Bob Barr Endorsed Newt Gingrich

Bob Barr was the Presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2008, having recently switched from the GOP. It was recently rumored that he was considering a Republican run for Congress in Georgia, but this still came as quite a shock. Bob Barr is one member of a large slate of public officials and former officeholders who endorsed Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign today.

Among the state and local officials announcing they are endorsing Newt Gingrich today are:

Georgia Congressmen Austin Scott, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price, Jack Kingston and Phil Gingrey. Former Georgia Congressmen Mac Collins and Bob Barr.

Many other names follow–in fact the list is quite extensive. One of Newt Gingrich’s primary opponents is former Libertarian Party presidential nominee Ron Paul, who ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988, but is now running as a Republican.

 

114 thoughts on “Bob Barr Endorsed Newt Gingrich

  1. Dave

    I’m one of the few who actually did not mind Barr. I never was that big a fan of his, but I did think that he was legitimately becoming more Libertarian, especially with his speech against torture at CPAC.

    But this? This makes me lose all respect for him, and not just because I’m backing Paul. Hell, had he endorsed Johnson I’d not have minded, but Gingrich is pretty much the antithesis of what a Libertarian is(As well as a conservative, but that’s neither here nor there.)

    I want to apologize to everyone for all the times I felt that the attacks on Barr were a little extreme. He has shown himself to deserve every one of them.

  2. George Phillies

    This is what happens when you recruit carpetbaggers. They stab you in the back.

    We should not repeat this mistake.

    And we should remove from offices of trust or responsibility the guiding geniuses* who gave us Barr in 2008.

    Fortunately a good list of Barr supporters is readily available.

    *slight sarcasm here.

  3. Gene Berkman

    I will not defend this, but it is more likely that Mr Barr is doing this because he lives in Georgia, and Newt or his people asked him to.

    If the Ron Paul people had asked for his endorsement earlier, he might have endorsed Paul, which would also offend some who comment here.

    I am an ideological libertarian, but there is more to actual political action than ideology. That is why I spend more time trying to sell books.

  4. NewFederalist

    I doubt he would ever have endorsed Ron Paul given the way he acted in 2008 at the press conference.

  5. Gene Berkman

    NF – I don’t think Bob Barr was in control of how he acted at Ron Paul’s press conference. Russ Verney, former campaign manager for Ross Perot, told Barr he should not go to the press conference, for reasons I can speculate on but won’t.

    It is also possible that Barr had hopes for a political career in Georgia in the future, and felt that associating with Cynthia McKinney would hurt that.

    I personally was dubious about a press conference that would include Ms McKinney, who has been accused of anti-semitic statements.

  6. Robert Capozzi

    RP has not stabbed the LP in the back. BB disappoints me here with this move. He should remain a R.

  7. jt

    keep making excuses for barr

    precisely the reason why libertarians never grew, until paul came along the last cycle–last a spine.

  8. Darryl W. Perry

    @11 the PR says “More than 60 federal, state and local officials joined Gov. Nathan Deal at the Georgia State Capitol today to endorse former House Speaker and Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination for President of the United States.”

    How is that NOT an endorsement?

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@13,

    “RP has not stabbed the LP in the back recently.”

    There, fixed that for ya.

    A few years ago, Ron Paul signed a letter on behalf of a Republican congresscritter in California. It was sent only to registered Libertarians, and urged them not to “spoil” said Republican’s re-election by voting for the LP nominee.

  10. George Phillies

    @17 In principle, the claim by the Gingrich campaign of a Barr endorsement and his presence at the endorsement event could be phony, but such a circumstance would be surprising.

  11. RedPhillips

    From a major party standpoint, this seems to mean that elected Republicans (“conservatives” and otherwise) are coming to terms with Newt as the remaining opposition to Romney. Other than Paul of course, but these elected folks are too chicken and/or wishy-washy to endorse Paul.

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    @17,

    What would be surprising about it?

    Campaigns make mistakes in their press releases all the time. No reason that couldn’t include the drafter mistakenly including names that were INVITED to the wing-ding but didn’t accept the invitation.

    As of this moment, there’s no such announcement on Barr’s own site, and it is up to date not just for today, but for tomorrow, with an announcement that he’s decided not to run for Congress again.

    Nothing on his Facebook or Twitter pages, either.

  13. Stewart Flood

    @21

    Good point. Since Doug Craig has indicated that there has not been an endorsement, I would prefer to wait for verification of something in writing before accepting this rumor as fact.

    I certainly hope that there has not been an endorsement. Newt is…a newt. What else is there to say about him? That sums it up. A newt.

    Let’s just hope that Bob Barr hasn’t been turned into a “newt” (reference Monty Python and the Holy Grail)

  14. Nicholas Sarwark

    But readers should also note that this is a press release from a campaign that just got phones installed in its Iowa office last week and has some serious organizational problems.

    That said, Paul snubbed Barr pretty badly in 2008 and this could just be personal payback.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    18 tk, thanks, didn’t know that. Who was the R?

    Regardless, I actually would not view either Paul’s letter to the LPers or even Barr’s apparent endorsement of Gingrich as a back stab. I do view narcing on one’s own party as more of a back stab, as it was a direct attack. I’d forgive that one, too, but it seems wise for the narc-or to admit to the mistake.

    If Barr endorsed Paul, I’d not view that as a backstab. Endorsing Gingrich is just about as bad an idea as I can think of. He might as well endorse Jimmy McMillan, who is at least amusing. Perhaps it’s attributable to their personal relationship, part of the GA delegation, etc.

    Still, real bad idea, all around. If true, Barr is toast in the LP, I suspect. Presumably, he knows that….

  16. Robert Capozzi

    24 ns, if it’s “personal payback,” then Barr likely has a strange and inflated self-evaluation. I see no evidence that he’s a king-maker. It could be a petty jab, though.

  17. Mario Conde

    No surprise here. Barr and “The Grinch” were in cahoots to impeach Clinton. They were made from the same breed. I now regret voting for Barr.

  18. Doug Craig

    He is setting himself up for another run for US House in the future. The GOP told him to get in Line and that is what he is doing he has to earn them back

  19. Mario Conde

    The only way Bob Barr will go back to Congress is if “The Grinch” becomes President of the United States and jump on his bandwagon. I pray that scenerio never happens.

  20. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@25,

    “18 tk, thanks, didn’t know that. Who was the R?”

    I don’t recall. It was in 2000, it was in Southern California, and I actually saw a scan of the letter from someone who’d received it. I believe the matter was thoroughly discussed on the old LPUS list.

    “Regardless, I actually would not view either Paul’s letter to the LPers or even Barr’s apparent endorsement of Gingrich as a back stab. I do view narcing on one’s own party as more of a back stab, as it was a direct attack. I’d forgive that one, too, but it seems wise for the narc-or to admit to the mistake.”

    Except that urging Libertarians to not vote Libertarian is a “direct attack,” while asking a reasonable question of the LNC on behalf of the membership, being attacked and abused for it instead of answered, and eventually asking the agency charged with keeping track of such matters to get the answer for the party’s members, since the party’s “leaders” refuse the request for information, is not.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    I don’t think Barr is looking to go back to Congress.

    Playing good cop (endorsing Republicans, etc.) is a good way to get reciprocal recommendations to a certain point.

    Playing bad cop (rattling the sabre about maybe jumping into a congressional race where there’s already a sitting Republican) is a good way to turn those recommendations toward an appointment to something that gets and keeps you out of the way.

    At one time, Barr’s bio noted that his goal at one time had been to sit on the Supreme Court. I doubt he’s got the juice to go that far any time soon, but he might be able to swing a state-level judicial appointment, then parlay that into a spot on the federal bench under a later Republican administration.

  22. Tom Blanton

    I don’t see the problem here. I would imagine most Gingrich-Libertarians are supporting Newt Gingrich. While Newt may not be as libertarian as some Bachmann-Libertarians, he certainly is more libertarian than most Stalin-Libertarians. There is no question that he is committed to limited empire and a strong defense.

    I thought the LP was all for a big tent approach to politics as demonstrated by the nomination of the Barr/Root ticket in 2008. Then the LP embraced the moderate Gingrich-Libertarian Barr and the radical Reagan-Libertarian Root. What happened?

    Is the LP love affair with Republicans over?

  23. reader

    Barr is lobbying for a job in the Gingrich Administration.

    He publicly brown-nosed Eric Holder lobbying for a job in this Administration; but that didn’t really take.

    C’est la vie.

  24. Thomas L. Knapp

    @38,

    I doubt that Gingrich will be the GOP nominee the next time the Republicans have a real shot at the White House (2016 at the earliest, possibly as far away as 2024).

  25. Fred Church Ortiz

    Yeah I have to say this would have shocked me back in early 08, today I don’t even feel mild surprise. Snubgate 2 it isn’t.

  26. Bud

    The way the Libertarian Party’s Barr/Root tried to work with Ron Paul in 2008 is the trend of the future…that’s what the Libertarian is going to get in 2012. More of that.

  27. George Phillies

    @39 Obama has a healthy chance of 2008 crash redux, well before the election, thanks to the European mess, and there is probably nothing he can do about it, in that having the Federal Reserve buy the national Debts of Greece, Italy, Spain, Belgium and France and fund all their banks might raise too many eyebrows, even before it failed.

  28. Joe

    Tom @ 36 — Thanks for the laugh. In all good humor there is pain and, more importantly, truth.

    I am looking forward to an LP which returns to its principles over one that moved further into a “big tent.” Non-violence is the paradigm of our philosophy; from that politics becomes perfectly clear on almost every issue — including who to support at the conventions.

  29. Andy

    Just when I thought that Bob Barr couldn’t possibly sink to a lower level than he has already sunk, Bob Barr proves that he can still sink even lower.

    This is absolutely disgraceful.

    Newt Gingrich is a horrible candidate from a libertarian perspective. The fact that Bob Barr was the last Libertarian Party Presidential candidate and the fact that he just endorsed Newt Gingrich – a true anti-libertarian – makes the entire Libertarian Party look bad. It makes us look like a bunch of fools or a bunch of hypocrites, neither is a good thing.

    I gave Barr a chance when he first announced that he was seeking the LP’s presidential nomination but it didn’t take me long to see through him. I tried to warn other Libertarian Party members before the National Convention and during the National Convention that Barr was not to be trusted and that people should not vote for him, but unfortunately not enough people listened to me. I think that it is clearly apparent that I was right (as was every other LP member that did not support Barr).

    This man has disgraced our party and I’m embarrassed to be associated with him. I don’t know if Bob Barr is still a member of the Libertarian Party or not, but if he is, I’d support passing a revolution condeming Bob Barr and apologizing for having him as a candidate, and then I’d favor having Barr’s membership in the Libertarian Party revoked.

  30. Joe

    It’s all over the Ron Paul oriented BLOGS.

    I gotta wonder, what becomes of the LP if Ron Paul runs as the Constitution Party Candidate?

    I attended the LPAC in Reno earlier this year (as well as the Reno Air races, and left with my 14 year old daughter from the area of the crash a bit over an hour before it happened . . .)

    If I remember correctly, the two main evening speakers at LPAC — Ron Paul and (the night before) Chuck Baldwin . . .

    I might have the times wrong, but this was, at least in my experience of it, a Ron Paul and CP event. . . .

  31. Kleptocracy And You

    @8 “In 1968, Newt Gingrich endorsed Nelson Rockefeller for the Republican presidential nomination…….”

    The Globalist cardcarrying Council on Foreign Relations member Leroy Newton Gingrich is still working for the Rockefellers and is only in this race to help ensure the Kleptocracy remains in power. He has called for the worldwide carbon tax and other goals not inline with any “conservative” or “libertarian” stances in which I am familiar.

    As for Barr, after reading his recent articles (’07-’08) which were linked to, on his LP POTUS site which included his FULL support for continued U.S. funding of aircraft poisoning of marijauna fields in Central and South America, I jumped ship quickly. C.I.A. Barr was a libertarian leaning conservative, nothing else. He was “talked” into seeking the LP nomination. Perhaps he is now backtracking all the way back to the Rs. Who knows. I won’t lose any sleep over this and neither should any of you.

    If you support Paul and/or Johnson the best you can do is send them another check in responce to this little occurance……….

  32. George Phillies

    Mr. Barr has chosen his path, and left the Libertarian Party. If he has not yet been expelled from the Party, he should be.

    Of more importance, however, is that Barr received the Presidential nomination thanks to the support and recruitment efforts of a nameable series of Libertarians who are still party members and are still holding positions of trust within the party.

    These people need to be purged from the National Committee.

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    GP@49,

    “If he has not yet been expelled from the Party, he should be.”

    There’s no way to expel a member from the party.

    Nor would handing one’s opponents on the LNC such a weapon be a smart thing to do.

  34. Andy

    “I’d support passing a revolution condeming Bob Barr”

    Whoops, I meant passing a resolution condeming Barr, however, on second thought, a revolution against fake “Libertarians” like Barr isn’t a bad idea either.

  35. George Phillies

    @50 The Parliamentoonians, most of whom were Barr supporters, disagree.

    And handing opponents a nuclear hand grenade carefully labelled ‘extract and throw pin’ is not my idea of a bad idea.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    GP@52,

    “The Parliamentoonians”

    Would that label coincide with the set of actors who get their asses handed to them every time they do some kind of crazy shit that gets dragged in front of the Judicial Committee?

  37. George Phillies

    @54 Considerable overlap here. The people who voted against the new building, who are being accused of having done so in part to deny Mark Hinkle something to crow about so that their chair candidate has a leg up if/when Hinkle runs for re-election.

  38. Lavra

    I get wary when terms like “expel” and “purge” are thrown around .. especially when referring to the only party that promotes freedom.

  39. Pingback: Bob Barr Endorsed Newt Gingrich | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  40. Robert Capozzi

    34 tk: Except that urging Libertarians to not vote Libertarian is a “direct attack,” while … asking the agency charged with keeping track of such matters to get the answer for the party’s members…is not. [shortened for length only]

    49 gp: These people [former Barr supporters] need to be purged from the National Committee.

    me: This is a teachable moment. TK doesn’t know the facts about the Paul letter, but if, for ex., the R was pretty L in CA, I have no problem with Paul suggesting to Ls that they not focus on unseating a R and rather focus on other races seems a reasonable view for LIBERTY, although perhaps not the LP specifically. The LP doesn’t run candidates against Paul, for ex., and I support that decision.

    There may well be mitigating circumstances for the Good Professor narcing on the LNC. As I’ve pointed out previously, he had many other options to determine whether his suspicions were founded. Instead, he filed a complaint with the Feds, opening up the attendant risks to the institution itself. One race vs. the institution seems quite different.

    Now, he wants to PURGE LNCers who supported Barr, as if they are responsible for Barr’s turn! In my way of thinking, at least, it’s insane to blame supporters for their candidate for something he does YEARS LATER. Such an assessment I find to be highly histrionic and deeply wrong-minded.

    Others may find it appropriate. Such is life…

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@59,

    “TK doesn’t know the facts about the Paul letter”

    TK knows the facts about the Paul letter. They’re just locked in TK’s sometimes slow long-term memory.

    “but if, for ex., the R was pretty L in CA”

    That was not the case. He was one of those horrifyingly non-L Republicans, but I just can’t remember which one. It may have been “B1 Bob” Dornan.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    60 tk, OK, you “know” the facts but you’re unable at this time to share them. It’s OK, my memory’s hardly perfect either.

    Let’s assume it was Dornan. I’d still suggest that Paul imploring Ls in ONE race to stand down is not a back stab. It may well be poor judgment.

    It is, however, one race, a race where one L candidate would not win. Attacking the institution which is dedicated to advance liberty in the long term seems far more potentially damaging to the cause.

    By way of analogy, attacking one Russian military base in Yakutsk vs. attacking the Kremlin…I’d say the former is of less significance than the latter.

  43. ATBAFT

    How does any of this square with the job of growing the LP in your county and state? Do you really think the next few potential new members give a rat’s ass about LNC squabbling that goes back years? Even if they hear about Barr, or other controversies in the past, do you think many want to join an organization that is so rigid that “good” people in another party can’t be supported? I swear, if we went back 600 years, a bunch of you would be burning heretics at the stake for intepreting Jesus’ teachings in an unorthodox manner.

  44. Eric Stratton

    This is not like endorsing Paul or Johnson.

    Barr has embarrassed the LP once again for nominating him.

  45. LibertarianGirl

    @2 concerning carpetbaggers.

    you are correct and zi was wrong . During Barrs attempt , I supported Gravel but largely for the same reason , name recognition ect. And I was looking forward to Johnson joining us. But now , altho Id like to have him I fear people will vote for him based on the same thing.

    this time around ,Im going for Libertarian purity , IM VOTING FOR LEE WRIGHTS AND I URGE EVERYONE ELSE TO ALSO!!!.

    Lee is a Libertarian through and through and like him or not , he sure wont embarrass us by being un-libertarian,

    VOTE LEE WRIGHTS!!!!!

  46. Trent Hill

    Knapp–Bob Dornan was immediately who I thought of when I heard your story. I’d guess that’s who it was.

  47. Andy

    “68 LibertarianGirl // Dec 14, 2011 at 11:13 am

    @2 concerning carpetbaggers.

    you are correct and zi was wrong . During Barrs attempt , I supported Gravel but largely for the same reason , name recognition ect. And I was looking forward to Johnson joining us. But now , altho Id like to have him I fear people will vote for him based on the same thing.”

    I agree with you here.

    “this time around ,Im going for Libertarian purity , IM VOTING FOR LEE WRIGHTS AND I URGE EVERYONE ELSE TO ALSO!!!.

    Lee is a Libertarian through and through and like him or not , he sure wont embarrass us by being un-libertarian,

    VOTE LEE WRIGHTS!!!!!”

    I totally disagree with you here. Lee Wrights is a phony. He’s a dreadful candidate. The man is a loser and he’s also a backstabbing two-faced weasel. Go pick up a homeless bum off the streets and take him to Goodwill and buy him a cheap suit and that’s Lee Wrights.

    If you vote for Wrights you are voting for one of the worst candidates in the field. The guy is a joke.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@64,

    “Let’s assume it was Dornan. I’d still suggest that Paul imploring Ls in ONE race to stand down is not a back stab. It may well be poor judgment.”

    Let’s be clear here.

    Paul did not go to the California LP and say “in this particular race, I’m asking you not to run a candidate, because the Republican isn’t all that bad but the Democrat is horrible.”

    Rather, AFTER the LP nominated a candidate, Paul signed a letter, which was then mailed to registered Libertarian voters, urging them to vote AGAINST the LP’s candidate.

    If you don’t think that’s a backstab coming from a former LP presidential nominee, I don’t want you anywhere behind me with a knife.

    “Attacking the institution which is dedicated to advance liberty in the long term seems far more potentially damaging to the cause.”

    Yes, it does. Asking the leaders of an institution a question to which one is entitled as a member to an answer, and acting to compel them to furnish that answer after they deny it to you and treat you abusively for having asked, however, is not an attack on the institution. In point of fact, it is a defense of that institution from the misbehavior of its leaders.

  49. Robert Capozzi

    78 tk, like I said, I don’t agree with Paul’s move as you characterize it. I don’t see it as a backstab.

    Again, I can’t say there would NEVER be a case in which narcing to the Feds is inappropriate. The dollars were small, and there were additional remedies short of that in FECGate. And, jeez, such bad form! Jilted would-be nominees should be especially mindful that his/her actions could easily appear to be motivated by sour-grapes. Politics involves perceptions. A would-be nominee should be the last person to take such an action, even if he or she thought something was substantially rotten in Denmark.

  50. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@72,

    “The dollars were small”

    $50,000 is sustaining dues for 2,000 members.

    “and there were additional remedies short of that”

    Depends on what you mean by “short of that.” What other remedies were there that would have done less damage to the party?

    I suppose could have launched a public appeal to the membership, including the details of the illegitimate executive session used to berate an LNC member for asking inconvenient question, which likely would have generated much more, and more negative, media coverage (both internal and external) than the FEC sending a note to the LNC to the effect of “there’s a discrepancy in your records versus the Barr campaign’s records — care to clear that up?” Is that what you had in mind?

    “in FECGate.”

    Coming at it from that end — e.g. that the scandal is that Phillies looked for answers, rather than the LNC resisted giving them until forced to — “FECGate” seems to exist entirely in the mind of one individual (you).

  51. Robert Capozzi

    73 tk, as I recall, it was all an accounting misunderstanding. But, yes, if a failed would-be nominee had real concerns about flows of funds, it seems best that he or she would turn to state chairs or other leaders to investigate such possible improprieties. He or she needn’t go public with such concerns, certainly.

    I’ve heard that FEC Gate hurt GP’s prospects in Denver, and I also seem to recall that his LNC slate was understandably roiled by the entire affair. Am I incorrect in my recollection?

    In this case, I brought it up because @48, GP called for PURGING(!) LNCers. To me, that sort of incivility (and poor judgment) is the #2 reason for the LP’s inability to attain a semblance of influence in American politics. Now, of course, we all make mistakes. Denying the mistake only makes it worse, in my experience. Your experience, my friend, may differ. Cleaning up mistakes seems the sensible thing to do.

  52. Daniel Williams

    I spoke with Newt when Barr was seeking the LP nomination. Newt did not have nice things to say about Barr. I supported Barr for the 2008 nomination but withdrew that support shortly after Denver. Barr ran a stupid and ineffective campaign. Las Vegas will be a circus…

  53. Shawn Levasseur

    I think Barr wrote off the LP quite some time ago.

    I personally wrote him off once I that he was speaking on behalf of “Baby Doc” Duvalier’s attempt to return to Haiti.

    He’s pretty much done. His legacy will be the Impeachment of Clinton, and his appearance in Borat.

  54. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@74,

    “73 tk, as I recall, it was all an accounting misunderstanding.”

    Yes, it was.

    “But, yes, if a failed would-be nominee had real concerns about flows of funds, it seems best that he or she would turn to state chairs or other leaders to investigate such possible improprieties.”

    Which is exactly what he did. He made a polite inquiry through a regional LNC representative, who was then dragged into an in camera inquisition for having asked, instead of getting the answer “it was just an accounting misunderstanding, we’ll fix it.”

    “He or she needn’t go public with such concerns, certainly.”

    And my recollection is that he didn’t — that in fact the first public disclosure of the matter was when Aaron Starr started howling about the FEC asking the same question that he wouldn’t answer when it was asked on behalf of Phillies by an LNC member.

    “I’ve heard that FEC Gate hurt GP’s prospects in Denver, and I also seem to recall that his LNC slate was understandably roiled by the entire affair. Am I incorrect in my recollection?”

    Since the whole thing happened long after Denver, yes, I think you’re remembering rather more than there is to remember.

  55. Andy

    “I personally wrote him off once I that he was speaking on behalf of ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier’s attempt to return to Haiti.”

    Yes, Barr helping deposed dictator “Baby Doc” Duvalier deliver his “message of hope” to the people of Hati was a truly disgusting moment as well.

  56. Ayn R. Key

    I can understand Barr not endorsing Paul after their dust-up in 2008 where Paul wound up endorsing Baldwin, but to endorse Gingrich is beyond the pale.

    This should serve as a slap in the face to all the liberventionists in the Reform Caucus, except they are immune to shame or embarrassment.

    The question is how this will impact Root’s race since he is essentially riding on Barr’s coat-tails.

  57. Robert Capozzi

    82 ayn: This should serve as a slap in the face to all the liberventionists in the Reform Caucus, except they are immune to shame or embarrassment.

    me: Huh? Are you saying Barr was the “liberventionist” candidate? It seems that Barr drew support from a wide range of the LP, and I’m not sure that the “liberventionists” were behind Barr as much as Root.

    I thought Barr was the best choice at the time, and I’m no liberventionist, although, like Wrights, I’m OK with Marines guarding embassies. I am disappointed by Barr’s decision, and I find it kinda bizarre, actually, unless it’s a matter of personal friendship or something. But my face feels fine. Barr’s an adult, he can make his own decisions, even poor ones.

    Why play the victim?

  58. William Saturn

    In 2008, Gingrich told The Washington Times that “Bob Barr will make it marginally easier for Barack Obama to become president. That outcome threatens every libertarian value Barr professes to champion.”

    In response, during an interview with the National Review, Barr said, “I have great respect for Newt. He’s a friend, and I’ve known him for many years and worked with him in the Congress.” http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224463/enter-barr/interview

    Perhaps Barr is just supporting Gingrich as a friend in the Republican primaries. As far as I know, this is not a general election endorsement.

  59. Libertarian Poser's

    I actually bought a Bob Barr ’08 t-shirt. I’m such a frickin dumbass!

    Oh well, I guess I’ll use it as a liner in my cat’s litter box.

    Now, I’m leerily of voting for Gary Johnson.

    I’m with LG, I’m voting for Lee Wrights!

  60. disinter

    I just had to come out of hiding to say: I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO!

    I love it! :)

    Now where are all the retard caucus creeps to defend Barf?

    ok, back to retirement….

  61. LibertarianGirl

    Andy , I think your being mean and Im certain personal issues are coloring your opinion of Lee.

    I really cant take anything you say about candidates too serious when I know your a fan of and think a good candidate is Jim Duensing…LOL

  62. johncjackson

    So.. If Barr endorsed another Republican..like Ron Paul, would there be so much outrage? Or is Ron Paul the only acceptable anti-Libertarian worthy of Libertarian endorsement?

    Barr was never going to endorse Paul. Why would he? It would make about as much sense as endorsing Rick Perry at this point. Gingrich is terrible, but at least it makes sense for him personally.

  63. Eric Stratton

    Sheesh are you kidding me?

    Endorsing Ron Paul (or Johnson) would be in no way shape or form the same thing as endorsing Newt.

    Paul and Johnson are at least in the libertarian ballpark ideologically.

    Gingrinch….not even close at all.

    You may as well be endorsing Santorum at that point.

  64. Peter Orvetti

    Barr’s LP history aside, this surprises me, since even though they were both Georgia representatives, Gingrich and Barr were never close, and Barr was kept on the sidelines when Gingrich was speaker.

  65. Andy

    “LibertarianGirl // Dec 14, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    Andy , I think your being mean and Im certain personal issues are coloring your opinion of Lee.”

    No, I’m speaking the truth. Lee Wrights is NOT a good candidate by any stretch of the imgagination.

    ‘”I really cant take anything you say about candidates too serious when I know your a fan of and think a good candidate is Jim Duensing…LOL”

    I’m not supporting Jim Duensing for President. Jim seemed like a good guy the times that I met him but his “campaign” has been a joke so I can’t support him for the nomination. Is he even still in the race? His campaign has been so inactive that I don’t even know if he’s still running. This is not a good sign.

    I’ve been a member of the Libertarian Party since 1996 and this is without question the most pathetic bunch of campaigns that I’ve ever seen for the LP nomination. I thought that 2008 was bad but the “campaigns” for the 2012 nominations are even worse.

    The campaigns for the LP Presidential nominations in 1996, 2000, and 2004 were all better than 2008, and 2012 the field for 2012 looks even worse (so far).

    I think that all of the candidates for the LP Presidential nomination for 2012 suck. I don’t cosider Gary Johnson or Wayne Root to be good candidates either if either of them jump in the race.

    If I had to chose one out of an extremely weak field right now I’d probably vote for RJ Harris, but frankly his campaign is severely lacking as well.

    I’ve met many Libertarian Party members over the years. Some of them have impressed me as people who I thought should “move up” so to speak, as in I thought that they would make good candidates for public office or should be on the LNC or should be the Chairman of something or should be employeed in some capacity at the national office or something like that. There are other Libertarian Party members that I’ve met over the years who I’ve thought the opposite of, as in I thought that they were people who’d best be “left in the closet” so to speak, as in they are people who should not be candidates for public office or should not be put in charge of anything. Lee Wrights fits the latter category (as in a party member who should not be a candidate for any office or hold any position within the party). Out of all of the many LP members I’ve met over the years I’m astounded that anyone would think that a horse’s ass like Lee Wrights should be a candidate for anything. The best thing that somebody like Lee Wrights could do for the Libertarian Party is stay home and not be involved.

    If the vote for the LP Presidential nomination was held right now, I’d have a hard time deciding between RJ Harris and None of the Above.

  66. Alan Pyeatt

    I’m with LibertarianGirl. A lot of us tried to tell people that we were being hijacked at the 2008 convention, but we were poo-pooed. I’m proud to say that despite his claims of turning libertarian, I voted AGAINST Barr on all 6 ballots in Denver.

    FWIW, I lived in the 29th Congressional district of California, and received Ron Paul’s letter. The Republican incumbent was Jim Rogan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rogan), who was instrumental in the Clinton impeachment. The Libertarian Party candidate in question was former California State Chair and long-time activist Ted Brown.

    I’m proud to say that Ted has been a friend of both Jill and me for several years. In fact, it was Ted who introduced us, and he spoke at our wedding.

    I don’t pretend to speak for Ted, but to my knowledge he does not have any resentment for Ron Paul due to Dr. Paul’s letter supporting Jim Rogan. You have to realize that Dr. Paul was trying to put together a coalition to stop the assault on our liberty, and his inability to do so has resulted in some HORRIBLE legislation in the interim, much of which was supported by Rogan’s successor, Adam Schiff. Schiff even WROTE the FISA amendments which gave federal sanction to warrantless wiretapping, when the telecoms and the federal government were caught red-handed breaking the law. So when Ted recruited me to run against Schiff in 2008, I jumped at the opportunity. I only wish I had been able to beat that fascist so-and-so and throw him out of office as he deserved.

    Unfortunately, some weeks after Dr. Paul’s letter was sent, I came home to find direct mail postcards from both Rogan’s and Schiff’s campaign bragging about how much foreign aid they wanted to send to Armenia. At the time I lived in Glendale, California, which has a large Armenian population. I couldn’t stomach what appeared to be a blatant attempt to buy votes with public money, so I voted for Ted. Otherwise, I would have voted against my own friend, for Rogan. Not because I liked Rogan so much, but because our goal is a free, libertarian society. Dr. Paul desperately needed allies to stop the assault on liberty, and subsequent events have proved how important that would have been. But in my view, Rogan had shown that he could not be trusted to support our freedom.

    As it is, Rogan lost the election because of blowback for the Clinton impeachment. Unfortunately, his ploy to throw money at the Armenian homeland probably helped his chances instead of hurting them. But again, this happened AFTER Dr. Paul sent his letter supporting Rogan.

    I campaigned for Dr. Paul in 1988, and again in 2008. I donated to his campaign last month. I understand why some people might resent his letter in support of Rogan, and I sure wouldn’t blame Ted if he resented it. But the fact is that Dr. Paul is fighting for the same goal that all libertarians are: a FREE society. I only wish I could say the same about Barr.

  67. Alan Pyeatt

    Correction: “But in my view, Rogan had shown that he could not be trusted to support our freedom, and Ted has proved repeatedly that he CAN be trusted to support it.”

    My bad.

  68. Ted Brown

    @96 Alan Pyeatt commented on the Paul letter before I could. In 2000 Ron Paul called me on the phone and told me that he was going to send the letter endorsing Rep. Jim Rogan to registered Libertarians in my district. I have been a strong Ron Paul supporter since 1988 and still am. I understood that he is a Republican and has to do some party chores sometimes. Also, in my view it made no difference in the race. First of all, there aren’t all that many registered Libertarian, and most of them don’t even vote. And remember, these are registered Libertarians, not activists, and I assumed most of them didn’t even know who Ron Paul was at the time and would have put the letter into the waste can with all the other junk mail. I certainly held no grudge. I even introduced Ron a few months later when he spoke to the LP of CA convention. And right now I can say that Ron Paul is doing more to get libertarian views before the public than anyone ever has — ever. Ron Paul in 2012!

  69. LibertarianGirl

    “Or is Ron Paul the only acceptable anti-Libertarian worthy of Libertarian endorsement?”

    me_ Ron Paul IS A LIBERTARIAN . Why must we get soooo hung up on affiliation when we ask others in different parties not to and to consider another option.

    I am also proud to say in 08 not 1 nevada delegate voted for Barr or Root on any ballot . One of our prouder moments…. we did vote for Gravel based on name recognition , he’d already been in debates and we thought he could get in the door there , he had a history of standing up against people in DC AND most importantly we thought he’s bring in a strong draw from the left that the LP so DESPERATELY NEEDS.

    however this time , Im not vooting namme recogntion at all . Im voting activist , Im voting Libertarian , Im voting for the person I KNOW has put in endless time and who’s taking a beating and keeps coming back to take a stand for priciples.

    Im voting for Lee Wrights. and if he wins the only thing that will keep me frm voting for him will be if Ron Paul is running . In that case Im sure y friend will understand:)

  70. Jill Pyeatt

    I wish I could remember where I saw it, but I read something from Jim Duensing recently where he admits he’s not running for president. I know he even said why, but I don’t recall that, either. (This getting older stuff sucks).

  71. Brill Blackburn

    Disgusting. I guess Barr has shown his true colors. Some may remember Christine Smith’s angry rant in Denver, about libertarians not trusting Barr after he came out on top in the 1st round of balloting, a rant I’d found distasteful at the time. But clearly, Christine Smith was right.

    Obviously now, we should be skeptical of those trying to distort the message (Root) or those who might be johnny-come-latelys (Gary Johnson).

    We all need to show up in Las Vegas to prevent this mistake from happening again! How about a genuine, principled libertarian this time, who we can be proud of and won’t have to apologize for later. Things would’ve been different if just 50 more Ruwart supporters had shown up in 2008.

  72. Trent Hill Post author

    Brill – Christina Smith might’ve been right from your perspective, but her rant was still hyper-distasteful.

  73. Jake Witmer

    still longer version (editor can delete above dupes caused by slow connection):

    To hell with Bob Barr and his fascist friend, Newt Gingrich.

    You heard it here first, folks:
    http://jcwitmer.blogspot.com/2008/05/bob-barr-walks-like-libertarian.html

    Bob Barr opposes Jury Nullification of Law here:
    https://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=30&gs_id=2c&xhr=t&q=bob+barr+yates+jury+gets+it+wrong&tok=TAioeMgsqJwTQGYBnxxsqg&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=bob+barr+yates+jury+gets+it+wr&aq=0w&aqi=q-w1&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=890a274ff6b690bf&biw=1024&bih=587

    …and I appear to be the only person raising hell about it, like I was in Denver, in 2008. Think about it: this position assumes that politicians know what’s best for the plebes called to serve juries. Except that …any one of those 12 plebes can limit the punishing power of government, and all twelve must empower the government to punish.

    So, drug warrior and prosecutor Bob Barr never outgrew his anti-libertarian lawschool training. He still wants juries to “take direction from the judge.”

    Any libertarian who ever supported Barr therefore shows their true colors: they view the common man as rightfully inferior to government force.

    How repugnant!

  74. Jake Witmer

    Libertarian girl, if Wrights gets the LP nomination, the LP will continue to be 100% irrelevant to anyone other than currently registered big-L Libertarians. Wrights is a part and parcel of the corrupt Libertarian “insider’s club” that can talk like libertarians, but who conduct themselves as authoritarians in their personal and business dealings. If I wasn’t an occasional employee of the Libertarian Party, I wouldn’t know this.

    Perhaps the reason you don’t know this, is that you’re not an occasional employee of the Libertarian Party who’s ever had to personally deal with Lee Wrights from a subordinate position. So, let’s recall what happened in Denver, in 2008, when Andy asked why Lee tried to screw him over on expense reimbursements that he was promised, simply because his pal Sean Haugh told him to do so: Wrights didn’t reply to Andy. …He instantly began screaming for security.

    If you don’t see why Lee Wrights shouldn’t be our standard-bearer knowing that, then you probably shouldn’t be voting at the LP national convention. I’m not going to post the rest of my verbose commentary on Wrights, because my prose isn’t as flowery as his. …He does write some wonderful things. He should keep writing, and stop running for president.

  75. Jake Witmer

    Bob Barr, August 02, 2006:
    “Jurors take an oath at the start of the trial to set aside their personal views and prejudices, and objectively consider the evidence to be presented to them at the trial. They are then to render their decision on guilt or innocence based on that evidence and — importantly — on the law as they will be given it by the judge. They are not instructed to apply the law as they might like it to be, or how they think it should be. Jurors are to apply the law as it is.”

    COMPARE:
    “It is not only his [the juror's] right, but his duty . . . to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
    -John Jay

    LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852, p. 11): “For more than six hundred years–that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”

    LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852, p. 11): “For more than six hundred years–that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215, there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.”

    CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND (Article XXIII): “In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.”

    CURRENT RELEVANCE:
    http://fija.org/2011/11/29/prosecution-reveals-ignorance-of-the-function-of-the-jury/

  76. Jake Witmer

    The core libertarian position: “Must a citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? … It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” –Henry David Thoreau

  77. Pingback: Why Ron Paul Will Never Be GOP Nominee - Political Clarity in a Blog - American Swagger

  78. Joe Renzo

    Obviously, Barr’s attempt at getting back at Ron Paul. I’m sure Paul expected it but he really doesn’t care because it was Barr who burned his own bridges. What is more surprising is that why he didn’t endorse Gary Johnson instead? Barr is a faux libertarian who infiltrated the Libertarian Party. I”m not even sure how he became their candidate in ’08. He’s irrelevant to the Libertarian agenda.

    Dismissing Bob Barr, Ron Paul Endorses Constitution Party Candidate
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/dismissing-bob-barr-ron-paul-endorses-constitution-party-candidate/

  79. Pingback: Always Vote Libertarian – but do vote Libertarian, if you know what I mean – The Only Winning Move

Leave a Reply