Thoughts on being the GOP's bitch

Stacy, you ignorant slut:

When the Libertarians have nerds like George Phillies, stoners like Steve Kubby and fanatical purists like Mary Ruwart seeking the presidential nomination, and when the party's 2008 convention requires six ballots to decide Barr is the better candidate, you can't be blamed for wondering if they're really serious about politics.

I have to agree ... sort of. The fact that Barr wasn't eliminated by the second or third ballot reflected poorly on the Libertarian Party and indicated that maybe we weren't really serious.

Let me break this down for you:

Bob Barr was retired from Congress as a Republican in 2002. And not just any kind of Republican, but a mossback social conservative with a righteous hard-on against anything and everything remotely libertarian -- a hardcore drug warrior who moved to stop the votes from being counted on a DC medical marijuana initiative; author of the Defense [sic] of Marriage Act; Hammer of Heresy Among Military Personnel; supporter of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Iraq.

But by 2008, after a magical transformation that included a gig with the ACLU, he was running for President of the United States as a Libertarian.

Let's paste that math on another political name or two and see how it works:

Like Barr, Texas Republican Tom DeLay left Congress in an off-year (2006). Like Barr, DeLay was not just a Republican, but an uber-Republican, loved by his party (Barr's 2002 defeat was due to redistricting which put him up against another popular incumbent in the primary -- unless you want to ascribe it to the anti-Barr ads run by, you guessed it, the Libertarian Party) and loathed by all others. If he reports for duty at MoveOn tomorrow and runs for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2012, or even 2016, the question is not whether he'll make it to the sixth ballot, it's whether he'll make it six feet into the convention hall before getting bounced out on his ass. And I guaran-goddamn-tee that Robert Stacy McCain won't accuse the Democrats of not being "really serious about politics" over it.

How about Hillary Clinton? She left the US Senate in 2009. Maybe she'll quit her current gig tomorrow and go to work as a receptionist at Gun Owners of America, while volunteering on the side at the America Conservative Union. Think she can pull down the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012 or 2016? Or, to put the question a different way, are you high?

Better yet, what about the Libertarian Party's nomination? Would McCain suggest that the LP was not "serious" if it rejected, or at least took its time mulling over, a hypothetical Hillary Clinton candidacy on the LP ticket? Even if she spent a couple of years as a Cato fellow first?

Non-LPers are always bellyaching that the LP isn't "serious" if it doesn't act like the "major" parties -- but I've yet to see a "major" party nominate one of its most vociferous recent opponents for election to the presidency on its ticket, or a pundit seriously suggest that it do so. The closest thing I can think of was the speculation that John McCain might choose Joe Lieberman as his running mate -- a notion which The Other McCain called "probably farfetched" at the time.

And what, pray tell, did we get out of the Barr nomination? Dixiecrat vaudeville -- a campaign which McCain himself trumpeted as the resurrection of George Wallace, and which turned in the fourth-best results (as a percentage of the vote total) of the Libertarian Party's ten presidential outings. Our reward for taking a flier and running a conservative instead of a libertarian was middle-of-the-pack performance at the polls and incalculable damage to our reputation as a party with principles we weren't willing to sell for a mess of ... well, let's just note that it was a mess and leave it at that.

We got used as an overflow area for disgruntled Republicans who didn't think John McCain was "conservative" enough, in an election which every Republican with two or more neurons firing knew was a lost cause. Which, when push came to shove, didn't amount to enough people to fill a phone booth.

The Libertarian Party has a tougher row to hoe than the major parties do in the first place. Allowing ourselves to be made into the GOP's bitch at the presidential level for an entire election cycle was a detour from, not a shortcut to, where we want to go.

Update, 08/08/09: The Other McCain responds. I'll probably respond in turn (there are several points I'd like to discuss), but it may not be today, so I thought I'd get the link in.

Parting thoughts on the Barr campaign

Brian Doherty asks "Where Did the Libertarian Party Go Wrong?" over at Reason. It's not the first post-election critique of Bob Barr's presidential campaign, nor will it be the last, but it's an interesting one, and since it quotes me, I think I'll go ahead and set my own thoughts down at greater length.

First, the quote: "In terms of vote totals, his failures put him firmly in the LP 'usual' pack. In terms of effect on the Libertarian Party, he probably set us back 20 years."

I have to say that I'm already mellowing a bit from that initial take. How far the Barr campaign sets back the LP doesn't have to be a function of the Barr campaign -- the rest of us have something to say about it too. We can allow 2008 to cast a long shadow, or we can break in a different direction and leave 2008 behind.

For that matter, in terms of performance at the polls, Barr was not really a failure by LP standards. In terms of percentage of the vote, he performed in the middle of the LP presidential pack (4th place of 10 campaigns).

There was also a strategic decision on the campaign's part to target "battleground" states in an attempt to "change" the election outcome, rather than to go after the "low-hanging fruit" of more votes in "safe" Democrat or Republican states where the voters wouldn't be as worried about "costing" one major party or the other the election. That's something I can't fault the Barr campaign for. It was a judgment call they had to make. Michael Badnarik's 2004 campaign made the same call in the same way, targeting New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin as potential "spoiler" opportunities. If 2008 hadn't turned into a blowout, there was every chance that the Barr campaign's strategy would have worked.

Some observers -- among them, I believe, Ballot Access News publisher Richard Winger -- believe that the LP and third parties in general will benefit in the long run from the Barr campaign's ballot access litigation. If so, that's a good thing and Barr should receive credit for it.

The failure from a Libertarian Party standpoint, in my view, is that Barr didn't run a libertarian campaign. If the GOP nominated Barbara Boxer for president, or the Democrats picked Tom DeLay, the "base" of either party would consider that presidential campaign a failure regardless of how many votes the candidate picked up. Barr was a mismatch for the LP. He ran as a Dixiecrat "states rights" conservative, and in doing so he at least partially and temporarily re-branded the LP away from libertarianism and toward his own ideology to some as yet unknown extent.

Coke does not give its "salesman of the year" award to the guy who moves the most cases of Pepsi. The Pope does not canonize the woman who converts the most people to Buddhism. The LP's designated sales manager for this year went out and sold something other than the LP's product. That's a failure in itself, and a failure to the extent that it creates an ongoing public misperception as to what the LP's product is.

Now, back to those vote totals: Was 510,000 votes a "failure?" Above, I say that it wasn't ... by LP standards. But those aren't the only applicable standards.

The standard set by Barr campaign manager Russ Verney from the stage at the LP's 2008 national convention was raising $40 million and winning the election. I doubt that very many people believed it was really going to happen (or that Verney believed it himself), but when you hype numbers, you can expect those numbers to come back to haunt you.

At least as late as October (and possibly later), Barr running mate Wayne Allyn Root confidently predicted "1-3 million votes." He did so on October 5th in the New York Times. That's a hard number, and Root is a Las Vegas oddsmaker.

"Libertarian" Republican and sometimes Barr/Root booster Eric Dondero's predictions swung wildly around numbers he cherry-picked from polls (while ignoring the history of actual LP vote totals on election day versus earlier poll numbers), but in August he hedged his bet to the low side and set a standard for "success" --

[T]he media is completely ignoring the Libertarian yard stick for success: Beating Ed Clark. Libertarian Ed Clark's campaign received 922,000 votes in 1980, 1.1%. It is the all-time benchmark for success for Libertarian Presidential campaigns. ... The magic number for success for Bob Barr for President remains -- 922,001.

Of course today, Dondero is in full-out backtrack mode, decrying the Doherty article and bitterly bitching that people should acknowledge the "success" of a campaign which fell far short of his own stated standard.

One of the curious elements of Dondero's argument is that percentages are irrelevant -- only raw vote totals matter. I disagree. Two votes is more than one vote, but whether or not two votes are better than one vote depends on how many people are voting. One vote out of two is damn good. Two votes out of two million isn't.

In 1996, Harry Browne received 485,798 votes out of 96.2 million total votes cast.

In 2008, Bob Barr received about 510,000 votes out of 126.7 million votes cast.

Thirty million more voters, but only 24 thousand more votes. It's impossible to believably spin that into any kind of great "success."

A stray note on competence:

It's impossible to tell how things might have come out had the Barr campaign been competently managed ... but it's reasonable to think, on the basis of casual observation, that it wasn't. Needless ballot access problems, message ranging from "true conservative" to downright incoherence, five figures on an air conditioner for an office that was leased for five months, $18,000 in limo bills ... the organization appeared dysfunctional.

Mike Ferguson is one of the most competent individuals I know. I say that because it's true -- nobody's going to mistake us for best buddies. Given an environment of general competence, I suspect Ferguson would have been a very effective campaign operative, boosting Barr's vote total everywhere he went. Instead, he seemed to get stuck spending most of the campaign hauling ass around the country and trying to unscrew other people's screwups (for example, the West Virginia ballot access debacle).

As early as the LP's Denver convention in June, I observed that Steve Gordon seemed to have already been moved to the campaign's sidelines once Russ Verney took over as manager. Gordon denied it, but the impression remained. Frankly, I suspect that Gordon would have been a better pick for campaign manager than Verney, whose main claim to fame is that he managed to bring Ross Perot -- a wildly popular public figure with effectively unlimited campaign funds and who at one point was polling toward victory -- in at 20% in 1992. Gordon has the requisite nuts and bolts skills, and he was better positioned than Verney to get the LP's supporters in the mood to work for the campaign's success from the very beginning. Even setting aside later events, Verney's presence at the nominating convention probably cost Barr votes, and cooled reception toward his nomination, by bolstering the campaign's outsider/"Darth Vader" image.

But I could be wrong on those things. It's happened before.

Hopefully, in 2012 Libertarians will think their presidential nomination selection through from the ground up -- starting with the message they want to convey and then looking at which candidate conveys that message most effectively. Nothing wrong with hitching one's wagon to a star, but only if the star is going to pull that wagon in the direction you want to go.

Buy the ticket, take the ride

Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party's candidate for President of the United States.

Readers of this blog know that I'm no Paul cultist. And, while I haven't belabored the point (I prefer to ignore them), I keep the Constitution Party lower than the Democrats, lower even than the Republicans, on my preference list. Put a gun to my head, I might vote for John McCain to save my miserable life. If it's Baldwin, though, go ahead and pull the trigger. You can splatter my brains all over the wall before you can have my vote for him. Cigarette, blindfold and mason jar full of cheap bourbon first, if you don't mind too terribly much.

Thing is, it didn't have to be this way. It could have been prevented. Hell, it took herculean efforts on the part of the Libertarian Party and Bob Barr's presidential campaign to make it happen.

The Libertarian Party could have held out for a libertarian presidential slate. It had several good candidates to choose from. Instead, it decided to play cargo cult dress-up games and nominate a duplicate Republican ticket.

Bob Barr could have shown up to the Campaign For Liberty event he committed to participate in, smiled, accepted a handshake from Paul, and walked out without an exclusive endorsement but with more money and more votes than he had walked in with. Instead, he chose to cancel at the last minute, make an ass of himself (and his party) in public by trying to upstage Paul, and piss off the voter bloc that constitutes the closest thing to a libertarian groundswell since at least the 1964 Goldwater campaign, probably since Grover Cleveland's 1892 anti-tariff/hard-money run for a second non-consecutive term, and just maybe since 1776.

Even after that, the Libertarian National Committee could have minimized the damage. It could have issued an apology to Paul and C4L, on the LP's behalf, for Barr's antics. It could have even, in extremis, removed Barr as the party's presidential nominee. Instead, the LNC gridlocked -- its Irresponsibility Caucus met proposals for an apology with proposals for further insult, and neither side prevailed. Unfortunately, either the Irresponsibility Caucus or the Barr campaign apparently has de facto operational control of LPHQ, which has issued a stream of communiques designed to make the situation worse, not better.

It took three massive systemic failures -- at the convention level, at the campaign level, and at the national committee level -- to bring about the current situation. All of those failures were avoidable. The party and the campaign chose not to prevent them. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

The LP is broken, big-time. This year is pretty much shot. Barr looks set to raise a little more money, and probably pull down a few more votes on his name recognition, than Michael Badnarik, the LP's 2004 candidate whom Barr's acolytes have so much enjoyed laughing down their noses at. I doubt more than ever that Barr will bust the 1980 Ed Clark ceiling and reach a million votes, and even if he did, it would be a poison pill -- the more attention he attracts, the more silly and less serious the LP looks.

Can the LP be fixed? Should it be fixed, at least in anything resembling its current form? So far as I can tell, The Libertarian National Committee's main function at this point is to serve as a live demonstration of the futility of central planning and top-down politics.

The LNC also no longer has a monopoly on libertarian partisan politics at the national level. The Boston Tea Party may only be on the ballot in three states this year, but I seem to recall that that's one more ballot line than the LP made its first time out. If the LNC system continues to fail partisan libertarians, they -- as individuals, and as state Libertarian Party organizations -- have somewhere else to go.

That swirling sound you hear ...

... is Bob Barr's presidential campaign circling the drain of history.

Brief recap:

Barr was scheduled to appear with Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader at a press conference yesterday to endorse a joint four-point issues statement on which all these candidates (and Boston Tea Party candidate Charles Jay) agree.

At the last minute, Barr canceled, with campaign manager Russ Verney allegedly giving as the excuse "it just isn't worth it." When a Campaign For Liberty official, Don Rasmussen, asked Barr campaign deputy director Shane Cory what was up with that, he alleges that Cory's reply was "go f**k yourself." Barr then held his own press conference, grandstanding on Paul's name with an offer of the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential slot, while Verney, the campaign, and LPHQ spun like mad about how this "demonstrates Barr's leadership" and how Barr would be lowered by appearing on stage with someone "like" Cynthia McKinney. Over the last 24 hours, the Barr campaign has continued to run smack on Paul.

Now for a brief digression, just to make things crystal clear: Nobody with two or more functioning neurons is going to accuse me of being a Paul sycophant. I opposed his GOP presidential campaign and believe it did significant damage to the libertarian movement (the newsletter scandal, the pork-mongering, the anti-gay and anti-immigrant BS, etc.). If you don't believe me, Google "Ron Paul" and this blog's URL.

But that doesn't matter, for three reasons:

- One of the major premises and promises of the Barr campaign -- from well before his announcement that he was considering running, going at least back to his sponsorship of a motion on the Libertarian National Committee asking Paul to seek the LP's nomination -- was that Barr would appeal to the Paul voter and supporter bloc. No need to belabor that. Read the history. It's all there in the search engines.

Hint: You don't deliver a voter bloc by monkeywrenching that bloc's hero's event, trying to upstage him, telling his supporters to "go f**k themselves," claiming you're too big and important to appear on a stage with him and other presidential candidates, then talking about him like he's a fool and a knave out of one side of your mouth while offering him the second fiddle position in your own failing effort out of the other, all the while blowing about how this bundle of nonsense constitutes "leadership."

- Secondly, Barr's delusions of grandeur and absurd strategies aside, Barr isn't just a presidential candidate, he's the presidential candidate of a party, the Libertarian Party. That party has longstanding ties to Ron Paul, who was its 1988 presidential nominee. At one point, polling indicated that more than seven of every 10 LP members wanted to run Paul on the LP ticket again this year. Whether I liked it or not -- and often I didn't -- Libertarians across the country put gallons of sweat into building bridges with the Paul movement over the last 18 months. I don't know if Barr has succeeded in burning those bridges with his antics yet or not ... but make no mistake about it, he's poured gasoline on those bridges and he's capering around them with a Zippo^® in one hand, a can of accelerant in the other, and a deranged grin on his face.

- Thirdly, the Paul press conference was a no-brainer. It was a major media opportunity with no down side. It was a cake walk. All Barr had to do was stand on a stage with four other people, at least two of whom are more famous and well-thought-of by the public than he'll ever be, smile and say nice things about an issues statement that every last freedom-loving American can wholeheartedly sign on to, and watch the money and votes roll in. It was seemingly impossible to screw this up. But -- wouldn't you know it? -- the Barr campaign found a way to turn a cake walk into a fiasco, just like his old party seems to do every time.

The Barr campaign broke its promise to try to deliver the Paul voter bloc yesterday. The Barr campaign created a major schism between the Libertarian Party on one hand, and a major ally of the LP and his supporters on the other, yesterday. And the Barr campaign demonstrated the most mind-blowingly blind level of incompetence and inability to discern opportunities to even promote its own candidate yesterday.

And they don't seem inclined to even try to stop the bleeding.

The Libertarian National Committee needs to issue an abject, no-exceptions, no-excuses apology to Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty for its presidential candidate's misbehavior, repudiate that misbehavior, and dissociate itself from that misbehavior. Actually, it needed to do that yesterday afternoon, and the clock is ticking. That's what it owes to Paul, to Paul's supporters, to the Campaign for Liberty, and to the LP members who resemble all those descriptions. And, for that matter, that's what it owes to the Barr campaign. Sometimes supporting the presidential campaign, as it is the LNC's obligation to do, entails at least trying to clean up the presidential campaign's messes.

The Libertarian National Committee also needs to take up the question -- i.e. get a motion made, seconded, and in play -- to remove Barr as its presidential candidate. Barr has arguably attacked the party's interests multiple times -- in terms of publicly espousing positions that conflict with the party's Statement of Principles, and in terms of running a campaign that embarrasses, misrepresents, and diminishes the credibility of, the party. If the LNC doesn't take official notice of that and deal with it by considering its options under the party's bylaws, then the LNC is a dead stick and should stop wasting the members' money on the pretense that it is a real board overseeing the real operations of a real political party.

On Testicular Fortitude

Voter: Really, I’m a Libertarian at heart.
David Bergland: Well, when it reaches your balls, give me a call.

That's from a post at Positive Liberty by Jim Babka of Downsize DC. Best. LP. Quote. Ever.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking: Knapp's gonna give Babka what for over his treatment of the Boston Tea Party and Charles Jay's excoriation of Barr.

Nope. I want to talk about that, but not in precisely the way you might think.

It's true that I've sworn off my support for the Barr campaign, and that I've described Barr's candidacy as Dixiecrat 2008, and I stand by that characterization. Having already rhetorically positioned Barr alongside Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Lester Maddox, I didn't feel any great need to weigh in on his Jesse Helms eulogy. Coals to Newcastle and all that.

And I do want to respond briefly to Babka on two points, so let's get that out of the way:

I don't know if this party will have their candidate on a single ballot. They appear to exist entirely for unherdable cats, hell-bent on criticizing the LP.

As it happens, the Boston Tea Party's presidential ticket is on the ballot in Colorado, will be on the ballot in Florida and Guam, and will likely manage several other states (we're looking at possibles in Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and New Jersey). We've got nine state affiliates with more organizing right now. We got started too late this year to run down-ticket slates of our own, but we're endorsing and aiding a number of independents and candidates of other parties who in turn endorse our platform. One prospective endorsee, an LP candidate, just emailed me to mention that she had received a campaign contribution just from asking for our endorsement.

Ultimately, we're not anti-Libertarian Party ... we're pro-libertarian. Conditions are such that that may be less than perfectly clear to all right now, but we'll get there.

I'm not going to apologize for Charles Jay's critique. He said some things that needed to be said -- not just because they're true, but because at this point in its existence, the Boston Tea Party very much needs to explain itself to the rest of the freedom movement. We need our fellow libertarians to understand why we're doing what we're doing.

Nonetheless, I don't think that Jim's criticism is entirely unjustified. So far, the BTP's existence and career as a party has been closely tied to various critiques of the LP. That's just a fact. There's no disputing it and I'm not going to try.

Babka refers to the BTP as a "spin-off" -- but I think maybe he's giving us too much credit. We haven't really spun off yet. Rather, we've remained, to a large degree, in the LP's orbit. Our criticisms have so far largely been leveled at the LP and its presidential candidate rather than at the status quo parties and their candidates. On the positive side, we've been happy to endorse LP candidates who meet our standards.

This election cycle is the adolescence of the Boston Tea Party.

In our infancy (from 2006 to earlier this year) we were half-in, half-out of the LP. I offered a resolution at the BTP's organizational convention which would have constituted it as an internal caucus of the LP. That resolution was rejected by the members, but we didn't go in the opposite direction that year, either.

This year, we've decided to start doing the things a "real" political party does. We've nominated candidates for office and we're working to put those candidates on the ballot. We're chartering state affiliates so that we can hit the ground running in 2010 with congressional and state legislative slates. We're establishing recruitment efforts that stand on their own and don't rely on the internal LP "dissatisfaction grapevine."

Between now and 2012, I expect that the BTP will grow into young adulthood, establish itself as a proven, permanent third party ... and of course make its best attempt to do better than other third parties have done and break into "the big leagues."

The reality is that there are now two libertarian political parties on America's electoral landscape, and that (in certain respects at least) the newer one is coming up fast in the older one's rearview mirror.

Breaking up is hard to do ... but perhaps it needn't be as painful as we're making it. Can we just be friends? OK, well, maybe not, at least for the three months and change while the LP conducts its "great experiment" and the BTP embarks on its "maiden voyage." But ...

Odds are that there will always be cross-traffic between the LP and the BTP as angry or discontented libertarians of one seek expression in the other (or, as is now the case, participate in both). It's a safe bet that the two parties will bring different approaches to the longstanding and vexing problem of electing candidates to office. Hopefully as time goes on, the two parties will learn to, well, learn, from each others' mistakes and from each others' successes instead of just going at each other.

I'm not going to promise to go easy on Bob Barr. The LP made that bed, and now it (we -- I'm still an LP member and candidate) gets to lie in it. But I can, and do, promise you that I'll do my best as a member of the Boston Tea Party to make that party about more than internecine freedom movement conflicts. We have bigger game to hunt, and we're just now getting our boots on.

Blast from the Past: Deus ex (Goldberg) Machina

Everybody want to go up to heaven
but none of them, none of them want to die

Peter Tosh, "Equal Rights"

Which pretty much sums up the "conservative" position on bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "We're gonna do it, but gosh darn, wouldn't it be nice if someday someone didn't?"

McCain's on board. Video here -- sorry, embed is disabled on it. Here's the back-and-fill Dixiecrat edition, though:



Apropos of which, a piece I wrote a few years back:

Deus ex (Goldberg) Machina
by Thomas L. Knapp
01/16/02@Rational Review

A visitor from another planet, dropped into the typical American living room, in front of the typical American television, would surely leave convinced that public policy is contrived, debated, adopted and implemented by a gaggle of talking heads who spend 24 hours a day in rotation between shopping for the most stylish double-breasted suits, commuting by limousine from one talk show studio to the next, and hobnobbing at White House receptions.

The truth, of course, is both more prosaic and more horrifying.

The typical American politician, at the federal level, is a harried hack, jetting back and forth between Washington and his fiefdom ... er, constituency ... to raise funds, whip recalcitrant allies into line, raise funds, shake hands, kiss babies and, of course, raise funds.

This typical politican, when in Washington, is too busy paying off favors to those donors and recalcitrant allies to accomplish much relating to the ideas that probably inspired his entry into politics in the first place.

Yes, he was a young idealist once. He had priorities. He wanted to help people. He wanted to make his country a better place, restore a sense of honor to its highest institutions, work with the statesmen he saw nightly on CNN to guide the great ship of state safely over the waves of the uncertain sea of policy.

Now, he scurries.

He scurries to the House chamber to cast a vote on a bill he's never read, because his party's leadership wants it. And those who don't "work with" the party leadership end up with the last office in the Rayburn building: the one behind the door marked "Custodian."

He scurries to the studio for a talk show appearance, prepared to mouth some lines whipped up by his staff, because the media demands it. And those who don't "work with" the media find themselves the targets of investigative reports, coverage custom made to benefit their next opponent for election or, worst of all, simply ignored.

He scurries to dinner with a major donor who happens to be in Washington, because money is the mother's milk of politics. He can't afford to lose that donation. Moreover, he can't afford to lose that donor's support.

At the end of the day, he scurries off to the White House in bow tie and cummerbund, works his way through the reception line, and stands around drinking weak cocktails and being ignored. If he's lucky. If he spills his martini on the envoy from Sierra Leone, there'll be hell to pay. If he doesn't show up at all, well, the president may not have time to campaign in his district this fall.

If he scurries adroitly enough -- zigging across the floor of House America to avoid the great boots of media oppobrium, political desertion and financial insolvency, zagging to catch the crumbs that fall from the randomly piled plates of power -- he can one day look forward to similarly corrupting his nemesis: the next young idealist to take a tentative step into the corridors of power.

This is the life of one cog -- the typical U.S. Representative -- in the machine called "hyperpluralism," that American governance has become.

The surprising thing about hyperpluralism isn't that it creates a divide between legitimate public purpose and actual public policy. It isn't that it chews up, digests and assimilates even the most honest public servant, making him just another extension on a conveyor belt moving toward the incinerator of totalitarianism . It isn't even that it can produce only centralization of power and deliver that power only to those least likely to either eschew it or exercise it with extreme caution.

The surprising thing about hyperpluralism is that it works at all.

When I began to write this piece it was, surprisingly enough, intended as a rebuttal to Jonah Goldberg's critiques of libertarianism. That's still my intent, but I've found another Goldberg in the woodpile. His name is Rube, and his presence shines some light on my discomfiture with Brother Jonah's ponderings.

Jonah Goldberg is the current golden boy at National Review, journal of record for "conservatism" in the Day of Dubya.

Rube, of course, is the cartoonist whose wonderful images of complex machines designed to accomplish simple tasks engaged and delighted an audience of millions.

"Conservatism" in the Day of Dubya is Jonah's application of Rube's ideas to politics.

That, of course, is the nut of the matter. Goldberg's problem with libertarians isn't that we're thin-skinned. It isn't that we're simplistic or that our ideas aren't relevant to the debate at its root.

It's that a polity based on libertarian ideas would not need an army of "liberal" Rubes to design it or a horde of "conservative" Jonahs to crawl over its superstructure, continually tightening bolts, checking welds and adding kitchen sinks, mousetraps and bathtubs to its bewildering assortment of features.

Or to explain what the hell it is that they've built.

National Review prides itself for "standing athwart history yelling stop." That pride is misplaced. All too often, the "conservatism" of Goldberg and Company is more reminiscent of the prayer of Augustine: "Give me chastity and continence -- but not just yet."

History, thus far, is the record of continuing state encroachment on individual liberty -- with occasional interruption due to technical difficulties. The piercing "STOP!" of the modern American "conservative" movement is invariably followed by a throaty, whispered "but not just yet" as "conservatives" rush to assimilate the latest development, make it their own and defend it to the death.

Contra Goldberg (Jonah, not Rube), libertarians don't suffer from "accumulated resentment at being in the backseat of the right-wing coalition." No such coalition exists, nor can it exist except on libertarian terms. The backseat of American politics is already occupied by the "conservatives," busily engaged in making babies with the "liberals."

The libertarian malady is more physiological and less petty than resentment. It's called nausea.

My (current) presidential predictions

Yes, the general election is still a long way off ... which is why attempting to predict outcomes is so much fun. Besides, I'm feeling my oats, having predicted McCain's nomination eight months out when virtually everyone except me, and maybe McCain himself, thought he was done. I may revise these predictions, but I won't memory-hole anything.

Popular Vote

Based on a guesstimated 120-million vote turnout, with a fudge factor of a little less than 1/10th of 1%:

Barack Obama (D) -- 54%(63.6 million)
John McCain (R) -- 44.5% (52.8 million)
Bob Barr (L) -- 0.6% (720k)
Cynthia McKinney (G) -- 0.5% (600k)
Ralph Nader (I) -- 0.3% (400k)
Charles Baldwin (C) -- ~0.15% (200k)
Charles Jay (BTP) -- ~0.03% (25-50k)

Electoral College

Obama -- 333 electoral votes
McCain -- 205 electoral votes

Yes, I know the map below looks like hell -- I'm not an artist, I just filled in colors in a public domain image by Wikipedia author Scott5114.

Dark blue represents states won by Obama. Light blue represents "Barrbama" states -- states Obama picks up because Bob Barr takes McCain down. Red represents states won by McCain.



Final answer? No. Like I said, I may revise as things develop. You'll know I've frozen my predictions when I'm willing to bet on them. On the one hand, I still have this nagging hunch that McCain will find a way to pull it off -- but that hunch conflicts with my state-specific hunches that Obama will find a way to put Florida and Missouri in play.

NewsMax Interview: Bob Barr

"Former Georgia congressman and Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr tells Newsmax correspondent Ashley Martella why he's running for president. Hear his views on John McCain and why he dismisses criticism that he could be the spoiler in the presidential sweepstakes. He explains his reasons for turning against the Patriot Act after having voted for it while in the House of Representatives."

Novak and Carney: "McCain's Libertarian problem"

From this week's Evans-Novak Political Report:

The key question on the libertarian side of the ledger will be the strength of former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, the Libertarian nominee. ... Barr sees his strongest region being the Mountain West, where Nevada and Colorado sit on the edge of the McCain-Obama battle. Barr could tip those states in Obama's direction if he gets just 2 percent. ... The fear of Barr swinging his home state Georgia to the Obama column is overblown.

Actually, Nevada and Colorado could swing on less than 2%. They're just that close now.

A strong libertarian campaign -- especially one with a Nevadan on the ticket -- focusing on two issues that have particularly vexed Bob Barr could easily make the difference.

Same-sex marriage: Both states have incorporated marriage apartheid into their constitutions in the 21st century (Nevada with 2002's Question 2 and Colorado with 2006's Amendment 43). However, significant portions of Nevadans (33%) and Coloradoans (44%) opposed those measures.

Marijuana, medical and otherwise: Both states allow medical marijuana. Significant portions of Nevadans (44%) and Coloradoans (40%) voted for broader legalization in 2006.

If Barr is interested in seizing the balance of power in Colorado and Nevada, he might do well to come out strong on these issues -- and ditch the Dixiecrat-style "states rights" reservations he's previously attached to them. What works in "the Solid South" doesn't necessarily work out west.

It's a safe bet that at least 2% of Colorado and Nevada voters:

a) support marriage equality;

b) support cannabis legalization;

c) consider both issues important; and

d) fit into the "true conservative" demographic that Barr (like Ron Paul before him) has geared his to appeal to so far.

I have to disagree with Novak and Carney on Georgia. Although most polls have shown McCain well ahead in that state, the latest InsiderAdvantage/PollPosition poll [PDF] has them in a virtual dead heat ... with Barr's share covering the spread ten times over!

That poll may be an outlier or it may indicate the start of a lasting trend, but let's be honest here: The outcome in Georgia probably hinges on black voter turnout, and Barr has a tough row to hoe there. The most interesting crosstab on the poll above is that Barr's support among black voters (Georgia's population is 30% African-American) is statistically insignificant (it registers as 0.0% in the poll).

I'm not sure he can do anything about that ... but the things he might do are the right things to do anyway (apologize for consorting with, and repudiate, the white separatist "Council of Conservative Citizens," concentrate on the drug war, throw the "states rights" nonsense overboard, etc.).

My bet is that Georgia's going to be a close state this time. It will probably come down to how well the Democrats do their job of getting African-American voters to the polls for Obama ... and quite possibly to whether or not Barr can hold his ground and maybe even take some more ground between now and November.

- Cross-posted at Independent Political Report

More progress: Barr on Iraq

Bob Barr before becoming the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nominee:

[S]ignificantly reduce the US economic and military footprint in Iraq.

This phrasing appears in numerous articles around the web (search for it!). I can't tell if the original appearance, on Barr's web site, has been memory-holed or if my Google skills just aren't up to the task, but I recall that that appearance avoided the use of the term "withdrawal."

Bob Barr as the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nominee:

The next president should commit to a speedy and complete withdrawal from Iraq, and tell the Iraqi people that the U.S. troops will be going home.

Title of the article? "Tell Iraqis no permanent bases, says Bob Barr."

Works.

Raising the Barr, part 2: Iran

Hat tip to Susan Hogarth for calling attention to this (on the LP Radicals discussion list):

Jun 10
Press Conference, "Time to Talk with Iran"
West side Terrace of the House Canon Office Building
10:30 am Edt

This is a unique opportunity for Bob Barr to truly shine as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate. Barr, who graduated from high school in, of all places, Tehran, can claim a familiarity with the Iranian people and culture that no other candidate of any party comes close to ... and he can bring that familiarity and a libertarian policy perspective effectively to bear on US foreign policy vis a vis Iran.

Quoth Barr, as late as last year:

Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone — free to support terrorist groups and regimes in other countries, including Iraq, and to develop a nuclear capability? Of course not. Even considering that our lengthy and continuing occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Ahmadinejad, the United States has a clear and legitimate stake in what happens in Iran and with regard to matters in which that regime is involved elsewhere. ... Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran, and increased efforts to quietly but actively build on the deep base of political understanding that already exists among a large segment of the Iranian population (and including the more than one million Iranian-Americans).

Hopefully his perspective has changed since then. Hopefully he has realized -- as the American experience versus, among others, the Cuban Communist regime and the Iraqi Ba'athist regime prove -- that not only do sanctions not work, they have precisely the opposite effect of that allegedly intended. They entrench tyrants and allow those tyrants to continue in power.

The quickest way to remove the mullahs from power in Iran is also the approach dictated by libertarian foreign policy prescriptions: Lift all sanctions, bring down all trade barriers, and announce that the US will henceforth treat Iran (or, to put a finer point on it, Iranians) as ... friends!

It was American support for the Shah's regime that allowed him to rule autocratically -- and that produced the Islamist backlash which led to the revolution and the ascent of Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian people are not, by inclination, backward. It is only American sanctions and sabre-rattling which have allowed the mullahs to continue in power by brandishing a powerful foreign enemy at their subjects.

Lift the sanctions, declare friendship ... and the theocratic regime in Iran would be lucky to last a year. Hopefully Barr will unveil exactly such a program next week.

Verney lays it down; Bo Diddley, like a Cadillac 8

The only thing these two items really have in common is that I noticed them both first at Hit & Run.

First, a word (or 78) from Bob Barr campaign manager Russ Verney:

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

Good on Verney (and Barr). Not just the perfect line in itself, but a giant step toward undoing damage that other campaign did to the freedom movement.

Also at Hit & Run, Jesse Walker notes the death of Bo Diddley. Reqiescat in Pace to a man who sometimes made it work with two chords and the truth.

Raising the Barr, part 1: Marriage

OK, so I've said that it's up to Libertarian Party radicals to both support our party's presidential candidate and to help him make his message consistent with libertarian principles.

I've already declared my support for the Barr/Root ticket. I'll help them in any way I can. So, when I critique their presentations, please take it as constructive criticism, designed to help them be better candidates. I'm no longer trying to beat them. I'm trying to help them beat John McCain and whomever the Democrats nominate. I'm also trying to help them be the kind of candidates whom I can point admiringly upward at from my billet as a 2008 Libertarian congressional candidate.

So, let's take Bob Barr's post-nomination comment on the Defense of Marriage Act, as transcribed by David Tomlin, and get to work:

Well, I wouldn’t be too hard, too fast to talk about the Defense of Marriage Act flying the face of anybody’s platform. It simply stands for the proposition that each state is free to make up its own decision, its people are able to decide for themselves what their definition of marriage to be and no one state should force another state to adopt its definition. A very, very sound individualistic and states rights policy.

There are ways to arrive at a libertarian position on marriage that don't require Barr to sacrifice one iota of his credibility with social conservatives. In point of fact, some adjustments would increase that credibility.

Let us start from two propositions:

First, that in one respect marriage is a civil contract between two (or more) parties. Libertarians (and conservatives) generally regard contract as a private matter between the parties to it. Sure, the courts are called in to enforce contracts when they're breached, and if the contract has criminal acts among its terms of performance it's a criminal conspiracy ... but that's about the limit of legitimate public interest. The state has no business regulating the right to contract on the basis of the gender or number of parties.

Secondly, that marriage is, outside of contractual aspects that might have to be enforced by the courts at some point, a personal commitment usually expressed as a religious rite. It's a matter of freedom of speech ("I do," "I pronounce you," etc.), freedom of religion (where applicable), and freedom of association.

Instead of defending DOMA, Barr should be telling "the business of America is business"-type conservatives "I don't like the idea of government fooling around in the business of regulating terms of contract. Right now, the fooling around is by gender and number for marriage. Next week, it could be how many popsicles you can sell to one customer or what color the wrappers have to be."

Instead of defending DOMA, Barr should be asking social conservatives "do you really want the government telling you how you may worship, what the content of your religious services are, whom your sacraments may serve? Right now, it's marriage. Next week, maybe Congress or your state legislature will want to speak ex cathedra on dunking versus sprinkling or settle the argument over the transubstantiation of the host. Who may commit to whom in your church should be for your church, not some politician, to decide."

"States rights" is a compelling argument to a certain audience (and let us not forget that Barr comes to us from Georgia, where that audience is a big demographic), but c'mon: States don't have rights -- people do. Leave that garbage in the bin with the Dixiecrats who last trafficked on it with any success ... and get mainstream, Congressman.

Support equal protection of the laws for all, Congressman Barr. Sustain the Full Faith and Credit clause, Congressman Barr. Show the voters that a libertarian political approach is not at odds with a conservative social approach, but rather protects freedom of speech, religion and association for everyone, conservatives included.

And here's the kicker, Congressman: You got told a lot during the Libertarian nomination process that you needed to apologize for some of your past actions. That was true, but it was framed in terms of "you have to do this to get our nomination." It actually goes beyond that.

Your most effective club as a candidate is not that you're a former Republican congressman. Can't swing a cat around here without hitting one of those. No, your big stick is being able to go to the public and say "My old party was wrong on [insert issue], and I was wrong with them. They're still wrong, but I'm not wrong any more. I've changed my mind and I've changed my ways. Now I'm right, and I'm asking you to help me fix the stuff that my party broke." That approach will get you ten times the media and ten times the support that trying to out-Republican John McCain would.

Being right is not enough. It's a start, but you have to add a good story to it for anyone to notice ... and you've got a very good story. You've got a Ronald Reagan story -- does "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me" ring any bells?

Tell that story. Tell it right. Drive it home. Do that, and you can shift the debate, move the center, make America a better nation. We're behind you now, Congressman Barr. Time to lead.

Living it up

Steve Newton writes:

This is my challenge to Michael Munger, Thomas Knapp, Brian Miller, Less Antman, and all the others -- from Mary Ruwart to Mike Jingozian and George Phillies:

We've got Barr/Root now, so let's take a shot at making them live up to the principles they claim to represent.

Hear, hear. But let's take this from the top.

The Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root for president and vice-president on Sunday. A case of redass for us radicals? Well, yeah -- we came to Denver looking for a fight, and we lost. The bruises are still fresh, but the fact remains that the nomination was legit. It was by the book. It was as accurate a reflection of the desires of the party's membership as our processes were able to produce.

So, even if I agree that we got lemons (a claim to which I decline to stipulate, dammit), I'm far more interested in making lemonade out of them than in just sitting around sucking on them for the next five months.

Look ... petulance is a tool of limited utility, and we're past the point of that utility now. Maybe Barr and Root need us, but nattering from the sidelines isn't going to convince them of that.

It's time to get with the goddamn team, folks. I guarantee you that Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root are going to lend a much more attentive ear to the lady who writes a $2300 check or the guy who volunteers to clean the bathroom at the campaign HQ than to the allegedly yellow-dog Libertarian who's still ragging on them after they've convinced a majority of LP convention delegates to vote for them.

How do we "make them live up to the principles they claim to represent?" By helping them do so.

Maybe our advice will fall on deaf ears, but I don't think so. I've been corresponding with Wayne Root ever since before he declared his candidacy, and every time I've offered him positive, sincere advice he's jumped on it. Every. Time.

I doubt I'm the only person that's true of. I mean, c'mon ... nobody slammed Root the way I did pre-nomination. If he'll listen to me, he'll listen to you, too. He'll just listen better if you're working with him instead of against him. My experience is that he wants to learn, that he's willing to listen. I had genuine doubts about his sincerity, but now that he's our VP nominee I've declared tabula rasa -- clean slate -- on that and will trust him until and unless he gives me reason not to.

There may be a little more of a "professional campaign bubble" around Congressman Barr that could insulate him from The Unwashed, but if so we're a lot more likely to pierce that bubble with a supportive attitude than with "now see here ..." And while I agree that his "conversion" has been less than complete by radical standards, my considered opinion is that to the extent it has taken place, it's been sincere.

So let's change the tone, Steve. We can't "make" Barr or Root do anything. They've already won the prize as far as the party is concerned. They've got the nomination, and if they run a big campaign its funding base will have to come from beyond our small party anyway. What do they need us for? We know what they need us for, but it's a lot easier for them to understand that they do need us if we approach them as members of the same team rather than continuing to treat them as opponents.

Could Bob Barr be our next president?

Yes, he could. Really. Here's how:

If Barr can carry any states -- even one -- in a close election, he might hold "the balance of power" in the Electoral College. It's a long shot, but not an impossibility. He'll obviously play well in Georgia (15 electoral votes). Nevada (five electoral votes), too, especially with Wayne Allyn "King of Vegas" Root on the ballot as his running mate.

I'm not going to do all kinds of weird math for you here, but let's suppose that John McCain and Barack Obama come in very close -- neither with a majority of electoral votes in pocket, and Barr standing there with the difference that makes a majority.

Naturally, heavy Republican pressure will be put on Barr's electors to go "faithless" and cast their votes for McCain. If there's no majority in the Electoral College, the decision gets kicked to Congress to make. Each state's US House delegation gets one vote, and it takes 26 to win. Care to guess which "major" party controls the most House delegations?

Pressure can be exerted in more than one direction, though. And if the (still hypothetical) Barr electors stand firm, they can dictate the result: You can have Bob Barr if you go with us, or you can get Barack Obama from the Hill. John McCain is off the table.

Long shot? Yeah -- but I bet that professional handicapper Wayne Root would give it better odds than the Libertarian Party has ever had before.

Knowhutimean, Verney?

Over at The Atlantic Monthly, Marc Ambinder reproduces Russ Verney's "Barr Strategy Memo," a fundraiser I also received by email earlier today.

The interesting part is Verney's timeline on Ross Perot's 1992 campaign, linked with Verney's assessment that "I believe Congressman Bob Barr has the same potential."

early October: 7% in national surveys
Mid October: wins televised Presidential debate
late October: 12% in national surveys
election day: captures 19% of national vote

Problem is -- as Verney almost certainly knows -- that Perot's 1992 and 1996 performances brought about a change. The "big debates" are now controlled by a bi-partisan (not "non-partisan" -- it's strictly a duopoly preservation tool) Commission on Presidential Debates, and that commission has different standards:

The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.

If Barr performs to Verney's assessment of his potential, he almost certainly won't be invited to debate his major party opponents, even if -- as seems unlikely -- he's able to secure the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination.

Preppin': The LP National Convention is Decadent and Depraved

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world ...

So, like, what's the down side here?

And what rough beast slouches toward Denver? Oh, yeah, that would be moi.

But theriouthly, folkth ... Looks like I'll be tagging on with a van full of Bob Barr supporters coming through St. Louis from Atlanta early on Thursday morning, and arriving in Denver some time Thursday evening. Should be an interesting ride. I'm planning at least one in-transit straw poll and podcast, of course.

In the meantime, I'm catching up on last minute campaign work, tentatively beginning my travel packing, that sort of thing.

Most of all, right now, I'm trying to break myself of the natural tendency to see this convention as Ragnarok, Armageddon, Stalingrad on steroids. It always feels that way going in, but somehow when it's all said and done, the party is still there and there's still work to do.

Nonetheless, the hardening of attitudes proceeds apace ... and frankly things aren't looking so good for Bob Barr.

It's not the ideological problems -- hell, everyone knew those would be there -- but rather his strategic positioning. PAC contributions to Republican, not Libertarian, candidates. Saying -- like it's a good thing -- that his candidacy will be good for down-ticket Republican, not Libertarian, candidates. Appealing to the "true conservative" vote rather than the "pro-freedom" vote.

Ideology is always a struggle for Libertarians. Partisan loyalty, not so much. Some of us will occasionally break ranks to support a candidate of another party if the pitch is good enough, but when it comes to our own candidates, we expect them to support the party at least as much as they're asking the party to support them. And Barr's line is "no ... I'm just here to use you."

The big mistake here (a mistake Barr wouldn't be making if he was listening to Steve Gordon, who's been down this road) is believing that the LP's presidential nomination can be won solely on the basis of external jazz (big name, big money, big media, etc.).

The people whom Barr has to convince -- a few hundred, a thousand or so at most, delegates in a room in Denver, Colorado -- chew candidates who take that approach up and spit them out on a regular basis in favor of candidates they're comfortable with and consider reliably Libertarian.

That's a tough nut for Barr to crack in the first place, given his pre-history with the LP. If you've seen the party's 2002 anti-Barr commercial (RealVideo format) and you have dry eyes after medical marijuana patient Cheryl Miller asks "why would you want to do that to me, Bob?" you're not a human being I care to know. Top that with his continued Republican flirtations, his evasiveness on core issues, etc., and I don't see how his candidacy is anything but on life support.

In my view, the main thing Barr is accomplishing right now (and I'm grateful for it) is stealng Wayne Allyn Root's thunder. That means that Mary Ruwart and Steve Kubby have an opening to appeal to the delegates not just on ideology but as party stalwarts versus takeover artists.

If we can beat Barr, we can beat Root.

And right now it looks to me like we can beat Barr.

Barr's line in the sand

The Boston Globe seems to be the only MSM outfit featuring this gem from Bob Barr's presidential campaign announcement press conference today (hat tip to Crazy for Liberty):

In a news conference, Barr said "only a fool" would specify a date and timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. But he said it's "extremely important" and in the best interest of national defense to draw down dramatically the US troop presence in Iraq and decrease the military and political footprint in Iraq.

There are only two reasonably likely outcomes in Iraq: An orderly withdrawal on an announced timetable, or a "last helicopter out of Saigon as the embassy is overrun" scenario. Barr has now publicly positioned himself -- and, if he receives its presidential nomination, the Libertarian Party -- in support of the latter.

As for the third possible outcome, "victory" in Iraq, well, I don't think that is possible ... but just to accommodate any hawkish readers, if it is, it won't be achieved by Barr's proposal to "draw down dramatically the US troop presence in Iraq." It would require a much larger, and much longer, "surge." So Barr's not appealing to the "victory" crowd either.

I just don't see what voter bloc Barr thinks he can appeal to with a "don't withdraw, but draw down" Iraq plank. The hawks aren't going to buy it; and neither are the majority of Americans who favor withdrawal; nor especially are the Ron Paul voters who will be looking for a candidate to support after the GOP's national convention. Whom, exactly, does a weak-sister version of McCain's "100 years in Iraq" nonsense make Barr look good to?

I started off reserving judgment, and willing to be enthusiastic about a Barr candidacy if at all possible. But as the negatives -- especially the conflict of interest inherent in his continuing financial support of Republican candidates, including the loathsome chickenhawk Saxby Chambliss, while sitting on the Libertarian National Committee -- mounted, so did my skepticism.

Still, until today I held out hope that if he announced, Barr would hit hard with a strong Libertarian policy platform -- a "road to Damascus" turnaround story that would position him, and the party, as a real alternative this November.

Instead, he came out with yet another round of timid, milquetoast policy pronouncements guaranteed to enthuse nobody who hasn't already bought in to his candidacy on the basis of his personal stature. With apologies to Aaron Tippin: Instead of standing for something, Barr seems to be betting that the Libertarian Party will fall for anything.

Barr Barr Jinx?

While I have supported -- and continue to support -- a party stalwart for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination -- I have to admit that I was excited at the prospect of Bob Barr entering the race.

Here was a guy with some juice -- beltway credentials, experience at actually winning elections, media access, the kind of fundraising chops to build a campaign with real potential to break out into millions-of-votes territory.

What made Barr even more attractive was the prospect of a "road to Damascus" story -- "how I gave up drug warriorism, gay-bashing, religious demagogism, Big Brotherism and military adventurism and learned to love liberty."

So, after months of rumors and backroom scheming, what's the sitch on our new shooter coming out? Well ... fizzle is the most gentle term I can come up with on short notice.

Not a campaign, but an "exploratory committee."

Not a "road to Damascus" story, but hands-down the mushiest bowl of "offend no one" pablum I've ever seen from any candidate of any party. Barr doesn't seem to stand for anything except, oddly enough, the big-government "Fair Tax" scheme.

There were always risks with a Barr candidacy -- the worst, to my mind, being that it would reinforce the false image of the Libertarian Party as the Republican Party's disgruntled conservative overflow area -- but I expected those risks to be somewhat balanced out by the benefits.

The response seems to match the offering -- more fizzle. Three days after his kinda-sort-maybe "announcement," Barr's fundraising meter stands at less than 1/10th of its initial $250,000 goal.

Iffen da EllPee treaten alla dem 'Pugnicans witda respects yusa showen Ja Ja, meetinks, yep, dat meyby okeyday ta tink?

I'm good with outreach to conservatives. I'm downright enthusiastic about showcasing prominent "converts." But gutless doesn't get it.

Some thoughts on the presidential race

Back in late 2006, I signed on with Steve Kubby's campaign for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination. I did so because he was obviously the best candidate in the race at the time. In my opinion, he remains the best candidate in the race. He no longer bests every one of his opponents by every measure, but he bests all of them by most measures and each of them by some measures.

And, until Dr. Mary Ruwart entered the race, I was pretty sure that he would pull off the nomination. While Wayne Allyn Root was slightly ahead in internal LP polling, Root was also at the top of his "positives" ... he had (and has) nowhere to go but down.

It was just barely possible that Root would come in first on the first ballot at the LP's national convention, but with nowhere near the required majority and no chance of pulling in the votes of his opponents as they fell one by one. Those other votes were eventually going to land on Kubby.

When Dr. Ruwart entered the race, she immediately replaced Kubby as the likely nominee. Higher positives, lower negatives, and years of internal party speaking -- she's familiar and likeable to the delegates and her ideological credentials are, like Kubby's, sterling.

No sour grapes here -- I greatly admire Dr. Ruwart and would happily support her as the LP's nominee -- but when she threw her hat in the ring, Kubby's chances immediately went from good to grim.

Then things started getting really weird. Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel jumped the fence to the LP one day (with only a few rumors beforehand), and entered its presidential contest the day after that.

Despite his "star power," the former two-term US Senator is by no means a lock for the LP's nomination. He's got some definite differences with the party line. However, he is likeable, he's emphasizing his agreements with the LP line on foreign policy, and he's certainly going to be a factor (a welcome factor from this left-leaning libertarian's perspective, btw).

And still out in the tall grass, we have former Republican Congressman, now Libertarian National Committee member Bob Barr. There's been an ongoing "draft" effort, part real and part contrived, to get him into the race.

I happen to like the Congressman on the basis of what I've seen (including meeting him and hearing him speak twice). However, I'm hoping he sits 2008 out, for his own good and for the party's. Barr has huge potential, and not enough time to deploy that potential to full effect if he announces this late. 2012 is his year -- a 2008 run would sacrifice his interests as a candidate, and the party's interests in real, solid growth as a political power, to the desire for short-term gratification (and possibly 2008 campaign paychecks for some of those pushing him to declare).

I anticipate being able to cheerfully support whomever the Libertarian Party nominates, of course ... and I'm pretty sure it won't be the candidate I support for the nomination (and whom I will continue to support for as long as he remains in the race).

So, what does the future have in store for Steve Kubby? As of now, Kubby remains a presidential candidate. He's continuing to produce issues videos, trying to raise money to meet more Libertarians at their state conventions, and hoping to "break out" at the national convention itself (as Michael Badnarik did in 2004). This is exactly what he should be doing.

There are, however, other possibilities.

I've previously endorsed -- and still support -- Chris Bennett for the LP's vice-presidential nomination, but as things continue to devolve toward a circus, I suspect that both the presidential nominee and the party will start agitating for someone with a higher profile (Chris is only 6'9").

If that happens, we could do far, far worse than Steve Kubby. He's got the ideological credentials. He's got a track record of fighting successfully for freedom. He's got good name recognition in California and among a key national constituency (drug policy reform advocates). If the party wanted him to, he could effectively run a "second campaign" in California and the Pacific northwest -- giving the LP a constant presence in that region and freeing the presidential nominee to spend more time in other parts of the country. In the process, he'd be bootstrapping his own prospective 2010 gubernatorial campaign, and with it the California LP's chances of doing well in both 2008 and 2010.

Because I've grown to place a high premium on loyalty, I expect to vote as a delegate for Kubby for the presidential nomination, and Bennett for the vice-presidential nomination, until and unless either or both of them are eliminated. Because I place a high premium on realism, I expect both of them to be eliminated. I'm not pessimistic about the final results, though. I believe that the LP can have a very good year, and that with candidates like Steve and Chris stepping forward to hold the banner high, that it will have a very good year.