Skip to main content

Raising the Barr: Take a stand on Warner-Lieberman, please

Again, in the spirit of Thomas Knapp's suggestion that even Libertarians who are skeptical/hostile to the Barr/Root ticket should engage positively in a way that strengthens the overall party:

Here's a first gauge of our candidates' ability to keep themselves relevant and in the public eye:

Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act comes up for debate next week. It is a comprehensive carbon cap-and-trade proposition which will--in its effect on refineries--cause gasoline prices to spike by an estimated 48-cents-per-gallon almost immediately, followed by an additional 13-cent-rise over the following year.

It is a knee-jerk, poorly considered piece of global warming legislation that--if it passes (Dubya has promised a veto)--will wreck more immediate havoc on the American economy that ethanol subsidies have. Moreover, it combines the worst sort of shoot-from-the-hip social engineering with a regressive tax that will be felt primarily by the working poor.

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton are all on the record supporting cap-and-trade.

The Demopublicans intend to solve the world's environmental problems by taxing poor and middle-class Americans.

Here's how you keep Barr/Root in the news and begin to gather voters to the Libertarian standard.

The Democrats and the Republicans think that $4/gallon gas is too cheap.

Not satisfied with forcing food prices up by using billions of dollars of your tax money to subsidize ethanol, they want to add more than 60 cents to the price of every gallon you have to pump.

That's what the Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act would do.

The Senate starts debating it this week.

All three Democrat or Republican presidential candidates support the idea of using the so-called cap-and-trade policy to force higher gasoline taxes.

Shouldn't there be at least one presidential candidate with the common sense to say NO to higher gasoline taxes for poor and middle-class American families?

Shouldn't there be at least one presidential candidate capable of admitting to America that the hundreds of billions spent on ethanol subsidies have been a disaster at the grocery store and the gas pump?

Shouldn't there be at least one presidential candidate willing to go beyond phony gas tax holidays and tell the American people the truth: it's our own government's ridiculous taxes, regulations, and policies that are primarily responsible for our current energy crisis?


Fortunately, there is one.

His name is Bob Barr, and he's a Libertarian.


Plain and simple: next week we get the first indication of whether Barr is serious about challenging the status quo and keeping his candidacy alive in the mainstream media, or whether he just plans to sit on his ass.

I really hope he'll come out firing.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Don't hold your breath.
I'm not. But if we at least continue to tell them publicly what they should be doing, and what would work, then we may salvage a lot more out of this campaign than anybody thinks.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...