This was definitely troubling, so it’s good to see that some real action was taken after the report was revealed.

From McClatchy:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Highway Patrol this week retracted a controversial report on militia activity and will change how such reports are reviewed before being distributed to law enforcement agencies.

The Highway Patrol also will open an investigation into the origin of the report, which linked conservative groups with domestic terrorism and named former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

The Lt. Gov has also suggested that the Director of Public Safety be put on leave pending an investigation into how the report came about. I think that’s harsh, because there probably are some ties between 3rd party supporters and militia members, but the big thing here was the profiling based on bumper stickers. That was just a lazy move and the DoPS should have known better.

However, 3rd party supporters should take note at how quickly this was reversed once it was discovered. In other words, try not to fall into the trap of thinking this is part of a conspiracy. We’re still a nation of checks and balances, and this situation demonstrates that.

Still, I think somebody should keep an eye on the guy who put all those stickers on his car in the picture above. :-)

I’m just saying…

“In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, “Decisions about marriage should be left to the states.” He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions.”
- Bob Barr today arguing against the Defense of Marriage Act in an LA Times editorial

I think Barr could make a big difference in Georgia and other traditional red states like North Carolina, Indiana, Florida and Ohio.

Here’s why…

Reports show 1 million Democrats have early voted in North Carolina, compared to half a million Republicans. 1.4 million people have early voted in Georgia, and African American is around 33%. And in Florida, the African American and elderly vote is having a big effect as 1.4 million votes have been cast, 54% by Democrats and 30% by Republicans. That’s significant because Dems only make up 42% of registered voters and Repubs make up 36%.

Long story short, McCain needs all the help he can get and if Barr can siphon off just 2% of the vote in these states, he’ll most likely be taking votes away from McCain and could possibly usher in an Obama landslide of up to 375 electoral votes.

More as it develops…

However, he could definitely siphon off crucial votes in New Hampshire and Georgia.



So, will Barr help bring about an Obama landslide?

“Senator John McCain will not win Georgia.”
- Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr

That’s certainly a bold prediction, but let’s remember that Barr represented Georgia’s 7th district from 1995 to 2003, so he may pull support from fiscal conservatives in the state.

What’s more, at least one recent poll has shown Obama up by one.

What do you think? Plausible?

“Obviously, America should encourage both countries to back down and resolve their differences peacefully,” explains Barr. But “the status of South Ossetia, as well as Abkhazia, another Russian-supported separatist zone within Georgia, matters a lot more to Russia, on which the two territories border, than to the U.S. Moreover, Washington itself set a precedent for Russia when it intervened in Kosovo a decade ago, attacking Serbia to win independence for the separatist ethnic-Albanian majority,” notes Barr.

“The purpose of alliances is to defend America,” says Barr. “We should not create or expand alliances where the U.S. does not have vital interests. If the Europeans want to defend distant countries like Georgia, they can do so—after all, the European Union has a larger population and bigger GDP than America, without any of Washington’s other global military commitments. It is time for Europe to accept responsibility for its own security.”

Obviously, I’m aligned with Barr on this issue. I don’t think getting involved in this conflict does us any good, especially when our recent past is checkered with pre-emptive conflicts that undermine our ability to speak with authority on this issue.

What do you think?

Two words: Bob Barr.

Republican strategists are privately conceding that the GOP could lose Georgia’s 15 presidential electors for the first time since 1992 because of Bob Barr’s ballot position as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

The most recent Georgia survey by the polling firm Insider Advantage, conducted July 2, shows 46 percent for Sen. John McCain, 44 percent for Sen. Barack Obama and 4 percent for Barr. George W. Bush, who carried all 11 states of the old Confederacy in both 2000 and 2004, had 58 percent of Georgia’s vote in the last election.

But can Barr realistically keep that level of support up? Actually, I think he can because we’re talking about a very small % of conservatives who simply won’t vote for McCain because he’s too aligned with Bush when it comes to fiscal and foreign policy matters. There’s a healthy number of conservatives who are really angry with the current Republican status quo, and McCain isn’t doing enough to convince them that anything will change.

So, do I think Obama has a shot at the state? No. But it’ll be close enough that McCain will have to spend money, and that has to drive the Republicans nuts.

More evidence that solidly red states aren’t nearly as solid this time around. Because while South Carolina went for Bush by 16 points in 2004, now we’re down to single digits.

Public Policy Polling shares why Obama is keeping it close…

The demographics fueling Obama’s ability to stay within striking range are the same ones that allowed him to win a dominant victory in the state’s Democratic primary. He leads 77-10 with black voters and 54-32 with voters under 30. John McCain leads within pretty much every other subgroup.

If there is a path to victory for Obama in South Carolina it includes maximizing turnout from those two groups favorable to him, and also hoping that more conservatives unhappy with John McCain will turn toward Bob Barr.

I have serious doubts that South Carolina will go blue, but, once again, if Obama can keep it close then there’s a chance that it will spread McCain even thinner come election time.

More as it develops…

This is a state that Bush took by only 1% in 2004, and barely lost in 2000.

The details…

• Hispanics for Obama and self-identified libertarians for Barr make McCain a distant second.
• Hispanics make up 30% of the sample, and they choose Obama over McCain, 59%-24%.
• Libertarians are 10% of the sample, and 64% go with Barr.
• They join 6% of conservatives who are also with Barr.
• Obama even leads McCain by 7% among white voters.

It’s hard for me to believe that McCain is this far behind, but if Barr is really almost in double digits, that would make sense.

Also, I wonder what Barr’s % is among white voters, because if that’s in double digits it would go a long way to explaining why Obama’s leading McCain with a demographic he usually doesn’t capture.

More as it develops…

But the McCain campaign is just flat-out ignoring Barr, even refusing to comment on the Libertarian. This is probably the right course of action. The Libertarian Party is no fly-by-night group and has secured ballot access for the candidate in 48 of the 50 states for every presidential election since 1988. Challenging the Libertarians would not only be a waste of money but would give publicity to Barr.

As for Barr himself, I just don’t see him being a significant threat to McCain. Other than his sanctimonious performance during the Bill Clinton impeachment and his deplorable association with racist organizations, Barr is not the kind of guy who’s spent a career in the spotlight. Is anyone getting excited about a Bob Barr candidacy?

I question why the Libertarians even nominated the guy given that he was once a major proponent of the War on Drugs, a backer of the Iraq war and a supporter of the Patriot Act. Until recently, Barr was nothing more than a rubberstamping Republican. You want to talk flip flops? Let’s talk Bob Barr. He may give the Libertarians a “known” name at the top of their ballot but anyone who buys that this guy is worth voting for is either desperate for a justifiable protest vote or is completely incognizant of Barr’s career.

McCain may have to deal with Barr more directly in the future. But, for now, ignoring him is the right choice.

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Could this really happen?

“Georgia is competitive for Obama for several reasons. First, it has a high African-American voting age population (VAP). Second, it has an unusually high percentage of younger voters (18-29). Both of these groups are more in the Obama camp, with black voters already at the 83 percent level and likely to climb.

“Equally important, like its neighbor Florida, Georgia has a high percentage of voters who consider themselves independent. Obama is carrying that critical swing vote by about 10 percent in the poll.

Also, is Barr the new Nader?

“As to the Bob Barr effect, Barr’s numbers dropped slightly overall from our poll of Georgia in March. However, he remains at a 6% level, healthy for a Libertarian. And among senior voters he receives nearly 10% of the vote.

Caveat time…a week ago Rasmussen had McCain leading by 10, so while Georgia may seem competitive, it may not be this close.

More as it develops…

He admits he was wrong and that it’s now time to call this “war” off because it’s doing far more harm than good.

From Huff Post:

For years, I served as a federal prosecutor and member of the House of Representatives defending the federal pursuit of the drug prohibition.

Today, I can reflect on my efforts and see no progress in stopping the widespread use of drugs. I’ll even argue that America’s drug problem is larger today than it was when Richard Nixon first coined the phrase, “War on Drugs,” in 1972.

America’s drug problem is only compounded by the vast amounts of money directed at this ongoing battle. In 2005, more than $12 billion dollars was spent on federal drug enforcement efforts while another $30 billion was spent to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders.

The result of spending all of those taxpayer’s dollars? We now have a huge incarceration tab for non-violent drug offenders and, at most, a 30% interception rate of hard drugs. We are also now plagued with the meth labs that are popping up like poisonous mushrooms across the country.

While it is clear the War on Drugs has been a failure, it is not enough to simply acknowledge that reality. We need to look for solutions that deal with the drug problem without costly and intrusive government agencies, and instead allow for private industry and organizations to put forward solutions that address the real problems.

Still, is this too little too late? Because what can he really do now? What’s more, Barr’s Libertarian run for President isn’t exactly setting the world on fire. And sure, it’s early, but how is he going to get this message out?

Here’s my opinion…if Barr made this THE central issue of his campaign he may be able to have a larger voice…but 3rd party candidates who are starting out late need ONE big issue. Perot had the deficit, and as a former federal prosecutor, Barr can make a very Libertarian case to end this “war”, but he needs to be absolutely dogged about it.

Will he do it? I have my doubts.

Denver — Georgia’s Bob Barr won a long and tense battle Sunday for the 2008 Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination and now faces the daunting task of doing what no third-party candidate has done: Win in November.

It took six ballots and nearly five hours of voting at the Libertarian National Convention before the former four-term congressman defeated Texas business consultant Mary Ruwart for the party’s bid.

Barr, who until 2006 was a Republican, took 54 percent of the vote after Las Vegas odds-maker Wayne Allyn Root dropped out following the fifth ballot and endorsed Barr. Delegates subsequently selected Root to be Barr’s running mate.

So, can he capture a segment of the Ron Paul supporters who want to actually vote for somebody on the ballot instead of just writing somebody in?

And more important, will Barr be McCain’s Nader? Can he strip away enough fiscal conservatives to make a difference in some key states?

Let the speculation begin in earnest…

Could he be McCain’s Nader?

From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr has announced that he’s running for president as a Libertarian.

His candidacy would be a wild card in the White House race and many believe it would hurt Republican Sen. John McCain.

Barr made the announcement Monday at a news conference. He first must win the Libertarian nomination at the party’s national convention that begins May 22. Party officials consider him a front-runner thanks to the national profile he developed as a Georgia congressman from 1995 to 2003.

And apparently the GOP has been talking to Barr about not running.

Today’s news means he apparently didn’t listen…

Former Rep. Bob Barr says a number of Republicans have been trying to persuade him not to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, but none has given him a convincing reason.

The former Republican congressman from Georgia formed an exploratory committee last month and told The Washington Times that he has since been subjected to the behind-the-scenes pressure from Republicans not to run.

Mr. Barr says even people who have tried to dissuade him understand why he thinks it important to raise issues from what he calls a “genuinely conservative” perspective and to offer alternatives to the positions of the two major-party candidates.

Will Ron Paul’s supporters back him?

From CNN:

In an interview on The Situation Room, Paul told Wolf Blitzer that endorsing Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, “would really confuse” his supporters “because they know we have a precise program and we have to defend that program.”

Having a Republican win the upcoming presidential election is “secondary” for Paul who is more interested in defending the Constitution, having the country go in what he considers the right direction, having a sound currency, and achieving balanced budgets. Paul parts ways with McCain over McCain’s support for the Iraq war, his approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and his willingness to spend federal dollars to support military operations in Iraq.

Instead, Paul favors Sen. Barack Obama because of positions on foreign policy. “But that’s doesn’t mean that’s an endorsement,” Paul quickly added.

So yeah, it’s unlikely he’d ever endorse Obama. But what about Bob Barr?

Here’s the link to the interview.

From Philly.com:

Bob Barr, former GOP congressman from Georgia, is an all-but-announced presidential candidate – as a Libertarian.

The possibility of a run by Barr has sent shudders through the mainstream of the Republican party.

Barr, who will probably not declare his intentions for several days, has already been labeled a “spoiler.”

In an interview with the Inquirer, Barr dismissed those accusations as whining.

“The notion that Republicans see a third-party candidate as spoiling their chances simply illustrates the arrogance of the two-party system,” Barr said.

Republicans may have good cause to worry.

A run by Barr could be to John McCain “what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore – ruinous,” wrote George Will in Newsweek. Some party experts believe Barr could siphon off essential conservative votes from Sen. John McCain, about whom many rightward voters have been less than enthusiastic.

Then, here’s him at CPAC 2008 introducing Ron Paul, and it’s a love letter to the congressman.

Think Ron Paul will tell his supporters to get behind Bob Barr? Think those Paulites who might be considering voting for McCain could swing to Barr as a real alternative? Quite possibly