Barr on Hannity and Colmes

Bob Barr made a recent appearance on Hannity and Colmes that I just found on the net and got a chance to look over. It was an interesting and effective appearance, and Barr did a terrific job of stemming back the relentless and idiotic attacks of both Hannity and Colmes. He displayed why he will be a tough and effective messenger for libertarians. I and other libertarians disagree with him on some issues (I want drugs legalized at all levels; I believe gay and lesbian couples should have the right to form domestic partnership contracts enforced by state governments), but his federalist stance on these issues is more than acceptable. The idea is that he may oppose legalizing drugs or gay marriage himself, but he is not going to use the federal government to enforce these values on the entire country or to restrict the liberty of everyone to partake in either activity. This is a legitimately libertarian view (I call it "federal libertarianism"), and the federalist stance on social issues like these is one that all libertarians (pro or against on these issues) running for national office should take. The fact is that there is no way that libertarians would be able to legalize drugs or gay marriage for the entire country without either 1) violating the Constitution, as the power over addressing these issues is clearly enumerated to the states under the 10th Amendment; or 2) pursuing a Constitutional Amendment to legalize them, which certainly would never pass.

It's interesting that both Hannity and Colmes were attacking him with pretty equal energy. I think both like many in their respective parties (perhaps even most) sense that someone like Barr would be an effective candidate for the LP and would be able to attract lots of voters from both parties. Barr is currently at 7% in a poll that his Exploratory Committee commissioned, and that number should go much higher. I would venture to say that he would get a vast majority of Ron Paul's Republican Primary votes, probably around 85%. (Which would be about 700,000 votes to start.) He would furthermore be able to draw a significant portion of conservative Republican voters with his views on economic issues, abortion, federalism, and immigration, all areas where McCain is decided either too statist or, in their view, flat out wrong. Furthermore, he is well-positioned to attract Democrats with his stances on civil liberties (and the amount of energy he has put into this issue over the last few years) and the Iraq War. Something that really works in his favor on this front is the contentious Democratic Primary, as a recent poll suggests that a fifth or more of Democratic voters may vote for McCain if their candidate isn't the nominee. I think it likely that, should the Libertarian Party be on the ballot nearly every state and the Libertarian candidate be significant with a well-run national campaign (which Bob Barr would be), these Democratic voters would be much more inclined to go with this candidate than McCain. In any event, I see Barr being able to reach the 15% threshold showing in polls to get into the debates, which would be a watershed moment in the history of this country and launch the libertarian movement to the next level.

On another note, Hannity is a massive tool. For one, in trying to intimidate Barr and voters who may go LP this time in the Presidential election, he tries to play the fear card; i.e., if you don't vote for McCain, then you're going to get all of these nasty things. Barr handled this question perfectly: if the Republican candidate isn't good enough, doesn't have a good enough platform, and/or can't promote his platform and message effectively, then he doesn't deserve to win regardless of how many other candidates are in the race who may have kindred principles. But what speaks even worse for Hannity are the issues he decided to play: taxes, health care, immigration, and judges (which I won't address, since there may or may not be a retirement during the next Presidency). Where was Hannity when McCain:

* Voted AGAINST both Bush taxes (and justified his votes not on fiscally conservative grounds, which McCain now says was his justification and would have been a most correct one; but class warfare arguments);

* Pushed for a Bill of Rights with Ted Kennedy and John Edwards that would have placed onerous regulations on the health care industry, and is now peddling a health care plan in which the federal government's in manipulating the health care market will expand hugely through means such as fundamentally altering reimbursement, federalizing physician licensing and tort reform (the latter of which will surely come in the form of socialist limitations on damages and awards to attorneys, which for some reason is being peddled by Republicans as a "free market" policy), and effectively subsidizing care for high-risk patients (which will be HUGELY expensive);

* And collaborated with Ted Kennedy in pushing an immigration bill (supported by BOTH remaining Democratic Presidential Candidates) that clearly granted amnesty to immigrants here illegally, and (according to a conversation I had with Bay Buchanan when she came to speak at Duke University) is playing a leading role in trying to kill the hard-line Heath Shuler bill.

And then, of course, Hannity reverts to the tactic that the McCain campaign and its apologists are playing to a nauseating degree: the "honor" card. Hannity tells us libertarians and disaffected conservatives that we should just take it up the arse and deal with it because McCain told him personally that he would be a good conservative. And if we don't trust McCain and follow in line with him, then we are calling him a liar: how dare we have the gall to think such about a war hero!

Furthermore, you have to love how Hannity side-steps a substantive discussion of the merit of federalism in dealing with the issue of drugs. And why would he? After all, those identified as authentic conservatives have always advocated adhering strictly to the Constitution and enumerated powers under the 10th Amendment, and the power to deal with the issue of drugs clearly falls into the realm of the states as indicated by the entirety of the Constitution. As someone who is a fierce supporter of the 5th Amendment, I believe in principle that Hannity has every right to not incriminate himself as the false conservative, which would inevitably occur if he was to take this issue on with Barr.

Anyhow, let it roll: