A Critique Of Bob Barr's 2008 Presidential Run - By An Eight Time Libertarian Presidental Supporter

My last 8 votes for President have been 1980 - Clark; 1984 - Bergland; 1988 - Paul; 1992 - Marrou; 1996 - Browne; 2000 - Browne; 2004 - Badnarik and 2008 - Bob Barr. That's correct, not ONCE did I waste my vote on `the two party system'. Not once, and, I am proud of that. (Of course, I had to stand the stares of friends who felt that it was I who was wasting a vote.)

That said, it's strange to live in a country and to go thru one Presidential campaign, after another, after another, hoping that your candidate will get `covered' by the mainstream media. That the `ideas' presented by a party -- even if a party with only 5-10% potential support - receive a `percentage' of the coverage that is remotely `fair'. Meaning, that 5-10% of the coverage is on that third party. (I'm reminded of that Beatles song `Taxman' with the lyric -- that's 19 for me and one for you -- be happy we don't take it all.)

Yes, I'd be happy, no, elated, if the Democraps and Republinuts got 19 stories reflecting their points of view on Government -- and then -- ONE Libertarian story. Is that asking too much? Is the media THAT scared of presenting `other viewpoints' - or - is the media that much in the pockets of the two parties? (The obvious answer.)

But, as a keen observer of the media relentlessly regurgitating first one and then the other of the two parties viewpoints, for a few moments in 2008 -- I thought the media might have a reason to `balance it up'. After all, for really the first time in memory we didn't have a sitting President or Vice President of one of the major parties as nominee - and, for once - one of the `third' parties had a known name of a former congressman - Bob Barr.

Indeed, I felt very connected to this campaign - as I had met Mr. Barr at a Rib Ranch Meeting (a room in a BBQ restaurant on Canton Road in Marietta Georgia) prior to his announcing he would run for the Libertarian nomination. When I met him, and spoke with him privately for a minute, I urged him to use his awareness level - within the realm of politicians - to raise the profile of the Libertarians in the 2008 election. (I was even told by the head of the Libertarian party of Georgia (at least at that time) that Barr was going to run for sure if Hillary seemed to be the front runner for the Dems.)

Indeed, I even watched most of the Libertarian convention - at least the portion carried by C-Span. And, frankly, it was not a thing of beauty - nor was Mr. Barr's victory. Indeed, my memory is that it was widely held by the Libertarians that were voting (who seemed to be whoever would show up for a state) that while Barr WOULD give the party a candidate with `awareness' -- that now (2008) was NOT the time to pick for a nominee someone who was a leader in the Drug War effort at one time.

But, others countered, Mr. Barr seemed to apologize for that period of his life and was certainly a strong advocate - almost the only one - against the civil liberty aspects of the Patriot Act. And, in what appeared on TV to be little more than a quid quo pro -- Barr took the support of Wayne Root's followers to victory -- then gave the VP position to Mr. Root - for now. Personally, I really liked Root and think he would have made a much better candidate (and I hope he runs in 2012).


So, at the moment the convention ended, the Libertarians had - finally - someone with actual name recognition who was very well versed about the in's and out's of the whole game of Politics. And, as usual, the media -- BEFORE the two `main party' conventions - was willing to give Barr moments of exposer - which he seemed to handle fairly well. And, by this time, he had chosen Russ Verney to head the campaign - you probably remember that Verney was in the same position for the WELL FUNDED Ross Perot campaign years before.


I honestly think that they both thought that money would come flowing into the campaign as the party had someone with name recognition AND a known political consultant running the campaign. Not to mention the disgust the population had with both parties. Perhaps they thought the media would view them as having a new positioning for the Libertarians. Perhaps they thought they would really be having a whole country national campaign.


I say that because I was on the mailing list -- and the overwhelming concern EARLY on was to be on ALL 50 states ballots - to somehow show legitimacy. Indeed, one e-mail after another asked for donations so that they could send people into markets to get signatures or to find lawyers to fight one hardship after another. They never seemed to be asking for money to `bring ideas to America' - at least to me.


And, remember, I live in the Atlanta area - I know the coverage in the 90's that Barr got and the level of awareness of him. Indeed, he just barely lost a Republican primary in a run for the Senate. So, in Georgia and really in the core of the conservatives in America - the south - Barr was a known commodity. And, perhaps outrageously, I began an e-mail campaign with the Barr staff to have him use a strategy saying "I am going to win Georgia". (Since the media always love to ask - where are you going to win.)


Yes, I know, it sounds outrageous -- a Libertarian WINNING somewhere? But, in Georgia, with his limited funds - he would be able to raise awareness hugely about the Libertarian positions. And, once he started to `move' in the polls, in Georgia -- very likely -- other `southern states' would likely start to take interest. Other Southern States would likely also start to see some `movement' and improvement in the polling numbers as Georgia's numbers `took off'.


At WORST, at that point - the Libertarians would have had the media interest in the `regional' candidate - a new Wallace - (as you know, the media hates the south anyway). You would have had the media projecting `what if's' about winning southern electoral votes and throwing the whole affair into the House of Representatives. In a nutshell, you would actually shake the political system up and truly get the Libertarian point of view on the screen to all viewers nationwide. (I truly feel that `numbers' would, at that point, even move in other non-southern states.)


But, as you know, that did not happen - and ultimately Barr will get LESS than 1/2 of 1% of the total vote.

So, what went wrong from the viewpoint of an EIGHT time Libertarian voter? A better question would be what DIDN'T go wrong?


Obviously, VERNEY is not and was not a Libertarian - nor did he think like one - nor could he talk like one. Big mistake number one. Next, Barr wouldn't even back the legalization of marijuana - big mistake number two. Next, Barr also ignored the idea of a focused regional campaign, that would allow the campaign to grow from a base - big mistake number three. And then, finally, we had the spectacle of a nominated Presidential candidate willing to dump his Vice President candidate - big big mistake number four. (This, of course, was when Barr supposedly offered Ron Paul that position.)


That is not to say that IF Barr had gotten `traction' in the campaign that he would have done `well' - as the media would have been all over his prior hypocrisies such as cheating on his wife yet prosecuting Clinton for the same. Or, the obvious hypocrisy of `being a Libertarian' when he was so much behind the Drug War against Americans - and the adult right to self-medicate.


Ultimately, Barr inspired NOBODY - and got the results that showed an inept strategy from what should be one of America's main Liberty and Smaller Government parties. Perhaps, next time, in 2012 - the Libertarians WILL stand for Liberty once again - AND - truly smaller government - with a candidate that doesn't have to apologize for previous actions against Liberty.

Here's more links for today:

Judge Throws Out Red Light Camera Tickets As Program Declared Illegal And Void - http://techdirt.com/articles/20090811/1701585847.shtml To me, one of the absurdest ideas has been the Red Light Cameras - PROVEN to be a threat to public safety.

About half of U.S. mortgages seen underwater by 2011 - http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5745JP20090805 The media has largely buried this aspect of our `recovery'.

Why You Can't Trust Those Jobs Figures - http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/08/jobs-unemployment-layoffs-business-washington-figures.html Trusting the media spin on ANYTHING is not in ones best interest.

California Town Shuts Down Child’s Lemonade Stand - http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/08/07/california-town-shuts-down-childs-lemonade-stand/ Quoting from the article "There’s no business that’s too small for government to torture"

And, today's fun link - A GREAT video for all who believe in the old America --
(if video doesn't work - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZwIPnLZd6w)

How Marijuana's Natural Positioning Between Tobacco And Alcohol Hinders Legalization

Within the past week or so I posted about the four `marketing categories' of all people concerning cannabis http://realheavypolitics.blogspot.com/2009/06/cannabis-like-all-products-has-four.html, and, in that post, I noted how the vast majority of all people fall into the Trier-Rejector category, and, the Aware Non-Triers category. I also noted how the media `markets' `pot issues' to each of the categories - including users of marijuana (for users, they use the scare tactic such as `this is your brain on drugs').

So, now, turn your attention to the products of alcohol and tobacco - the `legal' recreational `drugs' that are marketed to society (with controls by the government for disclosure of danger on tobacco, and alcohol, and age and tax controls on both).

As you know, in recent years, the government has `come down' further on many areas on tobacco, and doesn't allow its use in closed public places in many states. Some have even suggested extending that prohibition on public usage to include ones personal car. All of these anti-smoking laws have been done in the past 15 years, seemingly out of nowhere, on upwards of 20-25% of the United States adult public who smoke tobacco (up to 1/3 of adults in some countries use tobacco, 1.1 BILLION adults worldwide) - by a few goodie twoshoes. And, nearly all of it done without a peep of protest.


Indeed, I don't remember even ONE protest march in favor of restricting adult usage of tobacco in places such as restaurants and bars - not one. EVER. This just goes to show how politicians can do the bidding of insurance companies and more.

(I'm reminded of the saying involving `them coming for you' -- and how society doesn't react until it's THEM who is being `come for'. In this instance, the tobacco smokers didn't react when the pot prohibition was passed decades ago and continued to ignore the pot smokers targeting by the governments.)

But, even as a known product that kills (the WHO says 4.5 million die worldwide each year from long term tobacco use) - commercial marketed tobacco has been able to starve off the final level of government control - that of making it illegal. (I say `commercial marketed tobacco' (CMT) because CMT is altered in many ways from `straight - unaltered' tobacco -- so, in many ways - we really don't know if TOBACCO is really extra dangerous or is it the additives that keep it burning.) It remains as the approved recreational `smoking product' - even if nicotine is addictive and creates a temporary minor buzz.


And, as you know, you can still find tobacco brands advertised in magazines. And, finally, tobacco has been a big supporter of lawyers in recent years attempting to fight back the multi-hundred billion dollar lawsuit it is living under. Indeed, these are the `terms':



Financial Provisions
States were to receive over $206 billion over 25 years:
Up-front payments - $12.742 billion.
Annual Payments, beginning April 15, 2000 - $183.177 billion through 2025.
Strategic Contribution Fund, 2008-2017 - $8.61 billion.
National Foundation ($250 million over 10 years).
Public Education Fund (at least $1.45 billion 2000-2003).
State Enforcement Fund ($50 million, one-time payment).
National Association of Attorneys General ($1.5 billion over next 10 years).

Then, on the other hand of legal recreational drug use in America, we have alcohol - a proven killer of innocent people on our nations highways due to misuse - and, a drug implicated in domestic violence and as having long term health effects. Additionally, as a HARD drug, many people die yearly from an extreme intoxication level of just one consumption setting. (I define hard drugs as drugs that can be used in one day to overdose to a death level. Obviously, with this standard, pot and tobacco, are NOT hard drugs.)

But, regardless of all of the known negatives listed above - alcohol remains legal in most places for adults over 21. Indeed, alcohol is even permitted to advertise on TV - with some restrictions - and of course on radio, print, and billboards. And, obviously, alcohol is legal for one main reason - people like to be able to alter their own consciousness - ie: to get high(er). People like to use things that alter their reactions and perceptions. And, of course, alcohol is legal because PROHIBITION didn't work. Oh, BTW, the alcohol industry is one of the biggest supporters of our political candidates and parties.

So, we have one heavily taxed product that is the allowed recreational smoke (tobacco - over 350 billion cigarettes smoked a year) - and one heavily taxed product the allowed recreational high (alcohol). Both of which are `heavily taxed' (indeed, up to 400+ communities have a local tax per pack on tobacco - up to 2.68 per pack in Chicago-Cook County) and both of which would be in competition with a product that could be grown for almost free in any home.

And, then, we have pot. A free natural medicinal plant used - never marketed - that does or satisfies what BOTH of the currently legal recreational drugs do. Compared to tobacco - it provides a flavored smoke that gives a small buzz (low THC would obviously be marketed.) And, compared to alcohol, - it provides `the high' desired by many drinkers. Indeed, the `high' is so controlled compared to the alcohol high - that many NON-users of illegal cannabis - may indeed prefer this method of seeking a recreational high - if it were legal. Consequently, you cannot tell me that both of these marketed products don't feel threatened. Let alone pain killers or sleep aids marketed round the clock on TV.

Indeed, I think the media inherently KNOWS - that it's media dollars are threatened by real legalization (as it is unlikely that legalization would include promoting via advertising)- likewise, both legal recreational drugs know it would affect their market too. And, everyday, we see the skew in the coverage of every pot issue by the media - to every human issue raised by the war on drugs. The position of the media and the politicians now and for the last 3 plus decades has been "we don't need another legal recreational drug."

In fact, the ultimate reason for the media and government NEVER covering pot usage as a personal `right' - may have to do with the fact that IF a third recreational drug was `legalized' like pot --- would someone `push' for a fourth recreational drug and so on. Also, with legalization, the government and media would have to admit to being `wrong' on one aspect of the war on drugs - which would open questions about being `wrong' about `other drugs -or the whole thing'. And, as we know, the prison industry is one of the few job growth areas in America - and fits in with the bloated government control politicians love.

The purpose of this post has been to highlight the obvious connection to how pot would affect legal recreational drugs, the taxes collected on them, and politicians and media who are compromised by their connection to the legal recreational drugs.

Links used for this post and more:

http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com/2009/06/guess-who-helped-write-new-tobacco-bill.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5819a2.htm Federal and State Cigarette Excise Taxes --- United States, 1995--2009

"It's true. Starting in July, Dutch folks will not be allowed to smoke cigarettes in bars, restaurants and cafes, including in the coffee shops famous for selling soft drugs. But, and this is a big "but," smoking marijuana or hashish will still be legal!" http://www.legaljuice.com/2008/06/pot_yes_tobacco_no_1.html

Tobacco, Liquor Firms Keep Party Donations Flowing - http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-650096.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_americans_smoke_cigarettes

Is Idaho Ready for Medical Marijuana? - http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/10/is-idaho-ready-for-medical-marijuana/