Press "Enter" to skip to content

Former Presidential Nominee of the LP Denounced by Conservative Groups

Bob Barr was the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee in 2008 and is still, to the party’s knowledge, a member. However, he has recently been connected with a run, as a Republican, for a congressional seat in Georgia. Some conservative political action committees are not too happy about the idea and have made their opinions known.

This week, one after another, four prominent, national conservative groups issued a rare series of public warnings to a private citizen considering a run for Congress.

Don’t do it, they told Bob Barr. We will bury you.

The first organization was the most important – the anti-tax Club for Growth, whose members are a deep source of Republican campaign contributions. Then came Concerned Women, a Beverly LaHaye group, followed by Eagle Forum led by Phyllis Schlafly.

On Friday, the influential Family Research Council joined the pack.

Each group – or, officially, their political action committees – endorsed U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, the tea party favorite and Republican incumbent who replaced Nathan Deal, now governor, in Washington.

But each one also gave specific mention to Barr, the former congressman and 2008 Libertarian candidate for president. Once a favorite of the conservative movement, who helped lead the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, the four groups denounced Barr as a traitor to the cause. Gay marriage topped their lists.

The article also cites Bill Crane as a strategist in the pre-campaign phase. He says polling in the district is “pretty favorable” towards Barr. The article cites Bob Barr’s run for President as a Libertarian as an issue that will probably play a central role in the campaign should Barr run.

About Post Author

Trent Hill


  1. Kleptocracy And You Kleptocracy And You December 4, 2011

    Yes, even the so-called kookier planks that were deep sixed over the past few conventions had very “GOOD” intentions (in most cases) when they were proposed and passed by their proponents.

    Anyone here really think Barr won’t flip-flop right back to a conservative R to be elected if that is what it will take ? I sure as heck don’t doubt it. I think Barr was talked into the LP POTUS thing. If the DC itch has him again I can definitely see him as west Georgia CONSERVATIVE as ever !!!

  2. George Phillies George Phillies December 4, 2011


    Congratulations for your total non sequitur.

    Your level of logic sets new levels of something.

    As one of the few Party members who actually understands what a Lagrange point is, I shall begin by noting that the idea of controlling one of the unstable points is a little strange. The notion of controlling access to the Solar system, already done adequately by the law of gravity, by controlling the Lagrange points is silly.

    Having said that, my point related to reasons various conservative nut groups were likely to attack Barr, namely the actual selection was based on ‘whatever seems most likely to stick’.

  3. Marc Montoni Marc Montoni December 4, 2011

    Why is it that Phillies has been repeatedly identified as a “radical” by reformer types when he’s in many ways more conservatarian than the mainstreamers?

    There is now a quiet, but mushrooming, scramble for chunks for the five LaGrange Libration Points above earth underway. Governments want to claim them for purposes of controlling access to the rest of the solar system. Corporations want it for the stable environment they provide for various satellite-based activities.

    But the ‘control’ part is the important one.

    I know — some would much rather have support for federally prosecuting kiddie porn in the Platform, than mention something that has the potential to be a trillion-dollar industry in a few years.

    If governments succeed in claiming space now, while even discussing such topics is dismissed as “looney wing libertarianism”, you can kiss the right of your kids to move freely about in space goodbye.

    Think ahead a little, Phillies.

  4. Jake Porter Jake Porter December 4, 2011

    There was a libertarian radio interview out of Georgia before the convention that, if I recall, he did change his position.

    After the convention, Congressman Barr did this interview with John Lofton and defended religious freedom and said he was running for a secular and not a religious office and you can “take it to mean whatever you like it to mean”:

  5. Mike Seebeck Mike Seebeck December 4, 2011

    Tom @14: IIRC at Denver 2008 he offered from the podium a very lame quarter-apology where he didn’t mention it by name and didn’t really apologize. But I don’t know for certain.

    However, if the Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America, two right-wing religious nut-tanks, are opposing him, then that might (speculation) indicate that he has. But again, that’s speculation with no verification one way or the other.

  6. Thomas L. Knapp Thomas L. Knapp December 4, 2011


    I think what Robert was saying was that he doesn’t remember Barr changing his position on that issue.

    Anyone know if he ever walked that back?

  7. Mike Seebeck Mike Seebeck December 4, 2011

    @12: I can answer that one.

    In 1999, while Barr was still in Congress (GA) and before he lost his re-election bid, there was a controversy at Fort Hood (TX) over a successful and prospering Pagan/Wiccan group, about 300 in size, because they sought chaplain support, as Wicca is a recognized religion by the Army in 1996 and entitled to it per Army regulations. Barr heard about it and introduced legislation to ban Wicca from the military. The legislation went nowhere and caused a large galvanization of support for the Wiccans, but it also caused some hate crimes, including some vandalism of their open circle area around Halloween the following year (see for the summary details; he has the facts essentially correct).

  8. Robert Capozzi Robert Capozzi December 3, 2011

    11 gp, I recall BB evolving his views on gay marriage and the war on drugs, and while your use of the word “pogrom” is perhaps another ex. of your subtle sarcasm, I don’t recall BB explicitly evolving his take on Pagans in the military. Did he?

  9. George Phillies George Phillies December 3, 2011

    Private ownership of the Lunar Lagrange points, and independence for a number of islands that had long since gained their independence, were indeed specific issues actually raised in the Libertarian Party platform at one time, not that many years ago.

    The minor detail that Barr himself did not personally espouse these issues, which had already been removed from the party platform at the time he was made his Presidential run, is of absolutely no significance for making the attacks.

    Of course, it appears that they are saying that they will first assail Barr over his flip flopping on issues like gay marriage, the war on drugs, and staging a pogrom against Pagans in the military.

  10. Steven R Linnabary Steven R Linnabary December 3, 2011

    …they will attack Barr over some of his Libertarian issues that they think sell least well to his future primary voters, like private ownership of the Lunar Lagrange points or freedom for islands they can neither spell not find on a map…”

    Funny, I don’t recall Barr EVER speaking on these issues. They certainly are not part of the LP Platform.

    WTF are you talking about?


  11. George Phillies George Phillies December 3, 2011


    Consider as a hypothetical:

    Their polling says Barr has a reasonable chance to win. The incumbent is already so to speak in their pockets and is a good sock puppet. They make clear that they will attack Barr over some of his Libertarian issues that they think sell least well to his future primary voters, like private ownership of the Lunar Lagrange points or freedom for islands they can neither spell not find on a map, not because they care about the issue but because they think it will cause Barr to lose. But they do not want to upset Barr voters for the general election so they try to scare him away first.

  12. Trent Hill Trent Hill Post author | December 3, 2011

    No idea.

  13. johncjackson johncjackson December 3, 2011

    What does Club for Growth have to do with gay marriage?

  14. Trent Hill Trent Hill Post author | December 3, 2011

    Chuck–I agree.

  15. Chuck Moulton Chuck Moulton December 2, 2011

    Club for Growth? Really?

    They used to be a pretty good organization. Stephen Moore is very libertarian. Toomey was less so, but seemed to still focus on economics. I guess Chocola is just crazy.

  16. Lake: did not translate with Steven Gordon ………..

    “I believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy.

    And unfortunately, over the past year, we’ve seen Israel’s isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow.”

    Panetta lamented the moribund peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, which he said had “effectively been put on hold.”

    Panetta’s comments echoed remarks he made on a visit to Israel in October, his first since taking over as defense secretary in September.

    Turkey was the first Muslim state to recognize Israel, in 1949, but relations worsened last year when Israeli commandos boarded an aid flotilla challenging a naval blockade of the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, killing nine Turks in ensuing clashes.”

    [Lake: I’m an anti Jewish thug and totally at fault. Isreal, Bruce Cohen, John Coffey, and John Blare are totally perfect and I am dirt on the bottom of their Birkenstocks ——– not]

  17. Trent Hill Trent Hill Post author | December 2, 2011

    Seems like it. Although polling has him doing pretty well. Had he not stepped all over the Ron Paul people, he could count on a couple hundred thousand from them. As is, he’ll prolly get some cash out of me.

  18. NewFederalist NewFederalist December 2, 2011

    Well gosh… I guess he’s really screwed the pooch with just about everybody.

Comments are closed.