Monthly Archives: May 2008

Bob Barr Announces Presidential Run

Election '08, Politics

As expected, former Congressman Bob Barr, announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party’s nomination for President today:

(CNN) – Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr formally jumped into the White House race Monday as a candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination.

Barr, the onetime darling of conservatives who led the impeachment fight against former President Bill Clinton, said he is running because voters want a choice beyond the two political parties.

“They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us,” he said Monday at the National Press Club in Washington. “The reason for that is very simple, they believe in America as I believe in America. We believe in an America that is not and should not be and should never be driven by fear as current policies on behalf of both parties are in this country.”

Barr, 59, represented Georgia’s 7th congressional district from 1995-2003, and became an increasingly vocal critic of President Bush, especially over the president’s support of the Patriot Act. He formally left the Republican Party in 2006.

The next step is the LP Convention in Denver next week where Barr faces what looks to be somewhat of an uphill fight against party purists.

Update: Reason’s David Weigel attended the event:

The smallish room Bob Barr booked for his presidential announcement was overflowing with journalists. I’ve seen every Ron Paul 2008 event held at the venue, and they never drew this sort of interest: There were, I think, four working reporters at the press conference announcing the haul from the first momeybomb. But Barr’s announcement drew live reporters from the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post (even if it was the famously snarky “Sketch” author Dana Milbank). Barr foreign policy pal Doug Bandow stood by him at the podium, and foreign policy maven Jim Bovard sat in the audience.

(…)

Is Barr picking up the Ron Paul vote? He acrobatically avoided tying his campaign to Paul, but I talked to a few familiar Paulites in the audience. Ron Paul Rider Michael Maresco, who staged a 60-day bike ride across the country to support Paul, shook hands with Barr then told me he would back him. Brad Jansen, a ubiquitous DC organizer for Paul and manager of one of the Ron Paul Republicans’ campaigns for the House (Vern McKinley, in the DC exurbs), talked to Barr about writing a follow-up to his 2002 Liberty article defending him against attacks by the then-leadership of the LP.

This sounds more and more like it could be a very interesting campaign

H/T: Jason Pye

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Barack Obama On The Drug War

Election '08, Politics, The War on Drugs

Don’t count anything other than the audacity of hype when it comes to the War On (Some) Drugs:

As president, I would use the bully pulpit of my office to warn Americans about the dangers of performance enhancing drugs, and I would put greater resources into enforcement of existing drug laws. I would also convene a summit of the commissioners of the professional sports leagues, as well as university presidents, to explore options for decreasing the use of these drugs.

So much for anything new, huh ?

H/T: Freedom Democrats

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Question Of The Day: Time To Invade Burma ?

Foreign Affairs

Time Magazine asks the question:

That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — “I can’t imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday — but it’s not without precedent: as Natsios pointed out to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid without the host government’s consent in places like Bosnia and Sudan.

A coercive humanitarian intervention would be complicated and costly. During the 2004 tsunami, some 24 U.S. ships and 16,000 troops were deployed in countries across the region; the mission cost the U.S. $5 million a day. Ultimately, the U.S. pledged nearly $900 million to tsunami relief. (By contrast, it has offered just $3.25 million to Burma.) But the risks would be greater this time: the Burmese government’s xenophobia and insecurity make them prone to view U.S. troops — or worse, foreign relief workers — as hostile forces. (Remember Black Hawk Down?) Even if the U.S. and its allies made clear that their actions were strictly for humanitarian purposes, it’s unlikely the junta would believe them. “You have to think it through — do you want to secure an area of the country by military force? What kinds of potential security risks would that create?” says Egelend. “I can’t imagine any humanitarian organization wanting to shoot their way in with food.”

Not only is it hard to imagine, it’s hard to imagine how it could succeed without thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of innocent Burmese being victimized, most likely by their own government.

Let’s face it, the Burmese junta is so unpopular that any move to move in on their territory to help people is unlikely to arouse all that much international condemnation.

The problem is, what do you do after that ?

Delivering the aid and seeing that it gets to the people who need it is one thing. Then comes rebuilding, and that means a near-permanent presence in a country that very few people know anything about.

As with most international interventions for “humanitarian” reasons (Somalia anyone ?), military action in Burma is likely to lead to even more problems than we would be trying to solve.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Why Libertarians Never Get Taken Seriously, Exhibit A

Strategies For Advancing Liberty

Via Third Party Watch, here’s a rather bizarre comment from Mary Ruwart, one of the candidates for the LP’s Presidential nomination:

For years, myself and other libertarian candidates have pointed out that “when guns are banned, only criminals will have guns.” The shift in popular perception has come about primarily because courageous Libertarian candidates are willing to teach the American public about the benefits of liberty, even at the cost of being “slimed” by the media. I am proud to be counted among those candidates, proud to be saving lives, especially the lives of our children.

Today, other bans, such as the ones against child pornography, are touted as panaceas to “save the children.” Like drug prohibition and the ban on firearms, these bans backfire, harming the very innocents they are intended to help. Certain countries like China and Russia even ban what we would call legal adult pornography such as websites like sex-hd xxx whilst here in the USA adult pornography is still legal. Anyone who believes in liberty can see the pattern. Bans and prohibitions drive vices underground, where participants have no legal recourse when they experience exploitation.

Bans make criminals out of 17-year-olds having consensual sex with 15-year-olds, because the younger partner is presumed too immature to make an informed decision. These draconian laws destroy the lives of our young people by making them carry the label of “sex offender” for the rest of their lives. Yet as late as the last century, it was not at all unusual for American boys and girls to marry and start families in their early teens!

Bans based on arbitrary age limits aren’t needed to protect those too young to make informed decisions about sexual conduct. Pre-pubescent children, for example, don’t have the physical or emotional maturity to even understand what sex is all about. When an adult engages in sexual conduct with a young child, we don’t need a law specifying an age limit in order to convict those adults of rape. All we need to do is show a jury that the child wasn’t competent to consent.

Yea, that’s just what the Libertarian Party needs. They’ve been known as the drug legalization party for years. Now, Ruwart is suggesting that they sign on to policy prescriptions that we brand them as the party who wants to legalize child pornography and sex with children.

There are legitimate issues regarding age of consent laws as they apply to 17 year olds, but they don’t need to be part of a Presidential campaign or a Political Party platform.

If the LP nominates Ruwart, they’ll be even more irrelevant in 2008 than they have been in the past.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com
1 … 6 7 8 9 10