf of Paul, nor how many man hours that represents). I take her at her word that she worked for Ron Paul.
Man hours are the point. Really, in LESS than two weeks, Barr’s people moved in and moved your candidates OUT.
Now, you might call that a take-over. I consider it MORE like just desserts.
MOST non-Barr people at that convention DO NOTHING. EVER.
Except go to conventions.
To all those who do, I say, I don’t include you.
I don’t want to besmirch any actual hard working activists. But, the Barr opponents ARE NOT among those I would call hard-working (except for Phillies, who simply never had a chance).
However, the LP’s convention attendance was pitiful. ANY one decent, hard working candidate with ANY concept of what they were doing could have got a few hundred more people to convention…AND, if they had, Barr never would have run.
Tip for the future. When a guy “runs” for Governor of California and does ALMOST NOTHING in that “run” (Kubby); when a lady has run for office before and got almost no votes (Ruwart); when a guy has run for National office many times and been whipped (not just beat, but whipped)—Phillies; and, when a lady never before has been a Libertarian Party member OR even registrant, Smith…WHY, OH WHY, is the next step seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination?
I saw George Phillies website and I watched the convention. George promised to give us the Libertarian campaign we’ve always wanted. Except, well, no one ever thought to challenge George on why, if he knew how to do this, he never actually could get even 10 Phillies supporters to attend ANY one state convention (aside from any Phillies supporters who were going to be there anyway).
Kubby couldn’t even go to conventions.
Smith, well, what a joke, no reason even to consider her EXCEPT for the fact that some Libertarian “activists” thought she was cool.
Ruwart…let me ask this clearly, WHAT is her experience? What ONE campaign has she added to (her own were disasters).
Point is, when all is said and one, ONLY Bob Barr even had a logical argument for anyone who is a responsible delegate.
Barr had a track record of getting votes.
The others, well, ALL of them, in one way or another, spelled disaster. Not ONE of them rose above the level of being a JOKE (Phillies actually spent a good deal of personal money, and I don’t want to slight that…too bad he didn’t spend it on getting delegates to convention).
The LP long has been a book club (mastubatory club) for the same few nitwits who Don’t actively campaign. Those seeking the nomination appeal to the same bunch of DO NOTHING people.
If you want it to be better, STOP electing the twits who routinely have held office on the LNC and who ROUTINELY become delegates.
STOP IT!
Most of all, stop whining about the fact that Barr’s people took you down in a couple weeks and ask yourself why he was able to do so.
Coulda been David Duke moving in on you…would you be ok with that?
Colbert will undoubtedly take jabs at Barr’s Kerry/Romney-like flip-flopping.
Barr isn’t a stone cold as some people claim he is, but humor isn’t his strong suit. He’ll be affable, but I predict he sticks to rather serious answers all the time except for maybe a really obvious joke or two.
“Is that the whole piece?”
Yes.
“I hope he knows what he’s getting into”
I would think so. He’s done a lot of TV, and whatever else you might say about his campaign team, their experience is nothing to laugh at.
I haven’t seen the whole Borat movie, just the Barr segment that is floating around on the web. Is that the whole piece? It starts right at the cheese offer and ends at the gulp? If so, Barr seems to handle it as well as can be expected.
I wonder, though, if he’s ready for Colbert. Barr has an awful lot of weak spots for someone like Colbert to needle him on. I hope he knows what he’s getting into.
Maybe he chose Barr to poke fun at because of his political views, but their wasn’t really anything political about the mockery itself.
JSP – By the way, Barr ran a better campaign than we did. He’s a professional. But he needed to run a much better campaign in order to barely beat a candidate with a fraction of the resources. And he would not have been able to pull that off if not for the smear people within his organization and LPHQ orchestrated. You say I need to “move on,” but you keep bating me!
Maybe you’re right. My impression at the time, and judging from the Ali G Show, too, was that right-wing extremists were sought out. Alan Keyes is the other guy who appears in the movie.
I think Barr handled himself fine in the Borat interview. What exactly was he supposed to do? Get all pissed and throw him out?
And I also doubt that Cohen was making a statement on Barr’s political views. The only reference to them are that he’s a “former ruling party official” or something to that effect.
G.E., LOL, you might want to follow my completely unbiased, thoroughly objective and always correct example.
JPS – I don’t think the “three press releases” article was slanted, but I will take note and try to do better in the future. As for my comments, of course they are “biased” — they are my opinion!
Yes G.E., I had confused your biased comments here with your authorship of the slanted article you recently posted “Barr campaign issues three press releases”.
There comes a time when you have to forget the campaign which has ended and deal with the campaigns which are happening and which are to come.
You might start this next round by finding a good libertarian candidate who actually can get votes. The people you backed for presidency and for Veep have embarrassingly bad records as vote getters and as for manpower spent during campaigns, well, their campaigns have been, in comparison to Barr’s, nearly non-existent.
That’s why Barr beat you.
Journalism is for the articles. My opinion shows up in the comments. Where is partisanship posing as journalism? I don’t think my comments are intended to be confused with journalism.
Barr wrote DOMA. I’d say that puts his record up there as “one of the worst.” Maybe there are hundreds worse than him, but there have been thousands to serve. He was also one of the most aggressive drug warriors ever.
“Barr…had established a record as one of the most illiberal, anti-libertarian congressional thugs in the history of the United States.”
Oh come on!
Your candidate(s) lost. Nothing wrong with partisanship, and I probably agree with most of your views on issues, but partisanship should not pose as journalism.
That is, unless you can defend your statement that Barr is one of the worst house members in history. That is absurd.
So the LP compromised on their principles in order to get their candidate on the Colbert Report? This is why I don’t like party politics.
He was mocked by Borat. Borat sought him out not because Barr was seen as a great defender of liberty, but because he had established a record as one of the most illiberal, anti-libertarian congressional thugs in the history of the United States.
And that’s why Colbert is having him on, too.
That slow protracted “gulp!” was priceless… how he managed to hold that down without gagging or visibly freaking out at all is beyond me.
Why does everyone think Barr did poorly on Borat? The man sat there, kept his cool, and ate the cheese. How is that not a demonstration of composure?
Nick Bradley’s right. The “far more libertarian” Ruwart wouldn’t have been on Colbert. Now let’s see if the implicitly “far less libertarian” Barr can do better on Colbert than he did with Borat.
Yeah, I don’t get the Salman Rushdie thing at all. I thought he was just a guy who wrote a controversial novel and went to live in Bono’s guest house for awhile.
The Mary reference was unnecessary (don’t be a sore winner). Probably correct, but unnecessary. They’ll be time for that at the next nominating convention, but right now you’re just throwing salt into wounds that are still fresh.
Looking forward to seeing how Colbert and/or John Stewart end up treating Barr. Bob is often portrayed as sour, he doesn’t really get credit for the sense of humor he shows in small group settings.
I don’t know if Rushdie is a neocon or not. I do know that he’s an amazing author. And if that isn’t an amazing stretch of three guests, then I don’t know what is.