Bob Barr endorses Saxby Chambliss

At Crazy for Liberty, Doug Craig writes:

Bob Barr urges us to vote for one of the worst Republicans in the country.

I am no fan of Saxby Chambliss but it looks like Bob Barr is.

I see no reason for Barr to go to bat for Saxby. He knows people were not happy with him giving money to [Chambliss] earlier this year in a race in which we had a great candidate running. I have not been happy with [Barr] since Denver and this is just another example.

Here is the email:

In Tuesday December 2nd’s runoff election we have a choice between incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin.

I urge you to vote for Saxby Chambliss.

Sen. Chambliss is closer to the Libertarian position on a number of key issues including: shrinking the size of government, less government spending, abolishing the IRS, replacing the income tax with a consumption tax and ending the government bailouts.

And there is one other major consideration: the Legislative branch of our government should not be a rubber stamp for the Executive branch.

There should be a check and balance between the two. The Democrats are close to obtaining a majority of 60 members of the Senate which means the opposition party, the Republicans in this case, will have very few opportunities to have meaningful input on legislative actions.

To me, one party rule in both the Legislative and Executive branches is a prescription for bad public policy decisions.

Please join me in voting for Saxby Chambliss in the US Senate runoff election.

Sincerely,

Bob Barr

The same email has been noted by the Fire Saxby blog.

27 thoughts on “Bob Barr endorses Saxby Chambliss

  1. NewFederalist

    Geez… why the hell not just remain silent, Bob? Oh well, at least he said it is important to keep a minority strong enough to filibuster. But still…

  2. rdupuy

    In this race I would vote for Jim Martin.

    I don’t live in Georgia so that won’t even matter for one vote 🙂

    But it just goes to show, that endoresements don’t mean much these days. I bet you LP members would be somewhat split on who to vote for.

    The reason I would vote for Jim Martin, is the Republican party is a joke that doesn’t believe in any of the values that Bob Barr just spoke about “shrinking the size of government, less government spending” etc.

    What a joke…why doesn’t he just say, Chambliss tells the types of lies that, if they were true, would be more appealing to Libertarians?

    Martin at least probably really would vote for legislation protecting some civil liberties. Meanwhile Chambliss will vote for record spending.

  3. TheOriginalAndy

    “Sen. Chambliss is closer to the Libertarian position on a number of key issues including: abolishing the IRS, replacing the income tax with a consumption tax and ending the government bailouts.”

    I didn’t know that replacing the income tax with a consumption tax was a Libertarian issue. I thought that the Libertarian position was to end the income tax and replace it with nothing, you know, to reduce the size of government, not to just play a shell game with how the government extorts “revenue” out of people.

  4. Catholic Trotskyist

    The Catholic Trotskyist Party harshly condemns Barr’s decision, and repeats its declaration that his campaign was a failure, amen.

    May everyone have a happy advent, repent of your sins, and read Job chapter 19.

  5. JimDavidson

    http://bostontea.us/node/490

    No Libertarians for Chambliss

    Recently, on Facebook, I put my status to “Jim is not a libertarian for Saxby Chambliss. So many things wrong with those invites.” I did so because I had been invited by several different people to a new Facebook group by that name.

    So, some arch conservative loon came to my profile page and commented on my status. “You want a liberal Super Majority?”

    One of the more other people I know wrote, “It’s all coming crashing down anyway. Who cares?”

    Then the conservative wrote, “lol – evidently you all need to live it rather than avoid it. You’ll care only it will be too late. So when I hear your outrage, when I hear your suffering, when you are screaming about you liberty, property, guns and whatever else you want to do..I’ll remember who and what you are.”

    My other friend wrote, “Wow, libertarian melodrama. Don’t blame me, I voted for Chuck.”

    So I wrote: Anthony, Lisa is not any kind of libertarian. She’s a conservative. She wants to blame me because I won’t send money to her @ssh#le friend Chambliss. I supported the libertarian in that race, who kept Chambliss from winning. I don’t want a liberal “super majority,” but I want the conservatives to suffer a lot more. I am against the Fair Tax, which is unfair, just as I am against the income tax (which is unfair). I am against the Chambliss big farm subsidies, and the big bailout he voted for. I would punish Chambliss for the Wall St. bailout at any cost. I cannot help but think he earned his 17% ACLU rating by being against individual liberty. His 27% NAACP rating suggests racism.

    And: Chambliss voted for FISA. Scumbag. He voted several times against privacy for Americans. He failed to vote on restoring habeas corpus. He voted against first amendment rights to free expression. He voted for homophobic legislation denying rights, privileges, and immunities to persons with gay lifestyles. The only thing I can find to like about him is he voted against affirmative action, but probably because he’s a racist rather than out of any principled view. So he loses points for being a racist for any points he’d pick up for opposing affirmative action. And he’s a big friend to the big agribusiness conglomerates, voting for all kinds of government subsidies. He’s a rat. I wouldn’t trust him with a cheese stick. And it is this sort of crumb bum that Lisa thinks is going to save her from a liberal super majority. Yikes.

    And: Oh, snap, 53,700 hits on Chambliss racist. “The other folks are voting,” he says, and clarifies it by saying he meant black people. Yeah. Racist, xenophobic, anti-liberty, pro-farm-subsidy, pro-bailout, anti-privacy. I’ll bet he’s drowning in the blood of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians slaughtered in Iraq, too.

    So, let me make it perfectly clear. I don’t think anyone who supports this guy can properly call themselves a libertarian. Having the ability to watch some Senators filibuster a bad bill is not worth the costs involved in supporting this wicked, evil man.

    Stay away from Saxby Chambliss. He’s no good.

  6. langa

    There’s a good reason why Buckley refused to endorse either of these losers. Neither of them have a libertarian bone in their body.

    Chambliss voted for the bailout and he’s voted for the escalation of the war in Iraq at every conceivable opportunity. In short, he’s nothing but a neocon piece of shit.

    As for Martin, he’s no better. In one of his commercials, he actually brags about how he abandoned his wife and infant child in order to go murder innocent Vietnamese peasants. Furthermore, he constantly talks about how the recession is due to a “lack of regulation” and says he wants to help Obama “fix” the economy.

    You couldn’t pay me enough to vote for either of these assholes.

  7. paulie cannoli Post author

    via Crazy for Liberty

    ATLANTA (MyFOX ATLANTA) – With just two days to go before the Georgia Senate election, the man who sent it into a runoff talked about the race Sunday.

    Back in November, Libertarian candidate Allen Buckley picked up nearly 3.5 percent of the vote in the election. Buckley got enough votes to send the Senate race into a runoff.

    Buckley said he hoped to have some input with the remaining candidates Democrat Jim Martin or Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss.

    Buckley said he wouldn’t publicly endorse either Martin or Chambliss because neither candidate signed a 10 point commitment statement.

    Buckley said he wanted the candidates to commit to, among other things, cutting pork barrel spending, fixing social security and not voting for an unbalanced budget.

    While Buckley said he wouldn’t endorse a candidate, he did say he knew who he wouldn’t be voting for.

    “I have not endorsed either man so as of right now, I can tell you I will not vote for Saxby Chambliss,” Buckley said.

  8. JimDavidson

    I think libertarians ought to make it clear to the GOP, especially its liberty caucus, that we aren’t going to support GOP assholes like Chambliss. If a GOP candidate has a record of voting against individual liberty, he has to be replaced by the GOP if they want our support. If that means a Democrat super majority, fine. If that means Democrats always defeat Republicans, fine. Not optimal, but fine.

    FFFFFine as in F#ck the GOP.

    The GOP should be targeted in all close races for defeat by having a principled libertarian oppose the GOP candidate – unless that candidate is reasonably libertarian, as with Ron Paul in his race for Congress in Texas, say. (And Ron’s re-election races are rarely very close, as I recall.)

    The point is that the GOP can either get involved in supporting freedom by getting rid of authoritarian filth like Chambliss, or they can be driven from the field. If the GOP ceased to exist tomorrow, that would not bother me a bit.

    (Given their behavior in focusing on what Angela said to whom about what, I doubt if the LNC is the libertarian group to implement this strategy. It’ll be left to the LP state affiliates, or the Boston Tea Party, or both.)

  9. kiddleddee

    Well, this Georgia libertarian will now go into the voting booth today and vote against Chambliss – just because Barr said I should vote for him. Hell, and I was gonna stay in bed all day and nurse my bad back!

    Buckley’s stock has gone up considerably as a result of his non-endorsement, methinks.

  10. kiddleddee

    Barr says: “To me, one party rule in both the Legislative and Executive branches is a prescription for bad public policy decisions.”

    Where the f**k has HE been the last 100 years?!

  11. George Dance

    Where the f**k has HE been the last 100 years?!
    Well, obviously not reading kiddlededee, if he’d just figured that out, eh?
    But of course, he’s not claiming to have just figured that out. It’s a premise in an argument, and the idea of premises is not to come up with original ones, but to come up with ones people already agree with.
    So your criticism is baseless.

    As for the rest, I think there may be a double standard. There’s no difference between Barr’s support of various Republicans, most of the LNC’s support of Ron Paul (inc. Ruwart) and Tom Knapp’s and George Phillies’ support of the BTP; and those last three have been not only not criticized but virtually canonized here for those actions.

  12. Trent Hill

    I dont think Barr would be wrong for supporting Chambliss if the reasons given were purely to uphold seperation of powers or whatever. But the fact that he had ALREADY donated to Chambliss through his Leadership PAC means that he ACTUALLY SUPPORTS Chambliss.

  13. JimDavidson

    @19 George Dance writes, “There’s no difference between Barr’s support of various Republicans, most of the LNC’s support of Ron Paul (inc. Ruwart) and Tom Knapp’s and George Phillies’ support of the BTP;” but of course he’s completely wrong.

    Ron Paul, Mary Ruwart, Tom Knapp, and George Phillies are all libertarians, all members of the LP. Saxby Chambliss is not a libertarian, nor a member of the LP.

    The Boston Tea Party endorsed and supported a list of libertarian candidates, mostly LP candidates. So, support for the Boston Tea Party by libertarians was largely support for libertarians (and LP candidates for the most part) by libertarians.

    In contrast, Saxby Chambliss is a racist, sexist, militarist, anti-privacy, anti-liberty bigot who has favored enormous subsidies for huge agribusiness firms and bailouts for huge Wall Street banking gangsters. For Barr to claim to be a libertarian and then eulogise Jesse Helms and endorse Saxby Chambliss reveals him to be a liar, and not a libertarian at all. For Barr to provide financial support to GOP candidates running against LP candidates makes him disloyal to the party – and if he did so while on the LNC then he should certainly be held to the same constraints as, say, Angela Keaton as regards the behavior of an LNC member.

    To say that there is no difference between Barr supporting various racist, sexist, militaristic war mongering bigots and Mary Ruwart supporting Ron Paul is to say that there is no moral difference, no perceptible distinction between Ron Paul and Saxby Chambliss. If that’s your argument, that all GOP office holders are interchangeable, then I really pity you. You would have no basis on which to pursue individual liberty, private property, and prosperity. You would be just a vacuous party label sifter. How shallow.

  14. paulie cannoli Post author

    Atlanta Journal-Constitution coverage:

    Surprised? Consider that both Chambliss and Barr — then still a Republican — were part of the Class of ’94 brought to Congress by Newt Gingrich. Barr was ousted from the U.S. House in ’02, the same year that Chambliss moved up to the Senate.

    Comments

    By Jeff

    December 2, 2008 5:00 AM | Link to this

    Ya know, I’ve spent the last several months defending Barr to my fellow Libertarians, saying that he was really one of us, even though his change was fairly recent. (As was mine, which made it easier for me to accept him.)

    He just made me a fool.

    Buck Farr.

  15. kiddleddee

    Hey George, given Barr’s supposed distain for “one party rule”, I wonder how many democrats he endorsed in 2002 in order to prevent the horror of one party rule by the republicans. Not too many, I would bet.

    And besides, I thought that, while some individual candidates of either the democrat or republican party may be considered better than others (Chambliss is not one of them!), libertarians generally considered the republican and democrat parties to be different factions of the same party anyway.

  16. paulie cannoli Post author

    Even TPW (!) noticed something remiss in Barr’s endorsement:

    “Ironically, Barr claims Chambliss is for “ending the government bailouts,” when much of the conservative and libertarian antagonism to Chambliss is because he voted for the $700 billion bailout in October.”

  17. kiddleddee

    George, a look at the history of the past 200+ years of United State history makes it clear that “one party rule” is not at all necessary for “bad policy decisions”. Barr is simply repeating the same partisan b******t that the republicans are throwing out with their fear-mongering about Obama gaining “total control”.

Leave a Reply

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