Surprising Poll Numbers for Barr
Jim Babka on Aug 27th 2008
Quote: “Support for Bob Barr brings too much uncertainty to the call.” - John Zogby
One of the two best pollsters in the country, John Zogby, in a recent survey of ten “battleground states,” has some surprising poll numbers to report for Libertarian Bob Barr (who will appear on 49 state ballots).
| Battleground States | Obama | McCain | Barr | Nader | Not Sure/Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | 44% | 38% | 8% | 2% | 8% |
| Florida | 40% | 43% | 5% | 1% | 12% |
| Michigan | 46% | 37% | 5% | 1% | 12% |
| Nevada | 39% | 38% | 10% | 3% | 10% |
| New Hampshire | 38% | 42% | 11% | 1% | 9% |
| New Mexico | 46% | 37% | 5% | 1% | 11% |
| North Carolina | 47% | 39% | 3% | 2% | 9% |
| Ohio | 41% | 36% | 8% | 1% | 13% |
| Pennsylvania | 46% | 37% | 5% | 3% | 8% |
| Virginia | 43% | 41% | 5% | 1% | 10% |
What does this mean?
Filed in The Bureau | 5 responses so far
Barr Buzz
Jim Babka on Jul 16th 2008
Former Senator Jesse Helms died July 4. Libertarian nominee Bob Barr eulogized the late Senator with a heaping helping of high hagiography. That’s really upsetting some Libertarians, including some dude running for President from the Boston Tea Party because, well, Helms was a racist, sexist, and homophobe. And, according to the Tea Party candidate, if Bob has something nice to say about Jesse, then Bob must be those things too!
Indeed, racism is offensive. Jesse Helms said and did some quite uncharitable things. I don’t care for that. But I think this criticism misses the most important point (which I’ll get to in a minute), because any politician, even those who’ve done good, have probably done something, if not lots of somethings, that are very anti-libertarian. Personally, I think both Tony Snow and Tim Russert were pro-establishment and statism-enablers. But I was still saddened by both of their deaths. I dealt with Tony briefly in 2000, and found him to be a gentleman.
As a Christian, I always hope for mercy on the soul of the departed. I further believe the dead deserve a bit of the benefit of the doubt in our published or broadcast remembrances of them because they can no longer hear the criticism — but their family and dear friends can. Reasonable people can disagree with me, but I’ve been on the other side of postmortem criticism as a survivor and spokesperson for a “great man,” and so I view this as a Golden Rule issue.
The Tea Party candidate sees himself as the true Libertarian candidate — from a spin-off party, formed after the 2006 Libertarian Party Convention. I don’t know if this party will have their candidate on a single ballot. They appear to exist entirely for unherdable cats, hell-bent on criticizing the LP.
The Boston Tea Party candidate doesn’t source his quotes nor date them. He even accuses Barr of positions that Barr has repudiated and apologized for. If this candidate was alone, then you could dismiss his critique on Barr as political ax-grinding.
But the Internet is abuzz with this story. The Tea Party blog post is not isolated. Barr has a problem: Lots of people in the LP, including prominent members like David Nolan and Mary Ruwart, think he’s not really _yet_ a Libertarian. If you Google “Bob Barr, Jesse Helms,” you’ll find several blog posts about this tempest in a tea pot. And it looks to me like Barr gave some further credence to the doubters in the tiny and shrinking LP subculture.
But I promised I’d get to the real problem with Barr’s statement, and here it is — Continue Reading »
Filed in The Barracks, The Basement, The Bureau | 12 responses so far
Thoughts on Theodicy & the Libertarian God
Jim Babka on Jun 10th 2008
Theodicy is the word coined by Gottfried Leibniz to deal with the theological problem of pain, suffering, and death in a world created by God. It’s a big subject and I only want to touch on one aspect of it here in this post.
Critics of belief in God point out that any god who is omnipotent and omniscient, wouldn’t have created a world where people get hurt and die. He could’ve made it some other way.
First, given that they are not God, I wonder how they know such a thing. I certainly don’t.
Also interesting, at least to me… These same critics are, frequently, the people who suggest that we theists create a god in our own image rather than the other way around. God is a figment of our imagination or a desperate hope. We’ve given him the attributes we want him to have. Funny, but it seems these critics are doing the same thing.
Second, maybe there’s a practical method to God’s apparent madness. Maybe the objection that an ultimately-powerful God wouldn’t allow suffering isn’t really a good argument.
In Genesis 3 Eve and Adam eat of the forbidden fruit, discover that they were exposed, and end up banished from Eden. I’ve asked countless believers, “Do you think God was caught off-guard?” Not one has ever told me they thought God was surprised that this was how things turned out.
And yet, God let Eve and Adam eat the forbidden fruit. “Why do you think that is?” I ask. Not one has an answer. But I think I do…
God values our freedom more than he values our obedience.
Now, how libertarian is that?
Returning again to Genesis, we find that God permitted the forbidden tree to be in Eden. For all we know, he might as well have planted it. Either way, then he marked it “off-limits.” Anyone with kids has to know what was going to happen next: You don’t have to be a god to figure it out.
Doing things this way would be consistent with a God who values our freedom more than he values our obedience. It would also be consistent with a God who expects us to learn from our mistakes. But does this approach make sense? …seem plausible?
Yes, and it can be illustrated this way:
The Bible frequently identifies God as a parent. So let’s say my son decides that doing risky stunts on his motorized bike might be a lot of fun. I discover this and I tell him… Continue Reading »
Filed in The Belfry | 22 responses so far