Posted on 05/15/2008 4:38:32 AM PDT by SJackson
| Bob Barr: He's In It to Lose It |
Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican congressman from 1995- 2003, formally announced his campaign for president on the Libertarian Party ticket on Monday, May 12. It was widely reported that his candidacy will take votes away from the GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, similar to the way Ralph Nader’s campaign will hurt the Democratic nominee. But while Barr was a conservative Congressman, he has moved rapidly to the left since breaking with the Republican Party two years ago. He has claimed that a McCain victory would be a “third term” for the Bush administration. On issues of national security and foreign policy, he now sounds more like Nader or Barack Obama. Instead of running to the right of McCain, Barr will be running well to his left – perhaps even further left than the Democratic nominee. Indeed, one of his best-known competitors for the nomination is far-leftist Mike Gravel. At his announcement, Barr claimed he was “in it to win it,” echoing Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign. But his positions indicate, like Gravel, Barr is “in it to lose it” when it comes to the War on Terror, or any contest against America’s foreign enemies. In a video posted on the left-wing Huffington Post the day of his announcement, Barr says, “Only a fool would signal to whatever our adversaries are, whoever our adversaries are, exactly how and when we would be drawing down our troops. But I do believe that it is extremely important, and in the best interests of America's defenses and our security, and our relationship with our allies, that we do begin immediately setting in place a plan to draw down, dramatically decrease the military, the economic and the political footprint that we maintain in Iraq.” Barr’s vagueness about who the enemy is in Iraq, be it al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias, makes it easier for him to ignore the consequences of his proposed withdrawal of all tools of American influence from the region. Allies and those considering whether to align with the United States, are not going to be favorably impressed by a demonstration of American weakness; nor is crippling political divisions at home a persuasive argument for democracy. Only five months ago, Barr noted, “Regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq – and I am among those believing the invasion and continued occupation of this Middle Eastern nation (‘nation building,’ if you will) was and remains ill-advised – the performance of our armed forces in Iraq improved dramatically this past year, especially in the last half of the year.” Barr’s advocacy of a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground or the consequences, is the manifestation of ideology, not strategic reasoning. Barr exudes Isolationism, a naïve desire to retreat into an idyllic world far different than the one that actually exists. As America learned the hard way during the 1930s, the rest of the world won’t go away. Barr opposes any military action against Iran, even though he acknowledges Tehran’s quest for nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups. In a column last October, he called for “strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran” without offering any specifics. At the same time, he argued “What is important, however, should be to quell the simplistic blustering by the White House and by many presidential candidates designed to prove each will be tougher on Iran than the others. Also helpful would be putting a lid on unnecessary and repetitive insults and threats directed at the Ahmadinejad administration.” In the months since his column, Iran has shown that it has no respect for the diplomatic approach of the U.S. and its European allies. Not only is the Tehran regime moving ahead with its nuclear program, but it has felt secure enough to unleash its Hezbollah proxy army against the Lebanese government, which is supposedly backed by the same Western powers. Dennis/Justin Raimondo has written on AntiWar.com – a site he edits in the name of isolationism, “Bob Barr's announcement that he is making a run for the White House on the Libertarian ticket has many advocates of a non-interventionist foreign policy hopeful, even excited – and I include myself among them.” The United States only flirted with isolationism once in its long history of growth to Superpower status, and that was in the 1930s when the movement helped paralyze opposition to growing global threats that finally exploded into World War II. Raimondo, however, is on record writing, “I believe the wrong side won the war in the Pacific” and labeling Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Winston Churchill the real “fascists” for opposing Nazi and Communist aggression. If Raimondo is the kind of person who gets excited at a Barr campaign, McCain has nothing to worry about. But Barr is not just opposed to foreign wars. He is opposed to defending the United States itself from terrorist attack. He joined with Bruce Fein, a notorious critic of the Bush administration who has called for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, to form the “American Freedom Agenda.” The most consistent theme running through left-wing opinion since September 11, 2001, has been concern for the well-being of the enemy, who must be protected from American counter measures. The Barr-Fein agenda thus calls for extending habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants and amending the Espionage Act to permit journalists to reveal classified national security information without fear of prosecution. Its ten-point agenda would prohibit: Barr apparently wants God to protect us from terrorism. Barr opposes the proposal by Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA, to create a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. “Never content to rely on the Good Lord to deliver us from those things that might do us harm,” he argued, “one Congress after another – going back at least to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 – has considered legislation or held hearings to highlight perceived threats and to then limit individual freedom to battle things that might bump us in the night.” He dismissed “this century's Red scare – terrorism,” although neither threat was illusory. Simple reliance on the Good Lord did not save the victims of 9/11, nor did faith alone end the Holocaust or bring down the Berlin Wall. If there was divine intervention, it was in providing the resources and the will to act against the enemies of civilization. God helps those who help themselves. Is this only naivete on Barr’s part? In regard to the Collins-Harman bill, Barr understands that “Any person or organization that might have even contemplated the use of ‘violence’ (not itself a defined term in the legislation) ought to be genuinely frightened of this language. Any ‘extremist belief system’ (not further defined) that might facilitate ‘ideologically based violence’ would be a targetable activity for the commission.” Why would anyone not want those contemplating violence to be afraid, and thus hopefully deterred from spilling blood to advance their extremist agendas? The answer is found in the Left’s mythology of bloody revolution in the style of Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, or Castro. Although the Constitution to which he constantly appeals charges the federal government with preserving our borders, he has no such interests. He opposes the Real ID, which Congress enacted in 2005 to standardize state drivers licenses and non-driver identification cards to reduce the ability for illegal aliens, terrorists or other criminals to obtain and use false documents or establish fictitious identities. As Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, said at the time he introduced his Real ID act, “American citizens have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name on a drivers license is the holder’s real name, not some alias.” Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 terrorists, had obtained a Florida drivers license, which he used as ID to board the jetliner he hijacked. This is why the 9/11 Commission recommended increased security for state drivers licenses. Licenses that meet the Real ID standard will be needed for boarding commercial airline flights and for entering federal buildings and nuclear power plants. But Barr thinks improved licenses will interfere with “the right to travel free of government constraints,” which “has long been considered a fundamental freedom in America.” But such travel is a privilege, not a right; and should be denied to criminals. There is no authentic conservative tradition of turning against one’s country in a time of war. Patriotism and the desire to see one’s country secure, strong and in charge of its own destiny are core conservative values. Anyone with the shameful inclination to undermine policies that serve the national interest has to move to the Left to find arguments and support. This is what Bob Barr has done in his quest for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.
There always seem to be someone who crawls out of a sewer to muck things up. That, by the way, is where Barack came from.
I wasn't aware that they took positions on non-gun issues, but if you're right that they're supportive of an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, repeal of the Patriot Act, and dismantling of domestic anti-terror efforts, yes, they're in Sheehanland on those issues.
And you base that on ???????
Throw away lines are cheap and unpersuasive.
If McCain believes that his own bills are Constitutional, he is on the far left. Barak Obama says he believes in an individual right to bear arms. Do you believe him too?
Funny how guys who disagree on war are summarily trashed on this website. Yet we are supposed to hold our nose and vote for the guy who craps on our First Amendment rights, wants to let terrorists into our southern border at will and proposes a multi-trillion dollar cap and trade plan borrowed directly from Al Gore. I’ll take the guy who I disagree with on the war, thanks.
McCain believes that his campaign reform law is not violative of the First Amendment. So far the judiciary has not opined either way.
One thing is certain: the law is useless and has been completely circumvented by 501(c)s of various kinds.
Other than that, I'm not sure which bills of his are so glaringly unconstitutional - ill-advised, certainly. Unconstitutional?
Barak Obama says he believes in an individual right to bear arms. Do you believe him too?
The laws of the state of IL, in which Barack Obama sat as a legislator, speak for themselves. John McCain's record in the Second Amendment, while far from stellar, is quite different.
It goes far beyond simple "reorganization of the executive department".
Attempts to simplify such a far reaching Act is indicative of the subversion of the Constitution by stealth that is being practiced against a dumb downed populace regarding the extent of the reach of government into an individuals life.
LOL. For a party that can’t seem to get over a few percent come election day, the propagandists sure spend a lot of time telling us how dangerous they are.
Why do Republicans care who the libertarians vote for? I have been told endlessly that the “loserdopian” vote is insignificant and made up of only crazy drug users who want to smoke drugs. So if libertarians vote Libertarian, no problem, right?
Always begin by poisoning the well.
then you haven't really read the Patriot Act
Oh, that must be it. It could not be that I reached different conclusions than you did when I read it. That would be impossible.
nor engaged in the many debates here about its Constitutionality..
There hasn't been a whole lot of debate here. A lot of cutting-and-pasting, a lot of linking to websites, but not much analysis.
Your sweeping declaration does not have the legitimacy of consensus here.
Truth is not determined by a show of hands.
For your convenience, here is the complete text of The Patriot Act and my response to it.
Your response contains lots of the same tendentious assertions that simply are not a replacement for analysis.
For example: "The FBI can secretly enter someone's home or office, search the premises, and leave without notifying the owner. In theory, this would be supervised by a court."
It's not a matter of "theory" - there must be a warrant and the court must be notified. And this is not an innovation: it is precisely these kinds of warrants that have been used for decades to secure wiretaps or make copies of documents without seizing them.
Another: "Previously, there were legal restrictions on Carnivore and other Internet surveillance techniques (Section 216)." Laws change every day - it does not mean that the new law violates the Constitution. In the old days, the principal ways people communicated were via speech and snail mail. Today people routinely carry on conversations non-verbally through IP media. I'm not sure why reading mail would be Constitutional and reading email wouldn't be.
Another: "In effect, this provision suspends any due process provisions of the Constitution, especially the Fifth Amendment which states that 'no person … [shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' " Again, it is a matter of defining due process and how exactly it applies to citizens and non-citizens. And, again, there is no innovation here: criminal aliens have been held without council - even US citizens have been incarcerated for long periods without legal advice, like the internment of Japanese-American citizens - an extremity that this law does not authorize.
Another: "Foreigners who enter the U.S. on a visa will be subjected to biometric technology, such as fingerprint readers or iris scanners." Does the Constitution mandate that foreigners should be allowed to dictate the terms of their own visas?
Another: "Without a court order, credit reporting agencies must disclose to the FBI any information that agents request in connection with a terrorist investigation. The agencies may not disclose to the subject that the FBI is snooping in their file (Section 505)." This is completely in line with existing laws and is modified to allow FBI Directors to appoint special deputies to use this tool.
Another: "The current definition of terrorism is expanded to include biochemical attacks and computer hacking." Again, why exactly is this unconstitutional?
It goes far beyond simple "reorganization of the executive department".
I never posted or implied that it was solely such a reorganization - in fact I explicitly described aspects that went beyond reorganization.
Attempts to simplify such a far reaching Act is indicative of the subversion of the Constitution by stealth that is being practiced against a dumb downed populace regarding the extent of the reach of government into an individuals life.
That's quite a "sentence."
I would argue that "dumbing things down" would be exemplified by the following analysis:
"If I think a law sounds scary, then it must be unconstitutional."
If the Patriot Act was so wonderful, surely you’d agree that the people voting on it should have been given enough time to read the damned thing before voting on it, right?
Dude, there is a lot to say good about McCain. His views on the Constitution are NOT one of them.
That's only when the liberal Republicans win. When they lose, it's, "YOU FU$&IN' LOSERDOPIANS CAUSED THE DEMOCRAT TO WIN!!!! NOW AMERICA IS GOING TO BE NUKED AND THE US WILL BE UNDER SHARIA LAW!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
I can't wait to see these people when McCain gets destroyed in November.
Yep, obviously Barr represents a threat or else Front Page & FReepers wouldn't take the time to hyperventilate about him.
I'm not sure what part of your post is funnier - that I think the USA PATRIOT Act is "wonderful" or the assumption that Congressmen ever bother to read the legislation they vote on.
Look up the timeline as to when it was presented to Congress versus when it was voted on. Unless every member of Congress has supernatural speed-reading abilities, there is no way they could have read the thing.
Oh, and Congressional staffers had ten days to review this Act and summarize it for their bosses.
Barr will hurt McCain because enough frustrated Pubs, Indies and even Mod. Dems will vote for him just enough to lose the election for McCain. Well, I actually don’t believe that but nutters like Barr, Paul while dealing with some issues correctly simply give Dems even greater chances to be elected. Third Parties just do not work. Except to hurt the two major parties: see Nader and or Perot.
Presented on October 2. Voted on October 12.
Unless every member of Congress has supernatural speed-reading abilities, there is no way they could have read the thing.
Every Congressman has, at great expense, a crew of staffers whose official reason for existence is to review and research legislation.
I'll also point out that the final version of the Act presented to the Senate is 57,000 words long.
If it were printed in standard paperback format, without indentations and extra lines to set off every paragraph and subparagraph, it would take up 160 pages in a standard paperback book.
A typical Wall Street attorney can be expected - in fact is expected - to review a 100,000 word indenture agreement overnight in order to place a corporate bond offering. A bad job will ensure ruinous litigation and the loss of clients.
A lawyer on a Congressman's staff should be quite familiar with the federal code to begin with, and should be able to turn over 57,000 words of a bill in a similar timeframe - especially if it is a priority.
No law firm in DC would hire anyone who couldn't do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.