The contribution countdown ticker at BobBarr2008.com has topped $1 million for the first time.
This caps off what deputy campaign manager Shane Cory describes as a wild week
Earlier this week, we received word that our case in Texas — where both John McCain and Barack Obama failed to certify their place on the ballot by the deadline — was denied.
The Texas Supreme Court denied it without comment. The order simply read, “The following petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied.â€
The court did not even bother to make an argument as to why it’s acceptable for the two major parties to ignore the law.
If that’s not evidence of a double standard, I’m not sure what is.
Given our limited financial resources and limited time, we cannot appeal the decision at this time.
But here’s some great news!
Earlier this week, we won our substitution case in Massachusetts and will be on the ballot in the Bay State.
The following day, word came out of Baton Rouge that we won our case in Louisiana and will be on the ballot there as well!
We’re now on the ballot in 46 states and are awaiting word and action in Maine, Connecticut and Oklahoma.
Cory goes on to describe the future plans of the campaign:
Today, we’re kicking off our radio campaign in targeted states! Click here to listen to the first ad.
Next week, we begin our national television campaign.
We’re getting a heck of a deal on our radio spots and paying about $2 per spot.
Barr has recently published pieces asking to be included in the bailout discussions, as well as an op-ed in USA today asking to be included in the debates. He has called on the bailout to be rejected and offered to take McCain’s place in a debate with Obama.
If Obama does not accept, Barr will appear tonight in a live “counter-debate” at Reason magazine:
Please join reason, either in person or online, for a live counter-debate on Friday, Sept. 26, with Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, who will respond to John McCain, Barack Obama and moderator Jim Lehrer in real time. We will be live-blogging Barr’s responses at Hit & Run, and videotaping the whole proceedings, which will include a brief post-debate Q&A with reason staffers, bloggers, and other interested parties. The fun begins at 8:00 PM, the debate starts at 9:00 sharp, and the drinks will be provided by the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. In a year rich with libertarian politics, the only place you’ll hear a candidate talking libertarian ideas will be in reason’s Washington headquarters.
What: Bob Barr debates the presidential debaters
When: Friday, September 26, 8:00 PM to 10:30 PM
Where: Reason HQ, 1747 Connecticut Avenue NW (near S Street)
RSVPs: A must. Send e-mail to [email protected], or call 310.391.2245.
Oh, and to show you an example of that same sort of generalizations.
GE doesnt think their should be a government,and therefore endorses the chaos in Somalia.
“If you support preemptive violence than you support the Bush Doctrine. This is not intended to disrespect, but to state an obvious fact. Preemptive violence is morally wrong, PERIOD.”
This is the kind of black/white bullshit that makes people laugh at you GE, you are doing a disservice to yourself and your ideology by even suggesting such a thing. Anyone who isnt an anarcho-capitalist likes the Bush Doctrine and pre-emptive War. How idiotic, and how presumptuous.
“What do you want me to read?”
I want you to read the arguements of Ayn Rand, S. Andrew Swann, Robert Nozick, and company. Read the minarchist vs. anarchist debate from the other side,and from a variety of viewpoints. I can list several books and articles if you need.
“Nothing is going to convince me that proactive violence is morally permissible. ”
At some point I bet you thought, “Nothing is going to convince me that the Federal Reserve is bad” and “nothing is going to convince me that a gold standard is what we need” or “nothing is going to convince me to become an anarchist”—and yet, here we are? You would not have gotten to where you were today unless you had read or listened to other opinions. Obviously you won’t listen, but maybe you’ll read them–im offering you that chance.
For the record, I don’t think violence is permissable either. I hate the State. And to whatever degree possible, I’ll eliminate both.
“The Wild West wasn’t wild, and it wasn’t “minarchist,†either — it was anarchist. Trent refuses to acknowledge that anarchism does NOT mean no government and no laws.”
More falseness. =)
You are right that anarchism doesnt mean no government and no laws. It means no compulsary government. It is a wonderful dream, but a dream nonetheless.
As for the Wild West, it most certainly WAS a minarchy. If you killed a man in Denver, you might be killed by a mob or a posse, or even by a hired hit man (this suggest non-monopoly of police or defense forces), but if you werent—you were still considered a murderer and a criminal by the state,and they still hunted you with their local policemen, state troopers (yes,they existed then), or Federal marshalls.
What do you want me to read?
Nothing is going to convince me that proactive violence is morally permissible.
VTV has the comic-book history of the Wild West, just like most people have the textbook history of the Great Depression, etc. The Wild West wasn’t wild, and it wasn’t “minarchist,” either — it was anarchist. Trent refuses to acknowledge that anarchism does NOT mean no government and no laws.
If you support preemptive violence than you support the Bush Doctrine. This is not intended to disrespect, but to state an obvious fact. Preemptive violence is morally wrong, PERIOD.
Of course not.
Well GE, will you committ to reading the materials.
“And honestly G.E. there are just too many examples of people when left free of any intervention becoming predators on their fellow man. The Old west was a perfect example.”
Contrary to popular opinion–the Old West was a pretty good soceity. But–the Old West isnt an example of anarchism, its an example of Minarchism.
“The less aggression, the better. But NONE is morally permisable. You do not have enough faith in markets and in human beings, and yet you DO have faith in the ability of an elite to act altruistically in establishing and maintaining an involuntary monopoly state. Your position makes no sense.”
I’ll not respond to this until you’ve read the opposition literature GE. I’v read Rothbard and Co. and have even held hour-long debates with its leading defenders (Raskin mainly, but Woods too, although Woods was more of a discussion). If you’ll read the writings of S. Andrew Swann, and have a little debate with Ron Paul, Michael Badnarik, and George Reisman.
If you are looking for a few examples of minarchists contrasting their views with that of anarcho-capitalism, I’d be happy to supply a pretty diverse selection that includes people I agree and disagree with. To start, we can list a few here.
-Ayn Rand’s “The Nature of Government” was probably the first paper of this sort. But I think Roy Child’s response to this, “Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand” is actually pretty good.
-Robert Nozik’s “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”.
-Herbert Spencer’s “The Man Versus The State”
Also, please remember to TRY to respect my views as much as I TRY to respect yours. Mises, Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, George Reisman, Ron Paul, Leonard Read, and Ayn Rand were all minarchists.
They tried to base governmental systems off of Nash’s theories that won him the nobel peace prize. I watched a documentary where they went back to Nash and asked him what he thought about it in retrospect, and he said that he realized that the theories that he won the prize for were flawed, because the only constant about people is their tendency to be irrational.
And honestly G.E. there are just too many examples of people when left free of any intervention becoming predators on their fellow man. The Old west was a perfect example.
I think we’ve reached an important conclusion – no political or economic THEORY can work perfectly unless everyone practicing it is “exceptional.” Doesn’t that make compromise necessary?
VTV’s argument, like that of all statists, is absurd. It is the state taht cannot work unless you are in a population of exceptional people.
Anarchy, which does not mean “no government” or “no laws,” works just fine in every aspect of life in which it’s allowed. Why would defense, police, and courts be any different? Do defense, police, and courts work well in the monopoly state system? No.
Tyranny of the minority over the majority happens in republics like ours that were designed from the begining to serve the elite.
The monarchy was tyranny of a minority as well.
I agree with Trent’s assesment of anarchy, it cannot work unless you are in a population of exceptional people. And it almost always will be overthrown by an outside force.
Lowest aggression? A cabal forming a “government” and then forcing people within their declared territorial monopoly to abide by majoritarian decisions or else is not the “lowest possible amount of aggression.” No aggression is morally permissable. Putting on fancy hats and pretending you’re acting “for my own good” is insulting. That’s why I agree with Hoppe that at least a monarchy is honest and doesn’t pretend to anything other than it is.
The less aggression, the better. But NONE is morally permisable. You do not have enough faith in markets and in human beings, and yet you DO have faith in the ability of an elite to act altruistically in establishing and maintaining an involuntary monopoly state. Your position makes no sense.
Im picking the lowest possible amount of aggression. You are gambling on the lowest theoretically,or the highest realistically.
Have you read the Hostile Takeover Trilogy by S. Andrew Swann?
A republic (monopoly state) is not achievable (demonstrably) and evil.
Voluntary government (anarchism) is moral and “maybe” not achievable.
You pick the former, I pick the latter. Don’t act like you’re not picking evil, though.
Ross, No–you are somewhat right. I believe government printed ballot first appeared in Massachuseets in like…1910 or something…
But private ballots existed in many places as late as 1960.
In “Third Parties in America,” I’m pretty sure it said that they started printing ballots around the early 1900s. If that’s wrong, then I’m sorry.
“Whether something “could†work is not the point.”
Um,yes it is. I want to live as freely as possible. I dont want to theorize about what that situation is, I want to ACHIEVE it. If it isnt achievable, I dont care.
“Here is Trent’s republic: A gang gets together, calls itself a “government,†writes a fancy document, calls it a Constitution, and then says that they will kill me if I refuse to pay a parking ticket or if I band together with my fellow citizens to form an alternative gang for mutual defense and dispute adjudication.
How is that not evil?”
No limited government would kill you for not paying a parking ticket, or even suggest that a parking ticket should be PAID. Furthermore, if you banded together with others for mutual defense and dispute adjudication–that is called self-determination, and I naturally support that right. It doesnt mean that your new group is going to survive for more than a couple hours or days before being conquered though.
“80 years ago, the state had already started to print ballots.”
Where? I dont know of any place that was printing government ballots that early.
I didn’t ask for the difference between democracy and republic. I know that, and I really didn’t want to start an argument about intitiative and referenda.
And, GE, I’m sorry I haven’t gotten a chance to read Richardson’s books. I wanted to, but my parents weren’t willing to pay for them. Plus, I’m busy reading The Dark Side, Third Parties in America, and Dumbocracy, not to mention the workload from taking all honors and AP courses is pretty tough. But, you know, that’s just what happens when you’re ignorant.
80 years ago, the state had already started to print ballots. Like I said, the overall pattern was for ballot access to get tougher, but in a few states their rules were deemed unconstitutional and they were made easier. So, GE, do you know the ballot access laws that applied to each and every one of those elected officials?
Here is Trent’s republic: A gang gets together, calls itself a “government,” writes a fancy document, calls it a Constitution, and then says that they will kill me if I refuse to pay a parking ticket or if I band together with my fellow citizens to form an alternative gang for mutual defense and dispute adjudication.
How is that not evil?
Trent – B.S. You said people have the right to live free from aggression and the government has no right to monopolize the provision of services. That is anarchism. Do you reject that now?
Whether something “could” work is not the point. What clearly CANNOT work is the state. The question is, do you support the institution of monopolized aggression known as the state? Should I be killed for refusing to pay a parking ticket?
Anarchism would OBVIOUSLY evolve into a “governmental” structure — quickly. That’s good. But there’s a difference between “government” and “the state.” Anarchism would NOT necessarily devolve into territorial monopolies on force.
I will never accept that the elite have the right to compel me to live by the rule of manmade laws that I do not consent to, nor to prohibit me from entering into the provision of goods or services for which they’ve declared themselves the monopoly providers. That is evil no matter what you call it, and I reject it.
By the way, Jason, you should read the Hostile Takeover Trilogy by S. Andrew Swann. It outlines all of the problems with an anarcho-capitalist society via science-fiction novel. Very entertaining, very witty, very helpful.
“The state is tyranny, period. The only protection from it is the right of secession.”
Feel free to go live in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska and “personally succeed”. I suspect no one would bother you.
“Once again, Trent dismisses “anarchism,†which he actually endorses”
You are a liar. I have told you, three times at least, that I do not endorse anarchism. Lies do not strengthen your arguements GE, they weaken them. This is the last time I will repeat this for the sake of your thick skull: I admitted that anarchism COULD work in a VERY small and homogenous community. However, I have also stated that outsdie forces would easily conquer and destroy this community, assuming it didnt NATURALLY evolve into a governmental structure, which it would.
Once again, Trent dismisses “anarchism,” which he actually endorses, because it “can’t work.” i.e. he aligns himself with socialists and other totalitarians in the belief that people must be forced, at gunpoint, to participate in the state. But his state will be a “republic,” a benevolent dictatorship. Yes, you can still be killed for not paying a parking ticket. But a piece of paper will defend your rights!
The state is tyranny, period. The only protection from it is the right of secession.
“Look at our “republic†which “can’t violate our rights†— hahahaah. ”
Theoretically. We are talking about definitions. I’d be happy to discuss the reality of the situation, which is that we somewaht of a cross between a democracy and a republic now–with some rights still preserved but most being voted out by a majority.
““Republicanism†is more utopian and less possible than socialism. The only legitimate government is a voluntary one.”
Anarchism is less utopian and more possible than a Republic….which has actually existed? HAHAHAHAHAH. That is a disconnect from reality I could not have predicted.
Why would the majority need protection from tyranny? And if they did, how would a referendum save them?
First of all–The Patriot Act is obviously a violation of our rights and therefore illegal and unauthorized under our republic. Under a democracy, the Patriot Act is fine because it was approved by a majority of the representatives.
A referendum would not “protect” the majority from tyranny. The majority is almost always the one egging on tyranny. I can tihnk of only a few situations in which a minority of the country impressed upon us some form of tyranny, and in that case the majority was not well-enough educated or mobilized to oppose said tyranny.
“When you consolidate power into a minority like we have in our government now, it is one wolf set loose on the sheep.”
It isnt a minority. It is the VAST majority of people in America who voted these people into office. Every senator and congressman in the nation was voted into office by a majority (or large plurality) of the people in his or her district–and these people have made no effort to oppose the tyranny of big government. Therefor tyranny is supported by the majority.
There is no difference between “democracy” and “republic.” Here Ross is right and the “republic” fetishists are wrong. Look at our “republic” which “can’t violate our rights” — hahahaah.
“Republicanism” is more utopian and less possible than socialism. The only legitimate government is a voluntary one.
Ross – If you read Darcy’s books, you’d know that the ballot-access requirements were lower OR non-existent in every single case. I don’t have to have the exact instances memorized. The burden of proof is on you, ignorantly saying “we don’t know.” Knowledge is stored in books, not just in brains. I could go grab my copies of Others and look at Richard Winger’s appendices in the back. Or I could just be like you and be ignorant.
Mike Theodore – Lies? I said “virtually.” I was referring, generally, to adults. I don’t know how the hell you ended up here, but most libertarians became so from watching/hearing presidential candidates. I think (but don’t know) that Ross was inspired by Mike Gravel, whose quixiotic run within the Democratic Party might as well have been a third-party run. In other words, most people don’t develop alternative political philosophies based on meeting a local candidate for county commission.
Right, because in a republic our rights are enshrined in a document or philosphy, so they won’t do anything like say. THE PATRIOT ACT.
I still think the best system is a republic with a referendum system that cannot counter a bill of rights.
A strong Constitution to protect the minority from tyranny.
A referendum to protect the majority from tyranny.
When you consolidate power into a minority like we have in our government now, it is one wolf set loose on the sheep.
Ruh roh. lol.
To avoid coloring your vision on the subject, I’ll direct you to some articles.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html
Simply put, though, a democracy is simply the will of the Majority. A republic is the containment of the power of the Majority. In a democracy, you can vote away someone’s rights. In a Republic, you cannot–those rights are enshrined in a document or philosophy upon which that country is based.
What’s the difference?
Representative democracy IS democracy. Just because you have a representative doesnt mean that you have Rights.
Besides–we arent a representative democracy. We are a Republic.
I took what GE was saying to mean representative democracy.
“How is democracy evil? What do you consider freedom?”
Pure democracy involves no rights. If the majority votes that hispanics should be killed on site–thats the law.
“Virtually 100% of us are here today because of Harry Browne or Ralph Nader or some third-party presidential candidate.”
Lies.
I don’t know where your going with any of this, man.
Please, GE, tell me where every one of those candidates ran and the exact ballot access laws for them. Without looking at the book, because there is no way that you looked every one of those candidates up after reading Trent’s comments.
How is democracy evil? What do you consider freedom?
GE,
Duh. Australian ballots killed the third-party movement.
And by the way, in most cases, third parties had success BEFORE the evil socialist government-printed ballot.
Democracy IS evil and I suggest freedom.
I didn’t say that. I said Bernie Sanders is a joke of an “independent.” And if you really “join” with the Democrats, then yes, you are evil. But working within them, defiantly, as Ron Paul does within the GOP, is not evil.
As for the ballot-access laws and us “not knowing” — uh, YES WE DO. You don’t, but we do. Read Darcy Richardson’s books.
But GE, I thought anyone that joined with the Democrats was “evil”?
And it doesn’t refute Trent’s comment because we don’t know where those people were elected or what the situation with ballot access laws was there. In some places, ballot access laws were much more strict then (even though the overall pattern has been pushing third parties out). Some states had thresholds over 100,000 signatures.
Which refutes virtually the entirety of Trent’s post.
As for the Jeffersonian Caucus: It’s intended to be a radical (much more than the LP) organization that uses the Democratic ballot line.
Ron Paul’s continued election is based on his status as an incumbent. His initial election is a freak miracle that we can be grateful for.
Well said, Trent, in your first comment below mine. But keep in mind that ballot access laws were less strict 80 years ago.
“If you want to try to win, then sacrifice your principles and join the Ds or the Rs. It’s a lot easier when you’re a socialist than when you actually advocate freedom.”
Says GE, who just got involved with a Jeffersonian Caucus within the Democratic Party—hmmmm.
By the way, do you think im a socialist GE? Am I sacrificing my principles? Is Ron Paul sacrificing his?
“There is certainly no hope at the congressional and very little at the state legislative level. Don’t be a moron. Look at history.”
No hope? I dont know about all of that. There are two Senators who were elected with “Independent” beside their names. Around 80 years ago, about 30-40 members of Congress were members of third parties. Right now, in Vermont, there are 6 state legislators from the Progressive Party. In Montana, Rick Jore is a CP state legislator. In Maine, Eder was a Green state legislator, but lost in 2006. Over the course of the nineties, 4 governors were elected as Independents or Third-parties.
Furthermore, there are literally thousands of local independents and third-party members.
Is the system rigged against third-parties? Absolutely. Statistically speaking, running for State level or even Congressional races without ANY prior experience is pretty stupid. State legislative races, city council, county level races, and mayoralties—these are the races third-parties ought to be focusing on.
Aside from condemning other peoples’ philosophies, what does getting us here accomplish? Now we have a place to whine at each other, but are we really making a difference?
And I already told you TWICE that he lost election after election, and my point is that he only won after trying for a smaller office!
I don’t think it would be sacrificing my principles to join the Dems or Reps. The elected official in PA most supportive of third parties is a Republican, and there are plenty of good people within both parties – just because the party leadership is disgusting doesn’t mean the rest of the party is.
It’s also a lot easier when you don’t have any real responsibilities (that is, you haven’t won an election, so you don’t have to govern), and you can just sit back and complain about how our society isn’t a utopia.
Democracy is evil? What do you suggest?
Bernie Sanders is a Communist. You want me to celebrate his victories?
Well, if you knew anything, you’d know that he lost election after election after election. Losing did not hurt his future chances.
You are totally wrong about campaigns and parties not spreading messages. Virtually 100% of us are here today because of Harry Browne or Ralph Nader or some third-party presidential candidate.
Democracy is evil, and that’s what that’s all about.
If you want to try to win, then sacrifice your principles and join the Ds or the Rs. It’s a lot easier when you’re a socialist than when you actually advocate freedom.
Oh, that’s right, I forgot. It’s easier to just sit back and complain, not actually win or try to win (just “get out the message”), and then criticize those who have been elected. That’s what democracy is all about, isn’t it?
Ross – I can’t help you. You’re too lost. You’ll have to find yourself.
GE – I said that he first ran for Senate and governor in the 70s, and he only won when he ran for smaller offices first.
While I admire and understand the idea of “getting the message out” through elections, I wonder how effective is that? It seems like the only thing that third parties are ending up with is a small minority of voters who are dissatisfied with those who are elected, but can’t do anything about it, because they don’t have anyone representing their views.
Of course, third party candidates do have their views usurped by major party candidates sometimes (the GOP is the party of “fiscal conservatism”, the Democrats are the party of “universal healthcare”), and third parties have played an important role in history. But how much of an impact can they really have if barely any of them are getting elected? The GOP and Dems, as a whole, don’t genuinely take third party positions. Fiscal conservatism for a Republcian president means a $10 trillion debt, and universal healthcare for the Democratic nominee means some convoluted system worked out with the insurance companies that wouldn’t actually be universal.
No they don’t.
It’s when people like Chuck Baldwin pretend they can win that intelligence is insulted.
Or when Chuck Baldwin simultaneously says he agrees with Ron Paul on trade and supports the CP platform.
“Each campaign should do the best that they can, and one day that might mean winning.”
The day in and day out nonstop labor required by a campaign dims one’s vision… I wish that were a true thought there.
GE, voter’s consider their intelligence insulted when told to vote for someone who isn’t going to win. Does that prove they have no intelligence, at least as you define it? Or no understanding of a bigger vision, not enough committment to a principle vs. “winning”?
I’d agree that the primary purpose of third party campaigns is to put a message forward. Actually winning elections is nigh impossible, beyond very local and non-partisan races. The Populist Party and the Socialist Party were quite successful in getting many of their positions enacted (though both parties did succeed in electing Congressmen).
Of course, the was a century ago. Nowadays, third parties haven’t even managed to spread a message; or indeed to have any meaningful accomplishments at all. Major parties have, of course, been conduits of evil and are no better. No indication of any improvement coming soon.
And by the way, Ross, you clearly don’t know much about Sanders. He lost many, many races — sometimes with like 2% of the vote — before getting elected. I guess no one ever took him seriously. Oh, wait.
FAIL!
You call that an independent?
Sanders gets no coverage because he’s about as much of an “independent” as Joe Lieberman. Wait, no, that’s incorrect. He’s FAR LESS of an independent than Joe Lieberman.
No, no, no… I did not say it was foolish. I said it was impossible to win. But I also said that winning isn’t the only reason to run.
What are you people saying? That you wish your only choices were Obama and McCain? It’s bad enough there’s no libertarian. At least you have a couple of Greens and a pair of extra conservatives (neo and paleo) to choose from in most states.
No offense to any congressional or statewide candidates here, but I have to agree with GE that in many instances it’s foolish to run for congress as a third party candidate. I’m saying this because I see a lot of candidates doing it who have no prior experience. That’s not a good thing – if you must go through a learning curve when it comes to elections, it should be through very local races first, races in which people won’t give it a second thought that you’re a third party candidate.
In other words, races that you have a real chance of winning. For God’s sake, the highest elected Libertarian in the country is either a district judge or a statewide judge in the southwest, I believe. No one will take a candidate seriously whose experience is “losing a race for mayor, losing a race for congress, losing a race for school board.” Many, many times it seems like third party candidates get in over their head and it hurts them in the long run.
Every congressional candidate that has a small, small chance of winning a statewide election could be a school board candidate or a county commissioner candidate or a state representative candidate who would have a much greater chance of winning. And then after building on past political experience, that candidate could move on to Congress or to be a judge or even a governor, and maybe something more after that, and be taken seriously by the major parties, instead of being laughed at.
Look at Bernie Sanders, perhaps the most successful independent politician in our country today (he’s a Senator, in case you didn’t know, because he doesn’t get much coverage around here, unfortunately). He ran for governor of Vermont and Senate in the ’70s, but got in the single digits for percentage. Then he ran for mayor of Burlington, not a very large city, and won. After that, he ran for the House and lost, then won the next election. He has since been elected to over a dozen House terms and was elected to the Senate in 2006.
This man was not a novice when he ran for the House, and he even had considerable election experience when he ran for mayor. There’s a lesson to be learned there. Don’t be afraid to start on a small scale, especially if you’re young, which many third party candidates are.
I’m not saying winning is everything, man. I’m saying that a candidate shouldn’t run around saying he won’t win.
Like it or not, winning is actually one of the many objections.
Their vote will represent their values.
Winning is not everything. Yours is the pessimistic view.
Yes, but is it more insulting to tell the voters that the candidate they vote for won’t win? I’d say it’s more insulting to tell them that their vote won’t do anything (wasted friggin’ vote syndrome).
WTF? I’m not telling anyone to “go home.” I’m saying you have no chance of winning. I think it’s a mistake to insult the voter’s intelligence and pretend like you can win when you can’t. It’s more important to spread values, and one value ALL THIRD PARTIES should be able to agree on spreading is that there’s more to an election than just “who wins.”
That can be achieved without a presidential race. And more to the point, you want reform when it comes to that, get some Congressmen on C-SPAN with the (L), (G) and (C) in front of their names to do so.
Right now none of these parties have even a single Congressmen.
I think the fight is worth it for many reasons. On the presidential level, there is of course that slim, slim, slim chance of winning, but there’s also fighting to reform ballot access laws, making people aware of the issues, etc. On the state and local level, there’s more of a chance of winning, but the same logic applies.
Here’s a question: do you think all of the fighting for equality for third parties and independents for the past few decades was worth electing Jesse Ventura, Bernie Sanders, others elected on the statewide level, and the thousands of independents elected on the local level?
“Presidential races should only be supported in that they are going to achieve and keep ballot access and spread the message. Pumping a million dollars into said campaign is stupid–half of that should be redirected to a Congressional race where there is a chance, or a series of state legislative races where there is a chance.”
Agreed. And if possible, I believe in some states you are allowed to run for both President and Congress at the same time.
I don’t see myself thinking that way, GE. I mean, I’m supporting many candidates that I know won’t win, but I’m not advocating they lay down and stop fighting. For example, our LP senate candidate Larry Stafford has no chance against Dick Durbin. The GOP guy isn’t even in debates.
Am I telling the extremely committed volunteers of his campaign to just go home (like many friends of mine say all the time)?
No, they should fight as much as they can, and do the best that they can. This state, like many, is in desperate need of libertarian thought and ideology.
Each campaign should do the best that they can, and one day that might mean winning.
I was going to run in 2008 for county commissioner, contingent on Barr not winning the LP presidential nod.
There is certainly no hope at the congressional and very little at the state legislative level. Don’t be a moron. Look at history.
The purpose of any race at that level is to spread ideas. There is no/virtually no hope of winning. The truly pessimistic people are those like you who feel that winning is the only objective.
How motivating your future campaign will be, GE (you were talking about 2010, I believe, for County Commissioner?).
Your message: No Hope Anywhere!
Ha!
There’s no chance anywhere ever.
Who are you, Mike Theodore?
GE,
Presidential races should only be supported in that they are going to achieve and keep ballot access and spread the message. Pumping a million dollars into said campaign is stupid–half of that should be redirected to a Congressional race where there is a chance, or a series of state legislative races where there is a chance.
VTV and Trent Hill, of course, are both wrong in their agreement.
Yeah, at this point fund raising is like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone. All the donations to my campaign have come from Mike Gravel’s supporters thanks to his endorsement.
there is the whole “libertarian” and sympathetic fundraising tapped out on Ron Paul in 2008… so whoever the LP nominee was would suffer accordingly.
it’s impossible to measure, but certainly a factor if we’re going to be objective about comparing 2008 to previous LP fundraising years.
personally, I gave RP way more money than I should have (and have ever given to any LP candidates, including Barr.)
what a fool I was… a fool in love… or something.
Hardly. Me and Knapp agree on many things. If me and Knapp can agree on things, me and you probably agree on most things.
I think one of the seals of the apocolypse has been opened.
“I feel the same way about third party presidential campaigns.”
Agreed.
“I think most “third party†debates are a huge waste of time. Without at least one major party candidate, we don’t reach anyone new and we end up just preaching to our collective choirs and I think that if we all sit around and btich about the big two, it has the potential to make us all look very small.”
I feel the same way about third party presidential campaigns.
Barr has to raise $1,267,660 to equal Badnarik — a total nobody — in inflation-adjusted terms.
He’s going to be close.
And that’s the government’s bogus inflation numbers. In real inflation, he won’t even be close.
TO BADNARIK.
I would say this campaign is a joke, but there’s nothing funny about it.
Those new Barr radio spots are horribly weak btw.
In re: comment 6, I doubt Barr himself has anything to do with or is even aware of passing on the radio interviews in Tampa… that almost certainly has more to do with the incompetence and/or d-baggery of his campaign staff.
The Barr-Gore meeting(s) had more to do with getting Gore to talk up the role of Barr and the LP as a legitimate 3rd alternative than it did with any particular position on the climate/energy issue itself. Gore gave the LP a shoutout on Meet the Press a few days later, for example. (Subsequent events such as the partial lifting of the ban & McCain’s own reversal on OCS drilling etc, would have eventually undermined Barr’s early harder-core anti-gw position anyway.)
Barr and Gore also worked together a few years back to oppose many of the Bush administration’s police-state measures.
10 Steve LaBianca // Sep 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm
G.E. the only reason Barr met with Gore is because of McCain’s newly found position of being concerned for the environment. So, Barr had to match it, as an appeal to the type of “conservatives†that McCain appeals to. He differentiates himself from McCain on other things, but he felt he had to match McCain on this one.
VTV,
I think most “third party” debates are a huge waste of time. Without at least one major party candidate, we don’t reach anyone new and we end up just preaching to our collective choirs and I think that if we all sit around and btich about the big two, it has the potential to make us all look very small.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres04/index.php?cycle=2004
puts Badnarik at $1,093,013.
no data for Browne 2000 or 1996 unfortunately.
Hm.
svf – I thought Browne raised like $5 million in 1996?
AnthonyD wrote: ”
VTV,
Barr and Nader are 100% correct on the “debating down†issue.
The LP candidate should NEVER accept any debate other than the major parties debates. The LP candidate should always insist the major party debates are the only ones he or she is interested in, period. You insist on it until they let you in, and turn down anything else. You act like you are supposed to be there.”
I’m sorry, I thought we were supposed to be exchanging ideas so that we could come to the best conclusions as voters with respects to who to vote for?
I forgot that in reality we are supposed to be lead along by the main stream elite. We should all aspire to treat other parties the way they treat us. Because after all, keeping your opponents out of a debate rather then being confident that you could defeat them is how real freedom works right?
according to
http://www.politicalbase.com
Browne 1996: $700,791
Browne 2000: $962,745
Badnarik 2004: $555,555
(apparently excludes gifts under $200… didn’t Badnarik manage to raise close to $1 million though?)
Barr has an advantage over Browne in that his numbers are higher due to inflation.
Browne has THE advantage. As in, he is currently ahead–unless Barr gets an explosion of donations.
Brown has an advantage?
No, Barr has an advantage over Browne.
Nominal comparisons to Badnarik aren’t even fair.
$1 mil in 2008 = $862,218 in 2004. That’s a pretty big difference.
$1 mil in 2008 = $785,993 in 2000; and $716,157 in 1996.
This, according to the government’s own vastly understated numbers. But I’m sure Barr trusts them like every other element of the Establishment.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
G.E., environmentalism is neither a liberal or conservative issue. McCain has shown support for a strong role of government in this area, and Barr has followed suit, in the hopes of the differentiation he has made with McCain will draw away votes due to those issues.
That’s why I said roughly comparable.
Fred beat me too it.
I’d say a comparison to Badnarik is fair–but Browne has an advantage because of inflation.
I don’t have the exact numbers, but I think they are roughly comparable; that is, Barr is not raising dramatically more or less money than they did.
Don’t forget to adjust for inflation.
D’oh.
Phillies has Browne’s numbers thoroughly analyzed. Probably Badnarik’s, too.
I don’t have the exact numbers, but I think they are roughly comparable; that is, Barr is not raising dramatically more or less money than they did.
Badnarik doesn’t have a phone number. Phone numbers are fascist government traps. If you want to reach Badnarik, just stand out on the back porch and yell.
I think he meant FUNDRAISING numbers.
Anyone have the numbers for Browne and Badnarik?
Browne is dead. I don’t have Badnarik’s number.
Heck, I would just listen to what Barr said and agree with the purist line that politically, he still is somewhere in the gray area between libertarianism and conservativism. I don’t think it was a matter of him being someone who could place himself anywhere on the political roullette wheel and just gambled that “disaffected conservative†was the spot to bet on.
He is what he is, a disaffected conservative.
I agree with most of that. But he is also a professional politician and knows how to appeal to the left when he wants to. The campaign strategy is a conscious decision, and not an irrevocable one.
Anyone have the numbers for Browne and Badnarik?
VTV,
Barr and Nader are 100% correct on the “debating down” issue.
The LP candidate should NEVER accept any debate other than the major parties debates. The LP candidate should always insist the major party debates are the only ones he or she is interested in, period. You insist on it until they let you in, and turn down anything else. You act like you are supposed to be there.
paulie,
Heck, I would just listen to what Barr said and agree with the purist line that politically, he still is somewhere in the gray area between libertarianism and conservativism. I don’t think it was a matter of him being someone who could place himself anywhere on the political roullette wheel and just gambled that “disaffected conservative” was the spot to bet on.
He is what he is, a disaffected conservative.
He doesn’t care about Libertarians anymore. He got what he wanted from us. Our ballot access. We only represent a tiny amount of the vote anyway. So now he is going to work on the voters he actually cared about. His mission with Libertarians is accomplished, he got our money and ballots with his name on it. Now it is all about Bob Barr.
This goes right into the attitude of “debating down” that both the Nader and Barr camps have given us about our debate. They cannot debate with other candidates because they would be “debating down” which translates to me that they are cowards. You cannot be confident in your issues and then be afraid that another “lesser” candidate is going to take you down.
keep in mind that had McCain gone and chosen Lieberman as his running mate, that “disaffected conservative†routine may have done rather well.
True. He rolled the dice and crapped out. Oh well. Maybe we can run Kubby-Ruwart in 2012 to help balance things out a little.
and before one of you purists comes down on me like a ton of bricks, I mean Barr might have done rather well compared to previously Libertarian candidates and this year’s 3rd party field, NOT to the Demopublicans.
Even as a supporter, I am disappointed in Barr’s overall strategy of appealing largely to disaffected conservatives, and wish he would have more strongly appealed to the anti-war left, keep in mind that had McCain gone and chosen Lieberman as his running mate, that “disaffected conservative” routine may have done rather well.
I’ll be the first one to stipulate that Barr has targeted his appeal largely to conservatives who are unhappy with the GOP’s choice of McCain.
However, I don’t see this particular thing (the “I’ll step in to make the debate happenâ€) as part of that. He saw an opening and he used it to make a point. If Obama had been the one trying to dodge the debate, Barr would have done exactly the same thing.
Precisely.
I’ll be the first one to stipulate that Barr has targeted his appeal largely to conservatives who are unhappy with the GOP’s choice of McCain.
However, I don’t see this particular thing (the “I’ll step in to make the debate happen”) as part of that. He saw an opening and he used it to make a point. If Obama had been the one trying to dodge the debate, Barr would have done exactly the same thing.
Hmmm…. Global warming + infanticide? Sounds to me like Weld is an NWO eugenicist, not a conservative.
Steve – That makes no sense. If he really wanted to appeal to conservatives, he should have struck out a firm “global warming is a myth” position. He did early on, in fact. It depends on who he’s talking to.
William Weld is a leading libertarian leaning conservative who thinks the government has a large role to play in the environment. (And don’t tell me that just because Weld supports a woman’s “right to choose” means he isn’t a conservative)
I think that many times, it is assumed that “conservativism” (the “right”) is in full compliance and agreement with allowing market forces handle environmental issues. This assumption is dead wrong.
As Peter Breggin has pointed out (in a speech in which he stressed that libertarians need to talk to the left) most liberals and a large percentage of conservatives are attuned to people suffering . . . a position normally attributed solely to liberals (“bleeding heart liberalism”).
The same is true with environmental issues. Many conservatives, especially libertarian leaning ones think that the market “fails” when it comes to the “environment”.
So no, Barr isn’t necessarily trying to appeal to liberals (or at least liberals ONLY) by speaking
with Al Gore.
G.E. the only reason Barr met with Gore is because of McCain’s newly found position of being concerned for the environment. So, Barr had to match it, as an appeal to the type of “conservatives” that McCain appeals to. He differentiates himself from McCain on other things, but he felt he had to match McCain on this one.
Barr is stuck looking rightward . . . because he longs for that political area and will continue to see himself as coming from, and staying with the “rightâ€.
As Michael Cloud has said, “if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten.†Barr will continue down this “putting the blinders on†path, and get the same results . . . dislike from the left. I know that a portion of the left doesn’t like Ron Paul, but a good chunk of it does support him. Barr will never get this.
I agree that this is too often the case, but this is not an example of it. Here, Barr is simply doing what he is supposed to do (unlike at the Ron Paul press conference, etc). And never say never. As GE points out:
Steve – What about Bob Barr’s hobnobbing with Al Gore and Daily Kos, etc.?
Barr’s a professional politician; he knows how to move left when he wants to.
Paulie, though Barr would jump at (as any minor candidate ought to) any chance to be in the “real†debates, this McCain campaign†suspension†is tailormade for Barr’s appeal to conservatives.
Does anyone else see the problem, especially considering that Ron Paul, in his statement the other day (â€supporting†Chuck Baldwin) said tha he believes that the left is more likely to get devotees to the “freedom movement†than the right?
Yes. I’ve belabored that point at length, many places, many times. I’m glad Ron Paul understands it, too.
Paulie, though Barr would jump at (as any minor candidate ought to) any chance to be in the “real” debates, this McCain campaign” suspension” is tailormade for Barr’s appeal to conservatives.
Does anyone else see the problem, especially considering that Ron Paul, in his statement the other day (“supporting” Chuck Baldwin) said tha he believes that the left is more likely to get devotees to the “freedom movement” than the right?
Barr is stuck looking rightward . . . because he longs for that political area and will continue to see himself as coming from, and staying with the “right”.
As Michael Cloud has said, “if you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten.” Barr will continue down this “putting the blinders on” path, and get the same results . . . dislike from the left. I know that a portion of the left doesn’t like Ron Paul, but a good chunk of it does support him. Barr will never get this.
Cory goes on to describe the future plans of the campaign:
Today, we’re kicking off our radio campaign in targeted states!
Great, but what about the radio interviews which Cory has ignored. Paul Molloy, who broadcasts a strongly libertarian based radio show in the Tampa Bay area (nearly 3 million in the listening area) , has repeatedly requested an interview with Barr. Cory has rudely ignored Molloy’s requests.
Barr is a legend in his own mind . . . and believes he is too large a figure to interview on a regional, (and reasonably large potential audience) radio show! Bah humbug!
A true libertarian would make the same request if Obama refused to participate.
I highly suspect that if Obama had refused to participate, we’d the same press release with Obama’s name instead of McCain. Nader and McKinney have put out versions of the same thing.
Steve – What about Bob Barr’s hobnobbing with Al Gore and Daily Kos, etc.?
The only group Barr isn’t interested in appealing to is libertarians.
Only $39 million more to go!
BTW, I know it is McCain who has “suspended” his campaign, but the fact remains, that this is just a tactic to appeal to conservatives.
From the Barr press release:
“Given Senator McCain’s political stunt to avoid the debate, I ask that Friday’s debate moves forward without him, as I am more than willing to step in to participate.”
A true libertarian would make the same request if Obama refused to participate. This is just mre proof that Barr sees himself as a conservative, and as a stand in for the Republican, supposedly alluring candidate to conservatives.
Given that McCain and Obama have given similar responses the the financial “crisis”, it is absolutely obvious that Barr only sees himself as someone who could lure voters away from McCain, and not Obama.
I have no idea what could provide further evidence that Barr is a Republican and conservative, outside of Barr saying so explicitly.