I Was Wrong About Bob Barr

When Barr sought the 2008 nomination of the Libertarian Party, I backed him. Not aggressively, and not with my vote at the Convention, as I did not attend, the non-attendance being an indicator of how lukewarm my support was. I just searched this blog and found that I hadn't even written of him here until 4 months after his nomination. But, I backed him all the same.

As I recall my thinking at the time, I was of a mind to forgive his anti-liberty transgressions as a Republican congressman, as he recanted his former positions. We all change, not usually so late in life, but if he had his Come To Jesus moment and found libertarianism to be his genuine calling, what good would I do in dismissing it? What would that tell others I was trying to win over to my side? I want former Republicans and Democrats to come to the Libertarian Party, so I let his past not stand in the way, and judged him on his message and his plan to spread the message.

Well, I was duped. 'Patriot Paul' Wheeler emailed me today with a link to a story showing Bob Barr endorsed Newt Gingrich. Here's an excerpt from a different article on the same topic:

Bob Barr was the Presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in 2008, having recently switched from the GOP. It was recently rumored that he was considering a Republican run for Congress in Georgia, but this still came as quite a shock. Bob Barr is one member of a large slate of public officials and former officeholders who endorsed Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign today.

Among the state and local officials announcing they are endorsing Newt Gingrich today are:

Georgia Congressmen Austin Scott, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Price, Jack Kingston and Phil Gingrey. Former Georgia Congressmen Mac Collins and Bob Barr.

My reaction was very similar to the first comment following the article. A lot of people at the Convention were very upset that he was even being considered, due to some of the legislation he advanced while a Republican member of Congress. I try not to get caught up in the 'fake libertarian/real libertarian' thing too much. I wasn't a pure libertarian when I was first
became interested in politics. I was a Democrat. But I came to be a libertarian, and I try to just work with others who show an interest in the moment. And really, during his campaign, I found Barr to be an excellent advocate for liberty. I was fairly sold on his conversion.

Now this.

It's impossible for me to square Barr on this, though. Ok, people change. He made a big to-do about having seen the light on the things Libertarians questioned him on from his past. Ok, good. But then a Gingrich endorsement? Gingrich has unfortunately showed himself very plainly not to have libertarian grounding. His foreign policy and takes on civil liberty are the antithesis of libertarian thinking, and freedom loving.

Sure, just as with any liberal or any conservative, libertarians will find occasional common ground on issues, but with Gingrich I'm convinced now that the common ground is accidental. That Barr can't discern this tells me that his seeking our nomination was insincere, because, yeah people change... but that's a flip-flop. A big one. I wouldn't have cared if he endorsed one of two other Republicans- Ron Paul or Gary Johnson- because they certainly are libertarian, and will advance policies I can largely be proud of. But Gingrich? I would sooner vote for Obama.

An Appeal To My Friends In Ohio

You probably know that I ran for office in my 'new' home state of Indiana. Do you know why I didn't run in Ohio?

It was because the Republicans and Democrats erected great barriers against me from running as a Libertarian Party candidate. If I wanted to run I would have had to spend my time wastefully petitioning, rather than campaigning. This handicap is intentionally placed, discouraging third parties from participation. 

In America! Home of the free! 

Republicans and Democrats merely need to sign up to become candidates in Ohio. Libertarians can have this same kind of automatic ballot access, if Bob Barr gains 5% of the vote.

That's a tall order, as Ohio is a battleground state, and the Electoral Votes up for grabs could come down to anybody's vote. That's just as the Rs & Ds would have it. They set the bar that high because they believed it an impossible threshold.

I know that some of my friends are ardent partisan Rs or Ds. But for most of you, I know that the two parties only represent you to a point, that Rs & Ds don't match up very well, leaving you only to decide who to vote against, or whether sorting your sock drawer is a better option than casting a vote at all. Many of you would be partisan Libertarians, if you only had the choice.

This year, vote for Libertarian Bob Barr for president. Help the Libertarian Party of Ohio gain automatic ballot access so that Ohioans can begin to have broader ballot choices, in the interest of greater participation, and more choices that represent the broad spectrum of views found across the state.

Vote for Barr!

Deficit No Longer An Issue?

It was just a few weeks ago that a key part of the Democratic attack was that The Bush Administration has been guilty of fiscal irresponsibility, in its' borrow and spend ways. Quoth Barney Frank:

"I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, and
I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat."

So, in the interest of consistency, can some Democrats please attack Barney Frank?




This is foreshadowing. The Democrats feel they have won the election already, so they are letting everyone see what their governance will be- a different kind of fiscal irresponsibility. Borrow & spend & tax.

Voting McCain will only give you borrow & spend. Bob Barr will give you spending cuts, and end to borrowing, and an eventual lowering of taxes.

Choose accordingly.

No Wasting Votes!

(Warrenton, IN)- This year, there is no reason to play the game of Prisoner's Dilemma with your vote. The lesser of two evils isn't a factor, because it's already clear who will win the big races come November 4.

Per Rasmussen, Obama has been ahead of McCain or tied nationally for 33 straight days, and has Obama ahead in Electoral votes by a 286-174 count.

Don't like Rasmussen? Zogby has the Electoral count at 273-163, for Obama. That leaves 102 'unsure', but Indiana is among the unsure. If McCain can't take Indiana, he can't take much. Zogby also shows Obama leading for 14 straight days. It might have been more, but the report only shows 14 days.

If you are libertarian, pro-free market, pro-individualist, anti-tax, anti-socialism, there is nothing to gain in voting against Obama at this point. He's going to win, and besides, McCain hasn't proven himself to be libertarian, pro-free market, pro-individualist, anti-tax, or anti-socialist. Vote for Bob Barr! When you give your vote to a candidate who makes no promise to deliver for you what you want, you tell him and his party that they can safely take you for granted.

Likewise, the various polls for Indiana Governor show Mitch Daniels comfortably ahead of Jill Long Thompson. Pollster.com has an aggregate poll with Daniels up 51%-37.5%.

Daniels is going to win in a landslide. No worries about 'wasting your vote' here, either. Vote for Andy Horning and boost the numbers for the Libertarian agenda of constitutional government, smaller and less intrusive government, lower spending, and lower taxes. Even with Daniels claiming 51%, a Horning return of 13-14% will open eyes and make the other parties sure to co-opt some important parts of his message.

Those who fall for the Prisoner's Dilemma approach to voting are suckers, anyhow. Don't want socialism? Then why vote for candidates who bring to to you at a clip of 75% of what they other team will do? You're still getting the thing you don't want by voting for the lesser of two evils.

Decision Made

I just watched tonight's debate between Obama and McCain and found it affirming of my decision to vote for Bob Barr, which I did today, casting my absentee ballot at Noblesville this afternoon.

Obama's closing statement wrapped it up well for me. He spoke of the need to do something different, because the policies of the past few decades have resulted in an economy teetering on disaster.

Well! Different means increased spending on virtually everything? In what way is that different? It wasn't just  Obama promising more spending on everything being spoken of. McCain was promising more funding also, in every area possible. With what these guys are promising, I absolutely expect similar results.

Libertarian Bob Barr is the only one talking about cuts in spending. Barr is the only one talking about not rewarding bad decisions with borrowed or freshly printed dollars.

Make no mistake- If we are in a crisis, it was made by Republicans and Democrats. Hanging it strictly on today's President is intellectually dishonest. What have the Democrats done with their majorities in the Congress? They may as well be the brothers and sisters of George W Bush, because haven't been acting to cut spending, or to end borrowing or inflating the money supply either.

Obama's right. You aren't going to get any changes by sticking to the policies that got us here. Obama and McCain are mere retreads of all the losing policy that is bringing us to the brink of depression. Change is more than swapping one team for the other. It's breaking clean.

The only way to break clean is to vote for Bob Barr, and any Libertarian candidate you find on your ballots.

Obama's Inroads

I can tell that the Obama campaign is reaching people that the Democratic Party hasn't been reaching. I need look no further than my own neighbors, a firmly Republican stronghold. Look at the returns from my home precinct, Delaware #3, in 2004:

Bush = 65.7%
Kerry = 32.8%
Badnarik = 0.9%

Link to Presidential results for Delaware 3.

Daniels = 66.7%
Kernan = 32.5%
Gividen = 0.8%

Link to Gubernatorial results for Delaware 3.

Notice that the results were almost identical, as relating the presidential and gubernatorial results by each party's candidate. That's going to change.

Now, obviously no votes have been counted yet, but my visual clues are the yard signs. I like observing yard signs off the main drags, because the parties and campaigns fill the right-of-ways with the things. I prefer to look at the residences themselves, where the property owner paid the money to get the sign, and put it out there for the world to see.

I did a count of signs in my neighborhood today, because it seemed like I was seeing a lot more Obama signs than I saw of Kerry back in 2004. Here's the tally:

Obama sign only: 38
McCain sign only: 15
Thompson sign only: ZERO
Daniels sign only: 55
Obama & Thompson signs: ZERO
Daniels & McCain signs: 53
Obama & Daniels signs: 3
Barr signs: zero
Horning signs: zero
Weingarten: 1
Burton signs: 3

What to make of it? Certainly, the Jill Long Thompson campaign is completely moribund. Either nobody is supporting her, or her campaign hasn't gotten signs made or distributed yet. In any case, moribund.

But how about the Obama and Daniels signs together? In Fishers! I have to get some pictures of these.

I think this little survey shows that the Republican base is very satisfied with Mitch Daniels as governor, but I sense a lot of buyer's remorse on John McCain, or plain alienation by McCain. The man has no real ideology to speak of, just this 'maverick' thing, which seems to be on all non-military subjects little more than a panic button that screams, 'DO SOMETHING! ANYTHING!'. That doesn't inspire anything but uneasiness, even for regular Republican voters.

If this is going on in a precinct that reliably goes 65% Republican (It also did in the 2006 Secretary of State race, Rokita 65.7%, Pearson 29.2%, Kole 5.1%), I can only imagine how precincts across America that have greater Democratic leanings are going to tilt greatly towards Obama on November 4.

The lack of anything but Obama signs shows that the Democratic organization is still very thin here. Now, that stands to change significantly. As the Obama campaign inspires people to work in his Fishers office and to put up his yard sign, surely it will yield future candidates.

As for the Libertarians, the Barr signs are available. I'll be getting one soon enough, as the Indianapolis area coordinator for the Barr campaign just got them in. I wish I had seen some anyhow.

Bob Barr To Visit NW Indiana

Of all times for me to be working in the home office and not up north! Bob Barr will stop in Valparaiso tomorrow. From the Libertarian Party of Indiana:

"We're very excited," noted Law Libertarians of Valparaiso University president Jonathan Morris. "We've been working hard to bring Bob Barr to this area since his nomination in May. More people need to be exposed to his common sense approach to government. We're pleased that our efforts are assisting with getting that message out."

Barr's on-campus remarks to students, faculty and the public will be followed by a Meet and Greet with the candidate at Pesto's Italian Restaurant in Valparaiso.

WHAT: Barr Address at Valparaiso University
SPONSOR: Law School Libertarians at Valparaiso University
TIME: 6:30 p.m. (CT)

Go see Barr if you have the chance. He will sound vastly different than McBama. Presidential, even.

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Campaign Money Trail

(Carmel, IN)- Scanning the readers while in a waiting room, I found a blog post that helps me understand half of why John McCain (Maverick-AZ) and Barack Obama (Change-IL) are devoid of outrage and otherwise silent about the absurd bailout of the irresponsible lenders.

As always, follow the money. From OpenSecrets.org:

Both companies have poured money into lobbying and campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties and committees as a general tactic, but they've also directed those contributions strategically. In the 2006 election cycle, Fannie Mae was giving 53 percent of its total $1.3 million in contributions to Republicans, who controlled Congress at that time. This cycle, with Democrats in control, they've reversed course, giving the party 56 percent of their total $1.1 million in contributions. Similarly, Freddie Mac has given 53 percent of its $555,700 in contributions to Democrats this cycle, compared to the 44 percent it gave during 2006.

Well, Democrats took over the Congress after the 2006 elections. This all makes sense to the a) cynic, and/or b) astute observer. Here's the surprise:

1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499

I truly expected John McCain to be here with Obama.

Now, before anyone gets excited and wishes to point to this as some example of me finding fault with Obama and not McCain, let me offer a sharp skewer for the alleged maverick.

If it isn't the lobbying money that keeps you silent on the absurdity of this, what possible explanation can there be? Come on! You don't really have to be all that wise in the ways of economics to know this is stupid and damaging to the economy besides!

I get why Obama, the guy currently running ads about how McCain is tied to lobbyists, is silent on this. So, why is Bob Barr the only candidate issuing statements and condemnations? Anyone?

Link to Barr's recent statement.

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

(Broadview Heights, OH)- Bob Barr is an inch from being kicked off the Pennsylvania ballot. Why? He did the same thing Obama and McCain did in Texas- file post-deadline, because his party's convention nominated him post-deadline. Shane Cory of the Barr Campaign comments:

It's been clear that if you are running for office as a Republican or a Democrat, you are somehow above the law.

If you are a Libertarian or independent, you not only have to abide by the letter of the law but you have to be prepared when the law is twisted and turned to be used against you. (emphasis supplied, -ed)

Didn't McCain just encourage people to run for office? Isn't Obama's campaign about inclusion

How about both of them step up to the plate and show that their words have some meaning. McCain can be the maverick he purports to be. Obama can be the agent of change he purports to be. Playing the game of duopoly collusion is pure status quo.

But, ok ok. If the law is the law, very well. If the law is the law, then Obama and McCain are off the Texas ballot, because like Barr in PA, those two failed to file on time. Same law, same failure to comply. Same results? Here's some interesting stuff from a New York Times blog:

I am confident that the two parties will find a way around this problem, and that Texans will be able to vote for either major candidate. The polls show Senator McCain well ahead in Texas.

That's the typical commentary for this. McCain and Obama will 'find a way around this problem'. Barr will not.

Why should they get around it? Didn't Republicans and Democrats write election laws in this country? And, in Texas? Shouldn't they, as exemplars of fairness, abide by their own stinking laws?

I don't know how anybody supporting McCain or Obama, who has INTEGRITY, can know that their candidate's campaigns will do anything they can with regards to the law, to make sure it doesn't apply to them, but does apply to everyone else. How can you simply gloss over it, if you have any idealism, and consistency, any integrity, AT ALL, about you?

Or, is winning the only thing. The means be damned, the end is all that matters.

If that's what it's about, be scared if your side loses, because you can expect the victor to run roughshod over you when it becomes expedient to do so.

Here's a $100 Wager

(Fishers, IN)- Let's see if there are any takers. Both McCain and Obama apparently have failed to file necessary papers in Texas to qualify for that state's ballot. This is because the filing deadline occurs prior to either of their parties' conventions.

So, does anyone want to take my bet that the law will be overlooked to accommodate McCain and Obama?

As we saw here recently in Marion County, when the slightest error is found on a form submitted by a Libertarian candidate the bi-partisan, ie: Republican and Democratic colluded Elections Board votes to strenuously uphold the letter of the law. As we see across the USA, those same bi-partisan Boards tend to wink at the law when it involves their own candidates.

For now, Bob Barr is on the Texas ballot. It would be pretty cool for Barr to scoop up all 34 of Texas' electoral votes. I think on this basis alone, Barr should now be brought into the debates... if the allegedly non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates would hear of it.

(h/t Advance Indiana)

What? I'm Not Alone?

Well if this isn't like a cool drink of water in the scorching desert, I don't know what is. There is someone else out there who believes that there is more than one way to balance a budget! Obama says, "Raise taxes". Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University shares my view: drastically cut spending. From his Wall Street Journal op-ed:

In short, Mr. Obama has articulated a plan for higher federal spending, leaving open the question of what tax increases are next.

If Mr. Obama is going to increase spending, will he raise the money by higher business taxes instead? He has already distanced himself from John McCain's call to reduce America's corporate tax rate, and he is committed to raising tax rates on successful small business owners who pay individual as opposed to corporate income taxes. Does this mean he will raise tax burdens on individuals with annual incomes less than $250,000?

In a June 26 interview on the Fox Business channel, Mr. Obama said he wanted to roll back the Bush tax cuts for those in the top 5% of incomes -- that is, about $145,000 per year. He also voted for the Democrats' fiscal year 2009 Budget Resolution, which would raise taxes on individuals earning $42,000 or more.

There is another fiscal way. Balancing the federal budget without a tax increase is possible, but will require strong fiscal restraint. To achieve full-employment budget balance by the end of the next president's term in office, federal nondefense spending growth needs to be restrained to 2% per year instead of the currently projected 4.5%. And modest defense spending increases to fund costs of needed improvements in national security are possible.

That seems really simple, actually. Not even cut the budget, but have it grow more slowly, and you're on your way. Seems to me if an actual fiscal conservative were elected, we might be able to eradicate the deficit in four years or so.

Now, it's fair criticism to say that this man isn't likely to be listened to. After all, he was an advisor to George W. Bush, who grew spending like never before. But it's in the Wall Street Journal, and somebody's reading it. There's hope!

Now, while Hubbard is obviously saying these things in the hopes of boosting McCain, there's no reason for anyone who cares about policy to believe that McCain is going to be the fiscal conservative. He certainly hasn't been while in the Senate.

There is one candidate talking about cutting spending. Nudge, nudge.

Bob Barr Statement on Georgia & Russia

Barr points to a larger acceptance of alliances than meets my personal ideal, but I agree with the sentiments expressed here.

August 11, 2008 4:26 pm EST

Atlanta, GA -- “George Washington long ago warned America against ‘entangling alliances,’ and he was right,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. “Russia and Georgia risk falling into a full-scale war in which the U.S. can and hopefully will avoid any involvement. But had Georgia been a member of NATO we would now be risking a full-scale confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia,” Barr observes.

“Obviously, America should encourage both countries to back down and resolve their differences peacefully,” explains Barr. But “the status of South Ossetia, as well as Abkhazia, another Russian-supported separatist zone within Georgia, matters a lot more to Russia, on which the two territories border, than to the U.S. Moreover, Washington itself set a precedent for Russia when it intervened in Kosovo a decade ago, attacking Serbia to win independence for the separatist ethnic-Albanian majority,” notes Barr.

“The purpose of alliances is to defend America,” says Barr. “We should not create or expand alliances where the U.S. does not have vital interests. If the Europeans want to defend distant countries like Georgia, they can do so—after all, the European Union has a larger population and bigger GDP than America, without any of Washington’s other global military commitments. It is time for Europe to accept responsibility for its own security.”

“Any war is tragic, but not every war requires American intervention,” explains Barr. “We can do our best to mediate between Russia and Georgia, but we should avoid any military involvement. It is time to put the defense of America back into America’s defense policy.”

Full release.

A Test For The World's Cop

OK, my interventionist friends. Is Russia's bombing of Georgia important enough to warrant US intervention? Move the troops from Iraq and call up a hell of a lot more? Kick Putin's ass and let him know that war doesn't happen while on the USA's watch?

I say 'NO'. It isn't our problem. Our isolation from this area would be splendid.

I can't wait for statements from Obama, McCain, and Barr on this.

Take Away My Gridlock?

Gridlock. It's my only hope for limiting the otherwise rampant growth of government. Talk of eliminating it is talk of taking away my one last realistic hope for the 2008 elections at the federal level. We saw how destructive and government-growing one party rule was under a nominally 'smaller government' party. What's it going to look like if the plainly bigger government Democrats get their wish for their own brand of one party rule?

No sooner had I stuffed the McCain business reply letter full of newspaper, did I get an Obama mailing. Obama has as a new objective the elimination of gridlock.

So, that's the audacity of hope? Hell, that's the elimination of hope for me. I can't vote for McCain or Obama, since neither of them is pro-smaller government. Barr isn't likely to win. Gridlock is the best I can hope for, but Obama wants to squash my hope.

Thanks for nothing. Here- have your own envelope full of shredded newspaper.

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Candidates

Two candidates have campaign staff with ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in the form of lobbyists for the lenders. Two candidates have been guarded in their comments about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. One has not.

Bob Barr had this to say about the lending collapse:

Oklahoma City, OK -- The latest financial crisis involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which guarantee home mortgages, demonstrates yet again how government intervention in private markets almost always comes to grief. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are nominally private, but were created by Congress and enjoy significant advantages over truly private companies, including cheaper borrowing, lower capital requirements, and an implicit federal guarantee.

As a result, the two organizations behaved irresponsibly, confident that they were “too big to fail.” They own $5.1 trillion in mortgage debt, almost half of the nation’s total. With the sub-prime lending crisis in full swing, their losses are up, their capital is down, and their ability to borrow is falling. Immediate privatization is difficult because the markets doubt the organizations can survive without government support. Insolvency and a forced asset sale would roil both the housing and financialmarkets.

These problems are almost entirely the fault of the federal government. Congress created programs to artificially inflate the housing market, established Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be exempt from normal scrutiny, oversight, and competition, and expanded their activities in response to the sub-prime lending meltdown. Government must get out of the mortgage business, but must do so in a way that least harms taxpayers and the economy.

Link to full Barr statement.

Today, the Washington Post treated its' readers to a rare piece of actual journalism, wherein the campaign team members for Obama and McCain who have also lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are named. This is not small-change lobbying, by the way:

That payroll has cost Fannie and Freddie nearly $200 million in lobbying and campaign contributions over the past decade, according to lobbying reports and Federal Election Commission disclosures. It has also won them plenty of protection from calls for greater regulation, less federal protection, and even nationalization.

$200 million. That's a lot of money to syphon away from the core business in order to buy special favors.

McCain the Maverick. Omaba the Agent of Change. Bullshit!

Daily Kos Noticed

A recent Daily Kos article noted the under-inclusion of Bob Barr in national reporting and polling.

First we had the anti-war republican (sic) Ron Paul, polling well but consistently ignored in any primary discussions.

Now we have the viable republican (sic) alternative Bob Barr consistently ignored by CBS, NBC and ABC, as well as the corrupt clowns at Fox, CNN and most of MSNBC.

Going foward, we should chart how frequently (or infrequently) Bob Barr comes up in polling.

The July 11th Zogby has Bob Barr receiving the following:

9% in New Mexico
8% in Colorado
6% in Florida
5% in Virginia
4% in North Carolina

Bob Barr is a major factor in the 2008 race, far more relevant statistically than Ralph Nader in 2000 or 2004.

Yet our corrupt assclowns in the National Media continue to ignore Barr, creating a McCain/Obama vacuum, with the occasional mention of Ralph Nader thrown in.

Now, clearly Daily Kos has an agenda- mainly, it wishes to see Obama elected, and it views Barr as one who would 'take votes from McCain'. That's cool. Go for it. Please push for more inclusive coverage. But I think that the assumption that Libertarians are 'Republican alternatives', or only draw votes from conservatives is far off the mark. Barr is running to the left of Obama on Iraq, on FISA, and on some other issues where the Democratic base is being alienated by Obama's rightward push to the center.

I myself have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, but I have voted for a Democratic one. There are plenty of Libertarians who had their political beginnings in the Democratic Party or other areas of The Left.

Barr on Glenn Beck, Repeated. Twice

(Big Sky, MT)- Let's hear it for hotel room dial hopping. I was pleased to find Bob Barr's full hour with Glenn Beck being repeated on CNN tonight. Here's the first quarter-hour:

Beck wasn't throwing Barr softballs. I'd love to see McBama get questioned the way Barr does. Let's hear it for Barr, though. He comports himself well. The more I see of Barr, the happier I am with him as the Libertarian nominee.

Great Barr Poll Numbers

(Big Sky, MT)- Libertarian Bob Barr is now consistently polling 6-7% when included in presidential polls among likely voters. I can't for the life of me recall Libertarian candidates being regularly included, let alone polling as highly as this, with this being the fourth presidential election cycle I've been supporting watching for such things. From the Barr Campaign:

In the first comprehensive general election poll (a sample of over 46,000 likely voters), Bob Barr is now at six percent nationally!

David (Beiler) was there in 1992 when Ross Perot, then polling at seven percent nationally, was included in the debates with Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.

Four percentage points are all that we need to get into the Google/YouTube presidential debate that is scheduled for September 18th.

According to the debate rules we need ten percent in at least three polls before the debate starts in New Orleans.

These polling numbers are being achieved without benefit of huge TV ad spending, or constant media coverage. I have great hope that the media will increase with these numbers. From there, the campaign needs to ramp up the fundraising and get some ads on TV to boost Barr's name recognition. 

Inclusion in the debates would be phenomenal. I recall how Perot's numbers soared after inclusion in the debates. 

One Doctor's Insights

In my summer hockey session, there are fewer players, so the teams are all jumbled. All four of my linemates are guys I've never played with before. So, I try to get to know them a bit. After the game (a 6-1 win, and a goal by Yours Truly), I spoke with Dan, who is a family practice physician. It was eye-opening, to say the least.

As we were talking generally, he asked me my opinion of the state of health care. My response was simple: Insurance is the problem. It is a middleman taking a share of the cost without adding value, and it makes decisions where doctors should make them instead. I didn't say that I believe in the free market, that socialized health care is unjust, or anything political.

He thought this critique on the role of insurance was right on the mark. Among the loads of tidbits he threw at me, I hung on to these:

Medicare will be insolvent in three years.

Congress knows this, or should, and is passing this political football to the poor sap who is elected President.

The system will collapse because of insurance. It will be overhauled with Medical Savings Accounts, making people notice price for the first time in two generations.

The US devotes 19% of GDP to health care. Economists believe that any economy that devotes 23% of GDP to health care is unsustainable.

These are just one doctor's opinions, and I can't vouch for the precision of the numbers. But, being that these are largely things I had never heard before, or certainly don't hear very often, I found them exceptionally jarring and enlightening.

I found it most insightful that he told me he is glad the race is Obama & McCain, since both of them appear to him to be the kind of people who will shake things up- because the thing that needs to be said is this: "You know how we've been telling you that health care is a right? Yeah, we've been leading you by the nose on that one. It's a load of crap."

I agree with his assessment of the need to come clean, but I really don't think those Obama or McCain are the ones that would do it at all. Both of those appear to be the kind of captains that would be damn glad to go down with their ships- McCain, Iraq; Obama, who talks of expanding socialized health care. I let it go for now about Bob Barr, as there will be opportunity a-plenty.

He then went on about the lousy choices Americans make with regards to food, drink, exercise, and to a lesser degree, smoking; and the resulting Type 2 diabetes he sees regularly in people under 30. His conclusion- you can't have people be completely free of the responsibility to pay for their own choices and have people take on the burden of other people's choices. Economic collapse is the only possible result.

I think I'll have little trouble turning him on to Barr. I sincerely doubt the American people are ready for this news, in the face of all the other bad news raining on us these days.

More Barr on Heller