Bob Barr announces possible presidential bid

[thejtrain]

He's in.

[frankie_the_yankee]

So who wants to bet their gun rights on his chances of winning the presidency?

One thing's for sure. Drain enough votes from McCain and we sure will need to "cling" to our guns. Because Obama will be doing everything he can to pry them from our fingers, whether cold, dead, or alive.

At least the Democrats have their own Slow Wheat candidate (Nader) pulling looney left votes from Obama.

[aardwolf]

So who wants to bet their gun rights on his chances of winning the presidency?

I'm willing to bet he's more pro gun than McCain or either of the other Democrats.

[seamusTX]

Mr. Barr is more pro-rights than any of the major-party candidates will ever be. One purpose of his candidacy is to highlight issues and hopefully (in this case) to force Sen. McCain take positions that will persuade conservatives and libertarians to vote for McCain instead of casting a protest vote for Barr.

I think he has a better chance of succeeding at that than anyone else who has run on the Libertarian ticket.

- Jim

[thejtrain]

Mr. Barr is more pro-rights than any of the major-party candidates will ever be. One purpose of his candidacy is to highlight issues and hopefully (in this case) to force Sen. McCain take positions that will persuade conservatives and libertarians to vote for McCain instead of casting a protest vote for Barr.

I think he has a better chance of succeeding at that than anyone else who has run on the Libertarian ticket.

- Jim

Finally, someone else understands one of the primary reasons for spirited, staunch, principled opposition either within a party (see Paul this year & McClintock in CA's 2003 gubernatorial recall election) or from another (Barr, Nader) - not necessarily to win but to focus the subject of debate, to keep a presumably-similar candidate from moving towards the center. Whether we actually vote for Barr or McCain in the end is between us & the ballot box, but we need to do all we can to signal to the McCainiacs that we'd all looooove to vote for Barr unless Mr. I-Oppose-Bush's-Tax-Cuts steps up and takes the right positions.

JT

[frankie_the_yankee]

So who wants to bet their gun rights on his chances of winning the presidency?

I'm willing to bet he's more pro gun than McCain or either of the other Democrats.

Too bad that's not the question.

[aardwolf]

I'm willing to bet he's more pro gun than McCain or either of the other Democrats.

Too bad that's not the question.

That may not be your question. Fortunately the rest of us don't need your permission to vote pro gun.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I'm willing to bet he's more pro gun than McCain or either of the other Democrats.

Too bad that's not the question.

That may not be your question. Fortunately the rest of us don't need your permission to vote pro gun.

You can vote for whoever you want.

And when Obama gets elected as a result of your vote, and appoints a few "living document" judges to the SCOTUS, and a few hundred living document judges to the rest of the federal bench, and these judges proceed to destroy the 2A, just don't come crying to me about it because all I'm gonna say is, "I told you so!"

[seamusTX]

You can vote for whoever you want.

How generous of you.

- Jim

[thejtrain]

Personally I think the "vote for this guy 'cause of the judicial appointments he'll make!" is fine and dandy in theory, but in practice it's becoming impossible to predict with any accuracy what a judge is going to be like once on the bench. But perhaps that's just on the GOP side of things - Clinton certainly got exactly what he wanted in Breyer & Ginsburg. But Ford saddled us with Stevens, and true, Reagan gave us Scalia & made Rehnquist the Chief, but he also gave us O'Connor & Kennedy, who've been about as erratic as Justices can be. Then you've got Bush Sr., who did stand by courageously with Thomas to get him confirmed, but who also made an absolute whopper of a mistake in Souter. We'll have to see how Bush Jr.'s Roberts & Alito treat us gun owners on Heller, but I'm not really liking very much what we've seen of them so far with decisions like Kelo, Hudson, & Raich. <shudder>

Every appointment to the SCOTUS since (and including) Warren Burger in 1969 was made by a Republican President, save two: Breyer & Ginsburg, appointed by Clinton in 1993/1994. That's 12 of 14 Justices over the last thirty-nine years, and though the SCOTUS did go through something of a federalism revolution for a little while, it was too little and in the wrong areas to really have lasting effectiveness. Too often (though not always) we've seen them just rubber-stamp whatever power the Executive wanted, rather than reining it in.

Then there's the CA Supreme Court. Out of the seven current justices who just overturned Prop. 22 (straight marriage only), 6 are Republicans, and all but one were appointed by Republican governors. I wonder if, when voting Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian, and Arnold Schwarzenegger into office, CA GOPers ever expected that the judicial appointments those three would make would end up overturning a referendum overwhelmingly supported by those same CA GOPers. Probably not.

So that's why I take the whole, "This election is the most important one ever because of the judicial appointments that will be made!" is something of a canard, and so loosely definable & predictable as to be almost meaningless (at least on the GOP side). Again, in concept you're absolutely right - I'd rather see good Justices than bad ones, and a Democrat executive will most likely give us bad ones. It's just that the argument itself has very little to stand on in the way of accurate predictiveness (I think I just made that word up).

JT

[srothstein]

You can vote for whoever you want.

And when Obama gets elected as a result of your vote

The obvious flaw in your logic is that the only way Obama can be elected because of my vote is if I vote FOR Obama. The fact that not enough people supported your candidate is why yours lost. If you want me to vote for your candidate, you have to convince me to support your candidate. If not enough people support my candidate, he will lose. It is my job to convince you then to support my candidate.

I will give you a couple free tips. First, making fun of my candidate, either his party or his name, will not help convince me to vote for yours. It might drive me into the camp of your enemy though. The things like "slow wheat" and "Obamamama" are not good tactics.

Second, give me a reason to support your candidate, besides your opinion that mine can't win. I will never vote for the candidate I think will win, just the one whose views I support.

And finally, the other tactic that will never convince me is the gloom and doom of electing someone other than your candidate. You may very well be right, but I find it very hard to believe that the world as we know it will end just because your guy lost. One of the things I know about our country is that for over 200 years, there have been losing candidates and so far the country has survived. I am sure we will survive no matter which candidate wins this year. After all, Congress has a lot to do with it too.

So, convince me that your candidate is the one I should support because he agrees with me on a majority of the issues. I could be considered a one issue voter on freedom, but I recognize that this is a broad topic. I do weigh a persons record on guns heavily, as I find it indicative of their overall attitudes towards the citizens. I look at their stances on lots of issues though. Convince me on a majority of the issues and I will support your candidate.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Personally I think the "vote for this guy 'cause of the judicial appointments he'll make!" is fine and dandy in theory, but in practice it's becoming impossible to predict with any accuracy what a judge is going to be like once on the bench. But perhaps that's just on the GOP side of things - Clinton certainly got exactly what he wanted in Breyer & Ginsburg. But Ford saddled us with Stevens, and true, Reagan gave us Scalia & made Rehnquist the Chief, but he also gave us O'Connor & Kennedy, who've been about as erratic as Justices can be. Then you've got Bush Sr., who did stand by courageously with Thomas to get him confirmed, but who also made an absolute whopper of a mistake in Souter. We'll have to see how Bush Jr.'s Roberts & Alito treat us gun owners on Heller, but I'm not really liking very much what we've seen of them so far with decisions like Kelo, Hudson, & Raich. <shudder>

Every appointment to the SCOTUS since (and including) Warren Burger in 1969 was made by a Republican President, save two: Breyer & Ginsburg, appointed by Clinton in 1993/1994. That's 12 of 14 Justices over the last thirty-nine years, and though the SCOTUS did go through something of a federalism revolution for a little while, it was too little and in the wrong areas to really have lasting effectiveness. Too often (though not always) we've seen them just rubber-stamp whatever power the Executive wanted, rather than reining it in.

There's only one problem with the "unpredictable / doesn't make any difference" argument. It's just not true.

A while back, I analyzed the voting patterns of judges participating in the 3 most significant 2A cases of the last 25+ years - Silveria v Lockyear, Emerson v US, and DC v Heller. The results are given in the links to the two threads below.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... it=Emerson

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... on#p154246

What I found was that judges appointed by Republicans voted and/or wrote opinions in favor of the individual rights 2A position approximately 90% of thet time. So as you noted, there have been a few disappointments among Republican appointees.

But most striking, and quite unexpected on my part, was that judges appointed by Democrats voted and/or wrote opinions AGAINST the individual rights 2A position (that is, in FAVOR of the so-called "collective rights" position) 100% of the time.

I knew there'd be a difference, but I wasn't expecting 100%.

In other words, every single time a Democrat-appointed judge had a chance to vote or opine on the 2A, they held that that we have no individual 2A rights.

If you review the arguments I make in the two threads, you will see my reasons as to why they tend to rule this way. It has to do with the fundamental difference between the Originalist philosophy and the relatively new (last 70 years or so) concept of the Constitution as a "living document", which is really just a thinly disguised form of judicial despotism.

So while justices appointed by Republicans are not "perfect" from our perspective, there is a huge difference between how they rule on 2A issues.

I have not the slightest doubt that if either Clinton or Obama is elected president, they will appoint judges who will follow this pattern - especially Obama.

Then there's the CA Supreme Court. Out of the seven current justices who just overturned Prop. 22 (straight marriage only), 6 are Republicans, and all but one were appointed by Republican governors. I wonder if, when voting Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian, and Arnold Schwarzenegger into office, CA GOPers ever expected that the judicial appointments those three would make would end up overturning a referendum overwhelmingly supported by those same CA GOPers. Probably not.

CA Republicans are a different breed. I'll bet none of the flake judges who rendered the recent decision were appointed by Reagan.

So that's why I take the whole, "This election is the most important one ever because of the judicial appointments that will be made!" is something of a canard, and so loosely definable & predictable as to be almost meaningless (at least on the GOP side).

Unfortunately, that's exactly what Clinton, Obama, and the Hard Left want you to think.

[frankie_the_yankee]

You can vote for whoever you want.

And when Obama gets elected as a result of your vote

The obvious flaw in your logic is that the only way Obama can be elected because of my vote is if I vote FOR Obama. The fact that not enough people supported your candidate is why yours lost. If you want me to vote for your candidate, you have to convince me to support your candidate. If not enough people support my candidate, he will lose. It is my job to convince you then to support my candidate.

It's just simple arithmetic. If someone who tends to vote conservative and who would probably (if reluctantly) vote for McCain, instead votes for a minor party candidate, that is one less vote that McCain gets. If a few thousand people do that, it's a few thousand less votes that Mccain gets. In some cases, this could be enough for him to lose the state, and in a close race, the presidency.

Look at Florida in 2000. Bush won by around 500 votes and won the White House. Nader got several thousand votes, as did Pat Buchanon. Either one could have, and probably did, affect the outcome.

I will give you a couple free tips. First, making fun of my candidate, either his party or his name, will not help convince me to vote for yours. It might drive me into the camp of your enemy though. The things like "slow wheat" and "Obamamama" are not good tactics.

Aw, come on! Have a sense of humor. Making fun of the opposition is a long tradition in American politics. My favorite is from back in the 1870's or 80's when Grover Cleveland's opponents chanted (in reference to his alleged illegitimate child), "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha!"

Second, give me a reason to support your candidate, besides your opinion that mine can't win. I will never vote for the candidate I think will win, just the one whose views I support.

See my other post in this thread regarding SCOTUS and federal bench appointments.

So, convince me that your candidate is the one I should support because he agrees with me on a majority of the issues. I could be considered a one issue voter on freedom, but I recognize that this is a broad topic. I do weigh a persons record on guns heavily, as I find it indicative of their overall attitudes towards the citizens. I look at their stances on lots of issues though. Convince me on a majority of the issues and I will support your candidate.

SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS. SCOTUS.

[boomerang]

If you want my vote, nominate a pro-gun pro-constitution candidate.

[frankie_the_yankee]

If you want my vote, nominate a pro-gun pro-constitution candidate.

Or else you'll withhold your vote, or give it to someone who can't possibly win, thus helping an anti-gun anti constitution candidate to win, right?

Fat lot of good that will do.

Like I said, all I'm gonna do if that happens is say, "I told you so!"