Announcement Coverage
May 13th, 2008 by StaffBob Barr’s official campaign launch grabbed media headlines:
“My views go beyond, and my principles go beyond, simple adherence to a particular party. The reason that I have entered the race, the reason that I seek to be the Libertarian-party nominee, is to put forward an agenda for the American people of libertarian philosophy and libertarian principles that would seek to maximize individual liberty and minimize government power.”
Tags: announcement, Ellection 2008, Media Coverage
May 13th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Thank you for running. Could you convince GRAVEL to be your VP? It would be an unstoppable ticket
May 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
This is why I am going to vote for you:
In the mid 90’s I was selling software for a start-up company. I was averaging over 10K+ miles/month in domestic air travel and was literally all over the US all of the time. My travels occasionally took me to Washington, DC. One of my trips there spawned an epiphany and probably serves as the genesis of my conversion to being a Libertarian.
I was calling on the US Department of Education. My meeting was with a fussy old lady that held some senior position in the department’s IT department. I went through my usual pitch and she asked me what it would cost for her to buy the software. [I don’t recall the precise figure but it was in the “hundreds of thousands".] She expressed concerns about her being able to process the paperwork before year-end. She was worried that if she didn’t spend it, she would lose it next year.
Now, admittedly, the salesman in me was thrilled: I was counting my commission check. However, as a citizen I was really perturbed. You see, I *knew* that the software was unstable and that many customers that had purchased licenses had demanded that their money be returned. She was going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on something she didn’t understand and that didn’t work anyway. Forward ahead a few months…
I do start-up companies. It is sort of an addiction. As opposed to what many outside of Silicon Valley believe, most start-ups go bust and one doesn’t normally make gads of money off of them. For the most part you work a lot of hours, with a lot of stress, for egomaniacs, for very little pay and the promise of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Most of the rainbows dissipate before you get to the end with the gold.
Anyway, one of the start-up companies I did in the early 90s had a very successful IPO and was then subsequently acquired for over $2.6B. It wasn’t a home run for me as I still had to work, but it was a solid double. I sold a bunch of my stock and bought a house. At the time, the capital gains tax was a whopping 28%; I had to send the mother of all tax checks to Uncle Sam. The day I sent it I became a conservative.
You see, the image I had as I dropped that check into the mailbox was that it was going directly to that fussy old lady at the department of education. [What the hell does the Department of Education *do* anyway? And don’t give me any ****, I have two children still to go through school.] The house I bought needed many improvements that could have been paid for with the money I sent to that fussy old lady. In fact, it would have paid [a small part] of several contractors’ salaries, would have been fuel for some factories [windows, shingles, alarms, heaters, etc.] and generally would have circulated through the economy and would ultimately have been taxed as income anyway. Instead, it went into the bureaucratic black hole known as Washington, DC, never to be seen or heard from again.
HEAR YE, HEAR YE, NOW READ THIS
The US government isn’t a democracy but a representative democracy. The end result is an inverse relationship between how truly representative this government [“of the people, by the people and for the people”] is and “the people” it is meant to serve. This inverse relationship becomes increasingly apparent as federal tax revenue and the US population grows.
You think that’s just a rant? Read on…
There are 435 members of the US House of Representatives. US citizens elect these individuals in theory, to represent their best interests in terms of creating laws and funding the means to enforce them. But check this out: the number of representatives hasn’t increased since 1911 and in the time since, the US population has increased from about 91 million1 people to over 281 million2. That’s about a 307% increase.
Federal tax revenues in 1911 were about $702M. This amounted to $1,613,793 for each member of the House of Representatives. In 2005, the Feds took in over $2.125T (that’s *trillion*). That represents a 306,268% increase in tax revenue from 1911. The 2005 figure translates to almost $5B for each member of congress to spend, each year. As a point of reference, the GDP of Fiji is about $5.3B. To be fair, adjusting for inflation, speaking in 1911 dollars, each house member now controls about $2.7M. This is a 169% increase in real spending power. That representative you voted for is now roughly two times more powerful than he/she would have been a century ago. What’s more, on average, in 1911 each house member represented about 211,000 people; today, each member represents on average over 646,000 citizens. How closely aligned with your beliefs, mores and best interests do you believe your representative is? Are you beginning to understand?
OK, now, look at your pay stub. On average, each member of the house of representatives controls a budget amount equating to more than $7600 of each citizen’s annual salary. This does not include what one gives to local and state tax collectors each year. How much of that do you think is going to that fussy old lady at the Department of Education? Imagine the impact it would have on local economies if only half of that was returned to you to spend locally.
While I am socially liberal, fiscally conservative and libertarian in my beliefs, I am registered as an independent. I guess I subscribe to the Groucho Marx theory that “I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member”.
Yours,
–Bill Ross
1 1910 US Census Data
2 2000 US Census Data
May 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
MY disgust with McCain reached its apex with his statement about climate change and global warming.. I am ready to switch to the Liberatarian party and work for your campaign. Let me know what I can do. Keith snelson
May 13th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
http://www.bobbarrmoneybomb.com/
donate on may 20th!!!!
May 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Now I will vote….I think Bob Barr is the only candidate with integrity and moral values to run this country. He does what he says he will do and doesn’t just say something to get a vote. Those other candidates should be ashamed to get up in front of the American public and lie the way they do. Ask him about the Clintons…he’ll tell you the truth!
Read his book, he’s a good man and I will be proud to say I voted for him.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Repealing the 16th Amendment will not end the threat of an income tax. Congress can levy a direct income tax to be paid in proportion to state populations even if the 16th is repealed. The corporate income tax was enacted in 1909, before the 16th Amendment, as a tax on the corporate privilege. To prohibit a tax on wages, we need a new consitutional amendment.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I think that Congressman Barr should have had much more coverage, but hopefully he’ll be able to book appearances on shows like Larry King Live, Leno, etc., etc., etc.
Way to go Congressman!!!!!!
May 13th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
You’ve got my vote too Bob. The next step is adding Daniel Williams to your ticket as VP. He’s the obvious choice. Best of luck.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
It’s great to see the enthusiasm about liberty-centric candidates this election. I’ve already seen an online store featuring all Barr election gear on cafepress. (cafepress.com/barrista) And a Bob Barr forum site that looks like the sort of spontaneous support Ron Paul got.
I think finally those GOP voters on the margins will be going libertarian.
If only this could have happened before the disasterous Bush administration.
Go Bob!
May 13th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
I just made my first contribution to the Bob Barr for President campaign. I hope that I will be able to contribute some more after the LP national convention.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:57 am
I was a frustrated Libertarian for 25 years before I finally gave up on them in 2004. (Michael Badnarik?) I seriously doubt that they will give you the nomination. They seem to prefer nominating broke nobodies who live in Mommy’s basement. Good luck anyway. I hope you can convince them to change their ways, grow up and accomplish something, but it isn’t likely.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:27 am
I could never vote for someone who is anti-***. You authored the “Defense of Marriage Act” a discriminatory bill which makes it impossible for *** and ******* families to have the same 1,800 rights and benefits that come along with civil marriage. Shame on you! You will never get my vote.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
May 14th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Bob,
I haven’t always agreed with you but you will have my vote! Why? A plethora of reasons:
1) Someone has to stop the Republican-Democratic stranglehold on power and as a fiscally conservative - socially liberal (in the classical liberal sense, not the modern sense) I cannot support the Greens or the so called Constitution Party.
2) Did you witness how the Republican Party and the media blacked out Ron Paul, even with the huge support he had? I don’t think they will get away with that so easily when it comes to Bob Barr.
3) There has to be a party with principle in the race. The “big tent” of the Republican Party doesn’t represent a coherent political philosophy and neither does the factional mumbo jumbo the Democrats expound. I bet on the Libertarians getting known better than ever this time.
4) I believe there will be candidates hanging on Bob Barr’s coat tails nationwide this year. Libertarians will win more posts at higher levels than they ever had before and people will begin to see them as the force they are becoming.
I could name many, many more reasons but Bob will make these apparent himself. Just pay attention!
GO GET ‘EM BOB!
May 14th, 2008 at 8:44 am
I agree with everything Gary Dale Cearley says, and I would add this: Bob Barr will make a huge impact in the South. Many Democrats are uncomfortable with the mess of the primary system that has occurred this year, especially in Florida. Barr is well sutuated to make a big statement about uniting a country that is torn apart by near-recession, racial politics, anti-war-pro-war sentiments, inflation, a falling dollar, crumbling infrastructure. He is about the right age to attract a wide demographic of voters. He needs a high profile minority woman to become his running mate and then he is all set to make a huge impact!
May 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Congrats on the announcement Congressman Barr! We’re delighted to hear that you are running to give a choice to those who believe in liberty.
It’s our hope that the Libertarian Party makes dramatic strides toward becoming a prominent force in American politics that must be reckoned with. If there was any year that independent minds would take the initiative to vote for a libertarian candidate, this is it.
The irascible former governor on my state, Jesse Ventura, recently said that if Americans could vote for ‘none of the above’ in local, state, and federal elections, ‘no confidence’ office vacancies would be epic because of the widespread disillusionment of our public.
That may be so. But with the Libertarian party, the disillusioned public gets the best of both worlds—they get to vote no confidence in the two-party cartel, and also vote affirmatively for the ideas of freedom and prosperity which are the foundation of the American experiment.
We wish you luck, and thank you for your efforts.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:09 am
This is great!
When Obama gets the nomination and people across the states vote for this guy, the troops won’t come home, the patriot act will stay alive and individual liberties will continue to be squandered. When Americans across the globe are scratching their heads saying…”I thought there was going to be change” I can laugh and say: “Don’t look at me, I voted libertarian.”
Thank you for giving me a candidate I don’t have to feel guilty for voting for.
Ps. Dear, queerunity
Shame on you for labeling someone as “anti-***” after 48 hours of knowing them. Try and wrap your head around this philosophy. If you can find the words, “anti-***,” in the statement “Defense of Marriage act” I will happily withdraw my next statement. Mindless mainstream associations and its members will tend to “summarize” very quickly, positions or theories mainly because they don’t understand the basic premise that just because someone states they are in support of one thing does not mean they are not in support of another. I haven’t read the bill and I can comfortably say that if I did, I would not find the words “I am anti-***” in it.
On a side note, you may not be voting for a man advocating for civil liberties but I can assure you, the person you are voting for knows the extent of your reasoning ability and without shame, has prepared a lovely speech to snatch a quick vote from you.
Good luck Bob,
Cheers!
May 14th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Bob Barr is very anti-***, he authored the “Defense of Marriage Amendment” which has harmed millions of ***/******* families. He also voted yes on banning *** adoptions, who does that hurt? the children who can’t be in loving families, or if one partner dies the children are taken to foster care because the other parent is not a legally recognized guardian. He is no libertarian, the libertarians are about civil liberties, not restricting rights.
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
May 14th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Matthew Feehan, I have to agree with ***** Unity…
How can you say that the person who proposes a bill that keeps 10% of the population from being able to marry is an advocate of civil liberties? Seems like a oxymoron to me.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Everything I am seeing so far looks great! Too bad Bob Barr(as far as I know) did not get to be in the debates. I have so many questions that I need answed. Just off the top of my head just reading this blog. This question is not only or Barr but the *** rights supporters. Was Barr a Libertarian when he supported the act? Right now I am leaning towards Libertarian I like the the Idea of “live an Let live just wondering if this canidate will back that up
May 17th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
The Libertarian Party actually campaigned against Bob Barr in 2002 because of he over-turned D.C.’s medical marijuana law. Bob Barr advocated against medical marijuana because D.C. does not have state rights.
I figure that Bob Barr has a few more skeletons, such as on *** rights issues, that he needs to address to the Libertarians.
All I know is that he did join the Libertarian Party and became an active member and officer of the party. So maybe he changed some of us views?
Bob Barr probably isn’t the ideal Libertarian candidate because of his Republican voting record, but he is a candidate that can make a difference and help defeat one of the two Democrats, McCain and Obama. You have to have a right-leaning Libertarian running in this election to make a difference.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Bob Barr did make the clarification. He supports California’s right to allow *** marriage, and the reason why he wrote the bill was to protect state rights.
***-marriage-decision/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/7/statement-on-ca-supreme-court-same-***-marriage-decision/
June 5th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Queerunity,
“He is no libertarian, the libertarians are about civil liberties, not restricting rights.”
Sit back and read…
greystreet,
“How can you say that the person who proposes a bill that keeps 10% of the population from being able to marry is an advocate of civil liberties? Seems like a oxymoron to me.”
First off when did marriage become a divine civil liberty? I’m pretty sure (don’t quote me on this) but the act of marriage that began with economical incentive was society driven. Hell we used to marry off fourteen year old girls to the highest bidder a hundred years ago. You write up an essay on the exact fiscal, moral and social parameters of marriage that America should abide by and I will happily be your first reader. When it reaches the shelves you can propose a bill to congress telling them to apply your theory to the entire country and enforce it with federal power…(Just in case you didn’t catch the sarcasm, Bob Barr wrote the defense of marriage act to protect against federally enforced marriage parameters)
[A LIBERTARIAN IDEAL] “Limited federal government”
Second,
Try and think beyond the immediate, black@white civil liberties that you are referring to. For instance, you speak of those who are trying to get married, fine (thinking in black and white) defending their immediate right to engage in a (tax deductible title) sounds like a reasonable reason to bring in the civil liberties defense but now think about the children they want. In this country, a “married couple” holds what’s known as leverage in the adoption process. So indirectly you have now potentially raised the number of *** and ******* adoptions by voting in support of same-*** marriage. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, I haven’t seen any evidence proving otherwise however I never forget about the life’s liberties that haven’t yet begun … already they are byproducts of our political positions; don’t ever forget that.