Look Out McCain, Bob Barr Weighing Pres. Race!

UPDATE:  original title claimed he had joined the race.  He is putting together an exploratory committee.

Fred Thompson Freepers must be beside themselves with glee, that they won't HAVE to vote for John McCain in November.

They now have their candidate.

Libertarians looking to have a higher-profile candidate than they did in 2004 are rejoicing this week-end as former Congressman Bob Barr announced that he is forming a presidential explanatory committee. He made this announcement at a Libertarian conference in Kansas City, Missouri; it will take a few more weeks, naturally, for any formal declaration of candidacy, and then to see what Barr's chances are to get the Libertarian line on the ballot.

Bob Barr became a darling of conservatives in the 1990s for taking the lead in anti-Clinton efforts and particularly in becoming one of the main congressional figures pushing for the President's impeachment. Since he left office, he has served on the NRA and on the American Conservative Union Foundation.

His distinctions from McSame are many and varied.  GOP voters won't embrace the totality of his policies, but he is anti-war, anti-torture, and has lobbied on behalf of the ACLU as far as Bush's attacks on our civil-liberties are concerned.

Bob Barr is primarily focused on explaining why the Republican Party has gone astray and abandoned its roots, and that his anti-war discourse is that of a disaffected conservative rather than an anti-Republican partisan. This is a language many Republicans will relate to after 8 years of the Bush Administration has some conservatives grumbling that he has abandoned them.

Sounds like a freeper wrote that last sentence.

Bob Barr is a very well-known and respected conservative.  McCain is running for a third Bush term.  Bush's Republican approval rating is at about 60%, last time I checked, so there's a LOT of potential for damage to McCain.  Much more than Nader could ever cause Obama.

At least, that's the hope..........

•  What say you?

  big splash, or just a ripple?

  by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:36:35 AM PDT

  •  I remember Rep Barr trying to outlaw the Wiccan

    religion on military bases. That doesn't sound too libertarian to me. Also, his FBI career should carry a lot of anti-progressive, anti-civil liberty baggage.  

    by daliscar on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:41:32 AM PDT

    •  His joining the LP

      Was the straw that broke the camel's back for me, and got me to finally switch my registration to Democrat.

      by Hannibal on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:44:08 AM PDT

      •  so he's already done us some good!

        ;-)

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:58:06 AM PDT

    •  Which makes him

      the ideal candidate for a lot of Republicans.  Ron Paul calls himself libertarian also, but wants all kinds of control on social issues.

      by get the red out on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:04:37 AM PDT

  •  Bob Barr is a jerk,

    but at least he is a consistant jerk. He has also worked with the ACLU against some of the Bush administration's most egregious attacks on the Constitution.  

    by MadRuth on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:42:40 AM PDT

•  Well, the freeper with whom

  I come into contact most often has said he's writing in Alan Keyes if the race isn't close, so maybe this will give him an alternative regardless of whether the race is close.

  Hee hee hee.

  by bwintx on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:38:53 AM PDT

  •  Well, if they're willing to do that,

    they'll be more willing to go for Barr, no?

    Barr isn't a nut.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:40:19 AM PDT

    •  Well,

      it depends on our definition of nut.  Not nutty enough to accept the Bush administation's assault on our privacy rights.

      by MadRuth on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM PDT

      •  yep, I said Barr ISN'T a nut

        Keyes is.

        by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:59:11 AM PDT

  •  To what extent...

    will Barr's arrival sap votes from the repubs who are crossing over to Obama for sincere purposes (not Rushniks)...you know, the ones who would vote for Obama to avoid voting for McCain.

    by mayan on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM PDT

    •  the anti-war Repub Obama vote

      might suffer.  But Barr would have to pry them away, I think.  I don't know if he's got the charisma to do it.

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:00:55 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, Mr. Personality he's not n/rt

        by bwintx on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:14:47 AM PDT

      •  Good point, Mr. Karamazov...

        I'm always a bit afraid of the third party things.  They strike me as being chunks of red kryptonite.

        by mayan on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:25:56 AM PDT

•  I doubt too many freepers'll go for him

  He's opposed to torture, and the thought of brown people being tortured makes the freepers all tingly in their naughty place.

  by Hannibal on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:43:15 AM PDT

•  Interesting. Barr has redeemed himself

  to some extent by his public denouncements of Bush's trampling of civil liberties. Wouldn't it be lovely if he peeled off a few of McCain's voters? But what about the Obamacans? Would they see Barr as a way to avoid McCain w/out helping the Dems?

  by ammaloy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:43:23 AM PDT

  •  good point.

    He could take some head off of Obama's Republican voter beer.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM PDT

  •  What really happened with his Feed

    When Al Gore denounced Bush's shredding of the Constitution, on MLK day a few years back? Just curious if any report got to the bottom of the technical glitch. He was supposed to agree with Gore by remote linkup; but no linkup happened.

    by Compost On The Weeds on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:15:21 AM PDT

•  That means that there's another presidential

  nomination battle that Gravel will loose.

  Unless a Gravelanche appears out of no where and overwhelms Barr.

  by smash artist on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:43:23 AM PDT

  •  They mention Gravelanche

    in the article.

    One short sentence at the end.

    Former Alaska Senator (and former Democratic candidate) Mike Gravel is also considering pursuing the Libertarian party nod.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:55:49 AM PDT

    •  Gravel could be Barr's running mate

      If Barr's the nominee, there'd be a desire for a left-spin Libertarian to balance the ticket. If Mike's not interested, I see either vmedical marijuana guy Steve Kubby, or sometimes dailykos poster George Phillies.

      by ben masel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:17:01 AM PDT

  •  There are still a few parties Gravel has joined.

    He'll get in with the communist party one of these days, and when he does "We will bury you" will be revived as the bumper sticker of the gravelanche.

    by Bindle on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:57:31 AM PDT

    •  er, hasn't

      by Bindle on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:58:02 AM PDT

•  Republicans in disarray

  I love typing that phrase.

  However, they usually line up behind Teh Chosen One and will vote as they are told to vote. Right now they're grumbling a bit because McCain is a pretty sorry choice, and they don't know who he's up against - Obama or Hillary.

  Barr won't do better than Ron Paul. For all his effectiveness as a politician, Barr lacks good visuals and is porcine in affect, which hurts him.

  by The Raven on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:43:49 AM PDT

•  You go Bob

  -- Ron Paulish, I'd say -- anti-war, anti-Bush, arch conservative in terms of the size of government. It will have appeal in the west and put all kinds of states in play because he will be strong where Obama is strong.

  I'd looove to win Texas, not to mention Montana and Colorado abd who knows, Wyoming. If Barr takes 10% in such places (which he might do against McCain), it is a whole different ball game.

  by global citizen on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:45:25 AM PDT

  •  Montana is interesting.

    Clinton carried it in 1992, thanks to a huge Perot vote.  Maybe Barr could do something similar.  Not tha the would match Perot's numbers, but the Dem party is much stronger there than it was 16 years ago.

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:48:51 AM PDT

  •  Barr getting ten-twenty percent in

    some mountain states puts them in the Dem column.

    by Inland on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:54:49 AM PDT

•  Barr will pick up the Paul noise

  Granted, they didn't make much noise in the GOP primary but the upshot is that McCain will have to fight for votes and donations he should be taking for granted.  I don't see Barr getting much more than 1 percent of the vote, but that will help Obama.

  by SpiderStumbled22 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:47:48 AM PDT

  •  Libertarians may be a lot of things...

    but they are not all wrong.We NEED some of their GENUINE oppostion opinions.

    by Barry Leonardini on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:52:53 AM PDT

•  we'll see

  It all depends on how much money he can raise, how many ballots he can get on, and if Hannity, Savage, Rush, etc. give him any free air time.
  He could conceiveably hurt McCain if all the stars align just right, or he could be just another flash in the pan that has zero impact. If I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter.

  by fat old man on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:47:51 AM PDT

  •  He will be on in 42-48...

    If he gets the Libertarian banner.  

    Alan or Roy Moore (favorites now) will be on in 18-30 if they get the Constitution banner. (On some states like Ohio, Constitution will be on as in independent candidate, on some as another party (AIP in CA, Alaska Independent party in Alaska).

    by Losty on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:52:43 AM PDT

    •  Wow

      For a second there, I thought you were implying that Alan Moore was going to run for President on the Constitution Party ticket.

      by Crisitunity on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:01:55 AM PDT

  •  Well, McCain isn't raising much money

    so it seems that your basic GOP little guy is waiting for something to believe in before he donates.

    by Inland on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:55:41 AM PDT

    •  not only isn't he raising...............

      but he's given back $3mil in order to get on public financing.

      Barack and Hillary have been consistently killing him on money.  In February, it was a Dem total of $90mil to his $11, wasn't it?  His fundraising DROPPED in Feb. AFTER he became the nominee.............

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:06:58 AM PDT

•  Bob Barr is a Tool and a Himmler Look-Alike.

  He was a complete shit during the impeachment fiasco. And wasn't he among the dozen or so impeachment-rabid Republicans who were cheating on their wives while yowling about Clinton's immorality?

  by LongTom on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:49:13 AM PDT

  •  that's why he's a perfect alternative

    to moderate, nice-boy McCain.  The rabid GOPers will eat him up.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:52:57 AM PDT

    •  Good point. They hate people whose

      positive attributes highlight their own cowardice, immorality, intellectual poverty, and other personal failings. Hence Cheney and Bush hated McCain and Kerry for their courage to go to war, Graham, Hyde, and the rest of them hated Clinton for his brilliance, popularity, and success with women, characters like Wolfowitz, Feith, and the other brainlessly "brilliant" right wing think tank freaks hate successful intellectuals and policy analysts who actually know something beyond ideology and are proven correct occasionally by actual events.

      by LongTom on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM PDT

•  well, B. Clinton won way back when because

  Perot was running. Now... let me moderate that a little, he may have won irregardless, but there is no denying that Perot cost Bush Sr. a hell of a lot of votes, and that Bill won with a plurality, not a majority.

  So Barr, if his candidacy takes off, could well be the deciding factor in a close race.  heh.

  by edgeways on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:50:56 AM PDT

  •  Perot & Clinton

    ...he may have won irregardless, but there is no denying that Perot cost Bush Sr. a hell of a lot of votes, and that Bill won with a plurality, not a majority.

    If we are to believe what Perot's voters told the exit pollsters, there is also no denying that Perot cost Bill Clinton a hell of a lot of votes.  They broke just about 50/50 between Clinton and Bush as a second preference in 1992.  

    by Bill W on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:27:11 AM PDT

•  Bob Barr is a Maverick!

  Seriously, for the crowd that is all "He says what he thinks, I like that", Barr is perfect.  He'll show up McCain with the libertarians in the GOP.

  by Inland on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:51:28 AM PDT

  •  I think that's true...

    Bob Barr is in real life the maverick that John McCain pretends to be on TV.   I think he could peel off some of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party.  

    by swampus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:59:32 AM PDT

•  Go Barr!

  Puh-lease let this be true. I'm betting Bob Barr would suck away 5% of the Republican vote in any state he's on the ballot. Please, please, PLEASE let him do this.

  by Travis Stark on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:57:13 AM PDT

•  Blob Barr, Tammy Baldwin, and me

  In the Fall of 2000, I was in high gear in an effort to kill Censorship and "Secret Search Warrant" provisions of the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act which had unanimously cleared the Senate, and was pending in the House Judiciary Committee.

  I first persuaded my Rep, Tammy Baldwin, a Committee member to remove the Bill from the Consent Calendar, putting it on the non-expedited review track.

  Next stops were the Libertarian and Firearms boards, where I pointed out that the Secret Search provisions would impact firearms as well as drug investigations, and the censorship provisions provided a structure which, under a future Democratic Congress, could be applied to restrict discussion of firearms.

  A week later, Tammy was back in Madison, sand asked "Ben, How did you get Bob Barr to call me?" It seems that thru the first 3 years of their service on the Judiciary Committee, he'd rebuffed all her efforts to engage him outside formal session, going so far as to turn his back when she'd try to approach him in the hallway, due to her sexual orientation.

  The objectionable provisions were stripped, the bill passed without them. Baldwin and Barr became friends, joined in a not very successful rearguard effort to amend Patriot.

  by ben masel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:59:56 AM PDT

•  The Libertarian Party needs Bob Barr

  This party envisions themselves as taking over as the number 2 party and replacing the Republicans.

  If they nominate Barr, it might be a good start for them.

  by davefromqueens on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:00:30 AM PDT

•  Not a given he wins nomination.

  he'll have the largest block lof delegates entering the LP Convention, but expect multiple rounds with many candidates in the game.

  by ben masel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:07:07 AM PDT

  •  aren't they starting a little late?

    or is it always this way?

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:15:07 AM PDT

    •  Barr's starting late, there's been a half-dozen

      or so seeking the nomination. The Convention is in Denver, May 22-26.

      by ben masel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:20:27 AM PDT

•  

  Run, Bobby, Run!!!!!!!!!

  by joeyess on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:41:24 AM PDT

•  Oh, please run, Bob,

  please, please, please run!

  Further division in the Republican Party is just what we are praying for.

  by RagingDem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:50:48 PM PDT