Barring Any Surprises

Given that I've written a few posts about Ralph Nader lately, it's only fair that I write about the other "third party" candidate of the 2008 election, Bob Barr.

Bob Barr

Barr is the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party.

Bob Barr's Presidential Filing.  Click Image To Enlarge

Recent polls have suggested that Barr could pull as much as 6% of the vote. 

He has a big on line following.  Though there's not a lot of money flowing into his coffers.

The "Bob Bar Leadership Fund" has raised a little more than $1.5 million dollars.  He has a tenth of that on hand.  His presidential committee has a little more than $60,000 on hand.  The current fundraising goal is $750,000 by August 1.

Here's a video that Barr is running on his youtube channel that gives you an idea of the basic principles of his campaign:

The question is not whether Barr can win.  Even his most earnest supporters know that will not happen.  But can he make enough of a dent to a) bring about a larger understanding of the Libertarian Party and b) take away enough from John McCain to seriously hurt him on election day?

Right now the party reports it is on the ballot in 31 states including Texas.  They do not include Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia at this point.

How many of Ron Paul's supporters will go the way of Barr and ignore McCain?

Paul has refused to endorse anyone to this point.

Most political pundits suggest that Barr will do no more damage to McCain than Nader would do to Barack Obama.

But they've been wrong before...

Thanks for reading. TA

Comments

[Elcoj]

Hi, thevote.abc13.com to GoogleReader! Elcoj

[Paul]

Barr’s Congressional record is hardly the pedigree of a Libertarian. He entered the House in 1994, along with 72 other Republicans as one of Newt Gingrich’s foot soldiers in the “Republican Revolution.” While in Congress he voted for and supported the following policies and positions:

1) The War on Drugs. Not only was he a big supporter of spending billions to fight against illegal drugs, he was also a vociferous opponent of Medical Marijuana laws, even authoring an eponymous Amendment, which among other things prohibited future laws that might lessen penalties for Marijuana related offeneses. Verdict: As Libertarians believe strongly that individuals should be able to make their own choices as long as they do not endanger others or the property of others, they do not support criminalizing substances like marijuana. Un-Libertarian.

2) Same Sex Marriage. Barr co-authored the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the Federal Government from recognizing same sex marriages. Verdict: Again, Libertarians do not support the Federal Government interfering with the rights and privacy of individuals, provided those individuals are not harming others or the property of others. Un-Libertarian.

3) Religious Freedom. He proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca, a pagan religion, in the military. Verdict: Again, Un-Libertarian.

4) Clinton Impeachment. For all intents and purposes we have Bob Barr to thank for the Clinton Impeachment. Verdict: Although it is established that Clinton lied and demonstrated qualities unbecoming a President, it seems that a true Libertarian most likely wouldn’t support prosecuting a public official over a personal breach of conduct, unrelated to the duties of his office. Most likely Un-libertarian.

5) The Patriot Act. Voted for it. Verdict: Un-Libertarian.

I think this profile of Candidate Barr shows that it seems as though the Libertarians nominated Mr. Barr mostly due to his moderate political fame as opposed to his Libertarian street cred. Perhaps they felt that putting forth a nominee with legitimate political experience (albeit mostly mainstream GOP) might further substantiate the relevancy of the Libertarian Party.

From the Candidate’s perspective, it seems as though this mostly irrelevant bid for the Presidency isn’t much more than a publicity stunt. Now that it is cool to bash Bush and the Republican “brand,” Mr. Barr might be able to capitalize on his inevitably failed candidacy with a book deal or radio show when all is said and done.

www.monkeyinmymind.com

[Ben Keeler]

I dont think barr will have a very big impact, if any

[Ted Baker]

Gwen/Louis--On a side note: if Obama is elected and the Dems control both houses, who will the MSM blame for the country's problems?

[Gwen S.]

If Barr has no chance of winning, and he knows this, he is only doing this to show is dislike for Republicans and McCain. Wait until he has to live with Obama for 8 years and both houses controlled by Democrats! That is a LOOOONNNGGGG way from the political views of Barr. Main reason IMO he is running: He has always enjoyed the spotlight and he must feed his ego!

[Ted Baker]

Louis--The main purpose of any 3rd party candidate is usually to cause either or both of the 2 major parties to absorb, in whole or part, the philosophy of the 3rd party. Maybe it's a waste of time and money, but third party candidates and their followers are usually very passionate about their causes and can indeed influence the major parties that always want to attract more votes. The downside is that a 3rd party candidate can take votes away from the major party that is more aligned with its message. For example, ultra-conservative Ross Perot may have cost George Bush, Sr. the 1992 presidential election.

[louis]

Why do people like Barr....bother???
What a waste of time and money...

[Ted Baker]

If Bob Barr is such a strict constructionist of the Constitution, why did he go along with the congressional majority in abrogating the sole constitutional right of Congress to declare war (or not) on Iraq after 9/11? Instead, Congress gave Bush a right he never should have had. The "War Powers Act" under which Iraq was invaded is most likely unconstitutional, but the US Supreme Court has never ruled on it. Of course this wasn't the first time Congress turned its authority over to a president. Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War I are other examples.