Making a case for Bob Barr (Ron Paul, NAFTA, Huckabee, voters)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is addressed to everyone, liberals and conservatives and even moderates, but mostly it's addressed to independents. I have seen many stories that say independent voters will make or break this election for either McCain or Obama. It seems to me that stories on independents reach a fever pitch each presidential campaign. I suppose for good reason. After all Democrats and Republicans are more than likely to stick with their chosen candidate up to the election. However, whether overrated or not independents will play a big role in this campaign IMO. McCain and Obama will play up to the moderates and independents. Joining them in this hunt to a certain degree will be Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Much has been made about how Barr may play the spoiler in this election for McCain by taking away "conservative" votes. I would argue what real conservatives would vote for McCain anyway? I believe that Barr will take away significant conservative votes for the very reason that Barr is the only true conservative running this year. I know there will be some here who will say Ron Paul was the only real conservative in the race. The key word is "was". I backed Paul in the MI primary and would in a heartbeat if he were on the ballot in Nov. But he isn't. So that's why I will vote for Bob Barr in Nov. and I urge fellow independent conservatives and even moderate Dems and Republicans to do the same. I firmly believe that Barr is the right man for the job. I don't agree with everything the Libertarian Party stands for and I don't plan to switch my Independent label to a Libertarian one. Barr stands for the constitution, securing our borders, is against NAFTA and the dreaded superhighway and wants to start to bring our troops home from Iraq. Sounds very much like a Paul platform. People will say he doesn't stand a chance of winning, but I say I care more about voting for the person whom I believe is the best out there, no matter the chances. I used to fall in line (with the Republicans) with the party I supported and the nominee for president, but no more. I will cast my vote for Bob Barr and I urge others to do the same.
I can't tolerate Obama or McCain... that would mean I would not vote at all... I guess I could vote for Barr since we need people who stand up for the nation and not for special interests... be it corporate special interest or the "unfortunate" special interests...
I am a RON PAUL supporter as well and he specifically stated in one his interviews or several interviews in fact that he is running on a GOP stance because there is no way to win an election as a libertarian, he has tried in 1988 and he feels the GOP is more in line especially the Regan era GOP to be in line with the libertarians and our founding fathers. You stated yourself that some Republicans may say that he is more of a republican and this is something PAUL often referred to in his debates, that he is more of a republican as Regan was. Unfortunately America and its media has failed us once again, if you watched the debate between the final four McCain/Romney/Huckabee/Paul, Paul barely had any camera time thus we have the lesser of two evils once again, Obama vs McCain.
The biggest problem is today we ask our feds to take care of our economy, take care of the situation of Iraq, take care of illegal immigration and on a national level there is no way to go back to exactly the libertarian ways pre-1960s or even the days of the 1980s. I do understand a vote of discontent as most Obama voters are probably voting for "change" as in a change of administration over what real change means. But if you go by a state-by-state analysis since RON was an anti-war candidate, the only I may mention on the GOP and not running on the libertarian party he will probably take away votes from both Obama and McCain, Nader however you are forgetting who will have more votes than Bob Barr will take away more votes from Obama, thus similar to the election of 2000, it is contentious in the tossup states, Florida this year is not, it is projected a RED state however a McCain-Crist affair will seal Florida in double digits. Michigan simply isn't a tossup State, it's a blue state and not something Obama is concerned with and a tough state for McCain to overcome. Depending on the VPs and how well Barr and Nader does it may only affect the votes of Nevada and Colorado, not likely any other states outcome. A McCain-Romney affair will seal both states.
This is addressed to everyone, liberals and conservatives and even moderates, but mostly it's addressed to independents. I have seen many stories that say independent voters will make or break this election for either McCain or Obama. It seems to me that stories on independents reach a fever pitch each presidential campaign. I suppose for good reason. After all Democrats and Republicans are more than likely to stick with their chosen candidate up to the election. However, whether overrated or not independents will play a big role in this campaign IMO. McCain and Obama will play up to the moderates and independents. Joining them in this hunt to a certain degree will be Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Much has been made about how Barr may play the spoiler in this election for McCain by taking away "conservative" votes. I would argue what real conservatives would vote for McCain anyway? I believe that Barr will take away significant conservative votes for the very reason that Barr is the only true conservative running this year. I know there will be some here who will say Ron Paul was the only real conservative in the race. The key word is "was". I backed Paul in the MI primary and would in a heartbeat if he were on the ballot in Nov. But he isn't. So that's why I will vote for Bob Barr in Nov. and I urge fellow independent conservatives and even moderate Dems and Republicans to do the same. I firmly believe that Barr is the right man for the job. I don't agree with everything the Libertarian Party stands for and I don't plan to switch my Independent label to a Libertarian one. Barr stands for the constitution, securing our borders, is against NAFTA and the dreaded superhighway and wants to start to bring our troops home from Iraq. Sounds very much like a Paul platform. People will say he doesn't stand a chance of winning, but I say I care more about voting for the person whom I believe is the best out there, no matter the chances. I used to fall in line (with the Republicans) with the party I supported and the nominee for president, but no more. I will cast my vote for Bob Barr and I urge others to do the same.
I am a RON PAUL supporter as well and he specifically stated in one his interviews or several interviews in fact that he is running on a GOP stance because there is no way to win an election as a libertarian, he has tried in 1988 and he feels the GOP is more in line especially the Regan era GOP to be in line with the libertarians and our founding fathers. You stated yourself that some Republicans may say that he is more of a republican and this is something PAUL often referred to in his debates, that he is more of a republican as Regan was. Unfortunately America and its media has failed us once again, if you watched the debate between the final four McCain/Romney/Huckabee/Paul, Paul barely had any camera time thus we have the lesser of two evils once again, Obama vs McCain.
The biggest problem is today we ask our feds to take care of our economy, take care of the situation of Iraq, take care of illegal immigration and on a national level there is no way to go back to exactly the libertarian ways pre-1960s or even the days of the 1980s. I do understand a vote of discontent as most Obama voters are probably voting for "change" as in a change of administration over what real change means. But if you go by a state-by-state analysis since RON was an anti-war candidate, the only I may mention on the GOP and not running on the libertarian party he will probably take away votes from both Obama and McCain, Nader however you are forgetting who will have more votes than Bob Barr will take away more votes from Obama, thus similar to the election of 2000, it is contentious in the tossup states, Florida this year is not, it is projected a RED state however a McCain-Crist affair will seal Florida in double digits. Michigan simply isn't a tossup State, it's a blue state and not something Obama is concerned with and a tough state for McCain to overcome. Depending on the VPs and how well Barr and Nader does it may only affect the votes of Nevada and Colorado, not likely any other states outcome. A McCain-Romney affair will seal both states.
I love my 13yr old daughters quote on Ron Paul. "Ron Paul?, Daddy is that the nutty guy on the Republican debates." Yes dear thats the one
SCREW BOB BARR!!!!!!! Republicans will surely loose with him in play.
To that I say oh well. I would rather vote with my principles then be led to the slaughter by a candidate I don't support but feel I have to because he's a "republican". Lighten up on the language as well. This is suppose to be a civil discussion.
Paul has asked that his supporters NOT write him in on their ballots. I guess I will be voting for Barr as well. Of all the candidates, Barr is the only one Paul has said good things about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is suppose to be a civil discussion. 
