Why does this logo remind me of Obama?
Posted on 05/25/2008 2:49:33 PM PDT by WackySam
Former Congressman plans to take the White House as Libertarian candidate
Denver - The Libertarian Party has nominated former Congressman Bob Barr as its candidate for president for the 2008 election.
"I'm sure will we emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr stated in his victory speech shortly after being selected as the Party's nominee. "I want everybody to remember that we only have 163 days to win this election. We cannot waste one single day."
More than 650 Libertarian delegates met in Denver from May 22 till the 26 for the 2008 Libertarian National Convention. After six rounds of voting Sunday afternoon, Barr was selected as the Party's presidential nominee.
"We're proud to present to the American voters Bob Barr as our presidential nominee," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis. "While Republicans and Democrats will fight for their own power in November, Libertarians will fight for Americans. Bob Barr is one of the strongest candidates in the Party's 37-year history, and we look for him to have an enormous impact in the 2008 race. Republicans and Democrats have good reason to fear a candidate like Barr, who refuses to accept the 'business-as-usual' attitude of the current political establishment. Americans want and need another choice, and that choice is Bob Barr."
The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.
For more information, or to arrange a media interview, please call Andrew Davis at (202) 333-0008 during normal business hours, or at (202) 731-0002 during any other time. For an interview with the Barr campaign, please contact Audrey Mullen at (703) 548-1160.
OK, now we’re back in the news forum.
...my vote won’t be needed anyway
Given the dynamics of the election this year we may well see states where either an Obama win or a McCain win is nearly certain -- much like the results we have seen in the Democratic primaries. Some states look very unlikely to go for Obama under any circumstances, others may be nearly impossible for McCain to win. So conservatives (and libertarians for that matter) should closely watch the polls and trends in their state.
If your vote can make a difference, hold your nose and deploy it to help keep Obama out of the White House. If your vote can't possibly make a difference in the major party outcome, consider voting for a 3rd party candidate who represents your views. That will at least send a message to the Republican Party.
Of course if the Hildabeast gets nominated somehow then there is no room for 'message sending'. No matter what we think of Sen. McCain, I think we have to pull out all the stops to ensure that he wins the election. The thought of four more years of Clintons in the Whitehouse is enough to get me out campaigning night and day for whoever is running against her.
There, fixed it. The two party system is corrupt, and very broken, or haven't you noticed?
As American's we should be voting for the best candidate. Voting for only who we think can win is what got us here. Don't presume to tell people how they should vote. It's un-American.
In a surprise announcement that comes on the heels of news that the outgoing Majority Leader, Richard Armey (R-TX), is considering consulting for the American Civil Liberties Union, the group said today that it also plans to hire conservative firebrand Bob Barr (R-GA) to work on informational and data privacy issues.
“Rep. Barr and the ACLU disagree on many other issues, but we have no doubt that a strange bedfellows collaboration between us will yield great things for informational and data privacy rights,” said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said that Barr’s agreement to work with the ACLU “demonstrates how deeply concerns about personal privacy cut across partisan lines.” He noted that the ACLU has “no permanent friendsand no permanent enemies, just permanent values.”
“We look forward to working with Congressman Barr in our fight to protect data and information privacy,” Romero said.
The ACLU’s Murphy said that with both Congress and the White House controlled by the Republican Party, the ACLU must be realistic as it seeks to influence policy in Washington. “If we’re going to affect federal policy, we have to have access.”
Murphy said Armey and Barr might not be the last of the high-profile hires, adding that the ACLU has been talking to “soon-to-be ex-senators” from both sides of the aisle. “Stay tuned for Democrats and Republicans,” she said.
Specifically, the ACLU has been in discussion with Congressman Barr about having him come consult for the civil liberties group in its fight against legislation and public policy enacted after September 11 that violates core conceptions of the right to privacy in America.
Barr would primarily work against controversial “sneak and peek” warrants, which bar simultaneous notification of a search to the person whose premises or possessions are being searched, and other informational privacy issues. The USA PATRIOT Act — passed in October of 2001 — facilitated and expanded the use of sneak and peek warrants (also known as “black bag” searches).
The ACLU and Barr found common ground several times during his stint in Congress, including mutual opposition to a national ID, the Justice Department’s Carnivore Internet snooping system, the proposed “Know Your Customer” banking regulation, and the controversial Operation TIPS citizen-spy program. Just recently, Barr was able to persuade the House to pass a bill requiring federal agencies to consider the privacy implications of new regulations.
Last week, outgoing Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-TX) told the Associated Press that he too is considering consulting for the ACLU on information and data privacy issues.
Yeah, I get really annoyed at government euphemisms.
Here is a link to Glenn Beck’s interview with him on the radio last week. I don’t agree with everything but I agree on more than I do with McCain. That’s scary actually but I have to weigh what will be best.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/10360/
If we are ever going to get rid of the two party system we have to start somewhere. If all anyone does is say a third party can’t win, how do we get there. The DNC and RNC are very powerful, you can’t expect a third party, whichever one you like to make it except by a slow process.
“GLENN: Do you believe in manmade global warming and to what extent will you try to correct it, if you do believe in manmade global warming? BARR: Mankind has done a lot of good in the world. They have done a lot of bad as well, but change in the climate is not one of them. I’ve seen no legitimate scientific evidence that indicates that the cyclical — and they are very much cyclical — you know, increases and drops in global temperatures over the decades and over the centuries is the result of, you know, mankind.”
If I was Barr I’d run all-out on that issue. He’s all alone on the correct side of it.
Thanks for the link.
That was my plan in 2004 also. I ended up voting for Bush even though there was no way he could win California, because I believed that under the circumstances it was also important for him to have the largest possible nationwide popular vote. But that was an unusual circumstance.
Thank you for the link.
Sorry for the double post. Had a weird glitch, got pinged twice for the same post, and my first post disappeared for a moment.
I like libertarians. I watched CSPAN’s coverage. They seem like a group of honest, genuinely concerned citizens - not these prep’ed, blow-dried focus-grouped types at the Dem & GOP convention who are well inside the pockets of subsidy-seeking pressure groups.
The only problem with the LP is their public position on the War on Terror. But they do may a good point, when they complain that the Iraq War is a subsidy to oil companies. Oil companies, it could be argued, should pay to defend their OWN foreign investments abroad, including development of the Kurds’ oil fields in the north, by hiring & using private military corporations (PMC’s) — not the taxpayers funds, directly.
It is a tough call, and a major ‘bone of contention’ among Libertarians (the Iraq War involvement that is). Some, like myself, would prefer PMCs, funded by oil company dollars, to pay for this effort. Many libertarians are very much hawks, on the war on terror, period. There is a split within the party, on the issue of the Iraq War - not all libertarians are pacifists - some are strongly pro national defense.
Don’t sell the party short.
The strange thing is that the Libertarian Party is nearly split between those who think a “name” candidate like Barr is the best choice even though he has a record of being a control-freak Republican, which is just about as far from a libertarian as it gets. So Barr will not even get the votes of half of the libertarians who actually vote libertarian, which is only 10% of them.
Needless to say, I think Barr will get an extremely small percent of the vote in the end. I predict about 1%.
Why does this logo remind me of Obama?
Excellent LOL
Your comparison is not valid, as the OP exposes: There are other choices. Choices which are more appealing than the nominees the big parties are offering. That is *not* the fault of the voter, but the fault of the party.
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.