Barr wins Libertarian nomination

The Libertarian Party's national convention is in Denver this weekend, and today Bob Barr was nominated for president on the sixth ballot:

Rep. Bob Barr has won the Libertarian Party's nomination on the sixth ballot at the LP convention, with 324 votes to 276 for Mary Ruwart.

The ex-Republican from Georgia won the nomination after a tough battle that one of his supporters called a "dog fight." Ruwart, a longtime LP activist, was the favorite of the party's more radical or "purist" faction. ... Barr and Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root split the "pragmatic" vote in the early rounds of voting, but when Root was eliminated on the fifth ballot, he endorsed Barr and declared his [intention] to be the party's vice-presidential candidate, a nomination [that] will be decided in a separate vote later today. ...

Barr's assistant, Jennifer Chambrin, was skipping along the sidewalk of 16th Street outside the Sheraton: "We won! We won! We won!" Inside the convention hall, she hugged Barr publicist Audrey Mullen, who then said, "Oh my God, we've got so much work to do now."

More here and here. (Hat tip: InstaPundit, who says, "I predict he'll outperform Michael Badnarik.")

P.S. There were several write-in votes for Ron Paul on the first ballot. Meanwhile, Mike Gravel made it to the fourth ballot, but was eliminated at that point with just 76 out of 629 votes, thus vindicating Sean's argument that "we're not a repository for crazy people, we're a political party with a specific political platform!"

P.P.S. On the other hand... in that same comment, Sean -- the Irish Trojan Blog's resident Libertarian -- described Mary Ruwart as "that idiot woman who wants to decriminalize kiddie porn." He's right. Specifically, Ruwart has been quoted as saying, "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess." And yet Ruwart received 46 percent of the vote on the final ballot. Hmm. A repository for crazy people? Maybe!

But hey, she's not the nominee; Barr is. And that raises some questions:

1) Does he make Georgia a swing state? I don't know how popular Barr is in his home state, but if he's well-known and well-liked there, is it conceivable that he could draw enough votes from McCain to make the race between Obama and McCain competitive in the Peach State, given the unprecedented African-American turnout that Obama will presumably inspire? (Georgia is 29 percent black.)

2) Does he raise Obama's "ceiling"? A recent Politico article pointed out that "Obama has long been thought by analysts to have a higher electoral vote ceiling as well as a lower floor than Hillary Clinton. " The article's focus was on that "lower floor," but I wonder if Barr could help rehabilitate his "higher ceiling." The logic underlying the notion of that "higher ceiling" is that Obama can compete in solid red states in the West, and maybe the South. That concept has largely faded from the public and media consciousness as the bruising campaign against Hillary Clinton has robbed Obama of the "post-partisan" sheen he had after Iowa. But it seems to me that Barr's opposition to the war, defense of civil liberties, and hard-line stances on immigration and government spending could hurt McCain most severely in precisely those western and southern red states. Might it open the door just wide enough for a resurgent Obama to pull some upsets?

3) Does he increase the likelihood of a clear-cut popular/electoral vote inversion? This is something I first mentioned last month, and I'm hearing more and more talk about it: the possibility of Obama winning a clear victory in the popular vote but losing the electoral vote by a clear, undisputed margin, creating the first "pure" inversion since 1888. The main reason this could happen is because Obama will likely narrow the gap in those same southern and western states that we were just talking about, but won't win them, and meanwhile he could suffer narrow defeats in a bunch of Rust Belt swing states. Well, for the same reasons stated above, Barr's candidacy makes it more likely Obama will narrow the gap in the South and West, while doing little to help Obama in the Rust Belt. So I think the answer to this question is clearly yes: Barr makes the popular/electoral inversion more likely.

4) Will Lou Dobbs pay attention to him? Of course, before Barr can have any appreciable impact on the race -- whether it involves throwing whole states to Obama (scenarios #1 and #2) or just narrowing the gap in solid red states and thus affecting only the popular vote tally (scenario #3) -- he needs to have some sort of media footprint, so that people are aware that he's running. That's where the right-wing and/or anti-illegal-immigration TV and radio talking heads come in. Will Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, etc., give his campaign any serious attention, particularly because of his stance on immigration? This is a crucial question, methinks. McCain is certainly vulnerable to an attack from his right on that issue. Is Barr the man to do it? We shall see.

P.P.P.S. But cf., "nobody likes Bob Barr."

Comments

[ndlaw2006]

The ND connection -- his daughter Meg is an '06 Domer.

[Joe Loy]

I watched the Convention live on CSPAN Sunday. Through all 6 presidential ballots. No, really, I Did :). It was Great. Hugely enjoyable ~ and, Dramatic! (I kept looking for Sean in the CT delegation. To no Avail. :)

Since Great minds Giggle alike, I thoroughly agree with your linked liveblogger David Weigel who posted ~

11:48: [Mike] Gravel's giving a hell of a speech, but I have to love the line "the American people are smarter than their leaders: They just don't know it yet!" HEE HEE HEE :}

My Take: the Libertarians are Sharply divided. The left-libertarian "Purists" are VERY distrustful of ex(?)-Neocon Bob Barr, whose past CIA service, support (and personal Prosecution) of the War on Drugs, and support for the Patriot Act is anathema to them. This is why their Most-favored contender, Mary Ruwet, rose from 152 votes on the multi-candidate First ballot to 276 (46%) on the winnowed-down two-person sixth-&-Last.

"Will Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, etc., give [Barr's] campaign any serious attention, particularly because of his stance on immigration? This is a crucial question, methinks. McCain is certainly vulnerable to an attack from his right on that issue. Is Barr the man to do it? "

Well now, I dunno. / Barr has been busily proclaiming his relatively-newfound Fealty to the principles of Libertarianism. Of course the LP adopted a 2008 Platform at this convention, the text of which I haven't yet found online, it being presumably Too Soon for that. / But FWIW, here's what their 2006 Platform said on the issue, emphases Mine, and if the '08 Nominee is now more-or-less in line with the general Concept, I do wonder just what Dobbs & Co might Make of all the Nuance, here:

IV.1 Immigration

The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

Barr's own campaign website, after quoting the first paragraph (0nly) of the above (the one entitled "The Issue"), provides the following further Illumination, emphases again added:

Resolving this issue will be a challenge for America as it means that we must be aggressive in securing our borders while at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity.

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.

So, will Dobbs rush to the ramparts to do glorious battle beneath Those bold banners? ;} Time will Tell, I'm sure :>.

[Jim]

I'm still not entirely clear how Barr is a Libertarian, but oh well.

[Mike's brother Matt]

Barr's not a libertarian, by any sane use of the word. The Libertarian Party's problem is that they're a big enough target to be worthwhile, while small enough that random groups of crazies can flood them and hijack a convention. More generally, people who are libertarian, and the membership of the Libertarian Party aren't even remotely the same thing. So you find people who agree much more with the Libertarian Party's ideals than the ideals of their own party amongst the Democrats and Republicans, while the Libertarian party gets people, and in this case a nominee, who are at odds with the Libertarian Party's previously stated ideals. For the record, I in no way believe Barr to actually be a libertarian. I think he's a whack job who flooded the convention to run a campaign of personal vengeance against McCain and the Republican Party as a whole. Also, I do try to keep up a distinction between libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. I'm for the most part the former, but I'm not going to go to battle too much for a party that ends up with a nomination battle between these two lunatics.

[Youngblai]

I find myself wondering what the next crazy wrinkle of this campaign will be. Just when it seemed like the Dems were going to implode and perhaps give McCain a chance, now we have someone who the right hand side of the GOP may rally around. _Especially_ given McCain's recent idiocy on immigration. (Note: I'm not saying Barr is better, I'm just saying McCain has ticked off enough people that they might vote Barr in protest given the latter's previous stances on social issues.)

I've long thought that the Libertarian Party's leadership seems to be rather unserious about running a party. The fact that they can be "hijacked" tends to lend credence to this notion. To me, Barr getting the nomination is the equivalent of Joe Lieberman showing up in Denver and walking away with the Dem nod. While I have long hoped that the Libertarians would sneak in and do mortal damage to a GOPer, things would have been much better for that party and the nation if the individual hadn't been some crackpot transplant.

Buckle your chin strap, this is going to be an interesting election.

[Jay Johnson]

Yeah, I'm probably voting for Bob Barr this November. He's much closer to my target than McCain or either Dem candidate. I'm tired of just voting for the GOP candidate every year just because "I don't want to throw my vote away."

[Alasdair]

Hmmmmm ... was that Jay Johnson being sarcastic, or Sandy Underpants trying to be subtle ?

[Sean]

Barr's pro-DOMA, too. It's strange talking to some "libertarians." They talk a good talk about the global fuzzy of freedom, but then you press them and they want more and more regulation for this and that and the other thing. They don't like immigrants, they don't like gays, war sure is great, what's the problem with torture, we need socialized medicine, and it really wouldn't be that bad if the government ran the media. (Yes, the last two are shots at Bill Maher and Glenn Reynolds, respectively.)

I have to imagine some of the other nominees were better than Barr or Ruwart. I'd have paid more attention, but the LP's convention is strangely undemocratic. There are no primaries or caucuses, just a bunch of insiders making the decision for everyone in the party. I have no idea why Libertarians are using Bolshevik tactics. Maybe they read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress too many times.

I might vote Obama.

[Brendan]

Out of curiosity, when/where did Glenn Reynolds say that "it really wouldn't be that bad if the government ran the media"?

In fairness to Barr, I think you can make a decent case for a tough line on immigration within the confines of libertarian ideology, since policing the borders of one's nation is surely one of the basic governmental functions. If you favor a more open-borders policy, that's fine, but I don't see how it's required by libertarianism. Same goes for national defense, of course, but on the subject of pre-emptive war, I can see how libertarians would generally be expected to not like that. And of course I'm with you on DOMA, civil liberties, and socialized medicine & media -- there, I would expect a libertarian to be, well, libertarian.

Of course, Barr is anti-war, and he claims to have had a conversion on DOMA, civil liberties, the drug war, and various other issues. So I guess it's a question of whether you believe he's sincere. Frankly, I kind of suspect he is; no offense, but I'm not sure the Libertarian Party nomination for president is a sufficiently attractive prize to sell your soul for. "Robert, it profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world... but for 0.7% of the vote?" :)

[Youngblai]

Sean,

I don't know which Libertarians you've been talking to, but the ones I've chatted with are actually quite the opposite of how you described them. To wit:

1.) They don't like immigrants because a sovereign nation must control who comes and goes. To me, that's pretty much a function of government--after all, an invasion that comes in dribbles is still an invasion.

2.) I've yet to meet a true libertarian who "doesn't like gays." However, they don't like the fact that the judiciary branch tends to make decisions contrary to the will of the people (see California for the most recent example). Once again, not seeing how this is contrary to libertarianism.

3.) Want more regulation? Um, no, actually most Libertarians I've met are frothing (I do mean that almost literally) mad that the amount of the budget spent on enforcing government laws has gone up something like 70% since 1950. Indeed, up until recently, that was a Libertarian party plank (at least on their website) that they were going to cut the amount of regulation in government.

4.) War sure is great? You sure you didn't make a wrong turn in the hotel hallway and end up at the neocon convention? Yes, Libertarians believe that the proper response to an attack is to utilize the nation's resources to achieve victory (i.e., kick some a**), but I seem to recall the last Lib candidate speaking out against the Iraq war and people getting all in a huff about it.

5.) In that same vein, the torture argument is specious. First off, the problem with torture most people have is allegedly we're violating treaties when we waterboard people. I'm going to leave that discussion for another day with the simple comment that some folks need to actually _read_ the Geneva Convention before they try talking out the side of their neck. That being said, the Libertarians have long complained about the "torture" issue because it's connected to the "extreme rendition" issue. Unlike the two mainstream parties, the Libs really do have a problem with government being able to snatch anyone off the street, ship them to Egypt, Pakistan, et. al, and then let the natives get inventive with a car battery, drugs, or blunt objects. (I for one have a problem with this also, regardless of what the Geneva Convention actually says about unarmed combatants.)

6.) Finally, unless I've been reading the wrong articles, the majority of Libertarians that I've met do _not_ believe in either of the two positions (on health care and news control) you ascribe to them. While I can't speak for Bill Maher (can't stand his show), I read Glenn pretty regularly and don't recall him advocating the Goebbels approach to media. Now maybe I just didn't start reading him early enough, but I think that's something that would have made me _stop_ reading him real quick.

I don't disagree with you on the Libertarian Party's methodology. However, given that the Dems are about to have their nominee decided by superdelegates, I don't think the Libs are too far outside of the mainstream on that one. Certainly not far enough to invoke the party of Lenin, anyway. (I mean, seriously, if the Libs were going Bolshevik, Barr would've been mysteriously stabbed for not having sufficient party purity.) It's all Kabuki Theater for the most part, which is how we keep ending up with "lesser evil" choices for President as opposed to men and women who have actually done something other than politics with the bulk of their lives. (Although in McCain's case getting the living sh*t kicked out of him for several years may have precluded that.)

[Brendan]

Youngblai, just to clarify, Sean is himself a Libertarian, or at least closely aligned with the LP (I forget if he's actually registered as a Libertarian). So he's not attacking Libertarians generally. Rather, I believe he is criticizing certain individuals who claim the "libertarian" mantle while supporting policies that Sean considers un-libertarian. So I think he would probably agree that "most libertarians [he's] met" are you describe; he's criticizing faux-libertarians, not actual libertarians.

But I'll shut up now and let Sean defend himself, since I'm sure I'm butchering his argument in some way. :) I just wanted to clarify the point that Sean is a libertarian, in case that wasn't clear.

[Youngblai]

Okay, sorry, I thought he was knocking Libertarians, not speaking as Noah at a seminar on floods. My bad.

[Sean]

The jab at Glenn was a post he made a long time ago about C-SPAN Baghdad, and how great it was that a government news program was saying how great the war in Iraq is, while the independent press tell another story. Seems to me a libertarian would start to wonder why the government-funded media and only the government-funded media said the government was right.