Posted on 05/08/2008 11:13:54 AM PDT by jmc813
Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr will announce Monday that he will run for president as a Libertarian, a source close to the Georgian told CNN.
Barr will officially declare his candidacy at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington. The four-term congressman left the GOP in 2006, saying that Republicans had "lost their core principles."
Barr made a name for himself in Congress for his ardent conservative philosophy and his role in President Clinton's impeachment. He lost a primary election in 2002.
Last month, Barr formed a presidential exploratory committee as he weighed a run for the White House. The source said that Barr had been considering a presidential bid "for several months. He currently runs Liberty Strategies, a consulting firm in Atlanta and Washington.
Barr joins a handful of other candidates seeking the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination including former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year. Libertarians meet in Denver on May 22 for a four day convention where members will choose the party's presidential nominee.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Explain, please.
It’s not your job to vote for a person you “want” to win-—as if your feelings are all that matter in this enterprise.
It’s your job to do what’s right for the country and that requires stopping the greater of two evils by voting for the lesser of the two evils.
A lot of the spending in the past 6-7 years was directly related to 9/11. If you knew of a better way around that event, perhaps you should run for president.
Golf still looks pretty good to me on November 4th.
Just think about how dumb it is to brag about how you will vote for a man for President of the United States when you conclude he is “sort of nuts.” And the fact that he hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of winning only makes matters worse.
You think Barr is “sort of nuts”? So is someone who would vote for someone they think is nuts.
Seems pretty obvious.
“Nearly 7 of 10 Americans oppose our actions in Iraq”
I now oppose actions in Iraq and Afghanistan but at the time of the initial advances into those countries had a “wait-and-see” attitude to find out if they were going to do it right. They didn’t do it right. Had it been done right then the “Islamic uprising” would already be dead as well as all of the participants.
Wrong. If they don't vote for the lesser-of-two-evils, they are guaranteed to get the GREATER of the two evils.
Is that smart?
No. I want people to vote for Obama. Or Bob Barr. Same thing, basically
No. I want people to vote for Obama. Or Bob Barr. Same thing, basically
No but I will vote for a Liberal Republican before I would vote for a Libertarian! Losers
“It’s your job to do what’s right for the country and that requires stopping the greater of two evils by voting for the lesser of the two evils.”
I guess I have to repeat my comment in an earlier post”
If people vote for the “lesser-of-two evils” then they have guaranteed that they are going to get “evil”.
Someone (you?) posited that since in dark blue states there was no chance that not voting for the Republican would help give the state’s electoral college votes to the Rat, maybe it would be “safe” to vote for Barr as a “protest vote.”
IOW, the idea was that since the Rat was going to win the state’s EC votes anyway, why not vote for a “protest” candidate?
My point was that even though in this situation one’s vote for the Republican would not help the Republican win the state (because the state is too Rat-like), one’s vote still helps determine whether the Republican or Rat wins the NATIONAL popular vote.
Since we heard endlessly last time about how Gore “really” won the election simply because he won the popular vote, it seems to me that unless a person wants to go that far, they should at least consider that their vote for the Republican, even in a state where he has no chance of winning the state, still helps the Republican in the national popular vote.
If the voter cares about such things.
“And then, please spare me the “Well thats ok in theory but “THIS YEAR” its just too important”. Y’all say that every year.”
Yep same old tired argument, just another year.
SSDD I think it’s called.
If people vote for the “lesser-of-two evils” then they have guaranteed that they are going to get “evil”.
I guess I have to repeat my reply?
Wrong. If they don't vote for the lesser-of-two-evils, they are guaranteed to get the GREATER of the two evils.
You have a very good point. There are people with elitist mind and attitude in both sides of the spectrum... (although to be fair, there's a strong Conservative Party in NY). These people also want to change the society, only to a different direction from the socialists. Only, the socialists seem to work harder.
“Is that smart?”
Long-term? Yes. The movement against the GOP is growing. The GOP is dying and the current candidate has assured its death, although slow it may be. Conservatives will one day again be heard.
I can live with the short-term. I think long-term. I don’t think short-term for personal, self-satisfaction.
For what it's worth, I don't consider lying naked in a coffin and reciting my sexual history to John Kerry to be exactly sane.
Yes, but there have been endless studies by Heritage and Cato showing that spending outside of national defense is still way, way up, and there are the new entitlements, etc. The fact is that W and the GOP congress were massive big government spenders. That is why the GOP is hurting now.
Last time I checked, being anti-government was kinda the whole point of conservatism.
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.