Is there a Barr to a McCain victory?
From Jason Pye's blog, we learn that Neal Boortz has conditionally endorsed Bob Barr's quest for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. Pye quotes Boortz:
Personally, I have given up listening to Boortz' radio program on my favorite local talk station. Whenever I'm free to listen, I switch over to the competition to hear Mike Gallagher's show instead. He's a much better listen, and not a political gadfly like Boortz.
Democrats are licking their chops in anticipation of a strong Barr candidacy. They figure that he will draw a lot of conservative votes away from John McCain, a guy conservatives never much loved anyway. But there are some flies in this ointment.
Barr has bashed President Bush for listening to U.S. citizens' phone conversations, even when there's a terrorist on the other end. He even went so far as to team up with the ACLU on informational and data privacy issues. Although he voted for the Iraq war, now he's against it. Security conservatives will not be impressed. Even Boortz will have to withdraw his support for Barr if the former congressman doesn't show enough backbone against the Islamofacists who want to do us in. Barr is sounding more like Ron Paul on the war issue every day. Paul, meanwhile, appears to be moving toward an endorsement of Barr. This may hurt Barr more than help him, especially if Paul's more enthusiastic supporters try to back Barr in the same pushy manner that they pushed for Paul.
The former Georgia congressman flipped again by voting for the Patriot Act, but is now saying that he regrets casting that vote. But perhaps his biggest flip, one which tops even NASCAR driver Carl Edwards' aerial victory tumbles, is the one he did over medical marijuana. The man whose name will be forever associated with the Barr Amendment to deny funding for any use of cannabis is now calling for the reversal of his own legislative measure.
Social conservatives will find Barr's opposition to a federal constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage a deal-breaker, just as many of them refused to back Fred Thompson for the same reason. Well, "reason" is perhaps not the best word to use here, as the odds against such an amendment passing are slim to none. Fred's federalist solution was to have the states pass their own amendements, but socons would have none of that.
Before Barr can try to have any impact on the 2008 presidential race, he must first secure the Libertarian Party nominaton. That's not a sure thing, as many LP members appear to be lukewarm to the prospects of a Barr candidacy. At the party's North Carolina state convention last week:
- JP
Cross-posted at ConservativeSuperiority.com
Here they go again .. all those emails from people who are upset with (1) Bob Barr running for president on the Libertarian Party ballot; and (2) my support for the Libertarian Party. (I'm a lifetime member.) These people are concerned that Barr's candidacy are going to give us another Ross Perot situation ... where votes for Perot essentially put Bill Clinton into office.Jason applauds Boortz for jumping ship after previously backing Mike Huckabee, calling it a welcome change. Unfortunately for Neil Boortz, his support for such a notorious nanny-stater as Tax Hike Mike just about burned up all of the available Boortz political credibility. Neil left both the libertarian and conservative reservations for that one, dwelling for a while on populist ground.
Frankly ... I'm really not going to be upset if the Republicans get their hats handed to them in this election. During the Bush years the only bright moments for the Republican Party were tax cuts and fighting Islamic fascism. Beyond that, what have they done? Well, they doubled the size and the cost of the federal government for one. How's that for a record of accomplishment. In 2007 Republicans were the pork champions in Washington; more pork spending than Democrats. Oh yeah --- let me get my checkbook out and make a huge contribution to the Republican Party right now.
The way things look right now, if Bob Barr is the Libertarian nominee .. and if he will pledge to continue to take the battle to, and not run from the Islamic fascists ... they he will have my vote. If the Democrats win ... so be it. We've become a nanny nation anyway. Might as well make it official. Remember .. this is the "I want my mommy" election. We're turning America into a giant assisted care living center. What sense does it make to continue to support a party that is helping this along?
Bottom line .. the Republicans haven't earned another shot at this.
Personally, I have given up listening to Boortz' radio program on my favorite local talk station. Whenever I'm free to listen, I switch over to the competition to hear Mike Gallagher's show instead. He's a much better listen, and not a political gadfly like Boortz.
Democrats are licking their chops in anticipation of a strong Barr candidacy. They figure that he will draw a lot of conservative votes away from John McCain, a guy conservatives never much loved anyway. But there are some flies in this ointment.
Barr has bashed President Bush for listening to U.S. citizens' phone conversations, even when there's a terrorist on the other end. He even went so far as to team up with the ACLU on informational and data privacy issues. Although he voted for the Iraq war, now he's against it. Security conservatives will not be impressed. Even Boortz will have to withdraw his support for Barr if the former congressman doesn't show enough backbone against the Islamofacists who want to do us in. Barr is sounding more like Ron Paul on the war issue every day. Paul, meanwhile, appears to be moving toward an endorsement of Barr. This may hurt Barr more than help him, especially if Paul's more enthusiastic supporters try to back Barr in the same pushy manner that they pushed for Paul.
The former Georgia congressman flipped again by voting for the Patriot Act, but is now saying that he regrets casting that vote. But perhaps his biggest flip, one which tops even NASCAR driver Carl Edwards' aerial victory tumbles, is the one he did over medical marijuana. The man whose name will be forever associated with the Barr Amendment to deny funding for any use of cannabis is now calling for the reversal of his own legislative measure.
Social conservatives will find Barr's opposition to a federal constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage a deal-breaker, just as many of them refused to back Fred Thompson for the same reason. Well, "reason" is perhaps not the best word to use here, as the odds against such an amendment passing are slim to none. Fred's federalist solution was to have the states pass their own amendements, but socons would have none of that.
Before Barr can try to have any impact on the 2008 presidential race, he must first secure the Libertarian Party nominaton. That's not a sure thing, as many LP members appear to be lukewarm to the prospects of a Barr candidacy. At the party's North Carolina state convention last week:
The delegates applauded at the end of Barr's speech, but afterwards it was clear that many of those attending the two-day state convention still viewed the Republican-turned-Libertarian with a good deal of skepticism. When a presidential preference straw poll was taken the next day, Barr got only one vote, compared to 17 for longtime LP activist Mary Ruwart, three for Massachusetts physicist George Phillies and two for Las Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allen Root. (Ruwart is something of a "favorite daughter" among Libertarians in North Carolina, where she lived for four years before moving to Texas last year.) Like Barr, ex-Democrat Mike Gravel got just one vote in the straw poll.So it remains to be seen just how much "conservative" support Barr, if nominated by the LP, will be able to draw away from the GOP. Will it be enough to hurt McCain and hand the White House over to a liberal Democrat? Some small-government conservatives may flock to his cause, but securicons, socons and across-the-board conservatives won't join them in any appreciable numbers. Not even Neil Boortz can put lipstick on this squealer.
- JP
Cross-posted at ConservativeSuperiority.com
Labels: bobbarr, boortz, conservatives, libertarians, presidency
posted by Josh Painter at
4:52 PM
1 Comments:
Reading what Neal Boortz says about Republicans makes me wonder, do people like Boortz really care about America?
No third-party/independent candidate has ever done well enough in presidential elections to win in a very, very long time. Teddy Roosevelt fared the best of any of them when he ran in 1912. He finished ahead of President Taft, but still split the Republican vote and gave the election to Woodrow Wilson.
Worst case scenario, Bob Barr will do the same thing in 2008, thus ensuring a Democratic victory. And frankly, this is no time to take an all or nothing approach to the election, especially when you know candidates like Bob Barr can do nothing more than send Obama or Clinton to the White House.
If supporters of Bob Barr really care about America, they need to realize the folly behind their actions. And so does Bob Barr himself.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home