bob barr

Cross-posted at The Electoral Map

An ongoing battle between the Nevada GOP brass and a fierce faction of Ron Paul loyalists could have major consequences in November: If the rift isn’t healed, the Paul supporters look like they’re poised to cast their ballots for a Paul as a write-in, or support Libertarian candidate Bob Barr or even throw their vote to Barack Obama out of spite for McCain.

The sour relations began at the state GOP convention when Paul supporters assembled a clear majority in the run-up to the vote to send delegates to the convention. Paul had finished in second place in the caucus, ahead of McCain, and their people thought that they should be well-represented in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

But the heads of the Nevada Republican Party, who are McCain allies, used parliamentary tactics to stall a vote and consequently ran out the clock. They decided that a state GOP committee, and not county delegates, would decide who went to the convention. The Paul people filed suit and lost, and vow to take their grievances to the Republican National Committee.

Even if they win, which appears unlikely, the damage has been done. According to this TIME article, it appears that the Paul supporters would rather vote for a ham sandwich than McCain. It’s not clear how large their faction is, but if it’s large enough to shave two or three points off of McCain’s tally in the state, it means that Obama could win Nevada’s five electoral votes with a plurality.

Bill Clinton won Nevada in 1992 with only 37 percent thanks to independent Ross Perot picking off 26 percent.

Paul and Perot share many similarities. Besides the fact that they’re both fiery Texans with bold views, they both espouse a distrust for the federal government and both command a loyal following. They also seem to win support in similar geographical areas.

If you look at the maps below of Ron Paul donations and Ross Perot performance during the 1992 campaign, Paul and Perot had their best success in Western state and in Nevada in particular.

Nevada is a tough state to analyze because so many of its voters are new transplants. But as the state grows and changes, one thing remains constant: It has a robust libertarian streak. Nevada’s DNA is rooted in libertarianism, from the anti-government and pro-gun lifestyle of the range to the prostitution, gambling and hedonism of Las Vegas.

This is prime Paul territory, and those Paul supporter will vote. The question, For who?

Ron Paul Donation in 2008 Q4

Ross Perot Performance in 1992

Bob Barr is changing yet another policy position in order to run for President.
 

Bob Barr's marriage of convenience to the Libertarian Party gained him the group's nomination for president and prompted the former Republican congressman to declare he will work to repeal one of his biggest legislative victories, the Defense of Marriage Act.

In his speech accepting the little party's nomination in Denver last weekend, Barr roundly denounced the law he once championed.

Barr was the sponsor of the 1996 act that (1) says no state is required to give effect to or recognize a same-sex union law of another state, and (2) defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and declares "the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Barr's reversal marks the repudiation of key conservative "family values" positions he once embraced. He also now favors legalizing "medical marijuana," and his new party's platform calls for repeal "of all laws creating 'crimes' without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes." He also opposes the 2001 Patriot Act he originally supported to expand intelligence-gathering powers in fighting terrorism.

Before the convention, Barr declared support for the California Supreme Court's mid-May decision striking down state laws banning same-sex marriages.

 

The War on Drugs, The Patriot Act, and now The Defense of Marriage Act. Barr is showing he will change his long held beliefs for political gain.

As of Saturday, Bob Barr is now the official Libertarian party nominee for President of the United States.  Some conservatives, dissatisfied with John McCain as the GOP's standard bearer, seem to think that here is a candidate ripe to receive the protest votes of thousands of movement conservatives dissatisfied with the direction that McCain is taking our party.

I wasn't shocked that the libertarian party picked Barr - they are desperate for a candidate who more than a tiny fraction of the country has actually heard of.  He's a compelling speaker and will gain publicity for the party.  But I'm surprised at how willing they are to ignore much of Barr's history in doing so.

Certainly, it seems ironic that the man who was once congress's greatest champion of the "War on Drugs" is now the leader of a fringe party devoted to opposing it.  A man who rails against overspending in Washington himself voted for No Child Left Behind, which libertarians hate.  A man who was one of the main movers and shakers in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, which most libertarians opposed.  A man who voted for the Patriot Act, but has now spent the last five years speaking out against it.

The bottom line is that when he was in congress, Barr was a loyal Republican footsoldier, not a movement conservative or libertarian who just happened to have an R next to his name.

His criticism of big government Republicanism, and then his movement toward the libertarian party and his rejection of Republicans altogether only occurred after Republicans rejected him - tossing him out of his congressional district in a 2002 primary, and failing to support an attempted return to congress the following year. 

When Bob Barr was in congress, when he had the opportunity to stand up for the principles he now claims to champion, he didn't.  He is not the principled leader he claims to be.  And conservatives and libertarians alike looking to cast a protest vote should look past him.

 Crossposted at http://alexbrunk.wordpress.com/