Comments on: Barr ‘embarrasses LP’ by no-show at Ron Paul press event

By: Hugh Jass

Hugh Jass — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:37:00 +0000

I am the most pissed at Barr right now since the end of the convention.

By: Scott7

Scott7 — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:18:16 +0000

I’d like to provide a balanced outlook, if that’s still possible. The article referred to Barr’s earlier “snub” of Paul’s previous event. In fact, it was Paul who was the “snubber” on this date. Many of us who had previously committed to FreedomFest decided to fulfill our commitments there instead of running off to the last-minute “March”. I greatly respect Bob Barr for fulfilling his previous agreement. I was disappointed that Dr. Paul, who I greatly respect, was a no-show at the event, and more disappointed that they chose to schedule the March to directly conflict with FreedomFest, an annual libertarian event. I had the pleasure of meeting Rep. Barr at the event.

I don’t know any of the background to this event, and it does appear that Barr handled things poorly. However, even the greatest Ron Paul supporters such as myself know that the Paul campaign has not been known for smooth handling of operations. As such, I’m inclined to cut Barr some slack, despite the appearance of this event.

In other words, it really isn’t worth fighting amongst ourselves over this. It’s disappointing, and may steer my vote elsewhere, but it doesn’t really prove that Barr is anything but a man who is fighting for what he believes is right, albeit perhaps imperfectly.

By: sunshinebatman

sunshinebatman — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:11:26 +0000

You told everybody in May that Barr would skip a Ron Paul press conference some time in September?

Do you do stock picks? Horses?

By: VTV

VTV — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:54:30 +0000

Sigh…

I am also really angry now.

I TOLD people this would happen at the LP convention. I TOLD people over and over again. But the people who followed Barr were like brainwashed or something. They vehemently defended him no matter how much history I showed them. Well people, our party was the best third party chance this election. We have the most ballot access of any of the Liberty minded parties. And now, the ex CIA Neo-Con has made sure to lock down that ballot access for MORE OF THE SAME!

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:29:21 +0000

The BTP seems not to care wether the candidate is purist or reformist, statist or anarchist–only that they identify are left-libertarian.

By: Sean Scallon

Sean Scallon — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:29:05 +0000

If you were not purists Tom you would not be forming your own little claque. Yes, you’re right this has been going on since Portland in ‘06 but clearly you haven’t stopped since then, especially when Barr become the nominee.

I agree with you G.E., the way thing are going now Barr might just as well support McCain.

By: darolew

darolew — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:21:49 +0000

How do I describe my feelings about this? Rage might fit the bill. God fucking dammit Barr, I’ve tried to stay determined to vote for you. Why do you keep destroying my determination? For the first time, I’m seriously considering other options.

By: Fred Church Ortiz

Fred Church Ortiz — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:17:42 +0000

Not so much, I’m against joining because I’ve been in parties that size before and don’t want to repeat the experience. I like the WSPP, the current program, and maybe half the people I know are in it. My question to Tom was real, as it seems to be an entirely radical project even if not by design or admission. My own problems are tangential and deeper.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:02:46 +0000

I thought you were against joining because you didn’t want to be sullied by rads like myself.

By: Fred Church Ortiz

Fred Church Ortiz — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:02:15 +0000

But if the membership skews radical, so what?

So nothing! Can’t ask an idle question? jeez

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:58:34 +0000

The BTP invited Phillies to be their candidate in Denver. They invited Alden Link, a hardcore socialist, too. Charles Jay is not that radical, either. He’s to the statist side (whether you view that as left or right) of Kubby, Smith, and Ruwart, for sure. He seemed to advocate some form of government interference in health care in ‘04 (he could have changed by now).

But if the membership skews radical, so what? The platform is moderate and cannot be changed. I view this as a major obstacle to the BTP being a real mouthpiece for liberty, and that’s why I am not a member. But there can never be a “purge” of moderates or radicals, etc., over a platform fight, and that’s the idea.

By: Fred Church Ortiz

Fred Church Ortiz — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:54:50 +0000

lol GE, I’m not going to try to paint Phillies as a purist, though I think it was more about Jay not going to be on-ballot in Mass & NH and Phillies’ line on Barr than his ideology. Tom’s brought up the platform several times now when someone (was it Scallon every time?) called it a purist party. I’m asking its membership more than its program or endorsements.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:48:53 +0000

Fred – Are you kidding? The BTP endorsed George Phillies, who’d be a really libertarian Democrat at best.

By: Fred Church Ortiz

Fred Church Ortiz — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:47:24 +0000

Tom, how many ‘moderates’ would you say there are in the BTP? My impression might be wrong, but from the outside it seems to be nothing but the folks Scallon calls “purists” lining up behind the moderate platform.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:43:28 +0000

Tom is right. The BTP is far too moderate for this radical.