Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s Presidential candidate in 2008, said that the Republican Party is in trouble, in an interview with CNN. The former Republican says his reasons for switching party are different from Arlen Specter’s reasons. He states that his switch was based on philosophical, not political, reasons.
Here’s an excerpt:
Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr said Saturday it’s hard to “overestimate the damage” that’s been inflicted on the Republican Party — not only with this week’s defection of Sen. Arlen Specter, but also the “lack of any coherent philosophy, vision or leadership.”
“The Republican Party is in very deep trouble right now,” Barr said in an interview with CNN.
Barr, who was once a loyal soldier in the GOP, joined the Libertarian Party in 2006 and was the party’s presidential candidate in 2008.
You can read the whole article here. Source: CNN.
I would like to see someone start a Christian Party….and let everyone who claims that distinction put their “vote” where their “loyalty” lies. Many talk a good game but change their message in the voting booth.
For a man to be free to move from one group to another is the basis of the freedom American’s believe in.
(OR if things don’t work out, he can become a Japanese officer in a WWII
flick and make much more money.)
re 29 – my grandpa wasn’t running for president. If he couldn’t do any better – and odds are pretty good he couldn’t – I’d advise him against putting himself on that stage.
I’d advise him against trying out for the Steelers, too. He’d be in over his head in either endeavor.
If you can’t drive a truck through an opening like Guiliani gave you, you don’t belong at a presidential debate.
re 25 — to be fair; your grandpa couldn’t’ve done any better, I’d wager.
re 27 – absolutely correct. but would the DOJ allow it to happen under the Voting Rights Act or some other bs?
@26
If they become a third party, the Republicans need a new mascot, like this one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/utvoter/3486251311/
A good way for third parties to make a difference in presidential elections would be to get more states to abolish the winner-take-all system of electoral votes implemented by most states. This would open presidential elections to serious competition which, as with all other areas of competition, benefits the consumer in innumerable ways. An even better way would be to go back to having state legislatures determine electors rather than the popular vote.
These two systems perpetuate the Republican and Democrat duopoly. You’ll notice the same two parties have dominated since around the time civil war when popular election of electors was universally implemented by each state. Because of this as well as the popular election of senators, the federal government has since become increasingly intrusive because the states have no check against federal power anymore… Imbalance of power is a bad thing in all cases, but especially since this particular imbalance favors the wing of the republic that is hundreds of miles away from the average citizen.
One long term alternative operative from the west coast says that the GOP will be a minor party by 2012 or 2016: [[email protected]]!
Alan, these issues – while serious to Ron Paul and his followers – sound nutty when they come from so far outside the mainstream. Sorry, but its amateurish BS.
Ron Paul did have some good moments, but they could have been better if he was a little better at give and take. Its because he spends so much time outside everyone else’s conversation that I think he just never developed those skills.
Case in point – the motivation behind 9-11 portion of that one GOP debate.
Ron Paul said what he said, and Guilliani responded with his dismissive “I’ve heard some crazy ideas, but never that one” line.
Why in the world didn’t Paul come right back at him and say:
“This motivation that you say you’ve never heard before is the rationale bin Laden himself offered. You can reasonably choose not to believe what bin Laden says, but I don’t understand how you can offer yourself as the national security expert in this race when you’ve never even heard why our enemies say they’re our enemies? That’s war on terror 101, and you don’t know it. All you know is one day the fire trucks rolled past your window.”
It would have been devestating, by hitting Guilliani where he lived – taking the ‘tough guy’ on with his ‘tough guy issue’ and pulling his entire rationale as a candidate out from under him.
Then Paul would have been newsworthy, as the guy who effectively threw the pie in Rudy’s face.
What did Paul actually do? I seem to recall a lot of silence.
I disagree, Paul. News media owners are NOT disinterested agents. There’s too much money at stake, especially in the “defense” industry.
Ron Paul’s campaign was not a sideshow, especially with the grassroots support and the success of the money bombs. The networks certainly treated is like a sideshow, though. Even my parents couldn’t believe the Fox News interview where they kept running a crawl at the bottom of the screen, which said something to the effect of, “Ron Paul says the Civil War wasn’t nedded to end slavery.” What?
Meanwhile, Dr. Paul was trying to discuss serious issues. Who’s the sideshow, again?
Bryon – good post.
Alan – events determine who/what is newsworthy. The media just reacts to those events, and granted, it doesn’t always react intelligently.
Ron Paul was treated like a sideshow because that’s all he was. He didn’t seem to have enough support to push him into contention. On the Democratic side, all but the front three were treated the same, including our current vice president. He never seemed to have the support, and thus wasn’t treated as a serious candidate.
Let’s turn back to the Republicans. Huckabee was similarly dismissed… until he demonstrated a stronger level of support than was known, and suddenly he was covered like a serious candidate.
Nothing is gained by dismissing it as some sort of conspiracy. Build support and the media will follow. Also, it doesn’t help to whine about how you can’t get support without the media. As true as that may be, it doesn’t help to whine about it. Besides, even if Ron Paul had gotten equal coverage, he still didn’t have any campaign structure with which to take advantage of it. You can’t win without building an organization that can develop local support and then get that support out on primary day. The Ron Paul thing was completely amateurish from what I read – a national staff that could all fit into a Corolla, and nothing at all state by state other than the occassional college kid here and there who took a semester off.
Edit: “the media determines WHO is newsworthy…”
Seems pretty clear to me that the media determines whi is newsworthy, and shapes the debate. If you don’t believe that, look at the way Ron Paul’s campaign was covered last year. Despite tremendous grassroots support, the major news media did their best to make him look like a fool when they did cover him.
That’s why I hardly bother with newspapers or t.v. news anymore. There’s a much wider range of information in the internet. And I don’t have much sympathy for newspapers’ dwindling circulation. They’ve done it to themselves, and the market is – finally – making them pay the piper.
Slightly off topic…
This is why it is important to run local and state candidates. Local press will cover local candidates, and therefore local people hear about the other parties. In the D’s and R’s the prez ticket has the coat tails everyone jumps on (on in 2008 off of 😉 but in “third Parties” the national ticket can get some or a lot of publicity because of popular local candidates.
Local “third” parties get in debates, get free airtime, press, etc… If the national cashes in on this opportunity, it will increase their popularity in (at least) these areas… First you get local coverage, then the national outlets will pay attention…
A Different Paul, that’s the very reason why they don’t get more than one percent. The media doesn’t report on them, because they’re low in public opinion. They’re low in public opinion because very few people know about them. Very few people know about them, because the media doesn’t report on them.
Rocky Eades (post 15) – YES!
Rocky 14, I wonder if you have the same judgment of Eric Sundwald for endorsing the D in his race over the R?
Morgan: “Interesting how CNN is all too willing to interview Bob Barr now, but not during the election.”
Its all the context and the timing. During the election, he was the nominee of a party that no one expected to even get 1 percent of the vote. Not very newsworthy. But now the storyline has changed to a question of why the GOP seems to be disintegrating, and a former GOP congressman who has jumped to a third party is newsworthy.
I often hear a bitterness toward and even suspicion of conspiracy by the media, with regard to how it covers third parties. Bottom line is make yourself newsworthy, and you’ll get coverage.
Ross Perot was newsworthy because he brought a lot of resources, some name awareness and a huge number of initial supporters into his first presidential run. He was polling at one point near 30 percent I believe. Someone like that will get a lot of media interest, while the guys polling at a fraction of a point won’t.
NF, I hate partisan political hacks, don’t you?
HT – Last I heard (2 months ago) Barr had said that he would never run for office again. That was one of his justifications for endorsing the big government warmonger Republican Saxby Chambliss in his senate runoff election against Jim Martin – even while LPGa senate candidate, Alan Buckley, who forced the runoff, refused to endorse either.
nf, just saying no seems ineffectual and even sanctimonious to me. yes, voting no on obama’s budget seems indicated, but the budget still passes.
offering real and plausible L alternatives seems the best way to generate interest and support.
The GOP is doing just fine as a minority party. They seem to know how to say “no” when they don’t have the votes to have much impact. How any of their party leaders can actually stand before the cameras and complain about the Obama administration when it isn’t all that much different from the Bush administration they so ardently supported is beyond hypocrisy.
Is it still expected that Barr will run for senate in GA? I haven’t heard that rumor in a lil while.
ap, couldn’t disagree more. IF we ever got a lone MC, that person COULD be way more influential than a back-bencher R. RP was of almost no influence until he ran for the Prez nomination as an R.
Pox on both your parties could be played to the hilt!
Of course Barr switched parties for political reasons. If he could regain his seat, he would be far more effective working together with Ron Paul, and still having some influence with his fellow Republicans, than as the lone member of a Libertarian Party delegation.
This assumes, of course, that his political conversion is real.
“when you ain’t got nuthin’,
you got nuthin’ to lose.”
-Bob Dylan
“The Republican Party is in very deep trouble right now,” Barr said…
And what sort of trouble is the LP in? Shallow trouble? lol
I’d have to disagree that the GOP lacks good leadership. Michael Steele and I may not agree much on politics, but I think he’s a fairly good speaker and at least a decent leader.
lf, hard to speculate where Barr’s head would have been. he’s said that his loss set in train a fundamental rethink…to the good, as I see it.
so, what’s your point?
The only difference between Barr and Specter was the former was booted by his own constituents when he was still in office. Specter didn’t wait for that to happen so he switched parties instead.
Does anybody think that if Barr was not given the boot in 2002 he wouldn’t still be a Republican?
rah, and your evidence is…?
Bull pucky. He switched parties for *completely* political reasons – he wanted to be a big fish in the LP’s small pond, rather than a dead fish in the GOP’s big pond.
Interesting how CNN is all too willing to interview Bob Barr now, but not during the election.
The only options for their “forum,” for preferred candidate, were Obama, McCain, and Other.