I referred specifically to Barr-haters. It's revealing that you assumed I was addressing you, even though I didn't.
Ok. Then who were you referring too? Seriously. You made a post explaining why you think everyone should support Barr. I responded with why I don't think that's a practical or good idea, one other person other person responded with "let's get them all in a debate" and then you come back "It looks like the Barr haters...blah...blah...blah." So who exactly were you taking about? Or more precisely what happened between your last two posts to cause your "Barr hater" comment.
If you had inhaled long enough to read my post objectively, you would have understood that I have not suggested Barr or any other 3rd party candidate could win. I simply stated that we need to be using the momentum of this movement to our best advantage.
Oh I read your post "objectively" alright. I'm just pointing out the major flaw in it. Not only will Barr not win
but he won't even come close. Momentum? What momentum? Hey Ralph Nader is actually ahead of Barr in some polls. We don't we all jump on the Nader bandwagon then? (Drumroll please) Because not everybody supports all of Nader's positions. I personally like Nader over Barr because I think Nader is at least genuine. But NONE of these candidates are anywhere near a tipping point. You'd get far more mileage finding a local candidate that close enough to your views and get out and start stumping / donating / whatever for him then you will trying to cat herd Ron Paul supporters to all support your presidential pick.
After the VP debate tonight, one of the pundits remarked that it was a good thing that there isn't a Ross Perot in the race because the country is fed up.
Yep. And to paraphrase Lloyd Benson "I know Ross Perot. Ross Perot is my friend. Bob Barr is no Ross Perot." (Ok, I really don't know Perot but you get the point.) If Bob Barr was such a great candidate you wouldn't have to be trying to cajole people into supporting him. They would just do it automatically. Trying to say "come on people. Let's all support this guy you don't all like because it will play up to the pundits" is just hollow. If people vote for Barr it will be because they've come to their own decision that he's the best man for the job. They're NOT going to do it just because some anonymous person on a forum tells them it's the "strategic thing to do". There are a lot of better strategies to move the movement forward.
They recognize that a third party would be in a good position to capitalize on this opportunity. We can't win this year, but that doesn't mean that we can't do some damage to the two-party monopoly by stealing a few million votes and possibly even a few critical electoral votes.
Nader's having more of an effect in some polls. I guess we should all vote Nader.
Here's the deal. We don't have to have a real effect to be heard.
We only need to have the PERCEPTION of an effect. What do I mean by that? Let's say if in a swing state Obama and McCain are separated by 200,000 votes. Let's say in that same state Nader gets 100,000 votes, Barr gets 90,000 votes and all other candidates combined get 12,000 votes.
If the combined 3rd party total is larger than the margin of defeat then the media will pay attention. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF NO ONE CANDIDATE BREAKS THE MARGIN OF VICTORY!
Now, let's say if there was some top down decision to "only support Barr" and Barr got 190,000 votes. Sure that's better for Barr. It's better for the libertarian party. But it does nothing to move the cause of liberty forward. That's a real possible scenario.
I simply suggested that Barr is in the best position to help us do that and we should put our preferences aside and work with him in that effort.
And I simply disagree for the reasons I've given in this thread and previous threads. And Ron Paul rallied behind Barr it would have splintered the movement. The position he originally took was the best under the circumstances. But that wasn't good enough for Barr and he decided to make a fight out of this. So the movement's getting splintered anyway. Really we'd get more mileage ignoring the presidential race at this point and focusing on something we all should be in agreement with and that's doing what we can to defeat those in congress who voted for the bailout. Thankfully this presidential election will be over in a month anyway. But then so will the congressional election. We're missing a lot of good opportunities by wasting time fighting over who should be the standard bearer for a presidential election that's already lost.
I respect your right to vote as you please, but at least try to accept the fact that some people are going to lobby hard to change hearts and minds in the midst of such a critical election as this.
*SIGH*
Try to freaking pay attention to what I write! I SAID THAT I LET A BARR SUPPORTING CANDIDATE STUMP AT OUR MEETUP GROUP WITHOUT CHALLENGE! So I obviously DO respect your right to lobby. But I
do not respect your characterization of people who disagree with you as "Barr haters"! Maybe you weren't talking about me, even though the flow of the conversation suggests otherwise. But that doesn't matter. I haven't seen ANY "Barr haters" in this thread! I've seen people who disagree with Barr on positions and because of that disagreement don't support him and I see Barr supporters who have a hard time accepting that fact. Lobby all you want. Make all of the points you want. But leave the name calling out of it.
Regards,
John M. Drake
But this wouldn't even be an issue if everybody (including Barr) would just stick with the plan. It was clear way before Ron Paul's "joint 3rd party announcement" that some in the movement would never support Barr and some would never support Baldwin. It's almost like asking everybody to support McCain or Obama. Had Ron Paul endorsed Barr there are a lot of people who would have either just not voted or gone ahead and voted for Baldwin anyway and that's the honest truth. You can't cat herd so why try? Why not follow the good advice you gave at the beginning of your post and be "tolerant and respectful of each others views"? At this point that means accepting the fact that we aren't all going to do what you might wish we all did and instead of focusing on that focus on what we all agree on and can accomplish. (Like making those who support the bailout pay dearly). To be honest if EVERYBODY that voted for Paul voted for Barr (and that's NOT going to happen) it will still really just be an insignificant protest vote. The only thing that matters is a) that the combined 3rd party protest votes is as high as possible and b) that we pick up some victories in some smaller elections where we really have a chance to win.
