Former Ga. Rep. Barr picked as Libertarian candidate

Sorry, I have to ask - might just win what?

POTUS silly.

While I have some doubts I struggle with the concept that Americans are so stupid that they'd vote for Mr. and Mrs. Status Quo and their illegitimate son McStain.

It would take an act of sudden awakening of teh American people for Barr to win. The LP just is not there yet. Sadly.

If they were allowed in the debates they would be right there. That's all it would take.

So Important I'll shout...

HOW TO GET THE INDEPENDENT AND LIBERTARIAN PARTIES IN THIS YEAR'S DEBATE??!?!?!

I am sure that there are ways to petition the debate system. I would be very surprised if it is not attempted each and every election cycle.

The Barr candidacy sure has riffled the Libertarian deck. It will be very interesting to see how the LP sorts itself out.

I would really like to see the Libertarians included in the fall presidential debates. The LP would make it much more interesting and bring out the real issues. The problem is that the chair of the debate group which decides who gets to be in the debates is always one Dem and one GOP person. The Libertarians have to have someone on that group to get into the debates.

Obama would probably be very open to allowing them into the debates. I bet Bob Barr would find a friend in the Obama campaign.

Who do we write letters to? I wonder if we couldn't get a NewsVine email blast started?

the chair of the debate group which decides who gets to be in the debates is always one Dem and one GOP person

Who in the name of Sam Hill decided that?

The Dems and GOP decided this a long time ago when the two party system was formed. They have a tight grip on the debates and it would take some dissent from both sides to get the LP in the debates; which could happen if the right people are contacted.

Seems highly unethical if not illegal.

POTUS silly.

And you're calling me 'silly'?

It would take an act of sudden awakening of teh American people for Barr to win. The LP just is not there yet. Sadly.

The LP is not there yet??? The LP does worse and worse every election cycle - what are they down to now, about 1/3 of 1% of the vote? I think they peaked for support back in the 80s. They are a party of fringies and outcasts. When are they going to have an awakening and join the real world and become relevant to actually influencing politics and changing things by working within the system rather than outside of it.

The Dems and GOP decided this a long time ago when the two party system was formed.

The Dems and the GOP had nothing to do with it - they weren't even around when the two party system was formed which was derived from the way the Constitution was set up. We have a two party system and it's not because of an accident or manipulation. It helps keep the process from being flooded and diluted by crazies and fringe radicals.

It's just sad to see people who are politically mindful waste it on stuff like this. They are part of a party or cause that has literally a fraction of a percentage of support and are unyeilding in their support against reality and all common sense and punctuate it with the attitude that it's actually everybody else who has the problem and if the vast, vast majority of voters in America would only stop trying to make a difference and join their nothing party than everything would be better.

The Libertarian Party has always been the party which looks at the real issues. Now Barr understands that and maybe he can help others to understand as well.

I get the feeling that he does. What a gas if Wayne Root goes along.

So - the *real* problem now is how to get them included in the presidential and vice presidential debates this year. If he's in that (which he won't be unless a miracle happens) he'd easily win.

If the average person would seriously look at the Libertarian platform they'd have to agree with the vast majority of it.

Now Barr understands that and maybe he can help others to understand as well.

The only thing Barr will do for the party is draw some much needed attention to it from a whole lot of people that would score very highly in the Nolan quiz if they took it.

I must say, a big name is needed in the LP. The last guy to run looked like a doof and no one had heard of him.

Well let's see if he turns out to be republican-lite or not. If all we are looking for is exposer, then I guess we will get it.

From what I understand he apologized to the LP on the last night of the convention in Denver, for not coming around sooner. We will see.

that will draw Fiscal conservatives who are against the war away from McCain

A well organized 3rd party has an excellent chance of an upset this year.

You will see this bumpersticker a lot...

Sick of this S**T yet? Vote Libertarian.

TBone, I agree with you about a Third Party. This country is in dire need of a real third choice.

While there are many third parties up and running, it is the LP who can bring the message of limited government and personal liberty back into American politics. Just look at what Ron Paul was able to do.

I now that the LP's choice of Barr has stirred up a lot noise. But I have heard speculative heard talk of McCain/ Barr ticket. Now wouldn't that crank up the rhetoric?

No he won't.

Unfortunately, the Libertarians and other *far more viable* 3rd parties will be boycotted. The last time they let a 3rd party in the debates the 3rd party kicked the donkey/elephant asses. Perot would have won if they did not threaten his family.

With Kuddy dropping out Ruwart could still get it?

I believe he held pretty consistent libertarian policy during the debate Saturday night.

Barr is renouncing his Republican social conservative record to merge into the Libertarian platform. For example he authored the anti-gay marriage Defense of Marriage Act and has indicated a willingness to alter that. His foreign policy stance is similar to Hillary's, surprisingly conservative for Libertarians.

The thing I look forward to from the alternatives to the Democrat/Republican parties is effectively raising & providing a discussion for issues that might otherwise not have a voice. Gravel is more interesting in that respect.

What do you see Barr bringing to the national conversation that we don't already get from the 2 main parties?

Ah, you must be referring to the anti-polygamy DOMA. I didn't realize DOMA was a threat to libertarianism. I thought maybe renegade judges might be more so, but then again, 'libertarian' and 'Libertarian' aren't necessarily one in the same.

Otto - What distinction do you derive from the cap "L"? From what source do you find Libertarian dissent against "renegade judges"? The concept of a worrisome judiciary belongs to social conservatives - not libertarians.

The Libertarian party platform specifically seeks to neutralize government imposition of moral values related to marriage.

The Issue: Politicians use popular fears and taboos to legally impose a particular code of moral and social values. Government regularly denies rights and privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Principle: Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.

Solutions: Culture wars, social friction and prejudice will fade when marriage and other personal relationships are treated as private contracts, solely defined by the individuals involved, and government discrimination is not allowed.

Transitional Action: Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage...

Okay, then as I stated 'Libertarians' are not necessarily 'libertarians'. An out of control judiciary is a direct threat to libertarian principles. I'm amazed that you can rationalize a distinction between social conservatism and libertarianism, but not between judicial restraint and libertarianism. Libertarianism can co-exist with restrained social conservatism - it's when the courts become our social compass that libertarianism becomes threatened.

It's about power to the people over power to judicial elites.

I really don't get why you focus on 'social-conservatives' but are okay with judges being social-deciders. That's not a libertarian ideal, but then again, I suspect many big L's don't really get what the little l is all about.

Legislated social conservatism is an anathema to big or little "l" Libertarians.

Look through that platform and let me know if you find any position advocating legislation that would engineer social directives....or where you find positions related judicial activism.

When you brought up renegade judges it was a red flag of the social conservative plea against "activist judges". I can understand that it might be a political issue for some people. Those people are usually social conservatives.

I'll give you an example of judicial activism run amock that should frighten any true libertarian: the recent court (4-3 I believe) ruling in CA overturning 61% of the population and the governor and attempting to redefine marriage for the entire nation. It shouldn't matter what your position on marriage is, a real libertarian would recognize that as an assault on our democracy. The fringe party that has hijacked the name 'libertarian' I imagine would like to see more of this.

Which comes down to this: your contempt for 'legislated social conservatism' shouldn't be narrowed to just conservatism. libertarianism is as much about limiting government and preserving the founding processes as it is about seeking political ends. A judge overturning the will of the people is just as wrong if it limits marriage to a man and a woman as it is if it expands it.

libertarians can manipulate the legislative process just like anyone else but like everyone else, they cannot manipulate the judicial short of suing the government.

how does an elected state supreme court try to redefine other states' marriage laws? If 61% of Californians believe counter to those justices that voted to overturn a law in California, then they will be removed from the bench in the next election. Do you want a direct democracy Otto? Otherwise you will have to deal with decisions of elected officials on an after-the-fact basis.

Judicial activism is the knee-jerk blaming meme when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. The CA supremes read the state constitution and did their job - they judged... actively one presumes. It's an active issue in CA and there is no shortage of activist citizens and activist government actively acting to enact the version of family structure they actively prefer. (btw - the 7 CA supremes are appointed and all but one are Republican)

All this is a diversion from topic though. Libertarian philosophies are based on limiting government's reach and maximizing individual liberty which explains that section of their platform that asserts

Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.

I'd suggest that if this doesn't fit with your notion of what a real libertarian would think or that you suppose it's an insignificant fringe issue you should rethink the principles of individual liberty.

I would have liked Ruwart myself but Barr can probably get more done.

Go Big L GO!

how does an elected state supreme court try to redefine other states' marriage laws?

And this is how the game is played. There's no activist agenda when it comes to SSM. The goal isn't a nationwide redefinition of marriage, is it? This kind of court ruling doesn't help that, does it? There are no nationwide conotations to marriage, are there? (BTW, are you acknowledging that SSM amounts to a redefinition of marriage?)

If 61% of Californians believe counter to those justices that voted to overturn a law in California, then they will be removed from the bench in the next election.

What do I care if they are removed from the bench or not? The forces behind Roe v. Wade are no longer on the bench either but that doesn't stop the country from being force fed a nationwide abortion policy, does it?

Do you want a direct democracy Otto? Otherwise you will have to deal with decisions of elected officials on an after-the-fact basis.

Let's not mix 'elected officials' with the people we vote for to actually make our laws for us. Judges are not legislators (except in cases like this). We shouldn't be electing judges to decide social policies for the state. There is nothing going on today that is more anti-democratic than saying that a slim majority of seven people get to make decisions against the desires of a majority of 40 million voters and the people they elect to REPRESENT them.

Judicial activism is the knee-jerk blaming meme when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.

That's because without judicial activism there would be absolutely no traction for the SSM side. Funny how that works, isn't it?

btw - the 7 CA supremes are appointed and all but one are Republican)

Which explains (in part) why CA courts like the 9th Circus are some of the most overturned courts in American history.

Libertarian philosophies are based on limiting government's reach and maximizing individual liberty which explains that section of their platform that asserts

Yes and you don't limit government's reach by taking decisions away from the people and giving them to a few elitist snobs in robes. And your citing the LP platform only confirms my belief that big 'L' libertarianism has little to do with little 'l' libertarianism. Libertarians should be more concerned about the means than the ends.

And it's silly anyway. Of course government (as in the people) gets to define civil marriage. Civil marriage IS a licensed government institution and there is no basis for a court to determine otherwise. I don't think marriage is an insignificant issue at all - I think it's one of the most important we face which is why I'm not prepared to give up the issue to activist judges and fringe LP fruitcakes.

Go Big L GO!

Yeah! Let's shoot for 1/2 of 1% of the vote this year!