Bob Barr is watching them.
BARR ’08
Posted on 04/30/2008 10:50:50 PM PDT by Kurt Evans
Americans' civil liberties as established in the Bill of Rights are seriously in danger, says Bob Barr. So much so, he says, that it prompted the Smyrna resident and former member of Congress to consider a bid for president as a Libertarian.
"There is one set of issues that ought to be discussed during a presidential campaign - the Bill of Rights, what are our liberties, what are our freedoms and how can we protect these liberties," Barr said in an interview Monday at his office for his consulting firm, Liberty Strategies, near the Cobb Galleria. "I'm interested in working to begin dismantling the status quo because it stifles risk, it stifles free enterprise, it stifles individual liberties and it increases the size of government," Barr said.
"Every dollar the government spends is one dollar less that the people have; every power the federal government exercises is less power and freedom individuals have," he said.
On April 5, Barr, a former U.S. Attorney and CIA official, announced at the Heartland Libertarian Conference in Kansas City, Mo., that he had launched a presidential exploratory committee. That allows him to raise money and test the waters of support without officially declaring his candidacy.
In 1994, Barr was first elected to Congress, representing Georgia's 7th District, as a Republican. He served four terms and was among the most conservative members of the House, supporting and sponsoring the 1996 Defense of Marriage act, for one. He lost the primary in 2002.
In 2006, he left the Grand Old Party for the Libertarians.
"The Republican party has made, if not a 180 degree turn, a 179 degree turn from the principles that attracted me and kept me as a member for so many years," he said. "Why spend more of my time with a party whose views have shifted so dramatically and that we had nothing in common?"
Lessening government's size and power no longer seems to be a key issue for the Republican party, Barr said. He acknowledges some votes he cast as a member of Congress - namely in support of the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind - added to the size of the federal bureaucracy.
At the time, he said, No Child sounded like "a fresh approach to get the government out of education." It has instead done the opposite, he said. His vote for the Patriot Act is among the worst he ever cast, he said, because the Bush administration has not regularly reported on its use of the powers.
The rights and liberties lost in those laws, he said, are key to making him a Libertarian today.
But some political watchers across the county have said a Barr campaign would likely only benefit Democrats in November, by drawing voters away from the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
McCain's local supporters, though, say they aren't worried.
John Sours, a lawyer who lives in Smyrna, is on the Georgia steering committee for McCain.
"The McCain campaign is focused on winning the presidency," Sours said. That focus "will remain the same no matter who else runs or doesn't run."
Barr, though, said voters across the spectrum, from independents and conservatives who would not vote for McCain to liberals who care about civil liberties, would support him.
"I think this notion that Bob Barr would spoil anyone's race is preemptory sour apples," he said, and an excuse for the losing candidate.
Barr's exploratory committee reports it has raised $25,000 and Barr said he has not decided yet whether to officially enter the race.
About 1,000 Libertarian delegates will name their candidate at the party's national convention in Denver May 22 to May 26. At least three other candidates are seeking the party's bid.
Ballot access is also an issue for third-party candidates, and Barr said federal and state laws have made that difficult. But the Libertarian presidential candidate appeared on ballots in 48 states in 2004, he said, and expects to again be on at least that many.
Ultimately, Barr said, every American is Libertarian to some degree, whether it's how they educate their children, what they do in their homes, or how they run their business.
"Everyone has something we wish to keep private," he said.
if McCain continues to attack the GOP instead of the Dems he is surely going to lose in November
As of today, Bob Barr's got my vote.
OK
The critical difference between a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Republican president is that the Democrat would face substantial congressional opposition. Congressional Republicans have already begun rolling over for McCain’s liberalism.
If McCain won the presidency after a lifetime of sticking his thumb in the eyes of conservatives, it would send a loud and clear message that there’s no political cost to sticking one’s thumb in the eyes of conservatives. A place like Free Republic would be reduced from a serious influence on American politics to a marginally relevant fringe think tank.
A President is much more than a set of ideologies and policies. He is also a person and a leader. He needs to be able to win 270 Electoral College votes this year and then get his appointments through the Senate and command a certain respect and loyalty of the people over the next four years. Politics is the art of the possible and Bob Barr is not possible. Losing the Presidency to Obama or Clinton will not make the voters more likely to vote conservative in 2012, nor will it make it more likely that conservative candidates will step up to compete for the Republican nomination then. Winning begets winning. Losing begets more losing. I prefer a Republican win in 2008.
I'd like other ways of telling the RNC and RINOs they are out of step rather than handing over the keys to the Democrats.
I couldn't disagree with you more stronger if I tried.
Explain 1994.
How old are you?
Frustration can be one of the strongest motivators known.
I hope he doesn’t wear that red sweater to Disneyworld on their “special days”. There could be trouble.
Hello ........???????? Where were you
when McCain stabbed conservatives in the back?
I recommend this blog.
I don't much care about Wall Street Journal political reporter John Fund's report yesterday that's roiling the blogosphere and cable news talking head shows. Fund reported that Sen. John McCain
Since Sen. McCain led a gang of other Republican renegade senators in deserting their party's sitting president and colluding with the opposition party to throw some of that president's pending judicial nominations down the toilet — jettisoning along with their confirmation chances the chance for a constitutional showdown that could have ended senatorial filibustering of judicial nominees — there is nothing that Sen. McCain can do, and certainly nothing he can say or write as a campaign promise, to restore his credibility with me on the subject of judicial appointments.
Oh, yes, he did vote to confirm Roberts and Alito. But could we possibly set a lower bar than that for someone who's supposed to be a leader of his party and a contender for the opportunity to fill as many as three SCOTUS seats in the next term?
There are a lot of good things that can be said about Sen. McCain by good conservatives — but not on this issue. By taking the "constitutional option" (a/k/a "nuclear option" in Dem-speak) off the table, McCain and his fellow "maverick" GOP cronies doomed not only a handful of worthy circuit and district court nominees to non-confirmation, they ensured that the White House would thereafter dare not make any more controversial nominations to those vitally important lower courts. For "controversial nominations," read "demonstratedly and predictably conservative nominations just like Roberts and Alito would have been, but for the higher profile of SCOTUS nominations."
The only way that the Dems could justify stonewalling Dubya's circuit and district court nominations was that the stonewalling happens mostly out of sight, and rarely if ever makes a blip on the general public's radar screens. They couldn't get away with denying a floor vote to a SCOTUS nominee. But John McCain led the deal that let the Dems guarantee that they could continue to exercise an effective veto on circuit and district court nominations for the remainder of George W. Bush's term, regardless of the outcome of the 2006 elections. The unquestionable result of the Gang of 14's "compromise," as brokered by John McCain, will be two-fold:
No sir, the day John McCain led the Gang of 14, he forfeited all of my trust — irrevocably — on judicial selection issues. No ma'am, I don't care what words he mouths now on that subject.
In fact, I'm slightly more inclined to believe Rudy Giuliani's promises about appointing conservative judges than McCain's. Sure, it's contrary to Giuliani's own stance on many social issues; and I'm far from entirely comfortable about Giuliani's campaign promises on this and other subjects. But at least Giuliani hasn't already betrayed this particular trust, and then equivocated about that betrayal. already shown himself to have no backbone, and to be a willing collaborator with the Dems, specifically when it comes to appointing judges at the circuit and district court levels. To the limited extent that I care at all what McCain says now, the mere fact that McCain continues to defend the Gang of 14 deal out-shouts anything else he says. And saying now that he "fought for" the abandoned nominees is just a palpable lie. The way to fight for them was to continue at least threatening to use the "constitutional option." There was no other way to fight for them. There was no other way to even get their nominations to the floor for a vote! To even pretend that those abandoned nominees had a chance once the Gang of 14 struck its deal is comparable to the Brits and French saying in September 1939,
Stepping back and looking at the big picture:
But just don't insult my intelligence by pretending that John McCain is a reliable conservative on the subject of judicial nominations. From the point of view of any knowledgeable conservative, this is one of the huge warts on this particular candidate. And he doesn't have to "wear" that particular lack of conservatism "on his sleeve," because it's a wart that's as plain as his nose. You can secure my enthusiastic agreement that the Democratic alternatives are uglier, that they're practically "all-wart." But quit trying to pull my leg about McCain and this particular subject, okay?
Maybe if McCain is making a SCOTUS nomination, he really will pick another Roberts or Alito. What concerns me, though, is that at best, he'll gladly let the Dems pressure him into packing the circuit and district courts with Kennedys, O'Connors, and occasional Souters. I have no doubt that John McCain would be willing to take on the Dems on matters of national security, even if it means a bloody, long-term dispute. But I also have no doubt that if pressed (and he will be), he would make his picks, and then cut quiet deals left and right, to avoid such fights over judicial nominees below the SCOTUS level. Since he's already abandoned conservative principles and cut a deal with the Dems on nominees to those courts even when the GOP controlled the Senate, why would he possibly stand up to them as president, especially if they continue to control the Senate?
In short, I'll never, ever, NEVER ... vote FOR McCain.
Can you spell NEVER???
I like Bob Barr—a lot—but if we wind up with a President Osama Obama due to his efforts, I'll never forgive him.
If he goes Constitution party, I’m on board. If he goes Libertarian, count me out.
Neither of us will, and you can take that to the bank bud.
Nice post. Good for you.
The fact Barr would now "join" a party that dedicated itself to REMOVING him from office shows me Barr has truly gone off the deep end, like socialist Linc Chaffee showed in being delighted his defeat from office had the "silver lining" of ensuring communist Democrat takeover of Congress. What's next, John Kerry joining Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? This is like something out of the twilight zone.
Barr joining the LP makes me seriously question his commitment to border security and winning the WOT, given how the LP has spent years promoting open borders and opposing even military action in Afghanistan when it was fully justified after 9/11. I'm also guessing that Bob Barr will be "keeping quiet" about his pro-life views since the LP as a whole dislikes the idea of nominating an unabashedly pro-life candidate for President, although many individual Libertarians are pro-life.
Bob Barr promoting a party that worked their butt off to remove him from office. Talk about sleeping with the enemy. Now I've seen everything.
AT&T is the absolute worst dial-up service EVER!!!. But I'm at the end of the line since AT&T bought out Bell South
and there is no other competition this far out ion the country, that I can afford.
Great, another narcissist entitled to the presidency.
I was just complimenting you on the fact that you weren’t going to vote for McCain. I heartily agree.
That might have had some impact (though War on Drugs is pretty popular in Barr's old district), but the major factors were redistricting and Barr's own arrogance.
When the district lines were redrawn after the 2000 census, Barr opted not to move to another district along with most of his constituents. Instead, he ran against fellow Republican incumbent John Linder in the 7th, most of which was made up of Linder's old 11th.
No worries. Bob Barr will get at the most .001 of the vote in the general election. What a putz.
Hey, Yosemitest
Why waste your vote on Bob “I used to be a conservative till I sold out to the ACLU” Barr when you can vote for a REAL, anti-Invasion conservative patriot by the name of Rev. Chuck Baldwin of The CP? He just creamed Alan Keyes in the nomination run at The CP.
Runoff elections.....
Senator Dr. Coburn, Senator Inhoffe, and Rep. Fallin have all behaved precisely as we expected them to behave. But they didn't get where they are by accident.
As I've said before, I HATE John McCain from the top of his ugly OLD peeled head to the tips of his fungus ridden feet, BUT he is so much better than any thing any other party has to offer, it is no contest. So, I will, I'm sure, be sending LOTS of faxes, emails, and messages through my “congressional people” to a future “President McCain”. I've no doubt my communications will have more of an affect on him than they would on Hitlery or Osama Obama.
Go Georgia ping
May I recommend Religious Booklets Arranged by Subject and Are We in the End Time. It's got nothing to do with Bob Barr, but it's worth your time.
Maybe Barr can team up with the ACLU to help restore out right... /sarcasm
“If he enters the race he will insure a Democrat’s win for the ‘08 election.”
I find the spoiler idea fascinating. It’s as if the GOP, or the Democrats for that matter, are somehow “owed” a certain portion of the vote. Like a welfare entitlement. Well, they aren’t. And if the lose elections because they run lousy candidates, whose fault is that?
“Winning begets winning. Losing begets more losing. I prefer a Republican win in 2008.”
How is the socialism-lite of the Republican party any more palatable than the socialism of the Democrats at this point?
So what would we actually “win” with a GOP election victory?
“When a candidate waits this long to enter a race, it is usually only to play the role of spoiler.”
Third parties don’t select their candidates via primary, they actually select them at their nominating conventions. So there is no reason for them to run a perpetual election campaign like the Democrats and Republicans do.
Rep. Barr has long been considered a potential candidate for the LP Presidential nomination. This wasn’t something that just occurred to him last week.
“Politics is the art of the possible and Bob Barr is not possible.”
Well stated. I might add that no politician is going to get elected by promising to cut thousands of jobs. It just ain’t going to happen.
I am a huge proponent of reducing the size of government. I have come to the conclusion that will not happen without a complete do-over.
I like Bob Barr but you've got to admit that is one really odd resume for a libertarian.
I’m tired of this non-Republican bashing the protections we need to fight these da*n terrorists. If its aright with Cheney, its aright with me!!!
Explain 1996.
The Libertarian Party vote has exceeded the margin between the GOP and the 'Rats in individual States several times in the last couple of elections.
Compared to Obama I expect a McCain Presidency will win us stronger defense and diplomacy, better judges, lower taxes, less gun control, less abortion, and less gay crap. That is not nothing.
Barr is right, the Bill of Rights is in trouble. It troubles me, however, that he voted for the euphemistically named “patriot” act, though.
Barr was always hard-core about privacy rights, even before the Internet and identity theft brought the issue to the attention of most folks. He did not change his positions to "sell out" to the ACLU. It is, of course, perfectly fair and reasonable to disagree with him, but he's been consistent.
Cthulhu for President!
...And that he was a big supporter of the WoD, though it is the tool used more often than not to leverage government power against our liberties.
Why vote for a lesser evil?
I appologize for the non-responsive reply to your post earlier. I was tired and didn’t get the meaning until just now. Talk about dense...
Sorry you’ve got that slow connection. What a pain.
D1
Thanks for the suggested reading materials. I will bookmark this and check them out.
As the article notes, Barr was a strong supporter of No Child Left Behind and of the Patriot Act when he was in Congress, yet he now adamantly opposes both. How is that "consistent"? Interesting that he didn't "see the light" on those two issues until AFTER he was out of office. If Bob Barr had been "libertarian" minded while in office, the LP wouldn't haven't drooled over the prospect of throwing him out of office because he was against their pet issue of legalizing drugs.
The fact Bob Barr would now join the party that worked to REMOVE him from office shows that he's changed his positions, not that the LP has changed theirs.
Reminds me of Zell Miller, another political opportunist who flip-flops and was worshiped as a "principled conservative" here when he flipped back to conservatism because it was political advantageous to him at the time. Zell Miller had no problem supporting rabid leftists like George McGovern or saluting Roe v. Wade when he was running for re-election as a Dem, then once it's clear the GOP has the upper-hand, he changed his positions overnite and claimed the Dems had changed theirs. Unfortunately for Zell, the Dems have been anti-America, terrorist sympathizing peacenik abortion lovers for decades. The Democrat Party didn't "change" their positions, Zell changed HIS positions once he was no longer up for re-election.
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.