The New Ralph Nader?

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:04:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Is Bob Barr the new Ralph Nader?

A fiery former GOP congressman who gained national prominence for doggedly pursuing impeachment of President Clinton has some Republicans worried he'll play spoiler in a tight presidential contest.
Bob Barr's Libertarian Party bid for the White House is the longest of long shots, but political experts say he may be able to exploit the unease some die-hard conservatives still feel about Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee-in-waiting. Combined with the surge in turnout among Democrats during the primaries and a difficult political climate for Republicans, they see what could be a recipe for trouble for the GOP.

"Bob could be the Ralph Nader of 2008," said Dan Schnur, a GOP consultant in California who worked on McCain's 2000 campaign but is not involved in this year's contest.

George Bush is the greater spoiler for Republicans in 2008, but any damage Barr can do to the Republican cause is welcome. Here are some memorable Barr moments, in addition to leading the impeachment fight:

Barr also was known during his four terms in the House for his opposition to softening drug laws, including the medical use of marijuana .... He tried unsuccessfully to bar military bases from according witchcraft adherents the same accommodations as other religious worshippers.
Even after Clinton left office, Barr continued to pursue him. He asked congressional investigators to study the extent of White House damage done by departing Clinton staffers and tried to build a "Counter Clinton Library" in Little Rock, Ark. He filed a $30 million lawsuit against Clinton, adviser James Carville and Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt for causing him "emotional distress" in retaliation for the impeachment proceedings.

Newt Gingrich isn't worried about Barr because, in his view, no "reasonable conservative" would vote for anyone but McCain. Good luck finding one of those.

< Searching For Leadership on Torturegate | Prosecutor Throws Case >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The New Ralph Nader? | 75 comments (75 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Short answer: no (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:07:37 PM EST

Honestly, I'm ambivalent about this bluster that Georgia is somehow in play. It's probably to Obama's benefit, but only if McCain actually decides to spend money there. If I were him, I probably wouldn't bother.

Insider Advantage Poll (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by CoralGables on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:19:22 PM EST

Here is the reason Georgia and Bob Barr get mentioned in the same breath.

McCain 44
Obama 43
Barr 6

The thought of McCain having to campaign in Georgia can't make the GOP happy.

[ Parent ]

Insider Advantage is pure junk (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:41:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Care to backup that statement? (none / 0) (#8)
by jtaylorr on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:56:18 PM EST

Considering they are based in Georgia, I think they know a thing or two about polling there.

[ Parent ]

I should introduce you to the Obama boosters (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:03:29 PM EST

who dismissed IA when it said that Mississippi was a 6 point race between Clinton and Obama. They were obviously wrong then, just as they are now.

Or how about this whopper from Iowa?

[ Parent ]

And like I said, (none / 0) (#13)
by jtaylorr on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:11:46 PM EST

they know a thing or two about polling Georgia.
Not Mississippi.
Not Iowa.
Georgia.
For example for the 2006 Gubernatorial race, their final poll was R+24 the result was R+20.
Admittedly, their primary polls for GA vastly underestimated Obama's win, but polling primaries and the GE are two different beasts (just ask ARG).

[ Parent ]

Oh, you like ARG now too? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:19:05 PM EST

heh, ok. Whatever.

There's no way Obama is winning Georgia. None. Texas would be easier.

[ Parent ]

Obama probably wont win Georgia. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by jtaylorr on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:31:57 PM EST

But I still can't understand why you have decided to unilaterally declare he has no chance. Maybe you're just a stubborn person. With several unknowns (Barr, black turnout) he has a definite chance. However small it may be.
But in reality, it doesn't matter if he wins or not.
All that matters is that as long as there's an illusion that Georgia is in play, John McCain will have to spend time and money defending it, which helps Obama in more vital swing states.

[ Parent ]

: There isn't a single poll showing him ahead (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:42:31 PM EST

And PRE Rev . Wright, he was well behind. How much more of the white vote do you think he can get than this? Is he going to bump AA turnout so much that it represents another 10% of the electorate? (Even if he does that, btw, he still narrowly loses.)
But if it makes you happy, I'll watch Georgia, just as I'll be watching California. lol.

[ Parent ]

Not Likely (none / 0) (#19)
by CoralGables on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:45:52 PM EST

Last three polls from Texas

McCain +13
McCain +16
McCain +13

You may hate polls, but these suggest Georgia is more competitive than Texas by a large margin. These polls may not mesh with your preconceived opinions but those are the numbers as of now.

[ Parent ]

: It's not just the polls, it's the demographics (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:49:19 PM EST

If it makes you happy, I frankly see little difference between the two states in terms of likelihood that Obama will win. His cash advantage could potentially be more useful in Texas, that's all.

[ Parent ]

They (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:12:06 AM EST

are no better at polling GA than any other firm. It's very unlikely that Obama will carry GA. McCain is not going to have the spread that Bush did but Obama can't win down here.

[ Parent ]

This could make a difference in a state or three. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Dalton Hoffine on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:21:32 PM EST

Ohio, Georgia, and Virginia immediately come to mind. Maybe a place like North Carolina too. Just a percent or two in a place like Ohio, or five or six points in Georgia or NC or VA could be all the difference. I think Barr will help us more than say, a Cynthia McKinney will help the Republicans.

Don't tell me you're on the Georgia bandwagon too? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:43:03 PM EST

McCain is going to win Georgia unless there's a 20 point national wipeout.

[ Parent ]

Why must you burst (none / 0) (#7)
by Radix on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:54:14 PM EST

our bubble?

[ Parent ]

Becaue "Clap if you believe in fairies" (5.00 / 7) (#10)
by dianem on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:59:25 PM EST

... is for children. We're all grown up and must live with realistic goals. I'm not going to win the lottery, marry a millionaire, or fit into a size 8. Obama is not going to win Georgia. :-)

[ Parent ]

You mean the "clap" thing is a myth? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by zfran on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:04:49 PM EST

Everywhere but in San Francisco... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by dianem on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:56:41 PM EST

...where everybody believes in fairies, and the public often applauds them. :-)

[ Parent ]

Never underestimate a woman scorned (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Mark Woods on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:42:44 AM EST

and never, ever, never underestimate the depth to which one's determined claws can sink into a cause when gripped by a RADICAL FAERIE -- and no, we're not just prancing about the Bay, We are EVERYWHERE:

Please see: http://www.radicalfaeries.net/

[ Parent ]

: i asked only one (none / 0) (#62)
by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:00:26 AM EST

thing of my son: don't parade in a tutu, please. He almost choked on that one, trying to tell me he'd never have thought of it. (But he does not object to others doing it, I believe.)

[ Parent ]

Mm. (none / 0) (#39)
by Dalton Hoffine on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:44:16 AM EST

I do think that's a tad exaggerated, 20 points, at least, but there is sort of a perfect storm that could brew for Obama.

I would further this statement by saying that if he DOES win GA, it won't really even matter because he'll have won a lot of other states as well--and be well over the 270 threshold.

It will require a number of things--one, strong AA turnout, which I think is likely, two--Sam Nunn on the ticket, less likely, and three--a ten point showing by Bob Barr, which is probably even less likely.

I don't think Obama will wind up taking Georgia, but I do think it's closer to a swing state than South Carolina or Louisiana are. VA and NC are the biggies, IMO.

[ Parent ]

Obama (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:20:05 AM EST

is not going to win GA. When the GOP 527's get through with him, he won't break 40% down here. AA turnout will not be enough to help Obama. He has to get more of the white vote down here to win and that's unlikely even with Barr. And don't forget that Barr takes votes from Obama too. Dems can register their displeasure by voting for Barr too not just Republicans.

[ Parent ]

My family is in Alabama (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by kempis on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:14:22 AM EST

When people predict that an energized AA block will deliver Southern states to Obama, they neglect to consider that Obama in no way is able to connect with most white Southern voters outside of liberals. Granted, considering Atlanta is pretty cosmopolitan, and Athens is pretty cool, there are some strong liberal neighborhoods in GA--as there are in urban centers throughout the South.

But if the moderate-to-conservative white Southerners are fired up against Obama--as they will be after the 527s are done--they will be voting for McCain in droves. This includes a fair number of white Democrats.

In my own, staunchly-FDR-Democratic, Southern family, even the young ones see Obama as some sort of alien figure because of Reverend Wright. Mudcat Saunders downplays Wright by saying we've all heard preachers say crazy things. True. But if a preacher in the South said "God damn America," he'd do so at his own peril.

People do not understand why Obama attended such a church for 20 years. As a result, they do not trust him or his judgment. He has a serious problem wooing these voters. They will really have to be convinced that McCain is a worse choice.

If windsurfing and swiftboating hurt Kerry, imagine what Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, and, yes, fair or not, Farrakhan, will do to energize an anti-Obama vote--not just in the South, either.

Oh (none / 0) (#46)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:37:27 AM EST

I think you've got a pretty good understanding of what's going to happen. The thing most "progressives" don't realize is that TUCC is NOT typical of black churches at least in the south. AME churches here are more of the norm.

Nobody believes that he didn't know what was going on. I'm a member of ECUSA and we had people leave the church because of the gay bishop in NH!

[ Parent ]

: TUCC (none / 0) (#60)
by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:57:39 AM EST

for sure is not your usual black church around here in SC.

[ Parent ]

I agree he'll shave a couple points (none / 0) (#48)
by jimotto on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:47:02 AM EST

off from the right wing radio crowd. Boortz, Hannity and Limbaugh have spent the last 8 years ripping McCain. Meanwhile, Barr has been a frequent guest with all these bozo's. He's well known amoungst this crowd. Barr will do well in the rural mountain areas (ie AM radio land) of Georgia, SC, and NC.

[ Parent ]

: I think I will vote (none / 0) (#59)
by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:54:25 AM EST

Nader here in SC instead of sitting home. Would not that be a clearer signal to the DNC than not voting at all? I disagreed with Nader about Hillary, but I won't vote Obama or McCain. I originally thought Nader cost Gore the WH, but that election was stolen, not lost. (Will SC have to put him on the ballot?)

[ Parent ]

This entire election is about who can destroy... (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by dianem on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:57:46 PM EST

...their party loyalty the least. Will it be McCain, who has a history of being relatively moderate and is not trusted by the far right, but is trying very hard to pander to that constituency, or will it be Obama, who has no history to speak of, but has already alienated a good portion of the Democratic base and seems determined to piss off the rest in order to reach moderates?

oh puhleeeze! (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by cpinva on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:50:11 PM EST

my cat has a better chance of taking votes in the GE than bob barr does. to most people, he's an embarrassment of the 90's, goodbye and good riddance.

obama isn't going to win GA, as long as there's a breathing republican in the race, the AA vote notwithstanding, so barr makes no significant difference. he won't win NC, SC, VA, AL or LA either, and barr would have no recordable impact in most of those states.

i still have hopes for the lottery!

There are plenty (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Claw on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:43:53 AM EST

Of Georgians who are not embarrassed by Barr. They're either lunatic fringe republicans who fondly remember the days when Barr was calling for Clinton's impeachment, or they're libertarians. As I said before, GA will most likely go McCain. But he will have to spend time and money campaigning to make sure he gets GA. That helps Obama.
Barr could be GA's Ross Perot. He'll do well here. Elsewhere, not so much.

[ Parent ]

VA (none / 0) (#27)
by Alec82 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:57:43 PM EST

That's still pretty clearly a swing state in a way GA is not.

AL, LA, no way. SC very unlikely, NC a stretch. But VA is very much at play and worth putting significant money into.

[ Parent ]

: I agree (none / 0) (#37)
by Jackson Hunter on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:04:02 AM EST

certainly as of now, VA is in play. The only hope in GA is to force McCain to spend/campaign there.
Let's not forget, gas could easily be under 3$ a gallon by November comes around, they always lower the prices for the Regressives. Even if that Newsweek poll is right (15 pt. spread) I expect the race to considerably tighten by Nov.
Jackson

[ Parent ]

This isn't a very fair (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:51:30 PM EST

portrait of Barr, I have to say. He's totally backed off from a lot of the things he used to push for, seems to have had some kind of "road to Damascus" experience about his former self.

I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher, but he has become a good deal more reasonable and rational in the last 6 or 7 years.

sigh (5.00 / 5) (#25)
by boredmpa on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:56:36 PM EST

We shouldn't be blaming third party candidates for spoiling elections, especially because they do it because it's the only way they can highlight issues in an anti-discourse democracy.

i was never a naderite, but I'm sick of the nader scapegoating, it's a very, very selective view of events that encourages blind adherence to the party system. It's fundamentally anti-democratic. Reintroducing that view with "the new ralph nader" ultimately is a method for squashing political dissent, and it marginalizes someone that has done a hell of a lot.

So I have to respectfully object to this post. Because lets face it, if you really want to take the "someone's a spoiler" view, you'd have to go for Gavin Newsom, a registered democrat. And then we'd have to have quite a discussion about when is it the right time to fight for things and who should wait their turn and what things shouldn't be advocated because they're too leftist. Those things are off limits, but branding thirty party candidates spoilers is apparently a-ok.

The issue with Nader, for me... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by Alec82 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:03:26 AM EST

...was the claim that Gore and Bush were essentially the same, in everything that mattered. Clearly untrue.

Unfortunately, the system as it is today discourages third parties. I would prefer a system that didn't but there you have it. Ultimately, they do end up as spoilers in close elections.

Perfection (or something close enough to it) is the enemy of the good and a friend of the truly bad.

[ Parent ]

: Every possible action (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by boredmpa on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:41:19 AM EST

is a spoiler in a close election.
Including support for gay rights (which people did complain about for a while), including racism, including sexism. Etc etc.
Highlighting a 3rd party candidate as the spoiler is dishonest. It's also politically naive because it encourages the party to blame others for losing, instead of looking at their own failings.

[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0) (#28)
by andgarden on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:59:32 PM EST

I like my received wisdom better than yours:

they do it because it's the only way they can highlight issues in an anti-discourse democracy.

Ridiculous.

[ Parent ]

: you're right (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by boredmpa on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:45:46 AM EST

they could, after all, buy ads during the super bowl. But somehow I don't think folks like Matt Gonzales have that kind of money.

[ Parent ]

Bob Barr, Tammy Baldwin, and me (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Ben Masel on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:57:04 AM EST

In the Fall of 2000, I was working to kill Censorship and "Secret Search Warrant" provisions of the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act which had unanimously cleared the Senate, and was pending in the House Judiciary Committee.

I first persuaded my Rep, Tammy Baldwin, a Committee member to remove the Bill from the Consent Calendar, putting it on the non-expedited review track.

Next stops were the Libertarian and Firearms boards, where I pointed out that the Secret Search provisions would impact firearms as well as drug investigations, and the censorship provisions provided a structure which, under a future Democratic Congress, could be applied to restrict discussion of firearms.

A week later, Tammy was back in Madison, and asked "Ben, How did you get Bob Barr to call me?" It seems that thru the first 3 years of their service on the Judiciary Committee, he'd rebuffed all her efforts to engage him outside formal session, going so far as to turn his back when she'd try to approach him in the hallway, due to her sexual orientation.

The objectionable provisions were stripped, the bill passed without them. Baldwin and Barr became friends, joined in a not very successful rearguard effort to amend Patriot.

Bob Barr is no Ralph Nader (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by lentinel on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:16:33 AM EST

I resent the equation: Ralph Nader = Spoiler.

Ralph Nader has done more to represent what used to be the ideals of the democratic party than most of those who call themselves democrats.

He didn't spoil the election for Gore.

Gore ran to the right of center. He chose Lieberman of all people as his running mate because he was so anxious to separate himself from Clinton. The two of them ran one of the worst campaigns I can remember, except maybe Kerry's.

Ralph Nader has improved all of our lives.

What the ** has Bob Barr done for anybody?

To equate the two - with the designation "spoiler" as the common denominator - is offensive to me.

Well said.... (none / 0) (#65)
by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:19:38 AM EST

I'm proud of my vote for Nader in 2000, my vote for Kerry in 2004, otoh, is the greatest shame of my voting life. I let the fear-mongers cloud my judgement.

Democrat or Republican? Never again, I cherish the ability to look in the mirror too much.

I much prefer Nader to Barr, but I'd gladly vote for either over the D or R du'jour.

[ Parent ]

very hard to believe, but we agree on something (none / 0) (#69)
by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:09:20 AM EST

How about Cynthia McKinnon?

[ Parent ]

You'd probobly be (none / 0) (#70)
by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:29:04 AM EST

amazed at how many things you two agree on.

The recent emotionally charged run-off created alot of illusory polarization, IMO.

[ Parent ]

: actually, (none / 0) (#71)
by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:49:25 AM EST

I think I have a pretty good idea of how much, and where, we would agree and disagree. It gets pretty easy to tell after a while.

[ Parent ]

Sure.... (none / 0) (#73)
by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:02:53 PM EST

I'd have no problem voting for her either....I'll vote for a piece of plankton provided the invertebrae isn't a member of the D's or the R's. It's not the candidate so much, it's breaking the two-party stranglehold.

I think we agree on a lot Molly...truth, justice, and the true American way for starters...we just differ on how to get there.

It's cool too...in America, I sincerely believe there is room for every brand of knucklehead to live and prosper as long as we respect each others unalienable rights.

[ Parent ]

I definitely agree with (none / 0) (#74)
by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34:26 PM EST

getting rid of the 2-party system. No one stands for anything anymore it seems.

I hate it when my husband is right, but he's been telling me this for 20 years. I guess I'm a slow learner:)

[ Parent ]

: They stand for things..... (none / 0) (#75)
by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:42:47 PM EST

cronyism, corporatism, occupation, and authoritarianism to name a few.
They just stand for anything I stand for....like liberty, peace, and justice.

[ Parent ]

Not Quite (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by CoralGables on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:05:32 AM EST

"with all the hate Obama and McCain inspire"

On the contrary, these are the type of statements that shoot from the lip. Here are your most recent factual numbers:

Favorable Ratings:
Bush 29
McCain 59
Obama 64

Unfavorable:
Bush 64
McCain 35
Obama 31

With both Obama and McCain having positive favorable ratings, and only low 30's each in unfavorable, there isn't nearly as much hate as you imagine.

: I don't read polls.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:27:08 AM EST

For example, I've been called by 2 polling outfits in the past week, and once they get to the party affiliation question and I say "independent", the call ends. I didn't even get a chance to rant!..:)
I don't trust polls as a useful indicator at all.
I think it's safe to say a lot of traditional Dems got no love for Obama, and a lot of traditional Repubs got no love for McCain. I predict the highest percentage for third parties since Perot this year.

[ Parent ]

I probably agree w/Barr on the witchcraft (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:19:05 PM EST

issue though.

Really? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Valhalla on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:25:20 PM EST

Something I could not state so (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:45:03 PM EST

boldly at DK, as a devoted Wiken posted there regularly.

[ Parent ]

Uhhh.... (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Alec82 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:54:20 PM EST

...what's your beef against Wicca? I have very strong opinions as to its claim of historical veracity and origins, but I have those problems with virtually all religions. Barr wanted to prevent the armed forces from providing the same accomodations they provide to other religions. That seems clearly wrong.

[ Parent ]

Wicca's a legit religion (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:16:27 AM EST

It's a little kooky in some places, but then, I think that about most religions. Transubstantiation anyone?

From my utterly superficial skimming on the web a little while ago, it sounds like Barr objected to a group of Wiccans who held some sort of sunrise/equinox service on a military base. Sounded like standing around in a circle and holding hands. They weren't even really asking for equality in services and support, like a chaplain-equivalent on staff.

The First Amendment doesn't allow the state to inquire into the validity of the practices and tenets of any religion when deciding which ones can be accorded respect and which not, as long as any practices are not violating any laws of general application. Which I think is an excellent principle, as almost any other path leads quickly to discrimination.

[ Parent ]

: If one religion is "legit".... (none / 0) (#76)
by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:44:33 PM EST

they all are.
I mean if one of the most legitimate can believe they are eating flesh and drinking blood every Sunday...how can you question any of 'em?

[ Parent ]

I think my "beef" was with the commenter (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:22:36 AM EST

at DK, not necessarily her religious beliefs.

[ Parent ]

"Witchcraft" as used by MSM (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:49:09 PM EST

is intended to be highly prejudicial. Wicca is the modern name, and it's a totally benign nature and planet-oriented spiritual approach.

Nobody's dancing around cauldrons with broomsticks or casting spells. OK, some wiccans may dance around naked at the solstice, but that's about as scandalous as it gets.

[ Parent ]

Oh heck (none / 0) (#34)
by shoephone on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:44:05 AM EST

We've got bicyclists riding naked in the Fremont Solstice Parade in Seattle. T'aint no thang. (They've only been around about twenty years though, not nearly as long as Wiccans have been doing... whatever it is they do.)

BTW, if the Wicca devised an informational guide would it be called wiccapedia?

Seriously, hasn't Bob Barr denounced his own prior stands on the drug war?

[ Parent ]

Re:Drug war (none / 0) (#53)
by Claw on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:46:56 AM EST

Yes. He has.

[ Parent ]

: I only hope.... (none / 0) (#66)
by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:20:49 AM EST

he is sincere.
These are politicians after all, when they're not taking pictures with babies they're stealing their candy.

[ Parent ]

For an open thread later (none / 0) (#36)
by shoephone on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:50:24 AM EST

George Carlin is dead.

Oddly, my ex-neighbor was his son-in-law, for a few years anyway.

: I almost shed a tear..... (none / 0) (#57)
by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST

this morning at the news. Carlin was a personal hero of mine, one the best and brightest comics and social commentators America has ever produced.
His genius is irreplaceable...

[ Parent ]

I don't understand (none / 0) (#42)
by bob h on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:57:00 AM EST

why Ron Paul, with is moneymaking facility, has given up so soon.

And what did he do (none / 0) (#49)
by eric on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:28:03 AM EST

with all that money?

I asked a friend, a hardcore Ron Paulite, why Paul isn't running as in independent or try for the Libertarian nomination. His reply, "Paul wants to change the Republican Party from the inside".

Good luck with that.

[ Parent ]

: I'll never understand why.... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:32:24 AM EST

the good guys in the crooked parties...the Pauls and the Kucinichs...why do they remain members of parties that have nothing but disdain and contempt for them and their ideas?
I just don't get it...have they no self respect?

[ Parent ]

Repubs vote Barr, Dems vote McCain (none / 0) (#47)
by fctchekr on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:46:26 AM EST

It's just going to depend who's more disenchanted with their party's choice in Nov. Right now Obama is losing ground daily because he's confirming our worst nightmare: he's a lie.

Not really (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by CoralGables on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:28:03 AM EST

"Right now Obama is losing ground daily"

It may make you feel better to think he is losing ground daily but I see no empirical evidence to suggest that to be the case.

If you take the first six head to head polls of June (around the end of primary season) and average them out, Obama was up +4.3

Taking the average of the six most recent polls in June after the primary season was over, Obama is up +6.3

This would suggest your statement is false and Obama is actually gaining.

[ Parent ]

Not really, really (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:11:54 AM EST

The polling outfits with daily tracking, Gallup and Rasmussen, have him little changed from the end of the primaries.

He only 'gains' if counting the NBC/Newsweek poll which is a large outlier (by 7 pts at least), and skews the numbers up. The Newsweek poll sample is a third of Gallup and Rasmussen daily polls.

So not nec. losing ground, but not nec. gaining it either, at least on the trends. The dailly numbers are not that far off the Obama-McCain matchups all through the primaries.

It's pretty early to start stating anything solid from polling. But if the polls suggest anything, it's that the numbers are fairly steady. If I were an Obama supporter, I would take more solace from that fact than an outlier poll from NBC/Newsweek.

[ Parent ]

: Sounds Fair (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by CoralGables on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:16:21 AM EST

We can do that. It's always a pleasure to play with the method a little. Taking the first six of June and the most recent six in June but throwing out the high and low of each as potential outliers these are your results:
1st six of June Obama +4.25
Most recent six Obama + 5.0
The gain is less but still a gain, so saying either a slight gain or fairly steady is acceptable. Saying his numbers are dropping would be false.

[ Parent ]

Figuratively... (none / 0) (#61)
by fctchekr on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:59:11 AM EST

He is losing ground daily, because instead of selling Kool Aid we are learning what he is really about. He should be way ahead in the polls, instead he is neck and neck. The more we learn about the person hiding underneath a vale of mythical proportions, the more voters don't like what they really see. Notice I did not use the word "poll" or "numbers."

No change there, just the same old, with more ego and less direct knowledge and experience.

[ Parent ]

Barr, Nader,.... (none / 0) (#51)
by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:36:03 AM EST

and my mailman are all preferable to the foreign occupying, anti-liberty, same-old same-old campaigns of McCain and Obama.

Who knows....one of my monkey-wrench candidates might crack 10% this year with all the hate Obama and McCain inspire.

Coral Gables belongs on KOS or Huff Post (none / 0) (#63)
by fctchekr on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:06:59 AM EST

For most of the primary, Obama camp thought the polls were meaningless. Now all of a sudden they have great meaning? When Hillary was beating him the polls didn't matter. Now they matter? BTW, for an unknown Obama's favorbilities should be zilch and would be if it wasn't for Pflager, Wright, Michlle, Rezko and on...

Your imagination is running a bit wild (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by CoralGables on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:26:53 AM EST

" Coral Gables belongs on KOS or Huff Post"

That might be a fair statement except I voted for Hillary. Now I back the Candidate of the Democratic Party. I enjoy number crunching, and could care less where the numbers lead.

[ Parent ]

: Not about numbers (none / 0) (#72)
by fctchekr on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:51:06 AM EST

You defend Obama in every post. Even those who support them as well as the rest of us who are better served by all of us looking at him realistically, not blindly, demanding that if he wants our votes, he has to earn them. I don't buy into the notion that we have to accept him because he's the presumptive nominee, no matter what anyone says, even HRC. If he in fact continues to prove that he is a hypocrit and an unworthy candidate, I won't support another false front, a candidate and a party who pretend to be something they are not. The party system is no longer the road to honest for the people government. At top two system would allow more viewpoints and less party control. That's the future of politics if the people have their say.

[ Parent ]

I will forever associate Barr with his (none / 0) (#68)
by tigercourse on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:08:09 AM EST

cameo in the Borat movie. The only better moment was with Alan Keyes.