Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr participated in a Washingtonpost.com chat last Thursday. The discussion dealt with FISA, energy policy, and other issues. Asked if be would appear at Rep. Ron Paul’s Rally for the Republic on September 2, Barr replied, “I have not received an invitation to Ron Paul’s event in Minneapolis. It is my understanding that no presidential candidates have been invited to speak at his rally.”
Asked about his prospects, Barr said, “My chances of winning the plurality of the vote in a competitive three-way race are very favorable. However, remember that even though Ross Perot didn’t win any electoral votes, politics and more important public policy changed significantly because of the 20 million voters who responded to his message. The Republicans came up with the Contract With America to appeal to Perot voters, welfare reform was supported by Republicans and President Clinton in response to the Perot vote and the budget was balanced by 1998 in response to the Perot vote.”
18 responses so far ↓
1 Robert Milnes // Aug 25, 2008 at 7:48 am
“My chances of winning the plurality of the vote in a competitive three-way race are very favorable.” He stole my line! But it is ridiculous when he says it. He has no basis to show that his vote will be much different than any other LP ticket. Unlike me with the well thought out Progressive Alliance Strategy. He refers to Perot. But he has no basis of comparison. & Perot was certainly not libertarian or even progressive & was insignificant & co-opted anyway. Barr, Baldwin & Paul are dixiecrat conservatives at best Constitutionalists/theocrats-NOT LIBERTARIANS. Libertarians-wake up!
2 NewFederalist // Aug 25, 2008 at 9:56 am
Thanks for the heads up, Bob.
3 Trent Hill // Aug 25, 2008 at 10:29 am
Bob,
Your crazy.
Trent.
4 Robert Milnes // Aug 25, 2008 at 10:33 am
Well hey, you are welcome NewFed. I can let on when to duck, too.
5 Robert Milnes // Aug 25, 2008 at 10:47 am
Trent, now that we are on a first name basis, thank you too. Crazy, am I? Hmmmmmm. Very interesting word. Get’s me thinking about things…like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest or the scene in the Big Red One where they attacked an insane asylum. Or Slaughter-House Five. Or R.D. Laing. Don’t get me started! Been there. Done that.
6 Trent Hill // Aug 25, 2008 at 10:55 am
Confimation of mental instability accepted.
7 Robert Milnes // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:07 am
Hey, I was in FCI Butner, NC. Top of the line. Showcase institution. Turned out they couldn’t wait to transfer me out!
8 Trent Hill // Aug 25, 2008 at 11:19 am
….uh huh.
im just gunna go….elsewhere.
9 Steve LaBianca // Aug 25, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Barr said, “ . . . the budget was balanced by 1998 in response to the Perot vote.â€
What illegal substance (which Barr was a great warrior in keeping as such) is Barr smoking? The so-called balanced budget that year can be refuted with one statistic . . . the national debt WENT UP from the beginning, compared to the end of that fiscal year. Unless we are going to count borrowings in calculating “balanced budgets” (which would essentially make EVERY year’s budget balanced!), there was NOT a balanced budget that year, or any year since at least 1969.
Again, Barr shows his tremendous faith in government (bogus statistic of “balanced budget”), and his tremendous lack of understanding of economics!
10 Steve LaBianca // Aug 25, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Not least of which the bogus balanced budget had nothing to do with reigning in government spending, but the easy money of the Federal Reserve and the dot.com bubble!
Barr is really reaching deep into magical thinking to come up with this cause and effect relationship, of the “Perot” phenomena and balanced budgets!
11 Thomas M. Sipos // Aug 25, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Robert Milnes: “‘My chances of winning the plurality of the vote in a competitive three-way race are very favorable.’ He stole my line! But it is ridiculous when he says it.”
It’s not ridiculous when you say it?
Milnes, you used to be amusing. Fun to laugh it. But your broken record has reached the point of being boring.
Gibby the Cat, without declaring a run for office, got more votes at the California convention that you did, with all your “campaigning.”
Indeed, I have a soiled, crumpled napkin on my desk that would make a stronger candidate for president than you would.
Milnes, you’re not a real candidate for anything. You’re not a political strategist. You’re certainly no Teddy Rooseveldt.
Nobody wants you. Nobody. Not progressives, not greens, not libertarians, not nobody.
And the fact that everyone repeats this to you, and nothing sinks in, confirms your insanity.
12 Ayn R. Key // Aug 25, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I wish Barr would alert the public BEFORE he has these open interviews/chats so that people could more easily contact their candidate.
13 G.E. // Aug 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Robert Milnes is the ultimate poster child against Thomas Szasz’s theories.
14 Mike Gillis // Aug 25, 2008 at 4:28 pm
GE, that just might be the most hilarious/terrible thing I’ve ever heard.
15 Ross Levin // Aug 25, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Ayn – you think Barr wants people to contact him? You think he wants questions from potential detractors that would make him look bad?
16 Robert Milnes // Aug 25, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Generally, psychiatry tends to see mental illness as individualized hence it is reactionary. Szasz & Laing et al formulated anti-psychiatry. Psychoanalysis tends to go to the root cause of “mental illness” & tends to indict everyone/society to some degree hence is revolutionary. Therefore I side with the Freudian & Reichian schools.
17 Mike Gillis // Aug 25, 2008 at 5:29 pm
def. PRONOIA:
“Pronoia is the positive counterpart of paranoia. It is the delusion that others think well of one. Actions and the products of one’s efforts are thought to be well received and praised by others. Mere acquaintances are thought to be close friends; politeness and the exchange of pleasantries are taken as expressions of deep attachment and the promise of future support. Pronoia appears rooted in the social complexity and cultural ambiguity of our lives: we have become increasingly dependent on the opinions of others based on uncertain criteria.”
18 Spence // Aug 26, 2008 at 5:31 am
He was on NPR this morning too. Now that was pretty funny, when they were taking calls. One conversation went something like this:
Caller: “Mr. Barr, do you actually think you have a chance of winning?”
Barr: “…Yes..”
Caller: “…What was that?”
Host: “I think he said yes.”
Barr: “…Yes, that’s what I said.”
Caller: “Well if that’s the case, then I’m running for president and I’d like to debate you and convince your supporters to vote for me.”
Leave a Comment