Marc first approached me (Barr was not in the booth at the time) demanding (in a hostile and peevish manner) why Barr had not defended legalization on CNN the night before. I told him I hadn’t seen the interview, nor did I know that one was being taped (it wasn’t- apparently it was a rebroadcast of the hour-long Glenn Beck show), but that if he wanted to ask Barr about it, (Barr) would be in the booth later.

When Marc returned, he was both loud (I was ~10 feet away and could hear his voice clearly, if not the specific words) and combative. The lady in question did indeed intercede (I’ll not name her since her name needs not be dragged in the mud – you should note she, too was an unpaid volunteer) but only after the situation had effectively gotten out of hand.

“What can I say to change your mind?” is a question used in sales to get your contact to fess up to their key issue. It by itself is only the mark of someone trying to convince another to buy into something. Frequently, I use that question as a gateway into discussing the libertarian point of view on a particular issue.

Another common tactic in selling, or convincing, is to speak to people as though you are “one of them” – a member of their club, party, etc – so that they perceive you as understanding their issues and point of view.

I did not witness this Treg come up to the booth, so I cannot comment on any of these things he claimed.

As to David Friedman, he was there in the capacity of a writer/speaker for Liberty, I believe- he certainly spent a fair amount of time in their booth, which was next to ours. He was kind enough to let me handle his Asus mini-laptop during one of the lulls.

He approached us (the people in the booth) after Marc’s first visit, saying that someone (I think he said Marc, but it is a bit fuzzy) had said that Barr had backed down on legalization, etc. We talked about it for a moment, but decided that we, as intelligent people speaking on a specific issue, needed facts to continue- so another (unpaid) volunteer and I used our smartphones to find this alleged interview. After several minutes, we determined which interview had to be the one in question, and reviewed the transcript.

Mr. Friedman and I, and the other volunteer, discussed for several more minutes about Barr’s stance, and then Mr. Friedman had to go speak, if I recall correctly. I reminded him Barr would be in the booth later, and he shook his head, saying he had already made up his mind on Barr/Root (although I’m sure he got tangled in our pile of people later, but not sure that he spoke specifically to either candidate).

I’ll end by stating that I have seen Barr on several other occasions ( in oregon at a findraiser, when I we interviewed him about “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell” at CLC last October) and I’ve never seen the evil net of handlers- although he does at times seem a little personally awkward.

Yes, Howard Buffett was a “racist” who did not care at all about the size of government, right Carl? His anti-war views were just a smokescreen for white pride.

To put it a different way, even if there’s nothing wrong with Goldwater conservatives, and even if Bob Barr is a Goldwater conservative, it still doesn’t necessarily follow from those two points that the Libertarian Party should nominate a Goldwater conservative to represent it in the presidential race (or, for that matter, that once nominated an LP presidential candidate should campaign as a Goldwater conservative rather than as a libertarian).

Are you sure that was the sole reason? I tend to think it was more complicated than that – although certainly, there were some who would fit your characterization, I would also expect that in some cases it was the other way around – some people, of whom many were not racists, were in the Old Right in some significant part, or even entirely, because they were anti-interventionist.

CLS is a long-time activist in the freedom movement both in the US and internationally. It’s not especially hard to figure out his real name if you care enough to pay attention to his writing.

As to to why he blogs as “CLS,” it’s a long story — but it’s not really so much about “keeping his identity secret” as about keeping his blogging separate from some particularly nasty internecine fights of the past.

Subsequent discussion has been over the issue of how broadly we define Goldwater conservative (and whether Ron Paul is one, for instance.)

I’d say it is involved in libertarianism. War is the health of the state, and all that.

One of the most libertarian societies in history was also one of the most interventionist: Britain in the 1800s. Britain had free trade, capitalism and legal drugs at the same time it built one of the largest empires in human history.

It was also noted for its mandatory Victorian morality. We should be a bit careful with these “One of the most libertarian societies in history” characterizations.

“He can certainly claim to be in the tradition of Goldwater, or even Reagan, for rhetorical points among Republicans, but that does not make it entirely true.”

Certainly, I’m not trying to attach Goldwater’s foreign policy to RP – but as paulie points out, for “rhetorical points” Goldwater (and even Reagan) can be evoked by someone as a forebearer even if the fit isn’t perfect. But I see now I’ve missed the point, paulie’s remark was in response to someone else attaching the Goldwater mold elsewhere, not claiming it for themselves.

The issue of isolationism/intervention is not inherent in either liberalism, conservatism or even libertarianism. It all depends on who the enemy is. If the enemy is communism, leftists will favor isolationism. If the enemy is fascism, leftists will call for intervention. (Note Clinton in Yugoslavia.)

One of the most libertarian societies in history was also one of the most interventionist: Britain in the 1800s. Britain had free trade, capitalism and legal drugs at the same time it built one of the largest empires in human history.

I can certainly hear things I have not heard before. Just because they are not new does not mean they aren’t new to me.

If it includes those that have claimed his legacy on the whole or partly, such as Ron Paul, then your comment is cryptic and leaves me feeling empty.

That depends on whether you really consider Ron Paul a Goldwater Conservative. It seems to me that RP is more anti-imperialist, more socially conservative, and more (classically) economically liberal than BG ever was. He can certainly claim to be in the tradition of Goldwater, or even Reagan, for rhetorical points among Republicans, but that does not make it entirely true.

The only time I ever voted for someone who agreed with me 100% was when I ran for office and voted for myself.

Bob Barr is the best candidate even if he disagrees with some LP issues.

I will vote for the candidate who agrees with me on the most issues. That is my litmus test. Not one issue such as the war, drugs, gay rights, gold standard, or any other libertarian issue. The candidate who gets the most points on libertarian issues overall gets my vote.

100% agreement on all issues will never happen no matter who the candidate is.

What about those issues where he disagrees with the LP even today? What about those issues where he disagreed in the past and has made no comment on since? I’ll slide those issues he claims to have converted on, but I’ll still address the many issues on which he hasn’t.

He later saw Wayne Root and tried to talk to him. Root started to speak to Treg but saw David Friedman, Milton’s son, and tried to rassle up his support.

I’d walk away too if it got me a chance to talk to David Friedman. Duh! David Friedman is one of the few remaining anarcho-capitalists I still respect. He actually faces the tough questions instead of going into an toddler-style rage.

If you go to Freedom Fest, expect to get blown off. So many celebrities, so little time…

If your definition of a Goldwater conservative is limited to Goldwater himself, I don’t think you’ll be hearing anything new from him. If it includes those that have claimed his legacy on the whole or partly, such as Ron Paul, then your comment is cryptic and leaves me feeling empty.

How much has he changed his positions? Inquiring minds want to know the details.

Sure there is. I’ve yet to hear of Goldwater denouncing the military-industrial complex, for example.

The US grew to its present level of statism by gradual steps and will only achieve libertarian goals by gradual steps.

One does not follow from the other. Rome was not built in a day, but it was sacked in a day. A house of cards may take a long time to build and an instant to collapse.

The first step is to get elected. Without that everything else is a waste of time and money.

If you sell out the goal for which you are seeking election and make election itself the goal, it’s a waste of time and money for anyone whose primary goal remains liberty rather than election.

Who is “CLS”? Does anyone wonder why the writer didn’t sign their real name to this story? It doesn’t help their credibility.

Hardly. CLS is someone who does not wish to be subject to ad hominem attacks and retributions. The blog is well read, recently passing 500,000 hits, and well written. Why would that hurt credibility? Many of the important political tracts of history, including ancient Rome and revolutionary America, were published pseudonymously.