Nader Spills the Beans! "Ron Paul was pacing..."

[georgiaboy]

This is not proof he is out for revenge, in fact he has addressed this in interviews, and has said there is no hard feelings. Maybe that was actually is wake up call.

here's a blog entry talking about Barr/Revenge:
http://newworldliberty.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/bob-barr-campaign-pronounced-dead/

I'd say it's circumstantial evidence at best, and there's plenty of room for Barr to defend himself to his critics.

You asked for where the revenge angle was coming from -- 2002 primary is where people generally say it all started.

 

[ceakins]

here's a blog entry talking about Barr/Revenge:
http://newworldliberty.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/bob-barr-campaign-pronounced-dead/

I'd say it's circumstantial evidence at best, and there's plenty of room for Barr to defend himself to his critics.

You asked for where the revenge angle was coming from -- 2002 primary is where people generally say it all started.

Ah yes an article claiming Lew Rockwell slammed Barr, then link to articles on Lews site that well weren't written by Lew.

 

[jeepndesert]

Ah yes an article claiming Lew Rockwell slammed Barr, then link to articles on Lews site that well weren't written by Lew.

Charlie, I edited your first post to New World Liberty. You even stated in your second post, I was referring to LewRockwell.com, the site, not the person.

I have personal experience since I worked on the Carole Ann Rand campaign against Bob Barr in 2002. The way he snubbed Ron Paul reminded me of the way Bob Barr was in 2002. In 2002, Bob Barr was campaigning that he was a leader and had television ads with images of a raging black stallion. Bob Barr 2008 was starting to look a lot like Bob Barr 2002.

Several bloggers at LewRockwell.com and even David Nolan criticized Bob Barr for snubbing Ron Paul.

Bob Barr is no Ron Paul. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and tried to campaign for Bob Barr. However, it was difficult because of his past. He went from enemy of the Libertarian Party to top of the ticket in 6 years. His CIA past didn't help matters.

The Libertarian Party speculated back in the 90s that the Republican Party would try to take over the party. Memory of those days seemed applicable to the current situation with Bob Barr packing the convention with Georgia, Nevada, and California delegates. Subtract delegates from Georgia or California, and Dr. Mary Ruwart would have been the nominee.

Dr. Mary Ruwart was the obvious choice. She has no baggage and decades of experience campaigning as a Libertarian. She deserved the nomination and would have been the obvious choice to carry the Ron Paul torch.

Timing is everything. This was the Libertarian Party's year, and Bob Barr stole it.

 

[ARealConservative]

He says the LP split Barr's conservative vote, he lost a seat, he became a Libertarian rather suddenly and he adopted some issues designed to piss libertarians off and finally, publicly and purposely dissed Ron Paul to scuttle the party.

What the hell is hard to understand about this theory? Where are the holes in it?

the major hole in this dipshit theory is Barr will garner more votes and more attention for the Libertarian Party then any other candidate willing to run as a Libertarian.

Badnaretard couldn't even garner .5% of the vote which Barr will triple at a minimum.

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

Paid shills? Go fuck yourself, I've spent hundreds of dollars donating money and time to Ron Paul, I'm pushing the libertarian party because it's good thing if they get a high percentage vote. You aren't the only one that's met him multiple times, I have too. The man fucked the movement plain and simple, he dropped his principles to endorse a candidate and by extension a party that isn't pro-liberty.

the major hole in this dipshit theory is Barr will garner more votes and more attention for the Libertarian Party then any other candidate willing to run as a Libertarian.

Badnaretard couldn't even garner .5% of the vote which Barr will triple at a minimum.

hmm, Barr supporters first attack Patriots Paul, then Badnarik...

Sorry, but this isn't the time for ideological dogma, it is the time to support honest men(as if Barr was an ideologically pure libertarian LOL).

 

[ARealConservative]

hmm, Barr supporters first attack Patriots Paul, then Badnarik...

Sorry, but this isn't the time for ideological dogma, it is the time to support honest men(as if Barr was an ideologically pure libertarian LOL).

you are a frigging joke.

 

[tpreitzel]

hmm, Barr supporters first attack Patriots Paul, then Badnarik...

Sorry, but this isn't the time for ideological dogma, it is the time to support honest men(as if Barr was an ideologically pure libertarian LOL).

Ironically, if our nation is to remain free, it likely won't be due to the efforts of Libertarians. Later, after non-Libertarians have shed their blood securing liberty for all, the Libertarian fringe can sit back in their recliner, sip a cup of tea, and blab about their exploits to their grandchildren around a crackling fire. Comfy ...

If someone fires the first shot, it'll have to be a member of Republican or Democratic Parties.

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

you are a frigging joke.

Yes.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I do not empathize with the reactionary argument of "how dare Barr do that to Paul, he is now the son of satan in my eyes"....

I just view the incident as a mistake. People do make mistakes, conspiracy theories aside. Barr might have made the mistake of listening to a few bumblers in his campaign.

Since Barr is obviously not going to win, I'm not so much interested in the question of his moral integrity. No one can prove whether he is sincere, or insincere in his conversation to Libertarianism. If I vote for him, the vote would be based solely on the Libertarian platform.

Dr. Mary Ruwart was the obvious choice. She has no baggage and decades of experience campaigning as a Libertarian. She deserved the nomination and would have been the obvious choice to carry the Ron Paul torch.

Timing is everything. This was the Libertarian Party's year, and Bob Barr stole it.

Yeah Ruwart would have been much better.

 

[Knightskye]

I do not empathize with the reactionary argument of "how dare Barr do that to Paul, he is now the son of satan in my eyes"....

I just view the incident as a mistake. People do make mistakes, conspiracy theories aside. Barr might have made the mistake of listening to a few bumblers in his campaign.

Since Barr is obviously not going to win, I'm not so much interested in the question of his moral integrity. No one can prove whether he is sincere, or insincere in his conversation to Libertarianism. If I vote for him, the vote would be based solely on the Libertarian platform.

Common sense. I'd thought it was gone forever!

Yeah Ruwart would have been much better.

People would have complained that she was too much of a purist, and keep beating the dead horse about the porn thing. And they'd say we need someone "grounded" like Baldwin. We need liberty.

 

[escapinggreatly]

People would have complained that she was too much of a purist, and keep beating the dead horse about the porn thing. And they'd say we need someone "grounded" like Baldwin. We need liberty.

Liberty? What we "need" is a push to make libertarianism be seen as more mainstream, and less as just one of the many faceless, soulless "third parties where wackos go to die."
__________________

The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes.​

 

[ScotTX]

I was on the fence between Barr and Baldwin, but Barr helped me make my decesion by not showing up at the press conference. He actually turned me off to the Libertarian party since they nominated the scumbag turncoat traitor. I hope Dr. Paul runs again in 2012. He may be 76 years old at that time, but I find that somehow fitting!

 

[nobody's_hero]

Liberty? What we "need" is a push to make libertarianism be seen as more mainstream, and less as just one of the many faceless, soulless "third parties where wackos go to die."

Oh, libertarianism is going to become mainstream. As for Libertarian party itself? I don't know. I hope that they don't lose sight of the philosophy of liberty in their quest to be taken seriously.

 

[Knightskye]

Liberty? What we "need" is a push to make libertarianism be seen as more mainstream, and less as just one of the many faceless, soulless "third parties where wackos go to die."

Why's it faceless and soulless?

 

[ceakins]

Charlie, I edited your first post to New World Liberty. You even stated in your second post, I was referring to LewRockwell.com, the site, not the person.

I have personal experience since I worked on the Carole Ann Rand campaign against Bob Barr in 2002. The way he snubbed Ron Paul reminded me of the way Bob Barr was in 2002. In 2002, Bob Barr was campaigning that he was a leader and had television ads with images of a raging black stallion. Bob Barr 2008 was starting to look a lot like Bob Barr 2002.

Several bloggers at LewRockwell.com and even David Nolan criticized Bob Barr for snubbing Ron Paul.

Bob Barr is no Ron Paul. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and tried to campaign for Bob Barr. However, it was difficult because of his past. He went from enemy of the Libertarian Party to top of the ticket in 6 years. His CIA past didn't help matters.

The Libertarian Party speculated back in the 90s that the Republican Party would try to take over the party. Memory of those days seemed applicable to the current situation with Bob Barr packing the convention with Georgia, Nevada, and California delegates. Subtract delegates from Georgia or California, and Dr. Mary Ruwart would have been the nominee.

Dr. Mary Ruwart was the obvious choice. She has no baggage and decades of experience campaigning as a Libertarian. She deserved the nomination and would have been the obvious choice to carry the Ron Paul torch.

Timing is everything. This was the Libertarian Party's year, and Bob Barr stole it.

And you are? 1 Post, you could be a troll for all I know. Who is Dr. Mary Ruwart ? Never heard of her, and neither has anyone else, Bob Barr however is name recognition and that's what you don't get.

 

[ceakins]

Common sense. I'd thought it was gone forever!



People would have complained that she was too much of a purist, and keep beating the dead horse about the porn thing. And they'd say we need someone "grounded" like Baldwin. We need liberty.

So you think liberty is dictating what people do in their own home?

 

[jmlfod87]

And you are? 1 Post, you could be a troll for all I know. Who is Dr. Mary Ruwart ? Never heard of her, and neither has anyone else, Bob Barr however is name recognition and that's what you don't get.

She was the candidate favored to win the libertarian nomination before Bob Barr stepped into the race. She almost beat him too, it took 6 ballots and the endorsement of Wayne Allyn Root for Barr to secure the nomination.

 

[ARealConservative]

I do not empathize with the reactionary argument of "how dare Barr do that to Paul, he is now the son of satan in my eyes"....

I just view the incident as a mistake. People do make mistakes, conspiracy theories aside. Barr might have made the mistake of listening to a few bumblers in his campaign.

Since Barr is obviously not going to win, I'm not so much interested in the question of his moral integrity. No one can prove whether he is sincere, or insincere in his conversation to Libertarianism. If I vote for him, the vote would be based solely on the Libertarian platform.



Yeah Ruwart would have been much better.

great post Andew-Austin. It's unfortunate that this type of common sense isn't more prevalent in the movement.

 

[ceakins]

She was the candidate favored to win the libertarian nomination before Bob Barr stepped into the race. She almost beat him too, it took 6 ballots and the endorsement of Wayne Allyn Root for Barr to secure the nomination.

Again anyone outside of the Libertarian party even know about her?

 

[Truth Warrior]

Again anyone outside of the Libertarian party even know about her?

Yep, I did.