Posted at LFV by ENM
Cheryl Miller, the woman around whom the LP’s award-winning medical marijuana television ad was situated, has since passed away. Ron Crickenberger, then the LP’s Political Director, has also died of cancer. Neither of them lived to see medical marijuana legalized across the country, but hopefully some of us will live to see the day when patients suffering from life threatening diseases will be able to treat their symptoms with a simple plant. From Madison NORML:
July 25 marks 6th anniversary of filming of Cheryl Miller’s “Why would you do that to me, Bob (Barr)” medical marijuana tv ad
Posted by Gary Storck
Friday, July 25, 2008
On July 24, 2002, Jim & Cheryl Miller and I participated in a press conference in the US Capitol arranged by NORML, supporting Rep. Barney Frank’s States’ Rights medical marijuana bill, along with Reps. Frank, Dana Rohrabacher, Ron Paul, and Jan Schakowsky, NORML Founder Keith Stroup, Former Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger, Libertarian Party Political Director Ron Crickenberger and others. In the interim, Cheryl Miller, Ron Crickenberger and Lyn Nofziger have all passed on. Here are some photos from that day from NORML: click here
Gary, Jim and Cheryl prepare to head over to the Capitol.
It was an exciting and emotional day, speaking at a medical marijuana press conference inside the U.S. Capitol. NORML took excellent care of us, putting us up in suites near their office.
The next day, before we headed home, Ron Crickenberger came to the hotel and filmed footage for Libertarian TV ads. Ron shot footage of me as part of an ad that included other patients like Angel Raich and Steve Kubby, then moved on to filming an ad he’d written for Cheryl. The ad, titled “Why Would You Do That To Me, Bob (Barr)?”, spotlighting Barr’s opposition to medical marijuana, was for use on behalf of Libertarian Carole Ann Rand running in the race for U.S House in Georgia against Republican Bob Barr, who also faced a Republican primary opponent, John Linder, due to redistricting..
The LP’s Film News Archive for 2003 noted the ad was later named “Most Dramatic Political Ad of 2002″ by the influential National Journal magazine.
– Congratulations to the Libertarian Party for creating a political advertisement just named “Most Dramatic Political Ad of 2002″ by the influential National Journal magazine. Per the LP News, the 30-second spot, entitled “Why Bob,” was broadcast by Libertarian Carole Ann Rand against Republican Bob Barr in the race for U.S House (District 7) in Georgia. The ad–written, directed, and filmed by LP Political Director Ron Crickenberger–was selected from among 1,868 political ads by the National Journal for this top honor. It featured medical marijuana patient Cheryl Miller, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. In the ad, a wan Miller addresses the camera from a hospital bed and says “Bob Barr thinks I should be in jail for using my medicine. Why would you do that to me, Bob?’” The Libertarian Party broadcast the ad about 4,000 times on CNN, TNT, Comedy Central, MSNBC, and other cable networks in the Georgia district. Bob Barr was soundly defeated. The LP took aim at Barr as part of its “Incumbent Killer” strategy, which targeted the worst drug warriors in Congress for defeat. (Source: click here).
Even today as a proclaimed supporter of medical cannabis, Barr has yet to acknowledge it was the power of Cheryl Miller that made him a former Republican congressman and a Libertarian Party candidate for president.
—-
The late Ron Crickenberger films Cheryl as Jim looks on.(Photo by Gary Storck)
—-
The ad that ended Bob Barr’s congressional career and set him on the road to being a Libertarian.
—-
VIDEO: WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT TO ME, BOB (BARR)? ” This commercial is a scathing indictment of the most rabid Drug Warrior in Congress,” — former Libertarian Party Political Director Ron Crickenberger. Crickenberger produced this devastating ad for the LP’s Carol Ann Rand, who ran against the Georgia Republican in an election in which the newly redistricted Barr lost the GOP primary to John Linder, sending him back to the private sector. (2002, Running Time: 1 minute).
Many thanks to libertarian activist and renowned medical marijuana proponent Steve Kubby for sending this to LFV.
40 responses so far ↓
1 Lance Brown // Jul 27, 2008 at 12:32 am
It would be great to see a new ad, with a “Why won’t you apologize, Bob?” It could have all sorts of people who’ve been hurt by the drug war, all asking why he won’t apologize for the drug war he used to be a part of.
Really great would be to find someone he actually put in jail as a federal attorney.
2 mscrib // Jul 27, 2008 at 3:42 am
I honestly supported the GALP and national effort against Bob Barr during is primary. However, I think he has honestly changed his position on the drug war in substantial ways, including lobbying on behalf of libertarian MPP. He’s definitely been getting better, understanding that the Drug War drives many, if not most, of the nasty and wasteful “public safety” (victimless crime) laws enforced by our governments. This is how we should present it to the public at large.
3 Jim Miller // Jul 27, 2008 at 9:39 am
mscrib…
You’re correct in as much as Bob has changed his position on the Drug War. He is quick to point that out. He is clear about a number of other changes he has gone through since being out of congress as well.
His life long penchant for states’ rights now allows him to say that medical marijuana should indeed be left up to the states. What he hasn’t said yet is whether or not he now understands that it is not “bogus witchcraft” as he once said (wikipedia). His own campaign staff can’t find an example of him ever saying the phrase “medical marijuana patient”. There should not be any question as to whether or not he thinks that marijuana is legitimate medicine.
He hasn’t separated policy from people. While he has tried to convince former collegues to overturn his own Barr amendment he hasn’t tried to convince medical marijuana patients that he now knows that they were telling the truth all along.
I’ve made his staff aware of this, but still no change. It can be considered an oversight for a while, not forever.
I ran for NJ State Senate last year as a Libertarian. I’m considering asking the NJ LP and the Manhattan LP to participate in a Bob Barr fundraiser because of his medical marijuana position. If he shows up or clears this up by then, the money raised will go to his national campaign. If he doesn’t, the money will be used to make a commercial on his behalf. Picture another “Cheryl” looking into the camera, saying “I’m a medical marijuana patient. Democrats as a whole say they understand, but do nothing. Republicans say they will do nothing. Bob Barr thinks I should be able to have my medicine. John McCain thinks I should be in jail for using my medicine. Why would you do that to me….John”?
I wish my good friend Ron Crickenberger was still with us. He would know what to do.
Jim Miller
4 mscrib // Jul 27, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Jim,
Politicians have a very difficult time admitting they were wrong. Note that when pols change positions, they rarely say, “Yeah, I was dead wrong when I voted for this.” They talk about how they’ve seen more evidence, et cetera, et cetera. I’m not sure if we can expect Barr to use the “W” word.
The fundraiser sounds very intriguing. Since Barr is actually quite good on PATRIOT Act abuses and privacy rights, tying the “War on Terror” red herring to the “War on Drugs” red herring would be great. I think if we could get voters to see this simple connection we’d get a lot more sympathy on both of these issues.
5 G.E. // Jul 27, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Bob Barr said global warming was a “myth” a month ago and then a definite “reality” a month later. His old positions just go down the Memory Hole.
6 SteveDasbach // Jul 27, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Barr has said that it was the LP’s targeting of him that prompted him to reexamine his positions and ultimately join the party.
IMO, Barr should be commended for having the courage to admit he was wrong, rather than condemned for not going far enough, fast enough.
7 Galileo Galilei // Jul 27, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Great work, Gary, another plus for Wisconsin activists!
8 Andy Craig // Jul 27, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Steve-
Exactly. I tend to find that those demanding more apologies from Bob are rarely satisfied. I don’t see how Barr hasn’t made perfectly clear that he wants to end the War on Drugs.
Bob Barr represents exactly what we WANT people to do- go from being an authoritarian Republicrat to a Libertarian working to reduce government power.
Angrily denouncing the unenlightened masses from your high horse is not a good election strategy. Neither is nominating life-long third party activists who no one has ever heard of.
9 sunshinebatman // Jul 27, 2008 at 3:44 pm
It’s ridiculous (though typicaly megalomanical) to think this ad pushed Barr out of Congress. Barr lost because:
a) Angry Democrats gerrymandered Barr into a district that was 2/3 John Linder’s old district
b) Karl Rove, furious at the way Barr had stared down the White House in the PATRIOT Act negotiations, had a local dirty tricks operative place a loaded, cocked gun in Barr’s hand at a fundraiser.
It’s still beyond me why Crickenberger thought it would be a good idea to gang up with the DNC, RNC, and Rove to waste LNC funds to interfere in another party’s primary in order to attack a maverick Congressman who was arguably the 2nd-most libertarian sitting member of the House at the time.
10 Spence // Jul 27, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Just because it wasn’t the only factor didn’t mean it didn’t play any effect, sunshinebatman. “It’s ridiculous (though typically megalomaniacal)” to think so.
11 G.E. // Jul 27, 2008 at 5:18 pm
What’s ridiculous is a 9/11 Truther who thinks Barr is anything other than a CIA operative, and excuses every anti-liberty misstep he makes.
12 David Tomlin // Jul 27, 2008 at 5:49 pm
‘I don’t see how Barr hasn’t made perfectly clear that he wants to end the War on Drugs. ‘
Is the issue even mentioned on his website? I can’t find it.
13 Andy Craig // Jul 27, 2008 at 6:25 pm
As far as I’m concerned, Barr working for the CIA in the 70s is one of the best things about him. Not because I’m any particular fan of the CIA, but because I know it’s something totally meaningless that will drive the troofers away. Associating that nonsense with the message of liberty is counter-productive, to say the least.
Letting the crazies define his public image was one of Ron Paul’s biggest mistakes.
14 darolew // Jul 27, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Well, Bob Barr has gone from arguably the most despicable Drug Warrior in Congress to someone who (at least) thinks the federal government should not pursue the War on Drugs. Imperfect, but certainly a big improvement. It would be nice to get further clarification from Barr on this, but he might be too much of a politician to voice support for completely ending the War on Drugs, as that might scare off the disenchanted Republicans he seems to be courting.
“Karl Rove, furious at the way Barr had stared down the White House in the PATRIOT Act negotiations, had a local dirty tricks operative place a loaded, cocked gun in Barr’s hand at a fundraiser.”
Was the gun Barr misfired cocked and loaded when it was handed to him? If true, that’d go quite a ways towards excusing him for that mishap.
“What’s ridiculous is a 9/11 Truther who thinks Barr is anything other than a CIA operative, and excuses every anti-liberty misstep he makes.”
Are you implying Barr is a CIA operative? That’s nonsense, to say the least.
“Is the issue even mentioned on his website? I can’t find it.”
Last I checked, drugs go unmentioned on Barr’s issue page. Too much of a politician, as I said.
“As far as I’m concerned, Barr working for the CIA in the 70s is one of the best things about him. Not because I’m any particular fan of the CIA, but because I know it’s something totally meaningless that will drive the troofers away. Associating that nonsense with the message of liberty is counter-productive, to say the least.”
I’m inclined to agree. 9/11 “Truth” is not a respectable movement and Barr thus far seems to have done well to keep separate from them.
15 David Tomlin // Jul 27, 2008 at 7:08 pm
‘Was the gun Barr misfired cocked and loaded when it was handed to him? If true, that’d go quite a ways towards excusing him for that mishap.’
No it wouldn’t. Good safety practice is for the person handing off the weapon to unload it, then show the receiving person that it is unloaded. The receiving person is responsible for doing his own visual check before accepting the weapon. ‘I didn’t know it was loaded’ is not an excuse.
‘Last I checked, drugs go unmentioned on Barr’s issue page. ‘
Thanks for confirming that.
’9/11 “Truth†is not a respectable movement . . .’
Why not?
Polls have shown as much as a third of the population are skeptical of the official story.
16 sunshinebatman // Jul 27, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Just because one realizes 9/11 was an elaborate covert operation, one need not self-identify as a “9/11 truther.” Those who do identify are typically under the sway of a COINTELPRO cult centered around DOE covert operative Steven Earl Jones (and the secret federal research facilities out west in UT, NV, NM, etc.).
Recent actions by LP candidate Kevin Barrett indicate his campaign, such as it is, is being primarily used to strnegthn this COINTELPRO grip on the 9/11 movement. As such, the “9/11 caucus” in the LP seems little more now than a cadre of COINTELPRO MOCKINGBIRDs, and those wary of spoks would do well to keep their distance.
17 Andy Craig // Jul 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Those polls are meaningless. Just because you can get some one to say “yes” to something doesn’t mean they’ve given it any thought to the matter or that they care about it.
Those polls aren’t representative of the few motivated crazies who scream about how 9/11 was an inside job and ignore any evidence to the contrary as being part of the conspiracy. Those are the people we don’t want associated in people’s minds with libertarianism. People (rightly) want nothing to do with them.
18 Andy Craig // Jul 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I see. The conspiracy theorists are really just part of a secret, mega-conspiracy.
/it’s turtles all the way down
19 paulie cannoli // Jul 27, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I don’t see how Barr hasn’t made perfectly clear that he wants to end the War on Drugs.
He’s made it clear he still supports state and local hard drug prohibition, and that he now supports allowing states to legalize medical marijuana. which leaves a lot of grey areas.
20 paulie cannoli // Jul 27, 2008 at 8:48 pm
9/11 “Truth†is not a respectable movement
Respectable to whom? If you count popularity, it has a lot more adherents than the LP does.
People (rightly) want nothing to do with them.
Which people?
21 Jim Miller // Jul 27, 2008 at 8:58 pm
In order…..
Steve Dasbach–You say that ” Barr should be commended for admitting that he was wrong”, but even you don’t say wrong about what? That’s exactly the problem. He is an eloquent speaker who is somehow unable to be specific about what he thinks about marijuana’s medical efficacy. That means whether or not marijuana works as medicine. How hard would it be for him to say whether or not he now believes that patients have been telling the truth all along? Can you reference even one time that he mentions anything about patients when talking about medical marijuana? How is ackowledging sick people’s exixtance something to be avoided at all costs? It’s not a matter of how fast and far he has come along Steve. It’s a matter if acknowledging that actual people are involved here. To date he has not done that very simple act. If he some day says that he was wrong about marijuana being legitimate medicine for some of America’s most vulnerabgle citizens, you will be happy to know that I will officially commend him.
You’re up Andy Craig.
Charactizing my post as “demanding apologies” would be valid…if there was even a vague mention of an apology. You can’t apologise to a dead person anyway.
Let’s see…..I start my post by saying “Bob Barr has changed his position on the Drug War”, yet you gripe at me that I don’t get that he’s “made it perfectly clear that he wants to end the War on Drugs”. Pay attention Andy….I get it! He’s changed his position on the War on Drugs. But then again that wasn’t ever the issue, was it? My concern is that Bob Barr seems to be unable to relate medical marijuana policy to the sick and dying Americans it effects. Saying he knows that medical marijuana patients were, and are, telling the truth about marijuana’s medical benefits is not an apology. It’s clarification of the simplest order. Besides, we certainly wouldn’t want a President who would apologise to sick people, would we? There’s no room for that kind of crap at the Presidential level.
And to sunshinebatman….How dare you challenge Bob Barr as to why he lost the election. He says that he lost because “the Libertarian Party relentlessly ran attack ads against me”. If you think that I am megalomaniacal to agree with Bob Barr, then I just don’t know what the world has come to. You may think that Bob is lying when he says why he lost the election, but I believe Bob! And with good reason. A poll taken two weeks before the election had Barr leading Linder by three percentage points. The “Why would you do that to me…Bob?” commercial began airing two weeks before the election. He went on to lose by a margin of 64% to 36%.
So…you say that Karl Rove had a “local dirty tricks operative place a loaded, cocked gun in Barr’s hand at a fundraiser” as to why he lost the election? Was that the guy running away real fast just before the gun went off? I can’t say that you’re assertion is megalomaniacal…but it is certainly something people who care about you should be concerned about.
One last thing sunshinebatman…the part about Ron Crickenberger ganging up with the RNC, the DNC, and Karl Rove to make that medical marijuana commercial? How could you forget to include the Riddler and the Joker?
22 Mike Gillis // Jul 27, 2008 at 8:58 pm
“Respectable to whom? If you count popularity, it has a lot more adherents than the LP does.”
So does Scientology. Or UFO conspiracies. Or young Earth creationists.
Numbers do not make something respectable.
23 paulie cannoli // Jul 27, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Oh, so what does?
Respectable means something that gets respect.
9/11 truth gets more respect than the LP does.
24 darren // Jul 27, 2008 at 9:21 pm
There is no new information here. Those who want to flail Barr over the 5 degree difference they have with him will seize any excuse to rehash their complaints. And continue to ignore the 180 degree difference they have with McCain and Obama, of course.
By the way, G.E., calling Barr a CIA operative is like calling me an EDS operative because I worked my first job there after college. Although admittedly I push the agenda of my former EDS masters to undermine our way of life every chance I get.
25 sunshinebatman // Jul 27, 2008 at 9:37 pm
The gun incident was two weeks before the primary also. Barr is flattering the LP campaign because he’s a politician.
26 David Tomlin // Jul 28, 2008 at 12:31 am
‘Those who want to flail Barr over the 5 degree difference they have with him . . .’
My differences with Barr are not trivial. If you can’t understand that, that is your limitation.
27 G.E. // Jul 28, 2008 at 2:30 am
darolew – I’m not “implying” that Barr is a CIA asset, I’m stating it as an objective fact. Nonsense? Next you’ll tell me the sky isn’t blue.
28 G.E. // Jul 28, 2008 at 2:32 am
People don’t leave the CIA like a private corporation, darolew. They leave it the same way they leave the Crips or the Bloods — in a body bag. They’re all just criminal gangs. And guess what? Barr isn’t exactly calling for the CIA’s abolition either, is he?
“But Bob Barr is more libertarian than Ron Paul!”
If Sonny Landham is for abolishing the CIA, then HE is more libertarian than Bob Barr.
29 G.E. // Jul 28, 2008 at 2:36 am
RE: “9/11 Truth” — I’ll agree that it is not a credible movement, the same way the anti-Fed movement is not credible: Both are dominated by people who put out more disinfo than legitimate gripes. This, however, does not make the causes inherently wrong.
30 David Tomlin // Jul 28, 2008 at 3:47 am
‘Those polls are meaningless. ‘
I don’t agree, but for discussion’s sake suppose they are. Then what objective evidence is there for what is or isn’t ‘respectable’? You can have your opinion and I can have mine, and they are just opinions.
31 darolew // Jul 28, 2008 at 4:41 am
“No it wouldn’t. Good safety practice is for the person handing off the weapon to unload it, then show the receiving person that it is unloaded. The receiving person is responsible for doing his own visual check before accepting the weapon. ‘I didn’t know it was loaded’ is not an excuse.”
I’m not saying it would excuse the mishap entirely. I’ve been around guns since I was a little kid, and I always learned to treat guns as if they could potentially go off at any time, no matter if they were loaded. However, if I was handed a cocked and loaded gun and it went off, that would be an act of carelessness on my part. But the person who handed it to me committed an act of idiocy…
““Respectable to whom? If you count popularity, it has a lot more adherents than the LP does.â€
So does Scientology. Or UFO conspiracies. Or young Earth creationists.”
Being in the LP might not be credible. Believing in UFOs might not be credible. Scientology might not be credible. However, imagine there is a candidate running for office who was in the LP, believed in UFOs, was a Scientologist, and believed in 9/11 Truth. The effect is additive, that candidate would be less credible than any person believing in any single one of those ideas.
My point: being a libertarian is already not too credible, so why make it worse by associating with another not too credible movement, 9/11 Truth?
“darolew – I’m not “implying†that Barr is a CIA asset, I’m stating it as an objective fact. Nonsense? Next you’ll tell me the sky isn’t blue.”
What? Barr hasn’t worked for the CIA for decades. He worked for the CIA from 1971 to 1978. It’s an objective fact that Barr has not worked for the CIA for thirty years. How could I view it as anything but nonsense to state Barr is somehow still a CIA “operative” or “asset”?
“People don’t leave the CIA like a private corporation, darolew. They leave it the same way they leave the Crips or the Bloods — in a body bag. They’re all just criminal gangs. And guess what? Barr isn’t exactly calling for the CIA’s abolition either, is he?”
So, I’m supposed to believe — without evidence — that everyone who joins the CIA remains an operative for the rest of their lives? And somehow, Barr’s campaign rhetoric, which has never called for the abolition or retention of the CIA, backs this up?
You are aware that the CIA has 20,000 current employees (estimated), and many more former employees? And all these people are being kept quiet?
I don’t buy that. Just another conspiracy theory.
32 paulie cannoli // Jul 28, 2008 at 4:43 am
People don’t leave the CIA like a private corporation, darolew. They leave it the same way they leave the Crips or the Bloods — in a body bag.
I left something similar. It was not in a body bag.
This, at a minimum, would tend to indicate the same is possible with the Agency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Agee
33 paulie cannoli // Jul 28, 2008 at 4:56 am
My point: being a libertarian is already not too credible, so why make it worse by associating with another not too credible movement, 9/11 Truth?
9/11 truth is credible to a lot of people, and they would be much more open to considering libertarian ideas than those who find 9/11 truth to be incredible.
How could I view it as anything but nonsense to state Barr is somehow still a CIA “operative†or “asset�
The Agency has numerous “former” employees. I have no inside information as to whether or not Barr is one of them. I don’t particularly care to talk to the people I used to know who could find out.
And all these people are being kept quiet?
Not all of them. You may want to do some research on the work of ex-CIA critics such as Agee, Ray McGovern, Victor Marchetti, and others.
34 Jim Miller // Jul 28, 2008 at 6:07 am
Hey sunshinebatman,
Bob blamed the Libertarian commercial for his defeat LONG before he became a Libertarian, thus he wasn’t doing it to flatter them.
Besides, thinking that a gun accidentally going off while he held it would change the opinion of enough voters to swing a 3 point positive to a 28 point negative is dillusional.
What color is the sky in your world?
35 svf // Jul 28, 2008 at 8:29 am
calling Barr a CIA operative is like calling me an EDS operative because I worked my first job there after college.
Hey, so did I !
More evidence of a vast right-wing anti-Libertarian conspiracy…….. the truth is out there…….
36 paulie cannoli // Jul 28, 2008 at 9:57 am
I should add that the above would only apply to a small subset of CIA jobs, most of which are boring desk jobs.
By the way, Bob Barr gave an interesting answer about 9/11 conspiracy theories. He said some of his friends believe the US government was involved, and some don’t, and he believes his friends.
37 sunshinebatman // Jul 28, 2008 at 9:34 pm
mr cannoli, where did Barr give that answer? I missed that one.
38 paulie cannoli // Jul 28, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Hi sunshinebatman,
Before I answer, a quick note about the name.
Paulie cannoli is an alliterative nickname which rhymes. It’s sort of like Red Fred or Eddie Spaghetti. “Mr. Cannoli” just ain’t it.
Now, as to your question: the exchange was at the Alabama Libertarian Party convention, 4/20/08. I asked my question from the floor, and several dozen people heard me and heard Bob Barr’s response.
39 sunshinebatman // Jul 29, 2008 at 12:09 am
Mr Fusili Jerry,
Thanks for clarifying. That is fascinating. Did Steve Gordon look like he crapped his pants as this was going on?
40 paulie cannoli // Jul 29, 2008 at 12:16 am
Mr. Acidhead Vigilante,
My good friend and state chair Steve Gordon looked to be just fine as this was going on. Incidentally, Steve has been on board with impeachment for years.
Leave a Comment