Replies to This Debate

Permalink Reply by Rod on June 29, 2008 at 10:44am

Really?

And some of its own members are asking how they ended up with Mr. Barr, who at the Libertarian Party convention in Denver last month squeaked by with the nomination only after six raucous rounds of votes.

“There certainly are still those,” Mr. Barr said, switching to the third person, “that may view Bob Barr as somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately.”

While libertarian philosophy generally bows to the rights of the individual — and against government intervention — Representative Barr voted for the USA Patriot Act; voted to authorize the war in Iraq in 2002; led the impeachment charge against President Bill Clinton in 1998; and introduced the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

"A Candidate Runs to a G.O.P. Chorus of ‘Don’t’", The New York Times, June 28, 2008

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John S on June 30, 2008 at 9:41am

Really! This information was from when he was a republican. He is now a Libertarian. Please quote something that is recent and relevant. If you can?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rod on June 30, 2008 at 11:08pm

1. The story goes into his time as a Republican (which I quoted)
2. The story goes into his time as a Libertarian (those few months, actually...)
3. Are you saying that he's a Flip-Flopper?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John S on July 1, 2008 at 10:18am

1. True, but irrelevant since he is no longer a Republican.
2. Yes it does.
3. It depends on what your definition of "flip-flopper" is. If it is someone who changes their positions on a matter of principal, then yes. If it is someone who changes their positions simply to get more votes, then no.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Davison on June 30, 2008 at 5:32pm

John S - check out my post here or here on Bob Barr. I think what the previous comment was referring to is his previous voting record, which like it or not, is a gauge of how that individual has stood up on a variety of issues.

Bob may be running for LP prez, but his LP cred is shaky at best. Now, let's give credit where credit is due, he has publicly apologized or completely reversed his stances on several important issues like his attacks against Medical Marijuana and his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War, but I think his candidacy begs the question of whether or not this guy is truly a Libertarian or is a conservative merely pouncing on poor GOP "brand equity" and dismal approval ratings of Mr. Bush.

Again, it's nice he at least had the cojones to apologize for his freedom infringing-support of the Defense of Marriage Act and the Patriot Act and has since called for the end of the War in Iraq, as well as has begun lobbying in support of Medical Marijuana and the ACLU, but I believe you have to hold people accountable for their votes, which is why I would never vote for Hillary Clinton even if it meant putting McCain in office because she voted for the Iraq War Resolution and never publicly admitted that it was a terrible mistake.

What I am getting at is that Bob Barr is a convenient Libertarian and doesn't exactly embody the values of America like you indicated in your comment.

But I'm glad you've brought up his candidacy because I think this is an important debate - to not lose sight of the fact that we have other choices besides D or R.

Cheers.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John S on July 1, 2008 at 11:02am

Mr. Barr has voted along party lines in the past, yes. I don't dispute that. However, he has embraced the LP party principals which are the principals of the real America, imo. I find it highly unlikely that he switched parties to the LP in order to get more votes or to have a better chance of getting elected. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose by switching parties. In our current political climate, a LP presidential nominee has 0% chance of actually getting elected. One could actually say that he committed political suicide by switching to the LP party. Why would someone do that to themselves?

Changing one's positions is NOT a bad thing when you voted for things like the Patriot Act. It's a very good thing! I would agree that he does not embody the traditional LP party nominee credentials, which is a also a good thing in my opinion. The traditional LP party credentials are equivalent, according to the average American, to "right-wing extremist wacko nut job". If the LP party is ever going to gain any prominence on the national stage, it HAS to come more to the center. It has to rid itself of the "extremist wacko nut job" label and appeal to the masses. Some Libertarians believe this is impossible to do without abandoning core libertarian principals, I disagree. I think nominating someone like Mr. Barr is a step in this direction. I would agree that he is not perfect, but then again, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daniel Cuevas on July 4, 2008 at 11:58am

Rod,

I am a libertarian myself, but I don't really know much Bob Barr. But I am not surprised to hear about his socially conservative leanings; many Republicans who have no chance running under the GOP ticket switch to the Libertarian Party. Anyone who voted for the Patriot Act is neither a patriot or a true libertarian.

Now that I see how much of a libertarian Mr. Barr isn't, I can rest knowing his socially conservative tendencies will attract many a potential McCain voter, thus hurting the GOP candidate's chances of winning in November.

We had two outstanding libertarian Presidential candidates and the people shot them down-Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Bill Richardson. Barack Obama (who has been officially endorsed by Richardson and unofficially endorsed by Paul) is the closest thing to a libertarian in this race because he wants to end our military intervention in Iraq and is even eager to apply diplomacy to our biggest critics, those heads of state of the "axis of evil".

I'm not even going to respond to Mr. Cox's ridiculous debate, as so many others have already shot him down so very well.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rod on July 8, 2008 at 1:18am

Daniel - Hey, Bruh. Methinks somewhere along the line we all inadvertently hijacked Mr. Cox's debate. Here's to hoping it's all for the better... :oD

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Larry Ruark on July 6, 2008 at 8:07am

Barack Obama, is the only way to go,WE HAVE TO HAVE A CHANGE ! !. This country can not stand another four years of Republican madness. What kind of idiot is McCain to say he will fight a war for the next hundred years, McCain has no value of human life. I am very proud of our troops but it is time for them to come home. "God Bless America" not every other country in the world. It is time we realize we need to start helping and protecting our own people. Our children need to be feed and given health care, our elderly can't get the medicine and health care they need after spending years working and paying taxes. We can fill these needs if we stop sending billions of our tax dollars over seas and trying to take care of the world, we can't do it any more, it's time we start taking care of ourselves.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Nardolilli on July 7, 2008 at 5:47pm

An interesting reversal here, the responses, both left and right, are far more intelligent than the original post. And coherent. The opposite usually happens. Maybe this is the way to get a real debate going.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3