Bob Barr and the Ralph Nader factor

[stevedeshazer]

Is it possible that Bob Barr could swing the general election to Obama?

Pundits debate whether Barr is an alternative or a distraction

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/05/14/barr_0515.html

Bob Barr rejects the label of spoiler in the 2008 presidential race, but the former Georgia congressman is likely to find that's the label that has the best chance of sticking to his nascent Libertarian bid for the White House.

The former Republican congressman from Georgia gave a spirited launch to his campaign this week in Washington and hopes to land the Libertarian Party mantle at the party's national convention in Denver next weekend.

But for Republicans in Georgia and around the country, the prospect of a Barr candidacy is being met with dread, because of what his bid could mean for the presumptive GOP nominee, and a healthy amount of derision for the sheer audacity of it.

DeKalb County Republican Party chairman Jamie Sibold is a good example of the mixed feelings Barr's campaign creates.

"I would be lying to say, 'No, he doesn't give me any pause,'" Sibold said.

But, Sibold said, he's not overly concerned. Once Barr left Congress in 2003, his media spotlight went away, Sibold said.

---

Whoa.

[WA98070]

1. I hope he's serious. Without Perot Clinton wouldn't have won.

[New Dawn]

2. Good point.

I doubt that Barr will come anywhere close to doing as well as Perot did though. He was polling around 2-3% in the few nationwide polls that have included him so far.

[opihimoimoi]

3. He has an op to really shore up the Notion of ANYONE CAN RUN even Barr

He will do OK....get himself in there for the 012 run

[jasmine621]

4. It will only take 3-4% to hand the Presidency to Obama. nt

[JackRiddler]

13. Untrue - in fact, you are echoing a Republican myth

Back then, in an age when polls actually reliably predicted election results, Clinton had the same lead over Bush with or without Perot. Asked how they would vote in a two-man race, the 18 percent of Perot supporters split evenly between Clinton, Bush and non-voting. Perot dropped out of the race in the summer before getting back in, and endorsed Clinton. So when he got back in, Perot voters knew he was more for Clinton than for Bush.

This myth that it took Perot to give Clinton the victory was exploited by Republicans and right-wing media from the first moment of that presidency, as they claimed Clinton had never won a majority and the majority was actually against him, blah blah blah.

[ColbertWatcher]

5. It all depends on what Barr does/says.

Barr is still a republican.

[Solon]

6. Bob Barr, if he gets some media play, will probably win over more dissaffected Republicans...

than Nader would attract disaffected Democrats. At the very least, they would cancel each other out.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. If!?

LOL!

He's still a republican, of course he'll get media coverage!

He will use his time to push GOP's greedy policies and continue the lie that there is no difference between the GOP and Dems.

Which he will use as the reason he is running: "because the Republican party is no different from the democrats (sic)".

[LaPera]

7. Perhaps, one percent.

[JCMach1]

9. Barr with get the Bo Grits vote...

[deacon]

10. If barr is serious he would pick paul as vp. after that mccain

would have to scrub off 'straight talk express" from the bus and replace it with 'arizona or bust".

[Elspeth]

17. That's an interesting idea: Barr/Paul

A conservative libertarian ticket

[KharmaTrain]

11. The "Math"

The corporate media keeps using past models in trying to predict what the election will be like. They're fighting this election with last election...and things have changed a lot. The dynamics have moved beyond the reach of many of their pollsters and pundits who still think we're in 2004 or a "post 9/11" world. The rest of us are in Post Katrina or Post $3.00 a gallon gas or Post losing a job or house or Post losing a loved one in Iraq. It's a country fatigued in the partisan bullshit of the past 25 years...the very bullshit the corporate media thrives on spreading.

Gramps is one of the most flawed candidates in a field of very flawed candidates. Not only is he a poor campaigner (I can't wait for the debates) but he lacks any solid support (other than the Abramoff-K Street wing) that will energize "the base" to fill up the church busses and swing the election. If anything, polls show Gramps in the low 40's...and that discounts the many GOOPers who plan to stay home along with losing a large number of the independents. Gramps needs 50,000,000 plus votes...I don't see it out there. Add to that the large number of people who turned out for Democratic primaries this year...I expect many of those fine folks to be back in November.

Barr fills the void for the Paulbots and growing libertarian wing...one of the silent factions within the GOOP for the past 40 years that broke away with Perot in '92 but had been solid with them since (why Paul is still a Repugnican), but Barr offers many an escape hatch. I've seen it on the state level as the Illinois GOOP disintigrated under the George Ryan scandal and many of the independents began to work in building up the Libertarian party...many who became Paulbots.

There are pockets of these people in some key states...not in the South, but the West. Witness Nevada. If Paul gets the hose at the GOOP convention...and for Paulbots that means not getting a prime time speaking slot...I could see many of them glamming onto Barr and this could be a factor in places like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri...even Pennsylvania and Ohio.

I've long predicted we'd see a third party to siphon off GOOP votes and Barr fits the bill.

[elizfeelinggreat]

12. They don't want us to see this for what it is

You hit the nail on the head and the corporate-owned media doesn't want to admit what is going on with the electorate.

I also think that McCain has no choice but to ape Bush and put on an arrogant air in the debates because he certainly can't win with intellect.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Follow The Money

Gramps has mostly lobbyists running his campaign. There must be a reason. They're the ones who need the current corporate welfare system to remain or else they go down the tubes...or worse. His money are the defense contractors, telcoms, insurance companies...those who have the most to lose this November. He can't rely on much else as the party's splintering has created too many rifts and Gramps doesn't have either the stamina or the "cred" to bridge them...all he can do is pander. And we're already seeing that if you pander too much to one side, the other side squeals. The only real middle ground Gramps has here is to "stay the course".

[stevedeshazer]

16. All true

Good post.

[WillyToad]

15. Obama shouldnt need a nader

McCain is a very weak candidate