The AP writes that with taxpayers “stuck with the bill” due to the federal financial rescue package, “Libertarian candidate Bob Barr couldn’t have scripted a better story line to argue that Republicans and Democrats are interchangeable — with a helpless addiction to spending. Can Barr capitalize on it during the closing weeks of the presidential campaign? Republican strategists fear any gains he makes could come at the expense of their ticket because Barr’s economic views are closer to those of GOP nominee John McCain than to Democrat Barack Obama.”
But polls “so far aren’t registering a shift to the Libertarian candidate in spite of widespread outrage over the $700 billion rescue package. The former GOP congressman from Georgia is languishing with about the same 1 percent share of support he’s had for months.” However, Barr “is sharpening his attacks on McCain, hoping that fiscal conservatives frustrated over McCain’s support for the bailout will join his anti-government campaign. Barr says traffic on his Web site is spiking, donations are picking up and the campaign is getting angry calls from Republicans who feel betrayed.”
Ron Paul is wrong on immigration, Anthony.
You’re wrong about everything else in the above comment.
Ron Paul is NOT against gay marriage. His position on abortion is NOT inconsistent with libertarianism.
It is the positions of the homostatist abortion enthusiasts that are against libertarianism.
Regardless, Bob Barr completely and totally lacks the chops to be a leader of the anti-bailout movement. This is a guy who just a few months ago said that Fannie Mae should be “privatized” (it already was) and that the government “needed to do something.”
Steve,
Ron Paul was not so much the libertarian as you seem to portray him. His opinions on immigration and gay marriage come to mind, and I am sure I do not have to go over them with you. And of course, his abortion stance would be anathema to the large number of pro-choice people in the LP.
Obviously, the moral of the above paragraph is that that is precisely the problem with the purist position in the LP, or dogma of any kind: you are NEVER going to please everyone. There is no perfect candidate. Bob Barr certainly ain’t it, but he was better than the available alternatives.
I’ll never understand why he did not take a page out of Paul’s playbook and appeal to both sides of the traditional spectrum.
Open your eyes . . . Ron Paul’s playbook is a libertarian one . . . Barr’s is conservative.
Barr only feels comfortable addressing issues from a conservative perspective, because that is what Barr is . . . a conservative!
Or the potential disappointment this year in getting dragged into a debate about child porn and age-of-consent laws.
You can thank W.A.R. and his crony Mark Schreiber, with help from Aaron Starr, and the flames fanned on this by our beloved ex-ED of the LP Shane Cory (beloved because he left the ED position!)
In this political year or any other, age of consent is a minor issue, though not necessarily an unimportant one. But this idea of “getting dragged into a debate about child porn and age-of-consent laws” was simply a conservative, “law and order” smear of Mary Ruwart because she was likely to get the nomination.
So Mr. AnthonyD, this self-fulfilling prophecy, a tautology of sorts, of the “child porn” issue; and it is precisely why Barr and W.A.R. had every incentive to smear Ruwart, or at least strategize off of it. Now you only have to be disappointed in just appealing to conservatives! Very self serving!
darolew,
You are correct. The one thing I am most disappointed about in Barr’s campaign is that he did seem to tailor his message too much to the disaffected conservative. I’ll never understand why he did not take a page out of Paul’s playbook and appeal to both sides of the traditional spectrum.
But, I prefer to be disappointed with how our candidate “tailors” his message rather than my disappointment from 2004, when I listened to a message from our candidate which talked about how tough it was to rent a car on the campaign trail when you have no driver’s license and no credit card. Or the potential disappointment this year in getting dragged into a debate about child porn and age-of-consent laws.
AnthonyD says:
“look at it as an opportunity to teach ex-conservatives who come to the party about the advantages of libertarianism as it pertains to issues traditionally identified with the left, such as the anti-war position.”
The problem is, Barr doesn’t speak to “ex-conservatives”. He talks to conservatives, because that is what he is. Libertarians talk to everyone about liberty . . . Barr talks to conservatives about conservatism and law and order.
AnthonyD // Oct 10, 2008 at 1:52 pm
The LP was started by ex-republicans.
Very different Republican Party then, with the majority of the LP founders being followers of the recent campaign of Barry Goldwater in 1964. The same is true of Ron Paul, who left the GOP in the mid 80’s in disgust over the Reagan presidency.
As a matter of fact, when the word “libertarian” became more common in usage, Goldwater referred to himself as a libertarian, rather than as a conservative.
So, your assimilation of “republicans” today with “Republicans” of the 60’s and 70’s is bogus.
Obama canvassers left a pamphlet at my house. Obama touts his “tough foreign policy” — “tough.” How idiotic is that? Should I adopt a “tough” policy towards my neighbors? WTF does “tough” mean?
The Empire is falling and I’m loving every minute of it. Burn, Babylon, burn!
“Because the evidence is QUITE clear that issues related to the economy DOMINATE their concerns at this point.”
War spending is related to the economy.
There’s no reason why Barr shouldn’t try to appeal to conservatives who are outraged by the bailout. It’s a smart move. The problem is that he fails to appeal to liberals who are outraged by the bailout, or by Obama’s pro-war stance, and so-such.
Really, you can try to draw conservative support without positioning one’s self as the only ‘true conservative’ in the race.
Steve,
The LP was started by ex-republicans. Ron Paul switched from Republican to Libertarian then back to Republican. In a head-t0-head match-up of ex-GOP vs. ex-Dem at the nominating convention, Barr beat Gravel.
The evidence is clear that defections from conservativism to libertarianism have and always will outnumber defections from (modern) liberalism. You and I and every other Libertarian will have to deal with that fact. Rather than looking at that as a problem, look at it as an opportunity to teach ex-conservatives who come to the party about the advantages of libertarianism as it pertains to issues traditionally identified with the left, such as the anti-war position.
And as far as your question,
“Doesn’t the Barr campaign think that “anti-war†is a viable issue to pull would-be liberals/Democrats?”
Perhaps you should read up on some recent articles about what is important to the voters of this country at this point in time. Because the evidence is QUITE clear that issues related to the economy DOMINATE their concerns at this point. As sad as it is to contemplate (and I am with you on this one), but right now American voters could care less about the wars we are fighting. Bob Barr was right on target in focusing on the bailout, it is just too bad he does not have the $$$ to get out the message that he is against it.
It does seemed to helped. If I’m Barr, I pound this issue until election day.
Here we go again, with Barr simply trying to appeal to conservative Republicans (hint-he does this because that is what Barr himself is):
“However, Barr “is sharpening his attacks on McCain, hoping that fiscal conservatives frustrated over McCain’s support for the bailout . . .”
What, Obama doesn’t support this bailout? Des the Barr campaign think that liberals and/or Democrats support this bailout?
What about Obama’s moving away from any semblance of an anti-war stance? Doesn’t the Barr campaign think that “anti-war” is a viable issue to pull would-be liberals/Democrats?
The truth is, Barr IS a conservative, and has no interest in appealing to liberals or Democrats. The really sad fact is that most Libertarians (self-described or otherwise identified as such) are really conservatives as well. RIP LP.
AP seems to perhaps be praising Barr with faint damns.
So when the LP becomes GOP Jr., what name will we call ourselves, the REAL libertarians?