Snubgate goes mainstream: WaPo says Barr went ‘hog wild’

Acting without just authority, interim Executive Director of the Libertarian Party Robert Kraus — who replaced the disgraced and resigned Shane Cory (who now works for the Barr campaign) — issued a statement saying that libertarians should not trust blogs for their news. He was unhappy with the way IPR, Last Free Voice, and LewRockwell.com were covering Snubgate. Well now, the LP can add the mainstream “respectable” media to its black list, as the Washington Post has characterized Barr as going “hog wild” and said that “there’s no putting lipstick on this pig” known as Snubgate.

Where should “libertarians” get their news if not from blogs or the MSM? Well, according to reports, party leaders are sending inquirees to Third Party Watch for more “information” about Snubgate. TPW, of course, was purchased by Barr-backer Stephen Gordon and then sold to Republican Party veteran Richard Viguerie, who promptly installed Shane Cory — there’s that name again — as editor of the site, held all anti-Barr comments in moderation, and withdrew the press credentials for anti-Barr bloggers at the then-upcoming Libertarian National Convention. IPR quesitoned back in May whether all of this was part of a plot to help nominate Barr.

19 thoughts on “Snubgate goes mainstream: WaPo says Barr went ‘hog wild’

  1. mscrib

    Well, libertarians should not trust news from racist, reactionary sites like lewrockwell.com. Remember how Lew hates blacks and gays and still finds time to inject his pathetic opinions into a party he despises?

    Is Stormfront all over this controversy, too? We know Ron Paul doesn’t mind because “they’re strict constitutionalists” or some other garbage like that. If only the LP had nominated Russell Means in ’88…

  2. G.E. Post author

    Lew Rockwell racist? Reactionary? Absurd!

    Lew Rockwell is a hero, just like Cynthia McKinney — whom Rockwell applauds while Barr doesn’t want to be seen with “her kind.” He’s too busy instructing me to “thank God” for racist Jesse Helms.

  3. johncjackson

    I disagree with a lot of the stuff Rockwell wrote in the past that could be taken as racially insensitive/offensive ( and pro-state). However, I also believe that people are allowed to change their views over time. I would hate for anyone to judge me based on my views from when I was a young socialist 15 years ago.

    I think that Lew Rockwell stands on the right side of the important issues of today.

    Even if there is something to that criticism, I don’t think anyone who supports Bob Barr or any of his Republican cronies has room to talk.

  4. johncjackson

    Besides I have also read some interesting things about Andrew Davis and of course Bob Barr when it comes to being racist and hating gays. Not to mention WAR’s race baiting crap. How the hell do the Dixiecrats use the racist card?

  5. Steve LaBianca

    There is just one word to describe the nearly neo-con ticket of Barr and W.A.R. the LP delegates nominated –

    DIVISIVE

  6. Steve LaBianca

    There is one word which very describes very well, Mary Ruwart’s character and stance –

    UNITING

    Again I ask, who should the LP have nominated?

  7. Coming Back to the LP

    Isn’t Lew Rockwell the racist “ghostwriter” of Ron Paul’s controversial news letters.

    If so, then Lew Rockwell is NO Libertarian, and no friend of liberty … even if some good things do come out of The Mises Institute, they need a new leader.

  8. Steve LaBianca

    Though I understand the motives behind the petition, the phony names, the duplicates, and the sheer number of “anonymous” signers makes the petition mostly meaningless.

    My view is to just bite the bullet, regroup, and work to reinstate principle into the party. I consider this presidential election cycle to be an embarrassment, but the only productive thing to do at this point is to work for the future, and do the best we can for damage control.

  9. Fred Church Ortiz

    I actually rather hope Barr does exceptionally poorly now. If he polls 400,000 votes or so, it will basically prove the LP can run an “unknown” who actually promotes its tenets and do equally well.

    I see that as a major problem. If both sides of every issue crystalize around this campaign, as it seems they have, this campaign’s going to be used as evidence ad nauseam for either to promote their own agenda. Purist vs. Moderate, Anarchist vs. Minarchist, name rec vs. party loyalist, professional campaign vs. all volunteer, politics vs. education – “No, we tried that already, just look at Bob Barr!”

    Meanwhile, the reality is that there are so many ins & outs this year that trying to attribute success or failure (and even gauging what those terms mean in this campaign) will be close to impossible. If Barr really gets shot down, we can point to the activists that didn’t want anything to do with him in the first place or other strategies we could have taken – but not to the exclusion of outside factors like Palin’s influence on the conservative GOP base he’s been courting, competing or alternate libertarian candidates on the ballot, the crappy fundraising or the many gaffs and flaps that pissed people off along the way when could have just as easily kept the pen down or the mouth shut. This stuff’s just fodder for illogical arguments.

  10. Fred Church Ortiz

    Though, I agree Pete’s original point. I hope he gets a lame total – though only out of my personal spite. I just don’t want to bother with the arguments likely to follow.

    My best guess is that he’s still likely to beat Clark’s raw total, and possibly (but less likely) his %.

  11. G.E. Post author

    Anarchist vs. minarchist is a bogus conflict within the LP. The true conflict is anarchists AND minarchists AND a-little-more-than minarchists vs. hardcore statist crooks and libertines.

  12. Steve LaBianca

    Fred Church Ortiz is correct in that a low vote total for Barr could be interpreted many, many ways.

    There are many factors which affect how a presidential campaign ultimately ends up . . . who is actually elected, how many votes for and in what order the alternative candidates end up in.

    However, I don’t think that you can discount the MAJOR libertarian (or libertarian leaning if you prefer) force in this presidential election is Ron Paul.

    Barr, for whatever his (or his campaign) motives were for not attending the Paul press conference, they HAD to realize the backlash from the Paul supporters, whether legitimately grounded or not. You simply CANNOT, in this election cycle, “snub” the Ron Paul Revolution” or the subsequent “Campaign for Liberty”, without doing grave damage to your campaign. Cynthia McKinney realized it, Ralph Nader realized it, and Chuck Baldwin realized it, and all acted accordingly.

    If Barr does in fact receives fewer than 600 or 700 thousand votes, much of the “best candidate ever for the LP” disappointment will be because of this one “snub” of Ron Paul.

    Personally, I believe that Barr is way too egotistical to take a back seat to Ron Paul. THAT is what the motivation was to not attend the press conference. Well Bob, I have news for you . . . you will in fact take a back seat to Ron Paul because of this. Most libertarians, many liberals and even most anti-war conservatives will place Ron Paul head and shoulders above you.

  13. Fred Church Ortiz

    I don’t discount it Steve. I think this move was likely to cost Barr the most votes out of anything he’s done so far, with the number of long-time LPers that couldn’t ever stomach him as nominee running a close second, with Palin cutting outreach potential more than actually costing him existing support.

    My rant was just lamenting the potential for tunnel vision when it’s time to do the post-mortem, which is think is quite high.

  14. Steve LaBianca

    Peter, thanks for your voicing your agreement with me. You don;t realize how much I appreciate that.

    As an alternate on the LNC, I have gotten nothing but confrontation and disagreement for the views and strategies I have broadcast to the LNC. I am considered to be “very angry”, and that I only have “sour grapes” because Mary Ruwart lost to Barr.

    True, I am deeply disappointed that Mary lost on the 6th and final ballot in Denver, and I have expressed disappointment that the delegates chose perceived “star-power” over libertarian substance, but I am anything but “very angry”. I tried to suggest to the LNC and on these blogs that this strategy of watering down the message and getting a reasonably well know name to promote such a watered down libertarianism (some would say Barr isn’t libertarian at all!) is the wrong strategy, and I believed that it will fail.
    I also commented that the damage control needed to counteract nomination of a Patriot Act supporter, Iraq War resolution supporter, a drug warrior, and a social conservative who supports replacement taxation instead of deep federal spending cuts, in conjunction with eliminating the income tax, could potentially be enormous.

    Is the Barr nomination/campaign proving me wrong, or correct?

  15. svf

    Lew Rockwell is a hero, just like Cynthia McKinney

    Holy shit, G.E. , tell me you don’t actually believe that….!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *