Why the change of heart from Bob Barr?

[Kade]

From everything I'm reading, Bob Barr was everything I hate in a politician. He was strongly in favor of the unconstitutional "drug war". He voted for the war in Iraq, proposed that religious freedom be eliminated in the military (just for Wiccan's naturally) and even MORE egregious - he voted for the Patriot Act. In other words, this man was no man of freedom. So, the question has to be asked. How, in just the past few years, could his life long belief system change so dramatically? Or - has it? Is it all a show?

Don't forget this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03396:

 

[BarryDonegan]

Bob Barr changed his mind... like a lot of people on these forums.

You can cling to Ron Paul's golden voting record for the rest of eternity and talk about what could've been to your grandchildren, or you can support people who change with you, and support the changing tide in America.

Obviously Bob Barr is not a CIA or Neocon plant. If he really was a neocon plant, would it benefit them to put a more visible candidate into the libertarian party and get their poll numbers up?

would a 10% finish from Bob Barr, empowering the next Libertarian candidate, who will not be Bob Barr, benefit the neocons?

do they really want to put power in the hands of a movement that opposes everything they are?

obviously not. Bob Barr will not become president, so the more visible he is, with his current talking points, the closer we are to a Libertarian president.

I showed my father, a Reagan turned Republican who voted for both George W.s Ron Paul. He voted for Ron Paul. he is very opinionated, and does not like McCain, but feels you have to support McCain to avoid Obama. I showed him Bob Barr on Glenn Beck, and he said, I don't know about this, it feels like a wasted vote, but I definately get it.

4 years earlier the idea was completely silly to him. These are unusual times, and there is a lot of grassroots in the conservative movement that are not being used, whether its in the liberty movement, or the christian coalition, or whatever. Bob Barr's old voting record is a blessing, because it PROVES that he is ONLY joining the liberty team because he UNDERSTANDS that limited government protects his CHRISTIAN way of life.

The libertine image of the Libertarian party has been our historic crutch, and this is our moment, where people who are clearly not libertine are joining.

there is NO TYPE OF PERSON who liberty benefits more or less, we need more people who don't fit the old mold in order to prove this point.

 

[familydog]

In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger,
"Someone has made a mistake. I mean, someone has, for 20 or 30 years, been in the wrong place with his idea and with his ideology and says, 'You know something? I changed my mind. I am now for this.' As long as he's honest or she's honest, I think that is a wonderful thing. You can change your mind," Schwarzenegger said. "I have changed my mind on things and there is nothing wrong with it."

Saying you've changed your mind is one thing, but proving it is another. While he has done some good work with certain issues since he has been out of Congress, yet 90% of his terrible voting record has not be atoned for. He won't even acknowledge he was wrong on so many issues.

People can change. But when they ask me for money, time, and dedication, I need more than just "trust me."

 

[svf]

He won't even acknowledge he was wrong on so many issues.

* Bob Barr: I Was Wrong About The War On Drugs -- It's A Failure

* “I voted for the Patriot Act– but I certainly would not do it again. It was probably the worst vote I cast in Congress... one of my primary activities over the last five years since leaving Congress has been trying to undo the damage wrought by the Patriot Act and preventing further abuses.”

* "The Defense of Marriage Act insofar has provided the federal government a club to club down rights of law-abiding American citizens, has been abused, misused, and should be repealed, and I will work to repeal it..."

etc. etc.

 

[BarryDonegan]

Saying you've changed your mind is one thing, but proving it is another. While he has done some good work with certain issues since he has been out of Congress, yet 90% of his terrible voting record has not be atoned for. He won't even acknowledge he was wrong on so many issues.

People can change. But when they ask me for money, time, and dedication, I need more than just "trust me."

leaving the republican party.

period.

most politicians would consider that political suicide. he could have just as easily kept his talking points and ran for president as a Republican, he would've probably afforded at minimum the same treatment as the other guys. he left the republican party for the libertarian party, and is one of a small list of elected officials to do so. the sheer fact that he did it sets a precedent for others to follow. if 10 follow in the near future, we have a real change coming.

 

[BarryDonegan]

in fact, the other thing that this Bob Barr presidency does for the liberty debate, is weakens the argument in defense of acts such as the patriot act, defense of marriage act, and the war on drugs.

when one of its strongest supporters turns coat, and says, look, I do not personally appreciate drug use, the homosexual lifestyle, etc, to the extent that I fought hard against these lifestyles, I realize now that legislating against it doesn't work and is immoral, and threatens my values as well

when you have someone turning coat like that it severely weakens the moral authority of its crusaders.

its very similar to Jane Doe from the Roe V. Wade trial changing sides and admitting she never had the abortion. its a very significant event and makes their activism even more noteworthy.

look at the glenn beck example, which is the most public person having a crisis right now which is compelling him towards the liberty movement.

he thought of libertarianism as whacko extremism, but then he talks to ron paul. ron paul is more conservative than he is. then he has bob barr in there talking to him. it probably looks to him like people are turning left and right, and that its not drug addict gun toting maniacs, its christian conservative people who are giving up on the idea of legislating morality.

slowly he starts to give more and more ground, admitting the NAU, admitting the dollar crisis, hes having trouble with the war on drugs and on terror, but a lot of that probably comes from either his corporate handlers or just plain old emotional attatchment to values. you can't go through a change in beliefs without a certain amount of stress, which limits the amount of ground you can give at a time. give him a bit longer and he might find mises, rothbard or a group like that, which makes goldwater conservatism look like Air America

 

[Kade]

in fact, the other thing that this Bob Barr presidency does for the liberty debate, is weakens the argument in defense of acts such as the patriot act, defense of marriage act, and the war on drugs.

when one of its strongest supporters turns coat, and says, look, I do not personally appreciate drug use, the homosexual lifestyle, etc, to the extent that I fought hard against these lifestyles, I realize now that legislating against it doesn't work and is immoral, and threatens my values as well

when you have someone turning coat like that it severely weakens the moral authority of its crusaders.

That is a very good point.

its very similar to Jane Doe from the Roe V. Wade trial changing sides and admitting she never had the abortion. its a very significant event and makes their activism even more noteworthy.

look at the glenn beck example, which is the most public person having a crisis right now which is compelling him towards the liberty movement.

he thought of libertarianism as whacko extremism, but then he talks to ron paul. ron paul is more conservative than he is. then he has bob barr in there talking to him. it probably looks to him like people are turning left and right, and that its not drug addict gun toting maniacs, its christian conservative people who are giving up on the idea of legislating morality.

slowly he starts to give more and more ground, admitting the NAU, admitting the dollar crisis, hes having trouble with the war on drugs and on terror, but a lot of that probably comes from either his corporate handlers or just plain old emotional attatchment to values. you can't go through a change in beliefs without a certain amount of stress, which limits the amount of ground you can give at a time. give him a bit longer and he might find mises, rothbard or a group like that, which makes goldwater conservatism look like Air America

Really Unnecessary. We should avoid the abortion debate and the pathetic example... You almost had me sold, and then you reminded what batshit smells like.

I'm a staunch pro-choicer, and this nonsense about Norma McCorvey doesn't cut it... she didn't get the abortion because she couldn't... she didn't admit anything -- the trial went on too long, and she later converted to the insane brand of Christianity and stampeded around like a screeching harpy.

 

[BarryDonegan]

Really Unnecessary. We should avoid the abortion debate and the pathetic example... You almost had me sold, and then you reminded what batshit smells like.

I'm a staunch pro-choicer, and this nonsense about Norma McCorvey doesn't cut it... she didn't get the abortion because she couldn't... she didn't admit anything -- the trial went on too long, and she later converted to the insane brand of Christianity and stampeded around like a screeching harpy.

i never said anything about Norma specifically, nor did I say anything about the issue of Roe v. Wade qualitatively, but you have to admit, whether or not you like the issue or do not like the issue, it is of no help to the pro-choice movement that she did switch sides. it DOES give ammunition to the other side. regardless of your feelings on the issue, you have to be able to see the point. I was not trying to make the issue relate to abortion, nor did I give a viewpoint on abortion. I gave an example about how advocates current positions affect the moral authority of using them, specifically, as an example.

of course there are other arguments for the pro-choice side, there are valid arguments on both sides, however, one valid argument that can no longer be effectively used, is how well the situation worked out for Jane Doe, originally considered the most important figure. her role is now downplayed by the pro-choice movement.

there again, there is nothing in what I said that counts as an endorsement on either side of the subject, simply describing how early activists changing their opinion affects the debate on the subject, please leave the emotional baggage surrounding the word abortion at the door when the example doesn't even include any positioning on the subject.

the example could have been about any issue, just one of the most well-known ironic flip floppers of all time, regardless of how many obscenities you want to describe her with, is Jane Doe. If you can't appreciate the irony in that, you simply have Anger Goggles on looking at the whole subject, which is not a debate subject, just a historical analysis subject.

like, you may think Lincoln was a terrible president of the United States, but you can't deny that he WAS president of the united states at one point. When people list presidents of the united states, most people will include Lincoln.

when they make a list about abortion flip floppers, they will include Mitt Romney and Jane Doe, its not a debate issue, its just a concrete fact.

 

[Sematary]

Well, Ron Paul changed a LOT of minds out there. Why should we accept votes from people who supported our foreign policy?? Better yet, since the Republicans and Democrats are controlled by the "elites", should we only let those who were lifelong Independents vote or run for a liberty platform??

I have always been a registered Independent, and I could almost guarantee you that most of the people in these forums are registered Libertarians or Republicans with a handful of Democrats. In that case, why should we accept their support?? See how ridiculous you sound?? You're setting the precedent that flip-flopping is always a bad thing. Face it: Bob Barr has addressed these questions over and OVER, he's saying the right stuff, why should be crucify him??? So no chance for redemption??? Nice.

I'm simply asking the question. i want to know WHY. People always have reasons. Before I can vote for him, I need to know what flipped that switch.

 

[Sematary]

I am an example of how someone can do a complete turn around with new information. A little over a year ago I was a cheerleader for the neo con agenda. I did not know what I know now. Bob Barr was working in the system, he could see what was going on and he didn't like it. Congress supported the Patriot Act based on lies...the administration told them one thing to get their support, and when they voted for it, it became something else. He has said this over and over and over. Bob Barr 's district got re drawn..in other words...the "powers" gerrymandered him out of his district and he lost the election. They did the same thing to Cynthia McKinney because she stood up to Donald Rumsfeld on the 9-11 issue. Delay and Bush tried to gerrymander Ron Paul out of his district in Texas but they failed. Any time one of those congress people stand up to "power" in Washington, they try to gerrymander them out and get rid of them. I'm sure Bob Barr is sincere about changing his worldview. I know I am sincere...and people can evolve! TONES

I totally agree with you. Can you point me to anything where he has addressed this issue?

 

[Sematary]

Don't forget this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03396:

I haven't.

 

[BarryDonegan]

all we need to do in order to get Semetary up to date is to link some articles where he addressed these issues. I have read each and every one of them addressed, and listened to interviews. i dont have the time right now, but for those of you who do, try and link some.

with Bob Barr you have to read the interviews on the sites that relate to the subject you are looking at, he tends to avoid the question on conservative shows about the War on Drugs, not because he doesn't believe in ending it, but because he knows it will not get him traction with them. however, he never does so via lying. I remember glenn beck asking him about the war on drugs and he said that he was in a realistic libertarian party who knows you can't go legalizing all drugs on day one.

that left an awful lot of room for what was going on on day two.

every single issue raised in this thread has been addressed, however, and he does not support any of the federal power grabs he once supported. he works with the ACLU and the MPP now, this guy is a wildly changed man.

 

[Kludge]

Who cares what he's going to do... He's not going to win. This isn't a tough decision.

CP and LP are both relatively libertarian. Instead of delving into the issues, I suggest you think instead in terms of the party. Read my "Twenty-Eight Reasons..." thread linked in my signature for the states the party does not have to petition in if they get x% in the General Election.


With that in mind, the LP received .32% in 2004, and polls list the LP as getting 2-6% - not to mention that the LP will be on more states then the CP (check out the ballot access link in my sig.). Compare that to the CP who received just .12% in 2004, and isn't even included in the polls.

Search "Who Will You Vote For?" and you will see two threads showing how RPFs intends to vote, with at least 2x more voting Barr over Baldwin.


It's not that either party isn't great or that you shouldn't be sticking to your principles, it's simply pragmatic and will be the ONLY hard benefit you can gain voting third party.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

All in all, Bob Barr could have stayed in the GOP...but he chose not to. Why would someone who was in the system decide to run for a third party that clearly can not win at this time? There's no way outside of a miracle that Barr could win the election..maybe this is his atonement for his voting the way he did in the GOP. Maybe he's paving the way for another libertarian candidate to have the chance to be elected. He has admitted he won't be president, but he wants to help the LP up the political ladder. It's costing him money to do this...tones

 

[familydog]

leaving the republican party.

period.

most politicians would consider that political suicide. he could have just as easily kept his talking points and ran for president as a Republican, he would've probably afforded at minimum the same treatment as the other guys. he left the republican party for the libertarian party, and is one of a small list of elected officials to do so. the sheer fact that he did it sets a precedent for others to follow. if 10 follow in the near future, we have a real change coming.

Leaving one party and joining another doesn't tell me much. If you feel differently, fine. I hold this standard to all politicians, not just Bob Barr. If you have a terrible voting record and you claim to do a 180 on a host of issues, I'd like to see a voting record to prove it. I think it is a fair thing to ask him since he asks me for my time and money.

 

[Knightskye]

Seems trollish.

 

[Bergie Bergeron]

Guys, Bob Barr was in Borat, this should be enough.

 

[BarryDonegan]

Leaving one party and joining another doesn't tell me much. If you feel differently, fine. I hold this standard to all politicians, not just Bob Barr. If you have a terrible voting record and you claim to do a 180 on a host of issues, I'd like to see a voting record to prove it. I think it is a fair thing to ask him since he asks me for my time and money.

joining the libertarian party, a far less well known party, switches you from public servant to political activist.

he has served as a lobbyist in washington for civil liberties groups and has spent time working with the ACLU. he may not have a voting record for those actions, but they are ACTIONS towards liberty, and they represent a great sacrifice he made turning on the neocons.

 

[familydog]

joining the libertarian party, a far less well known party, switches you from public servant to political activist.

he has served as a lobbyist in washington for civil liberties groups and has spent time working with the ACLU. he may not have a voting record for those actions, but they are ACTIONS towards liberty, and they represent a great sacrifice he made turning on the neocons.

I understand that. I respect that. Unfortunately there is a lot more to a voting record than drugs, Iraq, and the Patriot Act.

 

[Knightskye]

I understand that. I respect that. Unfortunately there is a lot more to a voting record than drugs, Iraq, and the Patriot Act.

Okay, familydog, if you had a voting record similar to Bob Barr's, but then you switched to Libertarian and claimed to no longer believe "in all that stuff", how would you convince people that you were telling the truth?