Bob Barr -- no, not Ron Paul -- is Libertarian presidential nominee

Rep. Ron Paul had the job 20 years ago.

Now, it's former Rep. Bob Barr's turn. He's been chosen the 2008 presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party after numerous rounds of balloting that not many people care about.

The Libertarians, convening in Denver, named him Sunday.

"I'm sure we will emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr said in his victory speech.

Which may not be saying much, because as determined as many of its followers are, there simply aren't enough of them to elect their ticket to anything.

The Libertarians have been good for only around 3% of the vote in recent elections. However, 3% in a close election between the Republican and Democratic tickets could make the difference.

Much as Ralph Nader drew enough votes from Al Gore in 2000 to help George W. Bush win the White House, the little-known Barr could draw enough votes of dissatisfied conservatives to hurt Sen. John McCain's chances as the GOP nominee.

"I want everybody to remember," Barr told conventioneers, "that we only have 163 days to win this election. We cannot waste one single day." Mark Silva has the full story here.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[inotheyare]

what a shame! Mike Gravel had a real shot. that was the only reason why i joined the libertarian party. i guess i have to abandon them as well...

[cyberbian]

Ron Paul had more votes than the entire libertarian party will cast. How could you not back him?
This is why you people are ineffectual. You are almost random in your actions.

[mj]

"Much as Ralph Nader drew enough votes from Al Gore in 2000 to help George W. Bush win the White House, the little-known Barr could draw enough votes of dissatisfied conservatives to hurt Sen. John McCain's chances as the GOP nominee."
Will the opinion making class or punditocracy ever cease with this manifestly untrue trope. GW was appointed president by the supreme court, the ballot count in Florida was never done, not to mention the prevention of thousands of registered black voters prevented from voting. Stop with this nonsense, please.

[Clayton]

I would vote for him as a democrat simply because of his opposition to the patriot act.

[Greg]

Bob Barr is a social conservative and an interventionist. He lacks a basic understanding of libertarianism. I supported Ron Paul but I refuse to support this interloper.

[ken]

What a strange lead: ...after numerous rounds of balloting that "not many people care about."

I was there, one of the few that cared, and we had a spot of excitement as Barr improbably tied (exactly!) for first in the 2nd last two ballots. It was the tighest convention - Libertarian or not - I've ever seen.

Obviously, few outsiders care about this party minutate, whether it's Libertarian, Democrat or Whig. Mentioning this in the lead (or at all) seems strange and dismissive.

[Mark Kiernan]

I would call myself a Libertarian, so I find it horrible that this man has been choosen to lead the party. He is too much of a right wing nut to represent libertarian values.

[Michael]

If you mention one, then you have to mention the other....

If it's like Ralph Nader taking votes from Al Gore vs. George W. Bush in 2000, then you must not forget like that it's much like Ross Perot siphoning votes (much more than 3%) from George H.W. Bush vs. Bill Clinton in 1992...

Just wanted to mention that...anyway, Ron Paul could still be a write in, or there may be another party out there, and that may be about it...seeing as he wasn't invited to McCain's BBQ this weekend.

[Bill]

"after numerous rounds of balloting that not many people care about."

Stopped reading after that. Way to alienate some readers.

[Jerome]

Unfortunately with our system of elections, the presence of these other parties can result in the election of presidents with less than 50 percent of the vote. We do not have a run off like many states or municipalities require when a candidate does not get 50.1 percent. The electoral college further complicates this. They should first seek a change in our election system before inserting themselves into the process and risking the election of someone most people do not want. That is the way some millionaire can game the system--by only getting 30 something percent of the vote--such as what Ross Perot almost succeeded with. This could have far more dire consequences than just electing Perot--this is how people like Hitler came into power. Our election system is very screwed up and it needs to be addressed before Michael Bloomberg tries this game.

[Darryl Schmitz]

He may not have the credentials of a constitutionalist that Ron Paul has, but Bob Barr is a hundred times more desirable as president than Clinton, Obama or McCain.
I would like to hear Barr's explanation of why a genuine Libertarian voter would want to vote for someone with a very rightist record, but if he comes clean and admits that he has erred in the past, I would be willing to "forgive" him. Barr would be a very strong, decisive leader in the White House.

[Baba Padmanabhan]

Dr. Paul knows how biased our democratic process is for a 3rd party candidate through personal experience and will never run again as a 3rd party candidate. He has been elected 10 times as a republican for congress - he switched party to run for POTUS that one year in 1988 and he believes in individual LIberty so, why don't you leave him alone instead of labeling him a libertarian every chance you get. HE IS A REPUBLICAN AND WE ARE SEEKING REPUBLICAN PARTY NOMINATION. The race is still on, see you St. Paul.

[Eric Dondero]

As a Pro-Defense Republican, I refused to support Anti-Defense Ron Paul. But I can and will back Bob Barr for President. He seems like a sane libertarian on the issue of National Security.

[GaiasChild]

The Libertarian Party is having something of a split itself, old party, new party. Of course, how old can you be born in 1971? LP's growing pains have to do with, shudder, electability!!! By definition, anarchists won't or can't govern. They've traditionally been useful to the sector that wants to de-regulate, which is everybody in heavy corporations and heavily depending on stock market profits and annual reports. Sorta the Exxon mobile group. Libertarians are useful to them. Still, I watched the convention with interest for there is a growing viability in a third party. Only trouble is, the Libertarians who want public office will have to govern. That gets the anarchist purist Libertarians confabulated. All they want is to be free of any and all regulation, taxes and government. I guess they drive on our roads but why should they help pay for them?

[MIKE]

Eric Dondero, you know perfectly well that Ron Paul was not anti-defense. He was anti-offense or aggressive war. He is VERY strong on DEFENSE. Defense is not having an overseas presence that runs your military into the ground. Ron Paul got more contributions from members of the military than all the other candidates combined. You're just still angry that Ron Paul fired you.

[Galileo]

the six rounds of voting was very exciting and made great TV, and was filled with suspence.

[Imperial]

If you look at one thing, you have to look at another, as someone mentioned.

Ever thought about this: Maybe John McCain is siphoning votes away from Barr?

The simple fact is, why limit yourself to this mentality you have to pick a democrat or republican? That nothing else matters in the world? Does the big letter next to their name mean that what they stand for means nothing?

For example, while you could say Ross Perot cost Bush the election, you could also say Bush cost Ross Perot the election. After all, hadn't Perot led all through the summer in the polls?

Remember, every person running is just that- a person. Republicrats in no way are superior to other candidates- they only happen to be supported by the media. And it is America's fault they allow this too. Men like Gandhi in history understood something important: when everybody refuses to accept something, they truly can make a difference.

Refuse to accept the status quo, and make a decision not on the letter next to the name. Make a decision on what they stand for. And whether that is Republican, Democrat, Constitution, Green, Libertarian, or even Nader, be proud you didn't submit to the stereotype of an ignorant American, but rather a proud one.

[jatcagirl]

i watched much of the libertarian nominating convention yesterday on c-span, enjoyed seeing the process, and was rooting for mike gravel!

i was listening to KFI talk radio yesterday afternoon when jesse ventura was interviewed, having been elected governor of minnesota on a 3rd party ticket. he said people should stop voting for whom they see as a "winner" and instead vote with their conscience. if more people did that, 3rd parties would have a lot more influence...

he also said NOTA (none of the above) should be included on the ballot to indicate a protest vote...

i'm still hoping ron paul declares himself a write-in candidate in CA come november, or else i guess i'll have to go with NOTA myself!

[Rhys]

John McCain can't be spoiled. he started rotten and will lose to a tomato if it were a (D) Tomato.

[Gary]

I am an ardent and longtime libertarian.
I hold an official seat in our chapter and was an editor of our Party Newsmagazine. I ran for public office under the Libertarian ticket.

That said, I have been tired and impatient with the presidential nominees that the LP has traditionally endorsed; typified by the last one, where we had a true libertarian who had name recognition and a campaign infrastructure, an extroverted personality with a proven track record to get things done, and instead we chose a self-taught constitutionl lecturer who lived out of his car.

OK, I say, Bob Barr is not a fully transformed libertarian, yet. But he publicly declares to be, has washed himself down with the Libertarian moniker, has made publicly self-effacing apologies for his past anti-libertarian conduct and stances.
He has real name recognition in the real world outside of our insular camp, he has real world experience in prosecuting a political campaign, and he is just what I think the LP needs for purely practical reasons.
If he proves to be not the Libertarian he says he is, then he will be drummed out of his position in short order.
I say, although it is not the purest avenue, let's give Barr a chance to pull us out of our hovel, and parlay Ron Paul's popularity with the public's dissatisfaction with both of the Big Parties.
see my article at:
http://www.nolanchart.com/authors/articles/article.php?ArticleID=3874

[Tom J]

So is Mike Gravel now officially a 'former candidate'? Or is he going to run as an Independent? I need to update my scorecard for following along at home!

"The Libertarians, convening in Denver, named him Sunday."
You mean like Tuesday Weld?

[Daniel]

I'm writing in for Ron Paul, unless Louisiana could possibly swing to Obama, in which case I'll vote strategically for him.

I'm typically registered as Libertarian, but feel no need to vote party-line...and as for this guy, I don't think he has his Libertarian bona fides in order to be running for _any_ office on our ticket, not to mention the Presidency.

In response to Gaiaschild: You don't own the roads, the military does. And until you realize that, you won't know why the "anarchists" don't want the public to pay for them.

[Phillip Rhodes]

That gets the anarchist purist Libertarians confabulated. All they want is to be free of any and all regulation, taxes and government. I guess they drive on our roads but why should they help pay for them?

GaiasChild, you obviously have no clue about Libertarians or libertarianism. No Libertarian would presume any right to travel on a road without the permission of it's owner. What Libertarians advocate is the idea that the people who use something should pay for it, and anyone who doesn't want to use it shouldn't be forced to pay for it through involuntary taxation.

We want legalized competition, a system where "The State" can't just legislate itself a monopoly on something (like, say, road building), we're not after a free-ride. In other words, it's about freedom of choice and freedom from coercion, nothing more, nothing less.

[Ed Hoarse]

Remember fate is a harsh mistress. McCain could drop dead naturally. At the same time some power broker could decide to take out Obama ia la Kennedy style as described by Ms. Clinton, with the subsequent stinky fingers taking out Ms. Clinton from the race. Just one of these events would leave a very open race not to mention chaos going into November's election.

[Leonardo]

Currently, there will be only “ONE TRUE SAINT” in St. Paul and it ain’t Mac!

Both parties have US priorities “ALL SCREWED UP”
You don’t have dig deep to find truth. The information is out there!!!

“A freethinker always fascinated of seeking and speaking of truth” – Anonymous