Should libertarians consider Chuck Baldwin?

[Truth Warrior]

Considering Chuck Baldwin.

Hmmmmm?

Done!

Nope!

 

[familydog]

Truth is, even were I a died-in-the-wool BIG-"L" Libertarian party man ...I would find it impossible to "sell" Bob Barr without having to leave the room and vomit every 5 or 10 minutes, plus start taking prescription meds to sleep at night... no thanks!

 

[Aratus]

Spoken with the verve of a true libertarian-even-if-it-kills me mindless "anarchy" attitude.

• Tariffs are NOT evil in and of themselves.
• Tariffs ARE constitutional.
• Tariffs CAN be strategically beneficial (part of providing for defense).
• Tariffs CAN be economically beneficial.
• If used appropriately and judiciously, tariffs can PROMOTE freer trade.

And much like the media's falsely "labeling" of Ron Paul as an "isolationist" -- the label of "protectionist" is also just as often falsely applied to anyone who advocates the Constitutional use of Tariffs.



P.S. Oh, and Bradley... you have NOT thought the "Fair Tax" thing through far enough... in practive, it would actually be far WORSE than the current Income Tax arrangement on a number of fronts, and would provide the Government even MORE power over people than it currently has. (Start by thinking of the countless number of ways that the "prebate" could be confiscated, withheld, "temporarily suspended" etc -- in short it could be used in a punitive fashion, w/o any practical recourse or redress other than a long delayed court battle w questionable outcome.)

going into the deeper questions about
our tax codes highlights all revenue
sources... this highlights tariffs...

 

[Paulitician]

Chuck Baldwin is better in my opinion for his integrity. I don't like his trade policy of so-called "fair trade" which could cause another Great Depression if a trade war breaks out. But I'm not voting for anyone this year. I've given up on our civil government.

 

[familydog]

Chuck Baldwin is better in my opinion for his integrity. I don't like his trade policy of so-called "fair trade" which could cause another Great Depression if a trade war breaks out. But I'm not voting for anyone this year. I've given up on our civil government.

What is Satan's position on trade policy?

 

[Paulitician]

There's no need for trade, since everything would be destroyed

Vote Satan!

Satan 08!

 

[stevedasbach]

As far as I know the best we got from Barr is an "I support him" thing. Which is different from an official endorsement technically. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me anybody. He also introduced Ron Paul at CPAC. But all of this wasn't until late last year whereas Baldwin was there for Ron Paul from the begining, campaigning for him, etc. The same can't be said for Barr.

Maybe Barr wanted to see how popular the movement was going to get before jumping on the bandwagon?

Ron Paul is considered libertarian, and he considers Chuck Baldwin. So I don't see why not.

Barr donated $1000 to Paul's presidential campaign. He, along with a majority of the LNC, also tried to persuade Paul to seek the LP nomination.

 

[Cowlesy]

Barr donated $1000 to Paul's presidential campaign. He, along with a majority of the LNC, also tried to persuade Paul to seek the LP nomination.

Did he do it through a PAC or something? All I am coming up with is $500 to Libertarian Party.

BARR, BOB MR
ATLANTA,GA 30327 SELF-EMPLOYED/ATTORNEY 7/9/07 $500 South Carolina Libertarian Party (L)

Could be a different Bob Barr I guess too. I checked fec.gov and opensecrets.org with his name.

 

[familydog]

Barr donated $1000 to Paul's presidential campaign. He, along with a majority of the LNC, also tried to persuade Paul to seek the LP nomination.

That's cool and all, but way back last year I and apparently some others were looking for an official endorsement. That never happened. Barr refused to endorse Ron Paul as long as he stayed a Republican, which to me is silly. This whole "I'll endorse you but you have to do something in return" is garbage. It seems to me, if Barr was looking out for Paul, and not just himself, he would have taken the few minutes to actually endorse Ron Paul. In the large scheme of things, an official endorsement doesn't matter in the end. However, at least to me, it is very telling about the character of Barr. He just couldn't go the extra mile without strings attached. The few sitting and aspiring politicians who did officially endorse Paul possibly put their career on the line, but to them there are some things more important. *shrug*

 

[WRellim]

Did he do it through a PAC or something? All I am coming up with is $500 to Libertarian Party.

BARR, BOB MR
ATLANTA,GA 30327 SELF-EMPLOYED/ATTORNEY 7/9/07 $500 South Carolina Libertarian Party (L)

Could be a different Bob Barr I guess too. I checked fec.gov and opensecrets.org with his name.

Apparently, it was PAC money.

Which, now that you mention it, Mr. Barr seems to have some "challenges" regarding understanding the purpose of PAC's.... an article in Atlanta Journal-Constitution is most enlightening as to his *ahem* character, financially speaking:

On April 1, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote to rally conservatives across the country to stop liberals from solidifying control of Congress.
[...]
The Bob Barr Leadership Fund, he wrote, has played a "tremendous role" in helping conservative Republicans defeat liberal congressmen. Since 2003, Barr's PAC has raised $4.3 million with similar mailings.

But only a small portion of that money has made its way to Republican campaigns.

In the last five years the fund has given $125,200 — about three cents of every dollar raised — to federal candidates and other campaign committees, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found in a review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Another $81,875 went to state and local campaigns.
[...]​

Read the rest:
http://www.ajc.com/health/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html



.

 

[familydog]

Apparently, it was PAC money.

Which, now that you mention it, Mr. Barr seems to have some "challenges" regarding understanding the purpose of PAC's.... an article in Atlanta Journal-Constitution is most enlightening as to his *ahem* character, financially speaking:

On April 1, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote to rally conservatives across the country to stop liberals from solidifying control of Congress.
[...]
The Bob Barr Leadership Fund, he wrote, has played a "tremendous role" in helping conservative Republicans defeat liberal congressmen. Since 2003, Barr's PAC has raised $4.3 million with similar mailings.

But only a small portion of that money has made its way to Republican campaigns.

In the last five years the fund has given $125,200 — about three cents of every dollar raised — to federal candidates and other campaign committees, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found in a review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Another $81,875 went to state and local campaigns.
[...]​

Read the rest:
http://www.ajc.com/health/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html



.

Hopefully he will have another one of his conversions and in the future not waste anymore of people's money.

 

[revolutionary8]

"If we don't act fast – I'm afraid conservatives may well lose out again!" he implored in a letter sent by his political action committee.

The Bob Barr Leadership Fund, he wrote, has played a "tremendous role" in helping conservative Republicans defeat liberal congressmen. Since 2003, Barr's PAC has raised $4.3 million with similar mailings.

But only a small portion of that money has made its way to Republican campaigns.

In the last five years the fund has given $125,200 — about three cents of every dollar raised — to federal candidates and other campaign committees, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found in a review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Another $81,875 went to state and local campaigns.

The fund spent more than $710,000 in that period on administrative costs, including office expenses, $41,109 in salary for Barr's son Derek and a $500 political consulting fee for his son Adrian. It also paid $865 for travel for Barr's wife, Jeri.

Most of the fund's spending — $3.3 million, or about 78 percent of all gifts from donors — paid for raising more money, including mailing lists, postage and telemarketing.

"It costs money to raise money," Barr said.

In the letter, Barr told potential donors the fund played a "tremendous role" in ousting Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) in 2004 and provided "critical funding" in 2006 for freshman Rep. Michele Bachman (R-Minn.). But records show the fund made modest donations in those races: $1,000 to John Thune, Daschle's opponent, and $1,500 to Bachman.

The letter states he also raised tens of thousands of dollars in 2002 for Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). The organization, however, donated nothing to Chambliss that year; a fund official wrote in an e-mail that Barr, not the fund, helped raise about $20,000 for that race.

Over the years, the federal candidate who received the most contributions from Barr's fund has been Barr himself — $10,000. The fund gave $12,000 to the Libertarian National Committee.

The letter made no mention of Barr's recent campaign for the Libertarian Party's nomination for president, in which he has criticized many Republicans in Congress. Libertarians will choose their candidate at a convention this week in Denver.

Barr, a former federal prosecutor, defended the fund's solicitations and expenditures in a telephone interview. He declined to answer questions about individual donations and the letter's characterization of their importance.

"I won't be cross-examined" about the fund's finances, he said.

In an e-mail, the fund's treasurer, Paul Kilgore of Athens, wrote that the letter was "in production well before the decision to form an exploratory committee was reached. ... [T]here is certainly no requirement that we mention anything specifically in our letters."

The fund "is designed to further conservative and libertarian ideals that I espouse," Barr said. That includes some travel expenses, he said, as he speaks at political gatherings, universities and law schools.

Barr brushed aside questions about high fund-raising costs and the number of direct donations to candidates and causes.

"Fine, it doesn't operate the way other PACs operate," he said. "Next question."

I wish that he would answer the questions and be honest about where all of the donor money is going.
Michele Bachman will be here with Ron Paul-
http://www.freedom21.org/

Thune is a neocon from hell. I guess it's best that the PAC didn't go all in

 

[stevedasbach]

Did he do it through a PAC or something? All I am coming up with is $500 to Libertarian Party.

BARR, BOB MR
ATLANTA,GA 30327 SELF-EMPLOYED/ATTORNEY 7/9/07 $500 South Carolina Libertarian Party (L)

Could be a different Bob Barr I guess too. I checked fec.gov and opensecrets.org with his name.

I believe it was through his PAC.

 

[Cowlesy]

I believe it was through his PAC.

Ah, I see.

 

[Cowlesy]

Apparently, it was PAC money.

Which, now that you mention it, Mr. Barr seems to have some "challenges" regarding understanding the purpose of PAC's.... an article in Atlanta Journal-Constitution is most enlightening as to his *ahem* character, financially speaking:

On April 1, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote to rally conservatives across the country to stop liberals from solidifying control of Congress.
[...]
The Bob Barr Leadership Fund, he wrote, has played a "tremendous role" in helping conservative Republicans defeat liberal congressmen. Since 2003, Barr's PAC has raised $4.3 million with similar mailings.

But only a small portion of that money has made its way to Republican campaigns.

In the last five years the fund has given $125,200 — about three cents of every dollar raised — to federal candidates and other campaign committees, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found in a review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Another $81,875 went to state and local campaigns.
[...]​

Read the rest:
http://www.ajc.com/health/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html



.

Wow. I read the rest of that article and it is a stinger.

 

[Kade]

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/05/should-libertarians-consider-chuck-baldwin/

Should libertarians consider Chuck Baldwin?
May 27th, 2008 · 14 Comments

Following the nomination of former Republican congressman Bob Barr, many Libertarians are struggling with whether they’ll be able to support their party’s candidate.

Bob Barr’s positives are obvious to all. The 46% of LP delegates who rejected him on the final ballot were well aware of Barr’s pros, and decided they were outweighed by his cons. Many felt they could support the LP ticket if it were given balance by Steve Kubby’s nomination as VP, but the plan fell short by a few votes.

Still, the majority of Ruwart backers were begrudgingly willing to support Barr. This cohort was increased, no doubt, by Dr. Ruwart’s LNC election victory, and that of her campaign manager, Lee Wrights. But there remain many Mary supporters — as evidenced by the comments on this blog — who range from unsure to outright unwilling to support Barr. The question: Is Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin a suitable alternative?

To most radicals, the answer is a firm no. Baldwin, a Baptist minister, is not shy about his religion. He is fervently pro-life and somewhat hostile to pro-choicers. His views on homosexuality will not win over many radicals, and his stances on immigration (seal the border, protect American jobs, protect American culture) and free trade (he’s for “fair” trade) are most troubling of all.

But now for the positive: Chuck Baldwin will be the only candidate on the ballot (where the CP has access) who is against fiat money and the Fed. After the educational gains Ron Paul made in this libertarian area, many radicals are disappointed that their candidates appear unconcerned by monetary reform. Secondly, Baldwin is a committed constitutionalist. He does not advocate unconstitutional measures to further his socially conservative agenda. He has opposed DOMA and the federal-marriage amendment, and also opposes a national abortion ban.

Finally, in contrasting to Bob Barr, Baldwin does not support the Fair Tax, and is not a former CIA operative. He is a firm non-interventionist and opposed the PATRIOT Act from day one. He’s against foreign aid, both military and monetary. And he has been unwavering in his political convictions for many years.

Many radicals have said they could never support Baldwin or any Constitution Party candidate. However, a subset of the radical caucus — call them the “Rockwellian tendency” — can overlook personal views they disagree with in deference to philosophy of governing. To this distinct minority of libertarians, Baldwin’s pro-life and anti-gay views are of little concern, but his anti-immigration and anti-free trade positions are and will be troubling. It will be a matter of weighing the pros and cons.

Murray Rothbard, hero to the radicals, supported Pat Buchanan with many of the same views that Baldwin now advocates. Will the radicals, at least those of a Rockwellian bent, throw their support behind Baldwin? Or will they be won over by Bob Barr? Only time will tell.

Filed Under: Constitution Party · Libertarian Party
14 RESPONSES SO FAR ↓
1neuralnoise // May 27, 2008 at 2:02 am

Bah. A principled stand for a third party is one thing, but if one is to abandon principle for the least evil on the ballot –

the least evil can actually win this time, and his name is Obama.

2G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 2:06 am

Knowing that either “Bom-Bom-Bom, Bom-Bomb Iran” McCain or Obama is going to win, I will be rooting for Obama. But I will not be voting for him.

3Lance Brown // May 27, 2008 at 2:14 am

If libertarians are going to vote for a flawed libertarian, they should vote for the Libertarian one. (Bob Barr.) The Constitution Party is a distraction; the LP remains and will remain the best vehicle for electoral advances toward liberty.

4Mike Theodore // May 27, 2008 at 2:16 am

Constitution Party just seems like a party for old pastors that like liberty, but can’t stomach the social freedom of the LP. I wouldn’t vote for these guys.

5Kris Overstreet // May 27, 2008 at 3:00 am

I personally can’t consider Chuck Baldwin as a candidate without first thinking of him as the standard-bearer of a theocratic political movement. The enforcement of Biblical standards of conduct and social mores with the power of government is so utterly abhorrent to me that it overrides all other considerations.

When the Constitution Party adopts secularism and abandons, once and for all, its naked Christian fundamentalist agenda, then maybe I’ll reconsider.

6MattSwartz // May 27, 2008 at 3:06 am

It’s easy for me to support Baldwin because I’m already fairly socially conservative for a libertarian (you can say that for this reason I’m not a libertarian, but I didn’t ask you).

The war, federalism, sound money, abortion, fiscal responsibility, and shrinking the size of the Federal Government are my issues, and Baldwin represents me perfectly on all of them. I wish he were less pushy about Christianity, because I think that’s unbecoming, and I accept that he arrives at his positions using a different rationale than I do, but for me, Baldwin’s the best candidate on the ballot.

7G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 3:09 am

Matt - You don’t care about free trade?

8MattSwartz // May 27, 2008 at 3:13 am

I care about it, yes, but not as much as I care about the things I mentioned.

Protectionism is a bad idea, and if it were our main trade philosophy, things would get ugly, but it doesn’t rise to the level of life-taking policies (war, abortion) or fraudulent policies (FedGov domination, inflation money) in my calculus of disapproval.

9G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 4:02 am

Protectionism has killed more human beings than abortion has. I’ll bet you that.

10MattSwartz // May 27, 2008 at 4:07 am

If you count in war dead, then you’re probably right, but I don’t see what that has to do with a non-interventionist candidate in a country where protectionism, while unwise, won’t lead to starvation.

11G.E. // May 27, 2008 at 4:11 am

Protectionism has, throughout history, led to economic stagnation and poverty. This has held back increases in the standards of living, most notably in health and medicine. The feudalist and mercantilist systems, of which protectionism was the foundation, murdered virtually every human being who ever lived under them before their time.

But going forward, I still would bet that protectionism would have greater effect on human life than abortion. Not to mention that protectionism promotes war. Protectionism probably also promotes abortion!

12bsharitt // May 27, 2008 at 6:37 am

Being a Christian wack job and formerly working for the moral majority is just as bad as being a former drug warrior in my book, maybe even worse. I could never vote for a candidate from the bible thumping constitution party.

13Simon Girty // May 27, 2008 at 7:11 am

I see two reasons to remain hopeful in the future of the LP. One, Barr’s conversion to libertarianism might be real. Two, the LP can be rescued and put back on the right track in the future. Baldwin is what he is and will never change and the Constitution Party will never replace the LP.

14Bill Woolsey // May 27, 2008 at 8:04 am

I read Baldwin’s take on the Fed and I found it troubling.

Paul, of course, is a critic of the Fed and favors a return to the gold standard. However, his actual monetary reform program is to end legal restrictions that interfere with the use of gold as a parallel currency.

Badlwin doesn’t say anything about gold or even fiat currency. He calls for a nondebt, noninterest currency. In other contexts, he is complaining about the bankers.

Well, I read this as Baldwin believing the false conspiracy theory that the private owners of the Federal Reserve are making large profits from interest on the issue of “debt-based” federal reserse notes. And, further, the currency he is proposing is a straight fiat currency issued by the Treasury.

Paul’s position on fiat currency was always one version or other of sound, free market economics. Paul explains that the polticians
are spening newly created money and that this leads to inflation. He also emphasizes (to much,
in my opinion) the distortions in production
caused by excessively _low_ interest rates
during the inflationary process.

As an aside, many, if not most, libertarian economists today, favor having all money issued by private competing banks. With
many favoring a tie to gold through redemption.

Having all fiat money issued directly by the
Treasury is a step in the wrong direction.
Especially if the noition is that you are somehow
saving money by cutting out the “profits” made
by the owners of the Fed.

This was a good write-up.