Barr on Iran

This should be an eye-opener, one way or another (from Barr's campaign calendar):

Jun 10
Press Conference, "Time to Talk with Iran"
West side Terrace of the House Canon Office Building
10:30 am Edt

Barr has previously supported the idea of meddling in Iran's affairs, as recently as October 11 of last year:

http://bobbarrblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/we-rush-to-war-in-iran-at-our-own-peril.html

Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone — free to support terrorist groups and regimes in other countries, including Iraq, and to develop a nuclear capability? Of course not. Even considering that our lengthy and continuing occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Ahmadinejad, the United States has a clear and legitimate stake in what happens in Iran and with regard to matters in which that regime is involved elsewhere.

and even of using economic sanctions, that most unlibertarian way of supporting dictators and punishing productive citizens of both the US and the target country:

Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran...

This will be an interesting test for Barr. If he repeats what he wrote in the article I've quoted, it will be (further) demonstration that he is simply using the LP as a vehicle for his 'conservative message' rather than embracing libertarian principles of free markets and noninterventionism.

Maybe he will surprise us.

Wayne Root pre-nom: Ron Paul "weak on terrorism"

Courtesy of Dan Sullivan

http://blip.tv/file/883011/

This is a great interview posted by McCloud. It clearly shows that Root has confused conservatism with libertarianism, especially in his criticism of Ron Paul's "weak foreign policy." It also has a gem of a quote that applies just as much to genuine libertarians pulling the rug
out from his LINO candidacy as to his pulling the rug out from McCain's RINO candidacy.

Grant: What do you think of what George Will says that the libertarian candidate might do to the Republicans what Ralph Nader did with the Democrats in the year 2000?

Root: The only thing I can say to that, Bob, is that my parents got the same argument when they were one of the founders of the New York State Conservative Party, and they wanted to defeat Jacob Javitz and Nelson Rockefeller because they were RINOs -- Republicans In Name
Only. They governed as liberal, big-government democrats who were destructive to the conservative philosophy. Maybe, just maybe, we need to defeat a John McCain, and yes, I would hate to see a Barak Obama get elected... because I was the reason and knocked McCain out. But having said that, if the Republican party learns a lesson, and says maybe we need to listen to conservative voters and libertarian voters, cause we lost the election because of that Wayne Root, maybe four years for now it will be the best for this country because we will knock Obama out in four years with a more conservative, more libertarian candidate. Sometimes the worst thing is the best thing for what ails ya.

Indeed, sometimes the worst thing for the Libertarian Party is also the best thing for what ails it.

Walter Block on Barr/Root

From
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block102.html

The main indication of the new conservative orientation of the Libertarian Party (writing this last phrase, I confess, was very irksome; but the truth is the truth) was of course the election of Bob Barr as its presidential candidate, and of Wayne Allyn Root for vice president.

Why do I say this? That question is equivalent to asking why I consider both of these men to be conservatives, not libertarians; well, okay, conservative libertarians. In some sense, this claim of mine is difficult to defend, for, surely, there is a gradation between these two views; there is no hard and clear distinction to be made between libertarianism and conservatism. Certainly, there are conservative libertarians, and libertarian conservatives. How, then, simply, to distinguish Barr and Root from "real" libertarians?

I suggest two litmus tests: foreign policy and drug legalization. Lord knows, libertarians disagree on many things. Heck, if you get 10 libertarians into a discussion, you’ll have 10 different opinions on many things, maybe even 11. But, there is unlikely to be any difference of opinion on the importance of ending U.S. foreign imperialistic interventionism, right now, and legalizing drugs, all of them, immediately. Both are clear violations of the libertarian non-aggression axiom, if ever there were any.

How, then, do Barr and Root stack up on these two questions. At the convention, neither would clearly and unambiguously commit themselves to the libertarian position on either of these two questions. Both avoided a clear commitment to pulling U.S. troops, all of them, out of the some 730 military bases now located in roughly 130 different countries around the globe. They evaded questions attempting to elicit clear positions on these two issues. On the drug question they both hid behinds states’ rights: it is not a federal issue; they are running not for state but federal office; therefore, let the states decide. In any case, they would only commit themselves to medical marijuana, not its recreational use, and legalization of anything stronger would certainly be anathema to them. On foreign policy, they would only make "major" troop withdrawals, not total and complete ones.

Since Ron Paul, a member of the Republican Party, not only embraces these two planks, but makes them central elements of his candidacy for that party’s presidential nomination, we have arrived at an anomalous pass where a prominent member of the GOP is more libertarian than the two standard bearers of the LP. Who would have anticipated such a sorry state of affairs? Who would have thunk it? Poor Murray Rothbard must be spinning in his grave.

Smells Like a Republican

McKee on Barr on DoMA

http://tinyurl.com/4z9s36

Don McKee: Bob Barr switches marriage opinion
05/30/2008
...
Barr said the question of recognizing marriages should be left to the states and claimed "the primary reason" he authored
the Defense of Marriage Act "was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which
marriage would be recognized within its borders."

His new position aligns him with his new party's platform: "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual
practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal
relationships."

"His new position aligns him with his new party's platform..."

In fact, it does not. His 'new position' (which he claims is not new) is that the state governments, not the federal government, should regulate and define marriage. The Libertarian Party's platform clearly states that "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships." Barr is off the LP's message on this issue.

Barr wants a new federal tax

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=116509&catid=3

"Rowell said she was happy when Barr said he'd strongly consider
replacing the income tax with a levy on things we buy, like the fair
tax. Barr said it's one reason he can stand out and win -- not just
play spoiler."