Bob Barr drinking John McCain's milkshake?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

According to Zogby (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1523), Libertarian Candidate, Bob Barr is polling at 6% nationally, but perhaps more troubling for McCain is what Barr is pulling from conservatives and independents:
Bob Barr receives the support of 7% of voters who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative voters. Barr gets 43% of libertarians and 11% of independents. McCain’s support among conservatives is 74%. On the left, Ralph Nader gets less than 2% nationally.
I have no doubt that Barr's poll numbers are probably inflated and that a lot of those righties will hold their noses and vote for McW regardless of what they say now, but is it possible that Barr might have a genuine shot at Naderizing this race and maybe delivering a red state or two (like his own home state of Georgia, which is already closer than it should be (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/georgia.html)) up to Obama?

I initially didn't think Barr would be any factor at all, but it looks like he might have an effect after all.

[dalej42]

I think I'd wait and see who McBush picks as a running mate. Gore didn't help his case with Lieberman. I think the choice of Lieberman pushed a few of the hold your nose for Gore into the Nader camp.


Gore picking Bob Graham would have locked up Florida and the election.

[Liberal]

It don't thinki so. I think conservatives just plain dont' want McCain and would pick Obama first. They already gonna raise a ruckus as the convention, so. There,s something about Gallup. I don't know what it is but it aint right.

I'm sorry. I'm on the streoids again. Im very sorry. It wont' be long though.

[BrainGlutton]

I think conservatives just plain dont' want McCain and would pick Obama first. They already gonna raise a ruckus as the convention, so.

Eh? RW protests are planned at the Republican convention in St. Paul? First I've heard.

[Liberal]

Yep. They'er mad about the platform or something. Hand on and I'll look it up.

[Liberal]

Found it!!! Front page Washington POst.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602322.html

[BrainGlutton]

Found it!!! Front page Washington POst.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602322.html

Conservative activists are preparing to do battle with allies of Sen. John McCain in advance of September's Republican National Convention, hoping to prevent his views on global warming, immigration, stem cell research and campaign finance from becoming enshrined in the party's official declaration of principles.

Interesting that there appears to be no disagreement about foreign policy or the war.

[Bill Door]

If it's a close race the conservative wing will vote for Senator McCain. If it looks like Senator Obama has a lock on the election they'll make a protest vote for Congressman Barr.

While there was a lot of talk about Ralph Nader being a spoiler in 2000, in 48 out of 50 states you could have given every Nader vote to Gore and it would not have affected the outcome one bit, and there is probably some truth to the Nader contention that his votes came from disaffected voters who would not have voted at all if he had not run.

I don't see Barr having an affect at all.

[Renob]

All I know is in my circle of young active Republicans (one of whom is working on a Republican congressional campaign), Bob Barr is the overwhelming choice. Many conservative or libertarian Republicans that I know despise John McCain and would never vote for him. Of course, Obama will carry Maryland regardless, so it's not like if we voted for McCain it would have any effect anyway.

[Oy!]

I'm sorry. I'm on the streoids again. Im very sorry. It wont' be long though.

Are you sick, sweetheart? You don't sound so good.

No, I'm not kidding or making fun of you. I'm serious. Are you ok?

[elucidator]

Barr's milkshake brings McCain to the yard
He could teach him but he'd have to charge...

Couldn't resist. Didn't try, but couldn't have anyway....

[MovieMogul]

Obligatory TWBB video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URjeS5-NaXY).

[Liberal]

Are you sick, sweetheart? You don't sound so good.

No, I'm not kidding or making fun of you. I'm serious. Are you ok?Yeah, I'm fine. Thanks. :) Pneumonia was negative.

[Oy!]

Yeah, I'm fine. Thanks. :) Pneumonia was negative.
I've had The Bronchitis That Would Not Die. It sucks. Go easy there, and do what your doc tells you. I hope you feel better soon.

[Sam Stone]

It's not the conservatives who will from McCain to Barr - what they don't like about McCain they like even less about Barr. It's the Liberatian-oriented Republicans McCain is going to lose - the small government, humble foreign policy, civil liberty-minded Republicans. That means a chunk of the independents (but Obama may lose some of those to Barr as well), but also some mainstream Republicans - Reagan Republicans mainly. The ones who fondly remember Reagan saying, "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem."

The loss of the Reagan Republicans is what's really going to hammer both McCain and the Republican party in general. Some of them will move to Obama, some will move to Barr, and a lot will just stay home. Or they may hold their noses and vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils, but they sure as hell aren't going to volunteer for get-out-the-vote drives or open their pocketbooks to support him.

Frankly, I hope Barr comes on strong and picks up 10% of the vote (not that that's likely, but I'd love it if he did). The Republicans need to be taken to the woodshed and spanked, but they also need to realize that where they went wrong was moving too far too far to the left, and not that they didn't move far enough.

[John Mace]

The Republicans need to be taken to the woodshed and spanked, but they also need to realize that where they went wrong was moving too far too far to the left, and not that they didn't move far enough.
You need to edit that sentence. It can be read different ways with very different meanings.

[Fear Itself]

I'm sorry. I'm on the streoids again. Im very sorry. It wont' be long though.I hope you feel better soon. Mrs. Fear is on the 'roids, has been for two years. Best wishes.

[Sam Stone]

You need to edit that sentence. It can be read different ways with very different meanings.

I must have been drunk.

Let me rephrase. No, there is too much. Let me sum up:

The Republicans need to get back to being the party of responsible government, lower spending, less regulation, and more optimism. Today they're the party of big spending and fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of immigrants, fear of losing their cushy jobs. So they vote for laws that restrict civil liberties, idiotic plans like erecting a fence across a huge border, and they spend money like drunken sailors and earmark the pork back home to get re-elected.

This guy (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-gop-party-2083930-republican-committed) has some good advice:


Republicans need to revive what I call the Politics of Aspiration. Instead of promoting an agenda that a) echoes what Democrats offer, only not so much; or b) is based on negativity and fear (of illegal immigration, terrorists, Godless liberals, etc.), they need to tap into the entrepreneurial feelings and desire to get ahead that lies deep within us all – rich, middle class and poor. Winning parties offer hopeful messages and sound ideas.

Here are some of the key promises the GOP should make. They are fairly obvious, which only makes GOP neglect here that much more shameful:

Regulation: "Every new rule transfers power from individual Americans to government bureaucrats. While some basic, easily understood rules are necessary, most regulations are about micromanaging. This squelches freedom and saps our opportunity to move up the economic ladder. Those with political power use the rule-making process to keep upstarts from competing with them. We plan a regulatory rollback even more aggressive than Wal-Mart's price rollbacks!"

Taxation: "You pay plenty in taxes already. It's not just about the cash, but about freedom. You need to invest in your business, pay your mortgage and pay for your kids' education. Government already has too much money, and it spends it on mission-creep rather than the 'public good.' By the way, we are NOT going to increase taxes on your grandchildren by engaging in reckless debt spending, either."

Immigration: "Yes, we can slow illegal immigration though some sound policies, but we won't be overly punitive in doing so. The big problem isn't that there are too many immigrants, but too few Americans. We're committed to creating opportunities for assimilation and reducing the costs associated with immigration by reducing the size of the welfare state. Our policies will welcome people and remove barriers to their independence and success. Isn't that better than building a wall?"

Civil liberties and defense: "We are committed to defending you against real threats, but we will not erode the nation's constitutional guarantees in the process. We will put into place the humbler foreign policy promise that a former GOP president (we forget his name, for some reason) made in 2000. We are committed to protecting your privacy from government snooping."

Infrastructure, economy and growth: "While our party is committed to maintaining a safe and healthy environment, we are also committed to building (actually, encouraging states and the private sector to build) the infrastructure needed to meet the needs of a growing population. A booming economy needs more personal mobility. We're all for making it easier for corporations – that's not a bad word, by the way – to develop sources of oil and new alternatives as worldwide demand rises. Markets will provide affordable, clean energy. The economy needs no meddling – limited government and sound money will help sustain growth."

Education and health care: "Government-run, union-controlled monopolies do not face market pressures, and produce the worst goods and services at the highest prices. Therefore, we are committed to choice and competition in the crucial areas of education and health. The government builds Yugos; the market builds Toyotas. Which do you prefer?"

Entitlements: "Most of the federal budget is tied up in promises for Social Security and Medicare. The key to your future and the health of the federal budget is privatizing these programs so that Americans can look to a prosperous old age."

Other issues: "We're for ending corporate welfare (and treating all businesses fairly), protecting private property rights (which benefit the little guy the most), upholding the Second Amendment (everyone deserves the right to self protection), promoting open government (so you can monitor our behavior) and defending free speech (even in political campaigns!). We will eschew divisive social issues, which are best handled outside of the coercive world of government. We are for getting government out of the way and out of your lives so that each of you can make your own way."

That's a winning policy. It's also a far cry from what today's Republicans are.

[E-Sabbath]

Stay healthy, Lib. We care.

[Bosstone]

The Republicans need to get back to being the party of responsible government, lower spending, less regulation, and more optimism.Hear hear.

[BrainGlutton]

The Republicans need to get back to being the party of responsible government, lower spending, less regulation, and more optimism. Today they're the party of big spending and fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of immigrants, fear of losing their cushy jobs. So they vote for laws that restrict civil liberties, idiotic plans like erecting a fence across a huge border, and they spend money like drunken sailors and earmark the pork back home to get re-elected.

None of that has to do with moving to the left.

If they had tried to make America more like all the rest of the world's industrial democracies, that would have been moving to the left.

[Paladud]

Why would anyone vote for that repentant scumbag? Ron Paul makes for a much cleaner protest vote. McCain offers tangible results.

[elucidator]

Why would anyone vote for that repentant scumbag? Ron Paul makes for a much cleaner protest vote. McCain offers tangible results.
Hard to dispute. McCain has been on both sides of just about every major issue. Therefore, he must have been right, at least at some point, on every major issue. Obama, on the other hand, has been pretty one-sided, issue wise, which puts him very much at the disadvantage. He may be wrong on every issue, having only one position. And even if he is right on every such issue, he still is no more right the McCain, who was also right on every issue. (Wrong as well, of course, but no reason to drag a bunch of nuance into this...)

Simple logic, really...

[Knorf]

The Republicans need to get back to being the party of responsible government, lower spending, less regulation, and more optimism.
Can't argue with any of that. Well said! If the GOP did that, I'm not sure I'd stay Democrat.

[Liberal]

Thanks for well- wishes. It's only really bad for a couple hours after popping the things. It was the first day's dosage, which is always massive. Each day will be a bit less until I'm weaned in a couple weeks.

Back on topic, I think it may be the case that Barr is just a symptom of what's wrong with McCain's campaign. Talking heads on MSNBC are saying that they've never seen so much infighting among staffers as among those he has hired. They say that it seems he just can't control them. Not a good quality in a president, for sure.

[Greg Charles]

The Republicans need to get back to being the party of responsible government, lower spending, less regulation, and more optimism. Today they're the party of big spending and fear.

The Republican party lost fiscal responsibility under Reagan, partially regained it under Bush the Elder, then lost it completely under Bush the Younger. They've always been the party of fear though ... at least throughout my lifetime. If there's no a big scary enemy to focus (distract?) people's attention, Republicans just don't do well.

[RTFirefly]

The Republicans...need to realize that where they went wrong was moving too far too far to the left, and not that they didn't move far enough.:splort:
The Republicans need to get back to being the party of responsible government, lower spending, less regulation, and more optimism. When's the last time the GOP has been that party, when they've actually been in power?

Today they're the party of big spending and fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of immigrants, fear of losing their cushy jobs. So they vote for laws that restrict civil liberties, idiotic plans like erecting a fence across a huge border, and they spend money like drunken sailors and earmark the pork back home to get re-elected. Yeppers. But that's been the GOP as far back as I can remember. Fear of the brown folks, fear of the Commies, fear of the yellow hordes, fear of the black folks, fear of the Commies some more. And the spending's always been there - on wars and defense, of course, rather than on useful stuff to make people's lives better.

Just like the mythical proto-Democratic party of the "my party left me" ex-Dems hasn't existed in at least 40 years, the same is true of the imaginary GOP of the small-government types.

About the only thing you're right about is that Reagan was optimistic. No offense, but optimism isn't a plan, though it helps win elections.

[Oy!]

I have to agree that I've never seen the "truly conservative" Republican party of which you speak. Even before I was born, there was Dick Nixon and Tail-gunner Joe on HUAC.

And you know, things don't magically get better every time you deregulate them. In fact, at since 1980, it would appear to be the opposite. The problem is many of these companies are often too big, too geographically spread-out, and too scientifically complex for organizations smaller than the government to regulate. Then there's infrastructure. I came across a scary stat on TV a few weeks ago, and unfortunately I can't remember it precisely, but some stunningly high number of dams in this country are over 50 years old and in need of maintenance. Many of them are in pretty high earthquake risk zones, not all of which are nearly as well known as the west coastal region.

In these days of anyone who gets elected having to promise lower taxes, how the hell are we going to get these necessary functions done?

Gotta go for the day now. Sorry.

[Liberal]

And you know, things don't magically get better every time you deregulate them. In fact, at since 1980, it would appear to be the opposite. The problem is many of these companies are often too big, too geographically spread-out, and too scientifically complex for organizations smaller than the government to regulate.I get the gist of what you're saying, but I don't know that government is necessarily scientifically competent. For me, the problem with deregulation is how it is implemented. The very things that should be regulated — force and deception — aren't, while things that shouldn't be — plastic versus metal trash cans — are.

[42fish]

The Republicans need to get back to being the party of responsible government, lower spending, less regulation, and more optimism.

Just how much more optimistic can you get than a bunch of people who invade a county and decide we don't need a Plan B in case the 'they'll shower us with rose petals in gratitude' Plan A doesn't work out?

[Bosstone]

Hard to dispute. McCain has been on both sides of just about every major issue. Therefore, he must have been right, at least at some point, on every major issue. Obama, on the other hand, has been pretty one-sided, issue wise, which puts him very much at the disadvantage. He may be wrong on every issue, having only one position. And even if he is right on every such issue, he still is no more right the McCain, who was also right on every issue. (Wrong as well, of course, but no reason to drag a bunch of nuance into this...)

Simple logic, really...It took me a long time to figure out why I couldn't win at roulette by placing a bet on every number. Of course, I was ten then.

[FriarTed]

McCain-supporter & Barr-loather here, who has to admit that the recent GQ interview with Barr showed him to be much altered & more thoughtful, now against the War on Drugs as it now stands, and more nuanced on DOMA (he's against the Federal defining of marriage, but for states rights to reject other states' gay marriages). Of course, he looked pretty smart compared to the interviewer who didn't seem to comprehend that the U.S. system is a constitutional democratic republic. Anyway, my point is that if Barr gets some actual publicity, he might draw a significant amount to truly spoil McCain's chances.

Btw, the interview did not address my reason for hating Barr- his fight against religious freedom in the U.S. military.