Posted on 05/26/2008 11:57:53 AM PDT by devere
(CNN) – Former Rep. Bob Barr, the newly-selected Libertarian presidential nominee, rejected suggestions Monday that he could spoil his former party's chances of holding onto the White House.
"There are two folks that are out to spoil the race here — it's Senator Obama and Senator McCain. They're setting out, I think, to spoil our chances," he told CNN's "American Morning."
He added, "There are millions of voters out there that are not going to vote for Senator McCain, and we aim to reach those voters with the message of smaller government and more individual liberty."
For years, Barr was a prominent Georgia Republican in the House. He played a leading role in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.
His positions on some issues have left some Libertarians unsure about his candidacy. He opposed legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, supported the Patriot Act, and co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act.
While the Defense of Marriage Act was backed by opponents of gay marriage, and allowed states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, Barr told CNN Monday that it was a "very sound individualistic and states' rights policy."
And he said he has been working for five years "to either amend or repeal the Patriot Act because of the way it has been used and abused by the Bush administration to curtail the civil liberties of American citizens in this country. We can defend America without taking away civil liberties and privacy rights of American citizens, and we ought to be doing that."
He also supports U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Barr, 59, left the Republican Party in 2006, and announced in April that he would form a presidential exploratory committee. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1994 and represented a conservative district
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Umm... Which Soros candidate do you refer to, McCain or Obama?
Newsflash, the radical Dems consider you the Enemey and will treat as such if they have complete POWER.
Newsflash, the RINO Republicans consider me the enemy too, and will treat me as such if they come to power. So what's the difference?
Barr is a bitter ACLU nutjob that has been trying to undermine the War on Terror since he lost his seat!
The ACLU thing doesn't bother me, considering his actual participation therein, and I have already stated that his position on the war is in error.
But that only defeats him in the mind of strict Reagan Conservatives and defcons, whereas socons and ficons are looking for a home that they can, and possibly will find in Barr.
As a Reagan Conservative, I cannot vote for Barr, because he does not conform to the needs of the defcon conservatives. But neither will I vote for McCain, because he cannot service the socons or the ficon/libertarians, not to mention his ignoble nature.
That said, I will be satisfied to see McCain denied- If all Barr does is block his ascension, then I would owe Barr my gratitude for his service.
He won with very low percentages both times - Gore and Kerry got more votes than BJ ever did.
You’ll just end up with zero of what you want. Even McCain would do better than that.
No, McCain will *not* do better- He will predictably betray us all. Betrayers betray. That's what they *do*.
Hahaha! Nice...
My God. How the Kool Aide crowd must hate you. LOL!
If that’s all McDemocrat has got, he’s lost already.
Hey... it's their argument. I just fit it onto a square, is all. ;)
It never ceases to amaze me, how the brown shirts figure to win by curb-stomping Conservatives, yet they are somehow assured that the Conservatives will 'come along' (where else are they gonna' go?). Yet when their bid fails, which it most certainly will, we will have to put up with their kicking and screaming for ever more.
One might suppose they would learn at some point, like wayward children, that fire is hot, that they must eat their vegetables before they get dessert, and that Conservatives will only vote for Conservatives.
Juan and his handlers are calculatedly dividing the Nation into several competing camps.
McC’ll go down in history as “The Great Divider.”
Were a serious third party to challenge, it must come from the 'right' of the republicans, ie: anti-abortion, restricted govt. spending, pro-2nd ammendment, pro-private sector in almost all things, such as education, healthcare, strong on border enforcement/sovereignty, and very pro-military such that no-one and nobody would ever think of attacking us 'cause we have a history of smack-downs. (I'd play that card. Why the hell not?)
As the 'Right' moves to the center, it must abandon individuals and adopt a more favorable view of the 'collective'. It's like Emerald City appearing on the horizon while riding your donkey through a corn (excuse me, 'ethanol'} field.
"Why, I bet there's more sweet-thang in that city than all of my home town." And you know, he'd be correct. Such is the lure.
If the right does a better job of holding the center than the left did when they had it, we might just be better off.
But he is not different than Obama when it comes to Foreign Policy..
I don't need to. That McCain took money from Soros and Ketchup boy speaks volumes.
Whoever wins (D or R), Soros' influence is guaranteed.
The ACLU is the enemy of this country and tried to destroy Reagan work.
No one is 'destroying Reagan's work' as completely as the Baker wing of the Republican Party.
As to the ACLU, I would agree with you for the most part, though there are some issues where they are on the side of the angels: Eminent Domain, for instance.
I would much prefer a candidate who was employed by the ACLU, who used that employment to the advantage of the libertarian cause, that being akin to and a part of the conservative cause, over a traitorous bastard who betrays the conservative cause outright.
I would disagree with that statement. Barr's libertarian outlook supposes a more isolationist America, whereas Obama would use the force of American influence to promote a liberal agenda.
While I disagree with the general disengagement (none of our business) Barr would prefer, He does not suggest 'total isolation'. He would support our allies, and I am all for 'fair trade', as are most Reagan Conservatives.
Basically abonded our allies like the isolationist did in the 30's. But that is not Barr. Non-interventionism is not isolationist.
There is little I disagree with him on, except the war in Iraq- At least until he clarifies his position favorably.
There is nothing here (ontheissues.org) that I can't live with except his position on the WOT.
Bob Barr is a hard core conservative with libertarian tendencies
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.