Ex-Rep. Bob Barr Quits GOP


By BEN EVANS/Associated Press
December 15, 2006 6:06 PM EST

WASHINGTON - A former Georgia congressman who helped spark President Clinton's impeachment has quit the Republican Party to become a Libertarian, saying he is disillusioned with the GOP on issues such as spending and privacy. . . .

"It's something that's been bothering me for quite some time, the direction in which the party has been going more and more toward big government and disregard toward privacy and civil liberties," . . . I've come to the conclusion that the only way to do that is to work with a party that practices what it preaches, and that is the Libertarian Party."


Whoa, looks like the cracking up of the GOP is going beyond losing elections . . .

**radio connection: Bob Barr has filled in for Rush a number of times**

Aw, he was a little pink around the gills anyway.

But democrats are awfully quiet about Mr. Lieberman.

Now THERE'S a man to vote for.

Giuliani-Lieberman in 2008?

Herb

Yep. And they are likely to stay very quiet.

Joe is all about Joe. Best not feed the fire.

You know...he really kind of reminds me of Nader now. Don't get me wrong, I used to love Nader...but in the last election he just seemed to be running for himself.

Agreed on that score!

"Joe is all about Joe."

Oh, REALLY?

Wrong again.

Is that why DEMOCRATS elected him in place of their own candidate?

Nice leftist, not democrat, spin.

If I were you, I'd run from the issue, too.

That's because so-called 'progressives' are unable to explain why democrats deserted their party in DROVES to elect an INDEPENDENT, Mr. Lieberman.

Herb

Herb, he got elected because he received a TON of GOP support, in addition to his base of fairly stupid Dem voters.

Truth is we are gonna see Joe do stuff we both like! This is because he's about Joe, and not so much for any particular cause.

My objection to Joe is largely based on his willingness to leverage anyone and any party to keep his position of power. Said position is all about ambiguity and depends a lot on the thin majority right now.

Add just one to that, and I would personally strip him of his committee seat and let him work up as the indie he now is.

The Joe party really isn't much, unless it can exploit both the GOP and Democratic parties.

That's my beef. And hey, that's KSKD talking, not a leftist or not Dem! I think the guy is a sleezeball, even when he helps advance things I think are good, he is still a sleazeball.

I would much rather see a Statesman in there, even one I didn't agree with, rather than Joe Sleezerman.

"My objection to Joe is largely based on his willingness to leverage anyone and any party to keep his position of power."

But couldn't you really say that about almost ANY politician, including Gordon Smith, Vic DeFazio, etc.?

Which makes my point...why pick on Mr. Lieberman? He's probably one of the tamer guys when it comes to putting his finger to the wind. Heck, at least he had enough backbone to stand for fighting terror. BUT IF A REPUBLICAN like MARK HATFIELD goes against his party, then my my...HE'S A STATESMAN. That's why I'm wary of the 'statesman' label. Everybody wants the guy in the opposing party to be a statesman...which is often code language for 'turncoat.'

I'm not excusing it, but with a few exceptions, it's all about politics...sadly, many politicians are willing to do pretty much anything that's essentially unethical or remotely justifiable with their party in order to keep power.

Herbert Milhous Nixon II

Vic DeFazio?

There's a great story out there somewhere I read that I'll have to find the link to...it's about a guy that went down to change his part affiliation to Connecticut for Lieberman, found he was the only one at that time, so named himself party chair. Funny stuff.

In the meantime, and what I think is an unrelated website, is the latest about Holy Joe:

http://www.connecticutforlieberman.com/

I read that one too. Tried to find it last night, but couldn't.

Herb, it comes down to this.

I don't equate fighting terror to a hosed up war in Iraq. Iraq is a known bad scenario. It's many bad side effects have weakened our stature in the world and this alone diminishes our ability to actually fight terror. Our deeds, surrounding terror (secret prisons, civil rights violations (big ass ones too --grammar czars, leave me be on the nested parens!), etc... all leave us in a difficult position where maintaining any high ground is concerned.

These things have diminished us as a nation. Strength is one element to fighting terror we completely agree upon.

Leiberman is not strong, and that's a big beef.

We have Statesmen in the congress right now. Not all of them are just out to win at all costs. A significant percentage of them value the process and understand that we need to eat our own dog food on our path to victory over terror.

This means our actions must embody our core American ideas of freedom, democracy and equality. We can fight terror without yielding these things. That means ethical actions, no raw power grabs in the interest of national security, and it goes on and on and on.

I do agree with you that sadly, it's about politics for a lot of our elected officials. If this were not true, the GOP would have done better in the last elections. We didn't lose a single seat on the Dem side of things.

Are they perfect? No. But, by percentage, we've got more of them willing to engage terror and our time-tested process without comprimise.

That's really important to me. Polls done, post election, indicate it's important to a lot of people regardless of their particular political persuasion.

Leiberman has aligned himself with that faction of our government that really is all about the ends justifying the means. He really is the anything to win kind and as such really does not qualify as a solid American in his acts.

"Live free or die"

Let's translate that to "Be American or Die".

If we surrender what it means to be American, or redefine it to allow tit for tat kind of actions against terrorists, we lose period. It's like surrendering yourself to feel safe.

No thanks!

There are some things we must consider absolutely immutable in this war on terror. Due process of law is one of them. Leiberman does not understand this. Freedom of religion and expression to the maximum possible is another. Lieberman does not understand this either. Ethical behavior is a third. And his actions, running up to his re-election, clearly demonstrate he does not understand this either.

What does Joe stand for that really matters? Joe.

I may sound like some nationalistic idealist. Maybe so. But, this nation was founded by people who wanted a different form of self-governance. They had seen what happens when power goes unchecked by the people.

Our nation has changed much of the world for the better. We have exactly zero reason to surrender any of that for any reason, including fear.

Leiberman has shown solid support for doing all of these things, accepted support from those who advocate for these things, and did whatever it took to keep his seat. He's not a Democrat, nor a Republican. He's just about Joe.

On this matter, I actually have far more respect for the current GOP crowd than I do Leiberman. I don't think their goals are well aligned with those things that define this nation. In fact, I think they want to redefine it for their own selfish ends.

But at least they are consistant about it. Give credit where credit is due. Leiberman has been back and forth on both extremes too many times to articulate properly here. Again, it's just about Joe.

Allowing these kinds of politicians to continue to exist does us all harm --even when they are helping our side, whatever that is. They magnify conflict and do nothing to honor the core values that make this nation great. They are all about making as many of the people happy as much of the time as is possible.

Sometimes being American does not make us happy. Tough. For our greater long term good, this must occur. Our history shows us this, as it will long after this crap is over. Leiberman will not be a solid contributor to that history.

All about joe.

We disagree on a key point:

"...our actions must embody our core American ideas of freedom, democracy and equality. We can fight terror without yielding these things."

WRONG.

Mr. Lincoln couldn't do it and FDR couldn't do it.

When you're at WAR, you yield a few things or put your entire nation at risk. Unless you want another 9/11, our government must work smarter, harder and differently.

Look.

These guys want to cut our heads off and re-enact 9/11. If you think we can whistle along and act like they don't, you are sadly mistaken.

There is a huge problem, and it is precisely because democrats think we are dealing with some kind of a police action.

We're not.

We're in a long, hard WAR.

Herb

Well then, one of us believes America is something that can stand the test of time and the other does not.

For what it's worth, I'm inclined to see it more your way, but only after we've engaged this properly.

Guess we shall see huh?

We do live in interesting times. Thank god for that!

Herb, FDR and Lincoln assumed emergency powers for short periods only, in crisis situations. While I think almost all Americans would have supported such a thing in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 - for a short time - we are certainly not in anything like the crisis periods of the past. Most certainly you do not CUT taxes in the middle of such a national crisis the way Bush did.

Many of us disagree about what the "war on terror" really is or whether that's even the right approach. Regardless, we all agree that the fight against terrorists will be a long, hard fight, taking many years, even decades; more likely, we will never completely eliminate terrorist threats against the United States, and we will need to be on permanent guard. At the same time, this long fight is, again, not an immediate, intense crisis that requires suspension of the Constitution. If an American president came out advocating such a thing in our current situation, for decades, very few Americans would support it. Why would Americans want to shred the Constitution to protect it? I certainly wouldn't want to live in a nation without our current rights and I am sure most Americans agree with me.

Living in our free society comes with risks. While America must do the smart, right things to fight terrorism (despite Bush's wrong, dumb thing in Iraq), we can still do those things without shredding the Constitution.

Andrew

"Well then, one of us believes America is something that can stand the test of time and the other does not."

WRONG.

It is PRECISELY BECAUSE we're doing what FDR and Lincoln did that we will survive.

Because this threat is now going nuclear, especially in Iran, it will likely involve destroying much of the free world and not just the US.

Picture Hitler with nukes.

That's essentially what is developing in Iran and North Korea.

You can't wish this one away. Anything else is pulling a Neville Chamberlain through appeasement:
"Peace in our time" with Herr Hitler.

Appeasement didn't work in the late 1930's and it won't work now.

Herb

No, Herb, I don't think the kind of appeasement that Chamberlain did with Hitler and Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush did with Saddam Hussein as good approaches. Then again, I don't see anyone here advocating "appeasement" - just a straw man you made up so you could knock it down - for about the 1,283rd time here...

There are a couple of ways you could destroy America. One would be to attack it with WMDs. Another would be to gut the constitution and make it a dictatorship where most of our constitutional rights have been suspended for "security" purposes. I don't see much point in doing one to prevent the other.

Andrew

"Another would be to gut the constitution and make it a dictatorship where most of our constitutional rights have been suspended for "security" purposes."

What you describe is precisely what Mr. Lincoln and FDR did...and IT WORKED EACH TIME.

The UNTRIED METHOD IS THE ONE YOU ADVOCATE.

If you have a better method to fight terror, then tell us. Anything else is merely armchair quarterbacking.

Herb

Herb, we've given numerous ideas about better ways to fight terrorism beyond suspending the constitution. Here are just a quick few:

- Adopt the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
- Inspect all cargo coming into United States Ports
- Embark on an "Apollo Program" to get the United States energy-independent of Middle East oil by, say, 2020. Terrorists tend to need money; if the US and other western countries no longer need to buy oil from the middle east, the price will drop, profits to the middle east dictatorships will drop, and funding for terrorists will dry up, too. Plus they'll be less pissed off about us having so many soldiers over there and want to kill us less (Israel aside).
- Enhance the FISA law to allow for more flexible eavesdropping on terrorist conversations, WITHOUT getting rid of FISA. Keep the oversight provision but update it for the times. The government can already listen to a terrorist conversation without a FISA warranty for 72 hours before getting a retroactive warrant; maybe that should be a week, for example. Maybe there should be more exceptions, as long as there is still independent oversight.
- Get out of Iraq, where American soldiers simply incite more terrorism, are targets for terrorists, and provide a "terrorist graduate school" environment where they can hone their techniques.
- Stop unconditionally supporting Pakistan, an Islamic dictatorship that has nuclear weapons, whose people already hate us, and Saudi Arabia, another nation where the people are taught hatred of America in their school text books. If we can stop buying their oil, this will be less of an issue.

Andrew

"Adopt the recommendations of the 9/11 commission."

You lose most Americans right there. Everything else is on the table, as far as I'm concerned.

But negotiate with Iran? Sure, if you think negotiating with Hitler made sense. But Nevillle Chamberlain showed us it DOESN'T WORK.

Unless the gutless UN takes out Iran's nukes [and it won't], then I say WE do the job.

Herb

Herb, are you responding to some other post? Who in this thread said "negotiate with Iran?"

I presume most Americans would support adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Which ones do you object to?

Andrew

Who in this thread said "negotiate with Iran?"

You did when you said:

"Adopt the recommendations of the 9/11 commission."

I presume you mean the recent Iraq conference with Mr. Baker. They said for us to negotiate with Iran and Syria.

As Mr. Bush 41 would have said: "Wouldn't be prudent."

Herbert Milhous

Well, Herb, you're going to have to learn the difference between the 9/11 Commission (co-chaired by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton) and the Iraq Study Group (co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton). I never mentioned the Iraq Study group. Then again, I guess I have no trouble telling the difference between these two totally unrelated commissions because I know from not watching Fox News that Iraq had zero to do with 9/11.

Andrew

Recent polls indicate about one quarter of the American people are happy with how Bush has handled Iraq.

(So there are gonna be crap polls and other crap polls. It's still a minority position to be approving of our current approach, if one takes the polls in aggragate, ok?)

IMHO, the only way your view makes any sense is if the other approaches do not make headway. Then it's a known self-defense scenario. I'm far more willing to take short term measures given it's a reality.

We've not demonstrated this is the case today.

so, is it safe to assume the GOP is cracking up? (subject of the thread)

IMHO, there is gonna be some pretty serious infighting. They've two problems: Bush being number one. He lost the majority for them and this faction of the GOP is pissed about it, because not all the agenda was properly advanced.

(good)

The other one really will be rebranding the GOP into something that has more appeal.

Talk about infighting?

Obama vs. Hillary.

There's a matchup that will make the GOP debates look like a love-fest.

"IMHO, there is gonna be some pretty serious infighting. They've two problems: Bush being number one. He lost the majority for them and this faction of the GOP is pissed about it, because not all the agenda was properly advanced.

(good)

The other one really will be rebranding the GOP into something that has more appeal."

I don't think the first "problem" will be a problem because Bush has been doing a wonderful job of alienating even those closest to him, those Christian conservatives. Us more secular GOPers have been fed up for a long with with the direction of the party, enough of us that I am sure it will make a left turn if it wants to succeed at ANY level.

The second problem, see the first.

"Talk about infighting?

Obama vs. Hillary.

There's a matchup that will make the GOP debates look like a love-fest."

If the Democrats are smart, they will embrace Obama wholly.

He's younger, more energetic and charismatic, and is much more electable. I am still convinced Hillary is a wolf in sheeps clothing, she is trying to paint herself a moderate when she clearly isn't.

"If the Democrats are smart, they will embrace Obama wholly."

If Hillary's backers have any say, good luck. Given what her associates did with getting all those FBI files, be prepared for some DIRTY politics.

She's going to make Watergate look like a tea party. Her minions are much better trained than Liddy's crew.

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

Problem with Hillary is that she is already locked into the mindset of most Americans as either an angel or devil. She can do all the campaigning in the world, she will sway few if any voters. How she polls today is probably pretty close to how she would poll in Nov. 2008.

Obama has potential as a candidate, but the thing that concerns me is that there are too many parallels to Bush's rise to the presidency: sparse state experience, hardly any national experience (Bush by proxy through H.W., Obama having only four years in the Senate), more charisma than substance, meteoric rise. I think inexperience was a key failing that Bush brought to the White House, and he ended up being the puppet of his more experienced staff. Obama, if elected, would run the same risks.

"Obama has potential as a candidate, but the thing that concerns me is that there are too many parallels to Bush's rise to the presidency: sparse state experience, hardly any national experience (Bush by proxy through H.W., Obama having only four years in the Senate), more charisma than substance, meteoric rise. I think inexperience was a key failing that Bush brought to the White House, and he ended up being the puppet of his more experienced staff. Obama, if elected, would run the same risks."

Obama seems like he is more willing to listen, and actually intelligent.

I just want to see who each side rolls out in front of us before anything - hopefully not the same case of has-beens and never-will-bes.

I think George W. Bush has proved that ANYONE can "be" president. Obama will have had only 4 years in the Senate although he was in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years before that. That's way more experience than Bush had (6 years as governor), and Obama was elected on his own merits, not because he was someone's son with the same name and Daddy's fundraising connections.

So Republicans sure can't use the "inexperience" thing against Obama.

I wish Obama would have a few more years of experience - but is another four years in the Senate really going to make him a better president? Wait too long, and the moment passes. Lots of people who thought about running for president let the moment pass. Some, like Bill Clinton, ran earlier than he wanted to and that paid off big for him. Sometimes you have to go for it when you can.

America has a long history of inexperienced presidents. Some of our best (Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt) had almost no prior experience (Lincoln hadn't even held national office before being elected; he rose to national attention. for LOSING an Illinois Senate rate). Some people are simply born to be good leaders. Maybe Obama is one of them.

Andrew

"She [hillary clinton] can do all the campaigning in the world, she will sway few if any voters.

I don't think so. she successfully carpetbagged her way into a senate seat in NY and got reelected easily the second time around.

Herb said>>>
Giuliani-Lieberman in 2008?

I wonder if Giuliani will cheat on his NEW wife??? Rudy reminds me of a cheap man's Clinton.

"...she successfully carpetbagged her way into a senate seat in NY and got reelected easily the second time around."

You're making one HUGE mistake.

New Yawk is in America.

But America is NOT New Yawk.

Thank the Lord.

Herbert M.

No one should underestimate Hillary. She has a ton of money, she can raise more, and she's married to one of the smartest politicians we've ever seen (that's not an endorsement, it's just a fact). She doesn't have to get lots of people to love her. She just has to win fifty-percent-plus-one in the states with the right electoral votes.

However, I'm against her because I don't believe in having an American aristocracy. Since 1980, there's been a Bush or a Clinton as President or VP. That's ridiculous.

Plus, pundits keep saying that Giuliani can't win Republican primaries. Well, we shouldn't downplay him, either. I live in a very red state, and they freakin' LOVE him here. When it comes to terrorism, they see him as the real deal.

...and by the way, Rep. Bob Barr is a good guy. I don't agree with everything he says. I don't agree with MOST things he says. But he's been on the freedom-loving wing of the Republican party, instead of the control-freak-imperialist wing that's in power now.

herb, pay attention, she increased her base in upstate new york state aka GOP new york. she already had the demos in NYC. admit it, Hillary is smart and capable of steering enough GOP votes her way to win the white house. your vote isn't needed.

Her negatives are so high as to make Gerald Ford, now in his late 80's, look electable.

Herb

There is no doubt Hillary has the intelligence and the bankroll, and the clout, to make a run in 2908.

Here's, IMO, what will hurt her:

-She has come to the center on a LOT of issues since her husband was in office. Remember, he was the moderate one when President and she had a much more liberal agenda that she tried to push through him. (She might have been one of the most powerful First Ladies in history.) Clinton's socialized health care idea that flopped monumentally? Hillary's idea.

Now, you are telling me that she's this great uniter, working across party lines, this great moderate? Sorry, I'm not buying. Someone with a lot of charisma and youth and clout in the Democratic party will be able to shoot holes all through Hillary's portfolio. Don't think for a second that Barak Obama or John Edwards aren't salivating at the thought of Hillary running.

I honestly don't see a whole lot of moderate Republicans swinging votes for her ... at least any that remember the Clinton administration and how much control she had then. She may well get a lot of younger voters, and she is definitely a chic vote though.

I'm not so sure I agree that Clinton's health care plan was "socialized" or that it was Hillary's idea. She was simply put in charge of it, and she wasn't the right person for that job. The plan became way too complex, and she and Bill did not get the political support they needed for any sort of bold health care initiative like that, so it was easy for the Republicans to pick it off. They should have gone for something much more simple and incremental instead of some huge, sweeping change in the health care system that people coulnd't understand.

To be honest, I don't think Hillary is all that popular in the Democratic party. If she wins the nomination people will support her, but she is far from a shoe-in. Her support among the Democrats is somewhat luke warm. Her biggest asset now, besides an established fundraising network, is her name recognition. As we get closer to the 2008 primaries, expect to see the other names get more and more known. It will be interesting (assuming Hillary actually runs) to see John Edwards, Barak Obama (assuming HE runs) and Hillary go at it in a debate!

Andrew

Andrew2, that would be a fascinating debate.

agreed from here too. that would be THE debate to watch.

>>>"I don't think Hillary is all that popular in the Democratic party."

She just came in fourth (10) in a poll of 600 likely Iowa Democrat voters. She was behind Edwards (22), Obama (22) and Vilsack (12).

http://www.kcci.com/politics/10585392/detail.html

Right, fourth place. That doesn't get you the white house now does it?

Hillary isn't even warmed up yet.

Were I a democrat, I'd be worry about her ham-fisted tactics on the other candidates.

Once the Clinton election machine goes to work, come election time all democrat contenders will be battered and bruised.

Herbert Milhous

Maybe. We'll see. I'm in no rush to vote for her...yet.

I must confess, while I'm not the biggest Hillary fan out there, I find the prospect of her running for President the most exciting thing in presidential politics in a long time, probably the most exciting thing since Perot's 1992 run. Then again, Obama running would be exciting too. Having the both of them in the mix will make it quite interesting, compared to the relatively dull bunch the Dems had running in 2004 (except for Al Sharpton, always good for a soundbite).

Andrew

"Her negatives are so high as to make Gerald Ford, now in his late 80's, look electable."

I'm sure you've seen the news tonight. He was even older too.

I stand by my comment. WERE HE STILL ALIVE, Mr. Ford would be more electable than Mrs. Clinton.

Herb

LOL.

Touche'.

I see that you are correct and stand corrected. Mr. Ford was indeed older than I recall.

Herbert