If we are gonna survive, we must find an issue about which we can focus. I submit that issue is economic collapse – collapse of our dollar – and all the implications of that.

If we Libertarians can’t get it together, what good are we to this world? Our time is here!

http://morality101.net/blog/2008/05/29/barr-root_one-issue/

The official Bob Barr website is http://www.bobbarr2008.com

As for W.A.R., he still has his campaign website up at http://www.rootforamerica.com with the announcement that he was chosen as Barr’s running mate.

The GOP has shot itself in the foot and is now looking around for the guilty party. While they search, I’m moving to the LP candidate.

If he continues to promote the more popular elements of Paul’s message–out of Iraq, smaller Federal government, and Constitutional rights–he will have done his job.

If the possible “spoiler” effect leads to more media attention than usual, then the campaign will be successful.

What we should look for are polling “positives,” (I like what he says,) polling results (I would vote for him,) and the results in November. All equally measure what the campaign will accomplish.

The major threat of the campaign is that Barr will begin to focus on anti-libertarian themes. This would make any attention he receives counterproductive. I think this is unlikely, which is why I support Barr.

The minor threat is that when he is pulled off message that he will give anti-libertarian answers to questions. I think this will happen sometimes. His off message responses will sometimes be better and othertimes worse. I believe that his current plan of following Paul in promoting federalism on controversial social issues is acceptable. In my opinion, the best answers, however, would express a personal opinion that governments at all levels should stay out of it. It is here that I see the minor “threat.”

Gay marriage and abortion are highly controversial issues within the LP and the libertarian movement. Any candidate would have problems with those issues. Some of the opposition to Barr just refelcted the usual conflicts. While the “radicals” used these issues to try to stop Barr, it is normal. The people who reject Barr for these reasons would reject Paul too.

The drug war, however, is different. This has been a major campaign issue for LP national
candidates for many years. Browne made it a major theme. I think Barr’s general message is fine. The Drug War is failed and we need something new. No federal interference with states that liberalize drug laws. Stop interfering with states that legalize medical marijuana as an example. But, of course, prying journalists will want to know more. In
my opinion, the best answer is omething like, “I’ve come to see that drug prohibition today is no more effective than alchohol prohibition in the twenties.” But, instead,
we may here again, “I wouldn’t vote to legalize crack and meth.” It is not the end of the world, but not good.

However, many libertarians insist that ending the drug war be a major capaign them. I disagree with that. It wasn’t a major them for Paul. And getting Paul voters should be the key focus of the 2008 race.

“The sad fact is that membership is barely half what it was at the time of the Harry Browne campaign in 2000. Our national website is bland and boring. The national staff and many members of the current LNC have been blatantly biased in favor of one particular Presidential hopeful. It’s time for a change.”

Obviously, the problems with membership leaving in droves because of corruption and compromise of principles did not start in 2004, nor in 2000. These problems were evident as far back as 1996, as Neil Smith and I wrote in considerable detail in the pages of The Libertarian Enterprise ncc-1776.org.

For my own part, I have no plans to vote for Bob Barr. The Boston Tea Party is considering its own nominee for president. http://www.bostontea.us

So sorry GOP, you have failed us.

Perhaps the political libertarians can stop making excuses as to why political means never seem to go in their favor, unless of course they start abandoning their principles & ideas for the sake of being more palatable.

I guess in this case it means getting A republican on board (Barr), and Mike “:throws a rock in the lake:” Gravel.

Who knows, maybe reformism will work this 2345th time? I mean it wouldn’t hurt, I guess.

Ruwart was pushing the Twin Towers were destroyed by implosion bullshit at the convention.

Doug,

And, quite honestly, if it turns out that the story of November 2008 turns out to be how Bob Barr cost John McCain enough Electoral Votes to lose the Presidency, then, well, the GOP will have some serious thinking to do during it’s time in exile.

That really worked for Republicans in 2006, but hopefully Barr will cost McLame the presidency.

All of the Libertarian presidential candidates signed the “truther” statement except Barr, Root and Phillies.

I don’t doubt that their presence was pretty small…to my mind that just made the signing of the statement all the more odious. They hacked off on a bunch of lunacy and lies for a handful of idiots who weren’t even a factor in the primary. So either they believed what the “truthers” were saying or they were pandering…either should be grounds for ridicule, derision, and exclusion from serious political debate.

Does anyone think that Barr will poll high enough to get into the debates? IF he does, I think he will have a huge impact on the race.

No clue, but I hope so.

Well, that depends. I think the League of Women Voters (which has usually sponsored the Presidential debates in the past) threshold has traditionally been 10%, but, ever since Perot, the Demoblicans have bypassed the LWV and set up their own debates so I’m not sure what the situation in 2008 will be.

U.C.: what other candidates signed on to the truther statement? I know the truthers were there but they didn’t seem to have that large of a presence. Jason might have a better idea on that since he was voting on the platform.

One other thought.

For me, the question isn’t so much whether the Barr/Root ticket helps the LP as whether it helps the fight to advance the cause of individual liberty.

Given the fact that I see the GOP going down in flames in November at least on the Congressional/Senatorial level, I think the answer that question is yes.