June 28, 2008

When the DNC speaks, I listen! Intently!

A DNC press secretary says that the GOP should be worried about former Congressman and Balls Insurance spokesman Bob Barr's presence on the Libertarian ticket:

He may be proof that political wisdom can grow when not polluted by the mindless partisanship and seductive careerism that contaminates Capitol Hill.

An anti-drug warrior in the Reagan Department of Justice as well as in Congress, Barr now supports medical marijuana rights and questions neo-Prohibition. The author of the Defense of Marriage Act while in the House, he now opposes the federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage and advocates states’ rights on the issue. A supporter of the post-Sept. 11 Patriot Act, Barr now publicly regrets that vote.

Perhaps most remarkable for a man made famous as one of the House managers in the Clinton impeachment, the anti-Iraq-war-Republican-turned-Libertarian recently gave this answer to MobLogic.tv interviewer Lindsay Campbell when she asked him to choose between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton: “Why you doin’ that to me?” he sighed. But he quickly answered, “I’d have to go with Bill Clinton. Bush has done such damage to freedom, liberty and privacy.” Wow.

As a libertarian Democrat (there are about six of us, I think), but also an Obamamaniac, I certainly appreciate all the support Barr can provide in helping to thwart a third Bush term.
I think (know?) that all this talk about Bob Barr ruining the GOP's chances of retaining the White House are more wishful thinking than anything. 

One of the only things that has drawn anyone in the GOP to McCain has been his stance on the Iraq War and other national security issues.  Barr is now running as Ron Paul with Less Overt Craziness, on an anti-war, anti-FISA, pro-drug legalization platform.  Now, if he had chosen to frame his campaign around issues like the First Amendment, runaway spending, etc., he may have had more of a chance.  I doubt that anyone who has a huge problem with the Iraq War was planning on voting for McCain anyway.

While conservatives are none too pleased with John McCain, I doubt many of them agree with Rep. Barr that President Bill Clinton has been a better president than George W. Bush.  To Barr, how good one is as a president is directly proportional to how many terror attacks were ignored under their watch. 

All of this, combined with the fact that Barr will have to run against his entire career as a Congressman, will keep Barr from being a Nader-like spoiler.  After all, John Edwards had to do the same thing.  How'd that work out?

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 01:35 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 436 words, total size 3 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
15kb generated in CPU 0.0561, elapsed 0.231 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.2207 seconds, 145 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.