|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Posted on 10/08/2002 8:36:54 AM PDT by md2576
The “worst Drug Warrior in Congress” has lost his seat -- and the Libertarian Party appears to have played a small role in making it happen.
U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, an outspoken opponent of medical marijuana, was defeated by Rep. John Linder in a Republican primary election in Georgia on August 20. With 82% of precincts reporting, Linder had 67% of the vote to Barr’s 33%, prompting Barr’s concession.
Over the past two weeks, Barr had been the target of a barrage of television ads produced by the Libertarian Party. The ads were run by Carole Ann Rand, the LP candidate for U.S. House in Georgia’s 7th Congressional district.
“Barr’s defeat is a victory for every American who believes that doctors and patients -- rather than politicians -- should be making medical decisions,” said Rand. “Like Babe Ruth pointing to a spot in the bleachers and hitting a home run, we pointed at our target and helped knock him out of Congress.”
The campaign to bump Bob Barr was the first test of the Libertarian Party’s “Incumbent Killer Strategy,” which is targeting the worst drug warriors in Congress for defeat.
The Rand campaign purchased approximately $40,000 worth of television advertising spots to attack the four-term incumbent -- including spots on broadcast networks Fox and NBC.
The ad also aired about 4,000 times on cable systems in the district.
While the amount of money the LP spent on the ads was small compared to overall spending in the hard-fought campaign, LP Political Director Ron Crickenberger said the issue-based ad, which features a multiple sclerosis sufferer and medical marijuana patient, quickly became a “lightning rod for publicity.”
“Both Barr and Linder ran personality-based, feel-good ads -- leaving us a huge opportunity to inject our issue into the public debate,” he said.
The Libertarian ad campaign received heavy coverage from newspapers throughout the district, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the most widely circulated newspaper in the state.
The hard-hitting commercial was also a frequent topic on talk radio, and was touted by Neal Boortz, an Atlanta-based talk radio host and Libertarian Party member.
Barr’s “out-of-touch” position on medical marijuana may have alienated many of the Congressman’s supporters -- and cost him votes, said Crickenberger, who produced the ad.
“With polls showing 73% support for medical marijuana, we were able to dramatize how out of step Barr is with ordinary voters,” he said. “And while Barr’s loss was attributable to many factors, it’s clear that these ads put another nail into his political coffin.”
The LP’s “Incumbent Killer Strategy” is one component of the party’s comprehensive plan to end federal drug prohibition within the decade.
Future targets include U.S. Sen. Tim Hutchison (R-AR), U.S. Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), U.S. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), and U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX). All have been marked for defeat in the November 2002 general election.
“With this victory, we have fired a warning shot for every drug warrior in Congress to hear,” said Crickenberger. “And any member of Congress -- Democrat or Republican -- who introduces legislation to make federal drug laws even more oppressive could be next on our list.”
And the funniest part of the debate was the end when Boortz asked the audiance if they would deny their loved ones Med. MJ if it would help ease their pain. The only person to raise their hand was Barr's wife!
5¢ a day funds liberal filth at Salon. What will you donate to FreeRepublic?
"Drugs are bad; the war on drugs is worse."
What a riot! And what a good wuestion to ask. Fo rthe brief time I treated oncology patients the only limitation to the amount of opiates requested by them was their respiratory rate. But that rarely mattered - until near the very end, terminal patients want to experience life to the fullest.
And it makes me livid - to think that totalitarians beleive that THEY can decide what choices individuals can make for themselves, for their own bodies. I liked Barr. But I'd like to think that some good could come from his defeat by indicating to other conservatives who think they can be popoular by being a WOD Warrior.
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Yep, and FR is infested with those types.
I liked Barr. But I'd like to think that some good could come from his defeat by indicating to other conservatives who think they can be popoular by being a WOD Warrior.
I thought Barr was a pretty decent guy too until I found out he was a potaphobe totalitarian. Some people said he "had" to be supported because he was Pro-2A. But, I have never heard Barr, nor any (R) ever say they oppose current gun control laws. As far as I am concerned, unless a person is against current laws, they aren't really a friend of the 2A.
Yeah thats right, give us Mark Pryor. He'll be for drugs allright, he's no different that the former drug user in chief from his, and my state.
But besides that I can guarantee that Pryor is no overall friend of Libertarians. He will be for big, big and bigger government. Not exactly a big desire of the Libertarians.
But go figure. For a doobie, the libs give us a big government guy like Pryor.
You said it right.
Now, the LP just needs to target Boxer, Feinstein, Klinton, Blagojovich, Wellstone, McCain, Leiberman....
I should also note that the television ad was very poor. It was such a "shock" ad that I expect a lot of people mentally turned it off before they ever got the message.
It wasn't so much that Barr lost, but that Linder won. Linder is well known in the area and ran a strong campaign with a positive message. I doubt if any Republican could have defeated Linder in this race.
P.S.
As far as my drug stance goes, I'm opposed to the war on drugs, but I don't favor legalizing drugs. I would favor medicinal marijuana if it was prescribed by a doctor and sold through a pharmacy.
I agree, as has the constant flailing about of Carla Howell up here in MA.
So keep it illegal to use unapproved substances, but don't enforce the laws?
Wait a minute, I thought they were not relevant. Which is it? They make a difference or they don't?
Totally false. They run against Dems all the time. But the truth is that most liberals won't vote for freedom because they don't believe in it. Some Republicans do, so you might get votes from them.
If Republicans really supported the constitution and the limited form of government it advocates, there would be no need for a Libertarian Party.
There is hope for you after all. :^}
That's funny. I was under the impression that candidates in an election run against every other candidate.
Depending upon who you talk to here, they are nothing, or a huge threat. Most of them spend huge amounts of time telling you how irrelevant the libertarians are, and even more time addressing them. Hard to figure out. :-)
It's easier to sway a voter that agrees with you 80% of the time than one that only agrees with you 20% of the time.
The typical Republican voter probably agrees with 80% of the Libertarian party's positions. If the Libertarians are looking to steal votes for their candidate, the best place for them to get them is from the Republican candidate.
The Libertarian candidate pulled enough votes from the Republican Senate candidate in 1996 to put Max Cleand in office. Here is a blurb from the Augusta Chronicle about it:
In the race to replace Nunn, Democrat Cleland beat Millner with 49 percent of 2.2 million votes cast.Millner received 48 percent. The difference may have been Libertarian Jack Cashin, who wound up receiving 81,652 votes.
Coverdell, a Republican, estimated three out of four Libertarian votes probably would have otherwise gone to Millner, providing the margin of victory.
In conceding the race, Millner also noted Cashin's impact. Libertarian votes in 1992 sent then-U.S. Sen. Wyche Fowler, D-Ga., into a runoff with Coverdell when no candidate received a majority.( My comment here: Coverdell would have won that race without a runoff execpt for the Libertarian candidate.)
Coverdell took the runoff, and Democratic state lawmakers changed the law so that the winner of the U.S. Senate general election only needed 45 percent of the vote.
It is true that Libertarians are making an impact on GA politics. Ironicly, it is getting Democrats elected and ensuring the issues they care about never even come close to seeing the light of day.
"As far as my drug stance goes, I'm opposed to the war on drugs, but I don't favor legalizing drugs..."
Let me ask you and all of the other socialist/communist FR's the following question:
If it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit the use, sale, and transportation of alcohol during the time period of 1918 to 1932, because there was no other constitutional power enumerated in the constitution for the federales to crimminalize alcohol, how can there now be federal laws cimminalizing marijuana use, sale, and transportation without a concurrent constitutional amendment, as well?
Your constitutionally based answer will be greatly appreciated.
Or perhaps some enterprising Republican candidates will wake up and stop being social statists.
The Drugs Before Country group proves once again...DOPERS ARE TOO STUPID TO VOTE!!
The guy who led the charge against Clinton over China-gate is anti-drug so you Bong-Boys get straight long enough to trash him.
Yeah, you drug patriots are real heroes.
Thanks, but I live in Florida and am not a member of the Libertarian Party.
The Drugs Before Country group proves once again...DOPERS ARE TOO STUPID TO VOTE!!
Drugs before country? What the hell does that mean? Oh, wait, you just have a problem with those who will not sacrafice individual rights for "the good of society". Yeh, yeh, it takes a village and all of that. Whatever.
The guy who led the charge against Clinton over China-gate is anti-drug so you Bong-Boys get straight long enough to trash him.
Who exactly was that? I don't care if a particular Senator or Representative walked up and punched Klinton in the face, I still wouldn't vote for him/her if they were against individual rights.
Yeah, you drug patriots are real heroes.
Drug patriots? Who are they? The unfortunate ones who get shot when the DEA kicks in the wrong door?
No, I think drug laws should be enforced the same way other laws are enforced.
The war on drugs is a concept that basicly says: the enforcement of anti-drug laws are soo important that certain legal protections and rights can be suspended to enforce those laws.
Waco is a great example. The law says the military can not be used domesticly as a police force, yet the military was involved in the police action against the Branch Davidians in Waco. How did they do that?
The war on drugs caused a little exception to be written into the law against using the military as a domestic police force. If you suspect drugs are involved, then you can call in the military.
Nobody in the government (ATF, FBI) ever thought drugs were involved in Waco, but they wanted military backup. So they just added one more line to their Waco investigation stating illegal drugs may also be present at the Branch Davidian complex. That kicked the door wide open for the military to get invovled. Without it, the military would have had to sit on the sidelines (where it belongs, IMHO).
I'm sure there are others here that could post a more comprehensive list of rights, freedoms, and protections that are being set aside by the "war on drugs" concept.
If the Libertarian party would focus more on the rights that are being shortchanged by the war on drugs, I think they would have an issue that would have a lot of traction. Instead, they seem to come across as just wanting to legalize drugs.
Probably good advice, but it still doesn't answer the question. You don't favor legalizing drugs, but you oppose the WOD. Precisely how would you proceed from that premise?
Brilliant!! Worthy of the Commie Speak Award of the Year.
Always remember...Drugs, Prostitution, Porn and Parallel Parking are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, therefore THEY ARE "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS"!!!!
You Dope Constitutionalists are geniuses!! And you're right, Bob Barr was anti-drug so logically it made no difference what benefit he was to the country.
Drugs are freedom, Baby!
No, the people who are afraid of freedom just characterize the LP like that. It doesn't matter what the topic of a "libertarain" thread is, the disrupors always make it a "drug thread" and claim LPers are just "Dopers". #37 here is a prime example of one of the usual suspects. Read the LP platform. The mention of drugs is less than 1% of the text. The total respect of individual rights is what the LP seeks. Nothing more, nothing less. Too many people just can't get over the fact that individual rigts include the individual being the sole determiner as to what they will ingest into their bodies.
I think these types of things are properly handled at the state level.
If CA wants to make drugs legal (or gambling, or alcohol, or prostitutuion, etc..) legal in their state, they should be able to do so. On the other hand, if UT wants to make them illegal, they should be able to do so.
The individual states were never meant to be cookie-cutter copies of each other (which is what we have now with the overreaching federal government). I think we would be better off if each state passed laws that reflected the concensus of the people in that state (restricted by basic constitutional protections). If the state you live in didn't reflect your ideas, you would be free to move to another state that did. You would end up with states that had drasticly differing laws, but you would also end up with at least one state that would make everyone happy.
This makes no sense. What are you saying?
Brilliant!! Worthy of the Commie Speak Award of the Year.
What do individual rights have to do with communism, which denies individual rights. As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Always remember...Drugs, Prostitution, Porn and Parallel Parking are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, therefore THEY ARE "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS"!!!!
Anything that is not an initiation of force or fraud is an individual right. What are you trying to say?
You Dope Constitutionalists are geniuses!!
You are just getting sillier and sillier.
And you're right, Bob Barr was anti-drug so logically it made no difference what benefit he was to the country.
What benefit are you claiming Barr gave to this country? Really, I would love to know.
Drugs are freedom, Baby!
In deed, the ingestion of such is a natural, individual right. When one ingests drugs, the person excercises freedom. When one attempts to jail, harm or kill someone who ingests drugs, that doesn't come close to passing for freedom.
Freedom is a tricky thing. In order to be free, you need to allow others to be free also. So called "Americans" now a days have abandoned that ideal.
So, criminality, and thus harm and tort, should be decided by the geographical location of the "user"? For the life of me, I have never understood this mindset that one becomes a criminal because he or she simply stands one step north/south/east/west of some "boundary line", where the person would not be a criminal if they were simply standing one step in the other direction. Harm has either occured, or it hasn't. The person who claims to be harmed can either prove it in front of an unbiased jury, or they can't prove it. I can not except the notion of "criminality by executive fiat".
Oh, come on. I thought "slavery=freedom", "it takes a village.." and all that. You know, you maximize freedom by minimalizing rights. It's an inverse ralationship./sarcasm
I really do hope many of these misguided souls are really pro-rights or libertarian minded folks just putting on a good act to make the pro-WOD side look silly. Otherwise, they can be pretty scary sometimes.
I thought I explained it pretty clearly.
Are you sure you understand what the war on drugs is? Passing a law making the possesion of marijuana illegal is NOT part of the "war on drugs".
The war on drugs is a concept that says certain rights and protections can be ignored in the enforcement of that law.
I don't think any rights should be ignored or abrigated in the enforcement of any law (laws against drugs, or say laws against robbery.) The war on drugs concept is dangerous because it can be so easily applied to other areas (the war on terrorism, the war on bad parenting, the war on smuggling, the war on not keeping your grass cut, etc..) It sets a dangerous precedent.
Whether or not drugs should be illegal is a seperate discussion. It is logical to say you are opposed to making some activity legal (pedofilia, for example), but you are against the abrogation of any rights in the enforcement of those laws.
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.