Handicapping the LP Convention
It’s this weekend. I’m completely unqualified to predict the likely winner. Tom Knapp will be liveblogging and podcasting it and endorsing Steve Kubby and Mary Ruwart. I have a not-so-sneaking fondness for Mike Gravel but I figure he’s very unlikely to win. Wayne Allen Root would be the logical pick to carry on the Party tradition of picking a flim-flam artist primarily interested in lead-gen for his mail-order business; except, because everything’s up-to-date in Denver, Root is more of an internet and telephone huckster. Then there’s George Phillies, who is George Phillies.
That leaves Bob Barr, who could become the first candidate ever to make the leap from my blogroll to the presidential nomination of an established political party. Barr has been courting delegates and he’s got star power. From what I can tell, the nominating convention itself can be contrary. A Barr nomination would mean a couple things: 1) More votes in the general than the LP has gotten in a very long time; 2) A rightward (re-) shift to the Party’s profile.
My heart is with Gravel and Kubby, but I still want to see the Republican Party go smashy in the Fall, and Bob Barr is the guy to help make that happen. Dave Weigel argues that Barr is already sending coded messages to that effect to liberal bloggers and potential donors.
If I cared about building the Libertarian Party as an institution, and as a humane movement for shrinking the state rather than a home for conservatives too cranky even for the contemporary GOP, I would hate the prospect of a Barr nomination. But I don’t. So my preferences are entirely instrumental. And Barr’s not a bad guy. He was a pretty principled civil-libertarian for an elected politician. (He voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War but has apologized for both.) And he did split with the Republicans formally, unlike the rest of his Contract With America-era cohort.
Comment by Sam —
May 19, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Definitely no to Root. I like Barr: I’m not totally convinced about his sincerity on the Drug War, but he’s done more than enough for me to like him on civil liberties stuff.
He’s been great in debates against guys like Andy McCarthy and John Yoo, and he could do actually do something to move the debate with McCain and Obama.
Comment by Rob —
May 19, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
I see the title and I thought we’d have some interesting discussions about propane and propane accessories.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2008 @ 1:23 am
Jim: Bob Barr is a committed drug warrior. How does a person like that merit running for prez on the LP ticket?
Comment by jkc —
May 20, 2008 @ 3:39 am
Absolute NO to Mary Ruwart. Anyone who can’t forcefully deny the legitimacy of child pornography needs to be kept as far away as possible from anything called “libertarian.” That’s not the publicity we need. She could do real damage.
Gravel’s senile. Kubby’s frequently stoned. Root’s unctuous. Phillies has all the charisma of a brick.
Bob Barr is head-and-shoulders the best candidate. If the Libertarian Party wants to take it’s best shot at making a difference–as opposed to being a mere freak show, not even serious enough to be worth making fun of–then they should go with Barr.
The name recognition is high. His backstory is interesting. He’s making a good-faith effort to migrate to libertarian-ish positions. If he can shave off a little Ron Paul mojo and help the effort to make sure that bastard McCain goes down to crushing defeat in the fall, he will have done his country a profound service.
Comment by Tim —
May 20, 2008 @ 4:10 am
If he can shave off a little Ron Paul mojo and help the effort to make sure that bastard McCain goes down to crushing defeat in the fall, he will have done his country a profound service.
That is of course completely logical. So, expect right wingers to vote for Gravel and left wingers for Barr.
Comment by foolishmortal —
May 20, 2008 @ 6:58 am
Get your Steve Jackson Games-approved terminology correct. According to the Illuminati reissue, it’s the “Contract on America”. Just so you know.
Comment by B —
May 20, 2008 @ 9:39 am
I think it could be argued that if one is really worried about liberty over the long haul in this country, what matters in this election cycle is not so much who wins the presidency, but what the ideological trajectory of the Republican Party is coming out of it.
While I agree that the GOP needs to lose a lot right now, one-party dominance is a Bad Thing no matter the party in the long run. If a Goldwater-esque conservative (which is what I think Barr is, and I’m OK with that) can torpedo a pro-empire Republican like McCain, then maybe…just maybe…the GOP will be forced to realign its priorities, and will start acting like a decent opposition party to President Obama.
I actually think this is the best-case scenario with better than a snowball’s chance. We need to destroy the Republican Party to save the Republican Party.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2008 @ 9:40 am
Mona-
My understanding is that Barr is walking along a road to Damascus.
Comment by Sam —
May 20, 2008 @ 10:01 am
Yeah, Mona. He’s done lobbying work for the Marijuana Policy Project (http://www.mpp.org/bob-barr-joins-mpp.html) and I thought he was flipping all the way on drugs.
Comment by marlow —
May 20, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Sam – Barr did such a piss poor job the Marijuana Policy Project cut ties with him. Plus, he still wants to crack (excuse the pun) down on “hard drugs” and would invade South America to stop them entering the US. He’s no libertarian.
jkc – Nice smear of Mary Ruwart. Show me where she ever endorses child porn. You can’t.
Plenty of people hope a McCain led GOP will be the demise of the Repugnant Party. More likely, a Barr led Libertarian Party will mean its demise as no one will ever believe it stands for liberty anymore.
In truth, whoever the Libertarian nominee they will receive a pitifully small vote total. Neither Barr nor Ruwart will receive media coverage without which the voting masses will ignore them. Ron Paul, far and away the most popular libertarian candidate already has the support of most libertarians and hordes of his followers are determined to write him in or vote for Chuck Baldwin. That being the case, the Libertarians can stand for something with Ruwart and get an insignificant amount of votes. Or they can stand for nothing but opportunism with Barr and still get an insignificant amount of votes.
Comment by Steve Trinward —
May 20, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Part of the problem with newbies o the LP is, they think we will have an effect on the outcome of the horserace. The delusion that Barr will somehow have any more effect on the process than Badnarik, Browne, Marrou, Paul in ‘88, Bergland, MacBride, Hospers … or even Ed Clark (who did break the surface, with actual front-page virtual endorsements in several major newspapers, and whose TV ads may have had an effect far beyond the electorsl numbers) … is merely that, a delusion! He would show up just about as much as Ruwart or Kubby would; the difference is in what popular picture of “libertarian” would remain.
I’d far more prefer to see a true lover of liberty, in all its aspects (note: to have it, you must openly grant it to others!), to a come-lately conservative (who’s only real good points are that he does not seem to be a neo- of such … and his Congress chops, which the LP helped to end?), who only entered the fold after others had softened up the turf, and whose appointment to the LNC under suspect conditions still rankles in some minds.
If he’s all the neolibs can come up with, to counter the “insiders” (of the real LP) who we know “get it” … they need to draw back and regroup once again. “Celebrity” is not the key issue … once again.
Comment by Nell —
May 20, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
This isn’t strictly on-topic, but I just want, as an anti-imperialist lefty, to issue a heartfelt thank-you to Ron Paul for his continuing educational work.
My partner told me of hearing RP in an NPR clip of a recent campaign appearance, in which a woman asked him what he’d cut back on first. He said, “If it were up to me — and don’t worry, it’s not going to be — I’d stop having the U.S. be a military empire.”
I’ve waited my whole life to hear someone say that in a mainstream media setting. (Okay, it was NPR. Close enough.)
Comment by jkc —
May 20, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to respond. Jeez.
Here’s her response that I find extremely troubling. (The worst part are in bold below:
I have quoted extensively, not out of context. It’s not my goal to smear a libertarian–there are few enough as it is. Given the fact that Ruwart is an attractive, well-spoken, well-educated woman, I WAS INITIALLY VERY DRAWN TO HER CAMPAIGN.
I’d urge you to not ascribe motives to me, Marlowe. You don’t know me. In light of this, please show some restraint at casting aspersions on my intentions.
Comment by B —
May 21, 2008 @ 12:10 am
“they think we will have an effect on the outcome of the horserace. The delusion that Barr will somehow have any more effect on the process than [any prev. LP candidate] … is merely that, a delusion!”
This may very well be the case, Steve, but just to play devil’s advocate…might not the important frame of reference here be Perot in ‘92 and Nader in 2000…who spoiled the race for Bush I and Gore, respectively?
Nominating candidates that faithfully articulate libertarian ideals is fine and noble, but fucking things up for the Big 2 is what gets people’s attention.
Comment by marlow —
May 21, 2008 @ 7:26 am
jkc,
As you point out, “[Ruwart] explained to delegates that courts were likely to consider that pre-pubescent children had been coerced, since desire would be absent. The burden of proof would be on the pornography producer or older sex partner to show that coercion, e.g. rape, had not occurred”.
Thank you for providing evidence she in fact does not condone child porn, as in fact she subsequently made very clear, which should be no surprise coming from a highly moral person. Those trying to pin the child porn sympathizer label on her (and I am NOT accusing you of this) are like those who tried so hard to portray Ron Paul as a rascist. Rather your rejection of her is that she didn’t “forcefully deny the legitimacy of child pornography”.
Ruwart subsequently stated, after this non-Federal issue was instigated by some party insiders apparently to discredit her that, “Every year, thousands of young children are kidnapped and forced against their will to perform degrading sexual acts in front of a camera. “Kidde porn,†as the resulting product is often called, is a profitable business run by criminals who use and abuse their unwilling underage performers.
As a three-time grandmother, I find this practice more than abhorrent; I find it personally terrifying. To think that my grandchildren might ever face such horrors is beyond my wildest nightmare.
Consequently, you can understand my shock when Mark Schreiber, “quoted†me as saying that “pedophilia is OK†in my book, Short Answers to the Tough Questions, this weekend at the Indiana LP Convention. Mr. Scribner is the campaign manager for LP presidential hopeful Wayne Allyn Root.
Do I think that pedophilia is OK? Of course not! In my 25 plus years in the Party, I can’t recall a single person who would have said such a thing.” I don’t know if this statement is forceful enough for you.
To the extent Ruwart didn’t make herself sufficiently clear in your quotes of her, apparently you feel that alone disqualifies her candidacy. Then you go on to endorse Barr as “head-and-shoulders the best candidate”.
Barr wouldn’t legalize hard drugs and always voted with the drug warriors so it follows he prefers to see anyone convicted of such violations sent to prison. Since it’s common knowledge thousands of young men, many sentenced for drug “crimes” are terrorized, beaten and repeatedly anally raped in prison, Barr, and his fellow criminals who voted in favor of such legislation should properly be convicted as accomplices to the beatings and rapes they facilitated.
Has Barr taken any steps to protect these victims from the crimes they suffer due to the likes of him? I doubt it. If any Libertarian Party candidate is deserving of being called soft on sex crime, its Barr.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
May 23, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Kampia of the MPP will be nominating Barr at the convention. Barr was the featured guest at the MPP party at the LP convention.
However, Barr is not running on the drug issue at all.
He is running on privacy rights and separation of powers (against Bush and Yoo, really.) And for withdrawing from Iraq. And for cutting federal spending.
The issue on which he is acutally running where his position is most controversial among libertarians is immigration. He supports protecting the borders, but apparently supports
expanded legal immigration with no social
services for the immigrants. He seems a
bit better than Paul on the issue.
When the drug issue comes up, he explains that the current strategy has failed. And that the Federal govenrment should stop harrassing people using medial marijuana in states that legalized it.
If pressed further, he says it should be a state issue. And, if pressed enough, he has said that he wouldn’t vote to legalize heroin or crack in his state.
He has said other things as well, all pointing away from him being a “drug warrior.”
So, Mona is mistaken. Barr was a “drug warrior.” But no longer. He is not running on the need to stamp out the scourge of drugs. Now, he is relatively good for an elected official (good on medial marijuana.) And, he admits that the Drug War isn’t working. That is good.
But he is not advocating an immediate end to prohibition.
Anyway, those libertarians who believe it a libertarian must make drug prohibition an issue and take the position of a complete end to it as a position, are not going to be satisfied by Barr.
My view is that there are other issues that are more important at this time.
Politically, I think Obama will hammer McCain on the War and McCain will hammer him back. Barr will be perceived as more or less like Obama on the War.
I expect that McCain will hammer Obama as a tax and spender. Barr, of course, will be for cutting spending and taxes.
People who agree with Obamas critique of McCain on the War, and with McCain’s critique of Obama on taxes and spending will have a candidate whose key focus is–out of Iraq and cutting taxes and spending.
I think Barr will talk about the Constituional rights stuff because he is especially interested in it. However, McCain isn’t very vulnerable on this issue because of this stand against torture. In other words, Obama, McCain, and Barr will all reject Yoo, more or less.
Barr will really only get attention because he might spoil the race for McCain. But, his position–anti Iraq war, will come up. Are there enough anti-Iraq “conservatives” who will switch to Barr? Would they go to Obama?
But Obama’s “investments” in solving problems will turn them off. Will they
prefer Barr’s proposal for spending cuts?
Anyway, Mona needs to check out the “new”
Bob Barr. He could be alot better on the drug issue (like Frank or Paul or Gary Johnson) but he is pretty good for a former elected official these days.
The pro-Ruwart spinners aren’t worth anyone’s attention.