Bob Barr as possible Libertarian Presidential Candidate?

Ardentfrost · 04-03-2008, 10:19 PM

While driving home today in shitty traffic I was flipping between various talk stations. Hannity was on and at one point had Bob Barr on as a guest. I happen to like Bob Barr as he is a sensible guy who is willing to admit when he is wrong (like, for instance, most of the 'yes' votes he gave during his time in congress during Bush's presidency).

So then he says something I hadn't heard before now either because it's new info or my extremely busy schedule has obscured this story to me before now: Bob Barr may be the LP candidate for this year.

This is certainly good news. I never thought Badnarik was a good candidate in 2004 (most people had NO idea who he was, and he wasn't near outspoken enough). Bob Barr, on the other hand, is fairly well known nationwide for his apologies to the American people for voting for the war as well as working with the ACLU to try to root out privacy violations by the US government. He would be a good continuation of what Ron Paul started insomuch as showing the Democrats and Republicans that there is a large group of people out there that think they (D's and R's) are not going in a good direction.

I'm not saying he'd win, I'm not even saying he'll actually be the LP candidate for president this year, all I'm saying is that the potential is there with him.

Of course, Hannity kept asking him stupid shit like "you would be ok with potentially sacrificing McCain's chance at presidency and giving the election to Hilary or Obama by pulling away 3-5% of the vote from Republicans?" What a horrible position on politics: people shouldn't vote for who they want, but against who they don't want the most?

If the LP can take away votes from the Republican Party such that they feel it cost them the election, then they might be willing to change their focus. And even if they don't change, it's more publicity for the movement (which is why I don't think I wasted money at all in donating to Ron Paul).

Bob Barr certainly isn't perfect, but I think he'd make a damn good candidate for the LP. I hope all those people out there that got fired up about Ron Paul still got a little fire left in them for this election season.

kombayn · 04-04-2008, 03:49 AM

Mike Gravel: Libertarian for President

Well Mike Gravel just threw his hat into the nomination, him and Barr talk friendly to one another. Even hint a joint ticket, though Mike Gravel has no interest in being a VP. So it would have to be Gravel/Barr, which wouldn't be bad, but then you would need to get media coverage. A Ron Paul endorsement would send them over to that ticket in droves.

lew · 04-04-2008, 09:35 AM

Hopefully, Barr will get the nomination and Paul could jump on as VP. Or maybe even someone like Mark Sanford.

Ardentfrost · 04-04-2008, 10:20 AM

Mike Gravel would be the WORST candidate EVER for the LP. He is known nationally as a nutjob, and that would be detrimental to the LP to have him run.

Barr would be a good presidential nominee, but I don't know if RP would go in as VP. He would likely endorse Barr, but go back to the LP for the run? I just don't see it happening.

I could be wrong though

Thorgrim · 04-04-2008, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Mike Gravel would be the WORST candidate EVER for the LP. He is known nationally as a nutjob, and that would be detrimental to the LP to have him run.

Barr would be a good presidential nominee, but I don't know if RP would go in as VP. He would likely endorse Barr, but go back to the LP for the run? I just don't see it happening.

I could be wrong though

Does it really matter...when it's likely to go below 1%...if it's 0.4% or 0.8%?

I mean, at least Gravel could get more coverage than boring Barr

lew · 04-04-2008, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Does it really matter...when it's likely to go below 1%...if it's 0.4% or 0.8%?

I mean, at least Gravel could get more coverage than boring Barr

What world do you live in?

Barr has already gotten more coverage about his possible LP run than Gravel has for his entire campaign so far.

Thorgrim · 04-04-2008, 11:33 AM

1,690,000 for mike gravel 2008

344,000 for bob barr 2008

-Google

lew · 04-04-2008, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

1,690,000 for mike gravel 2008

344,000 for bob barr 2008

-Google

251 for bob barr (not even in race yet)

488 for mike gravel (been in the race for 2 years)

- Google News

Thorgrim · 04-04-2008, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Lew #1

251 for bob barr (not even in race yet)

488 for mike gravel (been in the race for 2 years)

- Google News

Originally Posted by Lew #2

Barr has already gotten more coverage about his possible LP run than Gravel has for his entire campaign so far.

Seems like you two need to fight it out, I'm gonna stay out of that flame war

lew · 04-04-2008, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Seems like you two need to fight it out, I'm gonna stay out of that flame war

Ardentfrost · 04-04-2008, 01:18 PM

Um, k, regardless of Thorgrim's twisted view on society and hatred of anything libertarian, Bob Barr has a history, whereas Gravel was doing what a year ago? Teaching or something? He came from obscurity very recently to say "gah! I'm mad at the Democratic Party!" Barr was a congressman for some 8 years and has been tossed around the media since leaving Congress 5 years ago due to his work since then to go against the shit he helped propagate 2000-2003.

Plus he has a key difference from Ron Paul: he thinks the Republican Party cannot be changed from the inside and has no plan to go back to his forsaken party. Ron Paul still thinks the Republicans can get back on course.

Thorgrim · 04-04-2008, 02:02 PM

A year ago he was on national television, also Gravel did something historically important, re Pentagon Papers

Hey, if you had to bet which state a third party could get, AK or SC, which would you pick?

Thorgrim · 04-04-2008, 02:03 PM

twisted view on society, where'd that come up in this post?

hsmith · 04-04-2008, 05:52 PM

LP is wasting their time. They should dump all the money on trying to get someone into the senate or house.

RMNIXON · 04-04-2008, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Mike Gravel would be the WORST candidate EVER for the LP. He is known nationally as a nutjob, and that would be detrimental to the LP to have him run.

Why would the libertarians line up with someone who has suggested each person be guaranteed a National Income or "Citizen Wage" as he put it?

You can always get a number of useless idiots to vote for that!

Thorgrim · 04-04-2008, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

LP is wasting their time. They should dump all the money on trying to get someone into the senate or house.

Publius for TX Senate!

Ardentfrost · 04-04-2008, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

A year ago he was on national television, also Gravel did something historically important, re Pentagon Papers

Hey, if you had to bet which state a third party could get, AK or SC, which would you pick?

Barr is from GA

Ardentfrost · 04-04-2008, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

LP is wasting their time. They should dump all the money on trying to get someone into the senate or house.

I do think LP spreads themselves too thin going for all these high ball elections. Either way, they'll have a presidential candidate, just as they always do.

Thorgrim · 04-05-2008, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Barr is from GA

It's all part of the confederacy of jesusland, and it's not going third party unless the candidate is some radically racist and anti-abortion preacher

kombayn · 04-05-2008, 05:43 AM

I wouldn't exactly go chopping down Mike Gravel's achievements in office, he was the one who filibustered during the Vietnam War and could've gone to jail. I suggest you check out YouTube. I don't agree with Mike Gravel on everything, but he at least wants to help America go in the right direction