Barr Campaign Digs Its Hole Deeper
In a statement today, the Barr campaign manages to attack Ron Paul yet again (while somehow finding an excuse to praise President Bush for his"leadership" on 9/11). They say that Ron Paul's meeting yesterday was all about promoting himself, and yet it was also supposedly about"scatter[ing] the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds." Bah. Barr would be very lucky to get 1/4 of Paul's supporters to vote for him. The Barr campaign release also attacks non-voters.
And then there's more praise for Bush: Barr says,"The Bush administration deserves credit for having done much to disable al Qaeda as an effective terrorist organization." What? Al Qaeda is bigger and badder than ever, thanks to the war on terror. As the CIA's former Bin Laden Unit chief Michael Scheuer has argued consistently, both wars – in Iraq and Afghanistan – have played into Osama's hands and empowered al Qaeda. Seven years after 9/11, libertarians should not continue the mistake made by many in endorsing any aspect of the war on terror. Any credit to Bush is too much credit.
This is really amazing. The same campaign that was willing to praise Jesse Helms, Al Gore and now George Bush, a campaign that has flip-flopped on global warming, gay marriage, the drug war and other issues, is now attacking the most popular libertarian activist movement in modern history, and attacking Ron Paul the person for caring more about himself than spreading the message of freedom – perhaps the most bizarre accusation one could make.
When Barr first got the nomination, I predicted he would not break 700,000 votes, despite hysterically optimistic estimates of millions of votes. Now, I would be somewhat surprised if he got more votes than Michael Badnarik.
Bill Woolsey - 9/16/2008
The close to 100,000 members of the campaign for liberty (which includes me,) make up 10% of the number of people who volunteered Barr or the LP as their voting choice this summer (1%). Most of Barr's poll results (where they include his name) have been better. In September there has been a 1%, 2%, and a 3% result.
I am still voting for Barr. I know others who are closely tied to the Campaign for Liberty who will do so as well.
I think it is yet another mistep by the Barr campaign.
The "problem" with Paul's news conference was Nader. He is Barr's key competitor for protest votes. But, objectively, what difference did it make? One day of news coverage?
I think what we are now seeing is members of staff carrying out the threats they made in negotiations. If Barr doesn't show, I will... If Nader is there, we will....
Efforts to force me to "choose" between Barr and Paul just make me a bit more disappointed in the partisans of both camps.
I believe that the Barr campaign is the best way to promote a libertarian message between now and November.
After that, only time will tell. Paul's effort proved that there is great potential for spreading the libertarian message in Republican primary campaigns. Will a good candidate arise in the future? We will see.
Lester Hunt - 9/12/2008
I'm very disappointed by this. I just got an email from his campaign manager repeating some of these petty, pointlessly nasty comments and charges. I'm not uprooting my Barr yard sign just yet, but I am getting there.
- New Hampshire professors at odds with library over discarded books
- Troubled history fuels Japan-China tension
- Independent Scotland's last gasp forgotten in Panama jungle
- LBJ was the ‘most-threatened president in American history’
- New exhibit at the World War I Museum ... Over by Christmas: August-December 1914
- Ken Burns on Colbert to promote his new documentary, "The Address"
- UC Santa Barbara History Department featuring a series on the Great Society at 50
- Historians are trying to recover censored texts from World War I poets
- Diane Ravitch blasts the NYT for failing to understand the controversy over Common Core
- Mormon history professors debate atheists in bid to foster greater understanding