Ron Paul´s Successes, Bob Barr´s Failures
Szandor Blestman
September 15, 2008
Most of us who are paying attention know about the Ron Paul candidacy´s ability to raise money. The money bombs that catapulted him into the national spotlight for a time were strokes of genius that politicos will be talking about for years. They were, in fact, such a good idea that many other politicians decided to try them. Time and time again, they failed. This left the campaigns of those candidates promoted by the establishment and the mainstream media scratching their heads. Why weren´t the supporters of these other candidates contributing like the grassroots that had been supporting Ron Paul had? They wondered how they could get their hands on this unexpected treasure trove of the common man´s money that Ron Paul had stumbled upon. They might have felt they were missing some secret ingredient. Maybe it was Ron Paul´s libertarian ideas that were causing the people to contribute in unprecedented numbers. Or perhaps it was just a fluke and there was no real reason people were donating to Ron Paul´s campaign.
Enter Bob Barr who managed to finagle his way into becoming the Libertarian Party´s presidential candidate. Surely such as polished politician who now finds himself in possession of such a powerful message would be able to raise beaucoup money. Somehow, this hasn´t happened. Bob Barr finds himself floundering and his supporters appear to be either broke or unwilling to finance his campaign the way it should be. You will not see Bob Barr signs spontaneously appear in people´s yards. You will not see giant billboards appearing on roadsides overnight. You will not see or hear about a Bob Barr blimp donated by some enterprising young man and Bob Barr supporter. Most of all, there will be no stories of the millions raised on the Internet by the Bob Barr campaign. The common man is not getting behind Bob Barr, and one may wonder just why that is. After all, he is the Libertarian candidate, and Ron Paul espoused libertarian ideals, so shouldn´t the message carry Bob Barr? Isn´t Bob Barr´s name at least as recognizable as Ron Paul´s was when Dr. Paul first started running? Shouldn´t Ron Paul supporters now back such a man?
Let´s take a closer look at Bob Barr. One might wonder, since he managed to get the Libertarian Party´s endorsement, what the differences are between him and Ron Paul. Doesn´t he have the same libertarian message as Ron Paul? Shouldn´t the people be just as excited about him as they were about Ron Paul? Well, the short answer is no. Perhaps Bob Barr has changed his tone since coming to the Libertarian Party, and perhaps he even believes that his stances have changed, but people with a true libertarian mindset understand pandering when they hear it, unlike many starry eyed, party candidate worshippers who believe whatever the party tells them to believe. They understand insincerity when they see it and the vast majority of politicians are insincere, saying only what they think their constituents want to hear in order to gain the most votes.
Above all else, Bob Barr is still your typical politician. Anyone who may think that about Ron Paul obviously has not studied Ron Paul´s record very well. Not only that, but one most likely has not paid close attention to Dr. Paul´s answers when being questioned. It seems to me that part of the trick to being a successful politician is the ability to answer a question without answering it. This is a skill Bob Barr has become very adept at, but Ron Paul never really learned. Dr. Paul has a tendency to give straight forward, sensible answers to questions whereas Bob Barr tends to equivocate and obfuscate. For Mr. Barr, this might work against another major party opponent who also practices the fine art of meaningless babble when trying to illicit votes and support from a populace inundated with propaganda, but when trying to garner the support of those with a libertarian mindset such practices will not cut it.
Bob Barr, as a politician, is also very adept at making promises for the masses and then not keeping them. This is a skill that goes along with the equivocating and obfuscating mentioned above. Again, it is a skill that the vast majority of successful Democrats and Republicans have learned very well. The trick is to make it sound like you´re promising something, when in reality your words are meaningless leaving you free to vote in such a way as to please the major contributors to your campaign, which are most likely corporate interests rather than the common man. One has only to look at a politician´s voting record to determine this to be so. Where Ron Paul has a consistent record of voting against bills that are unconstitutional and will grow the government, Bob Barr has voted for bills that grow the government and regulate what the federal government was never meant to regulate. While Ron Paul has a record of voting against bills that criminalize personal choice Bob Barr has a record of voting for bills that violate the rights of individuals to decide for themselves what they want to spend their money on. This kind of record shows that Bob Barr, like most politicians, is more interested in making certain that his major money contributors continue to profit through government mandate rather than looking after the freedom of the individual. He claims he has changed his ways, but how is a person of a libertarian mindset supposed to trust him when his record tells a different story?
Ron Paul has a message of hope, a message of principle, and a message of individual responsibility. Bob Barr tried to cash in on Ron Paul´s recent success and popularity by claiming he had suddenly seen the light and become a believer in smaller government and individual liberty. Yet when Ron Paul asked him to join him at a news conference Bob Barr decides it is not worth his time. He has shown us time and again that he has no true principle and will change his stance if it is politically expedient to do so. This leaves his sincerity very much in doubt. This is why Bob Barr fails where Ron Paul succeeded. It is sad to note that he has probably destroyed the Libertarian Party in doing so.
Unfortunately, I know of no other third party candidate running that displays the same qualities as Ron Paul. Cynthia McKinney is principled in her beliefs and states them straight out as people should, but her beliefs revolve around some sort of social engineering that seeks to redistribute wealth through government mandate rather than allowing the free market to reward those who work hard. I admire her honesty and her good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and it should be up to a free people to decide where they want their dollars to be spent. Chuck Baldwin is also a man of good intentions who claims to be a strict constitutionalist, and yet he wants to maintain a government presence in certain areas of one´s personal life where government presence does not belong. Voting between the lesser of two evils is bad, but so is voting between the lesser of five evils. I´m tired of voting against someone and I´m going to vote for someone, for something, and if I have to write his name in, then so be it. It´s either that or perhaps I should write in "This ballot intentionally left blank." After all, if there´s no one worth voting for, than why should any of us vote at all? Why should we vote for someone to rule over us when all we really want is to rule over our own lives? Perhaps that´s just a small, insignificant protest on my part, but it´s all I have left.
Last winter I actually contributed money to Ron Paul´s campaign. It was money I really couldn´t afford to contribute, and yet I somehow felt that I couldn´t afford not to contribute. I don´t make a lot of money. This was the first time I ever contributed to a political campaign because it was the first time in my life I felt a political campaign was worth contributing to. I don´t know how many people felt the same way I did, but I know I wasn´t alone. Dr. Ron Paul´s campaign spoiled me. I don´t think I will ever again accept a politician who is unprincipled and insincere. I don´t think I will ever again accept the mediocrity the electorate seems to lean toward. For me, the bar has been raised if a politician wants my vote. I hope that many find this to be true as time moves forward and that those common folk who so desire step into the political realm with their principled stances of freedom, smaller government and personal responsibility. In this way I´d like to see honest, incorruptible men and women begin to take over the political world from the bottom up. I now demand this from those who would serve in the public realm before I will vote for them, and I hope that this attitude is soon reflected on a national level. In this way perhaps we will someday see the people take this nation back from those who have corrupted it.
Enter Bob Barr who managed to finagle his way into becoming the Libertarian Party´s presidential candidate. Surely such as polished politician who now finds himself in possession of such a powerful message would be able to raise beaucoup money. Somehow, this hasn´t happened. Bob Barr finds himself floundering and his supporters appear to be either broke or unwilling to finance his campaign the way it should be. You will not see Bob Barr signs spontaneously appear in people´s yards. You will not see giant billboards appearing on roadsides overnight. You will not see or hear about a Bob Barr blimp donated by some enterprising young man and Bob Barr supporter. Most of all, there will be no stories of the millions raised on the Internet by the Bob Barr campaign. The common man is not getting behind Bob Barr, and one may wonder just why that is. After all, he is the Libertarian candidate, and Ron Paul espoused libertarian ideals, so shouldn´t the message carry Bob Barr? Isn´t Bob Barr´s name at least as recognizable as Ron Paul´s was when Dr. Paul first started running? Shouldn´t Ron Paul supporters now back such a man?
Let´s take a closer look at Bob Barr. One might wonder, since he managed to get the Libertarian Party´s endorsement, what the differences are between him and Ron Paul. Doesn´t he have the same libertarian message as Ron Paul? Shouldn´t the people be just as excited about him as they were about Ron Paul? Well, the short answer is no. Perhaps Bob Barr has changed his tone since coming to the Libertarian Party, and perhaps he even believes that his stances have changed, but people with a true libertarian mindset understand pandering when they hear it, unlike many starry eyed, party candidate worshippers who believe whatever the party tells them to believe. They understand insincerity when they see it and the vast majority of politicians are insincere, saying only what they think their constituents want to hear in order to gain the most votes.
Above all else, Bob Barr is still your typical politician. Anyone who may think that about Ron Paul obviously has not studied Ron Paul´s record very well. Not only that, but one most likely has not paid close attention to Dr. Paul´s answers when being questioned. It seems to me that part of the trick to being a successful politician is the ability to answer a question without answering it. This is a skill Bob Barr has become very adept at, but Ron Paul never really learned. Dr. Paul has a tendency to give straight forward, sensible answers to questions whereas Bob Barr tends to equivocate and obfuscate. For Mr. Barr, this might work against another major party opponent who also practices the fine art of meaningless babble when trying to illicit votes and support from a populace inundated with propaganda, but when trying to garner the support of those with a libertarian mindset such practices will not cut it.
Bob Barr, as a politician, is also very adept at making promises for the masses and then not keeping them. This is a skill that goes along with the equivocating and obfuscating mentioned above. Again, it is a skill that the vast majority of successful Democrats and Republicans have learned very well. The trick is to make it sound like you´re promising something, when in reality your words are meaningless leaving you free to vote in such a way as to please the major contributors to your campaign, which are most likely corporate interests rather than the common man. One has only to look at a politician´s voting record to determine this to be so. Where Ron Paul has a consistent record of voting against bills that are unconstitutional and will grow the government, Bob Barr has voted for bills that grow the government and regulate what the federal government was never meant to regulate. While Ron Paul has a record of voting against bills that criminalize personal choice Bob Barr has a record of voting for bills that violate the rights of individuals to decide for themselves what they want to spend their money on. This kind of record shows that Bob Barr, like most politicians, is more interested in making certain that his major money contributors continue to profit through government mandate rather than looking after the freedom of the individual. He claims he has changed his ways, but how is a person of a libertarian mindset supposed to trust him when his record tells a different story?
Ron Paul has a message of hope, a message of principle, and a message of individual responsibility. Bob Barr tried to cash in on Ron Paul´s recent success and popularity by claiming he had suddenly seen the light and become a believer in smaller government and individual liberty. Yet when Ron Paul asked him to join him at a news conference Bob Barr decides it is not worth his time. He has shown us time and again that he has no true principle and will change his stance if it is politically expedient to do so. This leaves his sincerity very much in doubt. This is why Bob Barr fails where Ron Paul succeeded. It is sad to note that he has probably destroyed the Libertarian Party in doing so.
Unfortunately, I know of no other third party candidate running that displays the same qualities as Ron Paul. Cynthia McKinney is principled in her beliefs and states them straight out as people should, but her beliefs revolve around some sort of social engineering that seeks to redistribute wealth through government mandate rather than allowing the free market to reward those who work hard. I admire her honesty and her good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and it should be up to a free people to decide where they want their dollars to be spent. Chuck Baldwin is also a man of good intentions who claims to be a strict constitutionalist, and yet he wants to maintain a government presence in certain areas of one´s personal life where government presence does not belong. Voting between the lesser of two evils is bad, but so is voting between the lesser of five evils. I´m tired of voting against someone and I´m going to vote for someone, for something, and if I have to write his name in, then so be it. It´s either that or perhaps I should write in "This ballot intentionally left blank." After all, if there´s no one worth voting for, than why should any of us vote at all? Why should we vote for someone to rule over us when all we really want is to rule over our own lives? Perhaps that´s just a small, insignificant protest on my part, but it´s all I have left.
Last winter I actually contributed money to Ron Paul´s campaign. It was money I really couldn´t afford to contribute, and yet I somehow felt that I couldn´t afford not to contribute. I don´t make a lot of money. This was the first time I ever contributed to a political campaign because it was the first time in my life I felt a political campaign was worth contributing to. I don´t know how many people felt the same way I did, but I know I wasn´t alone. Dr. Ron Paul´s campaign spoiled me. I don´t think I will ever again accept a politician who is unprincipled and insincere. I don´t think I will ever again accept the mediocrity the electorate seems to lean toward. For me, the bar has been raised if a politician wants my vote. I hope that many find this to be true as time moves forward and that those common folk who so desire step into the political realm with their principled stances of freedom, smaller government and personal responsibility. In this way I´d like to see honest, incorruptible men and women begin to take over the political world from the bottom up. I now demand this from those who would serve in the public realm before I will vote for them, and I hope that this attitude is soon reflected on a national level. In this way perhaps we will someday see the people take this nation back from those who have corrupted it.
Print
Email
