Bob Barr Bolts

[TheBluesMan]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/15/D8M1ILB00.html

Ex-Rep. Barr Quits GOP for Libertarians
Dec 15 6:06 PM US/Eastern

By BEN EVANS
Associated Press Writer

A former Georgia congressman who helped spark President Clinton's impeachment has quit the Republican Party to become a Libertarian, saying he is disillusioned with the GOP on issues such as spending and privacy.

Bob Barr, who served eight years as a Republican congressman before losing his seat in 2002, announced Friday that he is now a "proud, card-carrying Libertarian." And he encouraged others to join him.

"It's something that's been bothering me for quite some time, the direction in which the party has been going more and more toward big government and disregard toward privacy and civil liberties," said Barr, 58, a lawyer and consultant living in Atlanta. "In terms of where the country needs to be going to get back to our constitutional roots ... I've come to the conclusion that the only way to do that is to work with a party that practices what it preaches, and that is the Libertarian Party."

Barr said he has no plans to run for office. In his new role as the Libertarian Party's regional representative for the South, he will help promote the party's message and recruit candidates, he said.

Barr helped manage the House Republicans' impeachment case before the Senate in 1999.

I hope he is successful in his efforts. Though I believe that reforming the GOP from the inside is the better course to take. The LP is too polarizing a party to ever make an impact on a national scale.

JMHO.

-Dave

 

[Redworm]

I also hope he's successful. While I agree with your assessment of the Libertarian party I don't see the GOP ever conceding to the social ideals of the libertarian party and thus, to me, it's not worth trying to reform it.


Still, had I been old enough to vote for Barr when I lived in Georgia I probably would have.

 

[Overman]

The LP is too polarizing a party to ever make an impact on a national scale.

People are always saying, "Well, I like the Libertarians, except for (insert 'polarizing issue here')"

Why is that unique to the Libertarian party? Plenty of people are Republicans, but disagree with plenty of the planks of the Republican platform, likewise the Democratic platform, but yet they still side with the party.

Why is it that, if a person cannot agree with 100% of the Libertarian platform, they choose to chuck it entirely, but are willing to stay with the Reps and Dems even though they disagree with some of their planks. I am left baffled.

 

[Eghad]

Its something I would like to see continue. it would even be scarier to see a guy like Limbaugh defect from the GOP. From ditto heads to liberty heads..lol.

 

[Musketeer]

Why is it that, if a person cannot agree with 100% of the Libertarian platform, they choose to chuck it entirely, but are willing to stay with the Reps and Dems even though they disagree with some of their planks. I am left baffled.

Just so you know I am a big fan of the Libertarian ideals. The problem though is not that people will chuck the Libertarian party if they do not agree 100% with it but that the Libertarian party itself is run by people who don't accept anything less than 100% agreement on their platform.

Legalized drugs are the number one killer issue for Libertarians. Most people could easily be libertarians but because they disagree with the legalization issue and the party refuses to entertain their view on this in any way, they are driven off.

You can be a Pro-Choice Republican. You can be a Pro-Gun Democrat. You cannot though be accepted by the Libertarians as a Anti-Legalization Libertarian.

 

[Redworm]

Legalized drugs are the number one killer issue for Libertarians. Most people could easily be libertarians but because they disagree with the legalization issue and the party refuses to entertain their view on this in any way, they are driven off.

really? most?

 

[Ausserordeutlich]

Nice alliteration.

 

[Redworm]

Nice alliteration.

good thing he's still in georgia otherwise we would have read Bob Barr brazenly bolts Bible-belt

 

[gb_in_ga]

Bob Barr is now with the Libertarians? I'm pretty surprised.

Wasn't he a real big proponent of the War On Drugs? Seems that I voted against him in the primaries last time he ran for office just because of that 1 issue. Best I remember, I was kinda sad about it, too, since other than his stance on the WOD I agreed with him pretty much across the board. Unless he has done an about face on the WOD issue, I'm surprised that he would have been welcomed into the ranks of the Libertarians.

Personally, what has kept me from embracing the Libertarians any more than I have is the extreme pacifistic stance that so many of them have taken.

 

[DWARREN123]

They need some national coverage to go against the Dem's and Rep's.

 

[chadwimc]

I always ask the Looney Libertarians "which of your daughters would you surrender to drugs or prostituion"?

I agree that in places like Ohio, there is not a dime's difference between the Republicans and Democrats. I'll just withhold my dollars until things improve. We have a Democrat elect governor who has a better progun rating than any Republican on the horizon. If a person were to research past statements and/or votes on gun issues, Ohio gun owners have no friends in the Republican party. Just career politicians who will change their vote at the drop of a dollar.

 

[Redworm]

I always ask the Looney Libertarians "which of your daughters would you surrender to drugs or prostituion"?

That's like asking "you're a gun owner so which of your daughters would you like to see get shot?"

Just because one feels that others should be allowed to make their own choices regarding victimless "crimes" does not mean that one wants to participate in them. Would I want a daughter in a brothel? No but it'd be self-centered to think that I have to right to keep someone else from doing it when it has zero effect on me. Do I want a daughter snorting coke and shooting heroin? No, and when I have kids I'll make sure to teach them about both sex and drugs at an early age so they don't get curious.

But it's none of my business nor your business what someone else decides to do with their own body.

 

[Ausserordeutlich]

Litigious Linguist Likely Loony Libertarian.

 

[Redworm]

ROFL!!!1 nice one

 

[FirstFreedom]

Good news indeed!

I always ask the Looney Libertarians "which of your daughters would you surrender to drugs or prostituion"?

That's one of the silliest things ever uttered, for the reasons Redworm explained.

 

[Fremmer]

Actually, it's not silly. It is a valid counterpoint that indirectly challenges the notion that the use of narcotics constitutes a "victimless crime."

I'm quite sure that Redworm is not harmed when, say, a mother uses Meth. But the mother's children will be harmed. While mom is laying on the couch so tweaked out that she can hardly move, the kids are sitting in dirty diapers. The house is bug-infested and trashed. The kids have not had a bath in two weeks, and a three-year old is trying to console a screaming 5 month old infant who has not been fed in hours. It is true that Redworm is not a victim in this situation. And he won't be a victim when the police have to remove those kids and put them in foster care. And when everyone has to spend months in court hoping that mom can kick the meth and get her act together. I suppose the only true victims are the kids. And maybe the taxpayers who have to pay for it all.

I do a lot of work with abused and neglected children, and the factual scenario listed above is not uncommon. I know, lots of people use drugs and don't harm anyone other than themselves. But there are a lot of situations where there are victims. So the notion that the use of drugs (or alcohol, which is just another drug) constitutes a "victimless crime" is often incorrect.

 

[Redworm]

Actually, it's not silly. It is a valid counterpoint that indirectly challenges the notion that the use of narcotics constitutes a "victimless crime."

I'm quite sure that Redworm is not harmed when, say, a mother uses Meth. But the mother's children will be harmed. While mom is laying on the couch so tweaked out that she can hardly move, the kids are sitting in dirty diapers. The house is bug-infested and trashed. The kids have not had a bath in two weeks, and a three-year old is trying to console a screaming 5 month old infant who has not been fed in hours. It is true that Redworm is not a victim in this situation. And he won't be a victim when the police have to remove those kids and put them in foster care. And when everyone has to spend months in court hoping that mom can kick the meth and get her act together. I suppose the only true victims are the kids. And maybe the taxpayers who have to pay for it all.

I do a lot of work with abused and neglected children, and the factual scenario listed above is not uncommon. I know, lots of people use drugs and don't harm anyone other than themselves. But there are a lot of situations where there are victims. So the notion that the use of drugs (or alcohol, which is just another drug) constitutes a "victimless crime" is often incorrect.

When a father gets drunk and beats his children they're harmed, too. Wanna ban booze?

The problem in those situations is the people, not the drugs. Blaming the drugs and telling me that I can't use meth because of that woman's mistake is no different than blaming guns for muggings and telling you that you can't have your gun because of it.

The possession and use of drugs is a victimless crime. That child being neglected is a different crime altogether.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Blaming the drugs and telling me that I can't use meth because of that woman's mistake is no different than blaming guns for muggings and telling you that you can't have your gun because of it.

Exactamundo!

 

[Fremmer]

Blaming the drugs and telling me that I can't use meth because of that woman's mistake is no different than blaming guns for muggings and telling you that you can't have your gun because of it.

To the contrary, it is entirely different and therefore a poor anology. Meth is manufactured for the specific purpose of causing intoxication of the person using the meth. A firearm is made to shoot, but not for the specific purpose of shooting any particular thing (including it's owner). Regardless, we know that a many children are harmed every year by their parents' use of meth. If you are willing to accept the consequences of meth use, you may be willing to make it legal. We've apparently decided that the consequences of alcohol use are acceptable. But the notion that meth use constitutes a "victimless crime" is incorrect and untrue.

 

[chadwimc]

Most Looney Libertarians I know personally are weed smokers who are seeking some kind of justification for their drug use.