Mik
smf LPPa Moderators Area
Newbie
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 317
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2008, 09:34:38 pm » |
|
I'm not sure Ron Paul is the only libertarian in congress. The RLC had about 30 members of congress listed higher on the Liberty Index than Ron Paul in 2005 (the most recent listing I've seen). That doesn't necessarily mean there are 30 or more libertarians in congress, however.
Apparently the Paul people and Barr people don't get along very well. Oh well, these things happen. Some people have actually gone to the length to say Barr should be removed as the LP Presidential nominee over this incident, which I think is absurd.
If Ron Paul's supporters wish to support Barr because of the positions he holds, or join the LP that's fine. If they don't join the LP because they don't like Barr, or feel that Barr snubbed Lord Paul, then I have to wonder if their support is for Liberty or a personality.
Dave, if you're having trouble justifying your support for Barr, is it because of the positions Barr espouses or the relationship Barr has with Ron Paul? Neither Barr nor Paul is perfect, but then who is? In fact I have not seen any of the conference, and my interest in it is only marginal. If I have time I will watch, however.
I was talking to former President Judge Charles Alexander last night, who recently retired and is back in private practice. When I mentioned about Barr remaining on the ballot in Pennsylvania, he began telling me how happy he was to hear that and how much he likes Barr's position on the War on Drugs. If he can like Bob Barr, I'm sure many Ron Paul supporters can, too.
Mik
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
djahn
|
|
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2008, 10:20:21 pm » |
|
Mik, The following assertion is what led me to conclude you hadn't seen the Ron Paul conference. Far from being a disingenuous understatement, I think saying all this flak over Bob Barr skipping a meeting was an ingenuous statement. If anyone is dispersing Ron Paul supporters, it's Ron Paul. Is Ron Paul interested in promoting Liberty or building alternatives to the two-party system? If it is interested in the latter, it may be better if he weren't a part of the two party system, although he is barely a part of it. If he is interested in the former, it may not be a good idea to promote someone like McKinney. He could have done both by taking Bob Barr's offer, it seems. The following is in response to your recent post. I'm not sure Ron Paul is the only libertarian in congress. The RLC had about 30 members of congress listed higher on the Liberty Index than Ron Paul in 2005 (the most recent listing I've seen). That doesn't necessarily mean there are 30 or more libertarians in congress, however. All that does for me is raise suspicion about how the index is being compiled. Apparently the Paul people and Barr people don't get along very well. Oh well, these things happen. Some people have actually gone to the length to say Barr should be removed as the LP Presidential nominee over this incident, which I think is absurd. I agree that removing Barr at this point over a tif with Paul would be absurd. If Ron Paul's supporters wish to support Barr because of the positions he holds, or join the LP that's fine. If they don't join the LP because they don't like Barr, or feel that Barr snubbed Lord Paul, then I have to wonder if their support is for Liberty or a personality.
Dave, if you're having trouble justifying your support for Barr, is it because of the positions Barr espouses or the relationship Barr has with Ron Paul? Neither Barr nor Paul is perfect, but then who is? Ron Paul's supporters are libertarians who are looking for somewhere to cast their votes. Barr has a bad track record in case you haven't noticed. He voted for the patriot act. He introduced the marriage protection act. And, he not only voted for the Iraq invasion, but has authored articles in favor of the invasion. He has also indicated support for the war on drugs in South America. He has pulled down a lot of his articles with non-libertarian views and has done well since his nomination, but that hasn't dispelled the distrust many have for him. Libertarians aren't going to vote for a candidate simply because the Libertarian Party nominated him. They want some assurance that the man is a Libertarian. I'm growing tired of trying to defend him, let alone trying to promote him. In fact I have not seen any of the conference, and my interest in it is only marginal. If I have time I will watch, however. You should watch it and shape your own opinion if you are going to assert views. Don't let others mislead you. I was talking to former President Judge Charles Alexander last night, who recently retired and is back in private practice. When I mentioned about Barr remaining on the ballot in Pennsylvania, he began telling me how happy he was to hear that and how much he likes Barr's position on the War on Drugs. If he can like Bob Barr, I'm sure many Ron Paul supporters can, too.
Mik
Maybe he can enlighten us, because I'm not sure what Barr's position is on drugs. It isn't even listed as an issue on his web site. David Jahn |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
David Jahn
|
|
|
|
|
JohnKOTR
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 140
|
|
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2008, 10:58:08 am » |
|
Because I've been sort of ignoring politics recently out of exhaustion, I did not realize that Barr just didn't show up. He didn't cancel on them. He didn't call and say he wasn't going to make it. He just, didn't show up. I don't care if it is Ron Paul, John McCain, or Saddam Hussein holding the press conference. There is something wrong with that. I just don't know if I can vote for this man.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
djahn
|
|
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2008, 07:02:16 pm » |
|
Because I've been sort of ignoring politics recently out of exhaustion, I did not realize that Barr just didn't show up. He didn't cancel on them. He didn't call and say he wasn't going to make it. He just, didn't show up. I don't care if it is Ron Paul, John McCain, or Saddam Hussein holding the press conference. There is something wrong with that. I just don't know if I can vote for this man.
John Richard McCloud put a lot of effort into researching what had transpired and posted his findings to another email list. Here is what he had to say. As some of you may know I was vehemently opposed to Barr's nomination, and vowed to not campaign for him nor vote for him. I've spent the last few days on the phone with people from the Nader camp, the McKinney camp at the Gp, and Lp HQ trying to get to the bottom of what occured at that press conference. I've contacted the Ron Paul camp 3 times, and was told someone would return my call. No one has yet to return my call.
Both Nader's camp, and McKinney's camp told similar stories that confirms the story told to me by Lp HQ. Ron Paul's staffers confused and complicated communications between themselves and Barr's people. Whether or not the breakdown in communication was honest or there was something more to it niether camps would speculate. Naders people did say they worked late into the evening the night before trying to help Barr's people figure out what was expected of Barr as he had his own press conference scheduled for over a month, for that day.
-Paul was confused why Barr was late.
-Nader's folks explained Barr was unsure if he had security clearance to attend the event, and Paul instructed his staff to get Barr's people on the phone and find out what's going on.
-Paul's staff returned, one telling Paul his call yielded a "go ahead without me. It's not worth it.", another telling Paul his call yielded a "fuck off" followed by a hang up.
McKinney's guy confirmed this, differing with what Nader's guy told me "Ron appeared disturbed" by the information, where McKinney's guy said he appeared "confused".
Both said that after their press conference they were all preoccupied with the photo-op session and had no idea what was occurring at Bob's press conference. After the media left the room, and Barr's conference had ended, Bob and his people met with everyone from Paul's joint conference. Mckinney's guy said the sparks flew and Ron became furious, shouting at staffers, and Ralph had to quiet him down because there was still media outside the door of the room they were all in. Nader's guy mentioned none of this.
I called the Baldwin camp and the guy I spoke with said "There's nothing to tell. Bob Barr was, for lack of a better word, Bob Barr". When I tried to inquire further he said "I'm not prepared to give any further comment on this issue at this time".
HQ told me Barr's had numerous problems with Paul's staff. Recently there was problems with a booth and speaking slot at the Rally for the Republic. HQ said Paul is surrounded by staff that are also working the Baldwin campaign.
It's kind of irrelevant but Nader's guy said "Bob Barr's problem is, because right now he's the biggest threat to the Karl Rove administration he's going to be damned if he does, damned if he does'nt." Just thought I'd share that with y'all.
Anyhoo... I'm on board. Bob Barr has my full support. What can I do? I know this doesn't answer all of the questions, but it does provide more insight. I truthfully don't know what to make of it other than I believe it was a blunder. David Jahn |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
David Jahn
|
|
|
JohnKOTR
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 140
|
|
« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2008, 11:46:26 pm » |
|
It wasn't just this. This guy just doesn't excite me, at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mik
smf LPPa Moderators Area
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 317
|
|
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2008, 12:07:03 am » |
|
Ron Paul's supporters are libertarians who are looking for somewhere to cast their votes. Barr has a bad track record in case you haven't noticed. Some of Paul's supporters are libertarians, some are conservatives, and some are nuts. If the Paul libertarians find a more libertarian candidate than Bob Barr on the ballot, they can certainly vote for that candidate. In fact, Pennsylvania allows voters to write in a candidate of their choice. They probably won't count the vote, but you can write in someone not on the ballot. While Bob Barr may have a storied past, he did come around and immediately prior to his nomination spent two years on the LNC. I may be wrong, but I don't recall there being an outcry that a war mongering drug warrior who hates homosexuals was part of the Libertarian Party's governing body. Dave, if you cannot find Bob Barr's position on the war on drugs, perhaps Rob Kampia (of the Marijuana Policy Project) could enlighten you. You may even recall Rob's speech supporting Barr at the convention (or you could look at this: http://www.lppa.org/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,60/topic,33570.0/). Basically Barr says on his website he wants to de-federalize the issue, and I believe I have heard Ron Paul take a similar position on some issues. I wouldn't tire myself out trying to defend or repudiate the past actions of another, however. If Richard McCloud could not figure out what was going on with the news conference after a rather extensive inquiry, I doubt my watching the event is going to shed much light on the incident, although I still may watch it. The bottom line is I believe this was a minor, if not completely insignificant incident that does not merit anyone drastically changing their view of either Bob Barr or Ron Paul. It certainly shouldn't affect whether any of Paul's supporters want to join the LP. If Ron Paul wanted his supporters to vote for Barr, he could have endorsed Barr, or if he wanted his supporters to go for someone else he could have endorsed Baldwin, or Nader, or McKinney for that matter. So what did he do? Mik Robertson |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 19, 2008, 12:09:56 am by Mik »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
djahn
|
|
« Reply #22 on: September 19, 2008, 04:03:05 am » |
|
Ron Paul's supporters are libertarians who are looking for somewhere to cast their votes. Barr has a bad track record in case you haven't noticed. Some of Paul's supporters are libertarians, some are conservatives, and some are nuts. If the Paul libertarians find a more libertarian candidate than Bob Barr on the ballot, they can certainly vote for that candidate. In fact, Pennsylvania allows voters to write in a candidate of their choice. They probably won't count the vote, but you can write in someone not on the ballot. That is exactly what many Paul supporters are going to do along with many libertarians who just don't trust the man. While Bob Barr may have a storied past, he did come around and immediately prior to his nomination spent two years on the LNC. I may be wrong, but I don't recall there being an outcry that a war mongering drug warrior who hates homosexuals was part of the Libertarian Party's governing body. Well, actually I do recall folks questioning Barr's involvement with the LNC. Dave, if you cannot find Bob Barr's position on the war on drugs, perhaps Rob Kampia (of the Marijuana Policy Project) could enlighten you. You may even recall Rob's speech supporting Barr at the convention (or you could look at this: http://www.lppa.org/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,60/topic,33570.0/). Basically Barr says on his website he wants to de-federalize the issue, and I believe I have heard Ron Paul take a similar position on some issues. I wouldn't tire myself out trying to defend or repudiate the past actions of another, however. I haven't found that on Barr's web site. It certainly isn't listed among his issues. Wouldn't it be better if Barr stated his position himself and posted his position front and center on his web site? The point was to question how your friend "Judge Charles Alexander" could like Barr's position on the war on drugs when Barr doesn't have a stated position on his web site. If Richard McCloud could not figure out what was going on with the news conference after a rather extensive inquiry, I doubt my watching the event is going to shed much light on the incident, although I still may watch it. The bottom line is I believe this was a minor, if not completely insignificant incident that does not merit anyone drastically changing their view of either Bob Barr or Ron Paul. It certainly shouldn't affect whether any of Paul's supporters want to join the LP. You are right in saying that no one has to change their view of Barr. People were leery of him before the conference, and they continue to be leery of him after the conference. I would think that watching the conference would be a prerequisite for expressing opinions about what transpired. If Ron Paul wanted his supporters to vote for Barr, he could have endorsed Barr, or if he wanted his supporters to go for someone else he could have endorsed Baldwin, or Nader, or McKinney for that matter. So what did he do?
Mik Robertson
Since they all qualified to get on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election, he called for their inclusion in the presidential debates so that people could form their own opinions. It would be ethically difficult for Paul to endorse Barr, when Baldwin actively campaigned for Paul throughout the primary season. If you don't see the harm, you don't see the harm. You don't have to take my word for it either. We can pretend that I'm not having these conversations with Paul supporters and registered libertarians. I believe Barr has potential, but I'm still waiting to see it and we are running out of time. Whatever support he could have garnered from Paul supporters has been lost. Hopefully, he'll appeal to another demographic. David Jahn |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
David Jahn
|
|
|
mark.d.crowley
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 201
|
|
« Reply #23 on: September 19, 2008, 07:30:49 am » |
|
I'm still living in a dialup world, so I won't be watching any of the press conference videos. From what I've read here, however, that's probably not at all necessary.
It appears that all the important stuff happened behind the scenes in private meetings, phone calls, cryptic texting messages and emails. I doubt that much of that is on video. Is it really surprising that the "they said" and "we said" recollections don't match? They seldom match even when everything goes right, let alone when things go wrong. It's even likely that Ron Paul's scheduling of his press conference the same time as Bob Barr's was completely innocent.
Here's what I conclude from all this:
** Coordinating third parties is like herding cats.
** Anyone looking for a reason to not vote for Barr would consider this a reason to not vote for Barr.
** Anyone looking for a reason to vote for Barr would consider this a reason to vote for Barr.
** ** Anyone who enthusiastically wanted to vote for Ron Paul, but now can't since he's not running and probably will never run again, won't at this moment be nearly as enthusiastic about any other candidate and might be prone to see things in a negative light for awhile.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
johngalinac
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 123
|
|
« Reply #24 on: September 19, 2008, 08:19:50 am » |
|
** ** Anyone who enthusiastically wanted to vote for Ron Paul, but now can't since he's not running and probably will never run again, won't at this moment be nearly as enthusiastic about any other candidate and might be prone to see things in a negative light for awhile. I can agree with this. I actually had Paul supporters refuse to sign nomination papers because their candidate didn't win the primary. They told me they weren't voting because of it and they would not help to get anyone else on the ballot. I have been pretty quiet about the Ron Paul issue with everyone. But there are definately some extremists within his following that really turned me off to him a while ago. It would not surprise me if someone managed to create something out of nothing on this. I'm not saying that all of the Ron Paul supporters are whack jobs. But there are enough of them in the movement that I have run into on several occasions to give me a bit of a pause. There are Kool-aid drinkers out there that are not following the message, they are following the messenger. As if this man was ordained by some higher power to lead them through these dark times. Frankly, that scares me. But then again that is what the Republican Party is turning into. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 19, 2008, 08:24:08 am by johngalinac »
|
Logged
|
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
klapton
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 134
|
|
« Reply #25 on: September 19, 2008, 09:58:38 am » |
|
There are kool-aid drinkers out there for every candidate, whether they want them or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
johngalinac
smf LPPa Members
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 123
|
|
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2008, 10:11:24 am » |
|
There are kool-aid drinkers out there for every candidate, whether they want them or not.
Oh I don't disagree. Look at the two major parties following. For whatever reason some people attract more than others. I don't necessarily blame the person for it, but it does make me step back and see if there is something I am missing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
richiep
|
|
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2008, 04:51:02 pm » |
|
It would be ethically difficult for Paul to endorse Barr, when Baldwin actively campaigned for Paul throughout the primary season.
David Jahn
That's just one of the things I'm sick of seeing. Ron Paul has put the Repugnant party first over liberty. The reason he wouldn't endorse Barr had nothing to do with Baldwin, he just won't endorse anyone outside of the corrupt party he refuses to leave. Take for example NJ, he endorsed Sabrin but refuses to look at the LP guy running now that Sabrin lost. In NC he will not endorse a supporter of his running as a D against McSame's ass-kissing love bunny Lindsey Graham. I could go on and on. To me, the most disturbing thing of all is how he took 25k of his Presidential money and gave it to the R establishment. Face it, Ron Paul is a good guy but has let himself become corrupted by the R's playing on his believe that he can convert that party. I'm surprised that it didn't go so far as getting him to endorse McSame. Maybe that was the deal breaker, where he personally drew the line, after he gave them 25k to help elect some more neo-cons I guess. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mik
smf LPPa Moderators Area
Newbie
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 317
|
|
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2008, 08:48:04 pm » |
|
I haven't found that on Barr's web site. It certainly isn't listed among his issues. Wouldn't it be better if Barr stated his position himself and posted his position front and center on his web site? The point was to question how your friend "Judge Charles Alexander" could like Barr's position on the war on drugs when Barr doesn't have a stated position on his web site.
Bob Barr did put out a press release on the topic on on September 3, which is on his website (I'm not sure why Judge Charles Alexander is in quotation marks). I pointed that out because judges (at least this former judge) realize that Barr's position can eliminate the filling of prisons with non-violent drug users and leave space for those who need to be there. Surely some Ron Paul supporters could appreciate that. So it may not be the centerpiece of Barr's campaign, and when you run for president, you can run your campaign the way you like. Are there issues Barr is running on with which you completely disagree? This thread is not about Paul's news conference, it is about the effort to withdraw the LP nomination from Barr apparently over not attending an event that he never committed to attending. Look at the issues of Barr's campaign and identify why this nomination should be rescinded. Someone coming in from outer space and looking at the positions on the issues would be hard-pressed to differentiate between Barr and Paul, for heaven's sake. There are some differences in details, but hardly worth getting upset over. There may have been a few who were concerned with Barr's presence on the LNC, but I never saw a petition to remove him from the committee as I have to remove him as the presidential nominee. I can see how Ron Paul supporters may be upset. It can be tough being shat upon by your own political party all the time. If anything, they should be able to commiserate with Barr supporters, as the same thing seems to be happening here. Mik Robertson |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JohnKOTR
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 140
|
|
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2008, 01:57:56 am » |
|
I have decided to lend my full support and faith in the candidacy of Bob Barr for President of the United States.
At this time, none of the other candidates are even remotely acceptable. Bob Barr has, in the past, been nothing resembling a libertarian, but he has sworn that he has had a change of heart. Should we believe him? Have we any reason not to? Are we that cynical that our first instinct is to think that someone is lying? It would seem so. As for me, I am too tired and too few in alternatives to fight it any longer. I have to take a leap of faith and cast my vote for the man. If he manages to pull off a miracle and get elected, then I'll have four years to find out whether I was wrong or not. If the usual happens and we are smothered out of the competition, then I won't find out, but I will at least know that I voted my conscience and made a statement.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 20, 2008, 08:32:11 pm by JohnKOTR »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
