• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

We still have time to mess this up!

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

This really is a full service blog.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Balloon Juice has never been a refuge for the linguistically delicate.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

Imperialist aggressors must be defeated, or the whole world loses.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

Despite his magical powers, I don’t think Trump is thinking this through, to be honest.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

No one could have predicted…

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Past Elections / Election 2008 / Bob Barr, Part II

Bob Barr, Part II

by Michael D.|  June 10, 20086:19 pm| 50 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008

FacebookTweetEmail

In the comments to John’s post, I commented that I would never forgive Bob Barr for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Coincidentally, my partner just came home with the lastest issue of Southern Voice, an Atlanta area gay newspaper, and Bob Barr is on the cover. If elected president, he’d repeal a part of the law:

In a June 2 interview with Southern Voice, Barr, who served in Congress from 1995-2003, delineated between two sections of DOMA: a full faith and credit clause that protects the rights of each state to implement its own definition of marriage, and a section that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman under federal law.

“This [second part] was intended to apply to federal programs, such as survivor benefits, Social Security [and others],” he said.

Barr said it is the second part of DOMA he would work to repeal if elected president.

“Over the years and over the last year since I’ve been more active in the Libertarian Party, I’ve talked with a number of individuals, including members of Outright Libertarians [a gay Libertarian group], and have come to view the second part as having been used as a club, or the tail wagging the dog,” Barr said. “It has become in effect a national definition of marriage. This is not what I intended.”

Barr called that portion of DOMA a “mistake” during a May 25 speech to the Libertarian Party’s national convention. The speech is currently posted on YouTube. […]

“As I mentioned to you all last night, and I reiterate here today — standing before you, looking you in the eye — the Defense of Marriage Act, insofar as it provided the federal government a club to club down the rights of law-abiding, American citizens, has been abused, misused and should be repealed. And I will work to repeal that.”

I do agree with John that he’s not as batshit crazy as the most liberal people make him out to be. Still, I know a lot of gay conservatives, as you might imagine. My goal is to convince them, if they’re not going to vote for Obama, to at least support Bob Barr. While I disagree with him on many issues, I really do believe Bob Barr is a decent person – I mean, the guy worked for the ACLU on privacy issues – which I know we’re all about here. He’s the perfect example of what happens to people when their entire focus is on getting re-elected. When he doesn’t have to do that anymore, he can say what he means and mean what he says.

It seems to me that, what Barr is advocating is the rights of the states to decide what constitutes marriage. I’m ok with that. Well, I’m not ok with states that decide I’m not included, but I accept their right to decide. What he is now advocating is that the Federal government recognize a marriage if a state sanctions it (at least that’s what I think he means). So, if I got married in Massachusetts, for example, the Federal government would have to recognize it. I would be all for that. In fact, if I could vote, and if I thought Barr had a chance, I would vote for him for that reason alone. I married an American in Canada in 2002. My life would be so much simpler.

Slogan for the Barr campaign: Bob Barr – Not as Nutty as John McCain – and he can remember what he said yesterday.

(I’ll use the “Other” category when I talk about icky gay stuff.)

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Bob Barr: War on Drugs = Epic Fail
Next Post: Waging A Valiant War on Straw »

Reader Interactions

50Comments

  1. 1.

    Dennis - SGMM

    June 10, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    If elected president, he’d repear a part of the law:

    Can a Georgia Peach repear something?

  2. 2.

    The Moar You Know

    June 10, 2008 at 6:35 pm

    Michael, I hate to tell you this.

    When Bob Barr says “I’m tired of whuppin’ on them homuhsekshuls with mah big DOMA club”, it doesn’t mean that he thinks beating on homosexuals is a bad idea.

    It means his arm is tired.

    Bob Barr does not have your best interests at heart. I guarantee it.

  3. 3.

    HyperIon

    June 10, 2008 at 6:48 pm

    He’s the perfect example of what happens to people when their entire focus is on getting re-elected.

    umm, isn’t he running for office now?
    and doesn’t that sorta undercut your argument?

  4. 4.

    NR

    June 10, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    I’m telling you – with issue positions like these, Barr is going to take more votes from Obama than he will from McCain.

  5. 5.

    Jess

    June 10, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    Barr might believe that states should decide such things, but how willing would he be to go to bat for this? The problem with a conservative supporting this is that he or she needs to ally him/herself with many who don’t. A Democrat is less likely to be forced to sell out.

    OTOH, it’s great that some conservatives are finally getting past their “ick” response and are doing the right thing. It should be a no-brainer–however one personally feels about gays, the majority does not get to tell the minority who they can marry. It’s just wrong.

  6. 6.

    Dreggas

    June 10, 2008 at 6:59 pm

    OT but anyone see that blackwater is now going into the Intelligence business?

  7. 7.

    BombIranForChrist

    June 10, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    So here’s my question for the Noble Bob Barr:

    Does he still think the government should force all women to take all pregnancies to term?

    I definitely think that Mr. Barr’s conversion is true, as he has completely left the Republican Party and has in many cases appeared on the opposite side of the table as them, BUT I am not sure what exactly he has converted TO …

    The spectrum of Libertarianism is very big indeed, and it amazes me how many Libertarians actually turn out to be nothing more than Anti-Tax nuts that, oh btw, still think the government should have final control over women’s bodies.

  8. 8.

    Helena Montana

    June 10, 2008 at 7:05 pm

    I remember the Bob Barr of old. He’s said a couple of more or less classy things lately, but I remember the bad old days and the arrogant partisan nastiness of Bob Barr. A whisper of the words “liberal,” “abortion,” or “gay,” and he was foaming at the mouth.

    Leopards don’t change their spots. He can bite me.

  9. 9.

    cynique71

    June 10, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    Apparently Barr believes that abortion is an abomination for everyone except his second wife.

  10. 10.

    Rome Again

    June 10, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    Not as Nutty as John McCain – and he can remember what he said yesterday.

    A german shepherd can remember if you stole his bone the day before, that would be a great improvement over McLost and as a dog, he couldn’t give a fuck if you were gay.

  11. 11.

    Jay B.

    June 10, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    delineated between two sections of DOMA: a full faith and credit clause that protects the rights of each state to implement its own definition of marriage, and a section that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman under federal law.

    How much stupid is there left in the world to parse?

    The first part: Marriage should be left up to the states!
    The second part: Defines marriage under federal law!

    The whole thing is a travesty. It’s a contradiction and a dodge. Kabuki theater for the repressed set.

    And if Barr’s whole deal with the definition of marriage is that the states should decide, then he should be very happy that Massachusetts and California have. Is he?

  12. 12.

    Rome Again

    June 10, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Personally, Michael, I think you should keep up this line of attack. Anything that splits the GOP more is a good thing, right? RIGHT?

  13. 13.

    Rome Again

    June 10, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    A german shepherd can remember

    Oooh, I’m sorry, I meant a Panamaranian.

  14. 14.

    calipygian

    June 10, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    icky gay stuff

    Santorum? Its not just for gay people, you know.

  15. 15.

    John O

    June 10, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    I’m ok with that. Well, I’m not ok with states that decide I’m not included, but I accept their right to decide.

    This is something I’ll never understand.

    Marriage between consenting adults, and no, I don’t care how many, is a personal decision for which the State has no practical, public interest. Put another way, there will be good and bad straight marriages, good and bad gay marriages, and good and bad polygamous marriages. And it will be the same for the child-raising no matter which.

    And it is a measure of the power of the State that a gay person could feel otherwise. Marriage is a relic of property rights.

    (And, for the record, some of my best parents and friends are married, and have been a long time. I just don’t need the State to recognize them.)

  16. 16.

    mcsey

    June 10, 2008 at 7:59 pm

    “What he is now advocating is that the Federal government recognize a marriage if a state sanctions it”

    What I got out of it is that he no longer wants the use the Federal government to beat gays. Leave it to the particular States to do that.

  17. 17.

    passerby

    June 10, 2008 at 8:01 pm

    He’s the perfect example of what happens to people when their entire focus is on getting re-elected. When he doesn’t have to do that anymore, he can say what he means and mean what he says.

    Michael I’m leery of Bob Barr but, I admit I havent been paying any attention to his candidacy. Though he’s not running for re-election he IS running to be elected and that puts him in the mode of panderer.

    Didn’t he just a few months ago throw his hat into the ring? I can’t help but wonder, why is he really running for POTUS?

    Tinfoil hat aside, is he being run as a vote-syphon for McCain?

    In any event, I smell a rat.

    T

  18. 18.

    WMass

    June 10, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Yet another despicable asshole who spends his entire career shitting on whomever is convenient, and when his career is over he “sees the light”, when it’s too late to mean anything. A decade or so ago it was to his advantage to shit on homosexuals, pot smokers, and other imminent threats to mankind. Now the Republican party is sinking faster than the Titanic, and he has jumped ship, like any smart rat, onto the Libertarian party, where it is to his advantage to reverse many of his prior positions. Does anyone seriously think he is acting from principle? He is looking out for himself, like any good Republican is supposed to.

  19. 19.

    Bob In Pacifica

    June 10, 2008 at 8:14 pm

    I don’t think states have the right to decide on slavery either. Why should gays be 3/5s of a human?

  20. 20.

    Greg VA

    June 10, 2008 at 8:14 pm

    Well, I’m not ok with states that decide I’m not included, but I accept their right to decide.

    What other rights and privileges are you OK with the states granting you or denying you based on something that is absolutely none of their business? If they decide it’s OK to deny you a driver’s license or the right to own a home? That’s OK? If they decide you shouldn’t be allowed to work with children or live near a school? Is that OK?

    Help me to understand why you’re OK with the states being allowed to deny you things allowed to others based on your sexual orientation. Where does it stop?

  21. 21.

    Genine

    June 10, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    umm, isn’t he running for office now?
    and doesn’t that sorta undercut your argument?

    Yes, he’s running for POTUS, but he doesn’t have a chance in hell. Or, maybe he has a chance in hell, but that’s the only place. So maybe he’s being more forthright. I don’t know.

    I wouldn’t vote for him, but if he takes votes away from McCain… Go Bob!

  22. 22.

    SDS

    June 10, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    “So, if I got married in Massachusetts, for example, the Federal government would have to recognize it. I would be all for that. In fact, if I could vote, and if I thought Barr had a chance, I would vote for him for that reason alone.”
    “I’m telling you – with issue positions like these, Barr is going to take more votes from Obama than he will from McCain.”
    Considering that Obama favors the full repeal of DOMA, I don’t really understand either of these comments. If you favor a partial repeal of DOMA, wouldn’t you also like someone who’s supportive of ENDA? If you favor gay marriage enough to vote Barr after hearing about his position, why wouldn’t you choose Obama when he was an option?

    I suppose the only reason would be if you favored Barr on his more conservative positions, and those people are the type who would’ve voted for the Republican were McCain not the nominee.

  23. 23.

    John O

    June 10, 2008 at 8:20 pm

    Comparing marriage to slavery? Funny, I’ve done that myself, but me thinks not too many slaves entered their arrangements consensually, nor do I think there is much comparison (as much as I like to joke about it) between subjugation humans to forced labor vs. committing to love one another for some length of time, even if not “forever.”

  24. 24.

    Darkrose

    June 10, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    Well, I’m not ok with states that decide I’m not included, but I accept their right to decide.

    I don’t.

    I don’t accept the fundamental premise that says that the electorate can decide whether or not I have civil rights. Unless everyone gets to vote on every single marriage that’s performed in this country, I see no reason why anyone should be voting to decide whether or not my girlfriend and I get married.

  25. 25.

    John O

    June 10, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    All this fine commentary makes me think if the Libs could nominate someone sensible about it, not all pure and carrying baggage, they’d get a lot of votes.

    The starting principle should be something along the lines of, “It’s my life, and I’ll do with it what I want to, and that goes for my body, too, and unless I’m doing no tangible harm to anyone else, hurt feelings or bruised consciousness or life-style objections do not, the government is out of it.”

    We’d save a lot of money just on the WOD, as Mr. Barr rightly points out. Sadly, he’s too Johnny come lately, as many here have pointed out. Bad messenger.

  26. 26.

    John O

    June 10, 2008 at 8:34 pm

    Jeebus, Johnny Typo here.

    “…life-style objections do not COUNT,” and “…subjugating humans,” or, “the subjugation of humans.”

    Sorry. I hate when I do that.

    Living in IL, I may have the luxury of sending a message vote to Barr.

  27. 27.

    HumboldtBlue

    June 10, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Darkrose Says:

    Well, I’m not ok with states that decide I’m not included, but I accept their right to decide.

    I don’t.

    I don’t accept the fundamental premise that says that the electorate can decide whether or not I have civil rights. Unless everyone gets to vote on every single marriage that’s performed in this country, I see no reason why anyone should be voting to decide whether or not my girlfriend and I get married.

    Darkrose wrote it for me. It’s not up to my neighbors to decide which of us gets to enjoy the rights guaranteed in the constitution. You don’t have to be gay to understand this, but claiming that voters have the right to determine which of us is more equal than others, well, let’s just say no fucking way.

  28. 28.

    eglenn

    June 10, 2008 at 8:37 pm

    (I’ll use the “Other” category when I talk about icky gay stuff.)

    Please don’t bother. Same compass, different points.

  29. 29.

    John O

    June 10, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    The first chapter in my personal manifesto largely tackles this very subject, though at a more macro level.

    It’s long, and I’m no professional writer, so boring, but it still gets hits, and holds up well considering how long ago I wrote it. (’03-’04)

    http://jonorato42.wordpress.com/the-political-plight-of-average-joe/

  30. 30.

    jake

    June 10, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    Well, I’m not ok with states that decide I’m not included, but I accept their right to decide.

    As others have said. Why?

    “This [second part] was intended to apply to federal programs, such as survivor benefits, Social Security [and others],” he said.

    So … the guy from the party that wants to minimize the Fed’s involvement in pretty much everything is now having second thoughts about whether the glb crowd should be able to get Federal benefits.

    What a fucking dick.

    A clever fucking dick. But still a dick.

    What other goodies are is in here?

    Barr and his campaign staff declined to answer follow-up questions about the legal chaos that could follow if the part of DOMA that bans federal recognition of gay marriages was repealed, with the rest of the law still intact.

    Well, well. I wonder why THAT is. If I didn’t know better I’d say someone is mouthing the bare minimum of platitudes to get a few votes. And …

    Hey Michael, did you read the entire article?

    He also does not support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job bias based on sexual orientation, again citing the need for less governmental interference.

    No, get this dirt bag out of my face. Anyone who wants to vote for this turkey may as well go all the way and queue up with the Feminist for McCain.

  31. 31.

    Jon H

    June 10, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    “(I’ll use the “Other” category when I talk about icky gay stuff.)”

    This stuff isn’t the icky gay stuff. I’m not sure what would be, but this isn’t the icky stuff.

    (Maybe Elton John/Clay Aiken/Liza Minnelli fisting slashfic? That would be icky gay stuff.)

  32. 32.

    jake

    June 10, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Slightly OT: Serious Cute Overdose.

  33. 33.

    Jon H

    June 10, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    ” Serious Cute Overdose.”

    Honestly, I think they should let someone else be first this time.

    There’s a fine line between “cute” and “politically connected activists get special treatment”.

  34. 34.

    John O

    June 10, 2008 at 9:09 pm

    Damn straight, Jon H.

    It’s fun to watch people get their underwear in a bunch over two octogenarian women. And ridiculous.

    Thanks for the link. I say let them be first. They don’t have that much time left, God bless them.

  35. 35.

    Jon H

    June 10, 2008 at 9:33 pm

    “Thanks for the link. I say let them be first. They don’t have that much time left, God bless them.”

    Yeah, that was my reaction in 2004, until I found out they were ringers, which kinda took a little of the shine off it. But just a little bit.

    Then again, I guess this time they were the plaintiffs in the court case that got to the state supreme court, so it’s fitting that they be first. So I retract.

    But I bet they aren’t the only octogenarian gay couple in California.

  36. 36.

    jake

    June 10, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    There’s a fine line between “cute” and “politically connected activists get special treatment”.

    Quite. As fine as the line between “legitimate concern” and “concern troll.”

    Good thing no one’s crossing either one here. Nosireebob.

  37. 37.

    JR

    June 10, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    You know, I just can’t bring myself to like the guy. Honestly, it’s probably because I’ve never forgiven him for the campaign he ran against Buddy Darden in ’94.

    What can I say? I like Buddy. Always have.

  38. 38.

    patroclus

    June 10, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    I support Loving v. Virginia and believe that it should be extended to include gay marriages. The full, faith and credit clause is supposed to guarantee this but Mr. Barr decided to abrogate that by statute in an utterly mendacious fashion. He is despicable.

  39. 39.

    J. Michael Neal

    June 11, 2008 at 1:49 am

    Darkrose wrote it for me. It’s not up to my neighbors to decide which of us gets to enjoy the rights guaranteed in the constitution. You don’t have to be gay to understand this, but claiming that voters have the right to determine which of us is more equal than others, well, let’s just say no fucking way.

    You guys have missed Michael’s point entirely. It isn’t that any level of government should prohibit gay marriage. He’s saying that the level of government at which gay marriage should be permitted is the state level. He’s adopting it because he’s a federalist who believes in state sovereignty. That’s fine, though it is perfectly acceptable to mock silly federalists on a regular basis. I agree with him, though, simply because I think that it’s going to be a long time before there are enough votes to get the federal government to pass a law allowing for gay marriage. In the meantime, we’re a lot better off if a bunch of states go ahead and do it.

    Also, Bob Barr was, and still remains, batshit crazy. He’s just using some of his powers for good these days.

  40. 40.

    Chris M

    June 11, 2008 at 2:18 am

    Hey, you know what, there’s someone you can vote for who’s against DOMA, against Iraq, etc. His name’s Obama, and Bob Barr ought to just grow up and pick a side.

  41. 41.

    Koz

    June 11, 2008 at 4:40 am

    Why don’t we just all vote for McCain instead?

    Barack Obama’s career has been a cozy game of go-along, get-along with the Establishment, both in Chicago and in Washington. It’s hard for me to see how, in these times, anybody can be in favor of that.

  42. 42.

    SGEW

    June 11, 2008 at 6:03 am

    Barack Obama’s career has been a cozy game of go-along, get-along with the Establishment, both in Chicago and in Washington. It’s hard for me to see how, in these times, anybody can be in favor of that.

    While I disagree with this assessment (to say the least – see, e.g., here, here, and here), I have to ask:

    How does your second statement (reproduced above) jive with your first statement (reproduced below)?

    Why don’t we just all vote for McCain instead?

    Does not compute.

  43. 43.

    Cassidy

    June 11, 2008 at 7:44 am

    I don’t accept the fundamental premise that says that the electorate can decide whether or not I have civil rights.

    It’s not up to my neighbors to decide which of us gets to enjoy the rights guaranteed in the constitution

    Last I checked, marriage isn’t a “right”, nor is it codified in the Constitution. I could easily be wrong, but I don’t recall it.

    Marriage, as it pertains to the gov’t, is more of a privilege, albeit much abused, but still, a privilege. And this is the problem people run into on these issues. You start bandying about the words civil rights, etc., and you’re making the wrong and easily defeated argument. The successful way to pursue this argument is that Homoguy is an American Citizen and deserves the same level of privileges as his neighbor, Straightguy. Bearing in mind that the state doesn’t grant rights, but exists to protect them, you can’t argue this as a civil rights issue.

  44. 44.

    Jay C

    June 11, 2008 at 9:08 am

    Barack Obama’s career has been a cozy game of go-along, get-along with the Establishment, both in Chicago and in Washington. It’s hard for me to see how, in these times, anybody can be in favor of that.

    So given the choice, instead of voting for a candidate who “goes along” with the Establishment, we should vote for one who IS the Establishment???

    File under “WTF???”…

  45. 45.

    Thom

    June 11, 2008 at 10:16 am

    Gay Libertarian here who cant wait to vote for Bob Barr. Gay guys need to understand that while the GOP is not our friend (too much reliance on the religous right vote), neither are the Democrats, who’s answer to everything is to stick their hand deeper into your wallet and make a federal bureaucratic nightmare out of every issue the media decides is important.

    I want to live my life my way. And that means Democrats hands out of my wallet, Republican noses out of my bedroom. Yeah, Barr has a checkered voting past…but most of us change and morph as we mature. Those who dont have nothing to be proud of: anyone who hols the exact same political opinions from the time they’re a teenage until the day they die is probably pretty damned arrogant and boring as hell….

  46. 46.

    Koz

    June 11, 2008 at 11:56 am

    How does your second statement (reproduced above) jive with your first statement (reproduced below)?

    Easy. I’m not a big fan of everything John McCain has done, but clearly he has some history of laying it on the line for the benefit of the American people against the parochial interests, within the party and the political class as a whole.

    If Barack Obama becomes President, we will be de facto ruled by the likes of Henry Waxman or Robert Byrd. I can’t see anything good coming of that.

  47. 47.

    Evilbeard

    June 11, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    If Barack Obama becomes President, we will be de facto ruled by the likes of Henry Waxman or Robert Byrd. I can’t see anything good coming of that.

    See the recent Oversight Committee hearings to see how terrible an administration “de facto ruled” might be. Sounds pretty good to me.

  48. 48.

    Evilbeard

    June 11, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    *”de facto ruled” by Waxman might be.

  49. 49.

    Jon Karak

    June 11, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    (I’ll use the “Other” category when I talk about icky gay stuff.)

    Might I suggest creating a new tag called, “teh gay”. John seems fond of the phrase as I have seen it a number of times printed in this blog. After all, I remember him creating a new tag, “Republican Crime Syndicate – aka the Bush Admin.”

    From an equal rights perspective, I think it is shameful to pass issues relating to gay rights as, “other”. I think the gay community deserves a little more self respect.

  50. 50.

    W.B. Reeves

    June 11, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Get a clue guys. Bob Barr isn’t a conservative or a libertarian. His politics are an amalgam of far right reaction and rampant egomania. A former federal prosecutor who helped block any Congressional inquiry into the Oklahoma City Bombing (second only to 9/11 in terms of victims) in order that he could grandstand at hearings on the Ruby Ridge and Waco tragedies. Odd that he didn’t realize what “jack booted thugs” the ATF were when he was on the Justice Dept. payroll. This leaves aside his pandering to the racist fringe as typified by the likes of the Council of Conservative Citizens. His brand of “gay friendly” “federalism” is straight out of the old segregationist playbook. His candidacy amply illustrates what a joke the so-called Libertarian Party is,

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Origuy on Happy Diversions: Respite Open Thread (Mar 23, 2023 @ 11:28pm)
  • piratedan on B-J After Dark Open Thread: FaFo in Utah (Mar 23, 2023 @ 11:23pm)
  • patrick II on War for Ukraine Day 393: Zelenskyy Goes to Kherson! (Mar 23, 2023 @ 11:20pm)
  • Jean on No Cake for Me Today Open Thread (Mar 23, 2023 @ 11:19pm)
  • pacem appellant on B-J After Dark Open Thread: FaFo in Utah (Mar 23, 2023 @ 11:16pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!