Schweitzer Steers Pro-Gun Voters From McCain To Libertarian Barr

Libertarian Bob Barr play a role in this campaign yet - helping Obama win Montana.  Well aware of the recent polling that puts Obama slightly ahead of McCain in Montana (but still within the margin of error), the Obama Campaign held a press call with Montana’s Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

One of the topics: Guns

Schweitzer defended Obama’s position on gun rights assuring voters that Obama “ain’t ever going to take your gun away”, while suggesting that gun voters who aren’t sold on Obama may want to consider Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr.  He said:

“If guns are your primary issue, you’re probably not going to like either of these guys,” Schweitzer said during an telephone news conference put on by the Obama campaign.

He said a third option for voters for whom guns is their primary issue is to vote for Barr, a former Georgia congressman, “if you’re absolutely not going to vote for McCain or Obama on guns.”

The Obama Campaign later denied that Schweitzer was saying that voters should vote for Barr.  But, that’s just campaign-speak.  The suggestion was clear and it’s smart politics.  Whether or not it’s effective remains to be seen.

Sphere: Related Content

How to Challenge Democratic and Republican Ideas

Everyone once in a while, I’ll see a passionate defense of third party voting in the general election, even if there’s no chance of them winning. The defense always goes something like this:

Because they work together (along with the media) to effectively-silence debate outside of Democrats and Republicans in elections. And I feel real change will come when a third party candidate wins the Presidency. Not saying McCain and Obama can’t implement “change” but it’s always colored in two-party political paint. No disrespect to those who support Democrats and Republicans.

I think this view is patently ridiculous. Here’s why.

It’s true, there’s only two winnable candidates in the general election. And if we lived in a Parliamentary Democracy, there might be more, or at least have a system where a third party vote is not wasted. So if you want to argue for a Constitutional Convention for that, go ahead.

The reality of the current system, though, is that there’s two entrenched parties. This has proven to not be just a historical quirk, but an entrenched electoral reality. However, what is possible is to dramatically change what these parties stand for. Parties often change what they stand for. In fact, up until 1860, there was even great fluctuation in the names of the parties and identities. Now, that change takes place on a lower level. Republicans today stand for many different things than they did in 1920, for instance. And even now, there’s intense discussion of where conservatism and Republicans go should McCain lose as badly as it seems.

The operative question for people not happy with what the parties stand for should be: How do we change what these parties stand for. Libertarians now should be chomping at the bit to dramatically affect the future of the GOP. But even before now, there’s the question of primaries. Ron Paul did far, far more for the cause of libertarians by running in the primaries than Barr or even Paul himself did by running as a third party candidate.

Third party voting is essentially small scale tyranny of the minority: some people who would otherwise have a preference in the real election that decide to abdicate any choice just to make themselves feel better. The money and resources that are poured into third parties would be far better spent trying to influence the direction of a party, instead of glorifying a vanity campaign by a former government official.

In short, I find the core excuse behind third party voting to be dramatically proven untrue. Anything Ralph Nader wanted to promote through his campaign he probably could have done in such a way as to not siphon votes from Al Gore. If libertarians put more effort into pushing the GOP towards them and not building a wall around themselves and demanding purity, they’d probably be better off too in the long run.

Sphere: Related Content

Third Party Debate Cancelled

We were prepared to liveblog any event that does happen, but no candidate wants to appear opposite any other candidate at the same event. 

 

Barr claimed a conflict while McKinney opted for an online debate originally scheduled for that evening. Baldwin was reluctant to travel to New York. Nader was willing to participate, aides say, but, seeing the debate falling apart all week, held back.

McKinney, it turns out, also had another reason for staying in her hometown of Atlanta, said her running mate, Rosa Clemente. McKinney is attending the Black Panther Party annual reunion.

 

So much for these runs being about ideas instead of egos.

In short, the excuses:

 

• Bob Barr thinks he’s above the event; he considers himself the third wheel in the general election, not among this rabble.
• Ralph Nader doesn’t want to be the only one to commit, which would telegraph his desparation. 
• Cynthia McKinney does not want to leave the Black Panther convention.
• Chuck Baldwin does not want to fly into New York City.

 

They’re ridiculous.

Sphere: Related Content

Will Bob Barr Show Up To The Third Party Debate?

This Sunday at Columbia University, the third party debate is being held. Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader have all indicated that they intend on attending. Bob Barr has resisted because he wants to debate only Ralph Nader. That’s right, the Libertarian party candidate is too uppity to debate anyone else, even a fellow former member of Congress (McKinney) or someone endorsed by Ron Paul (Baldwin) - an endorsement that Barr quite openly sought.

Sphere: Related Content

John McCain’s Youtube Channel is Awful

Just a random thought on a Friday, but why does John McCain’s Youtube channel only have ads up, and not video footage of recent campaign events or interviews?

Obama’s Youtube page has long form ads and excerpts from his speeches.

McCain’s channel is not even as informative as Bob Barr’s Youtube Channel. I’m not recommending McCain record videos from a dimly lit office building, but giving some information or longer form ads would be a good thing. Chuck Baldwin’s Youtube page is even more informative, and it’s clear that I, a poor graduate student, have more money than him.

I can understand wanting ads on your page, but why only have ads? The GOP is still far behind in using the internet in any meaningful way. Right now, it’s just a dumping ground for salacious ads they want cable news to talk about, but that the campaign does not want to put any money behind.

Sphere: Related Content

Bob Barr Snubs Ron Paul And Other Third Party Candidates

The GOP and the Democratic Parties may have a monopoly on mainstream press coverage, but they certainly don’t have one on drama in presidential campaigns. While talk of lipstick and pigs has dominated the airwaves the past couple days, the impudence from the rest of the campaign has gone unnoticed.

Yesterday, Ron Paul held a press conference at the National Press Club to discuss third party issues. See our post on this event here. Joining Paul at this event were third party candidates Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), Ralph Nader (Independent) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party); Bob Barr was supposed to attend, but he was a no-show. And so the drama begins…

Asked about Barr’s apparent no-show, Libertarian Party Media Director issued the following statement:

The real question is why Bob, who is a major player in this election, want to be on stage with people like McKinney, who stands against everything the LP does, and Baldwin, who is barely on enough ballots to have a statistical chance of winning.

Barr is not a minor party candidate. Barr is a major player this year.

He is holding his own press conference right now.

According to the AP, Barr’s stated reason for not attending the event was that Paul did not endorse a specific candidate.  So, clearly there is a bit of a tension there between the Libertarian Party’s communications and Barr’s.

Don Rasmussen, Campaign For Liberty Events Coordinator, tells of being told to “go f*ck himself” by the Barr campaign when he questioned Barr’s no-show [h/t IPR]:

I asked Barr Communications Director Shane Corey after the event why they pulled this stunt and was told to go f*** myself.

Barr Campaign Manager Russ Verney may have fanned the flames by criticizing Paul’s efforts Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Ron Paul Rallies Silent Majority, Discusses Third Party Candidacies At Vote-Your-Heart Press Conference

Yesterday, Ron Paul held a Vote-Your-Heart press conference where he discussed the issue of Third Party Candidacies. Although Ron Paul is not currently a presidential candidate, he does still have a large following and is continuing to advocate the issues that are important to him with his Campaign For Liberty movement. Paul was joined by three third party candidates - Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), Ralph Nader (Independent) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party). Notably, Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) was supposed to join Paul, but he was a no show.

In his remarks, Paul first announced the Four Principles signed onto by the Third Party Candidates involved in this effort.

Then, he recounted how the McCain Campaign contacted him on September 9th for the first time.  They requested that Paul endorse McCain at this event. Their reasoning per Paul was that “[McCain] would do a little less harm than the other candidate.”

Next, he went on to assail the two party system as not offering a real choice, saying: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Libertarian Candidate Bob Barr Hits Obama On FISA

Ever since Barack Obama annnounced that he would be supporting FISA legislation that includes immunity for telecom companies, he has stirred up some anger from supporters.  Currently, the largest supporter group on his website is one that is urging him to change his mind on FISA.  Now, Libertarian Candidate former Congressman Bob Barr is criticizing Obama for his changed position on FISA.  In a press release Barr says:

“The two major parties like to say that a vote for anyone else is a wasted vote,” notes Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr. “But it should be obvious to all that only the Libertarian Party provides an alternative in November.  After all, Sen. Barack Obama has reaffirmed his refusal to live up to his promise to oppose the Bush administration, which violated the law by conducting warrantless surveillance of Americans’ telephone calls.”

[snip]

“Unfortunately, the Democrats also were more enablers of government abuse than defenders of American liberty,” he adds.  Sen. Barack Obama claimed to be different, offering real change.  “But when the Democratic congressional leadership decided to concede to almost all of the administration’s demands in rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Sen. Obama went along with the crowd.”

[snip]

“If Sen. Obama can so easily abandon a commitment on so fundamental an issue, is there any issue on which he will take a stand,” asks Barr?

Certainly it’s smart strategy for the Libertarian in the race to take advantage of this opportunity and try and wrestle some supporters away from Obama.  Although, I’m not convinced that this will be all that effective.  However important this issue may be, I just don’t think many Democrats consider it to be significant enough to warrant risking a loss for Obama by supporting Barr.  Afterall, even the founder, Mike Stark, of the aforementioned group on Obama’s website is not prepared to threaten Obama with a loss of support, regardless of how upet he may be.  Stark has said:

“Of course I’m going to vote for him in November.  (But) we’re keeping score, and there’s going to be a time when he needs us. … We have long memories.”

It is worth noting that Barr will have an opportunity to publicize his criticism of Obama on two national Sunday talk shows tomorrow.  He’ll be on ABC’s This Week and CNN’s Newsroom Primetime Edition.

Sphere: Related Content