Source: New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/politics/28barr.html)
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/politics/28barr.html
Title: "A Candidate Runs to a G.O.P. Chorus of 'Don’t'", by Julie Bosman
Date: June 28, 2008

It seems almost farcical to some, namely liberals who remember only that Bob Barr once did something to annoy the hell out of them. It was probably his role in the Clinton impeachment, but we quickly and thankfully forgot about the crotchety Congressman from Georgia five years ago after redistricting forced him into a 2002 election contest against fellow Republican John Linder. Barr lost badly, and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr) notes that, "Recognizing Barr's precarious situation, the Libertarian Party seized on the opportunity to oust one of the federal drug war's most vocal proponents (Barr), and ran TV ads criticizing Barr's opposition to medical marijuana."

Ironically, Barr is back in politics, running for president as a Libertarian. Julie Bosman explains:

He has been called a spoiler. A would-be Ralph Nader. A thorn in the side of Senator John McCain and the Republican establishment.

None of it bothers Bob Barr, the former Republican congressman from Georgia turned Libertarian Party candidate for president, who gleefully recounted what he says a group of Republicans told him at a recent meeting in Washington: Don’t run.

“‘Well, gee, you might take votes from Senator McCain,’” Mr. Barr said this week, mimicking one of the complainers, as he sat sipping Coca-Cola in his plush corner office, 12 stories above Atlanta. “They all said, ‘Look, we understand why you’re doing this. We agree with why you’re doing it. But please don’t do it.’ ”

(Bosman (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/politics/28barr.html))

The former Georgia Republican now disavows his Congressional record, voicing opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraqi Bush War, both of which he supported during his House tenure. While he introduced the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, Barr now considers gay marriage a state-level issue. Having declared his candidacy only ten days before the Libertarian Party's convention in Denver last month, cynicism about his sincerity might well be expected.

Even those sympathetic to the party’s beliefs complain that it is prone to infighting, fundamentally more committed to principle than electoral action and seemingly incapable of raising money or organizing supporters.

And some of its own members are asking how they ended up with Mr. Barr, who at the Libertarian Party convention in Denver last month squeaked by with the nomination only after six raucous rounds of votes.

“There certainly are still those,” Mr. Barr said, switching to the third person, “that may view Bob Barr as somewhat of a Johnny-come-lately.”

(ibid)

Having defeated Mary Ruwart to claim the Libertarian nomination, Barr began his run toward the November election without any formal campaign headquarters or television advertisements, and having yet to hold a fundraiser or other campaign event.

Still, his former colleagues in the Republican Party are concerned. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia noted of the home-state candidate, "If Barr got 8 percent, and you’ve got the higher African-American turnout from Barack Obama, then you’d have a significantly close race in the state".

And Robert Loevy, a political science professor at Colorado College said of that state, "If Bob Barr gets it up to 3, 4, 5 percent of the vote, it could definitely throw Colorado to Barack Obama".

None of this, of course, is good news to the McCain campaign, which faces a twelve to fifteen point deficit against Obama, according to a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-2008jun25,0,5763707.story). The addition of Bob Barr and independent candidate Ralph Nader to the mix cost McCain four points, while Obama only lost one.

In the end, it is easy enough to believe some sort of sincerity about Barr. There are few reasons for him to run; chiefly, he either has undergone a sincere change of perspective or has gone sincerely nuts. He hasn't a hope of winning, and at best his impact would hurt his former Republican allies.

One might wonder what he's up to—or the Libertarian Party, for that matter—but liberals, at least, should wish him the best.
_____________________

See Also:

Wikipedia. "Bob Barr". Updated June 28, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr

McManus, Doyle. "Obama holds 12-point lead over McCain, poll finds". Los Angeles Times. June 25, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-2008jun25,0,5763707.story

Great. I swear to God, this is a Republican ploy. I don't think that's too far-fetched, either. Bush had Nader to sway some of the voters from Gore, and now ol' Geriatric Man has Bar. Awesome.

I swear to God, this is a Republican ploy. I don't think that's too far-fetched, either.

But what does the GOP stand to gain from this ploy, then? What is the purpose of tanking McCain? Don't get me wrong, I can envision some long-term goals, but nobody, especially not the myopic powermongers of American conservative politics, plays that way.

(Famous last words?)

Source: Slog (http://slog.thestranger.com/)
Link: http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/06/the_new_bob_barr_libertarian_superfraud
Title: "The New Bob Barr: Libertarian Super-fraud", by Ryan S. Jackson
Date: June 30, 2008

Former Stranger intern Ryan S. Jackson contributed his thoughts on the Barr candidacy via the weekly tabloid's weblog, Slog:

What happened to Bob Barr?

It almost seems impossible to square this man with the one who is best remembered in his heyday—face flushed, mustache quivering, banging wildly at the table demanding seemingly nothing less than the public castration of Bill Clinton during his 1998 impeachment hearings. Representative Barr was a mean, remorseless piece of reactionary conservative machinery: if there was a piece of legislation that could be used to stomp on gay rights or put someone in jail for just a few years longer, Barr could be depended on to make the case with withering levels of moral indignation.

So who is this man who seems to be delighting in the fact—in the liberal womb of The New York Times, no less—that he could conceivably tear off vitally important chunks of John McCain’s constituency in states like Georgia and Alaska, throwing huge portions of the country to Barack Obama?

(Jackson (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/06/the_new_bob_barr_libertarian_superfraud))

There isn't a whole lot new here, but Jackson's entry only reiterates the strangeness with which many people are viewing Barr's candidacy.

Correction: some people. It may well be inaccurate to suggest that many people are regarding the Barr campaign at all.

With any luck, this Libertarian disaster will provide us with a few chuckles through the season, and maybe some of them will be remotely enlightening.

Take it from someone with personal experience with the man. Barr is a joke and should be taken as such.

Strange bedfellows, indeed. Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr last week endorsed Accountability Now and Strange Bedfellows PAC, a group that includes diverse political orientations ranging from Ron Paul supporters to liberal bloggers like Glenn Greenwald. We can now add the newly-repentent Barr to the list.

According to Greenwald:

We hope and expect that this will be but the first of many prominent endorsements from both the left and civil-liberties-minded libertarian right of our campaign against the political establishment's assault on core Constitutional liberties, privacy rights and the rule of law. Just to get a sense for how like-minded Bob Barr and many progressives are with regard to these vital issues, here is a 45-minute Bloggingheads discussion (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12251) between liberal blogger (and Strange Bedfellow member) Jane Hamsher and Rep. Barr that was a virtual festival of harmony (they discuss the FISA bill here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12251?in=00:01:26&out=%205:57), and they discuss the left-right civil liberties coalition in Britain here (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12251?in=00:01:26&out=%205:57)).

(Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/18/bob_barr/index.html))

I think one problem Barr faces, though—in addition to the obvious problems of media exposure and funding—is something that we might call "Gore syndrome" if we are so inclined. In Hollywood terms, we would call it a "Q-rating", which measures both name recognition and positive or negative associations with that recognition. In more mundane terms, though, we might simply call it trust.

While Barr's dedication to demonstrating his new libertarian conscience is admirable, most people who think of Barr will remember—if anything at all—his rise as part of the 1994 Republican revolution, support of the Clinton impeachment debacle, sponsorship of the Defense of Marriage Act, opposition to medical marijuana, and support of the USA Patriot Act. From all of that, his most redeeming qualities in the libertarian context would be the sunset-clause amendments he worked into the Patriot Act, which were similar to measures he advocated for the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1995. Of the rest, Barr has a tough road ahead, largely consisting of repentance and repackaging. A member of the Libertarian Party for all of two years before his current presidential bid, he might find even seemingly small issues, such as his desire to ban Wicca from the military, challenging his sincerity.

Nonetheless, Strange Bedfellows isn't complaining. Perhaps, for those who wonder at the former Georgia Congressman's sincerity, a well-played and dedicated fight on behalf of civil liberties in the age of terror will do much to convince the masses that he indeed intends genuine and faithful representation of the people, and is not merely pursuing delusions of grandeur.
_____________________

Notes:

Greenwald, Glenn. "Bob Barr endorses Accountability Now/Strange Bedfellows coalition". Unclaimed Territory. July 18, 2008. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/18/bob_barr/index.html

He also was famously photographed doing a shot from a woman's breast, something I might actually respect him for, were it not for his faux family-values stance during the same time period.