Bob Barr on with Chris Wallace 6/29

[Ardentfrost]

YouTube Video

He said everything I wanted him to say in the interview, but I think he needs to be more up front and clear about how he realizes that he was wrong in voting for the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War. It seems like Wallace had to almost pull that out of him, whereas he should be quick to say it.

It sucks that the first question he always gets asked is about him possibly being "responsible" for Obama winning. What a stupid question.

[avsp]

Why is it a stupid question?

assuming that this isnt a stupid question itself

[JaJae]

He seems quick to blame everyone else for his previous beliefs. Also, I think focusing on his effects on the general election is probably the most newsworthy topic of the launching of his campaign. It should have been asked and I don't have a problem with it being asked early in the interview.

[Ardentfrost]

It's only asked so the MSM can further marginalize third party candidates. They're basically asking "aren't you ashamed that you could cause Obama to win?" Like it is a third party's responsibility to make sure what someone else sees as the lesser of two evils is elected. As Barr said, neither is a good candidate, so why should he worry about which one wins and if his candidacy affects it? If Obama wins, it's because he has a message people accept more than other candidates. Barr's candidacy, while unlikely to be successful in the sense of winning, could be quite successful in awakening the desire for personal liberties in the American public, much like Ron Paul's bid for Republican nomination did.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's only asked so the MSM can further marginalize third party candidates. They're basically asking "aren't you ashamed that you could cause Obama to win?" Like it is a third party's responsibility to make sure what someone else sees as the lesser of two evils is elected. As Barr said, neither is a good candidate, so why should he worry about which one wins and if his candidacy affects it? If Obama wins, it's because he has a message people accept more than other candidates. Barr's candidacy, while unlikely to be successful in the sense of winning, could be quite successful in awakening the desire for personal liberties in the American public, much like Ron Paul's bid for Republican nomination did.

Well possibly, ..., but essentially your saying that its an inappropriate question to ask him not that the question is stupid in itself

Nevertheless its the obvious thing that arises in the punter's mind & therefore its a legitimate question to ask, ..., perhaps more of commentator with the stats than of Barr coz his answer is obvious.

But then again his obvious answer can only be made if the question is asked & what better way the awaken typical GOP voters to the points that libertarians wish to make.

The 'its all you fault' bias that you see probably does exist, ..., in many many places, ..., & if, as you say he is unlikely to win himself then surely ppl/media exposing this bias in themselves in this fashion doesnt really matter & its exposure can be seen as good thing in a certain light.

The marginalisation of 3rd party candidates by the media is a bad thing, but i dont see this as an example of it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's only asked so the MSM can further marginalize third party candidates. They're basically asking "aren't you ashamed that you could cause Obama to win?" Like it is a third party's responsibility to make sure what someone else sees as the lesser of two evils is elected. As Barr said, neither is a good candidate, so why should he worry about which one wins and if his candidacy affects it? If Obama wins, it's because he has a message people accept more than other candidates. Barr's candidacy, while unlikely to be successful in the sense of winning, could be quite successful in awakening the desire for personal liberties in the American public, much like Ron Paul's bid for Republican nomination did.

No it's asked because it's what people want to hear who aren't in the <3% of the American population who support him. We want to know what he thinks about how his campaign will shape the general election before we care about anything else he has to say. And after we hear about what he thinks his campaign will do to the general election we want to hear how he works himself around the votes he cast that go directly against his presidential platform. If his answers to those questions are sufficient then maybe people will start to care a bit more about why he's running and what he has to say. People are going to raise eyebrows to unknown third party candidates in the wake of Ralph Nader. He is not going to be elected, we all know this. What we want to know is how his campaign will effect the next president of the United States.

And I have to say blaming his votes on the Bush administration is not a good way to start off his campaign. He claims to be a libertarian. Any authorized force in Iraq would go against his ideology. Patriot Act in any form would have gone against his ideology. And on and on. He's basically trying to explain it away which doesn't sit well with me. His "I didn't know this would happen, I thought this..." just doesn't work because no matter how he interpreted the bills they clearly would go against his platform now and he needs to address that without focusing on blaming third parties.

[Ardentfrost]

First, I can understand wanting to know his reasons for changing his tune on certain issues...

But to want to know his take on him possibly shaping the November election in November is silly. If he agreed with either Obama or McCain, he'd support them, not start his own campaign. No one is going to say "well, no matter who wins in November, we are going to be in good shape... but you know, I think I'll run anyway." He's running because a candidate who supports personal liberties NEEDS to be on the ballot, and he's a good choice for that candidate.

Second, he's blaming the Bush admin for saying one thing to congress (like "we're only going to use this provision to accomplish this one thing") but then doing something completely different. Congress was fleeced into giving him wartime powers among other things because there was a sense of urgency.

THAT is what he's criticizing.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

First, I can understand wanting to know his reasons for changing his tune on certain issues...

But to want to know his take on him possibly shaping the November election in November is silly. If he agreed with either Obama or McCain, he'd support them, not start his own campaign. No one is going to say "well, no matter who wins in November, we are going to be in good shape... but you know, I think I'll run anyway." He's running because a candidate who supports personal liberties NEEDS to be on the ballot, and he's a good choice for that candidate.

He's starting extremely late. He has a hypocritical record. He's running for a party that hasn't made any headway in a general election. Most people have already chosen their candidates. And now he's announcing he wants to run. What the majority of Americans want to know is, what does this mean for November. That's a fair question and it's probably more in tune with what people want to know than anything else.

Second, he's blaming the Bush admin for saying one thing to congress (like "we're only going to use this provision to accomplish this one thing") but then doing something completely different. Congress was fleeced into giving him wartime powers among other things because there was a sense of urgency.

THAT is what he's criticizing.

I don't care what he's criticizing. He voted for numerous positions and even introduced bills that go against the core libertarian beliefs and the beliefs he now holds. What Bush did with the bill should be irrelevant. The bill itself as it was understood to him went against his presidential platform regardless of what Bush did. He needs to answer for that. He's a non-interventionalist authorizing use of force in a sovereign nation? He's for individual rights and smaller control of government over things like the medical field but introduces bills to ban medical marijuana? He's for smaller government but votes in favor of the patriot act? He needs to answer for these things and not pull the bait and switch and start ranting about Bush while ignoring the crux of the issue. That's a line that's been overdone. Almost every politician voted for the war and voted for the Patriot Act. And practically every presidential candidate did. I don't care that he voted for them. What I care about is how he explains his votes and his principles. Blaming Bush for his votes that go against his platform no matter how he interpreted them or expected them to turn out is a cop out to me.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He's starting extremely late. He has a hypocritical record. He's running for a party that hasn't made any headway in a general election. Most people have already chosen their candidates. And now he's announcing he wants to run. What the majority of Americans want to know is, what does this mean for November. That's a fair question and it's probably more in tune with what people want to know than anything else.

All of the things you mentioned are fine questions for Barr except "Are you ok paving the way for Obama to be president?" That one question is idiotic. Barr isn't ok with President Obama OR President McCain, that's why he's running. He's giving an option to people who would rather vote for personal liberty over big government.

How does one even answer the question anyway.... I mean, by McCain running, he's taking away votes from Obama. But no one asks him the question.

You know why? Because it's a retarded question.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You know why? Because it's a retarded question.

It would only be a retarded question if people didn't want to know the answer. The same thing would happen to Nader (and has happened). Imagine if Nader announced today that he was running and it looked like with his name being on the ballet the election would swing to McCain. It's what people want to know. Any person running third party who steals votes from one major party in particular had better be prepared to answer that question. It's a question that's more important to the majority of Americans than any other question that could be asked of him.

[Ardentfrost]

Oh please, people may want to know IF Barr will make an impact on McCain's bid for presidency, but Barr is hardly the person to ask if it will. Ask political analysts for that shit.

To ask if he's ok with taking votes from McCain is retarded. If any viewer can't figure out that Barr doesn't care who wins because he doesn't like either candidate and wants to offer an alternative to people who don't want either candidate too.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh please, people may want to know IF Barr will make an impact on McCain's bid for presidency, but Barr is hardly the person to ask if it will. Ask political analysts for that shit.

Why not? Nobody else is talking about him and do you think Nader would escape such a question?

To ask if he's ok with taking votes from McCain is retarded. If any viewer can't figure out that Barr doesn't care who wins because he doesn't like either candidate and wants to offer an alternative to people who don't want either candidate too.

It's what people want to know. They want to see what he says. I know you support Barr, but he isn't going to get softball interviews and he is going to be asked a lot of questions you're not going to want him to be asked from now until November. Until he proves that he can be a remotely viable candidate the entire story about Barr is the impact he'll have on the national election and taking votes from John McCain.

By asking what he thinks about taking votes from McCain he could have responded in a way that propped himself up and sold himself to the viewer over John McCain. He attempted to do this, but didn't do a good job at it. And when shown his previous votes he had the opportunity to explain his positions and where he wants to lead the country. Instead he ranted about George Bush.

He came off in this interview as a dud. He had no passion like Ron Paul had or Obama displays. He had no message that hit home. And he did nothing to sell himself to the voter. I may agree with his ideology, but I just don't see him making any progress. If he continues to bring this personality on the campaign trail he's gonna go nowhere fast and he won't be able to blame the media or George Bush.

[Ardentfrost]

I don't expect softball interviews for him... a softball interview would be them not asking him about his previous stance on PATRIOT Act and whatnot. I still say the question is a dumb one because how is Barr supposed to know the impact he'll have on the election?

It'd be like asking an liberal arts major to do advanced math. They might can make some bullshit up, but why even bother?

It may very well be a question people have on their minds, but asking him gets us no closer to the answer.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't expect softball interviews for him... a softball interview would be them not asking him about his previous stance on PATRIOT Act and whatnot. I still say the question is a dumb one because how is Barr supposed to know the impact he'll have on the election?

It'd be like asking an liberal arts major to do advanced math. They might can make some bullshit up, but why even bother?

It may very well be a question people have on their minds, but asking him gets us no closer to the answer.

I don't get your analogy or your final question. None of the questions he was asked was out of his field of expertise. They were all questions related to him and his feelings towards the general election.

And I also don't understand why asking him what he thinks about taking votes from the Republican candidate gets us no closer to the answer of that question. Who should we ask? People want to know these answers. The guy took an interview on Fox News, he had to have known this question was going to come up. It's expected and quite frankly not unfair. I think that just because he stumbled through the entire interview fairly dry doesn't necessarily mean it was the fault of the interviewer. He had an opportunity to turn these questions into something positive for his campaign and it just never happened. Chris Wallace had to give him a hand there towards the end.

When asked "How do you feel about taking votes from McCain and helping Obama during the election?" he could have responded in an upbeat and motivated tone that he has his own platform and he welcomes people from all parties to support his positions on blah blah blah and as he gets out there on the campaign trail he will be looking to unify both parties to his campaign, etc etc. Instead he came off as dry.

I just watched the first two minutes of the interview again and it was mostly just allowing Barr to explain why he's upset with the GOP and explain his positions. He never even got to the question about getting votes from people who would have voted McCain. It wasn't the first question. He had plenty of time to explain his position and it was led in through numerous questions about his differences with McCain and the GOP in general. I really don't see any reason to complain about the question to be honest. He is the 08 Ralph Nader and he is going to be treated as such.

[Ardentfrost]

It's the third interview I've seen/heard with Barr and the third time they said "and you're ok with stealing votes from McCain and letting Obama become president?"

That is a dumb question.

That's all I'm saying.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It's the third interview I've seen/heard with Barr and the third time they said "and you're ok with stealing votes from McCain and letting Obama become president?"

That is a dumb question.

That's all I'm saying.

It's only dumb to you because it marginalizes Barr's candidacy. But it was probably a question that the majority of people watching the interview wanted to be asked.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's only dumb to you because it marginalizes Barr's candidacy. But it was probably a question that the majority of people watching the interview wanted to be asked.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about why this is a dumb question.

He's not running to get Obama elected. He's not running to hurt McCain. He's running because he agrees with neither party and refuses to sit on the sidelines while they go unopposed for big government.

Any vote for Barr is NOT a vote for Obama. Anyone who votes for Barr would have simply chosen the candidate they saw as the lesser threat to the future of America.

The question doesn't marginalize Barr's candidacy. He even admits his chances of winning are slim. However he offers a choice that people who want personal liberties can vote for to make a statement.

The question is dumb because it has to do with nothing. The answer coming from Barr doesn't even make sense. Pull in the head of Obama/McCain's candidacy and see if they think Barr makes a difference and how. Ask THEM if Barr changes anything. Ask THEM all those speculative questions that the public wants to know. But Barr is just running on a principle that has absolutely nothing to do with fucking one party or the other, which is what the question implies.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about why this is a dumb question.

He's not running to get Obama elected. He's not running to hurt McCain. He's running because he agrees with neither party and refuses to sit on the sidelines while they go unopposed for big government.

I understand his platform and he got to state it. However, he is going to have a negative effect on the GOP this election and that is the most important part of his campaign to the average American. I know you support him for president, but you are in the vast, vast minority. The the rest of the country they want to know how he is going to impact the election and what he thinks about it. You obviously don't care, that's fine. But to the rest of America who doesn't see him as a viable or even seriously contending candidate all they care about is what it means in the general election and what he thinks about it.

Any vote for Barr is NOT a vote for Obama. Anyone who votes for Barr would have simply chosen the candidate they saw as the lesser threat to the future of America.

A vote for Barr would have likely been a vote for McCain as most of the polls have shown. That will have an effect on the general election the same as a vote for Nader was likely a vote taken away from the Democrats in the past. Barr is the new Nader.

The question doesn't marginalize Barr's candidacy. He even admits his chances of winning are slim. However he offers a choice that people who want personal liberties can vote for to make a statement.

It does marginalize it. The question itself insinuates that he isn't a viable candidate.

The question is dumb because it has to do with nothing. The answer coming from Barr doesn't even make sense. Pull in the head of Obama/McCain's candidacy and see if they think Barr makes a difference and how. Ask THEM if Barr changes anything. Ask THEM all those speculative questions that the public wants to know. But Barr is just running on a principle that has absolutely nothing to do with fucking one party or the other, which is what the question implies.

I can't see how you can say it has to do with nothing. That just doesn't make sense. Barr does change things. McCain will probably get 2-3% points less than he would have had if Barr didn't have a lever. The last election was split by less than 3%. That's newsworthy and so is Barr's reaction to that.