While I will make no apologies about arguing in favor of a strategy that pushed forward the Libertarian Party candidate to disrupt the outcome of the general election, I have never made a secret about my own disdain for Bob Barr's past (and even present).
Despite the arguments of Waldo, Knappster, and others, I held course, because in general Barr was running what appeared to be a pragmatic Libertarian campaign.
OK, so shitcats don't change their stripes; and here is how Bob Barr is now spinning the Defense of Marriage Act:
[W]hat makes me a Libertarian is the fact that I deeply and truly believe in the Libertarian platform and what resonates with most Americans, and that is to shrink the size of the federal government.
Let’s take just one example there, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act simply stands for the proposition that each state can set its own definition of marriage and can’t be forced to adopt a different definition of marriage forced on it by another state.
That’s a very conservative principle reflecting the fundamental notion of states’ rights in our country.
I refer you to the comments section of that post at Last Free Voice for relevant responses by Tom Knapp, Brian Miller, Steve Kubby, and George Phillies. Brian Miller is in pretty much the same position I'm in, but the others--and Waldo--certainly have the right to say, "I told you so." Knapp's response most clearly agrees with my own position:
Yes, I realize that attempting to portray DOMA as having libertarian features, and basing that claim on a “states rights” argument, is nothing new with Barr.
What I found noteworthy about this particular instance of it was not the content, but the context.
To the best of my knowledge, Barr’s characterization of DOMA as not-un-libertarian in particular, and his appeal to “states rights” in general, has generally been defensive/reactive:
Q: How can you claim to be a libertarian … DOMA.
A: Well, if you look at DOMA this way, it’s actually libertarian, states rights, yada yada.
This time, Barr hit on DOMA and states rights virtually unprompted — not to defend his record on DOMA as not wholly unlibertarian, but to hold out DOMA’s “states rights” basis as definitional to what libertarianism IS.
If this is a trend and not an outlier, Barr is going proactive and explicitly harnessing his campaign to the cause of re-defining libertarianism as Dixiecrat states rightsism.
There are so many things wrong with Barr's statement that I lack the energy to beginning listing them.
From this point forward I will continue to cover Barr's campaign and its potential to influence the general election, but I will deal with Barr in exactly the same fashion I deal with Senators McCain and Obama--as fairly as possible regarding candidates for whom I will not vote. Speaking of voting, the question remains: what the hell do I do now? Move to Massachusetts or New Hampshire so I can vote for George Phillies?
From this point forward I will also continue to cover Libertarian candidates in State races. People like Dr Michael Munger, Allen Buckley, Scotty Boman, Tom Knapp, and Jason Gatties will bear the standard.
But Barr? Not the snowball's chance in hell anymore.