Barr endorses Donovan over Isakson

Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman who served with Johnny Isakson in the House, has endorsed Chuck Donovan for US Senate:

Former U.S. Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Bob Barr today announced his endorsement of Libertarian Chuck Donovan running for U.S. Senate. The Donovan for Senate campaign is proud to receive such an endorsement. Bob Barr is well known figure in third party politics ever since he left the Republican Party in 2006 to join the Libertarian Party.

“Both our basic liberties and prosperity are increasingly at risk because of policies implemented by both of the two major monopoly parties.” said Barr. “Instead of giving us free markets, Washington puts taxpayers on the hook for bailouts. Instead of reforming crippling entitlements, Washington expands them.”

“There is not only a budget deficit in Washington, but also a severe deficit of leadership, and unless we start electing people like Chuck Donovan, our Constitution and Bill of Rights will become nothing more than footnotes in history.”

51 comments

  1. Doug Grammer says:

    And what % did LP Presidential candidate Bob Barr get in his home state of Georgia? I like Bob, but he doesn’t carry the kind of influence he used to.

    • Notice how all the big government democrats elected republicans stick together, no matter what.

      I think Good Ol’ Boy Roy endorsed Johnny “Bail Out” Isakson too… at least he said he likes how he votes.

      • seenbetrdayz, Ph.D. says:

        No one looks forward to “Sonny” running for U.S. Senate. Now “(R) Sonny” is another matter. That’s the most powerful letter in the Republican’s alphabet, so it seems.

      • Dave says:

        Well, if he does run he’ll have to wait four years to try and upend Saxby. That’s an eternity in politics. By that time he’ll have taken the place of Junior Samples in a newly revamped version of Hee Haw!

  2. Joshua Morris says:

    I met Donovan recently in Dawsonville. He seemed like a nice guy. Based on what he told me about his reasons for being on the ‘outside’ of the Republican Party, I doubt he’s truly an ideological libertarian in the mold of Rothbard or Rousseau. I’m interested to hear his views.

  3. Insider Mike says:

    Uggghhhh. So now Donovan will get 3.9% instead of 3.7%?

    Jason, this is a two-party country. I know you don’t like that, but it’s the truth.

    • Red Phillips says:

      “Jason, this is a two-party country. I know you don’t like that, but it’s the truth.”

      To the degree that our winner take all system lends itself to that, then so be it. But to the degree that this is the result of barriers to ballot access (which are incredibly high in Georgia) then all fair minded people should denounce that. I hope you agree.

  4. saltycracker says:

    Here’s a guy running on a platform of fiscal responsibility – that makes him politically incorrect in Georgia…..we’ll stay two party at all costs…..he should subvert the Republican party from within….

          • Platform is not “for” these thing. We’re for not making things illegal that doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s liberty. If the DNC is successful at making cheeseburgers illegal, we’ll add that to our platform too.

            Doug,
            Are you so weak, that you have to have laws criminalizing vices to keep you from doing them? Or are you just a tyranical control freak? It has do be one or the other… And that is the bottom line, the LP just wants to protect idividuals from people like you… that have no problem with imposing their will on others, even though your liberty has not been affected at all. We’re FOR liberty…. and against tyranny.

            • Doug Grammer says:

              DNA,

              My personal opinions are not at issue. Most of the laws that are on the books that you say I am for were on the books before I was born. I am supporting the law, and your party is trying to make a case to change them. If you don’t like the use of the word “for” I’ll use another word. The LP platform “promotes”: drugs, prostitution, and gambling.

              Call it a war on liberty all you like, but the vast majority of Georgians are not on the same page as your party with these platform planks of the LP: drugs, prostitution, and gambling.

              • True, we “promote” the repealing of laws that made these things illegal…. among many, many others.

                …the vast majority of Georgians are not on the same page …

                Once again you prove the point that the Republican party no longer supports a republic but a socialist democracy (majority rule, regardless of rights) just like the Democratic party. There is no difference between you except for whose will is to be imposed on us all.

                A Republic is ruled by Principle based laws supported by Constitutional protection of minority (and individual) rights, regardless of popularity…. that is, if the courts would do their damn job.

                This is what my party is selling…. and I believe you’re confusing Georgians “not wanting” with “not knowing” this… we wouldn’t be growing as we are otherwise.

                • Doug Grammer says:

                  When your Presidential candidate gets .07% in his home state, you don’t have much anywhere to go but up. It remains to be seen if you will crack much over 5% this year. If your party of drugs, prostitution, and gambling breaks 9% (with both an R & and D in the same race), I will agree that it has grown. Anything less could be counted as a statistical anomaly. (+ or – 3.5%)

                  If you think there is no difference between the two major parties in Georgia, we can find some property in Milledgeville for you. You can imagine an ocean view from your rubber room.

                  • “.07%” should be “0.7%” Sure, it’s still a tiny number in comparison to both the Democrats that ran (I’m including the one with the R beside his name). But just figured at least the real number should be used.

                • Joshua Morris says:

                  Not so fast, Daniel. What your party is really selling is an abstract doctrine of unsustainable anarchist liberty that opposes any meaningful public order.

                  There must be a balance between order and liberty in a successful society. Not all conservatives are necessarily on the same page regarding which libertarian platform ideas we take issue with, but the underlying difference of ideas regards the structure necessary to maintain “a more perfect Union”, in which we are able to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”

                  • “What your party is really selling is an abstract doctrine of unsustainable anarchist liberty that opposes any meaningful public order.”

                    Your statement proposes that gambling, prostitution and marijuana (the three items Doug Grammer has chosen here) either do not meet the criteria you listed in the last section of your post. If that was the case, how is it that places such as Las Vegas and Amsterdam have managed to exist peacefully without totally falling apart?

                    Sure… some anarchists call themselves libertarians. Most libertarians that I know though simply prefer a smaller government. Would you, then, call me an anarchist? Anarchy is the absence of government. I support meaningful zoning ordinances, reasonable taxation, etc. That doesn’t quite seem like anarchy to me… but yet I’m a libertarian.

                    • Joshua Morris says:

                      David, I wasn’t referring to the gambling, prostitution & weed that Doug mentioned. As I said, conservatives don’t all agree on their differences with the libertarian platform.

                      I was really taking issue with what Daniel said his party was selling. When I look at early libertarian thinkers and the doctrines they presented, I don’t see much Constitutional protection of anything other than an anarchist style of liberty–one which wouldn’t necessarily support minority rights as he said.

                    • If left up to the LP, what would the speed limit be?

                      Doug – which road? You’re really reaching here… but if you’ve got nothing better to do, here’s a quote I saw the other day I thought you might be interested in fumbling for an answer to…

                      ‎”Pot; what do its detractors say it does to you? They say it makes you tired, hungry and stupid. If I was a General and I was asked, ‘who would you like to fight?’ I would say ‘tired, hungry, stupid people would be great.’

                      I mean it is ridiculous that we have had a 40 year war against tired, hungry, stupid people and we can’t win it…. I think it is time to throw in the towel.” – John Jay Myers

                    • Joshua – I don’t think there’s anywhere within the Libertarian platforms that I’ve seen that’s selling anarchy though as a solution. The Libertarian Party recognizes that government is indeed a necessity – but there are certain things that maybe government shouldn’t have a role in.

                      Perhaps the state shouldn’t have anything to do with what day of the week alcohol can be sold on? Maybe that should be a local community’s decision.

                      Perhaps people should be allowed a little more control over their own bodies and what they put in them.

                      Perhaps people should be allowed to keep a little bit more of their money instead of the government borrowing from China to give to Haiti and Ethiopia and others and then turning around to the citizens and demanding that they foot the bill to pay China back.

                      Perhaps the government shouldn’t be able to tell two people that they can have sexual relations so long as no money changes hands.

                      Perhaps the government shouldn’t be allowed to tell people they’re not allowed to bet on a horse race, but that they are allowed to gamble in the stock market.

                      Perhaps Georgia shouldn’t have a monopoly on gambling via the lottery.

                      There’s all sorts of things that Libertarians stand for that would reasonably apply.

                      As to supporting minority rights, I’m not sure where you get that. Just because the early founders of the country didn’t consider certain sexes or races to be a human being doesn’t mean that they were right in doing so and I haven’t seen a single libertarian propose that we go back to only supporting the white male rule in this country.

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I’m not reaching, I showing that the LP doesn’t like the ideas of laws that tell them what to do.

                      For discussion’s sake, what should the speed limit be on I -75 between Chattanooga (or Ringgold to keep it all in Georgia) and Atlanta?

                      From your state platform:
                      “Likewise, we advocate the immediate repeal of speed limits. “

                    • Hrmm… didn’t realize that there was something in the state platform to repeal speed limits… interesting.

                      Personally, I’d set the speed limit at around 80ish. Maybe 83.14159… so long as it’s not 55 or so I guess I’m probably okay with that one. But I think most people would realize that it’s important to have some sort of speed limit in place for safety’s sake. That’s for the protection of other people. You see, there’s a difference in allowing someone to drive recklessly which affects other drivers versus allowing someone to spend their own hard earned money at a blackjack or poker table or at a slot machine…

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      WAIT!!!!!

                      Did I just see you admit that the governement can and should enact laws to protect people from their own unchecked behavior? Until they hit someone, they haven’t infringed on someone else’s rights….I might have made just a bit of progress here.

                    • “WAIT!!!!!

                      Did I just see you admit that the governement can and should enact laws to protect people from their own unchecked behavior? Until they hit someone, they haven’t infringed on someone else’s rights….I might have made just a bit of progress here.”

                      Nope, I’m saying that one person zipping in and out of other cars doing 150 mph while others are doing 55 mph is not safe for *other people* whereas someone gambling their own earnings doesn’t affect the other people at the poker / blackjack table. It’s that whole “your right to swing your fist ends at the other person’s nose” thing…

                    • “No comment on if people doing drugs or prostitution might have an issue of safety?”

                      Sorry, I thought I had commented on that. No, I don’t see the same types of issues of safety as the speeding example that I pointed out. Look at Amsterdam. Look at Las Vegas. Look at California. What types of safety issues do they have in regards to those two items? Look at Macon… what types of safety issues do they have with their “massage parlors”?

                      It seems to me that there are plenty of ads for these same types of places all up and down I-75 going to Florida. Look in the back of Creative Loafing. Prostitution and drugs are already here… like it or not. They’ve been around for thousands of years and simply creating a law against them isn’t going to rid society of those “evils”. If the Christian church wants to preach against them… fine. But it shouldn’t push it’s morals onto the rest of society through the rule of law when the rest of society may not agree with all of those morals.

                      Oddly enough, the Republican Party used to be about protecting the rights of all… not just the majority. It’s transformed into the party of No and now pushes for protecting the rights of all so long as they are in accordance with the Bible. Funny how times change huh?

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      There have been murders for thousands of years. Does that mean we shouldn’t have laws against murder just because we can’t stop it? Compare to your people have been doing drugs and you can’t stop them argument. Something for you to think about.

                    • “There have been murders for thousands of years. Does that mean we shouldn’t have laws against murder just because we can’t stop it?”

                      Of course not. The fundamental difference between murder and drugs or prostitution is that murder takes away someone else’s right to live. Prostitution (one person paying another for sexual gratification) does not take away either party’s rights. Drugs (the use of a substance by one person) does not take away the user’s rights.

                      “Compare to your people have been doing drugs and you can’t stop them argument. Something for you to think about.”

                      Errm… are you sure you haven’t been doing drugs this morning? I’m not sure I follow…

                    • Doug Grammer says:

                      I don’t feel like making a serious argument today, so I thought I’d settle for a silly one and wait to get called on it. I’m celebrating my 24th anniversary of my 21st birthday today.

                    • analogkid says:

                      I was surprised to return to PP and see that my throwaway comment about Barr sparked this ridiculously long and totally irrelevant thread (irrelevant to my comment, that is). 🙂 I love me some liberty though.

                      Anyway, happy birthday Doug. Hope it’s a good one.

  5. saltycracker says:

    DS,
    Logical points, refusal to accept every single party line, expectations of personal responsibility, consequences for bad choices, regulations to limit one’s rights from trumping others, efficient taxation and so on appears to be hard to sell here…..

Comments are closed.