home

Wreaking Havoc

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:52:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Republicans to Bob Barr: Don't run.

Bob Barr to Republicans:

“ ‘Well, gee, you might take votes from Senator McCain,’ ” Mr. Barr said this week, mimicking one of the complainers, as he sat sipping Coca-Cola in his plush corner office, 12 stories above Atlanta. “They all said, ‘Look, we understand why you’re doing this. We agree with why you’re doing it. But please don’t do it.’ ”

But with the Libertarian nomination in hand, Mr. Barr hopes to follow in the footsteps of Ross Perot and Mr. Nader, whose third-party presidential bids wreaked general-election havoc.

There's nothing quite so much fun as wreaking havoc on the Republican Party. Barr doesn't have much in the way of money or organization, but every vote he can siphon away from Republicans disgruntled with McCain is valuable. Go to it, Bob!

< Michelle Obama Reaches Out to Gays | Saturday Reading and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wreaking Havoc | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What makes you think... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by pmj6 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:19:04 PM EST
    ...that Barr will not attract disgruntled Obamaites in November? Barr's platform has more in common with Obama's than with McCain's. Both are ostensibly against the war in Iraq, for example, both like civil liberties, etc. Except for Barr these are actual convictions.

    So, as someone who would prefer McCain to Obama, I say, more power to him!

    Correct. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    I don't know why people are so sure that Barr hurts only Republicans. He's a place for displaced Dems to park their votes too.

    Parent
    Polls have already shown... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Thanin on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:27:05 PM EST
    that Barr added to the mix increase Obamas lead.

    Parent
    Sure... (none / 0) (#14)
    by pmj6 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:47:04 PM EST
    But we are still in June. The general election will be held in November.

    Parent
    Obviously... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:05:35 AM EST
    But some of the people around here are acting like theres absolutely no reason to suspect Barr will be a problem for republicans.  I was only pointing out what informs that belief.

    Parent
    Who might these "some people" be? ;) (none / 0) (#19)
    by pmj6 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:54:48 PM EST
    Your point is well taken, currently Barr does appear to take away votes from McCain rather than Obama. Whether this might have something to do with Obama still being an ill-defined, "blank-slate" candidate is still not clear.

    But it seems to me that the more Obama is in the spotlight, the more he does to hurt himself. We had FISA, SC rulings, all in one week, and look at the reaction on the O-blogs. There is likely to be much more of that between now and November.

    Parent

    esactly correct (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    I think Barr could be a bigger force in this cycle than some people are expecting.
    you are correct, he will get some republicans and by election more than a few disillusioned Obamans.


    Parent
    All the more so... (none / 0) (#6)
    by pmj6 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:34:59 PM EST
    ...since Obama is running a campaign based on his persona, not on his status as the Democratic Party nominee (at least that's what the campaign lit I'm being bombarded with suggests). This would make defections easier if the voter in question is not a Democratic Party loyalist.

    Parent
    As someone... (none / 0) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    ...who said this in February:

    "So, let's hope Hillary pulls it off in Texas and Ohio. Because if she doesn't, I'm going over into Nader's camp."...

    And is now openly schilling for McCane, forgive me if I discount any thoughts you have on "Democratic Party loyalists"

    Parent

    If you read my post carefully... (none / 0) (#13)
    by pmj6 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:45:45 PM EST
    ...you'd have noticed I was offering an opinion on people who are not blinkered to such an extent that they will vote Democratic no matter how much of a pack of spineless cowards that party happens to be. If that's what you aspire to being, that's your choice.

    Obama, in case you haven't noticed, is not running as a Democrat in any event. He's above it all, don't you know? As he himself likes to brag, much of his support comes from independents and even Republicans. So yeah, a few of those just might go over to Barr's side.

    As to Nader, I frankly love the guy. He's a great American. I know what he stands for and I agree with much of his agenda. I guess it's just too bad he's too untainted by corporate money to be of much use to the Democrats.

    And as to McCain, I believe he would be a better president than Obama for reasons I stated elsewhere. I'm sorry you find that offensive.

    Parent

    And another thing (none / 0) (#15)
    by pmj6 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:03:45 PM EST
    Don't forget that Kerry seriously entertained the possibility of McCain as a running mate in 2004. So, for a shill (note the correct spelling...), I think I'm in pretty good company.

    Parent
    Bob's Your Uncle. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST


    McCain doesn't have the Bush goons (none / 0) (#2)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    to work people over. How DID they get Buchanan not to run?

    This topic is not conducive to (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:12:04 PM EST
    unity.  However did they get Hillary Clinton to suspend her campaign?

    Parent
    Barr is having fun & a grand tour of USA (none / 0) (#8)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:05:39 PM EST
    at contributors' expense.  Plus, there's very likely a book deal, or 2, at the end of this gig.

    There may be 3 things here:

    1. Mr. Barr accurately assumes & recognizes that Sen. McCain is not going to win--so who cares about a 3rd, 4th or 5th party candidacy.  It's the more, the merrier.

    2. The Libertarians can promote an agenda that influences mainstream (maybe centrist?) ideas in the future & get a broader awareness of their positions.

    3. It gives an opportunity for the rightwingnutz, who've fed Mr. Barr's family for years, to legally piddle money away into the coffers of outlandish media (newswpapers & radio stations) that would not normally get political advertising.

    Also, it certainly feeds Mr. Barr's ego needs & desire for attention.

    Go Bob.  America awaits your message.

    Also a home for Paul's people (none / 0) (#10)
    by DaleA on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:33:12 PM EST
    Barr is not as purist as Paul, but comes close on many issues. Hope he and the LP are reaching out now to them.

    Not voting for Barr but . . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by MojaveWolf on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:36:15 PM EST
    I have a certain amount of respect for him and genuinely hope he gets a lot of attention for his some of his anti-authoritarian positions.

    Alas, he also has way too many socially conservative authoritarian positions of his own for me to vote for him, but he was more outspoken than all but a couple of democrats against the patriot act and has been good about opposing some of the policies that head us in the direction of becoming a police state for years.  

    If only he got that being pro-forced pregnancy and not giving the LGBT community the same rights as heteros were failing important parts of that whole "liberty" thing . . .  and if only all libertarians got that economic and personal freedom for the poor & middle class (even many of the upper class, to a lesser degree) is limited by all sorts of factors such that some sorts of government regulation/intervention actually expands rather than contracts overall personal freedom of choice (not sure what his environmental policies are, does anybody know?  ).  

    This is the best you can do? (none / 0) (#17)
    by pmj6 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:28:38 PM EST
    The absence of substantive response on your part is duly noted. Evidently ad hominem attacks is all you are capable of.

    It must be a weird feeling: to be so bothered by what someone else writes (to the point of obsessively counting the number of posts!) and yet to be unable to write a single cogent reply. How do you do that?

    Wreaking Havoc | 18 comments (18 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment