this time - in the traditional Empire fashion - by starting with
increasingly strict economic sanctions which will weaken the people of
the target/victim country. The House action to accomplish this
economic warfare is Resolution 362 - you can find the bill here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362
and information about it and its likely impact can be found here:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/23/iran-war-resolution-may-be-passed-next-week/
It is important that the LP's presidential candidate speak out AGAINST
sanctions and other punitive actions against the Iranian people. Barr
has spoken in general terms about 'not rushing to war' against Iran,
but as the de facto spokesperson for the Libertarian Party, he really
needs to make the point that sanctions ARE war - and war against
civilians.
So I'm asking fellow Libertarians to ask our candidate Barr to make a
clear and unambiguous statement denouncing both HR362 and any proposed
or existing sanction measures against the people of Iran.
Please write to the Barr campaign by filling in the form on Barr's
site to "send your message to Bob" (unfortunately there seems to be no
campaign email address I can share; apparently you have to use their
form): http://www.bobbarr2008.com/join/
Thank you!!
--
Susan Hogarth
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373450,00.html
grabbed a lot of Lib attention because of Barr's self-praise on DOMA; rather astonishing to those who thought they'd heard him promise to work to repeal the Act. However, there are a few other points of note, and frankly, some deeper concerns for me regarding Barr's foreign policy - and area he has always been fairly cagey on with Libertarians - calling for 'no rush to war with Iran', for instance, while not repudiating his former support for the warfare of embargoes.
Two domestic concerns first:
- Twice he is asked about the Barr Amendment (med marijuana) and never does he address it. In fairness, it was slipped into a multi-part question both times.
- Barr seems to indicate that he doesn't think the PATRIOT Act itself was a bad idea, as long as it was not 'used and abused' (legislation is OK as long as it's never used; I guess I can maybe get behind that premise, but it does seem hopelessly utopian). Barr says:
He should consider the Libertarian implications there: that ANY piece of legislation is quite liable to 'use and abuse', and that must be factored in when considering it. Once this insight sinks in - if it ever does - he should consider sharing it with the electorate when he has a chance to speak to them.
- It's the Iraq quotes that are bothering me most in the long run, I think:
"With regard to the vote for hostilities in Iraq, that was a vote that was based on what we now know to be inappropriate and erroneously analyzed intelligence."
Somehow Ron Paul wasn't fooled. Oh, wait, Ron Paul wouldn't have voted FOR it even if he had believed the ass George Bush. There is the lesson Barr seems to have missed. The war was wrong even granting the false premises.
He continues:
"That vote certainly was not intended -- was not presented to the Congress or myself in the Congress at the time as a vote for a multiyear, perhaps multidecade, occupation of Iraq."
Umm, so the invasion itself was OK; it's just occupation that's not? That certainly seems to be the implication here, bolstered by the very next comment:
"Here again, the administration has taken an inch and gone a mile, sometimes in very clear contravention of what Congress intended."
So he did agree with the 'inch' of invasion - just not the 'mile' of occupation? That seems to be the only clear interpretation of what he says here. This is pretty disturbing stuff for the LP's presidential candidate. He doesn't - as far as I can tell - at all here repudiate his vote on the Iraq War - he simply laments that it, like the PATRIOT Act, was 'used and abused'; that the Administration took his 'inch' and made it a 'mile' - with no indication that the Libertarian Party position is that the inch was already an inch too far.
¶ 9:05 AM 2 Comments Links to this post
Queen Elizabeth II has stripped Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's strongman president for nearly 30 years, of his honorary knighthood as a "mark of revulsion" at the human rights abuses and "abject disregard" for democracy over which he has presided, the British Foreign Office announced Wednesday.
¶ 6:18 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
I ask that the LNC issue a formal letter-of-WTF???!!! to our presidential candidate re: his continuing antilibertarian stance on immigration.
For reference, see:
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/bob-barr-immigration/
Thanks!
- Susan Hogarth
¶ 12:13 PM 0 Comments Links to this post
I ask that the LNC issue a formal letter-of-WTF???!!! to our presidential candidate re: his continuing antilibertarian stance on immigration.
For reference, see:
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/bob-barr-immigration/
Thanks!
- Susan Hogarth
¶ 11:45 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
I ask that the LNC issue a formal letter-of-WTF???!!! to our presidential candidate re: his continuing antilibertarian stance on immigration.
For reference, see:
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/bob-barr-immigration/
Thanks!
- Susan Hogarth
¶ 11:45 AM 1 Comments Links to this post
never been there, so I'm cruising down the street trying to pretend I
don't need bifocals while peering under my glasses at the map and
checking out house numbers. On one house I noticed a bunch of numbers
- latitude and longitude. There's someone who really knows where he
lives.
I was listening to the radio and heard "Harper Valley PTA", and it
made me think of the Libertarian National Committee. Weird.
Washington Post Department of Human Behavior correspondent Shankar Vendantam reports drivers who decorate their cars with bumper stickers tend to be more aggressive than those who choose not to pithily share their political, environmental, and religious views with their fellow motorists.
I'll post a picture of my car when I get time. It's fairly plastered.
¶ 11:16 AM 0 Comments Links to this post
have, I pulled the candidate pics from the most recent iteration of
the LP's Candidate Tracker pages and gave my thoughts on the quality
of the pictures:
http://picasaweb.google.com/hogarth/LPCandidates
Disclaimer: I am not a photographer OR an elected politician. Just an observer.
I am hoping my comments will serve as reminders for me when I finally
get around to doing my own candidate picture. Perhaps they will be
helpful to others. And most importantly, perhaps someone will find
them amusing.
asked for money for ballot access - but asked for people to donate
directly the the Barr campaign?
I'm wondering about the pros/cons of that approach. I suppose it makes
the LP in general look stronger if our pres nominee is visibly
bringing in more money (which is one reason I wish they'd ditch the
web-counter until and unless they start getting some pretty
enthusiastic fundraising to build on).
The email ('from the desk of Bob Barr') includes these two bullet points:
• I just talked with Chairman Bill Redpath: by his analysis, we'll
need more than $200,000 to petition and secure ballot access in 48
states.
• In order to move forward with full, 50 state ballot access, we'll
need to begin to petition immediately in Oklahoma and West Virginia
and raise at least $300,000 more to pay petitioners.
It's not clear to me whether he means the LP needs 200K for 48 states
PLUS another 300K for OK and WVA, or only an additional 100K for OK
and WVA. But in any case, this actually won't give the LP 'ballot
access' in OK, as I understand it. The best than can be accomplished
is getting Barr on the OK ballot as an independent. I'm not sure I
want to pour money into an effort to get Barr on the OK ballot *as an
independent*, which apparently is what they're working on:
http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/05/30/oklahoma-lp-begins-ballot-access-drive-for-barr/
and
I'm don't care for this strategy because I don't see it as the best
use of funds after the LP already poured tons of money into OK, then
gave up on it. Also, while it may get more votes for Barr, it won't
really help other LP candidates (or, more importantly, Libertarian
voters) as far as I can tell, and apparently Barr will be listed as an
"Independent". Even this would be OK with me except that I'm not
convinced they can actually get it done - at least not without
seriously hampering their efforts in other states.
Back-of-the-envelop: they'll need 60K sigs in about 40 days, which is
1,500 signatures per day, which will take about $2-3K or more per day.
Doable, certainly, but at the rate Barr is fundraising that's
committing a major chunk of what he is bringing in.
Frankly, I am not sure why more people aren't making an issue of this.
Tying Barr to the national LP for *LP* ballot access is certainly a
reasonable strategy, but asking people from the LP mailing list to
send Barr's campaign for money to get "full, 50 state ballot access"
when in fact the LP *won't* be getting that seems just a little bit
dodgy to me.
My preference would be for the LP to concentrate on raising money
itself or in tandem with the Barr campaign for the original 48-state
plan, and let Barr (and the OK LP, if they wish) pitch separately for
the OK effort.
I wonder if there has been discussion on the LNC about this strategy
and the LP's support of it.
