Wednesday
Sep102008
Third-party candidates unify, Bob Barr snubs
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 1:18PM
Third-party presidential candidates held a press conference today at the National Press Club. In attendance were Ron Paul (no longer a presidential candidate), Cynthia McKinney (Green Party candidate), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party candidate), and Ralph Nader (Independent). Bob Barr was expected but did not appear; see below for more.
The candidates held the press conference to announce agreement on a list of principles, including ending the Iraq war, no more national debt increases, investigation into the national reserve system, and protection of privacy and civil liberties. They also explained their reasons for splitting from the major parties and criticized the Commission on Presidential Debates. Ron Paul gave an idea for a better way of determining debate elligibility: if you're on the ballot in enough states that you could theoretically get enough electoral votes to win, you're in.
Paul also mentioned that he had gotten a call from the McCain campaign yesterday asking him to endorse McCain. Paul said the campaign had offered him no policy concessions in return. Paul refused to endorse, saying today that the request "didn't make a whole lot of sense" and laughing.
Nader was asked why Bob Barr was not attending and if he really agreed with the principles. Nader said he had spoken with the Barr campaign this morning and they had indicated Barr would be there.
Barr, however, did not attend and instead called his own press conference an hour later. At Barr's press conference, he said that having "bold, specific leadership" was the way to get policy changes made, not by presenting "an amorphous agenda." He did not want to appear with the other candidates because he did not want to "dilute" his message. Barr also mentioned he had offered Ron Paul the VP spot on the Libertarian ticket, but he had not heard a response. I asked Barr if his actions today should be taken as an indication that he would be unwilling to compromise if elected, and he said it should "absolutely" not be taken that way; he said compromise is necessary.
The statement of principles (which does not include Bob Barr's name) can be found here.
The candidates held the press conference to announce agreement on a list of principles, including ending the Iraq war, no more national debt increases, investigation into the national reserve system, and protection of privacy and civil liberties. They also explained their reasons for splitting from the major parties and criticized the Commission on Presidential Debates. Ron Paul gave an idea for a better way of determining debate elligibility: if you're on the ballot in enough states that you could theoretically get enough electoral votes to win, you're in.
Paul also mentioned that he had gotten a call from the McCain campaign yesterday asking him to endorse McCain. Paul said the campaign had offered him no policy concessions in return. Paul refused to endorse, saying today that the request "didn't make a whole lot of sense" and laughing.
Nader was asked why Bob Barr was not attending and if he really agreed with the principles. Nader said he had spoken with the Barr campaign this morning and they had indicated Barr would be there.
Barr, however, did not attend and instead called his own press conference an hour later. At Barr's press conference, he said that having "bold, specific leadership" was the way to get policy changes made, not by presenting "an amorphous agenda." He did not want to appear with the other candidates because he did not want to "dilute" his message. Barr also mentioned he had offered Ron Paul the VP spot on the Libertarian ticket, but he had not heard a response. I asked Barr if his actions today should be taken as an indication that he would be unwilling to compromise if elected, and he said it should "absolutely" not be taken that way; he said compromise is necessary.
The statement of principles (which does not include Bob Barr's name) can be found here.
Reader Comments (15)
And Barr's already fledgling campaign just died. Hahaha.
Don't get your hopes up just yet.
It's amazing how many vultures are hovering nearby hoping something bad happens to Bob.
Bad move real bad move from Bob Barr.
Bad move Barr, you just lost my vote...
Go Bob Barr.
Barr actually has gained a little more respect from me for this. Maybe he will morph into a true libertarian eventually.
Vote Bob Barr. The only non sellout this election!
Ron Paul failed his following with this ridiculous stunt.
Former United Stated Senator from Alaska:
Maurice Robert "Mike" Gravel
Got history cred?
...I say this as someone who's donated large sums of money to Dr. Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin...
Bob Barr can suck it. He just lost my vote, what a scumbag.
I'm glad he just ruined his campaign, now maybe the rest can get some extra votes. I honestly don't know who to vote for now!!!
Cedric
Real bad move by Barr. I'm still gonna vote for him 'cause Baldwin, Nader, and McKinney get no TV time and that's important to winning. He's still a better choice than McCain or Obama.
If the idea was to get a recognized name on the ballot, the Libertarians succeeded, the only problem is that Barr is more repulsive then a dead skunk in the middle of the road. Principle would have made Mary Ruwart the Libertarian nominee, not the current boob, or should I say boobs because Root is just as repulsive. This pair may be better than the McCain or Obama tickets, but that really doesn't amount to a whole lot. I could settle for the other three candidates, each of whom has their faults, but I sort of prefer as the sticker says, "Nobody for President", at this point.
Why vote Chuck Baldwin:
What’s wrong with Barr is that he does not intend to honor his oath office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. He may be sincere when he talks about small government and civil liberties — that these are good ideas, but he does not recognize the Constitution as his authority in office.
According to its preamble, the Constitution was designed in large part to “Secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Liberty is only secure when our governing representatives bear true faith and allegiance to the law of the land and the citizens hold them accountable to that duty. If the Constitution does not grant the president or Congress the power to give billions of dollars in foreign aid, then they aren’t supposed to do it — no matter how they might be able to justify it pragmatically. They weren’t given that power by “law”.
More than a century of ignoring the Constitution is what has caused our immense problems as a nation. When we followed it, America became the most prosperous nation in the history of the world! When we elect a president, we don’t tell them to do their best and fix our country’s problems using their own judgment and wisdom. We tell them to perform their duties in accordance with the “law” (the Constitution).
Some don’t want to vote for Baldwin because he’s too Christian — isn’t that voting based on personality? We are to consider FIRST who will honor their oath and follow the Constitution. All those other considerations come AFTER the principle has been satisfied. Otherwise, we are putting an executive officer in place and telling him that it’s okay if he doesn’t want to follow the law sometimes. Just because Baldwin is a Christian does not mean he will violate his oath of office to try to force it onto others. These are the sins of the the apostate religious right. It means that he will take his oath of office before God and his countrymen seriously because honesty is teaching of Jesus AND he believes in the principles embodied in that founding document.
Baldwin is pledging to follow the law all of the time — believing in those principles of liberty laid out by our Founding Fathers. But Barr only plans to follow it mostly. Barr may be a decent fellow with good intentions, but if he plans to violate his oath because he does not bear true faith and allegiance to the the Constitution — only a set of libertarian or small government ideals, then he would contribute to the growth of government and recession of liberty — just maybe in a smaller way or at a slower pace.
We’ve got to get past the celebrity and vote based on unchanging principle. Ron Paul united everyone in this movement because he believed in those principles AND followed his oath of office 100% of the time without fail. True Constitutionalists didn’t “fall in love” with the man, but rather his principles. America was unique because we made the “law” our ruler — not a person. Hence the term “Rule of Law.” That is what we must embrace if we are to reclaim Liberty.
Charlie's Angel that was a bad argument. You didn't give any solid examples of how Bob Barr would fail to uphold his oath of office, you just made the accusation that he would. Did you get this information from an anti-Barr website?
You say "Some don't want to vote for Baldwin because he's too Christian" but that's not the problem at all. The problem is that the Constitution Party only wishes to follow the Constitution up to the point that it starts conflicting with their theocratic goals. After that the Constitution gets thoroughly ignored in order to merge politics and Christianity at the federal level, which is something that would be thoroughly unconstitutional.
Barr just commited political suicide! I was actually thinking of voting for him. But now I'll make another choice, because I won't put up with Ron Paul being trashed. Expecially by his so called friend, Barr! Thats just not right, whats he thinking, OR MAYBE WHATS HE NOT THINKING??????? Carlotta from Illinois
Asking Ron Paul to be his running mate is an example of Bob Barr trashing him?
Well Bob, I guess you've helped make my decision... It's Chuck Baldwin all the way. At least I don't have to wonder who to vote for any more.
The American Ruse &
when Black Friday comes.
Honesty or lies?
Compassion or greed?
Intelligence or narrow-minded?
Guts - or go along to get along?
Ralph Nader
Cynthia McKinney
Ron Paul
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Jesse Ventura
H. Ross Perot
President Carter
JFK RFK MLK Malcolm