Almost nothing disgusts me more then people who believe that the Libertarian Party is one of former Republicans. If Bob Barr somehow becomes the nominee, I'm leaving the party as it will have officially been taken over by those hypocritical nutjobs.

I wouldn't worry about the fringe. There are always some "out there" and they will do as they do.

If Ron Paul broke double digits nationally it would be different but 3% ain't worth the ink.

Jack,

I used to despise Bob Barr, but I've watched his transformation over the last decade, and I know in 2004 he voted libertarian, even before he formally switched parties. He's reversed his position on a lot of core ideals and was honest about his mistakes in trusting the government to be responsible with the Patriot Act. (for what it's worth he was the person who managed to get the Sunset Provisions included so at least the future congress could look at things when cooler heads had prevailed)

Bob Barr isn't perfect, nor is any candidate, but I'd suggest looking at what he's done recently before tossing him under the purity bus.

Many of us who are recovering Democrats or Republicans and were Ron Paul supporters in the caucuses or primaries will just write in Ron Paul. The Cato Institute estimates that the “libertarian vote” up for grabs is only 10 to 15% of the electorate; not enough to win, but certainly enough to cause someone to lose. John McCain in all likelihood stands to lose if he doesn’t snag at least half of the libertarian vote.
For many of us small government, balanced budget, mind-your-own-beeswax conservatives, there has never really been a candidate worth voting for besides Paul, or now maybe Barr. There is hardly any difference between McCain and whatever socialist the Dems select; the fatally flawed mindset is the same; whatever the ill, just have the government rob more from productive persons or enterprises and give it to unproductive or at least well-connected persons. Simple, just observe all the successful socialist countries around the globe.
Events on the international stage will determine who the next president is, since we have in large part determined ourselves to be the world’s policeman. If its quiet between now and November , then it will be the neophyte from Illinois, if Vlad the Impaler Putin gets restless, or Pakistan devolves into civil war or Israel and its neighbors get into a scrap again , or ……..then it may well be the grumpy old warrior from Arizona.

Ron Paul is a decent guy who would fit well in the 19th century, along with Ronald Reagan. Bob Barr has seen the light and has realized that the Republicans are virtually neo-nazis bent on plundering the national treasury. They've done a splendid job of it. Ron Paul for president, Bob Barr for vice-president on the Libertarian ticket.

Ivanhoe, the reason we have recessions under the Republicans is because they drain money out of the economy. The Democrats tend to spend it here on things such as schools, infrastructure, job training, health care, etc. Those are the so-called socialists at work. Seems to me that Bill Clinton's eight years out-performed the Republican run in every single category.

There is no ideology more shortsighted, nor morally bankrupt, that Libertarian politics.

I think if Barr runs, he should append Nader as his vice.

Just the sloganesque name combo says it all!!

Barr/Nader08

Sorry, that should have read: "...than Libertarian politics."

What really disgusts me about this ideology is that its believers hide what it is truly about by saying crap like "it's all about freedom."

It's hilarious to see this ideology that people who make more income are "more productive" while people who make less income are "less productive" and hence less deserving. It's falling into the same trap liberals do, of assuming that rich people are rich because they make more money. The truth is that in order to be truly wealthy--in other words, in order to have a high net worth--you have to save a lot of money and learn how to make it work for you. So in truth, a rich person is rich not so much because s/he's worked hard (although that might be one factor) but because s/he's learned how to use money wisely and not squander it all.

Now, stay with me a minute. So if wealth is not about income, then is it really true that higher taxes for upper income brackets "punish the productive"? Not really. You would have to define the "productive" as "those who make high paychecks" first. But that's not true. You can be a very productive person and still not make a high income. Furthermore, you can also be rich and also not make a high income--it is what you are able to do WITH the money you make that determines your wealth status, in the end. For every $100k/year income-earner you can show me who lives in a nice house and drives a nice car I can show you an overachiever and workaholic with a low credit score and a crushing debt burden who is one paycheck away from losing everything.

The real wealthy acknowledge that the government will take some of their money via taxes. But they also acknowledge that the government is only taking a tiny slice of their personal wealth pies and don't get all worked up about it. (For instance, some of the activists clamoring to *keep* the estate tax were some of this country's wealthiest people!) It's the overspending, gaudy, consumeristic nouveaux riches who don't really have any wealth to their names who are griping and complaining about some of the First World's lowest tax rates. Maybe they need to straighten up their own financial picture before they go complaining about people who have to choose between paying rent and buying groceries because they don't have enough wiggle room in their incomes to amass any wealth at all.

Meanwhile, if Barr and Paul are libertarians, I'm a man. Barr is opposed to the free exercise of religion as promised by the First Amendment to the Constitution, and Paul only believes in individual liberty if the person practicing it is not a pregnant woman. May they receive all the obscurity they so richly deserve.

Yeah, yeah..., Libertarians are all a bunch of disgruntled Right-Wing Republicans. Everybody knows that.

Obviously that's why Mike Gravel is also seeking the Libertarian nomination for president, 'eh?

Mike observes:
"The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.

By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media."

www.huffingtonpost.com/off-the-bus-reporter/mike-gravel-to-seek-liber_b_93463.html

Over the years such Right Wingers as Frank Zappa, Hugh Downs, Terry Pratchett and AIM co-founder Russ Means have called the Libertarian party 'home', but we can't let that get in the way of pigeon-holing Libertarians.

Ivanhoe and some others posting a response to this article sound like those who cried "tweedle-dee - tweedle-dum" in the 1968 choice between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon - look what we got then! Open your eyes!

BARR SHOULD BE BARRED FROM PUBLIC OFFICE OF ANY KIND.

It seems only Ivanhoe has learned enough about the libertarian party to have a say in this discussion. The rest of you should do you home work before you bother to open your mouths.

As for me and my house, if Ron Paul is not an option, we will vote for Chuck Baldwin on the Constitution Party Ticket.

Seriously. We are trillions of dollars in debt. So what do the three "main" presidential contenders do? Vote to borrow more money we can't afford to pay back so we can all get a great bush buy off check of 08. Talk about morally bankrupt and short sighted. Go ahead try to defend the bandaid they think they can put on this bubble?

Ron Paul has made it clear he won't run under a third party ticket and why should he. Our system is only a two party system and rejects any other party. Until Americans start changing their thoughts and move beyond only Democrat or Republican will things change. If Paul ran third party they would not let him in debates and the MSM would be very byass towards him. As with many others Ron Paul supporters I will write him in.

I believe Dr. Paul actually left the Republic Party before his 1988 Presidential run (where he finished 3rd, just 45 percentage points or so behind Mike Dukakis.)

This time around, he is a sitting Congressman and has in fact been nominated in the GOP primary. That might complicate his decision to run for President as a Libertarian.

Also, in 2008, he now has the benefit of his 1988 experience in 1988 when he was excluded from the debates, was unable to raise much money and spent most of his money (as he has stated in interviews) just trying to get on the ballot. (This time around, he also has a slight chance of being McCain's VP nominee as well... he is an unlikely choice but he is one of the only possible choices who might actually bring McCain some additional votes.)

Although the libertarians are are at fault for the lack of protection for the workers .the consumers and enviroment and thinking that a person can be self reliant into a modern industial ia delusional .The libertains like other third candidates like the greens (which unlike the libertarians believe in taking care of the people) do have point about the us minding their business

Although I used to be a member of the Libertarian party, and read magazines like REASON, over time I began to dislike the strong right-wing bias that colors the party and its culture.

That is not to say it doesn't have its strong assets, however. Paul and Barr are both against the SOA, the drug war, and our insane interventionist foreign policy.

Recently, however, Ron Paul has endorsed a fellow by the name of Matt Chancey (?) for the post of Public Service Commission in Alabama, and from reading Chancey's positions on his website, I've given up on Paul. Chancey sounds like just another right-wing ideologue nut-case, and is against environmental "extremism" (read: anything that is environmental). That Ron Paul would endorse someone
like Chancey, who doesn't even
sound slightly libertarian . . . and who is endorsed by people like the defrocked (ex) Judge Roy Moore (who wanted to put up a huge 10 Commandments monument, as you may recall, inside the Supreme Court Building in Alabama).

Chancey is also completely pro-nuclear, which is heavily subsidized and is -- by its very nature -- centralized as well.

Where is Paul's love of individual responsibility, as in say, people producing their own power, heat, etc., and designing their own buildings that waste and pollute less? Is he aware that idiotic building codes often prevent people from taking care of their own energy needs, and if so, does he care?

The question is, will Bob Barr be better, or will he, like so many other "libertarians" (read: Cato Institute, Reason Foundation) continue to endorse energy policies that
make us less able to take care of ourselves, and more dependent on the state-given energy monopolies (and the monopolists that run them)?

"Bob Barr Throws Down Gauntlet to Ron Paul"

Curious.

I wonder: Has Green Party contender and former Democrat Cynthia McKinney thrown down the gauntlet to Dennis Kucinich?

Doesn't that make as much sense as the headline of this story?

I have to laugh when I see people describing libertarianism as "morally bankrupt." What kind of fun-house mirror concept of morality must such people have? Libertarianism upholds the right of people to make decisions for themselves, and to dispose of their own time, labor, and property as they see fit -- entitled to keep the full product of their work, in particular. They believe that people should not be forcibly interfered with unless and until they are harming others or damaging the property of others. How more moral can you get? Conversely, what is moral about effectively forcing someone to toil in support of your own pet project or favorite recipient? To the extent that the government takes our wealth to support its own activities and beneficiaries, it takes our lives, making at least temporary slaves of us all. What could be more immoral?

While I also acknowledge that Ron Paul is not a perfectly "pure" libertarian, he seems about as libertarian as any real-world politician will ever get and attain (or hold!) office under our system, so he comes by the "libertarian" label honestly. To deny his libertarian "purity" for his views on abortion is to deny his firsthand experience as an OB/GYN, delivering thousands of babies, which informed his deep religious conviction concerning when human life becomes a person that the government is obliged to protect. Many people disagree about that last point, but how could a libertarian, believing that one of the FEW legitimate functions of government is to protect human life, NOT be opposed to the deliberate ending of the life of a human being, pre-natal or not, who has harmed nobody? What's amazing to me is that Dr. Paul seems willing enough to leave this authority to the States, meaning that some States might leave abortion legal, while others might restrict or mostly ban the practice. Paul is not willing to weaken our federal system to suit his own religious agenda, unlike extremists on either the right or the left of the abortion issue. This is a principled position that must cause him a lot of anguish, and certainly doesn't make him very many friends, at least to judge from the comments on this board.

I have a lot more to say about what being a "true libertarian" means, but I'll leave it for another time. I'll just close by saying that it seems impossible that most people who have commented here actually understand what libertarianism is. Please don't let yourself be misled by the actions and pronouncements of poseurs (e.g., neocons, or fabian socialists, who seem more than happy to appropriate the "libertarian" term for themselves, the better to confuse the electorate, I suppose).

Libertarians may be OK in regards to a few things such as the war, but on the whole they're almost as bad as Republicans. This whole notion of 'rugged individualistic freedom' is deeply flawed, much like true anarchism libertarianism doesn't work because people screw each other over. This whole unseen hand of the market idea is incredibly naive and optimistic, experience shows us again and again that situations like Enron happen again and again until nobody trusts the free market and lassie fare dies.

You're asking all these hypothetical questians about Ron Paul. But the lead of your story is most bizarre and worthy of comment. Ron Paul is an only slightly goofy libertarian, while Bob Barr is a bit of a lunatic. He wrote the Defense of Marriage Act. That is about as libertarian as Stalinism.

I hope this political "bus" that everyone is seemingly being throw under runs on something other than fossil fuel!!!!

Bob Barr is one of the sleaziest and most hypocritical politicians I've ever observed in action. He has the moral character of an alley cat in heat. I guess that's why he's a politician.

Bob Barr is one of the sleaziest and most hypocritical politicians I've ever observed in action. He has the moral character of an alley cat in heat. I guess that's why he's a politician.

I think we all know that we can't have the same folks in the white house and the senate anymore. So, Republican president dem senate or vice versa?

While a vote for Paul or Barr might not be worth the ink or my time since neither will win, it will certainly help me sleep better at night knowing I didn't put a socialist or Republican in the White House. Paul, Barr - it doesn't matter. It's a vote for the cause. And that's the freedom we need!

Anybody responsible for getting that sunset clause in the "Patriot" Act can't be too bad; and we all owe hime a debt of gratitude, because the Patriot Act was changed at the last minute by a different version the White House slipped in. Not one Congress member read it. This Act abolishes most of the Bill Of Rights; it destroys, on the Federal level, the 1st,4th,5th,6th,and 8th Amendments of the Constitution. Some say it also destroys the 3rd and 7th, which is debateable, but there are also Executive Orders that have been assigned into law by G.W. Bush that certainly allow for the abolishment of those rights, as well as several other ones: the government can seize all public and private transportation; they can (and did in New Orleans after Katrina)seize any and all weapons, as well as kick you out of your house. They can move large numers of people at gunpoint; theycan organize us into work brigades. Plus a whole lot more. Now, who do you think really benefitted from 9/11?
Before 9/11, any plane that went even a little off course found itself with a Military Fighter Jet escort within 15, 20 mins tops. Yet on 9/11 our country was attacked, inluding the Pentagon, probably the most highly guarded building in the world, and for over 2 hours there was no military intervention??? Yeah, and elephants fly. You also expectme to believe that Hani Hanjour (that speling may be off), whose training pilots said "Could hardly fly a little one-engine Cessna" came in, after navigating a 757, one of the most advanced, complicated pieces of machinery on earth (certainly not a Cessna!), through miles of unfamiliar State territory, came in from the West, so could have flown staright into the East side of the Pentagon by just following a straight line forward...Also, you would think that, since the Pentagon is huge, taking up acres, but is pretty flat, that instead of trying to get down to jsut a few yards from the ground, flying at 500 miles an hour, which is also very difficult,to hit the side of the Pentagon building, which might be 20 feet high,at most probably, he would simply dive down into the top of the East side of the building, creating the most damage with both the easiest and most sure to work tactic. He would have possibly killed Dick Cheney, and many other high officials, all who were at the East side of the building at once, strangely enough. So instead Hani Hanjour does a desending spiral (which professional pilots say is so difficult as tobe almost impossible (at least for a human pilot), to turn him around and bring him down to just yards from the ground, flying along at near 500 miles an hour (pilots also say this would strain the airplane immensely, since takeoffs and landings occur at much slower speeds), to hit perfectly the (just happened to be newly re-inforced)West side of the Pentagon. Although it's strange cause it doesn't look like a plane could fit in there. And while I didn't expect, as some, this card-board cutout perfect shape, I did expect to see holes where the two heaviest and strongest componets of the plain were:the two 800 ton engines, and the sturdiest pieces of th plane. It's also strange that, athough the plane supposedly diintegrated, one of the weakest parts of the plane, the tip of the fuseage/cockpit managed to penetrate all the way through to the inner C ring and create a perfectly round exit hole.
Also, Professional Pilots who examined the "black" box of the plane that supposeldly hit the Pentagon, say the trajectory the plane took could not possibly have caused it to sever those light poles.

I just realized that I totally messed up the part of which way Hani Hanjour came in and what part of the Pentagon he hit. He came in from the East, could have hit the East side, but made that incredible manuever to hit the West side of the side wall of the Pentagon. That's what I meant to say. Sorry for the confusion.

I also apoligize for the typos, and just stupid things like spelling plane, "plain!"
Although it doesn't seem like I made as many typos as those that appear. I think the transfer/posting process may re-arrange a few letters sometimes. It's sneaky, like Deep Blue.

Mr. Merritt, (sorry if I didn't get the spelling of your name correct), I just wanted to say: excellent composition, and I agree with your points. The only place where Ron Paul and I differ is that I think, in todays' world, there has to be regulation, otherwise corporations simply treat their employees like garbage, pollute the enviroment, etc. I think de-regulation is a big part of our problem today. Perhaps as government is cleaned up, we can get rid of some regulation, as corporations learn a new trick: cooperation--you catch more flies with honey than vinegar..or something like that!
Also, and I can't completely confirm this because I didn't personally hear and see it come out of Ron Paul's mouth (and even then, you can't be sure anymore!-- It turns out several calls made during 9/11 never actually happened..Voice morphing has become so advanced that an F.B.I. agent could call you sounding exactly like your mother, or anyone that they had enough recording of--and since they tap our phones, that's not hard--)but supposedly he said that someone could purchase, say, a national Park, and make it completely private.
While I'm a big believer in property rights, and I don't
like "eminent domain" anymore than most folks, I do believe that we should have Public Parks/National Treasures: YellowStone, the Grand Canyon...you know what I mean. I don't think any private individual should be able to own these lands, unless he/she agress to its upkeep and continued use as a Public Park, or National Treasure.
But out of all the candidates today, if Ron Paul were to somehow win the Republican Nomination, I would vote for him in the general election, simply because America faces total bankruptcy, and soon, and Paul's the only one who understands both economics, the Federal Reserve, Constitutional Currency, and also possess the..gumption to cut away seriously at the DoD's budget, where all the money is being into sucked, and a lot of it is for "pet" projects that have absolutely no bearing on our National Security.
But that isn't going to happen.Even if he did win, he'd be assassinated...same as if Dennis Kucinich had won; they both go against the military industrial complex, which President Eisenhower warned us to watch out for, in his farewell speech. We've gone completely, almost, to a war economy. This benefits certain corporations, and the politicians whom they pay off, immensely. The rest of the people, and the economy, suffer, because you have a product that is sucking billions of dollars out of the economy, but putting back nothing that is useful to the average American. But they have immense power, and immense greed, and they will not go peacefully, the powers/people behind the M.I.C. and the FED. Though not everyone is tied up in this, there are members infiltrated throughout every government agency; in fact, they are the dominant force, and the ones who stand for truth and the democratic republic our Founders meant for us...well, they are in the minority. But then, the Founders said we needed to have a revolution at least every 20 years, "for the tree of Liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of tyrants and patriots." Instead, Americans have been absorbed into the tyrants' greatest ally: T.V. There is nothing more mind- numbing, brainwashing, and imagination-killing than the programs on Television. And, once you take control over it, which corporations and the gov't have finally done, it's the greatest propaganda tool of all time. Before, when reporters were doing their job, TV, and the Papers, were often the Establishments' worst nightmare..because the Press kept the government at least somewhat honest. This is no longer the case, as a mere 5 corporations control all of mainstream news, TV News and the Papers. Mussolini said "Fascism should really be called "Corporatism" for it is the perfect merger of corporation and State (meaning gov't)." If that is not what we have in America tody, I know not what it is we have. Not all fascism looks Nazi.
Anyway, America is bankrupt, save a miracle. Bush may bomb Iran, to prop up the dollar a little longer as a gift to his friends on Wall Street, but it's over for us.
Bush did it. He killed us. Too bad he doesn't play the fiddle.

In the first place, where do all these right wingers come from on here - wasn't "Mother Jones" a leftist?

In the second place, I can't believe anyone with any experience in US politics buys this story, which is a McCain media gimmick. The reality is that any votes Barr pulls from a major candidate, he will pull from Obama. The McCainiacs know that, and they gave Barr the plug, by pretending to believe he would pull votes from McCain and "begging him not to run". It's negative psychology, like 'please don't throw me in the briar patch'. Maybe you genuinely don't get it. I can never quite decide how many USAians are accomplished cynics and how many are just plain stupid.

I sincerely hope either Paul or Barr will run, and pick up 3-5%, because all of it will come out of the Republican's hide, helping to nullify the damage that Nader is likely to do to Democrats. Bring on the Libertarians!!

Bob Barr's no Libertarian - see http://badbarr2008.com/ Now that Ron Paul is out of the running, I'm shifting to Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party).

Bob Barr: The two?three?-time divorcee who brought us the Defense of Marriage Act. His love for self is far stronger than his belief in whatever ideology he claims to be spouting these days. Let's hope Ron Paul has enough self-respect to stay far away from that guy.

Moving toward the 2008 elections, I propose that a radical precedent be considered: separating principled and competent candidates and their platform plans for "real hope and change" from their party alliances and loyalty. Why not a a ticket-team with a Barack and a Ron Paul? Where is it written that it has to be either-or? In wearied, stressed, strapped and disgusted American voter minds, Republican-Democratic party allegience is not working and is as broken and empty as the parties rhetoric machinery. This campaign glaringly reveals this. Blind loyalty to an either-or war of the camps mentality is archaic, myopic and undermining of 'the body politic itself' (read: the people and their voices). Its like fighting in the arena without the body ever being present or even considered. Why have we not re-envisioned, outgrown and re-grown this desperately needed new nation skin in our struggled history of the democratic republic called the American Experiment (NOT the American dream)? MC

Hahaha! Bob Barr is a Libertarian like I'm a gay man! That's a laugh and a half.

Don't buy it--it's meant as a distraction.

DO NOT WRITE-IN RON PAUL! I have written this on every blog I can find, yet I still see the "I'll write-in Ron Paul" thing going around. The vote WILL NOT BE COUNTED! In order for a write-in to be counted, that candidate has to be registered with the state's election commission (throught the SOS). Thus, you would have to petition Ron Paul on in that state in order to write him in and have the vote count. If you are going to spend the time and money, you might as well do it before the deadline, and actually have his name on the ballot! We all know that Mccain will steal the nomination - reguardless of what happens at the Republican national convention. When that happens vote for the Libertarian candidate (whomever thqt might be) on election day. If he (or she) can pick up double digits, it will sent a clear message to the republican Party that Ron Paul carried all of those votes away from them (McCain isn't going to win anyway), and they should have nominated Ron Paul if they wanted to win the White House. But DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT write-in Ron Paul, it's exactly like staying home on election day - Hey, don't kill the messenger, that's the law.