Comments:Plans set in motion for the removal of Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party's U.S. presidential nominee

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


I strongly urge the LP with the utmost urgency to recind the nomination of Bob Barr. He did immeasurable damage to the LP and the cause of liberty by refusing to appear with Dr. Paul and then by his subsequent press conference, interviews and letter to Dr. Paul "inviting" him to take the VP slot on the LP ticket. This guy is NOT a Libertarian in principle. Even if he talks the talk, he does NOT walk the walk. —21:57, September 12, 2008 Shellah (Talk | contribs)

I don't see what the big deal is. So he doesn't want to be seen as part of an amorphous "3rd party" made up of many parties which don't at all share the same views. What's the controversy? That he's over-confident that he can do well on his own? BOB BARR DOESNT CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF BOB BARR YOU HIPPIES! -- 12:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Anyone who has been following this in detail knows that the Ron Paul staff has been taken over by supporters of "bibleboy" Baldwin, who instead of campaigning against McCain, in on a power trip to defeat Barr. That coupled with many who do not want to see the Republicans or McCain lose have made knocking out Barr their number one priority. Barr is actually gaining strength within the LP ranks from people that originally opposed his nomination as they are now seeing how he is being targeted. I predict two things, one to see these attacks continue and two, for Barr to do very well this November. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

who cares what the libertarians are going to do. they do nothing but take votes from the two major parties. no one cares about bob bbar or third parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

shouldn't the title of this article be changed? They haven't been "set in motion" but only speculated.

I think he should be immediately removed. He advocated interventionism in South America against the *Narco Terrorists* as well as being ok with the bailing out of Fannie and Freddie. This guy isn't a Libertarian at all. He's a washed up, has been politician trying to diffuse the Libertarian Party's ability to affect the outcome of the duopoly that is the Repbulicrat Party. His campaign is all about him, and not about trying to bring about change in America's perception of 3rd parties. There will be a ton of pro-barr troll posts here I'm sure, just as there are on various Ron Paul forums on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you. Fephisto (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ditto! It's ALL about Barr.... how much FARTHER can you GET from the intelligent and unselfish persona of Dr. Paul???? Barr was a mistake from the gitgo.... there's still time to correct this error.... choose wisely this time!! goldenequity —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


His nomination was the final straw which led me to leave the Libertarian Party. If they truly were the "party of principal" they never would have nominated a non-libertarian as barr has always been, and despite some of his current rhetoric, has proven he always will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Bob Barr was elected as the Libertarian candidate for President, his campaign provided more positive comments and interviews in the news media, about the Libertarian Party, than all the previous Libertarian candidates.

We get positive response in our area with President BARR wave and yard signs (80 cents)

Jack Tanner —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob Barr -Libertarian?Edit

Frankly, he shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. He has the record of a neo-con: for crying out loud, Barr voted for the Patriot Act! A politician's past record is a much better indicator than his present rhetoric of what his future votes will be like. Disrepecting a former Libertarian presidential candidate should be the last straw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob Makes SenseEdit

What Bob said makes total sense. He's running as a Libertarian and his focus should be on that alone! If you dont agree with his views then vote for someone who appeals to you! Bravo, well said Bob! Remove him from the ticket?? Get real and get a life.-- —Preceding comment was added at 00:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing Bob Barr from the Libertarian Party's Presidential candidacy because he failed to attend a coalition-building publicity exercise with other third party candidates is as wrong-headed as attempting to impeach Bill Clinton because he had sex with an intern. There are plenty of other reasons to remove Barr. First and foremost, he is not a libertarian. All through his campaign he has taken positions and advocated policies which are, in fact anti-libertarian, including his support for the government's illegal foreign wars. He has celebrated massive wholesale violations of the Zero Aggression Principle which is the heart and soul of libertarianism. Remove him for that, not over a tactical disagreement you may have with him. -- L. Neil Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got to Go!Edit

Recently he made some flattering comments about Bush. Big no no.

Now, there is talk about his association with the CIA and he is nothing but a Cointel mole. Another big no no!

How he got the Libertarian nod to run from President is a mystery to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sourcing Not Great - needs updatingEdit

For example Libertarians unlikely to do anything from one of the less than reliable sources mentioned in article. Aren't there any mainstream sources on this?

Barr none!Edit

Unless Dr. Paul is going to step up and run, I say keep Barr. What other 'group focused Paul-like' choice do we have. In my town writing in Ron Paul won't even get counted. Been there, done that. Sad when you realize your vote wasn't even counted. In defense of Ron Paul. You can't blame a guy for putting his wife of 51 years first. They have put US back in the drivers seat. We just have to start steering. Delegates - Delegates - Delegates. Next time we bring two friends! Peace, Scanner Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

beating the LPEdit

I am ashamed to say that the LP membership does this every election cycle. We vote on a candidate and then spend the rest of the time trying to prove how UN-Libertarian they are. We did it to the late Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik and now Bob Barr. We don't need any other parties to run against; we're too busy beating ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and Gary Johnson, there might be debate amongst libertarians as to whether they were "libertarian enough," but at least it's clear they were libertarian.  They didn't say things to the media that would embarrass libertarians, unlike Barr who told Hannity that it would be crazy to end the war on drugs at the state or local level.  Source.  This statement obviously hurt our local- and state-level candidates by misrepresenting them nationally.  allixpeeke (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parasite withinEdit

The only way to beat the two headed monster of the two party system is to beat that monster. Since Plurality victory voting creates that monster, IRV and other reforms are critical. All third parties are united in wanting those reforms. Cooperation is essential. Tactically, idealogical bickering is worthless, and since that seems to be Bob Barr's mode, he is worthless too.

Dump him. Dump him now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]