The T-Files

In what is a Very Good Thing for U.S. Politics, former U.S. congressman Bob Barr has officially announced his plans to run for President of the United States. Barr offers a choice beyond the same coin different side nominees currently representing the Republicans or the Democrats. As a libertarian, a Bob Barr presidency is an opportunity to return the United States to its fundamental roots as a free market with limited government.

Barr is joining the race because he believes that ‘big government and big spending are the (source) of all problems’; that it is time to go back to our roots of maximum individual liberty; restore the constitution; return our military its role of national security, not international enforcers; and secure our borders. (re: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/)

According to Barr, he decided to run as a Libertarian because “there was not “currently or anywhere on the horizon” a candidate who understood the principles of fiscal conservatism and basic principles on whichÖAmerica was founded.” (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080512174415.16yxf74a&show_article=1) Just as a refresher, those principles are a limited government that works for the people—not the other way around. A government who understands that, should it become destructive of an individual’s unalienable rights, the people have the right to alter or abolish it. The Libertarian’s seek to alter the government back to its original principles of championing individual rights; and allowing the free market, not a Federal lackey or an over-hyped stimulus plan, control the economy.

Granted, third parties usually place about as well in the general election as Paris Hilton would place on Jeopardy!: a distant third. If there is a strong name recognition (Ralph Nader) or a large bankroll (Ross Perot)–third party candidates have acted as spoilers. Some Dems still blame Nader for Al Gore’s loss in 2000. Perot who, by capturing almost 19% of the vote in 1992, helped oust George Bush the First and insert Bill Clinton. Perhaps ‘insert’ is not the best word to use in reference to Bill Clinton, but I digress. Barr’s strong name recognition and strong reputation as a fiscal conservative place him firmly in the wild card spot.

Journalists and talk show hosts have asked Barr about his role as a potential spoiler—as if the Republicans or Democrats were somehow the only political parties entitled to the presidency and all others were usurpers to the throne. Sean Hannity went so far
to say that Barr might “steal” the election from the Republicans (http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/opinion-why-sean-hannity-so-angry), talk about your sense of entitlement. Barr’s response to Hannity was essentially the same as his response here: (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080512174415.16yxf74a&show_article=1) “If Senator McCain … does not succeed in winning the presidency … it will be because Senator McCain did not present, and his party did not present, a vision, an agenda, a platform and a series of programs that actually resonated positively with the American people.”

Folks at the GOP appear to be less concerned about ‘presenting a vision’ and more concerned with a Candidate Barr. According to Barr’s blog (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/), “a number of Republicans have been trying to persuade him not to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, but none has given him a convincing reason.” Unless, of course, cowering and whining “please let us win Mr. Libertarian” is a convincing reason.

The Village Voice asked Barr how his decidedly conservative past ties with his current Libertarian affiliation. Barr’s response: “…many of the positions that I took in the Congress and that I take now are based on the principle of federalism, which is certainly a libertarian position. It used to be a position reflective of the Republican Party but obviously is no longer a part of the Republican platform.” (http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/05/10/bob-barr-interviewed-in-the-village-voice/).

Does Barr have a chance of winning the general election? That depends, first he has to get the Libertarian nomination at their convention in Denver. If he wins there, then the questions become, are Americans as frustrated with partisan politics as they say? Are the differences between the Pants Suit, Prince Charming, and the Compromiser significant enough to be considered a choice? Is liberty a concern or are Americans happy giving up more freedoms in the name of spurious security?

According to a story in The Examiner Bob Barr already won his first delegate. From the article: “Stewart Flood, a delegate with the Libertarian Party in South Carolina, proudly walked up to Barr to declare himself the first Libertarian delegate to endorse Barr.

“He’s in it to win it,” said Flood. “Make no mistake about it.”

Here, at the Bob Barr blog, and here, at Michigan Redneck II.

As always, feel free to link or repost my work as long as proper credit is given.

Last week, Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia was on the Hannity and Colmes show on the Fox News Network.  Congressman Barr has launched a Presidential Exploratory Committee for the 2008 elections, and Hannity and Colmes wanted to take the opportunity to criticize Barr about his decision.  What had Sean Hannity’s tighty whiteys in a knot was that  Congressman Barr plans to run as a Libertarian.

Both Sean and his toady Alan Colmes peppered Barr with questions attempting to marginalize him and the Libertarian party:  “Would you vote for the legalization of heroin or crack?”  (Barr responded no, but added that drugs were an issue “better handled by the state than the Federal government”, as the never-ending War on Drugs would indicate).  When the hosts allowed Barr to answer a question free from annoying interruptions he noted that the Libertarians were not a single-issue party, but a party whose overriding doctrine is to “maximize individual liberty and minimize government power”—much like the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

The Republican Party was once the party of small government and individual liberty, but it has devolved into a megalith of social conservatism (occasionally boarding on theocratic dogma), a behemoth sized government and an eradicator of civil liberties.  Libertarians want a country where, as long as force or fraud is not involved, individuals are free to do as they wish; much like the old Republican Party.  The problem for Libertarians is raising public awareness.  Barr’s name recognition  would go a long way to raising that public awareness–something that would spell disaster for the Republican Party.   And Hannity knows it.

Hannity told Barr that if Barr pulls three percent of the vote from McCain, Hillary or Obama will win the election, Hugo Chavez will be Attorney General and Alec Baldwin will be Secretary of State.  Ok, I just heard the Chavez/Baldwin comment in my head, but Hannity’s voice was tight with fear when he said Barr might “steal” the election from the Republicans.  If the imaginary theft occurred, Hannity said he would hold Barr personally responsible.  Scary.   Barr’s response was if the Republicans were not strong enough to win by more than three percent that was hardly his fault.

The chances of a Libertarian winning in November, even one with as much name recognition as Barr, are about the same as Florida counting its votes right the first time.  Barr and Hannity both know that.  What Hannity and the rest of the Neocons fear are traditional and centrist Republicans defecting to the Libertarian party.  It is in the best interest of the Republican leadership for the public to see the Libertarians as dope smoking ex-hippies who want to privatize the sidewalks.  Neocons do not want you to think of Libertarians as the last bastion for resurrecting civil liberties.  They do not want you to see the Libertarians as the party who will bring the troops home and station them on the US boarders.  They do not want you to see Libertarians as the party who believe the best person to decide what to do what your money is you, rather than a bloated Federal Government with a voracious appetite for your income.

Libertarians tend not to get involved with ideological wars without an exit strategy.  A Libertarian will ask: are we winning the War on Drugs or are we just growing an ever-expanding bureaucracy of upper level DEA managers?  A Libertarian will say that rather than some phony War on Poverty—which actually creates more dependency on the Feds—let’s keep the money in the private sector where jobs can  be created for the poor.  A Libertarian will wonder how can we win the War on Terror if we do not know when it is over.   Perhaps we should end these other wars and start a war on war slogans.

While the democrats will tell you the government programs are the solution to all our problems, and Republicans believe government program growth is necessary in this time of slogan wars, Libertarians believe the only good government program is the one that just ended.  The unalienable rights of the individual to pursue life, liberty and happiness in whatever way that individual defines (barring force or fraud), those terms are paramount to the Libertarian party and most government programs that run counter to that end.  Regardless of Bob Barr winning the election, or even the Libertarian nomination, he can carry the Libertarian message to the people.

And that is why Sean Hannity is so angry.