The AP reports Republicans are concerned about the role Libertarian Bob Barr may play in the presidential race. While Barr “is the longest of long shots,” political experts say he may be able to exploit the unease some die-hard conservatives still feel about Sen. John McCain.” California Republican consultant Dan Schnur said, “Bob could be the Ralph Nader of 2008.”
9 responses so far ↓
1 Nexus // Jun 23, 2008 at 7:55 am
The arrogance of the duopoly never ceases to sicken me. When will they get it through their heads? They don’t own us. They don’t own our votes. If they have no interest in earning our votes then fine, we’ll vote for someone who has earned them.
2 Steve Perkins // Jun 23, 2008 at 10:10 am
I don’t get the analogy. The issue with Nader was that Al Gore would have otherwise won had he not been in the race. McCain is not going to win this year, with or without Barr.
3 G.E. // Jun 23, 2008 at 10:12 am
“I don’t get the analogy. The issue with Nader was that Al Gore would have otherwise won had he not been in the race. McCain is not going to win this year, with or without Barr.”
Agreed.
4 Mike Theodore // Jun 23, 2008 at 10:26 am
Yes, but the Republican party has a wonderful way of creating images. All it takes is one analyst on Fox during election night to blame Barr, then the flames will catch. Then in bar’s, people will be throwing darts at posters of him. The media has a stranglehold on logic in this country.
5 Deran // Jun 23, 2008 at 11:52 am
This is rubbish; just like the same talk abt Nader. Had the Democrats run candidates with spine and leadership they would have won ’00. The “Nader” voters in ’00 were Left “values voters”. I perceive potential Barr voters as being libertarian conservative values voters.
And like with Democrats and Gore, a lot of Republicans do not like McCain, that is the “spoiler” effect. When people who would regu.arly vote for one party find that party’s candidate repugnant, they vote their values, under cut their ususal party, and thus they are the spoilers?
6 Anti-Corporate // Jun 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm
This really could be good news. If the Dems pick up on this nonsense, and allow Barr into debates, you can bet the Republicans will want Nader in them, too.
7 Ross Levin // Jun 23, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Nader had nothing to do with Gore losing. Nothing.
The Democrats won in 2000. The Supreme Court appointed Bush.
8 Trent Hill // Jun 23, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Ross,
Your arguement is right–your conclusion is wrong. Bush won–the Supreme Court just confirmed it.
But Nader had nothing to do with Gore losing. Even if one accepts that the duopoly “owns” our votes before some third-party “takes” them—Nader helped Gore. Of the 90,000 arabs in Florida, half went for Nader, half for Bush. Polls show that had Nader not been in the contest–Bush would’ve won by much more.
9 Arthur Torrey // Jun 25, 2008 at 12:58 am
If the major party is worried about “spoiler” votes, maybe they should refrain from running “spoiled” candidates…
Of course what would really be nice is if the LP would run a Libertarian candidate…
Leave a Comment