Electric Politics | Barr the Spoiler

Barr the Spoiler

Bob Barr People often forget nowadays that that much vaunted politician of lore, Bill Clinton, won in 1992 thanks to Ross Perot. Probably. Clinton got 43% of the vote. George Herbert Walker Bush 37.4%. Perot 18.9%. Arguably, the largest share of Perot's vote came out of Bush senior's hide, though Perot's exact effect on the outcome remains controversial thanks to Clinton apologists. Florida was very close, as usual (it went Republican), but so were Georgia and Ohio (for Clinton). North Carolina and Arizona (for Bush) were close, too, tying up precious Republican resources in the process. The point is, a strong conservative third party candidate is guaranteed a non-trivial share of hard right votes in important states. Perhaps a winning share. Enter the 2008 Libertarians.

CSPAN did an enormous public service this afternoon, broadcasting the Libertarian convention, which I watched. In early balloting former Republican congressman Bob Barr (GA) ran even with some woman I'd never heard of, Mary Ruwart. The convention eventually picked Barr, with Las Vegas odds maker Wayne Root to be his running mate. In 2000 and 2004 the Libertarians (with no-name candidates) got fewer than 400,000 votes. Not a factor, at all. This year will be different.

Bob Barr shows signs of possibly becoming an even greater political force than Perot ever was. Perot got a lot of votes despite being extremely weird (he was actually running ahead of the other two candidates before dropping out of the race, only to re-enter shortly thereafter but then remaining for the duration in third place). People who were fond of him described him as "a crazy uncle." People who weren't thought he was just plain crazy. His big advantage was money; a billionaire, he spent whatever he wanted. His other advantage was his outsized contempt for Washington, a theme which resonated strongly with voters.

Money isn't such a differentiating factor now, however, as Obama and Ron Paul have shown what the internet can do for fundraising. And on issues Barr is far, far more intelligent and eloquent than Ross Perot ever was. With Ron Paul already having excited Republican Libertarian sympathizers, the right is well and truly primed for Bob Barr.

Barr probably throws Georgia to the Democrats and puts Ohio easily within reach. North Carolina might even come into play. Current polls and some spreadsheet analysis will turn up others. And that's before McCain makes a fool of himself campaigning.

Those who worry about Obama and the electoral map should feel comforted.

Posted by George Kenney on May 25, 2008 11:42 PM

Comments

Although I consider myself progressive, I admire Ron Paul, because he is certifiably antiwar and he wants to reverse the shredding of the constitution we have seen since the Patriot Act. I reject almost everything else he says, but I could vote for him on those crucial points alone, if I thought he could win.

By contrast, I wouldn't be surprised if the Iraq War drags on under Obama, if he barely wins and is afraid to rock the boat.

If Barr is similar to Ron Paul — a guess on my part — then I could imagine voting for him if I thought he could win. I don't think he can, so I assume Obama is the best realistic choice, and I'm glad to read your opinion of Barr's effect.

Posted by: benjamin777 | May 26, 2008 11:37 AM

Barr may well take votes away from McCain — especially in the South.

Barr is no Libertarian in any sense of the word and is not at all like Ron Paul. It appears the Libertarian Party has decided to stop being the "Party of Principle" and instead has nominated an ultra conservative in the hopes of attracting votes — i.e., it has become the "Party of Expediency".

Barr is anti-gay rights (he authored The Defense of Marriage Act), voted for the Iraq invasion, voted to prevent medical marijuana use in DC, has been all for the "War on Drugs", and voted for the Patriot (sic) Act. He is ex-CIA and was a Federal prosecutor as well (read: put people in jail for victimless crimes).

He talks a little different on some issues now, but did the zebra really change his stripes? Somehow I doubt it.

I don't endorse the Libertarian Party (though in my misspent youth I ran for office twice on the LP ticket) and don't even agree with most of their "principles" anymore, but I don't think a true Libertarian would want to vote for Barr. And certainly no one with any liberal or progressive leanings.

I do hope right wingers will vote for him instead of McCain.

Posted by: 8isis8 | May 27, 2008 10:58 PM

I hope you are right, George, but I think that Hillary will be the nominee, not Obama. The Rezko situation might just be enough for Hillary to persuade the convention that she is the most electable, and if the media moguls decide to back her, then that will be that.

Posted by: michaeltew | May 31, 2008 4:41 PM



Home FAQ Contact Archive EP Store EP Alerts © 2008 ElectricPolitics	Barr the Spoiler People often forget nowadays that that much vaunted politician of lore, Bill Clinton, won in 1992 thanks to Ross Perot. Probably. Clinton got 43% of the vote. George Herbert Walker Bush 37.4%. Perot 18.9%. Arguably, the largest share of Perot's vote came out of Bush senior's hide, though Perot's exact effect on the outcome remains controversial thanks to Clinton apologists. Florida was very close, as usual (it went Republican), but so were Georgia and Ohio (for Clinton). North Carolina and Arizona (for Bush) were close, too, tying up precious Republican resources in the process. The point is, a strong conservative third party candidate is guaranteed a non-trivial share of hard right votes in important states. Perhaps a winning share. Enter the 2008 Libertarians. CSPAN did an enormous public service this afternoon, broadcasting the Libertarian convention, which I watched. In early balloting former Republican congressman Bob Barr (GA) ran even with some woman I'd never heard of, Mary Ruwart. The convention eventually picked Barr, with Las Vegas odds maker Wayne Root to be his running mate. In 2000 and 2004 the Libertarians (with no-name candidates) got fewer than 400,000 votes. Not a factor, at all. This year will be different. Bob Barr shows signs of possibly becoming an even greater political force than Perot ever was. Perot got a lot of votes despite being extremely weird (he was actually running ahead of the other two candidates before dropping out of the race, only to re-enter shortly thereafter but then remaining for the duration in third place). People who were fond of him described him as "a crazy uncle." People who weren't thought he was just plain crazy. His big advantage was money; a billionaire, he spent whatever he wanted. His other advantage was his outsized contempt for Washington, a theme which resonated strongly with voters. Money isn't such a differentiating factor now, however, as Obama and Ron Paul have shown what the internet can do for fundraising. And on issues Barr is far, far more intelligent and eloquent than Ross Perot ever was. With Ron Paul already having excited Republican Libertarian sympathizers, the right is well and truly primed for Bob Barr. Barr probably throws Georgia to the Democrats and puts Ohio easily within reach. North Carolina might even come into play. Current polls and some spreadsheet analysis will turn up others. And that's before McCain makes a fool of himself campaigning. Those who worry about Obama and the electoral map should feel comforted. Posted by George Kenney on May 25, 2008 11:42 PM « The Nightmare \| Main \| General William E. Odom, RIP » Share this post: Comments Although I consider myself progressive, I admire Ron Paul, because he is certifiably antiwar and he wants to reverse the shredding of the constitution we have seen since the Patriot Act. I reject almost everything else he says, but I could vote for him on those crucial points alone, if I thought he could win. By contrast, I wouldn't be surprised if the Iraq War drags on under Obama, if he barely wins and is afraid to rock the boat. If Barr is similar to Ron Paul — a guess on my part — then I could imagine voting for him if I thought he could win. I don't think he can, so I assume Obama is the best realistic choice, and I'm glad to read your opinion of Barr's effect. Posted by: benjamin777 \| May 26, 2008 11:37 AM Barr may well take votes away from McCain — especially in the South. Barr is no Libertarian in any sense of the word and is not at all like Ron Paul. It appears the Libertarian Party has decided to stop being the "Party of Principle" and instead has nominated an ultra conservative in the hopes of attracting votes — i.e., it has become the "Party of Expediency". Barr is anti-gay rights (he authored The Defense of Marriage Act), voted for the Iraq invasion, voted to prevent medical marijuana use in DC, has been all for the "War on Drugs", and voted for the Patriot (sic) Act. He is ex-CIA and was a Federal prosecutor as well (read: put people in jail for victimless crimes). He talks a little different on some issues now, but did the zebra really change his stripes? Somehow I doubt it. I don't endorse the Libertarian Party (though in my misspent youth I ran for office twice on the LP ticket) and don't even agree with most of their "principles" anymore, but I don't think a true Libertarian would want to vote for Barr. And certainly no one with any liberal or progressive leanings. I do hope right wingers will vote for him instead of McCain. Posted by: 8isis8 \| May 27, 2008 10:58 PM I hope you are right, George, but I think that Hillary will be the nominee, not Obama. The Rezko situation might just be enough for Hillary to persuade the convention that she is the most electable, and if the media moguls decide to back her, then that will be that. Posted by: michaeltew \| May 31, 2008 4:41 PM Leave a comment Name Email Address URL Remember personal info? Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

Barr the Spoiler

Comments

Leave a comment