If you're one of those people who has already dismissed the idea of Bob Barr's Libertarian Party candidacy being a serious threat to the GOP, check out Martha Zoller's thought-provoking piece at Pajamas Media. Barr seems to have learned a thing or two from the previous joke candidates:
One of the big stumbling blocks for old-time Libertarians was their view on open borders. In light of the existence of the nanny state in America today as well as a less than free market impeded by regulation, Barr is taking a more forward view than the Libertarian Party now professes on illegal immigration. He believes there must be border security but doesn't support a fence. In addition, he believes it is an issue of sovereignty. Libertarians have acknowledged that in a perfect world involving a free market and personal responsibility, an open border is not a threat because you have to make your own way. But this is not a perfect world and Barr's position on border security may play well with many voters.
There are many reasons why people decide to run as alternative party candidates. Sometimes it's to sell a book, get notoriety, or work to further an issue. Few candidates run with the idea they can win the presidency. However, if there is any election in recent years where an alternative candidate can make a difference, it is this one. The Republicans have their candidate. The Democrats are still tearing themselves apart. But there is still money out there for a candidate tap. Many people thought Ron Paul was a fringe candidate, but you can't deny his following and ability to raise money. This year a strong third party candidate could really muck things up.
In any case, I still think Barack Obama will do more to unite the Republican Party than Bob Barr will to divide it.
posted by Eric on 04.24.08 at 02:54 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6557
Comments
Third party candidacies do have effects at the margins. John Anderson's run probably elected Reagan. Perot (disputably) elected Clinton in both 92 and 96, Nader likely elected Bush in 00 and disputably in 04.
I think a lot of Bob Barr. He is serious about the infringements on personal liberty that have been imposed by the executive branch since 9/11. I have concerns here as well and I find it interesting that John McCain protects terrorists from torture but has said little about these infringements. There have always been major elements of the Libertarian Party platform that prevented my joining even though I concur with much of the libertarian view. (But I don't join anything anyway).
On the border issue, I believe it reasonable, since this is not a perfect world, to control our borders and have some rules regarding who gets in. My requirements would include, for entry, no information that might suggest the immigrant means our nation any harm (including health issues) and a visa that is specific regarding purpose of entry and length of stay. That process should be monitored and any violation of visa terms should result in immediate expulsion. No due process requirements for this.
Visas for permanent residency and potential citizenship should require allegiance to this nation and, upon citizenship, a renunciation of allegiance to any other country. This will help keep our great nation a bastion of personal liberty and sustain the principles on which it was founded.
It's difficult to say what the effects of these additional party candidacies will be, but I do not agree that there is any unifying force out there for the Republican Party. And certainly not for the Democrats.
Bob Thompson · April 24, 2008 05:12 PM
If the Supreme Court comes out with a strong pro-RKBA decision this spring, I could see McCain's prospects wane farther. The NRA has done a lot of politicing over the years based on "no matter how bad the Republican is, you have to vote for him or the Democrat will take your guns". If that is no longer an immediate threat, there will be less inclination to vote for a deeply-flawed candidate.
Fritz · April 24, 2008 07:36 PM
I am not impressed with McCain's statements regarding how the Bush administration handled the Katrina aftermath and how he will do it differently if the need arises. Now he is really pandering.
Eric, you need to reconsider whether McCain will really beat the Democrat if he keeps doing what he has been doing. I'm making a list of things I don't like and soon it will be as long as my list for Hillary. Of course, it is much longer for Barack, so if McCain is going to lose, I prefer Hillary.
Bob Thompson · April 24, 2008 08:55 PM
The last Democrat to get 50% of the vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976. The last Republican? George W Bush in 2004.
He was a total Drug Warrior until he lost his seat (pants?) in Congress.
The Drug War is a bigger every day infringement on Liberty than any of the issues that are now hot for Barr and the so called Libertarians.
McCain is dumping the socons, the theocons and all the other cons from his coalition. He is offering them nothing. He is intent on forming a center right coalition. I think he will succeed.
From what I can tell we will have a statist party (a union of the cons and Marxists) and a liberty party after this election. The Republican Socialists (the cons) and the Democrat socialists will be where they belong. Together at last.
The problem for McCain now is that he is adopting wrong positions on the issues. For most conservatives he is correct (mostly) on only one major issue, Iraq and the anti-terrorism effort. I think he will lose the election.
Bob Thompson · April 25, 2008 10:12 AM
Bob, you doubtless have legitimate philosophical differences with McCain, but what you keep mentioning is how you don't like him because he won't win. You may want to puzzle out for yourself why that would be your issue at this point.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Third party candidacies do have effects at the margins. John Anderson's run probably elected Reagan. Perot (disputably) elected Clinton in both 92 and 96, Nader likely elected Bush in 00 and disputably in 04.