When asked by Stephen Colbert why libertarians had traditionally voted for Republicans instead of the Libertarian Party, Bob Barr responded, “We haven’t had a good candidate,” but that he, Bob Barr, was a good candidate.
Barr himself, it should be noted, endorsed Libertarian nominee Michael Badnarik in 2004.
Barr did nothing to disabuse Colbert or his national audience of the notion that libertarianism is a branch of conservatism, and in fact, he reinforced it. He referred to the Republican Party leaving behind “libertarians” and “true conservatives.”
When asked about the War on Drugs, Barr said “it isn’t working.” He said he voted for the PATRIOT Act under the assumption that the Bush administration would implement it differently. It was repeatedly mentioned that Barr voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, for which he offered no defense of explanation.
Embedded below is Barr’s Colbert segment.
It was recently linked elsewhere.
Any particular reason this conversation was necro’d?
In terms of total votes, Clark was a better candidate. In terms of percentage of votes (which is arguably the more valid measure, since population increases and voter turnout this year was substantial) Browne was a better candidate, at least once.
Anyone arguing that Browne was unable to accumulate personal wealth knew nothing about the man. I didn’t like the corruption and scandal that accompanied Browne, and the “don’t worry about it, you don’t matter” attitude of the LP headquarters and national committee. But he clearly knew how to accumulate wealth.
It seems to me that Barr is not exceptionally qualified to run the USA government either. His managerial experience involved running a few analysts at CIA, running a small prosecutor’s office pursuing non-violent drug crimes in Georgia, and running a Congress critter’s office. He also runs a small political action committee which he uses to donate to Republicans – talk about not being a good candidate.
A really good libertarian candidate would do a great deal to raise funds for libertarian candidates, not their GOP opponents. Barr was a lousy candidate. I call shenanigans on the whole Barr-Root campaign. Scum.
“Carl M // Jun 6, 2008 at 8:23 am
Damn him! He told the truth, that SOB!
All but one previous LP candidates have been terrible candidates for the presidency of the United States. President of the United States is first and foremost chief executive of the most powerful bureaucracy on earth.
So, what does the LP generally do? Nominate people with resumes like: college professor, engineer, writer, computer progreammer… NON MANAGERIAL roles. Many of these candidates had no personal funds. Badnarik lived cheap. Browne sold books on the side. Inability to accumulate personal wealth is a poor indicator of competence to run a trillion-dollar organization.”
The goal of Libertarians is NOT to “run a trillion dollar organization” (as in the federal government), it is to SHUT DOWN as much of that organization as possible.
The only qualifications to be President are as follows.
1) Be born in the USA.
2) Be at least 35 years old.
3) Have the ablitity to read and understand what the Constitution says, and to actually abide by it once elected.
Robert Capozzi wrote: “That was politics-speak. Saying someone was ‘not a good candidate’ means ‘the candidate lost.’ It’s not intended to be personal.”
Very well then, let the record show that by Bob Barr’s own standard, he was not a good candidate.
trinman, it is obvious that he hasn’t read Dr. Paul’s book. But the first book Bob Barr should read is Harry Browne’s “Why Government Doesn’t Work”
http://www.trendsaction.com/books/HarryBrowne/WhyGovernmentDoesntWork/index.php?
And then he should read Mary Ruwart’s “Healing our World: The other piece of the puzzle” AVAILIBLE FREE DOWNLOAD @ http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/
And of course the updated version should also be read. “Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression” http://ruwart.com/Pages/Healing/
CARL M. Most powerful bureaucracy on earth? trillion-dollar (US government) organization? Are these libertarian or Orwellian concepts?
“All but one previous LP candidates have been terrible candidates for the presidency of the United States. President of the United States is first and foremost chief executive of the most powerful bureaucracy on earth.â€
“Inability to accumulate personal wealth is a poor indicator of competence to run a trillion-dollar organization.†Carl M.
Ed Crane said in Liberty that that he (Crane) would leave the country if Ed Clark actually won the election.
Hmm… Maybe having a Kochtopusian president would have had a net benefit, then.
Whether or not third parties make a mistake by thinking thus, I think we can all agree that Ed Crane made plenty of mistakes. I haven’t heard a single positive thing about that guy from anyone whose opinion I value highly, ever.
to GE: Barr probably thinks they were sending a message. That is, after all, what many Libertarians say they are doing.
This is appealing to a small number of voters. Most people who vote do so to affect the outcome of the race, to choose the next president. Barr is claiming to be appealing to this much larger pool of voters.
BTW, Ed Crane said in Liberty that that he (Crane) would leave the country if Ed Clark actually won the election. The distinction between sending a message and actually running for office goes up to the highest levels in the LP.
David Nolan has repeatedly said that the LP candidates for president have no chance of winning so electability should not be a factor in considering whom to nominate.
—
I think third parties make a huge mistake with such thinking. Running message-only candidates sends a message that the party does not take the office in quesion seriously. Even if the odds of winning are small, a serious party should be happy to win, and serve the country well if they do win. Nominating incompetent ideologues for top executive positions violates this principle, and the American people (and the media) react accordingly.
If Barr thinks none of the previous LP nominees were worth voting for, what does he think of the people who voted for them?
I don’t think Barr was being serious. Colbert is a comedy show after all. Don’t take his ‘no good candidates’ gaffe too seriously.
Damn him! He told the truth, that SOB!
All but one previous LP candidates have been terrible candidates for the presidency of the United States. President of the United States is first and foremost chief executive of the most powerful bureaucracy on earth.
So, what does the LP generally do? Nominate people with resumes like: college professor, engineer, writer, computer progreammer… NON MANAGERIAL roles. Many of these candidates had no personal funds. Badnarik lived cheap. Browne sold books on the side. Inability to accumulate personal wealth is a poor indicator of competence to run a trillion-dollar organization.
Bob Barr was at least a Congressman. As a former CIA spook, he has some knowledge of the inner workings of the civil service/defense establishment he is offering to run. As a prosecutor, he knows something of law enforcement, a core government service.
Ron Paul was also a congressman, and thus had some credentials. And he also had some military experience, albeit as a doctor. I don’t know what size practice he had so I don’t know how much managerial experience it conferred. His side business of spewing out paranoid newsletters wasn’t anything to brag about.
—
Ideology is all well and good for legislative positions. It is not for POTUS.
Barr is a jackass.
I agree that Barr’s statement was a gaffe, because Paul was the candidate in 1988, and Barr is seeking the support of Paul voters.
However, “good candidate” is not the same as
“good man.” And, “good candidate” isn’t the same thing as “would make a good President if
elected.”
I supported Paul for President in 1988 and for
the Republican nomination in 2008. The
1988 campaign _was_ weak. (Though Paul
didn’t need to constantly explain so many anti-libertarian votes in Congress.) Paul gave
over-all ideological control of the message to
Murray Rothbard. With the LP being the
“open center” of Rothbard’s neo-leninist strategy based upon libertarian front groups pushing single issues, building significant support for the LP Presidential ticket wasn’t in the cards.
Saying someone was “not a good candidate†means “the candidate lost.â€
But… this was in response to a question that was something like “Why don’t Libertarians vote for Libertarian candidates”? So saying they lost because they were losers is illogical, and I don’t think thats what Barr meant.
Barr could have talked about the barriers for third parties, or pointed out that Libertarians *do* vote for Libertarian candidates. But instead, he simply said that Libertarians haven’t had a good candidate to vote for until he came along.
I oppose the war on drugs because it “doesn’t work.” It is the bad consequences of policies aimed at stamping out vice that causes me to oppose those policies. I think such policies are immoral because of those bad consequences. I think people have a right to use drugs because giving the political system the power to prohibit vice has, on the whole, bad consequences.
More importantly, I think the best way to convince the majority of Americans who support the War on Drugs to change their position is to emphasize the point that the war on drugs “doesn’t work.”
That was politics-speak. Saying someone was “not a good candidate” means “the candidate lost.” It’s not intended to be personal.
Barr was trying to be funny and for the national audience, his comments were not seen as a slap at anyone. He was so bad at being funny it’s easy to see why some Libertarians were offended.
Barr was trying to be funny
Yes, it was a painful sight.
Yea, Barr claims “it isnt working” instead of “Its immoral”.
The comment slammed every other previous nominee, several of whom (esp in the early years) were specifically NOT chosen for their ability to get votes, but for their capacity as spokesmen (consistently, one of our greater errors) for liberty!
The one he made about the Drug War being wrong because “it isn’t working” concerns me far more. Ron Paul’s book (I’m almost finished reading it; watch for a multi-book review soon, in one of the usual locations for my work — Ron Paul, Larken Rose, Eckhart Tolle, perhaps other authors …) is very specific in a history of the Drug War (incl some details about marijuana and Anslinger that were news even to me!), as well as a complete repudiation of any justification for it. If Bob Barr has not read the book, he should; if he has, it is bAffling how he could justify the waffling answer he gives on this issue …
Chad,
G.E. has it right. Barr can expect repeated questioning about his authorship of DOMA, and other bad positions.
Barr now is heading the Libertarian ticket…it’s his job to come thru on what he promised convention delegates. Besides, he WAS an idiot when in congress.
G.E., didn’t Barr say that he was wrong at the convention? I seem to remember him apologizing for his past congressional actions during the debate.
I don’t think he needs to spend his entire campaign time apologizing. I would much rather he tries to bring in more new people. Also as for the comment above, I wouldn’t take it too seriously since this was on the Colbert Report and all.
guys if you watch the clip , Barr was trying to be funny. don’t take it out of context. He was on the Colbert show jeeezzzz
If the point of Barr’s campaign is to appeal to the mainstream then I don’t think that him dissing the 1988 candidate version of RP in a gaffe is really going to hurt him. Overall, the appearance probably helped him a lot with the Colbert crowd. They saw a man who is an alternative to the same BS who is willing to make fun of himself a bit.
Here’s the response I use when questioned about past views by my friends: “I WAS AN IDIOT THEN.”
Barr should try it. Or at least, ADMIT he was wrong and that he has LEARNED. His excuses now are lame and embarrassing.
I don’t take the no other good candidates to be anything more than a gaffe, though a massive one. And if I hadn’t come to know RP – I’d probably be inclined to agree with Barr. But he definitely just badly wounded himself there.
Regarding the conservative line, I don’t care. Libertarianism is distinct, and more closely related to classical liberalism than traditional conservativism – but that doesn’t change the fact that self-proclaimed conservatives have had the “small government” rhetoric and vote tied up for years. Despite consistently bloating the government at every opportunity, the types that split everything into black & white, D & R, left & right are convinced that small government is a conservative trait.
I can’t decide whether it’s better to court people that actually want small government but call themselves conservatives out of misinformation, or to educate people on the distinctions between the various schools of political thought and hope that they’d rather react affirmatively with their beliefs rather than changing those beliefs to follow their tribe. For now, I don’t care if Barr calls those people libertarians, “true conservatives,” Paulinists or “low tax liberals.”
Ross,
Sure. And in the process, he threw Ron Paul and the other LP banner-carriers under the bus.
A more prudential answer would’ve been, “Oh well the climate has never been as politically charged as it now is”.
Like I said in the other post, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. He was making political small talk or something like it with Colbert, and trying to appeal to more mainstream people.
I dont think this’ll piss too many people off, but it sure does make me angry. Frankly, Im not a disciple of Browne or Badnarik–and I dont think Barr meant it as a slight to Ron Paul or anyone else–but it shows me exactly what sort of man he is.
This one quote presents egotistical self-love in a way I haven’t seen since…well…Alan Keyes.