Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Is Bob Barr the Ralph Nader of 2008?

By Alexander Zaitchik, AlterNet. Posted May 27, 2008.


Barr emerges as the Libertarian nominee, and he's already positioning to ride on Ron Paul's popular wave of conservative dissatisfaction.
Advertisement

Q: How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: None. The invisible hand of the market will take care of it. What are you, a socialist?

That wasn't the only joke I heard last weekend at the Libertarian national convention in Denver, but it was the easiest to remember. The others involved obscure references to Austrian economics, or Ludwig von Mises walking into a bar with an FDA official under his arm.

For many Libertarian delegates, the best joke of the weekend wasn't overheard in the lunch line; it was the result of the convention itself, which party veterans describe as the most bruising and ideologically acrimonious in a quarter-century. After six ballots, a deeply divided party chose the dour former Republican Congressman Bob Barr as its presidential candidate and a brash Vegas oddsmaker named Wayne Allyn Root as his number two. Both are recent GOP defectors, and both are viewed with suspicion if not hostility by much of the party's radical or "purist" old guard, which rallied around the candidacy of veteran Libertarian activist Mary Ruwart.

It turns out the Democrats aren't the only ones with a unity problem. In the run-up to the balloting, a determined anti-Barr front advertised itself with buttons and fliers declaring fealty to "the Libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party." When Barr finally secured the nomination with 54 percent of the vote, Ruwart not only pointedly failed to endorse him in her concession speech, but sounded like she was going underground with her troops to fight another day. "Our work continues," she said. "Writing, speaking, recruiting." But not campaigning.

It's not yet clear whether any of this should concern those outside the tiny world of Libertarian politics. But inside the convention hall on Sunday, it was possible to mistake the victory of Barr/Root '08 as a ground-shaking world-historical event. One despondent member of the Libertarian Radical Caucus wearing a button depicting Barr as the Wicked Witch of the West expressed fears that the choice spelled the end of the Libertarian Party, and thus the end of America's, and hence the world's, last best hope. "This is a disaster. (Barr) hasn't been around long enough to be one of us," he said. "He still has so much to learn about Liberty -- and much to atone for."

In the eyes of many of his new comrades, Barr has yet to fully atone for his entire political career prior to his conversion to the Libertarian cause in 2006, the same year the wheels started wobbling wildly on the GOP's pickup truck. Even many Libertarians who welcome Barr's candidacy as a boost for the party's profile (and, they hope, their chances of spoiling the candidacy of that statist pretender to Barry Goldwater's throne, John McCain) admit they are left uneasy by Barr's long "anti-Liberty" record in Congress.

This record includes voting for the Patriot Act, staunch support for the war on drugs (Barr is a former federal prosecutor) and authorship of the Defense of Marriage Act. He has since renounced many, if not all, of his old positions, but the turnaround has been too recent and too sudden for many Libertarians to fully swallow his conversion story. In 2002, the Libertarian Party called Barr "the worst drug warrior in Congress." Last Sunday, Barr's nomination was seconded by Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, on whose behalf Barr last year lobbied Congress.

Barr's is not the resume most Libertarians expected from their 2008 presidential candidate, and many delegates were left shocked and dazed at what they see as a "conservative coup" they fear will turn their party into Establishment-lite. "Exposure is great, but not at the expense of our soul," said one state chairman who backed Ruwart for president. Lew Rockwell's blog, representing the hard-line anarcho-capitalist wing of the party, applauded an anti-Barr rant delivered on the convention floor for "calling out delegates who nominated a man who helped put people in jail for possession of drugs and seems to have no concept of property rights." A member of Outright Libertarians, the party's gay caucus, wondered after Barr secured the nomination, "How do we present ourselves to gay voters as better than the Demopublicans when our candidate authored the Defense of Marriage Act?"

A fair question for Libertarians, but does Barr's candidacy really have national implications, as some polls suggest? Despite having achieved 50-state ballot access in the past and once garnering an actual electoral vote (1972, Virginia), the Libertarian Party has never cracked the 1 percent barrier nationally or broken a million votes (though Ed Clark came close in 1980). Although its state parties have arguably swung Senate races Democratic in Montana and Missouri, it has never come close to being a deciding factor in a national election. And it is hard to imagine that changing in November. Even with a high-profile former congressman (Barr) and a former senator (Mike Gravel) competing at its convention, the party still has the look and feel of a geeky extracurricular activity -- part philosophical debate society, part Lassiez Faire economics book club, part internet-based family of Statist Dungeons & Socialist Dragons gaming enthusiasts. Then there is the extreme anti-government message that doesn't exactly have America's retirees and food-stamp recipients swooning.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: bob barr, election 2008, libertarian party

Alexander Zaitchik is a freelance journalist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
GO, BOBBY, GO!
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 27, 2008 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one used to annoy me more during the Bill Clinton impeachment saga than Bob Barr. Listening to that self-righteous little blow hard constantly bloviating on with regard to President Bubbah's moral failings was too much to bear. Never in my life dod I even imagine that Barr would get to the point where he would actulally serve a useful purpose.

Watching the candidacy of Bob Barr enfold just fills me with glee. The idea that the Right will be burndened with their very own Ralph Nader is just too funny for the written word to express. At least Nader's heart was (and is) in the right place. Just consider Barr's argument that the Republican party has gotten too liberal Someone pass me my smelling salts. George W. Bust the fightin' liberal. It just doesn't get sillier than that, does it?

Will the Democrats end up blowing this thing? Given their well-deserved reputation for taking a bottle of finely aged, twelve-year-old scotch and turning it into donkey piss, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. One would have assumed that Hillary's stupid RFK gaffe would have finally put her out of the running. In the words of the immortal John Belushi, "BUT NOOOOOOO!!!!" This foolish woman is determined to hold the party of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt hostage to her own selfish ambitions. She's disgusting.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

VP Clinton? Forget about it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» "Lassie Faire"? Posted by: Smackback
How sweet it is
Posted by: Democritus on May 27, 2008 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bob Barr's defection from the GOP is a symptom of what's wrong with the present-day GOP. This is not your grandfather's Party, the Party of Robert Taft,Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater. Today's GOP is a conglomeration of crazy Armageddonists, Wall Street fat-cats, and wild-eyed radicals who go by the name of neo-this or neo-that.

Real conservatives are right in claiming that this imperialistic, war-mongering crowd are not really conservatives. They are a radical bunch who think they can shred the Constitution, stifle dissent, and rule the world from more than 700 military bases spread throughout the globe. They act more like those Roman emperors who gave bread and circuses to those in Rome, extracted from the tribute squeezed from outlying territories.

Barr's candidacy, and perhaps a continuation of Ron Paul's campaign, does not augur well for John McCain. Real conservatives have seen through McCain for a long time. He is just another figurehead sponsored by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Military, and the other corporatist interests. McCain promises to follow the same disastrous path taken by Bush/Cheney and their band of rascally globalist radicals.

Americans have seen the failures of what nearly eight years of this sort of pseudo-conservativism have wrought. No need to catalogue them all. Come November, the GOP will have to re-invent itself, because all signs point to a Democratic victory--not only in the presidency, but in both Houses of Congress. This victory will come eight years late, but it will be all the sweeter for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How sweet it is Posted by: tkwilson
» I respectfully disagree.... Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: I respectfully disagree.... Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: How sweet it is Posted by: Democritus
» RE: You defame Goldwater's memory Posted by: Democritus
» How sweet it is and for Democrats Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» You can call me a Wing Nut Conservative Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: JibreelaMonsters... How sweet it is Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
no one cares
Posted by: davescott on May 27, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recall Barr as an one more odious GOP twerp who pushed Clinton's impeachment. But in a world where Exxon made $40 billion in profits last year as part of an industry that threatens life on Earth, the Libertarian notion that government is superfluous is a more dangerous lie than ever. If governement isn't empowered to stand up to the Exxons of the world, who will?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: no one cares Posted by: jmklei0
» laissez-faire = New Orleans Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: laissez-faire = New Orleans Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: no one cares Posted by: racetoinfinity
» Its that NCLB Education Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: JibreelaMonsters Posted by: Quannah
» Exxon IS The Government. Posted by: Persephone8
YES!
Posted by: Phred42 on May 27, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If democracy and the future of this country are lucky

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Bare
Posted by: jmmartin on May 27, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...A member of Outright Libertarians, the party's gay caucus, wondered after Barr secured the nomination, 'How do we present ourselves to gay voters as better than the Demopublicans when our candidate authored the Defense of Marriage Act?'"

Really! When asked if he favored gay marriage, Ron Paul said, "Why not?"

Bob Barr is a disgrace. But if he can siphon votes from the GOP, so be it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Barr for President
Posted by: Gwazdos on May 27, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This guy belongs in a mental hospital. It continues to amaze me that ANY party would want to have anything to do with this midget fruit cake who always wanted to get even with the world because he was borned with a small brain. We in America don't need another Bobble Head like Bush Junior the Worst President in our history. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Karl Rove, Hadley should all be tried for their part in the War Crimes by starting this Fake War because Junior was bored!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Misunderstanding the purpose of the LP
Posted by: BJT on May 27, 2008 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Libertarian Party was founded by the likes of Murray Rothbard to make a stand for free market, libertarian principles. Their platform was radical, some would call it unreasonable.

And that was the point.

The entire electoral system is mathematically structured in a way that reduces the whole thing to two dominant parties. The LP doesn't stand a chance at winning a national election and never did. The LP was meant to be that platform that made people rethink what they thought about government, law, and freedom, and possibly help them evade the intellectual poverty that is collectivism.

But a few years ago the LP changed their platform, dumbing it down and abandoning a few core principles in an effort to mainstream themselves. The one function the LP served was a beacon of principle, and now it isn't even that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ATTENTION Hillary lovers who won't vote for Obama in November...
Posted by: HughScott on May 27, 2008 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bob Barr is your man!

Unless, of course, you want four more years of of Bush economic policies, an unending Iraq War, a 2009 attack on Iran, continued tax breaks for the rich, an increasingly corrupt federal government, torture, more shredding of the Constitution, a dictatorial president, etc.

In that case, vote for Insane McCain.

----------------------------------------------

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, ARDENT Obama supporter and the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com -- the only website about George W. Bush that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm so rich becuase of President Bush Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
Bob Barr - He's a Libertarian, Right?
Posted by: pdxstudent on May 27, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why he supports liberty-denying drug-policy, restriction on religious freedom (banning Wiccans from the military), and bans against same-sex marriage. The only thing he particularly shares with Libertarians, though it hardly makes his platform libertarian, is his support of FairTax. This is ironic, since not only is it a talking point for many Republicans, but it's a gateway policy to socialism more than laissez-faire Capitalism. But I digress.

Sounds to me like Bob Barr got the nomination because he's not the only Republican to defect to the so-called Libertarian Party.

I'm a registered, though not a particularly proud Democrat, and I was hoping Mike Gravel would get the nomination. At least with him there was hope of at least introducing a sane voice again into the election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Between the Barr and the Gravel
Posted by: Urstrly on May 27, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a chasm of integrity a mile wide between Barr and Gravel, and Gravel's the one on the high end. A Barr candidacy doesn't have me losing any sleep as a Democrat, nor should it worry Republicans.

I suppose if Hillary somehow becomes the nominee, Barr might be able to waken some of his old hate buddies, but they seem to be doing all right without him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Libertarianism's New Wave
Posted by: wrdalton on May 27, 2008 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bob Barr's position on "gay marriage" and abortion is the same as Ron Paul's - leave the states alone to legislate on those subjects as they will. In fact, that was the major purpose of Barr's "Defense of Marriage Act" - to prevent any state from being obliged to recognize the same sex marriages being established in states whose courts, if not people, were choosing to do so. The Libertarian establishment doesn't disown Ron Paul, their acknowledged hero, for putting the Constitution above libertarian "principles". Why criticize Bob Barr for doing so? Barr has clearly renounced his prior record on the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs, again taking the same pro-civil liberties, pro-state's rights, posture pioneered by Sam Ervin a generation ago and now championed by Dr. Paul.

The call of the hour, however, is not for a party dedicated to decriminalization of drugs (which would be good) or of child pornography (which would not be), because of slavish adherence to libertarian "principles". The call of the hour is for a party that will offer an alternative to the "Welfare-Warfare State" which both Democrats and Republican establishments have demonstrated they are dedicated to preserving, no matter what their propaganda machines put out. Democrats may campaign on a platform of ending the Iraq War and Republicans may campaign on a platform of ending (now unspecified) Federal bureaucracies and programs, but they never follow through with such legislation, even when they have control of Congress. This is why Americans are increasingly fed up with the Two Party System, and will be receptive to a real alternative. To my mind, it is a unity of purpose for this mission, despite differences among them on other issues, which should bring together the Libertarian, Constitution and Green Parties into a coalition offering an alternative to make the electoral efforts of these small parties, heretofore incapable of doing more than irritate the major parties, capable of actually threatening their hegemony.

This is not the time for any of these minor parties to look for candidates who demonstrate ideological purity. It is time to build a new party the way the old parties were built generations ago - not through appeal to ideology, but through appeal to interest. Build a party for all those who for last sixty years have been on the outside of government looking in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Libertarianism's New Wave Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: Libertarianism's New Wave Posted by: Cooltruth
» RE: Libertarianism's New Wave Posted by: DebbieKat
» RE: Libertarianism's New Wave Posted by: wrdalton
» RE: Deathbed conversion Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
hkc
Posted by: hkc on May 27, 2008 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First get the editing notes out of the way, it's 'laissez faire' not 'lassie'. Second calling Barr a "Clinton attack dog" is wrong. If he was attacking Clinton he was a Republican attack dog. Or are these things related? Doesn't anyone edit this rag?

The reason that the Libertarians and all other third parties in America are doomed to insignificance is the winner take all process in most elections. Simple proportional representation starting in the Electoral College and moving down into legislative races would make a huge difference just as it has made a huge difference in this year's Democratic race.

Second what we should be looking into is why Republicans are flocking to the Libertarians and why Liberals are not. Libertarians are about Liberty and that has actually been at odds with so much that the Republicans have been up to ever since Ronald Reagan started cozying up to right white evangelicals disappointed by Carter's liberalism. There is much in the Libertarian agenda to be praised by progressives. They want to keep government out of the bedroom and out of doctor's offices. They oppose the "war on drugs" that criminalizes some pretty innocuous behavior. For all that both progressives and conservatives bleat about freedom it is only the Libertarians that make freedom the non-negotiable core of their political philosophy. So what's happening with the Republican apostates? Are they really embracing liberty or are they just looking for a more pure capitalism? Considering Barr's record it's easy to see why the core Libertarians suspect the latter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hkc Posted by: Quannah
» RE: hkc Posted by: DebbieKat
» RE: hkc Posted by: Quannah
» RE: hkc Posted by: ark
Divide that Republic vote!
Posted by: Quannah on May 27, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing would make the Democratic Party happier! It would peel off enough of the so-called "conservatives" (that hate McStain anyway) to insure an Obama victory in November. A divided Republic Party is a weak Republic Party.

Sounds good to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That question at the top was idiotic
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on May 27, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet's editors need to actually read up on libertarianism, you guys are hacks when it comes to this subject.

And no, the libertarian party does not represent libertarianism. That much has been shown by nominating Bob Barr who believes in the drug war.

No self-respecting libertarian believes in consensual crime laws, any that do are not libertarians no matter what they call themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nader didn't lose the 2000 election for the Democrats ...
Posted by: nc green on May 27, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... the 13 million Democrats who voted for George Bush did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But Bob Barr is a scumbag...
Posted by: colek on May 27, 2008 12:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boy, the Libertarian Party has really hit the skids, eh? Bob Barr is such a scumbag even the Republicans rejected him. It's an insult to Doctor Ron Paul that a bottom feeder like BB is mentioned in the same sentence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ron Paul has his own problems of White Supremicists in his group.
Posted by: nightgaunt on May 27, 2008 2:47 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
20 years worth of support bodes ill. He wants women to be slaves to their wombs. Not very libertarian. More in line with the Aryan Nations and KKK and also the Dominionists who are wrecking our country these passed 28 years.
We haven't had a clean election since 2000.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barr Won't Be Nader Because McCain Can't Win
Posted by: gradioc on May 27, 2008 5:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nader destroyed Al Gore's last hope to eke out a win despite the widespread disgust at the behavior of Bill Clinton. McCain's shot was ended by GWB's Rovian (and oh so Nixonian) dirty tricks in 2000. This year's nomination is a consolation prize, largely because Bill Frist and other GOP contenders saw the writing on the wall a year ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is a sad day for the Libertarian Party
Posted by: Nuanced on May 27, 2008 8:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hijacked by an authoritarian.
Barr will do for the Libertarian Party what Bush did for the Republican party -- minus the election victory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give Money to Barr!
Posted by: AlexLawyer on May 27, 2008 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All progressive Democrats should contribute to Barr's campaign fund. He can siphon off enough right wing votes to save us from another 4 years of disastrous Republican policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did you hear the one about...
Posted by: chaoslegs on May 27, 2008 10:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the rules committee? They were taken out to be tarred and feathered by the rest of the delegates :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LIBERTARIANS
Posted by: gellero1 on May 27, 2008 10:44 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Libertarians are NOT 'conservatives'. A better term would be "Constitutionalists"..............We believe in the social freedoms Democrats espouse, and the economic freedoms Republicans claim to believe in.

Those two parties can be more aptly described as 'Mercantilists'...........bought and paid for by special interests.

And so called 'progressives' are nothing more than 'statists' cum crypto socialists who believe the Democratic Party represents them......a delusion for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: LIBERTARIANS Posted by: Doubtom
» LIBERTARIANISM Posted by: Persephone8
WELL I WAS CONSIDERING VOTING LIBERTARIAN
Posted by: mindtrvlr on Jun 1, 2008 1:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BUT NOT NOW. PERIOD.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Poor You Posted by: Persephone8
The True Republican Barr & not McCain
Posted by: 60sretread on Jun 5, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barr is a better choice for Republicans than McCain who is trying to position himself as Democratic-lite. McCain does not support at least vocally GOP positions on immigration, enemy prisoners, environment, etc. He has waffled on tax cuts. I hope Barr gets a lot of support from true conservatives. Talk radio needs to talk him up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Voting Alternatives for Ron Paul Supporters
Posted by: government_for_people on Jun 14, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Ralph Nader is a fine alternative for Ron Paul supporters.

Paul speaks against BIG GOVERNMENT. And contrary to what news bites and propaganda would have you believe, Nader is also against big government. Consider the enormously bloated military budget which accounts for nearly half of the government's total operating budget. This is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money going to imperial wars based on lies.

And as part of this war, we have more BIG GOVERNMENT in the form of citizen surveillance. The PATRIOT Act (which Barr VOTED FOR) grants the government unprecedented powers to watch over American citizens without the need to prove probable cause in the court system.

Nader is against big government when it is fraudulent, wasteful or illegal. He calls for end to the intrusive PATRIOT Act and a massive reduction in the military budget. He wants to put an end to the excess of corporate welfare and put and end to the intrusive, failing drug war.

Nader is against maximizing government and sees its role as simply protecting the rights and interests of citizens and society as a whole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]