Most Recent Email from Bob Barr's Camp

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Seemed like an interesting time to post one of these...

Dear Friend,

Today, Bob Barr is taking a break from the campaign trail. However, Bob's idea of a "break" isn't the typical one; no windsurfing or strolls in the park for our candidate.

This afternoon, Bob Barr is in the courtroom looking out for the rights of a sporting goods store owner who was sued by Michael Bloomberg during his notorious 2006 gun lawsuits.

While Bob is out for the day, I thought I would take a few minutes to comment on recent events affecting our nation.

The massive stock market tumble yesterday has left a lot of people wondering about the future. And, well they should be.

First to respond in typical attack fashion were the McCain and Obama campaigns each blaming the other for the latest crisis. Well, they are BOTH right. Both are to blame.

Republicans and Democrats alike have regulated and taxed our economy to near death. For the future, both propose still more regulations. For the present, they continue to bail out poorly managed businesses and they artificially inflate or depress interest rates to suit their immediate political desires.

Bob Barr has repeatedly said enough is enough. No more bailouts, no more taxpayer funded subsidies and no more regulations on the free markets that have in the past served this great nation.

But have you noticed that the media continues to almost totally ignore the Barr campaign and its message of less government, lower taxes and more freedom?

To that, I say enough is enough.

As I've explained in recent weeks, it is time for us to go up on TV and radio with ads that tell voters they have a choice. The McCain and Obama campaigns are at the highest level of attacks now and the chance any substantive issue will even be remotely addressed is low.

Bob Barr ads will stand out in a sea of anger and bitterness that people will surely be able to relate to. But to get them broadcast, I urgently need your help.

Most of the states we are targeting are not as expensive for buying time on radio and TV stations. And once we break through in the polls in a state like New Hampshire, it will get the ball rolling - so to speak - toward more progress in other key areas.

So, your gift today of $50,$100, $250 or whatever you can afford will move us forward toward our media launch in the days ahead. I thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Russell Verney
Campaign Manager
Bob Barr for President

To donate by mail:

Barr 2008 Presidential Committee
P.O. Box 725007
Atlanta, GA 31139

To donate by phone:

Call 1-800-Bob-Barr

-TF

[Kulaf]

From the have your cake and eat it too file:

Bob Barr on: Monetary Policy
The Federal Reserve is a secretive and unaccountable organization which dominates monetary policy, regulates financial institutions, and increasingly intervenes in economic markets. Congress must insist on accountability and transparency in the Federal Reserve’s operation, while reconsidering the Fed’s almost total control over the money supply. We should begin a debate over more far-reaching policy changes, including eliminating the federal government's control over the money supply, thereby leaving monetary policy under the control of the market rather than of politics.

How do you "insist on accountability and transparency".......while at the same time "eliminating the federal government's control over the money supply"? Can't be done. As soon as Congress has the ability to hold someone "accountable"......they have the power to apply pressure.

[Harlowe]

I just have to say, I feel Bob is a bit of a joke representing the Libertarian Party. I don't feel he's a big L, nor little l - libertarian. He's a social conservative and you can not be for "Personal Freedom" and be a social conservative. Personal Freedom being one of the big three within the Libertarian Party = Smaller Government, Lower Taxes and more Personal Freedom.

The man authored the Defense of Marriage Act , he fought vehemently against medicinal marijuana legislation, he was the major voice in attempting to impeach Clinton for his sex life, while he was cheating on his 2nd wife with his soon to be 3rd wife. Not saying he can't do whatever he wants with his dick, but going out for blood on someone for their personal life is pretty damn non-libertarian and hypocritical to say the least. He's also flopped around more on issues than a fish in a row boat.

With regard to trade, he's also proven he's not Libertarian....which would be the very backbone of the free-market.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/ ... -on-trade/

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Barr sues for removal of Obama & McCain from ballot

-TF

[Ddrak]

It would be completely hilarious if Barr wins that one. I doubt he will, but in a strict reading of the law he should prevail.

Dd

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

I'm not sure he's hoping to win that one. The Barr campaign got in late on West Virginia's ballot to be told "you weren't in on time, get bent."

They'd use Texas as an example of the two party bias overrunning third parties as an opportunity to get back into the WV ballot.

Also, an email was sent out today asking for people to (on behalf of Barr & Nader) call the Obama campaign and request those two third party candidates be allowed to debate. I've attached that if anyone is interested.

-TF

Dear Friend,

On Friday, we asked that you give the Commission on Presidential Debates CPD a polite phone call.60 Seconds for Bob

Bob Barr supporters came through!

By 3 p.m. the CPD phone lines were shut down! I received reports from hundreds of Barr supporters who did an incredible job of making courteous calls - and maintaining an upbeat attitude - despite receiving not so great treatment by CPD staff.

This week - all week long - we're doing something different.

In 1992, Ross Perot was polling at 7% before the first presidential debate (similar to our campaign). Mr. Perot was included in all three debates not because of a ruling by the debate sponsor or host; Ross Perot was included in the presidential debates because George H.W. Bush demanded that he be included.

Today, if Bob Barr or any minority party candidate is going to be included in the debates, it will be because John McCain or Barack Obama demanded it.

We have to target one campaign to include Bob in the debates and if any candidate understands disenfranchisement and minority rights, it should be Barack Obama.

After all, it was Barack Obama who said that those who participated in the civil rights movement "didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted; whether their civil rights would be protected by their government; whether justice would be equal and opportunity would be theirs . . . We have more work to do."

Senator Obama must understand that equal opportunity applies to elections as well.

To make this task even more effective, we're going to do something special. We are coordinating with Ralph Nader's campaign and they're going to be doing this today as well.

Here's today's task: Call the Obama Campaign!

We need to give Barack Obama and his campaign managers a reason to include us in the debates.

So here's the task:

1. To get in the right frame of mind. Think happy thoughts: puppies, flowers, dancing leprechauns and lower taxes.
2. Pick up the phone and call 866-675-2008.
3. Hit 6 to speak with a campaign volunteer.
4. Once connected, politely deliver the following message:

"Hi my name is __________ and I'm calling to request that Senator Obama invite minority party candidates Bob Barr and Ralph Nader to participate in the upcoming presidential debates. Could you please leave this message with your campaign manager, David Plouffe?

5. Send me a note at feedback@bobbarr2008.com and let me know how it went.

That's it and have fun!
In Liberty,

Shane Cory
Deputy Campaign Manager
Bob Barr for President

-TF

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Interesting spin, or possible truth? Bob Barr's campaign money has seen a strong spike over the last 2 weeks. I wonder if people aren't starting to look away from the top two, especially since the first debate took place and left folks on both sides a bit wanting. I'm not sure I agree with the "I told you so" nature of this reaction, but - at least it's true, Barr has been against the bailouts since day one.

Dear Friend,

Yesterday's vote in Congress confirms to me that only Bob Barr is in touch with the American people, and both the Democrats and Republicans are following Bob's lead!

The New York Times reports:

But a majority of the House voted along with Bob Barr, the Libertarian who said, "We need to make Wall Street take the hit for its irresponsible investment decisions. . ." Source?

And the highly read Politico.com slams both McCain and Obama saying:

There was, however, one presidential "contender" who got on the right side of this issue: former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr. Barr called today's bill "the bailout from hell " and warned it would make Henry Paulson "an economic dictator, empowered to reengineer the economy as he sees fit." TF comment: still searching Politico for source

Of course, it isn't just Bob Barr who scored major political points yesterday, it was redemption for the American people when the vote - which wasn't even close - went against Wall Street and in favor of average Americans.

Many of Bob supporters - old and new - took a moment to show their appreciation for this initiative by making generous gifts to the campaign yesterday and today. (Perhaps you would like to join now with a gift to keep the pressure on. Thanks!)

But of course, the powerful corporate special interests, with both of Bob's opponents backing them in the Senate, aren't going to give up. The Bush administration continues in their efforts to scare Americans and convince them that only his bill can provide salvation for our economy.

Another vote is going to come, and it may be within the next 48 hours, or sooner.

To appease a few interests, they are likely to make some cosmetic change but the bottom line is that it will still be a bad bill -- and taxpayers are going to be soaked with $700 Billion in bailout funds for Wall Street. And when a Treasury Department official was asked by Forbes.com how this amount was chosen, the response: "It's not based on any particular data point. We just wanted to choose a really large number."

We must not retreat in our opposition to this outrageous scheme. Today Bob is giving speeches on the campaign trail and he is drawing larger crowds, greater enthusiasm, and the media is taking notice. Just as the New York Times acknowledged, only Bob Barr's approach to fiscal sanity will work.

I encourage you to keep up the heat. Call your Representative in Congress. If they voted the right way, thank them and encourage them to hold the line. If they voted wrong, turn up the heat and grant them a chance to change their mind.

Next, I ask you to help me fund the next stage of this important campaign. We have a radio ad ready for national distribution and plans for TV commercials as well. Your gift will help us spread the word that there is an alternative to the Bush-McCain-Obama Wall Street bailout. Any amount is a big help, but a gift of $50 or $100 goes a long way.

Thanks.

Sincerely,

Russell Verney
Campaign Manager
Bob Barr for President

P.S. - By the way, I personally believe that this is just the beginning of a very bad trend. First there was money for Bear Stearn and AIG. Then home mortgage payouts of $300 Billion and $25 Billion for the auto Industry this year (and another $25 Billion for next year). Next, $200 Billion to clean up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and now $700 billion for big banks and Wall Street moguls. Who else will be "bailed out?" Some are suggesting that $700 Billion may just be a down payment for Wall Street. Others needing "bailouts" include local and state governments. Have you noticed how state and local bureaucrats are crying about a decline in revenue? Mark my word, they will seek bailout protection, too.

-TF

[Harlowe]

Doesn't sound like he has any solution at all, which to me means he doesn't really understand this economic crisis any better than the average American.

That whole response seemed reckless and lacking meat.

I can't find anyone on Politico making that statement. Was it a reader comment?

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Politico

This is the only thing I've found so far....it's from 9/21 though...

-TF

[Lurker]

Amateurs.

Here's the Politico source.

[Harlowe]

Amateurs.

Here's the Politico source.

You win the internet!!!

Just wanted to add: it's all well and good to be against this particular bill (lots of Dems and Reps were too), but what is his action plan? To just cry about this bill and slam & blame the other parties? That's not exactly a solution nor does it show great leader material. It offers no alternative other than "not them!!". He should be coming up with alternatives and suggestions rather than "they are wrong" as his only platfrom. You have to show why you are right and being right, isn't just disagreeing. It's coming up with an answer.

Bottom line, he's not selling himself at all. He's just demonizing the opposition with a lot of "neener neener" type rhetoric.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Lurker -- Thanks for the correct link.

Harlowe -- Yep, I think Barr isn't making the best of this opportunity (?) by revealing his stances. He has some, and they're good/interesting. One has to visit his site, or his YouTube and dig. Even then, it's possible to miss it. Though, as perhaps a bit of defense for Barr, showing where your opponent is weak is a tactic, though not a complete strategy.

-TF

[Harlowe]

Oh sure you want to show where they are weak, but MORE importantly, what is your stance, what is your game plan? If you have someone's attention, give them your story. If you expect people to dig it up to find out, then you are never going to sell yourself.

Every time he speaks to the press or posts on the internet, he should focus on why he's right, how he can do it better - not simply why everyone is wrong. Anyone can do that.

[Tarfang_Trubasher]

Sorry, my "tongue-in-cheek" comment must've been missed. McCain was attempting to show Obama's weakness in military experience by saying he didn't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

I agree with you, Barr isn't representing himself very well at all. I'm watching the video of Barr during the debates, and his comments are more informative, but still not revealing enough. That, and I have to dig through the snarkiness of some of his responses. Though, the snark is well deserved in a few spots.

-TF

[Harlowe]

Sorry, my "tongue-in-cheek" comment must've been missed. McCain was attempting to show Obama's weakness in military experience by saying he didn't know the difference between a strategy and a tactic.

I agree with you, Barr isn't representing himself very well at all. I'm watching the video of Barr during the debates, and his comments are more informative, but still not revealing enough. That, and I have to dig through the snarkiness of some of his responses. Though, the snark is well deserved in a few spots.

-TF

Actually that was one of McCain's gaffes. In his rush to find every opportunity to chide Obama he actually mixed up the two.

Snark in campaigning isn't a good constant. People get a bad taste in their mouth to overly negative campaigning. That's why locally both Coleman and Franken are pissing off the public. They have only recently started putting out serious campaign ads because their snarky, childish ones were turning off everyone.

[Ddrak]

I believe Barr's position is the true libertarian one - the market caused this crisis so the market can wear it and crash. He's right in the long term - it will be the fastest way to get through it, but it will cause a *lot* of short term pain.

Dd

[Harlowe]

That depends on what you want to be left with "getting through it". No one knows what that means.

[Ddrak]

That depends on what you want to be left with "getting through it". No one knows what that means.

Oh, the markets will recover if left alone. There's really no doubt about that. You'd screw a bunch of people in the short term, but just as the markets recovered in '87 and in '29, they'd recover again.

Dd

[Lurker]

I don't think stock prices are the real problem atm so I have to disagree with you. Unless by "screw a bunch of people" you mean anyone trying to get a loan for any reason (car, home, business) and by "short term" you mean several years and by "markets" you mean our entire financial system, not just stocks.

[Ddrak]

Unless by "screw a bunch of people" you mean anyone trying to get a loan for any reason (car, home, business) and by "short term" you mean several years and by "markets" you mean our entire financial system, not just stocks.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Where did I pretend to mean anything else? I certainly didn't say just "stocks".

Dd