Attention Neocons: is McCain too liberal for your tastes? Not to worry! The “Libertarian” Party has a candidate just for you:
1. He voted for the PATRIOT Act.
2. He spent much of his life putting people in jail for possessing products that the state arbitrarily decided to outlaw.
3. He thinks guns should be forced on business owners.
4. He keeps an open (albeit misguided) mind when it comes to supporting war.
5. He endorsed a man for VP who doesn’t want to bring the troops home.
Vote for freedom, vote for Bob Barr.
While Bob Barr isn’t perfect, people change over time and I think he should be given a chance to show his commitment to liberty over the next several months.
The US educational system tells people being in the same room with C. Sativa will kill you and it takes most people a while to come to terms with the truth. If The Marijuana Policy Project can endorse him, that is good enough for me.
Both Barr and Root want to end the war and withdraw all troops to the US.
I’ve heard he voted for the patriot act in exchange for inserting the sunset clause which ultimatley got the library provision removed. It was an ugly comprimise, but perhaps the best that could have been hoped for under the circumstances.
If Barr and company took over the LP they did it in a very short time and with very little expenditure of money and manpower.
Among other things, Barr’s win points up the weakness of his opposition.
While Barr is not my dream candidate none of his opponents have proven capable of getting a significant number of votes (some had never before run for office) and none of them has proven capable of creating a large base of supporters.
There were just over 600 delegates voting on the 6th and final ballot. That figure in and of itself points to the spectacular ineptitude of the Libertarian Party and the spectacular ineptitude of each of Barr’s opponents.
The check writers who long have supported the LP deserved much better from those Barr opponents who sought the nomination. The financial backers of the LP have helped to build something of value, something which proves the LP’s presidential nomination is worth working hard to obtain.
The LP offers any presidential nominee a hugely valuable asset…ballot access. NONE of Barr’s opponents worked hard enough to merit use of that asset…if any one of them had they’d have been able to get a few hundred more people to Denver.
It is that simple. Yes, it’s hard work motivating people to go to Denver to vote for you, and if you can’t do it you can’t expect to win. Barr did in a few short weeks what the others haven’t come close to accomplishing…and some of them have been at this for decades now.
Being able to do it is how you win. NOT taking stands on issues. No candidate EVER can influence the outcome of an policy fight UNLESS they have built an organization, a large, broad based organization.
What difference does it make if one of Barr’s opponents is more the “pure” Libertarian when none of Barr’s opponents has solid backing from a motivated core of activists?
If any one of Barr’s opponents had worked hard enough, Barr’s delegates would have been hopelessly outnumbered.
It’s NOT about what you say you stand for it’s proving that you can stand and deliver. Barr was the only official presidential candidate with a successful electoral track record.
Many Libertarians I respect gave Barr their support and/or the benefit of the doubt. Many Libertarians whom I do not respect also supported Barr.
Frankly, there was no candidate other than Barr who deserved the presidential nomination.
Barr beat all his opponents in record time. Barr’s successful electoral record contrasted very nicely with the non-existent and or embarrassingly inept electoral record of his opposition.
No other announced candidate was worth the support despite the fact that most of them believe as I do about most issues and probably are very fine people. Sadly, each of Barr’s opponents spends are too much time talking about what they believe instead of acting on it.
There are many fine Libertarians who don’t have what it takes to be successful as a candidate…this time around, there was only one Libertarian presidential candidate who had one of the prime ingredients of a good nominee…the proof that he/she can stand and deliver instead of just talk.
Any Libertarian delegate who just could not stomach Barr had only one logical vote, and that was NOTA.
John P. Slevin: Six ballots is hardly “record time”. Far from it, in fact, since Barr won only on the last possible ballot.