Pajamas Media

73 Comments

1. Rignerd:

As much as I like Bob Barr I have to say A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.

Aug 12, 2008 - 4:35 am 2. Jay:

Rignerd, I agree, if you all want Obama to win then go ahead and vote for this man. Some conservatives I have talked to have their heads up their collective asses. DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN! If Obama wins in a close election I will hold Bob Barr personally responsible for the consequences.

Aug 12, 2008 - 5:52 am 3. Eric Dondero:

A vote for Barr is NOT a vote for Obama, when you consider the fact that we Libertarians are virtually on the exact opposite side of the political spectrum from the Democrats. We widen the political spectrum to the Right.

Example:

Obama says in a debate, let’s have tax increases on the rich.

McCain says “Middle-class tax cuts.”

Barr says, abolish the IRS and go with a very low simplified flat tax.

McCain comes out smelling like the Moderate reasonable Centrist that he is. And Obama looks like a flaming Socialist, like he is.

Aug 12, 2008 - 5:55 am 4. Joe:

Bob Barr was a decent enough congressman who got too wrapped up with trying to take down Clinton and ended up not getting re-elected. But like the player who could not give up the game after being let go from the majors, Barr decided to play for the minor leagues. A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama.

Professor Bainbridge had this walk down memory lane: http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/the_bears_back/

Do we want to help elect Barak “Timmothy Treadwell” Obama to deal with the bear?

Aug 12, 2008 - 5:57 am 5. Kent:

“This, he assured us, would be followed by a meeting with both houses of Congress where he would shame them into following suit.”

Congress has shame? I haven’t seen any signs of it.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:00 am 6. Joe:

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/the_bears_back/

Helping elect Barack “Timmothy Treadwell” Obama is not the answer.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:02 am 7. sadcox:

@Rignerd

You may be right, but with each election the defining lines between Dem and Rep are blurring. We’ve basically come to the point of a single party system. Something has to be done some time.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:03 am 8. Lea:

Agreed.

I also think Libertarians belong in congress, where they can watch the purse strings, rather than in the white house, where they need to make foreign policy decisions. However, if it looks like the race is going Obama regardless (or just my state even) I might vote Barr. But we’re usually a swing state, so I probably can’t use a protest vote.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:04 am 9. Jay:

Eric Dondero: It is a vote for Obama because it takes votes away from McCain. John McCain is not my first choice for president by a long shot but at least he wont destroy this country like Obama will and I don’t care what the leftist loons think about me saying that. But if you do vote for Bob Barr just empty your bank account and give to your nearest welfare recipient because Barak Obama will be the next president.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:14 am 10. O'Rourke:

A vote for Barr is a vote for Barr.

A vote for McCain is a vote for amnesty for tens of millions of welfare dependent third world parasites on the “path” to Democrat party voter registration.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:29 am 11. rrr:

“A vote for Barr is a vote for Barr.

A vote for McCain is a vote for amnesty for tens of millions of welfare dependent third world parasites on the “path” to Democrat party voter registration.”

And, given Barr has NO CHANCE to win, an Obama administration accomplishes what for you? Somehow you all never get around to answering that question.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:47 am 12. Jack Chambers:

Jay,

If you are conservative and you are not going to vote for the socialist, feminist, Russia-hating McCain anyway, a vote for Barr does NOT take anything away from McCain. Think about it.

Russia just surpassed Germany as the largest consumer market…and the neocons provoked a war using US-trained death squads, not on Islamofascists or Columbian drug dealers but on Russians. Go figure.

Heck, I was for the Iraq War and might be for one to stop Iran from building nukes…but to call Russia the enemy amid western media giving a one-side story? No thanx.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:59 am 13. Libertyman13:

Libertarians on the right? You sir are no Libertarian. That is a pretty hilarious statement though. For every tax cut statement the right has (and there are some few) there are a dozen proposals to do something to limit your liberty. They weren’t asking questions about whether there should be tax cuts in order to screen out people from Department of Justice jobs; they were asking about the big moralistic government issues, gays, guns & God. Two of which the right is horribly anti-liberty on. Need I go on? From Supreme Court justices to morality legislation to domestic spying to flag burning to who you can marry to whether we can admit that condoms prevent AIDS, the right represents the oppression of some Pleasantville-esque 1950s era that never existed. But you’re right, those Libertarians are just like Republicans! *laughs*

Note: Libertarians also have many differences with Democrats and so-called (incorrectly) liberals: smoking bans, taxes, etc. But if you look at actual liberty issues, it becomes obvious that the Republicans pose, and have posed for years now, the bigger threat.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:02 am 14. O'Rourke:

rrr;

“An Obama administration accomplishes what…”

1) I’m not voting for Obama.

2) I believe McCain is more bone marrow dedicated to amnesty and the Dem congress is more likely to give it to him and let the “Republican” get the “credit” for it.

3) I’m in California, the state Reagan won four times. The third world invasion has made it impossible for McCain to win California. He won’t even try. Voting for McCain would surely be throwing my vote away.

McCain wants to do to the other 49 states what has been done to California.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:05 am 15. Jay:

rrr:
Thank you, I agree. If Obama wins then illegal immigration will be the LEAST of our problems.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:07 am 16. Jay:

Jack Chambers:
I’m not going to bother replying to that.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:10 am 17. Bill in New York:

Libertarianism is a wonderful idea, but a lousy political party. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, but many so-called libertarians only want the freedom and not the responsibility, and that dog just won’t hunt. You want to legalize drugs? Sure, we’ll get right on that. You want us to pull our military back to our own borders only to defend against attacks, while turning our backs as evil doers murder innocents around the world? Yup, sure thing, because we know if we just stick our hands in the sand that they won’t eventually come for us, too… right? Sorry, libertarians. I believe in maximum freedom and responsibility, the idea that inspires America and makes her great, and I think there is great need to elevate libertarian philosophy and ideas into our political party platforms and hold politicians accountable to them… but a vote for Barr is indeed a vote for Obama by default.
The Libertarian Political Party is a bad idea, it’s like herding cats.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:10 am 18. Zach:

Whatever happened to political principles? I am an eighteen year old first timer and I’m already sick of two-party politics. Both major party politicians would increase spending on useless programs like welfare (which is just a gigantic federal band-aid for poverty) and carbon cap-and-trade (when carbon doesn’t even cause a fraction as much “global warming” as methane). I’ve followed Ron Paul’s campaign, but since he dropped out I’m looking for another candidate who would actually stand up for us Americans and our rights first, THEN worry about foreigners. Maybe Barr is that candidate.
And in response to the second post:
How could you hold a free-market capitalist like Barr responsible for the election of a socialist like Obama? Barr deserves his day at the ballot box and the more people that vote for a truly smaller government, the better. Besides, if Obama does get elected, the American people can see just how screwed up the liberal agenda is.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:12 am 19. AngelEyesGBU:

As my state of Illinois will certainly vote for the Obamessiah, I’d be willing to vote for Bob Barr here in exchange for a Barr voter in a battleground state agreeing to vote for McCain.

This can’t be a binding legal agreement, for obvious reasons (i.e. impossibility of verification or enforcement), and the offer is not valid where prohibited by law.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:29 am 20. Bob Barr Sinister:

Bob Barr is a bizarre hypocrite who has renonced most of his former ultraconservative positions.

Barr opposed Roe v. Wade for decades. Yet it was revealed that in 1982-83, he drove his second wife to a clinic to get an abortion he paid for — apparently so he would not have to pay child support for the baby once he married his mistress who became his third wife.

Barr led Clinton impeachment efforts despite Barr’s own infidelities.

The nutjob unsuccessfully tried to bam wiccans (witches) from the military.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:32 am 21. Pajamas Media: “Will Barr Have an Impact on Presidential Race?” » FREE WHITEWATER:

[...] Over at Pajamas Media, there’s an article asking, “Will Barr Have an Impact on Presidential Race?” [...]

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:54 am 22. Batman:

You people are NUTS!!! Barr currently polls enough votes to throw the election to Obama. Just check out polls where he is included. If Obama gets elected because of Barr, I will personally hunt you down. A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama. Keep repeating it, again, and again, and again, and again, and don’t stop saying it until after the election is over!

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:55 am 23. Jay:

Zach: Welcome to politics and good luck wading thru the garbage. Just remember your gut feelings are probably better than our advice. The problem though with waiting for the American people to see “how screwed up the liberal agenda is” is we have to live through and correct the problems if we make the wrong, or worst as in this case, decision on who is the right person for president and a third party candidate will sometimes get the wrong person elected. Now somebody may write saying how wrong I am but you sound smart enough to make up your own mind.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:56 am 24. William:

Bob Barr will not be on the ballot in WVA. This is a problem he will have and is why he can never be elected. Those who vote for him strictly because of their own principles are making a mistake. We may not like to admit it, but life is full of compromises.

Aug 12, 2008 - 8:40 am 25. Bob Barr 2008 Blog » Blog Archive » Pajamas Media on Bob’s run for the White House:

[...] is a very good, issue-oriented post up over at Pajamas Media about the impact Bob is having in the presidential election: Looking back upon his time as a conservative Republican in Congress, the candidate told this [...]

Aug 12, 2008 - 8:41 am 26. pch1013:

“If Obama gets elected because of Barr, I will personally hunt you down.”

And do what? Obama is going to take all your guns away, right after he forces your wife to become a burqa-wearing lesbian abortionist.

Aug 12, 2008 - 8:49 am 27. Mabel:

Bill in New York is absolutely right…libertarian ideology is interesting in theory but inpractical. But libertarians live in a theoretical world. I like elements of it but complete and unchecked freedom means chaos.

Bob Barr has no chance of winning but can ruin McCain’s and give us the most liberal, borderline socialist president in history…politics is about being pragmatic…McCain is the best option this time.

Aug 12, 2008 - 8:54 am 28. nathan:

A vote for McCain is a vote for McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. A vote for Barr is a vote for Barr.

There are only 2 ways to waste your vote in this election: voting for McCain or Obama

A applaud those who are going to vote for Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, or Ralph Nader. At least those will NOT be wasted votes.

Aug 12, 2008 - 8:55 am 29. EG:

I’m a democrat supporting Bob Barr. Where is the conclusive polling data showing Barr is taking votes from McCain? All I’ve seen is that libertarians generally support Obama over McCain, which means if they see a viable candidate in Barr, they may vote Barr and help McCain even more. If it weren’t for Barr, my vote would go to Obama.

Sorry, but the assumption is unfounded.

Newsflash: Unless there is a tie, the only thing your vote will determine is how much principle you have.

Have some principle this election. For once, support the ideas you truly believe in. For me, that means liberty and Bob Barr.

Aug 12, 2008 - 9:06 am 30. The details:

Barr isn’t going to get too many votes. The hardcore libertarians are going to vote for someone who’s pro-Wicca, and disgruntled McCain voters aren’t going to vote for him when they realize that he’s as fake as McCain on immigration. Details on the latter at my name’s link.

Aug 12, 2008 - 9:38 am 31. Mwalimu Daudi:

On the subject of Iraq, for example, Barr promised that he would begin a prompt, safe, responsible withdrawal from the country.

This reminded me of why I left the Libertarian Party and became an independent. “Prompt”, “safe”, “responsible” – what worthless twaddle! If the Iraq war was a bad idea then get out now and to hell with the consequences (such as the Persian Gulf becoming an Islamist lake). If not – finish the job and knock off the antiwar preening. But stop fooling around and pick a position! Typical political hack – trying to have it both ways.

Barr’s remarks are the same rubbish Democrats have dished out for half a decade now. We have tried Fortress America before – and got rude awakenings like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Some people never learn.

Aug 12, 2008 - 9:44 am 32. Jimmiller:

Mabel,

“Complete and unchecked freedoms lead to chaos” is a true enough statement. However, Libertarians don’t wan’t completely unchecked freedoms. The freedom to have domain over your own body in the privacy of your own home does not go unchecked. Laws designed to prevent your rights from infringing upon the rights of others still apply, even in the Libertarians’ world. Life is not always all or nothing. Don’t be afraid of what’s in between.
By the way, I’m a registered democrat who was kicked out of the Democratic National Headquarters in DC the same week that I was arrested in Bob Barr’s DC office doorway in 1999. “Either/or” is what got us here and will be what keeps us here. In case you haven’t noticed, “here” isn’t a particularly good thing. It doesn’t have to be left or right, us or them. A third opinion is invaluable, and we are lacking just that. I will be voting “neither” and going with Bob. I can assure you that this is not taking a vote away from McCain as he would not get my vote even if he was running against himself with nobody else on the ticket.

Aug 12, 2008 - 10:11 am 33. b:

Bob Barr was paraded on NPR’s On Point as libertarian bait and they did their best to chuff him up. I called in and said the objective effect of his candidacy would be to put a socialist in the White House with a socialist Congress at his back, and that, quite obviously, this would not be good for libertarian values.

Tom Ashbrook: “Whoa, B! Barack Obama’s a socialist?”
B: “Yes.”

Aug 12, 2008 - 10:33 am 34. Ryan:

Are the McCain voters sure a vote for McCain is better than an vote for Obama (and hence Barr)? I agree that the practicality of voting for Barr is voting for Obama, but I’d rather vote my conscience than vote for McCain.

I know it is more practical to have McCain in there, but two assumptions are made there: first, that he is consistently better than Obama, and second, that Obama isn’t pragmatic. I think the Chicago politics of Obama proves that as long as you have something to offer, he’ll cast his halo over your flock.

But I’d rather have the likes of Jay, Batman, et al threaten my life than vote for either of the major candidates.

Aug 12, 2008 - 10:40 am 35. JustaNHBoy:

12 years ago I had to explain to the libertarian running for congress for my district that if he pulled the 5% as expected he would be responsible for returning to congress the deciding vote that passed the assault weapon ban. I promised him that if that happened, despite my strong libertarian leanings and sympathies, I would dedicate my efforts to ending the libertarian party as a functional political group in my state. I was not alone in my views. Nor was I the only one to share them. In the end, he, a good and honorable man, made a very hard choice and threw his support to the republican and asked that people not vote for him. It greatly damaged his standing with his party, and he still polled about 2%, but we unseated the democrat and started the ripple through the government that opposing the 2nd amendment can come at a high price.

I have thought about that conversation many times. I am not sure that I did the “right” thing in helping to convince him to withdraw. I am sure that I would do so again. I mention this to illustrate that I, as you, take seriously the decision not to support your party’s candidate.

I wish that the libertarian were a viable choice. That alone would move all 3 parties to the right. The unfortunate fact is that Barr can not win, all he can do is tip a few key swing states to Obama.

Libertarians, ask yourselves if you’d rather have McCain or Obama because that is your only choice. You can’t win the presidency with out becoming a viable 3rd party. That means you need to WIN a some seats in the house and senate and a few governorships first. Is making a political statement, that the media will completely ignore, worth 4 or 8 years of an Obama presidency? I fail to see how you can responsibly answer yes.

Aug 12, 2008 - 11:24 am 36. Nathan:

The conventional wisdom goes: “A vote for [3rd Party Candidate] is a vote for [major party candidate you don't like].” How do so many otherwise intelligent people fall for this?

It is impossible for one vote to actually effect the outcome of the election. Your vote does not, in fact, count. If by some unlikely chance the election actually is that close, in some state, then it will be decided by the courts anyway. So voting your conscience is not going to make it appreciably more likely that Obama (or whoever you don’t like) will be the next president.

What if everyone thinks that way? Well, if everyone thinks that way, Barr has a chance to win. That’s what I hope happens, which is why I want this prevalent notion that everyone should vote tactically, just to stave off the lesser of two evils for four years, to be slain. But what if only a few people think that way, enough to affect the outcome, but not enough to achieve victory? Then that is the first step to bringing more people around to our point of view. That is the outcome that will either force the major parties to take concern over the growing power and arrogance of our government, or prove to the people that they have an alternative. I care who sits in the oval office for the next four years, but I care more about the direction of our body politic over the next few decades. Congress’ approval rating is in the teens. The President’s is around 30%. The two parties are unpopular and ready to fall. Everyone is just waiting for them to topple over. Time to give a shove.

I have nothing against McCain or Obama personally. But a vote for either one is a vote for continued stagnation, gerrymandering, and erosion of liberty. A vote for Barr is a vote for fundamental change, the restoration of Constitutional, limited government.

Aug 12, 2008 - 11:35 am 37. Budget:

Vote for whoever will be most likely to balance the budget. McCain is the least likely to do this. Obama will spend waaaay too much on social programs to balance it even with his additional taxes. McCain will (as Bush did) spend waay to much over seas to even come close. That leaves Barr.

Aug 12, 2008 - 12:00 pm 38. Jay:

Ryan: I didn’t realize I’ve threatened anyone. You vote for who you want to, I’m out of this conversation. Just remember a vote for Barr is another step closer to the presidency for Obama and to all you libertarian out there, oh forget it.

Aug 12, 2008 - 12:10 pm 39. Roark:

I am voting for Barr. I gave up the ludicrous idea of casting my ballot for the lesser of two evils long ago. Let’s face a bit of reality here, wether the Messiah or McCain becomes President, will there be any real progress toward greater freedom and liberty in ACTUALITY? If history is any barometer, then we all know that the veto pen is rarely used. A vote for the Messiah or McCain is a vote for the status quo. A vote for Barr IS a vote for liberty. I know that Barr has a slim to zero chance of winning, but unless individuals stand up to the the machine called Washington DC, then rest assured you can count on the USA to become Europeanized.

Aug 12, 2008 - 12:20 pm 40. Will Barr Have an Impact on Presidential Race?:

[...] JAZZ SHAW, IN PAJAMAS MEDIA FOTO: BOB BARR, IN [...]

Aug 12, 2008 - 12:36 pm 41. Nathan:

JustaNHBoy,

I see where you’re coming from, but the solution you suggest isn’t viable. We can’t start by winning a few House and Senate seats. Most of them are gerrymandered beyond competitiveness. In the handful where a real race is possible, many people will make the same sort of argument you did twelve years ago. Finally, even if we do manage to elect a few people to the House, the undemocratic system of committee membership and seniority that is currently in place would render them almost completely powerless. Doing that would just give the Republicans and Democrats a chance to further label us a joke.

So what, in your opinion, should be done? I’m open to alternative ways to build up the party toward national viability, but I think any effective strategy must include running a strong national campaign. And even if we wind up with the greater of two evils in the Oval Office for a few years, I think in the long run a viable libertarian alternative is worth that price. The current government framework–which unfortunately bears only superficial resemblance to that mandated by the Constitution–is so arrogant and corrupt that less radical means of repair are inadequate to the task. Look how far we’ve come down the road to socialism! This government, which cannot even implement a sane immigration policy, and which routinely provides C-Span with some of the most inane and childish policy debates ever recorded, is poised to take over medical care! It’s not an exaggeration to say that lives will be at risk if we don’t get our government under control before it’s too late.

Aug 12, 2008 - 1:15 pm 42. peter jackson:

A vote for McCain is a vote for McCain. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. A vote for Barr is a vote for Barr.

As a registered Libertarian for 20 years I dutifully recited the same catechism, over and over; unfortunately, it doesn’t matter how many times it’s recited, it’s simply not true. A vote for any candidate other than the top two contenders in effect a vote for the frontrunner. It’s called Duverger’s Law. Look it up.

And it’s not the parties’ fault, or the voters’ fault, it is the fault of our system of voting which intensifies this Duverger effect. There are only two ways to get past it: change our system of representation to one not affected by Duverger’s Law (proportional representation), or change our voting system from allowing only a single vote cast per voter per election to an approval voting system where each voter may cast a single vote for each candidate running. Proportional representation would require amending huge swaths of the Constitution and would radically alter our way of government. Approval voting would only require statutory election reform at either the local, state, or national level. Although approval voting would not eliminate altogether the Duverger effect or the two party system, it would eliminate wasted vote syndrome and the utter lock on the top two party positions by the Republicans and Democrats.

yours/
peter.

Aug 12, 2008 - 1:32 pm 43. Pajamas Media on Bob’s run for the White House | The Gulf Coast Crawler:

[...] is a very good, issue-oriented post up over at Pajamas Media about the impact Bob is having in the presidential election: Looking back upon his time as a conservative Republican in Congress, the candidate told this [...]

Aug 12, 2008 - 2:14 pm 44. Will Bob Barr Have an Impact on the Presidential Race?:

[...] Check out my new column on this subject. [...]

Aug 12, 2008 - 3:00 pm 45. Been a recent upsurge « The Old Right Daily:

[...] the most recent article, from the Almighty Pajamas Media, is just [...]

Aug 12, 2008 - 3:00 pm 46. Tom Mathers:

You know the old adage about boiling a frog? Turn the heat up slowly and he will stay put till he’s cooked but turn it up too fast and he’ll just jump out of the pot. That’s how I see this election; the choice between a slow cooker, McCain, frying our liberties, constitutional rights and property versus a fast cooker, O’Bama doing the same thing. By doing it slowly there a very good chance McCain will succeed but O’Bama’s clumsy governance could easily ignite a critical mass of angry citizens to take serious action in defense of liberty. So for me n the absence of a Barr presidency, I say elect O’Bama and let the good times roll!

Aug 12, 2008 - 4:07 pm 47. Will:

I’m in California, and I’m seriously considering Barr. Obama should carry the state by about 2 million votes, so I don’t feel bad about a ‘protest vote’. FWIW, I’m registered independent, and I prefer Obama to McCain.

It just blows my mind that after seeing them operate for the last 8 years, we still have people willing to vote Republican.

Aug 12, 2008 - 4:58 pm 48. billinvirginia:

The real choice in this election is whether we are going to be a republic or an empire. If we go out and get involved militarily in every ridiculous conflict anywhere in the world, we are going to be an empire, and cease being a republic. That is the lesson of history, and the lesson of the Bush administration. Under McCain, this is exactly what we will do. Under Obama, we will be more restrained, and there is an outside chance that we will remain as a republic for a bit longer. So that’s why, after a long struggle with myself, I switched to Obama after Ron Paul dropped out. My vote may, ultimately, make a difference, and Obama is by far the more libertarian candidate.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:02 pm 49. Greg:

I am voting for Bob Barr. I have been active in the Libertarian Party since 2001, and I run a Bob Barr meetup group.

The only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don’t truly believe in and support for the sole purpose of keeping out someone you feel is even worse. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil.

I refuse to send a message to John McCain that I support his ideals and that I love what he does and has done in the past. I won’t make him think that I supported McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and his gang-of-five, or more recently ten.

Yes a Barack Obama presidency would be far worse. Just as a Clinton presidency was far worse than a second term of Papa Bush would have been. But then the 1994 Republican Revolution would never have happened. Not that it mattered much, as Republicans have flaunted their true big-government colors since then.

Even so, if Bob Barr were not on the ballot, I would leave the presidential ballot spot blank. Never assume that a Bob Barr voter would otherwise vote for John McCain. It simply ain’t true.

I last voted for the lesser of two evils in 1996 when I voted for Bob Dole. In 2000 I voted for Harry Browne, and in 2004 I voted for Michael Badnarik. I never sent any message to George W. Bush that I appreciated his big-government policies. I refuse to send such a message to John McCain either.

Granted, if Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination, I’d be supporting him right now, even though I disagree with his limp-wristed foreign policy ideas. Liberty trumps security, and he is right on so many other issues, as is Bob Barr.

Aug 12, 2008 - 6:50 pm 50. njcommuter:

If you believe in freedom, you have to defend it. Retreating from the world will only allow more of the world to fall into darkness; ultimately it will all be turned against us.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:33 pm 51. John Moore:

I read that people are “seriously considering” voting for Barr.

That’s oxymoronic. Nobody serious would vote for Barr in this election!

I get really tired of libertarians, who seem to think they have the magic answer, voting in ways that always help the more leftish of the candidates. Paradoxically, their votes almost always help the person least congruent to their ideals.

I used to be a registered Libertarian. Then I grew up.

It’s been my experience that Libertarians are smart people without a clue (just like a lot of Marxist professsors, except the Libertarians are in Mensa instead of academia). The rest are airhead libertines who think the two words mean the same thing (think Bill Mahr).

If you believe libertarian principles work in a real political system, you have faith in an ideology no more based on actual human behavior than Marxism.

Libertarianism is an ethical stance, not a viable political one. Libertarianism provides some important ideas that conservatives need to pay attention to, and nothing else.

Aug 12, 2008 - 7:49 pm 52. Bill:

If I hear a vote for Barr/Nader/any Third party is a vote for Idiot A or B, or “is a wasted vote” I think I will puke. The only vote wasted is the vote not cast. End of story.

Get this straight folks, this is an election, not American Idle. I am voting for the candidate that I feel best represents my views. Voting for the lesser of two evils just means that you are still stupid enough to vote for evil; and people wonder why there is something wrong in the US.

People that play that “a vote for ….” broken record are demonstrating a complete ignorance of the often criticized Electoral College system. The popular vote counts for nothing on the national level whatsoever, and I hope that never changes either.

In my state, Mr. McAmnesty will win regardless of whether or not I vote at all – no contest. Using the “a vote for…” logic, if I vote for Osama, on the state level, I am voting for the loser and am thus “throwing my vote away”. If Obamassiah wins the most Electoral College votes nationwide, anyone who votes for McSame anywhere is throwing their vote away because they are what….? “voting for the loser”. The only place voting for one of the two dummies really makes a difference matters is in the swing states.

The only way that the media will every recognize Third Party Candidates will be if the American public wakes up to the way the Electoral College works and rallies the “losing” side of their state to vote for the Third Party Candidate instead of the “other guy”.

Using my logic, McWar will still win my state, no question, and get all of the state’s Electoral College votes. But convincing Oblahblah’s supporters here to vote for say Barr or Nader instead will send a clear signal that a very large percentage of people are tired of the same old retreads. This is because of the fact that while a state may turn Red or Blue on the map, the raw numbers are still displayed for everyone to see.

Let me re-iterate: Voting for the lesser of two evils just means that you are still stupid enough to vote for evil, and as long as we continue to do that that is exactly what we will get – more evil. How much more can we take?

Live free or Diebold!…. oops. Never mind, if voting actually changed anything, they’d just make it illegal.

Aug 12, 2008 - 8:08 pm 53. Roger Godby:

If I vote for Obama, will I get a subsidy for full-service at the gas station so my tires will always be properly inflated?

Barr will be this election’s Nader, but he’ll throw McCain votes to Obama.

I thought Kerry vs. Bush was a terrible pairing. I voted Bush solely as a protest vote against Kerry (the “winter soldier” whose main skill is bagging rich wives) and his well-coiffed Ambulance Chaser who has helped create Two Americas: one with doctors who provide care and one with doctors who don’t (and relocate) because they can’t afford malpractice insurance.

This election is an even worse pairing, but it’ll end the same. I will vote McCain as a protest against Carter–er, Obama.

Aug 12, 2008 - 8:38 pm 54. xnylady:

How about Chuck Baldwin, he is neither Obama, McCain nor Barr. He is a Constitutionalist.

Aug 12, 2008 - 10:41 pm 55. David:

“If Obama wins in a close election I will hold Bob Barr personally responsible for the consequences.”

No, this is like your spouse having an affair and assigning all the blame to the interloper.

I voted for Bush in 2004 so we would have continuity in a time of war/crisis, but the republicans have completely squandered the opportunity of a majority in congress and a (supposedly) like-minded president.

1)Reduce the size and scope of the freaking government already.
2)Pass that law that says any other law passed has to state the associated portions of the constitution that make it legal.
3) Seal the borders against illegal immigrants (and terrorists at the same time).
4) Start drilling our own land for our own oil.
5(and oh yeah) Free Ramos and Compean.

Aug 12, 2008 - 10:45 pm 56. Dymersion » Blog Archive » Barr and the Election:

[...] Moderate Voice’s Jazz Shaw has an excellent article up on Pajamas Media about whether or not Bob Barr will make an impact on the presidential [...]

Aug 13, 2008 - 12:14 am 57. Bandit:

This was the step the LPA has contemplated since the ’90’s when Harry Browne received IIRC 650,000 votes. Nominating someone with a national presence to establish the party’s viability. I disagree with blaming Barr if he wins the same as I disagree with blaming Nader for Gore’s loss. If the candidate had brought something then it wouldn’t matter. I’m not sure about Barr’s libertarian bonafides but Carla Howell’s not running so I’m voting for Barr.

Aug 13, 2008 - 6:14 am 58. Justin Terry:

When you say “A Vote For Barr is actually a vote for Obama, consider what a libertarian is.

Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative.

Most republicans that still do shoot for small government, want to turn around and tell you how to believe in the social issues.

Democrats either dont think government should intrude, of ARE pro-abortion. and they offer such a big, socialist government.

Aug 13, 2008 - 6:30 am 59. Jay:

Congratulations Obama, you just won the White House.

Aug 13, 2008 - 6:31 am 60. always right:

So many idealists. Good on your standoffish ‘stand on the principle’.

Similar folks on the left (”World Peace for ALL”) think their hands and conscience are clean for their vehemently anti-war stand, too.

Aug 13, 2008 - 8:17 am 61. Alistair:

I am sick a tired of people on this board complaining that I vote for Barr is a vote for McSame. The Neo-Con have destroyed the party that Reagan built and McSame is no Ronald Reagan. I rather waste my vote on Bob Barr rather than Neo-Con John McSame.

Aug 13, 2008 - 8:35 am 62. Kevin:

A comment was made in which the writer stated that after the last 8 years, he couldn’t understand why anyone would vote Republican. Well after the past 60+ years, I have no idea why anyone would vote Democrat.

Aug 13, 2008 - 11:20 am 63. Ryan:

Jay:

Sorry – you didn’t threaten me – it was only Batman; however, the general sentiment of others to blame us Barr voters for the Obama presidency with certain authority and not blame McCain for his offerings doesn’t square with me.

I apologize for inferring that you threatened me.

Aug 13, 2008 - 11:46 am 64. Jay:

Ryan:
No apology necessary, I wasn’t offended but like yours my last posts stand. Besides you really can’t blame us for trying to swing your votes our way.
McCain 08

Aug 13, 2008 - 1:31 pm 65. anomdebus:

Bill, thanks for bringing up the electoral college.

Also, at this point in time, a conservative libertarian voting for the Republican party in the hope that it will treat them better is like an abused person getting back together with their abuser. In this case without the abuser even claiming to give better treatment.

(nb: I would hope liberal libertarians realize the same thing about the Democratic party)

Aug 13, 2008 - 3:34 pm 66. peter jackson:

“voting the lesser of two evils still gets you evil,” “if we always do what we’ve always done, we’ll always get what we’ve always gotten,” blah blah blah.

I was a big L Libertarian until 9/11/01 and the Libertarian Party came out with it’s absurd position on Islamist terror. It wasn’t until I left the echo chamber that I was able to approach the LP’s arguments and slogans from the outside. It was then that I realized that I had been too hung up on the fact that the slogans above are generally true to realize that they are also completely beside the point. In any election, most voters want to influence the outcome of THAT election. In an election where the winner takes all—and all of our elections are winner take all—this means that the vast majority of votes will go to the top two contenders, period, the front runner and the main challenger. This indisputable reality is what produces our two party system.

When voters have but a single vote to exercise in any election, then casting that vote for anyone other than the frontrunner and main contender really is “throwing away” that vote in regards to determining the outcome of the election. Most voters won’t do it, even if they would prefer the third, fourth, or fifth tier candidate. But by giving voters the power to vote for any candidate or combination of candidates in an election does away with “wasted vote” syndrome by allowing voters to vote their personal preference AND between the top two contenders (presuming they’re different). By doing so we also eliminate spoiled elections. Even with multiple votes casts by voters, each vote still carries the same weight, votes are still counted the same way we do now with the winner being the one who gets the most votes, the balloting rules are simple to understand, and the outcomes are fair.

Any third parties that truly hope to win any elections should join together and push for approval voting reform. Even the major parties would be better off insofar as they won’t lose anymore elections due to a Perot or a Nader or a Barr.

yours/
peter.

Aug 13, 2008 - 10:15 pm 67. Nathan:

Peter,

I agree with you on voting reform, the main thrust of your post. However, must quibble with this widely believed statement:

“When voters have but a single vote to exercise in any election, then casting that vote for anyone other than the frontrunner and main contender really is “throwing away” that vote in regards to determining the outcome of the election.”

Under this standard any vote that does not have a reasonable chance of determining the winner is thrown away. In that case, every vote you will ever cast in your lifetime will be wasted. One vote will not determine the outcome of any major election. Do you really think John McCain or Barack Obama is going to win the election just because of your vote? If not, your vote isn’t going to affect the outcome, so you might as well vote your conscience.

Aug 14, 2008 - 12:30 am 68. NB:

Some people have confused their definitions. If you vote Barr (I won’t, he’s arguably more liberal than McCain but I digress) if you vote Barr because he best represents your views, that’s not a vote thrown away. If you vote McCain not because you like McCain but because you are voting against Obama…that’s throwing your vote away.

This year’s tough. We’ve got Obama the socialist, McCain the undercover Democrat and a bunch of third party contenders that can’t win (possibly only because of the fact that everyone who would vote for them thinks they can’t win so they don’t vote for them they’ll vote either for or against Obama). In the end I still say vote for the candidate that best represents your views and let the chips fall where they may.

Aug 14, 2008 - 3:55 am 69. Libertyman13:

Although NB obviously needs a refresher course on what socialism is (none of our candidates come close to socialism, maybe not even the Socialist party), he’s right. Barr IS more liberal than McCain. Which is a good thing. I can’t believe that anybody could ever be a libertarian and also consider themselves to be on the “right.” (Or the left). The Republican party has done nothing to increase liberty for decades, maybe even since Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court (another Republican). I’m sorry, but a little tax cut here and there a freedom-loving party does not make. When you look at it, any rational person has to admit that if you want an increase (or perhaps more accurately, a slowed decrease) in individual liberty, Obama has to be your guy, from the Supreme Court appointments to gay rights to race relations to domestic surveillance to enforcing the liberty provisions of the Constitution (I am also hopeful that he’ll stick to supporting the 2nd Amendment!).

Aug 14, 2008 - 7:28 am 70. Nathan:

Libertyman,

Do you really think Obama is more liberty-friendly than Barr on the issues you list? I doubt it. But even if he is, the issues you don’t list are telling: Obama would raise taxes, nationalize healthcare, and continue to deprive us of the right to earn reasonable interest on our retirement savings. I also have serious doubts about his Supreme Court appointments, who would likely continue in Warren’s footsteps, with more decisions like Kelo vs. New London, and more decisions relying on opinion polls or “international law” rather than the Constitution. Also, Obama voted for the Patriot Act, and I have seen evidence yet that he’s more hostile to spying on American citizens than McCain. He certainly doesn’t oppose it with Barr’s vigor.

Obama is no friend of individual liberty. Bob Barr is the only candidate who offers fidelity to the principles of freedom and small government that made America great and unique to begin with.

Aug 14, 2008 - 6:36 pm 71. Nathan:

Quite frankly, an attitude that currently prevails in our culture and even in this thread–the spirit of surrender to the “practical reality” of the kind of government we have–is unAmerican. I quite agree that at present only a Republican or Democrat can win the presidency. That is a fact to be decried and changed, not one to be accepted. Both major parties have failed to even approach the standards of effectiveness, ethics, and respect for the citizens that ought to be demanded of government. We the people have not only the right, but the civic responsibility to throw them out on their ears. I don’t care if Barr is unelectable, I don’t care if it will take several election cycles to stop our descent into captivity; for the long-term good of the country–yes, cliche or not, for the sake of the children!–the time has come to break the back of the two-party system. The fact that it is a formidable foe does not change the fact that it is a foe.

Aug 14, 2008 - 6:47 pm 72. seguin:

I like the ideals of Libertarianism, but the party is whacked out of its gourd…why should anyone vote for an L president when there’s been no L governors? It’s ridiculous…they need to get back to grass roots, and I mean grass roots like mayor, etc, high-profile low-level jobs.

Aug 16, 2008 - 1:11 am 73. NB:

Libertyman,

Perhaps I should have clarified. Of course even among proper socialists there is not consensus as to it’s definition and it’s largely a matter of whether one is talking about Marxist socialism, Libertarian socialism, eutopian socialism or some other form therein. The American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism thus: “Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.” I suppose I’m mostly referring to the modern Marxist who has forgotten the first idea of unequal distribution of wealth measured by work put in and focus mainly on the second aspect which is control of that distribution of wealth goods or property by a central group. It’s not a stretch to think that a federal government body would think itself the proper central decision maker in such things and in that Obama certainly fits the bill with his ideas regarding who should be taxed more and to whom those taxes should be dispersed, his ideas on nationalized healthcare, his “windfall tax” schemes, his ideas on further widening the scope of federally controlled education… Surely you see that this control by a “central body” of goods and services that Obama supports is at it’s core inherently socialist in nature. Perhaps it’s a stretch to say any one of our candidates is purely socialist but how many socialist ideas and concepts must one incorporate into their “plan for the nation” before the term justifiably applies?

Aug 16, 2008 - 3:59 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: