Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

May 12, 2008

Bob Barr Announces Presidential Run

by Doug Mataconis

As expected, former Congressman Bob Barr, announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President today:

(CNN) – Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr formally jumped into the White House race Monday as a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.

Barr, the onetime darling of conservatives who led the impeachment fight against former President Bill Clinton, said he is running because voters want a choice beyond the two political parties.

“They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us,” he said Monday at the National Press Club in Washington. “The reason for that is very simple, they believe in America as I believe in America. We believe in an America that is not and should not be and should never be driven by fear as current policies on behalf of both parties are in this country.”

Barr, 59, represented Georgia’s 7th congressional district from 1995-2003, and became an increasingly vocal critic of President Bush, especially over the president’s support of the Patriot Act. He formally left the Republican Party in 2006.

The next step is the LP Convention in Denver next week where Barr faces what looks to be somewhat of an uphill fight against party purists.

Update: Reason’s David Weigel attended the event:

The smallish room Bob Barr booked for his presidential announcement was overflowing with journalists. I’ve seen every Ron Paul 2008 event held at the venue, and they never drew this sort of interest: There were, I think, four working reporters at the press conference announcing the haul from the first momeybomb. But Barr’s announcement drew live reporters from the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post (even if it was the famously snarky “Sketch” author Dana Milbank). Barr foreign policy pal Doug Bandow stood by him at the podium, and foreign policy maven Jim Bovard sat in the audience.

(…)

Is Barr picking up the Ron Paul vote? He acrobatically avoided tying his campaign to Paul, but I talked to a few familiar Paulites in the audience. Ron Paul Rider Michael Maresco, who staged a 60-day bike ride across the country to support Paul, shook hands with Barr then told me he would back him. Brad Jansen, a ubiquitous DC organizer for Paul and manager of one of the Ron Paul Republicans’ campaigns for the House (Vern McKinley, in the DC exurbs), talked to Barr about writing a follow-up to his 2002 Liberty article defending him against attacks by the then-leadership of the LP.

This sounds more and more like it could be a very interesting campaign

H/T: Jason Pye

Freedom is sexy, so share!Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Digg thisShare on StumbleUpon0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/05/12/bob-barr-announces-presidential-run/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •
  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    He’s not going to win, but he’s miles better on economic policy than either Obama or McCain and he’s not a truther like the other LP candidates (excepting Wayne Allyn Root), so he’s got my vote.

    He’s the perfect choice for libertarians who want to send a message to the Republican party about their direction, but who can’t stomach the idea of voting Democrat.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    And I don’t think that Barr’s race is going to be quite as uphill as you’re suggesting…not since all but three of the Libertarian candidates basically fucked themselves with sane LP voters by backing the “truthers” and their bullshit.

    http://www.libertariansforjustice.org/

    By doing that, I believe that everyone except Barr, Root and Phillies have effectively taken themselves out of the race by alienating every libertarian who despises being affiliated with the “truthers”.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Here’s the problem, this is the Libertarian Party we’re talking about.

    I’d like to think that there are enough intelligent party members to reject the 9/11 Truther nonsense, but then I remember that they once ran a Senate candidate whose skin had turned blue because he had taken an overdose of silver iodide while preparing the the Y2K collapse that never happened.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    Ah yes, Stan Jones…he was a Level 12 black helicopter guy. :)

    When you get away from the state level you’re arguably talking about a higher level of sanity. Also, I think that the “truthers” are enough of a redline to effectively alienate everyone who signed that petition from the mainstream libertarians who vote LP. Libertarians are generally skeptics, “truthers” who believe the government carried out 9/11 are fools and liars with zero objective evidence…so pandering to “truthers” is unlikely to endear any candidate to libertarians. Besides which, the “truther” sympathizers will be splitting the crazy person vote five ways while Barr, Root and Phillies will be in a three person race for the rest. Unless the crazy/sane person ratio in the LP heavily favors the crazies (which I doubt it does), Barr should have the advantage.

  • charlie

    Here’s the text of the pledge the other candidates signed:
    Libertarians for Justice Pledge:
    On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned DEMAND JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001.

    For the families who have fought bureaucratic stonewalling;

    For the rescue workers who are still dying of mysterious illnesses;

    For the researchers and experts who have dedicated their lives to researching the government’s conspiracy theory;

    And for the American people whose freedoms were surrendered to the terrorists by our own government.

    We, the undersigned, demand a publicly conducted Congressional inquiry, with full subpoena power, into the largest terrorist attack in American history.

    The committee shall meet, ask questions, and demand answers until We the People are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the terrorists have been brought to justice.

    Putting aside the fact that this group is apparently a bunch of truthers, what’s so wrong about the actual pledge itself? I mean, when a bunch of truthers cornered Ron Paul at a New Hampshire house party and asked him if he’d have another investigation of 9/11, he pretty much said the exact same thing as what this pledge calls for.

    I’m much more concerned about Bob Barr’s apparent opposition to a complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and his support for military intervention in South America, than I am about some pledge. After all, this is a man who, when in Congress, called for drug reform advocates to be prosecuted under the RICO statutes, supported the “Defense of Marriage” bill, voted for the PATRIOT act, and voted to invade Iraq. Just saying.

    In comparison, is signing some silly pledge to investigate the government’s incompetence on 9/11 really such a bad thing? While this particular group may be truthers, I don’t see any problem with simply investigating, say, why the government so badly screwed up the protection of its own citizens. Exposing a little more government incompetence can’t be bad for liberty, can it?

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    Charlie,

    Because 9/11 has been investigated both by government and the private sector. We know who did it, we know how it was done. Why do we need yet another one?

  • UCrawford

    Charlie,

    I mean, when a bunch of truthers cornered Ron Paul at a New Hampshire house party and asked him if he’d have another investigation of 9/11, he pretty much said the exact same thing as what this pledge calls for.

    No offense, but if you’d read this site regularly, you’d realize that this isn’t a great selling point. If Ron Paul thinks that 9/11 requires a re-investigation he’s an idiot, and an even worse presidential candidate than I thought…and I’ve ripped on him quite a bit.

    I’m much more concerned about Bob Barr’s apparent opposition to a complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and his support for military intervention in South America, than I am about some pledge.

    Honestly, I haven’t seen or heard him make any reference to intervening in South America (and his issues page speaks against that). I have heard him say that he opposes giving a specific timeline for leaving Iraq, but I didn’t take that as opposition to withdrawal so much as not wanting to publicize our moves (which could actually jeopardize security for our forces). His issues page seems to favor non-interventionism and it explicitly goes against pre-emptive warfare (which is what South America would be).

    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/

    In comparison, is signing some silly pledge to investigate the government’s incompetence on 9/11 really such a bad thing?

    The people who authored that statement aren’t looking for government incompetence, they’re looking for government complicity, which they have absolutely zero evidence for because it didn’t exist. And if they were to get their “re-investigation” and their claims were shown to be bogus, they’ll never accept it…they’ll claim that the “conspirators” just hid the evidence so they’ll demand another investigation, and another, and another…and we’ll waste our time and money looking for phantom enemies and make a mockery of our government and force everyone to re-live all the shit from 9/11. Seriously…fuck that noise. The “truthers” are liars…every single conspiracy theory they’ve come up with has been effectively and completely debunked, they have zero grounds to say otherwise, and it’s time for them to crawl back under their slimy little rocks.

    While this particular group may be truthers, I don’t see any problem with simply investigating, say, why the government so badly screwed up the protection of its own citizens.

    Here’s the thing…the government didn’t actually screw up on 9/11, or at least it didn’t operate at a level below what should have been expected of it. In fact, part of the reason Americans were so shocked by what happened on 9/11 is that the U.S. government has done a remarkable job in our history protecting us from foreign threats…such a great job, in fact, that citizens who know very little about intelligence or military operations assume that how we live is the norm in the world. And it isn’t. Terrorists, by the nature of terrorism, will always have the initiative, and as they always have the initiative it is almost inevitable that eventually a group (given time to train and a little luck) will be successful in carrying out an attack on the U.S., or anywhere else they choose. It’s a fact of life, and even the best-designed and practiced security methods in the world can’t offer you complete protection. The rest of the world learned this a long time ago, and most have learned to deal with it. Americans would be wise to quit pretending that they’re somehow above it and learn to do the same.

    Now, if you want to discuss how the government can better protect us against terrorist threats, I’d suggest the first thing we should look at is how we interact with the rest of the world outside of our borders instead of making up imaginary internal enemies.

  • charlie

    In this article — http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/printedition/2008/03/19/barred0319.html — from March of this year, Barr writes:
    “While Washington’s current national security worldview remains focused like a laser beam on Iraq and Afghanistan, fires smolder and burn elsewhere. Shifting at least a portion of that concern and those resources to South America, and especially to the Andean region that currently is near the boiling point, is critical to our security. There may not be weapons of mass destruction lurking in the jungles of Venezuela, Colombia or Ecuador (there weren’t in Iraq either, of course), but arms are flowing into the area. Venezuela, for example, is buying billions of dollars worth of Russian military equipment. Leftist guerrillas and narco-terrorists remain firmly entrenched in the region, and evidence that other terrorist groups are using the area for problematic purposes is mounting.

    Even if the possible loss of a significant portion of our imported oil requirement does not wake the United States from the somnambulant manner in which it views Latin America, perhaps the growing security threat in that area will —- hopefully before a major crisis jars us awake.”
    —–

    As for whether 9/11 should be investigated, my point isn’t that it necessarily should. I’m all for more serious business being carried out and I think the truthers are idiots that demonstrate a seriously disturbing faith in the government’s ability to carry out a massive operation (check out the Big Dig), and a refusal to recognize that “blowback” is indeed a real phenomenon; that people actually can be motivated to hijack planes and fly them into buildings because of U.S. policies abroad. But signing a pledge calling for a new investigation is harmless; perhaps it even exposes the grossly bloated “defense” budget, which spends money on nuclear weapons and massive bomber planes in an age of decentralized terrorist cells, for the corporate welfare pipeline that it is. Spreading the “war on terror” to Latin America, shifting the fight from “jihadists” to “narco-terrorists”, in contrast, is extremely troublesome and perhaps indicative of how much Barr is still a conservative interventionist rather than a libertarian

    As an aside, this comment from you shows a disturbing faith in the power of the U.S. government, just as naive as the truthers faith in the federal government’s ability to carry out 9/11:
    “Part of the reason Americans were so shocked by what happened on 9/11 is that the U.S. government has done a remarkable job in our history protecting us from foreign threats.”

    Really? A “remarkable job”? Like Pearl Harbor or 9/11? And consider the cost that this remarkable defense incurs on society: the U.S. government’s defense resources — which take about 40% or more of your taxes — have been spent on wars of choice in Vietnam and Korea, on aerial bombings of Laos and Cambodia, invasions of Panama, Grenada, Iraq, etc. In Vietnam alone more than 60,000 Americans died — not defending this country, but participating in an imperialist war that we picked up from the French. And it seems to me that the reason there haven’t been more foreign attacks is simply due to the fact that the United States is situated in a militarily weak area. No one can in this hemisphere can challenge the greatest empire in history, and attempting a war from across the ocean, as the Japanese learned, isn’t easy.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    Charlie,

    I’ve just read the link, I don’t see a call for military intervention in Latin America. All it says is pay attention to that part of the world.

  • UCrawford

    Charlie,

    I agree with Kevin, I didn’t see anything in there about militarily intervening, only on keeping an eye on a potential threat, which is a prudent course of action. Non-interventionism means not intervening in other countries’ internal affairs, it doesn’t mean burying our heads in the sand and pretending that there’s nothing potentially hostile going on in the rest of the world. There is nothing wrong with being vigilant so long as we don’t cross the line into interference.

    As for whether 9/11 should be investigated, my point isn’t that it necessarily should. I’m all for more serious business being carried out and I think the truthers are idiots that demonstrate a seriously disturbing faith in the government’s ability to carry out a massive operation (check out the Big Dig), and a refusal to recognize that “blowback” is indeed a real phenomenon; that people actually can be motivated to hijack planes and fly them into buildings because of U.S. policies abroad.

    You have said nothing here that I disagree with…I think we’re very much on the same page on these points.

    But signing a pledge calling for a new investigation is harmless; perhaps it even exposes the grossly bloated “defense” budget, which spends money on nuclear weapons and massive bomber planes in an age of decentralized terrorist cells, for the corporate welfare pipeline that it is.

    Signing that group’s pledge is not harmless because it adds credibility to their cause (claiming the the U.S. government perpetrated 9/11) when the people who drafted that pledge should be mocked and dismissed as lunatics.

    As for the bloated defense spending and the misappropriations, that’s a topic that doesn’t need the “truthers” involvement at all. There’s nothing especially nefarious about what the government’s doing except trying to hide costs for new toys…which is a constant in times of peace or war and should be opposed on its own merit. Tying bad policy arguments to “truther” conspiracy theories doesn’t help the cause of good fiscal policy because it lumps people making fiscal arguments in with a bunch of complete nutjobs.

    It’s important to remember that not everyone who dislikes what the government is doing is automatically your friend, nor are they necessarily interested in helping your cause.

    Really? A “remarkable job”? Like Pearl Harbor or 9/11?

    Two major attacks on U.S. soil in the last hundred years from foreign powers (9/11, Pearl Harbor) constitutes a very good record of national defense (since I’ve never considered us impervious to attack, militarily weak area or not). As for the other examples you’ve discussed, none of them were attacks on U.S. soil so you’re making an apples to oranges argument and you’re all over the map on it. I didn’t argue in favor of any of them, in fact…although I do consider Grenada to have been a legitimate military operation considering that it was in response to Cuban aggression. All of the others I consider unnecessary wars and, yes, many of them were imperialistic in nature (which I’m opposed to). Before you start condemning my positions on any particular war (or on what I think of government), perhaps you should ask me what those positions are first instead of just speculating.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org Sanity Check

    It is very difficult for me to believe that anyone as intelligent you writers for this blog can believe Bob Barr has become a libertarian. Look at his past public (and current off the record) statements, his record in congress and as a prosecutor. Because I live in Georgia and share many mutual connections with the man (including some of his big backers) perhaps I hear a lot more about him and have more information, maybe not. To me, it appears that this current turn is cynically premeditated political opportunism of the type that you guys organized this blog, in part, to challenge. My prediction: if he is successful, what the crackpot “Truthers” have not destroyed of the LP as a champion of libertarian ideals, he and his cabal will finish off. By the way, anyone seen Barr’s old buddy Ralph Reed recently? Birds of a feather. . .

  • UCrawford

    Sanity Check,

    His record in Congress shows that he was one of the few voices at the time who opposed the hasty approval of the PATRIOT Act and he was a fiscal conservative. His actions since leaving Congress (where he has actively worked for drug legalization groups) indicates that he has changed his views on drug policy. The man may be personally conservative, but there’s no indication at this point that he hasn’t been sincere about moving towards political libertarianism.

    And I find him a better presidential candidate than McCain, with better policy positions than Obama.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org Sanitiy Check

    UCrawford,
    I say this with the utmost respect and admiration for you and your colleagues. What you say is true. But as my favorite history professor used to say, “it is also important what else is true.”
    He has taken (some I know say been very careful to take) the steps you mention. Maybe he has changed, but to run for president or lead an important cause, shouldn’t a higher standard be required? Could Adolph Hitler walk into a synagogue in 1946 (assuming he was alive) admit he was partly of Jewish descent, briefly campaign in support of Zionism, attend a few workshops, make a few public statements and thus become Rabbi in the biggest synagogue in Vienna? (I admit this is an extreme example, but I am a recovering lawyer and an occasional teacher so I claim the right to use these from time to time). Surely the bench can’t be that thin and the talent pool can’t be that shallow that so little showing would be required of someone to lead your crusade, particularly given his history. (I know you know his history to which I refer. You are too smart and too well informed not to and it is pages long.)
    Further, I think I sense an alarming trend in certain folks. Libertarianism and classic liberalism do include economic freedoms. But I would argue, as important as they are (and I am a former Wall Streeter), they derive from what I believe to be a core value of the Constitution: (to paraphrase Justice Douglas) “to keep the government off the backs of its citizens.” I am not an ideologue and have no personal beef with Barr, but other than a conservative economic policy (which I applaud), his actions as a public official are in direct conflict with his current marketing efforts.
    I would say to you guys, “Keep up the fight, but demand more.” What did Friedman (among others)say about vigilance and liberty?

  • UCrawford

    Sanity Check,

    Yes, your example is extreme, but I understand where you’re coming from. Here’s the thing…for all the criticisms of Barr, he really hasn’t changed all that much on his positions. Going from conservative to libertarian isn’t like going from Nazi to Zionist because there’s common ground between conservatism and libertarianism. When Barr was a conservative, he opposed the PATRIOT Act being ramroded through by the Bush administration. When he was a conservative he believed in fiscal responsibility and voted along those lines. When he was a conservative, he opposed military interventionism except in self-defense. He has always shown a willingness to recognize good economic arguments on the issues, and since libertarianism is a philosophy largely based on good economic arguments it’s not that much of a stretch for him to change his position on issues like the War on Drugs (since you can be personally opposed to the use of drugs, but realize that banning drugs creates more dire negative economic and social consequences) and he seems to have sincerely done that. While I have no doubt that Bob Barr remains personally conservative, that does not automatically exclude him from being politically libertarian, since it’s not a 180 degree change as going from anti-Semite to Zionist would be.

    That’s why I don’t consider it a problem to vote for Bob Barr, because even if he is still very conservative, he’s moved enough on key issues to become a conservative I can live with…and I have faith in his ability to be an effective manager and work within the system to affect change (a faith I don’t have in any of the other LP candidates or Ron Paul).

  • UCrawford

    Also, I consider him to be a superior candidate to John McCain, and since I consider him to be superior to McCain, and since I consider his issues to be better than Obama’s (and voting for a Democrat with a Democratic Congress worries me) that pretty much makes him the candidate for me to vote for.

  • UCrawford

    That said, if they find a dead hooker in his home or he starts posting manifestos on Stormfront, he’ll be dead to me :)

  • http://thelibertypapers.org Sanity Check

    As a Tarheel, I should know better than to pick an argument with a Jayhawk this year!

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Sanity Check,

    Yes, but you guys are going to have a really good team this season.

    By the way, that was a class thing that Roy did by wearing the Jayhawk button and cheering for KU in the championship (same as he did for UNC when he was at KU). I know he took some heat for it back at Chapel Hill but honestly KU fans couldn’t have been more impressed and it reminded everyone why we loved the guy so much. It’s even got me cheering for UNC again like I did back in college. You guys seriously have a great coach.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org Sanitiy Check

    UC,

  • http://libertypapers.org Sanity Check

    I agree on Roy. He’s a class act as was Dean Smith (4 year Kansas Alum). You probably know this, but all the major college coaches in America today can trace their lineage back to Kansas (Phog Allen) and to 6 Indiana high scool coaches.

    In the end, it is all about character. I have to say with some pride, both our school’s programs possess it in spades.

    I had the honor of playing for Dean Smith for a year and I will never forget the comment he made to us the first day: “Gentlemen, the least important thing I will teach you is how to win at Basketball. My most important job is to build on the good work that your parents have begun and teach you how to be the best men that you can be.” (He attributed that to his Kansas coach.) Need I say more about those programs?

    Not sure Barr’s values measure up. Heard and seen too many things. (Sorry. Late hit but I had to take it, because I believe it.) Hope you’re right about next year and hope we get a rematch.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/ Brad Warbiany

    I’m still not drinking the Barr kool-aid… But I’m cautiously optimistic.

    As UC says, he’s still far better than McCain or Obama. Whether that means he’d be an ideal Republican candidate, or fits better as a libertarian, I don’t know. But if it comes down to voting for Barr vs. McCain/Obama, I’d rather vote Libertarian than for either of those two.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Sanity Check,

    I’m not so sure that all the major college coaches come from those two areas, but yes, KU and the state of Indiana seem to have turned out the lion’s share. :) Phog Allen did turn out Adolph Rupp, Dean Smith, and Ralph Miller, and Indiana gave us Branch McCracken, Gene Keady, Bobby Knight and John Wooden, but UNC’s tradition was started with Frank McGuire, who came out of St. John’s (an underrated program historically, I think). St. John’s also started the Al McGuire-Rick Majerus coaching tree which had no ties to either Kansas or Indiana aside from Majerus and McGuire’s son being on my dad’s city-league b-ball team in Milwaukee one year (dad went to Indiana). :)

    For KU I’m not so high on our chances at a championship next season. I think we’ll be competitive, but it will definitely be a rebuilding year after losing Rush, Kaun, Chalmers, Arthur, Robinson, and Jackson. Our entire starting lineup is gone, plus a good portion of our bench…so it’s looking like it’ll be a team built around Sherron Collins, Cole Aldrich and a lot of rookies. If Chalmers decides to come back, I’ll like our chances a lot more, but I think he’s probably staying in the draft because it’s unlikely his stock is going to rise much (if any) by coming back for one more year. Can’t really begrudge him that, especially since he hit quite possibly the biggest shot in KU history last season. I think UNC’s got to be considered the odds-on favorite for the title next year.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Brad,

    If he’s a libertarian, he’s the best libertarian in the race…if he’s still a conservative, at least he’s a conservative I could live with for four years (which I can’t say about McCain).

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    Typical KU/Indiana basketball snobs. :)
    Army (upstate NY) is responsible for Kryzchefdhasfdsdfski and Bobby Knight.

    And the constant, widespread ignorance of the remarkable basketball heritage that is the Philly Big Five never ceases to amaze me. Frankly, I’m not sure you can claim to understand anything about college basketball until you’ve watched a Big Five game at the Palestra. :) Tell me where you can find such a high concentration of either great or eccentric coaches than the Big Five (Chaney, Massimino, the walking, talking circus that is the Great Phil Martelli, Jack Ramsay, etc.).

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Mark,

    Actually, Ohio State is responsible for Bobby Knight (and, by extension, Coach K), not Army. Knight was a player and protege of OSU coach Fred Taylor. :) Chaney was very good, Massimino was one of the most overrated coaches in NCAA history, Martelli is solid, and as for Dr. Jack…well, he’s the man.

    And just to be clear, I was the one who said that KU and Indiana weren’t responsible for all the top coaches (and cited examples). So rein in those Philly insecurities, sport :)

    P.S. Full disclosure – my grandfather was a Temple alumnus (in fact, his first name was Temple) and my dad was born near Philly and grew up a rabid fan of all teams Philadelphia. Even he admits that KU is far superior to any of the Philly teams (in fact, he was at the Final Four this year).

  • http://publiusendures.blogspot.com Mark

    UC- I know. I just love pulling the chains of KU fans who think that KU is the center of the basketball universe (not that I blame them). I’m not going to argue that any of the Philly teams individually have anything resembling the tradition of Kansas, at least in terms of success. But I submit that until you’ve been to a Big Five game at the Palestra, you haven’t really experienced college basketball at its finest….and it has very little to do with the caliber of play.
    Also, I dare you to find a more entertaining coach than Phil Martelli.
    By the way- I wouldn’t so much say I have Philly insecurities. I’m more a Buffalo sports fan who likes the Mets (since I grew up in Jersey) and thinks that Philly fans are, generally speaking, the world’s worst fans. But my wife’s from Philly, and she made a believer out of me when it comes to Philly’s college basketball scene.

  • UCrawford

    Mark,

    I’m not going to argue that any of the Philly teams individually have anything resembling the tradition of Kansas, at least in terms of success. But I submit that until you’ve been to a Big Five game at the Palestra, you haven’t really experienced college basketball at its finest….and it has very little to do with the caliber of play.

    All I can say in response to that is that you’ve never been to a game at Allen Fieldhouse (and I’m talking about any game, not just a big matchup). From the time 15,000 fans start doing the Rock Chalk chant to when they’re counting down the final minute, it is far and away the greatest place in the world to watch basketball.

    And if the creator of the game of basketball was the first head basketball coach (and the only one with a losing record) in your team’s 100+ year history, I’d say you would probably be justified in feeling like your school were the center of the basketball universe :)

    I do respect Philly, though…they’ve turned out some really great players, including Wilt Chamberlain (who ended up playing college ball at KU). And the teams (pro and college) in the Philadelphia area have a great tradition.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML