Bob Barr

[Chilly]

Interview with GQ

 

Definitely making me reconsider my stance on not voting for him. Great interview.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Weak finish. When asked about supporting the New Deal and WPA pork, Barr should have just come out and said it: "hell no, you condescending GQ douchebag."

 

Otherwise, fairly strong interview. Count me in as another voter convinced of Barr's libertarian transformation. Better late than never.

 

Obama? Socialist. McCain? Imperialist. Barr? Constitutionalist.

[/dev/null]

The more I see of McCain (who I previously knew much about) the less I want to vote for him

The more I see of Obama (who I previously knew little about) the less I want to vote for him

 

The more I see of Barr (who I previously knew more about than Obama but considerably less than McCain) the more I want to vote for him

[ieatcrayonz]

The more I see of McCain (who I previously knew much about) the less I want to vote for him

The more I see of Obama (who I previously knew little about) the less I want to vote for him

 

The more I see of Barr (who I previously knew more about than Obama but considerably less than McCain) the more I want to vote for him

Whoever picks Tancredo or Edwards for their running mate has got my vote.

[slothrop]

I encourage everyone here to vote for Barr. Please - and tell your friends and family. Hell, join his campaign and get people to vote for him.

 

 

Especially if you live in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, or any other "swinging" state.

[/dev/null]

I encourage everyone here to vote for Barr. Please - and tell your friends and family. Hell, join his campaign and get people to vote for him.

 

 

Especially if you live in Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, or any other "swinging" state.

 

I live in VA and will most likely vote for Barr

My father lives in PA. If I could ever convince him to get over the notion that voting for 3rd parties is a waste I might be able to talk him into voting for Barr. Unfortunately I think he's just going to end up being one of those bitter bible thumping gun toting Pennsylvanians that voted for Hillary in the primary but will go McCain in the general

[GG]

Barr? Constitutionalist.

 

Is that because of this quote?

This notion that the president can do whatever he wants, just because he’s commander in chief, means that neither the Congress nor the courts can interfere.

 

[Chilly]

Is that because of this quote?

 

 

 

I'm not sure I'd call him a Constitutionalist either, but in that specific quote, he's talking about whats wrong with the Republican Party:

 

Had you ever met with the Log Cabin Republicans?

I don’t recall. But I came to the conclusion that the Republican Party had changed, from two perspectives. One, the Republican Party cares nothing about real substance anymore. I couldn’t tell you the last time, when I was a member of the Republican caucus on the Hill, that there was a discussion about the substance of government. It was all about getting elected and reelected. It was all about process. The Republican Party is no longer a party of any substance. It is simply a political machine, a mechanism for election. That’s all it is. And secondly, the Republican Party has bought into the notion that when the president decides what he wants to do, nobody can interfere. The courts can’t interfere, and the Congress can’t interfere.

[erynthered]

I'm not sure I'd call him a Constitutionalist either, but in that specific quote, he's talking about whats wrong with the Republican Party:

 

One, the Republican Party cares nothing about real substance anymore. I couldn’t tell you the last time, when I was a member of the Republican caucus on the Hill, that there was a discussion about the substance of government. It was all about getting elected and reelected. It was all about process. The Republican Party is no longer a party of any substance. It is simply a political machine, a mechanism for election. That’s all it is.

 

 

I can agree with that. I'd also add that the dems do the same thing.

[GG]

I'm not sure I'd call him a Constitutionalist either, but in that specific quote, he's talking about whats wrong with the Republican Party:

 

There are two distinct items in that quote. First, there's little disagreement that under Delay, the party laid to waste Gingrich's Contract with America platform. But that's totally different than the perpetual battle between the executive & legislative. What the hell did the legislative branch expect from the executive when they granted military authority in Iraq & Afghanistan?

 

And speaking of flip flops, can you come up with a bigger one than a former congressman who was the lead sponsor of an anti-drug bill, then mere four years later working to repeal that bill? It's not the change of heart that bugs me, it's the logic of supporting a bad law from the outset. What does that say about his ability to pick out good advice from bad? Isn't that the biggest slam on the current administration?

[Chilly]

There are two distinct items in that quote. First, there's little disagreement that under Delay, the party laid to waste Gingrich's Contract with America platform. But that's totally different than the perpetual battle between the executive & legislative. What the hell did the legislative branch expect from the executive when they granted military authority in Iraq & Afghanistan?

 

Can't say I agree with your perspective here. IMO, what he's saying in that second half is still in the context of what is wrong with the Republican party - that once the president decides something, the party leadership expects no other Republicans in a different branch to challenge it, and works to get everyone in lock step behind whatever the executive decides is best for the party. I don't think he's talking about the Iraq war specifically, but in general about the party.

 

And speaking of flip flops, can you come up with a bigger one than a former congressman who was the lead sponsor of an anti-drug bill, then mere four years later working to repeal that bill? It's not the change of heart that bugs me, it's the logic of supporting a bad law from the outset. What does that say about his ability to pick out good advice from bad? Isn't that the biggest slam on the current administration?

 

No disagreement from me here. I have serious reservations about him, hence the "reconsider" wording.

[UConn James]

Can't say I agree with your perspective here. IMO, what he's saying in that second half is still in the context of what is wrong with the Republican party - that once the president decides something, the party leadership expects no other Republicans in a different branch to challenge it, and works to get everyone in lock step behind whatever the executive decides is best for the party. I don't think he's talking about the Iraq war specifically, but in general about the party.

 

I don't think he was pointing out the Iraq and Afghanistan (BTW, GG, I don't think there's many congress-critters going back on the Afghanistan measure) war votes specifically. He was talking more generally about the deterioration of checks and balances that's been happening for some time now but just recently with this admin, it seems to have picked up pace: Signing statements that basically say whether or what parts of the bills this administration will go along with, the domestic spying ruckus... Patriot Act, FISA, giving telcoms immunity, etc. To say nothing about the use of torture. By and large, for most of this presidency, everyone was walking around in a daze after 9/11 and/or playing 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.' Talkin' both parties there b/c they'd all like to have more unconfronted power when they get the reigns.

 

There's been a long line of Republican "I'm gonna do whatever I wanna do and nobody's gonna stop me." Dubya isn't the first. Crossing threads here, sorry, but where the Republicans (and, full disclosure, I'm on their lists; just haven't gotten hold of a change of registration card yet to go to Independent) went wrong has as much to do with lying about their intentions on the size/scope of govt they promise in election years (the fundamental part of being a fiscal conservative) as it is getting sidetracked with divisive, relatively petty social issues with the religious right. It's like they're 90 degrees off course, and no one in the boat who has access to the wheel can see they're going in the wrong direction... but it wouldn't matter anyway b/c the wheel is lashed. Now that they're committed, they have to go in that direction.

 

No disagreement from me here. I have serious reservations about him, hence the "reconsider" wording.

 

Yeah, that's the biggest drawback. I give him some leeway in the 'I didn't know it'd be enforced/applied that way' mien, but anyone who wants to earn my vote (versus me holding my nose while I fill in the bubble) has to show forethought and great understanding of the short- and long-term consequences of his/her actions. That's probably asking for too much these days. All that being so, I'll take someone who only recently "got it" and 'flip-flopped' over people who I think are flat-out wrong.

[GG]

I don't think he was pointing out the Iraq and Afghanistan (BTW, GG, I don't think there's many congress-critters going back on the Afghanistan measure) war votes specifically. He was talking more generally about the deterioration of checks and balances that's been happening for some time now but just recently with this admin, it seems to have picked up pace: Signing statements that basically say whether or what parts of the bills this administration will go along with, the domestic spying ruckus... Patriot Act, FISA, giving telcoms immunity, etc. To say nothing about the use of torture. By and large, for most of this presidency, everyone was walking around in a daze after 9/11 and/or playing 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.' Talkin' both parties there b/c they'd all like to have more unconfronted power when they get the reigns.

 

It's not about going back on the vote, but taking responsibility for the actions that your vote causes. Each of the items in your list is used by the administration to take actions it believes were granted to it under the Constitution once Congress approved use of force. None of the actions that the administration is undertaking don't have historic precedent. You may argue that we have evolved as a people and as a nation that the Commander in Chief can fight a nice neat war, but until the Constitution is amended that Congress gets a say in how a war is conducted, they are taking the most extreme position to apply the powers granted to them.

 

To me, it's not a coincidence that Obama did a 180 on the spying bill. I'm guessing that as his advisors are getting a bigger look under the covers of the humint in advance and he's starting to recognize the issues he'll have to face in prosecuting the war if he's in charge.

 

If Congress wants to scream at the administration fine. But then it should do its job and propose laws that would give it greater powers in wartime.

[Simon]

What does that say about his ability to pick out good advice from bad? Isn't that the biggest slam on the current administration?

 

I'd say the problem has always been more of a refusal to even acknowledge advice that didn't come directly from an appointee who's just telling them more of what they want to hear. It seems that whenever somebody proffers information that doesn't support what they already steadfastly believe, they simply reject it out of hand w/ even considering other possibilities. They're like a bunch of 4 year olds with their hands over their ears singing LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA whenever somebody makes a suggestion.

 

The More Things Change...........

[GG]

They're like a bunch of 4 year olds with their hands over their ears singing LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA whenever somebody makes a suggestion.

 

The More Things Change...........

 

But look deeper into that story. The fight isn't about clean air, it's whether to open the window to let states run federal regulations. It's very easy to beat up on the Bush administration. But if there's been a consistent trend over his 7+ years, it's to insure that the power of the executive branch is not eroded. Some day, President Obama will give his thanks (in private)

[Simon]

The fight isn't about clean air, it's whether to open the window to let states run federal regulations.

 

Are you kidding me?

This is exactly the kind of stuff that I was talking about. The White House doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from their agenda so they refuse to consider viable information and send it back to be resubmitted to fit their needs, regardless of whether its accurate or appropriate. It has nothing to do with rapidly diminishing states' rights, it's about an inflexible, pig-headed administration that would rather live in the 12th century than the 21st.

These guys are the antithesis of courageous leadership and American sensibility.

 

 

 

 

 

highlighting the extent to which Bush administration officials continue to resist mandatory federal limits on emissions

 

the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee disclosed documents showing that the White House had overruled EPA's findings on the impact of vehicle emissions

 

the fact that EPA changed its proposal under White House pressure will delay implementation of a national cap on carbon emissions

 

 

the original document...included detailed alternative approaches on how to regulate greenhouse gases from fuels, vehicles and stationary sources such as power plants.

One EPA official said agency staff had encountered fierce opposition from Bush appointees on several of these sections. "They don't even want us to talk about alternatives"

[GG]

Are you kidding me?

This is exactly the kind of stuff that I was talking about. The White House doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from their agenda so they refuse to consider viable information and send it back to be resubmitted to fit their needs, regardless of whether its accurate or appropriate. It has nothing to do with rapidly diminishing states' rights, it's about an inflexible, pig-headed administration that would rather live in the 12th century than the 21st.

These guys are the antithesis of courageous leadership and American sensibility.

 

 

 

 

 

highlighting the extent to which Bush administration officials continue to resist mandatory federal limits on emissions

 

the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee disclosed documents showing that the White House had overruled EPA's findings on the impact of vehicle emissions

 

the fact that EPA changed its proposal under White House pressure will delay implementation of a national cap on carbon emissions

 

 

the original document...included detailed alternative approaches on how to regulate greenhouse gases from fuels, vehicles and stationary sources such as power plants.

One EPA official said agency staff had encountered fierce opposition from Bush appointees on several of these sections. "They don't even want us to talk about alternatives"

 

Are you trying to prove that the White House is consistently narrow-minded by introducing select quotes from former EPA employees testifying at a Congressional hearing set up to show that the White House is intransigent?

 

Their agenda has been pretty consistent, steamroll over anything that would endanger executive authority. EPA's report would have allowed California the preferences they were seeking and thus had the potential to preempt federal legislation. That's the real fight, not the miraculous saving of the environment.

[Simon]

Are you trying to prove that the White House is consistently narrow-minded by introducing select quotes from former EPA employees testifying at a Congressional hearing set up to show that the White House is intransigent?

Former? Is that really your point?

Because the guy couldn't work with an administration that nobody else can work with either, that makes him unreliable somehow?

Obfuscation is beneath you.

 

Their agenda has been pretty consistent, steamroll over anything that would endanger executive authority. EPA's report would have allowed California the preferences they were seeking and thus had the potential to preempt federal legislation. That's the real fight, not the miraculous saving of the environment.

 

EPA's report would have put them in a position where they had to decide on federal standards themselves, making California's maneuvering unnecessary and irrelevant. But since their agenda doesn't match up with the EPA and the Supreme Court, they'll just cover their ears again and pretend it doesn't exist until it's changed.

And I don't think they're nearly as interested in the authority of the executive branch as they are in the authority of their own administration.

[GG]

Former? Is that really your point?

Because the guy couldn't work with an administration that nobody else can work with either, that makes him unreliable somehow?

Obfuscation is beneath you.

 

You mean you don't find it ironic that you're introducing the guy's words as gospel, even though it's highly plausible that he may have an axe to grind? This is not a conclusion of an independent audit, but a parade in front of a congressional hearing. Excuse me if I don't buy it at face value at this point.

 

EPA's report would have put them in a position where they had to decide on federal standards themselves, making California's maneuvering unnecessary and irrelevant. But since their agenda doesn't match up with the EPA and the Supreme Court, they'll just cover their ears again and pretend it doesn't exist until it's changed.

And I don't think they're nearly as interested in the authority of the executive branch as they are in the authority of their own administration.

 

And the regulations would have allowed California to exceed the federal limits, meaning that the most populous US state would have the capability to pre empt (supersede) federal laws. Are you ok w/ Roe v Wade ruling over states' rights?

[Simon]

You mean you don't find it ironic that you're introducing the guy's words as gospel, even though it's highly plausible that he may have an axe to grind? This is not a conclusion of an independent audit, but a parade in front of a congressional hearing. Excuse me if I don't buy it at face value at this point.

 

I introduced a Washington Post article as an example of what I was talking about earlier in the thread. If you don't like that source, there are a variety of others you can access. And of course the guy has an axe to grind, just like many others who have unsuccessfully attempted to work with this administration. I'd be pissed too if I'd put in all that work and some pack of jackasses not only dismissed it but wouldn't even acknowledge it.

 

 

And the regulations would have allowed California to exceed the federal limits, meaning that the most populous US state would have the capability to pre empt (supersede) federal laws. Are you ok w/ Roe v Wade ruling over states' rights?

No, I tend to lean toward state's rights, although that is increasingly difficult as the world becomes a more complicated place.

As for California's attempted waiver, it strikes me as a secondary issue. The administration cited the weak proposal that they did enact after they blew off the EPA and Supreme Court. But I don't believe for a second that they would have ever even considered California's proposal regardless of the proposal the EPA tried to submit. They would have undoubtedly found another of a dozen reasons to reject the waiver request.

And regardless of surrounding minutiae my original point still stands; this administration is incapable of any kind of dialogue, flexibility, compromise or progress. Anything outside of their own absurdly narrow agenda is a non-starter which they won't even deign to consider. imo they are the weakest most embarrassing leadership and the worst thing to happen to this country in my lifetime.

At the very least we can only hope their gross incompetence and blustery cowardice has set fundamentalist radical conservatives and the religious right back a generation or three.