The issues page seems a little bare and boreing, I agree. However, they have just put up hundreds of Barr's past articles.
Maybe the Barr candidacy will get more exciting and substantive. Maybe it is just the launch that has been a fizzle. Though you have to admit, Barr has gotten far more ink in three days for thinking about running than all the other candidates for the LP nomination have gotten in 2 years. He should get even more ink when he does officially announce.
I'm a little disappointed in the FairTax stuff myself. Supposedly his version is substantially different from the Boortz version, according to Gordon. Apparently, more policy papers are in the works. All I know is that if I were a Barr senior advisor, I'd be suggesting that he hire you to write some policy papers ASAP. (I've always had a thing for your writing. The original Badnarik stuff was great.)
Concerning money: $20k in 3 days is great for a pre-nomination LP presidential candidate. A solid year of that pre-nomination and Barr would have a pretty good chunk of change to start with post-nomination. Unfortunately, Barr has a month before the convention.
Chris,
Offhand, I'd dispute that Barr has had more ink in three days than Gravel has had since becoming a candidate. Anecdotally, they seem to have created fairly similar post-announcement media impressions.
I agree that $20k in three days is great for a normal LP nomination candidate. Barr is not a normal LP nomination candidate -- the notion that he can land the big "McCain Sucks Republican" bucks is a big part of his appeal. After a weekend of CNN coverage, etc., if he's not doing better than $20k/3 days, I say we've been fooling ourselves on that count.
I appreciate your appreciation for my writing, but I doubt the Barr campaign will be itching to hire me, especially after this article 
I had forgoten about Gravel. I would agree that their level of coverage has been similar.
As far as $20k in 3 days, I guess that was kind of my point. I had expected more. But I have no idea what their marketing and fundraising plans are, so I'll hold judgement (a little) until closer to the convention.
Chris,
Thanks for the pointer to the previously-published articles. I've come across many of them before from perusing Barr's personal website. They are just about as hard to pin down and 'squishy' as the 'issues' section itself. Under the category 'iraq', there is only one article, which basically seems to be saying 'the surge is working' To be fair, it also says the invasion/occupation of Iraq - which Barr voted for - was a bad thing.
The pieces on Iran and South America are vague, but still disconcerting. From the one on Iran:
"Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone ... Of course not. ...
Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran,..."
Susan, you are absolutely right. I had not looked at the actual articles when I posted above. I merely noticed that they existed. Now that I've read through some of them, they only bolster Tom's point. They're not that well written either.
I can overlook some squishiness from a candidate if they bring in the dough and light up the media -- that is, if they can make the LP relevant to the election. However, if that candidate isn't doing those things, then I'd prefer to nominate the balls-out smash-the-state hardliner.
I was hoping Barr would be a little more Paul-like. Not a great libertarian on some issues, but willing and capable of laying the smackdown to the omnipotent state in general.
Tom,
A few slightly different comments.
In 2007, after Barr was on the LNC, the Republicans had a primary in Kentucky. Barr campaigned in the primary, for a Republican. He campaigned for prayer in the public schools, according to multiple press sources. His telephone robocall recording attacked Republican Anne Northrup, who had only voted 13 out of 14 times for school prayer.
I know that there are very few issues that we Libertarians agree upon. However, prayer in the Public Schools seems to be someplace near gun control as an issue I would not expect a Libertarian to support.
This 2008, our fellow Libertarian Ken Blevens will be on the ballot in New Hampshire. I look forward to campaigning with Ken, and I am sure Steve Kubby feels the same way. Ken is running for US Senate against Bush Republican war party candidate John Sununu.
Sununu's campaign is partly funded by PAC donations, in particular $3000 in donations from the Bob Barr Leadership Fund. That's 2007 donations, made after Barr was on the LNC.
That's right. Barr is funding Republicans who are running against our fellow Libertarians.
George
"I know that there are very few issues that we Libertarians agree upon. However, prayer in the Public Schools seems to be someplace near gun control as an issue I would not expect a Libertarian to support."
I have no problem with prayer in public schools. I'm a little confused why you think libertarians should be against a student's first amendment right to practice their religion.
Maybe you are talking about forced prayer. However, I don't know many Republicans advocating that, and I would doubt Barr does. Maybe I'm wrong.
Recallbobbarr08.
Ignoring the fact that the walking sedative, Phillies ,brought it up, prayer in school has never been about whether students are allowed to pray. Prayer is communication with one's deity and nothing can stop that since it can be done by thought. What has been at issue is whether the school itself will lead such activities. At that point it is using the stolen monies of taxpayers to foist religion and thus a violation of separation of church and state.
It is not about whether students are free to pray but whether taxpayers are forced to fund it and that is a libertarian concern -- well it used to be until the born-again conservative types started joining the Party or running their "revolution".
Barr is no libertarian. Never has been. And he won't run as one.
I'd still like to see some evidence that Barr supports school-sponsored prayer.
Even so, if you want to go that route, then why should fundamentalist Christians be subjected to the same theft and have their money used to foist darwinism?
Chris,
You write:
"I'd still like to see some evidence that Barr supports school-sponsored prayer."
As of last year, Barr did public endorsements for a candidate on the basis that that candidate's opponent had opposed a school prayer bill that Barr had sponsored in 1998:
"'Governor Fletcher supports the freedom to pray in school, and he's telling you the truth about Anne Northup's vote against it,' Barr said. 'I know. I was there. And it was my bill.'"
It's reasonably obvious that Barr was thereby holding that his 1998 bill had been a good thing, and that voting against it had been a bad thing. And he was saying this LAST YEAR, after joining the LP and being appointed to the LNC. Unless he's publicly changed his mind since then, I see no reason to suppose that he's PRIVATELY changed his mind since then either.
The remaining question is whether the bill in question simply allowed for voluntary prayer (which would be bringing coals to Newcastle, since that's already a protected activity), or attempted to legitimize state sponsorship of prayer.
I found three bills in the 105th Congress which resemble the description. Two of the three (HJ RES 68 and HJ RES 20) specifically allude to organized prayer, i.e. included in official school activities and ceremonies. One (HJ RES 12) does not. Barr is not listed as the sponsor of any of the three, so I must be missing one.
Anyone care to find out just what bill is being talked about, what it said?
The article you link to doesn't give any indication of what the resolution could say. An article about petty bitching, with zero substance. Typical.
I'm not actually as concerned about the prayer in schools argument -- that's just the type of thorn-bush you get with "public" goods. And contrary to what Phillies assumes, I can see a Libertarian argument either way (depending on the actual text of the reolution, of course.)
However, what is disconcerting is that Barr was tangled up in a Republican intra-Party fist-fight long after joining the LP and serving on the LNC. Phillies certainly has a point there, if only it wasn't clouded by his knee-jerk reaction to anything appearing "conservative" and non-secular.
I'm getting bored watching the maggots eat the rotting carcass of the LP. It's because we all know how it ends up - we've already seen it happen to the Dems and the GOP.
Is there anyone here that really thinks it matters who the LP nominates, or even who will actually be elected as the next Imperial President of this fascist empire?
"I know that there are very few issues that we Libertarians agree upon. However, prayer in the Public Schools seems to be someplace near gun control as an issue I would not expect a Libertarian to support."
It depends on whether or not the prayer is voluntary. If it is forced by a teacher then I'm completely against it, however, if a student wants to voluntarily pray on their own they should be free to do so.
There has always been an element that fervently believes that all the problems facing our nation began when public school teachers were told to stop leading christian based prayers in public school classrooms. They will obsess on that issues as teh root of all evil. There is an equally small but fervent group who will never tire of hiring lawyers and filing suits to remove any symbol of religion from their eyesight. Neither of these groups represent mainstream political values and therefore are little more that a distraction to an election campaign.
If Mr. Barr is truly one of these obsessive types then he will lead the LP even further into irrelevancy.
We need candidates that will talk about issues the average voters care about.
"If Mr. Barr is truly one of these obsessive types then he will lead the LP even further into irrelevancy."
No one has proven that. What they have shown, however, is that Barr was playing inside baseball with the Republican Party while sitting on the LNC.
I don't mind a little pandering to the emotions of hard-core voters. That's just good politics. But if you put on a Yankees jersey, then you shouldn't show up to Red Sox batting practices.
And I happen to be someone with one foot in the Republican Party and one in the LP. However, I'm not running for office nor am I in a leadership position within either party.
I'm pretty sure that everyone (at least everyone living in reality) agrees that the LP's 2008 presidential candidate won't be the next president of the United States.
That can mean one of two things: Either that the LP shouldn't run a candidate at all, or that the LP should seek benefits other than winning the White House from running a candidate.
IMO, the best case for running a candidate is to have that candidate get as many votes as possible on a libertarian platform and public perception.
If Barr runs on a conservative platform and a conservative public image, it doesn't really matter how many votes we get. Any votes / positive image points we pick up will accrue to conservatism, not libertarianism.
To the extent that politics can be analogized to sports, yes, putting points on the board is a good thing -- as long as they are points for YOUR team. Running the ball down the field for the other team isn't a good thing in sports OR politics.
Abolish the public schools and we can stop debating over it.
I agree, Knapp. I don't care how much attention or votes Barr can get; he isn't a strong enough libertarian to be the presidential nominee. When he was on Hannity and Colmes, he made it clear that he is not against the War on Drugs at the local level. Even worse, he got intimidated and embarrassed when even asked about it, giving the impression that he thinks something is wrong with the LP position. A real LP candidate would be proud of the position and explain why libertarians oppose the prohibition of all drugs (ALL of them, including the “bad ones”). Barr is a waffler on this issue (and god knows how many others). He doesn't want to talk about it, and in any real presidential race, he'll get hammered over it.
If Barr can't take strong libertarian stands on the issues, then he is worthless as a LP nominee for president. The same goes for Gravel and Root.
"I don't mind a little pandering to the emotions of hard-core voters."
In this case, as in many others, pandering to the emotions of a few hard core voters will only alienate the vast majority of the voting public.
I agree with Mr. Knapp. If the LP cannot find one candidate who can advance Libertarianism the why bother.
The vast majority of the voting public is religious and believes in prayer. Telling this vast majority that you believe they and their children have a fundamental right to pray, even in groups, wherever they stand is not the sort of pandering I see alienating them.
I have issues with Bob Barr. However, I also take issue with libertarians bitching about not being allowed in public debates, complaining about "free speech zones" on public property, raving against prohibitions on petitioning in public spaces, and then when a group of school children decide to start a prayer group with a faculty mentor outside of school hours but on public school property, they get up-in-arms about seperation of church and state without once questioning the Secular Aliance's, or the Chess Club's meetings.
The vast majority of the voting public may believe in prayer, but when they go into the voting booth there minds will be on other things. Like the economy, the war, taxes and any number of other things.
Trying to win an election as a libertarian by campaigning about prayer is public schools won't work.
Might as well try to get elected by banning flag burning. The vast majority of voters are patriotic, right? Lets just pander to that too.
Here's the FEC page showing the breakdown of Bob Barr Leadership Fund contributions to Republican candidates. Granted, the LNC is included in Barr's donations, but the lion's share went to GOP cnadidates.
The LPNM used to have a guy that did shit like this -- former state-level Vice-Chair, in fact. In March, 2006, he said that "If you nominate for U.S. Senate, I'll use my candidacy to stump for Bingaman" (The Democrat incumbent). Later that year, he urged the membership to support Democrat Patsy Madrid for U.S. Congress. While Madrid was the Attorney General of New Mexico (before she ran for U.S. Congress in 2006), she used her powers of office as a means to get the LPNM kicked off the ballot.
"Trying to win an election as a libertarian by campaigning about prayer is public schools won't work."
And which Libertarian exactly is trying to win an election by campaigning soley on prayer in public schools?
"Might as well try to get elected by banning flag burning. The vast majority of voters are patriotic, right? Lets just pander to that too."
Which is a COMPLETELY different fundamental stand on the issue of freedom of speech and association. Highlighting where libertarian philosophy agrees with the views of many specific blocks of voters is how you go about winning elections. Freedom to practice one's religion individually or with a group, whether on public property or not, is something libertarians SHOULD be highlighting. Instead, many run around like good little Randroids explaining to everyone within earshot the evils of organized religion.
You will notice that it was George Phillies that brought up the issue of school prayer, not Bob Barr. Phillies brought it up because he is pandering to those who see non-secularism as an evil to be stamped out of the public square. He does this frequently. And unfortunately, it may actually HELP him win the votes of some LP delegates.
Why is it "good" for Phillies to pander to a very small segment of the population with a policy view that is arguably un-libertarian, but "bad" for Barr to appeal to a much larger segment with a policy view that is founded on free speech and association?
All of this is completely seperate from the issue of Barr funding and stumping for Republicans. I'm with Knapp on that one.
Chris,
Actually, I agree with you on the prayer issue, too -- but it's pretty clear to me that Barr wasn't stumping for prayer being treated like any other speech/association activity, but rather for it being given mandatory blocs of "taxpayer time" with official government encouragement for participation.
Barr also seems to be inconsistent. When it comes to abortion and drugs, he's (sometimes) for "states rights." When it comes to education and to prayer in schools, all of a sudden the feds need to be involved. As of last October, he was bitching about what's being taught in the Portland, Oregon schools and bemoaning the fact that the major party presidential candidates weren't debating education (with no mention of the possibility that one or more of them should suggest a federal butt-out on the matter in such a debate).
"but it's pretty clear to me that Barr wasn't stumping for prayer being treated like any other speech/association activity, but rather for it being given mandatory blocs of "taxpayer time" with official government encouragement for participation."
This wasn't clear to me, but may indeed be the case. That's why I would find the text of the reolutions interesting. I've got enough hang-ups with Barr already, so it's not really worth my time to hunt them down. Worst case scenario is that I have one more problem with Barr. Best case scenario is that I still have problems with Barr, but one less.
Barr certainly is not turning out to be a Ron Paul. Paul had his problems, and I disagreed (along with many other libertarians) on a few issues, but he was at least generally consistent with the application of his principles. It seems like Paul was a libertarian running as a conservative, while Barr is a conservative running as a ... well ... as a conservative.
Chris, that's what I am afraid of is that Barr will run as a conservative. (I did not mean to get all caught up in a debate about prayer, that was just the example someone else introduced.) My concern is that if Barr has a good run he could double the size of the LP, but do it by adding people more like him than us. I would prefer a candidate who can effectively communicate the libertarian messege over one who brings in more people who don't understand or care about the libertarian messege.
great site
http://waronyou.com
http://ronpaulforum.info
Which is a COMPLETELY different fundamental stand on the issue of freedom of speech and association. Highlighting where libertarian philosophy agrees with the views of many specific blocks of voters is how you go about winning elections. Freedom to practice one's religion individually or with a group, whether on public property or not, is something libertarians SHOULD be highlighting. Instead, many run around like good little Randroids explaining to everyone within earshot the evils of organized religion.
You will notice that it was George Phillies that brought up the issue of school prayer, not Bob Barr. Phillies brought it up because he is pandering to those who see non-secularism as an evil to be stamped out of the public square. He does this frequently. And unfortunately, it may actually HELP him win the votes of some LP delegates.
Why is it "good" for Phillies to pander to a very small segment of the population with a policy view that is arguably un-libertarian, but "bad" for Barr to appeal to a much larger segment with a policy view that is founded on free speech and association?
http://MEGGIDO.INFO
http://votetags.info
http://mintdollar.com
http://RETROGRESSING.COM
Commenting by HaloScan
