Bob Barr Snubs Ron Paul And Other Third Party Candidates
The GOP and the Democratic Parties may have a monopoly on mainstream press coverage, but they certainly don’t have one on drama in presidential campaigns. While talk of lipstick and pigs has dominated the airwaves the past couple days, the impudence from the rest of the campaign has gone unnoticed.
Yesterday, Ron Paul held a press conference at the National Press Club to discuss third party issues. See our post on this event here. Joining Paul at this event were third party candidates Cynthia McKinney (Green Party), Ralph Nader (Independent) and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party); Bob Barr was supposed to attend, but he was a no-show. And so the drama begins…
Asked about Barr’s apparent no-show, Libertarian Party Media Director issued the following statement:
The real question is why Bob, who is a major player in this election, want to be on stage with people like McKinney, who stands against everything the LP does, and Baldwin, who is barely on enough ballots to have a statistical chance of winning. Barr is not a minor party candidate. Barr is a major player this year. He is holding his own press conference right now.
According to the AP, Barr’s stated reason for not attending the event was that Paul did not endorse a specific candidate. So, clearly there is a bit of a tension there between the Libertarian Party’s communications and Barr’s.
Don Rasmussen, Campaign For Liberty Events Coordinator, tells of being told to “go f*ck himself” by the Barr campaign when he questioned Barr’s no-show [h/t IPR]:
I asked Barr Communications Director Shane Corey after the event why they pulled this stunt and was told to go f*** myself.
Barr Campaign Manager Russ Verney may have fanned the flames by criticizing Paul’s efforts in his explanation for backing out of the event, saying:
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.
Obviously, the story is somewhat messy and in part based on sources that cannot fully be corroborated. From a political perspective, I’m not sure I quite understand the Barr Campaign’s rationale for not attending the event. It seems that attracting Paul supporters would benefit them and this would have been one way to do so. I’m also not convinced that the event was all about Ron Paul, given that the candidates spent quite a bit of time speaking as well. With respect to their argument that Barr is a major candidate and thus shouldn’t have attended…Let’s assume for a moment Barr was a major candidate, I’m not sure that alone would be sufficient reasoning to justify not showing up for an event that his campaign already committed to attending, nor, do I think it support hosting a rival press conference. Strange. And for the record, Barr is currently on 48 ballots, Nader is currently on 45, so they aren’t that far off; nor has Barr raised nearly the kind of money or demonstrated that he has the kind of support that Paul had/has.
If you’re interested in following this story further, you can do so here.
Former Congressman  


The  (LNC) was reported to be in a deadlock Sunday night over how to address the growing controversies surrounding their party's U.S. presidential nominee, former  .

Many libertarians have spoken out against Barr since his last minute refusal to attend former  presidential hopeful 's third party unity conference at the  in  on Wednesday.

The effort to replace Barr as the nominee has been rejected. Not a single person on the 17-member LNC was willing to make the motion.

However, at-large representative  — who lost the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination to Barr at the  in May by only a few votes — is supporting a resolution to apologize to Paul. 

This is being countered by Treasurer Aaron Starr, who favors a resolution to chastise Paul for not endorsing Bob Barr and “splitting the Freedom Movement.”

Currently, neither resolution has enough votes to pass.