Skip to main content

Just because my friends at Delawareliberal might miss this. . . .


. . . (and I am being utterly serious here).

In all the furor over Bob Barr's announcement yesterday that he is seeking the Libertarian presidential nomination, there is an aspect of this whole story that non-Libertarians might well have missed, and which Democrats in particular should be interested in.

Here's how far you can trust the loyalty of Bob Barr. While serving as a member of the Libertarian National Committee over the past two years, Barr has also headed a PAC that was simultaneously delivering thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Republican candidates around the country--even in races where the Libertarian Party was running candidates.

That, for my liberal friends, is not the key part (because, after all, which should jason, geek, cassandra, pandora, or dv care about the internal treacheries of opposing parties, major or minor?).

Here's my point. Among these contributions, the Barr PAC sent the following to support Georgia chickenshit ('scuse me, I meant chickenhawk) Republican Saxby Chambliss:

Georgia Senate race

Libertarian candidate: Allen Buckley

Bob Barr supported
05/08/07 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $ 500
06/22/07 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $1000
09/28/07 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $1000
01/07/08 Saxby Chambliss for Senate $1000

Total to Republican candidate [Saxby Chambliss] in George Senate race: $3,500

Total to Libertarian candidate in George Senate race: $ 0


I may never agree with my friends at DL about much, but on this we can smoke the pipe together:

Anyone who would actually raise money to support Saxby Chambliss has demonstrated that he lacks the judgment to run for President on anybody's ticket.

So, if knowing Barr co-wrote the Patriot Act, opposed civil unions and gay marriage, wants a hard-line immigration policy, supports the war on drugs, and can't seem to figure out whether to stay in Iraq or leave is not enough reason to realize he is not even a valid third-party candidate, then I guess the Saxby Chambliss litmus test will have to seal the deal.

Two interesting ironies to close out this post:

1) If you visit Allen Buckley's web site, you will actually find this reference: "See: Bob Barr's take on surveillance laws, with which I fully agree." Somebody really ought to tell the poor bastard that Barr is pumping cash into his opponent's campaign. (Moreover, if you take the time to read Buckley's take on the issues, you'll find that--aside from immigration, where he's indistinguishably different from Saxby's neolithic position--his positions are actually spelled out in detail and fairly rational. I don't agree with all of them, but I could sure go a lot further with him than with Chambliss.)

2) If you visit Saxby Chambliss's web site and click your way through the Issues, you'll be challenged to discover a single issue upon which good ole Saxhole presents an even vaguely Libertarian point of view.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I did miss it, but then again, I wasn't really looking. I am sure that I won't support Barr in any way, shape or form. Any support that I may express is with my tongue firmly planted in cheek.

He is a dog and anathema to all things American. He is quite possibly a fascist. That said, if it draws the fascist voters away from McCain, yahoo!
Anonymous said…
Ugh, retyping. My connection from this hotel reset I think.

But I don't doubt that Bob Barr is a rat bastard. I noted in some thread over at DL that Barr voted for plenty of legislation that didn't jive with his newly minted ambitions. Which should earn him ALOT of scrutiny before anyone endorses him for anything. But I think that he is getting to Alan Keyes territory in that he may be running for stuff now as a way to enhance his media profile.

But, like LG, I don't support him for anything other than making repubs nervous.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?