Barr Votes Would Have Given GOP Wins in North Carolin and Indiana

[BlueStateBlues]

If Barr's votes had gone to Palin and her running mate they would have won North Carolina and Indiana. North Carolina: Obama 49.9%, Palin 49.5%, Barr 0.6$ Indiana Obama 49.9%, Palin 49%, Barr 1.1% This would have been more important in a closer election, but it caught my interest when I looked the figures up.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

If Barr's votes had gone to Palin and her running mate they would have won North Carolina and Indiana.

Anyone who voted for Barr secretly wanted Obama to win.

[fightinJAG]

Just reading an article that made me think of our discussion. Specifically, my response to you that, hell's bells, many of Obama's supporters already love socialism!

From a piece on the proposed bailout of the auto industry:

But back in Lordstown, people just want to the government to act.

Joellen Spletzer, owner of a convenience store about a mile from the GM plant, can't understand how Congress could quickly bail out Wall Street but balk at helping an industry that supports so many people.

"I'm not talking about my little store on the corner," she said. "It will affect people in so many widespread ways it's unbelievable."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081112/meltdown_autos.html The siren call of socialism is already loud and clear. Calling it out for what it is is absolutely necessary.

[fightinJAG]

Are the people who gave Obama $600,000,000 really aiming at a "forcible redistribution of wealth at every fundamental level?"

First, let me make clear that I am NOT saying that Obama is Hitler. However, I am going to use an historical example to elaborate on my response to your comment, above.

Hitler came to power through legal means and an official office. Although the Left quibbles with it (except when they want to claim that Bush = Hitler), it's generally accepted that Hitler was elected to office by mass millions of German citizens, for whom he was a beloved savior who would rescue them from the economic devastation of WWI.

Women swooned and threw flowers at his feet.

Do you think that those millions who voted for Hitler and his economic ideas were "really aiming at" (to use your words) fascism, millions murdered, millions of war casualties, and the ultimate and utter ruin of their country, all within about twelve years?

No, they weren't. But that is where Hitler's ideas---and the subsequent practical actions required to make his ideas "succeed" (i.e., the imposition of fascism)---took them.

This is what I call the "predictable historical destination of these ideas." This is irrelevant to and irrespective of intent.

A couple of links for thought and showing some of this discussion on this point FWIW:

Why was Hitler elected if he blatantly stated his plans in Mein Kampf?

Why German Christians Elected and Supported Hitler.

[x]

Thanks for the response. There's a lot to think about. I just wanted to say that there were major differences between Schmidt and Honnecker or between Tony Blair and Fidel Castro, between Social Democrats who work within a basically capitalist society and Marxists who want to replace markets altogether. Put Obama beside Allende and he doesn't look Marxist at all.

Much of what gets people angry is the thuggishness that they see in the unions and in groups like Acorn. I don't deny that it's there, but it's still a long way from what goes on in communist societies, and I don't see it as truly marxist.

At times in history, you can see things like that get out of hand. Mobs and thugs take over. But so far it looks like Obama will be taking his appointees from the same types who always get government positions. They may be worse than those who've held such jobs in other administrations or they may not, but they aren't going to be the KGB. So far there's still a difference between an office thug like Rahm Emanuel and a real street thug.

It makes a difference where the left starts from and how far they want to go. Maybe people are exaggerating how socialist America already is, how much power unions and machine politicians have, and how far Obama is willing to go. I don't know. I doubt half the population is going to try to expropriate the other half.

I am aware that the dangerous time for societies is when they try to change things, though. Too much gets promised. People start to demand more and more. So there is a real danger.

But I do know that America's a tougher, more stable society than a lot of others in the world. The odds are good that we're going to survive the next four years.

[x]

Well, with or without a Marxist president, these bailouts are already making us more socialist than we were a year ago. Congress is taking us in that direction even without Marx.

Ideological programs face a lot of opposition. It's the actions done in the name of "necessity" that get through and shake things up.

[fightinJAG]

Yep.

[fightinJAG]

I think we’re on the same page, it’s just that you are looking at the effects of Obama in the next four years, I am looking much further down the road.

For the foreseeable future, things (I think) will continue pretty much business as usual. Except the socialist programs will pile up, and they cannot be completely undone in the future.

The problem is not in simply imposing the programs, it’s that as these programs grow and get their tentacles throughout society, they become unsustainable.

If that happens, and at that point in time America does in fact have more than 50% of its citizens on the dole, that’s when the government starts having to deal with civil unrest or starts becoming ever more confiscatory and coercive in an attempt to keep the gig from being up.

But, yes, that’s the potential down the road. Worth thinking about, though.

Thanks.

[Puddleglum]

Big deal. McCain cost himself more votes than Barr could ever have taken. If McCain has said “no” to the bailout, he would have been on the side of 80% of Americans. He would have snagged some of the disaffected voters Barr attracted.

[BillyBoy]

>> How about Republicans quite whining about third parties being spoilers and give the third party voters some incentive to vote for them <<

Ummm... last time I checked, they did:

Walter Block: Barr-Root ticket ‘LESS libertarian’ than Sarah Palin

So it seems the kool-aid drinkers voted turd party anyway, EVEN when the Republican candidate had a BETTER track record on their issues than the Libertarian nominee.

Screw Barr voters and the horse they road in on. If they want to vote for someone who cheers on Obama, snubs their icon Ron Paul, and worships the cult of gorebull warming, they should just join the RAT party and get it over with.

[BillyBoy]

>> Even w/Palin, he couldnt get behind McCain (and didnt think he had a chance) so my brother voted on informed principle after finding out what Barr stood for. <<

Assuming your brother was truly "informed" about what Barr stood for, that means the "principles" he cast his vote for were: surrender in Iraq and immediate withdrawl (a position to the left of Obama's), repealing anti-terrorism measures, amnesty for illegal aliens, repealing traditional marriage, legalizing dope, implimenting Al Gore's proposals on "climate change", and upholding the status quo on abortion on demand nationally.

If these "conservatives" voting for Barr in earnest really understood what his platform was and agreed with it, it says more about how "conservative" they are than it says about Barr.

Barr was to the left of not only Palin but even McCain on many key issues.

[BillyBoy]

>> One McCain-Feingold does more damage to the GOP than a dozen Bob Barr's ever could. <<

Actually, I think if Barr had somehow gotten elected and implemented his "conservative" agenda on America (immediate withdrawl from Iraq, repealing the Patriot Act, repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, etc., it would do far more damage to conservatives and to the nation than dozen McCain-Feingold bills on campaign finance regulations would do.

[CautiouslyHopeful]

Good point. But there was also Chuck Baldwin. Anyway, my point is that the GOP should cut the blame game stuff. For the past 40 years the Federal government has grown just as much, if not more, under Republican presidents than Democrat presidents. That’s a disgrace. Sarah Palin was a good move, but apparently too late in the game. Next time, let’s hope we have a conservative at the top of the ticket (Mark Sanford, for example, being one of my favorites).

[BillyBoy]

>> Good point. But there was also Chuck Baldwin. <<

Ah, but in the states we're talking about in this thread, the Baldwin factor doesn't apply because he wasn't on the ballot. You could make a legitimate case that Baldwin was to the right of McCain. However, in North Carolina, only McCain, Obama, and Barr were on the ballot. 25,000 people voted for Barr. How many of those were self-described "conservatives"? Enough that could have tilted the state to Palin if they had actually voted for a conservative?

If they want to vote for a "more conservative" candidate, that's their choice, but I'm not going to let these Boob Barf voters (and they FAR outnumbered Baldwin voters even in states where BOTH were on the ballot) get away with claiming a vote for Boob Barf was a vote for conservativism. The half a million+ numbskulls that voted for Barf said they did so to "send a message", so I'm making sure everyone knows they voted for gay marriage, amnesty for illegals, surrendering the WOT, the cult of gorebull warming, etc. Their hero Ron Paul even specifically told them NOT to vote for Barr and they did so ANYWAY. They sent a message that they wanted liberalism and they're going to get it.

You could make a good case that the Bob Barr of 1998 was "more conservative" than McCain, but the Barr-Root ticket of 2008 was to LEFT of McCain-Palin. If that's the "direction" they want the GOP to go in, I don't want them in the GOP. Go join the RATs.