The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

I don't get it.

Bob Barr (http://ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm), Ron Paul (http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm), and Mike Gravel (http://ontheissues.org/Mike_Gravel.htm) just don't seem like Libertarians.  They are Conservatives and Liberal who want smaller Government with Liberal and Conservative Philosophies.  I guess it's not all bad - maybe something is better than nothing?

As a budding Libertarian I'm not sure I want to vote for any of these candidates as they just don't seem to be real Libertarians.  Am I wrong?

Let me ask the question that begs answering then.  Which one of the candidates would have been best to hitch our wagon to and why?

David Jahn

Bob Barr certainly is not the answer. The guy is a staunch social conservative.

That's what bothers me about Paul as well.  He is very socially conservative.  Seems like more of the same to me.

Not really.  He just spent much of his adult life delivering babies, and his conscience won't allow him to support abortion.  I've never heard any kind of bible-thumping or the like from him.

Isn't it up to the State LP parties to put their candidate on the ballot? 

If the LPPA was ...  disatisfied, shall we say, with the nominee put up at the National Convention, couldn't we collect signatures for another set of candidates for the Prez/VP spots.

Just putting the idea out there for discussion....

Even so, it doesn't change the fact that Barr was picked at the national convention making me feel like an idiot for bothering to come back to the party only for it to go Republican Lite.

I'm not crazy about it either.  But this may actually be a good thing, in a way.

With someone who already has some name recognition in the Presidential slot, it could give us a little more clout in getting the Libertarian brand out in the public.  The more people that hear about the LP and actually listen, the more we can grow the party, and get more people elected to office.

Of course, this is all in theory, and from the e-mails I've gotten from the "Discussion" board, having Barr as the nominee is pi$$ing off a lot of people, so what happens with them is totally up in the air.  I know I'll be listening closely to what Barr has to say in the upcoming months. 

My vote is going to be 'undecided' throught the summer, I imagine, unless one of the candidates says something amazing that says, "Hey -- pick me!!", which I don't see happening anytime soon.

"I'm the 'change' guy!"

"nuh-uh, I am!"

"I'm ready on day one!"

"nuh-uh, I am!"

"I think GWB is dumb!"

"nuh-uh, I do!"

/sigh... 

This comprehensive election coverage provided by SNN, the Sheeple News Network (tm)

How are we going to get the "Libertarian brand" out there when a social conservative is our spokesman? How is anyone with a brain ever going to trust us? I will admit that Mr. Barr would make a great Republican, a far cry better than today's Republican Party, but he IS NOT a libertarian. What just happened to the Libertarian Party is that we sold out our values to do better in the election, IF we do better.

I'd like to hear what Mr. D. Jahn has to say about this. He was at the convention.

I'm short on time right now, so I can't write at length the way I would like. 

Since I came to the party in 2000, I notice that the party has fractured every time we nominate a candidate for president.  In 2000, folks thought Harry Brown was at the center of corruption charges.  In 2004, the delegates wanted to reverse their votes when they learned that Badnarik was a state citizen without a drivers license, etc.  This year is no different.

I can tell you we listened to all of the candidates, and none of them were perfect.  The delegates made their choice. 

Some folks insist on hitching our wagon to a non-compromising candidate even if they won't get out of the barnyard.  What a disservice to this nation.  Instead of focusing on getting libertarians elected, we insist on shocking the electorate with our principled views. The end result is the major parties continue to run our liberties and our country into the ground.  It is time for us to mature.  We may have reached the point where libs would prefer to get some people elected.

This party split years ago into educational and political branches.  We are in the political branch.  That means our priority should be getting candidates elected who will take this country in a libertarian direction.  We arrived at this juncture in increments, and we will only succeed in reversing it in increments.

I'd like to see us put up a candidate who will get more than one percent of the vote, so people will take notice to our party and give our candidates more consideration in the coming years.  We don't need a candidate who is going to shout about legalizing heroin and crack or legalizing prostitution for example.  That may be the way we want to lead the country, but the electorate isn't ready to go there in one big leap.  We have to guide them there.  Let's push for legalizing marijuana.  Once we get that, the public might begin to see it our way and we can push for more.

All of the candidates had issues.  I believe the delegates felt that Bob Barr offered the greatest opportunity for our party.  They were concerned about Barr, but he addressed those concerns.

I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and see where it leads us.  Next year, we may say it was the best thing we ever did, or the worst, who knows.  I'm not one for whining.  I didn't whine in 2000 or 2004, and I'm not going to start now.  I don't look back, I look forward.  I'll back Barr as long as I'm able to tolerate the views he espouses from this day forward.  It is in his hands now.  It is up to him to keep us with him.  If he loses us, he is done, and I'm sure he knows that.  I haven't heard anything from him throughout the convention that turned me off.  I hope he keeps it that way.  After serving two years on the Libertarian National Committee, he should know how we think.

I hope that helps.

David Jahn

I haven't been around long enough to know that much about the party but what about Ruwart or Kubby?  Ruwart seems to be very intelligent and carry the LP message well (from what I've seen). 

Aren't these two much better choices than Barr, Paul, or Gravel?  Or, did these candidates switch parties or get a Libertarian nod just to further the popularity of the party by sacrificing the party's message?

IMO, anyone that's going to be considered a candidate needs to be a great speaker and really pinpoint what's currently going on in politics plus have a good, imaginative PR campaign.

Watching Kubby and Ruwart on Youtube doesn't really portray anything exciting or anything that would hold my attention (not that they don't have a good message).

Why don't they or the party attract much attention?

Wow.  I really edited my previous post because I felt it was getting off topic and I was actually going to talk about much of the same thing.

The L party does seem extreme and distant because of its ideology and its message seems inconsistent (as evidenced by the splitting).  It can't be introduced that way (as you say).  It needs to start slow and very lightly to introduce people to the ideas.  It needs to take small steps from where the current Government is today to where it needs to go.

Well, we can be super picky and explain why these candidates aren't true libertarians and such, but any of them would do a far better job compared to Obama or McCain. Why? Barr & Paul both tackle key issues: government spending, free trade, and civil liberties. Even if that means voting for essentally another Republican, it's a far better plan than voting for another neo-conservative or socialist.

I will listen to what the man (Barr) has to say over the coming months. It had better be good.

I believe one thing that has to be recognized is everyone has a different interpretation of what it means to be a good Libertarian. To me it means working to maximize individual Liberty and minimize the role of the state. Of course, in order to do this first we have to shift public policy to stop minimizing individual Liberty and increasing the role of the state. I think the LP should be primarily using the political and electoral processes to achieve this goal, although there is an educational and public information component to our activity as well. From this perspective running candidates for elected office is one of our primary means of working toward our goal.

To others, being a good Libertarian means being an anarchist, or an anarcho-capitalist, or an objectivist, or geolibertarian, neolibertarian, classical liberal, market liberal etc, etc. Also, others believe the primary emphasis of the LP should be on education and trying to influence the political process primarily by means other than running candidates. If you look at the LP candidates for President through different filters, you can get very different pictures of who may be a good or bad candidate.

There are differences between libertarianism, social conservatism, and liberalism. Libertarianism strictly addresses the relationship of the individual to the state while social conservatism and liberalism also address morality. I think it is possible to be a social conservative and be a Libertarian just as it is possible to be classical liberal and a Libertarian.

While Mike Gravel and his supporters were new to the LP, I don't think they were out of place. Certainly the Senator's positions on civil liberties were in line with many of those in the LP, although his view of the role of the federal government may not have aligned with most of those in the LP. The problem I saw after talking to the Senator was that he had a set of ideas he was promoting and was not willing to consider or adopt other viewpoints. Perhaps some of that came from his age, but his stand made it difficult for me to support him.

Congressman Barr at least showed not only a willingness to consider other positions, but apologized for the results of previous positions and actions he took. He met with Outright Libertarians over the Defense of Marriage Act, he stated a new position on the USA PATRIOT Act, and showed a willingness to bring different factions together. There is no doubt his previous actions were found to be appalling not only by most Libertarians, but by many others as well. His statements at the convention appeared to me to be sincere, and time will tell if he has truly repented.

To me that is the key to being a good candidate, whether they can bring people together. While Mary Ruwart may be a fine writer, to portray yourself as being the best Libertarian because of the number of positions you hold that most citizens would disagree with does not add to the candidate qualifications, in my opinion. Had she been the nominee, what little press from MSM she would have gotten would have been almost entirely dedicated to why the LP supports child pornography.

In the end, I found that to be the problem with the candidates who touted themselves as being more "Libertarian" than others. If you can't bring those in the LP together, what chance do you have with the general electorate? The worst of the candidates I saw at the convention were those who not only claimed to be the most Libertarian, but that others were un-Libertarian. OK, maybe that was one candidate.

Perhaps one day when the income tax has been eliminated, all of the US military is stationed within our borders, and individual rights prevail over the authority of the government, the LP can splinter over whether there needs to be a government or not. Until then, we need everybody who wants to promote Liberty we can get to keep our nation from becoming the type of authoritarian state with which we were once at war.

While activism and direct action have a place and can highlight some of the different views of those in the LP, when it comes to selecting a Presidential candidate I think we will do better to be reasonable rather than radical. The candidate we have selected certainly has experience in federal elected office, and the Barr/Root ticket seems well-matched to work together. This could be the best Presidential ticket ever fielded by the LP.

Mik Robertson

John,

I share your sentiment on Barr.  It better be good if he wants me to support him.

David Jahn

I just don't want this to backfire. Again, as I said, I am going to listen to what he has to say over the coming months. I will give the guy a chance.

One of the more interesting aspects of this candidate that no one has addressed yet was the way he apologized for past positions.  Something about a conservative seeking our nominations and admitting he was wrong in the past on given issues struck me as having value.  Who better to sell our point of view than someone who previously held the opposing view and now has come to see the light.  Both Barr and Gravel seemed to be saying Libertarians were right all along.  I see that as two down and something like 552 more to go in order to convert the whole house and senate.

I was hoping that people would pause and give more consideration of our views when they hear it coming from someone who once opposed us.

David Jahn

To be fair, I wasn't at the convention and C-SPAN wasn't playing the video recording of the event, so I have no idea what he said other than what I've been told through articles and word of mouth. None of them mentioned any alterations in his views. That being said, we could have done much worse and he is by far a better candidate than anything coming from the two-party dictatorship.

Here is the conclusion of Barr's nominating speech that was posted on you tube by the Barr
campaign. Near the end (starting around 5:08) he starts a statement that
concludes with him stating he is committed to the Libertarian party and the
Libertarian Platform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjfDSPfL02w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjfDSPfL02w)

He said it. Now, all we have to do is hold him to it.

David Jahn

It was a little over-the-top, but...okay.

Huh?  I guess I'm confused as to what the Libertarian Platform includes.

Link to Barr's stances on the issues... (http://ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm)

Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
# Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
# Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
# More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
# Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
# Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
# Let schools display the words "God Bless America". (Oct 2001)
# Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
# Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
# Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
# Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
# Be aggressive in securing our borders. (Apr 2008)
# Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

The vast majority of those are early Barr and the reason our party declared him the worst of the worst and targeted him for defeat.  Since then he has gravitated to our party and adopted many of our views.

Can you tell me if you find anything offensive on http://www.bobbarr2008.com (http://www.bobbarr2008.com)?

Let me say this.  Who better to espouse our views than someone who was on the other side on many issues and came to realize they were wrong and we were right?  At this point, he has stated he is committed to our platform.

Your skepticism is justified.  I suggest we monitor the campaign and see where it goes.  If he loses us, he risk losing ballot access and more.

I hope that helps.

David Jahn

p.s. At the risk of sounding non-libertarian, I would also support securing our borders at this time.  Our nation has been under attack.  Until we can establish a libertarian society, abolish social programs and birthright citizenship, at the very least, we are entitled to know why people are coming in and that they aren't carrying infectious or terminal diseases, but that is just me and it is a topic for another thread.

I did notice the dates on the statements and thought that it might me outdated.  I'll check out his site. I think the only thing that worries me about Barr and Paul is their stances on Social issues.  Arguably, that may or may not be the most important thing for this country but I find it important.  I guess, as you say, we'll just have to watch and see.  What a roller coaster.


I'm starting to think Barr has some good ideas.  He seems to really have changed some stances on issues.

From his Website. (http://"http://www.bobbarr2008.com/")

Gentle people,

This is my first day of considering the Libertarian Party. I am doing so primarily because of Bob Barr's candidacy and the abysmal choices I find any where else. If education rather than running candidates has been your goal, then I must say that y'all have been a failure. Till today I thought that Libertarians were conservatives who did drugs while messing with Prostitutes. I say this not with the intent to insult but to state that that is what many people think.

If you want to educate people, as with anything else you need to get people to pay attention to you. I think Bob Barr will get people to pay attention. When they look at you will they see a bunch of weird malcontents, or people who can lead the nation into the future.

You keep posting threads like this and people will look at Bob Barr, look at the Libertarian party and keep on walking. When I read the platform for LPP I was a bit stunned, I thought I was for small government, but you folks ARE FOR SMALL GOVERNMENT! The questions I have is how this all is going to work if you do get elected. Karl Marx reads real interesting  but his ideas are Utopian and impractical. There are many points in your platform that I question if they are Utopian and impractical, I'd like to learn more.

I know some of you folks are in favor of rampant drug use, well big government is the biggest addictive drug there is. Instead of cold turkey, consider Bob Barr as methadone, or nicotine gum on your way to quiting. You need to get people to see they have a problem with there government addiction before you will convince them to quit.

I heard Bob Barr on Sean Hanity, it did not shy away from expounding non-Republican, Libertarian principals. Too me atleast He seems much more coherent than Ron Paul. Ron Paul seemed too vague in a lot of the interviews I saw/heard/read.

I really would like to learn more in detail how you expect to acomplish your goals. Right now our Government is a train heading for a cliff at 600 miles per hour, how do you not only stop it but turn it around on the tracks?

If you keep treating the word Republican like a filthy word, you will have a hard time persuading them that you have the plan for smaller government, thats right.

Respectfully,
Samantha Rieth

Thank you for your input.  I'm a fairly recent switcher myself.  I describe myself as minarchist (believe that government and taxation are necessary evils that should be minimized as much as possible while still retaining order.) 

But I also have strong anarcho-capitalist leanings.  That's right.  There are some among us who think we need no state at all and can voluntarily live in harmony and order.  "Anarchy" does NOT mean the same thing as "chaos".

But you are correct about one thing for sure -- if all any non-libertarians ever hear about us is the "crazy" stuff, they will not hear us at all.  We do indeed have to get ourselves off the dope of government babysitting in order to realize that we CAN actually govern ourselves voluntarily.  Bob Barr's candidacy might indeed help some folks get off the smack.

Hello Samantha.  Thank you for your input.  So much to cover, such little time.  A little about me that might help with what you are looking for.  I am 37, former Republican after I thought i was a liberal save the world in high-school.  Libertarian for now 16 years after listening and reading a lot from Dr. Walter Williams and all kinds of history/political books.  I have two kids, 3 and 4, a wife i love, don't do drugs, go to church almost every Sunday, work in management for a top tier hotel company.  I concluded long ago that the two parties are heading us to socialism.  Dems at 500 MPH, REp at 230 MPH, both going the wrong way.

Bob Barr to me is a progession vote.  Too long, we have had great candidates (Harry Browne*, Michael Badnarik) that have gotten us no media / attention.

This year we took a chance.  At the convention I met and interviewed BB.  I feel he is a changed man, "saw the light."  He is friends with Neal Boortz who I am a big fan, they are friends.

If we (I) am wrong, we gambled.   I see 2012 and beyond as great things for the LP because people are really upset with the choices they have and are looking for another choice.   We are constitutionalist, we are principled.  I think Barry is a changed man. 

I don't know if you know the challenges 3rd parties / independents have just to get on the ballot.  Ask me how much we have to raise in PA just to get Barr on the ballot.  Try $30,000 +.....just to get on the ballot.  We need over 30,000 signatures here in PA, D&R's 2,000.

So I am glad you found us and I hope you can meet-up at a local LPPA meeting.

Barry

OK Barry,

Where do I find a local LPPA meeting?  I have more than a few questions.

Many of you seem to have this "wait and see" attitude. IF you actually want your candidate to win, or even take second, you need to be more enthusiastic than that. One way to keep Bob Barr on the straight and narrow Libertarian path is to actively campaign for him.

Use the opportunity while it exists to educate people to the possibilities. If Barr is continually wrapped in your platform, by you, on the campaign trail where can he go. If your platform gets him to the Whitehouse how far can he stray. Even if you just want to do well, you need to act like you are going to win.

Is the Libertarian Party only a label for a bunch of individuals debating philosophy, or a united group of people who want to change the nation? I tell you this, the Reps and the Dems have gotten so bad that more people than ever before are going to be willing to give you a look. Are you capable of providing a unified message to rally people to? Many of us are going to over look the "crazy" things to get the country headed in a libertarian direction. If all you want to do is appear crazy and knock your own candidate down, you'll do nothing but loose, and the train keeps headed the wrong way.

I think you can rely on getting people to listen on Energy (government seems the largest road block to cheap energy) Immigration reform that atleast means government not paying $$$ for illegal aliens, advocating better boarder security wouldn't hurt. Tax reform, everyone hates the IRS. Most everything else will begin to get too complicated for a lot of people. If you can convince enough folks that these issues will improve the economy you might win.

If you are looking for an Anarcho- capitalist (I was under 20 the last  time I advocated Anarchy) to become President, you truly are a dreamer. My own two cent, Anarchy does not lead to chaos, it leads to Authoritarianism to avoid chaos. My simple answer to Anarchy, or even true Communism: Descarte said "I think therefore I am." ; look around and see how many folks you know do not exist. The stupid and the ambitious who will lead them will mess you up every time.

Peace and love,
Samantha

No, we're in favor of rampant freedom use.

I don't think any of us want people to use drugs. We just recognize that every individual has the right to do with their lives what they please provided that they give way for others to do the same. Drug use has one physical victim; the user.

I've been saying this for years and I've never heard it more well put.

I can think of a few people who probably SHOULD mellow out and smoke a little weed.  Hillary Clinton is among them, lol.

I'm a student of history and am not aware of a single example where it did not happen this way. Problems in our own Articles of Confederation led to a stronger federal government not a disillusion of the government.

Samantha

I appologise to generalise all Libertarians that way. I have met in my college days some quite stoned Libertarians, and that seemed the only important issue to them.

This is where I want a little more clarification on "victimless crimes", I have not read a clear cut list of these. Is DWI a victimless crime if the individual has not yet hit someone or knocked down a utility pole? Having known may drug users in my youth, I can say that many of them were not just destructive to themselves but were abusive to others. Where judgment is impaired stupid and dangerous things are done. Are they only to be prosecuted when they cross a certain line that may lead to someone else's death, with no attempt to be made at preventing that death?

If we concede that a drug user will use drugs and there is nothing you can do about it, is there no way to keep the general public safe from them?

Samantha

Well, you'd probably find that those same stoned individuals, though libertarian with regard to drugs, are more than likely father to the left on economic issues and perhaps further right on other social issues.