Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, serving as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. He now runs a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies LLC, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and with offices in the Washington, D.C. area.
Bob Barr chose to join the Libertarian Party because at this time in our nation’s history, it is essential to join and work with a party that is 100 percent committed to protecting liberty.
Bob Barr has served as Regional Representative of the Libertarian National Committee.
Bob Barr works tirelessly to help preserve our fundamental right to privacy and our other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom.
Bob Barr
Bob Barr also occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union, and is a Board Member of the National Rifle Association. Bob Barr is also a member of The Constitution Project’s Initiative on Liberty and Security, and he served from 2003 to 2005 as a member of a project at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University addressing matters of privacy and security. In fact, recognizing Bob Barr’s leadership in privacy matters, New York Times columnist William Safire has called him “Mr. Privacy.”
Bob Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia (1986-90), and served as President of Southeastern Legal Foundation (1990-91). He was an official with the CIA (1971-78), and has practiced law for many years.
Vigorous third parties existed in the last [19th] century because the election laws did not discriminate against them. People were free to form new parties, and the government treated all parties, new and old, equally. In 1854, the newly founded Republican Party won more Governor's seats, and sent more Representatives to the House, than did any other party. It was able to do so because there were no ballot-access laws until 1888. Indeed, there were no printed ballots before that year; people simply prepared their own ballots and were free to vote for the qualified candidate of their choice. When the government began to print ballots in 1888, it acknowledged this freedom of an unrestricted vote and invariably left a write-in space on the ballots.
Furthermore, in the 19th century, there was no such thing as public financing of the two major parties, which began for Presidential elections in 1974. Today, the Democrats and Republicans have their campaigns for President financed by the taxpayers. Under the 1974 law, no third party has ever received general-election public funding, although a handful of third-party Presidential candidates have received some primary season funds.
We no longer have vigorous and active third parties because Democratic and Republican state legislatures passed restrictive laws that make it exceedingly difficult for third parties to get on the ballot in many states. These laws usually require third parties to gather signatures for a petition to be on the state ballot, and they often place strict deadlines for gathering such signatures.
These restrictions did not emerge overnight. From 1888 to 1931, ballot-access laws were rather mild. In 1924, only 50,000 signatures on a petition were required to place a new party on the ballot in 48 states (a figure that represents 0.15% of the number of people who had voted in the previous election). During the 1930s, ballot-access laws became significantly restrictive, as they required new parties to gather more signatures and file for application earlier and earlier in the campaign year. Still, it was not until the 1960s that compliance with ballot-access laws became extremely difficult.
In 1994, a new party that wants to field a candidate in every race for the U.S. House of Representatives and have the party name appear on the ballot next to the candidate's name would need to register 1,593,763 members or gather an equal number of signatures. Yet the Democratic and Republican parties need not collect any signatures to assure themselves of a place on the ballot, and the number of signatures needed for individual Democratic candidates to place themselves on primary ballots in all 435 contests is 138,996 (the number would be slightly different for Republicans).
Georgia has had fewer presidential candidates on the ballot in the last 30 years than any other state. Georgia's state definition of "political party" is a group that receives 20% of the vote for president in the entire USA, or 20% for Governor of Georgia. No party other than the Democrats and Republicans has met that definition in Georgia since 1912 (when the Progressive "Bull Moose" Party got 27% for president in the entire USA). Even when the American Party carried Georgia in the electoral college in 1968, that still didn't qualify the American Party, since even though it got over 50% in Georgia, it "only" got 13% in the entire USA. And no third party candidate for Governor of Georgia has polled 20% since 1898.
Quote by velveeta jones:
Great site BobR! I'll have to investigate it when I have more time. Will you add the link to the links box?
Quote by TriSec:
Just seen at the supermarket:
Lady in front of me had an armful of those re-useable shopping bags...
"Can you put everything in plastic bags first?"
:thud:
The Struggle Continues...
Quote by livingonli:
If I was off I would be. I was listening this morning. You can just hear the desperation in the Hillary fans although they are at least hiding that they are only pushing this since it is now the only way she has even a slight chance at the nomination.
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by TriSec:
Just seen at the supermarket:
Lady in front of me had an armful of those re-useable shopping bags...
"Can you put everything in plastic bags first?"
:thud:
The Struggle Continues...
WTF! :thud:
Quote by livingonli:
Mondo called during the first hour (around 9:30 if I recall).
Quote by m-hadley: Afternoon Everybody, Had to work today, but have been home for a couple hours watching the DNC mess in DC as covered by MSNBC - is anybody else watching this? Does your head hurt as much as mine does? I tried blogging about it, but not sure that I made any more sense of this mess than Chuck Todd or Rachel "Rhodes Scholar" Maddow have. What I don't understand is how the Clinton camp can scream so loudly about counting every vote and completely ignore the voices registered in the caucuses? And what about all the "uncommitted votes" cast in Michigan when Clinton's name was on the ballot and Obama's was not? I have a massive headache - I think I gotta go lay down for awhile... Cheers, mfaye :D
Quote by Random:
anyone watching the rules thingie for the Dems?
Quote by Shane-O:
If what Chuck Todd is reporting is correct (and I swear, he always is correct) - Harold Ikies is going to have a fit - Andrea Mitchell, I think, is wrong.
Look for Ikies to say things like - this committee is doing exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2000.
Quote by Shane-O: If what Chuck Todd is reporting is correct (and I swear, he always is correct) - Harold Ikies is going to have a fit - Andrea Mitchell, I think, is wrong. Look for Ikies to say things like - this committee is doing exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2000.
Quote by livingonli:Quote by Shane-O:
If what Chuck Todd is reporting is correct (and I swear, he always is correct) - Harold Ikies is going to have a fit - Andrea Mitchell, I think, is wrong.
Look for Ikies to say things like - this committee is doing exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2000.
Like Shillary's people would have been so concerned had she actually been in the lead for the nomination and as it is, she can only get the lead by counting Michigan where Obama had no votes because he was not on the ballot because he followed DNC rules and she didn't since she signed the very same pledge.
Quote by Shane-O:I understand what you are saying - and I am against seating MI - but I really don't see how HRC violated the DNC rules or the pledge she signed. She certainly has flip-flopped and is trying to change the seating rules. But what rule did she break. I can't find a anyone who can point that out to me...Quote by livingonli:Like Shillary's people would have been so concerned had she actually been in the lead for the nomination and as it is, she can only get the lead by counting Michigan where Obama had no votes because he was not on the ballot because he followed DNC rules and she didn't since she signed the very same pledge.Quote by Shane-O: If what Chuck Todd is reporting is correct (and I swear, he always is correct) - Harold Ikies is going to have a fit - Andrea Mitchell, I think, is wrong. Look for Ikies to say things like - this committee is doing exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2000.
Quote by Shane-O:Quote by livingonli:Quote by Shane-O:
If what Chuck Todd is reporting is correct (and I swear, he always is correct) - Harold Ikies is going to have a fit - Andrea Mitchell, I think, is wrong.
Look for Ikies to say things like - this committee is doing exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2000.
Like Shillary's people would have been so concerned had she actually been in the lead for the nomination and as it is, she can only get the lead by counting Michigan where Obama had no votes because he was not on the ballot because he followed DNC rules and she didn't since she signed the very same pledge.
I understand what you are saying - and I am against seating MI - but I really don't see how HRC violated the DNC rules or the pledge she signed. She certainly has flip-flopped and is trying to change the seating rules. But what rule did she break. I can't find a anyone who can point that out to me...
For the past months, we've had to listen to Hillary Clinton and her spinners talk about the fair result in Michigan. That would be the election where she was the only person on the ballot. Former Senator Don Riegle offered his views on the Michigan primary in the Detroit News yesterday:
The Michigan Democratic primary election offered a Soviet-like ballot -- in that Michigan voters were not given a real choice among candidates. There was no competitive Democratic primary in Michigan -- a primary where viable candidates compete to earn the support of voters. Instead, Michigan Democratic Party officials permitted an election to take place even though three of the viable candidates (Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson) had properly removed their names from the ballot to fully comply with DNC rules. The election went forward with only one viable candidate on the ballot (Hillary Rodham Clinton) in direct violation of DNC rules and with full knowledge -- and acknowledgement -- that the Michigan delegation would not be seated at the nominating convention in Denver.
Quote by Raine:Where did that pledge come from? the one that the candidates signed?Quote by Shane-O:Quote by livingonli:Quote by Shane-O:
If what Chuck Todd is reporting is correct (and I swear, he always is correct) - Harold Ikies is going to have a fit - Andrea Mitchell, I think, is wrong.
Look for Ikies to say things like - this committee is doing exactly what the Supreme Court did in 2000.
Like Shillary's people would have been so concerned had she actually been in the lead for the nomination and as it is, she can only get the lead by counting Michigan where Obama had no votes because he was not on the ballot because he followed DNC rules and she didn't since she signed the very same pledge.
I understand what you are saying - and I am against seating MI - but I really don't see how HRC violated the DNC rules or the pledge she signed. She certainly has flip-flopped and is trying to change the seating rules. But what rule did she break. I can't find a anyone who can point that out to me...
Good question Shane-O. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly that if the delegates weren't going to be seated, that the candidates would assume those rules meant no going to those staes. It's like she campainged as an independent in some respects in those states.
Quote by Raine:
This is a critical issue, becuase if ALL the delegates ARE passed, then we will start having primaries years before the actual General Election.
Quote by TriSec:
To borrow a phrase from Joe Castiglione...."Can You Believe It?"
A Boston-LA NBA Final? Who would have thunk it?
Quote by Raine:
Ugh... here comes Ickies.
WHA??? that was it?!?!? less than 3 seconds.
Quote by Raine:
House of common's indeed. :: shakes head ::
Quote by Mondobubba:Raine was that one of them there Freudian slips with the mis-spelling of Harold's last name? :rofl:Quote by Raine: Ugh... here comes Ickies. WHA??? that was it?!?!? less than 3 seconds.
Quote by Shane-O:
First motion was for show - I think this one will be unanimous - they already worked it out.
Quote by Shane-O:Quote by Random:
anyone watching the rules thingie for the Dems?
Oh yes!
Quote by Random:Quote by Shane-O:
First motion was for show - I think this one will be unanimous - they already worked it out.
well, duh, but the audience doesn't know that.
Quote by Raine:
27 votes for, Katz a no vote. So it wasn't QUITE unanimous.
Quote by m-hadley:Raine, Shane-O, & Random, I'm back - this sh*t is better than any reality TeeVee - I am just waiting to see what the final delegate count will be - I've had to dip into the vitamin V a little early todayQuote by Shane-O:Oh yes!Quote by Random: anyone watching the rules thingie for the Dems?:D Cheers, mfaye
Quote by Shane-O:Quote by Random:Quote by Shane-O:
First motion was for show - I think this one will be unanimous - they already worked it out.
well, duh, but the audience doesn't know that.
My apologies for annoying you with the obvious, Random.
Quote by Mondobubba: Listen, do you hear that? It is the sound of silence in my house. Brother Mondo left for home today. It is so nice not to have the effing tvmosheen on all the time. I feel more relaxed already.
Quote by Raine:
So, who thinks the DLC will break off after the GE and become a new party on it's own?
And who thinks they SHOULD? ;)
Quote by Random: What the hell was that? What about Iowa, New Hampshire...? What the hell.
Quote by Raine:That made no sense to me.Quote by Random:
What the hell was that?
What about Iowa, New Hampshire...?
What the hell.
Quote by Raine:
Slowly Harold Turned...
She is STILL taking this to the convention huh?
In Michigan, the split will be 69/59, but the delegation again gets 1/2 vote. Obama will get the two add-on superdelegates. Todd thinks the Clinton campaign will net around 20 delegates +/-2. Todd's not sure if Florida and Michigan superdelegates will get full or half votes.
Quote by Raine:Tosses Mondo a Raintini>Quote by Mondobubba:
Listen, do you hear that? It is the sound of silence in my house. Brother Mondo left for home today. It is so nice not to have the effing tvmosheen on all the time. I feel more relaxed already.
Good for you. Enjoy it Mondo.
Quote by Random:Random Saddened and confused.Quote by Raine:That made no sense to me.Quote by Random: What the hell was that? What about Iowa, New Hampshire...? What the hell.
Quote by Raine:So is Raine.Quote by Random:Quote by Raine:That made no sense to me.Quote by Random:
What the hell was that?
What about Iowa, New Hampshire...?
What the hell.
Random Saddened and confused.
Quote by Raine:
All those people in Michigan who listened to people like Randi, and voted NONcommitted done good.
I must say . Their votes are being counted today.
Quote by livingonli:I thought Thom Hartmann said it first.Quote by Raine: All those people in Michigan who listened to people like Randi, and voted NONcommitted done good. I must say . Their votes are being counted today.
Quote by Raine:
Ok, I think I understand a little bit (although STILL disagree) abut ehy people get angry at Code Pink supporters.
These HRC people are just off the hook.
SO what is the new number?
Quote by m-hadley:
Come on Superduper delegates - time to step up to the plate. BTB, I like Chuck Todd.
I think he is correct - the torch has been passed from the Clintons to Obama. Yeah :D
Cheers,
mfaye
Quote by Random:code pink?Quote by Raine: Ok, I think I understand a little bit (although STILL disagree) abut ehy people get angry at Code Pink supporters. These HRC people are just off the hook. SO what is the new number?
Quote by m-hadley: Come on Superduper delegates - time to step up to the plate. BTB, I like Chuck Todd. I think he is correct - the torch has been passed from the Clintons to Obama. Yeah :D Cheers, mfaye
Quote by Raine:Code Pink is an anti war group. Made mostly of women (but not solely) , they embrace the colour pink, and often protest inside the congress.Quote by Random:Quote by Raine:
Ok, I think I understand a little bit (although STILL disagree) abut ehy people get angry at Code Pink supporters.
These HRC people are just off the hook.
SO what is the new number?
code pink?
Here is a link.
Quote by Random:
hm...why would people be angry with these people?
You know, there is a big thing we should be getting out of this party tonight, and that is the Democratic National Committee is not somehow controlled by the Clintons. Not by the Clinton campaign any more. We may have started this campaign believing that the Clinton campaign controlled, but this is Barack Obama's party now. He's already been winning the outside game, he now won the inside game. Yes it's true that Harold Ickes can threaten this stuff about the credentials, but Don Fowler really did signal today by being for the Michigan compromise that, "Guys, it's over."
Quote by Raine:
What Chuck Todd Said tonite:You know, there is a big thing we should be getting out of this party tonight, and that is the Democratic National Committee is not somehow controlled by the Clintons. Not by the Clinton campaign any more. We may have started this campaign believing that the Clinton campaign controlled, but this is Barack Obama's party now. He's already been winning the outside game, he now won the inside game. Yes it's true that Harold Ickes can threaten this stuff about the credentials, but Don Fowler really did signal today by being for the Michigan compromise that, "Guys, it's over."
The states of Michigan and FLorida had the delegate situation resolved today. A very important key here is that now that this has been resolved, HRC can no longer pretend to speak for the voters of these states. It is truly time for her to remember that she is a democratic party member and start to work to achieve the unity that was spoken of so often today.
You here that Harold?!?!![]()
The former First Lady would get the chance to pilot Mr ObamaÕs reforms of the American healthcare system if she agrees to clear the path to his nomination as Democratic presidential candidate.figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.
Quote by m-hadley:
From CNN, I have the current numbers:
Obama -
Pledged Delegates: 1724
Super Delegates 326
Total: 2050
Clinton -
Pledged Delegates: 1586
Super Delegates: 291
Total: 1877
With the magic number now being 2118 to secure the nomination.
Go Obama!
Cheers,
mfaye :D
"[Obama] is a cult. His campaign is an anti-woman cult." "I will actively campaign against him.""You know who is backing him is George Soros. It'll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country." "South Dakota is totally rigged for Obama because of Tom Daschle. Obama's going to win South Dakota because he's buying it and rigging it.""[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party."
Quote by Raine:
I am convinced that these people were NEVER dems."[Obama] is a cult. His campaign is an anti-woman cult."
"I will actively campaign against him."
"You know who is backing him is George Soros. It'll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country."
"South Dakota is totally rigged for Obama because of Tom Daschle. Obama's going to win South Dakota because he's buying it and rigging it."
"[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party."
These are the people who are supporting her? These are dems?
Quote by Raine:
I am convinced that these people were NEVER dems."[Obama] is a cult. His campaign is an anti-woman cult."
"I will actively campaign against him."
"You know who is backing him is George Soros. It'll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country."
"South Dakota is totally rigged for Obama because of Tom Daschle. Obama's going to win South Dakota because he's buying it and rigging it."
"[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party."
These are the people who are supporting her? These are dems?