Bob Barr Is All That Stands Between Us And Darkest Night

I hope Bob Barr gets the Libertarian Party presidential nomination this month. I hope he steals the right-wing wacko vote from under John McCain's nose. I hope he clears the way for a Democratic victory in November, and an end to the war.

But then, I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to hope. I keep buying shirts at Old Navy, even though they shrink into weird shapes and the buttons crumble like aspirin. Why? Hope.

And I'm also a realist. We can't pin our national hopes on Bob Barr. He probably can't even close the deal with the Libertarians.

Why not? Are you saying a party built on fear of government can't embrace a candidate who's spent his public life in a prosecutor's office, Congress and the CIA?

You'd think that would be a problem, but no. Sometimes a Party has to bend. Look at the Republicans. They're settling for John McCain, even though he's not a racist.

Is it a hypocrisy thing? Because Bob Barr wrote the Defense of Marriage Act and he's been married three times?

Don't think of it as serial adultery. Think of it as defending marriage on multiple fronts.

Is it because he was a House manager of the Clinton impeachment, but he lied under oath about adultery during one of his own divorces?

It's not fair to say he lied. He used tortured legalisms to avoid telling the truth. And he didn't commit his immoral disgusting sex acts in the Oval Office of the People's House, either. He did them somewhere honorable, like a Days Inn.

I know -- it's about him being pro-life, but Larry Flynt turning up that canceled check for the abortion.

Libertarians aren't interested in the politics of personal destruction. And checking is a necessary evil. For now.

Then why can't he be the Libertarian nominee?

Because he's not a real libertarian. He's too vain to act that stupid. He'd like to -- because he's a bad person -- but he can't. You can tell, when you hear him trying to talk Libertarian on the campaign trail. He can't internalize the contradictions. The voices are in his head, but his heart isn't in it.

Give me a for instance.

Last month, Barr was speaking to the College Republicans at the College of New Jersey...

Sounds like a blast.

Can I talk?

Sorry.

He was explaining the Second Amendment to them, and how it meant the Framers wanted the maximum number of concealed weapons on college campuses at all times.

And the lowest number of women and black people.

Zero, I think. But that wasn't the only way America achieved maximum perfection in 1791. The perfect thing Bob wanted to talk about was the right to bear arms. It's absolute.

You can't regulate guns at all? Grenade launchers? Armor-piercing bullets? Chain guns? The atomic cannon?

If you're a Libertarian, every regulation is a slippery slope to Tyranny Town. Barr said:

"If we allow ourselves to be drawn into arguing just about guns and ammunition, it's very easy to lose that argument."

Because it's crazy.

That's what makes it a Libertarian position. If the government starts telling citizens they can't shoot each other with sawed-off shotguns, pretty soon it'll be telling them they can't shoot each other at all.

But you need a license to drive a car. If we can't restrict guns, at least we can license them, right?

Nope. According to The College of New Jersey student newspaper:

"Barr argued that while one needs a license to drive a car, there is no inherent (Constitutional) right to own a car."

Maybe because in 1791 there weren't any cars.

I didn't come here to defend Original Intent.

But that's not Original Intent. That's just nuts.

Oh, you're going to be sooo unhappy with the Roberts Court.

Okay, my head hurts. But I still don't see how any of this proves Bob Barr isn't a real libertarian.

Think about it. Bob Barr said we can regulate cars because they aren't in the Constitution, but we can't regulate guns, because they are. And if we start regulating guns in schools, the British will come back, in disguise as the kids at Virginia Tech, and Seung-Hui Cho will have to kill them one at a time, by hand, instead of all at once. Also, the upside -- freedom -- is more important than the downside -- dead children in piles.

I get it. But what did he say wrong? How isn't that a libertarian position?

Because he admitted the state can license cars.

Comments

[ClosetExtrovert]

Is it a hypocrisy thing? Because Bob Barr wrote the Defense of Marriage Act and he's been married three times?

Don't think of it as serial adultery. Think of it as defending marriage on multiple fronts.


Gawd, I'm always so glad to see you've posted. Thanks Chris!

[shrugged]

There is also a fun little test you can run to check your own political leanings and see if you have any Libertarian tendancies:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[shrugged]

You have shown one of the key flaws in the Libertarian party, people are lazy and simply follow the big 2 without any research. Simply start by reading their web site. http://libertarianparty.com/ That would be journalism.

Two simple Libertarian questions.
Who is better to tell you how to live your personal life, a bureaucrat in Washington or yourself?
Do you want to pay more of your income to buy a bigger government?

[Novista]

Watching liberals make assertions about libertarianism is fun.

It reminds me of the fable of the Seven Blind Monks and the Elephant.

[libertron]

You are exactly right that if there were cars in the 1700s, the Framers would not have wanted to liscence them. They were far more libetarian than any viable party today, and they would be spinning in their graves if they saw what a big-government, tax-and-spend mess BOTH parties have made this place into now.

[gd7277467]

" Whipped Cream Bobby Barr" ?

[sharkcity]

Bob Barr is certainly not a Libertarian. Libertarians stand for individual rights not mob rules democracy BS. Govt is supposed to protect our Liberty, Privacy, Property, not invade it. We're lucky this year. The first time since Jimmy Carter we have a candidate that cares about civil liberties.
Obama taught constitutional law for 11 years and will uphold it, and it's obvious he cares. Ron Paul would have been a great choice too but the media elite were able to squash him unlike Rock Obama?

[libertron]

Didn't jimmy carter preside over a 78% top tax rate? Somehow the leftwing "libertarians" forgot that part of liberty is getting to keep what you work so hard to earn.

[JohnJames]

Bob Barr is a hypocrite in the way most Libertarians are. When it comes to minorities their principles go right ot the window. Barr was a leader in denying gay citizens the freedom to marry and spearheaded an effort that went nowhere to root out Wiccans from the military. If Libertarians ever wonder why minorities don't take them seriously Bob Barr and his ilk are the answer.

[ShawnMichel]

Thank you! Yes!

Libertarians = Joke.

[Orlando]

The fact that WE THE PEOPLE have weapons, is what has slowed this criminal governments tyrannical actions against us.
Weapons are not the problem as they are only a tool. There are ample resources to deal with the few headline grabbing instances where someone commits random acts of violence. The most effective way to prevent such instances is a well armed and trained citizenry who are not afraid to question authority, police themselves and defend their inherent rights.
The idea that our protection should be dependent on the police or the military is weak willed and un-American. The police are largely ex-military that will take orders without question. If you think that they are protecting you, attend some of the larger anti-war protests and look at their intimidation tactics.
You will find a wall of them FACING the protesters (usually in the classic phalanx battle formation).
The next time you hear a government official talking about gun bans or gun control ask yourself..­. What actions do they intend on taking where they would be fearful of their own citizens owning a gun?
We all need to work to retain and exercise our RIGHT to bear arms. It is the only thing holding back the tide of tyranny. Before you dismiss this comment as a paranoid rant, please read this CBS News article about the "help" the Fed's sent to New Orleans during Katrina.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/22/opinion/main878822.shtml

[Johnagain]

HuffPost's Pick

Our population is the most heavily armed in the western world. Do you think that our government fears us? I do not. Governments fear populations that think for themselves, and keep themselves well informed. Our government has little to fear on that account. The American adult population has got to be the most intellectually lazy, willfully uninformed and misinformed in the industrialized world. In contrast, if you want to see a government that fears its population, look to France. Guns are rare in the population, and the level of education is far higher than here. The people there, from all walks of life, read about current events, history and science, and are far better versed on the actions of their government. I lived there for several years and am not saying this off the top of my head. The government there knows that its power is highly dependent on the support of the people, and can be replaced relatively quickly. Not with weapons, but with organized, nationwide resistance.

[whiteathame]

I'm a moderate republican hoping the conservative wing forms a party of their own. As to guns, I'm a federally licensed dealer and collector so yes; I have sold and own quite a few (mostly classic American and European handguns..­.. what your grandfather might have carried).

That said, I believe most states generally exceed federal guidelines that restrict gun ownership to "proper persons"..­..non-crim­inals, non-crazies, or wife-beaters by requiring fingerprint and background checks of citizens requesting "carry privileges­." Such carry "privileges are further restricted by municipalities and institutio­ns...most colleges and universities don't permit their students to carry on campus or to maintain weapons in on-campus living quarters..­. even if they are licensed by their states.

Reasonable???? IMHO, not when the law-abiding and disarmed populations can't defend themselves from the law-breakers and crazies who disregard such regulations. My 1990s advice to my children (who have licenses, common sense as well as a fair amount of weapons training) was to "carry quietly and discretely" except when entering properly secured buildings (rare in the early 90s). I think it is still good advice. At a minimum, I favor the universities encouraging a trained and discretely armed faculty/staff.

A trained, responsible public is our best defense against the depredations of criminals and madmen. I continue to believe that ultimately, individual safety is an individual responsibility. We cannot expect the police to protect us as individuals or to be instantly present when the need arises.

[Annette]

HuffPost's Pick

I don't agree with you. I was in the military, I have taught gun safety courses. There are law abiding Americans (not convicted of a felony)out there who shouldn't have sharpened popcicle sticks. They have no judgement. There are law abiding Americans with judgement who cannot accurately aim a weapon despite practice . Even those who are pretty good will have massively reduced accuracy under stress.
The thought of being in a classroom full of lawabiding Americans, all armed to the teeth is not comforting. Virginia tech with weapons carried by most of the students probably would have resulted in the shooter being able to kill fewer students, but with 30 or so students, of varying levels of experience and skill the carnage would have almost certainly been much worse. My husband investigated police shootings where the suspect was killed. Usually 5-10% of the bullets fired are in the suspect about 90% miss entirely. Police officers are usually much better trained than the average gun owner, if they have this sort of rate of missing what they are aiming at I wouldn't expect the average citizen to do as well. I had a license to carry in California for a short time and was utterly amazed at the ease of getting it. I didn't have to provide any evidence of skill, any evidence of judgement. In fact the sheriffs department joked with me that if I shot someone I shoulf pull them into the house. Not a good idea.

[Necron99]

"In fact the sheriffs department joked with me that if I shot someone I shoulf pull them into the house."

My uncle is a former cop (now retired) & his son is one to this day (btw, my uncle is a good man who gave people the benefit of a doubt & more than once took someone who he had an official contact with into his home & his church, my cousin, otoh, is a racist, who likes to let private citizens assault suspects who he "knows" are guilty & get drunk when he's camping & fire his service revolver into the darkness, but I digress). I have heard them both give this same peice of advice.

There are a number of inferences I could make here about police, gun owners, republicans, christians, but I'll stick to the facts as I understand them--I'll let others draw their own conclusions.

[SeanOcali]

Libertarians are generally people who suffer from political OCD. Having a current law that doesn't jive with what was written in 1791, to them, is like someone who can't step on the sidewalk cracks without having a heart attack.

[Cybesq]

Bob Barr in 2002, "There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana".

Libertarians are Republicans who discover Zanax and learn to walk around the house naked.

[TXfemmom]

Funny. Hell, if Bob Barr can keep the Obamathons and the PUKES from getting McCain elected, I'll give them money.

All these right wingers decry regulation, and then lack of regulations brings us Enron, the subprime market, and the rise in oil prices, ala speculation and greed.

The problem in most instances in this country are caused by greedy little monsters or anti-socials who don't want anyone telling them what to do. We had two instances here in the Houston area in one week of that. A very nice man was shot dead outside his home north of here by two idiots target practicing with a high powered rifle in a developed area, and they had been doing it for some time and a lack of regulations had permitted it. Then, we had the infamous sink hole develop and it turned out that the oil field services company which shown being eaten by it, along with other things, was pumping twice as much contaminated oil field water into their well there as their state-issued permit allowed. Silly TX, when they do actually regulate something, they never, ever monitor it until something of this magnitude happens.

[TRYKER]

Chris, you're the best. Thanks for the heads up on Old Navy shirts, didn't know their reputation.

[nyboomer]

I've had a libertarian explain to me that because my name is in all capital letters on my drivers license it is an illegal document. He claimed the supreme court decided that anything in all caps lacks legal verity. When I asked him to name the decision in which the supreme court discussed the matter he beacme very upset and called me several names 60 years ago might gotten Senator McCarthy to come after me. Seems he has never read any court decisions, supreme or otherwise but had informed by his mentor that such was the case. I supplied him with my business card and asked him to find for me the decision in question. he promised he would get it. This was in Decmber of 2006. I am still waiting.

[BARRISTER]

Go Bob!!