Bush III, Carter II, Nader, or Barr

Again, the title is not original but is worth passing along-- and in the case of the major party candidates, what a Catch-22 for voters! (Feel free to debate the two comparisons in the comments.)

Anyway, that seems to be the choice in November-- at least so far. The prospects for an "independent" candidate emerging seems increasingly remote.


Congratulations to Bob Barr on his victory at the National Libertarian convention last weekend-- and his entrance into the Presidential race!

There is a relatively fierce debate within the Party on the extent to which Barr deviates from Libertarian principles. Given his earlier political life as a "far right wing" Republican, he was more likely to become Libertarian on some issues (economic) while less so on others (social). I haven't studied his views-- past or present-- enough to contribute anything useful to this debate.

I would observe that there are Libertarian-left and Libertarian-right wings of the Party. To generalize, there are two major differences: 1.) pro-life vs. pro-choice (depending on "when life begins", one will be adamantly one or the other); and 2.) tendencies to see a somewhat more active role for the federal government in terms of national security and illegal immigration.

I would imagine that members of these wings hold different worldviews (e.g., relatively libertine or not in their own personal lives) and perhaps baggage from earlier political lives.

I'm going to take a bit of risk (given my lack of knowledge on this) and give my impressions of the major candidates who emerged in Denver. Gravel--Lib-left and Barr--Lib-right. Ruwart and Root seemed more centrist with the former leaning Lib-left and the latter leaning Lib-right.

Libs, as the most principled party which also attracts most-principled members, tend to go for "purer" candidates. Ruwart is a stalwart in the Party and has been amazing in her efforts to educate. As such, she should have won the race. And looking at the results and the campaign, she would have won-- except for publicity about two paragraphs on a controversial issue in one of her books.

Outside of that (what would have been a devastating perception), Ruwart would have been an excellent, winsome and persuasive candidate-- who probably would have had a relatively limited audience. Whatever Barr's philosophical limitations, and for better or worse, he will probably bring more exposure to the Party and more voters into the fold. Whether that will be a short-term or long-term impact, it's too early to tell.

One more reason that Campaign 2008 is so interesting!