Will the Libertarian Ticket Barr McCain?

As I wrote yesterday, my prediction of Obama’s tidal wave failed to take into account the vitrolic rhetoric dripping from the lips of Hillary supporters. I had no idea there was so much racist hate for an “inadequate black male.” The two videos I selected were random samples though there were many others. The question is, if these gals so hate the articulate but inadequate black male, will they really vote for McCain instead? I realize that folks open their mouths in the heat of passion and upon cool reflection tend to eventually come together. Unless Hillary fails to bridge the hate-filled crack that seems to be yawning into a vast and deep chasm within her party, these folks should vote along party lines.

However, if this trend continues and Hillary fails to mend the wounds in time, she could well damage Obama’s tidal wave with mass defections. In order to avoid this, I have read here where Obama’s camp is attempting to give Hillary some sort of cabinet spot in an attempt to promote the ant heap of socialized medicine. It’s hard to see how she will accept it given her similarity to Reese Witherspoon’s attitude and demeanor in the movie “Election”:

Taking this into account, I will still stand by the prediction that Obama will beat McCain at this point. It depends on the Bob Barr ripple. Here’s why I conclude this. In an interview with Mike Huckabee at the Huffington Post, (with my tangential comments in red) Huckabee opined in a few snippets about the danger of the Libertarian movement.

Now the Democrats are beginning to come back to [the] center, and the Republicans are becoming libertarians. (Going back to the right?) We’re losing elections in a grand way. (Contrast this left-middle-right analogy with Huckabee’s inconsistent “vertical up and down politics” campaign rhetoric.)

The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. (I thought getting government out of non-governmental roles and extending freedom was part and parcel of not only economic conservativism but the compassionate religious side as well? After all, it is the freedom to choose without government coercion (i.e., that is force) that is the hallmark of free enterprise and individual liberty. After all, it is the hallmark of Christianity that charity be an individual endeavor. One cannot have political or religious freedom without economic freedom, right? Is Huckabee telling us that it’s okay to have government supercede the individual religious duty of charity in exchange for government welfare? I think so.)

Apart from the fact that we now have incontrovertible proof of Huckabee’s non-Conservative status and his distinctly non-Christian position concerning federal welfare, he rightly concludes that the Republican Party is in danger from the so called Libertarian crowd. Why? Are people stupid to think Libertarians have any merit?

A close reflection reveals that Conservatives who make up a sizeable number of Republicans must necessarily accept many tenets of the Libertarian Party. And why should that be? Conservatives know their first duty is to the oath of office. Huckabee displays that he would treat this oath with little imperative and thus cast the supreme rule of law askant. This is where Huckabee does understand that the Liberarian Party seems closer to wanting to enforce the Constitution that he does. And, this is where Conservatives are increasingly finding agreement with the Libertarian crowd. Let me illustrate the most extreme but little dirty example of ”legalizing” the drug trade.

Yes I know this is a problem for most sane folks, including me. Yet, getting the federal government out of certain types of drug enforcement doesn’t mean that the states shouldn’t enforce their own drug laws. Believe me, a Conservative should and would part sharply with the Libertarian at a state’s legislative assembly. However, no lawyer worth an ounce of salt and vaguely familiar with the text of the Constitution would argue with a straight face that Congress has an enumerated power to prohibit the manufacture and sale of marijuana solely within the boundaries of a state. Such facts simply do not give rise to federal power without stretching the Constitution. Sales across state lines would. I picked this extreme example of the libertarian philosophy to show an important point. While Conservatives must necessarily agree with Libertarians on this question of constitutional power and the ”war on drugs”, they avoid overt agreement. The issue is simply not politically possible, expedient, or wise to raise. Ron Paul wasn’t afraid to say it as a conservative Republican and it’s what made him come across as a gadfly. In contrast, Barr’s website doesn’t mention anything about legalizing drugs as a Libertarian. He avoids the issue leading me to believe that Barr’s perception of political reality is far different from Ron Paul.

Apart from the drug issue, Conservatives do readily admit they have far more in common with the Libertarians except when it comes to morality. This is why Bob Barr is indeed a real threat. Unlike Huckabee who would foster a federal theocracy, Bob Barr emanates with the aura of what traditional Republicans used to believe in. It is not that Bob Barr is a libertarian purist. He is not. He is a frustrated conservative who believes in the Constitution and the Libertarian party has sensed this. However, the Libertarians nominated Barr because I believe they’ve also sensed this common ground on federal issues with Republicans. Bob Barr seems to be able to bride that gap. A persusal of the issues page of www.bobbarr2008.com screams Barr’s conservative pledge to the Republic and to ”restore the Constitution.” It’s right from a page in the Conscience of a Conservative.

Unlike Ron Paul and contrary to the Libertarian philosophy, Bob Barr also came out with a moral statement to White Supremacists. Storm front endorsed Bob Barr. Barr’s campaign didn’t wait around:

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

 See http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126790.html#comments.

Clearly, Barr’s ascent on the political Mt. Everest is not happily contemplated for by John McCain.  Latest poll numbers for North Carolina show the precise effect that may actually “Barr” a McCain presidency:

John McCain 43
Barack Obama 40
Bob Barr 6

John McCain 39
Hillary Clinton 34
Bob Barr 6

Over the last week, Obama’s numbers against McCain dropped three points. Once the campaign season gets going, I suspect he’ll rocket up because of his oratory skills and McCain’s inability to orate. In sum, even if Hillary’s supporters vote for McCain, they’ll have to do so en masse to have any real effect. Six percent is nothing to sneeze at.