Who Is Bob Barr? He Could Be McCain’s Worst Nightmare

All American Blogger ^ | April 14, 2008 | Duane Lester

[DogWings]

In 2000, Ralph Nader took just enough votes from Al Gore in New Hampshire to give the state’s four electoral votes to George Bush, who won the election by three. And in Florida, Nader took 97,488 votes away from Gore. Bush won Florida by only 537 votes. Nader cost Gore the 2000 election.

It is also argued that Ross Perot was the reason George Bush lost his bid for re-election to Bill Clinton. Perot ran as a third party candidate in 1992, and was the most successful third party candidate in history.

In 2008, Bob Barr may be the Nader or Perot for John McCain. But who is he?

Bob Barr is a former Republican turned life member of the Libertarian party. He was a part of the Republican Revolution with Newt Gingrich, representing the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

And he’s probably going to run for president as a Libertarian.

[MEGoody]

Who is Bob Barr? Someone I won’t be voting for.

[tennteacher]

Remember the “giant sucking sound”?

That’s votes moving out of the “R” column.

He gets no vote from me.

[mysterio]

BS. If a candidate doesn’t earn the votes, he doesn’t get them. No votes belong to any candidate by default. If the Republicans want libertarian votes, they will run a candidate that advocates smaller, less intrusive government. The Republicans have not picked a candidate that addresses those issues, so the Republicans will not get the smaller, less intrusive government votes.

[The Pack Knight]

Delegates are elected by plurality vote. That means that if people who prefer less government vote for two different candidates, a minority who prefer more can elect theirs.

Libertarians are certainly free to vote for Barr. I just don't want to hear them complain when President Obama leads the way in raising their taxes and radically increasing the size of the welfare state.

McCain isn't perfect, but he's certainly for smaller and less intrusive government than the Democrats or even most Republicans. People can whine about not wanting to vote for the "lesser of two evils", but that's just the way it works.

We have a two-party system because that's the only system compatible with winner-take-all plurality elections. If you don't like it, then work for a constitutional election requiring that states select their electors and congressmen by majority vote, go to a proportional representation system, or both. Until then, third party candidates are nothing more than a distraction.

[Owen]

The title is incorrect and should be:

“Who is Bob Barr? He could be Hillary’s dream come true.”

Always phrase such things in the context of the impact on the Democratic candidate’s prospects. Nothing else matters.

[Def Conservative]

Yup.

While I may end up voting for McCain, I can certainly understand why people have values they put before political expediency.

[kcordell]

Mr. Barr couldn’t win his own district. Upon leaving the House he accepted employment with the ACLU.

[Stentor]

Lindsey Graham and Bob Barr get a point for managing the impeachment of the Toon. Somebody else can give their other good points.

[mysterio]

That means that if people who prefer less government vote for two different candidates, a minority who prefer more can elect theirs.

I can't imagine why people who prefer smaller, less intrusive government would vote McCain. He is not a small government candidate. Plus, for years people have been telling me that the libertarian "kook" vote doesn't matter and that I'm just a dirty drug user who wants to use drugs (even though I do not use illegal drugs.) So I guess if libertarians vote for the libertarian candidate, it won't matter anyway because the libertarian vote doesn't matter. That's what I heard, at least.

[Phlap]

McCain spent time in the Hanoi Hilton. Bob Barr is definitely not his worst nightmare.

[The Pack Knight]

Why? Because he has an 87 lifetime rating from Citizens Against Government Waste, because he routinely gets 'A's from the National Taxpayers' Union? Or is it his 100% rating from Cato?

McCain might not be a minarchist libertarian, but he's more of a small government candidate than most of his Republican opponents were, let alone the Democrats. To say he's no different from Obama on that issue is just breathless hyperbole.

If you prefer Obama to McCain, then, by all means, vote for Bob Barr. You may not like to hear it, but that's how it is.

Also, you've never heard from me that the libertarian vote is irrelevant; it most certainly is. It is not, however, large enough to elect a libertarian President. They have the power to help the candidate that is most friendly to their views, or to act against their own interests and toss their votes to an irrelevant candidate.

If libertarians wish to remain irrelevant in the name of ideological purity, then that's their prerogative. It does nothing to help their cause, though.

[mysterio]

I don’t prefer Obama to McCain. I just don’t vote for candidates that don’t make restoring our Bill of Rights and cutting the size of federal government drastically top issues.

[arthurus]

After Amnesty, it won’t matter who got elected president in 2008.

[The Pack Knight]

That's your prerogative, so long as you realize that, by doing so, you're helping a candidate who will work to drastically increase the size of the federal welfare state.

It might be good for your conscience, but I don't see how it helps your cause any.

[mysterio]

I’m not helping anyone other than the candidate I decide to vote for. A big government candidate is not entitled to a small government vote by default. If Republicans decide to return to their smaller, less intrusive government plank, they might pick up some libertarian votes.

[riverdawg]

If personal character is an important value for people in choosing a candidate, then Bob Barr is not their guy. He has Newt’s problem, in spades.