Former congressman announces for president

This won't have any impact. Any idiot stupid enough to actually vote for Bob Barr wouldn't have voted for McCain anyway.

Real Libertarians say there is one best time to end the war on Iraq.

Already. For more ChooseGeorge.Org

Dan, actually anyone that's stupid enough to vote for McCain would probably be stupid enough to vote for Bob Barr.

McCain supports big government, big government spending, big government spying on Americans. I am one Republican who will gladly vote for Bob Barr!

Any idiot stupid enough to actually vote for Bob Barr wouldn't have voted for McCain anyway.

Apparently not universally true, for I am such an "idiot," and I would have held my nose and voted McCain were it not for Barr now running.

In the long run 3rd parties have tremendous impact as they grow larger. The larger parties have to either co-opt their ideas (which is exactly what they were hoping for), or give up their influence.

The larger parties don't stand for anything in particular, they stand for whatever they need to stand for, to build a constiuency that garners a majority of votes.

Libertarians are neither republican or democrat, they are Libertarian. I would never have voted Republican in the general election. But whether there will be more Libertarians this year, or less, will entirely depend upon whether Republicans adopt LIbertarian ideas, or leave the Libertarian Party a monopoly on that franchise.

I SAY VOTE "NONE OF THE ABOVE AND IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE TRYING TO KEP HIS/HER SEAT VOTE FOR THE OTHER GUY. FIRE THEM ALL AND START OVER." THIS MAY SOUND A LITTLE CRAZY BUT IT'S NO CRAZIER THAN THINKING THAT ANY OF THIS YEARS CANIDATES WILL MAKE ANY KIND OF REAL CHANGE. THEY KEEP SAYING I'M FOR CHANGE, BUT, WHAT GOOD IS CHANGE IF IT'S FOR THE WORSE!!!!

Huh. I'm a Democrat (ex-Richardson supporter), who was definitely going to vote for Obama in the fall. I'd rather have a tax-and-spend Liberal than a borrow-and-spend Conservative in the White House.

But you know, if Bob Barr looks like he has a decent chance of winning....

I expect almost everybody who supported Ron Paul, and a good number who supported Huckabee, to vote for Barr. Obama is win-win for Republicans: if he does well, he makes the country stronger. If he does badly, he'll make the Republican Party stronger. But McCain, if he won, would finish off the Republican Party the way the GW started: by having economic policies that would make even the Liberals scream "you're spending too much"! McCain's solution to everything is to spend more money: Health Care, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ethanol, Alternative Energy, it's just spending more and more and more.

No wonder Bob Barr quit the party.

If you're a Republican, and you want your party to be economically conservative, the worst thing you can possibly do is vote for McCain. A vote for McCain is a vote for high deficits. A vote for Obama is, well, a vote for the Democrats. But a vote for Bob Barr is a clear vote in favor of controlling spending.

Well, I am NOT an idiot. I've been disgusted with the Democrats for decades. While I've consistently voted GOP for the past 30 years, I will NOT be voting GOP for POTUS and VPOTUS this time around either. Whether or not I decide to still vote GOP in down-ballot contests depends on just how arrogant the GOP continues to be.

The national GOP party "leadership" (and I use that term VERY loosely) working with state party chairs deliberately facilitated a heavily front-loaded primary season this time with "winnner take all" northeastern states in the early running. They were determined to have a Rockefeller-style Republican (i.e., conservative on fiscal matters, but little else -- in other words, a RINO) as the nominee. They wrongly assumed that being the "lite beer" version of the opposition was what it would take to be victorious.

They knew that such a scenario would heavily favor that brand of "Republican" because it would not leave an adequate amount of time for the roughly two-thirds of the party that voted for someone other than Giuliani or McCain through "Tsunami Tuesday" to coalesce around a true conservative as the alternative. They probably originally thought that their heavily front-loaded primary season would get them Giuliani, but it got them McCain instead. Now they're stuck with him -- by default.

Over the past ten years the height of arrogance exhibited by the national GOP party "leadership" has quite frankly been astounding and appalling. They have wantonly squandered the legacy left by Ronald Reagan and the Gingrich-led revolution of 1994. They have abandoned the conservative principles of limited government. Now, with the nomination of King of the RINOS John McCain -- a man who has repeatedly displayed contempt for the U.S. Constitution (see McCain-Feingold and the Gang of 14 fiascos) -- they have deliberately turned their backs on not only social conservatives, but on constitutional conservatives as well.

This was not only foolish, it was downright stupid. In an era of razor-close elections (see 2000 and 2004), the GOP cannot afford to hemorrhage any votes from the party base, but they have gambled that this won't happen in the general election. They have rolled the dice that enough of us will hold our noses and support McCain and that he'll get enough of those mythical "swing voters." What if he doesn't? What profiteth an arrogant politician if he gaineth a few mythical swing votes but loseth his base? If the 2008 general election is as close or closer than were the 2000 and 2004 elections, then all it could take to sink McCain would be the loss of a few thousand disgruntled conservatives in a few so-called "swing" states. That's one heckuva gamble to take.

This kind of arrogance cost the GOP their majorities in the House and Senate in 2006. It may very well cost them the White House this Fall. There will be no more opportunities to appoint constitutional constructionist jurists to the federal bench as a result of this level of arrogance and stupidity.

Even if McCain does somehow miraculously manage to squeak out a win by the skin of this teeth, there will still be no more conservative judges appointed to the federal bench for the foreseeable future. McCain will not nominate conservative judges no matter what he may say now. With a Democrat we would get another Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court; with McCain we'd get another John Paul Stevens or David Souter. McCain would simply cut deals with Leahy and Schumer like he always has. That's his modus operandi. He is "Democrat-Lite." Thus, there would be no significant difference between a McCain administration and a Democrat administration as far as nominations to the judicial branch are concerned.

So, yes, I am thoroughly and completely disgusted with both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. A pox on both of their houses! If Bob Barr wins the Libertarian Party nomination, then I will most definitely and most happily vote for him and his running mate for POTUS and VPOTUS respectively. Whether or not I decide to still vote GOP in the down-ballot contests this Fall will largely depend on just how much the GOP continues to piss me off between now and then.

After 30 years of voting GOP, donating funds when I could afford it, and volunteering my time to assist Republican candidates, I feel that I have every right to be furious and disgusted that the one guy who I absolutely cannot support under any circumstances wound up as the GOP nominee. I haven't yet changed my party affiliation from Republican to Libertarian, but at this point I am seriously considering it. I'm fed up.

Mitch Hiers
Constitutional Conservative
Moultrie, Georgia
May 12th, 2008

THANK YOU.... GOOD LUCK...

Bob Barr has a long career in government where he consistently displayed his bad judgment and a colossal ego. I guess he wants to see if he can victimize the American public one last time.

I'm a 53yr old Ron Paul Supporter from California.

I will still vote for Ron Paul!!!!..

Brokered Convention in St. Paul 2008!!!!

If Barr is opposed to immediate withdrawal from Iraq, then he is definitely unfit to be the nominee of the Libertarian Party. A party called the Libertarian Party should obviously nominate a libertarian and the most basic definition of a libertarian is somebody who is opposed to the initiation of force. So, somebody who opposes an immediate and complete withdrawal of the troops occupying Iraq cannot even remotely claim to be libertarian. I cannot vote for Obama because of his insufficiently anti-war and pro-civil liberties positions (his unwillingness to condemn the Bush-McCain-Clinton lies about Iran having WMDs, his support for the continued existence of the Department of Homeland Security, and his support for "National Service"), so I won't be able to vote for Barr either.

I once thought Barr was a lock for the nomination, but he has failed to distance himself from some of the awful things he did in Congress (although he claims he's opposed to the War on Drugs, he admitted on Hannity and Colmes recently that he is in favor of state drug laws and he still hasn't apologized to that religious group he persecuted back in 1999).

I hope the LP nominates a truly anti-war candidate, but if not I'll vote for Nader even though I don't agree with his economic views. Obama should beat McWarmonger in a landslide so I don't really see any reason not to vote 3rd party this (and a strong performance by a genuine Libertarian and/or Nader might encourage Obama to come out against the War on Drugs and come out more strongly anti-war).

Regarding Bob Barr, he's not exactly a shoe-in yet for the LP nomination despite his high name recognition. Ex-Democrat Mike Gravel recently joined the race as well as Las Vegas sports handicapper, Wayne Root, and several long-time LP stalwarts such as George Phillies, Steve Kubby, and Mary Ruwart. I would definitely give the edge to Bob Barr at this point, but he will face some serious objections at the upcoming LP national convention from many who will contend that he's not consistently libertarian enough (the same objections will be made of Mike Gravel, BTW).

To appease Libertarian critics, Barr openly admitted that he regretted voting for the Patriot Act. Since 2002 he has worked as a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project, a cannabis policy reform group, and in 2004 he testified before Congress against an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Many of Barr’s views would not appeal to Republicans, political experts say.

I can dig a cat like Bob, that sees the folly of his ways and actually tries to fix some of the problems he made. I'd rather have a Barr in the Whitehouse than a McCain Jivetalk Express bus on blocks in my front yard.

I was going to vote for Bob Barr, right up until the Constitution Party nominated a much better candidate being Chuck Baldwin. http://www.baldwin2008.com

The choices that the Republicans and Democrats have given the American electorate is very dismal. Hillary Clinton promises to move this country to the left and a new Clinton administration would be just as corrupt and scandal-laden as the first Clinton administration. Barack Obama embraces liberation theology which is Marxist-Leninist to the core. He is also an elitist, out of touch with the American mainstream. Senator John McCain, even though he is a Republican, is part of the Neo-Con wing of that party, which has more in common with the liberals than the activist conservative base of the Republican Party. I am a former Republican who is very disappointed with the corruption and total lack of vision and leadership in the Republican Party. I am leaving all my options open for the Novermber elections. If Bob Barr can make his case to the American people and tne news media doesn't black him out, he has just as much of a right to make his case to the American people just like the Republicans and Democrats.

The choices that the Republicans and Democrats have given the American electorate is very dismal. Hillary Clinton promises to move this country to the left and a new Clinton administration would be just as corrupt and scandal-laden as the first Clinton administration. Barack Obama embraces liberation theology which is Marxist-Leninist to the core. He is also an elitist, out of touch with the American mainstream. Senator John McCain, even though he is a Republican, is part of the Neo-Con wing of that party, which has more in common with the liberals than the activist conservative base of the Republican Party. I am a former Republican who is very disappointed with the corruption and total lack of vision and leadership in the Republican Party. I am leaving all my options open for the Novermber elections. If Bob Barr can make his case to the American people and tne news media doesn't black him out, he has just as much of a right to make his case to the American people just like the Republicans and Democrats.