Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

by **Stephanie** Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:22 pm

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/metro/stories/2008/04/05/barr_0406WEB.html

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr eased into presidential politics Saturday with an announcement that he has formed an exploratory committee to gauge voter interest in his candidacy as Libertarian.

If there are "sufficient numbers" of people behind a Bob Barr presidential race, he's running, the former Republican said.

His announcement brought whoops and applause from the audience of 130 Libertarians, mostly from Midwestern states.

"We are at a tipping point," Barr said, "in terms of the willingness of voters, in significant numbers, to consider alternatives to the major [political] parties."

Barr conceded it was unlikely he could win, but he said his potential candidacy would be an opportunity to preach the Libertarian philosophy.

"I don't think any past performance by a Libertarian candidate is any benchmark," he said. "Are my expectations that the Libertarian candidate will win [the White House]? No. But with a credible candidate, anything is possible."

He added that the Libertarian Party "has been presenting itself as much more mainstream" as voter dissatisfaction increases with the decisions of Republican and Democrat officeholders.

In 2003, Barr left politics â€” he had represented a Cobb County-centered district since 1995 â€” to return to practicing law, offering media commentary, consulting and teaching. He is a regular columnist for The Atlanta-Journal Constitution.

In recent months, he has been a frequent speaker at state Libertarian Party conventions and conferences like Saturday's Heartland Libertarian Conference. Next week, he has scheduled time with radio talk shows and television personalities, to be followed by more Libertarian conventions.

Barr, once a federal prosecutor in Atlanta, came to a hotel in the middle of an office and industrial park on the outskirts of Kansas City to announce his intentions.

He is the second former member of Congress to flirt with a run for president as a Libertarian. Former Alaska senator and one-time Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel switched to the Libertarian Party last month.

"I'm excited to see what he [Barr] has to say," said Doug Burlison, a Libertarian who serves on the Springfield, Mo., City Council. "And I'm excited to see what Mike Gravel has to say. It's exciting to have to former office-holders running [as Libertarians]."

At the Kansas City conference, Barr, 59, repeated his message of less government and protection of civil liberties.

His themes, some say, will appeal to supporters of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a GOP presidential contender who remains in the race even though Arizona Sen. John McCain has accumulated the delegate commitments to win the Republican nomination this summer.

Eight men and two women, plus someone identified as "none of the candidates" and another as "future/unannounced candidate," have raised money as Libertarian contenders for president. The nominee will be picked in late May at the Libertarians' national convention in Denver.

Barr, who as a Republican congressman helped impeach President Bill Clinton, focused many of his complaints on the Republicans he once supported.

"The American people are much more sensitive to big government and the problems of big government," Barr said. "Republicans in Washington have opened people's eyes. Both major parties are big-government parties."

"The two-party system is the problem. If we continue to rely on the two-party system, then shame on us."

by Ich bin Ala-awkbarph Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:26 am

Of all the presidential candidates, I would prefer to vote for him--Barr none!

by SamCogar Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:38 am

If Barr becomes a viable contender, ........ will Ron Paul support him and ask his followers to do likewise?

Now that would create a "force" that the Dems and McCain would have to reckon with.

Might even cause one hell of a "fight" at the Democrat Convention ....... to "re-pick" a winner.

That is, iffen the Dems really want to win. Hillary does, Obama does, ...... but I'm not really sure the Dems do. Evil or Very Mad

.

by shermangeneral Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:52 am

From my pt. of view Barr has become a lot more credible and articulate since he left office.

But while he was in Congress he was among the most partisan rightwing wackos and seemed obsessed with Clinton's sex life.

And, like a lot of the wild-eyed Clinton critics, his own feet of clay were laid bare.

But I do believe in redemption, and I like a lot of his current attitude.

Especially vis-a-vis personal liberties and the efforts of the current rightwing ne'er do wells to infringe upon same.

(Yes I know a lot of Dems are joining right in, but the effort is led by the Right, in the name of National Security.)

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:47 am

I don't know what Ron Paul will do, although I've read numerous reports that Ron Paul has been approached and may endorse Barr. I'm not too sure what I'll do in that event because I am concerned about his position on drug crimes, medical marijuana and a few other issues.

In any event, assuming McCain is the GOP nominee and for the Dems it's Obama or Omama and Paul doesn't launch an independent or 3rd party bid, I very well may decide to vote for Barr rather than cast a write in vote for Paul, whether Paul endorses him or not.

by **SheikBen** Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:31 pm

Do you think the Libertarians would nominate Barr if he believes in the "war on drugs?"

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:13 pm

I think if they believe overall he will further their cause, they probably will.

by **SheikBen** Sun Apr 06, 2008 1:56 pm

I would be surprised and I would be disappointed, if Barr holds to a "pro-war on drugs" position (I must admit I'm not as well educated on his positions as I ought to be), that the Libertarians would endorse him. The one thing that I have always admired about the ideological third parties (Libertarians and Greens) is that they have been consistent.

I'm speaking as someone who neither uses drugs nor condones their use, morally or socially, but if government is to be "off of our backs," then it seems our choices of consumption is one of the first places to start. We have violent crimes to take care of; a bunch of preppie morons smoking up in a basement is just not a public concern until one of them gets behind the wheel of a car. My undergraduate alma mater recently had 48 students arrested for underage drinking within walking distance of campus (and almost assuredly the vast majority of the kids, if not all of them, had walked to the party). The frustrating thing is that there is actual crime in the town that's actually hurting people; when will the government figure out priorities????

by shermangeneral Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:01 pm

I pretty much am a Libertarian on that kind of issue too.

My difference with them is I believe in "income re-distribution".

Wonder where Barr stands on that?

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:17 pm

Sherm,

These links may help....

http://www.bobbarr.org/

http://www.ontheissues.org/GA/Bob_Barr.htm

by **SheikBen** Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:03 pm

It seems to me, Sherm, that the government taking from the rich and giving to the poor is the opposite of the government not intruding into someone's life.

by shermangeneral Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:09 pm

Maybe.

But we have to have rules, right?

by Aaron Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:29 pm

shermangeneral wrote:I pretty much am a Libertarian on that kind of issue too.

My difference with them is I believe in "income re-distribution".

Wonder where Barr stands on that?

I'll give you my address and you can re-distribute yours to me. The govenment taking it unless it's for the common defense or interstate commerace, is unconstitutional.

And since when is socialism rules???

by **Stephanie** Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:04 pm

shermangeneral wrote:Maybe.

But we have to have rules, right?

How does the redistribution of wealth fit under the catagory of "rules"?

I fail to understand why some think it's acceptable, or even desirable, to take the fruits of one person's labor and give it to another. How does doing such things motivate people to work hard? Where is the incentive to achieve or accomplish is what you work for is to be taken from you and given to someone else?

I know a guy who has a child that recently turned 4 years old. From the time that child was conceived to today this man has worked a total of 7 months. The mother doesn't work, they have lived on a combination of child support she receives for her eldest child, food stamps, WIC, HEAP, Medicaid and other "entitlements" and by sponging off of his mother. Last week he was declared eligible for disability. He is 38 years old with clogged arteries and a bum knee.

Why should the government tax my family, or yours, or anyone else to support this loser and his lifestyle? He simply will not work and he will likely collect social security disability benefits until he dies as a result of his inactivity and addictions. His girlfriend will not work. Who is going to teach their child about personal responsibility and precisely how do you suppose this kid will ever develop any kind of a work ethic?

The concept of redistribution of wealth created this jerk. My husband and I simply can't afford to continue our small part of supporting him. Even if we could, why should we? Why should anyone?

These people should get jobs and support themselves and their children. As long as the government keeps on taxing working stiffs like you and my husband their will be deadbeats lined up with their hands out. I don't see how that helps anyone or accomplishes anything.

by shermangeneral Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:14 am

Well Steph it always comes down to that same bottom line.

Most recipients and beneficiaries of public assistance are too young to work.

Or not able.

by **SheikBen** Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:23 am

I understand Stephanie's frustration as well as Sherman's concern for the vulnerable. I certainly appeciate that Stephanie's loser acquaintence is a dredge on the system and himself a product of it--social welfare programs certainly discourage people from productivity, a matter that is well addressed.

I also appreciate that children are the victims of these idiots, and I also see how given situations beyond the control of the welfare recipients themselves may bring people into the system. When health care is 1600 dollars a month for a family of four, even someone working as hard as they can might not be able to cover their family.

My ideal situation would be one in which the churches (from whom a great many hospitals arose in the first place) and other private charities stepped up and provided food and medical care, perhaps irrespective of income (so as to eliminate any bureaucracy), with those of greater means being able to obtain greater care at for-profit institutions.

Either way, I have to admit that social welfare is a difficult matter to address--you don't want to have kids going hungry (I'd say a nation that does that is immoral) but you don't want to fund people who would rather get a transfer payment than a job.

by SamCogar Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:14 am

Aaron wrote:
shermangeneral wrote:I pretty much am a Libertarian on that kind of issue too.

My difference with them is I believe in "income re-distribution".

Wonder where Barr stands on that?

I'll give you my address and you can re-distribute yours to me.

HA, be serious Aaron.

Sherman don't agree with "such crap" about redistributing ANY PART OF his and/or his wife's income to anyone or anybody but to themselves. They mean to keep every damn penny they are paid ........ and they get furiously PO'ed when ever they have to give any of it up.

I mean like you've seen how pissyfaced and pouty he gets ....... just thinking about part of his "truck driving" pay being used to fund my monthly SS check and pay my PEIA and Medicare bills. Razz

Aaron, he wants them to "redistribute" your earnings, ....... not his.

.

by SamCogar Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:59 am

Stephanie wrote:I fail to understand why some think it's acceptable, or even desirable, to take the fruits of one person's labor and give it to another.

Elementary, my dear Steph, ........ elementary.

The overwhelming majority of such "thinking" people, ...... excluding the recipiants of said redistribution, ....... are Political Candidates, elected Politicians and Public Employees, ....... many of which their jobs and positions directly depend on said "redistribution" ...... with the majority of the remainder being lefty liberals "thinking it acceptable" because they know damn well said "redistribution" will in no way, shape or form ........ affect their own income or standard of living.

Stephanie wrote:The concept of redistribution of wealth created this jerk.

As long as the government keeps on taxing working stiffs .... there will be deadbeats lined up with their hands out. I don't see how that helps anyone or accomplishes anything.

Steph, there are literally THOUSANDS of State and County employees that can tell you "how that" helps them.

And Politicians can tell you what it accomplishes, ..... like getting them elected and/or re-elected.

.

by **SheikBen** Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:17 am

Sam,

Truer words rarely spoken. If so-called public money were really spent on the people it is meant to help (and in those cases in which it is), I might be more disposed toward the welfare state. Unfortunately, the biggest recipients of government largesse tend to be bureaucrats (I once was one, delightfully spending your money on luxuries) and elected officials (committed to overspending on offices, furniture, travel, pet projects, show bills, show investigations, etc.)

by ziggy Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:28 am

Stephanie wrote:I fail to understand why some think it's acceptable, or even desirable, to take the fruits of one person's labor and give it to another. How does doing such things motivate people to work hard? Where is the incentive to achieve or accomplish is what you work for is to be taken from you and given to someone else?

Stephanie, the economy is deliberately managed such that usually some 5 percent or so of the "working age" people are unemployed.

Only when jobs are actually available to all workers would your utopian dream of "everyone earning his /her own way" be plausable.

By keeping the economy functioning such that some several percentage of "able workers" are perpetually unemployed, we have a significant portion of the work force always competing for the lowest paid jobs. And so we'll always have that percentage of able workers who are unemployed or paid wages not sufficient to pay the rent and buy the groceries- much less able to pay for adequate medical care for their families.

If there are better way to manage this, then as the little man says, "Bring 'em on". But always just blaming the victims of a managed economy wherein the goal is always something less than full employment is a social copout.

Is there some percentage of people who will be content to suck the economic system for "freebies"? Yes there is- at both the top and the bottom of the economic ladder.

And can you guess which ones suck the most from the economic pie- the bottom feeders, or the top feeders?

by **Stephanie** Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:28 am

Well this guy could work. If my 60 y/o MIL, who suffered a massive heart attack that required stents, followed by a stroke for which she had to have surgery on her carotid arteries is able to work, so can he. He probably couldn't dig ditches or cut timber for a living, but he could be a WalMart greeter or bag groceries at the local IGA.

How about his girlfriend? Why shouldn't she get a job? She is neither too young, nor too old to work. Other than being severely lazy and thinking the world owes her, there isn't anything wrong with her.

BTW.......I know this guy's parents. He wasn't raised on welfare. They are hardworking people. He didn't learn this behavior from them, although I will say his mother certainly facilitates it.

by ziggy Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:45 am

Stephanie wrote:Well this guy could work. If my 60 y/o MIL, who suffered a massive heart attack that required stents, followed by a stroke for which she had to have surgery on her carotid arteries is able to work, so can he. He probably couldn't dig ditches or cut timber for a living, but he could be a WalMart greeter or bag groceries at the local IGA.

Is Wal-Mart hiring an unlimited number of greeters? No.

If this guy got that open job, then the next guy will not get that job.

And the perpetual unemployment circle goes 'round and 'round.

by **Stephanie** Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:00 am

Ziggy,

I'm not talking about people who can't find jobs. I'm not speaking of people who can't earn enough to support their families. I am speaking specifically about a couple who demand handouts.

I am not opposed to all social programs. There are some I think are very beneficial. The problem is, the government has things set up now so that if you having limited earning potential, there is no reason to work at all. It isn't that there are no jobs available to this couple, they just don't want to work for minimum wage because for them there is no incentive.

Look, for a brief time the girlfriend worked as a clerk in a convenience store. She didn't last a month. Why? Because she found they were going to reduce her food stamp allocation. She would still receive Medicaid and free preschool, free hot lunches, etc and when she quit that job there were no consequences for her.

You're trying to change the conversation. I'm talking about people who simply believe the world owes them a living. You're talking about people who can't find jobs, or people who have jobs but still can't afford to support their families. They are two entirely different conversations.

by ziggy Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:14 am

Stephanie wrote:You're trying to change the conversation. I'm talking about people who simply believe the world owes them a living. You're talking about people who can't find jobs, or people who have jobs but still can't afford to support their families. They are two entirely different conversations.

I disagree, Stephanie. Usually I like the way you think- even when I don't like what you think. But this is all one conversation.

But by pretending that it is "two different conversations"- by keeping the poor fighting with the poor for bottom-of-the-economic-ladder jobs, the powers that manage the economy maintain a false dichotomy of jobs availability, vis-a-vis the willingness or unwillingness to work.

If there were living wage jobs available for all, then "welfare" would not be needed, nor even useful.

by **Stephanie** Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:08 am

ziggy wrote:
Stephanie wrote:You're trying to change the conversation. I'm talking about people who simply believe the world owes them a living. You're talking about people who can't find jobs, or people who have jobs but still can't afford to support their families. They are two entirely different conversations.

I disagree, Stephanie. Usually I like the way you think- even when I don't like what you think. But this is all one conversation.

But by pretending that it is "two different conversations"- by keeping the poor fighting with the poor for bottom-of-the-economic-ladder jobs, the powers that manage the economy maintain a false dichotomy of jobs availability, vis-a-vis the willingness or unwillingness to work.

If there were living wage jobs available for all, then "welfare" would not be needed, nor even useful.

They aren't fighting for the jobs, Ziggy. They don't want those jobs and that's the problem.

I'm going to call this couple Adam & Eve. Neither Adam nor Eve is willing to work. They want to eat, they want to stay warm in the winter and they want medical care, schooling, and a variety of other things for themselves and their children. Right now they are provided with all of those things by our government. This is accomplished by the government taxing everyone who is contributing to the economy and society while they sit at home watching Jerry Springer with a beer in one hand and either a cigarette or a joint in the other.

She dropped out of high school at 16, he has his high school diploma. Neither has a work history. She has never held a job other than the convenience store stint of 3 weeks. He has worked here and there doing landscaping and bartending. In the decade I have known him he was employed for a total of 7 months in manufacturing. This was a job that paid an enviable wage for someone with his educational background and work history. He had health insurance benefits with them, sick time, paid vacations etc. One day he decided he didn't want to do it any more and just stopped showing up for work.

So he's a bum, he just won't work. But guess what? We still need people who perform those kinds of jobs. Because there are so many undereducated Americans who simply refuse to work because they have figured out how to get the government to pay for everything from the shirts on their backs to the shoes on their feet, and for the food in their bellies and the heat in their homes, not to mention the housing itself, there is a huge market for foreign born unskilled workers.

These people come here illegally to obtain these jobs and they can't afford to feed the children they have here either. So they get free healthcare and free schooling and vouchers for school clothes and toys at Christmas and food stamps not to mention hot lunch and in plenty of locations free breakfast for their kiddos.

My family can't afford this. I have kids of my own that need to eat. One needs contact lenses and the other will need sealants soon. The little guy needs an entire new summer wardrobe because last years won't fit.

Even if my family could afford this, why on Earth should any portion of my husband's earnings go to pay to support Adam & Eve's sorry butts? Why should Donald Trump or Bill Gates or Don Blankenship be required to pay a dime so Adam & Eve can sit home drinking beer and smoking whatever while watching Jerry Springer????

They shouldn't.

by Sponsored content

Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee

Re: Barr forms presidential exploratory committee