LP Convention: Imperato endorsing Barr
In one of the more lighthearted moments of a rather stressful Convention, someone (my apologies for forgetting who!) snapped this cell-phone picture of Imperato endorsing Barr. The pained look on Barr's face almost (but not quite) makes me pity him.  ¶ 3:02 AM 4 Comments Links to this post

  Gratuitous beagle pic

Kate  ¶ 3:29 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  Barr gets taken to task by AJC Barr writes (or wrote) a column for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, but that didn't stop the paper from doing a little digging into his PAC now that he has declared for president.

Here's the story:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/05/19/barrpac_0518.html

(it's also been picked up by other outlets)

Barr's group is a so-called "leadership fund," a type of political action committee used by current and aspiring party leaders to collect money and disperse it to candidates and committees. ...

Barr's use of donations for fund-raising and his own expenses is unlike most leadership funds, said Sarah Dufendach, chief of legislative affairs for Common Cause, the Washington-based nonpartisan public-interest advocacy group.

"It's not supposed to be for the benefit of that particular person," she said. "The leadership PACs are supposed to be for the support of other candidates. He is just sustaining himself. ...

In the last five years the fund has given $125,200 — about three cents of every dollar raised — to federal candidates and other campaign committees, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found in a review of reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Another $81,875 went to state and local campaigns.

The fund spent more than $710,000 in that period on administrative costs, ...

This is no news to Libertarians like Jim Capo, the bloggers at Last Free Voice and others who pointed this out months ago and raised concerns about the quality of money management skills that Barr might bring to a presidential campaign and/or Barr's purpose in actually running a presidential campaign. Having the numbers laid out is interesting, though, especially in comparison with other leadership PACs (and nonprofits, which I am more familiar with).

Of most interest to LP folks in all this, though, is the bit about the PAC's most recent fundraising letter:

On April 1, former Congressman Bob Barr wrote to rally conservatives across the country to stop liberals from solidifying control of Congress.

"If we don't act fast – I'm afraid conservatives may well lose out again!" he implored in a letter sent by his political action committee. ...

The letter made no mention of Barr's recent campaign for the Libertarian Party's nomination for president, in which he has criticized many Republicans in Congress. Libertarians will choose their candidate at a convention this week in Denver.

Barr, a former federal prosecutor, defended the fund's solicitations and expenditures in a telephone interview. He declined to answer questions about individual donations and the letter's characterization of their importance.

"I won't be cross-examined" about the fund's finances, he said.

In an e-mail, the fund's treasurer, Paul Kilgore of Athens, wrote that the letter was "in production well before the decision to form an exploratory committee was reached. ... [T]here is certainly no requirement that we mention anything specifically in our letters."

--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.colliething.com   ¶ 10:10 AM 1 Comments Links to this post

  Barr finally takes some firm positions: the wrong ones Posted to colliething.org

Below are a few interesting quotes from Bob Barr from an interview published May 17. Interspersed is my commentary on some of them. Other quotes from this interview were featured on Barr's campaign site, but these ones - important to delegates still unclear about Barr's positions on the issues - were left out. I have always found Barr's writing and speaking frustratingly slippery - politician-speak, in other words. But when he does take an actual firm position, it isn't particularly Libertarian.

Barr on marriage:
I do not wholeheartedly embrace the notion, for example, though, that the government cannot define any social relationship. Some libertarians believe rather strongly that the government should not even define marriage -- even the state government. I have no problem with the people of a state defining a relationship known as marriage. I believe that ought to be up to the states, not the federal government. That would be an example of where there would be a difference in degree to which we would apply the fundamental libertarian philosophy of maximized individual liberty and minimized government power.

Susan:
The first four sentences in the passage above are clearly antilibertarian, and Barr finally makes it painfully obvious that the issue of "states' rights" is more important to him than libertarianism as a candidate. Many Libs do support the devolution of federal power to the states as a step in the direction of individual liberty, but Barr makes it clear here that he is interested in states, not individuals themselves, having the power over an individual's choices.

The last sentence is purely bizarre for a candidate looking for a political party's nomination. What Barr seems to me to be saying is that he is only willing to "apply the fundamental libertarian philosophy" to a limited degree.

Barr on differences between himself and Ron Paul:
I'm sure there are differences, but I'll leave that up to other folks to make the comparison.

Barr on Afghanistan vs Iraq:
I think there are differences. I'm not an isolationist. If we have evidence that a nation or a nongovernmental entity has been engaged in acts that pose a clear and present threat to the United States or to our forces, we have every right, defensively, to take action to remove that threat, to neutralize that threat. That may very well have been the case in Afghanistan. But that is certainly not the case for a continued massive presence in Afghanistan.

Susan:
I am delighted to hear Barr say that at least a 'massive' presence in Afghanistan is unwarranted. However, as with his Iraq comments, I find no evidence that he is committed to getting the U.S. government out of Afghanistan, only declaring that the U.S. should reduce levels of involvement. But I am disappointed - though hardly surprised - that Barr confuses noninterventionism with isolationism. The idea that the U.S. has the right to invade and take over another country because some criminals who are targeting the U.S. live there is one step away from Bush's pre-emption doctrine.

Barr on the War on Drug Users:
I do not think that the American people are ready to embrace the notion that there ought to be across-the board legalization of drugs.

Susan:
I do not think that Bob Barr is ready to embrace the notion that there ought to be across-the-board legalization of drugs. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Libertarian Party does have this 'notion'. I understand that a candidate may not hew 100% to the platform or party line, but Barr's deviations represent, to me, fundamental and significant philosophical differences rather than strategic calculations. Barr wants to advance his notion of conservatism, not the LP's notion of libertarianism.
  ¶ 4:48 PM 1 Comments Links to this post

  Bob Barr: "Republicans ought to embrace my effort because ... we're going to be pulling people out to ... vote for Republican candidates" Posted at colliething

This 30-second audio clip is from an interview Bob Barr gave to Keith Larson on WBT in Charlotte, NC on Tuesday the 13th, the day after he announced he was running for the LP presidential nomination. Here's the full link for those reading text-only mode:

http://colliething.com/barr/barr_larson_wbt_13may08_clip.mp3

The relevant part of the 30-second clip is the following quote:

"... so in a sense, the Republicans ought to embrace my effort, because we're going to be pulling people out to vote who otherwise wouldn't be voting and some of them might vote for Republican candidates on the down-ballot."

The entire interview can be found on iTunes in Keith Larson's collection - it's the Tuesday 10AM segment, and the interview (which lasts about ten minutes) is right after the 10AM news break. Nowhere in the interview does Barr mention supporting downticket Libertarian candidates. This is an embarrassing gaffe on his part, but not surprising in light of his continuing support for Republican candidates (through his leadership PAC) while serving as a regional representative on the Libertarian National Committee. Apparently Mr. Barr sees his candidacy more about 'conservative values' and bringing Republicans out to vote Republican than he does about seeing it as a building mechanism for the Libertarian Party.
  ¶ 7:59 AM 2 Comments Links to this post

  Open Letter to Bob Barr: Some Questions Open Letter to Bob Barr: Some Questions

Mr. Barr,

Thank you for joining the Libertarian Party in our efforts to bring greater freedom to Americans. In light of the very short time between your campaign announcement and the national convention, your antilibertarian congressional record and disinclination to fully repudiate it, and your refusal to answer a single email from me while you were serving as my regional representative on the Libertarian National Committee over the past year, I thought that I would circulate my questions to you publicly, in the hopes that someone, somewhere, will get some straightforward answers from you. To others reading this open letter -- I hope that you will take whatever opportunity is afforded you to ask at least one or two of these questions of Mr. Barr. No candidate should garner our nomination without having satisfied the majority of delegates that he will steadfastly champion both the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message.

I've separated my questions into categories.

Support for the Libertarian Party and the libertarian message:

1. Why has the leadership PAC bearing your name continued to raise and distribute funds to support Republican congressional candidates in districts where a Libertarian either is or could be running even after you joined the LP's governing board? Do you not consider recruiting and supporting Libertarian candidates to be an essential part of the LP leadership's mission? Will your leadership PAC continue to support Republicans if you are selected as the LP's presidential nominee?
2. In a radio interview in Charlotte, NC this week, you indicated that Republicans should support you because your candidacy will bring out voters who are dejected by McCain, and will now vote for Republican candidates down-ballot. What will you do to promote Libertarian Party candidates down-ballot?
3. You have said that there are parts of the LP's platform that you disagree with. Can you be specific? What parts of the LP's platform do you agree with?
4. Why have you consistently sold yourself in interviews as 'conservative' rather than 'libertarian'? Do you think that 'libertarian' and 'conservative' are the same thing?

Questions about some of your antilibertarian votes in congress:

1. PATRIOT Act - you voted 'for' the Act. Would you vote the same way again? Do you think it was a mistake to trust the sunset provisions?
2. Do you still support an anti-flag-desecration amendment to the constitution? How does this tie in with your ideas of federalism? How does it support individual liberty?
   
3. DOMA - you have indicated that DOMA was an exercise in federalism (devolving power to the states), but this does not explain the part of DOMA that defines marriage federally as man-woman only. Do you stand by this definition? In your state, would you support a government definition of marriage as man-woman only?
4. You voted for the Medicare Part D prescription drug boondoggle while in congress. Do you stand by this vote, or repudiate it?

Explanation for some of your current seemingly antilibertarian positions:

1. You talk about reducing U.S. military bases overseas, but not necessarily closing them. How many foreign countries do you think the U.S. needs to have military personnel in?
2. Would you support an immediate end to the Afghanistan occupation? How long, as President, would you tolerate U.S. troops continuing to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?
3. You have made some welcome movement toward the idea of legalizing medical marijuana in a few cases, and have pointed to the Drug War as an issue where there should be greater state control. Aside from the federalism issue, do you support prohibition of marijuana (for any use) at the state level? Would you stand with Libertarian state-level candidates as a champion of ending prohibition?
4. You have indicated that you support the idea of federal government resources being routed to South America to support governments that are allies of the U.S. government's Drug War. Why would you support this sort of interventionism in the name of prohibition abroad? How does this tie in with your idea of federalism?
5. You have indicated that you support the idea of economic sanctions against Iran as a sort of diplomacy. Sanctions strengthen dictatorships and punish citizens of both nations. Why would you support this sort of interventionism abroad and at home?
6. Why do you support instituting an entirely new FEDERAL tax on Americans (national sales tax)? Is this the type of 'federalism' (or devolution of government power to the states) we can expect from you (i.e. a federalism of convenience)?
7. You wrote " Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer." Most terrorists, criminals, and freeloaders do not declare themselves as such at the border. How do you propose to separate the vast majority of people who want to come to the U.S. to labor honestly from these undesirables? Do you favor open immigration for all people who wish to come to the U.S. and who are not terrorists, criminals, or freeloaders?

  ¶ 8:59 AM 2 Comments Links to this post

  Different sort of hell Regarding the pic I posted the other day, there is now this note about it on the original website. (Thanks, GP, for the pointer)

NOTE: The Robert L. Capp collection at the Hoover Institution Archives at Stanford University  contains ten photographs purportedly showing the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing. Mr. Capp was assigned to the occupation forces outside Hiroshima after World War II. According to to Mr. Capp's oral history (available along with the photographs in the Robert L. Capp collection), he found these photos among rolls of undeveloped film in a cave outside of Hiroshima. Since making these photographs publicly available, I have received reliable proof that at least two of these photos are actually of the 1923 Kanto earthquake. While I cannot speak for the entire collection, this evidence raises doubts about all of the photos and raises the strong possibility that the identification provided by the Hoover Archives is incorrect. I take full responsibility for my own failure to take additional steps to verify that the original archival designation was correct. I have removed the photographs until and unless their source can be verified by further research.
  ¶ 1:24 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  A photograph of hell

From

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/smalloy/atomic_tragedy/photos.html

The Robert L. Capp collection at the Hoover Institution Archives  contains ten never-before-published photographs illustrating the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing. These photographs, taken by an unknown Japanese photographer, were found in 1945 among rolls of undeveloped film in a cave outside Hiroshima by U.S. serviceman Robert L. Capp, who was attached to the occupation forces. Unlike most photos of the Hiroshima bombing, these dramatically convey the human as well as material destruction unleashed by the atomic bomb. Mr. Capp donated them to the Hoover Archives in 1998 with the provision that they not be reproduced until 2008. Three of these photographs are reproduced in Atomic Tragedy with the permission of the Capp family. Now that the restriction is no longer in force, the entire set is available below. Please contact Sean L. Malloy (smalloy@ucmerced.edu) if you have any information that might help identify the original photographer.
  ¶ 9:21 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  Bobar 4 pres

Since there seems to be something of a Photoshop/political lampooning funfest happening at TPW I thought I'd get in on the fun.

While researching Babar for this cartoon, I found layers of meaning way beyond the obvious elephant-in-the-LP connection. A WP contributor writes of the Babar stories that "Underneath they could be seen as a justification for colonialism, with the benefits of French civilisation being visited on the rustic African elephant kingdom. Some writers ... have argued that, although superficially delightful, the stories are politically and morally offensive."

Thanks to Morey Straus for the idea!

  ¶ 1:05 PM 2 Comments Links to this post

  LP Convention Keynote speaker The LP Convention's Keynote speaker was slated to be Bob Barr. But as
Barr is now a candidate (more-or-less), the slot was given to Richard
Viguerie. David Nolan is calling for this to be changed to a
*Libertarian* speaker, and I agree.

The idea of a keynote is that it sets the tone for the convention:

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

"At political or industrial conventions and expositions and at
academic conferences, the keynote address or keynote speech is
delivered to set the underlying tone and summarize the core message or
most important revelation of the event."

If the 'tone' of our convention is Viguerie, it will be Republican
conservativism rather than libertarianism:

His website:

http://conservativehq.com/home

If he wants to give a fundraising seminar, great. But NOT a keynote
speech. Besides the debate and post-nom candidate speech, the Keynote
is the address most likely to be picked up and quoted by the press.
Ouch.

I echo David Nolan's call to LPers to *call* Bill Redpath - and your
LNC rep - and BEG them to have a *Libertarian* - not a *Republican
Conservative* - set the tone at the Libertarian Party Convention.

--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.lpradicals.org

  ¶ 9:15 AM 0 Comments Links to this post