Newt Gingrich Bob Barr: Libertarians should vote for Gingrich

[Kade]

I just need to make a small presence on this thread; you all know how I feel about ol' Bob 'Planter's Wart' Barr...

 

[Just Flossin']

Didn't he endorse Romney a few months ago?

 

[jmdrake]

Just because Bob Barr sucks (and I think we all knew he sucked in 2008 as well) doesn't mean Chuck Baldwin isn't a theocrat (his party is most certainly theocratic).

The Constitutionalist party is not theocratic in the Rick Santorum sense of the word and no more theocratic than Ron Paul. (Which is why Ron Paul was happy to endorse Chuck Baldwin). They believe in returning power to the states. Yes that would mean some states might ban Hustler. Then the whole "democracy of your feet" that some folks harp on would kick in. And no. We didn't "all" know he sucked. Some folks vehemently argued on Bob Barr's behalf. And to be honest, I didn't know he sucked until he snubbed then attacked Ron Paul for not exclusively endorsing him.

 

[specsaregood]

Then the whole "democracy of your feet" that some folks harp on would kick in.

Indeed. Want to fill the goal for the free state project? Start banning porn in other states, NH will get flooded with brand new "libertarians".

 

[PatriotOne]

I agree. I don't know that he's CIA, but he's a neocon imposter for sure. He switched over to discredit the party and hijack the movement.

If the Libertarian Party ever gets big, expect plenty more Establishment phonies to come invade it.

He really is CIA. It's not a secret he once worked for the CIA. You can find that info easily...even in his wikipedia entry. The only secret is that he still does under the guise of a libertarian.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Example #96395 why the LP is a joke.

And yet, some here and in the LP still want to go with the "most electable" candidate.

 

[Brett85]

Just because Bob Barr sucks (and I think we all knew he sucked in 2008 as well) doesn't mean Chuck Baldwin isn't a theocrat (his party is most certainly theocratic).

Chuck Baldwin supports ending the federal war on drugs, and he opposes a federal marriage amendment, because he thinks that gay marriage should be handled on a state by state basis. How exactly is that "theocratic?"

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Chuck Baldwin supports ending the federal war on drugs, and he opposes a federal marriage amendment, because he thinks that gay marriage should be handled on a state by state basis. How exactly is that "theocratic?"

The Constitution Party is certainly theocratic; Chuck Baldwin is much less a theocrat and more a Constitutionalist. If the CP continues to move in that direction, I'd be more willing to give it support.

 

[Brett85]

The Constitution Party is certainly theocratic; Chuck Baldwin is much less a theocrat and more a Constitutionalist. If the CP continues to move in that direction, I'd be more willing to give it support.

Yeah, but even the Constitution Party's platform opposes the federal war on drugs, so they at least understand the 10th amendment. That's a big difference between their social conservatism and Rick Santorum's social conservatism.

 

[Brett85]

But, unfortunately, it looks like the Constitution Party is going to nominate Virgil Goode this time, who is quite a bit different than Chuck Baldwin. He's more socially conservative than Baldwin, which many here won't like. But the reason I won't vote for him if he's the CP nominee is that he supported the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. If I wanted to vote for someone like that, I could just vote for Romney in the general. So, I think I'll just end up writing Ron Paul's name on the ballot.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

But, unfortunately, it looks like the Constitution Party is going to nominate Virgil Goode this time, who is quite a bit different than Chuck Baldwin. He's more socially conservative than Baldwin, which many here won't like. But the reason I won't vote for him if he's the CP nominee is that he supported the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. If I wanted to vote for someone like that, I could just vote for Romney in the general. So, I think I'll just end up writing Ron Paul's name on the ballot.

Disgusting. I was almost assured of not supporting the CP in this cycle, but now I'm adamantly fighting against it and will advocate for its dissolution.

 

[BuddyRey]

Let's not rehash the past. Barr and Baldwin both sucked. No one should be blamed for voting for who he or she saw as the lesser of those two evils.

 

[Brett85]

Disgusting. I was almost assured of not supporting the CP in this cycle, but now I'm adamantly fighting against it and will advocate for its dissolution.

Well, he hasn't won their nomination yet. We'll just have to see what happens.

 

[Brett85]

Let's not rehash the past. Barr and Baldwin both sucked. No one should be blamed for voting for who he or she saw as the lesser of those two evils.

How exactly does Baldwin "suck?" His positions on the issues are almost exactly the same as Ron Paul's, and he's written numerous articles supporting Ron Paul's run for President this year. Ron Paul endorsed Chuck in 2008 as well. That should tell you something.

 

[unknown]

So many phonies, so little time.

 

[Kluge]

Let's not rehash the past. Barr and Baldwin both sucked. No one should be blamed for voting for who he or she saw as the lesser of those two evils.

What? I'm not even close to religious, but I think Baldwin is a pretty solid fellow.

 

[Kluge]

But, unfortunately, it looks like the Constitution Party is going to nominate Virgil Goode this time, who is quite a bit different than Chuck Baldwin. He's more socially conservative than Baldwin, which many here won't like. But the reason I won't vote for him if he's the CP nominee is that he supported the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. If I wanted to vote for someone like that, I could just vote for Romney in the general. So, I think I'll just end up writing Ron Paul's name on the ballot.

Virgil Goode, if I recall correctly, isn't much better than Bob Barr.

The LP, as usual, is a giant bag of fail. I expected better for the CP.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Well, he hasn't won their nomination yet. We'll just have to see what happens.

The very idea that an ultra-statist hack has any chance of winning the nomination of a third party that purports to defend limited government (setting aside the CP's stances on social issues) indicates that the fabric of the party is infected with a cancer. There is no basis for the CP to be in good standing in the base of the liberty movement; it should be booted post-haste and be considered nothing more than an occasional ally in the liberty coalition.

 

[y0kkles]

Isn't it a little late for Bob Barr to try to pump up Newt? Newt's moment is over and I don't see him rallying again.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Chuck Baldwin > Bob Barr

Yeah. One understands liberty, the other doesn't.