What is Digg?12 Comments
- Tbyrd073, on 09/15/2008, -3/+8It amazes me how easily people are willing to black ball Bob Barr because he didnt attend the press conference with Ron Paul. He did it for the right reasons he didn't want people to see him as selling out the ideas of libertarianism by being on stage with McKinney and Baldwin. While a lot of people love Ron Paul, myself included, Ron Paul is not a viable write in name for the election in November and this simple act and statement of not going to a press conference is not going to change my mind that I still think Bob Barr is the best choice of the 3rd party candidates. Stop being petty.
- kemp34, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4There is no reason for Barr and Paul to not be united for the same causes of restoring the Constitutional Republic. Everything else is just noise.
- tkinder, on 09/15/2008, -2/+5Bob Barr Campaign Dugg this despite the "source" of the story saying the following:
"# Eric Garris Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Since you quote me as one of the major sources for your assertions, I thought it is important that I correct you. Let me start by saying that I supported Barr for the nomination and have continued to encourage libertarians to support him. I was a private unofficial advisor to the draft Barr campaign (since I run a nonprofit, I can’t be officially associated). I contributed $200 to the Barr campaign.
I posted a notice about the Paul-Barr meeting based on information from my contacts with the Bob Barr draft campaign and my contacts with Ron Paul’s campaign.
Both sets of contacts told me the same thing after the meeting: Ron Paul declined to agree to endorse Bob Barr. Barr asked Paul for access to the mailing lists for fundraising, and Paul indicated it was a possibility after Paul dropped out of the race, but made no firm commitment. The Barr campaign people were disappointed but told me that they were “encouraged” by their belief that Paul would eventually share the mailing list.
Most of the rest of your post is based on anonymous and dubious claims. You certainly could have contacted me for more information or verification, but you declined to do so, choosing instead to explain your theory of events not based on any actual facts. Anyone who wants additional information may contact me at egarris2@antiwar.com."
This is typical of the disinformation the Barr Campaign puts out there and is one of many reasons I can't in good conscience vote for him. - tjallen, on 09/12/2008, -4/+7Barr's campaign statement to this, by Russell Verney, Campaign Manager:
"Today our campaign is being criticized by a few people for my decision to not attend a press conference sponsored by Ron Paul's political action committee. I thought I would take a minute to explain to you why I made that decision.
It became evident to me after meeting with Ron Paul's staff that this media event was not about promoting the liberty agenda; it was about promoting a man. That's not what we're in this for.
After rumors were spread in advance of the news conference that Bob Barr was dropping from the race - just to hype the event - I became even more hesitant to attend. Those tactics were unacceptable and when asked about it, Ron Paul's staff simply smiled and said it would attract the press.
When I was provided a copy of Ron Paul's prepared remarks just hours before the start of the planned news conference it became clear to me that the message Ron Paul intended to deliver was essentially to scatter the votes for the liberty agenda to the four winds.
His remarks not only encouraged anyone listening to support any one of four candidates, he also applauded 'non-voters'. To me encouraging people not to vote is not principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.
I made the decision that attending that news conference was not consistent with Bob Barr's principled leadership for the Liberty agenda.
Once I informed Ron Paul's staff of my decision I was rudely informed that my decision would have permanent ramifications, I was personally threatened and Bob Barr was politically threatened. That's a far cry from principled leadership.
One thing that did occur as a result of yesterday's events is a clear separation of certain factions. Up until now, we have been dealing with two groups, those who want to advance the issues of liberty and those who have been drawn into a cult of personality.
There are those who support a specific politician and then there are those who support the liberty agenda regardless of standard-bearer.
Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root and the Libertarian Party stand for the issues of personal freedom and responsible government. As they have proven, both Bob and Wayne are willing to lead or follow for the advancement of our issues.
Now is their time to lead." - COlNTELAGENTPro, on 09/12/2008, -5/+6BS....
He's a former CIA employee who voted for the patriot act and the Iraq war, Paul is more of a libertarian than he is.
Shame on the party I have been a member of for ten years for allowing this carpet bagger to be its candidate. A far cry from Harry W. Brown and the libertarian tradition. - KyleVarner, on 09/15/2008, -2/+3He wasn't "the source" for the story. I quoted him to prove that such a meeting did take place. That is all.
- BillORights, on 09/12/2008, -2/+3So is Michael Scheuer who stumped for Ron Paul.
- earthforce1, on 09/15/2008, -2/+3The one and only thing that always bothered my about Ron Paul ( and this is a very big thing) was his pro-creationist sentiments.
So my hopes now rest with Bob Barr that he is truly a reformed man. - Striker101, on 09/17/2008, -2/+2Look folks, it's all over. Paul doesn't wanna, Barr has lost the libertarians, the country is going down the tubes, and it's way too late for more campaigning. I hate it, but if we survive the collapse, we're gonna be ruled by either of two very bad men.
- freedomreins, on 09/17/2008, -2/+2I am interested in the issues that Bob Barr and Ron Paul can work together on. I respect both of them.
- tkinder, on 09/16/2008, -2/+2It seems the only thing you have "proven" is that a meeting took place. The rest is based on supposition.
The "money" quote from your article asserts:
"But, I’m willing to say what almost everyone in the know knows but none of them want to say: Ron Paul broke his promise to Bob Barr."
First, I don't believe that Ron Paul made any promise to Barr. Considering that Dr. Paul has insisted that he won't make an endorsement based on the fact that Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party is also running - who actively supported him during his presidential campaign.
Your assertion also doesn't make sense in light of the fact that Dr. Paul's whole approach, both in Congress, and with the Campaign for Liberty, has been to work within the Republican party to bring about change.
Dr. Paul cannot risk losing committee assignments in Congress, or potentially his seat in Congress, by supporting a third party candidate actively, and there is no evidence provided by you - or anyone else for that matter - that he ever intended to do so.
To me, it appears that the Barr Campaign wants to take over the liberty movement as it did the Libertarian Party. However, the liberty movement is much larger, and more discerning I might add, than any political party and isn't falling for Barr's tactics. - Striker101, on 09/17/2008, -2/+1I Digg the Author, but this? such a CROCK! Resign, Barr, while we find us a libertarian to get on with our objectives. It's all over now except the McBama shoutin, and either is a disaster.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is