Skip to comments.STRAYING FROM THE HERD: BARR THE CONTRARIAN SAYS HE’S GOING LIBERTARIAN
Posted on 10/22/2004 11:15:06 AM PDT by grundle
STRAYING FROM THE HERD: BARR THE CONTRARIAN SAYS HES GOING LIBERTARIAN
by Tom Baxter and Jim Galloway
Defeat alters a politician. Some become permanent reservoirs of anger. Others simply crumple in the face of wholesale rejection.
Barr BadnarikBob Barr adapted. He became more interesting.
Perhaps you saw last nights airing of the Atlanta Press Club/WPBA-TV debate on the proposed amendment to ban same-sex unions. Barr was one of six panelists â and the only one to upset audience expectations. The man who nearly chased Bill Clinton out of the White House declared Georgias gay-marriage amendment to be so poorly drafted that it should be kicked back to the Legislature for a re-write.
But for his razor-edged defeat by Paul Coverdell in 1992, in a runoff for the U.S. Senate nomination, it might have been Barr who we consider the father of the modern Georgia Republican party. Barr instead settled for Congress, until his 2002 defeat by GOP insider John Linder.
The former federal prosecutor is as conservative as ever. But no longer does he feel obliged to carry Republican water. Gay marriage is one bucket hes declined â an issue of no urgency, he says. And George W. Bush is another.
He wont vote for Bush. But he wont vote for John Kerry, either. I have serious questions about both presidential candidates, he said.
Does that mean hes voting Libertarian?
Yep, Barr said Thursday. That would be Michael Badnarik.
Its not unexpected. Barr spoke at the Libertarian national convention in Atlanta in May. Libertarians note that Barr has invited Joseph Seehusen, the partys executive director, to be a guest on his radio program two days before the presidential election.
In the final weeks of the campaign, Bush the Rancher has been roping in the hard conservatives who have strayed over issues such as the deficit, the Patriot Act, even the war in Iraq. On Tuesday, Pat Buchanan gave his blessing, however unenthusiastic, to Bush.
A presidential election is a Hatfield-McCoy thing, a tribal affair. No matter the quarrels inside your family, when the shooting starts, you come home to your own, Buchanan writes in American Conservative magazine.
Barr noted Buchanans decision to be lassoed. I was surprised, he said. I was disappointed.
The Patriot Act isnt Barrs sole disagreement with the Bush administration. But its the most emblematic. Conservatives of all people ought to stand up for the belief that there needs to be limits on executive power. [The Bush administration] says that terror trumps everything. To me, nothing should trump the Bill of Rights.
Barr doesnt like the way the Patriot Act whittles away at the probable cause standard that justifies government snooping on citizens. He doesnt like the circumventing of judges via administrative subpoenas.
This last point is where Barr admits a link between the fight over gay marriage and the Patriot Act. Republicans assert the need for a constitutional ban on gay marriage with cries of activist judges. And Barr admits hes seen more than a few of that kind. But to demand that judges should be subservient to a legislature or an executive on everything is just as dangerous, he said.
You need an independent judiciary.
Barr is just pissed he got beat in the GOP primary. Sour grapes does this to some people.
Absolutely. He did something stupid and he's mad at US because we didn't follow him over the cliff.
How disengenuous. What he means is that because he's against Bush now, NOW we're more interested in him.
Barr is a total jackass.
Well, there's one African-American vote GWB has lost.
Who'd a thunk it. He and the rest of the House Managers get closelined by their own party in the Senate, but he doesn't get pissed off until this.
The Libertarians need to understand that if they are ever to
be seriously relevant in national elections, they need to
help with disintegrating the Democrat Party into its dozens
of warring components. That's the most effective way to
enable the real debate.
Or work their ideas into the Republican Party.
In particular, if the Democrats ever get majority control
of this country again, that will be the end of credible
Speaking, of course, only of those Libertarians actually
interested in liberty.
Do I understand that Barr wants an unchecked judiciary? His position is totally irrational. He must have a new boyfriend or something. Every branch is in some way subserviant to the others, and all to the people. That's they point of checks and balances. The judiciary checks are through appointments, consent, impeachment, constitutional amendments, and removing jurisdiction. People like Barr think the courts should check the other branches but the others should not check the courts. Wrongo.
This jackass was no friend to the constitution when he was a crusading drug warrior in the House. For him at the time, it seemed as though the War on Drugs trumped the constitution. Now he is supporting a candidate that is for legalization of crack cocaine, heroin, roofies, prostitution, etc.
For what it is worth, I favor legalization of drugs and prostitution, etc. But I will certainly be casting my vote for George W. Bush.
It's just a local joke around Atlanta about Bob. No offense intended toward anyone.
There are much bigger fish at steak here, such as survival of the spiecies from the "religion of peace". As the mushroom cloud rises from Atlanta, I guess Bob Barr could smirk and say "At least we defeated the Homeland security bimbo's."
Now that's funny!
Here in his home state, Bob Barr has been "outed" as really black. It's a local joke. I think Black Georgians started it. Georgians of all races think Barr is a big joke.
There is still a large number of pro-liberty Republicans. I don't claim we are the majority, but we are a sizable faction. People tend to look at the 1% election tally of Libertarian candidates and think that is all there is. But the fact is that a huge majority of libertarians vote Republican and always have.
I am of the viewpoint that we need to kill the democrat party first. Then we need to tear the Republican party asunder. But not until the democrat party is dead, burried, and the gravesite is urinated on.
You're absolutely right. Bob Barr used to be one of my favorite congress critters, but since he lost to Linder, he is just steamed at the Republican party who backed his opponent. Had he run in the other district instead of moving to Linder's he would have no doubt kept a seat, but he chose to go head to head with the party. He took them on and got beat and is looking for revenge.
Even in that scenario, anybody looking to "tear the Republican party asunder" will be met with the same suddenly changed opinions as Mr. Barr. Remember when he was FR's impeachment hero? Lockstep is the march we do here.
Do I understand that Barr wants an unchecked judiciary?
Here is Barr's position. Try reading & understanding it this time:
--- Republicans assert the need for a constitutional ban on gay marriage with cries of "activist judges." -- And Barr admits he's seen more than a few of that kind. -- But to demand that judges should be subservient to a legislature or an executive "on everything" is just as dangerous, he [Barr] said.
"You need an independent judiciary."
His position is totally irrational. He must have a new boyfriend or something.
Every branch is in some way subserviant to the others, and all to the people. That's they point of checks and balances. The judiciary checks are through appointments, consent, impeachment, constitutional amendments, and removing jurisdiction.
People like Barr think the courts should check the other branches but the others should not check the courts. Wrongo.
Your conclusion about Barr's position is in your own words, "totally irrational".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.