I need to expound a bit more on last night's post. As I said last night, Bob Barr may be making a run at the Libertarian nomination for prez this year. There are two reasons why at this time I will not be supporting his candidacy for president, despite the fact that I agree with him on many issues. He is a proponent of reducing the size of gov't, and getting rid of programs and entitlements that have negative impact on our economy and society. He is a staunch supporter of privacy rights, home schooling, and other 'individual' issues, promoting that America is great because of its people, and not b/c of its government. He is against the Real ID Act, and promotes states' rights. Good stuff. Back to the 2 reasons. 1, his (and Libertarians as a party) position on foreign policy, and 2, the current ineffectiveness of third-party candidates for the presidency.
Where I have issue with Bob Barr and the majority of Libertarians is in their view of foreign policy and truly recognizing what I believe to be a major threat: radical Islam. Now I know you are thinking that I have been brainwashed by my republican handlers and am just spouting the company line. (BTW: I consider myself a conservative, not a Republican. Big difference) Others will say that we haven't been attacked in six years, so it is not so big a threat anymore. I believe there is a reason we haven't been attacked, and that is because we have been attacking them on their turf and protecting our own.
The conundrum on this issue is in determining which ideal takes precedence: protecting our freedoms at all costs versus protecting our country, and this is a legitimate argument. Do we derive our decisions from our staunch support for privacy, keeping government at all levels out of our lives and potentially enabling outside invaders to take down our republic? Or do we protect ourselves at all costs, sacrificing personal liberties to keep our houses and jobs and hope that we can trust our government not to pull a Big Brother on us and run our lives? Honestly, I don't know the answer, maybe a mix of both. And I believe many true conservatives will have to make that decision if they honestly evaluate Bob Barr as a candidate come November, because he brings such a different view to the table.
Barr's candidacy also brings up another issue, and that is the ineffectiveness of a third party becoming a major player in our political scene. In my naive and often idiotic opinion, I don't see this ever happening in this manner. All a third party does right now is essentially elect one of the major party candidates every four years. I don't see the Libertarian party becoming effective by nominating Barr for president. Much like most political efforts, this needs to be from the ground up. Harvey Birdman noted in his comments last night that its 'voters like you' who keep a third party from becoming viable. In some form, yes that is true, but I believe that a third party must grow its roots through local, state, and congressional elections before it will ever become a real challenger for the White House. And I am in favor of guys like Barr and Joe Liebermann breaking away from their former parties to support the people and issues that they believe in. But at this point, I don't believe that voting for a third party candidate for President will have any positive impact on the issues that are most important to me.
he guys on the team would take a bat to the head for him, b/c they know he would do the same. I love it, because the only reason he argued last nite was to keep his pitcher from getting tossed. Arguing balls and strikes from the dugout? What kind of view is that? But he kept his pitcher in the game, and the Braves came back for the victory.
