Barr ’08

Many thanks to those of you who came out to Murphy’s Taproom last night. Here is a story from the Concord Monitor on Bob’s visit to New Hampshire:

Squeezing his thumb and forefinger together in the back of a Manchester bar last night, Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr told a crowd of 80 that when it counts, there’s that much difference between the Republicans and Democrats.

Americans, he argued, are looking for something new.

“The definition of throwing your vote away is to go into that voting booth and vote for one of two parties that will not change the direction this country’s going in,” Barr told a crowd of about 80 at Murphy’s Taproom. “And that’s the Republicans or Democrats.”
[…]
Republicans and Democrats have spent too much time fretting about the difference between a $3.1 trillion budget and a $3.12 trillion budget, he said. On Jan. 20, 2009, he said, a President Barr would skip the niceties of inaugural balls and call Congress in to tell them that he’ll cap spending at the size of the prior year’s budget and form a commission to look at the constitutionality and worth of various federal departments.
One target for Barr: the Department of Education, which he said is unconstitutional and wasteful. “My goal would be to get away from public schools in the first place,” he told one questioner.

If you’d like to help petition for Bob in New Hampshire, please contact the campaign and we will get you in touch with our coordinators.

The Los Angeles Times takes a look at Bob Barr’s run for president:

Barr is running as a Libertarian because he thinks the Republican Party — which he once served with such enthusiasm that his house and offices overflow with elephant decor — has run off the rails.

In fact, as much as he despised Clinton, Barr thinks President Bush is worse. “What George W. Bush has done to the fabric of our constitutional government, to separation of powers, to a government of limited powers is absolutely unforgivable,” he said.
[...]
“My philosophy is much smaller government, much greater personal freedom and start dramatically reducing the size of the federal government,” Barr said.
[...]
“Immediately upon assuming office, I would sit down with our military leaders and I would direct, not ask, but direct that they begin an immediate and significant drawdown in Iraq,” he asserted, deftly shifting talk of Bob Barr as spoiler to Bob Barr as president.

Unlike candidates who play verbal games of Twister to avoid the dreaded flip-flop, Barr freely admits that he has disavowed his long conservative resume in favor of the Libertarian philosophy of less government.

The articles takes a look at Bob’s lighter side as well, for example his favorite coffee from Starbucks, and how he shows his patriotism in other ways than wearing an American flag lapel pin.

The Houston Chronicle covered Bob’s campaign stop in Texas over the weekend:

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, whose campaign manager once guided Ross Perot’s reach for the White House, sported leather boots Sunday as he sought votes in Houston.
[...]
Barr, the Georgian who served as a Republican with Libertarian Party inspiration Ron Paul in Congress, said his third-party appeal stems from the idea that “choosing between the party of big government and the party of really big government … is not serving the country well.”

With either major party in control, Barr asserted in an interview before a speaking engagement Sunday night, “nothing is going to change of any substance.”

Bob is in New Hampshire tomorrow and back in Texas on Wednesday and Thursday. Check the events page for more information.

Speaking of Wayne Allyn Root, he sat down for an interview with the Columbia Daily Tribune during his recent visit to Missouri:

Q: Do you believe in a foreign policy that avoids military entanglements?

A: Absolutely. The lesson I learned from Iraq is it’s a disaster when you run around the world spending a trillion dollars stuffing democracy down throats of people who don’t want it. I don’t think we should be doing that. I don’t think we can afford to do that. … I was a fan of Afghanistan, going in originally. I think we’re probably in Afghanistan now too long. The job is to go, depose your enemy and leave, not to stay occupied.

Q: What is the ticket’s feeling on the issue of taxes? Would you and Barr be in favor of something like a “fair tax” that replaces the income tax with a bolstered sales tax?

A: When it comes to the tax, Bob Barr and I have a very simple answer. You’ve got to dramatically cut the size and scope of government (and) cut budgets before you worry about cutting taxes. Once government is dramatically cut, then we can have a national debate on what the best form of tax cut is. We want to give dramatic tax cuts to the American people and the American taxpayers. But whether it’s a fair tax or a flat tax, that’s up for debate. Why rush into a decision on that?

Q: It seems the Libertarian Party in years past did not support incrementally enacting its agenda.

A: And that’s why they got 300,000 votes, and now we have a chance to get 10 million votes, 20 million votes. … Again, we’re an underdog, but there’s an outside shot at winning this election. We’re at 6 percent in the latest Zogby poll, which is 6 or 7 million votes. And we just got started. It’s the most high-profile ticket ever. And Bob Barr and I believe in incremental change. That’s what we believe in. And we are the face and voice of the LP.

Many thanks to Thomas Everetts for sending in a link to the interview.

The Washington Post notes that Bob Barr made a surprise stop by the Netroots Nation 2008 conference in Austin, Texas:

A second surprise guest at Netroots Nation 2008 is generating hallway buzz: Bob Barr. Yep — that Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee, civil liberties advocate and former Georgia Republican representative.

Barr is in town as the featured draw at tonight’s closing reception at the Right Online Summit of right-wing bloggers and online activists sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, also ongoing today in Austin.

A third-party political candidate, Barr’s visit to the hallways of Netroots Nation to mingle with progressive bloggers — he bought a ticket, just like any other attendee, says a convention source — shows him trying to try to reach out to folks on both sides of the aisle.

[UPDATE] The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times have picked up on Barr’s visit to Netroots Nation 2008. Here is what the WSJ has to say:

The former Georgia congressman turned Libertarian presidential candidate is in town for a fund-raiser for his third party presidential bid and decided to drop by the liberal blogger conference when his campaign manager informed him that more than 2,000 netroots activists were gathering in downtown Austin.

“There are a lot of libertarians here, a lot of supporters,” Barr said, when asked by Washington Wire about his visit. Conference organizers provided Barr and his son, who doubles as his campaign spokesman, Derek Barr, one day “temporary” access passes.

The WSJ also notes that Bob will be speaking on separation of powers before the House Judiciary Committee next Friday.

Bob will make his first campaign visit to New Hampshire on Tuesday, July 22nd:

Former congressman and Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr will be making his first official campaign visit to New Hampshire on Tuesday, July 22. He will spend the day giving interviews and talking with fellow candidates. At 8:00pm there will be a meet and greet event at Murphy’s Taproom, 494 Elm St., Manchester.

“The momentum for Bob’s campaign is really growing,” said LPNH chairman Brendan Kelly. “He’s polling at 10% without any yard signs and he hasn’t even been here yet.” The Barr campaign scheduled the NH trip after the latest Zogby poll was released showing Barr’s support at 10%, the highest level of any state.

We hope to see you there!

Declan McCullagh with CNET has a recap of Bob’s speech at Freedom Fest. McCullagh calls Barr the “privacy candidate for president”:

Speaking here at a political conference on Friday, Barr focused almost exclusively on privacy and eavesdropping–and argued that both major parties are far too surveillance-happy. “Both of them will continue down the same track,” Barr said, noting that both McCain and Obama supported last week’s bill to immunize telecommunications companies that illegally opened their networks to government snoops.

Congress’ legislative rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is “not about surveilling al-Qaida,” Barr said. “It’s about surveilling U.S. citizens in America.” He added, for good measure: “This administration is the most anti-privacy, the most anti-individual freedom, in our nation’s history, certainly in my lifetime.”
[...]
Barr also likes to swipe at the Real ID Act, a law creating a federalized identity card that’s effectively on hold until December 31. “It was passed by the Congress not as a national ID, which it is in every way except a name,” he said. “It is a national ID for the first time in our nation’s history…If certain people were elected president, it would not go into effect.”

During the Libertarian Party’s presidential debate in Denver, the candidates were asked what they’d do about Real ID and the Patriot Act. Barr’s reply was captured on video by C-SPAN: “Fear has become the driving force behind all public policy in our country…(For the Patriot Act), I’d drive a stake through its heart, shoot it, burn it, cut off its head, burn it again, and scatter its ashes to the four corners of the world.”

Bob participated in a chat over at the Washington Times this afternoon. He was asked some tough questions about immigration, his goals for the Libertarian Party and the mortgage crisis.

You can read the transcript here.

Bob has written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining why John McCain cannot be trusted on judicial nominees:

Mr. McCain is a convenient convert to the cause of sound judicial appointments. He has never paid much attention to judicial philosophy, backing both Clinton Supreme Court nominees – Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He also participated in the so-called “Gang of 14,” which favored centrist over conservative nominees as part of a compromise between President George W. Bush and Senate Democrats.

What’s more, Republican Court appointments have often turned liberal. Earl Warren, William Brennan and Harry Blackmun were GOP appointees to the high court. So are “liberals” John Paul Stevens and David Souter, as well as centrists Anthony Kennedy and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. There is no reason to believe that a President McCain, once freed from the need to seek conservative support, would support more philosophically sound candidates. Even if he did, he would not likely prevail against a Democratic Senate majority.
[...]
In his May 2008 speech on judges at Wake Forest University, Mr. McCain talked about the importance of “the constitutional restraint on power,” but in practice he recognizes no limits on government or executive-branch authority. In fact, if Mr. McCain nominated someone in his own image, the appointee would disagree with not only the doctrine of enumerated powers, which limits the federal government to only those tasks explicitly authorized by the Constitution, but also the Constitution’s system of checks and balances, and even its explicit grant of the law-making power to Congress.

Mr. McCain has endorsed, in action if not rhetoric, the theory of the “unitary executive,” which leaves the president unconstrained by Congress or the courts. Republicans like Mr. McCain believe the president as commander in chief of the military can do almost anything, including deny Americans arrested in America protection of the Constitution and access to the courts.

It is important to choose judicial nominees carefully. But that is no reason for conservatives to vote for Mr. McCain. He has demonstrated no more interest in “conserving” the Constitution, and its principles of limited government and individual liberty, than has Mr. Obama.

The best way to get better judges is to expand candidate choice beyond the Republicans and Democrats. Supporting the political status quo guarantees more jurisprudence based on political convenience, not constitutional principle.

In his appearance on American Morning, Bob explained that he left the Republican Party due to their “big spending, anti-civil liberties, anti-privacy way.” He adds that the two major parties are the “same side of the same coin” and that his candidacy brings issues to the table that aren’t being discussed.

Bob also pointed out that the mortgage crisis is a result of far too much intervention by government in the market. As we noted in a press release yesterday:

Congress created programs to artificially inflate the housing market, established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be exempt from normal scrutiny, oversight, and competition, and expanded their activities in response to the sub-prime lending meltdown. Government must get out of the mortgage business, but must do so in a way that least harms taxpayers and the economy.

You can watch the video of Bob’s appearance below: