Did the "Barr" for McCain Just Get Higher?

This adds in interesting twist to the race:

Barr announces Libertarian White House bid, by Ben Evans, AP: Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr launched a Libertarian Party presidential bid Monday, saying voters are hungry for an alternative to the status quo who would dramatically cut the federal government.

His candidacy throws a wild card into the White House race that many believe could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy.

Barr, who has hired Ross Perot's former campaign manager, acknowledged that some Republicans have tried to discourage him from running. But he said he's getting in the race to win, not to play spoiler or to make a point. ...

Barr first must win the Libertarian nomination at the party's national convention that begins May 22. Party officials consider him a front-runner...

If he wins the White House, he said he would immediately freeze discretionary spending in Washington. He also would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and consider slashing spending at federal agencies such as the departments of education and commerce _ as well as at overseas military bases.

The former U.S. attorney also said he would strictly enforce immigration laws. ...

Barr, 59, quit the Republican Party two years ago, saying he had grown disillusioned with its failure to shrink government and its willingness to scale back civil liberties in fighting terrorism. He has been particularly critical of President Bush over the war in Iraq and says the administration is ignoring constitutional protections on due process and privacy.

While in Congress, he was a persistent critic of President Clinton and was among the first to press for impeaching the former president. He helped manage House Republicans' impeachment case before the Senate. ...

Above: "many believe [Barr] could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy." Similar positions? McCain's plan makes no sense. Then again, I guess the two plans are similar...

I'm not counting on this, but in addition to the potential to help Democrats, there's another possible positive. If Barr's entry into the race does anything at all to force other candidates to adopt positions that reduce the "willingness to scale back civil liberties" and the government's "ignoring constitutional protections on due process and privacy," that will be a step in the right direction.

Comments

[agricanto]

What ever happened to the other guy "Ron Paul" ? (closet Libbie running as a GOPster) Won't Bob Barr mess up the whole Libbie Party internet support for Ron?

How does Bob Barr reconcile his total "take no prisoners" posture in the Drug War (opposed CA medical use of pot and got DEA to shut down the only legal dispensary in LA) with the Libbie Party: Make 'em all legal, let the market decide in crack is bad for you" posture?

Musta been a conversion I am not aware of.

[robertdfeinman]

If Barr gets critical of McCain's policies it might have the effect of shifting some undecideds to Obama. He might say things that the Dems wouldn't since they are complicit in much of the Iraq war fever that has gripped the country. Even if Obama can claim that he is "clean" on this issue he still has to be careful not to criticize fellow Dems who are running for other offices, even implicitly.

It seems unlikely that Barr could actually attract enough votes to swing the popular vote in any state.

I wonder if the details of any economic issues will really be of interest to the general voter. It seems that many are looking for a change in "tone" and not specific policy proposals. After all congress itself has only about a 30% favorable rating.

[John V]

Well, as a libertarian (not Libertarian, mind you), I can't say I'm that excited to see Barr running.

While many of policies seem attractive on the domestic side and make more economic and egalitarian sense than Dr. Thoma leads on, I simply don't like the branding he puts on the libertarianism and I can't help but give a condescending sneer to true-blue conservatives who try to pass themselves off as libertarian simply because they oppose the war.

Barr's views on the most pressing social issues to libertarians (both closet and out/declared) is an abomination even if he's trying to back away from some of them lately.

Besides, a libertarian who wants to ramp up border security and get all nationalistic is like a Republican who wants to expand the welfare state or a Democrat who wants to expand defense spending....it just makes no sense.

[Jay]

"His candidacy throws a wild card into the White House race that many believe could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy."

Don't forget about Nader. Remember fascist and anti-democratic Maher and Moore couldn't get Nader to drop out even though they begged him not to run (think about what it must have taken to get someone as intolerant of religion as Maher to get down on his knees and fold his hands obediently).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RysZy331YK0

[Jay]

Although when you read this maybe Maher praying to a presidential candidate makes sense...

http://www.reason.com/news/show/126020.html
The Cult of the Presidency

Who can we blame for the radical expansion of executive power? Look no further than you and me.

“I ain’t running for preacher,” Republican presidential candidate Phil Gramm snarled to religious right activists in 1995 when they urged him to run a campaign stressing moral themes. Several months later, despite Gramm’s fund raising prowess, the Texas conservative finished a desultory fifth place in the Iowa caucuses and quickly dropped out of the race. Since then, few candidates have made Gramm’s mistake. Serious contenders for the office recognize that the role and scope of the modern presidency cannot be so narrowly confined. Today’s candidates are running enthusiastically for national preacher—and much else besides.

In the revival tent atmosphere of Barack Obama’s campaign, the preferred hosanna of hope is “Yes we can!” We can, the Democratic front-runner promises, not only create “a new kind of politics” but “transform this country,” “change the world,” and even “create a Kingdom right here on earth.” With the presidency, all things are possible.

Even though Republican nominee John McCain tends to eschew rainbows and uplift in favor of the grim satisfaction that comes from serving a “cause greater than self-interest,” he too sees the presidency as a font of miracles and the wellspring of national redemption. A president who wants to achieve greatness, McCain suggests, should emulate Teddy Roosevelt, who “liberally interpreted the constitutional authority of the office” and “nourished the soul of a great nation.” President George W. Bush, when passing the GOP torch to his former rival in March, declared that the Arizona senator “will bring determination to defeat an enemy and a heart big enough to love those who hurt.” Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, suggests she is “ready on Day 1 to be commander in chief of our economy.”

The chief executive of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer charged with faithful execution of the laws. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise. He—or she—is the one who answers the phone at 3 a.m. to keep our children safe from harm. The modern president is America’s shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He’s also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.

This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as national guardian and spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous it goes virtually unnoticed. Americans, left, right, and other, think of the “commander in chief” as a superhero, responsible for swooping to the rescue when danger strikes. And with great responsibility comes great power.

It’s difficult for 21st-century Americans to imagine things any other way. The United States appears stuck with an imperial presidency, an office that concentrates enormous power in the hands of whichever professional politician manages to claw his way to the top. Americans appear deeply ambivalent about the results, alternately cursing the king and pining for Camelot. But executive power will continue to grow, and threats to civil liberties increase, until citizens reconsider the incentives we have given to a post that started out so humble....

[Jay]

"What ever happened to the other guy 'Ron Paul'?"

Last I checked he was just chilling ranked #6 here...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/ref=sv_b_3

[Bruce Wilder]

Jay: "Remember fascist and anti-democratic Maher and Moore . . ."

I think you might be unclear on the concepts. I don't think "fascist" and "anti-democratic" mean what you think they mean.

[ribozyme]

It could go against Obama because some libertarians who would vote for him are simply doing it because they oppose the Iraq War.

[OhNoNotAgain]

"think about what it must have taken to get someone as intolerant of religion as Maher to get down on his knees and fold his hands obediently"

Hey Jay, it's a free country and the last time I checked, Maher can say anything that he wants on *his own* show. He's the only public person with enough balls to say what millions of Americans like myself already think.

[Jay]

"Hey Jay, it's a free country and the last time I checked, Maher can say anything that he wants on *his own* show."

I was pointing out the irony. I haven't made my view clear enough when I rip apart all the religious arguments made on this site where I stand?

Plus the left isn't the biggest proponent of "free speech". More like speech that fits their belief system.

[save_the_rustbelt]

There is now way the Democrats can lose this year, right?

Unless.................

says...

Wilder - Jay is speaking "annespeak"

And please don't mis-use the word "narrative" in your response.

[baileyman]

But what about all those Dems who voted for Bush? Maybe they intended to vote for Nader?

[me]

I just wonder if I will be searched and harassed by the secret service the next time I go to Starbucks on Barrett Parkway and Barr is there.